73102 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Notices 

1The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 

CFR 207.2(f)). 

2Commissioners Irving A. Williamson and 

Rhonda K. Schmidtlein dissenting. 

products and related marketing 

materials by reason of infringement of 

certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 

RE38,096 (‘‘the ’096 patent’’); U.S. 

Patent No. 6,978,775 (‘‘the ’775 patent’’); 

U.S. Trademark Registration No. 

2,501,255 (‘‘the ’255 mark’’); and U.S. 

Trademark Registration No. 3,312,392 

(‘‘the ’392 mark’’). Id. The complaint 

further alleges the existence of a 

domestic industry. Id. The 

Commission’s notice of investigation 

named Ningbo Topoint as the only 

respondent, and indicated that the 

Office of Unfair Import Investigations is 

participating in this investigation. Id. 

On September 2, 2014, the ALJ 

ordered Ningbo Topoint to show cause 

why it should not be found in default. 

See Order No. 10. No response to Order 

No. 10 was filed. On September 16, 

2014, the ALJ issued an initial 

determination finding Ningbo Topoint 

in default under Commission Rule 

210.16(a)(1) (19 CFR 210.16(a)(1)). See 

Order No. 11. On October 16, 2014, the 

Commission determined not to review 

the initial determination. 

The Commission requested briefing 

from the parties and the public on the 

issues of remedy, the public interest, 

and bonding. The Commission received 

responsive submissions from 

Complainants and the Commission 

Investigative Attorney (‘‘IA’’) on October 

30, 2014, and a reply submission from 

the IA on November 6, 2014. The 

submissions agreed that the appropriate 

remedy is the entry of a limited 

exclusion order against Ningbo Topoint, 

that the public interest factors do not 

weigh against granting such a limited 

exclusion order, and that bonding 

should be set at 100 percent of the 

entered value of the infringing products. 

The Commission finds that the 

statutory requirements of section 

337(g)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)) and 

Commission Rule 210.16(a)(1) (19 CFR 

210.16(a)(1)) are met with respect to 

Ningbo Topoint. Accordingly, pursuant 

to section 337(g)(1) (19 U.S.C. 

1337(g)(1)) and Commission Rule 

210.16(c) (19 CFR 210.16(c)), the 

Commission presumes the facts alleged 

in the complaint to be true and finds 

that Ningbo Topoint is in violation of 

section 337. 

The Commission has determined that 

the appropriate form of relief in this 

investigation is a limited exclusion 

order prohibiting the unlicensed entry 

of archery products and related 

marketing materials that are 

manufactured abroad by or on behalf of, 

or imported by or on behalf of, Ningbo 

Topoint that infringe one or more of 

claims 1–3, 6–12, and 15–38 of the ’096 

patent and claims 1–3, 16–22, 24–26, 

29, 31, and 32 of the ’775 patent, or 

infringe the ’255 or ’392 marks. The 

Commission has further determined that 

the public interest factors enumerated in 

section 337(g)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)) 

do not preclude the issuance of the 

limited exclusion order. Finally, the 

Commission has determined that the 

bond for importation during the period 

of Presidential review shall be in the 

amount of 100 percent of the entered 

value of the imported subject articles of 

Ningbo Topoint. The Commission’s 

order was delivered to the President and 

the United States Trade Representative 

on the day of its issuance. 

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 Part 

210 of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 

210). 

By order of the Commission. 

Dated: December 3, 2014. 

Lisa R. Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28765 Filed 12–8–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–509 and 731– 

TA–1244 (Final)] 

1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane From China 

Determinations 

On the basis of the record 1 developed 

in the subject investigations, the United 

States International Trade Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) determines, pursuant 

to sections 705(b) and 735(b) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)) 

and (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)) (‘‘the Act’’), 

that an industry in the United States is 

not materially injured or threatened 

with material injury, and the 

establishment of an industry in the 

United States is not materially retarded, 

by reason of imports of 1,1,1,2- 

Tetrafluoroethane from China, provided 

for in subheading 2903.39.20 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States, that have been found by 

the Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Commerce’’) to be sold in the United 

States at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) 

and subsidized by the government of 

China.2

Background 

The Commission instituted these 

investigations effective October 22, 

2013, following receipt of a petition 

filed with the Commission and 

Commerce by Mexichem Fluor Inc., St. 

Gabriel, LA. The final phase of the 

investigations was scheduled by the 

Commission following notification of 

preliminary determinations by 

Commerce that imports of 1,1,1,2- 

Tetrafluoroethane from China were 

subsidized within the meaning of 

section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1671b(b)) and sold at LTFV within the 

meaning of 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of 

the final phase of the Commission’s 

investigations and of a public hearing to 

be held in connection therewith was 

given by posting copies of the notice in 

the Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 

Washington, DC, and by publishing the 

notice in the Federal Register on June 

24, 2014 (79 FR 35795). The hearing was 

held in Washington, DC on October 15, 

2014, and all persons who requested the 

opportunity were permitted to appear in 

person or by counsel. 

The Commission transmitted its 

determinations in these investigations to 

the Secretary of Commerce on December 

3, 2014. The views of the Commission 

are contained in USITC Publication 

4503 (December 2014), entitled 1,1,1,2- 

Tetrafluoroethane from China: 

Investigation Nos. 701–TA–509 and 

731–TA–1244 (Final). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: December 4, 2014. 

Lisa R. Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28790 Filed 12–8–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

[OMB Number 1110–0045] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Proposed eCollection 

eComments Requested; Extension 

With Change, of a Previously 

Approved Collection FD–1000 

Customer Satisfaction Assessment 

AGENCY: Bureau of Investigation, 

Department of Justice. 

ACTION: 60-Day notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice 

(DOJ), FBI Laboratory, Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, will be submitting the 

following information collection request 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and approval in 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Notices 73103 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Comments are encouraged and 

will be accepted for 60 days until 

February 9, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have additional comments 

especially on the estimated public 

burden or associated response time, 

suggestions, or need a copy of the 

proposed information collection 

instrument with instructions or 

additional information, please contact 

Steven W. Perry, Statistician, Bureau of 

Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street 

NW., Washington, DC 20531 (phone: 

202–307–0777). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Written 

comments and suggestions from the 

public and affected agencies concerning 

the proposed collection of information 

are encouraged. Your comments should 

address one or more of the following 

four points: 

—Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

—Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

—Evaluate whether and if so how the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected can be 

enhanced; and 

—Minimize the burden of the collection 

of information on those who are to 

respond, including through the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms 

of information technology, e.g., 

permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Overview of This Information 

Collection 

1. Type of Information Collection: 

Extension of a currently approved 

collection. 

2. The Title of the Form/Collection: 

FBI Laboratory Customer Satisfaction 

Assessment 

3. The agency form number, if any, 

and the applicable component of the 

Department sponsoring the collection: 

The form number is FD–1000. The 

applicable component within the 

Department of Justice is the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation, Laboratory 

Division. 

4. Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: This information collection is 

an assessment of the FBI Laboratory 

services by law enforcement agencies 

(federal, state, and local) that submit 

evidence for examination. The 

information collected is used by FBI 

Laboratory management to evaluate the 

quality of the forensic services provided 

to law enforcement. Additionally, the 

FBI Laboratory is accredited by the 

American Society of Crime Laboratory 

Directors/Laboratory Accreditation 

Board (ASCLD/LAB) under the ASCLD/ 

LAB-International Accreditation 

Program. A requirement for maintaining 

accreditation is for the FBI Laboratory to 

seek feedback, both positive and 

negative, from its customers. This 

feedback is evaluated to improve the 

services of the FBI Laboratory. The 

information gathered in the FD–1000 

will meet this requirement. 

5. An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 

estimated for an average respondent to 

respond: An estimated 3000 

respondents will complete the 

assessment with an estimated range of 

burden for respondents to be 5 minutes 

for completion. 

6. An estimate of the total public 

burden (in hours) associated with the 

collection: The estimated public burden 

associated with this collection is 250 

hours. It is estimated that respondents 

will take 5 minutes to complete the 

assessment. The burden hours for 

collecting respondent data sum to 250 

hours (3000 respondents × 5 minutes = 

250 hours). 

If additional information is required 

contact: Jerri Murray, Department 

Clearance Officer, United States 

Department of Justice, Justice 

Management Division, Policy and 

Planning Staff, Two Constitution 

Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, 

Washington, DC 20530. 

Dated: December 4, 2014. 

Jerri Murray, 

Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. 

Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28784 Filed 12–8–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent 

Decree 

In accordance with Departmental 

Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby 

given that a proposed Consent Decree in 

ABB Inc. v. United States, Civil Action 

No. 3:13-cv-01265–CSH, was lodged 

with the United States District Court for 

the District of Connecticut on December 

1, 2014. 

This proposed Consent Decree 

concerns a complaint filed by ABB Inc. 

against the United States, pursuant to 

the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601–75, in connection 

with alleged releases of or threatened 

releases of hazardous substances at a 

facility located at 2000 Day Hill Road, 

in Windsor, Connecticut, owned by 

Combustion Engineering. The proposed 

Consent Decree resolves these 

allegations, as well as potential claims 

by the United States Army Corps of 

Engineers that could have been brought 

against ABB if the matter had not 

settled. The proposed Consent Decree 

provides for the United States to pay 

ABB $31,044,520 as soon as reasonably 

practicable after the Effective Date of the 

Consent Decree. It also provides for ABB 

to pay the United States $3,148,322 

within seventy five (75) days after the 

Effective Date of the Consent Decree. 

The Department of Justice will accept 

written comments relating to this 

proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30) 

days from the date of publication of this 

Notice. Please address comments to 

Kate Bowers, Trial Attorney, United 

States Department of Justice, 

Environment and Natural Resources 

Division, Environmental Defense 

Section, Post Office Box 7611, 

Washington, DC 20044 and refer to ABB 

Inc. v. United States, DJ #90–11–6– 

19963. 

The proposed Consent Decree may be 

examined at the Clerk’s Office, United 

States District Court for the District of 

Connecticut, 450 Main Street, Hartford, 

CT 06103. In addition, the proposed 

Consent Decree may be examined 

electronically at http://www.justice.gov/ 

enrd/Consent_Decrees.html. 

Cherie L. Rogers, 

Assistant Section Chief, Environmental 

Defense Section, Environment and Natural 

Resources Division. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28735 Filed 12–8–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employee Benefits Security 

Administration 

Advisory Council on Employee Welfare 

and Pension Benefit Plans: Notice of 

Charter Renewal 

In accordance with section 512(a)(1) 

of the Employee Retirement Income 

Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and the 

provisions of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act and its implementing 

regulations issued by the General 

Services Administration (GSA), the 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES