Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing Same; Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation in Its Entirety on the Basis of a Settlement Agreement, 55499 [2012-22171]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices Issued: September 5, 2012. Lisa R. Barton, Acting Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2012–22172 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–798] Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing Same; Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation in Its Entirety on the Basis of a Settlement Agreement 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 presiding administrative law judge’s (‘‘ALJ’’) initial determination (‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 38) granting the joint motion to terminate the above-captioned investigation in its entirety on the basis of a settlement agreement. In view of that determination, the Commission finds that review of another ID (Order No. 36), which granted leave to amend the complaint and notice of investigation, is moot. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708–2532. 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: The Commission instituted this investigation on August 18, 2011, based on a complaint filed by Samsung LED Co., Ltd. of Suwon City, Korea, and Samsung LED America, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 (collectively, ‘‘SLED’’). 76 FR 51396–97 (Aug. 18, 2011). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 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 light-emitting diodes and products containing same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,282,741; 7,893,443; 7,838,315; 7,959,312; 7,964,881; 6,551,848; 7,268,372; and 7,771,081. The Commission’s notice of investigation named as respondents OSRAM GmbH of Munich, Germany; OSRAM Opto Semiconductors GmbH of Regensburg, Germany; OSRAM Opto Semiconductors Inc. of Sunnyvale, California; and OSRAM Sylvania Inc. of Danvers, Massachusetts (collectively, ‘‘OSRAM’’). On December 7, 2011, the Commission determined not to review an ID (Order No. 15) granting SLED’s motion to amend the Notice of Investigation to change the name of respondent OSRAM GmbH to OSRAM AG. Notice (Dec. 7, 2011). On July 26, 2012, SLED filed a motion to amend the Complaint and Notice of Investigation to substitute Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of Suwon City, Korea (‘‘Samsung Electronics’’), for the SLED complainants, as a result of corporate reorganization. On July 30, 2012, OSRAM filed an opposition, and on August 7, 2012, the ALJ issued an ID granting the motion as an ID. Order No. 36. On August 9, 2012, SLED and OSRAM filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation in its entirety based on a settlement agreement between OSRAM and Samsung Electronics. On August 10, 2012, the ALJ granted the motion as an ID. Order No. 38. No petitions for review of either ID were filed. The Commission has determined not to review Order No. 38, and the investigation is thereby terminated. As a result, review of Order No. 36 is moot. 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 210.21 and 210.42 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.21, 210.42). By order of the Commission. Issued: September 5, 2012. Lisa R. Barton, Acting Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2012–22171 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 55499 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Notice is hereby given that on September 4, 2012, a proposed Consent Decree in United States v. State of Utah, School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration, Civil Action No. 2:12– CV–00841–DBP, was lodged with the United States District Court for the District of Utah. The Consent Decree resolves claims by the United States against the State of Utah, School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (‘‘SITLA’’) pursuant to Section 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), for response costs incurred in conducting a removal action at the Cook Slurry Site (‘‘Site’’) in Saratoga Springs, Utah (the ‘‘Removal Action’’). Cook Associates Inc., doing business as Cook Slurry Company (‘‘Cook’’), operated an explosives manufacturing facility at the Site on school trust lands owned by the State of Utah which predecessor agencies to SITLA had leased to Cook. Under the terms of the settlement SITLA will reimburse the United States $316,500 of the costs of completing the Removal Action. The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the proposed settlement agreement. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either emailed to pubcommentees.enrd@usdoj.gov or mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044–7611, and should refer to United States v. State of Utah, School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration, Civil Action No. 2:12–CV–00841–DBP, and D.J. Ref. No. 90–11–3–10515. During the public comment period, the settlement agreement may be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site, http:// www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the settlement agreement 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 ‘‘Consent Decree Copy’’ (EESCDCopy.enrd@usdoj.gov), fax no. (202) 514–0097, phone confirmation number (202) 514–5271. If requesting a E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 175 (Monday, September 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 55499]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22171]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-798]


Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing Same; 
Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination 
Terminating the Investigation in Its Entirety on the Basis of a 
Settlement Agreement

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 presiding administrative 
law judge's (``ALJ'') initial determination (``ID'') (Order No. 38) 
granting the joint motion to terminate the above-captioned 
investigation in its entirety on the basis of a settlement agreement. 
In view of that determination, the Commission finds that review of 
another ID (Order No. 36), which granted leave to amend the complaint 
and notice of investigation, is moot.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2532. 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: The Commission instituted this investigation 
on August 18, 2011, based on a complaint filed by Samsung LED Co., Ltd. 
of Suwon City, Korea, and Samsung LED America, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia 
(collectively, ``SLED''). 76 FR 51396-97 (Aug. 18, 2011). The complaint 
alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended, 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 light-emitting diodes and products containing 
same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 
7,282,741; 7,893,443; 7,838,315; 7,959,312; 7,964,881; 6,551,848; 
7,268,372; and 7,771,081. The Commission's notice of investigation 
named as respondents OSRAM GmbH of Munich, Germany; OSRAM Opto 
Semiconductors GmbH of Regensburg, Germany; OSRAM Opto Semiconductors 
Inc. of Sunnyvale, California; and OSRAM Sylvania Inc. of Danvers, 
Massachusetts (collectively, ``OSRAM''). On December 7, 2011, the 
Commission determined not to review an ID (Order No. 15) granting 
SLED's motion to amend the Notice of Investigation to change the name 
of respondent OSRAM GmbH to OSRAM AG. Notice (Dec. 7, 2011).
    On July 26, 2012, SLED filed a motion to amend the Complaint and 
Notice of Investigation to substitute Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of 
Suwon City, Korea (``Samsung Electronics''), for the SLED complainants, 
as a result of corporate reorganization. On July 30, 2012, OSRAM filed 
an opposition, and on August 7, 2012, the ALJ issued an ID granting the 
motion as an ID. Order No. 36.
    On August 9, 2012, SLED and OSRAM filed a joint motion to terminate 
the investigation in its entirety based on a settlement agreement 
between OSRAM and Samsung Electronics. On August 10, 2012, the ALJ 
granted the motion as an ID. Order No. 38.
    No petitions for review of either ID were filed. The Commission has 
determined not to review Order No. 38, and the investigation is thereby 
terminated. As a result, review of Order No. 36 is moot.
    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 210.21 and 210.42 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure (19 CFR 210.21, 210.42).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: September 5, 2012.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-22171 Filed 9-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P