Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Products; Commission Determination To Seek Further Written Submissions From the Public and To Reschedule the Date for an Oral Argument, 13133-13134 [2017-04597]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 45 / Thursday, March 9, 2017 / Notices the Commission’s rules with respect to electronic filing. Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission’s rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff. In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service. The Commission has determined that these reviews are extraordinarily complicated and therefore has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C.1675(c)(5)(B). Authority: This review is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: March 2, 2017. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2017–04596 Filed 3–8–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–1002] Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Products; Commission Determination To Seek Further Written Submissions From the Public and To Reschedule the Date for an Oral Argument U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to seek further written submissions from the public in response to the December 19, 2016, Notice, see 81 FR 94416–17 (Dec. 23, 2016), and to reschedule the date for an oral argument to April 20, 2017, in connection with the Commission’s review of the initial determination (‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 38) of the presiding administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) granting Respondents’ motion to terminate Complainant’s antitrust claim asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:43 Mar 08, 2017 Jkt 241001 under 19 CFR 210.21 and, in the alternative, 19 CFR 210.18. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Houda Morad, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708–4716. Copies of non-confidential 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 SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https:// edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 205–1810. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted Investigation No. 337–TA–1002 on June 2, 2016, based on a complaint filed by Complainant United States Steel Corporation of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (‘‘U.S. Steel’’), alleging a violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337. See 81 FR 35381 (June 2, 2016). The complaint alleges violations of Section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, or in the sale of certain carbon and alloy steel products by reason of: (1) A conspiracy to fix prices and control output and export volumes, the threat or effect of which is to restrain or monopolize trade and commerce in the United States; (2) misappropriation and use of trade secrets, the threat or effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the United States; and (3) false designation of origin or manufacturer, the threat or effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the United States. Id. The notice of investigation identified forty (40) respondents that are Chinese steel manufacturers or distributors, as well as some of their Hong Kong and United States affiliates. Id. In addition, the Office of Unfair Import Investigations is a party in this investigation. Id. On August 26, 2016, Respondents filed a motion to terminate U.S. Steel’s antitrust claim under 19 CFR 210.21. On September 6, 2016, U.S. Steel filed a response in opposition to Respondents’ motion to terminate. On September 9, 2016, the Commission Investigative PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 13133 Attorney (‘‘IA’’) filed a response in opposition to Respondents’ motion to terminate. On November 14, 2016, the ALJ issued the subject ID, granting Respondents’ motion to terminate Complainant’s antitrust claim under 19 CFR 210.21 and, in the alternative, under 19 CFR 210.18. On November 23, 2016, Complainant and the IA filed petitions for review of the ID. Complainant also requested oral argument before the Commission. On December 1, 2016, Respondents filed a response to the petitions for review. Also on December 1, 2016, Complainant filed a response to the IA’s petition for review. On December 19, 2016, the Commission issued a Notice determining to review the ID (Order No. 38). See 81 FR 94416–17 (Dec. 23, 2016). In the Notice, the Commission requested written submissions from ‘‘[t]he parties to the investigation, including the Office of Unfair Import Investigations, and interested government agencies’’ in connection with its review and set a date of March 14, 2017, for possible oral argument. Id. On February 24, 2017, the Commission issued a notice indicating that, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.45 (19 CFR 210.45), an oral argument would be held on March 14, 2017, in connection with the Commission’s review of Order No. 38. The Commission has determined to issue today’s request for written submissions from any member of the public (not including the parties to this investigation) and any interested government agencies with respect to questions 1–4 of the December 19, 2016, Notice (see 81 FR 94416–17), as reproduced below: 1. Please explain the policies that underlie the injury requirement under Section 337(a)(1)(A)(iii), including an analysis of any relevant statutory language, legislative history, Commission determinations, case law, or other authority. In discussing this question, please also explain how the injury requirement under Section 337(a)(1)(A)(iii) is different from, or relates to, the injury requirement that applies under Section 337(a)(1)(A)(i). 2. Please explain what Complainant must prove to satisfy the injury requirement under Section 337(a)(1)(A)(iii), where the alleged unfair act in violation of Section 337 is based on a claim alleging a conspiracy to fix prices and control output and export volumes (‘‘antitrust claim’’). Please include an analysis of any relevant statutory language, legislative history, Commission determinations, case law, or other authority. E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM 09MRN1 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13134 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 45 / Thursday, March 9, 2017 / Notices 3. Please explain how ‘‘antitrust injury’’ standing, as required for private litigants in federal district courts asserting antitrust claims, see, e.g., Atl. Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co., 495 U.S. 328, 335 (1990), compares to, or differs from, the injury requirement under Section 337(a)(1)(A). Please include an analysis of any relevant statutory language, legislative history, Commission determinations, case law, or other authority. In discussing this question, please explain the chronology of the adoption of the ‘‘antitrust injury’’ standing requirement in relation to the injury requirement under Section 337(a)(1)(A). 4. Please explain whether ‘‘antitrust injury’’ standing is, or should be, required for establishing a Section 337 violation based on a claim alleging a conspiracy to fix prices and control output and export volumes as a matter of law and/or policy. Please include an analysis of any relevant statutory language, legislative history, Commission determinations, case law, or other authority. The parties to this investigation, including the Office of Unfair Import Investigations, may file submissions in response to any written submission(s) that are submitted by the public or any interested government agencies. No further submissions on any of these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission. Written Submissions: Written submissions from entities other than the parties and/or government agencies shall include a Statement of Interest including: (1) A concise statement of the identity of the entity filing the written submission, its interest in the case, and the reasons why the written submission is relevant to the disposition of the issues in dispute; and (2) a statement indicating whether: (i) A party’s counsel authored the written submission in whole or in part; (ii) a party or party’s counsel contributed money that was intended to fund preparing or submitting the written submission; and (iii) a person—other than the entity, its members, or its counsel—contributed money that was specifically intended to fund preparing or submitting the written submission and, if so, each such person shall be identified. Written submissions from individuals shall also include a curriculum vitae (‘‘CV’’). Written submissions must be filed no later than close of business on March 27, 2017, may not exceed 20 pages in length, exclusive of any exhibits, Statement of Interest, and CV, and shall be doublespaced. Responsive submissions from the parties must be filed no later than the close of business on April 3, 2017, VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:43 Mar 08, 2017 Jkt 241001 may not exceed 20 pages in length, exclusive of any exhibits, and shall be double-spaced. No further submissions on any of these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission. Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit eight (8) true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (‘‘Inv. No. 337–TA–1002’’) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/ secretary/documents/handbook_on_ filing_procedures.pdf). Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202–205–2000). Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All information, including confidential business information and documents for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the Commission for purposes of this Investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel,1 solely for cybersecurity purposes. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS. Commission Oral Argument: The Commission has also determined to reschedule the oral argument to April 20, 2017, in order to provide sufficient time for the Commission to receive and review any written submissions and any responses thereto. The Commission will hold the public oral argument in the Commission’s Main Hearing Room 1 All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements. PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 (Room 101), 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, beginning at 9:30 a.m. While any member of the public may attend the oral argument, only counsel for the parties to the investigation, including the Office of Unfair Import Investigations, and representatives of interested government agencies may participate and/or argue at the oral argument. At the oral argument, counsel for each party and representatives of interested government agencies will be given an opportunity to comment in opening remarks for no more than 10 minutes, and the Commissioners may ask questions of those appearing. Details as to the format of the hearing will be provided at a later date. This is a public proceeding; confidential business information (‘‘CBI’’) shall not be discussed. A party, however, can draw the Commission’s attention to CBI, if necessary, by pointing to where in the record the information can be found. The oral argument will be limited in scope to the issues identified in the ID (Order No. 38); the Commission’s December 19, 2016, Notice; the present Notice; and any related petition, written submissions, and responses thereto. After the conclusion of the oral argument, no additional written submissions or arguments will be permitted. Notice of Appearance: Counsel for the parties to the investigation or any representatives of interested government agencies who wish to participate in the oral argument must file a written request to appear at the Commission oral argument by April 6, 2017 and must provide their email addresses as part of their contact information. The authority for the Commission’s determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210). By order of the Commission. Issued: March 3, 2017. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2017–04597 Filed 3–8–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA–392] Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Myoderm ACTION: E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM Notice of application. 09MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 45 (Thursday, March 9, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13133-13134]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04597]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-1002]


Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Products; Commission Determination 
To Seek Further Written Submissions From the Public and To Reschedule 
the Date for an Oral Argument

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined to seek further written submissions from the 
public in response to the December 19, 2016, Notice, see 81 FR 94416-17 
(Dec. 23, 2016), and to reschedule the date for an oral argument to 
April 20, 2017, in connection with the Commission's review of the 
initial determination (``ID'') (Order No. 38) of the presiding 
administrative law judge (``ALJ'') granting Respondents' motion to 
terminate Complainant's antitrust claim under 19 CFR 210.21 and, in the 
alternative, 19 CFR 210.18.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Houda Morad, Office of the General 
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-4716. Copies of non-
confidential 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 SW., Washington, DC 20436, 
telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission 
may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed 
on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. 
Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter 
can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 
205-1810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted Investigation No. 
337-TA-1002 on June 2, 2016, based on a complaint filed by Complainant 
United States Steel Corporation of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (``U.S. 
Steel''), alleging a violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337. See 81 FR 35381 (June 2, 2016). The 
complaint alleges violations of Section 337 based upon the importation 
into the United States, or in the sale of certain carbon and alloy 
steel products by reason of: (1) A conspiracy to fix prices and control 
output and export volumes, the threat or effect of which is to restrain 
or monopolize trade and commerce in the United States; (2) 
misappropriation and use of trade secrets, the threat or effect of 
which is to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the United 
States; and (3) false designation of origin or manufacturer, the threat 
or effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure an industry in 
the United States. Id. The notice of investigation identified forty 
(40) respondents that are Chinese steel manufacturers or distributors, 
as well as some of their Hong Kong and United States affiliates. Id. In 
addition, the Office of Unfair Import Investigations is a party in this 
investigation. Id.
    On August 26, 2016, Respondents filed a motion to terminate U.S. 
Steel's antitrust claim under 19 CFR 210.21. On September 6, 2016, U.S. 
Steel filed a response in opposition to Respondents' motion to 
terminate. On September 9, 2016, the Commission Investigative Attorney 
(``IA'') filed a response in opposition to Respondents' motion to 
terminate. On November 14, 2016, the ALJ issued the subject ID, 
granting Respondents' motion to terminate Complainant's antitrust claim 
under 19 CFR 210.21 and, in the alternative, under 19 CFR 210.18. On 
November 23, 2016, Complainant and the IA filed petitions for review of 
the ID. Complainant also requested oral argument before the Commission. 
On December 1, 2016, Respondents filed a response to the petitions for 
review. Also on December 1, 2016, Complainant filed a response to the 
IA's petition for review.
    On December 19, 2016, the Commission issued a Notice determining to 
review the ID (Order No. 38). See 81 FR 94416-17 (Dec. 23, 2016). In 
the Notice, the Commission requested written submissions from ``[t]he 
parties to the investigation, including the Office of Unfair Import 
Investigations, and interested government agencies'' in connection with 
its review and set a date of March 14, 2017, for possible oral 
argument. Id.
    On February 24, 2017, the Commission issued a notice indicating 
that, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.45 (19 CFR 210.45), an oral 
argument would be held on March 14, 2017, in connection with the 
Commission's review of Order No. 38.
    The Commission has determined to issue today's request for written 
submissions from any member of the public (not including the parties to 
this investigation) and any interested government agencies with respect 
to questions 1-4 of the December 19, 2016, Notice (see 81 FR 94416-17), 
as reproduced below:
    1. Please explain the policies that underlie the injury requirement 
under Section 337(a)(1)(A)(iii), including an analysis of any relevant 
statutory language, legislative history, Commission determinations, 
case law, or other authority. In discussing this question, please also 
explain how the injury requirement under Section 337(a)(1)(A)(iii) is 
different from, or relates to, the injury requirement that applies 
under Section 337(a)(1)(A)(i).
    2. Please explain what Complainant must prove to satisfy the injury 
requirement under Section 337(a)(1)(A)(iii), where the alleged unfair 
act in violation of Section 337 is based on a claim alleging a 
conspiracy to fix prices and control output and export volumes 
(``antitrust claim''). Please include an analysis of any relevant 
statutory language, legislative history, Commission determinations, 
case law, or other authority.

[[Page 13134]]

    3. Please explain how ``antitrust injury'' standing, as required 
for private litigants in federal district courts asserting antitrust 
claims, see, e.g., Atl. Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co., 495 U.S. 
328, 335 (1990), compares to, or differs from, the injury requirement 
under Section 337(a)(1)(A). Please include an analysis of any relevant 
statutory language, legislative history, Commission determinations, 
case law, or other authority. In discussing this question, please 
explain the chronology of the adoption of the ``antitrust injury'' 
standing requirement in relation to the injury requirement under 
Section 337(a)(1)(A).
    4. Please explain whether ``antitrust injury'' standing is, or 
should be, required for establishing a Section 337 violation based on a 
claim alleging a conspiracy to fix prices and control output and export 
volumes as a matter of law and/or policy. Please include an analysis of 
any relevant statutory language, legislative history, Commission 
determinations, case law, or other authority.
    The parties to this investigation, including the Office of Unfair 
Import Investigations, may file submissions in response to any written 
submission(s) that are submitted by the public or any interested 
government agencies. No further submissions on any of these issues will 
be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.
    Written Submissions: Written submissions from entities other than 
the parties and/or government agencies shall include a Statement of 
Interest including: (1) A concise statement of the identity of the 
entity filing the written submission, its interest in the case, and the 
reasons why the written submission is relevant to the disposition of 
the issues in dispute; and (2) a statement indicating whether: (i) A 
party's counsel authored the written submission in whole or in part; 
(ii) a party or party's counsel contributed money that was intended to 
fund preparing or submitting the written submission; and (iii) a 
person--other than the entity, its members, or its counsel--contributed 
money that was specifically intended to fund preparing or submitting 
the written submission and, if so, each such person shall be 
identified. Written submissions from individuals shall also include a 
curriculum vitae (``CV''). Written submissions must be filed no later 
than close of business on March 27, 2017, may not exceed 20 pages in 
length, exclusive of any exhibits, Statement of Interest, and CV, and 
shall be double-spaced. Responsive submissions from the parties must be 
filed no later than the close of business on April 3, 2017, may not 
exceed 20 pages in length, exclusive of any exhibits, and shall be 
double-spaced. No further submissions on any of these issues will be 
permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.
    Persons filing written submissions must file the original document 
electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit eight 
(8) true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next 
day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the 
investigation number (``Inv. No. 337-TA-1002'') in a prominent place on 
the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic 
Filing Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/secretary/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf). Persons with questions regarding 
filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).
    Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in 
confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests 
should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include 
a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such 
treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment 
by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All 
information, including confidential business information and documents 
for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the 
Commission for purposes of this Investigation may be disclosed to and 
used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract 
personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a 
related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, 
and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of 
the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. 
government employees and contract personnel,\1\ solely for 
cybersecurity purposes. All nonconfidential written submissions will be 
available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on 
EDIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure 
agreements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commission Oral Argument: The Commission has also determined to 
reschedule the oral argument to April 20, 2017, in order to provide 
sufficient time for the Commission to receive and review any written 
submissions and any responses thereto. The Commission will hold the 
public oral argument in the Commission's Main Hearing Room (Room 101), 
500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, beginning at 9:30 a.m. While 
any member of the public may attend the oral argument, only counsel for 
the parties to the investigation, including the Office of Unfair Import 
Investigations, and representatives of interested government agencies 
may participate and/or argue at the oral argument.
    At the oral argument, counsel for each party and representatives of 
interested government agencies will be given an opportunity to comment 
in opening remarks for no more than 10 minutes, and the Commissioners 
may ask questions of those appearing. Details as to the format of the 
hearing will be provided at a later date. This is a public proceeding; 
confidential business information (``CBI'') shall not be discussed. A 
party, however, can draw the Commission's attention to CBI, if 
necessary, by pointing to where in the record the information can be 
found.
    The oral argument will be limited in scope to the issues identified 
in the ID (Order No. 38); the Commission's December 19, 2016, Notice; 
the present Notice; and any related petition, written submissions, and 
responses thereto.
    After the conclusion of the oral argument, no additional written 
submissions or arguments will be permitted.
    Notice of Appearance: Counsel for the parties to the investigation 
or any representatives of interested government agencies who wish to 
participate in the oral argument must file a written request to appear 
at the Commission oral argument by April 6, 2017 and must provide their 
email addresses as part of their contact information.
    The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in 
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and 
in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 
part 210).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: March 3, 2017.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2017-04597 Filed 3-8-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P