In the Matter of Certain Connecting Devices (“Quick Clamps”) for Use With Modular Compressed Air Conditioning Units, Including Filters, Regulators, and Lubricators (“Frl's”) That Are Part of Larger Pneumatic Systems and the FRL Units They Connect; Notice of Commission Decision To Review a Final Initial Determination; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions on the Issue Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding, 63198-63200 [2010-25801]

Download as PDF 63198 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Notices The meeting dates are: October 26, 2010, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and October 27, 2010, 9 a.m. to 12 p.m., Austin, TX. ADDRESSES: The meeting location is: Suites Hotel Austin Downtown/Town Lake at 300 South Congress Avenue, Austin, TX 78704. DATES: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Anyone interested may request more information concerning this meeting from, or submit written statements to: Mr. Kirk A. Cordell, Executive Director, National Center for Preservation Technology and Training, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 645 University Parkway, Natchitoches, LA 71457—telephone (318) 356–7444. In addition to U.S. Mail or commercial delivery, written comments may be sent by fax to Mr. Cordell at (318) 356–9119. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Minutes of the meeting will be available for public inspection no later than 90 days after the meeting at the office of the Executive Director, National Center for Preservation Technology and Training, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 645 University Parkway, Natchitoches, LA 71457—telephone (318) 356–7444. Dated: September 14, 2010. Kirk A. Cordell, Executive Director, National Center for Preservation Technology and Training, National Park Service. [FR Doc. 2010–25831 Filed 10–13–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312–52–P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES [CACA–48668, 49502, 49503, 49504; L51010000 FX0000 LVRWB09B2400 LLCAD09000] Notice of Availability of the Record of Decision for the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System Project and Approved Plan Amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan, San Bernardino County, CA Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of availability. AGENCY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:30 Oct 13, 2010 Jkt 223001 The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announces the availability of the Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved Plan Amendment (PA) to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan for the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System (ISEGS) Project located in San Bernardino County, California. The Secretary of the Interior signed the ROD on October 7, 2010 which constitutes the final decision of the Department. The ROD/ Approved PA are effective immediately. ADDRESSES: Copies of the ROD/ Approved PA have been sent to affected Federal, state, and local government agencies and to other stakeholders and are available upon request at the BLM’s Needles Field Office, 1303 South Highway 95, Needles, California 92363 or via the Internet at: http:// www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/needles/ nefo_nepa.html. SUMMARY: Tom Hurshman, Project Manager, at 2465 South Townsend Ave., Montrose, Colorado 81401; phone: (970) 240–5345; e-mail: caisegs@blm.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The ISEGS Project was proposed by Solar Partners I, Solar Partners II, Solar Partners IV, and Solar Partners VIII, LLC all subsidiaries of Bright Source Energy (BSE) who filed four right-of-way (ROW) applications on public land for development of the thermal solar power tower project. The Selected Alternative approved in the ROD is the Mitigated Ivanpah 3 Alternative that would generate 370 MW of electricity and would be located on approximately 3,472 acres of public land. The BLM will authorize the project through the issuance of four ROW grants pursuant to Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. The project site is located entirely on public land administered by the BLM, approximately 4.5 miles south of Primm, Nevada in San Bernardino County, California. The CDCA Plan Amendment/Final Environmental Impact Statement was published on August 6, 2010 (75 FR 47619), initiating a 30-day protest period and concurrent 30-day comment period. Six protests of the proposed plan amendment and 18 comments on the project were received. Public comments and protests did not significantly change the decisions in the ROD/Approved PA. The BLM has consulted with other Federal, State and local agencies. The California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research did not identify any inconsistencies with the proposed FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 PA and any state plans, policies or programs. Because this decision is approved by the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, it is not subject to appeal (43 CFR 4.410(a)(3)). Authority: 40 CFR 1506.6. Mike Pool, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management. [FR Doc. 2010–25858 Filed 10–13–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–40–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–587] In the Matter of Certain Connecting Devices (‘‘Quick Clamps’’) for Use With Modular Compressed Air Conditioning Units, Including Filters, Regulators, and Lubricators (‘‘Frl’s’’) That Are Part of Larger Pneumatic Systems and the FRL Units They Connect; Notice of Commission Decision To Review a Final Initial Determination; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions on the Issue Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review the final initial determination (‘‘ID’’) on remand issued by the presiding administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) and denied motions to file reply and surreply briefs in connection with the petitions for review. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark B. Rees, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–3116. 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 SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM 14OCN1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Notices contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 205–1810. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation on November 13, 2006, based on a complaint filed by Norgren, Inc. (‘‘Norgren’’) of Littleton, Colorado. 71 FR 66193 (Nov. 13, 2006). An amended complaint was filed on October 25, 2006. A supplement to the complaint was filed on November 1, 2006. The amended complaint 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, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain devices for modular compressed air conditioning units and the FRL units they connect by reason of infringement of claims 1–9 of U.S. Patent No. 5,372,392 (‘‘the ’392 patent’’). The amended complaint also alleged that a domestic industry exists with regard to the ’392 patent under subsection (a)(2) of section 337. The amended complaint named SMC Corp. of Japan; SMC Corporation of America of Indianapolis, Indiana (collectively, ‘‘SMC’’); AIRTAC of China; and MFD Pneumatics (‘‘MFD’’) of Chicago, Illinois as the respondents and requested a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order. On July 13, 2007, the Commission determined not to review an ID terminating the investigation with respect to MFD and AIRTAC on the basis of a consent order stipulation and consent order. On February 13, 2008, the ALJ issued his final ID finding no violation of section 337. Specifically, the ALJ found that there had been an importation of SMC’s accused products and that none of the accused products infringe the asserted claims of the ’392 patent. He also found that the asserted claims are not invalid due to obviousness. He further found that Norgren satisfies the domestic industry requirement with respect to the ’392 patent. On February 25, 2008, the ALJ issued a recommended determination on remedy and bonding in the event the Commission reversed his finding of no violation of section 337. On April 18, 2008, the Commission determined not to review the ID and terminated the investigation based on the finding of no violation of section 337. 73 FR 21157 (Apr. 18, 2008). Norgren appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (‘‘the Court’’). On May 26, 2009, the Court issued its judgment, reversing-in-part the Commission’s claim construction, reversing the Commission’s determination of noninfringement, and VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:30 Oct 13, 2010 Jkt 223001 vacating the Commission’s determination of nonobviousness. Norgren Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, No. 2008–1415 (Fed.Cir. May 26, 2009). The Court remanded the investigation with instructions for the Commission to evaluate obviousness in the first instance based upon the Court’s construction of the claim term ‘‘generally rectangular ported flange.’’ Following receipt of the Court’s September 9, 2009, mandate, the Commission ordered the investigation remanded to the Chief ALJ for designation of a presiding ALJ to conduct proceedings in accordance with the Court’s judgment. The Chief Judge reassigned the investigation to the ALJ who presided over the original investigation. The ALJ held an evidentiary hearing on April 21, 2010, at which all parties were represented. The parties also fully briefed the merits. On August 5, 2010, the ALJ issued the final ID on remand in which he determined that the asserted claims are not invalid for obviousness. SMC and the Commission investigative attorney (‘‘IA’’) have petitioned for review of the ID. Norgren has filed a response in opposition to the petitions. The IA and Norgren have also moved to file reply and sur-reply briefs, respectively, in connection with the petitions for review. Having examined the record of this investigation, including the final ID on remand, the petitions for review, the response in opposition to the petitions, and the motions for leave to file a reply to the response and a sur-reply to the reply to the response, the Commission has determined to review the ID on the issue of obviousness and has determined to deny the motions for additional briefing. On review, the Commission requests written submissions on the issue under review, particularly the sub-issues of (a) whether the SMC old-style clamp is generally rectangular and (b) whether adding a hinge to one side of a generally rectangular clamp would have been obvious to one skilled in the art in 1993. The Commission also requests that the parties include in their submissions responses to the following queries, with supporting citations to the evidentiary record: 1. Is the ID’s finding that the SMC oldstyle clamp is not ‘‘generally rectangular’’ contrary to the Court’s holding in Norgren Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, No. 2008–1415 (Fed.Cir. May 26, 2009) (Slip Op. at 6–7) that the SMC and Norgren FRL flanges, which seem to have ‘‘intervening sloped sides’’ and ‘‘octagonal’’ and other appearances, are ‘‘generally rectangular’’? PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 63199 2. How, if at all, does the addition of a hinge to swing open and closed one side of a generally rectangular clamp affect the clamp’s ability to seal as claimed in the ’392 patent? 3. Applying a flexible standard, please identify the teaching(s), motivation(s), or suggestion(s), if any, that existed preinvention that would have made it obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in 1993 to combine a hinge with a generally rectangular clamp used in a pressure air system. In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the Commission may (1) issue an order that could result in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into the United States and/or (2) issue one or more cease and desist orders that could result in respondents being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. 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 are 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 (Dec. 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 an exclusion order and/or cease and 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 President has 60 days to approve or disapprove the Commission’s action. During this period, the subject articles would be entitled to enter the United States under bond, in an amount determined by the Commission and prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving submissions concerning the E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM 14OCN1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 63200 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Notices amount of the bond that should be imposed. Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation are requested to file written submissions on the issue under review as set forth above. The submissions should be concise and thoroughly referenced to the record in this investigation. Parties to the investigation, interested government agencies, and any other interested parties are encouraged to file written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Such submissions should address the recommended determination by the ALJ on remedy and bonding. Complainant and the IA are also requested to submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission’s consideration. Complainant is further requested to provide the expiration date of the ’392 patent and state the HTSUS number under which the accused articles are imported. The written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than the close of business on October 21, 2010. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on November 1, 2010. No further submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission. Persons filing written submissions must file the original document and 12 true copies thereof on or before the deadlines stated above with the Office of the Secretary. Any person desiring to submit a document (or portion thereof) to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment unless the information has already been granted such treatment during the proceedings. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary of the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See section 201.6 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is sought will be treated accordingly. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary. 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 210.42–.46 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42–.46). Issued: October 7, 2010. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:30 Oct 13, 2010 Jkt 223001 By order of the Commission. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2010–25801 Filed 10–13–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 731–TA–282 (Third Review)] Petroleum Wax Candles From China United States International Trade Commission. ACTION: Scheduling of an expedited fiveyear review concerning the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from China. AGENCY: The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of an expedited review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207). DATES: Effective Date: October 4, 2010. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keysha Martinez (202–205–2136), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 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 review may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background.—On October 4, 2010, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution (75 FR 38121, July 1, 2010) of the subject five-year review was adequate and that the respondent interested party group SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 response was inadequate. The Commission did not find any other circumstances that would warrant conducting a full review.1 Accordingly, the Commission determined that it would conduct an expedited review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act. Staff report.—A staff report containing information concerning the subject matter of the review will be placed in the nonpublic record on November 10, 2010, and made available to persons on the Administrative Protective Order service list for this review. A public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.62(d)(4) of the Commission’s rules. Written submissions.—As provided in section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s rules, interested parties that are parties to the review and that have provided individually adequate responses to the notice of institution,2 and any party other than an interested party to the review may file written comments with the Secretary on what determination the Commission should reach in the review. Comments are due on or before November 15, 2010 and may not contain new factual information. Any person that is neither a party to the five-year review nor an interested party may submit a brief written statement (which shall not contain any new factual information) pertinent to the review by November 15, 2010. However, should the Department of Commerce extend the time limit for its completion of the final results of its review, the deadline for comments (which may not contain new factual information) on Commerce’s final results is three business days after the issuance of Commerce’s results. If comments contain business proprietary information (BPI), they must conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s rules. The Commission’s rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means, except to the extent permitted by section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Even where electronic filing of a document is permitted, certain documents must also be filed in paper form, as specified in II(C) of the Commission’s Handbook on Electronic 1 A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner’s statements will be available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission’s Web site. 2 The Commission has found the response submitted by the National Candle Association to be individually adequate. Comments from other interested parties will not be accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)). E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM 14OCN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 198 (Thursday, October 14, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63198-63200]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25801]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-587]


In the Matter of Certain Connecting Devices (``Quick Clamps'') 
for Use With Modular Compressed Air Conditioning Units, Including 
Filters, Regulators, and Lubricators (``Frl's'') That Are Part of 
Larger Pneumatic Systems and the FRL Units They Connect; Notice of 
Commission Decision To Review a Final Initial Determination; Schedule 
for Filing Written Submissions on the Issue Under Review and on Remedy, 
the Public Interest, and Bonding

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined to review the final initial determination 
(``ID'') on remand issued by the presiding administrative law judge 
(``ALJ'') and denied motions to file reply and sur-reply briefs in 
connection with the petitions for review.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark B. Rees, Office of the General 
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3116. 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

[[Page 63199]]

contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation 
on November 13, 2006, based on a complaint filed by Norgren, Inc. 
(``Norgren'') of Littleton, Colorado. 71 FR 66193 (Nov. 13, 2006). An 
amended complaint was filed on October 25, 2006. A supplement to the 
complaint was filed on November 1, 2006. The amended complaint 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, or 
the sale within the United States after importation of certain devices 
for modular compressed air conditioning units and the FRL units they 
connect by reason of infringement of claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 
5,372,392 (``the '392 patent''). The amended complaint also alleged 
that a domestic industry exists with regard to the '392 patent under 
subsection (a)(2) of section 337. The amended complaint named SMC Corp. 
of Japan; SMC Corporation of America of Indianapolis, Indiana 
(collectively, ``SMC''); AIRTAC of China; and MFD Pneumatics (``MFD'') 
of Chicago, Illinois as the respondents and requested a limited 
exclusion order and a cease and desist order. On July 13, 2007, the 
Commission determined not to review an ID terminating the investigation 
with respect to MFD and AIRTAC on the basis of a consent order 
stipulation and consent order.
    On February 13, 2008, the ALJ issued his final ID finding no 
violation of section 337. Specifically, the ALJ found that there had 
been an importation of SMC's accused products and that none of the 
accused products infringe the asserted claims of the '392 patent. He 
also found that the asserted claims are not invalid due to obviousness. 
He further found that Norgren satisfies the domestic industry 
requirement with respect to the '392 patent. On February 25, 2008, the 
ALJ issued a recommended determination on remedy and bonding in the 
event the Commission reversed his finding of no violation of section 
337.
    On April 18, 2008, the Commission determined not to review the ID 
and terminated the investigation based on the finding of no violation 
of section 337. 73 FR 21157 (Apr. 18, 2008). Norgren appealed to the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (``the Court'').
    On May 26, 2009, the Court issued its judgment, reversing-in-part 
the Commission's claim construction, reversing the Commission's 
determination of noninfringement, and vacating the Commission's 
determination of nonobviousness. Norgren Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 
No. 2008-1415 (Fed.Cir. May 26, 2009). The Court remanded the 
investigation with instructions for the Commission to evaluate 
obviousness in the first instance based upon the Court's construction 
of the claim term ``generally rectangular ported flange.''
    Following receipt of the Court's September 9, 2009, mandate, the 
Commission ordered the investigation remanded to the Chief ALJ for 
designation of a presiding ALJ to conduct proceedings in accordance 
with the Court's judgment. The Chief Judge reassigned the investigation 
to the ALJ who presided over the original investigation. The ALJ held 
an evidentiary hearing on April 21, 2010, at which all parties were 
represented. The parties also fully briefed the merits.
    On August 5, 2010, the ALJ issued the final ID on remand in which 
he determined that the asserted claims are not invalid for obviousness. 
SMC and the Commission investigative attorney (``IA'') have petitioned 
for review of the ID. Norgren has filed a response in opposition to the 
petitions. The IA and Norgren have also moved to file reply and sur-
reply briefs, respectively, in connection with the petitions for 
review.
    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the 
final ID on remand, the petitions for review, the response in 
opposition to the petitions, and the motions for leave to file a reply 
to the response and a sur-reply to the reply to the response, the 
Commission has determined to review the ID on the issue of obviousness 
and has determined to deny the motions for additional briefing.
    On review, the Commission requests written submissions on the issue 
under review, particularly the sub-issues of (a) whether the SMC old-
style clamp is generally rectangular and (b) whether adding a hinge to 
one side of a generally rectangular clamp would have been obvious to 
one skilled in the art in 1993. The Commission also requests that the 
parties include in their submissions responses to the following 
queries, with supporting citations to the evidentiary record:
    1. Is the ID's finding that the SMC old-style clamp is not 
``generally rectangular'' contrary to the Court's holding in Norgren 
Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, No. 2008-1415 (Fed.Cir. May 26, 2009) (Slip 
Op. at 6-7) that the SMC and Norgren FRL flanges, which seem to have 
``intervening sloped sides'' and ``octagonal'' and other appearances, 
are ``generally rectangular''?
    2. How, if at all, does the addition of a hinge to swing open and 
closed one side of a generally rectangular clamp affect the clamp's 
ability to seal as claimed in the '392 patent?
    3. Applying a flexible standard, please identify the teaching(s), 
motivation(s), or suggestion(s), if any, that existed pre-invention 
that would have made it obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the 
art in 1993 to combine a hinge with a generally rectangular clamp used 
in a pressure air system.
    In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the 
Commission may (1) issue an order that could result in the exclusion of 
the subject articles from entry into the United States and/or (2) issue 
one or more cease and desist orders that could result in respondents 
being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the 
importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the Commission is 
interested in receiving written submissions that address the form of 
remedy, if any, that should be ordered. 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 are 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 
(Dec. 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 an 
exclusion order and/or cease and 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 President has 60 
days to approve or disapprove the Commission's action. During this 
period, the subject articles would be entitled to enter the United 
States under bond, in an amount determined by the Commission and 
prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Commission is 
therefore interested in receiving submissions concerning the

[[Page 63200]]

amount of the bond that should be imposed.
    Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation are requested 
to file written submissions on the issue under review as set forth 
above. The submissions should be concise and thoroughly referenced to 
the record in this investigation. Parties to the investigation, 
interested government agencies, and any other interested parties are 
encouraged to file written submissions on the issues of remedy, the 
public interest, and bonding. Such submissions should address the 
recommended determination by the ALJ on remedy and bonding. Complainant 
and the IA are also requested to submit proposed remedial orders for 
the Commission's consideration. Complainant is further requested to 
provide the expiration date of the '392 patent and state the HTSUS 
number under which the accused articles are imported. The written 
submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than 
the close of business on October 21, 2010. Reply submissions must be 
filed no later than the close of business on November 1, 2010. No 
further submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise 
ordered by the Commission.
    Persons filing written submissions must file the original document 
and 12 true copies thereof on or before the deadlines stated above with 
the Office of the Secretary. Any person desiring to submit a document 
(or portion thereof) to the Commission in confidence must request 
confidential treatment unless the information has already been granted 
such treatment during the proceedings. All such requests should be 
directed to the Secretary of the Commission and must include a full 
statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such 
treatment. See section 201.6 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure, 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by 
the Commission is sought will be treated accordingly. All 
nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public 
inspection at the Office of the Secretary.
    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 210.42-.46 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure (19 CFR 210.42-.46).

    Issued: October 7, 2010.

    By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-25801 Filed 10-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P