Notice of a Commission Determination To Review in Part a Summary Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Request for Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding, 43270-43272 [2021-16792]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
43270
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 149 / Friday, August 6, 2021 / Notices
reporting requirements pursuant to
current public laws, including the
Federal Water Project Recreation Act (16
U.S.C. 460I), and the Federal Lands
Recreation Enhancement Act (16 U.S.C.
87). In addition, collected information
will permit relevant program
assessments of resources managed by
Reclamation, its recreation managing
partners, and/or concessionaires for the
purpose of contributing to the
implementation of Reclamation’s
mission. More specifically, the collected
information enables Reclamation to (1)
evaluate the effectiveness of program
management based on existing
recreation and concessionaire resources
and facilities, and (2) validate the
efficiency of resources for public use
within partner managed recreation
resources, located on Reclamation
project lands in the 17 Western States.
Title of Collection: Recreation Use
Data Report.
OMB Control Number: 1006–0002.
Form Number: Form 7–2534—
Recreation Use Data Report.
Type of Review: Revision of a
currently approved collection.
Respondents/Affected Public: State,
local, or tribal governments; agencies
who manager Reclamation’s recreation
resources and facilities; and commercial
concessions, subconcessionaires, and
nonprofit organizations located on
Reclamation lands with associated
recreation services.
Total Estimated Number of Annual
Respondents: 212.
Total Estimated Number of Annual
Responses: 212.
Estimated Completion Time per
Response: 25 minutes.
Total Estimated Number of Annual
Burden Hours: 88 hours.
Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory.
Frequency of Collection: Annually.
Total Estimated Annual Nonhour
Burden Cost: 0.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
The authority for this action is the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Karen Knight,
Director, Dam Safety and Infrastructure.
[FR Doc. 2021–16845 Filed 8–5–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4332–90–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:29 Aug 05, 2021
Jkt 253001
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
Certain Balanced Armature Devices,
Products Containing Same, and
Components Thereof
[Investigation No. 337–TA–1186]
Notice of a Commission Determination
To Review in Part a Summary
Determination Finding a Violation of
Section 337; Request for Written
Submissions on the Issues Under
Review and on Remedy, the Public
Interest, and Bonding
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review
in part a summary determination (‘‘ID’’)
(Order No. 50) of the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’),
finding a violation of section 337. The
Commission requests written
submissions from the parties on the
issues under review and submissions
from the parties, interested government
agencies, and other interested persons
on the issues of remedy, the public
interest, and bonding, under the
schedule set forth below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amanda Pitcher Fisherow, Esq., Office
of the General Counsel, U.S.
International Trade Commission, 500 E
Street SW, Washington, DC 20436,
telephone (202) 205–2737. Copies of
non-confidential documents filed in
connection with this investigation may
be viewed on the Commission’s
electronic docket (EDIS) at https://
edis.usitc.gov. For help accessing EDIS,
please email EDIS3Help@usitc.gov.
General information concerning the
Commission may also be obtained by
accessing its internet server at https://
www.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: On
November 29, 2019, the Commission
instituted this investigation based on a
complaint filed by Knowles Corporation
and Knowles Electronics, LLC of Itasca,
Illinois, and Knowles Electronics
(Suzhou) Co., Ltd. of Suzhou, China
(collectively, ‘‘Knowles’’). 84 FR 65840
(Nov. 29, 2019). The complaint, as
supplemented, alleged violations of
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, due to the
importation into the United States, sale
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
for importation, or sale in the United
States after importation of certain
balanced armature devices, products
containing same, and components
thereof by reason of misappropriation of
trade secrets, the threat or effect of
which is to destroy or substantially
injure a domestic industry. Id. The
notice of investigation named twelve
(12) respondents, including Shenzhen
Bellsing Acoustic Technology Co. Ltd.
of Shenzhen, China, Suzhou Bellsing
Acoustic Technology Co. Ltd. of
Suzhou, China, Dongguan Bellsing
Precision Device Co., Ltd. of Dongguan,
China, and Bellsing Corporation of
Lisle, Illinois (collectively, ‘‘Bellsing’’);
Liang Li (a/k/a Ryan Li) of Suzhou City,
China (‘‘Mr. Li’’); Dongguan Xinyao
Electronics Industrial Co., Ltd. of
Dongguan, China (‘‘Xinyao’’); Soundlink
Co., Ltd. of Suzhou, China
(‘‘Soundlink’’); Magnatone Hearing Aid
Corporation d/b/a Persona Medical and
lnEarz Audio of Casselberry, Florida
(‘‘Persona’’); Jerry Harvey Audio LLC of
Orlando, Florida (‘‘Harvey’’); Magic
Dynamics, LLC d/b/a MagicEar of
Clearwater, Florida (‘‘MagicEar’’);
Campfire Audio, LLC of Portland,
Oregon (‘‘Campfire’’); and Clear Tune
Monitors, Inc. of Orlando, Florida
(‘‘Clear Tune’’). Id. The Office of Unfair
Import Investigations (‘‘OUII’’) is also a
party in this investigation. Id.
Xinyao, Soundlink, MagicEar,
CampFire, Persona, Clear Tune, and
Harvey were all terminated from the
investigation based on the issuance of
consent orders. See Order Nos. 37–40,
unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Nov. 23,
2020); Order Nos. 34–35, unreviewed by
Comm’n Notice (Nov. 19, 2020); and
Order No. 28, unreviewed by Comm’n
Notice (Sept. 20, 2020).
On June 1, 2021, the ALJ issued the
subject ID. On June 11, 2021, Bellsing
and Mr. Li filed a joint petition for
review. On June 21, 2021, OUII and
Knowles filed responses.
Having reviewed the record of the
investigation, the ID, and the parties’
submissions to the ALJ and the
Commission, the Commission has
determined to review the ID in part.
Specifically, the Commission has
determined to review (1) whether
Bellsing can participate in briefing on
remedy and bonding before the ALJ (ID
at 4) and in briefing on remedy, the
public interest, and bonding before the
Commission; (2) importation; (3) use by
Mr. Li of Representative Trade Secret
Nos. (‘‘RTS’’) 1–10 (ID at 35–36, 41–42,
49, 56–57, 61, 72–73, and 84–85); (4) all
findings related to RTS No. 6; and (5)
domestic industry. The Commission
also reviews the issues raised in the
E:\FR\FM\06AUN1.SGM
06AUN1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 149 / Friday, August 6, 2021 / Notices
parties’ arguments relating to due
process, comity, and collateral estoppel.
In connection with its review, the
Commission requests responses to the
following questions. The parties are
requested to brief their positions with
reference to the applicable law and the
existing evidentiary record. The
response to each question should
include citations to the record and
identify when the issue/evidence was
previously raised before the ALJ.
(1) Should briefing on remedy,
bonding, and the public interest be
considered from a defaulting party
(assuming that the briefing presented by
the defaulting party is not related to
issues concerning a finding of
violation)? Are there any policy
considerations that the Commission
should take into account?
(2) Did Mr. Li waive the issue of
whether the importation requirement
has been met by Mr. Li? When was the
issue first raised?
(3) Please discuss whether the
importation requirement has been met
with respect to Mr. Li. Can Bellsing’s
actions be imputed to Mr. Li, and if so,
under what theory? Please address the
record evidence and applicable case
law.
(4) Has Mr. Li used or disclosed each
of the RTS Nos. 1–10? Can Bellsing’s
actions be imputed to Mr. Li, and if so,
under what theory? Please address the
record evidence and applicable case
law.
The parties are invited to brief only
the discrete issues requested above (in
their briefs, the parties should also
address remedy, bonding, and the
public interest, as requested below). The
parties are not to brief other issues,
which are adequately presented in the
parties’ existing filings.
In connection with the final
disposition of this investigation, the
statute authorizes issuance of, inter alia,
(1) an exclusion order that could result
in the exclusion of the subject articles
from entry into the United States; and/
or (2) cease and desist orders that could
result in the respondents being required
to cease and desist from engaging in
unfair acts in the importation and sale
of such articles. Accordingly, the
Commission is interested in receiving
written submissions that address the
form of remedy, if any, that should be
ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an
article from entry into the United States
for purposes other than entry for
consumption, the party should so
indicate and provide information
establishing that activities involving
other types of entry either are adversely
affecting it or likely to do so. For
background, see Certain Devices for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:29 Aug 05, 2021
Jkt 253001
Connecting Computers via Telephone
Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360, USITC
Pub. No. 2843, Comm’n Op. at 7–10
(Dec. 1994). In particular, the written
submissions regarding cease and desist
orders should address the request for a
cease and desist order in the context of
recent Commission opinions. The
Commission asks that any submissions
on remedy address the following:
(1) General exclusion order questions:
(a) Can the Commission issue a
general exclusion order covering
downstream products of nonrespondents that incorporate articles
found to be in violation of section 337?
If so, under what circumstances can
downstream products be covered by a
GEO?
(b) Should the Commission consider
whether non-respondents are likely to
circumvent the GEO in determining
whether to cover downstream products
in its order?
(c) Should the Commission consider
the approach and factors set forth in
Certain Erasable Programmable Read
Only Memories (EPROMs), Inv. No. 337–
TA–276, Comm’n Op. (May 1989), aff’d
sub nom., Hyundai Elec. Indus. Co. v.
U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 899 F.2d 1204
(Fed. Cir. 1990)? Please discuss the
relevant evidence in the record of this
investigation and how that evidence
supports the approach and factors that
the Commission should use. Please also
discuss the relevant statutory provisions
of Section 337 and case law, including
Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade
Comm’n, 545 F.3d 1340, 1357–58 (Fed.
Cir. 2008).
(2) In relation to the accused
products, please identify any
information in the record, including
allegations in the pleadings, that
addresses the existence of any domestic
inventory, any domestic operations, or
any sales-related activity directed at the
United States for each respondent
against whom a cease and desist order
is sought and whether the inventories,
business operations, or sales activities
are significant.
(3) Discuss any instances where the
Commission has issued a cease and
desist order to a respondent in his
individual capacity and/or an
individual respondent acting on behalf
of a company? In what circumstance
should the Commission issue a cease
and desist order directed to an
individual?
The statute requires the Commission
to consider the effects of that remedy
upon the public interest. The public
interest factors the Commission will
consider include the effect that an
exclusion order and cease and desist
orders would have on: (1) The public
PO 00000
Frm 00113
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
43271
health and welfare, (2) competitive
conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S.
production of articles that are like or
directly competitive with those that are
subject to investigation, and (4) U.S.
consumers. The Commission is
therefore interested in receiving written
submissions that address the
aforementioned public interest factors
in the context of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form
of remedy, the U.S. Trade
Representative, as delegated by the
President, has 60 days to approve,
disapprove, or take no action on the
Commission’s determination. See
Presidential Memorandum of July 21,
2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005).
During this period, the subject articles
would be entitled to enter the United
States under bond, in an amount
determined by the Commission and
prescribed by the Secretary of the
Treasury. The Commission is therefore
interested in receiving submissions
concerning the amount of the bond that
should be imposed if a remedy is
ordered.
Written Submissions: The parties to
the investigation are requested to file
written submissions on the issues
identified in this notice. Parties to the
investigation, interested government
agencies, and any other interested
parties are encouraged to file written
submissions on the issues of remedy,
the public interest, and bonding. Such
submissions should address the
recommended determination by the ALJ
on remedy and bonding.
In their initial submissions,
Complainants are also requested to
identify the remedy sought and
Complainants and OUII are requested to
submit proposed remedial orders for the
Commission’s consideration.
Complainants are further requested to
provide the HTSUS subheadings under
which the accused products are
imported, and to supply the
identification information for all known
importers of the products at issue in this
investigation. The initial written
submissions and proposed remedial
orders must be filed no later than close
of business on August 16, 2021. Reply
submissions must be filed no later than
the close of business on August 23,
2021. Opening submissions are limited
to 50 pages. Reply submissions are
limited to 30 pages. 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. The Commission’s paper
filing requirements in 19 CFR 210.4(f)
E:\FR\FM\06AUN1.SGM
06AUN1
43272
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 149 / Friday, August 6, 2021 / Notices
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
are currently waived. 85 FR 15798
(March 19, 2020). Submissions should
refer to the investigation number (Inv.
No. 337–TA–1186) in a prominent place
on the cover page and/or the first page.
(See Handbook for Electronic Filing
Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/
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 by marking each document
with a header indicating that the
document contains confidential
information. This marking will be
deemed to satisfy the request procedure
set forth in Rules 201.6(b) and
210.5(e)(2) (19 CFR 201.6(b) &
210.5(e)(2)). Documents for which
confidential treatment by the
Commission is properly sought will be
treated accordingly. A redacted nonconfidential version of the document
must also be filed simultaneously with
any confidential filing. 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, solely for cybersecurity
purposes. All contract personnel will
sign appropriate nondisclosure
agreements. All non-confidential
written submissions will be available for
public inspection on EDIS.
The Commission vote for this
determination took place on August 2,
2021.
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: August 2, 2021.
Katherine Hiner,
Supervisory Attorney.
[FR Doc. 2021–16792 Filed 8–5–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:29 Aug 05, 2021
Jkt 253001
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–1231]
Certain Digital Imaging Devices and
Products Containing the Same and
Components Thereof; Notice of a
Commission Determination Not To
Review an Initial Determination
Terminating the Investigation in Its
Entirety Based on Settlement;
Termination of Investigation
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission (‘‘Commission’’) has
determined not to review an initial
determination (‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 23) of
the presiding administrative law judge
(‘‘ALJ’’), terminating the investigation in
its entirety based on settlement. This
investigation is terminated.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ronald A. Traud, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–3427. Copies of non-confidential
documents filed in connection with this
investigation may be viewed on the
Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS)
at https://edis.usitc.gov. For help
accessing EDIS, please email
EDIS3Help@usitc.gov. General
information concerning the Commission
may also be obtained by accessing its
internet server at https://www.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 this investigation
on December 1, 2020, based on a
complaint filed on behalf of Pictos
Technologies, Inc. of San Jose,
California (‘‘Pictos’’). 85 FR 77238–39
(Dec. 1, 2020). The complaint, as
amended, alleged violations of section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the
importation into the United States, the
sale for importation, or the sale within
the United States after importation of
certain digital imaging devices and
products containing the same and
components thereof by reason of
infringement of certain claims of U.S.
Patent Nos. 7,800,145, 6,838,651,
7,323,671, and 7,064,768. Id. The
amended complaint further alleged
violations of section 337 based upon the
importation into the United States, or in
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00114
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
the sale of certain digital imaging
devices and products containing the
same and components thereof by reason
of misappropriation of trade secrets. Id.
The complaint also alleged that an
industry in the United States exists as
required by section 337. Id. The
Commission’s notice of investigation
named as respondents Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd. of Republic of
Korea; Samsung Electronics America,
Inc. of Ridgefield Park, New Jersey; and
Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. of San
Jose, California (collectively,
‘‘Samsung’’). Id. The Office of Unfair
Import Investigations (‘‘OUII’’) is
participating in the investigation. Id.
On June 21, 2021, Pictos and Samsung
jointly moved pursuant to 19 CFR
210.21(a)(2) and (b) to terminate the
investigation based on a settlement
agreement (‘‘the Agreement’’). The
motion attached public and confidential
versions of the Agreement. On June 24,
2021, OUII filed a statement in support
of the motion.
On July 16, 2021, the ALJ issued
Order No. 23, the subject ID, which
granted the motion. The ID found that
the motion complied with the
Commission’s Rules and that there are
no extraordinary circumstances that
warrant denying the motion. The ID also
found that there is no evidence
indicating that terminating this
investigation would be contrary to the
public interest. No petitions for review
of the ID were received.
The Commission has determined not
to review the subject ID. The
investigation is hereby terminated in its
entirety.
The Commission vote for this
determination took place on August 2,
2021.
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: August 2, 2021.
Katherine Hiner,
Supervisory Attorney.
[FR Doc. 2021–16791 Filed 8–5–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
E:\FR\FM\06AUN1.SGM
06AUN1
]]>Agencies
- INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
- Certain Balanced Armature Devices, Products Containing Same, and Components Thereof
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 149 (Friday, August 6, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43270-43272]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16792]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Certain Balanced Armature Devices, Products Containing Same, and
Components Thereof
[Investigation No. 337-TA-1186]
Notice of a Commission Determination To Review in Part a Summary
Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Request for Written
Submissions on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public
Interest, and Bonding
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review in part a summary determination
(``ID'') (Order No. 50) of the presiding administrative law judge
(``ALJ''), finding a violation of section 337. The Commission requests
written submissions from the parties on the issues under review and
submissions from the parties, interested government agencies, and other
interested persons on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and
bonding, under the schedule set forth below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amanda Pitcher Fisherow, Esq., Office
of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E
Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2737. Copies of
non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation
may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. For help accessing EDIS, please email
[email protected]. General information concerning the Commission may
also be obtained by accessing its internet server at https://www.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: On November 29, 2019, the Commission
instituted this investigation based on a complaint filed by Knowles
Corporation and Knowles Electronics, LLC of Itasca, Illinois, and
Knowles Electronics (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. of Suzhou, China (collectively,
``Knowles''). 84 FR 65840 (Nov. 29, 2019). The complaint, as
supplemented, alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, due to the importation into the
United States, sale for importation, or sale in the United States after
importation of certain balanced armature devices, products containing
same, and components thereof by reason of misappropriation of trade
secrets, the threat or effect of which is to destroy or substantially
injure a domestic industry. Id. The notice of investigation named
twelve (12) respondents, including Shenzhen Bellsing Acoustic
Technology Co. Ltd. of Shenzhen, China, Suzhou Bellsing Acoustic
Technology Co. Ltd. of Suzhou, China, Dongguan Bellsing Precision
Device Co., Ltd. of Dongguan, China, and Bellsing Corporation of Lisle,
Illinois (collectively, ``Bellsing''); Liang Li (a/k/a Ryan Li) of
Suzhou City, China (``Mr. Li''); Dongguan Xinyao Electronics Industrial
Co., Ltd. of Dongguan, China (``Xinyao''); Soundlink Co., Ltd. of
Suzhou, China (``Soundlink''); Magnatone Hearing Aid Corporation d/b/a
Persona Medical and lnEarz Audio of Casselberry, Florida (``Persona'');
Jerry Harvey Audio LLC of Orlando, Florida (``Harvey''); Magic
Dynamics, LLC d/b/a MagicEar of Clearwater, Florida (``MagicEar'');
Campfire Audio, LLC of Portland, Oregon (``Campfire''); and Clear Tune
Monitors, Inc. of Orlando, Florida (``Clear Tune''). Id. The Office of
Unfair Import Investigations (``OUII'') is also a party in this
investigation. Id.
Xinyao, Soundlink, MagicEar, CampFire, Persona, Clear Tune, and
Harvey were all terminated from the investigation based on the issuance
of consent orders. See Order Nos. 37-40, unreviewed by Comm'n Notice
(Nov. 23, 2020); Order Nos. 34-35, unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Nov.
19, 2020); and Order No. 28, unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Sept. 20,
2020).
On June 1, 2021, the ALJ issued the subject ID. On June 11, 2021,
Bellsing and Mr. Li filed a joint petition for review. On June 21,
2021, OUII and Knowles filed responses.
Having reviewed the record of the investigation, the ID, and the
parties' submissions to the ALJ and the Commission, the Commission has
determined to review the ID in part. Specifically, the Commission has
determined to review (1) whether Bellsing can participate in briefing
on remedy and bonding before the ALJ (ID at 4) and in briefing on
remedy, the public interest, and bonding before the Commission; (2)
importation; (3) use by Mr. Li of Representative Trade Secret Nos.
(``RTS'') 1-10 (ID at 35-36, 41-42, 49, 56-57, 61, 72-73, and 84-85);
(4) all findings related to RTS No. 6; and (5) domestic industry. The
Commission also reviews the issues raised in the
[[Page 43271]]
parties' arguments relating to due process, comity, and collateral
estoppel.
In connection with its review, the Commission requests responses to
the following questions. The parties are requested to brief their
positions with reference to the applicable law and the existing
evidentiary record. The response to each question should include
citations to the record and identify when the issue/evidence was
previously raised before the ALJ.
(1) Should briefing on remedy, bonding, and the public interest be
considered from a defaulting party (assuming that the briefing
presented by the defaulting party is not related to issues concerning a
finding of violation)? Are there any policy considerations that the
Commission should take into account?
(2) Did Mr. Li waive the issue of whether the importation
requirement has been met by Mr. Li? When was the issue first raised?
(3) Please discuss whether the importation requirement has been met
with respect to Mr. Li. Can Bellsing's actions be imputed to Mr. Li,
and if so, under what theory? Please address the record evidence and
applicable case law.
(4) Has Mr. Li used or disclosed each of the RTS Nos. 1-10? Can
Bellsing's actions be imputed to Mr. Li, and if so, under what theory?
Please address the record evidence and applicable case law.
The parties are invited to brief only the discrete issues requested
above (in their briefs, the parties should also address remedy,
bonding, and the public interest, as requested below). The parties are
not to brief other issues, which are adequately presented in the
parties' existing filings.
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the
statute authorizes issuance of, inter alia, (1) an exclusion order that
could result in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into
the United States; and/or (2) cease and desist orders that could result
in the respondents being required to cease and desist from engaging in
unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly,
the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that
address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party
seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for
purposes other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate
and provide information establishing that activities involving other
types of entry either are adversely affecting it or likely to do so.
For background, see Certain Devices for Connecting Computers via
Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-360, USITC Pub. No. 2843, Comm'n Op.
at 7-10 (Dec. 1994). In particular, the written submissions regarding
cease and desist orders should address the request for a cease and
desist order in the context of recent Commission opinions. The
Commission asks that any submissions on remedy address the following:
(1) General exclusion order questions:
(a) Can the Commission issue a general exclusion order covering
downstream products of non-respondents that incorporate articles found
to be in violation of section 337? If so, under what circumstances can
downstream products be covered by a GEO?
(b) Should the Commission consider whether non-respondents are
likely to circumvent the GEO in determining whether to cover downstream
products in its order?
(c) Should the Commission consider the approach and factors set
forth in Certain Erasable Programmable Read Only Memories (EPROMs),
Inv. No. 337-TA-276, Comm'n Op. (May 1989), aff'd sub nom., Hyundai
Elec. Indus. Co. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 899 F.2d 1204 (Fed. Cir.
1990)? Please discuss the relevant evidence in the record of this
investigation and how that evidence supports the approach and factors
that the Commission should use. Please also discuss the relevant
statutory provisions of Section 337 and case law, including Kyocera
Wireless Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 545 F.3d 1340, 1357-58 (Fed. Cir.
2008).
(2) In relation to the accused products, please identify any
information in the record, including allegations in the pleadings, that
addresses the existence of any domestic inventory, any domestic
operations, or any sales-related activity directed at the United States
for each respondent against whom a cease and desist order is sought and
whether the inventories, business operations, or sales activities are
significant.
(3) Discuss any instances where the Commission has issued a cease
and desist order to a respondent in his individual capacity and/or an
individual respondent acting on behalf of a company? In what
circumstance should the Commission issue a cease and desist order
directed to an individual?
The statute requires the Commission to consider the effects of that
remedy upon the public interest. The public interest factors the
Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order and
cease and desist orders would have on: (1) The public health and
welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S.
production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those
that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The
Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions
that address the aforementioned public interest factors in the context
of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade
Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve,
disapprove, or take no action on the Commission's determination. See
Presidential Memorandum of July 21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005).
During this period, the subject articles would be entitled to enter the
United States under bond, in an amount determined by the Commission and
prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Commission is
therefore interested in receiving submissions concerning the amount of
the bond that should be imposed if a remedy is ordered.
Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation are requested
to file written submissions on the issues identified in this notice.
Parties to the investigation, interested government agencies, and any
other interested parties are encouraged to file written submissions on
the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Such
submissions should address the recommended determination by the ALJ on
remedy and bonding.
In their initial submissions, Complainants are also requested to
identify the remedy sought and Complainants and OUII are requested to
submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission's consideration.
Complainants are further requested to provide the HTSUS subheadings
under which the accused products are imported, and to supply the
identification information for all known importers of the products at
issue in this investigation. The initial written submissions and
proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than close of business
on August 16, 2021. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the
close of business on August 23, 2021. Opening submissions are limited
to 50 pages. Reply submissions are limited to 30 pages. 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. The
Commission's paper filing requirements in 19 CFR 210.4(f)
[[Page 43272]]
are currently waived. 85 FR 15798 (March 19, 2020). Submissions should
refer to the investigation number (Inv. No. 337-TA-1186) in a prominent
place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for
Electronic Filing Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/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 by marking each document
with a header indicating that the document contains confidential
information. This marking will be deemed to satisfy the request
procedure set forth in Rules 201.6(b) and 210.5(e)(2) (19 CFR 201.6(b)
& 210.5(e)(2)). Documents for which confidential treatment by the
Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. A redacted
non-confidential version of the document must also be filed
simultaneously with any confidential filing. 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, solely for cybersecurity purposes.
All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements.
All non-confidential written submissions will be available for public
inspection on EDIS.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on August 2,
2021.
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: August 2, 2021.
Katherine Hiner,
Supervisory Attorney.
[FR Doc. 2021-16792 Filed 8-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
