44054 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 11, 2021 / Notices 

3 86 FR 32277 (June 11, 2021). 

Products, LLC, Sauget, Illinois. The 

Commission scheduled the final phase 

of the investigation following 

notification of a preliminary 

determination by Commerce that 

imports of SRC pipe and tube from 

Vietnam were being sold at LTFV 

within the meaning of section 733(b) of 

the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of 

the scheduling of the final phase of the 

Commission’s investigation and of a 

public hearing to be held in connection 

therewith was given by posting copies 

of the notice in the Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, Washington, DC, and by 

publishing the notice in the Federal 

Register of February 23, 2021 (86 FR 

10994). Since no party to the 

investigation requested a hearing, the 

public hearing in connection with the 

investigation, originally scheduled for 

June 15, 2021, was canceled.3

The Commission made this 

determination pursuant to § 735(b) of 

the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)). It 

completed and filed its determination in 

this investigation on August 5, 2021. 

The views of the Commission are 

contained in USITC Publication 5216 

(August 2021), entitled Seamless 

Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from 

Vietnam: Investigation No. 731–TA– 

1528 (Final). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: August 5, 2021. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2021–17083 Filed 8–10–21; 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 in Part a 

Final Initial Determination Finding No 

Violation of Section 337; Schedule for 

Filing 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 the final initial determination 

(‘‘final ID’’) issued by the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on 

June 4, 2021, finding no violation of 

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended. The Commission requests 

briefing from the parties on certain 

issues under review, as indicated in this 

notice. The Commission also requests 

briefing from the parties, interested 

government agencies, and interested 

persons on the issues of remedy, the 

public interest, and bonding. 

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 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, alleged violations of 

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, 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 notice of investigation named as 

respondents 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, all of 

China. Id. at 31912. The Office of Unfair 

Import Investigations (‘‘OUII’’) was also 

named as a party in this investigation. 

Id. 

On July 9, 2020, Order No. 52 granted 

a motion for summary determination of 

no substantial injury to a domestic 

industry. The Commission determined 

to review Order No. 52, and on 

December 14, 2020, reversed the grant of 

summary determination. 

On June 4, 2021, the ALJ issued the 

final ID, which found that Respondents 

did not violate section 337, primarily 

based on a Complainants’ failure to 

establish a domestic industry. The final 

ID found that the Commission has in 

rem jurisdiction over the accused 

products, subject matter jurisdiction, 

and personal jurisdiction. ID at 99. The 

final ID also found that Respondents 

imported into the United States, sold for 

importation, or sold within the United 

States after importation the accused 

products. Id. The final ID further found 

that Respondents have misappropriated 

certain of Complainants’ trade secrets in 

the manufacture of certain accused 

products, but that Complainants have 

not shown that Respondents tortiously 

interfered with contractual 

relationships. Id. The final ID 

additionally found that Complainants 

have not shown that the importation 

and sale of accused products has the 

threat or effect of destroying or 

substantially injuring a domestic 

industry. 

The RD issued on June 10, 2021. The 

RD recommended that, if the 

Commission finds a violation of section 

337, the Commission should issue 

limited exclusion orders of various 

durations for each of the various 

categories of accused products. RD at 

10. The durations of the recommended 

exclusion orders are all quite short, 

ranging from 1–17 months from 

issuance. Id. at 10–11. The RD further 

recommended that a cease and desist 

order would be unnecessary. Id. at 12. 

The RD additionally recommended that 

a bond of 1% of entered value be 

imposed during the period of 

Presidential review. The public interest 

was not delegated to the ALJ. 

On June 21, 2021, Complainants and 

Respondents filed petitions for review 

and OUII filed a contingent petition for 

review. On June 29, 2021, the parties 

filed responses to the petitions. 

Having examined the record in this 

investigation, including the final ID, the 

petitions for review, and the responses 

thereto, the Commission has determined 

to review the final ID in part. In 

particular, the Commission has 

determined to review the following: 

(1) The final ID’s findings and 

conclusions as to the existence of a 

domestic industry and injury to a 

domestic industry. 

(2) The final ID’s findings and 

conclusions regarding the wrongful 

taking and use of the Bills of Materials 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 11, 2021 / Notices 44055 

(‘‘BOM’’) Trade Secrets and the Custom 

Components and Mold Trade Secrets. 

The Commission has determined to not 

review the remainder of the final ID. 

The parties are requested to brief their 

positions with reference to the 

applicable law and the evidentiary 

record regarding the questions provided 

below: 

(1) Regarding domestic industry: 

(A) Please explain whether 

Complainants’ asserted expenditures for 

warranty services differ from those of a 

mere importer, including by discussing: 

(A) How the Commission and the 

Federal Circuit have considered such 

investments in prior investigations, and 

(B) how the facts of this investigation 

should be assessed in light of applicable 

precedent. Also address the extent to 

which the warranty servicing activities 

relied upon to show the existence of a 

domestic industry need to take place in 

the United States either as a legal or a 

practical matter, such that those 

activities would not distinguish a 

domestic industry from a mere importer. 

(B) Are complainants required to 

allocate payments made to third-party 

service providers for warranty services 

to qualifying activities in an 

investigation under 19 U.S.C. 

1337(a)(1)(A)? In answering this 

question, please discuss any relevant 

legal authority. 

(C) Did Complainants sufficiently 

allocate their payments to third-party 

service providers for warranty services 

to qualifying activities. 

(D) If the payments to third-party 

service providers are not sufficiently 

allocated, what qualifying expenditures 

remain? 

(E) What evidence and argument were 

timely-presented regarding the nature 

and significance of those remaining 

qualifying expenditures? 

(F) Assuming there is an industry in 

the United States within the meaning of 

19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(A), please discuss 

the evidence and arguments addressing 

whether the industry is substantially 

injured or threatened with substantial 

injury. 

(2) Regarding wrongful taking and use 

of the BOM Trade Secrets: 

(A) To what extent are Vesta’s BOM 

Codes non-public information, and to 

what extent did the final ID make 

findings on that point (particularly 

unpetitioned findings)? 

(B) Is it contradictory for the final ID 

to consider the similarities in Vesta’s 

BOM Codes and Rebenet’s part numbers 

in its wrongful taking and use analysis, 

where the final ID finds that the BOM 

Codes are not themselves trade secrets? 

Please discuss any relevant legal 

authority. 

(C) If evidence of the similarities 

between Vesta’s BOM Codes and 

Rebenet’s part numbers cannot be 

considered for determining wrongful 

taking and use of the BOM Trade 

Secrets, could Complainants still meet 

their burden of proof as to those 

elements of trade secret 

misappropriation? 

(3) Regarding wrongful taking and use 

of the Custom Components and Mold 

Trade Secrets: 

(A) Is it contradictory for the final ID 

to consider the similarities in Vesta’s 

BOM Codes and Rebenet’s part 

numbers, and Vesta’s and Rebenet’s 

drawings, where those codes and 

drawings were not found to be trade 

secrets? Please discuss any relevant 

legal authority. 

(B) If evidence of the similarities 

between Vesta’s BOM Codes and 

Rebenet’s part numbers, and Vesta’s and 

Rebenet’s drawings cannot be 

considered for determining wrongful 

taking and use of the Custom 

Components and Mold Trade Secrets, 

could Complainants still meet their 

burden of proof as to those elements of 

trade secret misappropriation? 

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 are 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/or 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 questions 

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 

initial written submissions should 

include views on the RD that issued on 

June 10, 2021. 

Initial written submissions, limited to 

60 pages, must be filed no later than the 

close of business on August 19, 2021. 

The following information is also 

requested in the initial written 

submissions and will not count against 

the above-mentioned page limitations. 

Complainants are requested to identify 

the form of the remedy sought. 

Complainants and OUII are requested to 

submit proposed remedial orders for the 

Commission’s consideration. 

Complainants are also requested to state 

the HTSUS subheadings under which 

the accused articles are imported, and to 

supply identification information for all 

known importers of the accused 

products. 

Reply submissions, limited to 30 

pages, must be filed no later than the 

close of business on August 26, 2021. 

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 

(March 19, 2020). Submissions should 

refer to the investigation number (‘‘Inv. 

No. 337–TA–1166’’) in a prominent 

place on the cover page and/or the first 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
44056 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 11, 2021 / Notices 

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 at (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 nonconfidential written 

submissions will be available for public 

inspection on EDIS. 

The Commission vote for this 

determination took place on August 5, 

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 5, 2021. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2021–17082 Filed 8–10–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Proposed 

Consent Decree Under the Clean Water 

Act 

On August 5, 2021, the Department of 

Justice filed a complaint and lodged a 

proposed consent decree with the 

United States District Court for the 

District of North Dakota in the lawsuit 

entitled United States and North Dakota 

v. Summit Midstream Partners, LLC and 

Meadowlark Midstream Company, LLC, 

Civil Action No. 1:21–cv–00161. The 

Department of the Interior’s Fish and 

Wildlife Service, the North Dakota 

Department of Environmental Quality, 

and the North Dakota Department of 

Game and Fish (‘‘Trustees’’) are also 

providing notice of an opportunity for 

public comment on a Draft Restoration 

Plan. 

The United States and the State of 

North Dakota filed this lawsuit under 

the Clean Water Act and North Dakota 

water pollution control laws. The 

complaint names Summit Midstream 

Partners, LLC and Meadowlark 

Midstream Company, LLC as 

defendants. The complaint seeks 

injunctive relief, civil penalties, and 

natural resource damages for violations 

of the Clean Water Act and North 

Dakota law as a result of a produced 

water spill from a pipeline owned and 

operated by Defendants. Defendants’ 

pipeline discharged more than 700,000 

barrels of produced water between 

August 2014 and January 2015; 

produced water from the spill reached 

groundwater, a nearby creek, and 

downstream rivers. 

The Consent Decree requires 

Defendants to perform injunctive relief; 

remediate environmental impacts; pay 

$250,000 in natural resource damage 

assessment costs; pay $1,000,000 to be 

used by the Trustees for the costs of 

projects that restore, rehabilitate, 

replace, or acquire the equivalent of 

natural resources; and pay a 

$20,000,000 civil penalty to be split 

evenly between the United States and 

North Dakota. Based on certain ability to 

pay limitations, the civil penalty will be 

paid over six years, subject to interest. 

The Consent Decree resolves the civil 

claims alleged by the United States and 

North Dakota in the complaint. Under 

the Consent Decree, the United States 

and North Dakota also agreed not to sue 

Defendants for natural resource damages 

resulting from the produced water spill. 

The Trustees have written a Draft 

Restoration Plan that describes 

proposed alternatives for restoring 

natural resources and natural resource 

services injured by the produced water 

spill. The preferred alternatives include 

three restoration project types: (1) 

Aquatic service enhancements; (2) 

conservation of environmentally 

sensitive lands; and (3) recreational 

access enhancement. 

The publication of this notice opens 

a period for public comment on the 

Consent Decree and the Draft 

Restoration Plan. Comments on the 

Consent Decree should be addressed to 

the Assistant Attorney General, 

Environment and Natural Resources 

Division, and should refer to United 

States and North Dakota v. Summit 

Midstream Partners, LLC and 

Meadowlark Midstream Company, LLC, 

D.J. Ref. No. 90–5–2–1–11253. All 

comments must be submitted no later 

than thirty (30) days after the 

publication date of this notice. 

Comments may be submitted either by 

email or by mail: 

To submit 

comments: Send them to: 

By email ....... pubcomment-ees.enrd@

usdoj.gov. 

By mail ......... Assistant Attorney General, 

U.S. DOJ—ENRD, 

P.O. Box 7611, 

Washington, DC 20044–7611. 

During the public comment period, 

the Consent Decree may be examined 

and downloaded at this Justice 

Department website: https://

www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees. 

We will provide a paper copy of the 

Consent Decree upon written request 

and payment of reproduction costs. 

Please mail your request and payment 

to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ— 

ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 

20044–7611. 

Please enclose a check or money order 

for $23.00 (25 cents per page 

reproduction cost) payable to the United 

States Treasury. For a paper copy 

without the appendices and signature 

pages, the cost is $16.25. 

Comments on the Draft Restoration 

Plan may be submitted to the Trustees, 

and should refer to Blacktail Creek— 

Summit Midstream Pipeline Release 

Settlement Agreement, DOI Reference 

#9590. All comments on the Draft 

Restoration Plan must be submitted no 

later than 30 days after the publication 

date of this notice. Comments on the 

Draft Restoration Plan may be submitted 

either by email or by mail: 

To submit 

comments: Send them to: 

By email ....... FW6Blacktail_

CreekNRDAR@fws.gov. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES