27048 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 107 / Friday, June 5, 2009 / Notices 

publicly available at any time. While 

you can ask us in your comment to 

withhold from public review your 

personal identifying information, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

(Authority: 43 CFR 2711.1–2(a) and (c)) 

Dated: April 15, 2009. 

Tom Pogacnik, 

Deputy State Director, Natural Resources 

(CA–930). 

[FR Doc. E9–13115 Filed 6–4–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–40–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–623] 

In the Matter of Certain R–134a Coolant 

(Otherwise Known As 1,1,1,2- 

Tetrafluoroethane); Notice of 

Commission Determination To Review 

the Remand Determination of the 

Presiding Administrative Law Judge 

and To Extend the 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 

the Remand Determination (‘‘RID’’) 

issued by the presiding administrative 

law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) in the abovecaptioned investigation on April 1, 

2009. The Commission has also 

determined to extend the target date for 

completion of the investigation to 

August 3, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

M. Bartkowski, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

708–5432. 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 

contacting the Commission’s TDD 

terminal on (202) 205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted this investigation 

on December 31, 2007, based on a 

complaint filed by INEOS Fluor 

Holdings Ltd., INEOS Fluor Ltd., and 

INEOS Fluor Americas LLC 

(collectively, ‘‘Ineos’’). The 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, and the sale 

within the United States after 

importation of certain R–134a coolant 

(otherwise known as 1,1,1,2- 

tetrafluoroethane) by reason of 

infringement of various claims of United 

States Patent No. 5,744,658. 

Complainants subsequently added 

allegations of infringement with regard 

to United States Patent Nos. 5,382,722 

and 5,559,276 (‘‘the ‘276 patent’’), but 

only claim 1 of the ‘276 patent remains 

at issue in this investigation. The 

complaint named two respondents, 

Sinochem Modern Environmental 

Protection Chemicals (Xi’an) Co., Ltd. 

and Sinochem Ningbo Ltd. Two 

additional respondents were 

subsequently added: Sinochem 

Environmental Protection Chemicals 

(Taicang) Co., Ltd. and Sinochem 

(U.S.A.) Inc. The four respondents are 

collectively referred to as ‘‘Sinochem.’’ 

On December 1, 2008, the ALJ issued 

his final ID, finding that Sinochem had 

violated section 337. He concluded that 

respondents’ accused process infringed 

claim 1 of the ‘276 patent and that the 

domestic industry requirement had been 

met. He also found that claim 1 was not 

invalid and that it was not 

unenforceable. The Commission 

determined to review the ALJ’s final ID 

with regard to the effective filing date of 

the asserted claim, anticipation, and 

obviousness, to supplement the ALJ’s 

reasoning regarding the effective filing 

date, and to remand the investigation to 

the ALJ to conduct further proceedings 

related to anticipation and obviousness. 

To accommodate the remand, the 

Commission extended the target date to 

June 1, 2009 and instructed the ALJ to 

issue the RID by April 1, 2009. 

The ALJ issued the RID on April 1, 

2009. The RID concluded that 

Sinochem’s arguments concerning 

anticipation and obviousness were 

waived under the ALJ’s ground rules 

and, alternatively, that the arguments 

were without merit. Sinochem filed a 

petition for review of the RID. The 

Commission investigative attorney 

(‘‘IA’’) and Ineos opposed Sinochem’s 

petition. Subsequently, Sinochem filed 

a motion to strike and for leave to file 

a reply to Ineos’s and the IA’s 

oppositions. 

Having examined the record of this 

investigation, including the ALJ’s RID 

and the submissions of the parties, the 

Commission has determined to review 

the RID in its entirety. 

To assist in its review, and in order to 

more fully analyze Sinochem’s 

‘‘admission’’-based arguments, the 

Commission is interested in receiving 

further briefing on the following 

questions: 

(1) Based upon the undisputed scope 

and content of the prior art as set forth 

in the ‘276 patent specification and as 

presented by the expert witnesses at 

trial, what differences exist between the 

prior art and claim 1 of the ‘276 patent? 

(2) Based on your answer to question 

(1), would claim 1 have been obvious in 

light of the remand references to a 

person of ordinary skill in the art under 

KSR International, Co. v. Teleflex Co., 

550 U.S. 398 (2007)? 

(3) Are the ALJ’s conclusions 

regarding waiver consistent with 

Commission Rule 210.14(c)? If not, what 

is the effect on the ALJ’s conclusions in 

the remand determination? 

(4) Does the exception to the ALJ’s 

ground rule reciting that ‘‘contentions of 

which a party is not aware and could 

not be aware in the exercise of 

reasonable diligence at the time of filing 

the pre-hearing statements’’ apply to 

Respondents’ contentions regarding 

admissions elicited during the hearing? 

If so, what is the effect on the ALJ’s 

conclusions in the remand 

determination? 

The Commission has determined to 

extend the target date for completion of 

this investigation to August 3, 2009, in 

order to provide adequate time for 

review of the RID. The Commission has 

determined to deny as moot Sinochem’s 

motion to strike and for leave to file a 

reply. 

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 close of 

business on June 15, 2009. Reply 

submissions must be filed no later than 

the close of business on June 25, 2009. 

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 to the Commission 

in confidence must request confidential 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 107 / Friday, June 5, 2009 / Notices 27049 

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 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 the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (19 CFR Part 210). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: June 1, 2009. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–13110 Filed 6–4–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–03–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–666] 

Notice of Commission Decision Not To 

Review an Initial Determination 

Correcting the Name of ASUS 

Computer International in the 

Complaint and Notice of Investigation; 

Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent 

Lamp (‘‘CCFL’’) Inverter Circuits and 

Products Containing the Same 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined not to 

review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) 

(Order No. 8) issued by the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) in the 

above-referenced investigation 

correcting the name of ASUS Computer 

International in the complaint and 

notice of investigation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel E. Valencia, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–1999. 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 

contacting the Commission’s TDD 

terminal on (202) 205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted this investigation 

on January 14, 2009, based on a 

complaint filed by O2 Micro 

International, Ltd. of the Cayman 

Islands and O2 Micro, Inc. of Santa 

Clara, California (collectively, ‘‘O2 

Micro’’). 74 FR 2099. The complaint 

alleges 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, and the sale 

within the United States after 

importation of certain cold cathode 

fluorescent lamp inverter circuits and 

products containing the same by reason 

of infringement of various U.S. patents. 

The complaint names ten respondents, 

including ASUSTeK Computer 

International America of Fremont, 

California. 

On April 27, 2009, O2 Micro moved 

to amend the complaint and notice of 

investigation to correct the name of 

respondent ASUSTeK Computer 

International America to ASUS 

Computer International (‘‘ASUS’’). No 

party opposed this motion. 

On May 13, 2009, the ALJ issued the 

subject ID correcting the name of 

respondent ASUS. No petitions for 

review of the ID were filed. 

The Commission has determined not 

to review the ALJ’s ID. 

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 

section 210.42 of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.42). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: June 2, 2009. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–13129 Filed 6–4–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–465 and 731– 

TA–1161 (Preliminary)] 

Certain Steel Grating From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of countervailing 

duty and antidumping duty 

investigations and scheduling of 

preliminary phase investigations. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the institution of 

investigations, commencement of 

preliminary phase countervailing duty 

investigation No. 701–TA–465 

(Preliminary), and commencement of 

antidumping duty investigation No. 

731–TA–1161 (Preliminary) under 

sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 19 

U.S.C. 1673b(a)) (the Act) to determine 

whether there is a reasonable indication 

that an industry in the United States is 

materially injured or threatened with 

material injury, or the establishment of 

an industry in the United States is 

materially retarded, by reason of 

imports from China of certain steel 

grating, provided for in subheading 

7308.90.70 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States, that are 

alleged to be subsidized by the 

Government of China and sold in the 

United States at less than fair value. 

Unless the Department of Commerce 

extends the time for initiation pursuant 

to section 732(c)(1)(B) of the Act (19 

U.S.C. 1673a(c)(1)(B)), the Commission 

must reach preliminary determinations 

in these investigations in 45 days, or in 

this case by July 13, 2009. The 

Commission’s views are due at 

Commerce within five business days 

thereafter, or by July 20, 2009. 

For further information concerning 

the conduct of these investigations 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 and B (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: May 29, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Edward Petronzio (202–205–3176), 

Office of Investigations, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. 

Hearing-impaired 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 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES