Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 1998 / Notices 39891

violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act

of 1930 in the above-captioned

investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Diehl, Esq., Office of the

General Counsel, U.S. International

Trade Commission, telephone 202–205–

3095.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Commission instituted this investigation

on April 2, 1997, on the basis of a

complaint filed by Innovatron S.A.

(‘‘Innovatron’’). 62 FR 15728. The

complaint, as subsequently amended,

named two respondents—Thomson

Multimedia, S.A. and Thomson

Consumer Electronics, Inc.

In its complaint, Innovatron alleged

that respondents violated section 337 by

importing into the United States, and

selling after importation, television

receivers and receiver access cards that

infringe claim 8 of Innovatron’s U.S.

Letters Patent 4,404,464 (the ‘‘’464

patent’’). The presiding administrative

law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) held an evidentiary

hearing from September 29 to October 7,

1997.

On March 24, 1998, the ALJ issued his

final ID finding a violation of section

337. He found that claim 8 of the ‘464

patent was not invalid due to

anticipation or obviousness, that there

have been importations and sales after

importation of the accused devices, and

that the accused devices can be used to

practice the method patented in claim 8

of the ‘464 patent. He also found that

respondents actively induced

infringement of claim 8 of the ‘464

patent and that they contributorily

infringed that claim as well. Finally, the

ALJ found that there is a domestic

industry with respect to the ‘464 patent.

On April 6, 1998, the Commission

investigative attorney and the Thomson

respondents filed petitions for review of

the ALJ’s final ID. Complainant

Innovatron filed a response in

opposition to the petitions. The

Commission determined to review the

bulk of the ID and directed the parties

to file written responses addressing

certain questions posed in the

Commission’s notice of review, and the

issues of remedy, the public interest,

and bonding. In accordance with the

Commission’s directions, the parties

filed initial briefs on June 11, 1998, and

reply briefs on June 18, 1998.

Having examined the record in this

investigation, including the ID, the

review briefs, and the responses thereto,

the Commission determined that there

is no violation of section 337. More

specifically, the Commission modified

the ALJ’s construction of claim 8 of the

‘464 patent, and found the claim as

properly construed to be valid but not

infringed by users of the accused

imported products. The Commission

found further that the domestic industry

requirement is not met in this

investigation.

This action is taken under the

authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act

of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1337) and 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 ID,

the Commission’s order and opinion,

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. Hearingimpaired 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).

Issued: July 20, 1998.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–19869 Filed 7–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMISSION

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–373 & 731–TA–

769–775 (Final)

Stainless Steel Wire Rod From

Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain,

Sweden, and Taiwan; Notice of

Commission Determination to Conduct

a Portion of the Hearing in Camera

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade

Commission.

ACTION: Closure of a portion of a

Commission hearing to the public.

SUMMARY: Upon request of certain

respondents in the above-captioned

final investigations, the Commission has

unanimously determined to conduct a

portion of its hearing scheduled for July

22, 1998 in camera. See Commission

rules 207.24(d), 201.13(m) and

201.35(b)(3) (19 CFR 207.24(d),

201.13(m) and 201.35(b)(3)). The

remainder of the hearing will be open to

the public. The Commission

unanimously has 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:

Peter Sultan, Esq., Office of the General

Counsel, U.S. International Trade

Commission, 500 E Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20436, telephone 202–

205–3152. 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 respondents

have justified the need for a closed

session. A full discussion regarding the

proprietary financial and trade data of

all parties in these investigations 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. The Commission has

determined to deny, however,

petitioners’ request to allow

representatives of the petitioning firms

who are not on the administrative

protective order to attend the closed

session. The Commission believes that

petitioners have not justified their

request. 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 petitioners and

by respondents, with questions from the

Commission. In addition, the hearing

will include an in camera session for a

presentation by respondents that

discusses the business proprietary

information submitted in this

proceeding, and for questions from the

Commission relating to the BPI,

followed by an in camera presentation

by petitioners. For the 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

Commission is allotting twenty minutes

for each in camera session. 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.
39892 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 1998 / Notices

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 Stainless Steel Wire Rod from

Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain,

Sweden and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 701–TA–

373 & 731–TA–767–775 (Final) may be

closed to the public to prevent the

disclosure of BPI.

Issued: July 20, 1998.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–19870 Filed 7–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree

Pursuant to the Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation and Liability Act

In accordance with Departmental

policy, 28 C.F.R. 50.7, and Section 122

of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9622, notice is

hereby given that on June 30, 1998, a

proposed De Minimis Consent Decree in

United States v. Arkwright, Inc., Civil

Action No. 96–CV–75795, was lodged

with the United States District court for

the Eastern District of Michigan,

Southern Division. This consent decree

represents a settlement of claims of the

United States against Arkwright, Inc. for

reimbursement of response costs and

injunctive relief in connection with the

Metamora Landfill Superfund Site

(‘‘Site’’) pursuant to the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation

and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.

Under this settlement with the United

States, Arkwright, Inc. will pay a total

of $793,431 in reimbursement of

response costs incurred by the United

States Environmental Protection Agency

at the Site.

The Department of Justice will receive

for a period of thirty (30) days from the

date of this publication comments

relating to the proposed Consent Decree.

Comments should be addressed to the

Assistant Attorney General of the

Environment and Natural Resources

Division, Department of Justice,

Washington, D.C. 20530, and should

refer to United States v. Arkwright, Inc.,

D.J. Ref. 90–11–3–289E.

The proposed Consent Decree may be

examined at the Office of the United

States Attorney, Eastern District of

Michigan, Southern Division, 211 West

Fort Street, Suite 2300, Detroit, MI

48226, at the Region 5 Office of the

Environmental Protection Agency, 77

West Jackson Street, Chicago, Illinois

60604–3590, and at the Consent Decree

Library, 1120 G Street, N.W., 4th Floor,

Washington, D.C. 20005, (202) 624–

0892. A copy of the proposed Consent

Decree may be obtained in person or by

mail from the Consent Decree Library,

1120 G Street, N.W., 4th Floor,

Washington, D.C. 20005. In requesting a

copy, please enclose a check in the

amount of $4.75 (25 cents per page

reproduction cost) payable to the

Consent Decree Library.

Bruce Gelber,

Deputy Chief, Environmental Enforcement

Section, Environment and Natural Resources

Division.

[FR Doc. 98–19733 Filed 7–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–15–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree

Under the Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act

Notice is hereby given that on July 10,

1998, a proposed Consent Decree in

United States v. The Town of Milford,

No. 98–430–B (D.N.H.), was lodged with

the United States District Court for the

District of New Hampshire.

In this action the United States

sought, pursuant to Section 107(a) of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 9607(a),

recovery of costs concerning the First

Operable Unit of the Fletcher Paint

Works and Storage Facility Superfund

Site (the ‘‘Site’’), located in Milford,

New Hampshire. The Town of Milford

currently owns a portion of the Site and

previously operated a burning dump on

another portion of the Site. In the

proposed consent decree, the settling

party, the Town of Milford, New

Hampshire, agrees to pay to the United

States, $62,139.00, for past and future

response costs incurred at the First

Operable Unit at the Site, to provide

various in-kind services, including

replacement piping material, which is

valued at $16,675.00, to provide access

to portions of the Site owned or

controlled by the Town of Milford, and

to covenant not to sue the United States.

This settlement does not address any

potential liability for the Second

Operable Unit at the Site.

The Department of Justice will receive

for a period of thirty (30) days from the

date of this publication, comments

relating to the consent decree.

Comments should be addressed to the

Assistant Attorney General of the

Environment and Natural Resources

Division, Department of Justice, P.O.

Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station,

Washington, DC 20044, and should refer

to United States v. The Town of Milford,

D.J. Ref. 90–11–3–684A. Commenters

may request an opportunity for a public

meeting in the affected area, in

accordance with Section 7003(d) of

RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6973(d).

The consent decree may be examined

at the Office of the United States

Attorney, District of New Hampshire, 55

Pleasant Street, Room 312, Concord,

New Hampshire 03301–3904, at U.S.

EPA Region I, One Congress Street,

Boston, Massachusetts 02203, and at the

Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street,

NW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20005,

(202) 624–0892. A copy of the consent

decree may be obtained in person or by

mail for the Consent Decree Library,

1120 G Street, NW., 4th Floor,

Washington, DC 20005. In requesting a

copy, please enclose a check in the

amount of $13.00 (25 cents per page

reproduction cost) payable to the

Consent Decree Library.

Joel M. Gross,

Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section,

Environment & Natural Resources Division.

[FR Doc. 98–19736 Filed 7–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–15–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree

Pursuant to the Clean Air Act and the

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act

In accordance with 28 CFR 50.7, the

Department of Justice gives notice that

a proposed consent decree in United

States v. Refined Metals Corporation,

Civil Action No. IP 90–2077–C (S.D.

Ind.), was lodged with the United States

District Court for the Southern District

of Indiana, on July 14, 1998. The

proposed consent decree would resolve

the United States’ civil claims against

the Refined Metals Corporation under

the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7401

et seq., and the Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C.

6901 et seq., for certain of its operations

at its facility in Beech Grove, Indiana.

Under the terms of the proposed

consent decree, defendant Refined

Metals Corporation will comply with all

applicable requirements of the CAA and

RCRA, perform closure and corrective

actions at its plant, and, in the event the

company recommences operations,

install air pollution control equipment

that will prevent emissions of lead and

particulate matter in excess of the State

Implementation Plan limits. In addition,

the Decree provides for the payment of

a $210,000 civil penalty, including