Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 164 / Friday, August 22, 2008 / Notices 49705 

characteristics of those who specifically 

view bears on roadsides in the park. The 

importance of visitation specifically tied 

to roadside bear viewing in the park will 

be examined. The NPS’s goal in 

conducting this survey is to evaluate the 

importance and economic effects of 

roadside bear viewing. The obligation to 

respond is voluntary. 

Automated data collection: This 

information will be collected via mailback surveys no automated data 

collection will take place. 

Description of respondents: Visitors to 

Yellowstone National Park. 

Estimated average number of 

respondents: 1000 (800 respondents and 

200 non-respondents). 

Estimated average number of 

responses: 1000 (800 responses and 200 

non-responses). 

Estimated average burden hours per 

response: 21 minutes per respondent 

and 1 minute per non-respondent. 

Frequency of response: 1 time per 

respondent and non-respondent. 

Estimated annual reporting burden: 

283 hours. 

Comments are invited on: (1) The 

practical utility of the information being 

gathered; (2) the accuracy of the burden 

hour estimate; (3) ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (4) 

ways to minimize the burden to 

respondents, including use of 

automated information collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology. Before including your 

address, phone number, e-mail 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. 

Dated: August 7, 2008. 

Leonard E. Stowe, 

NPS, Information Collection Clearance 

Officer. 

[FR Doc. E8–19429 Filed 8–21–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–52–M 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–487 (Remand)] 

In the Matter of Certain Agricultural 

Vehicles and Components Thereof; 

Notice of Commission Determination 

To Reverse a Remand Initial 

Determination of the Administrative 

Law Judge That Section 337 Has Been 

Violated; Termination of Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined to reverse 

the presiding administrative law judge’s 

finding of violation of section 337 of the 

Tariff Act, as amended, on remand and 

has terminated the investigation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jonathan J. Engler, Esq., Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3112. The public version of the 

ALJ’s final ID and all other 

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 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–ON–LINE) 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 February 13, 2003, based on a 

complaint filed by Deere & Company 

(‘‘Deere’’) of Moline, Illinois. 68 FR 7388 

(February 13, 2003). The complaint, as 

supplemented, alleged violations of 

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in 

the importation into the United States, 

sale for importation, and sale within the 

United States after importation of 

certain agricultural vehicles and 

components thereof by reason of 

infringement and dilution of U.S. 

Registered Trademarks Nos. 1,254,339; 

1,502,576; 1,503,576, and 91,860. 

Twenty-four respondents were named 

in the Commission’s notice of 

investigation. Most of the respondents 

were terminated from the investigation 

on the basis of consent orders, or found 

in default. The remaining respondents, 

Erntetechnik Franz Becker; Sunova 

Implement Company; Bourdeau Bros., 

Inc. and OK Enterprises (collectively, 

‘‘the Bourdeau respondents’’); 

Fitzpatrick Farms; Stanley Farms; J&T 

Farms; and Co-Ag LLC (collectively, 

‘‘the Fitzpatrick Farms respondents’’); 

and Agrideal participated in the 

investigation. On January 13, 2004, the 

ALJ issued his final initial 

determination (‘‘ID’’) finding a violation 

of section 337. He also recommended 

the issuance of remedial orders. The 

Bourdeau respondents and Fitzpatrick 

Farms respondents petitioned for review 

of the ID. 

On March 30, 2004, the Commission 

determined not to review the ID. The 

Commission then issued a general 

exclusion order directed to Deere 

European-version self propelled forage 

harvesters, two limited exclusion orders 

directed to Deere European-version 

telehandlers, and various cease and 

desist orders, on May 14, 2004. 

The Bourdeau respondents appealed 

the Commission’s final determination to 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit (the ‘‘Federal Circuit’’). 

On March 30, 2006, the Federal Circuit 

vacated and remanded the 

Commission’s final determination as it 

related to Deere European-version selfpropelled forage harvesters 

(‘‘EVSPFHs’’). Bourdeau Bros. v. 

International Trade Commission, 444 

F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2006). 

On June 20, 2006, the Commission 

rescinded the general exclusion order 

and certain cease and desist orders, and 

remanded the investigation to the 

presiding ALJ for proceedings consistent 

with the Federal Circuit’s decision in 

Bourdeau. On August 18, 2006, the ALJ 

issued Order No. 55, denying 

complainant’s and respondents’ motions 

for summary determination. The ALJ 

issued his final ID on remand (‘‘Remand 

ID’’) on December 20, 2006. He found 

that Deere did not authorize the sale of 

Deere European-version self-propelled 

forage harvesters in the United States 

and that all or substantially all of the 

Deere self-propelled forage harvesters 

sold in the United States were North 

American versions. In further briefing 

before the Commission, the respondents 

claimed error. 

On February 20, 2007, the 

Commission determined to review in 

part Order No. 55 and the Remand ID. 

The Commission requested briefing by 

the parties (1) On the standard for 

authorization that was applied in Order 

No. 55 and how that standard was 

applied in light of the burden of proof; 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
49706 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 164 / Friday, August 22, 2008 / Notices 

(2) on the issue of Deere’s alleged 

financing of certain EVSPFHs; (3) with 

respect to the ALJ’s application of the 

‘‘all or substantially all’’ standard, 

including a statement of the type and 

number of sales relied on and the basis 

for reliance on those sales, especially 

the basis for including used sales of 

North American-version harvesters in 

the assessment of whether that standard 

has been met by Deere; and (4) on 

whether all or substantially all of 

Deere’s sales of SPFHs were of North 

American versions of these machines. 

On March 13, 2008, the Commission 

asked the parties to discuss (1) The total 

quantity of new and used EVSPFHs sold 

by John Deere’s official European 

dealers to the United States from 1997 

through 2002, including (a) all European 

dealer sales for importation to the 

United States for which there is 

documentary evidence in the existing 

record and (b) an estimate of the total 

quantum of additional European dealer 

sales for importation to the United 

States for which there may not be 

documentary evidence on this record; 

(2) an exclusively legal discussion of the 

relevance of the agency doctrines of 

actual and apparent authority in the 

context of gray market sales in the 

United States; and (3) whether, if the 

Commission were to take into account 

only sales of gray market EVSPFHs by 

U.S. dealers (i.e. sales within the United 

States after importation), and not sales 

for importation of gray market goods by 

John Deere’s European dealers, it would 

in effect improperly limit the scope of 

the unlawful activities that it is required 

to consider under the statute, which 

includes within the Commission’s 

jurisdiction ‘‘the sale for importation’’

as well as ‘‘the sale within the United 

States after importation’’ of articles that 

infringe a valid United States trademark. 

19 U.S.C. Section 1337(a)(1)(C). 

Written submissions were received by 

the parties on April 15 and April 24, 

2008. On April 30, the parties each filed 

reply submissions. 

Having considered the record and 

briefing in this investigation, the 

Commission has determined to reverse 

the ALJ’s finding of violation. A 

Commission Opinion in support of its 

determinations will follow shortly. 

The authority for this notice is 

contained in section 337 of the Tariff 

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

1337, and in section 210.45(c) of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (19 CFR 210.45(c)). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: August 12, 2008. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–19571 Filed 8–21–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Proposed 

Consent Decrees Under the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act 

Notice is hereby given that two 

Consent Decrees in United States of 

America v. M.A. Hanna Plastics, Inc., et 

al., Civil Action No. 06–409 GMS, have 

been lodged with the United States 

District Court for the District of 

Delaware. The United States lodged a 

consent decree with defendant 

Wilmington Economic Development 

Corporation \ (‘‘WEDCO’’) on August 8, 

2008, and lodged a consent decree with 

defendant M.A. Hanna Plastics Group 

\‘‘Hanna’’) on August 14, 2008. 

The two consent decrees will resolve 

the liability of the two remaining 

defendants in this cost recovery action 

under Section 107 of the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act \ (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 9607 in 

connection with the 12th Street Dump 

Site in Wilmington, Delaware \(‘‘Site’’). 

On June 28, 2006, the United States 

filed a Complaint against four 

defendants who currently or previously 

owned or operated property at the Site. 

The United States previously settled 

with two of the named defendants. 

The two consent decrees now being 

proposed will resolve the United States’

filed claims against the two remaining 

defendants, Hanna and WEDCO, as set 

forth in the consent decrees. Hanna will 

reimburse the United States 

$3,597,877.20 and will receive a 

covenant not to sue for past costs. 

WEDCO will reimburse the United 

States $120,000 in past costs and will 

agree to sell its parcel and provide the 

United States with the higher of either 

50% of the net proceeds or $40,000.00. 

WEDCO will also receive a covenant not 

to sue for past costs. 

The Department of Justice will receive 

for a period of thirty (30) days from the 

date of this publication comments 

relating to these proposed Consent 

Decrees. Comments should be addressed 

to the Assistant Attorney General, 

Environment and Natural Resources 

Division, and either e-mailed to 

pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov or 

mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

20044–7611, Attention: Nancy 

Flickinger (EES), and should refer to 

United States of America v. M.A. Hanna 

Plastics, Inc., et al. , Civil Action No. 

06–409 GMS, DOJ # 90–11–3–08301. 

The proposed Consent Decree may be 

examined at the Office of the United 

States Attorney for the District of 

Delaware, Nemours Building, P.O. Box 

2046, Wilmington, DE 19801. During the 

public comment period, the consent 

decree may also be examined on the 

following Department of Justice Web 

site, http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ 

Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the 

proposed Consent Decree may also be 

obtained by mail from the Consent 

Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

20044–7611 or by faxing or e-mailing a 

request to Tonia Fleetwood 

(tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov), fax no. 

(202) 514–0097, phone confirmation 

number (202) 514–1547. In requesting a 

copy from the Consent Decree Library, 

please enclose a check in the amount of 

$ $7.00 for the consent decree with 

WEDCO, and/or $5.25 for the consent 

decree with M.A. Hanna (25 cents per 

page reproduction cost for a full copy) 

payable to the U.S. Treasury. 

Maureen M. Katz, 

Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement 

Section, Environment and Natural Resources 

Division. 

[FR Doc. E8–19447 Filed 8–21–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree 

Under the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response 

Compensation and Liability Act 

Pursuant to 28 CFR 50.7 notice is 

hereby given that on August 14, 2008, 

a proposed Consent Decree in the case 

United States v. William J. Roper, Sr., et 

al., Civil Action No. 3:00cv472–GCM, 

was lodged with the United States 

District Court for the Western District of 

North Carolina. 

In this action, under Section 107(a)(1) 

and (2) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a)(1) 

and (2), the United States sought 

recovery of response costs to remedy 

conditions in connection with the 

release or threatened release of 

hazardous substances into the 

environment at the North Belmont PCE 

Site (‘‘the Site’’), located in Belmont, 

Gaston County, North Carolina. A 

portion of the Site is comprised of the 

Roper Shopping Center upon which the 

United States had placed a Superfund 

Lien. The Complaint also included an in 

rem action under Section 107(l) of 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES