Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 11, 2024 / Notices 73719 

1The record is defined in § 207.2(f) of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 

CFR 207.2(f)). 

2Commissioner Karpel did not participate. 

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR RETENTION AND

DISPOSAL OF RECORDS: 

Records are maintained and disposed 

of in accordance with NARA approved 

record schedules, specifically, General 

Records Schedule (GRS) 1.2 ‘‘Grant and 

Cooperative Agreement Records’’, Item 

10 and DAA–GRS2013–0008–0007, Item 

20 and DAA–GRS2013–0008–0001, Item 

21 and DAA–GRS–2013–0008–0006, 

Item 22 and DAA–GRS2103–0008–0002, 

and Item 30 and DAA–GRS–2013–0008– 

0003. 

IAF otherwise maintains records in 

GovGrants on an indefinite basis for 

reference purposes. 

ADMINISTRATIVE, TECHNICAL, AND PHYSICAL

SAFEGUARDS: 

The Salesforce Government Cloud 

Plus system achieved a provisional 

Authority to Operate (ATO) at the 

‘‘High’’ impact level issued by the 

Federal Risk and Authorization 

Management Program (FedRAMP) Joint 

Authorization Board (JAB). System 

access is limited to IAF authorized users 

utilizing multi-factor authentication. 

IAF GovGrants has configurable, 

layered data sharing and permissions 

features to ensure users have proper 

access. Authorized users have access 

only to the data and functions required 

to perform their job functions. Role 

based access is managed via IAF 

GovGrants administrators using 

Salesforce system administration, user, 

and security functions. PII information 

in the system will be encrypted in 

transit and at rest, and HTTPS protocol 

will be employed in accessing 

GovGrants. 

Multi-factor authentication is required 

to access the system and data stored in 

the system of record is also protected by 

a firewall and intrusion detection. 

RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES: 

An individual requesting records on 

themselves must send a signed, written 

inquiry to the System Manager at 

PrivacyActRequests@iaf.gov or the 

physical address above. The request 

envelope and letter should both be 

clearly marked ‘‘PRIVACY ACT 

REQUEST FOR ACCESS’’ and must: (1) 

be signed by the individual, (2) name or 

otherwise clearly describe the system of 

records in which the individual is 

seeking records. 

CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: 

An individual requesting the 

correction or removal of material from 

their records should send a signed, 

written request to the System Manager 

at PrivacyActRequests@iaf.gov or the 

physical address above. The request 

envelope and letter should both be 

clearly marked ‘‘PRIVACY ACT 

REQUEST FOR CORRECTION’’ and 

must: (1) be signed by the individual, (2) 

name or otherwise clearly describe the 

system of records in which a change is 

requested, and (3) clearly state the 

correction requested and provide any 

supporting information available. 

NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES: 

An individual requesting notification 

of the existence of records on 

themselves should send a signed, 

written inquiry to the System Manager 

at PrivacyActRequests@iaf.gov or the 

physical address above. The request 

envelope and letter should both be 

clearly marked ‘‘PRIVACY ACT 

REQUEST INQUIRY’’ and (1) must be 

signed by the individual, (2) must name 

or otherwise clearly describe the system 

of records on which the individual is 

seek information about, and (3) should 

clearly state the requester’s relationship 

with the IAF and timeframe (ex. former 

IAF employee from 2020–2021) to 

facilitate the location of any applicable 

records. 

EXEMPTIONS PROMULGATED FOR THE SYSTEM: 

None. 

HISTORY: 

Not Applicable. 

Natalia Mandrus, 

Associate General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2024–20583 Filed 9–10–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7025–01–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–592 and 731– 

TA–1400 (Review)] 

Plastic Decorative Ribbon From China 

Determinations 

On the basis of the record 1 developed 

in the subject five-year reviews, the 

United States International Trade 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) 

determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 

1930 (‘‘the Act’’), that revocation of the 

antidumping and countervailing duty 

orders on plastic decorative ribbon from 

China would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury to an industry in the United 

States within a reasonably foreseeable 

time.2

Background 

The Commission instituted these 

reviews on February 1, 2024 (89 FR 

6540, February 1, 2024) and determined 

on May 6, 2024 that it would conduct 

expedited reviews (89 FR 56902, July 

11, 2024). 

The Commission made these 

determinations pursuant to section 

751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It 

completed and filed its determinations 

in these reviews on September 6, 2024. 

The views of the Commission are 

contained in USITC Publication 5541 

(September 2024), entitled Plastic 

Decorative Ribbon from China: 

Investigation Nos. 701–TA–592 and 731 

TA 1400 (Review). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: September 6, 2024. 

Sharon Bellamy, 

Supervisory Hearings and Information 

Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2024–20601 Filed 9–10–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–1366] 

Certain Semiconductor Devices, and 

Methods of Manufacturing Same and 

Products Containing the Same; Notice 

of a Commission Determination To 

Review a Final Initial Determination 

Finding a Violation of Section 337; 

Request for Written Submissions on 

the Issues Under Review and 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 a final initial 

determination (‘‘ID’’) of the presiding 

chief administrative law judge (‘‘CALJ’’), 

finding a violation of section 337 as to 

one asserted patent and no violation as 

to the other asserted patent. The 

Commission requests written 

submissions from the parties on the 

issues under review and 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: 

Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
73720 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 11, 2024 / Notices 

205–3042. 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, 2023, based on a complaint 

filed by Efficient Power Conversion 

Corporation of El Segundo, California 

(‘‘EPC’’). 88 FR 42756–77 (Jul. 3, 2023). 

The complaint alleged 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, or sale within the 

United States after importation of 

certain semiconductor devices, and 

methods of manufacturing same, and 

products containing the same by reason 

of the infringement of one or more 

claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,312,335 

(‘‘the ’335 patent’’); 8,350,294 (‘‘the ’294 

patent’’); 8,404,508 (‘‘the ’508 patent’’); 

and 9,748,347 (‘‘the ’347 patent’’). Id. 

The complaint further alleged that a 

domestic industry exists. Id. The 

Commission’s notice of investigation 

named as respondents Innoscience 

(Zhuhai) Technology, Company, Ltd., of 

Zhuhai, Guangdong, China; and 

Innoscience America, Inc. of Santa 

Clara, California (together 

‘‘Innoscience’’ or ‘‘Respondents’’). The 

Office of Unfair Import Investigations 

was also named as a party in this 

investigation. Id. 

On October 13, 2023, Chief 

Administrative Law Judge (‘‘CALJ’’) 

held a Markman hearing. 

On December 13, 2023, the CALJ 

issued an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) 

granting a motion to terminate the 

investigation as to all asserted claims of 

the ’347 patent. Order No. 9 (Dec. 13, 

2023), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice 

(Jan. 11, 2024). 

On February 12, 2024, the CALJ 

issued an ID granting a motion to 

terminate the investigation as to all 

asserted claims of the ’335 patent. Order 

No. 12 (Feb. 12, 2024), unreviewed by 

Comm’n Notice (Mar. 12, 2024). 

The CALJ held an evidentiary hearing 

from February 26, 2024 to March 1, 

2024, and received post-hearing briefs 

thereafter. 

On July 5, 2024, the CALJ issued the 

final ID finding a violation of section 

337 as to claims 2 and 3 of the ’294 

patent and no violation of section 337 

as to claim 1 of the ’294 patent. The 

CALJ also found no violation of section 

337 as to the only asserted claim of the 

’508 patent, claim 1. Specifically, the ID 

found that by appearing and 

participating in the investigation, the 

parties have consented to personal 

jurisdiction at the Commission. ID at 

10–11. The ID found that EPC 

established the importation requirement 

under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(B), noting 

that Innoscience does not dispute 

importing the accused products. Id. at 

11–12. The ID found that because the 

accused products have been imported 

into the United States, the Commission 

has in rem jurisdiction over them. Id. at 

12. The ID found that EPC owns the 

patents and thus has standing to assert 

the patents in this investigation. Id. The 

ID found that EPC successfully proved 

that the accused products infringe the 

asserted claims of the ’294 patent 

(claims 1–3) but that unlike claims 2 

and 3, claim 1 has been shown to be 

invalid for obviousness. ID at 30–51, 

85–100. The ID found that EPC failed to 

prove that the accused products infringe 

claim 1 of the ’508 patent and that 

Respondents failed to prove the claim 

invalid for obviousness. Id. at 52–68, 

103–117. Finally, the ID found that EPC 

established the economic prong of the 

domestic industry requirement for both 

the ’294 and ’508 patents but failed to 

establish the technical prong of the 

domestic industry requirement for the 

’508 patent. ID at 120–151. Thus, the ID 

found the existence of a domestic 

industry that practices the ’294 patent as 

required by 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(2) but not 

one that practices the ’508 patent. 

The ID included the CALJ’s 

recommended determination on remedy 

and bonding (‘‘RD’’). The RD 

recommended, should the Commission 

find a violation, issuance of a limited 

exclusion order and cease and desist 

orders against the Respondents. ID/RD 

at 154–157. The RD also recommended 

imposing a bond in the amount of five 

percent of entered value for infringing 

products imported during the period of 

Presidential review. Id. at 158–159. 

On July 19, 2024, EPC and 

Innoscience filed respective petitions 

for review of the ID. On July 29, 2024, 

the parties, including OUII, filed 

responses to the petitions. 

Having reviewed the record of the 

investigation, including the final ID, the 

parties’ submissions to the CALJ, the 

petitions for review, and the responses 

thereto, the Commission has determined 

to review the ID in its entirety. 

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) If the Commission were to adopt 

the construction, proposed by OUII, of 

the limitation ‘‘compensated GaN layer’’ 

recited in claim 1 of the ’294 patent to 

mean ‘‘a GaN layer in which one type 

of impurity cancels the electric effects of 

another type of impurity,’’ how does 

that construction affect the ID’s 

infringement, invalidity, and technical 

prong of the domestic industry 

analyses? 

(2) Did the CALJ correctly find that 

Uemoto fails to disclose element [1b] ‘‘a 

set of III–N transition layers above the 

substrate’’ recited in claim 1 of the ’294 

patent, even though neither EPC nor 

OUII disputed Respondents’ assertion 

that Uemoto disclosed this limitation? 

See ID at 73. 

(3) Please explain whether claim 1 of 

the ’508 patent is limited to using a 

single mask to etch both the gate contact 

and doped GaN layer based on the ’508 

patent’s description of the ‘‘present 

invention.’’ Please also explain whether 

performance of the claimed steps in the 

order [1f]–[1g]–[1i]–[ih] (as permitted 

under the ID’s construction of the order 

of steps) requires the use of a single 

mask to perform both etching steps or 

otherwise allows the use of two separate 

masks. If the Commission were to 

construe claim 1 of the ’508 patent to 

require the claimed steps be performed 

in the recited order ([1f]–[1g]–[1h]–[1i]), 

how does that affect the ID’s 

infringement, invalidity, and technical 

prong of the domestic industry 

analyses? 

(4) Please clarify whether EPC’s ‘‘total 

operating expenditures’’ identified on 

page 129 of the ID includes foreign 

manufacturing expenses for the 

domestic industry products. 

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 respondents 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 11, 2024 / Notices 73721 

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. In 

addition, the Commission requests 

responses to the following question 

regarding the public interest: 

Please provide specific facts and data with 

respect to Respondents’ assertion that ‘‘an 

exclusion order would have significant 

impacts on U.S. consumers and economy at 

large’’ and that ‘‘[w]ithout a delay in the 

effective date of an exclusion order, an 

immediate and potentially multi-year 

shortage across a wide variety of industries 

could not be averted given alternative 

suppliers’ existing production capacities and 

a lack of readily available GaN 

semiconductor devices.’’ Resp. PI Stmt. at 2. 

Please include in your discussion, the shares 

of the U.S. market for EPC and Respondents, 

as well as other suppliers and whether these 

suppliers have the capability to supply U.S. 

demand in the event of an exclusion order 

and/or cease and desist orders. 

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 

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. Such 

submissions should address the 

recommended determination by the 

CALJ on remedy 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 state the dates that the 

Asserted Patents expire, 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 September 19, 

2024. Reply submissions must be filed 

no later than the close of business on 

September 26, 2024. No further 

submissions on these issues will be 

permitted unless otherwise ordered by 

the Commission. Opening submissions 

are limited to 50 pages. Reply 

submissions are limited to 30 pages. No 

further submissions on any of 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–1366) 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 with the 

Commission and served on any parties 

to the investigation within two business 

days of any confidential filing. 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 September 

5, 2024. 

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: September 5, 2024. 

Sharon Bellamy, 

Supervisory Hearings and Information 

Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2024–20514 Filed 9–10–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–733–736 and 

731–TA–1702–1711 (Preliminary)] 

Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products 

From Australia, Brazil, Canada, 

Mexico, Netherlands, South Africa, 

Taiwan, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, 

and Vietnam; Institution of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Investigations and Scheduling of 

Preliminary Phase Investigations 

AGENCY: International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the institution of investigations 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1