76370 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Notices 

In connection with the final 

disposition of this investigation, the 

Commission may: (1) Issue an order that 

could result in the exclusion of articles 

manufactured or imported by the 

respondents; and/or (2) issue a cease 

and desist order that could result in the 

respondents being required to cease and 

desist from engaging in unfair acts in 

the importation and sale of such 

articles. Accordingly, the Commission is 

interested in receiving written 

submissions that address the form of 

remedy, if any, that should be ordered. 

If a party seeks exclusion of an article 

from entry into the United States for 

purposes other than entry for 

consumption, the party should so 

indicate and provide information 

establishing that activities involving 

other types of entry either are adversely 

affecting it or likely to do so. For 

background, see Certain Devices for 

Connecting Computers via Telephone 

Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360, USITC 

Pub. No. 2843, Comm’n Op. at 7–10 

(December 1994). 

If the Commission contemplates some 

form of remedy, it must consider the 

effects of that remedy upon the public 

interest. The factors that the 

Commission will consider include the 

effect that the exclusion order and/or 

cease and desists orders would have on 

(1) the public health and welfare, (2) 

competitive conditions in the U.S. 

economy, (3) U.S. production of articles 

that are like or directly competitive with 

those that are subject to investigation, 

and (4) U.S. consumers. The 

Commission is therefore interested in 

receiving written submissions that 

address the aforementioned public 

interest factors in the context of this 

investigation. 

If the Commission orders some form 

of remedy, the U.S. Trade 

Representative, as delegated by the 

President, has 60 days to approve or 

disapprove the Commission’s action. 

See Presidential Memorandum of July 

21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). 

During this period, the subject articles 

would be entitled to enter the United 

States under bond, in an amount 

determined by the Commission and 

prescribed by the Secretary of the 

Treasury. The Commission is therefore 

interested in receiving submissions 

concerning the amount of the bond that 

should be imposed if a remedy is 

ordered. 

Written Submissions: Parties to the 

investigation, interested government 

agencies, and any other interested 

parties are encouraged to file written 

submissions on the issues of remedy, 

the public interest, and bonding. 

Complainants are requested to submit 

proposed remedial orders for the 

Commission’s consideration. 

Complainants are further requested to 

state the date upon which the patents 

expire and the HTSUS numbers under 

which the accused products are 

imported and to provide identification 

information for all known importers of 

the subject articles. 

Written submissions and proposed 

remedial orders must be filed no later 

than the close of business on December 

30, 2014. Reply submissions must be 

filed no later than the close of business 

on January 7, 2015. No further 

submissions on these issues will be 

permitted unless otherwise ordered by 

the Commission. 

Persons filing written submissions 

must file the original document 

electronically on or before the deadline 

stated above and submit eight true paper 

copies to the Office of the Secretary 

pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). 

Submissions should refer to the 

investigation number (‘‘Inv. No. 337– 

TA–883’’) in a prominent place on the 

cover page and/or the first page. (See 

Handbook for Electronic Filing 

Procedures, http://www.usitc.gov/ 

secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/ 

handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf). 

Persons with questions regarding filing 

should contact the Secretary (202–205– 

2000). 

Any person desiring to submit a 

document to the Commission in 

confidence must request confidential 

treatment. All such requests should be 

directed to the Secretary to the 

Commission and must include a full 

statement of the reasons why the 

Commission should grant such 

treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents 

for which confidential treatment by the 

Commission is properly sought will be 

treated accordingly. A redacted 

nonconfidential version of the 

document must also be filed 

simultaneously with any confidential 

filing. All nonconfidential written 

submissions will be available for public 

inspection at the Office of the Secretary 

and on EDIS. 

The authority for the Commission’s 

determination is contained in section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 

210 of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 

210). 

Dated: December 16, 2014. 

By order of the Commission. 

Lisa R. Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2014–29808 Filed 12–19–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[USITC SE–14–044] 

Government in the Sunshine Act 

Meeting Notice 

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: United 

States International Trade Commission 

TIME AND DATE: December 29, 2014, at 11 

a.m. 

PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 

(202) 205–2000. 

STATUS: Open to the public. 

Matters to be Considered 

1. Agendas for future meetings: none 

2. Minutes 

3. Ratification List 

4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701–TA–526–527 

and 731–TA–1262–1263 

(Preliminary)(Melamine from China 

and Trinidad and Tobago). The 

Commission is currently scheduled 

to complete and file its 

determinations on December 29, 

2014; views of the Commission are 

currently scheduled to be 

completed and filed on January 6, 

2015. 

5. Outstanding action jackets: none 

In accordance with Commission 

policy, subject matter listed above, not 

disposed of at the scheduled meeting, 

may be carried over to the agenda of the 

following meeting. 

By order of the Commission: 

Issued: December 17, 2014. 

William R. Bishop, 

Supervisory Hearings and Information 

Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2014–29990 Filed 12–18–14; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE 

UNITED STATES 

Hearings of the Judicial Conference 

Advisory Committee on Rules of 

Appellate Procedure 

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the 

United States, Advisory Committee on 

Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

ACTION: Notice of cancellation of public 

hearing. 

SUMMARY: The following public hearing 

on proposed amendments to the Federal 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Notices 76371 

Rules of Appellate Procedure has been 

canceled: Appellate Rules Hearing, 

January 9, 2015, in Phoenix, Arizona. 

Announcements for this meeting were 

previously published in 79 FR 48250 

and 79 FR 72702. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jonathan C. Rose, Secretary and Chief 

Rules Officer, Rules Committee Support 

Office, Administrative Office of the 

United States Courts, Washington, DC 

20544, telephone (202) 502–1820. 

Dated: December 16, 2014. 

Jonathan C. Rose, 

Secretary and Chief Rules Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2014–29793 Filed 12–19–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 2210–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

United States v. Continental AG and 

Veyance Technologies, Inc.; Proposed 

Final Judgment and Competitive 

Impact Statement 

Notice is hereby given pursuant to the 

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 

15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h), that a proposed 

Final Judgment, Hold Separate 

Stipulation and Order, and Competitive 

Impact Statement have been filed with 

the United States District Court for the 

District of Columbia in United States of 

America v. Continental AG, and 

Veyance Technologies, Inc., Civil No. 

1:14–cv–02087. On December 11, 2014, 

the United States filed a Complaint 

alleging that Continental’s proposed 

acquisition of Veyance would violate 

Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 

18. The proposed Final Judgment, filed 

the same time as the Complaint, 

requires Continental to divest Veyance’s 

North American commercial vehicle air 

springs business, including 

manufacturing and assembly facilities in 

San Luis Potosi, Mexico; research, 

development, engineering, and 

administrative assets in Fairlawn, Ohio; 

and certain tangible and intangible 

assets. 

Copies of the Complaint, proposed 

Final Judgment and Competitive Impact 

Statement are available for inspection at 

the Department of Justice, Antitrust 

Division, Antitrust Documents Group, 

450 Fifth Street NW., Suite 1010, 

Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: 202– 

514–2481), on the Department of 

Justice’s Web site at http://

www.usdoj.gov/atr, and at the Office of 

the Clerk of the United States District 

Court for the District of Columbia. 

Copies of these materials may be 

obtained from the Antitrust Division 

upon request and payment of the 

copying fee set by Department of Justice 

regulations. 

Public comment is invited within 60 

days of the date of this notice. Such 

comments, including the name of the 

submitter, and responses thereto, will be 

posted on the Department of Justice, 

Antitrust Division’s internet Web site, 

filed with the Court and, under certain 

circumstances, published in the Federal 

Register. Comments should be directed 

to Maribeth Petrizzi, Chief, Litigation II 

Section, Antitrust Division, Department 

of Justice, 450 Fifth Street NW., Suite 

8700, Washington, DC 20530 

(telephone: 202–307–0924). 

Patricia A. Brink, 

Director of Civil Enforcement. 

United States District Court for the District 

of Columbia 

United States of America, U.S. Department 

of Justice, Antitrust Division, 450 Fifth Street, 

NW, Suite 8700, Washington, DC 20530, 

Plaintiff, v. Continental AG, Vanrenwalder 

Strasse 9, D-30165, Hanover, Germany, and 

Veyance Technologies, Inc., 703 S. Cleveland 

Massillon Road, Fairlawn, Ohio 44333, 

Defendants. 

Case: 1:14–cv-–2087 

Filed: 12/11/2014 

Judge: Hon. Reggie B. Walton 

COMPLAINT 

The United States of America 

(‘‘United States’’), acting under the 

direction of the Attorney General of the 

United States, brings this civil antitrust 

action to enjoin the proposed 

acquisition by Defendant Continental 

AG (‘‘Continental’’) of Defendant 

Veyance Technologies, Inc. 

(‘‘Veyance’’). The United States alleges 

as follows: 

I. INTRODUCTION 

1. Pursuant to an Agreement and Plan 

of Merger dated February 10, 2014, 

Continental has agreed to purchase 

Veyance from Carlyle Partners IV, L.P. 

for $1.8 billion. The merger would 

combine two of the three leading 

suppliers of air springs used in 

commercial vehicles in North America. 

2. Continental has competed 

aggressively with Veyance for sales in 

North America, which has resulted in 

lower prices for commercial vehicle air 

springs. Elimination of the competition 

between Continental and Veyance likely 

would result in higher prices and 

decreased quality of service for 

customers, and would increase the 

likelihood that the two remaining 

suppliers would substantially reduce 

competition through successful 

coordination. As a result, the proposed 

acquisition likely would substantially 

lessen competition in the development, 

manufacture, and sale of commercial 

vehicle air springs in North America in 

violation of Section 7 of the Clayton 

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18. 

II. THE PARTIES TO THE PROPOSED 

TRANSACTION 

3. Defendant Continental AG, a 

corporation organized under the laws of 

the Federal Republic of Germany, is 

based in Hanover, Germany. Continental 

is a leading German automotive 

manufacturing company, specializing in 

tires, brake systems, and components, 

and it is one of the world’s largest 

producers of rubber products. Its annual 

sales for 2013 were approximately $40 

billion. ContiTech North America, Inc., 

of Montvale, New Jersey, is a part of 

ContiTech AG, a division of 

Continental. ContiTech North America 

produces and sells parts, components 

and systems, including commercial 

vehicle air springs, for the automotive 

engineering industry in North America. 

4. Defendant Veyance Technologies, 

Inc. is incorporated in Delaware with its 

headquarters in Fairlawn, Ohio. 

Veyance manufactures engineered 

rubber products for heavy-duty 

industrial, automotive and military 

applications. Veyance produces and 

sells automotive and commercial 

vehicle parts, including commercial 

vehicle air springs, in North America. In 

2013, Veyance had $2.1 billion in sales. 

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

5. The United States brings this action 

pursuant to Section 15 of the Clayton 

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 25, as amended, to 

prevent and restrain Defendants from 

violating Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 

15 U.S.C. § 18. 

6. The Court has subject matter 

jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 

Section 15 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 

§ 25, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337(a), and 

1345. Defendants produce and sell 

commercial vehicle air springs in a 

regular, continuous, and substantial 

flow of interstate commerce. 

Defendants’ activities in the 

development, manufacture, and sale of 

commercial vehicle air springs have had 

a substantial effect upon interstate 

commerce. 

7. Defendants have consented to 

venue and personal jurisdiction in this 

District. 

8. Venue is proper in this Court under 

Section 12 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 

§ 22, and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES