39968 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 152 / Monday, August 10, 2009 / Notices 

the Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada, 

on the first business day after thirty (30) 

days from the publication of this notice: 

The plat, in five (5) sheets, 

representing the dependent resurvey of 

a portion of the north boundary of 

Township 12 North, Range 27 East; the 

west boundary of Township 13 North, 

Range 28 East; a portion of the 

subdivisional lines of Township 13 

North, Range 27 East; and portions of 

certain mineral surveys in Townships 

13 North, Ranges 27 and 28 East, and 

the survey of a portion of the 

subdivisional lines, and the subdivision 

of certain sections, Township 13 North, 

Range 27 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, 

Nevada, under Group No. 855, was 

accepted July 14, 2009. 

This survey was executed to meet 

certain administrative needs of the 

Walker River Paiute Tribe and the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

The plat, representing the survey of 

the east boundary of Township 1 North, 

Range 38 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, 

Nevada, under Group No. 861, was 

accepted July 22, 2009. The plat, in two 

(2) sheets, representing the dependent 

resurvey of the Mount Diablo Base Line 

through portions of Ranges 38 and 39 

East, and a portion of Mineral Survey 

No. 3331, and the survey of the north 

and east boundaries and a portion of the 

subdivisional lines of Township 1 

North, Range 381⁄2 East, Mount Diablo 

Meridian, Nevada, under Group No. 

861, was accepted July 22, 2009. 

The plat, representing the dependent 

resurvey of the Mount Diablo Base Line 

through a portion of Range 39 East and 

the survey of a portion of the 

subdivisional lines of Township 1 

North, Range 39 East, Mount Diablo 

Meridian, Nevada, under Group No. 

861, was accepted July 22, 2009. 

These surveys were executed to meet 

certain administrative needs of Rulco, 

LLC, and the Bureau of Land 

Management. 

2. Subject to valid existing rights, the 

provisions of existing withdrawals and 

classifications, the requirement of 

applicable laws, and other segregations 

of record, these lands are open to 

application, petition and disposal, 

including application under the mineral 

leasing laws. All such valid applications 

received on or before the official filing 

of the Plats of Survey described in 

paragraph 1, shall be considered as 

simultaneously filed at that time. 

Applications received thereafter shall be 

considered in order of filing. 

3. The above-listed surveys are now 

the basic record for describing the lands 

for all authorized purposes. These 

surveys have been placed in the open 

files in the BLM Nevada State Office 

and are available to the public as a 

matter of information. Copies of the 

surveys and related field notes may be 

furnished to the public upon payment of 

the appropriate fees. 

Dated: July 28, 2009. 

David D. Morlan, 

Chief Cadastral Surveyor, Nevada. 

[FR Doc. E9–19062 Filed 8–7–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–HC–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–623 ] 

In the Matter of Certain R–134a Coolant 

(Otherwise Known as 1,1,1,2- 

Tetrafluoroethane); Notice of 

Commission Determination To Reverse 

the Remand Determination of the 

Presiding Administrative Law Judge 

and To Terminate the Investigation in 

Its Entirety With a Finding of No 

Violation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Corrected Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined to reverse 

the conclusion reached in the Remand 

Determination (‘‘RID’’) issued by the 

presiding administrative law judge 

(‘‘ALJ’’) in the above-captioned 

investigation that the only remaining 

asserted claim of U.S. Patent No. 

5,559,276 (‘‘the ‘276 patent’’) is not 

obvious. The Commission finds that the 

claim would have been obvious to one 

of ordinary skill in the art and is 

therefore invalid. The Commission 

affirms the RID’s conclusion that the 

asserted claim was not anticipated. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

M. Bartkowski, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

708–5432. 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 December 31, 2007, based on a 

complaint filed by INEOS Fluor 

Holdings Ltd., INEOS Fluor Ltd., and 

INEOS Fluor Americas L.L.C. 

(collectively, ‘‘Ineos’’). The complaint 

alleged 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 R–134a coolant 

(otherwise known as 1,1,1,2- 

tetrafluoroethane) by reason of 

infringement of various claims of United 

States Patent No. 5,744,658. 

Complainants subsequently added 

allegations of infringement with regard 

to United States Patent Nos. 5,382,722 

and the ‘276 patent, but only claim 1 of 

the ‘276 patent remains at issue in this 

investigation. The complaint named two 

respondents, Sinochem Modern 

Environmental Protection Chemicals 

(Xi’an) Co., Ltd. and Sinochem Ningbo 

Ltd. Two additional respondents were 

subsequently added: Sinochem 

Environmental Protection Chemicals 

(Taicang) Co., Ltd. and Sinochem 

(U.S.A.) Inc. The four respondents are 

collectively referred to as ‘‘Sinochem.’’ 

On December 1, 2008, the ALJ issued 

his final ID, finding that Sinochem had 

violated section 337. He concluded that 

respondents’ accused process infringed 

claim 1 of the ‘276 patent and that the 

domestic industry requirement had been 

met. He also found that claim 1 was not 

invalid and that it was not 

unenforceable. The Commission 

determined to review the ALJ’s final ID 

with regard to the effective filing date of 

the asserted claim, anticipation, and 

obviousness. By order dated January 30, 

2009, the Commission supplemented 

the ALJ’s reasoning regarding the 

effective filing date, and remanded the 

investigation to the ALJ to conduct 

further proceedings related to 

anticipation and obviousness. To 

accommodate the remand, the 

Commission extended the target date to 

June 1, 2009 and instructed the ALJ to 

issue the RID by April 1, 2009. 

The ALJ issued the RID on April 1, 

2009. The RID concluded that 

Sinochem’s arguments concerning 

anticipation and obviousness were 

waived under the ALJ’s ground rules 

and, alternatively, that the arguments 

were without merit. Sinochem filed a 

petition for review of the RID. The 

Commission investigative attorney 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
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