Gray Portland Cement and Cement Clinker from Japan and Mexico, Invs. 731-TA-451 and 461 (Second Review)

=== USITC Institution === 57617Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 190 / Monday, October 3, 2005 / Notices 1 No response to this request for information is required if a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 06–5–140, expiration date June 30, 2008. Public reporting burden for the request is estimated to average 10 hours per response. Please send comments regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. Seventh Street, SW., Room 7212, Washington, DC 20410–7000; telephone 202–708–1934 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with speech or hearing impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll- free Federal Information Relay Service at 800–877–8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : On March 21, 2005, HUD published its FY2005 SuperNOFA for HUD’s Competitive Grant Programs. The Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) Program NOFA competition, which was included in the SuperNOFA, closed on June 9, 2005. After reviewing and rating HOPWA applications submitted in response to the SuperNOFA, HUD anticipated that assistance would remain available for additional awards. As a result, on August 22, 2005 (70 FR 48970), HUD published in the Federal Register a NOFA for a second round of HOPWA funding. The application deadline for the second competition was October 6, 2005. Because of the widespread effects of Hurricane Katrina, HUD is extending the application deadline for the HOPWA second round competition to October 13, 2005. Dated: September 27, 2005. Pamela H. Patenaude, Assistant Secretary, for Community Planning and Development. [FR Doc. 05–19755 Filed 9–28–05; 3:27 pm] BILLING CODE 4210–29–P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs Indian Gaming AGENCY : Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior. ACTION : Notice of Class III Gaming Compacts taking effect. SUMMARY : Notice is given that the Tribal-State compact between the Thlopthlocco Tribal Town and the State of Oklahoma, and the Tribal-State compact between the Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma and the State of Oklahoma are considered to have been approved and are in effect. DATES : Effective October 3, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : George T. Skibine, Director, Office of Indian Gaming Management, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary—Policy and Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219–4066. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Under Section 11(d)(7)(D) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA), Public Law 100–497, 25 U.S.C. 2710, the Secretary of the Interior must publish in the Federal Register notice of any Tribal-State compact that is approved, or considered to have been approved for the purpose of engaging in Class III gaming activities on Indian lands. The Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, through his delegated authority did not approve or disapprove these compacts before the date that is 45 days after the date these compacts were submitted. These compacts authorize these Indian tribes to engage in certain Class III gaming activities, provides for certain geographical exclusivity, limits the number of gaming machines at existing racetracks, and prohibits non- tribal operation of certain machines and covered games. Therefore, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 2710(d)(7)(C), these compacts are considered to have been approved, but only to the extent they are consistent with IGRA. Dated: September 20, 2005. Michael D. Olsen, Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary— Indian Affairs. [FR Doc. 05–19733 Filed 9–30–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–4N–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 731–TA–451 and 461 (Second Review)] Gray Portland Cement and Cement Clinker From Japan and Mexico AGENCY : United States International Trade Commission. ACTION : Institution of five-year reviews concerning the antidumping duty orders on gray portland cement and cement clinker from Japan and Mexico. SUMMARY : The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted reviews pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on gray portland cement and cement clinker from Japan and Mexico would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission; 1 to be assured of consideration, the deadline for responses is November 22, 2005. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by December 16, 2005. For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews 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, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207). DATES : Effective October 3, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing- impaired 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 for these reviews may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background. On the dates listed below, the Department of Commerce issued antidumping duty orders on the subject imports: Order date Product/country Inv. No. FR cite 8/30/90 ............................................ Gray portland cement & clinker/Mexico ............................................... 731–TA–451 ..... 55 FR 35443. 5/10/91 ............................................ Gray portland cement & clinker/Japan ................................................. 731–TA–461 ..... 56 FR 21658. VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:26 Sep 30, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03OCN1.SGM 03OCN1 57618 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 190 / Monday, October 3, 2005 / Notices Following five-year reviews by Commerce and the Commission, effective November 15, 2000, Commerce issued a continuation of the antidumping duty orders on imports of gray portland cement and cement clinker from Japan and Mexico (65 FR 68979). The Commission is now conducting second reviews to determine whether revocation of the order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. It will assess the adequacy of interested party responses to this notice of institution to determine whether to conduct full reviews or expedited reviews. The Commission’s determinations in any expedited reviews will be based on the facts available, which may include information provided in response to this notice. Definitions. The following definitions apply to these reviews: (1) Subject Merchandise is the class or kind of merchandise that is within the scope of the five-year reviews, as defined by the Department of Commerce. (2) The Subject Countries in these reviews Japan and Mexico. (3) The Domestic Like Product is the domestically produced product or products which are like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the Subject Merchandise. In its original and full five-year determinations, the Commission defined a single Domestic Like Product consisting of gray portland cement and cement clinker. (4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. producers as a whole of the Domestic Like Product, or those producers whose collective output of the Domestic Like Product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product. In its original determinations, the Commission defined the Domestic Industry as producers of gray portland cement and cement clinker, including ‘‘grinding only’’ operations. In both original determinations, the Commission concluded that ‘‘appropriate circumstances’’ existed for a regional analysis of the industry; however, the Commission found different regions to be appropriate based on the facts of each investigation. In its full five-year review determinations, the Commission took into account the Commission’s prior regional industry definitions in its analysis and found separate regional industries, which corresponded, or were similar, to those defined in the original investigations. In its original determination concerning Mexico, two Commissioners found that either the Southern Tier Region (the States of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California) or the alternative Southern Tier Region (excluding northern California and the inland counties of the Gulf States) was appropriate and that no compelling case was made for one rather than the other. For purposes of the original determination, they used the Southern Tier Region because it was the more difficult region within which to reach an affirmative finding. One Commissioner found that the alternative Southern Tier Region was appropriate. In its five-year review determination concerning Mexico, the Commission found the regional industry to consist of producers in the Southern Tier Region. In its original determination concerning Japan, the Commission found the regional industry to consist of producers in Southern California; certain Commissioners found the regional industry to consist of producers in the State of California. In its five-year review determination concerning Japan, the Commission found the regional industry to consist of producers in the State of California. For purposes of this notice, you should report information separately on each of the following Domestic Industries: (1) Producers of gray portland cement and cement clinker, including ‘‘grinding only’’ operations, located in the Southern Tier Region; (2) producers of gray portland cement and cement clinker, including ‘‘grinding only’’ operations, located in Southern California; (3) producers of gray portland cement and cement clinker, including ‘‘grinding only’’ operations, located in the State of California; and (4) producers of gray portland cement and cement clinker, including ‘‘grinding only’’ operations, located in the United States as a whole. (5) An Importer is any person or firm engaged, either directly or through a parent company or subsidiary, in importing the Subject Merchandise into the United States from a foreign manufacturer or through its selling agent. Participation in the reviews and public service list. Persons, including industrial users of the Subject Merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in the reviews as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11(b)(4) 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 the reviews. Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are reminded that they are required, pursuant to 19 CFR 201.15, to seek Commission approval if the matter in which they are seeking to appear was pending in any manner or form during their Commission employment. The Commission is seeking guidance as to whether a second transition five-year review is the ‘‘same particular matter’’ as the underlying original investigation for purposes of 19 CFR 201.15 and 18 U.S.C. 207, the post employment statute for Federal employees. Former employees may seek informal advice from Commission ethics officials with respect to this and the related issue of whether the employee’s participation was ‘‘personal and substantial.’’ However, any informal consultation will not relieve former employees of the obligation to seek approval to appear from the Commission under its rule 201.15. For ethics advice, contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy Agency Ethics Official, at 202–205–3088. 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 BPI submitted in these reviews available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the reviews, provided that the application is 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 the reviews. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO. Certification. Pursuant to section 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, any person submitting information to the Commission in connection with these reviews must certify that the information is accurate and complete to the best of the submitter’s knowledge. In making the certification, the submitter will be deemed to consent, unless otherwise specified, for the Commission, its employees, and contract personnel to use the information provided in any other reviews or investigations of the same or comparable products which the Commission conducts under Title VII of the Act, or in internal audits and investigations relating to the programs VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:26 Sep 30, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03OCN1.SGM 03OCN1 57619Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 190 / Monday, October 3, 2005 / Notices and operations of the Commission pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3. Written submissions. Pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission’s rules, each interested party response to this notice must provide the information specified below. The deadline for filing such responses is November 22, 2005. Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the Commission’s rules, eligible parties (as specified in Commission rule 207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments concerning the adequacy of responses to the notice of institution and whether the Commission should conduct expedited or full reviews. The deadline for filing such comments is December 16, 2005. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of sections 201.8 and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules and any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6 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). Also, in accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, each document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or APO service list as appropriate), and a certificate of service must accompany the document (if you are not a party to the reviews you do not need to serve your response). Inability to provide requested information. Pursuant to section 207.61(c) of the Commission’s rules, any interested party that cannot furnish the information requested by this notice in the requested form and manner shall notify the Commission at the earliest possible time, provide a full explanation of why it cannot provide the requested information, and indicate alternative forms in which it can provide equivalent information. If an interested party does not provide this notification (or the Commission finds the explanation provided in the notification inadequate) and fails to provide a complete response to this notice, the Commission may take an adverse inference against the party pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act in making its determinations in the reviews. Information To Be Provided in Response To this Notice of Institution: Please provide the requested information separately for each Domestic Industry, as defined by the Commission in its original and full five- year review determinations. If you are a domestic producer, union/worker group, or trade/business association; import/export Subject Merchandise from more than one Subject Country; or produce Subject Merchandise in more than one Subject Country, you may file a single response. If you do so, please ensure that your response to each question includes the information requested for each pertinent Subject Country. As used below, the term ‘‘firm’’ includes any related firms. (1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address if available) and name, telephone number, fax number, and E- mail address of the certifying official. (2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union or worker group, a U.S. importer of the Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, a U.S. or foreign trade or business association, or another interested party (including an explanation). If you are a union/worker group or trade/business association, identify the firms in which your workers are employed or which are members of your association. (3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in these reviews by providing information requested by the Commission. (4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the antidumping duty order on the Domestic Industries in general and/or your firm/entity specifically. In your response, please discuss the various factors specified in section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675a(a)) including the likely volume of subject imports, likely price effects of subject imports, and likely impact of imports of Subject Merchandise on the Domestic Industries. (5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the Domestic Like Product. Identify any known related parties and the nature of the relationship as defined in section 771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1677(4)(B)). (6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the Subject Merchandise and producers of the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country(ies) that currently export or have exported Subject Merchandise to the United States or other countries after 1999. (7) If you are a U.S. producer of the Domestic Like Product, provide the following information on your firm’s operations on that product during calendar year 2004 (report quantity data in short tons and value data in U.S. dollars, f.o.b. plant). If you are a union/ worker group or trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms in which your workers are employed/ which are members of your association. (a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the Domestic Like Product accounted for by your firm’s(s’) production; (b) The quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the Domestic Like Product produced in your U.S. plant(s); and (c) The quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the Domestic Like Product produced in your U.S. plant(s). (8) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the Subject Merchandise from the Subject Country(ies), provide the following information on your firm’s(s’) operations on that product during calendar year 2004 (report quantity data in short tons and value data in U.S. dollars). If you are a trade/ business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association. (a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of Subject Merchandise from the Subject Country(ies) accounted for by your firm’s(s’) imports; (b) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of Subject Merchandise imported from each Subject Country; and (c) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of Subject Merchandise imported from each Subject Country. (9) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country(ies), provide the following information on your firm’s(s’) operations on that product during calendar year 2004 (report quantity data in short tons and value data in U.S. dollars, landed and duty-paid at the U.S. port but not including antidumping duties). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association. (a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country(ies) accounted for by your firm’s(s’) production; and VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:26 Sep 30, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03OCN1.SGM 03OCN1 57620 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 190 / Monday, October 3, 2005 / Notices (b) The quantity and value of your firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of Subject Merchandise and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total exports to the United States of Subject Merchandise from the Subject Country(ies) accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. (10) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the Domestic Like Product that have occurred in the United States or in the market for the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country(ies) after 1999, and significant changes, if any, that are likely to occur within a reasonably foreseeable time. Supply conditions to consider include technology; production methods; development efforts; ability to increase production (including the shift of production facilities used for other products and the use, cost, or availability of major inputs into production); and factors related to the ability to shift supply among different national markets (including barriers to importation in foreign markets or changes in market demand abroad). Demand conditions to consider include end uses and applications; the existence and availability of substitute products; and the level of competition among the Domestic Like Product produced in the United States, Subject Merchandise produced in the Subject Country(ies), and such merchandise from other countries. (11) (Optional) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the Domestic Like Product and Domestic Industries; if you disagree with either or both of these definitions, please explain why and provide alternative definitions. Authority: These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission’s rules. Issued: September 27, 2005. By order of the Commission. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 05–19593 Filed 9–30–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Inv. No. 337–TA–506] Certain Optical Disk Controller Chips and Chipsets and Products Containing Same, Including DVD Players and PC Optical Storage Devices; Notice of Final Determination; Issuance of Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Orders; Termination of Investigation AGENCY : U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION : Notice. SUMMARY : Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has found a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 337) based on the infringement of one asserted claim of one asserted patent and has issued a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders in the above-captioned investigation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Clara Kuehn, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–3012. Copies of the Commission orders, the Commission opinion in support thereof, 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 April 14, 2004, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Zoran Corporation and Oak Technology, Inc. both of Sunnyvale, CA (collectively ‘‘complainants’’). 69 FR 19876. The complaint, as supplemented, alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain optical disk controller chips and chipsets and products containing same, including DVD players and PC optical storage devices, by reason of infringement of claims 1–12 of U.S. Patent No. 6,466,736 (the ’736 patent), claims 1–3 of U.S. Patent No. 6,584,527 (the ’527 patent), and claims 1–35 of U.S. Patent No. 6,546,440 (the ’440 patent). Id. The notice of investigation identified 12 respondents. 69 FR 19876. On June 7, 2004, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 5) terminating the investigation as to two respondents on the basis of a consent order and settlement agreement. On June 22, 2004, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 7) granting complainants’ motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to add nine additional respondents. Those IDs were not reviewed by the Commission. On December 22, 2004, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 33) granting complainants’ motion to terminate the investigation in part with respect to claims 2–6, 8–10, and 11 of the ’736 patent and claims 2–4, 6, 9, 11, 12, 15– 18, 20, 22–34, and 35 of the ’440 patent. On January 28, 2005, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 37) granting complainants’ motion to terminate the investigation in part with respect to claim 12 of the ’736 patent. Neither ID was reviewed by the Commission. Thus, at the time that Order No. 37 issued, the claims remaining for determination on the merits were claims 1 and 7 of the ’736 patent; claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 19, and 21 of the ’440 patent; and claims 1, 2, and 3 of the ’527 patent. An eight-day evidentiary hearing was held on February 7–12, and 14–15, 2005. On May 16, 2005, the ALJ issued his final ID, findings of fact and conclusions of law, and recommended determination on remedy and bonding. The ALJ concluded that there was a violation of section 337 based on his findings that (a) the accused products infringe claim 3 of the ’527 patent, (b) the ’527 patent is not unenforceable, (c) claim 3 of the ’527 patent is not invalid, and (d) complainants have satisfied the domestic industry requirement with respect to the ’527 patent. Although the ALJ found that the other asserted claims of the ’527 patent (claims 1 and 2) are not invalid, he found that the accused products do not infringe those claims. The ALJ found no violation with respect to the other patents in issue. He found that the accused products do not infringe any asserted claim of the ’440 or ’736 patents and that complainants have not satisfied the domestic industry requirement with respect to those patents. He also found that the asserted claims of the ’440 and ’736 patents are VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:26 Sep 30, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03OCN1.SGM 03OCN1