25070 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 87 /Wednesday, May 6, 1998 / Notices

determined that the seven-day advance

notice of the change to a meeting was

not possible. See Commission rule

201.35(a), (c)(1) (19 CFR 201.35(a),

(c)(1)).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marc A. Bernstein, Office of General

Counsel, U.S. International Trade

Commission, 500 E Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20436, telephone 202–

205–3087, e-mail mbernstein@usitc.gov.

Hearing-impaired individuals are

advised that information on this matter

may be obtained by contacting the

Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Commission believes that the

respondents have justified the need for

a closed session. A full discussion of

information relating to the condition of

the domestic industry, domestic and

subject import shipment data, and

pricing can only occur if a portion of the

hearing is held in camera. Because

much of this information is not publicly

available, any discussion of issues

relating to this information will

necessitate disclosure of business

proprietary information (BPI). Thus,

such discussions can only occur if a

portion of the hearing is held in camera.

In making this decision, the

Commission nevertheless reaffirms its

belief that whenever possible its

business should be conducted in public.

The hearing will include the usual

public presentations by petitioner and

by respondents, with questions from the

Commission. In addition, the hearing

will include an in camera session for a

confidential presentation by

respondents and for questions from the

Commission relating to the BPI,

followed by an in camera rebuttal

presentation by petitioner. For any in

camera session the room will be cleared

of all persons except those who have

been granted access to BPI under a

Commission administrative protective

order (APO) and are included on the

Commission’s APO service list in this

investigation. See 19 CFR 201.35(b)(1),

(2). The time for the parties’

presentations and rebuttals in the in

camera session will be taken from their

respective overall allotments for the

hearing. All persons planning to attend

the in camera portions of the hearing

should be prepared to present proper

identification.

Authority: The General Counsel has

certified, pursuant to Commission Rule

201.39 (19 CFR 201.39) that, in her opinion,

a portion of the Commission’s hearing in

Extruded Rubber Thread from Malaysia, Inv.

No. 753–TA–34, may be closed to the public

to prevent the disclosure of BPI.

Issued: May 1, 1998.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–12014 Filed 5–5–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMISSION

[Inv. No. 337–TA–383 (Bond Forfeiture/

Return Proceeding]

In the Matter of Certain Hardware Logic

Emulation Systems and Components

Thereof; Notice of Referral to

Administrative Law Judge of

Complainant’s Motion for Forfeiture of

Respondents’ Bonds and

Respondents’ Motion for Return of

Their Bonds

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade

Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the Commission has referred to the

presiding administrative law judge

complainant’s motion for forfeiture of

respondents’ bonds posted during the

temporary relief and Presidential review

periods, and respondents’ motion for

return of those bonds in the abovecaptioned investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peter L. Sultan, Esq., Office of the

General Counsel, U.S. International

Trade Commission, telephone 202–205–

3152. General information concerning

the Commission may also be obtained

by accessing the Commission’s Internet

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

action is taken under the authority of

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19

U.S.C. 1337, and Commission rule

210.50, 19 CFR 210.50.

This patent-based section 337

investigation was instituted on March 8,

1996, based upon a complaint and

motion for temporary relief filed on

January 26, 1996, by Quickturn Design

Systems, Inc. (‘‘Quickturn’’). 61 FR

9486. The respondents are Mentor

Graphics Corporation (‘‘Mentor’’) and

Meta Systems (‘‘Meta’’) (collectively

‘‘respondents’’). On July 8, 1996, the

presiding administrative law judge

(‘‘ALJ’’) issued an initial determination

(‘‘ID’’) granting Quickturn’s motion for

temporary relief. On August 5, 1996, the

Commission determined not to modify

or vacate the ID, issued a temporary

limited exclusion order against

respondents and a temporary cease and

desist order against Mentor, and

determined that the amount of

respondents’ bond during the pendency

of temporary relief should be 43 percent

of the entered value of imported

hardware logic emulation systems and

components thereof. On September 24,

1997, the Commission determined to

modify respondents’ temporary relief

bond. Respondents’ temporary relief

bond remained at 43 percent of the

entered value of the subject imported

articles when the articles are appraised

at transaction value (as defined in

applicable U.S. Customs Service

regulations), but increased to 180

percent of the entered value of the

subject imported articles when the

articles are appraised at other than

transaction value.

On July 31, 1997, the ALJ issued a

final ID finding that respondents have

violated section 337 by infringing

claims of all five of Quickturn’s asserted

patents. On that same date, the ALJ

issued a recommended determination

(‘‘RD’’) recommending the issuance of a

permanent exclusion order and a cease

and desist order. On October 2, 1997,

the Commission issued its notice of the

decision not to review the ALJ’s final ID,

thereby finding that respondents are in

violation of section 337. On December 3,

1997, the Commission issued a

permanent limited exclusion order

directed to Meta and a permanent cease

and desist order against domestic

respondent Mentor.

On February 26, 1998, Quickturn filed

a motion for forfeiture of respondents’

temporary relief bonds. On March 13,

1998, respondents filed an opposition to

Quickturn’s motion and a motion for the

return of their bonds. On that same date,

the Commission investigative attorneys

filed a response in support of

Quickturn’s motion. The Commission

has referred these motions to

Administrative Law Judge Paul Luckern

for adjudication in an initial

determination to be issued within nine

months. Pursuant to rule 210.50(d) (19

CFR 210.50(d)), the ALJ’s initial

determination shall have a 45-day

effective date and shall be subject to

review under the provisions of

Commission rules 210.42 through

210.45, 19 CFR 210.42–210.45.

Copies of all nonconfidential

documents filed in connection with this

investigation are 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, D.C. 20436, telephone 202–

205–2000. 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 87 /Wednesday, May 6, 1998 / Notices 25071

concerning the Commission may also be

obtained by accessing its Internet server

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

Issued April 28, 1998.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–12011 Filed 5–5–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ)

President’s Advisory Board on Race;

Meeting

ACTION: President’s Advisory Board on

Race; notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: The President’s Advisory

Board on Race will meet from

approximately 9:00 am to Noon on May

19, 1998 in Washington, D.C. at a site

to be determined to discuss issues

relating to race and crime and the

administration of justice. The meeting

will include a panel discussion with

national experts.

The public is welcome to attend the

Advisory Board meeting on a first-come,

first-seated basis. Members of the public

may also submit to the contact person,

any time before or after the meeting,

written statements to the Board. Written

comments may be submitted by mail,

telegram, facsimile, or electronic mail,

and should contain the writer’s name,

address and commercial, government, or

organizational affiliation, if any. The

address of the President’s Initiative on

Race is 750 17th Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20503. The electronic

mail address is http://

www.whitehouse.gov/Initiatives/One

America.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Contact our

main office number, (202) 395–1010, for

the exact time and location of the

meetings. Other comments or questions

regarding this meeting may be directed

to Randy D. Ayers, (202) 395–1010, or

via facsimile, (202) 395–1020.

Dated: May 1, 1998.

Randy Ayers,

Executive Officer.

[FR Doc. 98–12040 Filed 5–5–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

[Civil Action No. 98–CIV–2716]

Proposed Final Judgment and

Competitive Impact Statement United

States of America, State of New York,

and State of Illinois v. Sony

Corporation of America, LTM Holdings,

Inc. d/b/a Loews Theatres, Cineplex

Odeon Corporation, and J.E. Seagram

Corp.

Notice is hereby given pursuant to the

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act,

15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h), that a proposed

Final Judgment, Stipulation and Order,

and Competitive Impact Statement have

been filed with the United States

District Court for the Southern District

of New York, Case No. 98–CIV–2716.

The proposed Final Judgment is subject

to approval by the Court after the

expiration of the statutory 60-day public

comment period and compliance with

the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties

Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h).

The United States, the State of New

York, and the State of Illinois filed a

civil antitrust Complaint on April 16,

1998, alleging that the proposed merger

of LTM Holdings, Inc. (‘‘Loews’’) and

Cineplex Odeon Corporation

(‘‘Cineplex’’) would violate Section 7 of

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

Complaint alleges that the proposed

merger would have combined the first

and second largest theatre chains in

Manhattan and Chicago. In Manhattan

and Chicago, the combined chains

would have had market shares, by

revenue, of 67 percent and 77 percent,

respectively. The complaint states that

the merger would have reduced

competition in both markets, leading to

higher ticket prices and reduced theatre

quality for first-run movies. It also

would have allowed the newly merged

firm to reduce competition by lowering

film rentals paid to distributors for firstrun movies.

The prayer for relief seeks: (a)

Adjudication that the proposed merger

would violate Section 7 of the Clayton

Act; (b) permanent injunctive relief

preventing the consummation of the

proposed merger; (c) an award to each

plaintiff of the costs of the action; and

(d) such other relief as is proper.

A Stipulation and Order and a

proposed Final Judgment were filed

with the court at the same time the

Complaint was filed. The proposed

Final Judgment requires Loews and

Cineplex to divest 14 theatres in

Manhattan and 11 theatres in the

Chicago area to a buyer or buyers,

acceptable to the United States (after

consultation with the State of New York

or the State of Illinois as the case may

be), that will continue to operate them

as movie theatres. Unless the United

States grants a time extension, the

divestitures must be completed within

one-hundred and eighty (180) calendar

days after the filing of the Complaint in

this matter or five (5) days after notice

of the entry of the Final Judgment by the

Court, whichever is later.

If the divestitures are not completed

within the divestiture period, the Court,

upon application of the United States, is

to appoint a trustee selected by the

United States to sell the assets. The

proposed Final Judgment also requires

that, until the divestitures mandated by

the Final Judgment have been

accomplished, Loews and Cineplex

must maintain and operate the 25

theatres to be divested as active

competitors, maintain the management,

staffing, sales, and marketing of the

theatres, and maintain the theatres in

operable condition at current capacity

configurations. Further, the proposed

Final Judgment requires defendants to

give the United States prior notice

regarding future motion picture theatre

acquisitions in Manhattan or Cook

County, Illinois.

The plaintiffs and the defendants

have stipulated that the proposed Final

Judgment may be entered after

compliance with the APPA. Entry of the

proposed Final Judgment would

terminate this action, except that the

Court would retain jurisdiction to

construe, modify, or enforce the

provisions of the proposed Final

Judgment and to punish violations

thereof.

A Competitive Impact Statement filed

by the United States describes the

Complaint, the proposed Final

Judgment, and remedies available to

private litigants.

Public comment is invited within the

statutory 60-day comment period. Such

comments, and the responses thereto,

will be published in the Federal

Register and filed with the Court.

Written comments should be directed to

Craig W. Conrath, Chief, Merger Task

Force, Antitrust Division, 1401 H Street,

NW., Suite 4000, Washington, DC 20530

(telephone: 202–307–0001).

Copies of the Complaint, Stipulation

and Order, proposed Final Judgment,

and Competitive Impact Statement are

available for inspection in Room 215 of

the Antitrust Division, Department of

Justice, 325 7th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: 202–

514–2481) and at the office of the Clerk

of the United States District Court for

the Southern District of New York, 500

Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007.