Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 18, 2005 / Notices 60559 

reviews by November 17, 2005. 

However, should the Department of 

Commerce extend the time limit for its 

completion of the final results of its 

reviews, the deadline for comments 

(which may not contain new factual 

information) on Commerce’s final 

results is three business days after the 

issuance of Commerce’s results. If 

comments contain business proprietary 

information (BPI), they must conform 

with the requirements of sections 201.6, 

207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s 

rules. The Commission’s rules do not 

authorize filing of submissions with the 

Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means, except to the extent permitted by 

section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, 

as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 

2002). Even where electronic filing of a 

document is permitted, certain 

documents must also be filed in paper 

form, as specified in II (C) of the 

Commission’s Handbook on Electronic 

Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 

(November 8, 2002). 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the rules, each document 

filed by a party to the reviews must be 

served on all other parties to the reviews 

(as identified by either the public or BPI 

service list), and a certificate of service 

must be timely filed. The Secretary will 

not accept a document for filing without 

a certificate of service. 

Determinations.—The Commission 

has determined to exercise its authority 

to extend the review period by up to 90 

days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)(B). 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.62 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Issued: October 12, 2005. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 05–20799 Filed 10–17–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. No. 337–TA–544] 

In the Matter of Certain Hand-Held 

Mobile Computer Devices, 

Components Thereof and Cradles 

Therefor; Notice of Decision Not To 

Review an Initial Determination 

Terminating the Investigation Based 

on Withdrawal of the Complaint 

AGENCY: International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined not to 

review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) 

issued by the presiding administrative 

law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on September 26, 

2005, terminating the investigation 

based on withdrawal of the complaint. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202–

205–3115. Copies of the public version 

of the IDs and 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. Hearingimpaired persons are advised that 

information on this matter can be 

obtained by contacting the 

Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. 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. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 

3, 2005, the Commission instituted an 

investigation under section 337 of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, based 

on a complaint filed by Intermec 

Technologies Corporation of Everett, 

Washington, alleging a violation of 

section 337 in the importation, sale for 

importation, and sale within the United 

States after importation of certain handheld mobile computing devices, 

components thereof and cradles therefor 

by reason of infringement of claims 62, 

66, 67, 71, 126, and 130–132 of U.S. 

Patent No. 5,410,141; claims 1–3 of U.S. 

Patent No. 5,468,947; and claims 17–25 

and 27–31 of U.S. Patent No. 6,375,344. 

70 FR 44693 (August 3, 2005). The 

complainant named Symbol 

Technologies, Inc. and Symbol de 

Mexico, Sociedad de R.I. de C.V. as 

respondents. 

On September 9, 2005, the 

complainant and respondents jointly 

moved to terminate the investigation 

based on withdrawal of the complaint 

and suspend the procedural schedule. 

On September 21, 2005, the 

Commission investigative attorney filed 

a response in support of the joint 

motion. 

On September 26, 2005, the ALJ 

issued an ID (Order No. 5) granting the 

joint motion to terminate. No party 

petitioned for review of the ALJ’s ID. 

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 210.42 of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.42). 

Issued: October 12, 2005. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 05–20797 Filed 10–17–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. No. 731–TA–663 (Second Review)] 

Explanation of Commission 

Determination on Adequacy in Paper 

Clips From China 

On October 4, 2005, the Commission 

unanimously determined that it should 

proceed to an expedited review in the 

subject five-year review pursuant to 

section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(3)(B). 

The Commission determined that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to the notice of institution was 

adequate. The Commission received 

responses to the notice of institution 

from two domestic producers, ACCO 

Brands USA LLC and Officemate 

International Corporation. Because the 

Commission received adequate 

responses from two producers 

representing the overwhelming majority 

of domestic production, the 

Commission determined that the 

domestic interested party group 

response was adequate. 

The Commission did not receive a 

response from any respondent 

interested party, and therefore 

determined that the respondent 

interested party group response to the 

notice of institution was inadequate. In 

the absence of an adequate respondent 

interested party group response, and 

any other circumstances that it deemed 

warranted proceeding to a full review, 

the Commission determined to conduct 

an expedited review. A record of the 

Commissioners’ votes is available from 

the Office of the Secretary and the 

Commission’s Web site (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). 

By order of the Commission.