Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 152 / Monday, August 10, 2009 / Notices 39969 

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

petition. 

On June 1, 2009, the Commission 

determined to review the RID in its 

entirety and requested briefing on 

certain questions. The Commission 

determined to extend the target date to 

August 3, 2009, to accommodate its 

review. 

Having examined the record of this 

investigation, including the ALJ’s RID 

and the submissions of the parties, the 

Commission has determined to reverse 

the conclusion of nonobviousness of 

claim 1 of the ‘276 patent in the RID. In 

so finding, the Commission has 

determined to rely on certain party 

admissions and other evidence as to the 

state of the prior art. The Commission 

majority has determined to take no 

position on the RID’s conclusions 

relating to obviousness arguments based 

on prior art references identified in the 

Commission’s remand instructions, 

including the RID’s conclusions on 

whether arguments as to those 

references have been waived. The 

Commission has also determined not to 

rely on the RID’s conclusions as to 

anticipation and waiver of anticipation 

arguments. The Commission has further 

determined to deny Sinochem’s motion 

to strike portions of Ineos’s response to 

its written submission and for leave to 

file a reply to that submission. The 

Commission has determined also to 

deny Sinochem’s motion to conform 

pleadings to evidence taken. These 

findings terminate the Commission’s 

investigation. 

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 Rule 

210.45 of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure (19 CFR Part 

210.45). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: August 4, 2009. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–19015 Filed 8–7–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–676] 

In the Matter of Certain Lighting 

Control Devices Including Dimmer 

Switches and Parts Thereof; Notice of 

Commission Decision Not To Review 

an Initial Determination Terminating 

the Investigation Based on a Consent 

Order 

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 the presiding administrative law 

judge’s (‘‘ALJ’’) initial determination 

(‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 8) granting the joint 

motion of complainant Lutron 

Electronics Co., Inc. (‘‘Lutron’’) and 

respondent Universal Smart Electric 

Corp. (‘‘Universal’’) to terminate the 

investigation based on a consent order. 

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 May 11, 2009, based on a complaint 

filed by Lutron of Coopersburg, 

Pennsylvania. 74 FR 21820 (May 11, 

2009). 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 lighting control devices 

including dimmer switches and parts 

thereof by reason of infringement of 

United States Patent Nos. 5,637,930 and 

5,248,919 as well as U.S. Trademark 

Registration No. 3,061,804. The 

complaint named Universal of Irvine, 

California as the sole respondent. 

On July 8, 2009, Universal and Lutron 

jointly filed a motion pursuant to 

Commission rule 210.21(c) (19 CFR 

210.21(c)) for termination of the 

investigation based on a consent order. 

The Commission investigative attorney 

supported the motion. 

On July 14, 2009, the ALJ issued the 

subject ID granting the joint motion to 

terminate. The ALJ found that the 

consent order stipulation submitted 

with the joint motion complied with the 

requirements of Commission rule 210.21 

(19 CFR 210.21). The ALJ also 

concluded that there is no evidence that 

termination of this investigation would 

be contrary to the public interest. No 

petitions for review of this ID were filed. 

Having examined the record of this 

investigation, the Commission has 

determined not to review the 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). 

Issued: August 4, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–19021 Filed 8–7–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–468 and 731– 

TA–1166–1167 (Preliminary)] 

Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks From 

China and Mexico 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of antidumping and 

countervailing duty investigations and 

scheduling of preliminary phase 

investigations. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the institution of investigations 

and commencement of preliminary 

phase countervailing duty investigation 

No. 701–TA–468 (Preliminary) and 

antidumping duty investigation Nos. 

731–TA–1166–1167 (Preliminary) under 

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

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

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 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with NOTICES