Certain Polyimide Films, Products Containing Same, and Related Methods; Notice of Commission Determination to Partially Review and Partially Vacate the Final Initial Determination of the Administrative Law Judge, 47092-47093 [2012-19218]

Download as PDF 47092 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Notices Management’s (BLM) Secure Rural Schools Resource Advisory Committees. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Allison Sandoval, BLM, Correspondence, International, and Advisory Committee Office, 1849 C Street NW., MS–MIB 5070, Washington, DC 20240; (202) 208–4294. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the Committees is to provide recommendations to the Secretary for project funding, as required by the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, Public Law 106–393, as amended by Public Law 110–343, Title VI (2008) and Public Law 112–557, Division F (2012). Certification Statement I hereby certify that the reestablishment of the Secure Rural Schools Resource Advisory Committees is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the Secretary of the Interior’s responsibilities to manage the lands, resources, and facilities administered by the BLM. Dated: July 31, 2012. Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior. [FR Doc. 2012–19284 Filed 8–6–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–33–P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Ocean Energy Management [Docket No. BOEM–2012–0068] Notice of Determination of No Competitive Interest Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior. ACTION: Notice of Determination of No Competitive Interest for Proposed Rightof-Way Grant Area AGENCY: This notice provides BOEM’s determination of no competitive interest (DNCI) for the area requested by the Deepwater Wind Block Island Transmission System, LLC, application for a Right-of-Way (ROW) grant for renewable energy purposes on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) off the coast of Rhode Island as described in the May 23, 2012, Notice of Proposed Grant Area and Request for Competitive Interest (RFCI) in the Area of the Deepwater Wind Block Island Transmission System (BITS) Proposal (77 FR 30551). DATES: Effective August 7, 2012. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jessica Bradley, Project Coordinator, BOEM, Office of Renewable Energy Programs, 381 Elden Street, HM 1328, mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:52 Aug 06, 2012 Jkt 226001 Herndon, Virginia 20170. (703) 787– 1320. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority This DNCI is published pursuant to subsection 8(p)(3) of the OCS Lands Act, which was added by section 388 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) (43 U.S.C. 1337(p)(3)), and the implementing regulations at 30 CFR Part 585. Subsection 8(p)(3) of the OCS Lands Act requires that OCS renewable energy leases, easements, and ROWs be issued ‘‘on a competitive basis unless the Secretary determines after public notice of a proposed lease, easement, or ROW that there is no competitive interest.’’ The authority to make such determinations has been delegated to BOEM. Determination and Next Steps This DNCI provides notice to the public that BOEM has determined there is no competitive interest in the proposed ROW grant area, as no indications of competitive interest were submitted in response to the RFCI. In the RFCI, BOEM also solicited public comment on site conditions and multiple uses within the ROW grant area that would be relevant to the proposed project or its impacts. BOEM received public comment submissions from two (2) parties in response. The comments received in response to the RFCI will be used to inform BOEM in subsequent agency decisions. After the publication of this DNCI, BOEM will proceed with the noncompetitive ROW grant process outlined at 30 CFR 585.306(b). Environmental Review Process The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) New England District and BOEM both have jurisdiction by law for portions of the BITS. The BITS would support Deepwater Wind’s proposed Block Island Wind Farm (BIWF), a proposed 30-megawatt offshore wind energy project located in Rhode Island State waters approximately 2.5 nautical miles southeast of Block Island. Since the majority of the activities and permanent structures related to the BIWF and the BITS will be sited in state waters and on state lands, the USACE will be the lead agency for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental analysis of both projects. The portion of the BITS that would be located on the OCS requires a ROW grant from BOEM, and BOEM will be a cooperating agency in the NEPA process led by the USACE. BOEM will consider all relevant information produced from the NEPA process and, if appropriate, PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 adopt the USACE’s NEPA document prior to the issuance of any ROW grant. BOEM and the USACE intend to conduct consultations required by Federal law or executive order jointly during the NEPA process. These consultations include, but are not limited to, those required by the Endangered Species Act, the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and Executive Order 13175—‘‘Consultation and Coordination with Tribal Governments.’’ Map of the Area A map of the area proposed for a ROW grant can be found at the following URL: http://www.boem.gov/ Renewable-Energy-Program/StateActivities/Rhode-Island.aspx. Dated: July 27, 2012. Tommy P. Beaudreau, Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. [FR Doc. 2012–19256 Filed 8–6–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–VH–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–772] Certain Polyimide Films, Products Containing Same, and Related Methods; Notice of Commission Determination to Partially Review and Partially Vacate the Final Initial Determination of the Administrative Law Judge U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to partially review and partially vacate the final initial determination (‘‘final ID’’ or ‘‘ID’’) of the presiding administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) in the abovecaptioned investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (‘‘section 337’’). The ALJ found no violation of section 337. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James A. Worth, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–3065. 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. SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\07AUN1.SGM 07AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Notices 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 this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 205–1810. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation on May 4, 2011, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Kaneka Corporation of Osaka, Japan (‘‘Kaneka’’). 76 FR 25373 (May 4, 2011). The complaint alleges violations of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the sale for importation, importation, or sale after importation of certain polyimide films, products containing same, and related methods by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1–3 and 9–10 of U.S. Patent No. 6,264,866 (‘‘the ‘866 patent’’); claims 1–6 of U.S. Patent No. 6,746,639 (‘‘the ‘639 patent’’); claims 1–5 of U.S. Patent No. 7,018,704 (‘‘the ‘704 patent’’); and claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 7,691,961 (‘‘the ‘961 patent’’). The Commission’s notice of investigation named as respondents SKC Kolon PI, Inc. of Gyeonggi-do, South Korea and SKC Corporation of Covington, Georgia (‘‘collectively, ‘‘SKC’’). On February 23, 2012, the Commission issued notice of its determination not to review an ID (Order No. 26) that Kaneka has satisfied the importation requirement with respect to all versions of the following SKC products: IN30 (75 um), IN70 (19um), IN 70 (25um), IN70 (50um), IF30 (7.5um), IF70 (12.5um), LV100, LV200, and LV300. On February 27, 2012, the Commission issued notice of its determination not to review an ID (Order No. 25) terminating the investigation with respect to claims 4– 5 of the ‘704 patent and claims 4, 11, 16, 17, and 20 of the ‘961 patent. An evidentiary hearing was held from March 12, 2012, to March 16, 2012. On May 10, 2012, the ALJ issued a final ID finding no violation of section 337 in the above-identified investigation. Specifically, the ALJ found that there was no violation with respect to the ‘866 patent, the ‘639 patent, the ‘704 patent, or the ‘961 patent by SKC. The ALJ also issued a recommended determination on remedy and bonding. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:52 Aug 06, 2012 Jkt 226001 On May 22, 2012, Kaneka filed a petition for review of the final ID and on May 23, 2012, SKC filed a contingent petition for review. On May 30, 2012, SKC filed a response to Kaneka’s petition, and on May 31, 2012, Kaneka filed a response to SKC’s contingent petition. Having examined the final ID, the petitions for review, the responses thereto, and the relevant portions of the record in this investigation, the Commission has determined to partially review the final ID as follows. With respect to the ‘866 patent, the Commission has determined to review the finding that Kaneka does not satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement. With respect to the ‘704 patent, the Commission has determined to review and vacate as moot the ALJ’s alternative findings that the accused products do not infringe, that claim 1 is not invalid for anticipation or obviousness, and that Kaneka does not satisfy the technical prong or the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. The Commission has determined not to review the ALJ’s conclusion that the asserted claims of the ‘704 patent are invalid for indefiniteness. With respect to the ‘961 patent, the Commission has determined to review the ALJ’s finding that certain of the accused products infringe and certain of the accused products do not infringe claim 9. The Commission has determined not to review the remainder of the ID. The parties are requested to brief their positions on only the following questions, with reference to the applicable law and the evidentiary record: With respect to the ‘866 patent, would a complainant satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement if the products offered to satisfy the requirement met the elements of the asserted claims only intermittently or occasionally? See ID at 302. (1) With respect to claim 9 of the ‘961 patent, would a person of ordinary skill in the art require all replicates to be within the claimed range? Is there any evidence of record to indicate how a person of ordinary skill in the art would use confidence intervals or other statistical methods of working with variance to compare replicates with a claimed range? The Commission does not request briefing on remedy, the public interest, and bonding at this time. Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation are requested to file written submissions on the issues under review. The submissions should be PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 47093 concise and thoroughly referenced to the record in this investigation, including references to exhibits and testimony. The written submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on August 15, 2012. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on August 22, 2012. No further submissions will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission. Persons filing written submissions must do so in accordance with Commission rule 210.4(f), 19 CFR 210.4(f), which requires electronic filing. The original document and eight true copies thereof must also be filed 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 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment is granted by the Commission will be treated accordingly. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary. This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and under Part 210 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210). By order of the Commission. Issued: August 2, 2012. William R. Bishop, Hearings and Meetings Coordinator. [FR Doc. 2012–19218 Filed 8–6–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1105–0085] Agency Information Collection Activities: Collection; Comments Requested; Application for Approval as a Provider of a Personal Financial Management Instructional Course 30-Day notice of application under review. ACTION: The Department of Justice, Executive Office for United States Trustees, has submitted the following application to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork E:\FR\FM\07AUN1.SGM 07AUN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 152 (Tuesday, August 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47092-47093]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19218]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-772]


Certain Polyimide Films, Products Containing Same, and Related 
Methods; Notice of Commission Determination to Partially Review and 
Partially Vacate the Final Initial Determination of the Administrative 
Law Judge

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined to partially review and partially vacate the 
final initial determination (``final ID'' or ``ID'') of the presiding 
administrative law judge (``ALJ'') in the above-captioned investigation 
under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 
(``section 337''). The ALJ found no violation of section 337.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James A. Worth, Office of the General 
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3065. 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.

[[Page 47093]]

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 this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD 
terminal on (202) 205-1810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation 
on May 4, 2011, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Kaneka 
Corporation of Osaka, Japan (``Kaneka''). 76 FR 25373 (May 4, 2011). 
The complaint alleges violations of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the sale for importation, 
importation, or sale after importation of certain polyimide films, 
products containing same, and related methods by reason of infringement 
of one or more of claims 1-3 and 9-10 of U.S. Patent No. 6,264,866 
(``the `866 patent''); claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 6,746,639 (``the 
`639 patent''); claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 7,018,704 (``the `704 
patent''); and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 7,691,961 (``the `961 
patent''). The Commission's notice of investigation named as 
respondents SKC Kolon PI, Inc. of Gyeonggi-do, South Korea and SKC 
Corporation of Covington, Georgia (``collectively, ``SKC'').
    On February 23, 2012, the Commission issued notice of its 
determination not to review an ID (Order No. 26) that Kaneka has 
satisfied the importation requirement with respect to all versions of 
the following SKC products: IN30 (75 um), IN70 (19um), IN 70 (25um), 
IN70 (50um), IF30 (7.5um), IF70 (12.5um), LV100, LV200, and LV300.
    On February 27, 2012, the Commission issued notice of its 
determination not to review an ID (Order No. 25) terminating the 
investigation with respect to claims 4-5 of the `704 patent and claims 
4, 11, 16, 17, and 20 of the `961 patent.
    An evidentiary hearing was held from March 12, 2012, to March 16, 
2012.
    On May 10, 2012, the ALJ issued a final ID finding no violation of 
section 337 in the above-identified investigation. Specifically, the 
ALJ found that there was no violation with respect to the `866 patent, 
the `639 patent, the `704 patent, or the `961 patent by SKC. The ALJ 
also issued a recommended determination on remedy and bonding.
    On May 22, 2012, Kaneka filed a petition for review of the final ID 
and on May 23, 2012, SKC filed a contingent petition for review. On May 
30, 2012, SKC filed a response to Kaneka's petition, and on May 31, 
2012, Kaneka filed a response to SKC's contingent petition.
    Having examined the final ID, the petitions for review, the 
responses thereto, and the relevant portions of the record in this 
investigation, the Commission has determined to partially review the 
final ID as follows. With respect to the `866 patent, the Commission 
has determined to review the finding that Kaneka does not satisfy the 
technical prong of the domestic industry requirement. With respect to 
the `704 patent, the Commission has determined to review and vacate as 
moot the ALJ's alternative findings that the accused products do not 
infringe, that claim 1 is not invalid for anticipation or obviousness, 
and that Kaneka does not satisfy the technical prong or the economic 
prong of the domestic industry requirement. The Commission has 
determined not to review the ALJ's conclusion that the asserted claims 
of the `704 patent are invalid for indefiniteness. With respect to the 
`961 patent, the Commission has determined to review the ALJ's finding 
that certain of the accused products infringe and certain of the 
accused products do not infringe claim 9. The Commission has determined 
not to review the remainder of the ID.
    The parties are requested to brief their positions on only the 
following questions, with reference to the applicable law and the 
evidentiary record:
    With respect to the `866 patent, would a complainant satisfy the 
technical prong of the domestic industry requirement if the products 
offered to satisfy the requirement met the elements of the asserted 
claims only intermittently or occasionally? See ID at 302.
    (1) With respect to claim 9 of the `961 patent, would a person of 
ordinary skill in the art require all replicates to be within the 
claimed range? Is there any evidence of record to indicate how a person 
of ordinary skill in the art would use confidence intervals or other 
statistical methods of working with variance to compare replicates with 
a claimed range?
    The Commission does not request briefing on remedy, the public 
interest, and bonding at this time.
    Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation are requested 
to file written submissions on the issues under review. The submissions 
should be concise and thoroughly referenced to the record in this 
investigation, including references to exhibits and testimony. The 
written submissions must be filed no later than the close of business 
on August 15, 2012. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the 
close of business on August 22, 2012. No further submissions will be 
permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.
    Persons filing written submissions must do so in accordance with 
Commission rule 210.4(f), 19 CFR 210.4(f), which requires electronic 
filing. The original document and eight true copies thereof must also 
be filed 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 19 CFR 
201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment is granted by the 
Commission will be treated accordingly. All nonconfidential written 
submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of 
the Secretary.
    This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and under Part 210 of 
the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: August 2, 2012.
William R. Bishop,
Hearings and Meetings Coordinator.
[FR Doc. 2012-19218 Filed 8-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P