International Trade Commission 2009 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review in part the final initial determination (``ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') on November 17, 2008, finding a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the above-captioned investigation.

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review in part the final initial determination (``ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') on December 1, 2008, in the above-captioned investigation, and has granted Complainants' motion to strike.

The subject five-year review was initiated in November 2008 to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on ceramic station post insulators from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. On December 12, 2008, the Department of Commerce published notice that it was revoking the order effective December 30, 2008, ``{b{time} ecause the domestic interested parties did not participate in this sunset review* * *'' (73 FR 75675). Accordingly, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), the subject review is terminated.

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined (1) to review and not take a position on certain issues in the final initial determination (``ID'') of the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') in the above-captioned investigation and (2) not to review the remainder of the ID finding no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (``section 337''). This action terminates the investigation with a finding of no violation of section 337.

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (``ID'') (Order No. 4) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') terminating the above-captioned investigation in its entirety based upon a settlement agreement.

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review in part the presiding administrative law judge's (``ALJ'') final initial determination (``ID'') issued on December 1, 2008 finding no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337 in the above-captioned investigation.

The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of investigations and commencement of preliminary phase countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-460-461 (Preliminary) under section 703(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a)) (the Act) to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports from Argentina and Korea of Ni-resist piston inserts, provided for in subheading 8409.99.91 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be subsidized by the Governments of Argentina and Korea. Unless the Department of Commerce extends the time for initiation pursuant to section 702(c)(1)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671a(c)(1)(B)), the Commission must reach a preliminary determination in countervailing duty investigations in 45 days, or in this case by March 12, 2009. The Commission's views are due at Commerce within five business days thereafter, or by March 19, 2009. For further information concerning the conduct of these investigations and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).

Following receipt of a request on January 12, 2009 from the United States Trade Representative (USTR) under section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1332(g)), the U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission) instituted investigation No. 332-506, Advice Concerning Possible Modifications to the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences, 2008 Review of Competitive Need Limit Waivers.

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined that there is a violation of 19 U.S.C. 1337 by SiRF Technology, Inc. of San Jose, California (``SiRF''); Pharos Science & Applications, Inc. of Torrance, California (``Pharos''); MiTAC International Corp. of Taiwan (``MiTAC''); Mio Technology Ltd., USA of Freemont, California (``Mio''); and E-TEN Information Systems Co., Ltd. of Taiwan (``E-TEN'') (collectively, ``Respondents'') in the above-captioned investigation. The investigation is terminated.

The United States International Trade Commission (``the Commission'') amends its Rules of Practice and Procedure to require that responses to notices of institution of five-year reviews be filed within 30 days of publication of the notice, as opposed to the 50-day response period specified in its current rules. It also provides notice of its decision, which does not require a change in its rules, to seek additional information from interested parties at the institution of five-year reviews, and to seek information from purchasers during the adequacy phase of five-year reviews in certain circumstances.

Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on December 15, 2008, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of O2 Micro International Ltd. of the Cayman Islands and O2 Micro Inc. of Santa Clara, California. A letter supplementing the complaint was filed on December 24, 2008. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain cold cathode fluorescent lamp (``CCFL'') inverter circuits and products containing same that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,417,382; 6,856,519; 6,809,938; and 7,120,035. The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337. The complainants request that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue exclusion orders and cease and desist orders.