Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 113 / Monday, June 12, 2000 / Notices 36843

and (4) replace the existing Woodbridge

Dam and pump water from the river.

The final EIR/EIS considers the

environmental effects of the five

alternatives in all topical areas required

under NEPA and CEQA. Of particular

importance for this project are the

following topics: Fisheries, water

quality, vegetation and wetland

resources, wildlife, recreation, and

visual resources.

Notice of the draft environmental

impact report/environmental impact

statement was published in the Federal

Register on November 3, 1999 (64 FR

0212). A public hearing was held on

November 16, 1999. The written

comment period closed on January 4,

2000. The final EIR/EIS contains

responses to all comments received and

changes made to the text of the draft

EIR/EIS as a result of those comments.

Locations for Inspecting/Reviewing the

Final EIR/EIS

Copies of the final EIR/EIS are

available for public inspection and

review at the following locations:

• Woodbridge Irrigation District

Office, 18777 N. Lower Sacramento

Road, Woodbridge, California 95258;

telephone: (209) 369–6808

• Bureau of Reclamation, Program

Analysis Office, Room 7456, 1849 C

Street NW., Washington, DC 20240;

telephone: (202) 208–4662

• Bureau of Reclamation, Denver

Office Library, Building 67, Room 167,

Denver Federal Center, 6th and Kipling,

Denver CO 80225; telephone: (303) 445–

2072

• Bureau of Reclamation, Regional

Director, Attention: MP–140, 2800

Cottage Way, Sacramento CA 95825–

1898; telephone: (916) 978–5100

• Natural Resources Library, U.S.

Department of the Interior, Main Interior

Building, 1849 C Street NW.,

Washington, DC 20240–0001

• Lodi Public Library, 201 W. Locust

Street, Lodi, CA 95240–2099.

Dated: May 26, 2000.

Lester A. Snow,

Regional Director.

[FR Doc. 00–14744 Filed 6–9–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMISSION

[Inv. No. 337–TA–395]

Notice of Decision To Extend the

Deadline for Determining Whether To

Review an Initial Determination on

Inventorship

In the Matter of Certain Eprom, Eeprom,

Flash Microcontroller Semiconductor

Devices and Products Containing Same.

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade

Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the U.S. International Trade

Commission has determined to extend

by two weeks, i.e., until July 17, 2000,

the deadline for determining whether to

review an initial determination (ID)

issued on May 17, 2000, by the

presiding administrative law judge (ALJ)

in the above-captioned investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean

Jackson, Esq., Office of the General

Counsel, U.S. International Trade

Commission, 500 E Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)

205–3104. Hearing-impaired persons are

advised that information on this matter

can be obtained by contacting the

Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. General information

concerning the Commission may also be

obtained by accessing its Internet server

(http://www.usitc.gov).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Commission instituted this patent-based

investigation on March 18, 1997, based

on a complaint filed by Atmel

Corporation. 62 FR 13706. The

complaint alleged that several

respondents violated section 337 by

importing into the United States, selling

for importation, and/or selling in the

United States after importation certain

electronic products and/or components

that infringe one or more of claim 1 of

U.S. Letters Patent 4,511,811 (the ’811

patent), claim 1 of U.S. Letters Patent

4,673,829 (the ’829 patent), claim 1 of

U.S. Letters Patent 4,974,565 (the ’565

patent) and claims 1–9 of U.S. Letters

Patent 4,451,903 (the ’903 patent). The

’565 patent was later withdrawn from

the case.

On July 2, 1998, the Commission

found that the ’903 patent was

unenforceable for failure to name a coinventor. During the Commission

investigation, a U.S. District Court

found the ’811 and ’829 patents invalid

and the Commission, therefore, applied

collateral estoppel to find that the ’811

and ’829 patents were invalid. Atmel

obtained a ‘‘Certificate of Correction’’

from the U.S. Patent and Trademark

Office which changed the inventorship

of the ’903 patent. In view of the fact

that the inventors had been corrected on

the ’903 patent, Atmel petitioned the

Commission on September 8, 1998, to

reconsider its finding of no violation

based on the unenforceablility of the

’903 patent. The Commission referred

the petition to the presiding ALJ on

January 25, 1999, for issuance of an ID.

This action is taken under the

authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act

of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and section

210.42(h) of the Commission Rules of

Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR

210.42(h).

Copies of the nonconfidential version

of the ID and all other nonconfidential

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. Public

documents are also available for

downloading from the Commission’s

website at http://www.usitc.gov.

By order of the Commission.

Dated: June 6, 2000.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–14762 Filed 6–9–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 731–TA–571 (Review)]

Professional Electric Cutting Tools

From Japan

AGENCY: United States International

Trade Commission.

ACTION: Termination of five-year review.

SUMMARY: The subject five-year review

was initiated in November 1999 to

determine whether revocation of the

existing antidumping duty order on

professional electric cutting tools would

be likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of dumping and of material

injury to a domestic industry. On June

2, 2000, the Department of Commerce

published notice that it was revoking

the order ‘‘[b]ecause the domestic

interested parties have withdrawn, in

full, their participation in the ongoing

sunset review’’ (65 FR 35324).

Accordingly, pursuant to section 751(c)

of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.

1675(c)), the subject review is

terminated.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 2, 2000.