Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Notices 69129 

MediaTek Inc. of Hsinchu City, Taiwan 

and MediaTek USA Inc. of San Jose, 

California (together, ‘‘MediaTek’’); Acer 

Inc. of New Taipei City, Taiwan; 

AmTRAN Technology Co. Ltd. of New 

Taipei, Taiwan; AmTRAN Logistics, Inc. 

of Irvine, California; ASUSTek 

Computer Inc. of Taipei, Taiwan; ASUS 

Computer International, Inc. of Fremont, 

California; BLU Products, Inc., of Doral, 

Florida; Sharp Corporation of Osaka, 

Japan; Sharp Electronics Corporation of 

Mahwah, New Jersey; Sharp Electronics 

Manufacturing Company of America, 

Inc. of San Diego, California; Sony 

Corporation of Tokyo, Japan; Sony 

EMCS (Malaysia) of Penang, Malaysia; 

Toshiba America Information Systems, 

Inc. of Irvine, California; Toshiba 

Logistics America, Inc. of Irvine, 

California; TPV Display Technology 

(Xiamen) Co. of Fujian, China; Trend 

Smart America, Ltd. of Lake Forest, 

California; Vizio, Inc. of Irvine, 

California; Yamaha Corporation of 

Buena Park, California; Lenovo Group 

Ltd. of Beijing, China; Lenovo (United 

States) Inc. of Morrisville, North 

Carolina; Best Buy Co., Inc. of Richfield, 

Minnesota; Newegg Inc. of City of 

Industry, California; Buy.com Inc. d/b/ 

a Rakuten.com Shopping of Aliso Viejo, 

California; Walmart Stores, Inc. of 

Bentonville, Arkansas; Amazon.com, 

Inc. of Seattle, Washington; B&H Foto & 

Electronics Corp. of New York, New 

York; and Costco Wholesale Corporation 

of Issaquah, Washington (collectively, 

‘‘Respondents’’). Id. at 37771. The Office 

of Unfair Import Investigations was also 

named as a party to the investigation. Id. 

On September 29, 2014, Freescale and 

MediaTek filed a joint motion to 

terminate the entire investigation with 

prejudice based on a settlement 

agreement covering all Respondents. On 

October 3, 2014, Freescale and 

MediaTek filed a joint motion for leave 

to file a corrected version of its motion 

based on comments received from the 

ALJ’s attorney-advisor and the 

Commission Investigative Attorney 

(‘‘IA’’). 

On October 7, 2014, the IA filed a 

response to the corrected motion, and 

contended that the motion should be 

granted-in-part. The IA stated that the 

moving parties’ request to have the 

investigation terminated ‘‘with 

prejudice’’ should be denied, because 

the Commission has previously 

declined to terminate investigations 

with prejudice. The IA contended that 

the remainder of the motion complied 

with the Commission’s rules, so the 

investigation should be terminated in its 

entirety without prejudice. 

On October 16, 2014, the ALJ issued 

the subject ID, granting the moving 

parties’ motion to file a corrected 

motion and granting-in-part the moving 

parties’ corrected motion. The ALJ 

declined to terminate the investigation 

‘‘with prejudice.’’ The ALJ found that 

the remainder of the motion complied 

with the Commission’s rules. 

Specifically, the ALJ found that the 

moving parties had submitted their 

settlement agreement, and had stated 

that there were no other agreements, 

written or oral, express or implied, 

between Freescale and Respondents 

concerning the subject matter of the 

investigation, and that the termination 

of the investigation does not impose any 

undue burden on the public health and 

welfare, competitive conditions in the 

United States economy, the production 

of like or directly competitive articles in 

the United States, and United States 

consumers. The ALJ thus terminated the 

investigation in its entirety without 

prejudice based on the settlement 

agreement. No petitions for review of 

the ID 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: November 14, 2014. 

Lisa R. Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27458 Filed 11–19–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–927] 

Certain Noise Cancelling Headphones 

and Components Thereof; 

Commission Determination Not To 

Review an Initial Determination 

Granting a Joint Motion To Terminate 

the Investigation Based on a 

Settlement Agreement 

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 an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) 

(Order No. 7) issued by the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) 

granting a joint motion to terminate the 

investigation based on a settlement 

agreement. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3115. 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 

under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 

1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on September 2, 

2014, based on a complaint filed by 

Bose Corporation of Framingham, 

Massachusetts (‘‘Bose’’). See 79 FR 

52041 (Sep. 2, 2014). The complaint 

alleges 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 noise 

cancelling headphones and components 

thereof by reason of infringement of 

certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 

6,717,537; 8,073,150; 8,073,151; 

8,054,992; and 8,345,888. The 

respondents named in the Commission’s 

notice of investigation are Beats 

Electronics, LLC of Culver City, 

California; Beats Electronics 

International Ltd. of Dublin, Ireland; 

Fugang Electronic (Dong Guan) Co. Ltd. 

of Guang-Dong, China; and PCH 

International Ltd. of Blackrock, Cork, 

Ireland (collectively, ‘‘Beats’’). A 

Commission investigative attorney (‘‘the 

IA’’) is participating in the investigation. 

On October 10, 2014, complainant 

Bose and respondents Beats filed a joint 

motion to terminate this investigation in 

its entirety based on a settlement 

agreement, and a memorandum in 

support thereof. The IA filed a response 

supporting the motion. 

On October 15, 2014, the ALJ issued 

the subject ID finding that the joint 

motion complies with the Commission 

Rules. The ALJ found that termination 

of the investigation is in the public 

interest inasmuch as termination would 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
69130 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Notices 

conserve public and private resources. 

The ALJ granted the motion. No party 

petitioned for review of the subject ID. 

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 Part 

210 of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure (19 CFR Part 

210). 

Issued: November 17, 2014. 

By order of the Commission. 

Lisa R. Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27472 Filed 11–19–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Office of the Secretary 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Submission for OMB 

Review; Comment Request; DavisBacon Certified Payroll 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor 

(DOL) is submitting the Wage and Hour 

Division (WHD) sponsored information 

collection request (ICR) titled, ‘‘DavisBacon Certified Payroll,’’ to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and approval for continued use, 

without change, in accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Public 

comments on the ICR are invited. 

DATES: The OMB will consider all 

written comments that agency receives 

on or before December 22, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: A copy of this ICR with 

applicable supporting documentation; 

including a description of the likely 

respondents, proposed frequency of 

response, and estimated total burden 

may be obtained free of charge from the 

RegInfo.gov Web site at http://

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/

PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201411-1235-001 

(this link will only become active on the 

day following publication of this notice) 

or by contacting Michel Smyth by 

telephone at 202–693–4129, TTY 202– 

693–8064, (these are not toll-free 

numbers) or by email at DOL_PRA_

PUBLIC@dol.gov. 

Submit comments about this request 

by mail or courier to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL–WHD, 

Office of Management and Budget, 

Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202– 

395–5806 (this is not a toll-free 

number); or by email: OIRA_

submission@omb.eop.gov. Commenters 

are encouraged, but not required, to 

send a courtesy copy of any comments 

by mail or courier to the U.S. 

Department of Labor-OASAM, Office of 

the Chief Information Officer, Attn: 

Departmental Information Compliance 

Management Program, Room N1301, 

200 Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20210; or by email: 

DOL_PRA_PUBLIC@dol.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michel Smyth by telephone at 202–693– 

4129, TTY 202–693–8064, (these are not 

toll-free numbers) or by email at DOL_

PRA_PUBLIC@dol.gov. 

Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This ICR 

seeks to extend PRA authority for the 

Davis-Bacon Certified Payroll 

information collection. The Copeland 

Act requires contractors and 

subcontractors performing work on 

federally financed or assisted 

construction contracts to furnish weekly 

a statement with respect to the wages 

paid each employee during the 

preceding week. See 40 U.S.C. 3145(a); 

29 CFR 3.3(b). Regulations 29 CFR 5.5 

(a)(3)(ii)(A) requires contractors to 

submit weekly a copy of all payrolls to 

the Federal agency contracting for or 

financing the construction project, if the 

agency is a party to the contract, 

accompanied by a signed Statement of 

Compliance indicating that the payrolls 

are correct and complete and that each 

laborer or mechanic has been paid not 

less than the proper Davis-Bacon 

prevailing wage rate for the work 

performed. See 29 CFR 5.5(a)(3)(ii)(B). 

The DOL has developed optional use 

Form WH–347, Payroll Form, to aide 

contractors and subcontractors 

performing work on federally financed 

or assisted construction contracts in 

meeting weekly payroll reporting 

requirements. See 29 CFR 

5.5(a)(3)(ii)(A); see also, 29 CFR 3.3(b). 

Properly filled out, this form will satisfy 

the requirements of Regulations 29 CFR 

parts 3 and 5 as to payrolls submitted 

in connection with contracts subject to 

the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts. 

Copeland Act section 2 authorizes this 

information collection. See 40 U.S.C. 

3145(a). 

Consistent with the development of 

additional tools to increase transparency 

in the accounting of information 

collection burdens across Federal 

agencies, the DOL seeks for the DavisBacon Certified Payroll to be designated 

a common form that may be used by all 

Federal agencies. This designation will 

not change the collection, except that 

the burdens associated with the ICR 

would be apportioned to each 

contracting agency, in accordance with 

its use of certified payrolls, instead of 

all burdens being allocated to the DOL. 

This information collection is subject 

to the PRA. A Federal agency generally 

cannot conduct or sponsor a collection 

of information, and the public is 

generally not required to respond to an 

information collection, unless it is 

approved by the OMB under the PRA 

and displays a currently valid OMB 

Control Number. In addition, 

notwithstanding any other provisions of 

law, no person shall generally be subject 

to penalty for failing to comply with a 

collection of information that does not 

display a valid Control Number. See 5 

CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL 

obtains OMB approval for this 

information collection under Control 

Number 1235–0008. 

OMB authorization for an ICR cannot 

be for more than three (3) years without 

renewal, and the current approval for 

this collection is scheduled to expire on 

January 31, 2015. The DOL seeks to 

extend PRA authorization for this 

information collection for three (3) more 

years, without any change to existing 

requirements. The DOL notes that 

existing information collection 

requirements submitted to the OMB 

receive a month-to-month extension 

while they undergo review. For 

additional substantive information 

about this ICR, see the related notice 

published in the Federal Register on 

June 9, 2014 (79 FR 33001). 

Interested parties are encouraged to 

send comments to the OMB, Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs at 

the address shown in the ADDRESSES

section within thirty (30) days of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. In order to help ensure 

appropriate consideration, comments 

should mention OMB Control Number 

1235–0008. The OMB is particularly 

interested in comments that: 

• 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, 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES