U.S. Strategy To Address Trade-Related Forced Localization Barriers Impacting the U.S. ICT Hardware Manufacturing Industry, 15786-15788 [2018-07584]

Download as PDF 15786 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 71 / Thursday, April 12, 2018 / Notices • FAO/WHO Scientific Support to Codex: activities, budgetary and financial matters • Matters arising from FAO and WHO • Report of the side event on FAO and WHO capacity development activities • Report of the side event on the Codex Trust Fund (CTF2) • Report of the discussion panels with International Government Organizations (IGOs) and NonGovernmental Organizations (NGOs). • Election of the chairperson and vice chairpersons • Designation of countries responsible for appointing the chairpersons of Codex subsidiary bodies • Any other business Each issue listed will be fully described in documents distributed, or to be distributed, by the Secretariat before the meeting. Members of the public may access or request copies of these documents (see ADDRESSES). sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Public Meeting At the May 31, 2018, public meeting, draft U.S. positions on the agenda items will be described and discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to the U.S. Delegate for the 41st Session of the CAC (see ADDRESSES). Written comments should state that they relate to activities of the 41st Session of the CAC. Additional Public Notification Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this Federal Register publication on-line through the FSIS web page located at: http:// www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register. FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The Update is available on the FSIS web page. Through the web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an email subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe. Options range from recalls to export information, regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and have the VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:20 Apr 11, 2018 Jkt 244001 option to password protect their accounts. 4641. Please dial in 5–10 minutes prior to the start time. USDA Non-Discrimination Statement No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/ parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA. Meeting Agenda How To File a Complaint of Discrimination To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at http:// www.ocio.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ docs/2012/Complain_combined_6_8_ 12.pdf, or write a letter signed by you or your authorized representative. Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email: Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250–9410. Fax: (202) 690–7442. Email: program.intake@usda.gov. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). Done at Washington, DC. Mary Frances Lowe, U.S. Manager for Codex Alimentarius. [FR Doc. 2018–07586 Filed 4–11–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–DM–P CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meetings United States Commission on Civil Rights. ACTION: Notice of Commission Telephonic Business Meeting. AGENCY: Friday, April 20, 2018, at 11:00 a.m. EST. ADDRESSES: Meeting to take place by telephone. DATES: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Walch, (202) 376–8371, publicaffairs@usccr.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This business meeting is open to the public by telephone only. Participant access instructions: Listen-only, toll free: 1– 877–723–9519; Conference ID: 762– PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 I. Approval of Agenda II. Program Planning • Discussion and Vote Chair for Vermont Advisory Committee • Discussion and Vote on Chair for North Carolina Advisory Committee III. Staff Director’s Report IV. Adjourn Meeting. Dated: April 10, 2018. Brian Walch, Director, Communications and Public Engagement. [FR Doc. 2018–07777 Filed 4–10–18; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6335–01–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration U.S. Strategy To Address TradeRelated Forced Localization Barriers Impacting the U.S. ICT Hardware Manufacturing Industry International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. AGENCY: The International Trade Administration is seeking information to support the development of a comprehensive strategy to address trade-related forced localization policies, practices, and measures impacting the U.S. information and communications technology (ICT) hardware manufacturing industry. Comments will be used to support the development of a holistic strategic plan for counteracting and deterring the expansion of barriers to trade and traderelated measures put in place by U.S. trading partners that are specifically designed to localize the production and technology development of ICT hardware, and unfairly harm U.S. ICT hardware manufacturers and exports. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before May 14, 2018. Comments must be in English. ADDRESSES: You may submit responses to the questions below by one of the following methods. Comments should be submitted under docket ITA–2008– 0001: (a) Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http:// www.regulations.gov. The materials in the docket will not be edited to remove identifying or contact information, and SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\12APN1.SGM 12APN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 71 / Thursday, April 12, 2018 / Notices the Department cautions against including any information in an electronic submission that the submitter does not want publicly disclosed. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF formats only. Comments containing references, studies, research, and other empirical data that are not widely published should include copies of the referenced materials. Please do not submit additional materials. If you want to submit a comment with business confidential information that you do not wish to be made public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission in the manner detailed below. (b) Written/Paper Submission: Send all written/paper submissions to: Cary Ingram, U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, Office of Health and Information Technologies, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20230; Submissions of ‘‘Business Confidential Information’’: Any submissions containing ‘‘business confidential information’’ must be delivered in a sealed envelope marked ‘‘confidential treatment requested’’ to the address listed above. Please provide an index listing the document(s) or information that the submitter would like the Department to withhold. The index should include information such as numbers used to identify the relevant document(s) or information, document title and description, and relevant page numbers and/or section numbers within a document. Provide a statement explaining the submitter’s grounds for objecting to disclosure of the information to the public. The Department also requests that submitters of business confidential information include a non-confidential version (either redacted or summarized) of those confidential submissions, which will be available for public viewing and posted on https:// www.regulations.gov. In the event that the submitter cannot provide a nonconfidential version of its submission, the Department requests that the submitter post a notice in the docket stating that it has provided the Department with business confidential information. Should a submitter fail to docket either a non-confidential version of its submission or to post a notice that business confidential information has been provided, the Department will note the receipt of the submission on the docket with the submitter’s organization or name (to the degree permitted by law) and the date of submission. For alternatives to online or mail submissions, please contact Mr. Cary VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:20 Apr 11, 2018 Jkt 244001 Ingram at (202) 482–2872 or cary.ingram@trade.gov. The public is strongly encouraged to file submissions electronically. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding the submission of comments should be directed to Mr. Cary Ingram at (202) 482–2872, or cary.ingram@trade.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background: Over the past five years, there has been a rapid expansion of laws, regulations, trade policies, directives, and practices by various U.S. trading partners to further multilayered campaigns to force the domestic localization of production and technology development of information and communications technology (ICT) hardware. Various forms of domestic production requirements, local content requirement (LCR) mandates, coerced technology transfer rules, and other barriers to trade have been put in place to supplant U.S. technology products in international ICT markets. These are measures that arbitrarily discriminate against foreign products, intellectual property (IP), or hardware suppliers, and are distinctively designed to force the production and development of ICT hardware to be localized within a country’s territorial boundaries, while also cultivating and incubating select domestic industries, technologies, or intellectual property at the expense of imported goods, or foreign-owned or developed IP. The ICT hardware sector has become a leading target for discriminatory measures in markets throughout the world at an accelerated level of proliferation. Examples of trade-related barriers and measures impacting the industry include: • Local content requirements (LCRs) for ICT products sold in the domestic market; • Subsidies or other government preferences made contingent upon the use of local ICT products, indigenous technology, or domestically owned IP; • Mandates for service providers to purchase domestically-manufactured ICT hardware or ICT products with specific levels of domestic content; • Measures to force the transfer of technology or IP to local entities; • Unjustified requirements to conduct conformity assessment and certification procedures in-country. The competitiveness of the U.S. ICT manufacturing sector is increasingly coming under threat by the continued expansion of forced localization policies and practices in geographic and technological scope. These forced localization measures and barriers not PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 15787 only threaten U.S. production of ICT hardware currently in the market, but also threaten the United States’ competitive position in new and emerging technology sectors across the entire ICT-enabled industrial base as these policies expand to broader technology segments. Recognizing the need to address current forced localization measures impacting the U.S. ICT hardware manufacturing sector on a strategic basis, and to deter additional localization barriers, the U.S. Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration is reviewing the landscape of policy options and potential remedies that can be utilized to develop a strategic response to the expanding forced localization trend causing harm to the U.S. ICT manufacturing base. The Department is seeking to develop a comprehensive, holistic set of actionable tools, tactics, and strategies to counteract the spread of policies, practices, and barriers-totrade specifically designed to discriminate against U.S. ICT products and exports, while instigating the domestic localization of ICT hardware production and technology development.1 Respondents may address any, all, or none of the following questions, and may address additional topics that may help the Department in developing a comprehensive strategy to address trade-related forced localization barriers affecting the U.S. ICT manufacturing industry. While the Department welcomes all input considered relevant to the development of a comprehensive strategy, the Department specifically seeks the following types of information: 1. Laws, regulations, policies, trade practices, non-tariff barriers, and other traderelated measures put in place by U.S. trading partners that appear to be specifically structured to force the localization of production and technology development of ICT hardware, and unfairly harm U.S. ICT hardware manufacturers and exports. 2. The estimated burden and harm caused by the identified trade-related localization laws, regulations, policies, trade practices, non-tariff barriers, and other trade-related localization measures in terms of lost revenue, market share, exports, employment, income, or other measures to quantify the damage and harm to the U.S. ICT hardware manufacturing industry and related export opportunities. The information obtained from written submissions will be used to inform the strategic planning to address 1 Data localization policies or restrictions on cross-border data flows will not be covered in this edition of the strategy review or this current request for comments. E:\FR\FM\12APN1.SGM 12APN1 15788 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 71 / Thursday, April 12, 2018 / Notices and deter the expanding use of traderelated localization measures, practices and other barriers harming the U.S. ICT manufacturing industry. The scope of products included in this strategic review are ICT goods that fall under NAICS codes 3341, 3342, 3343, 3344, 3345, 3346, and 3359; or the following HS codes: 8443, 8471, 8473, 8486, 8504, 8517, 8518, 8519, 8520, 8521, 8522, 8523, 8525, 8528, 8529, 8533, 8534, 8541, 8542, 854420, 854470, 900110, 9030, 903141, 850440, 850450, 850490. The U.S. Department of Commerce invites comments from stakeholders from the private sector, academia, thinktanks, civil society, and other interested parties concerned with the continued growth and competitiveness of the U.S. ICT manufacturing industry in the global economy. Entities making submissions may be contacted for further information or explanation, and, in some cases, meetings with individual submitters may be requested. The Department may also hold additional forums for comment such as roundtables or workshops to attain expanded input for strategy development. Ian Steff, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing. [FR Doc. 2018–07584 Filed 4–11–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–533–838] DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–6905 or (202) 482–2623, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On December 4, 2017, Commerce published the Preliminary Results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on CVP 23 from India.1 Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through January 22, 2018. As a result, the revised deadline for the final results of this review is now April 6, 2018.2 Scope of the Order The merchandise subject to the Order 3 is CVP–23 identified as Color Index No. 51319 and Chemical Abstract No. 6358–30–1, with the chemical name of diindolo [3,2-b:3′,2′m] 4 triphenodioxazine, 8,18-dichloro-5, 15-diethy-5, 15-dihydro-, and molecular formula of C34 H22 Cl2 N4 O2. The subject merchandise includes the crude pigment in any form (e.g., dry powder, paste, wet cake) and finished pigment in the form of presscake and dry color. Pigment dispersions in any form (e.g., pigments dispersed in oleoresins, flammable solvents, water) are not included within the scope of the Order. The merchandise subject to the Order is classifiable under subheading 3204.17.9040 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the Order is dispositive. Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015– 2016 Analysis of Comments Recieved All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.5 Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that Pidilite Industries Limited (Pidilite), a producer/exporter of carbazole violet pigment 23 (CVP 23) from India, sold subject merchandise at prices below normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR) December 1, 2015, through November 30, 2016. DATES: Applicable April 12, 2018. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Gorelik or George Ayache, AD/ CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 1 See Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015–2016, 82 FR 57205 (December 4, 2017) (Preliminary Results) and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 2 See Memorandum, ‘‘Deadlines Affected by the Shutdown of the Federal Government,’’ dated January 23, 2018. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by three days. 3 See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India, 69 FR 77988 (December 29, 2004) (Order). 4 The bracketed section of the product description, [3,2-b:3′,2′-m], is not business proprietary information. In this case, the brackets are simply part of the chemical nomenclature. See ‘‘Amendment to Petition for Antidumping Investigations of China and India and a Countervailing Duty Investigation of India on Imports of Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 in the forms of Crude Pigment, Presscake and Dry Color Pigment,’’ dated December 3, 2003, at 8. 5 See Memorandum, ‘‘Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India: Issues and Decision Memorandum sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES AGENCY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:20 Apr 11, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 A list of the issues that parties raised and to which we responded is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http:// enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties, we have not made changes to the Preliminary Results.6 Because Pidilite withheld requested information, failed to provide information in a timely manner and in the form requested, and significantly impeded this proceeding, we continue to find that Pidilite failed to cooperate to the best of its ability and, accordingly, find it appropriate to assign it a margin based on adverse facts available (AFA) in accordance with sections 776(a)(1) and (a)(2)(A), (B), (C) and 776(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. For further discussion, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. Adjustment for Export Subsidies For Pidilite, in the original investigation, we subtracted the portion of the countervailing duty rate attributable to export subsidies (17.02 percent) from the final dumping margin of 66.59 percent in order to calculate the cash-deposit rate of 49.57 percent.7 Since the publication of the Antidumping Duty Order, we have not conducted an administrative review of the countervailing duty order on CVP 23 from India.8 Therefore, imports of the subject merchandise from Pidilite during the review period were subject to countervailing duties for export subsidies of 17.02 percent. Accordingly, we have adjusted the dumping margin for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015–2016,’’ dated concurrently with this determination and hereby adopted by this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum). 6 See Preliminary Results and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 7 See Order. 8 See Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India: Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2015, 82 FR 42648 (September 11, 2017). E:\FR\FM\12APN1.SGM 12APN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 71 (Thursday, April 12, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15786-15788]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07584]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


U.S. Strategy To Address Trade-Related Forced Localization 
Barriers Impacting the U.S. ICT Hardware Manufacturing Industry

AGENCY: International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The International Trade Administration is seeking information 
to support the development of a comprehensive strategy to address 
trade-related forced localization policies, practices, and measures 
impacting the U.S. information and communications technology (ICT) 
hardware manufacturing industry. Comments will be used to support the 
development of a holistic strategic plan for counteracting and 
deterring the expansion of barriers to trade and trade-related measures 
put in place by U.S. trading partners that are specifically designed to 
localize the production and technology development of ICT hardware, and 
unfairly harm U.S. ICT hardware manufacturers and exports.

DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before May 14, 2018. 
Comments must be in English.

ADDRESSES: You may submit responses to the questions below by one of 
the following methods. Comments should be submitted under docket ITA-
2008-0001:
    (a) Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic comments via the 
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. The 
materials in the docket will not be edited to remove identifying or 
contact information, and

[[Page 15787]]

the Department cautions against including any information in an 
electronic submission that the submitter does not want publicly 
disclosed. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in 
Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF formats only. Comments containing 
references, studies, research, and other empirical data that are not 
widely published should include copies of the referenced materials. 
Please do not submit additional materials. If you want to submit a 
comment with business confidential information that you do not wish to 
be made public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission in the 
manner detailed below.
    (b) Written/Paper Submission: Send all written/paper submissions 
to: Cary Ingram, U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade 
Administration, Office of Health and Information Technologies, 1401 
Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20230; Submissions of ``Business 
Confidential Information'': Any submissions containing ``business 
confidential information'' must be delivered in a sealed envelope 
marked ``confidential treatment requested'' to the address listed 
above. Please provide an index listing the document(s) or information 
that the submitter would like the Department to withhold. The index 
should include information such as numbers used to identify the 
relevant document(s) or information, document title and description, 
and relevant page numbers and/or section numbers within a document. 
Provide a statement explaining the submitter's grounds for objecting to 
disclosure of the information to the public. The Department also 
requests that submitters of business confidential information include a 
non-confidential version (either redacted or summarized) of those 
confidential submissions, which will be available for public viewing 
and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. In the event that the 
submitter cannot provide a non-confidential version of its submission, 
the Department requests that the submitter post a notice in the docket 
stating that it has provided the Department with business confidential 
information. Should a submitter fail to docket either a non-
confidential version of its submission or to post a notice that 
business confidential information has been provided, the Department 
will note the receipt of the submission on the docket with the 
submitter's organization or name (to the degree permitted by law) and 
the date of submission.
    For alternatives to online or mail submissions, please contact Mr. 
Cary Ingram at (202) 482-2872 or [email protected]. The public is 
strongly encouraged to file submissions electronically.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding the submission of 
comments should be directed to Mr. Cary Ingram at (202) 482-2872, or 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Background: Over the past five years, there has been a rapid 
expansion of laws, regulations, trade policies, directives, and 
practices by various U.S. trading partners to further multilayered 
campaigns to force the domestic localization of production and 
technology development of information and communications technology 
(ICT) hardware. Various forms of domestic production requirements, 
local content requirement (LCR) mandates, coerced technology transfer 
rules, and other barriers to trade have been put in place to supplant 
U.S. technology products in international ICT markets. These are 
measures that arbitrarily discriminate against foreign products, 
intellectual property (IP), or hardware suppliers, and are 
distinctively designed to force the production and development of ICT 
hardware to be localized within a country's territorial boundaries, 
while also cultivating and incubating select domestic industries, 
technologies, or intellectual property at the expense of imported 
goods, or foreign-owned or developed IP.
    The ICT hardware sector has become a leading target for 
discriminatory measures in markets throughout the world at an 
accelerated level of proliferation. Examples of trade-related barriers 
and measures impacting the industry include:
     Local content requirements (LCRs) for ICT products sold in 
the domestic market;
     Subsidies or other government preferences made contingent 
upon the use of local ICT products, indigenous technology, or 
domestically owned IP;
     Mandates for service providers to purchase domestically-
manufactured ICT hardware or ICT products with specific levels of 
domestic content;
     Measures to force the transfer of technology or IP to 
local entities;
     Unjustified requirements to conduct conformity assessment 
and certification procedures in-country.
    The competitiveness of the U.S. ICT manufacturing sector is 
increasingly coming under threat by the continued expansion of forced 
localization policies and practices in geographic and technological 
scope. These forced localization measures and barriers not only 
threaten U.S. production of ICT hardware currently in the market, but 
also threaten the United States' competitive position in new and 
emerging technology sectors across the entire ICT-enabled industrial 
base as these policies expand to broader technology segments. 
Recognizing the need to address current forced localization measures 
impacting the U.S. ICT hardware manufacturing sector on a strategic 
basis, and to deter additional localization barriers, the U.S. 
Department of Commerce's International Trade Administration is 
reviewing the landscape of policy options and potential remedies that 
can be utilized to develop a strategic response to the expanding forced 
localization trend causing harm to the U.S. ICT manufacturing base. The 
Department is seeking to develop a comprehensive, holistic set of 
actionable tools, tactics, and strategies to counteract the spread of 
policies, practices, and barriers-to-trade specifically designed to 
discriminate against U.S. ICT products and exports, while instigating 
the domestic localization of ICT hardware production and technology 
development.\1\ Respondents may address any, all, or none of the 
following questions, and may address additional topics that may help 
the Department in developing a comprehensive strategy to address trade-
related forced localization barriers affecting the U.S. ICT 
manufacturing industry. While the Department welcomes all input 
considered relevant to the development of a comprehensive strategy, the 
Department specifically seeks the following types of information:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Data localization policies or restrictions on cross-border 
data flows will not be covered in this edition of the strategy 
review or this current request for comments.

    1. Laws, regulations, policies, trade practices, non-tariff 
barriers, and other trade-related measures put in place by U.S. 
trading partners that appear to be specifically structured to force 
the localization of production and technology development of ICT 
hardware, and unfairly harm U.S. ICT hardware manufacturers and 
exports.
    2. The estimated burden and harm caused by the identified trade-
related localization laws, regulations, policies, trade practices, 
non-tariff barriers, and other trade-related localization measures 
in terms of lost revenue, market share, exports, employment, income, 
or other measures to quantify the damage and harm to the U.S. ICT 
hardware manufacturing industry and related export opportunities.

    The information obtained from written submissions will be used to 
inform the strategic planning to address

[[Page 15788]]

and deter the expanding use of trade-related localization measures, 
practices and other barriers harming the U.S. ICT manufacturing 
industry. The scope of products included in this strategic review are 
ICT goods that fall under NAICS codes 3341, 3342, 3343, 3344, 3345, 
3346, and 3359; or the following HS codes: 8443, 8471, 8473, 8486, 
8504, 8517, 8518, 8519, 8520, 8521, 8522, 8523, 8525, 8528, 8529, 8533, 
8534, 8541, 8542, 854420, 854470, 900110, 9030, 903141, 850440, 850450, 
850490.
    The U.S. Department of Commerce invites comments from stakeholders 
from the private sector, academia, think-tanks, civil society, and 
other interested parties concerned with the continued growth and 
competitiveness of the U.S. ICT manufacturing industry in the global 
economy. Entities making submissions may be contacted for further 
information or explanation, and, in some cases, meetings with 
individual submitters may be requested. The Department may also hold 
additional forums for comment such as roundtables or workshops to 
attain expanded input for strategy development.

Ian Steff,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing.
[FR Doc. 2018-07584 Filed 4-11-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P