[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 126 (Thursday, July 1, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35679-35680]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-16809]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-416


Certain Compact Mutipurpose Tools; Notice of Commission Decision 
Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting Summary Determination; 
and Request for 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 has decided not to review the presiding administrative law 
judge's (``ALJ's'') initial determination granting a motion for summary 
determination concerning violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 
1930 as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337) by the four respondents remaining in 
the investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: P.N. Smithey, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone 202-
205-3061. General information concerning the Commission also may be 
obtained by accessing its Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). 
Hearing-impaired individuals can obtain information concerning this 
matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal at 202-205-1810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 28, 1998, Leatherman Tool Group, 
Inc., filed a complaint with the Commission alleging violations of 
section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for 
importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of 
certain compact multipurpose tools that infringe claims of four U.S. 
design patents. The Commission instituted the investigation on 
September 30, 1998. Five firms were named as respondents: Suncoast of 
America, Inc.; Quan Da Industries; Kumasama Products Co., Ltd.; Jiangsu 
Hongbao Group, Corp.; and SCIKO Chinalight, Ltd. See 63 FR 52287 (Sept. 
30, 1998). The Commission added Charles Amash Imports, Inc., d/b/a Grip 
On Tools, as a sixth respondent on December 14, 1998. See 63 FR 70215 
(Dec. 18, 1998).
    Grip On and Suncoast eventually were terminated on the basis of 
consent orders. Notice of Commission Decision Not to Review an Initial 
Determination Terminating a Respondent on the Basis of a Consent Order 
[and] Issuance of Consent Order (Apr. 21, 1999); Order No. 13 (Mar. 25, 
1999); Notice of Commission Decision Not to Review an Initial 
Determination Terminating a Respondent on the Basis of a Consent Order 
[and] Issuance of Consent Order (Mar. 5, 1999); and Order No. 9 (Feb. 
5, 1999).
    The Commission subsequently found the remaining respondents to be 
in default, in light of their failure to answer the complaint and 
notice of investigation in the manner prescribed by the Commission 
rules and their failure to respond to orders directing them to show 
cause why they should not be found in default. See Notice of Commission 
Decision Not to Review an Initial Determination Finding a Respondent in 
Default (May 11, 1999); Order No. 14 (Apr. 8, 1999); Notice of 
Commission Decision Not to Review an Initial Determination Finding 
Three Respondents in Default (Mar. 25, 1999); and Order No. 11 (Mar. 2, 
1999).
    On February 1, 1999, complainant Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., filed 
Motion No. 416-6 for summary determination that the four respondents 
remaining in the investigation have violated section 337.
    On February 11, 1999, the Commission investigative attorney filed a 
response supporting the motion. No other party responded to the motion.
    On May 27, 1999, the ALJ issued the ID granting the motion for 
summary determination concerning violation of section 337 by 
respondents. The ALJ found that there is no genuine issue of fact that: 
(1) Each respondent has imported an accused tool into the United 
States, sold it for importation, and/or sold it in the United States 
after importation; (2) the four design patents at issue are valid and 
enforceable; and (3) the complainant has satisfied the technical prong 
of the domestic industry requirement (19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(2)).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Commission previously determined not to review an ID 
granting a summary determination on the economic prong of the 
statutory domestic industry requirement. See Notice of Commission 
Decision Not to Review an Initial Determination Granting Summary 
Determination on the Domestic Industry Requirement (Mar. 5, 1999); 
and Order No. 7 (Feb. 2, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No party filed a petition for review of the ID pursuant to 19 CFR 
210.43(a), and the Commission found no basis for ordering a review on 
its own initiative pursuant to 19 CFR 210.44. The ID thus became the 
determination of the Commission pursuant to 19 CFR 210.42(h)(3).
    As a final disposition of this investigation, the Commission may 
issue (1) an order that could result in exclusion of the subject 
articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2) cease and desist 
orders that could result in respondents being required to cease and 
desist from engaging in unfair

[[Page 35680]]

action in the importation and sale of such articles. The Commission is 
therefore 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 In the Matter of: Certain Devices for Connecting 
Computers Via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-360, USITC Publication 
No. 2843 (December 1994) (Commission Opinion).
    If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must 
consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The 
factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an 
exclusion order and/or cease and desist order 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 the subject of this 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 President has 60 
days to approve or disapprove the Commission's action. During this 
period, the subject articles would be entitled to enter the United 
States under a bond in an amount determined by the Commission and 
prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Commission is 
therefore interested in receiving written submissions concerning the 
amount of the bond that should be imposed.

Written Submissions

    The parties to the investigation, interested Government agencies, 
and other interested persons or entities are encouraged to file written 
submissions on remedy, the public interest, and bonding.
    The document constituting the ID also contains the ALJ's 
recommended determination (``RD'') under 19 CFR 210.42(a)(2) concerning 
remedy and bonding. The ALJ has recommended that the Commission issue a 
general exclusion order and set the bond at 100 percent of the entered 
value of the accused imports during the Presidential review period. The 
parties' written submissions on remedy, the public interest, and 
bonding may assert their arguments concerning the RD in accordance with 
19 CFR 210.46(a). The Commission also requests that the complainant and 
the Commission investigative attorney submit proposed remedial orders 
for the Commission's consideration.
    All written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed 
with the Office of the Secretary no later than 5:15 p.m. on Tuesday, 
July 13, 1999. Reply submissions must be filed no later than 5:15 p.m. 
on Tuesday, July 20, 1999. No further submissions on remedy, the public 
interest, and bonding will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the 
Commission.
    Persons filing written submissions and proposed remedial orders 
must file the original document and 14 true copies with the Office of 
the Secretary on or before the deadlines stated above. Any person 
desiring to submit a document or portion thereof in confidence must 
request confidential treatment unless the information contained in the 
document or portion thereof has already been granted such treatment 
during the investigation. All requests for confidential treatment 
should be directed to the Secretary of the Commission and must include 
a full statement of the reasons that the Commission should grant such 
treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. All nonconfidential written submissions 
will be available for public inspection at the Office of Secretary.
    Nonconfidential copies of the ID granting the motion for summary 
determination, the RD on remedy and public interest, all other 
nonconfidential documents filed in the investigation are or will be 
available for public inspection during official business hours (8:45 
a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Commission's Office of the Secretary, Dockets 
Branch, 500 E Street, S.W., Room 112, Washington, D.C. 20436, telephone 
202-205-1802.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: June 28, 1999
Donna R. Koehnke,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 99-16809 Filed 6-30-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P