Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2001 / Notices 30751

Citation 30 CFR 250 subpart L Reporting or recordkeeping requirement Requirement hour burden

Recordkeeping Requirements

1202(c)(1), (2) ..........................

1202(e) .....................................

1202(h)(1), (2), (3), (4) .............

1202(i)(1)(iv), (2)(iii) .................

1202(j) ......................................

Record observed data, correction factors & net standard volume on

royalty meter and tank run tickets.

Record master meter calibration runs ...................................................

Record mechanical-displacement prover, master meter, or tank prover proof runs.

Record liquid hydrocarbon royalty meter malfunction and repair or adjustment on proving report; record unregistered production on run

ticket.

List Cpl and Ctl factors on run tickets ...................................................

Respondents record these items as

part of normal business records &

practices to verify accuracy of production measured for sale purposes.

1202(e)(6) ................................ Retain master meter calibration reports for 2 years ............................. 1 minute.

1202(k)(5) ................................. Retain liquid hydrocarbon allocation meter proving reports for 2 years 1 minute.

1202(l)(3) .................................. Retain liquid hydrocarbon inventory tank calibration charts for as long

as tanks are in use.

5 minutes.

1203(c)(4) ................................. Retain calibration reports for 2 years .................................................... 1 minute.

1203(f)(4) ................................. Document & retain measurement records on gas lost or used on

lease for 2 years.

1 minute.

1204(b)(3) ................................ Retain well test data for 2 years ........................................................... 2 minutes.

1205(a)(2) ................................ Post signs at royalty or inventory tank used in royalty determination

process.

1 hour.

1205(b)(3), (4) .......................... Retain seal number lists for 2 years ..................................................... 2 minutes.

* Respondents gather this information as part of their normal business practices. MMS only requires copies of readily available documents.

This is no burden for testing, meter reading, document preparation, etc.

Estimated Annual Reporting and

Recordkeeping ‘‘Non-Hour Cost’’

Burden: We have identified no ‘‘nonhour’’ costs burdens.

Comments: Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of

the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.)

requires each agency ‘‘* * * to provide

notice * * * and otherwise consult

with members of the public and affected

agencies concerning each proposed

collection of information * * *’’

Agencies must specifically solicit

comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the

proposed collection of information is

necessary for the agency to perform its

duties, including whether the

information is useful; (b) evaluate the

accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the

burden of the proposed collection of

information; (c) enhance the quality,

usefulness, and clarity of the

information to be collected; and (d)

minimize the burden on the

respondents, including the use of

automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

To comply with the public

consultation process, on February 20,

2001, we published a Federal Register

notice (66 FR 10900) announcing that

we would submit this ICR to OMB for

approval. The notice provided the

required 60-day comment period. In

addition, § 250.199 displays the OMB

control number, specifies that the public

may comment at anytime on the

collection of information required in the

30 CFR part 250 regulations and forms,

and provides the address to which they

should send comments. We have

received no comments in response to

these efforts. We also consulted with

several respondents and adjusted some

of the information collection burdens as

a result of those consultations.

If you wish to comment in response

to this notice, send your comments

directly to the offices listed under the

ADDRESSES section of this notice. The

OMB has up to 60 days to approve or

disapprove the information collection

but may respond after 30 days.

Therefore, to ensure maximum

consideration, OMB should receive

public comments by July 9, 2001. The

PRA provides that an agency may not

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not

required to respond to, a collection of

information unless it displays a

currently valid OMB control number.

MMS Information Collection

Clearance Officer: Jo Ann Lauterbach,

(202) 208–7744.

Dated: April 26, 2001.

John V. Mirabella,

Acting Chief, Engineering and Operations

Division.

[FR Doc. 01–14295 Filed 6–6–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337–TA–395]

In the Matter of Certain Eprom,

Eeprom, Flash Memory, and Flash

Microcontroller Semiconductor

Devices, and Products Containing

Same; Notice of Final Determination of

no Violation of Section 337 of the Tariff

Act of 1930 as to Macronix

Respondents on Remand From the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal

Circuit

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade

Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the U.S. International Trade

Commission has determined that there

is no violation by Macronix

International Co., Ltd. and Macronix

America, Inc. of section 337 of the Tariff

Act of 1930 in the above-captioned

investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Timothy P. Monaghan, Esq., Office of

the General Counsel, U.S. International

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202–

205–3152.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Commission instituted this investigation

on March 18, 1997, based upon a

complaint filed by Atmel Corporation

alleging that Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.

(‘‘Sanyo’’), Winbond Electronics

Corporation of Taiwan and Winbond

Electronics North America Corporation

of California (collectively ‘‘Winbond’’),

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