18650 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 1997 / Notices

1The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19

CFR 207.2(f)).

2Commissioner Carol T. Crawford dissenting.

3For purposes of this investigation, the subject

brake drums are defined by Commerce as being

made of:

‘‘gray cast iron, whether finished, semifinished,

or unfinished, ranging in diameter from 8 to 16

inches (20.32 to 40.64 centimeters) and in weight

from 8 to 45 pounds (3.63 to 20.41 kilograms). The

size parameters (weight and dimension) of the brake

drums limit their use to the following types of

motor vehicles: automobiles, all-terrain vehicles,

vans and recreational vehicles under ‘‘one ton and

a half,’’ and light trucks designated as ‘‘one ton and

a half.’’

Finished brake drums are those that are ready for

sale and installation without any further operations.

Semifinished drums are those on which the surface

is not entirely smooth, and has undergone some

drilling. Unfinished drums are those which have

undergone some grinding or turning.

These brake drums are for motor vehicles, and do

not contain in the casting a logo of an original

equipment manufacturer (OEM) which produces

vehicles sold in the United States (e.g., General

Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, Volvo).

Brake drums covered in this investigation are not

certified by OEM producers of vehicles sold in the

United States. The scope also includes composite

brake drums that are made of gray cast iron, which

contain a steel plate, but otherwise meet the above

criteria.’’

The subject brake rotors are defined by Commerce

as being made of:

‘‘gray cast iron, whether finished, semifinished,

or unfinished, ranging in diameter from 8 to 16

inches (20.32 to 40.64 centimeters) and in weight

from 8 to 45 pounds (3.63 to 20.41 kilograms). The

size parameters (weight and dimension) of the brake

rotors limit their use to the following types of motor

vehicles: automobiles, all-terrain vehicles, vans and

recreational vehicles under ‘‘one ton and a half,’’

and light trucks designated as ‘‘one ton and a half.’’

Finished brake rotors are those that are ready for

sale and installation without any further operations.

Semifinished rotors are those on which the surface

is not entirely smooth, and has undergone some

drilling. Unfinished rotors are those which have

undergone some grinding or turning.

These brake rotors are for motor vehicles, and do

not contain in the casting a logo of an original

equipment manufacturer (OEM) which produces

vehicles sold in the United States (e.g., General

Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, Volvo).

Brake rotors covered in this investigation are not

certified by OEM producers of vehicles sold in the

United States. The scope also includes composite

brake rotors that are made of gray cast iron, which

contain a steel plate, but otherwise meet the above

criteria.’’

4The members of the Coalition for the

Preservation of American Brake Drum & Rotor

Aftermarket Manufacturers consist of Brake Parts,

Inc., McHenry, IL; Kinetic Parts Manufacturing,

Inc., Harbor City, CA; Iroquois Tool Systems, Inc.,

North East, PA; and Wagner Brake Corp., St. Louis,

MO.

protect water quality in the Colorado

River for use in the United States and

the Republic of Mexico. Using the

criterion set forth in this Act and its

amendments, the Bureau of Reclamation

(Reclamation) and the U.S. Department

of Agriculture’s Natural Resource

Conservation Service (NRCS) (formerly

the Soil Conservation Service), as joint

lead agencies, have prepared a Planning

Report and Final Environmental Impact

Statement (PR/FEIS) for the Price-San

Rafael River Units, of the Colorado River

Water Quality Improvement Program

and the Colorado River Salinity Control

Program. The Preferred Alternative for

accomplishing the goals set forth for the

Price-San Rafael River Units is

identified in a Record of Decision (ROD)

signed April 9, 1997. Reclamation and

NRCS have decided to proceed with the

preferred alternative identified in the

PR/FEIS.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the ROD may be

requested from the Bureau of

Reclamation, Attention: Provo Area

Office, 302 East 1860 South, Provo, Utah

84606–7317.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dan Fritz at (801) 379–1150.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In June

1974, Congress enacted the Colorado

River Basin Salinity Control Act (Act),

Pub. L. 93–320. The Act directs that

plans will be made and evaluated for

cost effectiveness and maximum salinity

reduction. In October 1984, Pub. L. 98–

569 was enacted amending the Salinity

Control Act of 1974. It directed the

Secretary of Agriculture to establish a

voluntary on-farm salinity control

Program within the U.S. Department of

Agriculture. In March 1994, a public

review of the Colorado River Basin

Salinity Control Program was initiated.

The result was a 1995 amendment (Pub.

L. 104–20) to the Salinity Control Act.

The new Act authorized a basin-wide

salinity control program that the

Secretary of the Interior, acting through

the Bureau of Reclamation, shall

implement. An additional $75,000,000

was authorized to be appropriated to

complete the program.

The preferred alternative identified in

the ROD includes both Reclamation’s

component for off-farm irrigation

systems and winter water improvements

and the NRCS’s on-farm irrigation

systems. The preferred alternative

includes installation of sprinkler

irrigation systems, improved surface

irrigation and irrigation water

management, and the elimination of

water for open conveyance systems in

the project area during the winter (or

non-irrigation) season. These on- and

off-farm irrigation improvement

components are interdependent in terms

of economic and efficient operation.

This alternative would result in the

removal of 161,000 tons of salt per year

from the Colorado River System.

Dated: April 9, 1997.

Rick L. Gold,

Deputy Regional Director.

[FR Doc. 97–9734 Filed 4–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–94–M

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 731–A–744 (Final)]

Certain Brake Drums and Rotors From

China

Determinations

On the basis of the record 1 developed

in the subject investigation, the United

States International Trade Commission

determines, pursuant to section 735(b)

of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.

1673d(b)) (the Act), that an industry in

the United States is not materially

injured or threatened with material

injury, and the establishment of an

industry in the United States is not

materially retarded by reason of imports

from China of certain brake drums that

have been found by the Department of

Commerce to be sold in the United

States at less than fair value (LTFV). The

Commission also determines,2 pursuant

to section 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C.

1673d(b)), that an industry in the United

States is materially injured by reason of

imports from China of certain brake

rotors that have been found by the

Department of Commerce to be sold in

the United States at LTFV. The

Commission, with respect to imports of

certain brake rotors and pursuant to

section 735(b)(4)(A) of the Act (19

U.S.C. 1673d(b)(4)(A)), makes a negative

determination regarding critical

circumstances. Both certain brake

drums and rotors are provided for in

subheading 8708.39.50 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States.3

Background

The Commission instituted this

investigation effective March 7, 1996,

following receipt of a petition filed with

the Commission and the Department of

Commerce by counsel for the Coalition

for the Preservation of American Brake

Drum & Rotor Aftermarket

Manufacturers.4 The final phase of the

investigation was scheduled by the

Commission following notification of a

preliminary determination by the

Department of Commerce that imports

of certain brake drums and rotors from

China were being sold at LTFV within

the meaning of section 733(b) of the Act

(19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of the

scheduling of the Commission’s

investigation and of a public hearing to

be held in connection therewith was

given by posting copies of the notice in

the Office of the Secretary, U.S.

International Trade Commission,
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,