Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2010 / Notices 68619 

5Commissioners Aranoff and Hillman dissented, 

having determined that an industry in the United 

States was threatened with material injury by 

reason of LTFV imports of diamond sawblades and 

parts thereof from China and Korea. 

6Chairman Aranoff, who dissented in the original 

negative determination, and Commissioners 

Williamson and Pinkert, who had commenced their 

service as Commissioners in the intervening time, 

voted in the affirmative. On remand, Vice Chairman 

Pearson and Commissioners Okun and Lane voted 

in the negative. 

Sanders Saws, Honey Brook, PA; Terra 

Diamond, Salt Lake City, UT; and 

Western Saw, Inc., Oxnard, CA. 

On June 20, 2006, the Commission 

determined, by a vote of 4 to 2, that a 

U.S. industry was not materially injured 

or threatened with material injury by 

reason of imports of diamond sawblades 

and parts thereof from China and 

Korea.5 Notice of those determinations 

was published on July 11, 2006. 71 FR 

39128. The Commission transmitted its 

determinations to the Secretary of 

Commerce on June 30, 2006. The 

Commission’s views were contained in 

USITC Publication 3862 (July 2006), 

entitled Diamond Sawblades and Parts 

Thereof from China and Korea, 

Investigation No. 731–TA–1092–1093 

(Final). 

Petitioner DSMC appealed the 

Commission’s negative final 

determinations to the U.S. Court of 

International Trade (‘‘CIT’’). On February 

6, 2008, the CIT remanded the 

determinations to the Commission for 

further proceedings, having found that 

certain findings of the Commission were 

not supported by substantial evidence. 

Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers 

Coalition v. United States, Slip Op. 08– 

18 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2007) (‘‘Sawblades I’’). 

On remand, the Commission 

determined, by a vote of 3 to 3, that a 

U.S. industry was threatened with 

material injury by reason of imports of 

subject imports of diamond sawblades 

and parts thereof from China and 

Korea.6 Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1677(11), 

the tie vote is considered an affirmative 

determination of the Commission. 

On January 13, 2009, the CIT affirmed 

the Commission’s affirmative 

determinations on remand. Diamond 

Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. 

United States, Slip Op. 09–05 (Ct. Int’l 

Trade 2009) (‘‘Sawblades II’’). On 

January 22, 2009, the Commission 

notified Commerce of the Court’s 

decision, stating that it was a decision 

‘‘not in harmony with’’ with the 

Commission’s original negative 

determinations. As required by 19 

U.S.C. 1516a(c) and Timken Company v. 

United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 

1990), Commerce published notice of 

the CIT’s decision and suspended 

liquidation for entries of the subject 

merchandise after the effective date of 

the Timken notice until the end of all 

appellate proceedings. Notice of Court 

Decision Not In Harmony, 74 FR 6570 

(Feb. 10, 2009). The Commission did 

not publish notice of its remand 

determinations at that time because the 

remand determinations would, under 

the statute, only become its final 

determinations upon conclusion of all 

appellate proceedings in the action. 19 

U.S.C. 1516a(c) & (e); 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2643(c); Co-Steel Raritan, Inc. v. U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 357 

F.3d 1294, 1302, n.3, & 1304–05 (Fed. 

Cir. 2004); Hosiden Corp. v. United 

States, 85 F.3d 589, 590–91 (Fed. Cir. 

1996); Timken, 893 F.2d at 339–340. 

On March 13, 2009, respondent 

parties Saint Gobain Abrasives, Inc. and 

Ehwa Diamond Industrial Co., Ltd. 

appealed the decisions in Sawblades I 

and Sawblades II to the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit (‘‘Federal 

Circuit’’). On July 6, 2010, the Federal 

Circuit affirmed the CIT’s decision in 

Sawblades I and Sawblades II. Diamond 

Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. 

United States, 2009–1274, –1275 (Fed. 

Cir. 2010). No party applied to the U.S. 

Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari for 

that decision. 

Since the deadline for filing a writ of 

certiorari to the Supreme Court has 

expired, all appellate proceedings 

relating to the merits of the 

Commission’s determinations have 

ended. Fujitsu General America, Inc. v. 

United States, 283 F.3d 1364, 1379 (Fed. 

Cir. 2002). Accordingly, the 

Commission publishes notice of its final 

determinations in the antidumping 

investigations of diamond sawblades 

and parts thereof from China and Korea. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: November 2, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28153 Filed 11–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. No. 337–TA–745] 

In the Matter of Certain Wireless 

Communication Devices, Portable 

Music and Data Processing Devices, 

Computers and Components Thereof; 

Notice of Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of investigation 

pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a 

complaint was filed with the U.S. 

International Trade Commission on 

October 6, 2010, under section 337 of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 

U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Motorola 

Mobility, Inc., Libertyville, Illinois. The 

complaint alleges violations of section 

337 based upon the importation into the 

United States, the sale for importation, 

and the sale within the United States 

after importation of certain wireless 

communication devices, portable music 

and data processing devices, computers 

and components thereof by reason of 

infringement of certain claims of U.S. 

Patent No. 6,272,333 (‘‘the ’333 patent’’); 

U.S. Patent No. 6,246,862 (‘‘the ’862 

patent’’); U.S. Patent No. 6,246,697 (‘‘the 

’’697 patent’’); U.S. Patent No. 5,359,317 

(‘‘the ’317 patent’’); U.S. Patent No. 

5,636,223 (‘‘the ’’223 patent’’); and U.S. 

Patent No. 7,751,826 (‘‘the ’’826 patent’’). 

The complaint further alleges that an 

industry in the United States exists as 

required by subsection (a)(2) of section 

337. 

The complainant requests that the 

Commission institute an investigation 

and, after the investigation, issue an 

exclusion order and a cease and desist 

order. 

ADDRESSES: The complaint, except for 

any confidential information contained 

therein, is 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., Room 

112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 

202–205–2000. Hearing impaired 

individuals are advised that information 

on this matter can be obtained 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 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kevin G. Baer, Esq., Office of Unfair 

Import Investigations, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, telephone (202) 

205–2221. 

Authority: The authority for institution of 

this investigation is contained in section 337 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 

in section 210.10 of the Commission’s Rules 

of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 

(2010). 

Scope of Investigation: Having 

considered the complaint, the U.S. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
68620 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2010 / Notices 

International Trade Commission, on 

November 2, 2010, ordered that— 

(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of 

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, an investigation be instituted 

to determine whether there is a 

violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of 

section 337 in the importation into the 

United States, the sale for importation, 

or the sale within the United States after 

importation of certain wireless 

communication devices, portable music 

and data processing devices, computers 

and components thereof that infringe 

one or more of claim 12 of the ’333 

patent; claim 1 of the ’862 patent; claims 

1–4 of the ’697 patent, claims 1 and 17 

of the ’317 patent, claim 1 of the ’223 

patent; and claim 1 of the ’826 patent, 

and whether an industry in the United 

States exists as required by subsection 

(a)(2) of section 337; 

(2) For the purpose of the 

investigation so instituted, the following 

are hereby named as parties upon which 

this notice of investigation shall be 

served: 

(a) The complainant is: Motorola 

Mobility, Inc., 600 North US Highway 

45, Libertyville, Illinois 60048. 

(b) The respondent is the following 

entity alleged to be in violation of 

section 337, and is the party upon 

which the complaint is to be served: 

Apple Inc., 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, 

California 95014. 

(c) The Commission investigative 

attorney, party to this investigation, is 

Kevin G. Baer, Esq., Office of Unfair 

Import Investigations, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and 

(3) For the investigation so instituted, 

the Honorable Paul J. Luckern, Chief 

Administrative Law Judge, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, shall 

designate the presiding Administrative 

Law Judge. 

Responses to the complaint and the 

notice of investigation must be 

submitted by the named respondent in 

accordance with section 210.13 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 

19 CFR 201.16(d)–(e) and 210.13(a), 

such responses will be considered by 

the Commission if received not later 

than 20 days after the date of service by 

the Commission of the complaint and 

the notice of investigation. Extensions of 

time for submitting responses to the 

complaint and the notice of 

investigation will not be granted unless 

good cause therefor is shown. 

Failure of the respondent to file a 

timely response to each allegation in the 

complaint and in this notice may be 

deemed to constitute a waiver of the 

right to appear and contest the 

allegations of the complaint and this 

notice, and to authorize the 

administrative law judge and the 

Commission, without further notice to 

the respondent, to find the facts to be as 

alleged in the complaint and this notice 

and to enter an initial determination 

and a final determination containing 

such findings, and may result in the 

issuance of an exclusion order or a cease 

and desist order or both directed against 

the respondent. 

Issued: November 3, 2010. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28150 Filed 11–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Proposed 

Consent Decree Under the Clean Water 

Act 

Notice is hereby given that on 

September 27, 2010, a Consent Decree 

in United States of America, et al. v. 

Bristol Township, Civil Action No. 10– 

5049, was lodged with the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of 

Pennsylvania. The United States and the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania also 

filed claims pursuant to the Clean Water 

Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq, and the 

Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law, 35 

P.S. §§ 691.1 et seq. The proposed 

Consent Decree relates to the operation 

of the publicly owned treatment works 

in Bristol Township, and obligates the 

Township to implement a series of 

immediate reforms, repairs and 

upgrades to more accurately assess the 

function of its collection system. With 

these tools, the consent decree requires 

the Township to perform a wide variety 

of short-, medium, and long-term 

studies to assess what additional capital 

improvements will be required. Once 

these studies are reviewed and 

approved by EPA and the Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(PADEP), the consent decree requires 

that the capital improvements be 

completed in accordance with 

schedules that it establishes. The 

consent decree, which resolves the 

claims brought by the State and Federal 

plaintiffs, also obligates the Township 

to pay a civil penalty of $226,000 and 

establishes a sliding scale of stipulated 

penalties in case Bristol does not come 

into compliance with the conditions of 

its permit. 

The Department of Justice will receive 

for a period of thirty (30) days from the 

date of this publication comments 

relating to this proposed Consent 

Decree. Comments should be addressed 

to the Assistant Attorney General, 

Environment and Natural Resources 

Division, and either e-mailed to 

pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov or 

mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

20044–7611, Attention: Nancy 

Flickinger (EES), and should refer to 

Unitd States, et al. v. Bristol Township, 

Civil Action No. 10–5049, DOJ # 90–5– 

1–1–09460. 

The proposed Consent Decree may be 

examined at the Office of the United 

States Attorney for the Eastern District 

of Pennsylvania, 615 Chestnut Street, 

Suite 1250, Philadelphia, PA 19016. The 

consent decree also may be examined 

on the following Department of Justice 

Web site, http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ 

Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the 

proposed Consent Decree may also be 

obtained by mail from the Consent 

Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

20044–7611 or by faxing or e-mailing a 

request to Tonia Fleetwood 

(tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov), fax no. 

(202) 514–0097, phone confirmation 

number (202) 514–1547. In requesting a 

copy from the Consent Decree Library, 

please enclose a check in the amount of 

$ 16.75 (25 cents per page reproduction 

cost for a full copy) payable to the U.S. 

Treasury. 

Maureen Katz, Assistant Chief 

Environmental Enforcement Section, 

Environment and Natural Resources Division. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28108 Filed 11–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent 

Decree 

In accordance with Departmental 

Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby 

given that a proposed Consent Decree in 

United States v. Century Homebuilders, 

LLC, No. 1:09–CV–22258, was lodged 

with the U.S. District Court for the 

Southern District of Florida on 

November 1, 2010. 

The proposed Consent Decree 

concerns a First Amended Complaint 

filed by the United States of America 

against Century Homebuilders, LLC, 

formerly known as Century Builders 

Group, LLC; Century Partners Group, 

Ltd.; Century Homebuilders of South 

Florida, LLC; and Cesar E. Llano to 

obtain injunctive relief and civil 

penalties against the defendants for 

violating Department of the Army 

Permit Number 200106379 (IP–KBH) 

and section 301(a) of the Clean Water 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES