10278 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 10, 2009 / Notices 

1The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 

CFR 207.2(f)). 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–1020 (Review)] 

Barium Carbonate From China 

Determination 

On the basis of the record 1 developed 

in the subject five-year review, the 

United States International Trade 

Commission (Commission) determines, 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), that 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

order on barium carbonate from China 

would be likely to lead to continuation 

or recurrence of material injury to an 

industry in the United States within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. 

Background 

The Commission instituted this 

review on September 2, 2008 (73 FR 

51315) and determined on December 8, 

2008 that it would conduct an expedited 

review (73 FR 77058, December 18, 

2008). 

The Commission transmitted its 

determination in this review to the 

Secretary of Commerce on January 30, 

2009. The views of the Commission are 

contained in USITC Publication 4060 

(January 2009), entitled Barium 

Carbonate from China: Investigation No. 

731–TA–1020 (Review). 

Issued: March 4, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–5017 Filed 3–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. No. 337–TA–669] 

In the Matter of Certain Optoelectronic 

Devices, Components Thereof, and 

Products Containing the Same; Notice 

of Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. 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 

February 3, 2009, under section 337 of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 

U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Avago 

Technologies Fiber IP (Singapore) Pte. 

Ltd. of Singapore; Avago Technologies 

General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. of 

Singapore; and Avago Technologies Ltd. 

of San Jose, California. Letters 

supplementing the Complaint were filed 

on February 12, 18, and 25, 2009. The 

complaint alleges violations of section 

337 based upon the importation into the 

United States, the sale for importation, 

and the sale within the United States 

after importation of certain 

optoelectronic devices, components 

thereof, and products containing the 

same that infringe certain claims of U.S. 

Patent Nos. 5,359,447 and 5,761,229. 

The complaint further alleges that an 

industry in the United States exists as 

required by subsection (a)(2) of section 

337. 

The complainants request that the 

Commission institute an investigation 

and, after the investigation, issue an 

exclusion order and a 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. 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 at http:// 

www.usitc.gov. The public record for 

this investigation may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kecia J. Reynolds, Esq., Office of Unfair 

Import Investigations, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, telephone (202) 

205–2580. 

Authority: The authority for institution of 

this investigation is contained in section 337 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 

in section 210.10 of the Commission’s Rules 

of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 

(2008). 

Scope of Investigation: Having 

considered the complaint, the U.S. 

International Trade Commission, on 

March 3, 2009, 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 optoelectronic 

devices, components thereof, or 

products containing the same that 

infringe one or more of claims 1–6 of 

U.S. Patent No. 5,359,447 and claim 8 

of U.S. Patent No. 5,761,229, and 

whether an industry in the United 

States exists 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 complainants are— 

Avago Technologies Fiber IP, 

(Singapore) Pte. Ltd., 1 Yishun 

Avenue 7, Singapore 768923. 

Avago Technologies General IP, 

(Singapore) Pte. Ltd., 1 Yishun 

Avenue 7, Singapore 768923. 

Avago Technologies Ltd., 350 West 

Trimble Road, Building 90, San Jose, 

California 95131. 

(b) The respondent is the following 

entity alleged to be in violation of 

section 337, and is the party upon 

which the complaint is to be served: 

Emcore Corporation, 10420 Research 

Road SE., Albuquerque, New Mexico 

87123. 

(c) The Commission investigative 

attorney, party to this investigation, is 

Kecia J. Reynolds, Esq., Office of Unfair 

Import Investigations, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and 

(3) For the investigation so instituted, 

the Honorable Paul J. Luckern, Chief 

Administrative Law Judge, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, shall 

designate the presiding Administrative 

Law Judge. 

Responses to the complaint and the 

notice of investigation must be 

submitted by the named respondent in 

accordance with section 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 

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 and the notice of 

investigation will not be granted unless 

good cause therefor is shown. 

Failure of the 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 10, 2009 / Notices 10279 

1The merger closed on November 14, 2008. In 

keeping with the United States’ standard practice, 

neither the Stipulation nor the proposed Final 

Judgment prohibited the closing of the merger. See 

ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Antitrust Law 

Developments 406 (6th ed. 2007) (noting that ‘‘[t]he 

Federal Trade Commission (as well as the 

Department of Justice) generally will permit the 

underlying transaction to close during the notice 

and comment period’’). Such a prohibition could 

interfere with many time-sensitive deals and 

prevent or delay the realization of substantial 

efficiencies. 

2The Divestiture Assets do not include certain 

assets of IUSA (e.g., books, records, and data) that 

relate solely to the sale of non-Labatt brand beer. 

See Proposed Final Judgment II.F(iii), (iv). 

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 an initial determination 

and a final determination containing 

such findings, and may result in the 

issuance of an exclusion order or a cease 

and desist order or both directed against 

the respondent. 

Issued: March 5, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–5016 Filed 3–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

United States v. InBev NV/SA, InBev 

USA LLC, and Anheuser-Busch 

Companies, Inc.; Response to Public 

Comments on the Proposed Final 

Judgment 

Pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures 

and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h), 

the United States hereby publishes the 

public comments received on the 

proposed Final Judgment in United 

States v. InBev NV/SA, InBev USA LLC, 

and Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc., 

Civil Action No. 1:08–cv–1965 and the 

response to the comments. On 

November 14, 2008, the United States 

filed a Complaint alleging that the 

proposed merger between InBev NV/SA 

(‘‘InBev’’) and Anheuser-Busch 

Companies, Inc. would violate Section 7 

of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18 by 

substantially reducing competition for 

the sale of beer in the Buffalo, 

Rochester, and Syracuse, New York, 

metropolitan areas. The proposed Final 

Judgment, filed at the same time as the 

Complaint, requires InBev to divest 

InBev USA LLC d/b/a Labatt USA and 

grant a perpetual license to the acquirer 

to brew and sell Labatt brand beer for 

consumption throughout the United 

States. Pursuant to the Antitrust 

Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 

16(b)–(h), public comment was invited 

within the statutory 60-day comment 

period. Copies of the Complaint, 

proposed Final Judgment, Competitive 

Impact Statement, Public Comments, 

the United States’ Response to the 

Comments, and other materials are 

currently available for inspection in 

Suite 1010 of the Antitrust Division, 

Department of Justice, 450 5th Street, 

NW., Washington, DC 20530, telephone: 

(202) 514–2481, on the Department of 

Justice’s website (http://www.usdoj.gov/ 

atr), and the Office of the Clerk of the 

United States District Court for the 

District of the District of Columbia, 333 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20001. Copies of any of these 

materials may be obtained upon request 

and payment of a copying fee set by 

Department of Justice Regulations. 

J. Robert Kramer II, 

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division. 

The United States District Court for the 

District of Columbia 

United States of America, Plaintiff, v. 

InBev N.V./S.A., InBev USA LLC, and 

Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. Defendants. 

CASE NO: 1:08–cv–01965 (JR) 

JUDGE: Robertson, James 

Response of Plaintiff United States To 

Public Comments On the Proposed 

Final Judgment 

Pursuant to the requirements of the 

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act 

(‘‘APPA’’ or ‘‘Tunney Act’’), 15 U.S.C. 

16(b)–(h), the United States hereby files 

comments received from members of the 

public concerning the proposed Final 

Judgment in this case and the responses 

by the United States to these comments. 

The United States will move the Court 

for entry of the proposed Final 

Judgment after the public comments and 

this Response have been published in 

the Federal Register, pursuant to 15 

U.S.C. 16(d). 

The United States filed a civil 

antitrust Complaint under Section 15 of 

the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 25, on 

November 14, 2008, alleging that the 

proposed merger of InBev N.V./S.A. 

(‘‘InBev’’) and Anheuser-Busch 

Companies, Inc. (‘‘Anheuser-Busch’’) 

would violate Section 7 of the Clayton 

Act, 15 U.S.C. 18. Simultaneously with 

the filing of the Complaint, the United 

States filed a proposed Final Judgment 

and a Hold Separate Stipulation and 

Order (‘‘Stipulation’’) signed by the 

United States and Defendants 

consenting to the entry of the proposed 

Final Judgment after compliance with 

the requirements of the Tunney Act.1

Pursuant to those requirements, the 

United States filed a Competitive Impact 

Statement (‘‘CIS’’) in this Court on 

November 14, 2008; published the 

proposed Final Judgment and CIS in the 

Federal Register on November 25, 2008, 

see 73 FR 71682 (2008); and published 

summaries of the terms of the proposed 

Final Judgment and CIS, together with 

directions for the submission of written 

comments relating to the proposed Final 

Judgment, in The Washington Post for 

seven days beginning on December 7, 

2008, and ending on December 13, 2008. 

The 60-day period for public comments 

ended on February 11, 2009, and the 

United States received four comments 

as described below and attached hereto. 

I. The United States’ Investigation And 

The Proposed Final Judgment 

On July 13, 2008, InBev and 

Anheuser-Busch entered into an 

agreement, whereby InBev agreed to 

acquire all of the voting securities of 

Anheuser-Busch. The United States 

Department of Justice (the 

‘‘Department’’) conducted an extensive, 

detailed investigation into the 

competitive effects of the proposed 

transaction. As part of this investigation, 

the Department obtained and 

considered more than 500,000 pages of 

material. The Department deposed 

officials of Anheuser-Busch and Inbev 

and interviewed beer wholesalers, retail 

customers, brewers, and other 

individuals with knowledge of the 

industry. 

After conducting a detailed analysis 

of the acquisition, the Department 

concluded that the combination of 

InBev and Anheuser-Busch likely would 

substantially lessen competition for the 

sale of beer in the Buffalo, Rochester, 

and Syracuse, New York, areas. In 

contrast to InBev’s small (less than 2 

percent) share in most parts of the 

country, InBev’s Labatt brand accounts 

for a significant portion of beer sales in 

the Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse 

areas. Anheuser-Busch beers and 

InBev’s Labatt brand beers collectively 

account for over 40 percent of the total 

beer sales in the Buffalo, Rochester, and 

Syracuse areas. 

As more fully explained in the CIS, 

the Stipulation and proposed Final 

Judgment in this case are designed to 

preserve competition in the sale of beer 

in the Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse 

areas by requiring InBev to divest InBev 

USA d/b/a Labatt USA (‘‘IUSA’’) 2 and 

all of the real and intellectual property 

rights required to brew, promote, 

market, distribute, and sell Labatt brand 

beer for consumption in the United