31416 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 129 / Thursday, July 5, 2018 / Notices 

• Clay Cut, LLC (ITP TE69952C–0) 

anticipates taking 8.6 acres of species’ 

habitat incidental to land preparation 

and construction in Section 3, 

Township 27 South, Range 28 East, in 

Polk County, Florida. 

• Land Acquisition One, LLC (ITP 

TE69953C–0) anticipates taking 11.2 

acres of species’ habitat incidental to 

land preparation and construction in 

Sections 18 and 19, Township 25 South, 

Range 27 East, in Osceola County, 

Florida. 

None of the applicants currently has 

a timeframe for development or specific 

site plans; however, each applicant 

intends to develop its parcel by 

constructing one or more structures and 

parking areas and installing associated 

utilities. 

The applicants propose to mitigate for 

impacts to the species by purchasing 

credits from a Service-approved 

conservation bank as follows: 

• Tohopekaliga Water Authority 

proposes to purchase the equivalent of 

4.4 acres of credits. 

• Mystic Dunes, LLC proposes to 

purchase the equivalent of 13.4 acres of 

credits. 

• Clay Cut, LLC proposes to purchase 

the equivalent of 17.2 acres of credits. 

• Land Acquisition One, LLC 

proposes to purchase the equivalent of 

22.4 acres of credits. 

Our Preliminary Determination 

The Service has made a preliminary 

determination that each of the 

applicants’ projects, including the 

mitigation measures, will individually 

and cumulatively have a minor or 

negligible effect on the species. 

Therefore, we have determined that the 

ITPs for each of these projects would be 

‘‘low effect’’ and qualify for categorical 

exclusions under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). 

Public Availability of Comments 

Written comments we receive become 

part of the administrative record 

associated with this action. Before 

including your address, phone number, 

email 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 request in your comment 

that we withhold your personal 

identifying information from public 

review, we cannot guarantee that we 

will be able to do so. All submissions 

from organizations or businesses, and 

from individuals identifying themselves 

as representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, will be 

made available for public disclosure in 

their entirety. 

Authority: We provide this notice under 

section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.) and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR 17.22 and 17.32) and NEPA (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.) and its implementing 

regulations (40 CFR 1506.6 and 43 CFR 

46.305). 

Roxanna Hinzman, 

Field Supervisor, South Florida Ecological 

Services Office. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14395 Filed 7–3–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–1046] 

Certain Non-Volatile Memory Devices 

and Products Containing Same; Notice 

of Commission Determination To 

Review in Part a Final Initial 

Determination Finding No Violation of 

Section 337; Schedule for Filing 

Written Submissions on the Issues 

Under Review and on Remedy, the 

Public Interest and Bonding; Extension 

of Target Date 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined to review 

in part the final initial determination 

(‘‘ID’’) issued by the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on 

April 27, 2018, finding no violation of 

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), as to claims 

1–8 of U.S. Patent No. 6,552,360 (‘‘the 

’360 patent’’); claims 1–10 of U.S. Patent 

No. 6,788,602 (‘‘the ’602 patent’’); and 

claims 11–16 of U.S. Patent No. 

8,035,417 (‘‘the ’417 patent’’). The 

Commission has also determined to 

extend the target date for completion of 

this investigation until September 4, 

2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202– 

205–3042. 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 (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 Inv. No. 337– 

TA–1046 on April 12, 2017, based on a 

complaint filed by Macronix 

International Co., Ltd. of Hsin-chu, 

Taiwan and Macronix America, Inc. of 

Milpitas, California (collectively, 

‘‘Macronix’’). 82 FR 17687–88 (Apr. 12, 

2017). 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 non-volatile memory devices 

and products containing the same that 

infringe one or more of claims 1–8 of the 

’360 patent; claims 1–12 and 16 of the 

’602 patent; and claims 1–7, 11–16, and 

18 of the ’417 patent. The notice of 

investigation named the following 

respondents: Toshiba Corporation of 

Tokyo, Japan; Toshiba America, Inc. of 

New York, New York; Toshiba America 

Electronic Components, Inc. of Irvine, 

California; Toshiba America Information 

Systems, Inc. of Irvine, California; and 

Toshiba Information Equipment 

(Philippines), Inc. of Binan, Philippines 

(collectively, ‘‘Toshiba’’). The Office of 

Unfair Import Investigations is a party to 

the investigation. 

On June 16, 2017, the Commission 

determined not to review the ALJ’s 

order (Order No. 11) granting an 

unopposed motion to amend the Notice 

of investigation to add Toshiba Memory 

Corporation of Tokyo, Japan as a 

respondent. See Order No. 11, Comm’n 

Notice of Non-Review (June 16, 2017). 

On October 17, 2017, the Commission 

determined not to review the ALJ’s 

order (Order No. 20) granting an 

unopposed motion to terminate the 

investigation as to claims 11, 12, and 16 

of the ’602 patent. See Order No. 20, 

Comm’n Notice of Non-Review (Oct. 17, 

2017). 

On October 4, 2017, the ALJ held a 

Markman hearing to construe certain 

disputed claim terms. On December 5, 

2017, the ALJ issued Order No. 23 

(Markman Order), setting forth her 

construction of the disputed claim 

terms. 

On January 18, 2018, the Commission 

determined not to review the ALJ’s 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 129 / Thursday, July 5, 2018 / Notices 31417 

order (Order No. 24) granting an 

unopposed motion to terminate the 

investigation as to claims 1–7 and 18 of 

the ’417 patent. Order No. 24; Comm’n 

Notice of Non-Review (Jan. 18, 2018). 

The ALJ held an evidentiary hearing 

from February 8, 2018, through 

February 14, 2018, and thereafter 

received post-hearing briefs. 

On April, 27 2018, the ALJ issued her 

final ID, finding no violation of section 

337 by Toshiba in connection with the 

remaining claims, i.e., claims 1–8 of the 

’360 patent; claims 1–10 of the ’602 

patent; and claims 11–16 of the ’417 

patent. Specifically, the ALJ found that 

the Commission has subject matter 

jurisdiction, in rem jurisdiction over the 

accused products, and in personam 

jurisdiction over Toshiba. ID at 15–17. 

The ALJ also found that Macronix 

satisfied the importation requirement of 

section 337 (19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(B)). Id. 

The ALJ, however, found that the 

accused products do not infringe the 

asserted claims of the ’360 patent and 

’417 patent. See ID at 19–65, 118–130. 

The ALJ also found that Toshiba failed 

to establish that the asserted claims of 

the ’417 patent are invalid for 

obviousness. ID at 132–141. Toshiba did 

not challenge the validity of the ’360 

patent. ID at 70. With respect to the ’602 

patent, the ALJ found that certain 

accused products infringe asserted 

claims 1–10, but that claims 1–5 and 

7–10 are invalid for obviousness. ID at 

71–88, 91–117. Finally, the ALJ found 

that Macronix failed to establish the 

existence of a domestic industry that 

practices the asserted patents under 19 

U.S.C. 1337(a)(2) and also failed to show 

a domestic industry in the process of 

being established. See ID at 257–261, 

288–294. 

On May 10, 2018, the ALJ issued her 

recommended determination on remedy 

and bonding. Recommended 

Determination on Remedy and Bonding 

(‘‘RD’’). The ALJ recommends that in the 

event the Commission finds a violation 

of section 337, the Commission should 

issue a limited exclusion order 

prohibiting the importation of Toshiba’s 

accused products that infringe the 

asserted claims of the asserted patents. 

RD at 1–5. The ALJ also recommends 

issuance of cease and desist orders 

against the domestic Toshiba 

respondents based on the presence of 

commercially significant inventory in 

the United States. RD at 5. With respect 

to the amount of bond that should be 

posted during the period of Presidential 

review, the ALJ recommends that the 

Commission set a bond in the amount 

of 100 percent of entered value for 

Toshiba flash memory devices and solid 

state drives, and a bond in the amount 

of six percent of entered value for 

Toshiba PCs imported during the period 

of Presidential review. RD at 6–9. 

On May 14, 2018, Macronix filed a 

petition for review challenging the ID’s 

finding of no violation of section 337. 

The IA also filed a petition for review 

that day, challenging the ID’s finding 

that Macronix failed to establish a 

domestic industry in the process of 

being established and certain findings as 

to the ’602 patent. Also on May 14, 

2018, Toshiba filed a contingent petition 

for review of the ID ‘‘in the event that 

the Commission decides to review the 

ID.’’ On May 22, 2018, Macronix and 

Toshiba filed their respective responses 

to the petitions for review. On May 23, 

2018, the IA filed a response to the 

private parties’ petitions for review. The 

Chairman granted the IA’s motion for 

leave to file the response one day late. 

Having examined the record of this 

investigation, including the ALJ’s final 

ID, the petitions for review, and the 

responses thereto, the Commission has 

determined to review the final ID in 

part. Specifically, the Commission has 

determined to review the following: (1) 

The finding that Macronix failed to 

satisfy the domestic industry 

requirement; and (2) the findings of 

infringement and invalidity as to the 

’602 patent. 

In connection with its review, the 

Commission is interested in responses 

to the following questions: 

1. Would one of ordinary skill in the 

art understand that the claim term 

‘‘coupled’’ in the asserted claims of the 

’602 patent construed to mean 

‘‘conductively connected’’ requires 

select transistors? If yes, how does it 

affect the ID’s infringement, domestic 

industry technical prong, and invalidity 

findings? 

2. Would one of ordinary skill in the 

art understand that the claim term 

‘‘memory array’’ in the asserted claims 

of the ’602 patent construed to mean 

‘‘multiple memory cells coupled to a 

grid of word lines and bit lines’’ 

necessarily includes select transistors? If 

yes, how does it affect the ID’s 

infringement, domestic industry 

technical prong, and invalidity 

findings? 

3. The ID states that under the 

adopted construction of ‘‘memory 

array’’ (set forth above), ‘‘a memory 

array consistent with the ’602 patent 

. . . could span an entire plane or only 

a subset of memory cells in a plane.’’ ID 

at 80. Is this additional language 

consistent with the ID’s construction? If 

that additional language is omitted, how 

will the ID’s infringement, domestic 

industry technical prong, and invalidity 

findings be affected? 

4. Please discuss the showing 

necessary to meet the statutory 

requirement of ‘‘articles protected by the 

patent’’ for a domestic industry in the 

process of being established under 

section 337(a)(2). 

The parties are requested to brief only 

the discrete issues above, with reference 

to the applicable law and evidentiary 

record. The parties are not to brief other 

issues on review, which are adequately 

presented in the parties’ existing filings. 

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 the respondent 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 likely to do so. For 

background, see 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 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. In 

connection with this, the Commission is 

interested in responses to the following 

questions: 

1. If an exclusion order issues against 

Toshiba’s accused products, can Dell’s 

other SSD suppliers or other SSD 

suppliers in general fill any void that 

may be created? 

2. What domestic Dell products will 

be impacted by an exclusion order? 

3. Toshiba and Dell request a delay in 

implementing any exclusion order. If an 

exclusion order issues, what specific 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
31418 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 129 / Thursday, July 5, 2018 / Notices 

1All contract personnel will sign appropriate 

nondisclosure agreements. 

product(s) should a delay apply to? 

What should be the duration of the 

delay? 

4. Macronix and Toshiba present 

vastly different views about the ability 

of suppliers to satisfy domestic demand 

if an exclusion order issues. Please 

discuss the ability of suppliers other 

than Toshiba to satisfy domestic 

demand for each and every product that 

may be affected by an exclusion order. 

If the Commission orders some form 

of remedy, the U.S. Trade 

Representative, as delegated by the 

President, has 60 days to approve or 

disapprove the Commission’s action. 

See Presidential Memorandum of July 

21, 2005. 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). 

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 amount of the bond that 

should be imposed if a remedy is 

ordered. 

The Commission has also determined 

to extend the target date for completion 

of this investigation until September 4, 

2018. 

Written Submissions: The parties to 

the investigation are requested to file 

written submissions on the issues 

identified in this notice. 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. Complainants 

and the IA are requested to submit 

proposed remedial orders for the 

Commission’s consideration. 

Complainants are also requested to state 

the date that the patents expire and the 

HTSUS numbers under which the 

accused products are imported. 

Complainants are further requested to 

supply the names of known importers of 

the Respondents’ products at issue in 

this investigation. The written 

submissions and proposed remedial 

orders must be filed no later than close 

of business on July 12, 2018. Reply 

submissions must be filed no later than 

the close of business on July 19, 2018. 

Opening submissions are limited to 75 

pages. Reply submissions are limited to 

50 pages. Such submissions should 

address the ALJ’s recommended 

determinations on remedy and bonding. 

No further submissions on any of these 

issues will be permitted unless 

otherwise ordered by the Commission. 

Persons filing written submissions 

must file the original document 

electronically on or before the deadlines 

stated above and submit eight true paper 

copies to the Office of the Secretary by 

noon the next day pursuant to section 

210.4(f) of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to 

the investigation number (‘‘Inv. No. 

337–TA–1046’’) in a prominent place on 

the cover page and/or the first page. (See 

Handbook for Electronic Filing 

Procedures, http://www.usitc.gov/ 

secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/ 

handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf). 

Persons with questions regarding filing 

should contact the Secretary (202–205– 

2000). 

Any person desiring to submit a 

document to the Commission in 

confidence must request confidential 

treatment. All such requests should be 

directed to the Secretary to 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 by the 

Commission is properly sought will be 

treated accordingly. All information, 

including confidential business 

information and documents for which 

confidential treatment is properly 

sought, submitted to the Commission for 

purposes of this Investigation may be 

disclosed to and used: (i) By the 

Commission, its employees and Offices, 

and contract personnel (a) for 

developing or maintaining the records 

of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in 

internal investigations, audits, reviews, 

and evaluations relating to the 

programs, personnel, and operations of 

the Commission including under 5 

U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. 

government employees and contract 

personnel,1 solely for cybersecurity 

purposes. All nonconfidential written 

submissions will be available for public 

inspection at the Office of the Secretary 

and on EDIS. 

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 28, 2018. 

Katherine Hiner, 

Supervisory Attorney. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14380 Filed 7–3–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 

and Explosives 

[OMB Number 1140–0062] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Proposed eCollection 

eComments Requested; Identification 

of Imported Explosives Materials 

AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms and Explosives, Department of 

Justice. 

ACTION: 30-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. 

The proposed information collection 

OMB 1140–0062 (Identification of 

Imported Explosives Materials) is being 

revised due to a change in burden, since 

there is an increase in the number of 

respondents, responses, and total 

burden hours since the last renewal in 

2015. The proposed information 

collection is also being published to 

obtain comments from the public and 

affected agencies. The proposed 

information collection was previously 

published in the Federal Register, on 

May 2, 2018, allowing for a 60-day 

comment period. 

DATES: Comments are encouraged and 

will be accepted for an additional 30 

days until August 6, 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 other 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. Written 

comments and/or suggestions can also 

be directed to the Office of Management 

and Budget, Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Attention 

Department of Justice Desk Officer, 

Washington, DC 20503 or sent to OIRA_

submissions@omb.eop.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Written 

comments and suggestions from the 

public and affected agencies concerning 

the proposed collection of information 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1