Certain Foodservice Equipment and Components Thereof; Commission Determination To Review in Part a Final Initial Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding, 44054-44056 [2021-17082]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
44054
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 11, 2021 / Notices
Products, LLC, Sauget, Illinois. The
Commission scheduled the final phase
of the investigation following
notification of a preliminary
determination by Commerce that
imports of SRC pipe and tube from
Vietnam were being sold at LTFV
within the meaning of section 733(b) of
the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of
the scheduling of the final phase of the
Commission’s investigation and of a
public hearing to be held in connection
therewith was given by posting copies
of the notice in the Office of the
Secretary, U.S. International Trade
Commission, Washington, DC, and by
publishing the notice in the Federal
Register of February 23, 2021 (86 FR
10994). Since no party to the
investigation requested a hearing, the
public hearing in connection with the
investigation, originally scheduled for
June 15, 2021, was canceled.3
The Commission made this
determination pursuant to § 735(b) of
the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)). It
completed and filed its determination in
this investigation on August 5, 2021.
The views of the Commission are
contained in USITC Publication 5216
(August 2021), entitled Seamless
Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from
Vietnam: Investigation No. 731–TA–
1528 (Final).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: August 5, 2021.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2021–17083 Filed 8–10–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–1166]
Certain Foodservice Equipment and
Components Thereof; Commission
Determination To Review in Part a
Final Initial Determination Finding No
Violation of Section 337; Schedule for
Filing 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 the final initial determination
(‘‘final ID’’) issued by the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on
June 4, 2021, finding no violation of
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
3 86
FR 32277 (June 11, 2021).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:05 Aug 10, 2021
Jkt 253001
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended. The Commission requests
briefing from the parties on certain
issues under review, as indicated in this
notice. The Commission also requests
briefing from the parties, interested
government agencies, and interested
persons on the issues of remedy, the
public interest, and bonding.
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 July 3, 2019, based on a complaint
filed on behalf of Illinois Tool Works,
Inc. of Glenview, Illinois; Vesta Global
Limited of Hong Kong; Vesta
(Guangzhou) Catering Equipment Co.,
Ltd. of China; and Admiral Craft
Equipment Corp. of Westbury, New
York (collectively, ‘‘Complainants’’). 84
FR 31911 (Jul. 3, 2019). The complaint,
as supplemented, alleged violations of
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, based upon
the importation of articles into the
United States, or in the sale of such
articles by the owner, importer, or
consignee of certain foodservice
equipment and components thereof by
reason of misappropriation of trade
secrets and unfair competition through
tortious interference with contractual
relationships, the threat or effect of
which is to destroy or substantially
injure a domestic industry. Id. at 31911–
12. The notice of investigation named as
respondents Guangzhou Rebenet
Catering Equipment Manufacturing Co.,
Ltd.; Zhou Hao; Aceplus International
Limited (aka Ace Plus International
Ltd.); Guangzhou Liangsheng Trading
Co., Ltd.; and Zeng Zhaoliang, all of
China. Id. at 31912. The Office of Unfair
Import Investigations (‘‘OUII’’) was also
named as a party in this investigation.
Id.
On July 9, 2020, Order No. 52 granted
a motion for summary determination of
no substantial injury to a domestic
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
industry. The Commission determined
to review Order No. 52, and on
December 14, 2020, reversed the grant of
summary determination.
On June 4, 2021, the ALJ issued the
final ID, which found that Respondents
did not violate section 337, primarily
based on a Complainants’ failure to
establish a domestic industry. The final
ID found that the Commission has in
rem jurisdiction over the accused
products, subject matter jurisdiction,
and personal jurisdiction. ID at 99. The
final ID also found that Respondents
imported into the United States, sold for
importation, or sold within the United
States after importation the accused
products. Id. The final ID further found
that Respondents have misappropriated
certain of Complainants’ trade secrets in
the manufacture of certain accused
products, but that Complainants have
not shown that Respondents tortiously
interfered with contractual
relationships. Id. The final ID
additionally found that Complainants
have not shown that the importation
and sale of accused products has the
threat or effect of destroying or
substantially injuring a domestic
industry.
The RD issued on June 10, 2021. The
RD recommended that, if the
Commission finds a violation of section
337, the Commission should issue
limited exclusion orders of various
durations for each of the various
categories of accused products. RD at
10. The durations of the recommended
exclusion orders are all quite short,
ranging from 1–17 months from
issuance. Id. at 10–11. The RD further
recommended that a cease and desist
order would be unnecessary. Id. at 12.
The RD additionally recommended that
a bond of 1% of entered value be
imposed during the period of
Presidential review. The public interest
was not delegated to the ALJ.
On June 21, 2021, Complainants and
Respondents filed petitions for review
and OUII filed a contingent petition for
review. On June 29, 2021, the parties
filed responses to the petitions.
Having examined the record in this
investigation, including the final ID, the
petitions for review, and the responses
thereto, the Commission has determined
to review the final ID in part. In
particular, the Commission has
determined to review the following:
(1) The final ID’s findings and
conclusions as to the existence of a
domestic industry and injury to a
domestic industry.
(2) The final ID’s findings and
conclusions regarding the wrongful
taking and use of the Bills of Materials
E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM
11AUN1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 11, 2021 / Notices
(‘‘BOM’’) Trade Secrets and the Custom
Components and Mold Trade Secrets.
The Commission has determined to not
review the remainder of the final ID.
The parties are requested to brief their
positions with reference to the
applicable law and the evidentiary
record regarding the questions provided
below:
(1) Regarding domestic industry:
(A) Please explain whether
Complainants’ asserted expenditures for
warranty services differ from those of a
mere importer, including by discussing:
(A) How the Commission and the
Federal Circuit have considered such
investments in prior investigations, and
(B) how the facts of this investigation
should be assessed in light of applicable
precedent. Also address the extent to
which the warranty servicing activities
relied upon to show the existence of a
domestic industry need to take place in
the United States either as a legal or a
practical matter, such that those
activities would not distinguish a
domestic industry from a mere importer.
(B) Are complainants required to
allocate payments made to third-party
service providers for warranty services
to qualifying activities in an
investigation under 19 U.S.C.
1337(a)(1)(A)? In answering this
question, please discuss any relevant
legal authority.
(C) Did Complainants sufficiently
allocate their payments to third-party
service providers for warranty services
to qualifying activities.
(D) If the payments to third-party
service providers are not sufficiently
allocated, what qualifying expenditures
remain?
(E) What evidence and argument were
timely-presented regarding the nature
and significance of those remaining
qualifying expenditures?
(F) Assuming there is an industry in
the United States within the meaning of
19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(A), please discuss
the evidence and arguments addressing
whether the industry is substantially
injured or threatened with substantial
injury.
(2) Regarding wrongful taking and use
of the BOM Trade Secrets:
(A) To what extent are Vesta’s BOM
Codes non-public information, and to
what extent did the final ID make
findings on that point (particularly
unpetitioned findings)?
(B) Is it contradictory for the final ID
to consider the similarities in Vesta’s
BOM Codes and Rebenet’s part numbers
in its wrongful taking and use analysis,
where the final ID finds that the BOM
Codes are not themselves trade secrets?
Please discuss any relevant legal
authority.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:05 Aug 10, 2021
Jkt 253001
(C) If evidence of the similarities
between Vesta’s BOM Codes and
Rebenet’s part numbers cannot be
considered for determining wrongful
taking and use of the BOM Trade
Secrets, could Complainants still meet
their burden of proof as to those
elements of trade secret
misappropriation?
(3) Regarding wrongful taking and use
of the Custom Components and Mold
Trade Secrets:
(A) Is it contradictory for the final ID
to consider the similarities in Vesta’s
BOM Codes and Rebenet’s part
numbers, and Vesta’s and Rebenet’s
drawings, where those codes and
drawings were not found to be trade
secrets? Please discuss any relevant
legal authority.
(B) If evidence of the similarities
between Vesta’s BOM Codes and
Rebenet’s part numbers, and Vesta’s and
Rebenet’s drawings cannot be
considered for determining wrongful
taking and use of the Custom
Components and Mold Trade Secrets,
could Complainants still meet their
burden of proof as to those elements of
trade secret misappropriation?
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 are 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).
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/or 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
44055
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 questions
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
initial written submissions should
include views on the RD that issued on
June 10, 2021.
Initial written submissions, limited to
60 pages, must be filed no later than the
close of business on August 19, 2021.
The following information is also
requested in the initial written
submissions and will not count against
the above-mentioned page limitations.
Complainants are requested to identify
the form of the remedy sought.
Complainants and OUII are requested to
submit proposed remedial orders for the
Commission’s consideration.
Complainants are also requested to state
the HTSUS subheadings under which
the accused articles are imported, and to
supply identification information for all
known importers of the accused
products.
Reply submissions, limited to 30
pages, must be filed no later than the
close of business on August 26, 2021.
No further submissions on 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)
are currently waived. 85 FR 15798
(March 19, 2020). Submissions should
refer to the investigation number (‘‘Inv.
No. 337–TA–1166’’) in a prominent
place on the cover page and/or the first
E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM
11AUN1
44056
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 11, 2021 / Notices
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
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 at (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 nonconfidential written
submissions will be available for public
inspection on EDIS.
The Commission vote for this
determination took place on August 5,
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 5, 2021.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2021–17082 Filed 8–10–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:05 Aug 10, 2021
Jkt 253001
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Notice of Lodging of Proposed
Consent Decree Under the Clean Water
Act
On August 5, 2021, the Department of
Justice filed a complaint and lodged a
proposed consent decree with the
United States District Court for the
District of North Dakota in the lawsuit
entitled United States and North Dakota
v. Summit Midstream Partners, LLC and
Meadowlark Midstream Company, LLC,
Civil Action No. 1:21–cv–00161. The
Department of the Interior’s Fish and
Wildlife Service, the North Dakota
Department of Environmental Quality,
and the North Dakota Department of
Game and Fish (‘‘Trustees’’) are also
providing notice of an opportunity for
public comment on a Draft Restoration
Plan.
The United States and the State of
North Dakota filed this lawsuit under
the Clean Water Act and North Dakota
water pollution control laws. The
complaint names Summit Midstream
Partners, LLC and Meadowlark
Midstream Company, LLC as
defendants. The complaint seeks
injunctive relief, civil penalties, and
natural resource damages for violations
of the Clean Water Act and North
Dakota law as a result of a produced
water spill from a pipeline owned and
operated by Defendants. Defendants’
pipeline discharged more than 700,000
barrels of produced water between
August 2014 and January 2015;
produced water from the spill reached
groundwater, a nearby creek, and
downstream rivers.
The Consent Decree requires
Defendants to perform injunctive relief;
remediate environmental impacts; pay
$250,000 in natural resource damage
assessment costs; pay $1,000,000 to be
used by the Trustees for the costs of
projects that restore, rehabilitate,
replace, or acquire the equivalent of
natural resources; and pay a
$20,000,000 civil penalty to be split
evenly between the United States and
North Dakota. Based on certain ability to
pay limitations, the civil penalty will be
paid over six years, subject to interest.
The Consent Decree resolves the civil
claims alleged by the United States and
North Dakota in the complaint. Under
the Consent Decree, the United States
and North Dakota also agreed not to sue
Defendants for natural resource damages
resulting from the produced water spill.
The Trustees have written a Draft
Restoration Plan that describes
proposed alternatives for restoring
natural resources and natural resource
services injured by the produced water
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
spill. The preferred alternatives include
three restoration project types: (1)
Aquatic service enhancements; (2)
conservation of environmentally
sensitive lands; and (3) recreational
access enhancement.
The publication of this notice opens
a period for public comment on the
Consent Decree and the Draft
Restoration Plan. Comments on the
Consent Decree should be addressed to
the Assistant Attorney General,
Environment and Natural Resources
Division, and should refer to United
States and North Dakota v. Summit
Midstream Partners, LLC and
Meadowlark Midstream Company, LLC,
D.J. Ref. No. 90–5–2–1–11253. All
comments must be submitted no later
than thirty (30) days after the
publication date of this notice.
Comments may be submitted either by
email or by mail:
To submit
comments:
Send them to:
By email .......
pubcomment-ees.enrd@
usdoj.gov.
Assistant Attorney General,
U.S. DOJ—ENRD,
P.O. Box 7611,
Washington, DC 20044–7611.
By mail .........
During the public comment period,
the Consent Decree may be examined
and downloaded at this Justice
Department website: https://
www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees.
We will provide a paper copy of the
Consent Decree upon written request
and payment of reproduction costs.
Please mail your request and payment
to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ—
ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC
20044–7611.
Please enclose a check or money order
for $23.00 (25 cents per page
reproduction cost) payable to the United
States Treasury. For a paper copy
without the appendices and signature
pages, the cost is $16.25.
Comments on the Draft Restoration
Plan may be submitted to the Trustees,
and should refer to Blacktail Creek—
Summit Midstream Pipeline Release
Settlement Agreement, DOI Reference
#9590. All comments on the Draft
Restoration Plan must be submitted no
later than 30 days after the publication
date of this notice. Comments on the
Draft Restoration Plan may be submitted
either by email or by mail:
To submit
comments:
Send them to:
By email .......
FW6Blacktail_
CreekNRDAR@fws.gov.
E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM
11AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 11, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44054-44056]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17082]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-1166]
Certain Foodservice Equipment and Components Thereof; Commission
Determination To Review in Part a Final Initial Determination Finding
No Violation of Section 337; Schedule for Filing 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 the final initial
determination (``final ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law
judge (``ALJ'') on June 4, 2021, finding no violation of section 337 of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. The Commission requests briefing
from the parties on certain issues under review, as indicated in this
notice. The Commission also requests briefing from the parties,
interested government agencies, and interested persons on the issues of
remedy, the public interest, and bonding.
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
[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: The Commission instituted this investigation
on July 3, 2019, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Illinois Tool
Works, Inc. of Glenview, Illinois; Vesta Global Limited of Hong Kong;
Vesta (Guangzhou) Catering Equipment Co., Ltd. of China; and Admiral
Craft Equipment Corp. of Westbury, New York (collectively,
``Complainants''). 84 FR 31911 (Jul. 3, 2019). The complaint, as
supplemented, alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, based upon the importation of
articles into the United States, or in the sale of such articles by the
owner, importer, or consignee of certain foodservice equipment and
components thereof by reason of misappropriation of trade secrets and
unfair competition through tortious interference with contractual
relationships, the threat or effect of which is to destroy or
substantially injure a domestic industry. Id. at 31911-12. The notice
of investigation named as respondents Guangzhou Rebenet Catering
Equipment Manufacturing Co., Ltd.; Zhou Hao; Aceplus International
Limited (aka Ace Plus International Ltd.); Guangzhou Liangsheng Trading
Co., Ltd.; and Zeng Zhaoliang, all of China. Id. at 31912. The Office
of Unfair Import Investigations (``OUII'') was also named as a party in
this investigation. Id.
On July 9, 2020, Order No. 52 granted a motion for summary
determination of no substantial injury to a domestic industry. The
Commission determined to review Order No. 52, and on December 14, 2020,
reversed the grant of summary determination.
On June 4, 2021, the ALJ issued the final ID, which found that
Respondents did not violate section 337, primarily based on a
Complainants' failure to establish a domestic industry. The final ID
found that the Commission has in rem jurisdiction over the accused
products, subject matter jurisdiction, and personal jurisdiction. ID at
99. The final ID also found that Respondents imported into the United
States, sold for importation, or sold within the United States after
importation the accused products. Id. The final ID further found that
Respondents have misappropriated certain of Complainants' trade secrets
in the manufacture of certain accused products, but that Complainants
have not shown that Respondents tortiously interfered with contractual
relationships. Id. The final ID additionally found that Complainants
have not shown that the importation and sale of accused products has
the threat or effect of destroying or substantially injuring a domestic
industry.
The RD issued on June 10, 2021. The RD recommended that, if the
Commission finds a violation of section 337, the Commission should
issue limited exclusion orders of various durations for each of the
various categories of accused products. RD at 10. The durations of the
recommended exclusion orders are all quite short, ranging from 1-17
months from issuance. Id. at 10-11. The RD further recommended that a
cease and desist order would be unnecessary. Id. at 12. The RD
additionally recommended that a bond of 1% of entered value be imposed
during the period of Presidential review. The public interest was not
delegated to the ALJ.
On June 21, 2021, Complainants and Respondents filed petitions for
review and OUII filed a contingent petition for review. On June 29,
2021, the parties filed responses to the petitions.
Having examined the record in this investigation, including the
final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the
Commission has determined to review the final ID in part. In
particular, the Commission has determined to review the following:
(1) The final ID's findings and conclusions as to the existence of
a domestic industry and injury to a domestic industry.
(2) The final ID's findings and conclusions regarding the wrongful
taking and use of the Bills of Materials
[[Page 44055]]
(``BOM'') Trade Secrets and the Custom Components and Mold Trade
Secrets.
The Commission has determined to not review the remainder of the final
ID.
The parties are requested to brief their positions with reference
to the applicable law and the evidentiary record regarding the
questions provided below:
(1) Regarding domestic industry:
(A) Please explain whether Complainants' asserted expenditures for
warranty services differ from those of a mere importer, including by
discussing: (A) How the Commission and the Federal Circuit have
considered such investments in prior investigations, and (B) how the
facts of this investigation should be assessed in light of applicable
precedent. Also address the extent to which the warranty servicing
activities relied upon to show the existence of a domestic industry
need to take place in the United States either as a legal or a
practical matter, such that those activities would not distinguish a
domestic industry from a mere importer.
(B) Are complainants required to allocate payments made to third-
party service providers for warranty services to qualifying activities
in an investigation under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(A)? In answering this
question, please discuss any relevant legal authority.
(C) Did Complainants sufficiently allocate their payments to third-
party service providers for warranty services to qualifying activities.
(D) If the payments to third-party service providers are not
sufficiently allocated, what qualifying expenditures remain?
(E) What evidence and argument were timely-presented regarding the
nature and significance of those remaining qualifying expenditures?
(F) Assuming there is an industry in the United States within the
meaning of 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(A), please discuss the evidence and
arguments addressing whether the industry is substantially injured or
threatened with substantial injury.
(2) Regarding wrongful taking and use of the BOM Trade Secrets:
(A) To what extent are Vesta's BOM Codes non-public information,
and to what extent did the final ID make findings on that point
(particularly unpetitioned findings)?
(B) Is it contradictory for the final ID to consider the
similarities in Vesta's BOM Codes and Rebenet's part numbers in its
wrongful taking and use analysis, where the final ID finds that the BOM
Codes are not themselves trade secrets? Please discuss any relevant
legal authority.
(C) If evidence of the similarities between Vesta's BOM Codes and
Rebenet's part numbers cannot be considered for determining wrongful
taking and use of the BOM Trade Secrets, could Complainants still meet
their burden of proof as to those elements of trade secret
misappropriation?
(3) Regarding wrongful taking and use of the Custom Components and
Mold Trade Secrets:
(A) Is it contradictory for the final ID to consider the
similarities in Vesta's BOM Codes and Rebenet's part numbers, and
Vesta's and Rebenet's drawings, where those codes and drawings were not
found to be trade secrets? Please discuss any relevant legal authority.
(B) If evidence of the similarities between Vesta's BOM Codes and
Rebenet's part numbers, and Vesta's and Rebenet's drawings cannot be
considered for determining wrongful taking and use of the Custom
Components and Mold Trade Secrets, could Complainants still meet their
burden of proof as to those elements of trade secret misappropriation?
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 are 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).
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/or 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 questions 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 initial
written submissions should include views on the RD that issued on June
10, 2021.
Initial written submissions, limited to 60 pages, must be filed no
later than the close of business on August 19, 2021. The following
information is also requested in the initial written submissions and
will not count against the above-mentioned page limitations.
Complainants are requested to identify the form of the remedy sought.
Complainants and OUII are requested to submit proposed remedial orders
for the Commission's consideration. Complainants are also requested to
state the HTSUS subheadings under which the accused articles are
imported, and to supply identification information for all known
importers of the accused products.
Reply submissions, limited to 30 pages, must be filed no later than
the close of business on August 26, 2021. No further submissions on
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) are currently
waived. 85 FR 15798 (March 19, 2020). Submissions should refer to the
investigation number (``Inv. No. 337-TA-1166'') in a prominent place on
the cover page and/or the first
[[Page 44056]]
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 at (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 nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public
inspection on EDIS.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on August 5,
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 5, 2021.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2021-17082 Filed 8-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
