64074 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Notices

1 The overhead trackage rights between Opelika

and Roanoke Junction, AL, will allow PBRR to route

traffic between Opelika to Lafayette, AL (Lafayette

Line), via a combination of lines purchased from

Central of Georgia Railroad Company a wholly

owned subsidiary of Norfolk Southern Railway

Company, and trackage rights acquired from WRA.

Kudos). The finding of violation as to

Kudos was based on adverse inferences

drawn from Kudos’ failure to cooperate

in discovery. The ID found no violation

as to respondents Taiwan Hopax

Chemicals Manufacturing, Co., Ltd.;

Yuen Foong Paper Co., Ltd.; Beautone

Specialties Co., Ltd.; and Beautone

Specialties Co. (collectively, Beautone).

On April 17, 1995, 3M, Beautone, and

the Commission investigative attorney

(IA) filed petitions for review of the ID.

On April 27, 1995, they filed responses

to each other’s petitions. On May 23,

1995, the Commission determined to

review the issues of (1) claim

interpretation, (2) patent infringement

by Beautone and Kudos, (3) patent

validity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(f),

102(g), and 112, second paragraph, and

(4) domestic industry. The Commission

determined not to review the remainder

of the ID. The Commission also

determined to remand the ID to the ALJ

for additional findings and for

clarification of certain findings made in

the ID concerning the issues under

review.

Subsequent to remand of the ID, the

investigation was reassigned to Judge

Paul Luckern, who, on August 8, 1995,

issued his ID on remand. 3M and

Beautone filed petitions for review on

August 18, 1995. 3M, Beautone, and the

IA filed responses to the petitions. On

September 22, 1995, the Commission

determined not to review the remand

ID, thereby resolving the issues of claim

interpretation and validity under 35

U.S.C. § 112, and the validity of claims

1, 2, 4, and 5. The Commission

determined not to review the ALJ’s

remand ID and requested written

submissions on the issues of remedy,

the public interest, and bonding. 60 Fed.

Reg. 50215 (1995)(Sept. 28, 1995). On

review the Commission determined that

claims 7, 8, and 10 were not invalid

under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(f), 102(g); that

Beautone did not infringe any of the

’152 patent claims in issue; that Kudos

infringed claims 1, 4, and 7, based on

adverse inferences; and that there is a

domestic industry.

Submissions on remedy, the public

interest, and bonding were received

from complainant 3M, respondent

Beautone, and the IA. Complainant,

respondents, and the IA also filed reply

submissions on those issues.

Having reviewed the record in this

investigation, including the written

submissions of the parties, the

Commission made its determinations on

the issues of remedy, the public interest,

and bonding. The Commission

determined that the appropriate form of

relief is a limited exclusion order

prohibiting the unlicensed importation

of infringing microsphere adhesives,

and products containing same,

including repositionable notes and

products containing repositionable

notes, manufactured and/or imported by

or on behalf of Kudos. The order applies

to any of the affiliated companies,

parents, subsidiaries, licensees,

contractors, or other related business

entities, or their successors or assigns of

Kudos Finder Tape Industrial Ltd. and

Kudos Finder Trading Co.

The Commission also determined that

the public interest factors enumerated in

19 U.S.C. § 1337(d) do not preclude the

issuance of the limited exclusion order,

and that the bond during the

Presidential review period shall be in

the amount of 100 percent of the entered

value of the articles in question.

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 210.58 of the Commission’s

Interim Rules of Practice and Procedure

(19 C.F.R. § 210.58)(1994).

Copies of the Commission order, the

Commission opinion in support thereof,

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 this matter can be

obtained by contacting the

Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810.

By order of the Commission.

Issued: December 8, 1995.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–30398 Filed 12–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERSTATE COMMERCE

COMMISSION

[Finance Docket No. 32704]

East Cooper and Berkeley Railroad—

Construction and Operation

Exemption—in Berkeley County, SC

AGENCY: Interstate Commerce

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Exemption.

SUMMARY: The Commission exempts

from the prior approval requirements of

49 U.S.C. 10901 the construction and

operation by East Cooper and Berkeley

Railroad (EC&B) of a 1.7-mile rail line

running northwest from the terminus of

EC&B’s line (milepost 14.8) near Wando,

in Berkeley County, SC.

DATES: This exemption is effective on

December 13, 1995. Petitions to reopen

must be filed by January 2, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Send pleadings, referring to

Finance Docket No. 32704, to: (1) Office

of the Secretary, Case Control Branch,

Interstate Commerce Commission, 1201

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20423–0001; and (2)

Petitioner’s representative: David F.

Groose, P.O. Box 279, Charleston, SC

29402–0279.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Beryl Gordon, (202) 927–5610. [TDD for

the hearing impaired: (202) 927–5721.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Additional information is contained in

the Commission’s decision. To purchase

a copy of the full decision, write to, call,

or pick up in person from: DC NEWS &

DATA, Inc., Interstate Commerce

Commission Building, 1201

Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room 2229,

Washington, D.C. 20423–0001.

Telephone: (202) 289–4357/4359.

[Assistance for the hearing impaired is

available through TDD services at (202)

927–5721.]

Decided: December 5, 1995.

By the Commission, Chairman Morgan,

Vice Chairman Owen, and Commissioner

Simmons.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–30389 Filed 12–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7035–01–P

[Finance Docket No. 32817]

Pine Belt Southern Railroad Company,

Inc.—Trackage Rights Exemption—The

Western Railway of Alabama

The Western Railway of Alabama

(WRA) has agreed to grant overhead

trackage rights to Pine Belt Southern

Railroad Company, Inc. (PBRR),1 on

WRA’s line of railroad as follows: (1)

that portion of WRA’s Lafayette Line

beginning at its point of switch at

valuation Station (V.S.) 1005+80, WRA

milepost XXB–107.37, and extending

north 369 feet (0.07 miles) to the

ownership point between WRA and

PBRR opposite V.S. 1002+11.0, milepost

XXB–107.29; and (2) that portion of

WRA’s main track beginning at the

point of switch of the Lafayette Line at

V.S. 1005+80, WRA milepost XXB–
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Notices 64075

2 Legislation to terminate the Commission on

December 31, 1995, is now pending enactment.

Until further notice, the parties submitting

pleadings should continue to use the current name

and address.

1See Wisconsin Central Ltd.—Exemption

Acquisition and Operation—Certain Lines of Soo

Line Railroad Company, Finance Docket No. 31102

(ICC served July 28, 1988). The exemption removes

certain regulatory requirements associated with

filing a formal application under 49 U.S.C. 10901.

2A programmatic agreement, negotiated between

the ACHP and the responsible agency official in

consultation with the appropriate SHPO, may be

sued to determine proper historic preservation

measures for projects when ‘‘effects on historic

properties are similar and repetitive.’’ The

programmatic agreement is a contract that must be

agreed to in writing by ACHP, the SHPO, and the

agency, to be effective.

A memorandum of agreement (MOA) may be

used, usually for a single project, where the agency

and the SHPO agree on a course of action. ACHP

must have an opportunity for comment.

3These rule changes were made in consultation

with the ACHP. It is unclear whether Wisconsin

Central would have had to file a historic report or

be subject to historic preservation conditions under

this new standard, because it is not clear whether

Wisconsin Central anticipated disposing of any

properties at the time.

4 If subsequent abandonment or sale authority is

required for the disposition of properties, the

appropriate NHPA review will take place in the

context of those proceedings.

5We note that the problem relates to sales of

properties that are not part of a line for which

abandonment authority is sought. In abandonment

proceedings, historic structures would be

documented in any event.

107.37, and extending 11,453 feet (2.17

miles) south to the point of switch of

Central of Georgia Railroad Company

Track No. 24 at V.S. 1120+32.5, WRA

milepost XXB–109.55. The total length

of trackage rights is 2.24 miles. The

trackage rights were to become effective

December 1, 1995.

This notice is filed under 49 CFR

1180.2(d)(7). If the notice contains false

or misleading information the

exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to

revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C.

10505(d) may be filed at any time. The

filing of a petition to revoke will not

stay the transaction. Pleadings must be

filed with the Office of the Secretary,

Case Control Branch, Interstate

Commerce Commission, Washington,

DC 20423,2 and served on: Andrew C.

Rambo, 104 Depot St., P. O. Box 129,

Shelbyville, TN 37160.

As a condition to use of this

exemption, any employees adversely

affected by the trackage rights will be

protected pursuant to Norfolk and

Western Ry. Co.—Trackage Rights—BN,

354 I.C.C. 605 (1978), as modified in

Mendocino Coast Ry., Inc.—Lease and

Operate, 360 I.C.C. 653 (1980).

Decided: December 6, 1995.

By the Commission, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–30390 Filed 12–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7035–01–P

[Finance Docket No. 31102]

Wisconsin Central Ltd.—Exemption

Acquisition and Operation—Certain

Lines of Soo Line Railroad Company

AGENCY: Interstate Commerce

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of decision modifying

historic preservation condition imposed

in 1988.

SUMMARY: The Commission has removed

a condition, imposed in 1988 in

connection with a sale of rail lines, that

prevented the railroad from selling,

destroying or modifying affected

properties until completion of

procedures under section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act. 16

U.S.C. 470f.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 12, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Louis Mackall, (202) 927–6056. [TDD for

the hearing impaired: (202) 927–5721.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

November 25, 1994, the Commission

issued a Federal Register notice (59 FR

60656) concerning a proposal to reopen

this proceeding to remove a condition

that was imposed 6 years before in this

rail line sale proceeding. We noted that

the condition is inconsistent with our

current procedures and may no longer

be necessary. After reviewing the

comments, we believe that our proposal

should be adopted, and the condition

modified.

As we previously noted, Wisconsin

Central Ltd. (Wisconsin Central)

purchased approximately 1800 miles of

rail line from Soo Line Railroad

Company (Soo), on October 11, 1987,

pursuant to the class exemption for rail

line sales, 49 CFR 1150.31 et seq.1 We

allowed the sale to proceed under the

class exemption, but imposed a historic

preservation condition. Rather than

delaying the public benefit of the line

sale in preserving rail service, we

permitted the sale, but ordered the

carrier not to take any steps that would

affect historic properties until after the

National Historic Preservation Act

(NHPA) process could be completed.

We imposed the following broad

historic preservation condition:

The Commission will undertake a section

106 National Historic Preservation Act

process in this matter. Pending completion

thereof, [Wisconsin Central] shall refrain

from taking any action that may jeopardize

the historic integrity of sites and structures

50 years old or older.

Because of the large number of

properties transferred, our Section of

Environmental Analysis (SEA)

attempted to reach a ‘‘programmatic

agreement’’ (36 CFR 800.13) or

‘‘memorandum of agreement’’ (36 CFR

800.5) with the various State Historic

Preservation Officers (SHPOs) involved

and the Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation (ACHP) 2 to limit this

process to historic properties that might

actually be adversely affected by the

transfer, so that we could craft

appropriate mitigation conditions for

them. As we detailed in our notice,

however, this effort proved

unsuccessful. We then used a case-bycase historic preservation process for

each particular property that Wisconsin

Central has subsequently sought to sell

or demolish. This process has typically

been very slow, and has often taken

several years.

As we pointed out in our notice, the

1991 revisions to our historic

preservation rules now require a historic

preservation process in line sale cases

only where, at the time of the transfer,

the applicant plans to dispose of or alter

properties subject to our jurisdiction

that are 50 years or older.3

Implementation of Environmental Laws,

7 I.C.C.2d 807, 828 (1991). Carriers need

not file a historic report for rail line

sales ‘‘where . . . there are no plans to

dispose of or alter properties subject to

ICC jurisdiction that are 50 years old or

older.’’ 49 CFR 1105.8(b)(1). Nor are

historic preservation conditions

imposed absent such plans.

In our notice, we explained that,

under our new rules, if a condition were

imposed in a line sale case such as this

one, it would apply only to properties

that are used or useful in rail service

and that the buyer has plans to dispose

of or alter as a result of the acquisition

and outside the context of a further

abandonment or sale application.4 As

we noted there, these rules have been

applied in about 100 cases and have

worked well in narrowing the focus of

the historic review process to rail

properties that may actually be affected

by a sale transaction.

The broad condition imposed here

has outlived its usefulness. Before

Wisconsin Central can dispose of any of

the properties it obtained from Soo in

1987, it must complete a lengthy

historic preservation process for each

particular property. This situation

would continue indefinitely, because

unless we amend the condition, it

would cover all of Wisconsin Central’s

properties as long as it remains a

railroad.5