5890 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Notices

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: Effective

October 15, 1999, the Commission

established a schedule for the conduct

of the subject reviews (64 FR 57483,

October 25, 1999). On January 19, 2000,

counsel for Wolff Walsrode AG, a

German producer, and Bayer

Corporation, a German importer,

requested a two-month extension of the

schedule on the assumption that a

decision may be made within that time

frame by Hercules, the sole U.S.

producer, as to whether it will close or

sell its production facility. The

Commission has determined to exercise

its authority to extend the review period

by up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C.

§ 1675 (c)(5)(B), and is hereby revising

its schedule.

The Commission’s new schedule for

the reviews is as follows: the prehearing

staff report will be placed in the

nonpublic record on May 18, 2000; the

deadline for filing prehearing briefs is

May 30, 2000; requests to appear at the

hearing must be filed with the Secretary

to the Commission not later than May

31, 2000; the prehearing conference will

be held at the U.S. International Trade

Commission Building at 9:30 a.m. on

June 5, 2000; the hearing will be held at

the U.S. International Trade

Commission Building at 9:30 a.m. on

June 8, 2000; the deadline for filing

posthearing briefs is June 19, 2000; the

Commission will make its final release

of information on July 13, 2000; and

final party comments are due on July 17,

2000.

For further information concerning

these reviews, see the Commission’s

notice cited above and the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207,

subparts A and F (19 CFR part 207).

Authority: These reviews are being

conducted under authority of title VII of the

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published

pursuant to section 207.62 of the

Commission’s rules.

Issued: February 1, 2000.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–2697 Filed 2–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–U

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMISSION

[Inv. No. 337–TA–414]

Certain Semiconductor Memory

Devices and Products Containing

Same; Notice of Commission Decision

to Review An Initial Determination

Finding No Violation of Section 337 of

the Tariff Act of 1930

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade

Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the U.S. International Trade

Commission has determined to review

in its entirety a final initial

determination (ID) finding no violation

of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930,

as amended, in the above-captioned

investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Clara Kuehn, Esq., Office of the General

Counsel, U.S. International Trade

Commission, 500 E Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20436, telephone

(202) 205–3012. 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 ordered the institution of

this investigation on September 18,

1998, based on a complaint filed on

behalf of Micron Technology, Inc., of

Boise, Idaho (‘‘complainant’’).

Respondents are Mosel Vitelic, Inc., of

Hsinchu City, Taiwan and Mosel Vitelic

Corp. of San Jose, California. The notice

of investigation was published in the

Federal Register on September 25, 1998.

63 FR 51372 (1998).

The complaint alleged violations of

section 337 in the importation, sale for

importation, and sale after importation

of certain semiconductor memory

devices and products containing same

that infringe claims of U.S. Letters

Patents Nos. 5,514,245; 4,992,137;

4,436,584; and 5,486,129. Id. On May

17, 1999, the presiding administrative

law judge (ALJ) granted complainant’s

motion for termination of the

investigation as to the 245 patent.

Complainant’s current allegations of

infringement concern 18 claims of the

137 patent, six claims of the 584 patent,

and one claim of the 129 patent. An

evidentiary hearing was held from May

19 through June 2, 1999.

The ALJ issued his final ID on

November 29, 1999, concluding that

there was no violation of section 337,

based on the following findings: (a)

complainant failed to establish the

requisite domestic industry showing for

any of the three patents at issue; (b) all

asserted claims of the patents are

invalid; (c) none of the asserted claims

of the patents are infringed; and (d) all

of the patents are unenforceable for

inequitable conduct. On December 13,

1999, the ALJ issued his recommended

determination on remedy and bonding,

in the event the Commission concludes

there is a violation of section 337.

On December 10, 1999, complainant

filed a petition for review of the ID. The

Commission investigative attorney (IA)

also petitioned for review of the ID. On

December 17, 1999, respondents and the

IA filed responses to the petitions for

review.

Having examined the record in this

investigation, including the ID, the

petitions for review, and the responses

thereto, the Commission has determined

to review the ID in its entirety. The

Commission has also determined to

review two procedural issues: (1)

whether the ALJ erred in considering

respondents’ inequitable conduct

allegation that the inventors of the 137

patent intentionally concealed their best

mode of practicing their invention; and

(2) with respect to the 137 patent,

whether the ALJ erred in admitting into

evidence videotapes provided by an

expert witness that were not made

available to complainant until after that

expert’s deposition.

In connection with the final

disposition of this investigation, the

Commission may issue (1) an order that

could result in the exclusion of the

subject articles from entry into the

United States, and/or (2) cease and

desist orders that could result in

respondents being required to cease and

desist from engaging in unfair acts in

the importation and sale of such

articles. Accordingly, the Commission is

interested in receiving written

submissions that address the form of

remedy, if any, that should be ordered.

If a party seeks exclusion of an article

from entry into the United States for

purposes other than entry for

consumption, the party should so

indicate and provide information

establishing that activities involving

other types of entry that either are

adversely affecting it or are likely to do

so. For background information, see the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Notices 5891

Commission Opinion, In the Matter of

Certain Devices for Connecting

Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv.

No. 337–TA–360.

If the Commission contemplates some

form of remedy, it must consider the

effects of that remedy upon the public

interest. The factors the Commission

will consider include the effect that an

exclusion order and/or cease and desist

orders would have on (1) the public

health and welfare, (2) competitive

conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S.

production of articles that are like or

directly competitive with those that are

subject to investigation, and (4) U.S.

consumers. The Commission is

therefore interested in receiving written

submissions that address the

aforementioned public interest factors

in the context of this investigation.

If the Commission orders some form

of remedy, the President has 60 days to

approve or disapprove the

Commission’s action. During this

period, the subject articles would be

entitled to enter the United States under

a bond, in an amount to be determined

by the Commission and prescribed by

the Secretary of the Treasury. The

Commission is therefore interested in

receiving submissions concerning the

amount of the bond that should be

imposed.

Written Submissions

The parties to the investigation are

requested to file written submissions on

the issues under review. The

submission should be concise and

thoroughly referenced to the record in

this investigation, including references

to exhibits and testimony. Additionally,

the parties to the investigation,

interested government agencies, and any

other interested persons are encouraged

to file written submissions on the issues

of remedy, the public interest, and

bonding. Such submissions should

address the ALJ’s December 13, 1999,

recommended determination on remedy

and bonding. Complainant and the

Commission investigative attorney are

also requested to submit proposed

remedial orders for the Commission’s

consideration. The written submissions

and proposed remedial orders must be

filed no later than the close of business

on February 15, 2000. Reply

submissions must be filed no later than

the close of business on February 22,

2000. No further submissions will be

permitted unless otherwise ordered by

the Commission.

Persons filing written submissions

must file with the Office of the Secretary

the original and 14 true copies thereof

on or before the deadlines stated above.

Any person desiring to submit a

document (or portion thereof) to the

Commission in confidence must request

confidential treatment unless the

information has already been granted

such treatment during the proceedings.

All such requests should be directed to

the Secretary of the Commission and

must include a full statement of the

reasons why the Commission should

grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6.

Documents for which confidential

treatment is granted by the Commission

will be treated accordingly. All

nonconfidential written submissions

will be available for public inspection at

the Office of the Secretary.

This action is taken under the

authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337),

and in sections 210.42–.45 of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure (19 CFR 210.42–.45).

Copies of the public version of the

ALJ’s 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.

Issued: February 1, 2000.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–2696 Filed 2–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Extension of Time To Submit

Comments on Consent Decree Lodged

Pursuant to Sections 104 and 107 of

CERCLA

On December 1, 1999, the United

States lodged a proposed Consent

Decree with the United States District

Court for the Southern District of Texas,

No. G–99–731, in United States of

America v. GAF Corp., et al., pursuant

to Sections 104 and 107 of CERCLA, 42

U.S.C. 9604 and 9607. The proposed

Consent Decree resolves civil claims of

the United States against thirty-five de

minimis generator Defendants for the

Tex Tin Superfund Site located in Texas

City and La Marque, Texas. The

Defendants will pay a total of

approximately $1.5 million in

reimbursement of response costs at the

Site.

On December 16, 1999 a Notice was

published which advised that the

Department of Justice would receive

comments relating to the proposed

Consent Decree for 30 days following

publication of the Notice. Notice is

hereby given that the period during

which the Department of Justice will

receive comments relating to the

proposed Consent Decree has been

extended at the request of a member of

the public. The Department of Justice

will continue to accept comments

through the 30th day following

publication of this Notice. Comments

should be addressed to the Assistant

Attorney General, Environment and

Natural Resources Division, United

States Department of Justice, P.O. Box

7611, Ben Franklin Station, Washington,

DC 20044–7611, and should refer to

United States of America v. GAF Corp.,

et al., DJ No. 90–11–3–1669/1. The

proposed Consent Decree may be

examined at the Office of the United

States Attorney for the Southern District

of Texas, Houston, Texas, and the

Region VI Office of the United States

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445

Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202. A

copy of the proposed Consent Decree

may be obtained by mail from the

Department of Justice Consent Decree

Library, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC

20044. In requesting a copy, please

enclose a check for reproduction costs

(at 25 cents per page) in the amount of

$14.75 for the Decree, payable to the

Consent Decree Library.

Joel M. Gross,

Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section,

Environment and Natural Resources Division.

[FR Doc. 00–2702 Filed 2–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–15–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

United States v. Imetal, DBK Minerals,

Inc., English China Clays, PLC, and

English China Clays, Inc.; Civil Action

No. 99–1018 (GK)(D.D.C.); Response to

Public Comments

Notice is hereby given pursuant to the

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act,

15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h), that a Public

Comment and the Response of the

United States have been filed with the

United States District Court for the

District of Columbia in United States v.

Imetal, DBK Minerals, Inc., English

China Clays, PLC, and English China

Clays, Inc., Civil Action No. 99–1018

(GK)(D.D.C., filed April 26, 1999). On

April 26, 1999, the United States filed

a Compliant alleging that the proposed

acquisition of English China Clays by

Imetal would violate Section 7 of the

Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18. The proposed

Final Judgment, filed at the same time