43270 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 149 / Friday, August 6, 2021 / Notices 

reporting requirements pursuant to 

current public laws, including the 

Federal Water Project Recreation Act (16 

U.S.C. 460I), and the Federal Lands 

Recreation Enhancement Act (16 U.S.C. 

87). In addition, collected information 

will permit relevant program 

assessments of resources managed by 

Reclamation, its recreation managing 

partners, and/or concessionaires for the 

purpose of contributing to the 

implementation of Reclamation’s 

mission. More specifically, the collected 

information enables Reclamation to (1) 

evaluate the effectiveness of program 

management based on existing 

recreation and concessionaire resources 

and facilities, and (2) validate the 

efficiency of resources for public use 

within partner managed recreation 

resources, located on Reclamation 

project lands in the 17 Western States. 

Title of Collection: Recreation Use 

Data Report. 

OMB Control Number: 1006–0002. 

Form Number: Form 7–2534— 

Recreation Use Data Report. 

Type of Review: Revision of a 

currently approved collection. 

Respondents/Affected Public: State, 

local, or tribal governments; agencies 

who manager Reclamation’s recreation 

resources and facilities; and commercial 

concessions, subconcessionaires, and 

nonprofit organizations located on 

Reclamation lands with associated 

recreation services. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Respondents: 212. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Responses: 212. 

Estimated Completion Time per 

Response: 25 minutes. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Burden Hours: 88 hours. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory. 

Frequency of Collection: Annually. 

Total Estimated Annual Nonhour 

Burden Cost: 0. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

The authority for this action is the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Karen Knight, 

Director, Dam Safety and Infrastructure. 

[FR Doc. 2021–16845 Filed 8–5–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4332–90–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

Certain Balanced Armature Devices, 

Products Containing Same, and 

Components Thereof 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–1186] 

Notice of a Commission Determination 

To Review in Part a Summary 

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 has determined to review 

in part a summary determination (‘‘ID’’) 

(Order No. 50) of the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’), 

finding a violation of section 337. 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: 

Amanda Pitcher Fisherow, Esq., Office 

of the General Counsel, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, 

telephone (202) 205–2737. 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: On 

November 29, 2019, the Commission 

instituted this investigation based on a 

complaint filed by Knowles Corporation 

and Knowles Electronics, LLC of Itasca, 

Illinois, and Knowles Electronics 

(Suzhou) Co., Ltd. of Suzhou, China 

(collectively, ‘‘Knowles’’). 84 FR 65840 

(Nov. 29, 2019). The complaint, as 

supplemented, alleged violations of 

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, due to the 

importation into the United States, sale 

for importation, or sale in the United 

States after importation of certain 

balanced armature devices, products 

containing same, and components 

thereof by reason of misappropriation of 

trade secrets, the threat or effect of 

which is to destroy or substantially 

injure a domestic industry. Id. The 

notice of investigation named twelve 

(12) respondents, including Shenzhen 

Bellsing Acoustic Technology Co. Ltd. 

of Shenzhen, China, Suzhou Bellsing 

Acoustic Technology Co. Ltd. of 

Suzhou, China, Dongguan Bellsing 

Precision Device Co., Ltd. of Dongguan, 

China, and Bellsing Corporation of 

Lisle, Illinois (collectively, ‘‘Bellsing’’); 

Liang Li (a/k/a Ryan Li) of Suzhou City, 

China (‘‘Mr. Li’’); Dongguan Xinyao 

Electronics Industrial Co., Ltd. of 

Dongguan, China (‘‘Xinyao’’); Soundlink 

Co., Ltd. of Suzhou, China 

(‘‘Soundlink’’); Magnatone Hearing Aid 

Corporation d/b/a Persona Medical and 

lnEarz Audio of Casselberry, Florida 

(‘‘Persona’’); Jerry Harvey Audio LLC of 

Orlando, Florida (‘‘Harvey’’); Magic 

Dynamics, LLC d/b/a MagicEar of 

Clearwater, Florida (‘‘MagicEar’’); 

Campfire Audio, LLC of Portland, 

Oregon (‘‘Campfire’’); and Clear Tune 

Monitors, Inc. of Orlando, Florida 

(‘‘Clear Tune’’). Id. The Office of Unfair 

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

party in this investigation. Id. 

Xinyao, Soundlink, MagicEar, 

CampFire, Persona, Clear Tune, and 

Harvey were all terminated from the 

investigation based on the issuance of 

consent orders. See Order Nos. 37–40, 

unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Nov. 23, 

2020); Order Nos. 34–35, unreviewed by 

Comm’n Notice (Nov. 19, 2020); and 

Order No. 28, unreviewed by Comm’n 

Notice (Sept. 20, 2020). 

On June 1, 2021, the ALJ issued the 

subject ID. On June 11, 2021, Bellsing 

and Mr. Li filed a joint petition for 

review. On June 21, 2021, OUII and 

Knowles filed responses. 

Having reviewed the record of the 

investigation, the ID, and the parties’ 

submissions to the ALJ and the 

Commission, the Commission has 

determined to review the ID in part. 

Specifically, the Commission has 

determined to review (1) whether 

Bellsing can participate in briefing on 

remedy and bonding before the ALJ (ID 

at 4) and in briefing on remedy, the 

public interest, and bonding before the 

Commission; (2) importation; (3) use by 

Mr. Li of Representative Trade Secret 

Nos. (‘‘RTS’’) 1–10 (ID at 35–36, 41–42, 

49, 56–57, 61, 72–73, and 84–85); (4) all 

findings related to RTS No. 6; and (5) 

domestic industry. The Commission 

also reviews the issues raised in the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 149 / Friday, August 6, 2021 / Notices 43271 

parties’ arguments relating to due 

process, comity, and collateral estoppel. 

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. The 

response to each question should 

include citations to the record and 

identify when the issue/evidence was 

previously raised before the ALJ. 

(1) Should briefing on remedy, 

bonding, and the public interest be 

considered from a defaulting party 

(assuming that the briefing presented by 

the defaulting party is not related to 

issues concerning a finding of 

violation)? Are there any policy 

considerations that the Commission 

should take into account? 

(2) Did Mr. Li waive the issue of 

whether the importation requirement 

has been met by Mr. Li? When was the 

issue first raised? 

(3) Please discuss whether the 

importation requirement has been met 

with respect to Mr. Li. Can Bellsing’s 

actions be imputed to Mr. Li, and if so, 

under what theory? Please address the 

record evidence and applicable case 

law. 

(4) Has Mr. Li used or disclosed each 

of the RTS Nos. 1–10? Can Bellsing’s 

actions be imputed to Mr. Li, and if so, 

under what theory? Please address the 

record evidence and applicable case 

law. 

The parties are invited to brief only 

the discrete issues requested above (in 

their briefs, the parties should also 

address remedy, bonding, and the 

public interest, as requested below). The 

parties are not to brief other issues, 

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 

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). In particular, the written 

submissions regarding cease and desist 

orders should address the request for a 

cease and desist order in the context of 

recent Commission opinions. The 

Commission asks that any submissions 

on remedy address the following: 

(1) General exclusion order questions: 

(a) Can the Commission issue a 

general exclusion order covering 

downstream products of nonrespondents that incorporate articles 

found to be in violation of section 337? 

If so, under what circumstances can 

downstream products be covered by a 

GEO? 

(b) Should the Commission consider 

whether non-respondents are likely to 

circumvent the GEO in determining 

whether to cover downstream products 

in its order? 

(c) Should the Commission consider 

the approach and factors set forth in 

Certain Erasable Programmable Read 

Only Memories (EPROMs), Inv. No. 337– 

TA–276, Comm’n Op. (May 1989), aff’d 

sub nom., Hyundai Elec. Indus. Co. v. 

U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 899 F.2d 1204 

(Fed. Cir. 1990)? Please discuss the 

relevant evidence in the record of this 

investigation and how that evidence 

supports the approach and factors that 

the Commission should use. Please also 

discuss the relevant statutory provisions 

of Section 337 and case law, including 

Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade 

Comm’n, 545 F.3d 1340, 1357–58 (Fed. 

Cir. 2008). 

(2) In relation to the accused 

products, please identify any 

information in the record, including 

allegations in the pleadings, that 

addresses the existence of any domestic 

inventory, any domestic operations, or 

any sales-related activity directed at the 

United States for each respondent 

against whom a cease and desist order 

is sought and whether the inventories, 

business operations, or sales activities 

are significant. 

(3) Discuss any instances where the 

Commission has issued a cease and 

desist order to a respondent in his 

individual capacity and/or an 

individual respondent acting on behalf 

of a company? In what circumstance 

should the Commission issue a cease 

and desist order directed to an 

individual? 

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 

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 ALJ 

on remedy and bonding. 

In their initial submissions, 

Complainants are also requested to 

identify the remedy sought and 

Complainants and OUII are requested to 

submit proposed remedial orders for the 

Commission’s consideration. 

Complainants are 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 August 16, 2021. Reply 

submissions must be filed no later than 

the close of business on August 23, 

2021. 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) 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
43272 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 149 / Friday, August 6, 2021 / Notices 

are currently waived. 85 FR 15798 

(March 19, 2020). Submissions should 

refer to the investigation number (Inv. 

No. 337–TA–1186) 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. A redacted nonconfidential version of the document 

must also be filed simultaneously with 

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 non-confidential 

written submissions will be available for 

public inspection on EDIS. 

The Commission vote for this 

determination took place on August 2, 

2021. 

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: August 2, 2021. 

Katherine Hiner, 

Supervisory Attorney. 

[FR Doc. 2021–16792 Filed 8–5–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–1231] 

Certain Digital Imaging Devices and 

Products Containing the Same and 

Components Thereof; Notice of a 

Commission Determination Not To 

Review an Initial Determination 

Terminating the Investigation in Its 

Entirety Based on Settlement; 

Termination of Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) has 

determined not to review an initial 

determination (‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 23) of 

the presiding administrative law judge 

(‘‘ALJ’’), terminating the investigation in 

its entirety based on settlement. This 

investigation is terminated. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ronald A. Traud, Esq., Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3427. 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 December 1, 2020, based on a 

complaint filed on behalf of Pictos 

Technologies, Inc. of San Jose, 

California (‘‘Pictos’’). 85 FR 77238–39 

(Dec. 1, 2020). The complaint, as 

amended, alleged violations of section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the 

importation into the United States, the 

sale for importation, or the sale within 

the United States after importation of 

certain digital imaging devices and 

products containing the same and 

components thereof by reason of 

infringement of certain claims of U.S. 

Patent Nos. 7,800,145, 6,838,651, 

7,323,671, and 7,064,768. Id. The 

amended complaint further alleged 

violations of section 337 based upon the 

importation into the United States, or in 

the sale of certain digital imaging 

devices and products containing the 

same and components thereof by reason 

of misappropriation of trade secrets. Id. 

The complaint also alleged that an 

industry in the United States exists as 

required by section 337. Id. The 

Commission’s notice of investigation 

named as respondents Samsung 

Electronics Co., Ltd. of Republic of 

Korea; Samsung Electronics America, 

Inc. of Ridgefield Park, New Jersey; and 

Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. of San 

Jose, California (collectively, 

‘‘Samsung’’). Id. The Office of Unfair 

Import Investigations (‘‘OUII’’) is 

participating in the investigation. Id. 

On June 21, 2021, Pictos and Samsung 

jointly moved pursuant to 19 CFR 

210.21(a)(2) and (b) to terminate the 

investigation based on a settlement 

agreement (‘‘the Agreement’’). The 

motion attached public and confidential 

versions of the Agreement. On June 24, 

2021, OUII filed a statement in support 

of the motion. 

On July 16, 2021, the ALJ issued 

Order No. 23, the subject ID, which 

granted the motion. The ID found that 

the motion complied with the 

Commission’s Rules and that there are 

no extraordinary circumstances that 

warrant denying the motion. The ID also 

found that there is no evidence 

indicating that terminating this 

investigation would be contrary to the 

public interest. No petitions for review 

of the ID were received. 

The Commission has determined not 

to review the subject ID. The 

investigation is hereby terminated in its 

entirety. 

The Commission vote for this 

determination took place on August 2, 

2021. 

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: August 2, 2021. 

Katherine Hiner, 

Supervisory Attorney. 

[FR Doc. 2021–16791 Filed 8–5–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES