Certain Digital Set-Top Boxes and Components Thereof; Notice of Commission Determination Not To Review a Final Initial Determination; Affirming-in-Part ALJ Order No. 33 Granting Summary Determination That Complainant Satisfied the Economic Prong of the Domestic Industry Requirement Under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3); Schedule for Filing Written Submissions on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding, 45616-45617 [2011-19183]

Download as PDF 45616 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 146 / Friday, July 29, 2011 / Notices Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the 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)). By order of the Commission. Issued: July 26, 2011. James R. Holbein, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2011–19225 Filed 7–28–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–712] Certain Digital Set-Top Boxes and Components Thereof; Notice of Commission Determination Not To Review a Final Initial Determination; Affirming-in-Part ALJ Order No. 33 Granting Summary Determination That Complainant Satisfied the Economic Prong of the Domestic Industry Requirement Under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3); Schedule for Filing Written Submissions on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission (‘‘the Commission’’) has determined not to review the final initial determination (‘‘ID’’) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on May 20, 2011, in the abovecaptioned investigation; the Commission has also determined to affirm-in-part ALJ Order No. 33 granting summary determination that complainant satisfies the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–3116. 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 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:17 Jul 28, 2011 Jkt 223001 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 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 this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 205–1810. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This investigation was instituted on April 21, 2010, based on a complaint filed by Verizon Communications Inc. and Verizon Services Corp. (collectively, ‘‘Verizon’’), alleging a violation of section 337 in the importation, sale for importation, and sale within the United States after importation of certain digital set-top boxes and components thereof, that infringe one or more of claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 5,635,979; claim 38 of U.S. Patent No. 5,666,293; claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 6,381,748 (‘‘the ’748 patent’’); claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 6,367,078; and claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 7,561,214. 75 FR 20861 (2010). Complainant named Cablevision Systems Corp. of Bethpage, New York (‘‘Cablevision’’) as the only respondent. Id. On September 7, 2010, Verizon moved for summary determination that its activities in the United States concerning its FiOS TV services satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3). On September 24, 2010, Cablevision filed an opposition to Verizon’s motion. Also on September 24, 2010, the Commission investigative attorney (‘‘the IA’’) filed a response in support of Verizon’s motion. On January 11, 2010, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 33) granting Verizon’s motion. On January 20, 2011, respondent Cablevision filed a petition for review of the Summary ID. On January 27, 2011, Verizon and the IA each filed a response to the petition for review. On February 11, 2011, the Commission determined to review the Summary ID and requested written submissions from the parties on the issues under review. All of the parties timely submitted their respective initial and reply submissions. The evidentiary hearing on violation of Section 337 was held from January 24, 2011 through February 1, 2011. On May 20, 2011, the ALJ issued his final ID finding a violation of section 337 as to the ’748 patent only. The ID included the ALJ’s recommended determination PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 on remedy and bonding. All the parties to the investigation filed timely petitions for review of various portions of the final ID, as well as timely responses to the petitions. On July 1, 2011, Cablevision filed an unopposed motion for leave to file a supplemental submission regarding a district court proceeding. ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:10cv248. The motion is hereby granted. Having examined the record in this investigation, including the ALJ’s final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the Commission has determined not to review the final ID. The Commission has also determined to affirm-in-part the ALJ’s Order No. 33, granting Verizon’s motion for summary determination that it has satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C). In particular, the Commission affirms that Verizon has satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement based on its investment in the software development and testing, installation, and support associated with the set-top boxes that were alleged to practice the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit because Verizon’s investments in those activities are ‘‘substantial’’ within the meaning of Section 337(a)(3)(C). The Commission takes no position on the remainder of the summary determination ID. Specifically, the Commission takes no position on whether Verizon’s investments in the FiOS network satisfy the economic prong. In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the Commission may (1) issue an order that could result in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2) issue one or more cease and desist orders that could result in the respondent being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for purposes other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate and provide information establishing that activities involving other types of entry either are adversely affecting it or are likely to do so. For background, see In the Matter of Certain Devices for Connecting Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360, USITC Pub. No. 2843 (Dec. 1994) (Commission Opinion). E:\FR\FM\29JYN1.SGM 29JYN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 146 / Friday, July 29, 2011 / Notices If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders would have on (1) the public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this investigation. If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve or disapprove the Commission’s action. See Presidential Memorandum of July 21, 2005. 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). During this period, the subject articles would be entitled to enter the United States under bond, in an amount determined by the Commission. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving submissions concerning the amount of the bond that should be imposed. Written Submissions: Parties to the investigation, interested government agencies, and any other interested parties are encouraged to file written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Such submissions should address the recommended determination by the ALJ on remedy and bonding. Complainant and the Commission investigative attorney are also requested to submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission’s consideration. Complainant is further requested to provide the expiration date of the ’748 patent and state the HTSUS numbers under which the accused articles are imported. The written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than the close of business on August 4, 2011. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on August 12, 2011. No further submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission. Persons filing written submissions must file the original document and 12 true copies thereof on or before the deadlines stated above with the Office of the Secretary. Any person desiring to submit a document (or portion thereof) to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment unless the information has already been granted such treatment during the proceedings. All such requests should VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:17 Jul 28, 2011 Jkt 223001 be directed to the Secretary of the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See section 201.6 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is sought will be treated accordingly. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary. The authority for this action 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 .50 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42– .46,.50). Issued: July 21, 2011. By order of the Commission. James R. Holbein, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2011–19183 Filed 7–28–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of the Consent Decree Under the Clean Water Act Notice is hereby given that on July 19, 2011, a proposed Consent Decree in United States v. Jersey City Municipal Utilities Authority (‘‘JCMUA’’), Civil Action No. 2:11–04120 (SDW–MCA), was lodged with the United States Court for the District of New Jersey. The proposed Consent Decree resolves JCMUA’s Clean Water Act (CWA) violations stemming from its failure to properly operate and maintain its Combined Sewer Collection System, which resulted in dry weather overflows and numerous basement backups in the homes of residents of Jersey City. Under the terms of the Consent Decree, JCMUA will pay a $375,000 penalty, undertake a Supplemental Environment Project valued at $550,000, and implement injunctive relief valued at approximately $52 million. As part of the injunctive relief, JCMUA will undertake a Capacity and Condition Assessment Study, a telemetry monitoring program, implement a residential complaint tracking system, implement approved operation and maintenance schedules of its sewers, conduct a pump station evaluation, as well as implement numerous construction projects aimed at repairing or replacing deteriorating sewers within its Combined Sewer System. The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 45617 relating to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, 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 the matter as United States v. JCMUA, D.J. Ref. 90–5–1–1–09499. The Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, 970 Broad Street, Suite 700, Newark, New Jersey, and at U.S. EPA Region II, 290 Broadway, New York, New York. During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site, http:// 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 emailing a request to Tonia Fleetwood (tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov), fax no. (202) 514–0097, phone confirmation number (202) 514–1547. In requesting from the Consent Decree Library a copy of the consent decree for United States v. JCMUA, Civil Action No. 2:11–04120, please enclose a check in the amount of $15.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the U.S. Treasury. Ronald G. Gluck, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resource Division. [FR Doc. 2011–19178 Filed 7–28–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–15–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of the Consent Decree Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Notice is hereby given that on July 25, 2011, a proposed Consent Decree in United States v. Chevron Puerto Rico, LLC, f/k/a Texaco Puerto Rico, Inc. (‘‘CHEVRON’’), Civil Action No. 3:11– CV–1716, was lodged with the United States Court for the District of Puerto Rico. The proposed Consent Decree resolves CHEVRON’s Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Puerto Rico Underground Storage Tank Regulations (PRUSTR) violations stemming from its failure to provide overfill protection equipment at two underground storage tank (UST) facilities; failure to perform annual tests of automatic line leak detectors (ALLDs) E:\FR\FM\29JYN1.SGM 29JYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 146 (Friday, July 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45616-45617]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19183]


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

 INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

 [Investigation No. 337-TA-712]


Certain Digital Set-Top Boxes and Components Thereof; Notice of 
Commission Determination Not To Review a Final Initial Determination; 
Affirming-in-Part ALJ Order No. 33 Granting Summary Determination That 
Complainant Satisfied the Economic Prong of the Domestic Industry 
Requirement Under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3); Schedule for Filing Written 
Submissions on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission (``the Commission'') has determined not to review the final 
initial determination (``ID'') issued by the presiding administrative 
law judge (``ALJ'') on May 20, 2011, in the above-captioned 
investigation; the Commission has also determined to affirm-in-part ALJ 
Order No. 33 granting summary determination that complainant satisfies 
the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3116. 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 
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 this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD 
terminal on (202) 205-1810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This investigation was instituted on April 
21, 2010, based on a complaint filed by Verizon Communications Inc. and 
Verizon Services Corp. (collectively, ``Verizon''), alleging a 
violation of section 337 in the importation, sale for importation, and 
sale within the United States after importation of certain digital set-
top boxes and components thereof, that infringe one or more of claim 14 
of U.S. Patent No. 5,635,979; claim 38 of U.S. Patent No. 5,666,293; 
claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 6,381,748 (``the '748 patent''); claim 14 
of U.S. Patent No. 6,367,078; and claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 7,561,214. 
75 FR 20861 (2010). Complainant named Cablevision Systems Corp. of 
Bethpage, New York (``Cablevision'') as the only respondent. Id.
    On September 7, 2010, Verizon moved for summary determination that 
its activities in the United States concerning its FiOS TV services 
satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement under 
19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3). On September 24, 2010, Cablevision filed an 
opposition to Verizon's motion. Also on September 24, 2010, the 
Commission investigative attorney (``the IA'') filed a response in 
support of Verizon's motion. On January 11, 2010, the ALJ issued an ID 
(Order No. 33) granting Verizon's motion. On January 20, 2011, 
respondent Cablevision filed a petition for review of the Summary ID. 
On January 27, 2011, Verizon and the IA each filed a response to the 
petition for review. On February 11, 2011, the Commission determined to 
review the Summary ID and requested written submissions from the 
parties on the issues under review. All of the parties timely submitted 
their respective initial and reply submissions.
    The evidentiary hearing on violation of Section 337 was held from 
January 24, 2011 through February 1, 2011. On May 20, 2011, the ALJ 
issued his final ID finding a violation of section 337 as to the '748 
patent only. The ID included the ALJ's recommended determination on 
remedy and bonding. All the parties to the investigation filed timely 
petitions for review of various portions of the final ID, as well as 
timely responses to the petitions. On July 1, 2011, Cablevision filed 
an unopposed motion for leave to file a supplemental submission 
regarding a district court proceeding. ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. 
Verizon Commc'ns, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:10cv248. The motion is 
hereby granted.
    Having examined the record in this investigation, including the 
ALJ's final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, 
the Commission has determined not to review the final ID. The 
Commission has also determined to affirm-in-part the ALJ's Order No. 
33, granting Verizon's motion for summary determination that it has 
satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement under 
19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C). In particular, the Commission affirms that 
Verizon has satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry 
requirement based on its investment in the software development and 
testing, installation, and support associated with the set-top boxes 
that were alleged to practice the asserted claims of the patents-in-
suit because Verizon's investments in those activities are 
``substantial'' within the meaning of Section 337(a)(3)(C). The 
Commission takes no position on the remainder of the summary 
determination ID. Specifically, the Commission takes no position on 
whether Verizon's investments in the FiOS network satisfy the economic 
prong.
    In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the 
Commission may (1) issue an order that could result in the exclusion of 
the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2) 
issue one or more cease and desist orders that could result in the 
respondent being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair 
acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the 
Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address 
the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party seeks 
exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for purposes 
other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate and 
provide information establishing that activities involving other types 
of entry either are adversely affecting it or are likely to do so. For 
background, see In the Matter of Certain Devices for Connecting 
Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-360, USITC Pub. No. 2843 
(Dec. 1994) (Commission Opinion).

[[Page 45617]]

    If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must 
consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The 
factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an 
exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders would have on (1) the 
public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. 
economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly 
competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. 
consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written 
submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in 
the context of this investigation.
    If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade 
Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve 
or disapprove the Commission's action. See Presidential Memorandum of 
July 21, 2005. 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). During this period, the 
subject articles would be entitled to enter the United States under 
bond, in an amount determined by the Commission. The Commission is 
therefore interested in receiving submissions concerning the amount of 
the bond that should be imposed.
    Written Submissions: Parties to the investigation, interested 
government agencies, and any other interested parties are encouraged to 
file written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest, 
and bonding. Such submissions should address the recommended 
determination by the ALJ on remedy and bonding. Complainant and the 
Commission investigative attorney are also requested to submit proposed 
remedial orders for the Commission's consideration. Complainant is 
further requested to provide the expiration date of the '748 patent and 
state the HTSUS numbers under which the accused articles are imported. 
The written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no 
later than the close of business on August 4, 2011. Reply submissions 
must be filed no later than the close of business on August 12, 2011. 
No further submissions on these issues will be permitted unless 
otherwise ordered by the Commission.
    Persons filing written submissions must file the original document 
and 12 true copies thereof on or before the deadlines stated above with 
the Office of the Secretary. Any person desiring to submit a document 
(or portion thereof) to the Commission in confidence must request 
confidential treatment unless the information has already been granted 
such treatment during the proceedings. All such requests should be 
directed to the Secretary of the Commission and must include a full 
statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such 
treatment. See section 201.6 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure, 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by 
the Commission is sought will be treated accordingly. All 
nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public 
inspection at the Office of the Secretary.
    The authority for this action 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 .50 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure 
(19 CFR 210.42-.46,.50).

    Issued: July 21, 2011.

    By order of the Commission.
James R. Holbein,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-19183 Filed 7-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P