International Trade Commission February 2011 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (``ID'') (Order No. 10) of the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') terminating the above-captioned investigation based on a settlement agreement.

The Commission hereby gives notice that it will proceed with full reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)) to determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty orders on cut-to-length carbon steel plate from India, Indonesia, Italy, and Korea and the antidumping duty orders on cut-to-length carbon steel plate from India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, and Korea would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. A schedule for the reviews will be established and announced at a later date. For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews 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, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).

The subject five-year reviews were initiated in November 2010 to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on forged stainless steel flanges from India and Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. On January 31, 2011, the Department of Commerce published notice that it was revoking the orders effective January 23, 2011, because ``the domestic interested parties did not participate in these sunset reviews, * * *'' (76 FR 5331). Accordingly, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), the subject reviews are terminated.

The subject five-year review was initiated in November 2010 to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on superalloy degassed chromium from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. On December 22, 2010, the Department of Commerce published notice that it was revoking the order effective December 22, 2010, because ``no domestic interested party responded to the notice of initiation of the sunset review by the applicable deadline.'' (75 FR 80457). Accordingly, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), the subject review is terminated.

The Commission hereby gives notice that it will proceed with a full review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)) (the Act) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on glycine from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. The Commission also hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the full review concerning the antidumping duty order on glycine from China. For further information concerning the conduct of this review 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, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled In Re Certain Electronics Devices Having a Blu-Ray Disc Player and Components Thereof, DN 2786; the Commission is soliciting comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint.

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the presiding administrative law judge's (``ALJ'') initial determination (``ID'') (Order No. 25) granting a joint motion to terminate the investigation in its entirety based on a settlement agreement.

Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on December 30, 2010, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Gaumard Scientific Company, Inc. of Miami, Florida. A letter supplementing the complaint was filed on January 21, 2011. 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 birthing simulators and associated systems by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,503,087 (``the `087 patent'') and U.S. Patent No. 7,114,954 (``the `954 patent''). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337. The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue an exclusion order and a cease and desist order.

Following receipt of a request dated January 27, 2011, from the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means (Committee) 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. 332-523, U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement: Passenger Vehicle Sector Update.

Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on December 28, 2010, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Sony Corporation of Japan. 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 mobile telephones and modems by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,311,092 (``the `092 patent''); U.S. Patent No. 5,907,604 (``the `604 patent''); U.S. Patent No. 6,263,205 (``the `205 patent''); U.S. Patent No. 6,507,611 (``the `611 patent''); U.S. Patent No. 6,674,464 (``the `464 patent''); U.S. Patent No. 7,839,477 (``the `477 patent''); and U.S. Patent No. 6,674,732 (``the `732 patent''). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337. The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue an exclusion order and a cease and desist order.