14960 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 21, 1995 / Notices

West Branch Commercial Historic District

(Boundary Increase), 124 W. Main St., West

Branch, 95000386

Floyd County

Lane, Lucius and Maria Clinton, House, 2379

Timber Ave., Charles City vicinity,

95000384

Jackson County

Squiers, J.E., House (Maquoketa MPS), 418

W. Pleasant St., Maquoketa, 95000385

LOUISIANA

Rapides Parish

Carnahan House, 212 Ulster Ave., Boyce,

95000373

St. Landry Parish

Wier House, 310 E. Bellevue St. Opelousas,

95000368

West Baton Rouge Parish

Smithfield Plantation House, 12445 N River

Rd., Port Allen vicinity, 95000387

MICHIGAN

Charlevoix County

Horton Bay House—Red Fox Inn, 05156

Boyne City Rd., Bay Township, Horton

Bay, 95000372

Sanilac County

Matthews, Thomas and Margaret Spencer,

Farm, 5916 E. Gardner Line Rd., Worth

Township, Amador vicinity, 95000371

MISSOURI

Hickory County

Quincy Public Hall, MO 83, Quincy,

95000370

MONTANA

Carbon County

Kent Dairy Round Barn, US 212, 2 mi. N of

Red Lodge, Red Lodge vicinity, 95000381

Lewis and Clark County

Power, C.B., Bungalow, 1.2 mi. N of I–15 and

1 mi. W of US 287, Wolf Creek vicinity,

95000380

Stearns Hall, 2 mi. N of jct. of MT 200 and

Hwy. 434, Wolf Creek vicinity, 95000382

Petroleum County

Winnett School, Address unavailable,

Winnett, 95000383

TEXAS

Presidio County

El Fortin del Cibolo Historic District (Historic

Resources Associated with Milton Faver,

Agriculturist, MPS), Approximately 4 mi.

NW of Shafter, W of US 67, Shafter

vicinity, 95000366

La Morita Historic District (Historic

Resources Associated with Milton Faver,

Agriculturist, MPS), Approximately 5 mi.

SW of Shafter, E of US 67, Shafter vicinity,

95000367

VERMONT

Windham County

Green River Crib Dam, Green River Rd.

(Town Hwy. # 5), Guilford, 95000374

VIRGINIA

Clarke County

Josephine City School, 301–A Josephine St.,

Berryville, 95000397

Prince Edward County

Buffalo Presbyterian Church, VA 659, 0.3 mi.

S of jct. with VA 658, Pamplin vicinity,

95000395

Rockbridge County

Rockbridge Inn, Valley Rd., N side, at jct.

with VA 743, Natural Bridge vicinity,

95000398

Sussex County

Hunting Quarter, VA 632, S of jct. with VA

608, Haverly vicinity, 95000396

Suffolk Independent City

Chuckatuck Historic District, Jct. of VA 10/

32 and VA 125, Suffolk (Independent City),

95000393

Driver Historic District, Jct. of VA 125 and

VA 629, Suffolk (Independent City),

95000394

Whaleyville Historic District, Jct. of US 13

and VA 616, Suffolk (Independent City),

95000392

[FR Doc. 95–6856 Filed 3–20–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–M

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337–TA–365]

Decision Not To Review an Initial

Determination Finding a Violation of

Section 337 and Schedule for the Filing

of Written Submissions on Remedy,

the Public Interest, and Bonding

In the Matter of: Certain Audible Alarm

Devices for Divers.

AGENCY: 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 February 2, 1995, by the

presiding administrative law judge (ALJ)

in the above-captioned investigation

finding a violation of section 337 in the

importation and sale of certain audible

alarm devices for divers.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rhonda M. Hughes, Esq., Office of the

General Counsel, U.S. International

Trade Commission, telephone 202–205–

3083. 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 202–205–3000. 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 June 8,

1994, the Commission instituted an

investigation of a complaint filed by

David A. Hancock and Ideations Design

Inc. under section 337 of the Tariff Act

of 1930. The complaint alleged that

Duton Industry Co., Ltd. (Duton) of

Taipei, Taiwan and IHK International

Corp. (IHK) of Torrance, California had

imported, sold for importation, and sold

within the United States after

importation certain audible alarm

devices for divers by reason of

infringement of claim 6 of U.S. Letters

Patent 4,950,107 (the ’107 patent) and

claim 1 of U.S. Letters Patent 5,106,236

(the ’236 patent). The Commission’s

notice of investigation named as

respondents Duton and IHK, each of

which was alleged to have committed

one or more unfair acts in the

importation or sale of audible alarm

devices for divers that infringe the

asserted patent claims.

The ALJ conducted an evidentiary

hearing commencing on October 11,

1994, and issued her final ID on

February 2, 1995. She found that: (1)

claim 6 of the ’107 patent and claim 1

of the ’236 patent are valid and

enforceable; (2) there is a domestic

industry manufacturing and selling

products protected by these two claims;

(3) respondent IHK has imported

products that infringe claim 6 of the

’107 patent and claim 1 of the ’236

patent, and respondent Duton has

exported to the United States products

that infringe claim 6 of the ’107 patent

and claim 1 of the ’236 patent. Based

upon her findings of validity,

infringement, and domestic industry,

the ALJ concluded that there was a

violation of section 337.

No petitions for review of the ID were

filed and, consequently, no responses

thereto were filed. No government

comments on the ID 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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 21, 1995 / Notices 14961

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

background, see the Commission

Opinion, In the Matter of Certain

Devices for Connecting Computers via

Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360.

If the Commission contemplates some

form of remedy, it must consider the

effects of that remedy upon the public

interest. The factors the Commission

will consider include the effect that an

exclusion order and/or cease and desist

orders would have on (1) the public

health and welfare, (2) competitive

conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S.

production of articles that are like or

directly competitive with those that are

subject to investigation, and (4) U.S.

consumers. The Commission is

therefore interested in receiving written

submissions that address the

aforementioned public interest factors

in the context of this investigation.

If the Commission orders some form

of remedy, the President has 60 days to

approve or disapprove the

Commission’s action. During this

period, the subject articles would be

entitled to enter the United States under

a bond, in an amount determined by the

Commission and prescribed by the

Secretary of the Treasury. The

Commission is therefore interested in

receiving submissions concerning the

amount of the bond that should be

imposed, if remedial orders are issued.

Written Submissions

The parties to the investigation,

interested government agencies, and any

other interested persons are encouraged

to file written submissions on the issues

of remedy, the public interest, and

bonding. Complainants and the

Commission investigative attorney are

also requested to submit proposed

remedial orders for the Commission’s

consideration. The written submissions

and proposed remedial orders must be

filed no later than the close of business

on April 3, 1995. Reply submissions

must be filed no later than the close of

business on April 10, 1995. No further

submissions will be permitted unless

otherwise ordered by the Commission.

Persons filing written submissions

must file the original document and 14

true copies thereof with the Office of the

Secretary on or before the deadlines

stated above. Any person desiring to

submit a document (or portion thereof)

to the Commission in confidence must

request confidential treatment unless

the information has already been

granted such treatment during the

proceedings. All such requests should

be directed to the Secretary of the

Commission and must include a full

statement of the reasons why the

Commission should grant such

treatment. See 19 C.F.R. § 201.6.

Documents for which confidential

treatment is granted by the Commission

will be treated accordingly. All

nonconfidential written submissions

will be available for public inspection at

the Office of the Secretary.

This action is taken under the

authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act

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

and §§ 210.53 and 210.58 of the

Commission’s interim rules of practice

and procedure (19 CFR 210.53 and

210.58).

Issued: March 13, 1995.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–6865 Filed 3–20–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

[Investigations Nos. 731–TA–700–701

(Final)]

Commission Determination To

Conduct a Portion of the Hearing in

Camera

In the Matter of: Disposable Lighters From

the People’s Republic of China and Thailand.

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade

Commission.

ACTION: Closure of a portion of a

Commission hearing to the public.

SUMMARY: Upon request of respondent

Thai Merry Co., Ltd. (Thai Merry) in the

above-captioned final investigations, the

Commission has unanimously

determined to conduct a portion of its

hearing scheduled for March 21, 1995,

in camera. See Commission rules

207.23(d), 201.13(m) and 201.35(b)(3)

(19 CFR 207.23(d), 201.13(m) and

201.35(b)(3), as amended, 59 FR 66719

(Dec. 28, 1994)). The remainder of the

hearing will be open to the public. The

Commission has unanimously

determined that the seven-day advance

notice of the change to a meeting was

not possible. See Commission rule

201.35(a), (c)(1) (19 CFR 201.35(a),

(c)(1), as amended, 59 FR 66719 (Dec.

28, 1994)).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rhonda M. Hughes, Esq., Office of the

General Counsel, U.S. International

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202–

205–3083. Hearing-impaired individuals

are advised that information on this

matter may be obtained by contacting

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Commission believes that Thai Merry

has justified the need for a closed

session. Because petitioner BIC

Corporation is the sole domestic

producer, a full discussion of

petitioner’s financial condition and of

many of the indicators that the

Commission examines in assessing

material reason by reason of subject

imports can only occur if at least part of

the hearing is held in camera. In

addition, because Thai Merry is the sole

participating Thai respondent in these

investigations and because the

Commission’s preliminary

determination that there was a

reasonable indication that imports from

Thailand pose a threat of material injury

to the domestic industry, any discussion

of Thai producer and importer data as

required by the Commission’s analysis

of the statutory factors pertaining to a

finding of threat of material injury by

reason of those imports will necessitate

disclosure of business proprietary

information (BPI). Thus, such a

discussion can only occur if a portion of

the hearing is held in camera. In making

this decision, the Commission

nevertheless reaffirms its belief that

whenever possible its business should

be conducted in public.

The hearing will include the usual

public presentations by petitioner and

by respondents, with questions from the

Commission. In addition, the hearing

will include an in camera session for a

presentation including BPI by

respondents and for questions from the

Commission relating to the BPI. For any

in camera session the room will be

cleared of all persons except: those who

have been granted access to BPI under

a Commission administrative protective

order (APO) and are included on the

Commission’s APO service list in these

investigations. See 19 CFR 201.35(b)(1),

(2). In addition, if petitioner’s BPI will

be discussed in the in camera session,

personnel of petitioner may also be

granted access to the closed session.

Similarly, if respondents’ BPI will be

discussed in the in camera session,

personnel of respondents may also be

granted access to the closed session. See

19 CFR 201.35(b)(1), (2). The time for

the parties’ presentations and rebuttals

in the in camera session will be taken

from their respective overall allotments

for the hearing. All persons planning to

attend the in camera portions of the