[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 65 (Monday, April 5, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17708-17709]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-7570]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Inv. No. 337-TA-493]


Certain Zero-Mercury-Added Alkaline Batteries, Parts Thereof, and 
Products Containing Same; Notice of a Commission Determination Not To 
Review an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation With 
Respect to Three Respondents on the Basis of a Settlement Agreement

AGENCY: International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: 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 respondents GP Batteries, International, Ltd., 
GPI, International, Ltd., and Gold Peak Industries (North America), 
Inc. to terminate the above-captioned investigation with respect to 
those three respondents on the basis of a settlement agreement.

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.

SUPPLEMENTARY 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 February 4, 2004, complainants and respondents GP Batteries, 
International, Ltd., GPI, International, Ltd., and Gold Peak Industries 
(North America), Inc. (collectively the ``Gold Peak Respondents'') 
filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation as to the Gold Peak 
Respondents on the basis of settlement agreement. On February 17, 2004, 
the Commission investigative attorney filed a response supporting the 
motion. On February 17, 2004, a group of nine Chinese battery companies 
that are also respondents (``Chinese Respondents'') in the 
investigation filed a response in opposition to the motion to 
terminate. They opposed termination of the Gold Peak Respondents 
because they contended that the settlement agreement did not contain 
all the terms of the settlement, and therefore the settlement agreement 
did not comply with Commission rule 210.21(b)(1). They also contended 
that the settlement agreement is anticompetitive and interferes with 
the administration of justice because there were some unresolved 
ethical issues concerning the Gold Peak Respondents' attorney.
    On March 3, 2004, the ALJ issued the subject ID (Order No. 125) 
terminating the investigation as to the Gold Peak Respondents on the 
basis of a settlement agreement. He indicated that the settlement 
agreement complies with Commission rule 210.21(b)(1). He found that, 
although the settlement agreement indicates that the parties will try 
to negotiate a license agreement, there are no other agreements between 
the Gold Peak Respondents and complainants at this time. The ALJ 
further noted the Chinese Respondents' arguments concerning 
anticompetitive effects and some unresolved ethical issues concerning 
the Gold Peak Respondent's attorney, but he indicated that he did not 
find that either constituted the extraordinary circumstances that would 
warrant denying the motion to terminate.

[[Page 17709]]

    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).
    This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and Commission rule 
210.42, 19 CFR 210.42.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: March 30, 2004.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 04-7570 Filed 4-2-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P