63198 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Notices 

DATES: 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. 

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 

[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 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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 

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 

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 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Notices 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 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’’? 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
63200 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Notices 

1A 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. 

2The 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)). 

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 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–282 (Third 

Review)] 

Petroleum Wax Candles From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of an expedited fiveyear review concerning the antidumping 

duty order on petroleum wax candles 

from China. 

SUMMARY: 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 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES