83 FR 11245 - Certain Magnetic Data Storage Tapes and Cartridges Containing the Same; Notice of Commission Final Determination of Violation of Section 337; Termination of Investigation; Issuance of Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Orders
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 50 (March 14, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 50 (March 14, 2018)
| Page Range | 11245-11247 | |
| FR Document | 2018-05093 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 14, 2018)] [Notices] [Pages 11245-11247] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-05093] [[Page 11245]] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-1012] Certain Magnetic Data Storage Tapes and Cartridges Containing the Same; Notice of Commission Final Determination of Violation of Section 337; Termination of Investigation; Issuance of Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Orders AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has found a violation in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission has determined to issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders. The investigation is terminated. 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 https://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://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 July 1, 2016, based on a Complaint filed by Fujifilm Corporation of Tokyo, Japan, and Fujifilm Recording Media U.S.A., Inc. of Bedford, Massachusetts (collectively, ``Fujifilm''). 81 FR 43243-44 (July 1, 2016). The Complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (``section 337''), in the sale for importation, importation, and sale within the United States after importation of certain magnetic data storage tapes and cartridges containing the same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. patent Nos. 6,641,891 (``the '891 patent''); 6,703,106 (``the '106 patent''); 6,703,101 (``the '101 patent''); 6,767,612 (``the '612 patent''); 8,236,434 (``the '434 patent''); and 7,355,805 (``the '805 patent''). The Complaint further alleges the existence of a domestic industry. The Commission's Notice of Investigation named as respondents Sony Corporation of Tokyo, Japan, Sony Corporation of America of New York, New York, and Sony Electronics Inc. of San Diego, California (collectively, ``Sony''). The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (``OUII'') was also named as a party to the investigation. The Commission later terminated the investigation as to the '101 patent. Order No. 24 (Jan. 18, 2017); Notice (Feb. 15, 2017). On September 1, 2017, the ALJ issued his final ID finding a violation of section 337 with respect to claims 1, 4-9, 11, and 14 of the '891 patent and asserted claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 of the '612 patent. The ALJ found no violation of section 337 with respect to asserted claims 9-11 of the '612 patent; asserted claim 2, 5, and 6 of the '106 patent; asserted claim 1 of the '434 patent; and asserted claims 3 and 10 of the '805 patent. In particular, the Final ID finds that Sony's accused products infringe claims 1, 4-9, 11, and 14 of the '891 patent and claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 of the '612 patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(a). The Final ID also finds that Sony's accused products do not infringe claims 2, 5, and 6 of the '106 patent, claim 1 of the '434 patent, and claims 3 and 10 of the '805 patent. The Final ID also finds that Sony has not shown that the asserted claims of the '891 patent, the '612 patent, the '434 patent, or the '805 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102, 103, or 112. The Final ID further finds, however that, while, Sony has not shown that the asserted claims of the '106 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103, Sony has shown that the asserted claims of the '106 patent are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112. The Final ID also finds that Fujifilm has satisfied the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the '891 patent and the '612 patent, but has not satisfied the technical prong with respect to the '106 patent, the '434 patent, and the '805 patent. The Final ID further finds that Fujifilm has satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the '891, '612, and '106 patent pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(A) and (B) for the asserted LTO-6 DI products. The Final ID finds that Fujifilm has not satisfied the economic prong requirement for the asserted LTO-7 DI products. The Final ID finds Sony has not shown that the '891, '106, and '805 patents are essential to the LTO-7 Standard. The Final ID also finds that Fujifilm has not breached any provisions of the Fujifilm AP-75 agreement, in particular sections 8.2 or 11.11. The Final ID further finds that Sony has not shown that the AP-75 agreement warrants barring Fujifilm's claims or terminating the investigation. The Final ID also finds that patent misuse does apply to bar Fujifilm's claims and that Fujifilm has not waived its rights to enforce the patents-in-suit. The Final ID also finds that Sony does not have an implied license to the patents-in-suit. The Final ID further finds that Sony has not shown that patent exhaustion applies. On September 12, 2017, the ALJ issued his recommended determination on remedy and bonding. As instructed by the Commission, the ALJ also made findings concerning the public interest factors set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1) and (f)(1). See 81 FR 43243; 19 CFR 210.10(b). The ALJ recommended that the appropriate remedy is a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order against Sony. The ALJ recommended that the Commission require no bond during the period of Presidential review. The ALJ further found that public interest factors do not bar or require tailoring the recommended exclusion order. The ALJ also found that even if the asserted claims are essential, the public interest does not favor tailoring or curbing and exclusion order because Fujifilm did not breach its obligations under the AP-75 Agreement. On September 18, 2017, Sony and OUII each filed petitions for review of various aspects of the Final ID. Also on September 18, 2017, Fujifilm filed a contingent petition for review of various aspects of the Final ID. On September 26, 2017, Fujifilm, Sony, and OUII filed responses to the various petitions for review. On October 6, 2017, Fujifilm filed a post-RD statement on the public interest pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(a)(4). Sony filed its statement on October 13, 2017. No responses were filed by the public in response to the post-RD Commission Notice issued on September 13, 2017. See Notice of Request for Statements on the Public Interest (Sept. 13, 2017); 82 FR 43567-68 (Sept. 18, 2017). On December 12, 2017, the Commission determined to review the Final ID in part. Notice (Dec. 12, 2017); 82 FR 60038-41 (Dec. 18, 2017). Specifically, the Commission determined to review-in-part the Final ID's finding of violation with respect to the '891 patent. In particular, the Commission determined to review the [[Page 11246]] Final ID's findings with respect to anticipation and obviousness. The Commission further determined to review the Final ID's findings concerning secondary considerations. The Commission also determined to review-in-part the Final ID's finding of violation with respect to the '612 patent. Specifically, the Commission determined to review the Final ID's finding that the asserted claims of the '612 patent are not obvious. Accordingly, the Commission also determined to review the Final ID's finding that Fujifilm has satisfied the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the '612 patent. The Commission further determined to review-in-part the Final ID's findings with respect to the '106 patent. Specifically, the Commission determined not to review the Final ID's finding that the asserted claims of the '106 patent are invalid as indefinite. Accordingly, the Commission determined to review the Final ID's findings with respect to the remaining issues with respect to the '106 Patent. The Commission also determined to review-in-part the Final ID's findings with respect to the '434 patent. Specifically the Commission determined to review the Final ID's finding that Sony's accused LTO-7 products do not infringe claim 1 of the '434 patent. The Commission also determined to review the Final ID's finding that Fujifilm's LTO-7 DI products do not practice claim 1. The Commission further determined to review the Final ID's finding that claim 1 is not obvious. The Commission further determined to review-in-part the Final ID's findings with respect to the '805 patent. Specifically, the Commission determined to review the Final ID's finding that Sony's accused LTO-7 products do not infringe asserted claims 3 and 10 of the '805 patent. The Commission also determined to review the Final ID's finding that U.S. patent No. 6,710,967 (``Hennecken'') does not anticipate claims 3 and 10. The Commission also determined to review the Final ID's findings that the asserted claims of the '612, '106, and '805 patents are not essential to the LTO-7 Standard. The Commission further determined to review the Final ID's findings concerning the economic prong of the domestic industry. The Commission determined not to review the remaining issues decided in the Final ID. In its notice of review, the Commission posed several briefing questions to the parties, and requested briefing on remedy, the public interest, and bonding. 82 FR at 60040. On January 3, 2018, the parties submitted their initial responses to the Commission's briefing questions. On January 12, 2018, the parties filed their reply submissions. On December 26, 2017, Quantum Corporation filed a submission in response to the Commission's notice. On January 2, 2018, Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company filed a submission in response to the Commission's notice. On January 3, 2018, International Business Machines Corporation filed a submission in response to the Commission's notice. Having examined the record of this investigation, including the Final ID, the petitions for review, the responses thereto, and the parties' submissions on review, the Commission has determined to find that a violation of section 337 has occurred with respect to the asserted claims of the '891 patent. The Commission has found no violation with respect to the '612, '106, '434, and '805 patents. The Commission affirms with modification the Final ID's findings that the asserted claims of the '891 patent are not invalid as anticipated or obvious. The Commission finds that Sony has shown by clear and convincing evidence that the asserted claims of the '612 patent are prima facie obvious over the asserted prior art and that there are no secondary considerations that overcome this finding. Accordingly, the Commission finds that Fujifilm has failed to satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement by failing to show that its domestic industry products practice a valid claim of the '612 patent. The Commission has further determined not to reach the Final ID's findings concerning the technical prong with respect to the '612 Patent. The Commission determined not to review the Final ID's finding that the asserted claims of the '106 patent are invalid as indefinite. Accordingly, the Commission has determined not to reach the Final ID's findings on the remaining issues with respect to the '106 patent. With respect to the '434 patent, the Commission has determined to construe the limitations ``a power spectrum density at a pitch of 10 micrometers ranges from 800 to 10,000 nm\3\ on the magnetic layer surface'' and ``a power spectrum density at a pitch of 10 micrometers ranges from 20,000 to 80,000 nm\3\ on the backcoat layer surface'' recited in claim 1 of the '434 patent to require that the entire surface of each layer must have power spectrum density measurements within the claimed range. The Commission has further determined to find that Fujifilm has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the accused LTO-7 tapes infringe claim 1 of the '434 patent. The Commission has also determined to find that Fujifilm has failed to satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the '434 patent. The Commission has determined to affirm with modification the Final ID's finding that Sony has failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the asserted prior art renders obvious asserted claim 1 of the '434 patent. Specifically, the Commission has determined not to reach the question of whether the asserted prior art discloses the limitation ``the magnetic layer has a center surface average surface roughness Ra, as measured by an atomic force microscope, ranging from 0.5 to 2.5 nm.'' The Commission has determined to affirm with modification the Final ID's finding that Fujifilm has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the accused LTO-7 tapes infringe claims 3 and 10 of the '805 patent. The Commission has also determined to affirm with modification the Final ID's finding that the asserted prior art does not anticipate the asserted claims of the '805 patent. The Commission also corrects the misstatement in the Final ID's ``Conclusions of Fact and Law'' that Fujifilm failed to satisfy the technical prong with respect to the '805 patent. See Final ID at 385. The Commission has determined to affirm with modification the Final ID's finding that the asserted claims of the '612, '106, and '805 patents are not essential to the LTO-7 Standard. In particular, with respect to the '106 patent, the Commission has determined not to reach the issue of whether the LTO-7 Standard requires a tape having a magnetic layer that contains an abrasive. The Commission has determined to otherwise adopt the Final ID's findings that the LTO-7 Standard does not require practice of the asserted claims of the '612, '106, and '805 Patents. The Commission has determined not to reach any other issues concerning Sony's essentiality defenses. The Commission has determined to find that Fujifilm's plant and equipment and labor and capital investments in its LTO-6 domestic industry products are significant under section 337(a)(3)(A) and (B), thus satisfying the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the '891 patent. The Commission has determined [[Page 11247]] not to reach the issue of whether Fujifilm has satisfied the economic prong with respect to its domestic investments in its LTO-7 DI products. Accordingly, the Commission has determined the appropriate remedy is a limited exclusion order against Sony's products that infringe claims 1, 4-9, 11, and 14 of the '891 patent, and a cease and desist order against each of the Sony respondents. The Commission has also determined that the public interest factors enumerated in subsections 337(d)(l) and (f)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(l), (f)(1)) do not preclude issuance of the limited exclusion order and cease and desist order. The Commission has, however, determined to exempt Sony's magnetic data storage tapes and cartridges containing the same that are imported or used for the purpose of supporting Sony's warranty, service, repair, and compliance verification obligations. The Commission has further determined to set a bond at zero (0) percent of entered value during the Presidential review period (19 U.S.C. 1337(j)). The Commission's orders and opinion were delivered to the President and to the United States Trade Representative on the day of their 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. Issued: March 8, 2018. Katherine M. Hiner, Supervisory Attorney. [FR Doc. 2018-05093 Filed 3-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2018 / Notices 11245
INTERNATIONAL TRADE patent’’); 6,767,612 (‘‘the ’612 patent’’); Standard. The Final ID also finds that
COMMISSION 8,236,434 (‘‘the ’434 patent’’); and Fujifilm has not breached any
7,355,805 (‘‘the ’805 patent’’). The provisions of the Fujifilm AP–75
[Investigation No. 337–TA–1012]
Complaint further alleges the existence agreement, in particular sections 8.2 or
Certain Magnetic Data Storage Tapes of a domestic industry. The 11.11. The Final ID further finds that
and Cartridges Containing the Same; Commission’s Notice of Investigation Sony has not shown that the AP–75
Notice of Commission Final named as respondents Sony Corporation agreement warrants barring Fujifilm’s
Determination of Violation of Section of Tokyo, Japan, Sony Corporation of claims or terminating the investigation.
337; Termination of Investigation; America of New York, New York, and The Final ID also finds that patent
Issuance of Limited Exclusion Order Sony Electronics Inc. of San Diego, misuse does apply to bar Fujifilm’s
and Cease and Desist Orders California (collectively, ‘‘Sony’’). The claims and that Fujifilm has not waived
Office of Unfair Import Investigations its rights to enforce the patents-in-suit.
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade (‘‘OUII’’) was also named as a party to The Final ID also finds that Sony does
Commission. the investigation. The Commission later not have an implied license to the
ACTION: Notice. terminated the investigation as to the patents-in-suit. The Final ID further
’101 patent. Order No. 24 (Jan. 18, finds that Sony has not shown that
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 2017); Notice (Feb. 15, 2017). patent exhaustion applies.
the U.S. International Trade On September 1, 2017, the ALJ issued On September 12, 2017, the ALJ
Commission has found a violation in the his final ID finding a violation of section issued his recommended determination
above-captioned investigation. The 337 with respect to claims 1, 4–9, 11, on remedy and bonding. As instructed
Commission has determined to issue a and 14 of the ’891 patent and asserted by the Commission, the ALJ also made
limited exclusion order and cease and claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 of the ’612 findings concerning the public interest
desist orders. The investigation is patent. The ALJ found no violation of factors set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1)
terminated. section 337 with respect to asserted and (f)(1). See 81 FR 43243; 19 CFR
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: claims 9–11 of the ’612 patent; asserted 210.10(b). The ALJ recommended that
Megan M. Valentine, Office of the claim 2, 5, and 6 of the ’106 patent; the appropriate remedy is a limited
General Counsel, U.S. International asserted claim 1 of the ’434 patent; and exclusion order and a cease and desist
Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, asserted claims 3 and 10 of the ’805 order against Sony. The ALJ
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) patent. recommended that the Commission
In particular, the Final ID finds that require no bond during the period of
708–2301. Copies of non-confidential
Sony’s accused products infringe claims Presidential review. The ALJ further
documents filed in connection with this
1, 4–9, 11, and 14 of the ’891 patent and found that public interest factors do not
investigation are or will be available for
claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 of the ’612 bar or require tailoring the
inspection during official business
patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(a). The Final recommended exclusion order. The ALJ
hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the
ID also finds that Sony’s accused also found that even if the asserted
Office of the Secretary, U.S.
products do not infringe claims 2, 5, and claims are essential, the public interest
International Trade Commission, 500 E 6 of the ’106 patent, claim 1 of the ’434 does not favor tailoring or curbing and
Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, patent, and claims 3 and 10 of the ’805 exclusion order because Fujifilm did not
telephone (202) 205–2000. General patent. The Final ID also finds that Sony breach its obligations under the AP–75
information concerning the Commission has not shown that the asserted claims Agreement.
may also be obtained by accessing its of the ’891 patent, the ’612 patent, the On September 18, 2017, Sony and
internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. ’434 patent, or the ’805 patent are OUII each filed petitions for review of
The public record for this investigation invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102, 103, or various aspects of the Final ID. Also on
may be viewed on the Commission’s 112. The Final ID further finds, however September 18, 2017, Fujifilm filed a
electronic docket (EDIS) at https:// that, while, Sony has not shown that the contingent petition for review of various
edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired asserted claims of the ’106 patent are aspects of the Final ID. On September
persons are advised that information on invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103, 26, 2017, Fujifilm, Sony, and OUII filed
this matter can be obtained by Sony has shown that the asserted claims responses to the various petitions for
contacting the Commission’s TDD of the ’106 patent are indefinite under review.
terminal on (202) 205–1810. 35 U.S.C. 112. The Final ID also finds On October 6, 2017, Fujifilm filed a
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The that Fujifilm has satisfied the technical post-RD statement on the public interest
Commission instituted this investigation prong of the domestic industry pursuant to Commission Rule
on July 1, 2016, based on a Complaint requirement with respect to the ’891 210.50(a)(4). Sony filed its statement on
filed by Fujifilm Corporation of Tokyo, patent and the ’612 patent, but has not October 13, 2017. No responses were
Japan, and Fujifilm Recording Media satisfied the technical prong with filed by the public in response to the
U.S.A., Inc. of Bedford, Massachusetts respect to the ’106 patent, the ’434 post-RD Commission Notice issued on
(collectively, ‘‘Fujifilm’’). 81 FR 43243– patent, and the ’805 patent. The Final ID September 13, 2017. See Notice of
44 (July 1, 2016). The Complaint alleges further finds that Fujifilm has satisfied Request for Statements on the Public
violations of section 337 of the Tariff the economic prong of the domestic Interest (Sept. 13, 2017); 82 FR 43567–
Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 industry requirement with respect to the 68 (Sept. 18, 2017).
(‘‘section 337’’), in the sale for ’891, ’612, and ’106 patent pursuant to On December 12, 2017, the
importation, importation, and sale 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(A) and (B) for the Commission determined to review the
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
within the United States after asserted LTO–6 DI products. The Final Final ID in part. Notice (Dec. 12, 2017);
importation of certain magnetic data ID finds that Fujifilm has not satisfied 82 FR 60038–41 (Dec. 18, 2017).
storage tapes and cartridges containing the economic prong requirement for the Specifically, the Commission
the same by reason of infringement of asserted LTO–7 DI products. determined to review-in-part the Final
certain claims of U.S. patent Nos. The Final ID finds Sony has not ID’s finding of violation with respect to
6,641,891 (‘‘the ’891 patent’’); 6,703,106 shown that the ’891, ’106, and ’805 the ’891 patent. In particular, the
(‘‘the ’106 patent’’); 6,703,101 (‘‘the ’101 patents are essential to the LTO–7 Commission determined to review the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:17 Mar 13, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14MRN1.SGM 14MRN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_11295/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2018 / Notices 11247
not to reach the issue of whether Retirement Plan for recovery of past reproduction cost) payable to the United
Fujifilm has satisfied the economic response costs incurred at the Widefield States Treasury.
prong with respect to its domestic PCE Superfund Site (‘‘Site’’) in El Paso Robert Brook,
investments in its LTO–7 DI products. County, Colorado. The Site comprises a Assistant Section Chief, Environmental
Accordingly, the Commission has former dry cleaners at 3217 South Enforcement Section, Environment and
determined the appropriate remedy is a Academy Boulevard in Colorado Natural Resources Division.
limited exclusion order against Sony’s Springs and related contamination of [FR Doc. 2018–05182 Filed 3–13–18; 8:45 am]
products that infringe claims 1, 4–9, 11, soil and groundwater, including of the BILLING CODE 4410–15–P
and 14 of the ’891 patent, and a cease Widefield Aquifer. The El Paso County
and desist order against each of the Retirement Plan was the owner of the
Sony respondents. The Commission has 3217 South Academy Boulevard DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
also determined that the public interest
property at the time of disposal of
factors enumerated in subsections Notice of Lodging of Proposed
hazardous substances. The proposed
337(d)(l) and (f)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(l), Consent Decree Under the
Consent Decree requires the El Paso
(f)(1)) do not preclude issuance of the Comprehensive Environmental
limited exclusion order and cease and County Retirement Plan to pay $420,000
Response, Compensation, and Liability
desist order. The Commission has, in reimbursement of past response costs
Act
however, determined to exempt Sony’s incurred by the United States with
magnetic data storage tapes and respect to the Site. The proposed On February 27, 2018, the Department
cartridges containing the same that are Consent Decree provides the El Paso of Justice lodged a proposed Consent
imported or used for the purpose of County Retirement Plan with a covenant Decree with the United States District
supporting Sony’s warranty, service, not to sue for past response costs Court for the Southern District of Ohio
repair, and compliance verification incurred by the United States in in the lawsuit entitled United States v.
obligations. The Commission has further connection with the Site and Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations et
contribution protection under CERCLA. al., Case No. 3:18–cv–00054 (S.D. Ohio).
determined to set a bond at zero (0)
The proposed consent decree resolves
percent of entered value during the The publication of this notice opens claims of the United States
Presidential review period (19 U.S.C. a period for public comment on the Environmental Protection Agency
1337(j)). proposed Consent Decree. Comments (‘‘EPA’’) against seven defendants—
The Commission’s orders and opinion should be addressed to the Assistant Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations,
were delivered to the President and to LLC; Cargill, Inc.; Flowserve
Attorney General, Environment and
the United States Trade Representative Corporation; Kelsey-Hayes Company;
Natural Resources Division, and should
on the day of their issuance. NCR Corporation; Northrop Grumman
The authority for the Commission’s refer to United States v. El Paso County
Retirement Plan, D.J. Ref. No. 90–11–3– Systems Corporation, and Waste
determination is contained in section Management of Ohio (collectively
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 11721/1. All comments must be
submitted no later than thirty (30) days ‘‘Defendants)—for response costs and
amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part injunctive relief with respect to the
210 of the Commission’s Rules of after the publication date of this notice.
Comments may be submitted either by North Sanitary (aka ‘‘Valleycrest’’)
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part Landfill Superfund Site in Dayton, Ohio
210). email or by mail:
(‘‘Site’’). A complaint, which was filed
By order of the Commission.
To submit simultaneously with the proposed
Issued: March 8, 2018. Send them to: consent decree, alleges that the
comments:
Katherine M. Hiner, Defendants are liable under Sections
Supervisory Attorney. By email ...... pubcomment-ees.enrd@ 106, 107(a), and 113(g)(2) of the
[FR Doc. 2018–05093 Filed 3–13–18; 8:45 am]
usdoj.gov. Comprehensive Environmental
By mail ........ Assistant Attorney General, Response, Compensation, and Liability
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box Act (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 9606,
7611, Washington, DC 9607(a), and 9613(g)(2). Under the
20044–7611. proposed consent decree, the
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE defendants will perform the remedy
During the public comment period, selected by EPA to address
Notice of Lodging of Proposed
Consent Decree Under the the proposed Consent Decree may be contamination at the Site by, among
Comprehensive Environmental examined and downloaded at this other things, designing and constructing
Response, Compensation and Liability Justice Department website: https:// a landfill ‘‘cap’’ that will cover
Act www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees. approximately 70 acres of the Site.
We will provide a paper copy of the Other significant remedial actions will
On March 8, 2018, the Department of proposed Consent Decree upon written include the design and construction of
Justice lodged a proposed Consent request and payment of reproduction a system to address landfill gas, as well
Decree with the United States District costs. Please mail your request and as a system to prevent leachate from
Court for the District of Colorado in the payment to: Consent Decree Library, contaminating groundwater.
lawsuit entitled United States v. El Paso U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Additionally, the Defendants will
County Retirement Plan, Civil Action Washington, DC 20044–7611. reimburse EPA for its future response
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
No. 1:18–cv–00552. costs, but they will not reimburse EPA
The proposed Consent Decree Please enclose a check or money order for its future oversight costs unless and
resolves the United States’ claim under for $3.75 (25 cents per page until such costs, together with past
Section 107 of the Comprehensive response costs and interim costs
Environmental Response, Compensation incurred before entry of the consent
and Liability Act (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. decree, exceed $8.37 million. The
9607, against the El Paso County proposed consent decree will provide
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:17 Mar 13, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14MRN1.SGM 14MRN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_11295/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2018-03-14 01:06:19
Document Modified: 2018-03-14 01:06:19
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Notice. | |
| 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 https:// www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://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. | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 11245 |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR