Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 97 / Thursday, May 20, 2010 / Notices 28283 

The land will not be available for lease 

or conveyance until after the 

classification becomes effective. 

(Authority: 43 CFR 2741.5) 

Ruben A. Sa ́nchez, 

Kingman Field Manager. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12158 Filed 5–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–32–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLAZG01000.L14300000.FO0000.241A; 

AZPHX–080687 and AZPHX–080893] 

Notice of Realty Action: Opening of 

Public Lands; Arizona 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of Realty Action. 

SUMMARY: This Notice opens 1,920 

acres, more or less, of public land 

located in Cochise County, Arizona, to 

location and entry under the public land 

laws, including the general mining laws. 

DATES: Effective Date: May 20, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Bureau of Land 

Management Safford Field Office, 711 

14th Avenue, Safford, Arizona 85546. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom 

Schnell, Assistant Field Manager for 

Nonrenewable Resources, at the above 

address or call 928–348–4420. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to the Enabling Act of June 20, 1910, as 

amended (36 Stat. 557), upon Arizona 

statehood, the surface and subsurface 

interest in the subject lands became 

State lands. In 1947 and 1948, two 

separate land exchanges (PHX–080893 

and PHX–080687) transferred these 

lands back to the United States pursuant 

to the Taylor Grazing Act of June 28, 

1934, as amended (48 Stat. 1269). The 

Taylor Grazing Act allowed states to 

retain the mineral rights in such land 

exchanges, but only if the lands were 

‘‘mineral in character.’’ The subject 

lands were deemed ‘‘mineral in 

character’’ based on the presence of 

State oil and gas leases. Therefore, the 

State of Arizona retained the subsurface 

estate and transferred only the surface 

estate to the United States. 

In the 1990s, UOP, a general 

partnership that was operating a mine 

on the lands involved, challenged the 

State’s determination that the lands 

were mineral in character and the 

State’s retention of minerals when the 

lands were exchanged to the United 

States. As a result, the Department of 

the Interior’s Office of Hearings and 

Appeals (Interior Board of Land Appeals 

or IBLA), required the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) to prepare a mineral 

report to determine whether the subject 

lands were mineral in character at the 

time of the land exchanges. Based on 

the BLM’s mineral report, the IBLA 

issued a Summary Decision on 

September 1, 1999 (IBLA 97–227) which 

held that because the subject lands were 

non-mineral in character at the time of 

the 1947 and 1948 exchanges, the 

reservation of minerals by the State of 

Arizona was void, and that those 

minerals transferred by operation of law 

to the United States in the land 

exchanges. This Notice opens the lands 

to the public land and mining, mineral 

leasing, and mineral materials laws as 

specified below. 

The lands are described as follows: 

Gila & Salt River Meridian 

T. 12 S., R. 29 E., 

Sec. 2, lots 1 to 4, inclusive, S1⁄2N1⁄2, and 

S1⁄2; 

Sec. 3, lots 1 to 4, inclusive, S1⁄2N1⁄2, and 

S1⁄2; 

Sec. 11. 

The area described contains 1,920 acres, 

more or less, in Cochise County. 

1. Beginning at 9 a.m. on May 20, 

2010, the lands described above shall be 

open to the operation of the public land 

laws generally, subject to valid existing 

rights, the provisions of existing 

withdrawals, other segregations of 

record, and the requirements of 

applicable law. All valid applications 

received at 9 a.m. on May 20, 2010, 

shall be considered as simultaneously 

filed at that time. Those received 

thereafter shall be considered in the 

order of filing. 

2. At 9 a.m. on May 20, 2010, the 

lands described above shall be open to 

location and entry under the United 

States mining laws, and to the mineral 

leasing and mineral materials laws, 

subject to valid existing rights, the 

provisions of existing withdrawals, 

other segregations of record, and the 

requirements of applicable law. 

Appropriation of the lands under the 

general mining laws prior to the date 

and time of opening is unauthorized. 

Any such attempted appropriation, 

including attempted adverse possession 

under 30 U.S.C. 38 (2000) shall vest no 

rights against the United States. 

Acts required to establish a location 

and to initiate a right of possession are 

governed by State law where not in 

conflict with Federal law. 

Scott C. Cooke, 

Safford Field Manager. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12146 Filed 5–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–32–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–698] 

In the Matter of: Certain DC–DC 

Controllers and Products Containing 

Same; Notice of Commission Decision 

Not To Review the Administrative Law 

Judge’s Initial Determination Granting 

Complainants’ Motion To Amend the 

Complaint and Notice of 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 initial determination (‘‘ID’’) 

(Order No. 19) granting complainants’ 

motion to amend the complaint and 

notice of investigation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

708–2532. 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 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 December 29, 2009, based on a 

complaint filed by Richtek Technology 

Corp. of Taiwan and Richtek USA, Inc. 

of San Jose, California (‘‘Richtek’’), 

alleging a violation of section 337 in the 

importation, sale for importation, and 

sale within the United States after 

importation of certain DC–DC 

controllers by reason of infringement of 

certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 

7,315,190 (‘‘the ’190 patent’’); 6,414,470; 

and 7,132,717, and by reason of trade 

secret misappropriation. 75 FR 446 (Jan. 

5, 2010). The complaint named five 

respondents. On March 5, 2010, the ALJ 

granted Richtek’s motion to allow 

Richtek to add three new respondents 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
28284 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 97 / Thursday, May 20, 2010 / Notices 

and to correct the name of another; an 

ID issued. Order No. 6 (Mar. 5, 2010). 

On March 31, 2010, the Commission 

determined not to review that ID. 75 FR 

17433–34 (Apr. 6, 2010). 

On April 12, 2010, Richtek moved for 

leave to amend its complaint to assert 

dependent claims 8–11 of the ’190 

patent on the basis of newly discovered 

evidence produced by the respondents 

in this investigation. Independent claim 

1 of the ’190 patent (upon which claims 

8–11 depend) had always been asserted 

in this investigation. On April 20, 2010, 

the respondents filed their opposition, 

arguing that Richtek’s two-month delay 

in asserting these patent claims caused 

them prejudice. The next day, the 

Commission’s investigative attorney 

filed a response indicating that she did 

not oppose the motion. 

On April 22, 2010, the ALJ issued an 

ID granting Richtek’s motion. Order No. 

19 (Apr. 22, 2010). The ID found good 

cause for Richtek’s delay and tacitly 

rejected the respondents’ allegations of 

prejudice. Id. at 6–7. 

No petitions for review of the ID were 

filed. The Commission has determined 

not to review the 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 

section 210.42 of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.42). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: May 14, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12101 Filed 5–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. No. 337–TA–564] 

In the Matter of: Certain Voltage 

Regulators, Components Thereof and 

Products Containing Same; 

Enforcement Proceeding; Notice of 

Commission Determination Not To 

Review the Enforcement Initial 

Determination; Schedule for Briefing 

on the Issues of Remedy, Public 

Interest, and Bonding 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The United States 

International Trade Commission hereby 

provides notice that it has determined 

not to review the Enforcement Initial 

Determination (‘‘ID’’) issued by the 

presiding administrative law judge 

(‘‘ALJ’’) on March 18, 2010 in the abovecaptioned investigation. Notice is 

further given that the Commission is 

requesting briefing on remedy, the 

public interest, and bonding with 

respect to the ID’s findings and 

recommendations concerning 

enforcement measures. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

M. Bartkowski, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

708–5432. Copies of all nonconfidential 

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 

the matter can be obtained by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted the investigation 

underlying this enforcement proceeding 

on March 22, 2006, based on a 

complaint filed by Linear Technology 

Corporation (‘‘Linear’’) of Milpitas, 

California. 71 FR 14545. The complaint, 

as supplemented, alleged violations of 

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (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 voltage regulators, components 

thereof and products containing the 

same, by reason of infringement of 

certain claims of United States Patent 

No. 6,411,531 and of United States 

Patent No. 6,580,258 (‘‘the ‘258 patent’’). 

The complaint named Advanced 

Analogic Technologies, Inc. (‘‘AATI’’) of 

Sunnyvale, California as the sole 

respondent. After Commission review of 

the administrative law judge’s (‘‘ALJ’’) 

final ID, the Commission determined 

that there was a violation of section 337 

by AATI with respect to certain asserted 

claims of the ‘258 patent and issued a 

limited exclusion order (‘‘LEO’’) 

consistent with its findings of violation. 

Subsequently, based on an enforcement 

complaint filed by Linear, the 

Commission instituted an enforcement 

proceeding by notice in the Federal 

Register on October 10, 2008. 

On March 18, 2010, the ALJ issued 

the subject ID, finding that, due to 

infringement of claims 2 and 34 of the 

‘258 patent by the accused products, 

AATI violated the LEO. AATI filed a 

petition for review of certain aspects of 

the ID, and Linear filed a contingent 

petition for review of the ID. AATI and 

Linear filed responses to each others’ 

petitions, and the Commission 

investigative attorney filed a joint 

response to the private parties’ 

petitions. Having reviewed the record of 

the enforcement proceeding, including 

the petition for review and the 

responses thereto, the Commission has 

determined not to review the ID. 

In connection with the final 

disposition of this proceeding, the 

Commission may (1) modify the LEO 

and/or (2) issue a cease-and-desist order 

that could result in the respondent 

being required to cease and desist from 

engaging in unfair acts in the 

importation and sale of the subject 

articles. Accordingly, the Commission is 

interested in receiving written 

submissions that address the form of 

remedy, if any, that should be ordered. 

The Commission is particularly 

interested in receiving briefing 

regarding potential modifications to the 

LEO that ensure exclusion of the 

products for which a violation was 

found. If a party seeks exclusion of an 

article from entry into the United States 

for purposes other than entry for 

consumption, the party should so 

indicate and provide information 

establishing that activities involving 

other types of entry either are adversely 

affecting it or likely to do so. For 

background, see In the Matter of Certain 

Devices for Connecting Computers via 

Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360, 

USITC Pub. No. 2843 (December 1994) 

(Commission Opinion). 

If the Commission contemplates some 

form of remedy, it must consider the 

effects of that remedy upon the public 

interest. The factors the Commission 

will consider include the effect that a 

modified exclusion order and/or ceaseand-desist orders would have on (1) the 

public health and welfare, (2) 

competitive conditions in the U.S. 

economy, (3) U.S. production of articles 

that are like or directly competitive with 

those that are subject to investigation, 

and (4) U.S. consumers. The 

Commission is therefore interested in 

receiving written submissions that 

address the aforementioned public 

interest factors in the context of this 

investigation. 

If the Commission orders some form 

of remedy, the U.S. Trade 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1