Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 1997 / Notices 18651

Washington, DC, and by publishing the

notice in the Federal Register of

November 6, 1996 (61 FR 57449). The

hearing was held in Washington, DC, on

February 28, 1997, and all persons who

requested the opportunity were

permitted to appear in person or by

counsel.

The Commission transmitted its

determination in this investigation to

the Secretary of Commerce on April 9,

1997. The views of the Commission are

contained in USITC Publication 3035

(April 1997), entitled ‘‘Certain Brake

Drums and Rotors from China:

Investigation No. 731–TA–744 (Final).’’

Issued: April 8, 1997.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–9844 Filed 4–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMISSION

[Inv. No. 337–TA–388]

Certain Dynamic Random Access

Memory Controllers and Certain Multilayer Integrated Circuits, as Well as

Chipsets and Products Containing

Same; 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)

(Order No. 13) in the above-captioned

investigation terminating the

investigation on the basis of a settlement

agreement.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark D. Kelly, Esq., Office of the

General Counsel, U.S. International

Trade Commission, telephone 202–205–

3106.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June

12, 1996, the Commission voted to

institute this investigation based on a

complaint filed by Intel Corp. of Santa

Clara, California (‘‘Intel’’), to determine

whether there were violations of section

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended, in the importation, sale for

importation, or sale within the United

States after importation of certain

dynamic random access memory

controllers and certain multi-layer

integrated circuits, as well as chipsets

and products containing same, by

reason of infringement of claims 1, 2, 5,

and 7 of U.S. Letters Patent 5,703,320,

or claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Letters Patent

4,775,550, both owned by Intel. 61 F.R.

31148. The complaint named the

following parties as respondents:

Silicon Integrated Systems Corp. of

Taiwan and Silicon Integrated Systems

Corp. (U.S.) (collectively, ‘‘the SiS

respondents’’), United Microelectronics

Corporation, Hsinchu, Taiwan (‘‘UMC’’),

and Integrated Technology Express,

Santa Clara, CA (‘‘ITE’’). On November

7, 1996, the presiding ALJ issued an

initial determination (ID) (Order No. 5),

terminating the SiS respondents from

the investigation pursuant to agreement

and removing U.S. Letters Patent

5,703,320 from the scope of the

investigation. This ID was not reviewed

by the Commission and became the

Commission’s final determination on

December 3, 1996. See Commission

Notice issued December 3, 1996.

On February 6, 1997, Intel and the

remaining respondents, UMC and ITE,

filed a joint motion under 19 C.F.R.

§ 210.21 to terminate the investigation

based on a settlement agreement. On

March 13, 1997, the ALJ granted the

joint motion and issued his ID (Order

No. 13) terminating the investigation on

the basis of the settlement agreement.

The ALJ found that there is no

indication that termination of the

investigations 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 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 C.F.R.

§ 210.42.

Copies of the public version 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: April 9, 1997.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–9843 Filed 4–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337–TA–372 Enforcement

Proceeding]

Certain Neodymium-Iron-Boron

Magnets, Magnet Alloys, and Articles

Containing Same; Notice of

Commission Determination

Concerning Violation of Consent

Order; Denial of Request for Oral

Argument; and Schedule for the Filing

of Written Submissions on Remedy,

the Public Interest, and Bonding

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade

Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the U.S. International Trade

Commission has determined that the

respondents in the above-captioned

formal enforcement proceeding have

violated the Commission consent order

issued to them on October 11, 1995.

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

October 11, 1995, the Commission

issued a consent order in the abovecaptioned investigation. The consent

order provides that respondents San

Huan New Materials High Tech, Inc.,

Ningbo Konit Industries, Inc., and

Tridus International, Inc. (collectively

the ‘‘San Huan respondents’’):

shall not sell for importation, import into the

United States or sell in the United States after

importation or knowingly aid, abet,

encourage, participate in, or induce the sale

for importation, importation into the United

States or sale in the United States after

importation of neodymium-iron-boron

magnets which infringe any of claims 1–3 of

[U.S. Letters Patent 4,588,439 (the ‘‘’439

patent’], or articles or products which

contain such magnets, except under consent

or license from Crucible.

On March 4, 1996, complainant

Crucible Materials Corporation

(‘‘Crucible’’) filed a complaint seeking

institution of formal enforcement

proceedings against the San Huan

respondents for alleged violations of the

consent order. On May 16, 1996, the

Commission issued a notice instituting

this enforcement proceeding based on

Crucible’s enforcement complaint. The

following were named as parties to the

formal enforcement proceeding: (1)

Crucible Materials Corporation, State

Fair Boulevard, P.O. Box 977, Syracuse,

New York 13201–0977 (complainant in

the original investigation and requester

of the formal enforcement proceeding);

(2) San Huan New Materials High Tech,