Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Notices 54079 

historical documents, the human 

remains have been determined to be 

Native American. Based on oral 

tradition, archeological evidence, 

presence of trade objects, and historical 

documents, the Brown site has been 

identified as a Great Osage village of the 

Great Osage tribe with occupation 

approximately A.D. 1675 to A.D. 1777. 

The federally recognized Osage Tribe, 

Oklahoma are the present-day 

descendants of the Great Osage tribe. 

Officials of the University of 

Missouri-Columbia, Museum of 

Anthropology have determined that, 

pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (9–10), the 

human remains described above 

represent the physical remains of three 

individuals of Native American 

ancestry. Officials of the University of 

Missouri-Columbia, Museum of 

Anthropology also have determined 

that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (3)(A), 

the 237 objects described above are 

reasonably believed to have been placed 

with or near individual human remains 

at the time of death or later as part of 

the death rite or ceremony. Lastly, 

officials of the University of MissouriColumbia, Museum of Anthropology 

have determined that, pursuant to 25 

U.S.C. 3001 (2), there is a relationship 

of shared group identity that can be 

reasonably traced between the Native 

American human remains and 

associated funerary objects and the 

Osage Tribe, Oklahoma. 

Representatives of any other Indian 

tribe that believes itself to be culturally 

affiliated with the human remains and 

associated funerary objects should 

contact Dr. Michael O’Brien, Director, 

Museum of Anthropology, 317 Lowry 

Hall, University of Missouri-Columbia, 

Columbia, MO 65211, telephone (573) 

882–4421, before October 13, 2005. 

Repatriation of the human remains and 

associated funerary objects to the Osage 

Tribe, Oklahoma may proceed after that 

date if no additional claimants come 

forward. 

University of Missouri-Columbia, 

Museum of Anthropology is responsible 

for notifying the Osage Tribe, Oklahoma 

that this notice has been published. 

Dated: August 3, 2005 

Sherry Hutt, 

Manager, National NAGPRA Program. 

[FR Doc. 05–18084 Filed 9–12–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–50–S 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. No. 337–TA–522] 

In the Matter of Certain Ink Markers 

and Packaging Thereof; Notice of 

Commission Decision Not To Review 

an Initial Determination Finding a 

Violation of Section 337; Schedule for 

Written Submissions on Remedy, 

Bonding, and the Public Interest 

AGENCY: International Trade 

Commission (ITA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined not to 

review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) 

(Order No. 30) issued by the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) 

finding a violation of section 337 in the 

above-captioned investigation. The 

Commission has set forth a schedule for 

submitting written submissions on the 

issues of remedy, bonding, and the 

public interest. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean 

H. Jackson, Esq., Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3095. 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 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: This 

trademark-based section 337 

investigation was instituted by the 

Commission based on a complaint filed 

by Sanford, L.P. of Freeport, Illinois 

(‘‘Sanford’’ or ‘‘complainant’’). 69 FR 

52029 (August 24, 2004). The 

complaint, as supplemented, alleged 

violations of 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 markers and packaging 

thereof by reason of infringement of U.S. 

Trademark Registration Nos. 807,818 

and 2,721,523 and also by reason of 

infringement of trade dress. The notice 

of investigation identified 12 

respondents. On November 10, 2004, 

the ALJ granted a motion to add three 

respondents to the investigation. The 

Commission determined not to review 

the ID. 69 FR 75342 (December 16, 

2004). Each respondent was accused of 

violating Section 337 by infringing 

Sanford’s trade dress. Certain 

respondents were also accused of 

infringing one or more of complainant’s 

registered trademarks. 

Between November 15, 2004, and 

June 1, 2005, the ALJ issued several IDs 

terminating various respondents on the 

basis of settlement agreements or 

consent orders. During that time period 

other IDs were issued finding several 

other respondents in default. No 

petitions for review of any of these IDs 

were filed, and the Commission 

determined not to review any of them, 

thereby allowing them to become the 

Commission’s determinations. 

On April 19, 2005, Sanford filed a 

motion seeking a summary 

determination of violation and issuance 

of a general exclusion order and a cease 

and desist order. On July 25, 2005, the 

ALJ issued Order No. 30, an initial 

determination (ID) finding violations of 

Section 337 and recommending a 

general exclusion order and a cease and 

desist order. The ALJ also recommended 

the issuance of a general exclusion 

order. He further recommended that the 

bond permitting temporary importation 

during the Presidential review period be 

set at 100 percent of the value of the 

infringing imported product. 

On August 5, 2005, Sanford filed a 

petition for review of one aspect of 

Order No. 30. Specifically, Sanford 

sought review of the ID’s finding that 

complainant had failed to show 

importation with respect to defaulted 

respondent LiShui Laike Pen Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘LiShui Laike’’). The Commission 

investigative attorney (IA) opposed 

Sanford’s petition for review. On August 

25, 2005, complainant filed a motion for 

leave to file a reply to the IA’s petition 

for review. The Commission has 

determined to deny that motion. 

The Commission has determined not 

to review Order No. 30, thereby 

allowing it to become the Commission’s 

final determination. 

In connection with the final 

disposition of this investigation, the 

Commission may issue an order that 

could result in the exclusion of the 

subject articles from entry into the 

United States. Accordingly, the 

Commission is interested in receiving 

written submissions that address the 

form of remedy, if any, that should be 

54080 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Notices 

ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an 

article from entry into the United States 

for purposes other than entry for 

consumption, it should so indicate and 

provide information establishing that 

activities involving other types of entry 

are either adversely affecting it, or are 

likely to do so. For background, see In 

the Matter of Certain Devices for 

Connecting Computers via Telephone 

Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360, USITC 

Pub. No. 2843 (December 1994) 

(Commission Opinion). 

When the Commission contemplates 

some form of remedy, it must consider 

the effects of that remedy upon the 

public interest. The factors the 

Commission will consider in this 

investigation include the effect that an 

exclusion order would have on (1) the 

public health and welfare, (2) 

competitive conditions in the U.S. 

economy, (3) U.S. production of articles 

that are like or directly competitive with 

those that are subject to investigation, 

and (4) U.S. consumers. The 

Commission is therefore interested in 

receiving written submissions that 

address the aforementioned public 

interest factors in the context of this 

investigation. 

If the Commission orders some form 

of remedy, the President has 60 days to 

approve or disapprove the 

Commission’s action. During this 

period, the subject articles would be 

entitled to enter the United States under 

a bond, in an amount determined by the 

Commission and prescribed by the 

Secretary of the Treasury. The 

Commission is therefore interested in 

receiving submissions concerning the 

amount of the bond that should be 

imposed. 

Written Submissions: The parties to 

the investigation, interested government 

agencies, and any other interested 

parties are encouraged to file written 

submissions on remedy, the public 

interest, and bonding. Such submissions 

should address the ALJ’s July 25, 2005, 

recommended determinations on the 

issues of remedy and bonding. 

Complainant and the Commission’s 

investigative attorney are also requested 

to submit proposed orders for the 

Commission’s consideration. 

Complainant is further requested to 

state the HTSUS numbers under which 

the infringing goods are imported. Main 

written submissions and proposed 

orders must be filed no later than close 

of business on September 16, 2005. 

Reply submissions, if any, must be filed 

no later than the close of business on 

September 23, 2005. No further 

submissions on these issues will be 

permitted unless otherwise ordered by 

the Commission. 

Persons filing written submissions 

must file with the Office of the Secretary 

the original document and 14 true 

copies thereof on or before the deadlines 

stated above. Any person desiring to 

submit a document (or portion thereof) 

to the Commission in confidence must 

request confidential treatment unless 

the information has already been 

granted such treatment during the 

proceedings. All such requests should 

be directed to the Secretary of the 

Commission and must include a full 

statement of the reasons that the 

Commission should grant such 

treatment. See section 201.6 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for 

which confidential treatment by the 

Commission is sought will be treated 

accordingly. All nonconfidential written 

submissions will be available for public 

inspection at the Office of the Secretary. 

This action is taken under the 

authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and sections 

210.42 and 210.50 of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 

210.42 and 210.50. 

Issued: September 8, 2005. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 05–18139 Filed 9–12–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–825 and 826 

(Review)] 

Polyester Staple Fiber From Korea and 

Taiwan 

AGENCY: International Trade 

Commission (ITC). 

ACTION: Scheduling of full five-year 

reviews concerning the antidumping 

duty orders on polyester staple fiber 

from Korea and Taiwan. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of full reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)) 

(the Act) to determine whether 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders on polyester staple fiber from 

Korea and Taiwan would be likely to 

lead to continuation or recurrence of 

material injury within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

these reviews and rules of general 

application, consult the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 

201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 

201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and 

F (19 CFR part 207). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 1, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dana Lofgren (202–205–3185), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 

(202) 205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at (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 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On July 5, 2005, the 

Commission determined that responses 

to its notice of institution of the subject 

five-year reviews were such that full 

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Act should proceed (70 FR 41427, 

July 19, 2005). A record of the 

Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, 

and any individual Commissioner’s 

statements are available from the Office 

of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

Participation in the reviews and 

public service list.—Persons, including 

industrial users of the subject 

merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in these reviews as parties 

must file an entry of appearance with 

the Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11 of the 

Commission’s rules, by 45 days after 

publication of this notice. A party that 

filed a notice of appearance following 

publication of the Commission’s notice 

of institution of the reviews need not 

file an additional notice of appearance. 

The Secretary will maintain a public 

service list containing the names and 

addresses of all persons, or their 

representatives, who are parties to the 

reviews. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and BPI service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

gathered in these reviews available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the reviews, provided that the 

application is made by 45 days after