Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 1997 / Notices 59881

Scope of Investigation

Having considered the complaint, the

U.S. International Trade Commission,

on September 29, 1997, 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 integrated circuits

or products containing same by reason

of infringement of claims 1, 2, 3, 8, 9,

or 10 of U.S. Letters Patent 4,641,166 or

claims 1, 6, 14, 15, 18, 27, or 37 of U.S.

Letters Patent B1 4,352,724, and

whether there exists an industry in the

United States 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:

Fujitsu Limited, 6–1, Marunouchi 1-

chome, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100, Japan

Fujitsu Microelectronics, Inc., 3545

North First Street, San Jose, California

95134.

(b) The respondents are the following

companies alleged to be in violation of

section 337, and are the parties upon

which the complaint is to be served:

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung

Main Building 250, 2–Ka, TaepyungRo, Chung-Ku, Seoul, 100–742 Korea

Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., 3655 North

First Street, San Jose, California 95134.

(c) Smith R. Brittingham IV, Esq.,

Office of Unfair Import Investigations,

U.S. International Trade Commission,

500 E Street, S.W., Room 401-M,

Washington, D.C. 20436, who shall be

the Commission investigative attorney,

party to this investigation; and

(3) For the investigation so instituted,

the Honorable Paul J. Luckern is

designated as the presiding

administrative law judge.

Responses to the complaint and the

notice of investigation must be

submitted by the named respondents in

accordance with section 210.13 of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure, 19 C.F.R. 210.13. Pursuant to

19 C.F.R. 201.16(d) and 210.13(a) of the

Commission’s Rules, 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

will not be granted unless good cause

therefor is shown.

Failure of a 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

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 both an initial

determination and a final determination

containing such findings, and may

result in the issuance of a limited

exclusion order or a cease and desist

order or both directed against such

respondent.

Issued: October 30, 1997.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary,

[FR Doc. 97–29269 Filed 11–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMISSION

[Inv. No. 337–TA–394]

Certain Screen Printing Machines,

Vision Alignment Devices Used

Therein, and Component Parts

Thereof; Notice of Commission

Determination Not To Review an Initial

Determination Terminating the

Investigation on the Basis of a

Settlement Agreement

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade

Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the U.S. International Trade

Commission has determined not to

review the presiding administrative law

judge’s (ALJ’s) initial determination (ID)

in the above-captioned investigation

terminating the investigation on the

basis of a settlement agreement.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gail

Usher, Esq., Office of the General

Counsel, U.S. International Trade

Commission, telephone 202–205–3152.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

patent-based section 337 investigation

was instituted by the Commission on

February 27, 1997, on behalf of

complainant MPM Corporation (MPM)

of Franklin, Massachusetts. 62 FR 10072

(March 5, 1997). The complaint alleged

violations of section 337 of the Tariff

Act of 1930 in the importation into the

United States, the sale for importation,

and the sale within the United States

after importation of certain screen

printing machines, vision alignment

devices used therein, and component

parts thereof by reason of infringement

of claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 18, and 21 of

U.S. Letters Patent 5,060,063, and

claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Letters Patent Re.

34,615. The Commission named DEK

Printing Machines Limited and DEK

USA Inc. (collectively, DEK) as

respondents.

On October 3, 1997, complainant and

respondents filed a joint motion to

terminate the investigation based on a

settlement agreement. On October 6,

1997, the presiding ALJ granted the

motion and issued an ID (Order No. 13)

terminating the investigation on the

basis of the settlement agreement. The

ALJ found that there was no indication

that termination of the investigation

would have an adverse impact on the

public interest and that termination

based on settlement is generally in the

public interest. No petitions for review

of the ID were filed.

This action is taken under the

authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act

of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and

Commission rule 210.42, 19 CFR 210.42.

Copies of the ALJ’s ID 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 S.W., Washington, D.C. 20436,

telephone 202–205–2000. Hearingimpaired persons are advised that

information on the matter can be

obtained by contacting the

Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810.

Issued: October 28, 1997.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–29268 Filed 11–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of the Secretary

Senior Executive Service; Appointment

of a Member to the Performance

Review Board

Title 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4) provides that

Notice of the appointment of an

individual to serve as a member of the

Performance Review Board of the Senior

Executive Service shall be published in

the Federal Register.

The following individuals are hereby

appointed to a three-year term on the

Department’s Performance Review

Board:
59882 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 1997 / Notices

Kathryn Higgins

Joseph Juarez

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Larry K. Goodwin, Director of Human

Resources, Room C5526, U.S.

Department of Labor, Fances Perkins

Building, 200 Constitution Avenue,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210,

telephone: (202) 219–6551.

Signed at Washington, D.C., this 28th day

of October, 1997.

Alexis M. Herman,

Secretary of Labor.

[FR Doc. 97–29207 Filed 11–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–23–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

Notice of Determinations Regarding

Eligibility To Apply for Worker

Adjustment Assistance and NAFTA

Transitional Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of the

Trade Act of 1974, as amended, the

Department of Labor herein presents

summaries of determinations regarding

eligibility to apply for trade adjustment

assistance for workers (TA–W) issued

during the period of October, 1997.

In order for an affirmative

determination to be made and a

certification of eligibility to apply for

worker adjustment assistance to be

issued, each of the group eligibility

requirements of Section 222 of the Act

must be met.

(1) That a significant number or

proportion of the workers in the

workers’ firm, or an appropriate

subdivision thereof, have become totally

or partially separated,

(2) That sales or production, or both,

of the firm or subdivision have

decreased absolutely, and

(3) That increases of imports of

articles like or directly competitive with

articles produced by the firm or

appropriate subdivision have

contributed importantly to the

separations, or threat thereof, and to the

absolute decline in sales or production.

Negative Determinations for Worker

Adjustment Assistance

In each of the following cases the

investigation revealed that criterion (3)

has not been met. A survey of customers

indicated that increased imports did not

contribute importantly to worker

separations at the firm.

TA–W–33,772; CW Sportswear, Inc.,

Tellico Plains, TN

TA–W–33,766; Versa Technologies, Inc.,

Moxness Products Div., Wausau, WI

In the following cases, the

investigation revealed that the criteria

for eligibility have not been met for the

reasons specified.

TA–W–33,829; Trans World Airlines,

Kansas City Overhaul Base, Kansas

City, MO

TA–W–33,856; Echo Bay Management

Corp., Englewood CO

TA–W–33,843; Lummi Casino, A Div. of

Lummi Indian Business Council,

Bellingham, WA

The workers firm does not produce an

article as required for certification under

Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.

TA–W–33,813; BASF Corp., Coatings

and Colorants Div., Morganton, NC

TA–W–33,479; G.E. Medical Systems,

Milwaukee, WI

TA–W–33,720; Editorial America,

Virginia Gardens, FL

The investigation revealed that

criteria (2) has not been met. Sales or

production did not decline during the

relevant period as required for

certification.

TA–W–33,519; Hays Wheels

International, Inc., Romulus, MI

The investigation revealed that

criteria (2) and criteria (3) have not been

met. Sales or production did not decline

during the relevant period as required

for certification. Increases of imports of

articles like or directly competitive with

articles produced by the firm or

appropriate subdivision have not

contributed importantly to the

separations or threat thereof, and the

absolute decline in sale or production.

TA–W–33,780; The Coleman Co., Inc.,

Coleman Powermate Div., Hastings,

NE

TA–W–33,842; Applied Molded

Products Corp., Watertown, WI

TA–W–33,831; Comsat RSI Plersys,

Corinth, MS

Increased imports did not contribute

importantly to worker separations at the

firm.

Affirmative Determinations for Worker

Adjustment Assistance

The following certifications have been

issued; the date following the company

name & location for each determination

references the impact date for all

workers for such determination.

TA–W–33,771; Tara Lee Sportswear,

New Berlin, PA: August 18, 1996.

TA–W–33,714; Norway Footwear Corp.,

Norway, ME: July 25, 1996.

TA–W–33,631; Flexel, Inc., Covington,

IN: June 23, 1996.

TA–W–33,446, TA–W–33,447, TA–W–

33,448 & TA–W–33,449; Quarles

Drilling Corp., Headquartered in

Tulsa, OK, Oklahoma City, OK,

Houston, TX and Houma, LA: April

15, 1996.

TA–W–33,808; Magnetek, Inc.,

Huntington, IN: July 7, 1996.

All workers of Magnetek, Inc.,

Huntington, IN engaged in the

production of electronic and electrical

power conversion devices are eligible to

apply for trade adjustment assistance.

TA–W–33,679; Devil Dog

Manufacturing, Bunn

Manufacturing Co. Div., Newton

Grove, NC: July 18, 1996.

TA–W–33,809; 3C Alliance L.L.P.,

Mebane, NC: August 21, 1996.

TA–W–33,699; General Cable Corp.,

Montoursville, PA: June 17, 1996.

TA–W–33,836; Arnold Palmer Golf Bag

Div. a Div. of Arnold Palmer Golf

Co., Pocahontas, AR: September 5,

1996.

TA–W–33,537; Binder Bos., Inc.,

Ridgefield, NJ: May 12, 1996.

TA–W–33,599; H.H. Cutler Col,

Statesboro, GA: June 19, 1996.

TA–W–33,695; Magna Interior Systems,

Del Rio, TX: May 22, 1996.

TA–W–33,822; A, B, C; Dana Design

Limited, Bozeman, MT, Livingston,

MT, and Belgrade, MT: August 26,

1996.

TA–W–33,709; N.G.N., Inc., Reading,

PA: July 21, 1996.

TA–W–33,816; Seymour Housewares

Corp., Mooresville, NC: August 28,

1996.

TA–W–33,864 & A; Sweetheart Cup Co.,

Springfield MO & Riverside, CA:

September 22, 1996.

TA–W–33,790; Bassett-Walker, Inc.,

North Wilkesboro Div., North

Wilkesboro, NC: August 20, 1996.

TA–W–33,877; Electrohome, Inc.,

Display Technologies Div.,

Carthage, MO: September 30, 1996.

TA–W–33,499; Thypin Steel Corp.,

Blasdell, NY: May 2, 1996.

TA–W–33,850; Todd Uniform, Inc.,

Bernice, LA: September 19, 1996.

Also, pursuant to Title V of the North

American Free Trade Agreement

Implementation Act (Pub.L. 103–182)

concerning transitional adjustment

assistance hereinafter called NAFTA–

TAA) and in accordance with Section

250(a) Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II,

of the Trade Act as amended, the

Department of Labor presents

summaries of determinations regarding

eligibility to apply for NAFTA–TAA

issued during the month of October,

1997.

In order for an affirmative

determination to be made and a

certification of eligibility to apply for

NAFTA–TAA the following group

eligibility requirements of Section 250

of the Trade Act must be met: