Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices 2645 

(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the 

plain language description of the 

accused products or category of accused 

products, which defines the scope of the 

investigation, is ‘‘one-wheeled, selfbalancing electric skateboards that move 

in response to a rider’s weight 

distribution on the board’’; 

(3) Pursuant to section 210.58 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 19 CFR 210.58, the motion 

for temporary relief under subsection (e) 

of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

which was filed with the complaint, is 

provisionally accepted and referred to 

the presiding administrative law judge 

for investigation; 

(4) For the purpose of the 

investigation so instituted, the following 

are hereby named as parties upon which 

this notice of investigation shall be 

served: 

(a) The complainant is: 

Future Motion, Inc., 1201 Shaffer Road, 

Santa Cruz, California 95060 

(b) The respondents are the following 

entities alleged to be in violation of 

section 337, and are the parties upon 

which the complaint is to be served: 

Floatwheel, 5th Tech Rd Industry 

Complex, Building 06 F27 15, Guilin 

City, GuangXi Province 546008, China 

Changzhou Smilo Motors Co., Ltd., 

Guzhuang, Benniu Town, Xinbei 

District, Changzhou, Jiangsu Province, 

China 

Changzhou Gaea Technology Co., Ltd., 

Changxin Industrial Park, No. 218, 

Taishan Road, Xinbei District, 

Changzhou, Jiangsu, China 

Shanghai Loyal Industry Co., Ltd., d/b/ 

a ‘‘SoverSky’’, Room 204–192, 500 

Chuansha Road, Shanghai, China 

(c) The Office of Unfair Import 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW, Suite 

401, Washington, DC 20436; and 

(5) For the investigation so instituted, 

the Chief Administrative Law Judge, 

U.S. International Trade Commission, 

shall designate the presiding 

Administrative Law Judge. 

Responses to the complaint and the 

notice of investigation must be 

submitted by the named respondents in 

accordance with section 210.13 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 

19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), as 

amended in 85 FR 15798 (March 19, 

2020), such responses will be 

considered by the Commission if 

received not later than 20 days after the 

date of service by the complainant of the 

complaint and the notice of 

investigation. Extensions of time for 

submitting responses to the complaint 

and the notice of investigation will not 

be granted unless good cause therefor is 

shown. 

Failure of a respondent to file a timely 

response to each allegation in the 

complaint and in this notice may be 

deemed to constitute a waiver of the 

right to appear and contest the 

allegations of the complaint and this 

notice, and to authorize the 

administrative law judge and the 

Commission, without further notice to 

the respondent, to find the facts to be as 

alleged in the complaint and this notice 

and to enter an initial determination 

and a final determination containing 

such findings, and may result in the 

issuance of an exclusion order or a cease 

and desist order or both directed against 

the respondent. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: January 9, 2024. 

Katherine Hiner, 

Supervisory Attorney. 

[FR Doc. 2024–00614 Filed 1–12–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–1334] 

Certain Raised Garden Beds and 

Components Thereof; Notice of a 

Commission Determination To Review 

in Part a Final Initial Determination 

Finding a Violation of Section 337; 

Request for Written Submissions on 

Remedy, the Public Interest, and 

Bonding 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) has 

determined to review in part a final 

initial determination on violation of 

section 337 (the ‘‘Final ID’’) issued by 

the presiding administrative law judge 

(‘‘ALJ’’) finding a violation of section 

337 by reason of misappropriation of 

trade secrets and unfair competition 

based on false advertising under the 

Lanham Act. The Commission requests 

written submissions from the parties, 

interested government agencies, and 

other interested persons on the issues of 

remedy, the public interest, and 

bonding, under the schedule set forth 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Edward S. Jou, Esq., Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3316. 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 October 19, 2022, based on an 

amended complaint (the ‘‘Complaint’’) 

filed by Vego Garden, Inc. of Houston, 

Texas (the ‘‘Complainant’’ or ‘‘Vego 

Garden’’). 87 FR 63527–28 (Oct. 19, 

2022). The Complaint alleges violations 

of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, based upon 

the importation into the United States, 

and in the sale of, certain raised garden 

beds and components thereof by reason 

of misappropriation of trade secrets and 

unfair competition, the threat or effect 

of which is to destroy or substantially 

injure a domestic industry. Id. at 63527. 

The Commission’s notice of 

investigation named five respondents, 

see id., and the name of one of the 

respondents was corrected pursuant to 

an amended complaint. See 88 FR 

2637–38 (Jan. 17, 2023) (amending 

complaint and notice of investigation). 

The five named respondents, as 

amended, are: Huizhou Green Giant 

Technology Co., Ltd. (‘‘Green Giant’’) of 

Guangdong, China; Utopban 

International Trading Co., Ltd. d/b/a 

Vegega (‘‘Utopban International’’) of 

Rosemead, California; Utopban Limited 

(‘‘Utopban’’) of Hong Kong, China; 

Forever Garden of El Monte, California; 

and VegHerb, LLC d/b/a Frame It All 

(‘‘VegHerb’’) of Cary, North Carolina. 

See id. at 2638. The Office of Unfair 

Import Investigations (‘‘OUII’’) is also a 

party in this investigation. Id. 

The investigation was terminated as 

to Utopban International based on 

withdrawal of the complaint’s 

allegations. Order No. 9 (Jan. 30, 2023), 

unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Feb. 27, 

2023). The investigation was terminated 

as to Forever Garden and VegHerb based 

on settlement agreements. Order No. 11 

(Feb. 23, 2023) (VegHerb) and Order No. 

12 (Feb. 23, 2023) (Forever Garden), 

both unreviewed by Comm’n Notice 

(Mar. 23, 2023). 

An evidentiary hearing was held on 

May 22–25, 2023, and the ALJ issued 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
2646 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices 

the Final ID on September 8, 2023, 

finding violations of section 337 by 

reason of misappropriation of trade 

secrets and unfair competition based on 

false advertising under the Lanham Act. 

The ALJ also issued a recommended 

determination (‘‘RD’’) on September 8, 

2023. The RD recommended the 

issuance of limited exclusion orders for 

Green Giant and Utopban and a cease 

and desist order for Utopban. The RD 

further recommended that a 100% bond 

be set during the Presidential review 

period. 

Respondents Green Giant and 

Utopban filed a petition for review of 

the Final ID on September 20, 2023. 

Complainant Vego Garden filed a 

response in opposition to the petition 

on September 28, 2023. OUII filed a 

response in opposition to the petition 

on October 2, 2023. 

Having reviewed the record of the 

investigation, including the Final ID, the 

parties’ submissions to the ALJ, the 

petition for review and responses 

thereto, the Commission has determined 

to review the Final ID in part. 

Specifically, the Commission has 

determined to review the ID’s findings 

with respect to: (1) the Commission’s 

statutory authority to investigate unfair 

acts under section 337(a)(1)(A) 

involving extraterritorial conduct, 

including the alleged trade secret 

misappropriation and false advertising 

under the Lanham Act; (2) the ID’s 

findings of trade secret 

misappropriation with respect to the 

product development research trade 

secret and the product manufacturing 

trade secret; and (3) all of the ID’s 

findings with respect to domestic 

industry (i.e., the existence of a 

domestic industry and injury to the 

domestic industry) (ID at 103–136). The 

Commission has determined not to 

review the remaining findings in the ID. 

In connection with its review, the 

Commission requests responses to the 

following questions. The parties are 

requested to brief their positions with 

reference to the applicable law and the 

existing evidentiary record. 

(1) Discuss and identify any record 

evidence or arguments that were 

presented to the ALJ describing or 

documenting the customer feedback, 

market research, and cost analysis that 

was alleged to be part of the product 

development research trade secret. 

(2) Discuss and identify any record 

evidence or arguments that were 

presented to the ALJ showing 

dissemination outside of Vego Garden of 

the customer feedback, market research, 

and cost analysis alleged to be part of 

the product development research trade 

secret and the acquisition or use of such 

information by Respondents. 

(3) When was the product 

development research trade secret 

allegedly misappropriated? Discuss and 

identify any record evidence or 

arguments that were presented to the 

ALJ describing or documenting the state 

of Vego Garden’s customer feedback, 

market research, and cost analysis 

relating to its 8-inch product 

development at the time of the alleged 

misappropriation. See, e.g., Final ID 77– 

78. 

(4) Discuss and identify any record 

evidence or arguments that were 

presented to the ALJ showing whether 

the product manufacturing trade secret 

was developed, in whole or in part, in 

the United States. In your response to 

this question, please address the 

claimed research and development costs 

for this trade secret, Mr. Xiong’s 

testimony regarding the development of 

the bending machine, and the identity 

and location of the named inventor on 

the Chinese patent application that is 

alleged to describe the bending 

machine. See Final ID at 52–53 (citing 

research and development costs for 

bending machine); Tr. (Xiong) at 62:14– 

21 (describing design of bending 

machine); JX–0021 (Chinese patent 

application). 

(5) Discuss and identify any record 

evidence or arguments that were 

presented to the ALJ explaining the 

relationship between the alleged 

research and development costs for the 

asserted product development research 

and product manufacturing trade secrets 

and the asserted domestic industry 

expenditures. See Final ID at 35 

(research and development costs for 8- 

inch product), 52–53 (research and 

development costs for bending 

machine), 108–19 (asserted domestic 

industry expenditures). 

(6) Discuss and identify any record 

evidence or arguments that were 

presented to the ALJ supporting or 

contradicting the ID’s determination to 

allocate the entirety of Vego Garden’s 

farm purchase and 2022 expenses to the 

domestic industry. See Final ID at 114. 

When responding to this issue, please 

address Mr. Xiong’s testimony 

describing different uses of the farm 

property. See Tr. (Xiong) at 36:12–21 

(research and development and 

marketing), 41:19–25 (office space). 

(7) Discuss and identify any record 

evidence or arguments that were 

presented to the ALJ regarding the 

accuracy and reliability of the ID’s 

allocations of rental expenses and ‘‘nonreal-estate, non-payroll R&D expenses’’ 

to the domestic industry. See Final ID 

at 114–15. 

(8) Discuss and identify any record 

evidence or arguments that were 

presented to the ALJ regarding the 

expenses that are reflected in the $7.3 

million in expenses cited by Mr. Xiong 

at the hearing. See Tr. (Xiong) at 41:1– 

42:3; CDX–0003. 

(9) Discuss and identify any record 

evidence or arguments that were 

presented to the ALJ regarding the 

alleged injury to the domestic industry 

that can be attributed to the alleged 

misappropriation of the product 

development research trade secret. 

The parties are invited to brief only 

the discrete issues requested above. The 

parties are not to brief other issues on 

review, which are adequately presented 

in the parties’ existing filings. 

In connection with the final 

disposition of this investigation, the 

statute authorizes issuance of, inter alia, 

(1) an exclusion order that could result 

in the exclusion of the subject articles 

from entry into the United States; and/ 

or (2) cease and desist orders that could 

result in the respondent(s) being 

required to cease and desist from 

engaging in unfair acts in the 

importation and sale of such articles. 

Accordingly, the Commission is 

interested in receiving written 

submissions that address the form of 

remedy, if any, that should be ordered. 

If a party seeks exclusion of an article 

from entry into the United States for 

purposes other than entry for 

consumption, the party should so 

indicate and provide information 

establishing that activities involving 

other types of entry either are adversely 

affecting it or likely to do so. For 

background, see Certain Devices for 

Connecting Computers via Telephone 

Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360, USITC 

Pub. No. 2843, Comm’n Op. at 7–10 

(Dec. 1994). 

The statute requires the Commission 

to consider the effects of that remedy 

upon the public interest. The public 

interest factors the Commission will 

consider include the effect that an 

exclusion order and cease and desist 

orders would have on: (1) the public 

health and welfare, (2) competitive 

conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. 

production of articles that are like or 

directly competitive with those that are 

subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. 

consumers. The Commission is 

therefore interested in receiving written 

submissions that address the 

aforementioned public interest factors 

in the context of this investigation. 

If the Commission orders some form 

of remedy, the U.S. Trade 

Representative, as delegated by the 

President, has 60 days to approve, 

disapprove, or take no action on the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2024 / Notices 2647 

Commission’s determination. See 

Presidential Memorandum of July 21, 

2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). 

During this period, the subject articles 

would be entitled to enter the United 

States under bond, in an amount 

determined by the Commission and 

prescribed by the Secretary of the 

Treasury. The Commission is therefore 

interested in receiving submissions 

concerning the amount of the bond that 

should be imposed if a remedy is 

ordered. 

Written Submissions: The parties to 

the investigation are requested to file 

written submissions on the issues 

identified in this notice. Parties to the 

investigation, interested government 

agencies, and any other interested 

parties are encouraged to file written 

submissions on the issues of remedy, 

the public interest, and bonding. 

In its initial submission, Complainant 

is also requested to identify the remedy 

sought and Complainant and OUII are 

requested to submit proposed remedial 

orders for the Commission’s 

consideration. Complainant is further 

requested to provide the HTSUS 

subheadings under which the accused 

products are imported, and to supply 

the identification information for all 

known importers of the products at 

issue in this investigation. The initial 

written submissions and proposed 

remedial orders must be filed no later 

than close of business on January 23, 

2024. Reply submissions must be filed 

no later than the close of business on 

January 30, 2024. Opening submissions 

are limited to 50 pages. Reply 

submissions are limited to 25 pages. No 

further submissions on these issues will 

be permitted unless otherwise ordered 

by the Commission. 

Persons filing written submissions 

must file the original document 

electronically on or before the deadlines 

stated above. The Commission’s paper 

filing requirements in 19 CFR 210.4(f) 

are currently waived. 85 FR 15798 (Mar. 

19, 2020). Submissions should refer to 

the investigation number (‘‘Inv. No. 

337–TA–1334’’) in a prominent place on 

the cover page and/or the first page. (See 

Handbook for Electronic Filing 

Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/ 

documents/handbook_on_filing_

procedures.pdf). Persons with questions 

regarding filing should contact the 

Secretary (202–205–2000). 

Any person desiring to submit a 

document to the Commission in 

confidence must request confidential 

treatment by marking each document 

with a header indicating that the 

document contains confidential 

information. This marking will be 

deemed to satisfy the request procedure 

set forth in Rules 201.6(b) and 

210.5(e)(2) (19 CFR 201.6(b) & 

210.5(e)(2)). Documents for which 

confidential treatment by the 

Commission is properly sought will be 

treated accordingly. Any non-party 

wishing to submit comments containing 

confidential information must serve 

those comments on the parties to the 

investigation pursuant to the applicable 

Administrative Protective Order. A 

redacted non-confidential version of the 

document must also be filed 

simultaneously with any confidential 

filing and must be served in accordance 

with Commission Rule 210.4(f)(7)(ii)(A) 

(19 CFR 210.4(f)(7)(ii)(A)). All 

information, including confidential 

business information and documents for 

which confidential treatment is properly 

sought, submitted to the Commission for 

purposes of this investigation may be 

disclosed to and used: (i) by the 

Commission, its employees and Offices, 

and contract personnel (a) for 

developing or maintaining the records 

of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in 

internal investigations, audits, reviews, 

and evaluations relating to the 

programs, personnel, and operations of 

the Commission including under 5 

U.S.C. appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. 

government employees and contract 

personnel, solely for cybersecurity 

purposes. All contract personnel will 

sign appropriate nondisclosure 

agreements. All nonconfidential written 

submissions will be available for public 

inspection on EDIS. 

The Commission vote for this 

determination took place on January 9, 

2024. 

This action is taken under the 

authority of 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: January 9, 2024. 

Katherine Hiner, 

Supervisory Attorney. 

[FR Doc. 2024–00649 Filed 1–12–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

[Docket No. OSHA–2009–0025] 

UL LLC: Grant of Expansion of 

Recognition and Modification to the 

NRTL Program’s List of Appropriate 

Test Standards 

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), Labor. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA 

announces the final decision to expand 

the scope of recognition for UL LLC, as 

a Nationally Recognized Testing 

Laboratory (NRTL). Additionally, OSHA 

announces the final decision to add 

thirteen test standards to the NRTL 

Program’s List of Appropriate Test 

Standards. 

DATES: The expansion of the scope of 

recognition becomes effective on 

January 16, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Information regarding this notice is 

available from the following sources: 

Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank 

Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office of 

Communications, U.S. Department of 

Labor; telephone (202) 693–1999 or 

email meilinger.francis2@dol.gov. 

General and technical information: 

Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson, Director, 

Office of Technical Programs and 

Coordination Activities, Directorate of 

Technical Support and Emergency 

Management, Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration, U.S. Department 

of Labor; telephone (202) 693–1911 or 

email robinson.kevin@dol.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Notice of Final Decision 

OSHA hereby gives notice of the 

expansion of the scope of recognition of 

UL LLC, (UL) as a NRTL. UL’s 

expansion covers the addition of thirtyfive test standards to the NRTL scope of 

recognition. 

OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies 

that the organization meets the 

requirements specified in 29 CFR 

1910.7. Recognition is an 

acknowledgment that the organization 

can perform independent safety testing 

and certification of the specific products 

covered within the scope of recognition. 

Each NRTL’s scope of recognition 

includes (1) the type of products the 

NRTL may test, with each type specified 

by the applicable test standard; and (2) 

the recognized site(s) that has/have the 

technical capability to perform the 

product-testing and productVerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Jan 12, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16JAN1.SGM 16JAN1

ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1