In the Matter of Certain GPS Devices and Products Containing Same; Modification Proceeding, 51481-51482 [2010-20674]

Download as PDF sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 161 / Friday, August 20, 2010 / Notices application, plan of development, and site plan is in case file WYW165139, located in the BLM Worland Field Office at the above address. The land is not needed for any Federal purpose. The conveyance is consistent with the Washakie Resource Management Plan, dated September 1988, and would be in the public interest. The patent, if and when issued, will be subject to the provisions of the R&PP Act and applicable regulations of the Secretary of the Interior, including, but not limited to 43 CFR subpart 2743, and will contain the following reservations to the United States: 1. A right-of-way thereon for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States, Act of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945); and 2. All minerals, together with the right to prospect for, mine, and remove such deposits from the same under applicable law and such regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe, including all necessary access and exit rights. The patent will be subject to all valid existing rights documented on the official public land records at the time of patent issuance. On the date this notice is published in the Federal Register, the lands described above will be segregated from all other forms of appropriation under the public land laws, including the general mining laws, except for conveyance under the R&PP Act, leasing under the mineral leasing laws, and disposals under the mineral material disposal laws. Classification Comments: Interested parties may submit comments involving the suitability of the lands for a septic waste disposal site. Comments on the classification are restricted to whether the land is physically suited for the proposal, whether the use will maximize the future use or uses of the land, whether the use is consistent with local planning and zoning, or if the use is consistent with State and Federal programs. Application Comments: Interested parties may submit comments regarding the conveyance and specific uses proposed in the application and plan of development, whether the BLM followed proper administrative procedures in reaching the decision to convey under the R&PP Act, or any other factor not directly related to the suitability of the land for R&PP use. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:19 Aug 19, 2010 Jkt 220001 be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Any adverse comments will be reviewed by the State Director, who may sustain, vacate or modify this realty action. In the absence of any adverse comments, the classification of the land described in this notice will become effective October 19, 2010. The lands will not be available for conveyance until after the classification becomes effective. (Authority: 43 CFR 2741.5(h)) Donald A. Simpson, State Director. [FR Doc. 2010–20668 Filed 8–19–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–22–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Inv. No. 337–TA–602] In the Matter of Certain GPS Devices and Products Containing Same; Modification Proceeding Notice of Institution of Modification Proceedings U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has instituted a modification proceeding relating to the limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders issued at the conclusion of the above-captioned investigation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel E. Valencia, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–1999. Copies of all 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. 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/. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on the matter can be obtained by contacting SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 51481 the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. The Commission instituted this investigation on May 7, 2007, based on a complaint filed by Global Locate, Inc. of San Jose, California (‘‘Global Locate’’). 72 FR 25777 (May 7, 2007). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (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 GPS (Global Positioning System) devices and products containing the same by reason of infringement of asserted claims of various United States patents. The complaint named SiRF Technology, Inc. (‘‘SiRF’’), E–TEN Corp. (‘‘E–TEN’’), Pharos Science & Applications, Inc. (‘‘Pharos’’), MiTAC International Corporation (‘‘MiTAC’’), and Mio Technology Limited (‘‘Mio’’) as respondents. The notice of investigation was subsequently amended to add Broadcom Corporation (‘‘Broadcom’’) of Irvine, California as a complainant when Broadcom acquired Global Locate. On January 15, 2009, the Commission found a violation of section 337 by SiRF, E–TEN, Pharos, MiTAC, and Mio (collectively, ‘‘Respondents’’) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain GPS devices and products containing the same. The Commission issued a limited exclusion order directed to the products of Respondents that were found to infringe the asserted patents. The Commission also issued cease-and-desist orders against SiRF, Pharos, and Mio. On April 12, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Commission’s determination in all respects in SiRF Tech., Inc. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010). On April 22, 2010, Respondents filed a petition seeking modification of the Commission’s limited exclusion and cease-and-desist orders pursuant to Commission rule 210.76 (19 CFR 210.76). On May 10, 2010, Complainants and the Commission investigative attorney (‘‘IA’’) responded to Respondents’ petition. On May 17, 2010, Respondents filed a motion for leave to reply to the IA’s response with a reply attached. On May 24, 2010, Respondents filed a motion for leave to reply to the Complainants’ response with a reply attached. On June 3, 2010, Complainants opposed Respondents’ May 24, 2010, motion for leave. The SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: E:\FR\FM\20AUN1.SGM 20AUN1 sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES 51482 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 161 / Friday, August 20, 2010 / Notices Commission has determined to grant Respondents’ motions for leave. On May 10, 2010, Complainants filed their own petition seeking modification of the Commission’s remedial orders. On May 27, 2010, the IA and Respondents filed responses to Complainants’ petition for modification of the Commission’s remedial orders. Having examined the petitions seeking modification of the limited exclusion order and the cease-and-desist orders, and the responses thereto, the Commission determined that Respondents’ petition complies with 19 U.S.C. 1337(k)(2) and 19 CFR 210.76(a), but that Complainants’ petition does not. Accordingly, the Commission has determined to institute a modification proceeding to consider Respondents’ petition, and has delegated the proceeding to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for assignment to a presiding administrative law judge. While Broadcom’s allegations of changed circumstances do not warrant the institution of a modification proceeding under Commission rule 210.76, the party might find a formal enforcement proceeding under rule 210.75(b) a more suitable avenue to address its concerns. In fact, the Commission indicated as much in 2009 when it declined Broadcom’s request to initiate an informal enforcement proceeding under 210.75(a), in light of ‘‘the factual nature of the allegations’’ in the request. Separate from the particular dispute at issue in this investigation, the Commission is preparing to commence the third in a series of five-year surveys on the effectiveness of section 337 exclusion orders. As indicated when the Commission gave notice of its survey preparations, it will seek feedback on the experience of complainants ‘‘in policing the exclusion order, particularly with respect to any investigatory efforts and any interactions with U.S. Customs and Border Protection.’’ 75 FR 8398 (Feb. 24, 2010). After evaluating the survey responses, the Commission may consider whether there are any appropriate actions for the Commission to undertake to enhance the effectiveness of the orders. 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 section 210.76 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.76). By order of the Commission. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:19 Aug 19, 2010 Jkt 220001 Issued: August 16, 2010. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. Electric Blankets From China: Investigation No. 731–TA–1163 (Final). [FR Doc. 2010–20674 Filed 8–19–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P By order of the Commission. Issued: August 10, 2010. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2010–20671 Filed 8–19–10; 8:45 am] INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION BILLING CODE 7020–02–P [Investigation No. 731–TA–1163 (Final)] Woven Electric Blankets From China DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Determination On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject investigation, the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)) (the Act), that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports from China of woven electric blankets, provided for in subheading 6301.10.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that have been found by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Background The Commission instituted this investigation effective June 30, 2009, following receipt of a petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by Sunbeam Products, Inc., doing business as Jarden Consumer Solutions, Boca Raton, FL. The final phase of the investigation was scheduled by the Commission following notification of a preliminary determination by Commerce that imports of woven electric blankets from China were being sold at LTFV within the meaning of section 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission’s investigation and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register of March 11, 2010 (75 FR 11557). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on June 29, 2010, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel. The Commission transmitted its determination in this investigation to the Secretary of Commerce on August 10, 2010. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4177 (August 2010), entitled Woven 1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)). PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Notice is hereby given that on August 11, 2010, a proposed Consent Decree (‘‘Decree’’) in United States and the State of South Dakota v. Jeraldine Borsch Fahrni, the Chester A. Borsch, Jr. Trust, and Chester A. Borsch, Jr. as Trustee of the Chester A. Borsch, Jr. Trust, Case No. 5:10–CV–05068–JLV, was lodged with the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, Western Division. The case was brought under Sections 107(a) and 113(g)(2) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9607(a) and 9613(g)(2), for the recovery of response costs related to the cleanup at the Gilt Edge Mine Superfund Site (‘‘Site’’) in Lawrence County, South Dakota. The Consent Decree requires the Defendants to confess to (1) entry of judgment in the amount of $890,000; (2) agree to transfer the Site properties they own to the State of South Dakota; and (3) assign any insurance coverage related to the Site to the United States. The United States and the State of South Dakota filed a Complaint simultaneous with the Consent Decree alleging that the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for response costs related to the cleanup at the Gilt Edge Mine Superfund Site in Lawrence County, South Dakota. 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), 9613(g)(2). The Consent Decree would resolve the claims against the Defendants as described in the Complaint. The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either e-mailed to the 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 E:\FR\FM\20AUN1.SGM 20AUN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 161 (Friday, August 20, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51481-51482]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-20674]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Inv. No. 337-TA-602]


In the Matter of Certain GPS Devices and Products Containing 
Same; Modification Proceeding

Notice of Institution of Modification Proceedings

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has instituted a modification proceeding relating to the 
limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders issued at the 
conclusion of the above-captioned investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel E. Valencia, Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-1999. Copies of all 
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. 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/. 
Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on the matter can 
be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-
1810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation 
on May 7, 2007, based on a complaint filed by Global Locate, Inc. of 
San Jose, California (``Global Locate''). 72 FR 25777 (May 7, 2007). 
The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 
1930 (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 GPS (Global Positioning System) devices and 
products containing the same by reason of infringement of asserted 
claims of various United States patents. The complaint named SiRF 
Technology, Inc. (``SiRF''), E-TEN Corp. (``E-TEN''), Pharos Science & 
Applications, Inc. (``Pharos''), MiTAC International Corporation 
(``MiTAC''), and Mio Technology Limited (``Mio'') as respondents. The 
notice of investigation was subsequently amended to add Broadcom 
Corporation (``Broadcom'') of Irvine, California as a complainant when 
Broadcom acquired Global Locate.
    On January 15, 2009, the Commission found a violation of section 
337 by SiRF, E-TEN, Pharos, MiTAC, and Mio (collectively, 
``Respondents'') in the importation into the United States, the sale 
for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation 
of certain GPS devices and products containing the same. The Commission 
issued a limited exclusion order directed to the products of 
Respondents that were found to infringe the asserted patents. The 
Commission also issued cease-and-desist orders against SiRF, Pharos, 
and Mio.
    On April 12, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit affirmed the Commission's determination in all respects 
in SiRF Tech., Inc. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. 
Cir. 2010).
    On April 22, 2010, Respondents filed a petition seeking 
modification of the Commission's limited exclusion and cease-and-desist 
orders pursuant to Commission rule 210.76 (19 CFR 210.76). On May 10, 
2010, Complainants and the Commission investigative attorney (``IA'') 
responded to Respondents' petition. On May 17, 2010, Respondents filed 
a motion for leave to reply to the IA's response with a reply attached. 
On May 24, 2010, Respondents filed a motion for leave to reply to the 
Complainants' response with a reply attached. On June 3, 2010, 
Complainants opposed Respondents' May 24, 2010, motion for leave. The

[[Page 51482]]

Commission has determined to grant Respondents' motions for leave.
    On May 10, 2010, Complainants filed their own petition seeking 
modification of the Commission's remedial orders. On May 27, 2010, the 
IA and Respondents filed responses to Complainants' petition for 
modification of the Commission's remedial orders.
    Having examined the petitions seeking modification of the limited 
exclusion order and the cease-and-desist orders, and the responses 
thereto, the Commission determined that Respondents' petition complies 
with 19 U.S.C. 1337(k)(2) and 19 CFR 210.76(a), but that Complainants' 
petition does not. Accordingly, the Commission has determined to 
institute a modification proceeding to consider Respondents' petition, 
and has delegated the proceeding to the Chief Administrative Law Judge 
for assignment to a presiding administrative law judge.
    While Broadcom's allegations of changed circumstances do not 
warrant the institution of a modification proceeding under Commission 
rule 210.76, the party might find a formal enforcement proceeding under 
rule 210.75(b) a more suitable avenue to address its concerns. In fact, 
the Commission indicated as much in 2009 when it declined Broadcom's 
request to initiate an informal enforcement proceeding under 210.75(a), 
in light of ``the factual nature of the allegations'' in the request. 
Separate from the particular dispute at issue in this investigation, 
the Commission is preparing to commence the third in a series of five-
year surveys on the effectiveness of section 337 exclusion orders. As 
indicated when the Commission gave notice of its survey preparations, 
it will seek feedback on the experience of complainants ``in policing 
the exclusion order, particularly with respect to any investigatory 
efforts and any interactions with U.S. Customs and Border Protection.'' 
75 FR 8398 (Feb. 24, 2010). After evaluating the survey responses, the 
Commission may consider whether there are any appropriate actions for 
the Commission to undertake to enhance the effectiveness of the orders.
    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 section 210.76 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure 
(19 CFR 210.76).

    By order of the Commission.
    Issued: August 16, 2010.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-20674 Filed 8-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P