AUTHENTICATED
`US. GOVERNMENT,
`INFORMATION,
`GPO,
`
`32243
`Federal Register/Vol. 88, No. 97/Friday, May 19, 2023 /Notices
`
`INTERNATIONAL TRADE
`COMMISSION
`
`[Investigation No. 337-TA-1276]
`
`Certain Light-Based Physiological
`MeasurementDevices and
`ComponentsThereof; Notice of a
`Commission Determination To Review
`in Part a FinalInitial Determination;
`Requesifor Written Submissions on
`the Issues Under Review and on
`Remedy, the Public Interest, and
`Bonding
`AGENCY:U.S. International Trade
`Commission.
`ACTION: Notice.
`
`comment from the public record;
`Atlantic City, New Jersey, or the
`Monmouth County landfall site in Sea
`however, BOEM cannotguaranteethatit
`Girt, New Jersey, or both. Project 1
`will be able to do so. If you wish your
`proposes to produce 1,510 MW. The
`name, address, or otherPII to be
`MW forProject 2 has not been
`witbheld, you muststate your request
`determined as Atlantic Shoresis still
`prominently in a cover letter and
`seeking an offtake power agreementfor
`explain the harm that you fear from its
`Project 2.
`disclosure such as unwarranted privacy
`Alternatives: BOEM considered 21
`invasion, embarrassment,or injury.
`alternatives when preparing the DEIS
`Even if BOEM withholds your
`andcarried forward 6 alternatives for
`information in the contextof this notice,
`further analysis in the DEIS. These 6
`your commentis subject to the Freedom
`alternatives include 5 action alternatives
`of Information Act (FOIA) and any
`andthe no action alternative. BOEM did
`relevant court orders. If your comment
`not analyze in detail 15 of the 21
`is requested under FOIA or a relevant
`alternatives because they did not meet
`court order, your information will only
`the purpose and needfor the proposed
`be withheld if a determination is made
`action or did not meetscreeningcriteria,
`that one of the FOIA’s exemptionsto
`which are presented in chapter 2 of the
`SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
`the U.S. International Trade
`DEIS. The screeningcriteria included
`disclosure applies or if the relevant
`consistency with law and regulations,
`court order is challenged. Such a
`Commission (“(Commission’’) has
`determination will be made in
`technical and economicfeasibility,
`determined to review in part a final
`environmental impact, and geographic
`initial determination (“ID’’) of the
`accordance with the Departmentof the
`considerations.
`presiding administrative law judge
`Interior’s FOIA regulations and
`Availability of the DEIS: The DEIS,
`(“ALJ”), finding a violation of section
`applicable law.
`COP, and associated information are
`337. The Commission requests written
`Please label privileged or confidential
`available on BOEM’s websiteat: https://
`submissionsfrom the parties on the
`information as “Contains Confidential
`www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-
`issues under review and submissions
`Information,” and consider submitting
`activities/atlantic-shores-south. BOEM
`from the parties, interested government
`such information as a separate
`hasdistributed digital copies of the
`agencies, and other interested persons
`attachment. Information that is not
`DEIStoall parties listed in appendix M
`on the issues of remedy, the public
`labeled as privileged or confidential
`of the DEIS, which also includes the
`interest, and bonding, under the
`may be regarded by BOEM assuitable
`location of all libraries receiving a copy.
`schedule set forth below.
`
`If you require a digital copy onaflash for public release. Consistent with
`FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron
`drive or paper copy, BOEM will provide
`section 304 of the NHPA (54 U.S.C.
`Traud, Office of the General Counsel,
`one upon request, if supplies are
`307103(a)) and after consultation with
`U.S, International Trade Commission,
`available. You may requesta flash drive
`the Secretary, BOEMis required to
`500 E Street SW, Washington, DC
`or paper copy of the DEIS by contacting
`withhold the location, character, or
`20436, telephone 202-205-3427. Copies
`Kimberly Sullivan at (702) 338-4766 or
`ownership ofhistoric resourcesif it
`of non-confidential documentsfiled in
`Kimberly.Sullivan@boem.gov.
`determinesthat disclosure may, among
`connection with this investigation may
`Cooperating Agencies: The following
`other things, risk harm to the historic
`be viewed on the Commission’s
`nine Federal agencies and State
`resources or impedethe use of a
`electronic docket (EDIS) at https://
`governmentalentities participated as
`traditional religious site by
`edis.usitc.gov. For help accessing EDIS,
`cooperating agencies in the preparation
`practitioners. Tribal entities should
`please email EDIS3Help@usitc.gov.
`of the DEIS: Bureau of Safety and
`designate information that falls under
`General information concerning the
`Environmental Enforcement, U.S.
`section 304 of NHPAas confidential.
`Commission may also be obtained by
`Environmental Protection Agency,
`accessing its internet serverat https://
`National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S.
`www.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired
`Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast
`personsare advised that information on
`Guard, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
`this matter can be obtained by
`NewJersey Departmentof
`contacting the Commission’s TDD
`Environmental Protection, New Jersey
`terminal on (202) 205-1810.
`Board of Public Utilities, and New York
`SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION: The
`State Departmentof State. The National
`Commissioninstituted this investigation
`Park Service and the Advisory Council
`on Historic Preservation were
`on August 18, 2021, based on a
`complaint filed on behalf of Masimo
`participating agencies.
`Corporation and Cercacor Laboratories,
`Information on Submitting
`Comments: BOEM does not encourage
`Inc., both of Irvine, CA (collectively,
`the submittal of anonymous comments.
`“Complainants’’). 86 FR 46275 (Aug. 18,
`2021). The complaint, as amended,
`Please include your nameand address
`as part of your comment. BOEM makes
`alleged violations of section 337 of the
`your comment, including your name
`Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19
`and address, available for public review
`U.S.C. 1337, based upon the importation
`online and during regular business
`into the United States, the sale for
`hours. You may request that BOEM
`importation, and the sale within the
`withhold your name,address, or any
`United States after importation of
`other personally identifiable
`certain light-based physiological
`information (PI) included in your
`measurement devices and components
`
`All submissions from organizations or
`businesses and from individuals
`identifying themselves as
`representativesorofficials of
`organizations or businesseswill be
`madeavailable for public inspection in
`their entirety.
`Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4231 et seq.
`(NEPA,as amended) and 40 CFR 1506.6.
`
`Karen J. Baker,
`Chief, Office ofRenewable Energy Programs,
`Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
`[FR Doc. 2023-10691 Filed 5-18-23; 8:45 am]
`BILLING CODE 4340-98-P
`
`

`

`32244
`Federal Register/Vol. 88, No. 97/Friday, May 19, 2023/Notices
`
`thereof by reason of infringement of
`certain claims of U.S. Patent No.
`10,912,501 (‘‘the ’501 patent”’), U.S.
`Patent No. 10,912,502 (“the 502
`patent’’), U.S. Patent No. 10,945,648
`(“the ’648 patent”), U.S. Patent No.
`10,687,745 (“the ’745 patent’’), and U.S.
`Patent No. 7,761,127 (‘the 127 patent’).
`Id. The amended complaint further
`alleged that an industry in the United
`States exists and/oris in the process of
`being established as required by section
`337. Id. The notice of investigation
`named Apple Inc. of Cupertino, CA
`(“Apple’’) as a respondent. Id. at 46276.
`The Office of Unfair Import
`Investigations is not participating in this
`investigation.Id.
`Complainants previously withdrew
`certain asserted claims pursuant to
`Order No. 25 (Mar. 23, 2022),
`unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Apr. 12,
`2022), and Order No. 33 (May 20, 2022),
`unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (June 10,
`2022). Only claim 12 of the ’501 patent,
`claims 22 and 28 of the ’502 patent,
`claims 12, 24, and 30 of the ’648 patent,
`claims 9 and 27 of the ’745 patent, and
`claim 9 of the 127 patent remain in the
`investigation. Claim 18 of the ’745
`patentisstill at issue for purposesof the
`domestic industry.
`On January 10, 2023, the ALJ issued
`the Final ID, which found that Apple
`violated section 337 as to claims 24 and
`30 of the ’648 patent, but not as to claim
`12 of the ’501 patent, claims 22 and 28
`of the ’502 patent, claim 12 of the ’648
`patent, claims 9 and 27 of the ’745
`patent, and claim 9 of the ’127 patent.
`See Final ID at 335-36. On January 24,
`2023, the ALJ issued a Recommended
`Determination on remedy and bonding
`(“RD”) should a violation be found in
`the above-captioned investigation. The
`RD recommendedthat,if the
`Commission finds a violation, it should
`issue a limited exclusion order directed
`to certain wearable electronic devices
`with light-based pulse oximetry
`functionality and components thereof
`that are imported, sold for importation,
`and/or sold after importation by Apple;
`and a cease and desist order directed to
`Apple. RD at 2, 5. The RD found the
`record did not support Apple’s request
`for an exemption for service and repair.
`Id. at 2-3. The RD additionally
`recommendedthat the Commission set
`a zero percent (0%) bond(i.e., no bond)
`during the sixty-day period of
`Presidential review.Id.at 6.
`On January 23, 2023, Complainants
`and Apple eachfiled a petition for
`review. On January 31, 2023,
`Complainants and Apple eachfiled
`responsesto the respective petitions. On
`February 23, 2023, the parties filed their
`public interest statements pursuant to
`
`19 CFR 210.50(a)(4). The Commission
`received numerous comments on the
`public interest from non-parties.
`Having reviewedtherecord of the
`investigation, including the Final ID, the
`parties’ submissions to the ALJ, and the
`petitions and responsesthereto, the
`Commission has determined to review
`the Final ID in part. Specifically, the
`Commission has determined to review
`(1) the domestic industry with regard to
`the’501 patent, the 502 patent, the 648
`patent, and the ’745 patent; (2)
`obviousness with regard to the’501
`patent, the 502 patent, the ’648 patent,
`and the ’745 patent; (3) written
`description with regard to claim 28 of
`the ’502 patent and claim 12 of the ’648
`patent; (4) claim construction and
`infringement with regard to the ’745
`patent; and (5) subject matter
`jurisdiction. The Commission has
`determined notto review the remaining
`findings of the Final ID, including the
`finding of no violation as to the ’127
`patent. The Commission notesthat on
`pages 282-83 ofthe Final ID, in the
`section entitled ‘“Element[9]: ‘a
`thermistor,’” the AL] refers to claim 1 as
`the independent claim from which
`claim 9 depends. The Commission
`understandsthat reference to be a
`typographical error and notes that the
`reference should be to claim 7.
`In connection with its review, the
`Commission requests responses to the
`following questions. The parties are
`requestedto brief their positions with
`teference to the applicable law and the
`existing evidentiary record.
`(1) What evidence and argument was
`presented to the ALJ that showsthat
`Complainants were developing,as of the
`filing of the Complaint, the Masimo
`Watch and that the Masimo Watch
`would practice the Poeze and ‘745
`patent claims?
`(2) Should the Commission consider
`evidence post-dating the Complaint,
`suchasthe final design of the Masimo
`Watch,to establish that Complainants
`were developing a physicalarticle that
`would practice the Poeze patents and
`the ’745 patent?
`(3) If
`the Commission considers the
`Masimo Watch to be a domestic
`industry product in the process of being
`established for the Poeze patents and
`the ’745 patent, what investments and
`activities should the Commission
`consider in its analysis?
`(4) What should be considered as a
`domestic industry product for purposes
`of an industry in the process of being
`established—the Rev Sensor products,
`the Masimo Watch or both? What
`activities and investments should be
`considered toward satisfying the
`domestic industry requirement with
`
`respect to that DI product(s)? Wasit
`appropriate to consider investments
`related to the Circle and Wing Sensors
`(assuming they are not shownto
`practice the Poeze patents or the ‘745
`patent priorto thefiling of the
`Complaint) leading to the development
`of the Rev Sensor products, in finding
`that a domestic industry exists or is in
`the process of being established for the
`Poeze and ‘745 patents? See ID at 301-
`24. If the Masimo Watchis a DI product
`for an industry in the process of being
`established, would it be appropriate to
`consideractivities and investments in
`products (that themselves do not
`practice the Poeze patents prior to the
`filing of the Complaint) that contributed
`to the developmentof the Masimo
`Watch? What investments were made
`for the Circle sensor, Wing sensor, and
`Masimo Watch prior to the Complaint
`being filed and what investments were
`madeafter? Should the Commission
`consider investments madeafter the
`Complaint wasfiled?
`(5) Should recruiting labor
`expenditures be considered to
`contribute towardsthesatisfaction of
`the economic prong?
`(6) Should executive labor
`expenditures generally, and executive
`legal labor expenditures specifically, be
`considered to contribute towards the
`satisfaction of the economic prong? How
`closely does their work haveto be
`connected to the domestic industry
`productto be included? With respect to
`the executive labor includedin the
`Final ID’s analysis of a domestic
`industry (see ID at 311-313), what
`evidence showsthe extent to which the
`executives’ work was connectedto the
`domestic industry product?
`(7) Is there a statutory basis for
`considering only certain types of labor
`expenses with respectto articles
`protected by the asserted patent for
`purposesofsatisfaction of the domestic
`industry requirement undersection
`337(a)(3)(B)?
`(8) Is there a legislative history or
`caselaw basis for considering only
`certain types of labor expenses with
`respectto articles protected by the
`asserted patent for purposes of
`satisfaction of the domestic industry
`requirement undersection 337(a)(3)(B)?
`9) Does Figure 7B in the Poeze
`Patents show two emitters, each labeled
`104, where each emitter has LEDsthat
`can emitlight at or about 1610 nm,
`about 1640 nm, and about 1665 nm?
`Was Complainants’ argument regarding
`37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) raised in front of the
`ALJ, and if not, can the Commissionstill
`considerthe argument? Is 37 CFR
`1.84(p)(4) binding authority on the
`Commission and doesit require the
`
`

`

`32245
`Federal Register/Vol. 88, No. 97/Friday, May 19, 2023/Notices
`
`Commission to presumethat each
`emitter set 104 is identical? If so, is that
`disclosure in Figure 7B sufficient to
`convey with reasonableclarity to those
`skilled in the art that, as of thefiling
`date, the inventor was in possession of
`twosets of LEDs each with “an LED
`configured to emit light at a first
`wavelength and an LED configured to
`emit light at a second wavelength?”
`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’ existingfilings.
`In connection with the final
`disposition of this investigation, the
`statute authorizes issuanceof, inter alia,
`(1) an exclusion order that could result
`in the exclusion of the subjectarticles
`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).
`Thestatute requires the Commission
`to considerthe effects of that remedy
`uponthe public interest. The public
`interest factors the Commission will
`consider includetheeffect 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 ofarticles that are like or
`directly competitive with those that are
`subject to investigation, and (4) U.S.
`consumers. The Commissionis
`therefore interested in receiving written
`submissions that address the
`aforementioned public interest factors
`in the contextof this investigation.
`In addition, the Commission requests
`specific briefing to address the
`following questions relevant to the
`public interest considerationsin this
`investigation, and responses are
`encouraged to include evidence in
`supportof their statements:
`i Please identify any ongoing or
`formally planned studies that use the
`blood oxygen features of the Apple
`
`Watches. Should the Commission allow
`an exemption or delay the effective date
`of any remedialrelief so as to permit
`importation of the infringing Apple
`Watchesfor purposes of conducting
`such studies? Please explain the
`rationale and the scope of any such
`exemption or delay.
`(2) How should the Commission
`define a reasonable substitute for the
`infringing Apple Watches?
`(3) Please identify whether any
`reasonable substitutes for the infringing
`Apple Watchesare available to
`consumers and whetherthey are
`capable of meeting any public health
`and welfare concernsraised by any
`remedialrelief in this investigation.Is
`or would there be sufficient supply of
`any such reasonable substitutes for the
`infringing Apple Watches?Is the
`Masimo W1 watch a reasonable
`substitute and to what extent would
`supply of these products be available to
`fill the demand?
`(4) Please explain how easily the
`infringing features of the Apple Watches
`could be removed and whether Appleis
`working on any redesigns with respect
`to the infringing features and how long
`implementation of any redesigns would
`take?
`(5) Is there any production of like or
`directly competitive products in the
`United States and how would such
`production be impacted by any remedial
`relief?
`(6) Should the Commission include
`an exemption for repair and/or
`replacementof broken products
`impacted pursuant to any potential
`remedy,andif so, should the exemption
`only apply under warranty?If a repair
`and/or replacement exemption is
`included, should the cutoff date for
`repair and replacementbe the date of
`the Orderor the date the Order becomes
`final within the meaning of 19 U.S.C.
`1337(j)(4)? See Certain Fitness Devices,
`Streaming Components Thereof, and
`Systems Containing Same, Inv. No. 337—
`TA-1265, Comm’n Op. at 88-92 (Mar.
`23, 2023) (Public Version); Certain
`Robotic Floor Cleaning Devices and
`Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-
`1252, Comm’n Op.at 76-82 (Apr.13,
`2023) (Public Version). Should the
`exemption apply to products imported
`prior to the cutoff date or only to
`products sold to an end useras of the
`cutoff date? Should the exemption cover
`only parts for repair, or should it permit
`replacementof entire units? Please cite
`and discussthe evidenceof record
`relevant to whether the Commission
`should include a repair and/or
`replacement exemption.
`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 ofJuly 21,
`2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005).
`During this period, the subjectarticles
`wouldbe 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 amountof the bond that
`should be imposedif a remedyis
`ordered.
`Written Submissions: The parties to
`the investigation are requestedtofile
`written submissions on the issues
`identified in this notice. Parties to the
`investigation, interested government
`agencies, and any other interested
`parties are encouragedto file written
`submissions on the issues of remedy,
`the public interest, and bonding. Such
`submissions should address the RD by
`the ALJ on remedy and bonding.
`In its initial submission,
`Complainants are also requested to
`identify the remedy sought and are
`requested to submit proposed remedial
`orders for the Commission’s
`consideration. Complainantsare also
`requested to identify and explain, from
`the record,articles that it contends are
`“components thereof’ of the subject
`products, and thus potentially covered
`by the proposed remedial orders,if
`imported separately from the subject
`products. See 86 FR 46275—76.Failure
`to provide this information mayresult
`in waiver of any remedydirected to
`“components thereof’ the subject
`products, in the event any violation may
`be found. Complainants are further
`requested to provide the HTSUS
`subheadings under which the accused
`products are imported, and to supply
`the identification informationforall
`knownimporters of the products at
`issue in this investigation. The initial
`written submissions and proposed
`remedial orders mustbefiled no later
`than close of business on June5, 2023.
`Reply submissions mustbe filed no later
`than the close of business on June12,
`2023. No further submissions on these
`issues will be permitted unless
`otherwise ordered by the Commission.
`Opening submissionsare limited to 100
`pages. Reply submissionsare limited to
`50 pages. No further submissions on any
`of these issues will be permitted unless
`otherwise ordered by the Commission.
`Personsfiling written submissions
`mustfile the original document
`electronically on or before the deadlines
`stated above. The Commission’s paper
`filing requirements in 19 CFR 210.4(f)
`
`

`

`32246
`Federal Register/Vol. 88, No. 97/Friday, May 19, 2023 / Notices
`
`are currently waived. 85 FR 15798
`(March 19, 2020). Submissions should
`refer to the investigation number(Inv.
`No. 337-TA-1276) in a prominent place
`on the cover page and/orthefirst page.
`(See Handbook for Electronic Filing
`Procedures,https://www.usitc.gov/
`documents/handbook_on_filing_
`procedures.pdf). Persons with questions
`regardingfiling should contact the
`Secretary, (202) 205-2000.
`Anypersondesiring to submit a
`documentto the Commission in
`confidence must request confidential
`treatment by marking each document
`with a headerindicating that the
`documentcontains confidential
`information. This marking will be
`deemedto 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 mustalso 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
`purposesof 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 evaluationsrelating to the
`programs, personnel, and operations of
`the Commission including under5
`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
`submissionswill be available for public
`inspection on EDIS.
`The Commission vote for this
`determination took place on May 15,
`2023.
`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: May 15, 2023.
`Lisa Barton,
`Secretary to the Commission.
`[FR Doc. 2023-10701 Filed 5-18-23; 8:45 am]
`BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
`
`INTERNATIONAL TRADE
`COMMISSION
`
`[USITC SE-23-024]
`
`Sunshine Act Meetings
`
`INTERNATIONAL TRADE
`COMMISSION
`
`[Investigation No. 731—TA-696(Fifth
`Review)]
`
`Pure Magnesium From China
`Determination
`
`Onthe basis of the record 1 developed
`in the subject five-year review, the
`United States International Trade
`Commission (“Commission’’)
`determines, pursuantto the Tariff Act of
`1930 (‘“‘the Act’’), that revocation of the
`antidumping duty order on pure
`magnesium from China would belikely
`to lead to continuation or recurrence of
`material injury to an industry in the
`United States within a reasonably
`foreseeable time.?
`
`Background
`The Commission instituted this
`review on March 1, 2022 (87 FR 11472)
`and determined on June 6, 2022 thatit
`would conducta full review (87 FR
`35997, June 14, 2022). Notice of the
`scheduling of the Commission’s review
`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 on October 27, 2022
`(87 FR 65822, November1, 2022). The
`Commission conductedits hearing on
`March 14, 2023. All persons who
`requested the opportunity were
`permitted to participate.
`The Commission madethis
`determination pursuantto section
`751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It
`completed andfiled its determination in
`this review on May15, 2023. The views
`of the Commission are contained in
`USITC Publication 5420 (May 2023),
`entitled Pure Magnesium from China:
`Investigation No. 731-TA-696(Fifth
`Review).
`By order of the Commission.
`Issued: May 15, 2023.
`Lisa Barton,
`Secretary to the Commission.
`[FR Doc. 2023-10673 Filed 5-18-23; 8:45 am]
`BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
`
`1 Therecord is defined in § 207.2(f) of the
`Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19
`CFR 207.2(f)).
`2CGommissioner RandolphJ. Stayin did not
`participate.
`
`AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: United
`States International Trade Commission.
`
`TIME AND DATE: May25, 2023 at 11:00
`a.m.
`
`PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street SW,
`Washington, DC 20436, Telephone:
`(202) 205-2000.
`STATUS: Opento the public.
`MATTERSTO BE CONSIDERED:
`1. Agendasfor future meetings: none.
`2. Minutes.
`3. Ratification List.
`4, Commission vote on Inv. Nos. 701—
`TA-571—-572 and 731—-TA-147-1348
`(Review)(Biodiesel from Argentina and
`Indonesia). The Commission currently
`is scheduled to complete andfile its
`determinations and viewsof the
`Commission on June 2, 2023.
`5. Outstanding action jackets: none.
`CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:
`Sharon Bellamy, Acting Supervisory
`Hearings and Information Officer, 202-
`205-2000.
`The Commission is holding the
`meeting under the Governmentin the
`Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b). In
`accordance with Commissionpolicy,
`subject matter listed above, not disposed
`of at the scheduled meeting, may be
`carried over to the agendaofthe
`following meeting.
`By orderof the Commission.
`Issued: May 17, 2023.
`Sharon Bellamy,
`Acting Supervisory Hearings and Information
`Officer.
`[FR Doc. 2023-10874 Filed 5-17-23; 4:15 pm]
`BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
`
`DEPARTMENTOF JUSTICE
`
`[OMB Number 1121-0094]
`
`AgencyInformation Collection
`Activities; Proposed eCollection
`eComments Requested; Annual
`Surveyof Jails (ASJ)
`
`AGENCY:BureauofJustice Statistics,
`DepartmentofJustice.
`ACTION: 30-Daynotice.
`
`SUMMARY: The Departmentof Justice
`(DOJ), Office of Justice Programs,
`BureauofJustice Statistics, will be
`submitting the following information
`collection request to the Office of
`Management and Budget (OMB)for
`review and approvalin accordance with
`the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
`
`