30430 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Minerals Management Service 

[Docket No. MMS–2008–MRM–0036] 

Notice Terminating the Exclusion of 

Indian Tribal Leases in the Uintah and 

Ouray Reservation From Valuation 

Under 30 CFR 206.172 

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: For gas produced from Indian 

tribal leases on the Uintah and Ouray 

Reservation (Reservation) in Utah, the 

Minerals Management Service (MMS) is 

terminating the exclusion from 

valuation under the regulations at 30 

CFR 206.172, based on a request by the 

Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and 

Ouray Reservation. 

DATES: Effective Date: First day of the 

second month following publication. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Barder, Manager, Team B, Western 

Audit and Compliance, Minerals 

Revenue Management, Minerals 

Management Service, P.O. Box 25165, 

MS 62220B, Denver, Colorado 80225– 

0165, telephone number (303) 231– 

3702, fax number (303) 231–3755, email john.barder@mms.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 

10, 1999, MMS published a final rule 

titled ‘‘Amendments to Gas Valuation 

Regulations for Indian Leases’’ at 64 FR 

43506, with an effective date of January 

1, 2000. Per 30 CFR 206.172, MMS 

excluded Indian leases on the 

Reservation from index-based valuation 

because of the results of a cost benefit 

analysis MMS performed in 1999. 

Effective January 2000, MMS has valued 

gas production from the Reservation 

under the non-index valuation 

methodology at 30 CFR 206.174. In the 

1999 analysis, MMS estimated that the 

Ute Indian Tribe would receive more 

revenue under the non-index-based 

valuation methodology than under the 

index-based valuation methodology. 

Thus, MMS excluded the Ute Indian 

tribal leases from index-based valuation, 

effective January 1, 2000. Since the 

implementation of the final rule (64 FR 

43506), MMS has analyzed whether the 

Ute Indian Tribe would continue to 

receive more revenue under the nonindex-based valuation method than the 

index-based valuation method. 

The MMS recently performed a cost 

benefit analysis and estimated that 

revenues using the index-based formula 

at 30 CFR 206.172 exceed the estimated 

revenues using the non-index valuation 

method at 30 CFR 206.174. 

As required under 30 CFR 

206.172(f)(2), MMS received a tribal 

resolution from the Business Committee 

of the Ute Indian Tribe to terminate the 

exclusion from index-based valuation of 

gas production from Indian tribal leases 

on the Reservation. As a result of the 

tribal resolution and publishing of this 

notice, gas production from Ute Indian 

tribal leases on the Reservation must be 

valued under the index-based valuation 

method at 30 CFR 206.172 beginning 

with production on the first day of the 

second month following the date MMS 

publishes this notice in the Federal 

Register. 

Lessees must value gas production 

from Ute Indian tribal leases on the 

Reservation with the index-based 

valuation formula in 30 CFR 206.172(d) 

using the MMS-approved publications 

and indexes for the Central Rocky 

Mountain Index Zone to determine the 

index zone price; or lessees may obtain 

the index-based values from the MMS 

Web site at http://www.mrm.mms.gov/ 

TribServ/allzones.htm. 

The approved publications and index 

pricing points for the Central Rocky 

Mountain Index Zone are listed in the 

following table: 

Index zone 

MMS-approved publications 

Platt’s inside Index-pricing points 

FERC gas 

market report 

NGI’s bidweek 

survey 

Central ............................................. X Kern River Gas Transmission Co. for Wyoming. 

Rocky ............................................... X Northwest Pipeline Corp. for Rocky Mountains. 

Mountain .......................................... X Questar Pipeline Co. for Rocky Mountains. 

X Colorado Interstate Gas Co. for Rocky Mountains. 

X Rocky Mountains. 

CIG. 

Questar. 

Kern River. 

Northwest Domestic. 

Dated: April 5, 2010. 

Gregory J. Gould, 

Associate Director for Minerals Revenue 

Management. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13018 Filed 5–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. No. 337–TA–695] 

In the Matter of Certain Silicon 

Microphone Packages and Products 

Containing the Same; Notice of 

Commission Determination To Review 

in Part an Initial Determination Denying 

Temporary Relief and on Review To 

Take No Position on Likelihood of 

Success on the Merits 

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 initial determination (‘‘ID’’) 

issued by the presiding administrative 

law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on March 24, 2010, 

denying complainant’s motion for 

temporary relief. On review, the 

Commission has determined to take no 

position on the likelihood of success on 

the merits. The Commission has 

determined not to review the remainder 

of the ID, namely the ID’s denial of 

temporary relief, and its analyses of 

irreparable harm, the balance of 

hardships and the public interest. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Esq., Office of 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Notices 30431 

1No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 10–5–217, 

expiration date June 30, 2011. Public reporting 

burden for the request is estimated to average 15 

hours per response. Please send comments 

regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to 

the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20436. 

the General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

708–2532. 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 voted to institute this 

investigation on December 16, 2009, 

based on a complaint filed by Knowles 

Electronics LLC of Itasca, Illinois 

(‘‘Knowles’’). 74 FR 68077 (Dec. 22, 

2009). The complaint named as the sole 

respondent Analog Devices Inc. of 

Norwood, Massachusetts (‘‘Analog’’). 

The accused products are microphone 

packages. Knowles’ complaint asserts 

one claim of U.S. Patent No. 6,781,231, 

and numerous claims of U.S. Patent No. 

7,242,089. 

Knowles also filed with its complaint 

a motion for temporary relief that 

requested that the Commission issue a 

temporary limited exclusion order and 

temporary cease and desist order. The 

ID at issue is the ALJ’s denial of 

Knowles’ motion. In that ID, the ALJ 

analyzed the four factors for preliminary 

relief: likelihood of success on the 

merits, irreparable harm, balance of 

hardships, and public interest. 

On the likelihood of success on the 

merits, the ALJ found that all but one of 

the asserted patent claims were likely 

anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,324,907 

to Halteren. Some of these same claims 

were also likely anticipated by U.S. 

Patent No. 6,594,369 to Une. The 

remaining claim, while not invalid, was 

not likely infringed. There was no 

patent claim for which Knowles 

demonstrated a likelihood of success on 

the merits (i.e., as to both validity and 

infringement). 

The ID also found that Knowles had 

not demonstrated irreparable harm. In 

particular, the ID found that Analog’s 

sales of accused microphone packages 

had not caused Knowles lost sales, had 

not damaged Knowles’ relationships 

with its customers, and otherwise had 

no proven detrimental effect on 

Knowles. The ALJ found that these two 

factors (likelihood of success and 

irreparable harm) precluded temporary 

relief here. Nonetheless, the ALJ 

considered the remaining two factors 

(balance of hardships and the public 

interest). As to these remaining two 

factors, the ID found that the balance of 

hardships favored Knowles, and the ID 

also found that the public interest 

would not preclude preliminary relief. 

On review to the Commission, the 

parties filed opening and reply 

comments, as authorized by 19 CFR 

210.66(c) & (e)(1). These comments do 

not take issue with the ALJ’s findings 

regarding the balance of hardships or 

the public interest. Instead, the 

comments principally deal with 

Knowles’ likelihood of success on the 

merits, challenging various aspects of 

the ALJ’s analyses of validity and 

infringement. The private parties also 

dispute whether the Commission should 

address at all the likelihood of success, 

as Knowles now concedes to the 

Commission that it has not suffered 

irreparable harm. Thus, Knowles 

believes that the question of likelihood 

of success is moot and urges the 

Commission not to reach likelihood of 

success. Analog has taken the position 

that Knowles’ concession is 

inappropriate and that the Commission 

should decide likelihood of success. 

Having examined the record of this 

investigation, including the ALJ’s ID 

and the subsequent comments and reply 

comments, the Commission finds that 

even absent Knowles’ concession, 

irreparable harm has not been 

demonstrated. It was Knowles’ burden 

to demonstrate that such harm was 

likely absent temporary relief, and it 

failed to meet that burden. Winter v. 

Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc., 129 

S. Ct. 365, 375 (2008). The Commission 

notes, in addition to the reasons 

discussed in the ID, that Knowles did 

not seek temporary relief to exclude the 

only product it has identified that 

allegedly contains the accused 

microphone package. See Complaint of 

Knowles Elecs. LLC Under Section 337 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended 

¶¶ 6, 18, 48–49 (Nov. 12, 2009). The 

Commission has therefore determined 

not to review the ID’s finding of lack of 

irreparable harm and the ID’s denial of 

temporary relief. The parties have not 

sought the Commission’s review as to 

the balance of hardships and public 

interest analyses, and the Commission 

has determined not to review the ID’s 

findings on those issues. 

Because irreparable harm is 

dispositive here, the Commission need 

not evaluate the likelihood of success on 

the merits, and therefore, the 

Commission has determined to review 

the ID’s finding on likelihood of success 

and to take no position on it. See Beloit 

Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421 (Fed. 

Cir. 1984). The Commission’s decision 

enables the ALJ to assess the merits 

unburdened by Commission 

impressions that may have been formed 

on a limited temporary-relief record. 

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 210.52 and 210.66 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (19 CFR 210.52, 210.66). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: May 21, 2010. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12742 Filed 5–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–1084–1087 

(Review)] 

Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, 

Mexico, Netherlands, and Sweden 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of five-year reviews 

concerning the antidumping duty orders 

on carboxymethylcellulose from 

Finland, Mexico, Netherlands, and 

Sweden. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) 

to determine whether revocation of the 

antidumping duty orders on 

carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, 

Mexico, Netherlands, and Sweden 

would be likely to lead to continuation 

or recurrence of material injury. 

Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, 

interested parties are requested to 

respond to this notice by submitting the 

information specified below to the 

Commission; 1 to be assured of 

consideration, the deadline for 

responses is July 1, 2010. Comments on 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES