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
<![CDATA[
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: https://
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:
https://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 https://
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 https://
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 https://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 https://
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 https://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
