16180 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No.
61 / Thursday, March 30, 2006 / Notices
each document be filed. In the event
that confidential treatment of the
document is requested, at least four (4)
additional copies must be filed, in
which the confidential information
must be deleted (see the following
paragraph for further information
regarding confidential business
information). The Commission’s rules
do not authorize filing submissions with
the Secretary by facsimile or electronic
means, except to the extent permitted by
section 201.8 of the rules (see Handbook
for Electronic Filing Procedures, ftp://
ftp.usitc.gov/pub/reports/
electronic_filing_handbook.pdf).
Persons with questions regarding
electronic filing should contact the
Secretary (202–205–2000) or
edis@usitc.gov).
Any submissions that contain
confidential business information must
also conform with the requirements of
section 201.6 of the Commission’s Rules
of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
201.6). Section 201.6 of the rules
requires that the cover of the document
and the individual pages be clearly
marked as to whether they are the
‘‘confidential’’ or ‘‘nonconfidential’’
version, and that the confidential
business information be clearly
identified by means of brackets. All
written submissions, except for
confidential business information, will
be made available in the Office of the
Secretary to the Commission for
inspection by interested parties.
The Commission may include some or
all of the confidential business
information submitted in the course of
these investigations in the report it
sends to the USTR and the President.
However, should the Commission
publish a public version of this report,
such confidential business information
will not be published in a manner that
would reveal the operations of the firm
supplying the information.
The public record for these
investigations may be viewed on the
Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS)
at http://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing
impaired individuals may obtain
information on this matter by contacting
the Commission’s TDD terminal on
(202) 205–1810. Persons with mobility
impairments who will need special
assistance in gaining access to the
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Commission should contact the
Secretary at 202–205–2000.
List of Subjects: Malaysia, tariffs, and
imports.
Issued: March 24, 2006.
VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:32 Mar 29, 2006 Jkt 208001
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E6–4609 Filed 3–29–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division
Proposed Termination of Judgment
Notice is hereby given that Defendant
Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. (‘‘Rolex’’),
successor in interest to Defendant the
American Rolex Watch Corporation in
United States v. The Watchmakers of
Switzerland Information Center, Inc.,
Civil Action No. 96–170 (S.D.N.Y.), has
filed a motion to terminate the Final
Judgment entered in that matter on
March 9, 1960 (‘‘Final Judgment’’) and
that the Department of Justice (‘‘the
Department’’), Antitrust Division, in a
stipulation also field with the Court, has
tentatively consented to termination of
the Final Judgment, but has reserved the
right to withdraw its consent pending
receipt of public comments.
The Final Judgment arose out of a
1950s investigation of the
anticompetitive practices of the Swiss
watch industry, including Swiss watch
manufacturers, Swiss trade associations,
and their United States importers. The
United States filed a complaint against
more than twenty watch companies and
trade association in 1954, including the
American Rolex Watch Corporation.
United States v. The Watchmakers of
Switzerland Information Center, Inc.,
Civil Action No. 96–170 (S.D.N.Y.
Complaint filed Oct. 19, 1954). The
United States made several allegations
in its complaint. It charged that certain
Swiss and U.S. manufacturers and
sellers of Swiss watches and watch parts
engaged in a conspiracy ‘‘to restrict,
eliminate and discourage the
manufacture of watches and watch parts
in the United States, and to restrain
United States imports and exports of
watches and watch parts for
manufacturing and repair purposes.’’ Id.
The United States also charged that
these companies agreed to fix minimum
pieces for watches and maximum prices
for repair parts, regulate the use and
distribution of watches and repair parts,
and boycott those who violated these
restrictions. Id. The conspiracy came
about through the adoption and
enforcement of an agreement known as
the Collective Convention of the Swiss
Watch Industry. ‘‘The purpose of the
Collection Convention was to protect,
develop and stabilize the Swiss watch
industry and to impede the growth of
PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
competitive watch industries outside of
Switzerland.’’ United States v. The
Watchmakers of Switzerland
Information Center, Inc., 1963–1 Trade
Cas. (CCH) ¶ 70,600, at 77,426 (S.D.N.Y.
Dec. 20, 1962).
On March 9, 1960, prior to trial, the
United States and the defendant
importers named in the complaint,
including Rolex, agreed to enter into the
Final Judgment in lieu of going to trial.
United States v. The Watchmakers of
Switzerland Information Center, Inc.,
Trade Reg. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 69,655
(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 1960).
The Department has filed with the
Court a memorandum setting forth the
reasons why the United States believes
that termination of the Final Judgment
would serve the public interest. Copies
of Rolex’s motion to terminate, the
stipulation containing the United States’
tentative consent, the United States’
memorandum, and all further papers
filed with the Court in connection with
Rolex’s motion will be available for
inspection at the Antitrust Documents
Group, Antitrust Division, Room 215,
325 7th Street, NW., Washington, DC
20004, and at the Office of the Clerk of
the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. Copies
of these materials may be obtained from
the Antitrust Division upon request and
payment of the copying fee set by
Department of Justice regulations.
Interested persons may submit
comments regarding the proposed
termination of the Final Judgment to the
United States. Such comments must be
received by the Antitrust Division
within sixty (60) days and will be filed
with the Court by the United States.
Comments should be addressed to John
R. Read, Chief, Litigation III Section,
Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of
Justice, 325 7th Street, NW., Suite 300,
Washington, DC 20530.
Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations.
[FR Doc. 06–3059 Filed 3–29–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–11–M
NATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR THE
ARTS AND HUMANITIES
Museums and Libraries Engaging
America’s Youth: Study of IMLS
Funded Grants, Submission for OMB
Review, Comment Request
AGENCY: Institute of Museum and
Library Services.
ACTION: Submission to OMB for Review,
Comment Request.
SUMMARY: The Institute of Museum and
Library Services announces the
30MRN1