Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 166 / Wednesday, August 27, 1997 / Notices 45445

our current operations and possibly

emerging over the next several years, the

operational experiences needed to

determine if changes to the Operating

Criteria are necessary will be acquired.

Under the present Operating Criteria, all

needs have been met.

The evaluation of operational

experiences over the next several years

will determine whether or not to change

the Operating Criteria. But for the

purposes of this review, it appears that

no change is needed to the Operating

Criteria.

Issue #6

Water marketing and banking.

Background: Several years ago the

Bureau of Reclamation advanced draft

regulations for administering Colorado

River water entitlements in the Lower

Basin States of Arizona, California, and

Nevada. The draft regulations contained

provisions for water banking and water

marketing in the Lower Basin. Because

there was not consensus with the states

regarding the draft regulations, they

have been held in abeyance while the

three states attempt to reach some

agreement on numerous issues,

including water marketing and banking.

This negotiation process among the

states is continuing. Many people

believe that some form of water banking

and marketing will be essential to

meeting future water needs in the Lower

Colorado River Basin.

Analysis and Response: Reclamation

has initiated a rule-making process

focused on water banking in

groundwater aquifers or off-mainstream

storage reservoirs in the Lower Basin.

This administrative rule is considered a

responsibility of the Secretary of the

Interior under the Boulder Canyon

Project Act, and focuses only on the

three Lower Basin States. Reclamation

continues to work with the States and

to encourage them to cooperatively

develop a proposal for water marketing

and banking in the Lower Basin.

Reclamation believes it is not

appropriate that water marketing and

banking would change the current

Operating Criteria as this issue focuses

on the Lower Basin.

Proposed Decision

The Department has considered issues

arising from the review of the Operating

Criteria. After a careful review of the

issues, solicitation of involved party’s

responses to Reclamation’s analysis, and

consultation with the Governor’s

representatives of the seven Basin

States, the Department proposes no

modifications to the Operating Criteria

at this time.

Dated: August 19, 1997.

Eluid L. Martinez,

Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation.

[FR Doc. 97–22747 Filed 8–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–94–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337–TA–401]

Certain CD–ROM Controllers and

Products Containing Same; Notice of

Investigation

AGENCY: International Trade

Commission.

ACTION: Institution of investigation

pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a

complaint was filed with the U.S.

International Trade Commission on July

21, 1997, under section 337 of the Tariff

Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C.

1337, on behalf of Oak Technology, Inc.,

139 Kifer Court, Sunnyvale, CA 94086.

On August 1, 1997, Oak filed a notice

of withdrawal as to certain proposed

respondents. On August 7, 1997, Oak

filed a letter and a supplement to the

complaint. The complaint, as

supplemented, alleges violations of

section 337 in the importation into the

United States, the sale for importation,

and the sale within the United States

after importation of certain CD–ROM

controllers and products containing

same by reason of infringement of claim

8 of U.S. Letters Patent 5,535,327 and

claims 1–5 and 8–10 of U.S. Letters

Patent 5,581,715. The complaint further

alleges that there exists an industry in

the United States as required by

subsection (a)(2) of section 337.

The complainant requests that the

Commission institute an investigation

and, after the investigation, issue a

permanent exclusion order and a

permanent 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas L. Jarvis, Esq., Office of Unfair

Import Investigations, U.S. International

Trade Commission, telephone 202–205–

2568.

Authority: The authority for institution of

this investigation is contained in section 337

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and

in § 210.10 of the Commission’s rules of

practice and procedure, 19 CFR 210.10

(1997).

Scope of Investigation: Having

considered the complaint, the U.S.

International Trade Commission, on

August 19, 1997, 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 CD–ROM

controllers and products containing

same by reason of infringement of claim

8 of U.S. Letters Patent 5,535,327 or

claims 1–5 or 8–10 of U.S. Letters Patent

5,581,715, and whether there exists an

industry in the United States 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—

Oak Technology, Inc., 139 Kifer Court,

Sunnyvale, CA 94086

(b) The respondents are the following

companies alleged to be in violation of

section 337, and are the parties upon

which the complaint is to be served:

Winbond Electronics Corporation, No. 4

Creation Rd. 3, Science-Based

Industrial Park, Hsinchu, Taiwan

Winbond Electronics North America

Corporation, 2730 Orchard Parkway,

San Jose, CA 95134

Wearnes Technology (Private) Ltd., 801,

Lor 7 Toa Payoh #07–00, Singapore

SG–319319

Wearnes Electronics Malaysia Sendirian

Berhad, No. 99, Jalan Parit Mesjid,

82000 Pontian, Johor, Malaysia

(c) Thomas L. Jarvis, Esq., Office of

Unfair Import Investigations, U.S.

International Trade Commission, 500 E

Street, SW, Room 401–J, Washington,

DC 20436, who shall be the Commission

investigative attorney, party to this

investigation; and

(3) For the investigation so instituted,

the Honorable Sidney Harris is

designated as the presiding

administrative law judge.

Responses to the complaint and the

notice of investigation must be

submitted by the named respondents in

accordance with § 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
45446 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 166 / Wednesday, August 27, 1997 / Notices

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 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 both an initial

determination and a final determination

containing such findings, and may

result in the issuance of a limited

exclusion order or a cease and desist

order or both directed against such

respondent.

Issued: August 20, 1997.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–22787 Filed 8–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMISSION

[Inv. No. 337–TA–334 (Remand)]

Notice of Issuance of Limited

Exclusion Order and Termination of

Investigation; Denial of Petition for

Reconsideration

In the matter of Certain condensers, parts

thereof and products containing same,

including air conditioners for automobiles.

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade

Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the U.S. International Trade

Commission has issued a limited

exclusion order in the above-captioned

investigation and terminated the

investigation. The Commission has also

determined to deny respondents’

petition for reconsideration of the

Commission’s January 16, 1997,

determination that a violation of section

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 has

occurred. (62 FR 3525–6) (January 23,

1997).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean

Jackson, Esq., Office of the General

Counsel, U.S. International Trade

Commission, 500 E Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20436, telephone 202–

205–3104.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

December 12, 1991, Modine

Manufacturing Co. filed a complaint

with the Commission alleging a

violation of section 337 by respondents

Showa Aluminum Corporation (Japan),

Showa Aluminum Corporation of

America, Mitsubishi Motors

Corporation, Mitsubishi Motors Sales of

America, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries,

Ltd., and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries

America, Inc. (collectively referred to

herein as respondents). Modine alleged

that respondents had infringed claims of

Modine’s patent, U.S. Letters Patent

4,998,580 (the ’580 patent). The

Commission concluded the

investigation with a finding of no

infringement, and hence a

determination of no violation of section

337.

Modine appealed the Commission’s

determination to the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal

Circuit). On February 5, 1996, the

Federal Circuit reversed the

Commission’s claim interpretation and

remanded the investigation to the

Commission for redetermination of the

issues of literal infringement and

infringement under the doctrine of

equivalents. Modine Manufacturing Co.

v. U.S.I.T.C., 75 F.3d 1545, 1549 (Fed.

Cir. 1996). The court affirmed the

Commission’s determination in all other

respects. Id.

On May 31, 1996, the Commission

issued an order remanding the

Condensers investigation to the Office of

Administrative Law Judges. The

Commission’s order also directed the

ALJ to issue a recommended

determination (RD) on the issues of

remedy and bonding two weeks after the

issuance of the ID. On December 2,

1996, Judge Luckern issued an ID

finding a violation of section 337 by

respondents. On December 12, 1996,

respondents and the Commission

investigative attorney (IA) filed separate

petitions for review. Complainant

Modine filed a petition for review

contingent on the Commission’s

decision either to grant another party’s

petition for review or to review the ID

on its own motion. All parties filed

responses to each petition on December

19, 1996. The ALJ issued his RD on

remedy and bonding on December 16,

1996.

On January 16, 1997, the Commission

determined to review only the reasoning

supporting the ALJ’s determination that

the range of equivalents was limited by

the 0.4822 inch hydraulic diameter

given for the prior art Cat condenser. 62

FR 3525–6 (Jan. 23, 1997). Since the

Commission did not review the ID’s

determination of the range of

equivalents, the ALJ’s determination

that there had been a violation with

respect to two models of the accused

condensers, the Mazda 929 and the

Audi 90, became the Commission’s

determination by operation of law. 19

C.F.R. 210.42(h). The Commission’s

notice of review requested written

submissions on the issue under review,

and on remedy, the public interest, and

bonding. Submissions were received

from Modine, the Showa respondents,

the Mitsubishi respondents, and the IA

on January 30, 1997. Complainant, the

Showa respondents, and the IA filed

reply submissions on February 6, 1997.

On March 10, 1997, respondents filed

a petition for reconsideration of the

Commission’s determination not to

review the ALJ’s determination that

section 337 had been violated.

Respondents’ petition was based on the

recent Supreme Court decision in

Warner-Jenkinson, Inc. v. Hilton-Davis

Chemical Company, 117 S.Ct. 1040

(U.S. Mar. 3, 1997), involving the

doctrine of equivalents. Respondents

argued that the case is controlling

authority which is contrary to the law

applied by the Federal Circuit in the

Modine decision. Complainant Modine

and the IA filed oppositions to the

petition on March 17, 1997. The

Commission has determined to deny

respondents’ petition.

After having reviewed the record in

this investigation, including the written

submissions of the parties, the

Commission made its determinations on

the issues of remedy, the public interest,

and bonding. The Commission

determined that the appropriate form of

relief is a limited exclusion order

prohibiting the unlicensed importation

for consumption of infringing

condensers, parts thereof, and products

containing same manufactured and/or

imported by or on behalf of the Showa

respondents. The order applies to any of

the affiliated companies, parents,

subsidiaries, licensees, contractors, or

other related business entities, or their

successors or assigns of Showa.

The Commission also determined that

the public interest factors enumerated in

19 U.S.C. 1337(d) do not preclude the

issuance of the limited exclusion order,

and that the bond during the

Presidential review period shall be in

the amount of five percent of the

entered value of the condensers in

question. Condenser parts and products

containing condensers are entitled to

entry into the United States without

bond during the Presidential review

period.