Bureau of Justice Assistance; Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comments Requested, 9928-9929 [2010-4536]
Download as PDF
9928
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 42 / Thursday, March 4, 2010 / Notices
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Inv. No. 337–TA–634]
In the Matter of: Certain Liquid Crystal
Display Modules, Products Containing
Same, and Methods Using the Same;
Notice of Commission Determination
to Rescind a Limited Exclusion Order
and Cease and Desist Orders
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to rescind
the limited exclusion order issued in the
above-captioned investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Clint A. Gerdine, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
708–2310. 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 (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 March 4, 2008, based on a complaint
filed by Sharp Corporation (‘‘Sharp’’) of
Japan. 73 FR 11678. The complaint, as
amended and supplemented, alleged
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 liquid crystal
display devices, products containing
same, and methods for using the same
by reason of infringement of certain
claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,879,364
(‘‘the ‘364 patent’’); 6,952,192 (‘‘the ‘192
patent’’); 7,304,703 (‘‘the ‘703 patent’’);
and 7,304,626 (‘‘the ‘626 patent’’). The
complaint further alleged the existence
of a domestic industry. The
Commission’s notice of investigation
named the following respondents:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Mar 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of Korea;
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of
Ridgefield Park, New Jersey; and
Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. of San
Jose, California (collectively,
‘‘Samsung’’).
On June 12, 2009, the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) issued
his final initial determination (‘‘ID’’)
finding a violation of section 337 by
Samsung with respect to all four patents
at issue and his recommendations on
remedy and bonding. On June 29, 2009,
Samsung and the Commission
investigative attorney (‘‘IA’’) filed
petitions for review of the final ID. The
IA and Sharp filed responses to the
petitions on July 7, 2009. On September
9, 2009, the Commission issued notice
of its determination not to review the
ALJ’s final ID and requested written
submissions on the issues of remedy,
the public interest, and bonding from
the parties and interested non-parties.
74 FR 47616–17 (Sept. 16, 2009).
On September 16 and 23, 2009,
respectively, complainant Sharp, the
Samsung respondents, and the IA filed
briefs and reply briefs on the issues for
which the Commission requested
written submissions. On September 21,
2009, Samsung filed a petition for
reconsideration of the Commission’s
determination not to review certain
portions of the final ID. On October 19,
2009, the Commission issued an order
denying the petition for reconsideration.
On October 30, 2009, Samsung filed a
supplemental submission on the issues
of remedy, the public interest, and
bonding. On November 2 and 3, 2009,
respectively, Sharp and the IA filed a
response to Samsung’s supplemental
submission.
On November 9, 2009, the
Commission issued notice of its
determination to terminate the
investigation with a finding of a
violation of section 337, and issued: (1)
A limited exclusion order prohibiting
the unlicensed entry of LCD devices,
including display panels and modules,
and products containing the same that
infringe one or more of (i) claims 5–7 of
the ‘364 patent; (ii) claims 1 and 4 of the
‘192 patent; (iii) claims 1–2, 6–8, 13–14,
and 16–17 of the ‘703 patent; and (iv)
claims 10, 17, and 20 of the ‘626 patent,
where the infringing LCD devices are
manufactured abroad by or on behalf of,
or are imported by or on behalf of,
Samsung, or any of its affiliated
companies, parents, subsidiaries,
licensees, contractors, or other related
business entities, or successors or
assigns; and (2) cease and desist orders
prohibiting Samsung Electronics
America, Inc. and Samsung
Semiconductor, Inc. from conducting
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
any of the following activities in the
United States: importing, selling,
marketing, advertising, distributing,
offering for sale, transferring (except for
exportation), and soliciting U.S. agents
or distributors for, LCD devices,
including display panels and modules,
and products containing the same that
infringe one or more of (i) claims 5–7 of
the ‘364 patent; (ii) claims 1 and 4 of the
‘192 patent; (iii) claims 1–2, 6–8, 13–14,
and 16–17 of the ‘703 patent; and (iv)
claims 10, 17, and 20 of the ‘626 patent.
74 FR 58978–79 (November 16, 2009).
On February 12, 2010, complainant
Sharp and respondent Samsung filed a
joint petition to rescind the remedial
orders under Commission Rule
210.76(a)(1) on the basis of a settlement
agreement between the parties. The
parties asserted that their settlement
agreement constitutes ‘‘changed
conditions of fact or law’’ sufficient to
justify rescission of the order under
Commission Rule 210.76(a)(1), 19 CFR
210.76(a)(1). The IA did not oppose the
joint petition.
Having reviewed the parties’
submissions, the Commission has
determined that the settlement
agreement satisfies the requirement of
Commission Rule 210.76(a)(1), 19 CFR
210.76(a)(1), that there be changed
conditions of fact or law. The
Commission therefore has issued an
order rescinding the limited exclusion
order and cease and desist orders
previously issued in this investigation.
This action is taken under the
authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act
of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) and section
210.76(a)(1) of the Commission’s Rules
of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.76(a)(1)).
Issued: March 1, 2010.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010–4556 Filed 3–3–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of Justice Programs
[OMB Number 1121–0166]
Bureau of Justice Assistance; Agency
Information Collection Activities:
Proposed Collection; Comments
Requested
ACTION: 60-Day Notice of Information
Collection Under Review Extension of
currently approved collection. Bureau of
Justice Assistance Application Form:
E:\FR\FM\04MRN1.SGM
04MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 42 / Thursday, March 4, 2010 / Notices
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Public Safety Officers’ Disability
Benefits.
The Department of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice
Assistance, will be submitting the
following information collection request
for review and clearance in accordance
with the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995. This proposed information
collection is published to obtain
comments from the public and affected
agencies. Comments are encouraged and
will be accepted for ‘‘sixty days’’ until
May 3, 2010. If you have additional
comments, suggestions, or need a copy
of the proposed information collection
instrument with instructions or
additional information, please contact
M. Berry at 202–616–6500/1–866–268–
0079, Bureau of Justice Assistance,
Office of Justice Programs, U.S.
Department of Justice, 810 7th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20531 via
facsimile at 202–305–1367 or by e-mail
at M.A.Berry@ojp.usdoj.gov.
Written comments and suggestions
from the public and affected agencies
concerning the proposed collection of
information are encouraged. Your
comments should address one or more
of the following four points:
—Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
—Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s
estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
— Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
—Minimize the burden of the collection
of information on those who are to
respond, including through the use of
appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms
of information technology, e.g.,
permitting electronic submission of
responses.
Overview of this information
collection:
(1) Type of information collection:
Extension of currently approved
collection.
(2) The title of the form/collection:
OJP FORM 3650/7 Public Safety Officers
Disability Benefits.
(3) The agency form number, if any,
and the applicable component of the
Department sponsoring the collection:
None. Bureau of Justice Assistance,
Office of Justice Programs, United States
Department of Justice.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Mar 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
(4) Affected public who will be asked
or required to respond, as well as a brief
abstract:
Primary: Dependents of public safety
officers who were killed or permanently
and totally disabled in the line of duty.
Abstract: BJA’s Public Safety Officers’
Benefits (PSOB) division will use the
PSOEA Application information to
confirm the eligibility of applicants to
receive PSOEA benefits. Eligibility is
dependent on several factors, including
the applicant having received or being
eligible to receive a portion of the PSOB
Death Benefit, or having a family
member who received the PSOB
Disability Benefit. Also considered are
the applicant’s age and the schools
being attended. In addition, information
to help BJA identify an individual is
collected, such as Social Security
number and contact numbers and e-mail
addresses. The changes to the
application form have been made in an
effort to streamline the application
process and eliminate requests for
information that is either irrelevant or
already being collected by other means.
Others: None.
(5) An estimate of the total number of
respondents and the amount of time
needed for an average respondent to
respond is as follows: It is estimated that
no more than 75 respondents will apply
a year. Each application takes
approximately 120 minutes to complete.
(6) An estimate of the total public
burden (in hours) associated with the
collection: Total Annual Reporting
Burden: 75 × 120 minutes per
application = 9,000 minutes/by 60
minutes per hour = 150 hours.
If additional information is required,
please contact Lynn Bryant, Department
Clearance Officer, United States
Department of Justice, Justice
Management Division, Policy and
Planning Staff, Patrick Henry Building,
Suite 1600, 601 D Street, NW.,
Washington, DC., 20530.
March 1, 2010.
Lynn Bryant,
Department Clearance Officer, PRA, United
States Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 2010–4536 Filed 3–3–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–18–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division
United States v. Bemis Company, Inc.,
et al.; Proposed Final Judgment and
Competitive Impact Statement
Notice is hereby given pursuant to the
Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act,
15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h), that a proposed
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
9929
Final Judgment, Hold Separate
Stipulation and Order, and Competitive
Impact Statement have been filed with
the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia in United States v.
Bemis Co. et al., Civil Action No. 1:10–
cv–00295. On February 24, 2010, the
United States filed a Complaint alleging
that the proposed acquisition by Bemis
Company, Inc. (‘‘Bemis’’) of the Alcan
Packaging Food Americas business of
Rio Tinto plc would violate Section 7 of
the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18, by
substantially lessening competition in
the markets for flexible-packaging
rollstock for chunk and sliced natural
cheese packaged for retail sale, flexiblepackaging rollstock for shredded natural
cheese packaged for retail sale, and
flexible-packaging shrink bags for fresh
meat. The proposed Final Judgment,
filed the same time as the Complaint,
requires Bemis to divest the assets of
Alcan Packaging Food Americas related
to those markets, including production
plants and assets located in Menasha,
Wisconsin and Catoosa, Oklahoma, as
well as certain other tangible and
intangible assets. The proposed Final
Judgment also permits Bemis
temporarily to occupy certain portions
of the Menasha facility while unrelated
operations are relocated and allows for
short-term supply agreements between
Bemis and the entity that acquires the
divested assets in order to ensure that
customers continue to receive a reliable
supply of the affected products.
Copies of the Complaint, proposed
Final Judgment and Competitive Impact
Statement are available for inspection at
the Department of Justice, Antitrust
Division, Antitrust Documents Group,
450 Fifth Street, NW., Suite 1010,
Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: 202–
514–2481), on the Department of
Justice’s Web site at https://
www.usdoj.gov/atr, and at the Office of
the Clerk of the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia.
Copies of these materials may be
obtained from the Antitrust Division
upon request and payment of the
copying fee set by Department of Justice
regulations.
Public comment is invited within 60
days of the date of this notice. Such
comments, and responses thereto, will
be published in the Federal Register
and filed with the Court. Comments
should be directed to Maribeth Petrizzi,
Chief, Litigation II Section, Antitrust
Division, Department of Justice,
E:\FR\FM\04MRN1.SGM
04MRN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 42 (Thursday, March 4, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9928-9929]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4536]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of Justice Programs
[OMB Number 1121-0166]
Bureau of Justice Assistance; Agency Information Collection
Activities: Proposed Collection; Comments Requested
ACTION: 60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review Extension
of currently approved collection. Bureau of Justice Assistance
Application Form:
[[Page 9929]]
Public Safety Officers' Disability Benefits.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of
Justice Assistance, will be submitting the following information
collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This proposed information collection
is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for ``sixty days'' until
May 3, 2010. If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a
copy of the proposed information collection instrument with
instructions or additional information, please contact M. Berry at 202-
616-6500/1-866-268-0079, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of
Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, 810 7th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20531 via facsimile at 202-305-1367 or by e-mail at
M.A.Berry@ojp.usdoj.gov.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected
agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are
encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following
four points:
--Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
--Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
-- Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected; and
--Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.
Overview of this information collection:
(1) Type of information collection: Extension of currently approved
collection.
(2) The title of the form/collection: OJP FORM 3650/7 Public Safety
Officers Disability Benefits.
(3) The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of
the Department sponsoring the collection: None. Bureau of Justice
Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, United States Department of
Justice.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract:
Primary: Dependents of public safety officers who were killed or
permanently and totally disabled in the line of duty.
Abstract: BJA's Public Safety Officers' Benefits (PSOB) division
will use the PSOEA Application information to confirm the eligibility
of applicants to receive PSOEA benefits. Eligibility is dependent on
several factors, including the applicant having received or being
eligible to receive a portion of the PSOB Death Benefit, or having a
family member who received the PSOB Disability Benefit. Also considered
are the applicant's age and the schools being attended. In addition,
information to help BJA identify an individual is collected, such as
Social Security number and contact numbers and e-mail addresses. The
changes to the application form have been made in an effort to
streamline the application process and eliminate requests for
information that is either irrelevant or already being collected by
other means.
Others: None.
(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount
of time needed for an average respondent to respond is as follows: It
is estimated that no more than 75 respondents will apply a year. Each
application takes approximately 120 minutes to complete.
(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated
with the collection: Total Annual Reporting Burden: 75 x 120 minutes
per application = 9,000 minutes/by 60 minutes per hour = 150 hours.
If additional information is required, please contact Lynn Bryant,
Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice,
Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Patrick Henry
Building, Suite 1600, 601 D Street, NW., Washington, DC., 20530.
March 1, 2010.
Lynn Bryant,
Department Clearance Officer, PRA, United States Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 2010-4536 Filed 3-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-18-P