6454 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Notices 

corridors through the Santa Nella 

community. The Service considers 

movement corridors, which would 

facilitate population interchange 

between northern and southern kit fox 

populations, to be of critical importance 

to the survival of the species. The No 

Action Alternative would not provide 

for the long-term conservation of kit fox 

in the area because conservation lands 

and movement corridors would not be 

permanently established. 

Pursuant to an order issued on June 

10, 2004, by the District Court for the 

District of Columbia in Spirit of the Sage 

Council v. Norton Civil Action No. 98–

1873 (D.D.C.), the Service is enjoined 

from issuing new section 10(a)(1)(B) 

permits or related documents containing 

‘‘No Surprises’’ assurances, as defined 

by the Service’s ‘‘No Surprises’’ rule 

published at 63 FR 8859 (February 23, 

1998), until such time as the Service 

adopts new permit revocation rules 

specifically applicable to section 

10(a)(1)(B) permits in compliance with 

the public notice and comment 

requirements of the Administrative 

Procedures Act. This notice concerns a 

step in the review and processing of a 

section 10(a)(1)(B) permit and any 

subsequent permit issuance will be in 

accordance with the Court’s order. Until 

such time as the June 10, 2004, order 

has been rescinded or the Service’s 

authority to issue permits with ‘‘No 

Surprises’’ assurances has been 

otherwise reinstated, the Service will 

not approve any incidental take permits 

or related documents that contain ‘‘No 

Surprises’’ assurances. 

This notice is provided pursuant to 

section 10(a) of the Act and the 

regulations of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 

1969 (40 CFR 1506.6). All comments 

that we receive, including names and 

addresses, will become part of the 

official administrative record and may 

be made available to the public. We will 

evaluate the application, associated 

documents, and comments submitted 

thereon to determine whether the 

application meets the requirements of 

NEPA regulations and section 10(a) of 

the Act. If we determine that those 

requirements are met, we will issue a 

permit to the Applicant for the 

incidental take of the kit fox. We will 

make our final permit decision no 

sooner than 30 days from the date of 

this notice.

Dated: January 28, 2005. 

Mike Boylen, 

Deputy Manager, California/Nevada 

Operations Office, Sacramento, California.

[FR Doc. 05–2250 Filed 2–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. No. 337–TA–501] 

In the Matter of Certain Encapsulated 

Integrated Circuit Devices and 

Products Containing Same; Notice of 

Decision to Review in its Entirety a 

Final Initial Determination Finding No 

Violation of Section 337; Schedule for 

Filing Written Submissions; 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 (1) to 

review in its entirety a final initial 

determination (‘‘ID’’) issued by the 

presiding administrative law judge 

(‘‘ALJ’’) on November 18, 2004, finding 

no violation of section 337 of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the 

above-captioned investigation; and (2) 

to extend the target date for completion 

in this investigation by thirty-seven (37) 

days, i.e., until March 31, 2005.

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 the public version 

of the IDs and all nonconfidential 

documents filed in connection with this 

investigation are or will be available for 

inspection during official business 

hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the 

Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, 

telephone (202) 205–2000. Hearingimpaired persons are advised that 

information on this matter can be 

obtained by contacting the 

Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 

205–1810. 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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

December 19, 2003, the Commission 

instituted an investigation under section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 

1337, based on a complaint filed by 

Amkor Technology, Inc. alleging a 

violation of section 337 in the 

importation, sale for importation, and 

sale within the United States after 

importation of certain encapsulated 

integrated circuit devices and products 

containing same in connection with 

claims 1–4, 7, 17, 18 and 20–23 of U.S. 

Patent No. 6,433,277 (‘‘the ‘277 patent’’); 

claims 1–4, 7 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 

6,630,728 (‘‘the ‘728 patent’’); and 

claims 1, 2, 13 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 

6,455,356 (‘‘the ‘356 patent’’). 68 FR 

70836 (December 19, 2003). The 

complainant named Carsem (M) Sdn 

Bhd; Carsem Semiconductor Sdn Bhd; 

and Carsem, Inc. as respondents. 

The evidentiary hearing in this 

investigation was held from July 6 

through July 30, 2004, and August 9 

through August 11, 2004. On November 

18, 2004, the presiding ALJ issued a 

final ID finding no violation of section 

337. All of the parties to the 

investigation, including the Commission 

investigative attorney filed timely 

petitions for review of various portions 

of the final ID. Respondents designated 

their petition to be contingent upon the 

granting of any other petition for review 

or upon the Commission’s reviewing the 

ALJ’s ID on its own motion pursuant to 

19 CFR 210.44. All parties filed timely 

responses to the petitions for review. 

Having examined the record in this 

investigation, including the ALJ’s final 

ID, the petitions for review, and the 

responses thereto, the Commission has 

determined to review the ID in its 

entirety. At this time the Commission 

requests briefing, based on the 

evidentiary record, that concerns only 

the issue of claim interpretation. Further 

briefing may be requested at a later date. 

The Commission is particularly 

interested in receiving answers to the 

following questions: 

1. Does the specification of the ‘277 

patent satisfy the ‘‘written description’’

requirement of 35 U.S.C.112, ¶ 1 with 

respect to the claim limitations ‘‘fully 

around a circumference of the die pad’’

found in claims 2, 3, and 4, and ‘‘fully 

around the die pad’’ found in claims 21, 

22, and 23? 

2. How should the following claim 

limitations be construed: 

(a) ‘‘Fully around a circumference of 

the die pad’’ (‘277 patent, claims 2, 3, 

and 4); 

(b) ‘‘fully around the die pad’’ (‘277 

patent, claims 21, 22, and 23); 

(c) ‘‘surrounding the second surface’’

(‘356 patent, claims 1 and 13); 

(d) ‘‘the side surface of the die pad 

includes a means around the 

circumference of the die pad for 

vertically locking,’’ (‘277 patent, claim 

17)? 

In particular, please address whether 

the claim limitations ‘‘fully around a 

circumference of the die pad’’ and 

‘‘fully around the die pad’’ are 

indefinite. 

3. How should the following claim 

terms of the ‘356 patent be construed:

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Notices 6455

(a) ‘‘Horizontal peripheral third 

surface’’ (claims 1, 13); 

(b) ‘‘vertical outer peripheral surface’’

(claims 1, 13); and 

(c) ‘‘horizontal third surface’’ (claim 

1)? 

4. How should the following claim 

limitations be construed: 

(a) ‘‘The second surface of the die pad 

is exposed in the plane of the first 

exterior surface of the package body’’

(‘277 patent, claim 18); and 

(b) ‘‘the second surface of each lead is 

exposed in a horizontal plane of a first 

exterior surface of the package’’ (‘356 

patent, claims 1, 13)? 

In particular, please address how 

plating affects whether ‘‘the second 

surface of the die pad’’ in claim 18 of 

the ‘277 patent and ‘‘the second surface 

of each lead’’ in claims 1 and 13 of the 

‘356 patent are ‘‘exposed.’’

5. Do the preambles of claims 1 and 

3 of the ‘728 patent constitute claim 

limitations? In particular, please address 

how the intrinsic evidence supports 

your position in light of the teachings of 

the Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit. 

Written Submissions: Submissions 

should be concise and thoroughly 

referenced to the record in this 

investigation. The written submissions 

must be filed no later than close of 

business on February 14, 2005. Reply 

submissions must be filed no later than 

the close of business on February 22, 

2005. No further submissions will be 

permitted unless otherwise ordered by 

the Commission. 

Persons filing written submissions 

must file with the Office of the Secretary 

the original document and 14 true 

copies thereof on or before the deadlines 

stated above. 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 210.42–210.45 and 210.51 of 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (19 CFR §§ 210.42–210.45 

and 210.51).

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: February 1, 2005. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 05–2261 Filed 2–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of the Secretary 

Submission for OMB Emergency 

Review; Comment Request 

February 1, 2005. 

The Department of Labor has 

submitted the following information 

collection request (ICR), utilizing 

emergency review procedures, to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and approval in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–

13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). OMB 

approval has been requested by March 

9, 2005. A copy of this ICR, with 

applicable supporting documentation, 

may be obtained by calling the 

Department of Labor’s Departmental 

Clearance Officer, Ira L. Mills at (202) 

693–4122 (this is not a toll-free 

number); via e-mail at: millsira@dol.gov; or (202) 693–7755 (TTY). 

The State Planning Guidance may also 

be found at the Web site—http://

www.doleta.gov/usworkforce. 

Comments and questions about the 

ICR listed below should be forwarded to 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the 

Employment and Training 

Administration, Room 10235, 

Washington, DC 20503. 

The OMB is particularly interested in 

comments which: 

• 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, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology 

(e.g., permitting electronic submissions 

of responses.) 

Agency: Employment and Training 

Administration. 

Type of Review: Revision of a 

currently approved collection. 

Title: Planning Guidance and 

Instructions for Submission of the 

Strategic Five Year State Plan for Title 

I of the Workforce Investment Act of 

1998 (WIA) and the Wagner Peyser Act. 

OMB Number: 1205–0398. 

Frequency: Every five years. 

Type of Response: Reporting. 

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal 

Government. 

Total Respondents: 59. 

Number of Responses: 59. 

Total Burden: 1,475. 

Total Annualized Capital/Startup 

Cost): $ 0. 

Total Annual Costs (Operating/

Maintaining Systems or Purchasing 

Services): $ 0. 

Description: All current WIA State 

Plans will expire June 30, 2005. It is 

unlikely that Congress will pass a 

reauthorized Workforce Investment Act 

(WIA) before that time. Therefore, the 

enclosed Proposed WIA Planning 

Guidance is designed to advise States 

about how to continue their WIA Title 

I and Wagner Peyser Act programs 

under Public Law 105–220.

Ira L. Mills, 

Departmental Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 05–2441 Filed 2–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–30–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–55,518] 

BASF Corporation, Freeport, TX; 

Notice of Revised Determination on 

Reconsideration 

On January 12, 2005, the Department 

of Labor issued a Notice of Affirmative 

Determination Regarding Application 

for Reconsideration applicable to the 

subject firm. The Notice will soon be 

published in the Federal Register. 

The initial investigation found that 

workers are separately identifiable by 

product line (polycaprolactum, oxo, 

diols, and acrylic monomers), that 

polycaprolactum, oxo and diol 

production increased during the 

relevant period, and that the subject 

company neither increased imports of 

acrylic monomers during the relevant 

period nor shifted acrylic monomer 

production abroad. 

The petitioner asserted in the request 

for reconsideration that the worker