9928 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 42 / Thursday, March 4, 2010 / Notices 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. No. 337–TA–634] 

In the Matter of: Certain Liquid Crystal 

Display Modules, Products Containing 

Same, and Methods Using the Same; 

Notice of Commission Determination 

to Rescind a Limited Exclusion Order 

and Cease and Desist Orders 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined to rescind 

the limited exclusion order issued in the 

above-captioned investigation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Clint A. Gerdine, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

708–2310. 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 (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 March 4, 2008, based on a complaint 

filed by Sharp Corporation (‘‘Sharp’’) of 

Japan. 73 FR 11678. The complaint, as 

amended and supplemented, 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 liquid crystal 

display devices, products containing 

same, and methods for using the same 

by reason of infringement of certain 

claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,879,364 

(‘‘the ‘364 patent’’); 6,952,192 (‘‘the ‘192 

patent’’); 7,304,703 (‘‘the ‘703 patent’’); 

and 7,304,626 (‘‘the ‘626 patent’’). The 

complaint further alleged the existence 

of a domestic industry. The 

Commission’s notice of investigation 

named the following respondents: 

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of Korea; 

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of 

Ridgefield Park, New Jersey; and 

Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. of San 

Jose, California (collectively, 

‘‘Samsung’’). 

On June 12, 2009, the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) issued 

his final initial determination (‘‘ID’’) 

finding a violation of section 337 by 

Samsung with respect to all four patents 

at issue and his recommendations on 

remedy and bonding. On June 29, 2009, 

Samsung and the Commission 

investigative attorney (‘‘IA’’) filed 

petitions for review of the final ID. The 

IA and Sharp filed responses to the 

petitions on July 7, 2009. On September 

9, 2009, the Commission issued notice 

of its determination not to review the 

ALJ’s final ID and requested written 

submissions on the issues of remedy, 

the public interest, and bonding from 

the parties and interested non-parties. 

74 FR 47616–17 (Sept. 16, 2009). 

On September 16 and 23, 2009, 

respectively, complainant Sharp, the 

Samsung respondents, and the IA filed 

briefs and reply briefs on the issues for 

which the Commission requested 

written submissions. On September 21, 

2009, Samsung filed a petition for 

reconsideration of the Commission’s 

determination not to review certain 

portions of the final ID. On October 19, 

2009, the Commission issued an order 

denying the petition for reconsideration. 

On October 30, 2009, Samsung filed a 

supplemental submission on the issues 

of remedy, the public interest, and 

bonding. On November 2 and 3, 2009, 

respectively, Sharp and the IA filed a 

response to Samsung’s supplemental 

submission. 

On November 9, 2009, the 

Commission issued notice of its 

determination to terminate the 

investigation with a finding of a 

violation of section 337, and issued: (1) 

A limited exclusion order prohibiting 

the unlicensed entry of LCD devices, 

including display panels and modules, 

and products containing the same that 

infringe one or more of (i) claims 5–7 of 

the ‘364 patent; (ii) claims 1 and 4 of the 

‘192 patent; (iii) claims 1–2, 6–8, 13–14, 

and 16–17 of the ‘703 patent; and (iv) 

claims 10, 17, and 20 of the ‘626 patent, 

where the infringing LCD devices are 

manufactured abroad by or on behalf of, 

or are imported by or on behalf of, 

Samsung, or any of its affiliated 

companies, parents, subsidiaries, 

licensees, contractors, or other related 

business entities, or successors or 

assigns; and (2) cease and desist orders 

prohibiting Samsung Electronics 

America, Inc. and Samsung 

Semiconductor, Inc. from conducting 

any of the following activities in the 

United States: importing, selling, 

marketing, advertising, distributing, 

offering for sale, transferring (except for 

exportation), and soliciting U.S. agents 

or distributors for, LCD devices, 

including display panels and modules, 

and products containing the same that 

infringe one or more of (i) claims 5–7 of 

the ‘364 patent; (ii) claims 1 and 4 of the 

‘192 patent; (iii) claims 1–2, 6–8, 13–14, 

and 16–17 of the ‘703 patent; and (iv) 

claims 10, 17, and 20 of the ‘626 patent. 

74 FR 58978–79 (November 16, 2009). 

On February 12, 2010, complainant 

Sharp and respondent Samsung filed a 

joint petition to rescind the remedial 

orders under Commission Rule 

210.76(a)(1) on the basis of a settlement 

agreement between the parties. The 

parties asserted that their settlement 

agreement constitutes ‘‘changed 

conditions of fact or law’’ sufficient to 

justify rescission of the order under 

Commission Rule 210.76(a)(1), 19 CFR 

210.76(a)(1). The IA did not oppose the 

joint petition. 

Having reviewed the parties’ 

submissions, the Commission has 

determined that the settlement 

agreement satisfies the requirement of 

Commission Rule 210.76(a)(1), 19 CFR 

210.76(a)(1), that there be changed 

conditions of fact or law. The 

Commission therefore has issued an 

order rescinding the limited exclusion 

order and cease and desist orders 

previously issued in this investigation. 

This action is taken under the 

authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act 

of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) and section 

210.76(a)(1) of the Commission’s Rules 

of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.76(a)(1)). 

Issued: March 1, 2010. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4556 Filed 3–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Office of Justice Programs 

[OMB Number 1121–0166] 

Bureau of Justice Assistance; Agency 

Information Collection Activities: 

Proposed Collection; Comments 

Requested 

ACTION: 60-Day Notice of Information 

Collection Under Review Extension of 

currently approved collection. Bureau of 

Justice Assistance Application Form: 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 42 / Thursday, March 4, 2010 / Notices 9929 

Public Safety Officers’ Disability 

Benefits. 

The Department of Justice, Office of 

Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice 

Assistance, will be submitting the 

following information collection request 

for review and clearance in accordance 

with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995. This proposed information 

collection is published to obtain 

comments from the public and affected 

agencies. Comments are encouraged and 

will be accepted for ‘‘sixty days’’ until 

May 3, 2010. If you have additional 

comments, suggestions, or need a copy 

of the proposed information collection 

instrument with instructions or 

additional information, please contact 

M. Berry at 202–616–6500/1–866–268– 

0079, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 

Office of Justice Programs, U.S. 

Department of Justice, 810 7th Street, 

NW., Washington, DC 20531 via 

facsimile at 202–305–1367 or by e-mail 

at M.A.Berry@ojp.usdoj.gov. 

Written comments and suggestions 

from the public and affected agencies 

concerning the proposed collection of 

information are encouraged. Your 

comments should address one or more 

of the following four points: 

—Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

—Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

— Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

—Minimize the burden of the collection 

of information on those who are to 

respond, including through the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms 

of information technology, e.g., 

permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Overview of this information 

collection: 

(1) Type of information collection: 

Extension of currently approved 

collection. 

(2) The title of the form/collection: 

OJP FORM 3650/7 Public Safety Officers 

Disability Benefits. 

(3) The agency form number, if any, 

and the applicable component of the 

Department sponsoring the collection: 

None. Bureau of Justice Assistance, 

Office of Justice Programs, United States 

Department of Justice. 

(4) Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: 

Primary: Dependents of public safety 

officers who were killed or permanently 

and totally disabled in the line of duty. 

Abstract: BJA’s Public Safety Officers’ 

Benefits (PSOB) division will use the 

PSOEA Application information to 

confirm the eligibility of applicants to 

receive PSOEA benefits. Eligibility is 

dependent on several factors, including 

the applicant having received or being 

eligible to receive a portion of the PSOB 

Death Benefit, or having a family 

member who received the PSOB 

Disability Benefit. Also considered are 

the applicant’s age and the schools 

being attended. In addition, information 

to help BJA identify an individual is 

collected, such as Social Security 

number and contact numbers and e-mail 

addresses. The changes to the 

application form have been made in an 

effort to streamline the application 

process and eliminate requests for 

information that is either irrelevant or 

already being collected by other means. 

Others: None. 

(5) An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 

needed for an average respondent to 

respond is as follows: It is estimated that 

no more than 75 respondents will apply 

a year. Each application takes 

approximately 120 minutes to complete. 

(6) An estimate of the total public 

burden (in hours) associated with the 

collection: Total Annual Reporting 

Burden: 75 × 120 minutes per 

application = 9,000 minutes/by 60 

minutes per hour = 150 hours. 

If additional information is required, 

please contact Lynn Bryant, Department 

Clearance Officer, United States 

Department of Justice, Justice 

Management Division, Policy and 

Planning Staff, Patrick Henry Building, 

Suite 1600, 601 D Street, NW., 

Washington, DC., 20530. 

March 1, 2010. 

Lynn Bryant, 

Department Clearance Officer, PRA, United 

States Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4536 Filed 3–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–18–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

United States v. Bemis Company, Inc., 

et al.; Proposed Final Judgment and 

Competitive Impact Statement 

Notice is hereby given pursuant to the 

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 

15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h), that a proposed 

Final Judgment, Hold Separate 

Stipulation and Order, and Competitive 

Impact Statement have been filed with 

the United States District Court for the 

District of Columbia in United States v. 

Bemis Co. et al., Civil Action No. 1:10– 

cv–00295. On February 24, 2010, the 

United States filed a Complaint alleging 

that the proposed acquisition by Bemis 

Company, Inc. (‘‘Bemis’’) of the Alcan 

Packaging Food Americas business of 

Rio Tinto plc would violate Section 7 of 

the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18, by 

substantially lessening competition in 

the markets for flexible-packaging 

rollstock for chunk and sliced natural 

cheese packaged for retail sale, flexiblepackaging rollstock for shredded natural 

cheese packaged for retail sale, and 

flexible-packaging shrink bags for fresh 

meat. The proposed Final Judgment, 

filed the same time as the Complaint, 

requires Bemis to divest the assets of 

Alcan Packaging Food Americas related 

to those markets, including production 

plants and assets located in Menasha, 

Wisconsin and Catoosa, Oklahoma, as 

well as certain other tangible and 

intangible assets. The proposed Final 

Judgment also permits Bemis 

temporarily to occupy certain portions 

of the Menasha facility while unrelated 

operations are relocated and allows for 

short-term supply agreements between 

Bemis and the entity that acquires the 

divested assets in order to ensure that 

customers continue to receive a reliable 

supply of the affected products. 

Copies of the Complaint, proposed 

Final Judgment and Competitive Impact 

Statement are available for inspection at 

the Department of Justice, Antitrust 

Division, Antitrust Documents Group, 

450 Fifth Street, NW., Suite 1010, 

Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: 202– 

514–2481), on the Department of 

Justice’s Web site at http:// 

www.usdoj.gov/atr, and at the Office of 

the Clerk of the United States District 

Court for the District of Columbia. 

Copies of these materials may be 

obtained from the Antitrust Division 

upon request and payment of the 

copying fee set by Department of Justice 

regulations. 

Public comment is invited within 60 

days of the date of this notice. Such 

comments, and responses thereto, will 

be published in the Federal Register 

and filed with the Court. Comments 

should be directed to Maribeth Petrizzi, 

Chief, Litigation II Section, Antitrust 

Division, Department of Justice, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES