Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 18, 2017 / Notices 48527 

1 Vice Chairman Johanson and Commissioner 

Broadbent voted to conduct a full review of the 

order. Chairman Schmidtlein and Commissioner 

Williamson voted to conduct an expedited review 

of the order. 

Total Estimated Annual Nonhour 

Burden Cost: $30,000. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The authority for this 

action is the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). 

Mark Purdy, 

Management Analyst, Bureau of Land 

Management. 

[FR Doc. 2017–22615 Filed 10–17–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–84–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–344 (Fourth 

Review)] 

Tapered Roller Bearings From China; 

Notice of Commission Determination 

To Conduct a Full Five-Year Review 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it will proceed with a full 

review pursuant to the Tariff Act of 

1930 to determine whether revocation of 

the antidumping duty order on tapered 

roller bearings from China would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. A schedule 

for the review will be established and 

announced at a later date. 

DATES: October 6, 2017. 

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 (https://

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at https://edis.usitc.gov. 

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). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

October 6, 2017, the Commission 

determined that it would proceed to a 

full review in the subject five-year 

review pursuant to section 751(c) of the 

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

response to the Commission’s notice of 

institution (82 FR 30898, July 3, 2017), 

the Commission found that the domestic 

interested party group response was 

adequate and the respondent interested 

party group response was inadequate. 

The Commission also found that other 

circumstances warranted conducting a 

full review.1 A 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. 

Authority: This review is being 

conducted under authority of title VII of 

the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is 

published pursuant to section 207.62 of 

the Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: October 13, 2017. 

William R. Bishop, 

Supervisory Hearings and Information 

Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2017–22551 Filed 10–17–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–678–679 and 

681–682 (Fourth Review)] 

Stainless Steel Bar From Brazil, India, 

Japan, and Spain; Notice of 

Commission Determination To 

Conduct Full Five-Year Reviews 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it will proceed with full 

reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 

1930 to determine whether revocation of 

the antidumping duty orders on 

stainless steel bar from Brazil, India, 

Japan, and Spain would be likely to lead 

to continuation or recurrence of material 

injury within a reasonably foreseeable 

time. A schedule for the reviews will be 

established and announced at a later 

date. 

DATES: October 6, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amanda Lawrence (202–205–3185), 

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 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (https://

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at https://edis.usitc.gov. 

For further information concerning 

the conduct of these reviews 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). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

October 6, 2017, the Commission 

determined that it should proceed to 

full reviews in the subject five-year 

reviews pursuant to section 751(c) of the 

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

The Commission found that the 

domestic parties’ group response to its 

notice of institution was adequate and 

that the respondent interested parties’ 

group responses to its notice of 

institution for the reviews on subject 

imports from Japan and Spain were 

adequate. The Commission found that 

the respondent interested parties’ group 

responses to its notice of institution for 

the reviews on subject imports from 

Brazil and India were inadequate. 

However, the Commission determined 

to conduct full reviews concerning the 

orders on stainless steel bar from Brazil 

and India to promote administrative 

efficiency in light of its decision to 

conduct full reviews of the orders on 

stainless steel bar from Japan and Spain. 

A 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. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of 

the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is 

published pursuant to section 207.62 of 

the Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
48528 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 18, 2017 / Notices 

Issued: October 12, 2017. 

Lisa R. Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2017–22522 Filed 10–17–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–1005] 

Certain L-Tryptophan, L-Tryptophan 

Products, and Their Methods of 

Production; Commission 

Determination to Review a Final Initial 

Determination Finding No Section 337 

Violation; Schedule for Filing Written 

Submissions on the Issues 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 a 

final initial determination (‘‘FID’’) of the 

presiding administrative law judge 

(‘‘ALJ’’) finding no violation of section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended. The Commission requests 

certain briefing from the parties on the 

issues under review, as indicated in this 

notice. The Commission also requests 

briefing from the parties and interested 

persons on the issues of remedy, the 

public interest, and bonding. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Houda Morad, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

708–4716. 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 https://www.usitc.gov. 

The public record for this investigation 

may be viewed on the Commission’s 

electronic docket (EDIS) at https://

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 Investigation No. 

337–TA–1005 on June 14, 2016, based 

on a complaint filed by Complainants 

Ajinomoto Co., Inc. of Tokyo, Japan and 

Ajinomoto Heartland Inc. of Chicago, 

Illinois (collectively, ‘‘Ajinomoto’’ or 

‘‘Complainants’’). See 81 FR 38735–6 

(June 14, 2016). The complaint, as 

supplemented, alleges violations of 

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), based upon 

the importation into the United States, 

the sale for importation, and the sale 

within the United States after 

importation of certain L-tryptophan, Ltryptophan products, and their methods 

of production, by reason of infringement 

of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 

7,666,655 (‘‘the ’655 patent’’) and U.S. 

Patent No. 6,180,373 (‘‘the ’373 patent’’). 

Id. The notice of investigation identified 

CJ CheilJedang Corp. of Seoul, Republic 

of Korea; CJ America, Inc. of Downers 

Grove, Illinois; and PT CheilJedang 

Indonesia of Jakarta, Indonesia 

(collectively ‘‘CJ’’ or ‘‘Respondents’’) as 

respondents in this investigation. See 

id. The Office of Unfair Import 

Investigations is not a party to the 

investigation. 

On August 11, 2017, the ALJ issued 

his FID finding no violation of section 

337. Specifically, the FID finds that: (1) 

Respondents’ accused products do not 

infringe the asserted claims of the ’373 

or the ’655 patents either literally or 

under the doctrine of equivalents; (2) 

claim 10 of the ’373 patent is invalid for 

indefiniteness and lack of written 

description; (3) claim 20 of the ’655 

patent is invalid for lack of written 

description; and (4) Complainants’ 

products do not satisfy the technical 

prong of the domestic industry 

requirement with respect to the ’655 or 

the ’373 patents. In addition, should the 

Commission find a violation of section 

337, the RD recommends that the 

Commission issue: (1) A limited 

exclusion order against Respondents’ 

accused products; and (2) a cease and 

desist order against Respondent CJ 

America. 

The Commission has determined to 

review the FID in its entirety. In 

connection with its review, the parties 

are requested to brief their positions 

with reference to the applicable law and 

the evidentiary record regarding the 

questions provided below: 

1. Please explain, with textual support 

from the McKitrick reference (JX–5), 

discussed at column 6, lines 29–37 of 

the ’373 patent, whether McKitrick 

discloses measuring serine sensitivity 

via a forward assay, a reverse assay, or 

both. 

2. Please explain whether and why 

the specific conditions and methods of 

McKitrick (JX–5) and Bauerle (JX–37), 

discussed in the ’373 patent 

specification, were not closely followed 

to establish infringement of the ’373 

patent. Please provide factual as well as 

legal support to explain whether the 

methods employed provide adequate 

proof of infringement. 

3. Assuming prosecution history 

estoppel arising from the amendment of 

the term a ‘‘protein that has several 

amino acid deletions, substitutions, 

insertions, or additions as compared to 

SEQ ID NO:2’’ during prosecution of the 

’655 patent, is relevant to the scope of 

the term ‘‘said protein consists of the 

amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 2’’ 

in claim 9, please explain whether or 

not any estoppel presumption is 

rebutted. 

4. Please explain the relevance of 

Exhibit CX–487 (Random House 

Dictionary definition of ‘‘replace’’) on 

the claim construction of the term 

‘‘replacing the native promoter’’ in the 

’655 patent claims and include a copy 

of the CX–487 exhibit. 

In addition, 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(s) 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 (Dec. 1994) (Comm’n 

Op.). 

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. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES