Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Notices 7581

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

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19

CFR 207.2(f)).

2For purposes of this investigation, coumarin is

an aroma chemical with the chemical formula

C9H6O2 that also known by other names, including

2H-1-benzopyran-2-one, 1, 2-benzopyrone, cis-ocoumarinic acid lactone, coumarinic anhydride, 2-

Oxo-1, 2-benzopyran, 5, 6-benzo-alpha-pyrone,

ortho-hydroxy-cinnamic acid lactone, cis-orthocoumaric acid anhydride, and tonka bean camphor.

All forms and variations of coumarin are included

within the scope of the investigation, such as

coumarin in crystal, flake, or powder form, and

‘‘crude’’ or unrefined coumarin (i.e., prior to

purification or crystallization). Excluded from the

scope are ethylcoumarins (C11H10O2) and

methylcoumarins (C10H8O2).

[FR Doc. 95–3080 Filed 2–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 731–TA–677 (Final)]

Coumarin from the People’s Republic

of China

Determination

On the basis of the record 1 developed

in the subject investigation, the

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

materially injured by reason of imports

from the People’s Republic of China of

coumarin,2 provided for in subheading

2932.21.00 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States, that have

been found by the Department of

Commerce to be sold in the United

States at less than fair value (LTFV).

Chairman Watson, Vice Chairman

Nuzum, and Commissioner Bragg find

that critical circumstances exist with

respect to subject imports from China.

Commissioner Rohr, Commissioner

Newquist, and Commissioner Crawford

find that critical circumstances do not

exist with respect to subject imports

from China.

Background

The Commission instituted this

investigation effective August 2, 1994,

following a preliminary determination

by the Department of Commerce that

imports of coumarin from the People’s

Republic of China were being sold at

LTFV within the meaning of section

733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1676b(b)).

Notice of the institution 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, Washington, DC, and by

publishing the notice in the Federal

Register of August 24, 1994 (59 FR

43590). The hearing was held in

Washington, DC, on December 13, 1994,

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 February

1, 1995. The views of the Commission

are contained in USITC Publication

2852 (February 1995), entitled

‘‘Coumarin from the People’s Republic

of China: Investigation No. 731–TA–677

(Final).’’

Issued: February 3, 1995.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–3141 Filed 2–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

[Investigation No. 337–TA–364]

Certain Curable Fluoroelastomer

Compositions and Precursors Thereof;

Notice of Decision not to Review Initial

Determination Finding a Violation of

Section 337 and Schedule for the Filing

of Written Submissions on Remedy,

the Public Interest, and Bondings

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 initial determination (ID)

issued on December 15, 1994, by the

presiding administrative law judge (ALJ)

in the above-captioned investigation

finding a violation of section 337 in the

importation into the United States and

the sale within the United States after

importation of certain curable

fluoroelastomer compositions and

precursors thereof.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark D. Kelly, Esq., Office of the

General Counsel, U.S. International

Trade Commission, telephone 202–205–

3106. Copies of the nonconfidential

version of the 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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March

16, 1994, the Commission instituted an

investigation of a complaint filed by

Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing

Company (‘‘3M’’) under section 337 of

the Tariff Act of 1930. The complaint

alleged that Ausimont, S.p.A., of Milan,

Italy, and Ausimont U.S.A., Inc., of

Morristown, NJ, imported, sold for

importation, or sold in the United States

after importation certain curable

fluoroelastomer compositions and

precursors thereof that infringed certain

claims of U.S. Letters Patent 4,287,320

(‘‘the ’320 patent’’). The Commission’s

notice of investigation named as

respondents Ausimont Italy and

Ausimont U.S.A., each of which was

alleged to have committed one or more

unfair acts in the importation or sale of

curable fluoroelastomer compositions

and precursors thereof that infringe

claims of the asserted patent.

The ALJ conducted an evidentiary

hearing commencing on September 23,

1994, and issued his final ID on

December 15, 1994. He found that: (1)

The ’320 patent is not invalid; (2)

respondents’ imported products infringe

the claims in issue of the ’320 patent;

and (3) complainant 3M satisfied the

economic requirements for existence of

a domestic industry. Based upon his

findings of validity, infringement, and

domestic industry, the ALJ concluded

that there was a violation of section 337.

Respondents filed a petition for

review of the ALJ’s findings on the

questions of validity of the ’320 patent

and infringement. Complainant and the

Commission investigative attorneys

filed responses to the petition for

review. No other petitions for review of

the ID or government comments were

received by the Commission.

In connection with final disposition

of this investigation, the Commission

may issue (1) an order that could result

in the exclusion of the subject articles

from entry into the United States, and/

or (2) cease and desist orders that could

result in respondents being required to

cease and desist from engaging in unfair

acts in the importation and sale of such

articles. Accordingly, the Commission is

interested in receiving written

submissions that address the form of

remedy, if any, that should be ordered.

If a party seeks exclusion of an article

from entry into the United States for

purposes other than entry for

consumption, the party should so

indicate and provide information

establishing that activities involving

other types of entry either are adversely

affecting it or are likely to do so. For