Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 207 / Friday, October 27, 2017 / Notices 49847 

this Draft Supplemental EIS/EIR and 

Draft Plan Amendment. 

For the PSP Project, the BLM held 

public meetings on the revised ROW 

application in June and August 2016 in 

Palm Springs, California. The Draft 

Supplemental EIS/EIR includes analysis 

of the revised ROW application as it 

relates to the following issues: 

(1) Updated description of the 

Proposed Project, based on the revised 

ROW application; 

(2) Impacts to cultural resources and 

tribal concerns; 

(3) Impacts to the Sand Transport 

Corridor and Mojave fringe-toed lizard 

habitat and washes; 

(4) Impacts to Joshua Tree National 

Park; 

(5) Impacts to avian species; 

(6) Impacts to visual resources; and 

(7) Relationship between the project 

and the regional renewable energy 

planning in the Desert Renewable 

Energy Conservation Plan. 

In addition to the Proposed Action, 

the Draft Supplemental EIS/EIR 

considers a No-Action Alternative and 

two additional action alternatives. 

Alternative 1, Reduced Footprint, would 

be a 500 MW Photovoltaic (PV) array on 

about 3,100 acres. It avoids the central 

and largest desert wash and 

incorporates a more efficient use of the 

land for the solar array. Alternative 2, 

Avoidance Alternative, would be an up 

to 230 MW solar PV array on about 

1,620 acres. Like the Proposed Action, 

under each of these alternatives, the 

BLM would amend the CDCA Plan to 

allow the project. Under the No-Action 

Alternative, the BLM would deny the 

ROW application, and would not amend 

the CDCA Plan to allow the project. 

The BLM has selected Alternative 1— 

Reduced Footprint Alternative—as the 

Agency-Preferred Alternative for the 

Draft Supplemental EIS. The BLM and 

other cooperating agencies involved are 

inviting Draft Supplemental EIS 

reviewers to offer comments on the 

comparison of alternatives, as presented 

in the document. 

Your input is important and will be 

considered in the environmental and 

land-use planning analysis. Please note 

that public comments and information 

submitted, including names, street 

addresses, and email addresses of 

persons who submit comments will be 

available for public review and 

disclosure at the above address during 

regular business hours (8 a.m. to 4 p.m.), 

Monday through Friday, except 

holidays. 

Before including your address, phone 

number, email 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. 

Authority: 40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 

1506.10, 43 CFR 1610.2. 

Danielle Chi, 

Deputy State Director, California. 

[FR Doc. 2017–23417 Filed 10–26–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–40–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–979] 

Certain Radio Frequency Identification 

(‘‘RFID’’) Products and Components 

Thereof Commission Determination 

Finding No Violation of Section 337; 

Termination of the Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined to find no 

violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, in the above-identified 

investigation. The investigation is 

terminated in its entirety. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cathy Chen, Esq., Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–2392. 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 this investigation 

on January 11, 2016, based on a 

complaint filed by Neology, Inc. of 

Poway, California (‘‘Neology’’). 81 FR 

1205–06 (Jan. 11, 2016). The complaint, 

as supplemented, alleges violations of 

section 337 in the importation into the 

United States, the sale for importation, 

and the sale within the United States 

after importation of certain radio 

frequency identification (‘‘RFID’’) 

products and components thereof by 

reason of infringement of certain claims 

of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,325,044 (‘‘the ’044 

patent’’); 7,119,664 (‘‘the ’664 patent’’); 

and 8,587,436 (‘‘the ’436 patent’’). The 

complaint further alleges that an 

industry in the United States exists as 

required by 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(2). The 

notice of investigation named numerous 

respondents. Respondents Kapsch 

TrafficCom IVHS, Inc. of McLean, 

Virginia; Kapsch TrafficCom Holding 

Corp. of McLean, Virginia; Kapsch 

TrafficCom Canada, Inc. of Mississauga, 

Ontario, Canada; Star Systems 

International, Ltd. of Kwai Chung, Hong 

Kong; and STAR RFID Co., Ltd. of 

Bangkok, Thailand (collectively, 

‘‘Respondents’’) remain in the 

investigation. The Office of Unfair 

Import Investigations is also a party in 

this investigation. 

All asserted claims of the ’664 patent 

and certain asserted claims of the ’044 

patent and the ’436 patent have been 

terminated from the investigation. See 

Comm’n Notice (Sept. 27, 2016). Only 

claims 13, 14, and 25 of the ’044 patent 

and claims 1, 2, and 4 of the ’436 patent 

remain in the investigation (collectively, 

‘‘the Asserted Claims’’). 

On June 22, 2017, the ALJ issued her 

final ID finding no violation of section 

337 by the Respondents in connection 

with the Asserted Claims. The final ID 

found that all of the Asserted Claims are 

invalid on multiple grounds. Had the 

Asserted Claims not been found invalid, 

the final ID also found that the accused 

products infringe the Asserted Claims; 

that Neology’s domestic industry 

products practice claim 25 of the ’044 

patent and claims 1, 2, and 4 of the ’436 

patent; and that Neology has satisfied 

the economic prong of the domestic 

industry requirement as to the ’044 and 

the ’436 patents. 

Neology filed a timely petition for 

review of the final ID, challenging the 

final ID’s finding that the Asserted 

Claims are invalid. That same day, the 

Commission’s Investigative Attorney 

(‘‘IA’’) filed a contingent petition for 

review of the final ID and Respondents 

filed a joint contingent petition for 

review of the final ID. Neology and the 

IA both challenge certain of the final 

ID’s findings with respect to the 

economic prong of the domestic 

industry requirement as to the ’436 

patent. Respondents also challenge the 

final ID’s finding that the Asserted 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
49848 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 207 / Friday, October 27, 2017 / Notices 

Claims are not invalid under 35 U.S.C. 

101. On July 13, 2017, the parties each 

filed a timely response to the petitions 

for review. On July 24, 2017, 

Respondents filed their public interest 

comments pursuant to Commission Rule 

210.50(a)(4). Two days later, Neology 

filed a response to Respondents’ public 

interest comments. The Commission 

also received public interest comments 

from multiple non-parties. 

On August 16, 2017, the Commission 

determined to review-in-part the final 

ID. Specifically, the Commission 

determined to review the following 

findings in the final ID: (1) The Asserted 

Claims are not entitled to claim priority 

to an earlier filing date; (2) the Asserted 

Claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102, 

103, and/or 112; (3) the Asserted Claims 

are not invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101; and 

(4) Neology has satisfied the economic 

prong of the domestic industry 

requirement with respect to the ’436 

patent. The Commission requested 

briefing from the parties on certain 

issues under review. The Commission 

did not solicit briefing from the parties 

and from the public on the issues of 

remedy, bonding, and the public 

interest. 

Having reviewed the parties’ 

submissions and the record evidence, 

the Commission has determined to 

affirm, with modified reasoning, the ID’s 

finding of no violation of section 337 by 

the Respondents in connection with the 

Asserted Claims because Respondents 

have shown that the Asserted Claims are 

invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102, 103 and/ 

or 112. The Commission has also 

determined to affirm with modifications 

the ID’s finding that the Asserted Claims 

are not entitled to claim priority to an 

earlier filing date. The Commission has 

further determined to take no position 

on the ID’s findings that the Asserted 

Claims are directed at patent eligible 

subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 

that Neology has satisfied the economic 

prong of the domestic industry 

requirement with respect to the ’436 

patent. A Commission opinion will be 

issued shortly. 

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 Part 

210 of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR part 

210. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: October 23, 2017. 

Lisa R. Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2017–23366 Filed 10–26–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–567–569 and 

731–TA–1343–1345 (Final)] 

Silicon Metal From Australia, Brazil, 

Kazakhstan, and Norway; Scheduling 

of the Final Phase of Countervailing 

Duty and Antidumping Duty 

Investigations 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of the final 

phase of antidumping and 

countervailing duty investigation Nos. 

701–TA–567–569 and 731–TA–1343– 

1345 (Final) pursuant to the Tariff Act 

of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’) to determine 

whether 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 of silicon metal, 

provided for in subheadings 

2804.69.1000 and 2804.69.5000 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States, from Australia, Brazil, 

and Norway preliminarily determined 

by the Department of Commerce to be 

sold at less than fair value, and imports 

of silicon metal preliminarily 

determined to be subsidized by the 

governments of Australia, Brazil, and 

Kazakhstan. 

DATES: October 12, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lawrence Jones ((202) 205–3358), 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 

these investigations may be viewed on 

the Commission’s electronic docket 

(EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Scope.—For purposes of these 

investigations, the Department of 

Commerce has defined the subject 

merchandise as follows: ‘‘all forms and 

sizes of silicon metal, including silicon 

metal powder. Silicon metal contains at 

least 85.00 percent but less than 99.99 

percent silicon, and less than 4.00 

percent iron, by actual weight. 

Semiconductor grade silicon 

(merchandise containing at least 99.99 

percent silicon by actual weight and 

classifiable under Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 

subheading 2804.61.0000) is excluded 

from the scope of this investigation. 

Silicon metal is currently classifiable 

under subheadings 2804.69.1000 and 

2804.69.5000 of the HTSUS. While 

HTSUS numbers are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope remains 

dispositive.’’ 

Background.—The final phase of 

these investigations is being scheduled 

pursuant to sections 705(b) and 731(b) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1671d(b) and 1673d(b)), as a result of 

affirmative preliminary determinations 

by the Department of Commerce that 

certain benefits which constitute 

subsidies within the meaning of section 

703 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b) are 

being provided to manufacturers, 

producers, or exporters in Australia, 

Brazil, and Kazakhstan of silicon metal, 

and that such products imported from 

Australia, Brazil, and Norway are being 

sold in the United States at less than fair 

value within the meaning of section 733 

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b). The 

investigations were requested in 

petitions filed on March 8, 2017, by 

Globe Specialty Metals, Inc., Beverly, 

Ohio. 

For further information concerning 

the conduct of this phase of the 

investigations, hearing procedures, and 

rules of general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B 

(19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207). 

Participation in the investigations and 

public service list.—Persons, including 

industrial users of the subject 

merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the final phase of these 

investigations as parties must file an 

entry of appearance with the Secretary 

to the Commission, as provided in 

section 201.11 of the Commission’s 

rules, no later than 21 days prior to the 

hearing date specified in this notice. A 

party that filed a notice of appearance 

during the preliminary phase of the 

investigations need not file an 

additional notice of appearance during 

this final phase. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the investigations. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES