Certain Document Cameras and Software for Use Therewith; Commission's Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation Based on Withdrawal of the Complaint, 60214-60215 [2017-27262]

Download as PDF sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 60214 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 19, 2017 / Notices mechanically close the breach as soon as possible. Alternative 2 (Status Determined Entirely by Natural Processes) is the noaction alternative and allows the management of the breach under natural processes, to include evolution and potential growth and/or natural closure. Alternative 3 (No Human Intervention unless Established Criteria are Exceeded) is identified as the NPS preferred alternative. This alternative allows the evolution, growth, and/or closure of the breach to be determined by natural barrier island processes, and human intervention to close the breach would occur only ‘‘to prevent loss of life, flooding, and other severe economic and physical damage to the Great South Bay and surrounding areas,’’ as allowed by the Otis Pike Fire Island High Dune Wilderness Act. Monitoring data collected since 2012 and professional judgment of physical scientists studying the breach have been used to determine that the three criteria described below are the most logical indicators to alert Seashore staff to changes in the breach that could elevate the risk of severe storm damage in the form of loss of life, flooding, and other severe economic and physical damage, which could lead to a decision to close the breach under Alternative 3: • Criterion 1: Geologic Controls. Erosion-resistant clay to the east and west of the breach serve as geologic controls for the breach. If the breach migrates beyond these geologic controls, growth of the breach will be less predictable. • Criterion 2: Cross-Sectional Area. Originally, the cross-sectional area of the breach increased rapidly; however, the breach has reached a dynamic equilibrium in which the cross-sectional area has fluctuated between 300 and 600 square meters. A cross-sectional area within or below this range represents a condition in which the effects of the breach are understood. An increase in cross-sectional area above this range will indicate breach growth and a condition in which the evolution of the breach is less predictable and impacts to the surrounding areas may change. After reviewing and considering all comments received on the draft Breach Plan/EIS, the NPS has prepared the final Breach Plan/EIS. The final Breach Plan/ EIS identifies Alternative 3 as the NPS preferred alternative with one change from the draft Breach Plan/EIS. The description of alternative 3 was edited in the final Breach Plan/EIS to include one additional criterion suggested by commenters: • Criterion 3: Water Level as Measured by Tide Gauges. Data from VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:47 Dec 18, 2017 Jkt 244001 tide gauges in Great South Bay will be reviewed to identify changes in the tidal prism, which could indicate a change in the breach conditions. Other changes made as a result of comments consisted of clarifying text added to the final Breach Plan/EIS that did not substantively change the range of alternatives considered or the environmental consequences of implementing any of the alternatives. Appendix C of the final Breach Plan/EIS discusses the comments received on the draft Breach Plan/EIS and provides NPS responses to substantive comments. Dated: August 7, 2017. Cindy MacLeod, Acting Regional Director, Northeast Region, National Park Service. Editorial note: This document was received for publication by the Office of the Federal Register on December 13, 2017. The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on October 12, 2017, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel. The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determinations in these reviews on December 13, 2017. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4746 (December 2017), entitled Multilayered Wood Flooring from China: Investigation Nos. 701–TA–476 and 731–TA–1179 (Review). By order of the Commission. Issued: December 13, 2017. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2017–27242 Filed 12–18–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P [FR Doc. 2017–27244 Filed 12–18–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312–52–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–1045] [Investigation Nos. 701–TA–476 and 731– TA–1179 (Review)] Multilayered Wood Flooring From China; 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 the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’), that revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on multilayered wood flooring from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. Background The Commission, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), instituted these reviews on November 1, 2016 (81 FR 75854) and determined on February 6, 2017 that it would conduct full reviews (82 FR 10588, February 14, 2017). 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 June 16, 2017 (82 FR 27722). 1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)). PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Certain Document Cameras and Software for Use Therewith; Commission’s Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation Based on Withdrawal of the Complaint 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. 20) terminating the investigation based on withdrawal of the complaint. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amanda Fisherow, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2737. 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 SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 19, 2017 / Notices persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 205–1810. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION The Commission instituted this investigation on March 24, 2017, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Pathway Innovations and Technologies, Inc. (‘‘Complainant’’) of San Diego, California. 82 FR 15069–70 (March 24, 2017). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain document cameras and software for use therewith by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,508,751. The complaint named IPEVO, Inc. of Sunnyvale, California; AVer Information Inc. of Fremont, California; and Lumens Integrations Inc. (‘‘Lumens’’) of Fremont, California as respondents. Lumens was previously terminated from the investigation. On November 21, 2017, Complainant filed an unopposed motion to terminate the investigation based on withdrawal of the complaint. On November 24, 2017, the ALJ issued an ID granting the unopposed motion. Order No. 20. The ALJ found that Complainant complied with Commission Rule 210.21. Specifically, the Complainant represented that there are no agreements, written or oral, express or implied concerning the subject matter of the investigation. The ALJ also found that termination of the investigation is not contrary to the public interest and there are no extraordinary circumstances that prevent termination of the investigation. No petitions for review were filed. The Commission has determined not to review the subject 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 Part 210 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210). Certain Intraoral Scanners and Related Hardware and Software Institution of Investigation sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By order of the Commission. Issued: December 14, 2017. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2017–27262 Filed 12–18–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:47 Dec 18, 2017 Jkt 244001 U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on November 14, 2017, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Align Technology, Inc. of San Jose, California. An amended complaint and supplement were filed on December 4, 2017. The amended complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain intraoral scanners and related hardware and software by reason of infringement of one or more of U.S. Patent No. 9,615,901 (‘‘the ’901 patent’’); U.S. Patent No. 8,638,448 (‘‘the ’448 patent’’); U.S. Patent No. 8,638,447 (‘‘the ’447 patent’’); U.S. Patent No. 6,845,175 (‘‘the ’175 patent’’); and U.S. Patent No. 6,334,853 (‘‘the ’853 patent’’). The amended complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute. The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders. ADDRESSES: The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is 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, Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (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. PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 The Office of Docket Services, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205–1802. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority: The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 and in section 210.10 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2017). Scope of Investigation: Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on December 13, 2017, ordered that— (1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain intraoral scanners and related hardware and software by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1–7 and 15–20 of the ’901 patent; claims 1–9 and 15–22 of the ’448 patent; claims 1–7, 10, 12, and 17–24 of the ’447 patent; claims 1–4, 14, 15, and 18– 20 of the ’175 patent; and claims 1, 3– 7, and 9–13 of the ’853 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337; (2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served: (a) The complainant is: Align Technology, Inc., 2820 Orchard Parkway, San Jose, CA 95134. (b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served: 3Shape A/S, Holmens Kanal 7, 1060 Copenhagen K, Denmark. 3Shape, Inc., 10 Independence Boulevard, Suite 150, Warren, NJ 07059. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: [Investigation No. 337–TA–1090] SUMMARY: 60215 (3) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations will not participate as a party in this investigation. The Chief Administrative Law Judge is authorized to consolidate Inv. No. 337–TA–1090 with Inv. No. 337–TA– 1091 if he deems appropriate. Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60214-60215]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27262]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-1045]


Certain Document Cameras and Software for Use Therewith; 
Commission's Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination 
Terminating the Investigation Based on Withdrawal of the Complaint

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. 20) 
terminating the investigation based on withdrawal of the complaint.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amanda Fisherow, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2737. 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

[[Page 60215]]

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 24, 2017, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Pathway 
Innovations and Technologies, Inc. (``Complainant'') of San Diego, 
California. 82 FR 15069-70 (March 24, 2017). The complaint alleges 
violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United 
States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States 
after importation of certain document cameras and software for use 
therewith by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent 
No. 8,508,751. The complaint named IPEVO, Inc. of Sunnyvale, 
California; AVer Information Inc. of Fremont, California; and Lumens 
Integrations Inc. (``Lumens'') of Fremont, California as respondents. 
Lumens was previously terminated from the investigation.
    On November 21, 2017, Complainant filed an unopposed motion to 
terminate the investigation based on withdrawal of the complaint.
    On November 24, 2017, the ALJ issued an ID granting the unopposed 
motion. Order No. 20. The ALJ found that Complainant complied with 
Commission Rule 210.21. Specifically, the Complainant represented that 
there are no agreements, written or oral, express or implied concerning 
the subject matter of the investigation. The ALJ also found that 
termination of the investigation is not contrary to the public interest 
and there are no extraordinary circumstances that prevent termination 
of the investigation. No petitions for review were filed.
    The Commission has determined not to review the subject 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 Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 
part 210).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: December 14, 2017.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2017-27262 Filed 12-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P