Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Notices 82515 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) has 

determined not to review an initial 

determination (‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 4) of 

the presiding administrative law judge 

(‘‘ALJ’’), granting a motion by Benepuri 

LLC of Menands, New York 

(‘‘Benepuri’’) to intervene in the abovereferenced investigation and to 

terminate the investigation as to 

respondent Rayenbarny Inc. of New 

York, New York (‘‘Rayenbarny’’). 

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) 

205–3179. 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: On 

November 18, 2020, the Commission 

instituted this investigation based on a 

complaint filed by Skull Shaver, LLC of 

Moorestown, New Jersey (‘‘Skull 

Shaver’’). 85 FR 73510–11 (Nov. 18, 

2020). The complaint alleged violations 

of section 337 based on the importation 

into the United States, the sale for 

importation, or the sale within the 

United States after importation of 

certain electric shavers and components 

and accessories thereof by reason of 

infringement of certain claims of U.S. 

Patent Nos. 8,726,528 and D672,504. Id. 

The Commission’s notice of 

investigation named the following 

eleven entities as respondents: 

Rayenbarny; Bald Shaver Inc. of 

Toronto, Canada; Suzhou Kaidiya 

Garments Trading Co., Ltd. d.b.a. 

‘‘Digimator’’ of Suzhou, China; 

Shenzhen Aiweilai Trading Co., Ltd. 

d.b.a. ‘‘Teamyo’’ of Shenzhen, China; 

Wenzhou Wending Electric Appliance 

Co., Ltd. of Yueqing City, China; 

Shenzhen Nukun Technology Co., Ltd. 

d.b.a. ‘‘OriHea’’ of Shenzhen, China; 

Yiwu Xingye Network Technology Co. 

Ltd. d.b.a. ‘‘Roziapro’’ of Yiwu, China; 

Magicfly LLC of Hong Kong; Yiwu City 

Qiaoyu Trading Co., Ltd. of Yiwu, 

China; Shenzhen Wantong Information 

Technology Co., Ltd. d.b.a. ‘‘WTONG’’ 

of Shenzhen, China; and Shenzhen 

Junmao International Technology Co., 

Ltd. d.b.a. ‘‘Homeas’’ of Shenzhen, 

China. The notice of investigation also 

named the Office of Unfair Import 

Investigations (‘‘OUII’’) as a party. Id. 

On November 18, 2020, Benepuri 

filed a motion to intervene in this 

investigation, asserting that it has an 

interest in the investigation because one 

of its products has been accused and 

that no other named respondent has an 

interest in defending Benepuri’s 

product. Benepuri also moved for 

termination of Rayenbarny as a 

respondent, stating that the accused 

product attributed to Rayenbarny, the 

AsaVea electric shaver, is actually 

Benepuri’s product. Attached to 

Benepuri’s motion is a declaration from 

the President of Rayenbarny, stating that 

‘‘Rayenbarny Inc. has not imported into 

the United States, sold for importation 

into the United States, or sold in the 

United States after importation an 

electric shaver’’ and that ‘‘[t]o the best 

of my knowledge, the AsaVea electric 

shaver that is identified in the 

Complaint in the above referenced 

Investigation is a product from Benepuri 

LLC.’’ Benepuri Motion, Exhibit B. On 

November 23, 2020, Skull Shaver and 

OUII filed responses in support of 

Benepuri’s intervention and 

Rayenbarny’s termination. 

On November 30, 2020, the ALJ 

issued the subject ID granting the 

motion. Regarding Benepuri’s 

intervention, the ID finds that the 

motion complies with the requirements 

of Commission Rule 210.19. 19 CFR 

210.19. Specifically, the ID finds that (1) 

‘‘Benepuri’s motion to intervene was 

timely filed because it was made on the 

same day as the November 18, 2020 

institution of this Investigation’’; (2) 

‘‘Benepuri has demonstrated a 

substantial interest in the 

Investigation,’’ particularly in 

connection with the accused AsaVea 

electric shaver; and (3) ‘‘Benepuri’s 

interests are not represented by existing 

parties.’’ ID at 5. Thus, the ID finds that 

‘‘Benepuri’s intervention in this 

Investigation is appropriate, and 

Benepuri should be accorded status as 

a respondent.’’ Id. at 5–6 (citing 

Network Interface Cards, Inv. No. 337– 

TA–455, Comm’n Op. at 10 (July 17, 

2001) (a party seeking to intervene 

should be accorded respondent status 

when it could itself be a respondent in 

the investigation, but has been omitted 

by the complainant for some reason)). 

The ID also finds that good cause 

exists to terminate the investigation as 

to Rayenbarny under Commission Rule 

210.21(a), which provides that ‘‘[a]ny 

party may move at any time prior to the 

issuance of an initial determination on 

violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act 

of 1930 to terminate an investigation in 

whole or in part as to any or all 

respondents, on the basis of . . . good 

cause . . . .’’ 19 CFR 210.21(a). The ID 

notes that Rayenbarny’s declaration 

states that it ‘‘has not imported into the 

United States, sold for importation into 

the United States, or sold in the United 

States after importation an electric 

shaver.’’ In addition, consistent with 

Commission Rule 210.21(a)(1), 

Rayenbarny states that ‘‘there are no 

agreements, written or oral, express or 

implied, between any party or Benepuri 

concerning the subject matter of the 

Investigation.’’ The ID further notes that 

‘‘Rayenbarny’s termination from this 

Investigation is in the public interest 

and will conserve public and private 

resources.’’ ID at 6. 

No one petitioned for review of the 

subject ID. The Commission has 

determined not to review the subject ID. 

Benepuri is hereby named a respondent 

in this investigation and Rayenbarny is 

hereby terminated from this 

investigation. 

The Commission vote for this 

determination took place on December 

15, 2020. 

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: December 15, 2020. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28038 Filed 12–17–20; 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 an Initial 

Determination Granting Summary 

Determination of No Substantial Injury 

to a Domestic Industry, and on Review 

To Reverse the Initial Determination 

and Remand the Investigation to the 

Administrative Law Judge 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
82516 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Notices 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined to review 

the presiding administrative law judge’s 

(‘‘ALJ’’) initial determination (‘‘ID’’) 

(Order No. 52) granting summary 

determination of no substantial injury to 

a domestic industry in the abovecaptioned investigation. On review, the 

Commission has determined to reverse 

the ID’s grant of summary determination 

and remand the investigation to the ALJ 

for further proceedings. The 

Commission has also determined to 

deny Complainants’ motion for leave to 

file a reply brief. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cathy Chen, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202– 

205–2392. 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, alleges violations of 

section 337(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 

1337(a)(1)(A), 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 plain language description of 

the accused products or category of 

accused products, which defines the 

scope of the investigation, is 

‘‘commercial kitchen equipment and 

components thereof for use in 

restaurants, bars, cafes, cafeterias, or the 

like.’’ Id. at 31912. The notice of 

investigation named 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 (collectively, 

‘‘Respondents’’), all of China as 

respondents. Id. at 31912. The Office of 

Unfair Import Investigations (‘‘OUII’’) is 

also named as a party. Id. 

On May 21, 2020, OUII filed a motion 

for summary determination of no 

substantial injury to a domestic industry 

under section 337(a)(1)(A), 19 U.S.C. 

1337(a)(1)(A). Complainants opposed 

the motion, and Respondents supported 

the motion. OUII also filed a reply brief 

in support of its motion. 

On July 9, 2020, the ALJ issued the 

subject ID (Order No. 52) granting 

OUII’s motion for summary 

determination of no substantial injury to 

a domestic industry under section 

337(a)(1)(A). Presuming the existence of 

a domestic industry as alleged by 

Complainants, the ID found that 

‘‘Complainants have not demonstrated 

injury’’ to ‘‘the specific activities and 

investments that give rise to [the 

alleged] domestic industry.’’ Id. at 16, 

18. The ID found that Complainants 

identified ‘‘generalized competitive 

harm ‘to the industry as a whole,’ such 

as lost sales and profits, rather than 

pointing specifically to injury or 

threatened injury to the alleged 

domestic activities.’’ Id. at 16. The ID 

reasoned that ‘‘generalized lost profits 

and lost sales, etc., cannot suffice to 

show substantial harm because even a 

mere importer will suffer such harm if 

a competitor imports and sells the same 

products cheaper.’’ Id. at 17. 

On July 20, 2020, Complainants 

petitioned for review of the ID. 

Thereafter, Respondents and OUII 

opposed the petition. On August 4, 

2020, Complainants filed a motion for 

leave to file a reply to Respondents’ and 

OUII’s responses to its petition. 

Respondents and OUII opposed 

Complainants’ motion. 

The Commission has determined to 

review the ID in its entirety and to deny 

Complainants’ motion for leave to file a 

reply brief. On review, the Commission 

has determined to reverse the ID’s grant 

of summary determination finding that 

Complainants’ evidentiary showing is 

insufficient to establish substantial 

injury to Complainants’ alleged 

domestic industry, and remand the 

investigation to the ALJ for further 

proceedings consistent with the 

Commission’s order and concurrent 

opinion. 

The Commission vote for this 

determination took place on December 

14, 2020. 

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: December 14, 2020. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27858 Filed 12–17–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, 

and Explosives 

[Docket No. 2020R–10] 

Objective Factors for Classifying 

Weapons with ‘‘Stabilizing Braces’’ 

AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms, and Explosives, Department of 

Justice. 

ACTION: Notice; request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives 

(‘‘ATF’’) is publishing the objective 

factors it considers when evaluating 

firearms with an attached stabilizing 

brace to determine whether they are 

considered firearms under the National 

Firearms Act (‘‘NFA’’) and/or the Gun 

Control Act (‘‘GCA’’). ATF publishes 

this notice to inform and invite 

comment from the industry and public 

on the proposed guidance, Objective 

Factors for Classifying Weapons with 

‘‘Stabilizing Braces,’’ prior to issuing a 

final document. Upon issuance of final 

guidance, ATF will provide additional 

information to aid persons and 

companies in complying with Federal 

laws and regulations. This notice also 

outlines ATF’s enforcement priorities 

regarding persons who, prior to 

publication of this notice, made or 

acquired, in good faith, firearms 

equipped with a stabilized brace. 

Finally, this notice previews ATF’s and 

the Department of Justice’s plan to 

subsequently implement a separate 

process for current possessors of 

stabilizer-equipped firearms to choose 

to register such firearms in compliance 

with the NFA, including an expedited 

application process and the retroactive 

exemption of such firearms from the 

collection of NFA taxes. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

postmarked and electronic comments 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES