60558 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 18, 2005 / Notices 

1A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any 

individual Commissioner’s statements will be 

available from the Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

2The Commission has found the responses 

submitted by General Pencil Co., Inc., Musgrave 

Pencil Co., Rose Moon, Inc., Sanford, L.P., and 

Tennessee Pencil Co. to be individually adequate. 

Comments from other interested parties will not be 

accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)). 

1A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any 

individual Commissioner’s statements will be 

available from the Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

2The Commission has found the responses 

submitted by Gerlin, Inc. and Maass Flange Corp. 

to be individually adequate. Comments from other 

interested parties will not be accepted (see 19 CFR 

207.62(d)(2)). 

adequate and that the respondent 

interested party group response was 

inadequate. The Commission did not 

find any other circumstances that would 

warrant conducting a full review.1

Accordingly, the Commission 

determined that it would conduct an 

expedited review pursuant to section 

751(c)(3) of the Act. 

Staff report. A staff report containing 

information concerning the subject 

matter of the review will be placed in 

the nonpublic record on October 26, 

2005, and made available to persons on 

the Administrative Protective Order 

service list for this review. A public 

version will be issued thereafter, 

pursuant to section 207.62(d)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Written submissions. As provided in 

section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s 

rules, interested parties that are parties 

to the review and that have provided 

individually adequate responses to the 

notice of institution,2 and any party 

other than an interested party to the 

review may file written comments with 

the Secretary on what determination the 

Commission should reach in the review. 

Comments are due on or before October 

31, 2005 and may not contain new 

factual information. Any person that is 

neither a party to the five-year review 

nor an interested party may submit a 

brief written statement (which shall not 

contain any new factual information) 

pertinent to the review by October 31, 

2005. However, should the Department 

of Commerce extend the time limit for 

its completion of the final results of its 

review, 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 review must be 

served on all other parties to the review 

(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. 

Determination. 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: This review is 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. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: October 13, 2005. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 05–20837 Filed 10–17–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–639 and 640 

(Second Review)] 

Forged Stainless Steel Flanges From 

India and Taiwan 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of expedited fiveyear reviews concerning the 

antidumping duty orders on forged 

stainless steel flanges from India and 

Taiwan. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of expedited 

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of 

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

1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine 

whether revocation of the antidumping 

duty orders on forged stainless steel 

flanges from India 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). 

DATES: Effective Date: October 4, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), 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 October 4, 2005, the 

Commission determined that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (70 

FR 38195, July 1, 2005) of the subject 

five-year reviews was adequate and that 

the respondent interested party group 

responses were inadequate. The 

Commission did not find any other 

circumstances that would warrant 

conducting full reviews.1 Accordingly, 

the Commission determined that it 

would conduct expedited reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act. 

Staff report.—A staff report 

containing information concerning the 

subject matter of the reviews will be 

placed in the nonpublic record on 

November 14, 2005, and made available 

to persons on the Administrative 

Protective Order service list for these 

reviews. A public version will be issued 

thereafter, pursuant to section 

207.62(d)(4) of the Commission’s rules. 

Written submissions.—As provided in 

section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s 

rules, interested parties that are parties 

to the reviews and that have provided 

individually adequate responses to the 

notice of institution,2 and any party 

other than an interested party to the 

reviews may file written comments with 

the Secretary on what determinations 

the Commission should reach in the 

reviews. Comments are due on or before 

November 17, 2005, and may not 

contain new factual information. Any 

person that is neither a party to the fiveyear reviews nor an interested party 

may submit a brief written statement 

(which shall not contain any new 

factual information) pertinent to the 

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.