30856 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 2, 2010 / Notices 

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: 

Anne Goalwin, Esq., Office of Unfair 

Import Investigations, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, telephone (202) 

205–2574. 

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. 

International Trade Commission, on 

May 25, 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: 

(a) 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 lighting products that infringe 

U.S. Patent No. D570,038, and whether 

an industry in the United States exists 

as required by subsection (a)(2) of 

section 337; 

(b) 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 lighting products by reason of 

infringement of U.S. Copyright 

Registration No. VA 1–399–618 or U.S. 

Copyright Registration No. VA 1–415– 

353, and whether an industry in the 

United States exists as required by 

subsection (a)(2) of section 337; 

(c) whether there is a violation of 

subsection (a)(1)(C) 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 lighting products by reason of 

infringement of U.S. Trademark 

Registration Nos. 3,703,710; 3,703,711; 

3,700,479; or 3,700,480, and whether an 

industry in the United States exists as 

required by subsection (a)(2) of section 

337; and 

(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: Blumberg 

Industries, Inc. d/b/a Fine Art Lamps, 

5770 Miami Lakes Drive East, Miami 

Lakes, Florida 33014. 

(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: 

Lights & More, Inc., 170 F.D. Roosevelt 

Avenue, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918. 

(c) The Commission investigative 

attorney, party to this investigation, is 

Anne Goalwin, 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. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: May 26, 2010. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13212 Filed 6–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–394–A & 399– 

A (Second Review) (Third Remand)] 

Ball Bearings From Japan and the 

United Kingdom 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of remand proceedings. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. International Trade 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) hereby 

gives notice of its third remand 

proceedings with respect to its 

affirmative determinations in the fiveyear reviews of the antidumping orders 

on ball bearings from Japan and the 

United Kingdom. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

this proceeding and rules of general 

application, consult the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 

201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 

201), and part 207, subpart A (19 CFR 

part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: March 27, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James McClure, Office of Investigations, 

telephone 202–205–3191, or David 

Goldfine, Office of General Counsel, 

telephone 202–708–5452, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. 

Hearing-impaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter 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 (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On April 12, 2010, the 

Court of International Trade (per Judge 

Barzilay) issued an opinion in NSK 

Corp. et al. v. United States, Slip Op. 

10–38 (‘‘NSK IV’’), affirming-in-part and 

remanding-in-part the Commission’s 

affirmative determination in Certain 

Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan 

and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. 731– 

TA–394–A & 399–A (Second Review) 

(Second Remand), USITC Pub. 4131 

(Jan. 2010). 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 2, 2010 / Notices 30857 

In NSK IV, the Court affirmed the 

Commission’s vulnerability analysis, 

concluding that ‘‘the Commission has 

provided the rational connection 

missing from its previous 

determinations, and [therefore] the court 

sustains the agency’s vulnerability 

finding.’’ Slip Op. at 10–11. However, 

the Court remanded the issue of U.K. 

cumulation, concluding that the 

Commission had failed to ‘‘demonstrate 

that some incentive likely would draw 

a discernible amount of the subject 

United Kingdom goods specifically to 

the United States in the absence of the 

order.’’ Id. at 18. The Court further 

explained that it ‘‘does not believe that 

the existing record, taken as a whole, 

can support an affirmative discernible 

adverse impact finding,’’ and stated that 

the ‘‘Commission may reopen the record 

and obtain additional data on this issue 

in the next remand proceeding, if it so 

chooses.’’ Id. at 16. Finally, on the issues 

of likely impact and causation, the 

Court stated that the Commission’s 

analysis of the two remaining issues 

‘‘nearly resembles the kind of substantial 

evidence needed for the court to sustain 

an agency determination.’’ Slip Op. at 

18. Nevertheless, the Court directed the 

Commission on remand to address the 

issue of whether ‘‘non-subject imports 

may prevent the subject imports from 

achieving the requisite level of 

causation and, therefore, serve as an 

impenetrable barrier that precludes the 

agency from affirmatively finding injury 

in this sunset review.’’ Id. at 17. 

Under the remand schedule ordered 

by the court, the Commission was 

required to file by May 12, 2010, a status 

report advising the Court as to whether 

it will reopen the record on the U.K. 

cumulation issue. The Court also 

directed the parties to file a joint 

scheduling order by May 12, 2010. 

On May 12, 2010, the Commission 

filed the requested status report with the 

Court, advising the Court that it will not 

be reopening the record on the issue of 

the discernible adverse impact of the 

subject imports from the United 

Kingdom. On May 12, 2010, the parties 

also submitted a proposed joint 

scheduling order. Under the remand 

schedule ordered by the court, the 

Commission must file its third remand 

determination by August 25, 2010. The 

Court has directed the Plaintiffs, 

Plaintiff-Intervenors, and DefendantIntervenors to file their comments on 

the remand by September 29, 2010. 

Participation in the proceeding.— 

Only those persons who were interested 

parties to the reviews (i.e., persons 

listed on the Commission Secretary’s 

service list) and parties to the appeal 

may participate in the remand 

proceeding. Such persons need not 

make any additional filings with the 

Commission to participate in the 

remand proceeding, unless they are 

adding new individuals to the list of 

persons entitled to receive business 

proprietary information under 

administrative protective order. 

Business proprietary information (‘‘BPI’’) 

referred to during the remand 

proceeding will be governed, as 

appropriate, by the administrative 

protective order issued in the reviews. 

Written submissions.—The 

Commission is not re-opening the 

record in this remand proceeding. The 

Commission will permit the parties to 

file comments pertaining to the specific 

issues that are the subject of the Court’s 

remand instructions. Comments should 

be limited to no more than fifteen (15) 

double-spaced and single-sided pages of 

textual material. No appendices or other 

attachments are allowed. The parties 

may not themselves submit any new 

factual information in their comments 

and may not address any issue other 

than those that are the subject of the 

Court’s remand instructions. Any such 

comments must be filed with the 

Commission no later than June 15, 2010. 

All written submissions must conform 

with the provisions of section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules; any 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing of 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

FR 68036 (Nov. 8, 2002). 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

investigation must be served on all other 

parties to the investigation (as identified 

by either the public or BPI service list), 

and a certificate of service must be 

timely filed. The Secretary will not 

accept a document for filing without a 

certificate of service. 

Parties are also advised to consult 

with the Commission’s Rules of Practice 

and Procedure, part 201, subparts A 

through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 

207, subpart A (19 CFR part 207) for 

provisions of general applicability 

concerning written submissions to the 

Commission. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: May 27, 2010. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13217 Filed 6–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

[OMB Number 1105–0086] 

Justice Management Division; Office of 

Attorney Recruitment and 

Management; Agency Information 

Collection Activities: Proposed 

Collection; Comments Requested 

ACTION: 60–Day Notice of Information 

Collection Under Review: Applications 

for the Attorney Student Loan 

Repayment Program. 

The Department of Justice (DOJ), 

Justice Management Division, Office of 

Attorney Recruitment and Management 

(OARM), will be submitting the 

following information collection request 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and approval in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed 

information collection is published to 

obtain comments from the public and 

affected agencies. Comments are 

encouraged and will be accepted for 60 

days until August 2, 2010. This process 

is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 

1320.10. 

Written comments and/or suggestions 

regarding the item(s) contained in this 

notice, especially regarding the 

estimated public burden and associated 

response time, should be directed to the 

Office of Management and Budget, 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Attention: Department of Justice 

Desk Officer, Washington, DC, 20530. 

Additionally, comments may be 

submitted to OMB via facsimile to 202– 

395–7285. Comments may also be 

submitted to the Department Clearance 

Officer, United States Department of 

Justice, Suite 1600, 601 D Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20530. 

Written comments and suggestions 

from the public and affected agencies 

concerning the proposed collection of 

information are encouraged. Your 

comments should address one or more 

of the following four points: 

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agencies estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

(4) Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES