In the Matter of Certain Integrated Circuits, Chipsets, and Products Containing Same Including Televisions, Media Players, and Cameras; Notice of Commission Determination Not To Review a Final Determination of No Violation of Section 337; Termination of the Investigation, 34101-34102 [2011-14433]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2011 / Notices Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary. This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.50(a)(4) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.50(a)(4)). Issued: June 6, 2011. By order of the Commission. James R. Holbein, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2011–14379 Filed 6–9–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701–TA–384 and 731– TA–806–808 Second Review] Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products From Brazil, Japan, and Russia WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Determinations On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject five-year reviews, the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), that termination of the suspension agreement on hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel products from Russia would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. The Commission further determines that revocation of the countervailing duty order on hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel products from Brazil and revocation of the antidumping duty orders on hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel products from Brazil and Japan would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.2 Background The Commission instituted these reviews on April 1, 2010 (75 FR 16504) and determined on July 6, 2010 that it would conduct full reviews (75 FR 1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)). 2 Commissioners Charlotte R. Lane and Dean A. Pinkert dissent with respect to the determinations regarding hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel products from Brazil and Japan. VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:33 Jun 09, 2011 Jkt 223001 42782, July 22, 2010). Notice of the scheduling of the Commission’s reviews 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 on October 12, 2010 (75 FR 62566). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on April 6, 2011, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel. The Commission transmitted its determination in these reviews to the Secretary of Commerce on June 6, 2011. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4237 (June 2011) entitled Hot-Rolled FlatRolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from Brazil, Japan, and Russia: Investigation Nos. 701–TA–384 and 731–TA–806–808 (Second Review). By order of the Commission. Issued: June 6, 2011. James R. Holbein, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2011–14375 Filed 6–9–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–709] In the Matter of Certain Integrated Circuits, Chipsets, and Products Containing Same Including Televisions, Media Players, and Cameras; Notice of Commission Determination Not To Review a Final Determination of No Violation of Section 337; Termination of the Investigation U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the final initial determination (‘‘ID’’) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on April 4, 2011, finding no violation of section 337 in the above-captioned investigation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jia Chen, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708–4737. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 34101 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 at 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 29, 2010, based on a complaint filed by Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. of Austin Texas. 75 FR 16837 (Mar. 29, 2010). 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 integrated circuits, chipsets, and products containing same including televisions, media players, and cameras by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,467,455 (‘‘the ‘455 patent’’), 5,715,014, and 7,199,306. The complaint, as amended, named the following respondents: Panasonic Corporation of Osaka, Japan; Panasonic Corporation of North America of Secaucus, New Jersey; Funai Electric Co., Ltd. of Osaka, Japan, Funai Corporation, Inc. of Rutherford, New Jersey Funai (collectively ‘‘Funai’’); JVC Americas Corp. of Wayne, New Jersey; Victor Company of Japan Limited of Yokohama, Japan; Best Buy Purchasing, LLC, Best Buy.Com, LLC, Best Buy Stores, L.P., all of Richfield, Minnesota (collectively ‘‘Best Buy’’); B&H Foto & Electronics Corp. of New York, New York; Huppin’s Hi-Fi Photo & Video, Inc. of Spokane, Washington; Buy.com Inc. of Aliso Viejo, California; QVC, Inc. of West Chester, Pennsylvania; Crutchfield Corporation of Charlottesville, VA. Only Funai, BestBuy, and Wal-Mart remain as respondents, and only the ‘455 patent is currently at issue. On April 4, 2011, the presiding ALJ issued a final ID finding no violation of section 337 by respondents Funai, BestBuy and Wal-Mart. The ALJ concluded that none of the accused products infringe the ‘455 patent because the third-party documents relied on by complainant to show infringement were entitled to no evidentiary weight. The ALJ further concluded that otherwise all E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.SGM 10JNN1 34102 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2011 / Notices of the elements for proving a violation were shown and that respondents have not established that the ‘455 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102 for anticipation, under 35 U.S.C. 103 for obviousness, or under 35 U.S.C. 112 for failure to comply with the written description requirement. On April 28, 2011, complainant filed a petition for review of the ID. On the same day, respondents filed a contingent petition seeking review only if the Commission otherwise determined to review the ID. Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ALJ’s final ID and the submissions of the parties, the Commission has determined not to review the ID. 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 sections 210.42–46 and 210.50 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42–46 and 210.50). Issued: June 6, 2011. By order of the Commission. James R. Holbein, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2011–14433 Filed 6–9–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Under The Clean Air Act Pursuant to 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on May 16, 2011, a proposed Consent Decree in United States v. Allied Metal Company, Civil Action No. 11 C 3228, was lodged with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In a civil action filed simultaneously with the Consent Decree, the United States seeks a civil penalty against Allied Metal Company (‘‘Allied’’), pursuant to Section 113(b) of the Clean Air Act (‘‘CAA’’), 42 U.S.C. 7413(b), for alleged environmental violations of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart RRR. These violations are alleged to have occurred at Allied’s facility located at 4528 W. Division Street, Chicago, Illinois. Under the proposed settlement, Allied will be required to (1) permanently shut down its thermal chip dryer and remove it as an emission source from its permit; (2) surrender all pollution credits relating to emissions from the chip dryer; (3) perform a supplemental environmental project by spending $132,627 to retrofit municipal or school bus diesel vehicles within Cook County by installing pollution control devices VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:33 Jun 09, 2011 Jkt 223001 to reduce the emissions of particulate matter and hydrocarbons; (4) perform a supplemental environmental project by spending $132,627 to restore, cleanup, rebuild and re-vegitate with plants which have high adsorption capacity for dioxins and furans, the river edge of Allied’s property located along the Chicago River; (5) provide periodic reports to EPA regarding its implementation of its obligations under the decree, and (6) pay a civil penalty of $92,210. The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either 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. Allied Metal Company, D.J. Ref. 90–5–2–1–08732. The Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, Attn. Kurt N. Lindland, Assistant United States Attorney, 219 S. Dearborn Street, 5th Flr., Chicago, Illinois, and at U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Blvd., 14th Flr., Chicago, Illinois. 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 number (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 $9.25 payable to the U.S. Treasury or, if by e-mail or fax, forward a check in that amount to the Consent Decree Library at the stated address. Maureen M. Katz, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division. [FR Doc. 2011–14380 Filed 6–9–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–15–P LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION Request for Comments—LSC Budget Request for FY 2013 AGENCY: PO 00000 Legal Services Corporation. Frm 00072 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Request for Comments—LSC Budget Request for FY 2013. ACTION: The Legal Services Corporation is beginning the process of developing its FY 2013 budget request to Congress and is soliciting suggestions as to what the request should be. DATES: Written comments will be accepted until 12 noon Eastern Time on June 15, 2011. ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted by mail, fax or e-mail to David L. Richardson, Treasurer, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K St., NW., Washington, DC 20007; 202–295–1630 (phone); 202–337–6834 (fax); david.richardson@lsc.gov. SUMMARY: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David L. Richardson, Comptroller & Treasurer, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K St., NW., Washington, DC 20007; 202–295–1510 (phone); 202–337–6834 (fax); david.richardson@lsc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The mission of the Legal Services Corporation (‘‘LSC’’ or ‘‘Corporation’’) is to promote equal access to justice in our Nation and to provide for high-quality civil legal assistance to low income persons. LSC submits an annual budget request directly to Congress and receives an annual direct appropriation to carry out its mission. For the current fiscal year, FY 2011, after a rescission, LSC received an appropriation of $404,190,000 of which $378,641,200 is for basic field programs and required independent audits; $4,191,600 is for the Office of Inspector General; $16,966,000 is for management and grants oversight; $3,393,200 is for technology initiative grants; and $998,000 is for loan repayment assistance. Public Law 112–10, 125 Stat. 38 (April 15, 2011). As part of its annual budget and appropriation process, LSC notifies the Office of Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) in September as to what the LSC budget request to Congress will be for the next fiscal year. Accordingly, LSC is currently in the process of formulating its FY 2013 budget request. The Finance Committee of the LSC Board of Directors will meet on June 16, 2011, to hear testimony and commence deliberations on what to recommend to the full Board for adoption as the Corporation’s FY 2013 budget request. LSC invites public comment on what its FY 2013 budget request should be. Interested parties may submit comments to LSC by 12 noon Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 15, 2011. More information about LSC may be found at LSC’s Web site: https://www.lsc.gov. E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.SGM 10JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 112 (Friday, June 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34101-34102]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14433]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

 [Investigation No. 337-TA-709]


 In the Matter of Certain Integrated Circuits, Chipsets, and 
Products Containing Same Including Televisions, Media Players, and 
Cameras; Notice of Commission Determination Not To Review a Final 
Determination of No Violation of Section 337; Termination of the 
Investigation

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined not to review the final initial determination 
(``ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') on 
April 4, 2011, finding no violation of section 337 in the above-
captioned investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jia Chen, Office of the General 
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-4737. 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 at 
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 29, 2010, based on a complaint filed by Freescale 
Semiconductor, Inc. of Austin Texas. 75 FR 16837 (Mar. 29, 2010). 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 integrated circuits, chipsets, and products 
containing same including televisions, media players, and cameras by 
reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,467,455 
(``the `455 patent''), 5,715,014, and 7,199,306. The complaint, as 
amended, named the following respondents: Panasonic Corporation of 
Osaka, Japan; Panasonic Corporation of North America of Secaucus, New 
Jersey; Funai Electric Co., Ltd. of Osaka, Japan, Funai Corporation, 
Inc. of Rutherford, New Jersey Funai (collectively ``Funai''); JVC 
Americas Corp. of Wayne, New Jersey; Victor Company of Japan Limited of 
Yokohama, Japan; Best Buy Purchasing, LLC, Best Buy.Com, LLC, Best Buy 
Stores, L.P., all of Richfield, Minnesota (collectively ``Best Buy''); 
B&H Foto & Electronics Corp. of New York, New York; Huppin's Hi-Fi 
Photo & Video, Inc. of Spokane, Washington; Buy.com Inc. of Aliso 
Viejo, California; QVC, Inc. of West Chester, Pennsylvania; Crutchfield 
Corporation of Charlottesville, VA. Only Funai, Best-Buy, and Wal-Mart 
remain as respondents, and only the `455 patent is currently at issue.
    On April 4, 2011, the presiding ALJ issued a final ID finding no 
violation of section 337 by respondents Funai, Best-Buy and Wal-Mart. 
The ALJ concluded that none of the accused products infringe the `455 
patent because the third-party documents relied on by complainant to 
show infringement were entitled to no evidentiary weight. The ALJ 
further concluded that otherwise all

[[Page 34102]]

of the elements for proving a violation were shown and that respondents 
have not established that the `455 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. 
102 for anticipation, under 35 U.S.C. 103 for obviousness, or under 35 
U.S.C. 112 for failure to comply with the written description 
requirement. On April 28, 2011, complainant filed a petition for review 
of the ID. On the same day, respondents filed a contingent petition 
seeking review only if the Commission otherwise determined to review 
the ID.
    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the 
ALJ's final ID and the submissions of the parties, the Commission has 
determined not to review the ID.
    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 sections 210.42-46 and 210.50 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42-46 and 210.50).

    Issued: June 6, 2011.

    By order of the Commission.
James R. Holbein,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-14433 Filed 6-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.