Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 161 / Friday, August 21, 2009 / Notices 42325 

Procedure (19 CFR 201.8). Section 201.8 

requires that a signed original (or a copy 

so designated) and fourteen (14) copies 

of each document be filed. In the event 

that confidential treatment of a 

document is requested, at least four (4) 

additional copies must be filed, in 

which the confidential information 

must be deleted (see the following 

paragraph for further information 

regarding confidential business 

information). The Commission’s rules 

authorize the filing submissions with 

the Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means only to the extent permitted by 

section 201.8 of the rules (see Handbook 

on Electronic Filing Procedures, http:// 

www.usitc.gov/docket_services/ 

documents/ 

handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf). 

Persons with questions regarding 

electronic filing should contact the 

Secretary (202–205–2000). 

Any submissions that contain 

confidential business information must 

also conform with the requirements of 

section 201.6 of the Commission’s Rules 

of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

201.6). Section 201.6 of the rules 

requires that the cover of the document 

and the individual pages be clearly 

marked as to whether they are the 

‘‘confidential’’ or ‘‘non-confidential’’ 

version, and that the confidential 

business information be clearly 

identified by means of brackets. All 

written submissions, except for 

confidential business information, will 

be made available for inspection by 

interested parties. 

The Commission may include some or 

all of the confidential business 

information submitted in the course of 

this investigation in the report it sends 

to the USTR and the President. As 

requested by the USTR, the Commission 

will publish a public version of the 

report. However, in the public version, 

the Commission will not publish 

confidential business information in a 

manner that would reveal the operations 

of the firm supplying the information. 

Issued: August 17, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–20107 Filed 8–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. No. 337–TA–565] 

In the Matter of Certain Ink Cartridges 

and Components Thereof; 

Consolidated Enforcement Proceeding 

and Enforcement Proceeding II; Notice 

of Commission Determinations on Civil 

Penalties; Termination of Enforcement 

Proceedings 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined to levy 

civil penalties in the above-captioned 

proceeding after finding violations of 

cease and desist orders and a consent 

order issued in the original 

investigation. The Commission has 

terminated the proceedings. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Haldenstein, Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3041. Copies of all nonconfidential 

documents filed in connection with this 

investigation are or will be available for 

inspection during official business 

hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the 

Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, 

telephone 202–205–2000. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). 

The public record for this investigation 

may be viewed on the Commission’s 

electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// 

edis.usitc.gov/. Hearing-impaired 

persons are advised that information on 

the matter can be obtained by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted the underlying 

investigation in this matter on March 

23, 2006, based on a complaint filed by 

Epson Portland, Inc. of Oregon; Epson 

America, Inc. of California; and Seiko 

Epson Corporation of Japan 

(collectively, ‘‘Epson’’). 71 FR 14720 

(March 23, 2006). The complaint, as 

amended, alleged violations of section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘section 

337’’) in the importation into the United 

States, the sale for importation, and the 

sale within the United States after 

importation of certain ink cartridges and 

components thereof by reason of 

infringement of claim 7 of U.S. Patent 

No. 5,615,957; claims 18, 81, 93, 149, 

164, and 165 of U.S. Patent No. 

5,622,439; claims 83 and 84 of U.S. 

Patent No. 5,158,377; claims 19 and 20 

of U.S. Patent No. 5,221,148; claims 29, 

31, 34, and 38 of U.S. Patent No. 

5,156,472; claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 

5,488,401; claims 1–3 and 9 of U.S. 

Patent No. 6,502,917; claims 1, 31, and 

34 of U.S. Patent No. 6,550,902; claims 

1, 10, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 

6,955,422; claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 

7,008,053; and claims 21, 45, 53, and 54 

of U. S. Patent No. 7,011,397. The 

complaint further alleged that an 

industry in the United States exists as 

required by subsection (a)(2) of section 

337. The complainants requested that 

the Commission issue a general 

exclusion order and cease and desist 

orders. The Commission named as 

respondents 24 companies located in 

China, Germany, Hong Kong, Korea, and 

the United States. Several respondents 

were terminated from the investigation 

on the basis of settlement agreements or 

consent orders or were found in default. 

On October 19, 2007, after review of 

the ALJ’s final ID, the Commission made 

its final determination in the 

investigation, finding a violation of 

section 337. The Commission issued a 

general exclusion order, a limited 

exclusion order, and cease and desist 

orders directed to several domestic 

respondents. The Commission also 

determined that the public interest 

factors enumerated in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d), 

(f), and (g) did not preclude issuance of 

the aforementioned remedial orders, 

and that the bond during the 

Presidential period of review would be 

$13.60 per cartridge for covered ink 

cartridges. Certain respondents 

appealed the Commission’s final 

determination to the United States Court 

of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

(‘‘Federal Circuit’’). On January 13, 

2009, the Federal Circuit affirmed the 

Commission’s final determination 

without opinion pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 

36. Ninestar Technology Co. et al. v. 

International Trade Commission, 

Appeal No. 2008–1201. 

On February 8, 2008, Epson filed two 

complaints for enforcement of the 

Commission’s orders pursuant to 

Commission rule 210.75. Epson 

proposed that the Commission name 

five respondents as enforcement 

respondents. On May 1, 2008, the 

Commission determined that the criteria 

for institution of enforcement 

proceedings were satisfied and 

instituted consolidated enforcement 

proceedings, naming the five following 

proposed respondents as enforcement 

respondents: Ninestar Technology Co., 

Ltd.; Ninestar Technology Company, 

Ltd.; Town Sky Inc. (collectively, the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
42326 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 161 / Friday, August 21, 2009 / Notices 

‘‘Ninestar Respondents’’), as well as 

Mipo America Ltd. (‘‘Mipo America’’) 

and Mipo International, Ltd 

(collectively, the ‘‘Mipo Respondents’’). 

On March 18, 2008, Epson filed a third 

enforcement complaint against two 

proposed respondents: Ribbon Tree 

USA, Inc. (dba Cana-Pacific Ribbons) 

and Apex Distributing Inc.(collectively, 

the ‘‘Apex Respondents’’). On June 23, 

2008, the Commission determined that 

the criteria for institution of 

enforcement proceedings were satisfied 

and instituted another formal 

enforcement proceeding and named the 

two proposed respondents as the 

enforcement respondents. On 

September 18, 2008, the ALJ issued 

Order No. 37, consolidating the two 

proceedings. 

On April 17, 2009, the ALJ issued his 

Enforcement Initial Determination (EID) 

in which he determined that there have 

been violations of the Commission’s 

cease and desist orders and consent 

order and recommended that the 

Commission impose civil penalties for 

such violations. The Ninestar 

Respondents filed a timely petition for 

review. The Commission considered the 

EID, the petition for review, the 

responses thereto, and other relevant 

portions of the record and determined 

not to review the EID on June 19, 2009. 

The Commission then requested 

separate briefing concerning the 

imposition of civil penalties for 

violation of the cease and desist orders 

and a consent order. Epson, the Ninestar 

Respondents, and the Commission 

investigative attorney filed written 

submissions and responses thereto. 

Based upon its consideration of the 

EID, the submissions of the parties, and 

the entire record in this proceeding, the 

Commission adopts the EID’s analysis 

concerning civil penalties, except as 

otherwise noted or supplemented in its 

order and opinion (to be issued later). 

However, while the Commission adopts 

the EID’s recommended penalty with 

respect to the Mipo Respondents and 

the Apex Respondents, the Commission 

has determined to impose a lesser 

penalty on the Ninestar Respondents. 

Accordingly, and subject to final 

adjudication of any appeal of the same, 

the Commission has determined to 

impose a civil penalty in the amount of 

$11,110,000 against the Ninestar 

Respondents, jointly and severally. 

Against the Mipo Respondents, the 

Commission has determined to impose 

a civil penalty in the amount of 

$9,700,000 jointly and severally, and the 

Commission has determined to impose 

a civil penalty in the amount of 

$700,000 jointly and severally against 

the Apex Respondents. 

The authority for the Commission’s 

determination is contained in section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and section 

210.75 of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.75). 

Issued: August 17, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–20106 Filed 8–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree 

Under the Clean Water Act 

Notice is hereby given that on August 

17, 2009, a proposed Consent Decree in 

United States v. City Of Portsmouth, 

New Hampshire, Civil Action No. 1:09– 

cv–283, was lodged with the United 

States District Court for the District of 

New Hampshire. 

In this action, the United States seeks, 

inter alia, injunctive relief in relation to 

discharges by the City of Lebanon, New 

Hampshire (City) from its combined 

sewer overflows (CSOs) and wastewater 

treatment facility, in violation of the 

City’s National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System Permit issued under 

the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251, et 

seq. The Consent Decree requires the 

City, among other things, to control 

discharges from the CSO outfalls, 

propose a schedule for construction of 

a secondary wastewater treatment 

facility for approval by the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, and 

upon inclusion of the schedule in the 

Consent Decree, comply with the 

construction schedule. 

The Department of Justice will receive 

for a period of thirty (30) days from the 

date of this publication comments 

relating to the Consent Decree. 

Comments should be addressed to the 

Assistant Attorney General, 

Environment and Natural Resources 

Division, and either e-mailed to 

pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov or 

mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

20044–7611, and should refer to United 

States v. City of Portsmouth, New 

Hampshire, D.J. Ref. 90–5–1–1–09308. 

The Consent Decree may be examined 

at the Office of the United States 

Attorney, District of New Hampshire, 53 

Pleasant Street, Concord, NH, and at 

U.S. EPA Region 1, 1 Congress Street, 

Boston, MA. During the public comment 

period, the Consent Decree, may also be 

examined on the following Department 

of Justice Web site, to http:// 

www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ 

Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the 

Consent Decree may also be obtained by 

mail from the Consent Decree Library, 

P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC 20044–7611 or 

by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia 

Fleetwood (tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov), 

fax no. (202) 514–0097, phone 

confirmation number (202) 514–1547. In 

requesting a copy from the Consent 

Decree Library, please enclose a check 

in the amount of $18.75 (25 cents per 

page reproduction costs of Consent 

Decree and Appendices) payable to the 

U.S. Treasury or, if by e-mail or fax, 

forward a check in that amount to the 

Consent Decree Library at the stated 

address. 

Maureen Katz, 

Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement 

Section, Environment and Natural Resources 

Division. 

[FR Doc. E9–20067 Filed 8–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree 

in United States v. Waste Management 

of Wisconsin, Inc., et al. Under the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) 

Notice is hereby given that on August 

17, 2009, a proposed Consent Decree 

was lodged with the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of 

Wisconsin in United States v. Waste 

Management of Wisconsin, Inc., et al., 

Case No. 09–cv–0135. The Consent 

Decree between the United States, on 

behalf of the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (‘‘U.S. EPA’’), and 

the settling defendants relates to certain 

liabilities under the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation 

and Liability Act (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 

9601 et seq., in connection with the 

Watertown Tire Fire Site in Watertown, 

Wisconsin (the ‘‘Site’’). Under the 

proposed Consent Decree, the settling 

defendants are required to pay $1,000 

and pursue insurance proceeds in 

ongoing State court litigation to 

reimburse costs incurred by U.S. EPA in 

connection with the Site. 

The Department of Justice will receive 

comments relating to the Consent 

Decree for a period of thirty (30) days 

from the date of this publication. 

Comments should be addressed to the 

Assistant Attorney General, 

Environment and Natural Resources 

Division, and either e-mailed to 

pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov or 

mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES