43724 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Notices 

Inc. of West Conshohocken, 

Pennsylvania. A letter supplementing 

the complaint was filed on August 18, 

2009. 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 MLC flash memory devices and 

products containing same by reason of 

infringement of certain claims of U.S. 

Patent Nos. 5,394,362; 5,764,571; 

5,872,735; 6,104,640; and 6,118,692. 

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: 

Stephen R. Smith, Esq., Office of Unfair 

Import Investigations, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, telephone (202) 

205–2746. 

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 

(2009). 

Scope of Investigation: Having 

considered the complaint, the U.S. 

International Trade Commission, on 

August 21, 2009, 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 MLC flash 

memory devices or products containing 

same that infringe one or more of claim 

1 of U.S. Patent No. 5,394,362; claims 1– 

47 of U.S. Patent No. 5,764,571; claims 

29–42 of U.S. Patent No. 5,872,735; 

claims 1, 2, 5–8, 11–14, 17–21, 24–27, 

29, 31–33, 35, 37, and 38 of U.S. Patent 

No. 6,104,640; and claims 43 and 64 of 

U.S. Patent No. 6,118,692; 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—BTG 

International Inc., Five Tower Bridge, 

Suite 800, 300 Barr Harbor Drive, West 

Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428– 

2998. 

(b) The respondents are the following 

entities alleged to be in violation of 

section 337, and are the parties upon 

which the complaint is to be served: 

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 250, 2- 

ga, Taepyong-ro Jang-gu, Seoul 100– 

742, South Korea. 

Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 

105 Challenger Road, Ridgefield 

Park, New Jersey 07660. 

Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., 3655 

North First Street, San Jose, 

California 95134. 

Samsung Telecommunications 

America, LLC, 1301 East Lookout 

Drive, Richardson, Texas 75082. 

Apple, Inc., 1 Infinite Loop, 

Cupertino, California 95014. 

ASUStek Computer, Inc., 150 Li-Te 

Rd., Peitou, Taipei 112, Taiwan. 

ASUS Computer International, 800 

Corporate Way, Fremont, California 

94539. 

Dell, Inc., 1 Dell Way, Round Rock, 

Texas 78682–2222. 

Lenovo Group Limited, 23rd Floor, 

Lincoln House, Taikoo Place, 979 

King’s Road, Quany Bay, Hong 

Kong. 

Lenovo (United States) Inc., 1009 

Think Place, Morrisville, North 

Carolina 27560. 

PNY Technologies, Inc., 299 Webro 

Rd., Parsippany, New Jersey 07054– 

0218. 

Research In Motion, Ltd., 295 Phillip 

Street, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada 

N2L 3W8. 

Research in Motion Corporation, 122 

West John Carpenter Parkway, Suite 

430, Irving, Texas 75039. 

Sony Corporation, 1–7–1, Konan, 

Minato-ku, Tokyo 108–0075, Japan. 

Sony Electronics, Inc., 16530 Via 

Esprillo, San Diego, California 

92127. 

Transcend Information, Inc., No. 70, 

Xing Zhong Rd., NeiHu Dist., 

Taipei, Taiwan. 

(c) The Commission investigative 

attorney, party to this investigation, is 

Stephen R. Smith, 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 respondents 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) 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 a 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 

a respondent. 

Issued: August 24, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–20692 Filed 8–26–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree 

Under the Clean Air Act 

Pursuant to 28 CFR 50.7, notice is 

hereby given that, on August 21, 2009, 

a proposed Consent Decree in United 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Notices 43725 

States v. Vertellus Agriculture & 

Nutrition Specialties LLC, Civil Action 

No. 1:09–cv–1030–SEB–TAB (S.D. Ind.) 

was lodged with the United States 

District Court for the Southern District 

of Indiana. The Consent Decree 

addresses alleged violations of the Clean 

Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q, and its 

implementing regulations at a specialty 

chemical manufacturing facility in 

Indianapolis, Indiana that is owned and 

operated by Vertellus Agriculture & 

Nutrition Specialties LLC (‘‘Vertellus’’). 

The United States alleges that Vertellus 

has failed to comply with certain 

requirements governing the control of 

hazardous air pollutant emissions under 

Clean Air Act Section 112, 42 U.S.C. 

7412, and the implementing regulations 

at: (i) 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart H 

(National Emission Standards for 

Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Equipment Leaks); (ii) EPA Reference 

Method 21 at 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix 

A; and (iii) 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart 

GGG (National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Pharmaceuticals Production). The 

United States also alleges a violation of 

Clean Air Act Section 502(a), 42 U.S.C. 

7661a(a), for failure to comply with a 

requirement of Vertellus’ permit issued 

under Title V of the Act. 

The proposed Consent Decree would 

resolve the claims alleged in the United 

States’ Complaint in exchange for the 

Defendant’s commitment to implement 

appropriate injunctive relief, pay 

$450,000 civil penalty, and perform a 

$705,000 Supplemental Environmental 

Project. Among other things, the 

injunctive relief provisions of the 

Decree would require Vertellus to 

implement an enhanced leak detection 

and repair program and a program to 

operate and maintain an incinerator in 

a manner consistent with good air 

pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions. 

The Department of Justice will receive 

comments relating to the Consent 

Decree for a period of thirty (30) days 

from the date of this publication. 

Comments should be addressed to the 

Assistant Attorney General, 

Environment and Natural Resources 

Division, and mailed either 

electronically to pubcommentees.enrd@usdoj.gov or in hard copy to 

P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC 20044–7611. 

Comments should refer to United States 

v. Vertellus Agriculture & Nutrition 

Specialties LLC, Civil Action No. 1:09– 

cv–1030–SEB–TAB (S.D. Ind.) and D.J. 

Ref. No. 90–5–2–1–09022. 

The Consent Decree may be examined 

at: (1) The offices of the United States 

Attorney, 10 West Market Street, Suite 

2100, Indianapolis, Indiana; and (2) the 

offices of the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, 14th Floor, Chicago, 

Illinois. During the public comment 

period, the Consent Decree may also be 

examined on the following Department 

of Justice Web site: http:// 

www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ 

Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the 

Consent Decree may also be obtained by 

mail from the Department of Justice 

Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, 

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 $15.75 (63 pages at 25 

cents per page reproduction cost) 

payable to the U.S. Treasury. 

Maureen M. Katz, 

Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement 

Section, Environment and Natural Resources 

Division. 

[FR Doc. E9–20602 Filed 8–26–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree 

Under the Clean Water Act 

Notice is hereby given that on August 

24, 2009, a proposed Consent Decree in 

United States v. Ameripride Services, 

Inc., Civil Action No. 3:09–cv–1333 

(WWE), was lodged with the United 

States District Court for the District of 

Connecticut. 

In this action, the United States seeks, 

inter alia, civil penalties and injunctive 

relief from Ameripride for alleged 

violations under the Clean Water Act, 

33 U.S.C. §§ 1319(b) and (d), at its 

Hartford, Connecticut laundry facility. 

The complaint in this matter alleges that 

Ameripride violated Federal 

pretreatment standards and State permit 

limitations in relation to discharges 

from the facility which contained excess 

pH, oil/grease and metals. The Consent 

Decree requires Ameripride, among 

other things, to pay a civil penalty of 

$525,000 and submit periodic reports 

relating to its future compliance with 

the Act. 

The Department of Justice will receive 

for a period of thirty (30) days from the 

date of this publication comments 

relating to the 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, and should refer to United 

States v. Ameripride Services, Inc., D.J. 

Ref. 90–5–1–1–09559. 

The Consent Decree may be examined 

at the Office of the United States 

Attorney, District of Connecticut, 

Connecticut Financial Center, 157 

Church Street, Floor 23, New Haven, 

Connecticut 06510. During the public 

comment period, the Consent Decree 

may also be examined on the following 

Department of Justice Web site, to 

http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ 

Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the 

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 $7.50 (25 cents per 

page reproduction costs of Consent 

Decree and Appendices) payable to the 

U.S. Treasury or, if by e-mail or fax, 

forward a check in that amount to the 

Consent Decree Library at the stated 

address. 

Maureen Katz, 

Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement 

Section, Environment and Natural Resources 

Division. 

[FR Doc. E9–20715 Filed 8–26–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

Agriculture and Antitrust Enforcement 

Issues in Our 21st Century Economy 

AGENCIES: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture and U.S. Department of 

Justice, Antitrust Division. 

ACTION: Notice of public hearings and 

opportunity for comment. 

SUMMARY: The Antitrust Division of the 

U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the 

United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) strongly believe that a 

competitive agriculture sector is vitally 

important to producers and consumers 

alike. To this end, the DOJ and USDA, 

with the participation of State Attorneys 

General, intend to hold a series of 

public workshops to explore 

competition issues affecting the 

agricultural sector in the 21st Century 

and the appropriate role for antitrust 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES