AUTHENTICATED
`US. GOVERNMENT,
`INFORMATION,
`GPO,
`
`13466
`Federal Register/Vol. 88, No. 42/Friday, March 3, 2023 /Notices
`
`Citation 30 CFR 582
`
`
`
`Reporting or recordkeeping requirement
`
`Hour burden
`
`Average number
`of annual
`responses
`
`Annual
`burden hours
`
`BURDEN TABLE—Continued
`
`
`
`
`
`QOH)... eeeesceecesceseeeetseeeseeaes Maintain hard mineral records and make available upon
`request.
`
`1
`1
`1
`
`
`
`
`Subtotal oo... eeceeesceccesesese|ceceeeesceecseseeeesesaeaesenessesaeesanaesenesaeaessnecanaesaeaseessesesaseesesseneseesaee|ceaeeeeaeaeeeseesaeaeees 9 17
`
`
`
`Subpart D—Payments
`
`40 eee cee eeeeeeeeeeeeee Submit surety, personal bond, or approved alternative .....
`2
`1
`2
`Subpart E—Appeals
`
`BO; 15 oe see cee seeeeseeeeeeeneeees
`
`File an appeal
`
`.
`
`Total Burden..........
`
`Burden exempt under 5 CFR
`1320.4(a)(2), (c)
`
`0
`
`212
`
`20
`
`An agency may not conduct or
`sponsor, anda personis not required to
`respondto, a collection of information
`unless it displays a valid OMB control
`number.
`The authority for this action is the
`Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
`U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
`
`Karen Thundiyil,
`Chief, Office ofRegulations, Bureau of Ocean
`Energy Management.
`[FR Doc. 2023-04400 Filed 3-2-23; 8:45 am]
`BILLING CODE 4340-98-P
`
`INTERNATIONAL TRADE
`COMMISSION
`
`[Investigation No. 337-TA-1271]
`
`Certain Silicon Photovoltaic Cells and
`Modules With Nanostructures, and
`Products Containing the Same; Notice
`of Commission Determination To
`Review in Part and, on Review, To
`Affirm a FinalInitial Determination
`Finding No Violation; Termination of
`the Investigation
`AGENCY:U.S. International Trade
`Commission.
`ACTION: Notice.
`
`SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that,
`on September1, 2022, the presiding
`chief administrative law judge (‘“CALJ’’)
`issued a combinedfinalinitial
`determination (“‘ID’’) on violation and
`recommended determination (“RD’’) on
`remedy and bonding.Thefinal ID finds
`no violation of section 337 in the above-
`captioned investigation. The
`Commission has determined to review
`the final ID in part and, on review,
`affirm the final ID’s finding of no
`violation. The investigation is
`terminated.
`
`FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
`Richard P. Hadorn,Esq., Office of the
`General Counsel, U.S. International
`Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW,
`Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
`205-3179. Copies of non-confidential
`documents filed in connection with this
`investigation may be viewedon the
`Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS)
`at https://edis.usitc.gov. For help
`accessing EDIS,please email
`EDIS3Help@usitc.gov. General
`information concerning the Commission
`may also be obtained by accessingits
`internet server at hitps://www.usitc.gov.
`Hearing-impaired persons are advised
`that information on this matter can be
`obtained by contacting the
`Commission’s TDD terminal, telephone
`(202) 205-1810.
`SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION: The
`Commission instituted this investigation
`on July 20, 2021, based on a complaint
`filed by AdvancedSilicon Group
`Technologies, LLC (““ASGT”) of Lowell,
`Massachusetts. 86 FR 38356 (July 20,
`2021). The complaint, as supplemented,
`alleges violations of section 337 of the
`Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19
`U.S.C. 1337, based on the importation
`into the United States, the sale for
`importation, and the sale within the
`United States after importation of
`certain silicon photovoltaic cells and
`modules with nanostructures, and
`products containing the same by reason
`of infringementofcertain claims of U.S.
`Patent Nos. 10,269,995 (“the ’995
`patent’’); 8,450,599 (‘‘the 599 patent’’);
`8,852,981 (‘the ’981 patent”); 9,601,640
`(“the ’640 patent”); 9,768,331 (“the 331
`patent’’); and 10,692,971 (“the ’971
`patent’’). Id. at 38357. The complaint
`further alleges that a domestic industry
`exists or is in the process of being
`established. Id. The notice of
`investigation named 28 respondents,
`
`including: Canadian Solar International
`Limited of Hong Kong, China; Canadian
`Solar Manufacturing (Thailand) Co. Ltd.
`of Chon Buri, Thailand; Canadian Solar
`Manufacturing Vietnam Co. Ltd. of Hai
`PhongCity, Vietnam; Canadian Solar
`(USA) Inc. of Walnut Creek, California;
`and Recurrent Energy SH Proco LLC of
`Walnut Creek, California (‘‘Canadian
`Solar Respondents’’); Hanwha Solutions
`Corporation of Seoul, Republic of Korea;
`HanwhaQ Cell EPC USA LLC ofIrvine,
`California; Hanwha Q Cells America
`Inc. of Irvine, California; Hanwha Q
`Cells USAInc. of Dalton, Georgia; and
`HanwhaQ Cells Malaysia Sdn. Bhd of
`Selangor, Malaysia (“Hanwha
`Respondents”); Ningbo Boway Alloy
`Material Co., Ltd. of Zhejiang Province,
`China; Boviet Solar Technology Co.,
`Ltd. of Bac Giang Province, Vietnam;
`Boviet Renewable Power, LLC of San
`Jose, California; and Boviet Solar USA
`Ltd. of San Jose, California (‘‘Boviet
`Respondents”); and Canadian Solar Inc.
`of Ontario, Canada; Canadian Solar
`Manufacturing (Changshu) Co.Inc. of
`Jiangsu, China; Canadian Solar
`Manufacturing (Luoyang) Inc. of Henan,
`China; Canadian Solar Solutions, Inc. of
`Ontario, Canada; Canadian Solar
`Construction (USA) LLC of Walnut
`Creek, California; Recurrent Energy
`GroupInc. of San Francisco, California;
`Recurrent Energy, LLC of Walnut Creek,
`California; Hanwha Q Cells GmbH of
`Bitterfeld-Wolfen, Germany; Hanwha Q
`Cells (Qidong) Co., Ltd. ofJiangsu,
`China; Hanwha Energy USA Holdings
`Corp. (d/b/a 174 Power Global
`Corporation)of Irvine, California;
`HanwhaQ Cells USA Corp.ofIrvine,
`California; HQC Rock River Solar
`Holdings LLC ofIrvine, California; HQC
`Rock River Solar Power Generation
`Station, LLC of Beloit, Wisconsin; and
`Hanwha Q CELLS & Advanced
`
`

`

`13467
`Federal Register/Vol. 88, No. 42/Friday, March 3, 2023/Notices
`
`Materials Corp. of Seoul, Republic of
`Korea(‘‘Terminated Respondents’’). Id.
`The Office of Unfair Import
`Investigations (“OUII’) is also named as
`a party.Id.
`On February 22, 2022, the
`Commission determined to terminate
`the investigation as to the ’971 patent
`(Order No. 7) and the Terminated
`Respondents (Order No.8) based on
`ASGT’s withdrawalofthe allegations in
`the complaintas to that patent and
`those respondents. Order Nos. 7 and 8
`(Feb. 1, 2022), unreviewed by Comm’n
`Notice (Feb. 22, 2022). On June 21,
`2022, the Commission determined to
`terminate the investigation as to the ’995
`patent, asserted claims 17 and 25 of the
`*599 patent, asserted claims 1, 2, and 26
`of the 981 patent, asserted claims 14
`and 16—18 of the ’640 patent, and
`asserted claims 2 and 10 of the ’331
`patent based on ASGT’s withdrawal of
`the allegations in the complaint as to
`that patent and those claims. Order No.
`12 (May 31, 2022), unreviewed by
`Comm’n Notice (June 21, 2022).
`On September1, 2022, the CAL]
`issued the subject final ID on violation
`and RD on remedy and bond. The ID
`finds that no violation of section 337
`has occurred as to the Canadian Solar
`Respondents, Hanwha Respondents,
`and Boviet Respondents with respect to
`the claims of the four remaining
`asserted patents—i.e., the 599, 981,
`640, and ’331 patents. Specifically, the
`ID finds: (1) no infringementas to any
`of the remaining asserted patents; (2)
`that claim 27 of the ’981 patentis
`invalid as anticipated by U.S. Patent
`Application Publication No. US2011/
`0140085 (““Homyk 2011”); (3) that claim
`1 of the ’331 patent is invalid as obvious
`over(i) the combination of the printed
`publicationstitled “Silicon Nanowire-
`Array-Textured Solar Cells for
`Photovoltaic Application” (“Chen
`2010’) and “Crystalline Silicon Solar
`Cells and Modules” (‘Tobias 2003”), as
`well as (ii) the combination of U.S.
`Patent Application Publication No.
`US2013/0340824 (“Oh 2013”) and
`Tobias 2003; (4) that ASGT has not
`satisfied the technical prongof the
`domestic industry requirement as to any
`of the remaining asserted patents; (5)
`that ASGThassatisfied the economic
`prong of the domestic industry
`requirementas to the remaining asserted
`patents; and (6) that ASGT’s assertion of
`violation as to the ’331 patent is not
`barred by inequitable conduct.
`The RD recommendsthat, should the
`Commission determinethat violations
`of section 337 occurred, the
`Commission should: (i) issue a limited
`exclusion order against the remaining
`respondents’ infringing products;(ii)
`
`issue a cease and desist order against
`the Canadian Solar Respondents, but
`not against the Hanwha Respondents or
`Boviet Respondents; and(iii) enter no
`bondfor any importationsof infringing
`products during the period of
`Presidential review.
`On September 19, 2022, ASGTfiled a
`petition for review of certain findings in
`the final ID concerning infringement by
`only the Canadian Solar Respondents as
`to the ’981 and ’640 patents, the finding
`that claim 27 of the ’981 patentis
`invalid as anticipated by Homyk 2011,
`satisfaction of the technical prongof the
`domestic industry requirementas to the
`981 and ’640 patents; and contingently,
`whether ASGThassatisfied the
`economic prong of the domestic
`industry requirement based on an
`industry in the process of being
`established. On September 27, 2022, the
`Canadian Solar Respondents and OUII
`eachfiled a response to ASGT’s
`petition.
`On October 5, 2022, ASGTfiled a
`submission on the public interest
`pursuant to Commission Rule
`210.50(a)(4) (19 CFR 210.50(a)(4)). The
`Commission did not receive any public
`interest submissions from the remaining
`tespondents. The Commission also did
`not receive any submissions on the
`public interest from membersof the
`public in response to the Commission’s
`Federal Register notice. 87 FR 55852-53
`(Sept. 12, 2022).
`Having reviewedthe recordin this
`investigation, includingthefinal ID,
`ASGT’spetition, and the responses
`thereto, the Commission has determined
`to review thefinal ID in part.
`Specifically, the Commission has
`determined to review the ID’s finding
`that ASGThassatisfied the economic
`prong of the domestic industry
`requirementas to the remaining asserted
`patents. On review, the Commission has
`determinedto take no position on that
`issue.
`Further, the Commission has
`determined to review, and on review, to
`correct the following typographical/
`clerical errors in the final ID: (1) in the
`twenty-first line of page 123, “does not
`remove(or break)’ is replaced with
`“removes(or breaks)’’; (2) in the fifth
`line of page 161 and the twelfth line of
`page 174, ‘“‘Tobias 2013”is replaced
`with “Tobias 2003”’; (3) the last
`sentenceof thefirst full paragraph on
`page 174 is replaced with “In addition,
`Dr. Lebbytestified that Oh 2013
`disclosed screen printing on nanowires
`and, moreover, that it would not have
`been difficult for a person of ordinary
`skill in the art to screen print a comb-
`like pattern onto silicon nanostructures.
`See RX-0001C (Lebby) at Q/A 318-25.”;
`
`(4) in the eighth line of page 175, “‘Chen
`2010 and Tobias” is replaced with “Oh
`2013 and Tobias 2003”; and (5) the
`following paragraph is added between
`the first and second full paragraphs on
`page 8: “Boviet Renewable Power, LLC
`(‘Boviet Renewable’) is a corporation
`existing under the lawsofthe State of
`Delawareand a subsidiary of Ningbo
`Bowayhavinga principal place of
`businessin San Jose, California. See
`Complaint, J 34; Boviet Response to
`Complaint, 7 34.”
`In addition, the Commission has
`determined to review, and on review,to
`strike the discussion and finding at
`Section IJ.A on page 15 of the final ID
`that the Commission has “subject matter
`jurisdiction” over this investigation.
`The concept of ‘“‘subject matter
`jurisdiction” does not apply to
`administrative agencies. City of
`Arlington, Tex. v. FCC, 569 U.S. 290,
`297-98 (2013).
`Lastly, the Commission has
`determinedto review, and on review,to
`affirm with supplemental reasoning the
`final ID’s finding that Homyk 2011
`anticipates claim 27 of the ’981 patent.
`Specifically, ASGT’s argumentin its
`post-hearingbrief (and petition for
`review) that Homyk 2011 does not teach
`the ‘‘a portion of the surface’’ limitation
`of claim 27 is waived because ASGT
`failed to raise the argumentin its pre-
`hearing brief. See Order No. 2 at 11-12
`(July 16, 2021) (Ground Rule 7c
`(deeming a contention abandonedor
`withdrawnif it is not set forth in detail
`in a party’s pre-hearingbrief));
`Complainant’s Post-Hearing Brief (Apr.
`26, 2022) at 154-55; Complainant’s
`Petition for Commission Review of
`Initial Determination (Sept. 19, 2022) at
`35-36.
`The Commission has determined not
`to review the remaining findings in the
`final ID. Accordingly, the Commission
`has determinedto affirm the final ID’s
`finding of no violation of section 337.
`The investigation is terminated.
`The Commission votefor this
`determination took place on February
`27, 2023.
`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: February 27, 2023.
`Katherine Hiner,
`Supervisory Attorney.
`[FR Doc. 2023-04369 Filed 3-2-23; 8:45 am]
`BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
`
`