63192 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 26, 1997 / Notices

substantial remaining use of their

mineral property interests in the form of

oil and gas production; (3) prohibition

of the proposed surface coal mining

would cause a diminution in value of

the Blaires’ property; and (4) the Blaires

have no reasonable, investment-backed

expectations of surface mining this land.

Finally, the agency finds that mining

of this national forest tract would not

contribute significantly to the harm

Congress addressed through the

prohibition of mining on federal lands

within national forests. Because of its

small size, isolated location relative to

other national forest lands, and

previously mined condition, the tract is

of limited current use for the designated

national forest purposes. The proposed

surface coal mining operation would

have only minimal short-term impacts

on the current use and value of the land.

There are no anticipated adverse longterm impacts. Thus, mining the tract

would have no significant impact on the

forest and reclamation will restore the

land to the planned uses under the

management plan. Therefore, OSM

concludes that the record does not

demonstrate that prohibition of surface

coal mining of the property in question

would substantially advance the section

522(e) prohibition.

OSM also finds that, because most of

the coal on this property has already

been mined, the use of that part of the

Blaires’ property interest has already

occurred. Therefore, a prohibition on

surface mining the remaining coal

would not totally abrogate a property

interest historically viewed as an

essential stick in the bundle of property

rights. However, because prohibition

would diminish the value of the Blaires’

property and would not substantially

advance a legitimate public purpose of

SMCRA, OSM finds that application of

the statutory prohibition on surface

mining the Blaires’ property would

constitute a compensable taking of the

Blaires’ property interests under the

Fifth Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution. Therefore, OSM finds that

the Blaires have VER for the lands in

question and that Buckingham acquired

VER for the same lands by virtue of its

lease of the Blaires’ coal rights.

VII. Appeals

Any person who is or may be

adversely affected by this decision may

appeal to the Interior Board of Land

Appeals under 43 CFR 4.1390 et seq.

(1988). Notice of intent to appeal must

be filed within 30 days from the date of

publication of this notice of decision in

a local newspaper with circulation in

Perry County, Ohio.

Dated: November 19, 1997.

John A. Holbrook, II,

Acting Regional Director, Appalachian

Regional Coordinating Center.

[FR Doc. 97–31041 Filed 11–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA–372 (Enforcement

Proceeding)]

In the Matter of Certain NeodymiumIron-Boron Magnets, Magnet Alloys,

and Articles Containing Same; Notice

of Commission Determination to Deny

Motion of YBM Magnex, Inc. to be

Substituted for Complainant Crucible

Materials Corporation

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade

Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the U.S. International Trade

Commission (‘‘the Commission’’)

determined to deny as moot the

September 25, 1997, motion of YBM

Magnex, Inc. (‘‘YBM’’) to substitute

YBM for complainant Crucible Materials

Corporation (‘‘Crucible’’) in the abovereferenced enforcement proceeding.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay

H. Reiziss, Esq., Office of the General

Counsel, U.S. International Trade

Commission, telephone 202–205–3116.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May

16, 1996, the Commission instituted a

formal enforcement proceeding based

on an enforcement complaint filed by

Crucible Materials Corporation

(‘‘Crucible’’) alleging that respondents

San Huan New Materials High Tech,

Inc. (‘‘San Huan’’), Ningbo Konit

Industries, Inc. (‘‘Ningbo’’), and Tridus

International, Inc. (‘‘Tridus’’)

(collectively ‘‘respondents’’) had

violated the Commission’s October 11,

1995, consent order wherein those

respondents agreed not to sell for

importation, import, or sell after

importation magnets which infringe any

of claims 1–3 of Crucible’s U.S. Letters

Patent 4,588,439 (‘‘the ‘439 patent’’) by

importing or selling magnets that

infringed the claims in issue of the ‘439

patent. On December 24, 1996,

following an evidentiary hearing, the

presiding administrative law judge

(‘‘ALJ’’) issued a recommended

determination (‘‘RD’’) finding that

respondents had violated the consent

order on 33 different days and

recommending that the Commission

impose a civil penalty of $1,625,000 on

respondents. The Commission adopted

the bulk of the RD’s findings on

violation on April 8, 1997, and issued

an opinion explaining that

determination on April 15, 1997,

finding that respondents violated the

consent order on 31 days between

October 11, 1995, and October 10, 1996.

On September 26, 1997, the

Commission issued its final

determination in the enforcement

proceeding, imposing a $1.55 million

civil penalty on respondents, revoking

the consent order and issuing an

exclusion order directed to foreign

respondents San Huan and Ningbo and

a cease and desist order directed to

domestic respondent Tridus, denying

Crucible’s request for attorneys’ fees and

its petition for reconsideration of the

Commission’s prior determination

regarding the application of the Federal

Circuit decision in Maxwell v. J. Baker,

Inc. 86 F.3d 1098, 29 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001

(Fed. Cir.), reh’g denied, suggestion of

reh’g in banc declined (1996), cert.

denied, 117 S. Ct. 1244 (1997), and

denying respondents’ request that the

Commission require the domestic

industry to submit periodic reports

regarding its status as a domestic

industry. Thus, there are no outstanding

issues in this investigation.

On September 25, 1997, YBM moved

to be substituted as the complainant in

this investigation in place of Crucible in

light of the fact that YBM had acquired

the ‘439 patent from Crucible. On

October 6, 1997, respondents and the

Commission investigative attorney filed

replies to YBM’s motion opposing it as

moot in light of the fact that the

Commission concluded this

investigation on September 26, 1997.

Because the Commission concluded

this investigation on September 26,

1997, the Commission determined to

deny YBM’s motion as moot. The

Commission noted, however, that it

would have granted YBM’s motion had

this proceeding still been ongoing.

This action is taken under the

authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1337),

and section 210.75 of the Commission’s

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR

§ 210.75).

By order of the Commission.

Issued: November 20, 1997.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–31091 Filed 11–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P