76368 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

[NPS–WASO–NAGPRA–17131; 

PPWOCRADN0–PCU00RP14.R50000] 

Notice of Intent to Repatriate Cultural 

Items: Southern Oregon Historical 

Society, Medford, OR 

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Southern Oregon 

Historical Society in consultation with 

the appropriate Indian tribes or Native 

Hawaiian organizations has determined 

that the cultural items listed in this 

notice meet the definition of 

unassociated funerary objects. Lineal 

descendants or representatives of any 

Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian 

organization not identified in this notice 

that wish to claim these cultural items 

should submit a written request to the 

Southern Oregon Historical Society. If 

no additional claimants come forward, 

transfer of control of the cultural items 

to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, 

or Native Hawaiian organizations stated 

in this notice may proceed. 

DATES: Lineal descendants or 

representatives of any Indian tribe or 

Native Hawaiian organization not 

identified in this notice that wish to 

claim these cultural items should 

submit a written request with 

information in support of the claim to 

the Southern Oregon Historical Society 

at the address in this notice by January 

21, 2015. 

ADDRESS: Tina Reuwsaat, Assoc. 

Curator, Southern Oregon Historical 

Society, 106 N. Central Ave., Medford, 

OR 97501, telephone (541) 941–6505, 

email curator@sohs.org. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is 

here given in accordance with the 

Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 

3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural 

items under the control of the Southern 

Oregon Historical Society that meet the 

definition of unassociated funerary 

objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001. 

This notice is published as part of the 

National Park Service’s administrative 

responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 

U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in 

this notice are the sole responsibility of 

the museum, institution, or Federal 

agency that has control of the Native 

American cultural items. The National 

Park Service is not responsible for the 

determinations in this notice. 

History and Description of the Cultural 

Items 

On July 25, 1950, Leon Haskins 

donated one item to the Southern 

Oregon Historical Society (SOHS). It is 

not known how or when Mr. Haskins 

acquired this item. SOHS accession 

number 704 is one string of 83 pinyon 

pine nut shells. These pinyon pine nut 

shells are dark gray in color and are 

strung on a cord. Records state that 

these ‘‘beads were from Klamath, not to 

be confused with Klamath Falls, as 

Klamath is at the mouth of the Klamath 

River.’’ 

On February 26, 1962, Helen Strang 

donated two lots of loose beads to 

SOHS. The beads were collected by 

Vinton Beall, a relative of Ms. Strang, 

but there is no documentation of when 

these beads were acquired. SOHS 

accession number 1962.6.7.2 is one lot 

of loose beads made from glass and one 

lot of loose beads made from shells. The 

one lot of glass beads are of many 

colors: Blue, white, purple, green, and 

pink. The one lot of shell beads are six 

white, thin, disk-shaped shell beads. 

Some of the beads have a melted 

appearance and are fused together. 

Records contain an original handwritten 

note that states, ‘‘August (18)96. Beads 

from Klamath Indian crematory grounds 

on Pelican Bay.’’ 

On October 14, 1951, Clarence Lane 

donated two items to SOHS. It is not 

known when Mr. Lane acquired these 

two items. SOHS accession numbers 

3010.1 and .2 are two necklaces. The 

first necklace is 35 inches in length and 

is strung on wire. The necklace is made 

from one dentalium shell, three olivella 

shells, ten pinyon pine nut shells and 

glass beads in the colors of blue, green, 

black, red, turquoise, and colorless, one 

bead in gray with red stripe and one 

black tubular shaped bead with brass 

ends. The second necklace is 15.75 

inches in length and strung on wire and 

twine. The necklace is made from glass 

beads in the colors of: Blue, red, white, 

black, and green, 28 pinyon pine nut 

shells, three olivella shells, one silver 

colored metallic bead, one brass button 

with red glass center and one metal 

thimble. Records state that these are 

‘‘two strings dug up from Indian grave.’’ 

Representatives of the Smith River 

Rancheria, California, have requested 

repatriation of these items. Based on the 

information available and consultation 

with the tribe, these items were 

removed from within the traditional 

tribal territory of the Smith River 

Rancheria, California, and are 

determined to be unassociated funerary 

objects. 

Determinations Made by the Southern 

Oregon Historical Society 

Officials of the Southern Oregon 

Historical Society have determined that: 

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B), 

the five cultural items described above 

are reasonably believed to have been 

placed with or near individual human 

remains at the time of death or later as 

part of the death rite or ceremony and 

are believed, by a preponderance of the 

evidence, to have been removed from a 

specific burial site of a Native American 

individual. 

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there 

is a relationship of shared group 

identity that can be reasonably traced 

between the unassociated funerary 

objects and the Smith River Rancheria, 

California. 

Additional Requestors and Disposition 

Lineal descendants or representatives 

of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian 

organization not identified in this notice 

that wish to claim these cultural items 

should submit a written request with 

information in support of the claim to 

Tina Reuwsaat, Assoc. Curator, 

Southern Oregon Historical Society, 106 

N. Central Ave., Medford, OR 97501, 

telephone (541) 941–6505, email 

curator@sohs.org, by January 21, 2015. 

After that date, if no additional 

claimants have come forward, transfer 

of control of the unassociated funerary 

objects to the Smith River Rancheria, 

California, may proceed. 

The Southern Oregon Historical 

Society is responsible for notifying the 

Smith River Rancheria, California, that 

this notice has been published. 

Dated: November 5, 2014. 

Melanie O’Brien, 

Acting Manager, National NAGPRA Program. 

[FR Doc. 2014–29892 Filed 12–19–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–50–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–883] 

Investigations: Terminations, 

Modifications and Rulings: Certain 

Opaque Polymers 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has granted motions by 

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett 

& Dunner, LLP (‘‘Finnegan’’) and O ̈ mu ̈r 

Yarsuvat (‘‘Yarsuvat’’) to intervene in 

this investigation for a limited purpose. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Notices 76369 

The Commission has further determined 

to review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) 

(Order No. 27) issued by the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) 

finding respondents Organik Kimya 

San. ve Tic. A.S ̧ of Istanbul, Turkey; 

Organik Kimya Netherlands B.V. of 

Rotterdam-Botlek, Netherlands; and 

Organik Kimya US, Inc., of Burlington, 

Massachusetts (collectively, ‘‘Organik 

Kimya’’) to be in default as a sanction 

for discovery abuse and ordering 

monetary sanctions. Accordingly, the 

Commission requests written 

submissions, under the schedule set 

forth below, on certain issues under 

review and on the issues of remedy, 

public interest, and bonding. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Clark S. Cheney, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–2661. Copies of non-confidential 

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 at 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 

this matter can be obtained by 

contacting the Commission TDD 

terminal on (202) 205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted this investigation 

on June 21, 2013, based on a complaint 

filed by the Dow Chemical Company of 

Midland, Michigan, and by Rohm and 

Haas Company and Rohm and Haas 

Chemicals LLC, both of Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania (collectively, ‘‘Dow’’). 78 

FR 37571 (June 21, 2013). The 

complaint alleged violations of section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), by reason of 

the importation into the United States, 

the sale for importation, and the sale 

within the United States after 

importation of certain opaque polymers 

that infringe certain claims of four 

United States patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 

6,020,435; 6,252,004; 7,435,783; and 

7,803,878. The notice of investigation 

named five respondents: the three 

Organik Kimya respondents noted 

above; Turk International LLC of Aptos, 

California (‘‘Turk’’); and Aalborz 

Chemical LLC d/b/a All Chem of Grand 

Rapids, Michigan (‘‘Aalborz’’). The 

complaint and notice of investigation 

were amended to add allegations of 

misappropriation of trade secrets. 78 FR 

71643 (Nov. 29, 2013). The Office of 

Unfair Import Investigations is not a 

party to this investigation. 

On December 13, 2013, the 

Commission determined not to review 

an initial determination (Order No. 11) 

terminating the investigation with 

respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,435,783; 

and 7,803,878. 

On May 19, 2014, Dow filed a motion 

for default and other sanctions against 

Organik Kimya for discovery abuse. On 

May 21, 2014, Organik Kimya filed a 

motion to terminate based upon a 

consent order stipulation. On July 8–9, 

2014, the ALJ conducted a hearing on 

the pending motions. On October 20, 

2014, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 

27) finding Organik Kimya in default, 

under Commission Rule 210.42(c), and 

ordering monetary sanctions jointly and 

severally against Organik Kimya and its 

counsel. Organik Kimya is represented 

by Finnegan, a law firm in Washington, 

DC, and by Yarsuvat, an attorney in 

Istanbul, Turkey. The ALJ denied 

Organik Kimya’s motion to terminate 

the investigation based upon a consent 

order stipulation. 

On October 28, 2014, Organik Kimya 

filed a petition for review of the 

sanctions ID. The same day, Finnegan 

and Yarsuvat filed separate motions 

before the Commission to intervene in 

the investigation for the purpose of 

contesting joint liability for the 

monetary sanction. Finnegan and 

Yarsuvat also filed provisional petitions 

for review of the sanctions ID. On 

November 10, 2014, Finnegan filed a 

motion for leave to file a reply in 

support of its motion to intervene, 

which Dow opposed. The Commission 

extended the time for determining 

whether to review the sanctions ID until 

December 16, 2014. 

On October 30, 2014, Dow filed an 

unopposed motion to withdraw the 

amended complaint as to the two 

remaining asserted patents, U.S. Patent 

Nos. 6,020,435 and 6,252,004, and to 

withdraw all allegations against Turk 

and Aalborz. On November 3, 2014, the 

ALJ granted the motion in an ID (Order 

No. 29), and on December 1, 2014, the 

Commission determined not to review 

the ID. Accordingly, the only remaining 

respondents in the investigation are the 

Organik Kimya respondents. The only 

remaining issues are Dow’s claims based 

on trade secret misappropriation and 

the sanctions ID. 

The Commission has determined to 

grant the motion by Finnegan for leave 

to file a reply in support of its motion 

to intervene and has considered the 

reply. The Commission has further 

determined to grant the petitions by 

Finnegan and Yarsuvat to intervene in 

this investigation for the limited 

purpose of disputing joint and several 

liability for the monetary sanctions 

imposed in the sanctions ID. The 

Commission has considered the 

petitions for review filed by Finnegan 

and Yarsuvat, in addition to the petition 

for review filed by Organik Kimya and 

the oppositions thereto filed by Dow. 

In light of the intervention by 

Finnegan and Yarsuvat, the Commission 

has determined to review the sanctions 

ID. In connection with its review, the 

Commission requests responses only to 

the following questions. The parties are 

to brief their positions with reference to 

the applicable law and citations to the 

existing evidentiary record. No new 

evidence will be considered. 

1. Please brief the law governing what 

types of notice and opportunity to 

present evidence and argument must be 

provided to counsel before imposing 

sanctions on the counsel based on the 

types of conduct cited on page 112 of 

the ID. Please also brief how that 

governing law applies to Organik 

Kimya’s counsel in this investigation, 

based on the existing record in this 

investigation. In answering this 

question, please specifically address 

whether and when Organik Kimya’s 

counsel was or should have been on 

notice that counsel might be subject to 

sanctions and whether they were given 

adequate opportunity to present 

evidence and argument on any issue of 

which they had notice. 

2. Please discuss duties that counsel 

may have under ITC rules, ethics rules, 

case law, and any other relevant sources 

with respect to the conduct cited on 

page 112 of the ID, including duties 

relating to the implementation of a 

litigation hold, a duty to investigate 

before making a representation to the 

tribunal, a duty to avoid willful 

blindness, or a duty to preserve or take 

possession of evidence. In answering 

this question, please also address any 

duties that may arise when counsel has 

received notice of allegations that the 

counsel’s client has intentionally 

spoliated evidence. Please also explain 

with citation to the existing record 

whether Organik Kimya’s counsel 

satisfied any such duties in this 

investigation. 

Other issues on review are adequately 

presented in the parties’ existing filings. 

The parties are not to brief the sanction 

finding Organik Kimya in default nor 

Organik Kimya’s liability for monetary 

sanctions. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
76370 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Notices 

In connection with the final 

disposition of this investigation, the 

Commission may: (1) Issue an order that 

could result in the exclusion of articles 

manufactured or imported by the 

respondents; and/or (2) issue a cease 

and desist order that could result in the 

respondents being required to cease and 

desist from engaging in unfair acts in 

the importation and sale of such 

articles. Accordingly, the Commission is 

interested in receiving written 

submissions that address the form of 

remedy, if any, that should be ordered. 

If a party seeks exclusion of an article 

from entry into the United States for 

purposes other than entry for 

consumption, the party should so 

indicate and provide information 

establishing that activities involving 

other types of entry either are adversely 

affecting it or likely to do so. For 

background, see Certain Devices for 

Connecting Computers via Telephone 

Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360, USITC 

Pub. No. 2843, Comm’n Op. at 7–10 

(December 1994). 

If the Commission contemplates some 

form of remedy, it must consider the 

effects of that remedy upon the public 

interest. The factors that the 

Commission will consider include the 

effect that the exclusion order and/or 

cease and desists orders would have on 

(1) the public health and welfare, (2) 

competitive conditions in the U.S. 

economy, (3) U.S. production of articles 

that are like or directly competitive with 

those that are subject to investigation, 

and (4) U.S. consumers. The 

Commission is therefore interested in 

receiving written submissions that 

address the aforementioned public 

interest factors in the context of this 

investigation. 

If the Commission orders some form 

of remedy, the U.S. Trade 

Representative, as delegated by the 

President, has 60 days to approve or 

disapprove the Commission’s action. 

See Presidential Memorandum of July 

21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). 

During this period, the subject articles 

would be entitled to enter the United 

States under bond, in an amount 

determined by the Commission and 

prescribed by the Secretary of the 

Treasury. The Commission is therefore 

interested in receiving submissions 

concerning the amount of the bond that 

should be imposed if a remedy is 

ordered. 

Written Submissions: Parties to the 

investigation, interested government 

agencies, and any other interested 

parties are encouraged to file written 

submissions on the issues of remedy, 

the public interest, and bonding. 

Complainants are requested to submit 

proposed remedial orders for the 

Commission’s consideration. 

Complainants are further requested to 

state the date upon which the patents 

expire and the HTSUS numbers under 

which the accused products are 

imported and to provide identification 

information for all known importers of 

the subject articles. 

Written submissions and proposed 

remedial orders must be filed no later 

than the close of business on December 

30, 2014. Reply submissions must be 

filed no later than the close of business 

on January 7, 2015. No further 

submissions on these issues will be 

permitted unless otherwise ordered by 

the Commission. 

Persons filing written submissions 

must file the original document 

electronically on or before the deadline 

stated above and submit eight true paper 

copies to the Office of the Secretary 

pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). 

Submissions should refer to the 

investigation number (‘‘Inv. No. 337– 

TA–883’’) in a prominent place on the 

cover page and/or the first page. (See 

Handbook for Electronic Filing 

Procedures, http://www.usitc.gov/ 

secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/ 

handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf). 

Persons with questions regarding filing 

should contact the Secretary (202–205– 

2000). 

Any person desiring to submit a 

document to the Commission in 

confidence must request confidential 

treatment. All such requests should be 

directed to the Secretary to the 

Commission and must include a full 

statement of the reasons why the 

Commission should grant such 

treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents 

for which confidential treatment by the 

Commission is properly sought will be 

treated accordingly. A redacted 

nonconfidential version of the 

document must also be filed 

simultaneously with any confidential 

filing. All nonconfidential written 

submissions will be available for public 

inspection at the Office of the Secretary 

and on EDIS. 

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). 

Dated: December 16, 2014. 

By order of the Commission. 

Lisa R. Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2014–29808 Filed 12–19–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[USITC SE–14–044] 

Government in the Sunshine Act 

Meeting Notice 

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: United 

States International Trade Commission 

TIME AND DATE: December 29, 2014, at 11 

a.m. 

PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 

(202) 205–2000. 

STATUS: Open to the public. 

Matters to be Considered 

1. Agendas for future meetings: none 

2. Minutes 

3. Ratification List 

4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701–TA–526–527 

and 731–TA–1262–1263 

(Preliminary)(Melamine from China 

and Trinidad and Tobago). The 

Commission is currently scheduled 

to complete and file its 

determinations on December 29, 

2014; views of the Commission are 

currently scheduled to be 

completed and filed on January 6, 

2015. 

5. Outstanding action jackets: none 

In accordance with Commission 

policy, subject matter listed above, not 

disposed of at the scheduled meeting, 

may be carried over to the agenda of the 

following meeting. 

By order of the Commission: 

Issued: December 17, 2014. 

William R. Bishop, 

Supervisory Hearings and Information 

Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2014–29990 Filed 12–18–14; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE 

UNITED STATES 

Hearings of the Judicial Conference 

Advisory Committee on Rules of 

Appellate Procedure 

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the 

United States, Advisory Committee on 

Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

ACTION: Notice of cancellation of public 

hearing. 

SUMMARY: The following public hearing 

on proposed amendments to the Federal 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES