International Trade Commission.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granting the joint motion of complainants Energizer Holdings, Inc. and Eveready Battery Co., Inc., and respondent Atico International USA, Start Printed Page 24194Inc. (“Atico”) to terminate the above-captioned investigation with respect to that respondent on the basis of a consent order.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael K. Haldenstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-3041. Copies of the ALJ's ID 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. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. 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.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
The Commission instituted this investigation on May 27, 2003, based on a complaint filed by Energizer Holdings, Inc. and Eveready Battery Co., Inc., both of St. Louis, MO., 68 FR 32771 (2003). The complaint as amended alleges 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 zero-mercury-added alkaline batteries, parts thereof, and products containing same by reason of infringement of claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 5,464,709. The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337. The Commission named as respondents 26 companies located in the United States, China, Indonesia, and Japan.
On March 9, 2004, complainants and respondent Atico filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation as to Atico on the basis of a consent order. On March 19, 2004, the Commission investigative attorney filed (“IA”) a response supporting the motion in part. The IA noted that the motion did not include a statement that there were no other agreements between the parties and that there was no public version of the settlement agreement. On March 19, 2004, complainants and Atico filed an amended joint motion to terminate the investigation as to Atico. The amended motion addressed the concerns of the IA, and on March 22, 2004, the ALJ issued the subject ID terminating the investigation as to Atico on the basis of a consent order.
No party petitioned for review of the ID pursuant to 19 CFR 210.43(a), and the Commission found no basis for ordering a review on its own initiative pursuant to 19 CFR 210.44. The ID thus became the determination of the Commission pursuant to 19 CFR 210.42(h)(3).Start Signature
Issued: April 27, 2004.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 04-9986 Filed 4-30-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P