Certain Silicon Photovoltaic Cells and Modules With Nanostructures, and Products Containing the Same; Notice of Commission Determination To Review in Part and, on Review, To Affirm a Final Initial Determination Finding No Violation; Termination of the Investigation, 13466-13467 [2023-04369]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
13466
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Notices
BURDEN TABLE—Continued
Citation 30 CFR 582
29(h) .....................................
Subtotal .........................
Reporting or recordkeeping requirement
Average number
of annual
responses
Hour burden
Maintain hard mineral records and make available upon
request.
.............................................................................................
Annual
burden hours
1
1
1
........................
9
17
2
1
2
Subpart D—Payments
40 ..........................................
Submit surety, personal bond, or approved alternative .....
Subpart E—Appeals
50; 15 ...................................
File an appeal .....................................................................
Burden exempt under 5 CFR
1320.4(a)(2), (c)
Total Burden ..........
.............................................................................................
........................
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a valid OMB control
number.
The authority for this action is the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Karen Thundiyil,
Chief, Office of Regulations, Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management.
[FR Doc. 2023–04400 Filed 3–2–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4340–98–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–1271]
Certain Silicon Photovoltaic Cells and
Modules With Nanostructures, and
Products Containing the Same; Notice
of Commission Determination To
Review in Part and, on Review, To
Affirm a Final Initial Determination
Finding No Violation; Termination of
the Investigation
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that,
on September 1, 2022, the presiding
chief administrative law judge (‘‘CALJ’’)
issued a combined final initial
determination (‘‘ID’’) on violation and
recommended determination (‘‘RD’’) on
remedy and bonding. The final ID finds
no violation of section 337 in the abovecaptioned investigation. The
Commission has determined to review
the final ID in part and, on review,
affirm the final ID’s finding of no
violation. The investigation is
terminated.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:33 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Richard P. Hadorn, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–3179. 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, telephone
(202) 205–1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Commission instituted this investigation
on July 20, 2021, based on a complaint
filed by Advanced Silicon Group
Technologies, LLC (‘‘ASGT’’) of Lowell,
Massachusetts. 86 FR 38356 (July 20,
2021). The complaint, as supplemented,
alleges violations of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19
U.S.C. 1337, based on the importation
into the United States, the sale for
importation, and the sale within the
United States after importation of
certain silicon photovoltaic cells and
modules with nanostructures, and
products containing the same by reason
of infringement of certain claims of U.S.
Patent Nos. 10,269,995 (‘‘the ’995
patent’’); 8,450,599 (‘‘the ’599 patent’’);
8,852,981 (‘‘the ’981 patent’’); 9,601,640
(‘‘the ’640 patent’’); 9,768,331 (‘‘the ’331
patent’’); and 10,692,971 (‘‘the ’971
patent’’). Id. at 38357. The complaint
further alleges that a domestic industry
exists or is in the process of being
established. Id. The notice of
investigation named 28 respondents,
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
0
20
212
including: Canadian Solar International
Limited of Hong Kong, China; Canadian
Solar Manufacturing (Thailand) Co. Ltd.
of Chon Buri, Thailand; Canadian Solar
Manufacturing Vietnam Co. Ltd. of Hai
Phong City, Vietnam; Canadian Solar
(USA) Inc. of Walnut Creek, California;
and Recurrent Energy SH Proco LLC of
Walnut Creek, California (‘‘Canadian
Solar Respondents’’); Hanwha Solutions
Corporation of Seoul, Republic of Korea;
Hanwha Q Cell EPC USA LLC of Irvine,
California; Hanwha Q Cells America
Inc. of Irvine, California; Hanwha Q
Cells USA Inc. of Dalton, Georgia; and
Hanwha Q Cells Malaysia Sdn. Bhd of
Selangor, Malaysia (‘‘Hanwha
Respondents’’); Ningbo Boway Alloy
Material Co., Ltd. of Zhejiang Province,
China; Boviet Solar Technology Co.,
Ltd. of Bac Giang Province, Vietnam;
Boviet Renewable Power, LLC of San
Jose, California; and Boviet Solar USA
Ltd. of San Jose, California (‘‘Boviet
Respondents’’); and Canadian Solar Inc.
of Ontario, Canada; Canadian Solar
Manufacturing (Changshu) Co. Inc. of
Jiangsu, China; Canadian Solar
Manufacturing (Luoyang) Inc. of Henan,
China; Canadian Solar Solutions, Inc. of
Ontario, Canada; Canadian Solar
Construction (USA) LLC of Walnut
Creek, California; Recurrent Energy
Group Inc. of San Francisco, California;
Recurrent Energy, LLC of Walnut Creek,
California; Hanwha Q Cells GmbH of
Bitterfeld-Wolfen, Germany; Hanwha Q
Cells (Qidong) Co., Ltd. of Jiangsu,
China; Hanwha Energy USA Holdings
Corp. (d/b/a 174 Power Global
Corporation) of Irvine, California;
Hanwha Q Cells USA Corp. of Irvine,
California; HQC Rock River Solar
Holdings LLC of Irvine, California; HQC
Rock River Solar Power Generation
Station, LLC of Beloit, Wisconsin; and
Hanwha Q CELLS & Advanced
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Notices
Materials Corp. of Seoul, Republic of
Korea (‘‘Terminated Respondents’’). Id.
The Office of Unfair Import
Investigations (‘‘OUII’’) is also named as
a party. Id.
On February 22, 2022, the
Commission determined to terminate
the investigation as to the ’971 patent
(Order No. 7) and the Terminated
Respondents (Order No. 8) based on
ASGT’s withdrawal of the allegations in
the complaint as to that patent and
those respondents. Order Nos. 7 and 8
(Feb. 1, 2022), unreviewed by Comm’n
Notice (Feb. 22, 2022). On June 21,
2022, the Commission determined to
terminate the investigation as to the ’995
patent, asserted claims 17 and 25 of the
’599 patent, asserted claims 1, 2, and 26
of the ’981 patent, asserted claims 14
and 16–18 of the ’640 patent, and
asserted claims 2 and 10 of the ’331
patent based on ASGT’s withdrawal of
the allegations in the complaint as to
that patent and those claims. Order No.
12 (May 31, 2022), unreviewed by
Comm’n Notice (June 21, 2022).
On September 1, 2022, the CALJ
issued the subject final ID on violation
and RD on remedy and bond. The ID
finds that no violation of section 337
has occurred as to the Canadian Solar
Respondents, Hanwha Respondents,
and Boviet Respondents with respect to
the claims of the four remaining
asserted patents—i.e., the ’599, ’981,
’640, and ’331 patents. Specifically, the
ID finds: (1) no infringement as to any
of the remaining asserted patents; (2)
that claim 27 of the ’981 patent is
invalid as anticipated by U.S. Patent
Application Publication No. US2011/
0140085 (‘‘Homyk 2011’’); (3) that claim
1 of the ’331 patent is invalid as obvious
over (i) the combination of the printed
publications titled ‘‘Silicon NanowireArray-Textured Solar Cells for
Photovoltaic Application’’ (‘‘Chen
2010’’) and ‘‘Crystalline Silicon Solar
Cells and Modules’’ (‘‘Tobias 2003’’), as
well as (ii) the combination of U.S.
Patent Application Publication No.
US2013/0340824 (‘‘Oh 2013’’) and
Tobias 2003; (4) that ASGT has not
satisfied the technical prong of the
domestic industry requirement as to any
of the remaining asserted patents; (5)
that ASGT has satisfied the economic
prong of the domestic industry
requirement as to the remaining asserted
patents; and (6) that ASGT’s assertion of
violation as to the ’331 patent is not
barred by inequitable conduct.
The RD recommends that, should the
Commission determine that violations
of section 337 occurred, the
Commission should: (i) issue a limited
exclusion order against the remaining
respondents’ infringing products; (ii)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:33 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
issue a cease and desist order against
the Canadian Solar Respondents, but
not against the Hanwha Respondents or
Boviet Respondents; and (iii) enter no
bond for any importations of infringing
products during the period of
Presidential review.
On September 19, 2022, ASGT filed a
petition for review of certain findings in
the final ID concerning infringement by
only the Canadian Solar Respondents as
to the ’981 and ’640 patents, the finding
that claim 27 of the ’981 patent is
invalid as anticipated by Homyk 2011,
satisfaction of the technical prong of the
domestic industry requirement as to the
’981 and ’640 patents; and contingently,
whether ASGT has satisfied the
economic prong of the domestic
industry requirement based on an
industry in the process of being
established. On September 27, 2022, the
Canadian Solar Respondents and OUII
each filed a response to ASGT’s
petition.
On October 5, 2022, ASGT filed a
submission on the public interest
pursuant to Commission Rule
210.50(a)(4) (19 CFR 210.50(a)(4)). The
Commission did not receive any public
interest submissions from the remaining
respondents. The Commission also did
not receive any submissions on the
public interest from members of the
public in response to the Commission’s
Federal Register notice. 87 FR 55852–53
(Sept. 12, 2022).
Having reviewed the record in this
investigation, including the final ID,
ASGT’s petition, and the responses
thereto, the Commission has determined
to review the final ID in part.
Specifically, the Commission has
determined to review the ID’s finding
that ASGT has satisfied the economic
prong of the domestic industry
requirement as to the remaining asserted
patents. On review, the Commission has
determined to take no position on that
issue.
Further, the Commission has
determined to review, and on review, to
correct the following typographical/
clerical errors in the final ID: (1) in the
twenty-first line of page 123, ‘‘does not
remove (or break)’’ is replaced with
‘‘removes (or breaks)’’; (2) in the fifth
line of page 161 and the twelfth line of
page 174, ‘‘Tobias 2013’’ is replaced
with ‘‘Tobias 2003’’; (3) the last
sentence of the first full paragraph on
page 174 is replaced with ‘‘In addition,
Dr. Lebby testified that Oh 2013
disclosed screen printing on nanowires
and, moreover, that it would not have
been difficult for a person of ordinary
skill in the art to screen print a comblike pattern onto silicon nanostructures.
See RX–0001C (Lebby) at Q/A 318–25.’’;
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
13467
(4) in the eighth line of page 175, ‘‘Chen
2010 and Tobias’’ is replaced with ‘‘Oh
2013 and Tobias 2003’’; and (5) the
following paragraph is added between
the first and second full paragraphs on
page 8: ‘‘Boviet Renewable Power, LLC
(‘Boviet Renewable’) is a corporation
existing under the laws of the State of
Delaware and a subsidiary of Ningbo
Boway having a principal place of
business in San Jose, California. See
Complaint, ¶ 34; Boviet Response to
Complaint, ¶ 34.’’
In addition, the Commission has
determined to review, and on review, to
strike the discussion and finding at
Section II.A on page 15 of the final ID
that the Commission has ‘‘subject matter
jurisdiction’’ over this investigation.
The concept of ‘‘subject matter
jurisdiction’’ does not apply to
administrative agencies. City of
Arlington, Tex. v. FCC, 569 U.S. 290,
297–98 (2013).
Lastly, the Commission has
determined to review, and on review, to
affirm with supplemental reasoning the
final ID’s finding that Homyk 2011
anticipates claim 27 of the ’981 patent.
Specifically, ASGT’s argument in its
post-hearing brief (and petition for
review) that Homyk 2011 does not teach
the ‘‘a portion of the surface’’ limitation
of claim 27 is waived because ASGT
failed to raise the argument in its prehearing brief. See Order No. 2 at 11–12
(July 16, 2021) (Ground Rule 7c
(deeming a contention abandoned or
withdrawn if it is not set forth in detail
in a party’s pre-hearing brief));
Complainant’s Post-Hearing Brief (Apr.
26, 2022) at 154–55; Complainant’s
Petition for Commission Review of
Initial Determination (Sept. 19, 2022) at
35–36.
The Commission has determined not
to review the remaining findings in the
final ID. Accordingly, the Commission
has determined to affirm the final ID’s
finding of no violation of section 337.
The investigation is terminated.
The Commission vote for this
determination took place on February
27, 2023.
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: February 27, 2023.
Katherine Hiner,
Supervisory Attorney.
[FR Doc. 2023–04369 Filed 3–2–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 42 (Friday, March 3, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13466-13467]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04369]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-1271]
Certain Silicon Photovoltaic Cells and Modules With
Nanostructures, and Products Containing the Same; Notice of Commission
Determination To Review in Part and, on Review, To Affirm a Final
Initial Determination Finding No Violation; Termination of the
Investigation
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that, on September 1, 2022, the
presiding chief administrative law judge (``CALJ'') issued a combined
final initial determination (``ID'') on violation and recommended
determination (``RD'') on remedy and bonding. The final ID finds no
violation of section 337 in the above-captioned investigation. The
Commission has determined to review the final ID in part and, on
review, affirm the final ID's finding of no violation. The
investigation is terminated.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard P. Hadorn, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3179. 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, telephone (202) 205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation
on July 20, 2021, based on a complaint filed by Advanced Silicon Group
Technologies, LLC (``ASGT'') of Lowell, Massachusetts. 86 FR 38356
(July 20, 2021). The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337,
based on the importation into the United States, the sale for
importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of
certain silicon photovoltaic cells and modules with nanostructures, and
products containing the same by reason of infringement of certain
claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,269,995 (``the '995 patent''); 8,450,599
(``the '599 patent''); 8,852,981 (``the '981 patent''); 9,601,640
(``the '640 patent''); 9,768,331 (``the '331 patent''); and 10,692,971
(``the '971 patent''). Id. at 38357. The complaint further alleges that
a domestic industry exists or is in the process of being established.
Id. The notice of investigation named 28 respondents, including:
Canadian Solar International Limited of Hong Kong, China; Canadian
Solar Manufacturing (Thailand) Co. Ltd. of Chon Buri, Thailand;
Canadian Solar Manufacturing Vietnam Co. Ltd. of Hai Phong City,
Vietnam; Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. of Walnut Creek, California; and
Recurrent Energy SH Proco LLC of Walnut Creek, California (``Canadian
Solar Respondents''); Hanwha Solutions Corporation of Seoul, Republic
of Korea; Hanwha Q Cell EPC USA LLC of Irvine, California; Hanwha Q
Cells America Inc. of Irvine, California; Hanwha Q Cells USA Inc. of
Dalton, Georgia; and Hanwha Q Cells Malaysia Sdn. Bhd of Selangor,
Malaysia (``Hanwha Respondents''); Ningbo Boway Alloy Material Co.,
Ltd. of Zhejiang Province, China; Boviet Solar Technology Co., Ltd. of
Bac Giang Province, Vietnam; Boviet Renewable Power, LLC of San Jose,
California; and Boviet Solar USA Ltd. of San Jose, California (``Boviet
Respondents''); and Canadian Solar Inc. of Ontario, Canada; Canadian
Solar Manufacturing (Changshu) Co. Inc. of Jiangsu, China; Canadian
Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang) Inc. of Henan, China; Canadian Solar
Solutions, Inc. of Ontario, Canada; Canadian Solar Construction (USA)
LLC of Walnut Creek, California; Recurrent Energy Group Inc. of San
Francisco, California; Recurrent Energy, LLC of Walnut Creek,
California; Hanwha Q Cells GmbH of Bitterfeld-Wolfen, Germany; Hanwha Q
Cells (Qidong) Co., Ltd. of Jiangsu, China; Hanwha Energy USA Holdings
Corp. (d/b/a 174 Power Global Corporation) of Irvine, California;
Hanwha Q Cells USA Corp. of Irvine, California; HQC Rock River Solar
Holdings LLC of Irvine, California; HQC Rock River Solar Power
Generation Station, LLC of Beloit, Wisconsin; and Hanwha Q CELLS &
Advanced
[[Page 13467]]
Materials Corp. of Seoul, Republic of Korea (``Terminated
Respondents''). Id. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations
(``OUII'') is also named as a party. Id.
On February 22, 2022, the Commission determined to terminate the
investigation as to the '971 patent (Order No. 7) and the Terminated
Respondents (Order No. 8) based on ASGT's withdrawal of the allegations
in the complaint as to that patent and those respondents. Order Nos. 7
and 8 (Feb. 1, 2022), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Feb. 22, 2022). On
June 21, 2022, the Commission determined to terminate the investigation
as to the '995 patent, asserted claims 17 and 25 of the '599 patent,
asserted claims 1, 2, and 26 of the '981 patent, asserted claims 14 and
16-18 of the '640 patent, and asserted claims 2 and 10 of the '331
patent based on ASGT's withdrawal of the allegations in the complaint
as to that patent and those claims. Order No. 12 (May 31, 2022),
unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (June 21, 2022).
On September 1, 2022, the CALJ issued the subject final ID on
violation and RD on remedy and bond. The ID finds that no violation of
section 337 has occurred as to the Canadian Solar Respondents, Hanwha
Respondents, and Boviet Respondents with respect to the claims of the
four remaining asserted patents--i.e., the '599, '981, '640, and '331
patents. Specifically, the ID finds: (1) no infringement as to any of
the remaining asserted patents; (2) that claim 27 of the '981 patent is
invalid as anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
US2011/0140085 (``Homyk 2011''); (3) that claim 1 of the '331 patent is
invalid as obvious over (i) the combination of the printed publications
titled ``Silicon Nanowire-Array-Textured Solar Cells for Photovoltaic
Application'' (``Chen 2010'') and ``Crystalline Silicon Solar Cells and
Modules'' (``Tobias 2003''), as well as (ii) the combination of U.S.
Patent Application Publication No. US2013/0340824 (``Oh 2013'') and
Tobias 2003; (4) that ASGT has not satisfied the technical prong of the
domestic industry requirement as to any of the remaining asserted
patents; (5) that ASGT has satisfied the economic prong of the domestic
industry requirement as to the remaining asserted patents; and (6) that
ASGT's assertion of violation as to the '331 patent is not barred by
inequitable conduct.
The RD recommends that, should the Commission determine that
violations of section 337 occurred, the Commission should: (i) issue a
limited exclusion order against the remaining respondents' infringing
products; (ii) issue a cease and desist order against the Canadian
Solar Respondents, but not against the Hanwha Respondents or Boviet
Respondents; and (iii) enter no bond for any importations of infringing
products during the period of Presidential review.
On September 19, 2022, ASGT filed a petition for review of certain
findings in the final ID concerning infringement by only the Canadian
Solar Respondents as to the '981 and '640 patents, the finding that
claim 27 of the '981 patent is invalid as anticipated by Homyk 2011,
satisfaction of the technical prong of the domestic industry
requirement as to the '981 and '640 patents; and contingently, whether
ASGT has satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry
requirement based on an industry in the process of being established.
On September 27, 2022, the Canadian Solar Respondents and OUII each
filed a response to ASGT's petition.
On October 5, 2022, ASGT filed a submission on the public interest
pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(a)(4) (19 CFR 210.50(a)(4)). The
Commission did not receive any public interest submissions from the
remaining respondents. The Commission also did not receive any
submissions on the public interest from members of the public in
response to the Commission's Federal Register notice. 87 FR 55852-53
(Sept. 12, 2022).
Having reviewed the record in this investigation, including the
final ID, ASGT's petition, and the responses thereto, the Commission
has determined to review the final ID in part. Specifically, the
Commission has determined to review the ID's finding that ASGT has
satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement as to
the remaining asserted patents. On review, the Commission has
determined to take no position on that issue.
Further, the Commission has determined to review, and on review, to
correct the following typographical/clerical errors in the final ID:
(1) in the twenty-first line of page 123, ``does not remove (or
break)'' is replaced with ``removes (or breaks)''; (2) in the fifth
line of page 161 and the twelfth line of page 174, ``Tobias 2013'' is
replaced with ``Tobias 2003''; (3) the last sentence of the first full
paragraph on page 174 is replaced with ``In addition, Dr. Lebby
testified that Oh 2013 disclosed screen printing on nanowires and,
moreover, that it would not have been difficult for a person of
ordinary skill in the art to screen print a comb-like pattern onto
silicon nanostructures. See RX-0001C (Lebby) at Q/A 318-25.''; (4) in
the eighth line of page 175, ``Chen 2010 and Tobias'' is replaced with
``Oh 2013 and Tobias 2003''; and (5) the following paragraph is added
between the first and second full paragraphs on page 8: ``Boviet
Renewable Power, LLC (`Boviet Renewable') is a corporation existing
under the laws of the State of Delaware and a subsidiary of Ningbo
Boway having a principal place of business in San Jose, California. See
Complaint, ] 34; Boviet Response to Complaint, ] 34.''
In addition, the Commission has determined to review, and on
review, to strike the discussion and finding at Section II.A on page 15
of the final ID that the Commission has ``subject matter jurisdiction''
over this investigation. The concept of ``subject matter jurisdiction''
does not apply to administrative agencies. City of Arlington, Tex. v.
FCC, 569 U.S. 290, 297-98 (2013).
Lastly, the Commission has determined to review, and on review, to
affirm with supplemental reasoning the final ID's finding that Homyk
2011 anticipates claim 27 of the '981 patent. Specifically, ASGT's
argument in its post-hearing brief (and petition for review) that Homyk
2011 does not teach the ``a portion of the surface'' limitation of
claim 27 is waived because ASGT failed to raise the argument in its
pre-hearing brief. See Order No. 2 at 11-12 (July 16, 2021) (Ground
Rule 7c (deeming a contention abandoned or withdrawn if it is not set
forth in detail in a party's pre-hearing brief)); Complainant's Post-
Hearing Brief (Apr. 26, 2022) at 154-55; Complainant's Petition for
Commission Review of Initial Determination (Sept. 19, 2022) at 35-36.
The Commission has determined not to review the remaining findings
in the final ID. Accordingly, the Commission has determined to affirm
the final ID's finding of no violation of section 337. The
investigation is terminated.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on February
27, 2023.
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: February 27, 2023.
Katherine Hiner,
Supervisory Attorney.
[FR Doc. 2023-04369 Filed 3-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
