66848 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 212 / Thursday, November 3, 2005 / Notices 

notice in the Federal Register on May 

11, 2005 (70 FR 24838). The hearing was 

held in Washington, DC, on September 

7, 2005, and all persons who requested 

the opportunity were permitted to 

appear in person or by counsel. 

The Commission transmitted its 

determinations in these reviews to the 

Secretary of Commerce on October 31, 

2005. The views of the Commission are 

contained in USITC Publication 3809 

(October 2005), entitled Carbon Steel 

Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Brazil, 

China, Japan, Taiwan, and Thailand: 

Investigation Nos. 731–TA–308–310, 

520, and 521 (Second Review). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: October 31, 2005. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 05–21948 Filed 11–2–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 701–TA–431 (Section 129 

Consistency Determination)] 

DRAMs and DRAM Modules from 

Korea 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of a proceeding 

under section 129(a)(4) of the Uruguay 

Round Agreements Act (URAA) (19 

U.S.C. 3538(a)(4)). 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted this 

proceeding following receipt on October 

14, 2005, of a request from the United 

States Trade Representative (USTR) for 

a determination under section 129(a)(4) 

of the URAA that would render the 

Commission’s action in connection with 

Investigation No. 701–TA–431 not 

inconsistent with the findings of the 

dispute settlement panel of the World 

Trade Organization (WTO) in its report 

United States—Countervailing Duty 

Investigation on Dynamic Random 

Access Memory Semiconductors 

(DRAMs) from Korea, WT/DS296/R. For 

further information concerning the 

conduct of this proceeding 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, 

subpart A (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date November 3, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Carpenter (202–205–3160), 

Office of Investigations, or Marc A. 

Bernstein (202–205–3087), Office of 

General Counsel, 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 of 

Investigation No. 701–TA–431 may be 

viewed on the Commission’s electronic 

docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background. In August 2003, the 

Commission determined that an 

industry in the United States was 

materially injured by reason of 

subsidized imports of DRAMs and 

DRAM modules from Korea. 

Countervailing duties were then 

assessed against these products. The 

Republic of Korea subsequently 

initiated a dispute settlement 

proceeding at the WTO concerning the 

U.S. countervailing duty measure. 

Korea’s action challenged both the 

Department of Commerce’s subsidy 

determination and the Commission’s 

injury determination. 

The WTO dispute resolution panel 

issued its report on December 21, 2004. 

The panel evaluated six principal 

claims that Korea raised against the 

Commission’s injury determination. It 

ruled in favor of the United States on 

five of these claims. The sixth claim 

concerned whether the Commission 

properly complied with the obligation 

under Article 15.5 of the WTO 

Agreement of Subsidies and 

Countervailing Measures (ASCM) not to 

attribute to the subject imports injury 

caused by other factors. The panel 

concluded that the Commission 

successfully satisfied the nonattribution obligation with respect to the 

factors of non-subject imports; capacity 

increases by DRAMs suppliers other 

than Hynix, the sole producer of subject 

merchandise; and the purported 

technological and production 

difficulties of U.S. producer Micron. It 

also concluded, however, that the 

Commission did not successfully satisfy 

the non-attribution obligation with 

respect to the factor of declines in 

demand. Thus, in this one respect, the 

Panel concluded that the Commission’s 

determination was inconsistent with the 

ASCM. The pertinent discussion 

appears at paragraphs 7.356–7.371 of 

the Panel Report. 

Neither the United States nor Korea 

appealed the aspects of the Panel Report 

that addressed the Commission injury 

determination to the WTO Appellate 

Body. Both countries did appeal other 

aspects of the Panel Report, principally 

concerning Commerce’s subsidy 

determination. On June 27, 2005, the 

Appellate Body resolved the issues on 

appeal in favor of the United States. 

On July 20, 2005, the WTO Dispute 

Settlement Body (DSB) adopted the 

Panel Report as modified by the 

Appellate Body. Consequently, the 

DSB’s action finalized the panel’s 

conclusions concerning the 

Commission’s determination. On 

August 3, 2005, the United States 

informed the DSB that it intends within 

a reasonable period of time to bring its 

measure into conformity with the report 

that the DSB had adopted. 

The USTR transmitted his request for 

this determination following receipt 

from the Commission on September 22, 

2005, of an advisory report under 

section 129(a)(1) of the URAA stating 

that the Commission has concluded that 

Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 

permits it to take steps in connection 

with its action in DRAMs and DRAM 

Modules from Korea, Investigation No. 

701–TA–431, that would render its 

action in that proceeding not 

inconsistent with the findings of the 

dispute settlement panel. 

Participation in the investigation and 

public service list. Only those persons 

who were interested parties to the 

original investigation (i.e., persons 

listed on the Commission Secretary’s 

service list) may participate in this 

proceeding. Such persons wishing to 

participate in this proceeding 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, no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to this proceeding. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and APO service list. Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make business 

proprietary information (BPI) gathered 

in the original investigation available 

under administrative protective order 

(APO) to authorized applicants that 

returned or destroyed all BPI received 

under the APO in the original 

investigation or were not covered under 

the original APO, provided that an 

application is made in this proceeding. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 212 / Thursday, November 3, 2005 / Notices 66849 

Any such application must be made no 

later than 21 days after publication of 

this notice in the Federal Register. 

Authorized applicants must represent 

interested parties, as defined in 19 

U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to this 

proceeding. Parties that are currently 

subject to the APO issued in 

Investigation No. 701–TA–431 by virtue 

of their participation in the litigation 

before the Court of International Trade 

in Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. United 

States, Ct. No. 03–652, need not file a 

new APO application in this 

proceeding. The Secretary will maintain 

a separate service list for those parties 

authorized to receive BPI under the 

APO. 

Limitations on the scope of this 

proceeding. This proceeding is being 

conducted in order for the Commission 

to make a determination that would 

render its action in DRAMs and DRAM 

Modules from Korea, Investigation No. 

701–TA–431, not inconsistent with the 

findings of the WTO dispute settlement 

panel. Thus, this proceeding only 

involves issues related to the WTO 

dispute settlement findings and does 

not involve issues that were not in 

dispute in the WTO proceeding or on 

which the WTO dispute settlement 

panel found the United States in 

conformity with its obligations under 

the WTO. As discussed above, the only 

issue on which the WTO dispute 

settlement panel found the 

Commission’s injury determination 

inconsistent with the ASCM pertained 

to the question of whether the 

Commission attributed to the subject 

imports any injury that may have been 

caused by declines in demand. Any 

material in the parties’ submissions that 

contains new factual information or that 

addresses any issue beyond the scope of 

this proceeding will be disregarded. 

Written Submissions. The 

Commission is not reopening the record 

in this proceeding for submission of 

new factual information. The 

Commission will, however, permit the 

parties to file comments and rebuttal 

comments pertaining to the issue that is 

within the scope of this proceeding. The 

deadline for filing comments is 

December 5, 2005. Comments shall be 

limited to no more than forty (40) 

double-spaced and single-sided pages of 

textual material. The deadline for filing 

rebuttal comments is December 19, 

2005. Rebuttal comments shall be 

limited to no more than twenty (20) 

double-spaced and single sided pages of 

textual material. 

Any material in the parties’

submissions that contains new factual 

information or that addresses any issue 

beyond the scope of this proceeding will 

be disregarded. 

All written submissions must conform 

with the provisions of section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules; any 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

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). 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

investigation must be served on all other 

parties to the investigation (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. 

The Commission has concluded that, 

because it is not reopening the record, 

conducting a hearing is inappropriate in 

this proceeding. 

Issued: October 31, 2005. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 05–21949 Filed 11–2–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. No. 337–TA–528] 

In the Matter of Certain Foam Masking 

Tape; Notice of Issuance of General 

Exclusion Order and Termination of 

Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Having found a violation of 

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 

U.S.C. 1337, notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has issued a general 

exclusion order and terminated the 

above-captioned investigation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Timothy P. Monaghan, 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 

patent-based section 337 investigation 

was instituted by the Commission based 

on a complaint filed by 3M Company, 

3M Innovative Properties Company, and 

Mr. Jean Silvestre (collectively, ‘‘3M’’), 

which was subsequently amended. 70 

FR 386 (Jan. 4, 2005). The complaint, as 

amended, alleged a violation of section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the 

importation into the United States, the 

sale for importation and/or sale within 

the United States after importation, of 

certain foam masking tape by reason of 

infringement of certain claims of U.S. 

Patents Nos. 4,996,092 (‘‘the ‘092 

patent’’) and 5,260,097 (‘‘the ‘097 

patent’’). The notice of investigation 

named 13 respondents. 

On February 10, 2005, 3M filed a 

motion to amend the complaint and 

notice of investigation to add two 

respondents. On March 1, 2005, the 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) issued 

an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) (Order 

No. 14) granting the motion. No party 

petitioned for review. On March 29, 

2005, the Commission issued a notice of 

its determination not to review the ID. 

Between February and June of 2005, 

the investigation was terminated as to 

14 of the 15 respondents on the basis of 

settlement agreements and consent 

orders, or based on consent orders 

alone. With respect to Jevtec, Ltd.—the 

sole respondent as to which the 

investigation was not terminated—3M 

moved on May 17, 2005, for an order 

directing Jevtec to show cause why it 

should not be found in default for 

failure to respond to the amended 

complaint and notice of investigation. 

3M also requested the issuance of an ID 

finding Jevtec in default if Jevtec failed 

to show such cause. 

On May 26, 2005, 3M moved for a 

summary determination of a violation of 

section 337. On June 6, 2005, the 

Commission investigative attorney 

(‘‘IA’’), filed a response in support of the 

motion for summary determination. 

On June 7, 2005, the ALJ issued Order 

No. 36, ordering Jevtec to show cause 

why it should not be held in default no