Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Decision To Review in Part an Enforcement Initial Determination Finding a Violation of the August 13, 2010 Consent Order; Request for Written Submissions Regarding Certain Issues Under Review and Remedy, Bonding, and the Public Interest, 49022-49023 [2012-19990]

Download as PDF 49022 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 158 / Wednesday, August 15, 2012 / Notices The effective date of this boundary revision is August 15, 2012. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 16 U.S.C. 460l–9(c)(1) provides that after notifying the House Committee on Resources and the Senate Committee on Energy and Resources, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to make this boundary revision upon publication of notice in the Federal Register. The Committees were notified of this boundary revision by letters signed by the Secretary on May 24, 2012. This boundary revision will restore the Wilcox property to the boundaries that existed at the time of President Theodore Roosevelt’s inauguration in 1901 and will improve the visitor experience by enhancing the historic integrity, visibility and appearance of the site. DATES: Dated: June 14, 2012. Dennis R. Reidenbach, Regional Director, Northeast Region. [FR Doc. 2012–20021 Filed 8–14–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312–23–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–698 (Enforcement Proceeding)] Certain DC–DC Controllers and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Decision To Review in Part an Enforcement Initial Determination Finding a Violation of the August 13, 2010 Consent Order; Request for Written Submissions Regarding Certain Issues Under Review and Remedy, Bonding, and the Public Interest U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review in part an enforcement initial determination (‘‘EID’’) of the presiding administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) finding a violation of the August 13, 2010 consent order by respondent uPI Semiconductor Corp. (‘‘uPI’’) of Hsinchu, Taiwan, and is requesting written submissions regarding certain issues under review and remedy, bonding, and the public interest. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clint A. Gerdine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708–2310. Copies of all nonconfidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 Aug 14, 2012 Jkt 226001 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 enforcement proceeding on September 6, 2011, based on an enforcement complaint filed by Richtek Technology Corp. of Hsinchu, Taiwan and Richtek USA, Inc. of San Jose, California (collectively ‘‘Richtek’’). 76 FR 55109–10. The complaint alleged violations of the August 13, 2010 consent orders issued in the underlying investigation by the continued practice of prohibited activities such as directly importing, offering for sale, and selling for importation into the United States and by knowingly aiding, abetting, encouraging, participating in, or inducing importation and sale in the United States by third parties of DC–DC controllers or products containing the same that infringe one or more of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,315,190 (‘‘the ‘190 patent’’); 6,414,470 (‘‘the ‘470 patent’’); and 7,132,717 (‘‘the ‘717 patent’’); or that contain or use Richtek’s asserted trade secrets. The Commission’s notice of institution of enforcement proceedings named uPI and Sapphire Technology Limited (‘‘Sapphire’’) of Shatin, Hong Kong as respondents. On April 11, 2012, the Commission issued notice of its determination not to review the ALJ’s ID terminating the enforcement proceeding as to Sapphire based on a settlement agreement. On June 8, 2012, the ALJ issued his EID finding a violation of the August 13, 2010 consent order by uPI. He found that, after issuance of the consent order, certain uPI DC–DC controllers and downstream products containing uPI accused controllers had been imported and/or sold in the United States without Richtek’s consent or agreement. He made infringement findings as to certain claims of the ‘190, the ‘470, and the ‘717 patents. He found no misappropriation of Richtek’s asserted trade secrets in violation of the consent order with respect to uPI’s products developed after the consent order issued. Also, he recommended enforcement measures for PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 uPI’s violation that included: (1) Modifying the consent order to clarify that the order applies (and has always applied) to all uPI affiliates; and (2) imposing a civil penalty of $750,000 against uPI. On June 25, 2012, uPI and Richtek each filed a petition for review of the EID; and on July 3, 2012, Richtek, uPI, and the Commission investigative attorney each filed a response to the opposing party’s petition. Upon review of the record and considering the parties’ filings, the Commission has determined to review the EID in part. Specifically, the Commission has determined to review the following: the ALJ’s finding of infringement of the ‘470 patent; the ALJ’s finding of infringement of the ‘190 patent; and the ALJ’s determination that uPI violated the August 13, 2010 consent order on 75 days. On review, with respect to violation of the August 13, 2010 consent order, the parties are requested to submit briefing limited to the following issues: (1) What is the test for determining whether uPI violated the following consent order prohibition: ‘‘Knowingly aid, abet, encourage, participate in, or induce importation into the United States, the sale for importation into the United States, or the sale, offer for sale, or use in the United States after importation,’’ without the consent or agreement of Richtek, any DC–DC controllers or products containing same which infringe the asserted patent claims or are made using Richtek’s trade secrets? August 13, 2010 consent order, ¶ A. (2) Explain whether or not there is a factual basis in the evidentiary record that proves that a violation of the ‘‘knowingly aid, abet, encourage, participate in, or induce’’ prohibition of paragraph A of the August 13, 2010 consent order has occurred in view of the evidence of uPI’s efforts to comply with the consent order. (3) Explain whether or not there is a factual basis in the evidentiary record that proves uPI has violated the following consent order prohibition: ‘‘import into the United States, sell for importation into the United States, or sell or offer for sale in the United States after importation’’ without the consent or agreement of Richtek of any DC–DC controllers or products containing same which infringe the asserted patent claims or contain Richtek’s asserted trade secrets. August 13, 2010 consent order, ¶ A. (4) Please provide, based upon evidence in the record, the specific date(s) upon which an importation or sale in the United States occurred for E:\FR\FM\15AUN1.SGM 15AUN1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 158 / Wednesday, August 15, 2012 / Notices each line item of the table on page 121 of the EID. In addressing these issues, the parties are requested to make specific reference to the evidentiary record and to cite relevant legal authority. The Commission does not request additional briefing at this time on any other issues under review. In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the Commission may revoke the consent order and issue an order excluding the subject articles from entry into the United States. See 19 CFR 210.75(b)(4)(iii). 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 likely to do so. For background, see Certain Devices for Connecting Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360, USITC Pub. No. 2843, Comm’n Op. at 7–10 (December 1994). If the Commission contemplates revoking the consent order and issuing an exclusion order, 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 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 were to revoke the consent order and issue an exclusion order, the U.S. Trade Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve or disapprove the Commission’s action. See 19 U.S.C. 1337(j) and the 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 if a remedy is ordered. Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation are requested to file VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 Aug 14, 2012 Jkt 226001 written submissions on the issues under review that specifically address the Commission’s questions set forth in this notice. The submissions should be concise and thoroughly referenced to the record in this investigation. The parties to the enforcement proceeding, interested government agencies, and any other interested persons are encouraged to file written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding, and such submissions should address the enforcement measures recommended by the ALJ relating to remedy. The complainant and the IA are also requested to submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission’s consideration in the event it determines to revoke the consent order. Complainant is also requested to state the dates that the patents at issue expire and the HTSUS numbers under which the accused articles are imported. The written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than close of business on August 23, 2012. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on August 30, 2012. No further submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission. Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to Commission rule 210.4(f), 19 CFR 210.4(f). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (‘‘Inv. No. 337– TA–698’’) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, http://www.usitc.gov/ secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/ handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf). Any person desiring to submit a document 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 19 CFR 210.6. 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 and on EDIS. 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 of the Commission’s PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 49023 Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.42–46. By order of the Commission. Issued: August 9, 2012. William R. Bishop, Hearings and Meetings Coordinator. [FR Doc. 2012–19990 Filed 8–14–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Under the Clean Air Act Notice is hereby given that on August 9, 2012, a proposed Consent Decree signed by the plaintiff, the United States of America, and the defendants, Icicle Seafoods, Inc., Evening Star, Inc., Icicle Acquisition Subsidiary, LLC, and LFK, Inc., was lodged with the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. In this lawsuit the United States sought civil penalties and injunctive relief for defendants’ alleged violations of regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency under Title VI of the Clean Air Act, specifically regulations set forth in 40 CFR part 82, Subpart F. The regulations govern the management and control of ozone-depleting substances used as refrigerants in defendants’ vessels and other fish processing facilities. The Consent Decree requires the defendants to pay a civil penalty of $430,000.00 and to perform injunctive relief. To ensure the defendants’ compliance going forward, the Consent Decree will require the defendants to institute a comprehensive leak inspection and repair program for all of their vessels and operating facilities. To mitigate the effects of past violations, the Consent Decree specifies that the defendants will repair leaks in the refrigeration systems of certain vessels and facilities when the leak rate would result in losing more than 20% of the refrigerant charge during a 12-month period. This is a stricter standard than is required by the leak repair regulations. For thirty (30) days after this notice, the Department of Justice will receive comments related to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either emailed to pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov or mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044–7611. The comments should refer to United States v. Icicle Seafoods, Inc., No. 12–cv–1349 (W.D. Wash.), DOJ No. 90–5–1–1–07395/2. E:\FR\FM\15AUN1.SGM 15AUN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49022-49023]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19990]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-698 (Enforcement Proceeding)]


Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing Same; Notice of 
Commission Decision To Review in Part an Enforcement Initial 
Determination Finding a Violation of the August 13, 2010 Consent Order; 
Request for Written Submissions Regarding Certain Issues Under Review 
and Remedy, Bonding, and the Public Interest

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined to review in part an enforcement initial 
determination (``EID'') of the presiding administrative law judge 
(``ALJ'') finding a violation of the August 13, 2010 consent order by 
respondent uPI Semiconductor Corp. (``uPI'') of Hsinchu, Taiwan, and is 
requesting written submissions regarding certain issues under review 
and remedy, bonding, and the public interest.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clint A. Gerdine, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2310. 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 enforcement 
proceeding on September 6, 2011, based on an enforcement complaint 
filed by Richtek Technology Corp. of Hsinchu, Taiwan and Richtek USA, 
Inc. of San Jose, California (collectively ``Richtek''). 76 FR 55109-
10. The complaint alleged violations of the August 13, 2010 consent 
orders issued in the underlying investigation by the continued practice 
of prohibited activities such as directly importing, offering for sale, 
and selling for importation into the United States and by knowingly 
aiding, abetting, encouraging, participating in, or inducing 
importation and sale in the United States by third parties of DC-DC 
controllers or products containing the same that infringe one or more 
of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,315,190 (``the `190 patent''); 6,414,470 (``the 
`470 patent''); and 7,132,717 (``the `717 patent''); or that contain or 
use Richtek's asserted trade secrets. The Commission's notice of 
institution of enforcement proceedings named uPI and Sapphire 
Technology Limited (``Sapphire'') of Shatin, Hong Kong as respondents.
    On April 11, 2012, the Commission issued notice of its 
determination not to review the ALJ's ID terminating the enforcement 
proceeding as to Sapphire based on a settlement agreement.
    On June 8, 2012, the ALJ issued his EID finding a violation of the 
August 13, 2010 consent order by uPI. He found that, after issuance of 
the consent order, certain uPI DC-DC controllers and downstream 
products containing uPI accused controllers had been imported and/or 
sold in the United States without Richtek's consent or agreement. He 
made infringement findings as to certain claims of the `190, the `470, 
and the `717 patents. He found no misappropriation of Richtek's 
asserted trade secrets in violation of the consent order with respect 
to uPI's products developed after the consent order issued. Also, he 
recommended enforcement measures for uPI's violation that included: (1) 
Modifying the consent order to clarify that the order applies (and has 
always applied) to all uPI affiliates; and (2) imposing a civil penalty 
of $750,000 against uPI. On June 25, 2012, uPI and Richtek each filed a 
petition for review of the EID; and on July 3, 2012, Richtek, uPI, and 
the Commission investigative attorney each filed a response to the 
opposing party's petition.
    Upon review of the record and considering the parties' filings, the 
Commission has determined to review the EID in part. Specifically, the 
Commission has determined to review the following: the ALJ's finding of 
infringement of the `470 patent; the ALJ's finding of infringement of 
the `190 patent; and the ALJ's determination that uPI violated the 
August 13, 2010 consent order on 75 days.
    On review, with respect to violation of the August 13, 2010 consent 
order, the parties are requested to submit briefing limited to the 
following issues:
    (1) What is the test for determining whether uPI violated the 
following consent order prohibition: ``Knowingly aid, abet, encourage, 
participate in, or induce importation into the United States, the sale 
for importation into the United States, or the sale, offer for sale, or 
use in the United States after importation,'' without the consent or 
agreement of Richtek, any DC-DC controllers or products containing same 
which infringe the asserted patent claims or are made using Richtek's 
trade secrets? August 13, 2010 consent order, ] A.
    (2) Explain whether or not there is a factual basis in the 
evidentiary record that proves that a violation of the ``knowingly aid, 
abet, encourage, participate in, or induce'' prohibition of paragraph A 
of the August 13, 2010 consent order has occurred in view of the 
evidence of uPI's efforts to comply with the consent order.
    (3) Explain whether or not there is a factual basis in the 
evidentiary record that proves uPI has violated the following consent 
order prohibition: ``import into the United States, sell for 
importation into the United States, or sell or offer for sale in the 
United States after importation'' without the consent or agreement of 
Richtek of any DC-DC controllers or products containing same which 
infringe the asserted patent claims or contain Richtek's asserted trade 
secrets. August 13, 2010 consent order, ] A.
    (4) Please provide, based upon evidence in the record, the specific 
date(s) upon which an importation or sale in the United States occurred 
for

[[Page 49023]]

each line item of the table on page 121 of the EID.
    In addressing these issues, the parties are requested to make 
specific reference to the evidentiary record and to cite relevant legal 
authority. The Commission does not request additional briefing at this 
time on any other issues under review.
    In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the 
Commission may revoke the consent order and issue an order excluding 
the subject articles from entry into the United States. See 19 CFR 
210.75(b)(4)(iii). 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 likely to do so. For background, see Certain 
Devices for Connecting Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-
360, USITC Pub. No. 2843, Comm'n Op. at 7-10 (December 1994).
    If the Commission contemplates revoking the consent order and 
issuing an exclusion order, 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 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 were to revoke the consent order and issue an 
exclusion order, the U.S. Trade Representative, as delegated by the 
President, has 60 days to approve or disapprove the Commission's 
action. See 19 U.S.C. 1337(j) and the 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 if a remedy is ordered.
    Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation are requested 
to file written submissions on the issues under review that 
specifically address the Commission's questions set forth in this 
notice. The submissions should be concise and thoroughly referenced to 
the record in this investigation. The parties to the enforcement 
proceeding, interested government agencies, and any other interested 
persons are encouraged to file written submissions on the issues of 
remedy, the public interest, and bonding, and such submissions should 
address the enforcement measures recommended by the ALJ relating to 
remedy. The complainant and the IA are also requested to submit 
proposed remedial orders for the Commission's consideration in the 
event it determines to revoke the consent order. Complainant is also 
requested to state the dates that the patents at issue expire and the 
HTSUS numbers under which the accused articles are imported. The 
written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later 
than close of business on August 23, 2012. Reply submissions must be 
filed no later than the close of business on August 30, 2012. No 
further submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise 
ordered by the Commission.
    Persons filing written submissions must file the original document 
electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 
true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day 
pursuant to Commission rule 210.4(f), 19 CFR 210.4(f). Submissions 
should refer to the investigation number (``Inv. No. 337-TA-698'') in a 
prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook 
for Electronic Filing Procedures, http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf).
    Any person desiring to submit a document 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 19 CFR 210.6. 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 and on EDIS.
    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 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure, 19 CFR 210.42-46.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: August 9, 2012.
William R. Bishop,
Hearings and Meetings Coordinator.
[FR Doc. 2012-19990 Filed 8-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P