Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 20, 2006 / Notices 55013 

There are a number of objectives for 

this plan. The plan would develop and 

implement informed, scientificallybased vegetation impact levels and 

corresponding measures of deer 

population size that would serve as a 

threshold for taking management 

actions. In addition, it would maintain, 

restore and promote the natural 

abundance, distribution, and diversity 

of native plant species by reducing 

excessive deer browsing, trampling, and 

non-native seed dispersal. The plan 

would allow for white-tailed deer 

populations within the park while 

protecting the natural abundance, 

distribution, and diversity of other 

native wildlife, including ground 

nesting birds, from the adverse effects of 

deer. The plan would also protect the 

habitat of rare plant and animal species 

from deer impacts. In addition, the 

protection of cultural landscapes and 

visitor safety conflicts with deer would 

also be addressed. Finally, an objective 

of the plan would be to call for the 

sharing of information regarding the role 

and management of white-tailed deer 

among park staff, surrounding 

communities, the public, and other 

nearby governmental entities managing 

deer. 

Preliminary alternatives that will be 

considered to meet the purpose and 

need include: reproductive control, 

fencing of large park areas to exclude 

park deer, lethal reduction with and 

without firearms, limited capture and 

euthanasia, and a combination of these 

management strategies. The 

continuation of current management (no 

action alternative) will also be analyzed. 

Persons commenting on the purpose, 

need, objectives, preliminary 

alternatives, or any other issues 

associated with the plan, may submit 

comments by any one of several 

methods. To be most helpful to the 

scoping process, comments should be 

received within 60 days of the 

publication of this Notice of Intent. 

Comments may be mailed to Natural 

Resource Management, Rock Creek Park, 

3545 Williamsburg Lane, NW., 

Washington, DC 20008. Comments may 

also be sent via the Internet at http:// 

parkplanning.nps.gov. Please submit 

Internet comments as a text file avoiding 

the use of special characters and any 

form of encryption. Please put ‘‘Deer 

Management’’ in the subject line and 

include your name and return address 

in your Internet message. If commenters 

do not receive a receipt confirmation 

from the system, please contact the 

Natural Resources Division at (202) 

895–6221. Comments may also be handdelivered to Rock Creek Park 

Headquarters, 3545 Williamsburg Lane, 

NW., Washington, DC 20008. 

It is the NPS’s practice to make 

comments, including names, home 

addresses, home phone numbers and email addresses of respondents, available 

for public review. Individual 

respondents may request that we 

withhold their names and/or home 

addresses, etc., but if they wish us to 

consider withholding this information 

they must state this prominently at the 

beginning of their comments. In 

addition, they must present a rationale 

for withholding this information. This 

rationale must demonstrate that 

disclosure would constitute a clearly 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. 

Unsupported assertions will not meet 

this burden. In the absence of 

exceptional, documentable 

circumstances, this information will be 

released. The NPS will always make 

submissions from organizations or 

businesses, and from individuals 

identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, available 

for public inspection in their entirety. 

If commenters wish to have names 

and/or addresses withheld and 

comment through the NPS Web site, it 

is still possible to receive additional 

information on the project in the future 

by filling in the name and address field 

and marking ‘‘keep my contact 

information private’’ where indicated. If 

commenters do not want to receive any 

additional information on the project in 

the future, they may type ‘‘N/A’’ in the 

name and address field. 

Dated: August 4, 2006. 

Joseph M. Lawler, 

Regional Director, National Capital Region. 

[FR Doc. 06–7981 Filed 9–19–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–34–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. No. 337–TA–538] 

In the Matter of Certain Audio 

Processing Integrated Circuits and 

Products Containing Same; Notice of 

Commission Final Determination of a 

Violation of Section 337 as to Two 

Patents and Issuance of a Limited 

Exclusion Order; Termination of 

Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined that there 

is a violation of section 337 of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, by Actions 

Semiconductor Co. of Guangdong, 

China (‘‘Actions’’) with respect to 

United States Patent Nos. 6,633,187 

(‘‘the ‘187 patent’’), and 6,366,522 (‘‘the 

‘522 patent’’) and has issued a limited 

exclusion order in the above-captioned 

investigation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steven W. Crabb, Esq., Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

708–5432. Copies of the public version 

of the ALJ’s initial determination (‘‘ID’’) 

and all other nonproprietary 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–

ON–LINE) 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 April 18, 2005, based on a complaint 

filed on behalf of SigmaTel, Inc. 

(‘‘complainant’’) of Austin, Texas. 70 FR 

20172. The complaint alleged violations 

of section 337 in the importation into 

the United States, sales for importation, 

and sale within the United States after 

importation of certain audio processing 

integrated circuits and products 

containing same by reason of 

infringement of claim 10 of U.S. Patent 

No. 6,137,279 (‘‘the ‘279 patent’’), and 

claim 13 of the ‘187 patent. Id. The 

notice of investigation named Actions as 

the only respondent. 

On June 9, 2005, the ALJ issued an ID 

(Order No. 5) granting complainant’s 

motion to amend the complaint and 

notice of investigation to add further 

allegations of infringement of the 

previously asserted patents and to add 

an allegation of a violation of section 

337 by reason of infringement of claims 

1, 6, 9, and 13 of the ‘522 patent. That 

ID was not reviewed by the 

Commission. 

On October 13, 2005, the ALJ issued 

an ID (Order No. 9) granting 

complainant’s motion to terminate the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
55014 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 20, 2006 / Notices 

investigation as to the ‘279 patent. On 

October 31, 2005, the Commission 

determined not to review the ID. 

On March 20, 2006, the ALJ issued his 

final ID and recommended 

determination on remedy and bonding. 

The ALJ concluded that there was a 

violation of section 337. Specifically, he 

found that claim 13 of the ‘187 patent 

was not invalid and was infringed by 

Actions’ accused product families 207X, 

208X, and 209X. The ALJ also 

determined that claims 1, 6, 9, and 13 

of the ‘522 patent were not invalid and 

were infringed by Actions’ accused 

product families 208X and 209X. 

On May 5, 2006, the Commission 

determined to review the ALJ’s 

construction of a claim limitation of the 

‘522 patent, infringement of the ‘522 

patent, and the ALJ’s determination that 

SigmaTel met the technical prong of the 

domestic industry requirement in regard 

to the ‘522 patent. 71 FR 27512 (May 11, 

2006). The Commission also determined 

to review the AlJ’s claim construction of 

the term ‘‘memory’’ in claim 13 of the 

‘187 patent and simultaneously to 

modify that construction by removing 

the apparently inadvertent inclusion of 

the word ‘‘firmware.’’ Id. The 

Commission declined to review the 

remainder of the ID. Id. The 

Commission requested briefing on the 

issues under review and on remedy, the 

public interest, and bonding. Id. Briefs 

and responses on the issues under 

review and on remedy, the public 

interest, and bonding were filed by all 

parties in a timely manner. 

On June 12, 2006, Actions filed a 

paper with the Commission titled 

‘‘Actions’ Identification of Erroneous 

Citations to the Evidentiary Record by 

SigmaTel and the Initial Determination 

that are Material to Remedy Issues’’

alleging that testimony regarding the 

size of memory typically used in MP3 

players incorporating the accused chips 

was inaccurately portrayed by SigmaTel 

and the ALJ. SigmaTel filed an 

opposition on June 13, 2006, and the 

Commission investigative attorney 

(‘‘IA’’) filed a response on June 15, 2006. 

SigmaTel filed another submission on 

the same subject on August 21, 2006. On 

August 24, 2006, Actions’ filed a motion 

to strike SigmaTel’s August 21, 2006, 

submission. Because the allegedly 

erroneous citations were not raised in 

Actions’ petition for review, and were in 

fact expressly agreed to by Actions in 

response to SigmaTel’s proposed 

findings of act, we do not consider 

Actions’ arguments. Thus, SigmaTel’s 

June 13, 2006, and August 21, 2006, 

submissions; the IA’s June 15, 2006, 

submission; and Actions’ August 24, 

2006, submission have all be rendered 

moot and have not been considered. 

On August 24, 2006, SigmaTel filed 

‘‘Complainant SigmaTel, Inc.’s Motion 

for Leave to File a Short Brief to Correct 

an Error in Actions’ Reply to SigmaTel’s 

Comments on the ALJ’s Remand 

Findings and Determination.’’ Both 

Actions and the IA filed responses to 

SigmaTel’s motion. We hereby deny this 

motion. 

On review, the Commission construed 

the disputed claim phrase ‘‘produce the 

system clock control signal and power 

supply control signal based on a 

processing transfer characteristic of the 

computation engine’’ to mean that both 

the system clock control signal and the 

power supply control signal are 

required to be produced during 

operation of the integrated circuit such 

that the voltage and the frequency of the 

integrated circuit are adjusted based on 

a processing transfer characteristic, but 

that the processing transfer 

characteristic is not determined in any 

particular manner. 71 FR 36358–36358 

(June 26, 2006). The Commission 

determined, with respect to the accused 

products that do not use the version 

952436 firmware, that the ALJ made 

sufficient findings to find infringement 

of the asserted claims of the ‘522 patent 

under the Commission’s claim 

construction, and adopted his findings 

with respect to those products. Id. The 

Commission determined that SigmaTel’s 

products satisfy the technical prong of 

the domestic industry requirement with 

regard to the ‘522 patent under the 

Commission’s claim construction. Id. 

The Commission remanded the 

investigation to the ALJ for the sole 

issue of determining whether Actions’

products using the 952436 version 

firmware infringe the asserted claims of 

the ‘522 patent. The Commission 

deferred addressing issues relating to 

remedy, public interest, and bonding, 

for both the ‘187 patent and the ‘522 

patent. Id. 

The ALJ issued a remand initial 

determination (‘‘Remand ID’’) on August 

3, 2006, finding that Actions’ accused 

products using the 952436 version 

firmware, other than the 2051, 2180, 

and PMA 300 models, do not infringe 

claims 1, 6, 9, and 13 of the ‘522 patent. 

In its remand notice, the Commission 

invited comments from the parties 

addressing the ALJ’s determination on 

remand (71 FR 36358 (June 26, 2006)). 

On August 11, 2006, SigmaTel filed 

non-responsive comments addressing 

the appropriate remedy, and Actions 

and the IA filed comments supporting 

the ALJ’s determination on remand. On 

August 18, 2006, Actions and the IA 

each filed responses to SigmaTel’s 

comments, supporting the ALJ’s 

determinations on remand and noting 

that SigmaTel’s comments addressed 

only remedy issues. Because the 

Commission limited the parties’

comments to the remand issue, it has 

disregarded SigmaTel’s additional 

comments on remedy. 

Having examined the record of this 

investigation, including the ALJ’s final 

ID and Remand ID and the submissions 

of the parties, the Commission has 

determined (1) that there is a violation 

of section 337 by Actions with regard to 

claim 13 of the ‘187 patent; (2) that there 

is a violation of section 337 by Actions 

with regard to claims 1, 6, 9, and 13 of 

the ‘522 patent, except with respect to 

those products using the 952436 version 

firmware as noted in the ALJ’s Remand 

ID; and (3) to issue a limited exclusion 

order with respect to Actions’ infringing 

products. The Commission’s order was 

delivered to the President and to the 

U.S. Trade Representative on the day of 

its issuance. 

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 210.45, 210.49, and 210.50 of 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (19 CFR 210.45, 210.49, and 

210.50). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: September 15, 2006. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 06–7794 Filed 9–19–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree 

Under the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

Notice is hereby given that on August 

31, 2006, a proposed Consent Decree in 

United States v. City of New Orleans, et 

al., Civil Action No. 02–3618, Section 

‘‘E’’, was lodged with the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of 

Louisiana. 

In this action the United States, on 

behalf of the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(‘‘EPA’’), sought to recover response 

costs from certain parties. EPA incurred 

such costs in response to releases and 

threatened releases of hazardous 

substances from the Agriculture Street 

Landfill (the ‘‘Site’’) located in New 

Orleans, Louisiana. The proposed 

Consent Decree requires BFI Waste 

Systems of North America, Inc. (‘‘BFI’’), 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES