Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Notices 37359 

1The Commission’s rules of practice, 19 CFR 

210.21(a), do not contemplate or specify procedures 

for a situation, as here, where the Commission’s 

final determination is vacated on appeal and 

remanded for further proceedings. The Commission 

has the inherent authority under these 

circumstances to manage its docket and to 

terminate the investigation at Kyocera’s request. 

Certain Digital Satellite System (DSS) Receivers and 

Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337–TA–392, Notice, 

64 FR 27295 (May 19, 1999). The relief that Koki 

seeks, by opposing termination of the remanded 

investigation and pressing to continue forward, 

would result in a waste of public and private 

resources. Moreover, as set forth in the above text, 

continuing now would be in tension, if not outright 

conflict, with section 337(c). 

that information on this matter can be 

obtained by contacting the 

Commission’s TDD terminal, telephone 

(202) 205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted this investigation 

on November 20, 2017, based on a 

complaint filed on behalf of Kyocera 

Senco Brands Inc. (now known as 

Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.) 

(‘‘Kyocera’’) of Cincinnati, Ohio. 82 FR 

55118–19 (Nov. 20, 2017). The 

complaint, as amended and 

supplemented, alleged violations of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 

U.S.C. 1337 (‘‘section 337’’), based upon 

the importation into the United States, 

the sale for importation, and the sale 

within the United States after 

importation of certain gas spring nailer 

products and components thereof by 

reason of infringement of, inter alia, 

certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 

8,267,296 (‘‘the ’296 patent’’); 8,27,297 

(‘‘the ’297 patent’’); 8,387,718 (‘‘the ’718 

patent’’); 8,286,722 (‘‘the ’722 patent’’); 

and 8,602,282 (‘‘the ’282 patent’’). The 

complaint further alleged the existence 

of a domestic industry. The 

Commission’s notice of investigation 

named as a respondent Hitachi Koki 

U.S.A., Ltd. (now known as Koki 

Holdings America Ltd.) (‘‘Koki’’) of 

Braselton, Georgia. The Office of Unfair 

Import Investigations did not participate 

in the investigation. Prior to the 

evidentiary hearing, the parties 

stipulated that the ’718 patent was the 

only remaining patent at issue because 

no violation could be shown as to the 

’296, ’297, ’722, and ’282 patents based 

on claim construction and an 

evidentiary ruling excluding Kyocera’s 

expert testimony with respect to proving 

infringement under the doctrine of 

equivalents, but not literal infringement. 

See Initial Determination (Jun. 7, 2019) 

at 1–2, unreviewed by Comm’n Notice 

(Aug. 14, 2019) (‘‘the August 14, 2019 

Determination’’). 

On March 5, 2020, having found 

asserted claims 1, 10, and 16 of the ’718 

patent infringed and not invalid and the 

domestic industry requirement satisfied, 

the Commission issued its final 

determination finding a violation of 

section 337. 85 FR 14244–46 (Mar. 11, 

2020). The Commission issued a limited 

exclusion order (‘‘LEO’’) directed 

against Koki’s infringing products and a 

cease and desist order (‘‘CDO’’) directed 

against Koki. Id. 

Both Kyocera and Koki timely 

appealed the August 14, 2019 

Determination and the Commission’s 

final determination, respectively, to the 

Federal Circuit. The separate appeals 

were subsequently consolidated. On 

January 21, 2022, the Court issued a 

decision vacating and remanding (for 

further proceedings consistent with the 

Court’s opinion) the Commission’s 

finding of a violation of section 337. 

Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. ITC, 

22 F.4th 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2022). 

Specifically, the Federal Circuit: (1) 

ruled that Kyocera’s expert testimony 

should have been excluded for both 

infringement under the doctrine of 

equivalents and literal infringement; (2) 

reversed the Commission’s finding that 

the ‘‘lifter member’’ limitation was not 

means-plus-function; (3) held that the 

‘‘initiating a driving cycle’’ limitation 

cannot be met by pressing the exit end 

of a safety contact element against a 

workpiece; and (4) affirmed the 

Commission on all other issues on 

appeal. The Court’s mandate issued on 

March 14, 2022, returning jurisdiction 

to the Commission for the remanded 

issues. 

On March 28, 2022, the Commission 

issued an Order requesting the parties to 

provide comments concerning what 

further proceedings are appropriate 

consistent with the Court’s judgment, 

including whether the matter should be 

referred to the ALJ. See Comm’n Order 

(Mar. 28, 2022) at 2–3. 

On April 7, 2022, Kyocera and Koki 

each submitted comments. In addition 

to its comments, on April 7, 2022, 

Kyocera filed a motion to terminate the 

remand proceeding due to withdrawal 

of its complaint. On April 14, 2022, 

Kyocera and Koki each submitted 

response comments. On the same date, 

Koki also submitted an opposition to 

Kyocera’s motion to terminate. 

The Commission has determined to 

terminate the investigation. Kyocera, the 

complainant, no longer seeks relief. 

Koki seeks further decision-making by 

the Commission in remand proceedings 

that, if Koki were to prevail, would 

amount to a declaratory judgment of 

noninfringement for Koki. The 

Commission, however, lacks the 

authority to proceed with declaratory 

(or any other) counterclaims.1 19 U.S.C. 

1337(c); see also, e.g., Solomon Techs., 

Inc. v. ITC, 524 F.3d 1310, 1320 (Fed. 

Cir. 2008). 

As part of this termination, the 

Commission rescinds the remedial 

orders in their entirety. 

The Commission has also determined 

that it would be premature at this time 

for it to decide the effect, if any, of this 

termination on a future complaint that 

might be filed. Accordingly, the 

Commission need not and does not now 

decide what action it may take, or what 

conditions may apply, should Kyocera 

in the future file a complaint based on 

the same or similar alleged violations of 

section 337 by Koki. Nor does the 

Commission now decide whether and 

how, if a new investigation were 

instituted based on the same or similar 

allegations, the record from the instant 

investigation may be used in such future 

investigation. 

The investigation is terminated. 

The Commission vote for this 

determination took place on June 15, 

2022. 

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: June 15, 2022. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2022–13269 Filed 6–21–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 

and Explosives 

[OMB Number 1140–0081] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Proposed eCollection of 

eComments Requested; Appeals of 

Background Checks 

AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms and Explosives, Department of 

Justice. 

ACTION: 30-day notice. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives 

(ATF), Department of Justice (DOJ) will 

submit the following information 

collection request to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and approval in accordance with 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Comments are encouraged and 

will be accepted for an additional 30 

days until July 22, 2022. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
37360 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Notices 

ADDRESSES: Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

PRAMain. Find this particular 

information collection by selecting 

‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open 

for Public Comments’’ or by using the 

search function. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Written 

comments and suggestions from the 

public and affected agencies concerning 

the proposed collection of information 

are encouraged. Your comments should 

address one or more of the following 

four points: 

—Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

—Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

—Evaluate whether and, if so, how the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected can be 

enhanced; and 

—Minimize the burden of the collection 

of information on those who are to 

respond, including through the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms 

of information technology, e.g., 

permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Overview of This Information 

Collection 

(1) Type of Information Collection: 

Extension Without Change of a 

Currently Approved Collection. 

(2) The Title of the Form/Collection: 

Appeals of Background Checks. 

(3) The agency form number, if any, 

and the applicable component of the 

Department sponsoring the collection: 

Form number: None. 

Component: Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. 

Department of Justice. 

(4) Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: 

Primary: Individuals or households. 

Other: Business or other for-profit. 

Abstract: This information collection 

allows a responsible person or an 

employee authorized to possess 

explosive materials to appeal an adverse 

background check determination, by 

submitting appropriate documentation 

to the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco 

Firearms and Explosives. 

(5) An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 

estimated for an average respondent to 

respond: An estimated 500 respondents 

will respond to this collection once 

annually, and it will take each 

respondent approximately 2 hours to 

complete their responses. 

(6) An estimate of the total public 

burden (in hours) associated with the 

collection: 1,000 hours, which is equal 

to 500 (total respondents) * 1 (# of 

response per respondent) * 2 (# of hours 

or the time taken to prepare each 

response). 

If additional information is required 

contact: Robert J. Houser, Assistant 

Director, Policy and Planning Staff, 

Office of the Chief Information Officer, 

United States Department of Justice, 

Justice Management Division, Two 

Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 

Mail Stop 3.E–206, Washington, DC 

20530. 

Dated: June 16, 2022. 

Robert Houser, 

Assistant Director, Policy and Planning Staff, 

U.S. Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2022–13351 Filed 6–21–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–FY–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Submission for OMB 

Review; Comment Request; Alternative 

Reporting Methods for Apprenticeship 

and Training Plans and Top Hat Plans 

ACTION: Notice of availability; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor 

(DOL) is submitting this Employee 

Benefits Security Administration 

(EBSA)-sponsored information 

collection request (ICR) to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and approval in accordance with 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA). Public comments on the ICR are 

invited. 

DATES: The OMB will consider all 

written comments that the agency 

receives on or before July 22, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

PRAMain. Find this particular 

information collection by selecting 

‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open 

for Public Comments’’ or by using the 

search function. 

Comments are invited on: (1) whether 

the collection of information is 

necessary for the proper performance of 

the functions of the Department, 

including whether the information will 

have practical utility; (2) if the 

information will be processed and used 

in a timely manner; (3) the accuracy of 

the agency’s estimates of the burden and 

cost of the collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; (4) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility and 

clarity of the information collection; and 

(5) ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mara Blumenthal by telephone at 202– 

693–8538, or by email at DOL_PRA_

PUBLIC@dol.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulations under section 29 CFR 

2520.104–22 provide an exemption to 

the reporting and disclosure provision 

of Part 1 of Title I of ERISA for 

employee welfare benefit plans that 

provide exclusively apprenticeship and 

training benefits. Regulations under 

section 29 CFR 2520.14–23 provide an 

alternative method of compliance with 

the reporting and disclosure of Title I of 

ERISA for unfunded or insured plans 

established for a select group of 

management of highly compensated 

employees (i.e., top hat plans). To 

satisfy the exemption and the 

alternative method of compliance 

respectively, plan administrators must 

satisfy the specified reporting and 

disclosure requirements. The 2019 final 

rule revised the procedures for filing 

apprenticeship and training plan notices 

and top hat plan statements with the 

Secretary of Labor to require electronic 

submission of these notices and 

statements. For additional substantive 

information about this ICR, see the 

related notice published in the Federal 

Register on March 17, 2022 (87 FR 

15267). 

This information collection is subject 

to the PRA. A Federal agency generally 

cannot conduct or sponsor a collection 

of information, and the public is 

generally not required to respond to an 

information collection, unless the OMB 

approves it and displays a currently 

valid OMB Control Number. In addition, 

notwithstanding any other provisions of 

law, no person shall generally be subject 

to penalty for failing to comply with a 

collection of information that does not 

display a valid OMB Control Number. 

See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. 

DOL seeks PRA authorization for this 

information collection for three (3) 

years. OMB authorization for an ICR 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES