Certain Audio Processing Hardware and Software and Products Containing Same: Commission Decision Not To Review an Initial Determination Terminating Dell Inc.; and Termination of the Investigation, 27173-27174 [2016-10575]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Notices
Geographic Sciences, Bureau of Land
Management, 1220 SW 3rd Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97204. Persons who
use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–
800–877–8339 to contact the above
individual during normal business
hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a
day, 7 days a week, to leave a message
or question with the above individual.
You will receive a reply during normal
business hours.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A person
or party who wishes to protest against
this survey must file a written notice
with the Oregon State Director, Bureau
of Land Management, stating that they
wish to protest. A statement of reasons
for a protest may be filed with the notice
of protest and must be filed with the
Oregon State Director within thirty days
after the protest is filed. If a protest
against the survey is received prior to
the date of official filing, the filing will
be stayed pending consideration of the
protest.
A plat will not be officially filed until
the day after all protests have been
dismissed or otherwise resolved. Before
including your address, phone number,
email address, or other personally
identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment—including your
personally identifying information—
may be made publicly available at any
time. While you can ask us in your
comment to withhold your personally
identifying information from public
review, we cannot guarantee that we
will be able to do so.
Mary J.M. Hartel,
Chief Cadastral Surveyor of Oregon/
Washington.
Comments on the Draft EIS will
be accepted until close of business on
Wednesday, June 8, 2016.
DATES:
Reclamation has changed
the point of contact for this Draft EIS.
Please send written comments to Ms.
Nancy Coulam, Bureau of Reclamation,
125 South State Street, Room 8100, Salt
Lake City, Utah 84138–1147; or via
email to ncoulam@usbr.gov.
ADDRESSES:
Ms.
Nancy Coulam, EIS Project Manager,
Bureau of Reclamation, via email at
ncoulam@usbr.gov, or at (801) 524–
3684.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
In
response to two requests for an
extension, the Bureau of Reclamation is
extending the close of the public
comment period for the Draft EIS to
Wednesday, June 8, 2016.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Disclosure
[FR Doc. 2016–10516 Filed 5–4–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–33–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
[RR43100000, 16XR0680A1,
RX002361010021000]
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
for the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) on continuing to
implement the 2008 Operating
Agreement for the Rio Grande Project
(Operating Agreement), and to
implement long-term contracts for
storage of San Juan-Chama Project water
in Elephant Butte Reservoir, to
Wednesday, June 8, 2016. The Notice of
Availability and Notice of Public
Hearings for the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement was published in the
Federal Register on March 18, 2016 (81
FR 14886). The public comment period
for the Draft EIS was originally
scheduled to end on Monday, May 9,
2016.
Notice To Extend the Public Comment
Period and Change Point of Contact
for the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the Continued
Implementation of the 2008 Operating
Agreement for the Rio Grande Project,
New Mexico and Texas
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
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.
Dated: April 27, 2016.
Brent Rhees,
Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 2016–10526 Filed 5–4–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4332–90–P
AGENCY:
Bureau of Reclamation,
Interior.
Notice of extension.
ACTION:
The Bureau of Reclamation is
extending the public comment period
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:06 May 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
27173
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–949]
Certain Audio Processing Hardware
and Software and Products Containing
Same: Commission Decision Not To
Review an Initial Determination
Terminating Dell Inc.; and 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 presiding administrative law
judge’s (‘‘ALJ’’) initial determination
(‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 40) terminating the
investigation on the basis of withdrawal
of the complainant as to the last
remaining respondent, Dell Inc. (‘‘Dell’’)
of Round Rock, Texas.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cathy Chen, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–2392. 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 18, 2015, based on a
complaint filed by Andrea Electronics
Corp. (‘‘Andrea’’) of Bohemia, New
York. 80 FR 14,159 (Mar. 18, 2015). The
complaint alleges 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 audio processing hardware and
software and products containing same
by reason of infringement of certain
claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,825,898
(‘‘the ’898 patent’’); 6,483,923 (‘‘the ’923
patent’’); 6,049,607 (‘‘the ’607 patent’’);
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
27174
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Notices
6,363,345 (‘‘the ’345 patent’’); and
6,377,637 (‘‘the ’637 patent’’). The
complaint further alleges that an
industry in the United States exists as
required by 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(2). The
notice of investigation named Dell and
the following 12 respondents: Acer Inc.
of New Taipei City, Taiwan; Acer
America Corp. of San Jose, California
(collectively, ‘‘Acer’’); ASUSTeK
Computer Inc. of Taipei, Taiwan; ASUS
Computer International of Fremont,
California (collectively, ‘‘ASUS’’);
Hewlett Packard Co. (‘‘HP’’) of Palo
Alto, California; Lenovo Holding Co.,
Inc. and Lenovo (United States) Inc.
(collectively, ‘‘Lenovo’’), both of
Morrisville, North Carolina; Lenovo
Group Ltd. of Beijing, China; Toshiba
Corp. of Tokyo, Japan; Toshiba America
Information Systems, Inc. (collectively,
‘‘Toshiba’’) of Irvine, California; Toshiba
America, Inc. of New York City, New
York; and Realtek Semiconductor Corp.
(‘‘Realtek’’) of Hsinchu, Taiwan. Also,
intervenors Waves Audio Ltd.
(‘‘Waves’’) of Tel Aviv, Israel and
Conexant Systems Inc. (‘‘Conexant’’) of
Irvine, California were subsequently
added to the investigation. The Office of
Unfair Import Investigations is a party
in this investigation. The 12 other
respondents and the two intervenors, as
detailed below, have been terminated
from the investigation based on
settlement or stipulation.
On July 13, 2015, the Commission
determined not to review an ID finding
that Andre has standing to bring the
complaint in this investigation and to
deny respondents’ motion for oral
argument. On May 1, 2015, the
Commission determined not to review
two IDs (Order Nos. 4, 5) granting
motions of Andrea terminating the
investigation as to Lenovo Group Ltd.
and Toshiba America, Inc., respectively,
based on stipulation. On December 8,
2015, the Commission determined not
to review an ID (Order No. 23) granting
a joint motion of Andrea and Realtek
terminating the investigation as to
Realtek based on a settlement agreement
and a patent license agreement. On
December 21, 2015, the Commission
determined not to review an ID (Order
No. 24) granting a joint motion of
Andrea and Acer terminating the
investigation as to Acer based on a
settlement agreement and a patent
license agreement. On January 5, 2016,
the Commission determined not to
review two IDs (Order Nos. 25, 26)
granting a motion of Andrea to
terminate the investigation as to all
infringement allegations relating to the
’637 patent; the ’898 patent; the ’923
patent; claims 4–11, 18–20, 22, and 39–
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:06 May 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
46 of the ’345 patent; and claims 5–7,
9–12, 29–31, and 33–37 of the ’607
patent. On February 3, 2016, the
Commission determined not to review
an ID (Order No. 30) granting a joint
motion of Andrea and HP terminating
the investigation as to HP based on a
settlement agreement and a patent
license agreement. On March 4, 2016,
the Commission determined not to
review an ID (Order No. 33) granting a
joint motion of Andrea and ASUS
terminating the investigation as to
ASUS based on a settlement agreement
and a patent license agreement. On
March 17, 2016, the Commission
determined not to review an ID (Order
No. 36) granting a joint motion of
Andrea and Lenovo terminating the
investigation as to Lenovo based on a
settlement agreement and a patent
license agreement. On April 5, 2016, the
Commission determined not to review
an ID (Order No. 37) granting a joint
motion of Andrea and Conexant
terminating the investigation as to
Conexant based on a settlement
agreement and a patent license
agreement. On April 19, 2016, the
Commission determined not to review
an ID (Order No. 38) granting a joint
motion of Andrea and Waves
terminating the investigation as to
Waves based on a settlement agreement
and a patent license agreement. On the
same date, the Commission determined
not to review an ID (Order No. 39)
granting a joint motion of Andrea and
Toshiba terminating the investigation as
to Toshiba based on a settlement
agreement.
On March 25, 2016, Andrea filed a
motion to terminate the last remaining
respondent, Dell, from the investigation
on the basis of withdrawal of the
complaint as to Dell. Andrea affirmed
that there are no agreements, written or
oral, express or implied, between itself
and Dell concerning the subject matter
of the investigation. None of the other
parties opposed the motion.
On April 6, 2016, the ALJ granted the
motion as an ID. The ALJ found no
information indicating that termination
of the investigation with respect to Dell
on the basis of the withdrawal of the
complaint is contrary to the public
health and welfare, competitive
conditions in the U.S. economy, the
production of like or directly
competitive articles in the United
States, or U.S. consumers. The ALJ also
terminated the investigation. Order No.
40 at 2.
No petitions for review of the ID were
filed. The Commission has determined
not to review the subject ID, and has
terminated the investigation.
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 Part
210 of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part
210).
By order of the Commission.
Dated: May 2, 2016.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2016–10575 Filed 5–4–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Notice of Lodging of Proposed
Consent Decree Under the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
On April 29, 2016, the Department of
Justice lodged a consent decree with the
United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida in the lawsuit
entitled United States v. EG&G Florida,
Inc., Civil Action No. 6:16–cv–0716.
The United States filed this lawsuit
under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) for the recovery of costs that
the United States incurred responding
to releases of hazardous substances at
Space Launch Complex 15 at the Cape
Canaveral Air Force Station in Brevard
County, Florida. The consent decree
requires the defendant, EG&G Florida,
Inc., to pay $331,556 to the United
States. In return, the United States
agrees not to sue the defendant under
sections 106 and 107 of CERCLA.
The publication of this notice opens
a period for public comment on the
consent decree. Comments should be
addressed to the Assistant Attorney
General, Environment and Natural
Resources Division, and should refer to
United States v. EG&G Florida, Inc., D.J.
Ref. No. 90–11–3–10477/2. All
comments must be submitted no later
than thirty (30) days after the
publication date of this notice.
Comments may be submitted either by
email or by mail:
To submit
comments:
Send them to:
By email .......
pubcomment-ees.enrd@
usdoj.gov.
Assistant Attorney General,
U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O.
Box 7611, Washington, DC
20044–7611.
By mail .........
During the public comment period,
the consent decree may be examined
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 87 (Thursday, May 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27173-27174]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10575]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-949]
Certain Audio Processing Hardware and Software and Products
Containing Same: Commission Decision Not To Review an Initial
Determination Terminating Dell Inc.; and 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 presiding administrative
law judge's (``ALJ'') initial determination (``ID'') (Order No. 40)
terminating the investigation on the basis of withdrawal of the
complainant as to the last remaining respondent, Dell Inc. (``Dell'')
of Round Rock, Texas.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cathy Chen, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2392. 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 18, 2015, based on a complaint filed by Andrea Electronics
Corp. (``Andrea'') of Bohemia, New York. 80 FR 14,159 (Mar. 18, 2015).
The complaint alleges 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 audio processing hardware and software and
products containing same by reason of infringement of certain claims of
U.S. Patent Nos. 5,825,898 (``the '898 patent''); 6,483,923 (``the '923
patent''); 6,049,607 (``the '607 patent'');
[[Page 27174]]
6,363,345 (``the '345 patent''); and 6,377,637 (``the '637 patent'').
The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States
exists as required by 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(2). The notice of investigation
named Dell and the following 12 respondents: Acer Inc. of New Taipei
City, Taiwan; Acer America Corp. of San Jose, California (collectively,
``Acer''); ASUSTeK Computer Inc. of Taipei, Taiwan; ASUS Computer
International of Fremont, California (collectively, ``ASUS''); Hewlett
Packard Co. (``HP'') of Palo Alto, California; Lenovo Holding Co., Inc.
and Lenovo (United States) Inc. (collectively, ``Lenovo''), both of
Morrisville, North Carolina; Lenovo Group Ltd. of Beijing, China;
Toshiba Corp. of Tokyo, Japan; Toshiba America Information Systems,
Inc. (collectively, ``Toshiba'') of Irvine, California; Toshiba
America, Inc. of New York City, New York; and Realtek Semiconductor
Corp. (``Realtek'') of Hsinchu, Taiwan. Also, intervenors Waves Audio
Ltd. (``Waves'') of Tel Aviv, Israel and Conexant Systems Inc.
(``Conexant'') of Irvine, California were subsequently added to the
investigation. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations is a party in
this investigation. The 12 other respondents and the two intervenors,
as detailed below, have been terminated from the investigation based on
settlement or stipulation.
On July 13, 2015, the Commission determined not to review an ID
finding that Andre has standing to bring the complaint in this
investigation and to deny respondents' motion for oral argument. On May
1, 2015, the Commission determined not to review two IDs (Order Nos. 4,
5) granting motions of Andrea terminating the investigation as to
Lenovo Group Ltd. and Toshiba America, Inc., respectively, based on
stipulation. On December 8, 2015, the Commission determined not to
review an ID (Order No. 23) granting a joint motion of Andrea and
Realtek terminating the investigation as to Realtek based on a
settlement agreement and a patent license agreement. On December 21,
2015, the Commission determined not to review an ID (Order No. 24)
granting a joint motion of Andrea and Acer terminating the
investigation as to Acer based on a settlement agreement and a patent
license agreement. On January 5, 2016, the Commission determined not to
review two IDs (Order Nos. 25, 26) granting a motion of Andrea to
terminate the investigation as to all infringement allegations relating
to the '637 patent; the '898 patent; the '923 patent; claims 4-11, 18-
20, 22, and 39-46 of the '345 patent; and claims 5-7, 9-12, 29-31, and
33-37 of the '607 patent. On February 3, 2016, the Commission
determined not to review an ID (Order No. 30) granting a joint motion
of Andrea and HP terminating the investigation as to HP based on a
settlement agreement and a patent license agreement. On March 4, 2016,
the Commission determined not to review an ID (Order No. 33) granting a
joint motion of Andrea and ASUS terminating the investigation as to
ASUS based on a settlement agreement and a patent license agreement. On
March 17, 2016, the Commission determined not to review an ID (Order
No. 36) granting a joint motion of Andrea and Lenovo terminating the
investigation as to Lenovo based on a settlement agreement and a patent
license agreement. On April 5, 2016, the Commission determined not to
review an ID (Order No. 37) granting a joint motion of Andrea and
Conexant terminating the investigation as to Conexant based on a
settlement agreement and a patent license agreement. On April 19, 2016,
the Commission determined not to review an ID (Order No. 38) granting a
joint motion of Andrea and Waves terminating the investigation as to
Waves based on a settlement agreement and a patent license agreement.
On the same date, the Commission determined not to review an ID (Order
No. 39) granting a joint motion of Andrea and Toshiba terminating the
investigation as to Toshiba based on a settlement agreement.
On March 25, 2016, Andrea filed a motion to terminate the last
remaining respondent, Dell, from the investigation on the basis of
withdrawal of the complaint as to Dell. Andrea affirmed that there are
no agreements, written or oral, express or implied, between itself and
Dell concerning the subject matter of the investigation. None of the
other parties opposed the motion.
On April 6, 2016, the ALJ granted the motion as an ID. The ALJ
found no information indicating that termination of the investigation
with respect to Dell on the basis of the withdrawal of the complaint is
contrary to the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in
the U.S. economy, the production of like or directly competitive
articles in the United States, or U.S. consumers. The ALJ also
terminated the investigation. Order No. 40 at 2.
No petitions for review of the ID were filed. The Commission has
determined not to review the subject ID, and has terminated the
investigation.
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 Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Dated: May 2, 2016.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2016-10575 Filed 5-4-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
