The Court of International Trade in its April 1 remand order gave the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative “one final opportunity” to cure its Administrative Procedure Act violations and "flesh out" the reasons why it rejected the 9,000+ comments it received in the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariff rulemakings, without devising “new rationales for dismissing them,” Akin Gump lawyers for lead Section 301 plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products said in comments on USTR’s Aug. 1 remand determination. “USTR’s response to that directive flunks the Court’s test,” they said (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052).

The U.S. Court of International Trade in its April 1 remand order gave the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative “one final opportunity” to cure its Administrative Procedure Act violations and "flesh out" the reasons why it rejected the 9,000+ comments it received in the Lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariff rulemakings, without devising “new rationales for dismissing them,” said Akin Gump lawyers for lead Section 301 plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, in comments in docket 1:21-cv-52 on USTR’s Aug. 1 remand determination. “USTR’s response to that directive flunks the Court’s test,” they said.

The Court of International Trade in its April 1 remand order gave the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative “one final opportunity” to cure its Administrative Procedure Act violations and "flesh out" the reasons why it rejected the 9,000+ comments it received in the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariff rulemakings, without devising “new rationales for dismissing them,” Akin Gump lawyers for lead Section 301 plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products said in comments on USTR’s Aug. 1 remand determination. “USTR’s response to that directive flunks the Court’s test,” they said (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052).

The Court of International Trade “bent over backwards” to allow the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to comply with its Administrative Procedure Act obligations in its imposition of the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods when it remanded the duties to the agency for further explanation on the rationale for the actions it took in the context of the comments it received, said an amicus brief filed Sept. 14 in the massive Section 301 litigation from the Retail Litigation Center, CTA, the National Retail Federation and four other trade associations. With USTR’s “non-responsive” answer to the remand order, the time has come for the court “to impose the normal remedy for unlawful agency action” and to vacate the lists 3 and 4A tariffs, it said (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052).

The U.S. Court of International Trade “bent over backwards” to allow the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to comply with its Administrative Procedure Act obligations in its imposition of the Lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods when it remanded the duties to the agency for further explanation on the rationale for the actions it took in the context of the comments it received, said an amicus brief Wednesday in docket 1:21-cv-52 from the Retail Litigation Center, CTA, National Retail Federation and four other trade associations. With USTR’s “non-responsive” answer Aug. 1 to the remand order, the time has come for the court “to impose the normal remedy for unlawful agency action” by vacating the Lists 3 and 4A tariffs and ordering them refunded, it said.

The Court of International Trade “bent over backwards” to allow the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to comply with its Administrative Procedure Act obligations in its imposition of the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods when it remanded the duties to the agency for further explanation on the rationale for the actions it took in the context of the comments it received, said an amicus brief filed Sept. 14 in the massive Section 301 litigation from the Retail Litigation Center, CTA, the National Retail Federation and four other trade associations. With USTR’s “non-responsive” answer to the remand order, the time has come for the court “to impose the normal remedy for unlawful agency action” and to vacate the lists 3 and 4A tariffs, it said (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052).

The FCC shouldn’t provide further flexibility for unlicensed 6 GHz devices without a requirement for automated frequency coordination and there is no need for the FCC to address the issue quickly, AT&T said in a filing posted Monday in docket 18-295. AT&T said it disagreed with arguments by NCTA and CableLabs (see 2208160038). “There is no time urgency to act on the proposals to raise the LPI [low power indoor] power limit or to authorize VLP [very low power] operations because it is now apparent that the use cases supporting those proposals can be realized under AFC control,” AT&T said: “Instead of approving higher LPI power devices -- which evidence indicates will harm [fixed service] components of vital telecommunications networks, including Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure systems -- the Commission should opt for the more prudent path of gaining real world experience with how these types of … applications interact with FS microwave links using AFC. Requiring AFC control has no or little cost to manufacturers of LPI and VLP devices given technology developments that already offer multiple means of connecting unlicensed devices using AFC controls.” NAB also countered the NCTA filing. “NAB’s current proposal is to reserve just 55 MHz of the 6 GHz band exclusively for licensed mobile use until real-world data is available to justify the removal of such reservation,” broadcasters said: “This would effectively serve as a pilot program to test the coexistence of unlicensed operations and licensed mobile operations and address our ongoing concerns regarding the potential for harmful interference to licensed mobile operations in the 6 GHz band. Contrary to NCTA’s assertion, we ask neither for a permanent reservation of spectrum nor a wholesale review of unlicensed operations in the band in the future.”

CBP unlawfully began an Enforce and Protect Act investigation into CEK Group since the allegation submitted by M&B Metal Products didn't support the start of the investigation, CEK Group argued in a Sept. 12 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. To start an EAPA action, there must be an allegation with specific information -- something CBP did not receive from M&B, the brief said. The plaintiff said the Royal Brush v. U.S. case at the trade court "has now constrained CBP" in EAPA cases from making decisions based on confidential information not made available to the parties via public summaries -- something CBP allegedly did in CEK Group's case (CEK Group v. U.S., CIT #22-00082).

Industry and state regulators disagreed on whether the FCC should grant Midcontinent's petition for declaratory ruling on rules for obtaining local interconnection. Reply comments were posted Monday in docket 22-277 (see 2207200050). Midcontinent asked the FCC to affirm that, under its Time Warner and CRC Communications rulings, that any telecom carrier is "entitled to interconnection for the purpose of providing wholesale local interconnection services."

Washington, D.C.’s, 911 center did little in response to recommendations in an October audit that found the Office of Unified Communications (OUC) failed in many months to meet national standards for getting timely help to callers, said a follow-up report Friday. Of 31 recommendations, OUC completed one, made “minimal progress” on 24, and “no observed progress” on two, said the Office of D.C. Auditor (ODCA): OUC still faces issues identified in the original audit, “including call-taking confusion, glitches in dispatch operations, and insufficient management follow-up on after-action reviews.”