30320 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 121 / Thursday, June 25, 2009 / Notices 

Water Gap, National Recreation Area, 

River Road, Bushkill, PA 18324. 

Dated: May 5, 2009. 

John J. Donahue, 

Superintendent, Delaware Water Gap, 

National Recreation Area. 

[FR Doc. E9–15021 Filed 6–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–J6–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. No. 337–TA–565] 

In the Matter of Certain Ink Cartridges 

and Components Thereof 

Consolidated Enforcement Proceeding 

and Enforcement Proceeding II; Notice 

of a Commission Determination Not To 

Review an Enforcement Initial 

Determination Finding a Violation of 

Cease and Desist Orders and a 

Consent Order; Schedule for Filing 

Written Submissions on Civil Penalties 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined not to 

review an enforcement initial 

determination (‘‘EID’’) of the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) in the 

above-captioned proceeding finding a 

violation of cease and desist orders and 

a consent order. The Commission is 

requesting briefing on the amount of 

civil penalties for violation of the 

orders. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Haldenstein, Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3041. 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 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/. 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: The 

Commission instituted the underlying 

investigation in this matter on March 

23, 2006, based on a complaint filed by 

Epson Portland, Inc. of Oregon; Epson 

America, Inc. of California; and Seiko 

Epson Corporation of Japan 

(collectively, ‘‘Epson’’). 71 FR 14720 

(March 23, 2006). The complaint, as 

amended, alleged violations of section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘section 

337’’) in the importation into the United 

States, the sale for importation, and the 

sale within the United States after 

importation of certain ink cartridges and 

components thereof by reason of 

infringement of claim 7 of U.S. Patent 

No. 5,615,957; claims 18, 81, 93, 149, 

164, and 165 of U.S. Patent No. 

5,622,439; claims 83 and 84 of U.S. 

Patent No. 5,158,377; claims 19 and 20 

of U.S. Patent No. 5,221,148; claims 29, 

31, 34, and 38 of U.S. Patent No. 

5,156,472; claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 

5,488,401; claims 1–3 and 9 of U.S. 

Patent No. 6,502,917; claims 1, 31, and 

34 of U.S. Patent No. 6,550,902; claims 

1, 10, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 

6,955,422; claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 

7,008,053; and claims 21, 45, 53, and 54 

of U.S. Patent No. 7,011,397. The 

complaint further alleged that an 

industry in the United States exists as 

required by subsection (a)(2) of section 

337. The complainants requested that 

the Commission issue a general 

exclusion order and cease and desist 

orders. The Commission named as 

respondents 24 companies located in 

China, Germany, Hong Kong, Korea, and 

the United States. Several respondents 

were terminated from the investigation 

on the basis of settlement agreements or 

consent orders or were found in default. 

On October 19, 2007, after review of 

the ALJ’s final ID, the Commission made 

its final determination in the 

investigation, finding a violation of 

section 337. The Commission issued a 

general exclusion order, a limited 

exclusion order, and cease and desist 

orders directed to several domestic 

respondents. The Commission also 

determined that the public interest 

factors enumerated in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d), 

(f), and (g) did not preclude issuance of 

the aforementioned remedial orders, 

and that the bond during the 

Presidential period of review would be 

$13.60 per cartridge for covered ink 

cartridges. Certain respondents 

appealed the Commission’s final 

determination to the United States Court 

of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

(‘‘Federal Circuit’’). On January 13, 

2009, the Federal Circuit affirmed the 

Commission’s final determination 

without opinion pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 

36. Ninestar Technology Co. et al. v. 

International Trade Commission, 

Appeal No. 2008–1201. 

On February 8, 2008, Epson filed two 

complaints for enforcement of the 

Commission’s orders pursuant to 

Commission rule 210.75. Epson 

proposed that the Commission name 

five respondents as enforcement 

respondents. On May 1, 2008, the 

Commission determined that the criteria 

for institution of enforcement 

proceedings were satisfied and 

instituted consolidated enforcement 

proceedings, naming the five following 

proposed respondents as enforcement 

respondents: Ninestar Technology Co., 

Ltd.; Ninestar Technology Company, 

Ltd.; Town Sky Inc. (collectively, the 

‘‘Ninestar Respondents’’), as well as 

Mipo America Ltd. (‘‘Mipo America’’) 

and Mipo International, Ltd 

(collectively, the ‘‘Mipo Respondents’’). 

On March 18, 2008, Epson filed a third 

enforcement complaint against two 

proposed respondents: Ribbon Tree 

USA, Inc. (dba Cana-Pacific Ribbons) 

and Apex Distributing Inc. (collectively, 

the ‘‘Apex Respondents’’). On June 23, 

2008, the Commission determined that 

the criteria for institution of 

enforcement proceedings were satisfied 

and instituted another formal 

enforcement proceeding and named the 

two proposed respondents as the 

enforcement respondents. On 

September 18, 2008, the ALJ issued 

Order No. 37, consolidating the two 

proceedings. 

On April 17, 2009, the ALJ issued his 

Enforcement Initial Determination (EID) 

in which he determined that there have 

been violations of the Commission’s 

cease and desist orders and a consent 

order and recommended that the 

Commission impose civil penalties for 

such violations. 

On April 29, 2009, the Ninestar 

Respondents filed a petition for review 

of the EID. On May 7, 2009, Epson and 

the Commission investigative attorney 

filed responses to the petition for 

review. 

Having considered the EID, the 

petition for review, the responses 

thereto, and other relevant portions of 

the record, the Commission has 

determined not to review the EID. The 

Commission may levy civil penalties for 

violation of the cease and desist orders 

and consent order. 

Written Submissions: Parties to the 

investigation, interested government 

agencies, and any other interested 

parties are encouraged to file written 

submissions on the amount of civil 

penalties to be imposed. Such 

submissions should address the April 

17, 2009, recommended determination 

by the ALJ on civil penalties. The 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 121 / Thursday, June 25, 2009 / Notices 30321 

1 19 U.S.C. 2451(b)(1). 

2For purposes of this investigation, certain 

passenger vehicle and light truck tires are defined 

as new pneumatic tires, of rubber, from China, of 

a kind used on motor cars (except racing cars) and 

on-the-highway light trucks, vans, and sport utility 

vehicles, provided for in subheadings 4011.10.10, 

4011.10.50, 4011.20.10, and 4011.20.50 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTS’’). The HTS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes; the written 

description of the product under investigation is 

dispositive. 

3 Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and 

Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun made a 

negative determination. 

written submissions must be filed no 

later than close of business on July 3, 

2009. Reply submissions must be filed 

no later than the close of business on 

July 13, 2009. No further submissions 

on these issues will be permitted unless 

otherwise ordered by the Commission. 

Persons filing written submissions 

must file the original document and 12 

true copies thereof on or before the 

deadlines stated above with the Office 

of the Secretary. Any person desiring to 

submit a document (or portion thereof) 

to the Commission in confidence must 

request confidential treatment unless 

the information has already been 

granted such treatment during the 

proceedings. All such requests should 

be directed to the Secretary of the 

Commission and must include a full 

statement of the reasons why the 

Commission should grant such 

treatment. See section 201.6 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for 

which confidential treatment by the 

Commission is sought will be treated 

accordingly. All nonconfidential written 

submissions will be available for public 

inspection at the Office of the Secretary. 

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 sections 

210.16 and 210.75 of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.16 and 210.75). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: June 19, 2009. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–14941 Filed 6–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. TA–421–7] 

Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light 

Truck Tires From the People’s 

Republic of China; Determination 

On the basis of information developed 

in the subject investigation, the United 

States International Trade Commission 

(Commission) determines, pursuant to 

section 421(b)(1) of the Trade Act of 

1974,1 that certain passenger vehicle 

and light truck tires 2 from the People’s 

Republic of China are being imported 

into the United States in such increased 

quantities or under such conditions as 

to cause or threaten to cause market 

disruption to the domestic producers of 

like or directly competitive products.3

Background 

The Commission instituted this 

investigation following receipt, on April 

20, 2009, of a petition filed by the 

United Steel, Paper and Forestry, 

Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied 

Industrial and Service Workers 

International Union. Notice of the 

institution of the Commission’s 

investigation and of the scheduling of a 

public hearing to be held in connection 

therewith was given by posting a copy 

of the notice on the Commission’s Web 

site (http://www.usitc.gov) and by 

publishing the notice in the Federal 

Register of April 29, 2009 (74 FR 

19593). The hearing was held on June 2, 

2009 in Washington, DC; all persons 

who requested the opportunity were 

permitted to appear in person or by 

counsel. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: June 19, 2009. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–14943 Filed 6–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–667 and 

Investigation No. 337–TA–673] 

In the Matter of Certain Electronic 

Devices, Including Handheld Wireless 

Communications Devices; Notice of 

Commission Determination Not To 

Review an Initial Determination 

Granting Motion To Amend the Notice 

of Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined not to 

review the presiding administrative law 

judge’s (‘‘ALJ’’) initial determination 

(‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 14C) in consolidated 

Inv. Nos. 337–TA–667 and 337–TA– 

673, Certain Electronic Devices 

Including Handheld Wireless 

Communications Devices, granting a 

motion to amend the notice of 

investigation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Megan M. Valentine, Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

708–2301. 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’s TDD 

terminal on (202) 205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted Inv. No. 337– 

TA–667 (‘‘the 667 Investigation’’) on 

January 23, 2009, based on a complaint 

filed by Saxon Innovation, LLC of Tyler, 

Texas (‘‘Saxon’’). 74 FR 4231. The 

complaint, as amended and 

supplemented, alleges violations of 

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the 

importation into the United States, the 

sale for importation, and the sale within 

the United States after importation of 

certain electronic devices, including 

handheld wireless communications 

devices, by reason of infringement of 

certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 

5,235,635 (‘‘the ‘635 patent’’); 5,530,597 

(‘‘the ‘597 patent’’); and 5,608,873 (‘‘the 

‘873 patent’’). The complaint further 

alleges the existence of a domestic 

industry related to each patent. The 

Commission’s notice of investigation 

named various respondents, including 

High Tech Computer Corp. of Taoyuan, 

Taiwan and HTC America, Inc. of 

Bellevue, Washington (collectively 

‘‘HTC’’). On April 28, 2009, the 

Commission determined not to review 

an ID granting under Commission Rule 

210.21(b) a joint motion filed by Saxon 

and HTC to terminate the investigation 

as to respondent HTC. 

The Commission instituted Inv. No. 

337–TA–673 (‘‘the 673 Investigation’’) 

on March 31, 2009, based on a 

complaint filed by Saxon. 74 FR 14578– 

9. The complaint, as amended and 

supplemented, alleges violations of 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES