Certain Blowers and Components Thereof; Notice of a Commission Determination Finding No Violation of the Consent Order; Terminating the Enforcement Proceeding; and Remanding Order No. 36, 15454-15455 [2022-05713]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
15454
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Notices
TEXAS
MAINE
Presidio County
Hancock County
Mount Desert Island Hiking Trail System,
(Acadia National Park MPS), Acadia NP,
P.O. Box 177, Bar Harbor, Bar Harbor
vicinity, MP100007602
Mount Desert Island Hiking Trail System,
(Acadia National Park MPS), Acadia NP,
P.O. Box 177, Bar Harbor, Tremont
vicinity, MP100007602
Mount Desert Island Hiking Trail System,
(Acadia National Park MPS), Acadia NP,
P.O. Box 177, Bar Harbor, Mount Desert,
vicinity, MP100007602
Mount Desert Island Hiking Trail System,
(Acadia National Park MPS), Acadia NP,
P.O. Box 177, Bar Harbor, Southwest
Harbor vicinity, MP100007602
Central Marfa Historic District, Roughly
bounded by Washington, Dallas, Dean,
Russell, Austin and Abbott Sts., Marfa,
SG100007597
VIRGINIA
Fairfax County
Mount Vernon Enterprise Lodge #3488-Pride
of Fairfax County Lodge #298, 7809
Fordson Rd., Alexandria vicinity,
SG100007613
Manassas Independent City
Annaburg, 9201 Maple St., Manassas,
SG100007614
Authority: Section 60.13 of 36 CFR
part 60.
WEST VIRGINIA
Hampshire County
West Virginia Schools for the Deaf and the
Blind Dairy Barn, 199 Depot St., Romney,
SG100007605
Dated: March 8, 2022.
Sherry A. Frear,
Chief, National Register of Historic Places/
National Historic Landmarks Program.
Monongalia County
[FR Doc. 2022–05697 Filed 3–17–22; 8:45 am]
Richwood Avenue Wall, (New Deal Stone
Resources in Morgantown, Monongalia
County, WV, 1932–1943 MPS), Richwood
Ave. along Whitmore Park, Morgantown,
MP100007608
Deckers Creek Wall, (New Deal Stone
Resources in Morgantown, Monongalia
County, WV, 1932–1943 MPS), Deckers
Creek, Morgantown, MP100007609
Eighth Street Stone Retaining Walls, (New
Deal Stone Resources in Morgantown,
Monongalia County, WV, 1932–1943 MPS),
305 and 321 8th St., Morgantown,
MP100007610
BILLING CODE 4312–52–P
Ohio County
AGENCY:
Wheeling Warehouse Historic District
(Boundary Increase), Roughly bounded by
Main, 20th, and east side of Market Sts.,
and Wheeling Cr., Wheeling, BC100007606
SUMMARY:
Preston County
Terra Alta First United Methodist Church,
301 West State Ave., Terra Alta,
SG100007611
Tucker County
Buxton and Landstreet Company Store, 571
Douglas Rd., Thomas, SG100007612
Additional documentation has been
received for the following resource:
WISCONSIN
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Kewaunee County
Marquette Historic District (Additional
Documentation), Roughly bounded by Lake
Michigan and Center, Juneau and Lincoln
Sts., Kewaunee, AD93001167
Nomination submitted by Federal
Preservation Officer:
The State Historic Preservation Officer
reviewed the following nomination and
responded to the Federal Preservation Officer
within 45 days of receipt of the nomination
and supports listing the property in the
National Register of Historic Places.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–1217]
Certain Blowers and Components
Thereof; Notice of a Commission
Determination Finding No Violation of
the Consent Order; Terminating the
Enforcement Proceeding; and
Remanding Order No. 36
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to bifurcate
its review of Order No. 36 from its
review of the EID in the enforcement
proceeding. The Commission has
determined to affirm the enforcement
initial determination (‘‘EID’’) issued on
December 14, 2021, finding no violation
of the consent order issued in the abovereferenced section 337 enforcement
investigation with the modifications set
forth in the accompanying Commission
opinion. The enforcement proceeding is
terminated. The Commission has
determined to remand Order No. 36 to
the Administrative Law Judge (‘‘ALJ’’)
for issuance of a revised order regarding
sanctions as set forth in the Commission
remand order. The Commission will
consider Order No. 36 in the separate
sanctions proceeding.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW,
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–3042. 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
September 8, 2020, the Commission
instituted the original, underlying
investigation based on a complaint filed
by Regal Beloit America, Inc. of Beloit,
Wisconsin (‘‘Regal’’ or ‘‘Complainant’’).
85 FR 55491–92 (Sept. 8, 2020). The
complaint 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 blowers and components thereof
by reason of infringement of one or
more of claims 1, 2, 7–10, and 15 of U.S.
Patent No. 8,079,834 (‘‘the ’834 patent’’).
Id. at 55492. The Commission’s notice
of investigation named as respondents
East West Manufacturing, LLC of
Atlanta, Georgia, and East West
Industries of Binh Duong, Vietnam
(collectively, ‘‘East West’’ or
‘‘Respondents’’). Id. at 55492. The Office
of Unfair Import Investigations (‘‘OUII’’)
did not participate as a party in the
original investigation. Id.
On November 12, 2020, the
Commission terminated the original
investigation with respect to
Respondents based upon a consent
order stipulation and entry of a consent
order. 85 FR 73511 (Nov. 18, 2020). The
Consent Order directs East West to ‘‘not
sell for importation, import or sell after
importation the Subject Articles . . .
except under consent or license from
Complainant.’’ Consent Order at ¶ 5.
The Consent Order defines ‘‘Subject
Articles’’ as ‘‘certain blowers and
components thereof that infringe claims
1, 2, 7–10, and 15 of the ’834 Patent.’’
Id. at ¶ 3.
On January 15, 2021, Regal filed an
enforcement complaint at the
Commission alleging that East West’s
redesigned blower infringes claims 1, 2,
7–10, and 15 of the ’834 patent in
violation of the Consent Order. On
February 19, 2021, the Commission
instituted a formal enforcement
proceeding, pursuant to Commission
E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM
18MRN1
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2022 / Notices
Rule 210.75(a), to determine whether a
violation of the consent order issued in
the original investigation has occurred
and to determine what, if any,
enforcement measures are appropriate.
86 FR 10335 (Feb. 19, 2021). The
respondents named in the enforcement
proceeding are the same as the
respondents named in the original
investigation, i.e., East West
Manufacturing, LLC of Atlanta, Georgia,
and East West Industries of Binh Duong,
Vietnam. Id. OUII was named as a party
in the enforcement proceeding. Id.
On March 1, 2021, East West filed a
motion for monetary and other
sanctions alleging that Regal and its
attorneys tampered with and
misrepresented the accused redesigned
blower in the enforcement complaint.
Regal and OUII filed responses thereto
on March 11, 2021, and March 18, 2021,
respectively. Regal opposed the motion
and asked for monetary sanctions in its
response. The presiding Administrative
Law Judge (‘‘ALJ’’) further permitted the
private parties to file replies and surreplies to the sanctions briefing. EID at
16.
On June 29, 2021, the ALJ issued a
Markman Order (Order No. 22), styled
‘‘Markman Claim Constructions With
Abbreviated Rationales’’ (Markman
Order I). On July 13, 2021, the ALJ
issued Order No. 23, clarifying Order
No. 22.
The ALJ held an evidentiary hearing
from July 20–23, 2021 and received
post-hearing briefs thereafter. On
September 22, 2021, the ALJ held a
supplemental hearing on the sanctions
motion. EID at 18.
On October 29, 2021, the ALJ issued
Order No. 32 (Markman Order II),
providing extensive explanations as to
the adopted constructions in Order No.
22.
On December 14, 2021, the ALJ issued
the subject EID finding no violation of
the Consent Order. The EID found that
the parties do not contest personal
jurisdiction, and that the Commission
has in rem jurisdiction over the accused
products. EID at 19–20. The EID noted
that the private parties filed a ‘‘Joint
Stipulation on Importation and Sales,’’
describing ‘‘the number of units of the
Accused or Redesigned Blower that East
West imported and sold.’’ Id. at 20. The
EID found that Regal failed to show that
East West’s redesigned blower infringes
asserted claims 1, 2, 7–10, and 15 of the
’834 patent, and thus failed to show a
violation of the consent order. See id. at
9–10. The EID stated that ‘‘in the event
the Commission were to find to the
contrary, an imposed civil penalty
should be de minimus and not the
maximum civil penalty that Regal has
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Mar 17, 2022
Jkt 256001
proposed.’’ Id. at 10. Specifically, the
EID recommended that ‘‘East West
disgorge its profits plus an additional
one-half of its profits from any sales that
violated the Consent Order.’’ Id. at 10–
11.
On December 14, 2021, the ALJ also
issued Order No. 36 denying East West’s
motion for monetary sanctions. The ALJ
issued a public warning to Regal, citing
the Commission’s sanctions authority
under Commission Rule 210.4(c) and
(d), 19 CFR 210.4(c), (d), and ordered
Regal to correct potentially misleading
portions of the enforcement complaint.
On January 4, 2022, Regal filed a
petition for review of the EID, and
Respondents filed a contingent petition
for review of the EID and a petition for
review of Order No. 36. On January 10,
2022, the parties replied to the petitions
for review.
On February 11, 2022, the
Commission determined to review the
EID and Order No. 36. 87 FR 9085–86
(Feb. 17, 2022).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 210.25, the
Commission has determined to bifurcate
its review of Order No. 36 from its
review of the EID. Upon review of the
parties’ submissions, the EID, and the
evidence of record, the Commission has
determined to affirm the EID’s finding
that Regal failed to show that East West
violated the Consent Order with the
modifications set forth in the
accompanying Commission opinion.
The enforcement proceeding is
terminated. The Commission has
determined to remand Order No. 36 to
the ALJ for a revised order regarding
sanctions as set forth in the Commission
remand order. The Commission will
consider Order No. 36 in the separate
sanctions proceeding.
The Commission’s vote on this
determination took place on March 14,
2022.
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 210).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: March 14, 2022.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Notice of Lodging of Proposed
Consent Decree Under the Clean Air
Act
On March 15, 2022, the Department of
Justice lodged a proposed Consent
Decree with the United States District
Court for the Western District of
Louisiana in the lawsuit entitled United
States of America v. Power Performance
Enterprises Inc. and Kory Blaine Willis,
Civil Action No. 22–cv–00693.
In this action, the United States, on
behalf of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, filed a Complaint
alleging that between August 15, 2013
and June 4, 2018, Defendants PPEI and
its owner, Mr. Willis, manufactured,
sold, or offered to sell aftermarket
automotive products that have a
principal effect of bypassing, defeating,
or rendering inoperative the emission
controls on diesel cars and trucks in
violation of Section 203(a)(3)(B) of the
CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(3)(B). The
Complaint further alleges that, absent an
injunction, Defendants may resume the
manufacture or sales of such products.
The proposed Complaint seeks
appropriate civil penalties and
injunctive relief to prohibit Defendants
from continuing to manufacture and sell
these unlawful products.
Under the proposed settlement, the
Defendants agree to pay a civil penalty
(based on a finding of limited ability to
pay) of $1,550,000 in three installment
payments over 2 years. In addition, the
settlement imposes various restrictions
designed to ensure that Defendants
operate in compliance with the law.
The publication of this notice opens
a period for public comment on the
proposed Consent Decree. Comments
should be addressed to the Assistant
Attorney General, Environment and
Natural Resources Division, and should
refer to United States of America v.
Power Performance Enterprises Inc. and
Kory Blaine Willis, D.J. Ref. No. 90–5–
2–1–11865. 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 .........
[FR Doc. 2022–05713 Filed 3–17–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
PO 00000
15455
During the public comment period,
the proposed Consent Decree may be
Frm 00098
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM
18MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 53 (Friday, March 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15454-15455]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05713]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-1217]
Certain Blowers and Components Thereof; Notice of a Commission
Determination Finding No Violation of the Consent Order; Terminating
the Enforcement Proceeding; and Remanding Order No. 36
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to bifurcate its review of Order No. 36 from
its review of the EID in the enforcement proceeding. The Commission has
determined to affirm the enforcement initial determination (``EID'')
issued on December 14, 2021, finding no violation of the consent order
issued in the above-referenced section 337 enforcement investigation
with the modifications set forth in the accompanying Commission
opinion. The enforcement proceeding is terminated. The Commission has
determined to remand Order No. 36 to the Administrative Law Judge
(``ALJ'') for issuance of a revised order regarding sanctions as set
forth in the Commission remand order. The Commission will consider
Order No. 36 in the separate sanctions proceeding.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3042. 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 September 8, 2020, the Commission
instituted the original, underlying investigation based on a complaint
filed by Regal Beloit America, Inc. of Beloit, Wisconsin (``Regal'' or
``Complainant''). 85 FR 55491-92 (Sept. 8, 2020). The complaint 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 blowers and components thereof by reason of infringement of one
or more of claims 1, 2, 7-10, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 8,079,834
(``the '834 patent''). Id. at 55492. The Commission's notice of
investigation named as respondents East West Manufacturing, LLC of
Atlanta, Georgia, and East West Industries of Binh Duong, Vietnam
(collectively, ``East West'' or ``Respondents''). Id. at 55492. The
Office of Unfair Import Investigations (``OUII'') did not participate
as a party in the original investigation. Id.
On November 12, 2020, the Commission terminated the original
investigation with respect to Respondents based upon a consent order
stipulation and entry of a consent order. 85 FR 73511 (Nov. 18, 2020).
The Consent Order directs East West to ``not sell for importation,
import or sell after importation the Subject Articles . . . except
under consent or license from Complainant.'' Consent Order at ] 5. The
Consent Order defines ``Subject Articles'' as ``certain blowers and
components thereof that infringe claims 1, 2, 7-10, and 15 of the '834
Patent.'' Id. at ] 3.
On January 15, 2021, Regal filed an enforcement complaint at the
Commission alleging that East West's redesigned blower infringes claims
1, 2, 7-10, and 15 of the '834 patent in violation of the Consent
Order. On February 19, 2021, the Commission instituted a formal
enforcement proceeding, pursuant to Commission
[[Page 15455]]
Rule 210.75(a), to determine whether a violation of the consent order
issued in the original investigation has occurred and to determine
what, if any, enforcement measures are appropriate. 86 FR 10335 (Feb.
19, 2021). The respondents named in the enforcement proceeding are the
same as the respondents named in the original investigation, i.e., East
West Manufacturing, LLC of Atlanta, Georgia, and East West Industries
of Binh Duong, Vietnam. Id. OUII was named as a party in the
enforcement proceeding. Id.
On March 1, 2021, East West filed a motion for monetary and other
sanctions alleging that Regal and its attorneys tampered with and
misrepresented the accused redesigned blower in the enforcement
complaint. Regal and OUII filed responses thereto on March 11, 2021,
and March 18, 2021, respectively. Regal opposed the motion and asked
for monetary sanctions in its response. The presiding Administrative
Law Judge (``ALJ'') further permitted the private parties to file
replies and sur-replies to the sanctions briefing. EID at 16.
On June 29, 2021, the ALJ issued a Markman Order (Order No. 22),
styled ``Markman Claim Constructions With Abbreviated Rationales''
(Markman Order I). On July 13, 2021, the ALJ issued Order No. 23,
clarifying Order No. 22.
The ALJ held an evidentiary hearing from July 20-23, 2021 and
received post-hearing briefs thereafter. On September 22, 2021, the ALJ
held a supplemental hearing on the sanctions motion. EID at 18.
On October 29, 2021, the ALJ issued Order No. 32 (Markman Order
II), providing extensive explanations as to the adopted constructions
in Order No. 22.
On December 14, 2021, the ALJ issued the subject EID finding no
violation of the Consent Order. The EID found that the parties do not
contest personal jurisdiction, and that the Commission has in rem
jurisdiction over the accused products. EID at 19-20. The EID noted
that the private parties filed a ``Joint Stipulation on Importation and
Sales,'' describing ``the number of units of the Accused or Redesigned
Blower that East West imported and sold.'' Id. at 20. The EID found
that Regal failed to show that East West's redesigned blower infringes
asserted claims 1, 2, 7-10, and 15 of the '834 patent, and thus failed
to show a violation of the consent order. See id. at 9-10. The EID
stated that ``in the event the Commission were to find to the contrary,
an imposed civil penalty should be de minimus and not the maximum civil
penalty that Regal has proposed.'' Id. at 10. Specifically, the EID
recommended that ``East West disgorge its profits plus an additional
one-half of its profits from any sales that violated the Consent
Order.'' Id. at 10-11.
On December 14, 2021, the ALJ also issued Order No. 36 denying East
West's motion for monetary sanctions. The ALJ issued a public warning
to Regal, citing the Commission's sanctions authority under Commission
Rule 210.4(c) and (d), 19 CFR 210.4(c), (d), and ordered Regal to
correct potentially misleading portions of the enforcement complaint.
On January 4, 2022, Regal filed a petition for review of the EID,
and Respondents filed a contingent petition for review of the EID and a
petition for review of Order No. 36. On January 10, 2022, the parties
replied to the petitions for review.
On February 11, 2022, the Commission determined to review the EID
and Order No. 36. 87 FR 9085-86 (Feb. 17, 2022).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 210.25, the Commission has determined to
bifurcate its review of Order No. 36 from its review of the EID. Upon
review of the parties' submissions, the EID, and the evidence of
record, the Commission has determined to affirm the EID's finding that
Regal failed to show that East West violated the Consent Order with the
modifications set forth in the accompanying Commission opinion. The
enforcement proceeding is terminated. The Commission has determined to
remand Order No. 36 to the ALJ for a revised order regarding sanctions
as set forth in the Commission remand order. The Commission will
consider Order No. 36 in the separate sanctions proceeding.
The Commission's vote on this determination took place on March 14,
2022.
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
210).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: March 14, 2022.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2022-05713 Filed 3-17-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
