30752 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2001 / Notices

and Macronix International Co., Ltd.

and Macronix America, Inc.

(collectively ‘‘Macronix’’) had violated

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in

the sale for importation, the

importation, and the sale within the

United States after importation of

certain erasable programmable read only

memory (‘‘EPROM ’’), electrically

erasable programmable read only

memory (‘‘EEPROM’’), flash memory,

and flash microcontroller

semiconductor devices, by reason of

infringement of one or more claims of

U.S. Letters Patent 4,511,811 (‘‘the ’811

patent’’), U.S. Letters Patent 4,673,829

(‘‘the ’829 patent’’), and U.S. Letters

Patent 4,451,903 (‘‘the ’903 patent’’)

assigned to Atmel. 62 FR 13706 (March

21, 1997). Silicon Storage Technology,

Inc. (‘‘SST’’) was permitted to intervene

in the investigation.

On October 16, 2000, the Commission

determined that there is a violation of

section 337 by Sanyo and Winbond with

respect to the ’903 patent, but no

violation with respect to the ’811 and

’829 patents, and issued a limited

exclusion order prohibiting the

importation of EPROMs, EEPROMs,

flash memories, and flash

microcontroller semiconductor devices,

and circuit boards containing such

devices, that infringe claims 1 or 9 of

the ’903 patent, manufactured by or on

behalf of Sanyo and Winbond. In

reaching its determination, the

Commission rejected respondents’

arguments that the ’903 patent is

unenforceable due to waiver and

implied license, or to incorrect

inventorship, or to inequitable conduct

by Atmel in obtaining the certificate of

correction from the PTO.

Winbond appealed these findings as

well as the Commission’s claim

construction and infringement findings

to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Federal Circuit. Winbond Electonics

Corp. v. U.S. International Trade

Commission, Case Nos. 01–1031–1032–

1034 (the Winbond appeal). Atmel

appealed the Commission’s finding that

respondent Macronix did not infringe

the asserted claims of the ’903 patent

and the Commission’s findings of no

violation with respect to the ’811 and

’829 patents. Atmel also appealed the

temporal scope of the Commission’s

order finding that Atmel waived its

attorney client privilege and work

product protections. Atmel Corp. v. U.S.

International Trade Commission, Case

No. 01–1128 (the Atmel appeal)

On December 21, 2000, the Court

ordered an expedited briefing and oral

argument schedule for the Winbond

appeal and the Atmel appeal. On

December 28, 2000, the Court,

responding to a motion for clarification

filed by Atmel, ordered that the appeals

on the ’811 and ’829 are not expedited.

Oral arguments for both the Winbond

appeal and the remaining portions of

the Atmel appeal were held at the

Federal Circuit on January 16, 2001.

In an order issued on January 30,

2001, the Federal Circuit upheld the

following determinations of the

Commission: (1) That respondents have

not shown that the ’903 patent is

unenforceable due to inequitable

conduct; (2) that respondents have not

shown that the ’903 patent is

unenforceable due to improper joinder

in the inventorship of the ’903 patent;

(3) that respondents have not shown

that the ’903 patent is unenforceable

due to waiver and implied license; (4)

that Atmel waived its attorney-client

privilege and work product protections

dating back to January 1997.

In the Atmel appeal, the Court

disagreed with some of the

Commission’s claim constructions, and

vacated the Commission’s finding that

Macronix did not infringe the asserted

claims of the ’903 patent. The Court

remanded the matter to the Commission

to determine whether Macronix

infringes under the claim construction

found by the Court to be correct.

Specifially, the Court stated that on

remand that—

The Commission must make findings to

determine whether the accused Macronix

devices have the same or equivalent

structures to: (1) A high voltage detection

circuit and a decoder for the ‘‘access means’’;

and (2) an output buffer and output pins for

the ‘‘output means.’’

2001 WL 80412 at *9; slip op. at 18–19.

On March 29, 2001, the Commission

ordered Atmel, Macronix, and the

Commission investigative attorney to

brief the issues on remand from the

Federal Circuit. The parties filed initial

briefs on April 4, 2001, and reply briefs

on April 11, 2001.

The authority for the Commission’s

determinations is contained in section

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and the

mandate from the Federal Circuit issued

March 23, 2001, remanding this matter

to the Commission for further findings

on whether the Macronix devices

infringe claims 1 or 9 of the ’903 patent

under the Federal Circuit’s claim

construction.

Copies of the Commission Order, the

Commission Opinion in support thereof,

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). General

information concerning the Commission

may also be obtained by accessing its

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

The public record for this investigation

may be viewed on the Commission’s

electronic docket (EDIS–ON–LINE) at

http://dockets.usitc.gov/eol/public.

Issued: June 1, 2001.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–14302 Filed 6–6–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

Rick Joe Nelson, M.D.; Revocation of

Registration

On April 6, 2000, the Administrator of

the Drug Enforcement Administration

(DEA), issued an Order to Show Cause

(OTSC) by certified mail to Rick Joe

Nelson, M.D., notifying him of a

preliminary finding that, pursuant to

evidence set forth therein, he was

responsible for the diversion of large

quantities of controlled substances into

other than legitimate medical channels,

and additionally no longer possessed

authority to either handle controlled

substances or to practice medicine in

Oklahoma, the State in which he held

a DEA registration. Based on these

preliminary findings, and pursuant to

21 U.S.C. 824(d) and 28 CFR 0.100 and

0.104, the OTSC suspended Dr. Nelson’s

DEA Certificate of Registration, effective

immediately, with such suspension to

remain in effect until a final

determination in these proceedings is

reached. The OTSC informed Dr. Nelson

of an opportunity to request a hearing to

show cause as to why the DEA should

not revoke his DEA Certificate of

Registration, BN1075224, and deny any

pending applications for renewal or

modification of such registration, for

reason that such registration is

inconsistent with the public interest, as

determined by 21 U.S.C. 823(f). The

OTSC also notified Dr. Nelson that,

should no request for hearing be filed

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2001 / Notices 30753

within 30 days, his right to a hearing

would be considered waived.

On April 6, 2001, a copy of the OTSC

was personally served by two DEA

Diversion Investigators upon Dr.

Nelson’s attorney. No request for a

hearing or any other response was

received by DEA from Dr. Nelson or

anyone purporting to represent him in

this matter, however. Therefore, the

Administrator of the DEA, finding that

(1) thirty days have passed since receipt

of the Order to Show Cause, and (2) no

request for a hearing having been

received, concludes Dr. Nelson is

deemed to have waived his right to a

hearing. After considering relevant

material from the investigative file in

this matter, the Administrator now

enters his final order without a hearing

pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(d) and (e)

and 1301.46 (1999).

The Administrator finds that based on

an investigation by the Oklahoma and

State Board of Medical Licensure and

Supervisor, by use of a pharmacy

internet web site, Dr. Nelson issued

prescriptions for controlled substances

without personally seeing or physically

examining patients. During the single

week of October 25, 2000, to November

2, 2000, Dr. Nelson authorized 1,684

prescriptions, of which 1,651 were for

controlled substances. These

prescriptions were not issued in the

usual course of medical practice, in

violation of 21 CFR 1306.04.

On December 14, 2000, Dr. Nelson

agreed with the Oklahoma State Board

of License and Supervision (Board) to

refrain from issuance of further

prescriptions to internet customers.

Despite this agreement, at least eight

refills and new prescriptions for

controlled substances attributed to Dr.

Nelson continued to be filled. The

Board also learned that Dr. Nelson had

prescribed drugs for three separate

internet web sites.

On February 12, 2001, the Oklahoma

Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drug

Control (Bureau) suspended Dr.

Nelson’s State narcotic registration, in

part on the grounds that his registered

address was in actuality a postal mail

box facility, not a place of professional

practice. The Bureau also learned that

Dr. Nelson had provided a false social

security number and date of birth in the

application that he made with the

Bureau.

On March 1, 2001, the Oklahoma

State Board of Medical License and

Supervisions issued an Order of

Emergency Suspension suspending Dr.

Nelson’s medical license, in part based

on a finding that he could not practice

medicine with a reasonable degree of

safety, competency, and skill sufficient

to protect the public health, safety, and

welfare.

On the basis of this evidence, by the

OTSC dated April 6, 2001, the

Administrator of the DEA made the

preliminary findings that Dr. Nelson

was responsible for the diversion of

large quantities of controlled substances

into other than legitimate channels, and

further that Dr. Nelson’s violation of the

December 14, 2000, agreement with the

Board demonstrated that Dr. Nelson will

continue to assist in the diversion of

controlled substances. Therefore,

pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(d), the

Administrator of the DEA issued an

immediate suspension of Dr. Nelson’s

DEA Certificate of Registration.

While the above-cited evidence

provides ample grounds for an

immediate suspension pursuant to

section 824(d), these grounds also

provide the basis for the revocation of

Dr. Nelson’s DEA Certificate of

Registration. There is no evidence in the

investigative file that Dr. Nelson’s

medical license has been reinstated

since the March 1, 2001, Emergency

Suspension by the Board. Therefore, the

Administrator finds that Dr. Nelson is

not currently authorized to practice

medicine in the State of Oklahoma.

Additionally, since there is no evidence

that the suspension of Dr. Nelson’s State

narcotics registration has been lifted, the

Administrator finds that Dr. Nelson also

is not authorized to handle controlled

substances in that State.

The DEA does not have the statutory

authority pursuant to the Controlled

Substances Act to issue or to maintain

a registration if the applicant or

registrant is without state authority to

handle controlled substances in the

state in which he conducts his business.

See 21 U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f), and

824(a)(3). This prerequisite has been

consistently upheld in prior DEA cases.

See Frank R. Pennington, M.D., 66 FR

15,762 (DEA 2001); Romeo J. Perez,

M.D., 62 FR 16,193 (DEA 1997);

Demetris A. Green, M.D., 61 FR 60,728

(DEA 1996); Dominick A. Ricci, M.D.,

58 FR 51,104 (DEA 1993). Here it is

clear that Dr. Nelson is not currently

authorized to handle controlled

substances in the State of Oklahoma. As

a result, he is not entitled to a DEA

registration in that State.

Accordingly, the Administrator of the

Drug Enforcement Administration,

pursuant to the authority vested in him

by 21 U.S.C. 823 and 824 and 28 CFR

0.100(b) and 0.104, hereby orders that

DEA Certificate of Registration

BN1075224, previously issued to Rick

Joe Nelson, M.D., be, and it hereby is,

revoked. This order is effective July 6,

2001.

Dated: May 31, 2001.

Donnie R. Marshall,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 01–14292 Filed 6–6–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Immigration and Naturalization Service

Agency Information Collection

Activities: Comments Request

ACTION: Notice of information collection

under review; Employment eligibility

verification

The Department of Justice,

Immigration and Naturalization Service

has submitted the following information

collection request for review and

clearance in accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The

proposed information collection is

published to obtain comments from the

public and affected agencies. Comments

are encouraged and will be accepted for

sixty days until August 6, 2001.

Written comments and suggestions

from the public and affected agencies

concerning the proposed collection of

information should address one or more

of the following four points:

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed

collection of information is necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of the agency, including

whether the information will have

practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the

agencies estimate of the burden of the

proposed collection of information,

including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the

collection of information on those who

are to respond, including through the

use of appropriate automated,

electronic, mechanical, or other

technological collection techniques or

other forms of information technology,

e.g, permitting electronic submission of

responses.

Overview of this information

collection:

(1) Type of Information Collection:

Extension of currently approved

collection.

(2) Title of the Form/Collection:

Employment Eligibility Verification.

(3) Agency form number, if any, and

the applicable component of the

Department of Justice sponsoring the

collection: Form I–9. Programs Division,

Immigration and Naturalization Service.