30954 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2018 / Notices 

9:00 Promenades and the Man base) 

from 10:00 a.m. Sunday through the end 

of day Tuesday, post event; 

(vi) Passage through, without 

stopping, the public temporary closure 

area on the west or east playa roads or 

from the east side of the playa to the 

west and vice versa to traverse the 

entirety of the playa surface. 

(vii) Support vehicles for art vehicles, 

mutant vehicles and theme camps will 

be allowed to drive to and from fueling 

stations. 

(3) Definitions: 

(i) A motor vehicle is any device 

designed for and capable of travel over 

land and which is self-propelled by a 

motor, but does not include any vehicle 

operated on rails or any motorized 

wheelchair. 

(ii) Motorized wheelchair means a 

self-propelled wheeled device, designed 

solely for and used by a mobilityimpaired person for locomotion. 

(iii) ‘‘Trailer’’ means every vehicle 

without motive power designed to carry 

property or passengers wholly on its 

own structure and to be drawn by a 

motor vehicle, this includes camp 

trailers, pop-up trailers, 4′ x 7′ or larger 

flatbed trailers, enclosed cargo trailers, 

or RV style trailers. 

(i) Public Camping 

The public temporary closure area is 

closed to public camping with the 

following exception: 

The permitted event’s ticket holders 

who are camped in designated event 

areas provided by the permit holder and 

ticket holders who are camped in the 

authorized pilot camp and the permit 

holder’s authorized staff, contractors 

and BLM authorized event management 

related camps are exempt from this 

closure. 

(j) Public Use 

The public temporary closure area is 

closed to use by members of the public 

unless that person: 

(i) Is traveling through, without 

stopping, the public temporary closure 

area on the west or east playa roads; 

possesses a valid ticket to attend the 

event; 

(ii) Is an employee or authorized 

volunteer with the BLM, a law 

enforcement officer, emergency medical 

service provider, fire protection 

provider, or another public agency 

employee working at the event and that 

individual is assigned to the event; 

(iii) Is a person working at or 

attending the event on behalf of the 

permit holder; or is authorized by the 

permit holder to be onsite prior to the 

commencement of the event for the 

primary purpose of constructing, 

creating, designing or installing art, 

displays, buildings, facilities or other 

items and structures in connection with 

the event; 

(iv) Is an employee of a commercial 

operation contracted to provide services 

to the event organizers and/or 

participants authorized by the permit 

holder through a contract or agreement 

and authorized by BLM through a 

Special Recreation Permit. 

(k) Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

(1) The use of unmanned aircraft 

systems (UAS) is prohibited, unless the 

operator is authorized through and 

complies with the Remote Control BRC 

(RCBRC) program and operates the UAS 

in accordance with Federal laws and 

regulations, specifically the operational 

limitations under the Small Unmanned 

Aircraft Rule (Part 107). 

(2) Definition: 

(i) Unmanned aircraft means an 

aircraft operated without the possibility 

of direct human intervention from 

within or on the aircraft. 

(ii) UAS is the unmanned aircraft and 

all of the associated support equipment, 

control station, data links, telemetry, 

communications and navigation 

equipment, etc., necessary to operate the 

unmanned aircraft. 

(l) Lasers 

(1) The possession and or use of 

handheld lasers is prohibited. 

(2) Definition: A laser means any 

hand held laser beam device or 

demonstration laser product that emits 

a single point of light amplified by the 

stimulated emission of radiation that is 

visible to the human eye. 

(m) Weapons 

(1) The possession of any weapon is 

prohibited except weapons within 

motor vehicles passing, without 

stopping, through the public temporary 

closure area on the designated west or 

east playa roads or from the east side of 

the playa to the west and vice versa to 

traverse the entirety of the playa surface. 

(2) The discharge of any weapon is 

prohibited. 

(3) The prohibitions above shall not 

apply to county, State, tribal and 

Federal law enforcement personnel who 

are working in their official capacity at 

the event. ‘‘Art projects’’ that include 

weapons and are sanctioned by the 

permit holder will be permitted after 

obtaining authorization from the BLM 

authorized officer. 

(4) Definitions: 

(i) Weapon means a firearm, 

compressed gas or spring powered 

pistol or rifle, bow and arrow, cross 

bow, blowgun, spear gun, hand-thrown 

spear, sling shot, irritant gas device, 

electric stunning or immobilization 

device, explosive device, any 

implement designed to expel a 

projectile, switch-blade knife, any blade 

which is greater than 10 inches in 

length from the tip of the blade to the 

edge of the hilt or finger guard nearest 

the blade (e.g., swords, dirks, daggers, 

machetes) or any other weapon the 

possession of which is prohibited by 

state law. Exception: This rule does not 

apply in a kitchen or cooking 

environment or where an event worker 

is wearing or utilizing a construction 

knife for their duties at the event. 

(ii) Firearm means any pistol, 

revolver, rifle, shotgun or other device 

which is designed to, or may be readily 

converted to expel a projectile by the 

ignition of a propellant. 

(iii) Discharge means the expelling of 

a projectile from a weapon. 

Enforcement: Any person who 

violates this temporary closure or any of 

these temporary restrictions may be 

tried before a United States Magistrate 

and fined in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 

3571, imprisoned no more than 12 

months under 43 U.S.C. 1733(a) and 43 

CFR 8360.0–7, or both. In accordance 

with 43 CFR 8365.1–7, State or local 

officials may also impose penalties for 

violations of Nevada law. 

Authority: 43 CFR 8364.1. 

Mark E. Hall, 

Field Manager, Black Rock Field Office, 

Winnemucca District. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14177 Filed 6–29–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–HC–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–945] 

Certain Network Devices, Related 

Software and Components Thereof (II) 

(Modification 2); Modification of 

Limited Exclusion Order and Cease 

and Desist Order; Termination of the 

Modification Proceeding as to U.S. 

Patent No. 6,377,577 and Suspension 

of the Modification Proceeding as to 

U.S. Patent No. 7,224,668 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined to modify 

a limited exclusion order and a cease 

and desist order (‘‘the remedial orders’’) 

issued against Arista Networks, Inc. of 

Santa Clara, California (‘‘Arista’’) in Inv. 

No. 337–TA–945. The above-captioned 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2018 / Notices 30955 

modification proceeding is terminated 

as to U.S. Patent No. 6,377,577 (‘‘the 

’577 patent’’) and is suspended as to 

U.S. Patent No. 7,224,668 (‘‘the ’668 

patent’’). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Megan M. Valentine, Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

708–2301. 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 January 27, 2015, based on a 

Complaint filed by Cisco Systems, Inc. 

of San Jose, California (‘‘Cisco’’). 80 FR 

4313–14 (Jan. 27, 2015). The Complaint 

alleges violations of section 337 of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 

U.S.C. 1337 (‘‘section 337’’), by reason 

of infringement of certain claims of U.S. 

Patent Nos. 7,023,853 (‘‘the ’853 

patent’’); the ’577 patent; 7,460,492 

(‘‘the ’492 patent’’); 7,061,875 (‘‘the ’875 

patent’’); the ’668 patent; and 8,051,211 

(‘‘the ’211 patent’’). The Complaint 

further alleges the existence of a 

domestic industry. The Commission’s 

Notice of Investigation named Arista as 

the respondent. The Office of Unfair 

Import Investigations (‘‘OUII’’) was also 

named as a party to the investigation. 

The Commission terminated the 

investigation in part as to certain claims 

of the asserted patents. Notice (Nov. 18, 

2015) (see Order No. 38 (Oct. 27, 2015)); 

Notice (Dec. 1, 2015) (see Order No. 47 

(Nov. 9, 2015)). 

On June 11, 2016, the Patent Trial and 

Appeal Board (‘‘PTAB’’) of the U.S. 

Patent and Trademark Office instituted 

separate inter partes review (‘‘IPR’’) 

proceedings concerning the ’577 and 

’668 patents. Arista Networks, Inc. v. 

Cisco Systems, Inc., Case IPR2016– 

00303 (regarding the ’577 patent); Arista 

Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 

Case IPR2016–00309 (regarding the ’668 

patent). 

On May 4, 2017, the Commission 

found a violation of section 337 with 

respect to certain of the asserted claims 

of the ’577 and ’668 patents. Notice 

(May 4, 2017); 82 FR 21827–29 (May 10, 

2017); see also Notice of Correction 

(May 30, 2017); 82 FR 25811 (June 5, 

2017). The Commission issued a limited 

exclusion order (‘‘LEO’’) and a cease 

and desist order (‘‘CDO’’) against Arista. 

Id. The Commission did not find a 

violation with respect to the ’853, ’875, 

’492, and ’211 patents. Id. 

On May 25, 2017, the PTAB issued its 

final written decision finding claims 1, 

7–10, 12–16, 18–22, 25, and 28–31 of 

the ’577 patent unpatentable based on 

prior art not presented in the 

Commission investigation. On June 1, 

2017, the PTAB issued its final written 

decision finding claims 1–10, 12, 13, 

15–28, 30, 33–36, 55–64, 66, 67, and 69– 

72 of the ’668 patent unpatentable based 

on certain combinations of prior art not 

presented in the Commission 

investigation. 

On June 30, 2017, Cisco filed a notice 

of appeal with the United States Court 

of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

(‘‘Federal Circuit’’), seeking review of 

the Commission’s finding of no 

violation as to the ’853, ’875, ’492, and 

’211 patents. Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Int’l 

Trade Comm’n, Appeal No. 17–2289. 

On July 21, 2017, Arista filed a notice 

of appeal with the Federal Circuit, 

seeking review of the Commission’s 

finding of violation as to the ’577 and 

’668 patents. Arista Networks, Inc. v. 

Int’l Trade Comm’n, Appeal No. 17– 

2336. On August 3, 2017, the Federal 

Circuit consolidated the Arista and 

Cisco appeals. Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Int’l 

Trade Comm’n, Appeal No. 17–2289, 

Dkt. No. 20. The consolidated appeal is 

currently pending before the Federal 

Circuit. 

On August 25, 2017, Arista filed a 

motion with the Federal Circuit seeking 

to stay the Commission’s remedial 

orders pending resolution of the appeal 

on the merits. On September 22, 2017, 

the Federal Circuit denied this request 

‘‘subject to the condition that the 

product redesign on which Cisco relies 

to deny irreparable harm must be 

permitted to enter the country, without 

being blocked by the Commission order 

under review in this case, unless and 

until Commission proceedings are 

initiated and completed to produce an 

enforceable determination that such a 

redesign is barred by the order here 

under review or by a new or amended 

order.’’ Cisco Sys, Inc. v. ITC; Arista 

Networks, Inc. v. ITC, Appeal Nos. 

2017–2289, –2351, Order at 3 (Fed. Cir. 

Sept. 22, 2017). 

On September 27, 2017, Cisco 

petitioned for a modification proceeding 

to determine whether Arista’s 

redesigned switches infringe the patent 

claims that are the subject of the LEO 

and CDO issued in this investigation 

and for modification of the remedial 

orders to specify the status of these 

redesigned products. 

On November 1, 2017, the 

Commission instituted the modification 

proceeding. 82 FR 50678 (Nov. 1, 2017). 

On November 7, 2018, the Commission 

issued a notice clarifying that OUII is 

not named as a party in the modification 

proceeding. 82 FR 52318 (Nov. 13, 

2017). 

On February 14, 2018, the Federal 

Circuit summarily affirmed the PTAB’s 

decision finding the claims of the ’668 

patent unpatentable. Cisco Systems, Inc. 

v. Arista Networks, Inc., Appeal No. 17– 

2384, Order (Feb. 14, 2018). The Court 

issued the mandate on March 23, 2018. 

Id., Dkt. No. 54. 

On March 15, 2018, Arista filed a 

motion before the Commission to stay 

the Commission’s remedial orders as to 

the ’668 patent. On March 26, 2018, 

Cisco filed its response stating that it 

takes no position on Arista’s motion. 

On March 23, 2018, the ALJ issued a 

recommended determination in the 

modification proceeding (‘‘MRD’’), 

finding that Arista’s redesigned 

products infringe the relevant claims of 

the ’668 patent but do not infringe the 

relevant claims of the ’577 patent. MRD 

(Mar. 23, 2018). Also on March 23, 

2018, the ALJ issued an order denying 

Arista’s motion to stay the modification 

proceedings or to stay the remedial 

orders with respect to the ’668 patent. 

Order No. 20 (Mar. 23, 2018). 

On April 5, 2018, the Commission 

determined to modify the remedial 

orders to suspend enforcement of those 

orders with respect to the ’668 patent. 

Notice (Apr. 5, 2018); Comm’n Order 

(Apr. 5, 2018). 

Also on April 5, 2018, Cisco filed 

comments to the MRD, requesting 

review of the ALJ’s findings that Arista’s 

redesigned products do not infringe the 

relevant claims of the ’577 patent. On 

the same day, Arista filed comments to 

the MRD, requesting review of the ALJ’s 

finding that its redesigned products 

infringe the relevant claims of the ’668 

patent and preserving certain alternative 

grounds of affirmance regarding the 

ALJ’s finding that the redesigned 

products do not infringe the relevant 

claims of the ’577 patent. 

Further on April 5, 2018, Arista filed 

a motion to stay the modification 

proceeding as to the ’668 patent based 

on the Federal Circuit’s affirmance of 

the PTAB’s determination that the 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
30956 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2018 / Notices 

relevant claims of the ’668 patent are 

unpatentable. 

On April 12, 2018, Cisco and Arista 

filed responses to each other’s 

comments. 

On April 16, 2017, Cisco filed a 

response to Arista’s stay motion. 

Having examined the record of this 

modification proceeding, including the 

MRD, the comments to the MRD, and 

the responses thereto, the Commission 

has determined to find that Cisco has 

failed to show by a preponderance of 

the evidence that Arista’s redesigned 

products infringe claims 1, 7, 9, 10, and 

15 of the ’577 patent or that Arista has 

indirectly infringed those claim by 

contributing to or inducing infringement 

by its customers. Accordingly, the 

Commission has determined to modify 

the remedial orders to exempt Arista’s 

redesigned products that were the 

subject of this modification proceeding. 

The modification proceeding is 

terminated with respect to the ’577 

patent. 

The Commission has also determined 

to suspend the modification proceeding 

with respect to the ’668 patent and to 

deny Arisa’s motion to stay the 

modification proceeding as to the ’668 

patent as moot in light of the 

Commission’s prior suspension of the 

remedial orders with respect to the ’668 

patent. 

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: June 26, 2018. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14130 Filed 6–29–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 

and Explosives 

[OMB Number 1140–0079] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Proposed eCollection 

eComments Requested; Extension 

Without Change of a Currently 

Approved Collection; Transactions 

Among Licensee/Permittees and 

Transactions Among Licensees and 

Holders of User Permits 

AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms and Explosives, Department of 

Justice. 

ACTION: 60-Day notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice 

(DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will 

submit the following information 

collection request to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and approval in accordance with 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Comments are encouraged and 

will be accepted for 60 days until 

August 31, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have additional comments, 

particularly with respect to the 

estimated public burden or associated 

response time, have suggestions, need a 

copy of the proposed information 

collection instrument with instructions, 

or desire any additional information, 

please contact Anita Scheddel, Program 

Analyst, Explosives Industry Programs 

Branch, either by mail 99 New York 

Ave. NE, Washington, DC 20226, or by 

email at eipb-informationcollection@

atf.gov, or by telephone at 202–648– 

7158. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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; 

—Evaluate whether and if so how the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected can be 

enhanced; 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 

(check justification or form 83): 

Extension, without change, of a 

currently approved collection. 

2. The Title of the Form/Collection: 

Transactions Among Licensee/ 

Permittees and Transactions Among 

Licensees and Holders of User Permits. 

3. The agency form number, if any, 

and the applicable component of the 

Department sponsoring the collection: 

Form number (if applicable): None. 

Component: Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. 

Department of Justice. 

4. Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: 

Primary: Business or other for-profit. 

Other (if applicable): Individuals or 

households, and farms. 

Abstract: This information collection 

requires specific transactions for 

licensee/permittees and holders of user 

permits. These requirements are 

outlined in 27 CFR part 555.103 in order 

to comply with the Safe Explosives Act. 

5. An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 

estimated for an average respondent to 

respond: An estimated 50,000 

respondents will respond once to this 

collection, and it will take each 

respondent approximately 30 minutes to 

complete each response. 

6. An estimate of the total public 

burden (in hours) associated with the 

collection: The estimated annual public 

burden associated with this collection is 

25,000 hours, which is equal to 50,000 

(total respondents) * 1 (# of response 

per respondent) * .5 (30 minutes). 

If additional information is required 

contact: Melody Braswell, Department 

Clearance Officer, United States 

Department of Justice, Justice 

Management Division, Policy and 

Planning Staff, Two Constitution 

Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A, 

Washington, DC 20530. 

Dated: June 27, 2018. 

Melody Braswell, 

Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. 

Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14167 Filed 6–29–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–FY–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

United States v. CRH plc, 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, Stipulation, and 

Competitive Impact Statement have 

been filed with the United States 

District Court for the District of 

Columbia in United States of America v. 

CRH plc, et al., Civil Action No. 1:18– 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES