Certain Automated Media Library Devices; Determination To Review in Part a Final Initial Determination; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions, 51573-51574 [2012-20795]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 165 / Friday, August 24, 2012 / Notices
accordance with section 210.13 of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to
19 CFR 201.16(d)–(e) and 210.13(a),
such responses will be considered by
the Commission if received not later
than 20 days after the date of service by
the Commission of the complaint and
the notice of investigation. Extensions of
time for submitting responses to the
complaint and the notice of
investigation will not be granted unless
good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely
response to each allegation in the
complaint and in this notice may be
deemed to constitute a waiver of the
right to appear and contest the
allegations of the complaint and this
notice, and to authorize the
administrative law judge and the
Commission, without further notice to
the respondent, to find the facts to be as
alleged in the complaint and this notice
and to enter an initial determination
and a final determination containing
such findings, and may result in the
issuance of an exclusion order or a cease
and desist order or both directed against
the respondent.
Issued: Tuesday, August 21, 2012.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012–20835 Filed 8–23–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–746]
Certain Automated Media Library
Devices; Determination To Review in
Part a Final Initial Determination;
Schedule for Filing Written
Submissions
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review
in part the final initial determination
(‘‘ID’’) issued by the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on
June 20, 2012, finding no violation of
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in this
investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cathy Chen, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–2392. Copies of non-confidential
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:22 Aug 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
documents filed in connection with this
investigation are or will be available for
inspection during official business
hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the
Office of the Secretary, U.S.
International Trade Commission, 500 E
Street SW., Washington, DC 20436,
telephone (202) 205–2000. General
information concerning the Commission
may also be obtained by accessing its
Internet server at https://www.usitc.gov.
The public record for this investigation
may be viewed on the Commission’s
electronic docket (EDIS) at https://
edis.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: This
investigation was instituted on
November 24, 2010, based upon a
complaint filed by Overland Storage of
San Diego, California (‘‘Overland’’) on
October 19, 2010, and supplemented on
November 9, 2010. 75 FR 71735 (Nov.
24, 2010). The complaint alleged
violations of section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) by reason
of infringement of certain claims of U.S.
Patent No. 6,328,766 and U.S. Patent
No. 6,353,581 (collectively, ‘‘the
Asserted Patents’’). The notice of
investigation named as respondents
BDT AG of Rottweil, Germany; BDT
Solutions GmbH & Co. KG of Rottweil,
Germany; BDT Automation Technology
(Zhuhai FTZ), Co., Ltd. of Zhuhai
Guandang, China; BDT de Mexico, S. de
R.L. de C.V., of Jalisco, Mexico; BDT
Products, Inc., of Irvine, California; Dell
Inc. of Round Rock, Texas (‘‘Dell’’); and
International Business Machines Corp.
of Armonk, New York (‘‘IBM’’). The
Office of Unfair Import Investigations
was not named as a party.
The ALJ granted BDT Solutions
GmbH & Co. KG’s motion for summary
determination of no violation on
September 2, 2011. See Notice of
Commission Determination Not to
Review an Initial Determination
Granting BDT Solutions’ Motion for
Summary Determination of No Violation
of Section 337 (Sep. 21, 2011). On
December 5, 2011, the ALJ granted a
joint motion to terminate IBM and Dell
from the investigation. See Notice of
Commission Determination to Affirm an
Initial Determination Granting a Joint
Motion For Termination of the
Investigation by Settlement as to
Respondents International Business
Machines Corp. and Dell Inc. (Jan. 27,
2012). BDT AG, BDT Automation
Technology (Zhuhai FTZ), Co., Ltd.,
BDT de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V., and
BDT Products, Inc. (collectively, ‘‘the
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
51573
BDT Respondents’’) remain as
respondents in the investigation.
On June 20, 2012, the ALJ issued his
final ID, finding no violation of section
337 by the BDT Respondents with
respect to any of the asserted claims.
Specifically, the ALJ found no violation
of section 337 by the BDT Respondents
in connection with claims 1–3 and 7–9
of the ’766 patent and claims 1–2, 5–7,
9–10, 12 and 15–16 of the ’581 patent.
The ALJ also found that the asserted
claims were not shown to be invalid
except for claim 15 of the ’581 patent.
The ALJ further found that a domestic
industry in the United States exists that
practices the ’766 patent. The ALJ,
however, found that a domestic industry
in the United States does not exist that
practices the ’581 patent. The ALJ also
found that the BDT Respondents are not
entitled to a patent exhaustion defense.
On July 5, 2012, Overland and the
BDT Respondents each filed a petition
for review of the ID. On July 13, 2012,
Overland and the BDT Respondents
each filed a response.
Having examined the record of this
investigation, including the ALJ’s final
ID, the petitions for review, and the
responses thereto, the Commission has
determined to review the ALJ’s final ID
in part. Specifically, with respect to the
’766 patent, the Commission has
determined to review the ALJ’s findings
on contributory infringement, validity
and patent exhaustion. With respect to
the ’581 patent, the Commission has
determined to review the ALJ’s
construction of the claim term ‘‘linear
array,’’ and the ALJ’s findings on
infringement, validity, domestic
industry and patent exhaustion.
The parties are requested to brief their
positions on the issues under review
with reference to the applicable law and
the evidentiary record. In connection
with its review, the Commission is only
interested in responses to the following
questions. Each party’s brief responding
to the following questions should be no
more than 50 pages.
1. The ALJ found that the BDT
Respondents did not prove by clear and
convincing evidence that the IBM 3570,
3575, 7331, 7336 and 3494 documents
qualify as printed publications under 35
U.S.C. 102. For each respective IBM
document, please identify all evidence
in the record that supports a finding that
the document was publicly accessible
before the filing date of the ’766 patent.
2. To the extent the IBM 3570, 7331,
7336 and 3494 documents qualify as
printed publications under 35 U.S.C.
102, how does each document either
alone or in combination with other prior
art of record anticipate or render
obvious the asserted claims of the ’766
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with
51574
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 165 / Friday, August 24, 2012 / Notices
patent? Please specify what prior art, if
any, allegedly combines with the
respective IBM document(s) to render
obvious the asserted claims, and why.
We are particularly interested in how
the respective IBM documents, either
alone or in combination with other prior
art, expressly or inherently disclose or
suggest the features of ‘‘said controller
is configured such that a subset of said
plurality of media elements and a subset
of said plurality of media element drives
are available for read/write access by a
first one of said plurality of host
computers and are unavailable for read/
write access by a second one of said
plurality of host computers’’ in claim 1
and the ‘‘queuing’’ and ‘‘sequentially
performing’’ steps in claim 2. Please cite
only record evidence and relevant legal
authority to support your position.
Arguments not made before the ALJ will
not be considered.
3. The ALJ found that Overland did
not prove that the BDT Respondents
possessed the requisite knowledge that
the acts of IBM and Dell constituted
patent infringement. Please identify all
evidence in the record that supports a
finding of contributory infringement of
the ’766 patent.
4. Please comment on Overland’s
assertion that its evidence and analysis
for domestic industry with respect to its
NEO 2000, 2000e, 4000 and 4000e tape
libraries were undisputed. Please cite all
evidence in the record that supports
your position.
5. The BDT Respondents raise the
question of whether the settlement
agreement and the license agreement
between Overland and IBM exhaust
Overland’s rights in the Asserted
Patents as to an upstream, unlicensed
supplier. Please address the ALJ’s
finding that the license agreement itself,
as opposed to a sale of the patented
goods, constitutes a ‘‘first authorized
sale’’ for purposes of patent exhaustion
in view of pertinent legal authorities
(e.g., Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG
Elecs., Inc., 553 U.S. 617 (2008); LG
Elecs., Inc. v. Bizcom Elecs., Inc., 453
F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Excelsior
Tech. Inc. v. Pabst Licensing GMBH &
Co., KG, 541 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008);
LG Elecs. Inc. v. Hitachi Ltd., 655 F.
Supp. 2d 1036 (N.D. Cal. 2009); and
Tessera, Inc. v. Intl. Trade Comm’n, 646
F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
In connection with the final
disposition of this investigation, the
Commission may (1) issue an order that
could result in the exclusion of the
subject articles from entry into the
United States, and/or (2) issue one or
more cease and desist orders that could
result in the respondent(s) being
required to cease and desist from
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:22 Aug 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
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 In the Matter of Certain
Devices for Connecting Computers via
Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360,
USITC Pub. 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
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 or
disapprove the Commission’s action.
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. 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 issues 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 submissions should
address the recommended
determination by the ALJ on remedy
and bonding with respect to the
Asserted Patents. Complainant is also
requested to submit proposed remedial
orders for the Commission’s
consideration. Complainant is further
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
requested to state the date that the
patents expire and the HTSUS numbers
under which the accused products are
imported. The written submissions and
proposed remedial orders must be filed
no later than close of business on
Tuesday, September 4, 2012. Reply
submissions must be filed no later than
the close of business on Wednesday,
September 12, 2012. 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 and submit 8 true paper
copies to the Office of the Secretary by
noon the next day pursuant to section
210.4(f) of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to
the investigation number (‘‘Inv. No.
337–TA–746’’) in a prominent place on
the cover page and/or the first page. (See
Handbook for Electronic Filing
Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/
secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/
handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf ).
Persons with questions regarding filing
should contact the Secretary (202–205–
2000).
Any person desiring to submit a
document to the Commission in
confidence must request confidential
treatment. All such requests should be
directed to the Secretary to the
Commission and must include a full
statement of the reasons why the
Commission should grant such
treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. 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
the any confidential filing. All nonconfidential written submissions will be
available for public inspection at the
Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.
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
sections 210.42–46 and 210.50 of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 210.42–46 and
210.50).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: August 20, 2012.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012–20795 Filed 8–23–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 165 (Friday, August 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51573-51574]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20795]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-746]
Certain Automated Media Library Devices; Determination To Review
in Part a Final Initial Determination; Schedule for Filing Written
Submissions
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 (``ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law judge
(``ALJ'') on June 20, 2012, finding no violation of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in this investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cathy Chen, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2392. Copies of non-
confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are
or will be available for inspection during official business hours
(8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S.
International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436,
telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission
may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed
on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.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: This investigation was instituted on
November 24, 2010, based upon a complaint filed by Overland Storage of
San Diego, California (``Overland'') on October 19, 2010, and
supplemented on November 9, 2010. 75 FR 71735 (Nov. 24, 2010). The
complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930
(19 U.S.C. 1337) by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S.
Patent No. 6,328,766 and U.S. Patent No. 6,353,581 (collectively, ``the
Asserted Patents''). The notice of investigation named as respondents
BDT AG of Rottweil, Germany; BDT Solutions GmbH & Co. KG of Rottweil,
Germany; BDT Automation Technology (Zhuhai FTZ), Co., Ltd. of Zhuhai
Guandang, China; BDT de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V., of Jalisco, Mexico;
BDT Products, Inc., of Irvine, California; Dell Inc. of Round Rock,
Texas (``Dell''); and International Business Machines Corp. of Armonk,
New York (``IBM''). The Office of Unfair Import Investigations was not
named as a party.
The ALJ granted BDT Solutions GmbH & Co. KG's motion for summary
determination of no violation on September 2, 2011. See Notice of
Commission Determination Not to Review an Initial Determination
Granting BDT Solutions' Motion for Summary Determination of No
Violation of Section 337 (Sep. 21, 2011). On December 5, 2011, the ALJ
granted a joint motion to terminate IBM and Dell from the
investigation. See Notice of Commission Determination to Affirm an
Initial Determination Granting a Joint Motion For Termination of the
Investigation by Settlement as to Respondents International Business
Machines Corp. and Dell Inc. (Jan. 27, 2012). BDT AG, BDT Automation
Technology (Zhuhai FTZ), Co., Ltd., BDT de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V.,
and BDT Products, Inc. (collectively, ``the BDT Respondents'') remain
as respondents in the investigation.
On June 20, 2012, the ALJ issued his final ID, finding no violation
of section 337 by the BDT Respondents with respect to any of the
asserted claims. Specifically, the ALJ found no violation of section
337 by the BDT Respondents in connection with claims 1-3 and 7-9 of the
'766 patent and claims 1-2, 5-7, 9-10, 12 and 15-16 of the '581 patent.
The ALJ also found that the asserted claims were not shown to be
invalid except for claim 15 of the '581 patent. The ALJ further found
that a domestic industry in the United States exists that practices the
'766 patent. The ALJ, however, found that a domestic industry in the
United States does not exist that practices the '581 patent. The ALJ
also found that the BDT Respondents are not entitled to a patent
exhaustion defense.
On July 5, 2012, Overland and the BDT Respondents each filed a
petition for review of the ID. On July 13, 2012, Overland and the BDT
Respondents each filed a response.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the
ALJ's final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto,
the Commission has determined to review the ALJ's final ID in part.
Specifically, with respect to the '766 patent, the Commission has
determined to review the ALJ's findings on contributory infringement,
validity and patent exhaustion. With respect to the '581 patent, the
Commission has determined to review the ALJ's construction of the claim
term ``linear array,'' and the ALJ's findings on infringement,
validity, domestic industry and patent exhaustion.
The parties are requested to brief their positions on the issues
under review with reference to the applicable law and the evidentiary
record. In connection with its review, the Commission is only
interested in responses to the following questions. Each party's brief
responding to the following questions should be no more than 50 pages.
1. The ALJ found that the BDT Respondents did not prove by clear
and convincing evidence that the IBM 3570, 3575, 7331, 7336 and 3494
documents qualify as printed publications under 35 U.S.C. 102. For each
respective IBM document, please identify all evidence in the record
that supports a finding that the document was publicly accessible
before the filing date of the '766 patent.
2. To the extent the IBM 3570, 7331, 7336 and 3494 documents
qualify as printed publications under 35 U.S.C. 102, how does each
document either alone or in combination with other prior art of record
anticipate or render obvious the asserted claims of the '766
[[Page 51574]]
patent? Please specify what prior art, if any, allegedly combines with
the respective IBM document(s) to render obvious the asserted claims,
and why. We are particularly interested in how the respective IBM
documents, either alone or in combination with other prior art,
expressly or inherently disclose or suggest the features of ``said
controller is configured such that a subset of said plurality of media
elements and a subset of said plurality of media element drives are
available for read/write access by a first one of said plurality of
host computers and are unavailable for read/write access by a second
one of said plurality of host computers'' in claim 1 and the
``queuing'' and ``sequentially performing'' steps in claim 2. Please
cite only record evidence and relevant legal authority to support your
position. Arguments not made before the ALJ will not be considered.
3. The ALJ found that Overland did not prove that the BDT
Respondents possessed the requisite knowledge that the acts of IBM and
Dell constituted patent infringement. Please identify all evidence in
the record that supports a finding of contributory infringement of the
'766 patent.
4. Please comment on Overland's assertion that its evidence and
analysis for domestic industry with respect to its NEO 2000, 2000e,
4000 and 4000e tape libraries were undisputed. Please cite all evidence
in the record that supports your position.
5. The BDT Respondents raise the question of whether the settlement
agreement and the license agreement between Overland and IBM exhaust
Overland's rights in the Asserted Patents as to an upstream, unlicensed
supplier. Please address the ALJ's finding that the license agreement
itself, as opposed to a sale of the patented goods, constitutes a
``first authorized sale'' for purposes of patent exhaustion in view of
pertinent legal authorities (e.g., Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Elecs.,
Inc., 553 U.S. 617 (2008); LG Elecs., Inc. v. Bizcom Elecs., Inc., 453
F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Excelsior Tech. Inc. v. Pabst Licensing
GMBH & Co., KG, 541 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008); LG Elecs. Inc. v.
Hitachi Ltd., 655 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (N.D. Cal. 2009); and Tessera, Inc.
v. Intl. Trade Comm'n, 646 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the
Commission may (1) issue an order that could result in the exclusion of
the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2)
issue one or more cease and desist orders that could result in the
respondent(s) 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 In the Matter of Certain Devices for Connecting
Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-360, USITC Pub. 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 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
or disapprove the Commission's action. 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. 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 issues 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 submissions should
address the recommended determination by the ALJ on remedy and bonding
with respect to the Asserted Patents. Complainant is also requested to
submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission's consideration.
Complainant is further requested to state the date that the patents
expire and the HTSUS numbers under which the accused products are
imported. The written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be
filed no later than close of business on Tuesday, September 4, 2012.
Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on
Wednesday, September 12, 2012. 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 and submit 8
true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day
pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the
investigation number (``Inv. No. 337-TA-746'') in a prominent place on
the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic
Filing Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf ). Persons with questions
regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in
confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests
should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include
a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such
treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment
by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. A
redacted non-confidential version of the document must also be filed
simultaneously with the any confidential filing. All non-confidential
written submissions will be available for public inspection at the
Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.
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 sections 210.42-46 and 210.50 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42-46 and 210.50).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: August 20, 2012.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-20795 Filed 8-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
