Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (“Clean Water Act”), 43554-43555 [2010-18242]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
43554
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 142 / Monday, July 26, 2010 / Notices
and Carsem, Inc. (collectively,
‘‘Carsem’’) as respondents.
On November 18, 2004, the ALJ
issued a final initial determination
(‘‘Final ID’’) finding no violation of
section 337, as well as a recommended
determination on remedy and bond.
After reviewing the Final ID in its
entirety, the Commission on March 31,
2005, modified the ALJ’s claim
construction and remanded the
investigation to the ALJ with
instructions ‘‘to conduct further
proceedings and make any new findings
or changes to his original findings that
are necessitated by the Commission’s
new claim construction.’’ Commission
Order ¶ 8 (March 31, 2005). On
November 9, 2005, the ALJ issued a
remand initial determination (‘‘Remand
ID’’), in which he found a violation of
section 337 with regard to six claims of
one asserted patent, but found no
violation in connection with the claims
of the two other asserted patents.
Completion of this investigation has
been delayed because of difficulty in
obtaining from third-party ASAT, Inc.
(‘‘ASAT’’) certain documents that
Carsem asserted were critical for its
affirmative defenses. The Commission’s
efforts to enforce a February 11, 2004,
subpoena duces tecum and ad
testificandum directed to ASAT resulted
in a July 1, 2008, order and opinion of
the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia granting the Commission’s
second enforcement petition.
On July 1, 2009, after ASAT had
complied with the subpoena, the
Commission issued a notice and order
remanding this investigation to the ALJ
to consider the ASAT documents and
extending the target date for completion
of this investigation. On September 10–
11, 2009, a hearing was held to address
Carsem’s invalidity defenses based on
the ASAT documents. On October 30,
2009, the ALJ issued a supplemental ID
(‘‘First Supplemental ID’’) reaffirming
his finding of a violation of section 337.
On December 16, 2009, the
Commission issued a notice of its
decision to review the First
Supplemental ID. On February 18, 2010,
the Commission issued a Notice and
Order reversing the ALJ’s finding that
ASAT’s invention is not prior art to
Amkor’s asserted patents, and
remanding the investigation to the ALJ
to make necessary findings in light of
the Commission’s determination. In
order to allow sufficient time to
complete the investigation, the
Commission extended the target date for
completion of the investigation to July
20, 2010, and directed the ALJ to issue
his findings by March 22, 2010.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Jul 23, 2010
Jkt 220001
On February 24, 2010, Amkor filed a
petition for clarification (and in the
alternative reconsideration) of the
Commission’s February 18, 2010, Notice
and Order. On March 3, 2010, and
March 8, 2010, respectively, the IA and
Carsem filed responses opposing
Amkor’s request. On March 9, 2010,
Amkor filed a motion to strike Carsem’s
opposition to Amkor’s petition for
clarification, alleging it was untimely.
On March 11, 2010, Carsem opposed
Amkor’s motion to strike.
On March 22, 2010, the ALJ issued a
Supplemental ID (‘‘Second
Supplemental ID’’) in which he found
that the ‘277 and ‘728 patents were
invalid in view of ASAT prior art and
determined that there was no violation
of Section 337 in the present
investigation.
Amkor and Carsem filed their initial
comments seeking review of various
portions of the Second Supplemental
ID. Carsem’s request for review is
conditioned on the Commission’s
decision to review the Second
Supplemental ID. All the parties also
filed their timely response comments.
The Commission has examined the
record in this investigation, including
the ALJ’s Remand ID and Second
Supplemental ID. The Remand ID found
that a violation of Section 337 had
occurred with respect to certain claims
of the ‘277 patent, but not with respect
to the ‘728 or ‘356 patents. Remand ID
at 111–113. More specifically, the
Remand ID found that: (1) Carsem
infringed the asserted claims of the ‘277
patent, Amkor practiced claim 21 of the
‘277 patent, and claims 2, 3, 4, 21, 22,
and 23 of the ‘277 patent had not been
shown to be invalid; (2) Carsem
infringed claims 1, 2, and 7 of the ‘728
patent but did not infringe claims 3, 4,
and 8 of the same patent, Amkor
practiced claim 1 of the ‘728 patent, and
all of the asserted claims of the ‘728
patent had been shown to be invalid;
and (3) Carsem did not infringe the
asserted claims of the ‘356 patent,
Amkor did not practice claim 13 of the
‘356 patent, and none of the asserted
claims of the ‘356 patent had been
shown to be invalid. Id.
The ALJ’s Second Supplemental ID
found that: (1) Claims 21–23 of the ‘277
patent are invalid as anticipated by the
ASAT invention; (2) claims 1–4, 7, 17,
18, and 20 of the ‘277 patent, as well as
claims 1–4, 7, and 8 of the ‘728 patent,
are invalid as obvious in view of various
combinations of the prior art references
involving the ASAT invention; and (3)
the asserted claims of the ‘356 patent are
not invalid in view of the ASAT
invention. Second Supplemental ID at
37. As a result of these findings, the
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Second Supplemental ID ‘‘modif[ied] the
Initial Determination in the 2005
Remand ID to find no violation of
Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, in the importation into the
United States, the sale for importation,
or the sale within the United States after
importation of certain encapsulated
integrated circuit devices and products
contains same in connection with
claims 1–4, 7, 17, 18, 20, 21–23 of the
U.S. Patent No. 6,433,277, claims 1–4, 7,
and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 6,630,728 and
claims 1, 2, 13 and 14 of U.S. Patent No.
6,455,356.’’ Second Supplemental ID at
38.
The Commission has examined the
parties’ respective comments and
responses thereto, and has determined
not to review the findings made in the
Remand ID and in the Second
Supplemental ID. As a result, the
Commission has determined that there
is no violation of section 337 in this
investigation. The Commission has also
denied Amkor’s request for clarification
and motion to strike. The Commission
has terminated the investigation, and an
opinion supporting the Commission’s
determination will be issued.
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 sections
210.41–.42, 210.50 of the Commission’s
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.41–.42, 210.50).
Issued: July 20, 2010.
By order of the Commission.
William R. Bishop,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010–18162 Filed 7–23–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree
Under the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (‘‘Clean Water Act’’)
Notice is hereby given that on July 21,
2010, a proposed Consent Decree in
United States of America v. Fafard Real
Estate and Development Corp., FRE
Building Co. Inc., and Benchmark
Engineering Corp., Civil Action No. 10–
40131 was lodged with the United
States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.
In this action, the United States
alleged that Defendants violated
Sections 301 and 308 of the Clean Water
Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311 and 1318, at
thirteen of its facilities in Massachusetts
by discharging pollutants in storm water
associated with construction activity
without a permit, failing to timely
E:\FR\FM\26JYN1.SGM
26JYN1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 142 / Monday, July 26, 2010 / Notices
submit information required to obtain
coverage under the applicable storm
water permit, and failing to comply with
the requirements of the storm water
permit. The Consent Decree requires
Defendants to pay a civil penalty of
$150,000, perform a Supplemental
Environmental Project, and implement
injunctive relief designed to ensure
compliance with the Clean Water Act at
all its facilities. The Supplemental
Environmental Project requires the
Defendants to impose a permanent
restriction on a parcel of land and offer
it as a donation to the Town of
Uxbridge, Massachusetts, as well as
construct two water quality basins and
associated storm water management
infrastructure on the Project site. The
injunctive relief requires the Defendants
to establish the position of storm water
manager within the company who will
be responsible for storm water
compliance; conduct pre-construction
inspections and quarterly oversight
inspections and reviews using EPAapproved forms at all sites, in addition
to required routine inspections; and
implement storm water training
programs for storm water managers and
storm water orientation programs for
storm water consultants and contractors.
The Department of Justice will receive
comments relating to the Consent
Decree for a period of thirty (30) days
from the date of this publication.
Comments should be addressed to the
Deputy Section Chief, Environmental
Enforcement Section, Environment and
Natural Resources Division, and either
e-mailed to pubcommentees.enrd@usdoj.gov or mailed to P.O.
Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice,
Washington, DC 20044–7611, and
should refer to United States v. Fafard
Real Estate and Development Corp., FRE
Building Co. Inc., and Benchmark
Engineering Corp., D.J. Ref. 90–5–1–1–
08714.
The Consent Decree may be examined
at the Office of the United States
Attorney, One Courthouse Way, John
Joseph Moakley Courthouse, Boston,
MA 02210, and at U.S. EPA Region 1,
5 Post Office Square, Boston, MA 02109.
During the public comment period, the
Consent Decree, may also be examined
on the following Department of Justice
Web site, https://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/
Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the
Consent Decree may also be obtained by
mail from the Consent Decree Library,
P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of
Justice, Washington, DC 20044–7611 or
by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia
Fleetwood (tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov),
fax no. (202) 514–0097, phone
confirmation number (202) 514–1547. In
requesting a copy from the Consent
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Jul 23, 2010
Jkt 220001
Decree Library, please enclose a check
in the amount of $19.50 (25 cents per
page reproduction cost) payable to the
U.S. Treasury or, if by email or fax,
forward a check in that amount to the
Consent Decree Library at the stated
address.
Maureen Katz,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental
Enforcement Section, Environment and
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 2010–18242 Filed 7–23–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–72,933]
Hewlett Packard; Hewlett Packard—
Enterprise Business Services Formerly
Known as Electronic Data Systems,
Including On-Site Leased Workers
From Sun Microsystems, Inc., Dell
Computer Corp., EMC Corp., EMC
Corp. Total, Cisco Systems Capital
Corporation, Microsoft Corp.,
Symantec Corp., Xerox Corp., Vmware,
Inc., Sun Microsystems Federal, Inc.,
and ABM Business Machines, Inc.,
Pontiac, MI; Amended Certification
Regarding Eligibility To Apply for
Worker Adjustment Assistance
In accordance with Section 223 of the
Trade Act of 1974, as amended (‘‘Act’’),
19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor
issued a Certification of Eligibility to
Apply for Worker Adjustment
Assistance on January 25, 2010,
applicable to workers of Hewlett
Packard, Hewlett Packard—Enterprise
Business Services, formerly known as
Electronic Data Systems, including onsite leased workers from the above listed
firms, Pontiac, Michigan. The petition is
dated October 24, 2009. The
Department’s Notice of determination
was published in the Federal Register
on March 5, 2010 (75 FR 10322).
The worker group covered by TA–W–
72,933 is identical to the worker group
covered by an earlier petition (TA–W–
71,468; dated June 25, 2009). While it is
the Department’s practice to terminate
the later petition in order to provide the
longest period during which a member
of the worker group may apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA), the
Department had delayed the
investigation for TA–W–71,468 due to a
technical deficiency and continued the
investigation for TA–W–72,933.
Following the issuance of the
certification in TA–W–72,933, the
Department issued a Notice of
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
43555
Termination of Investigation for
TA–W–71,468.
An unintended result of the
Department’s decision is that a portion
of workers covered by TA–W–71,468
(workers separated on/after June 25,
2008) are excluded from the
certification of TA–W–72,933 (workers
separated on/after October 30, 2008,
through January 25, 2012).
Accordingly, the Department is
amending this certification to include
workers covered by TA–W–71,468.
The intent of the Department’s
certification is to include all workers of
the subject firm who were adversely
affected by the subject firm’s acquisition
from a foreign country services like or
directly competitive with the services
supplied by the workers at the Pontiac,
Michigan, facility.
The amended notice applicable to
TA–W–72,933 is hereby issued as
follows:
All workers of Hewlett Packard, Hewlett
Packard Enterprise Services, formerly known
as Electronic Data Systems, including on-site
leased workers from Sun Microsystems, Inc.,
Dell Computers Corp., EMC Corp., EMC
Corp. Total, Cisco Systems Capital Corp.,
Microsoft Corp., Symantec Corp., Xerox
Corp., VMWare, Inc., Sun Microsystems
Federal, Inc., and ABM Business Machines,
Inc., Pontiac, Michigan, who became totally
or partially separated from employment on or
after June 25, 2008, through January 25, 2012,
and all workers in the group threatened with
total or partial separation from employment
on date of certification through January 25,
2012, are eligible to apply for adjustment
assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the
Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
Signed in Washington, DC, this 13th day of
July 2010.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010–18190 Filed 7–23–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–72,496]
Experian, Global Technology Services,
a Subsidiary of Experian, Including a
Leased Employee From Tapfin
Working Off-Site in New York, and OnSite Leased Workers From Tapfin,
Schaumburg, IL; Amended
Certification Regarding Eligibility To
Apply for Worker Adjustment
Assistance
In accordance with section 223 of the
Trade Act of 1974, as amended (‘‘Act’’),
19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor
E:\FR\FM\26JYN1.SGM
26JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 142 (Monday, July 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43554-43555]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-18242]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Under the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (``Clean Water Act'')
Notice is hereby given that on July 21, 2010, a proposed Consent
Decree in United States of America v. Fafard Real Estate and
Development Corp., FRE Building Co. Inc., and Benchmark Engineering
Corp., Civil Action No. 10-40131 was lodged with the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
In this action, the United States alleged that Defendants violated
Sections 301 and 308 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311 and 1318,
at thirteen of its facilities in Massachusetts by discharging
pollutants in storm water associated with construction activity without
a permit, failing to timely
[[Page 43555]]
submit information required to obtain coverage under the applicable
storm water permit, and failing to comply with the requirements of the
storm water permit. The Consent Decree requires Defendants to pay a
civil penalty of $150,000, perform a Supplemental Environmental
Project, and implement injunctive relief designed to ensure compliance
with the Clean Water Act at all its facilities. The Supplemental
Environmental Project requires the Defendants to impose a permanent
restriction on a parcel of land and offer it as a donation to the Town
of Uxbridge, Massachusetts, as well as construct two water quality
basins and associated storm water management infrastructure on the
Project site. The injunctive relief requires the Defendants to
establish the position of storm water manager within the company who
will be responsible for storm water compliance; conduct pre-
construction inspections and quarterly oversight inspections and
reviews using EPA-approved forms at all sites, in addition to required
routine inspections; and implement storm water training programs for
storm water managers and storm water orientation programs for storm
water consultants and contractors.
The Department of Justice will receive comments relating to the
Consent Decree for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this
publication. Comments should be addressed to the Deputy Section Chief,
Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources
Division, and either e-mailed to pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov or
mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC
20044-7611, and should refer to United States v. Fafard Real Estate and
Development Corp., FRE Building Co. Inc., and Benchmark Engineering
Corp., D.J. Ref. 90-5-1-1-08714.
The Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United
States Attorney, One Courthouse Way, John Joseph Moakley Courthouse,
Boston, MA 02210, and at U.S. EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office Square,
Boston, MA 02109. During the public comment period, the Consent Decree,
may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site,
https://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the Consent
Decree may also be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library,
P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611 or
by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia Fleetwood
(tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov), fax no. (202) 514-0097, phone confirmation
number (202) 514-1547. In requesting a copy from the Consent Decree
Library, please enclose a check in the amount of $19.50 (25 cents per
page reproduction cost) payable to the U.S. Treasury or, if by email or
fax, forward a check in that amount to the Consent Decree Library at
the stated address.
Maureen Katz,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment
and Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 2010-18242 Filed 7-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
