Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Notices 10713 

1The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 

CFR 207.2(f)). 

determination of Plan adequacy. Section 

3405(e) of the Central Valley Project 

Improvement Act (Title 34 Pub. L. 102– 

575), requires the Secretary of the 

Interior to establish and administer an 

office on Central Valley Project water 

conservation best management practices 

that shall ‘‘develop criteria for 

evaluating the adequacy of all water 

conservation plans developed by project 

contractors, including those plans 

required by Section 210 of the 

Reclamation Reform Act of 1982.’’ Also, 

according to Section 3405(e)(1), these 

criteria must be developed ‘‘with the 

purpose of promoting the highest level 

of water use efficiency reasonably 

achievable by project contractors using 

best available cost-effective technology 

and best management practices.’’ These 

criteria state that all parties 

(Contractors) that contract with 

Reclamation for water supplies 

(municipal and industrial contracts over 

2,000 acre-feet and agricultural 

contracts over 2,000 irrigable acres) 

must prepare a Plan that contains the 

following information: 

1. Description of the District; 

2. Inventory of Water Resources; 

3. Best Management Practices (BMPs) 

for Agricultural Contractors; 

4. BMPs for Urban Contractors; 

5. Plan Implementation; 

6. Exemption Process; 

7. Regional Criteria; and 

8. Five-Year Revisions. 

Reclamation evaluates Plans based on 

these criteria. A copy of these Plans will 

be available for review at Reclamation’s 

Mid-Pacific Regional Office, 2800 

Cottage Way, MP–410, Sacramento, 

California 95825. Our practice is to 

make comments, including names and 

home addresses of respondents, 

available for public review. If you wish 

to review a copy of these Plans, please 

contact Ms. Anderson. 

Public Disclosure 

Before including your address, phone 

number, email address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Richard J. Woodley, 

Regional Resources Manager, Mid-Pacific 

Region, Bureau of Reclamation. 

[FR Doc. 2015–03950 Filed 2–26–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4332–90–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–458 and 731– 

TA–1154 (Review)] 

Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving 

and Racks From China: Determination 

On the basis of the record 1 developed 

in the subject five-year reviews, the 

United States International Trade 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) 

determines, pursuant to section 751(c) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)), that revocation of the existing 

antidumping and countervailing duty 

orders on certain kitchen appliance 

shelving and racks from China would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury to a U.S. 

industry producing refrigeration 

shelving and a U.S. industry producing 

oven racks within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. 

Background 

The Commission instituted these 

reviews on August 1, 2014 (79 FR 

44862) and determined on November 4, 

2014 that it would conduct expedited 

reviews (79 FR 69525, November 21, 

2014). 

The Commission completed and filed 

its determinations in these reviews on 

February 24, 2015. The views of the 

Commission are contained in USITC 

Publication 4520 (February 2015), 

entitled Certain Kitchen Appliance 

Shelving and Racks from China: 

Investigation Nos. 701–TA–458 and 

731–TA–1154 (Review). 

Issued: February 24, 2015. 

By order of the Commission. 

Lisa R. Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2015–04114 Filed 2–26–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–924] 

Certain Light Reflectors and 

Components, Packaging, and Related 

Advertising Thereof; Notice of 

Commission Determination Not To 

Review Initial Determinations Granting 

Motions To Terminate the Investigation 

as to the Remaining Respondents; 

Termination of the Investigation in Its 

Entirety 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined not to 

review: (1) An initial determination 

(‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 17) issued by the 

presiding administrative law judge 

(‘‘ALJ’’) on January 22, 2015, granting a 

motion to terminate the investigation as 

to respondents Sinowell (Shanghai) Co. 

Ltd. and Sinohydro Ltd. (collectively, 

‘‘Sinowell’’), based on a settlement 

agreement; and (2) an ID (Order No. 18) 

issued by the ALJ on January 27, 2015, 

granting a motion to terminate the 

investigation as to the remaining 

respondents based on withdrawal of the 

amended complaint. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cathy Chen, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–2392. Copies of non-confidential 

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 

this matter can be obtained by 

contacting the Commission’s TDD 

terminal on (202) 205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted this investigation 

on August 12, 2014, based on a 

complaint filed on June 20, 2014, 

amended on July 11, 2014, and 

supplemented on July 18, 2014, on 

behalf of Sunlight Supply, Inc. of 

Vancouver, Washington and IP 

Holdings, LLC of Vancouver, 

Washington (collectively, ‘‘Sunlight’’). 

79 FR 47156 (Aug. 12, 2014). The 

amended complaint alleged violations 

of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the sale 

for importation, importation, and sale 

within the United States after 

importation of certain light reflectors 

and components, packaging, and related 

advertising thereof by reason of 

infringement of certain claims of U.S. 

Patent Nos. 7,641,367; D634,469; 

D644,185; D545,485; and by reason of 

infringement of U.S. Trademark 

Registration Nos. 3,871,765; and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

10714 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Notices 

3,262,059. The amended complaint also 

alleges that an industry in the United 

States exists as required by subsection 

(a)(2) of section 337. The amended 

complaint further alleges violations of 

section 337 based upon the importation 

into the United States, or in the sale of, 

certain light reflectors and components, 

packaging, and related advertising 

thereof by reason of false advertising, 

the threat or effect of which is to destroy 

or substantially injure an industry in the 

United States. The Commission’s notice 

of investigation named numerous 

respondents including Sinowell. See 79 

FR 47156–57. The Office of Unfair 

Import Investigations was named as a 

party to the investigation. Id. at 47157. 

On December 16, 2014, the 

Commission determined not to review 

an ID (Order No. 12) granting a motion 

to terminate the investigation as to 

respondents The Hydro Source II, Inc.; 

Bizright, LLC; and Silversun, Inc., based 

upon settlement agreements. 

On December 16, 2014, Sunlight 

moved to terminate the investigation as 

to Sinowell based upon a settlement 

agreement between Sunlight and 

Sinowell. That same day, Sunlight also 

moved to terminate the investigation as 

to the remaining respondents Groco 

Enterprises, LLC; Good Nature Garden 

Supply; Aqua Serene, Inc.; Aurora 

Innovations, Inc.; Big Daddy Garden 

Supply, Inc.; Insun, LLC; Lumz’N 

Blooms, Ltd. Corp; ParluxAmerica LLP; 

and Zimbali Group, Inc., based on 

withdrawal of the amended complaint 

as to these respondents. Sunlight 

asserted that there are no agreements, 

written or oral, express or implied 

between the parties concerning the 

subject matter of this investigation, 

other than the confidential settlement 

agreement between Sunlight and 

Sinowell. Sunlight also asserted that 

granting the motions is in the public 

interest and will conserve the resources 

of the Commission. The Commission’s 

Investigative Attorney filed responses in 

support of the motions. 

On January 22, 2015, the ALJ issued 

an ID (Order No. 17), granting the 

motion to terminate the investigation as 

to Sinowell. The ALJ found that the 

settlement agreement appears to resolve 

the dispute between Sunlight and 

Sinowell, and that granting the motion 

would not adversely affect the public 

interest factors. No petitions for review 

were filed. 

On January 27, 2015, the ALJ issued 

an ID (Order No. 18), granting the 

motion to terminate the investigation as 

to the remaining respondents. The ALJ 

found that no extraordinary 

circumstances exist that would prevent 

the requested termination of the 

remaining respondents from the 

investigation. The ALJ also found that 

the parties have complied with the 

requirements of Rule 210.21(a). No 

petitions for review were filed. 

The Commission has determined not 

to review the two subject IDs. 

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 in 

section 210 of the Commission’s Rules 

of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 

210). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: February 23, 2015. 

William R. Bishop, 

Supervisory Hearings and Information 

Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2015–04089 Filed 2–26–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

[OMB Number 1110—NEW] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Proposed eCollection 

eComments Requested; Approval of 

an Existing Collection in Use Without 

an OMB Control Number; FBI 

Expungement Form (FD–1114) 

AGENCY: Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, Department of Justice. 

ACTION: 60-day notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice 

(DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation 

(FBI), Criminal Justice Information 

Services (CJIS) Division, will be 

submitting the following information 

collection request to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and approval in accordance with 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Comments are encouraged and 

will be accepted for 60 days until April 

28, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have additional comments 

especially on the estimated public 

burden or associated response time, 

suggestions, or need a copy of the 

proposed information collection 

instrument with instructions or 

additional information, please contact 

Rachel K. Hurst, Management and 

Program Analyst, FBI, CJIS, Biometric 

Services Section, Customer Support 

Unit, Module E–1, 1000 Custer Hollow 

Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306 

(facsimile: 304–625–5392). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Written 

comments and suggestions from the 

public and affected agencies concerning 

the proposed collection of information 

are encouraged. Your comments should 

address one or more of the following 

four points: 

—Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

—Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

—Evaluate whether and if so how the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected can be 

enhanced; and 

—Minimize the burden of the collection 

of information on those who are to 

respond, including through the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms 

of information technology, e.g., 

permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Overview of This Information 

Collection 

(1) Type of Information Collection: 

Approval of collection in use without an 

OMB control number. 

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: FBI 

Expungement Form. 

(3) Agency form number: FD–1114. 

(4) Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: Primary: This form is utilized 

by criminal justice and affiliated 

judicial agencies to request appropriate 

removal of criminal history information 

from an individual’s record. 

(5) An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 

estimated for an average respondent to 

respond: It is estimated that 152,430 

respondents are authorized to complete 

the form which would require 

approximately 10 minutes. 

(6) An estimate of the total public 

burden (in hours) associated with the 

collection: There are an estimated 

89,591 total annual burden hours 

associated with this collection. 

If additional information is required 

contact: Jerri Murray, Department 

Clearance Officer, United States 

Department of Justice, Justice 

Management Division, Policy and 

Planning Staff, Two Constitution 

Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, 

Washington, DC 20530. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES