Certain Kinesiotherapy Devices and Components Thereof; Commission Determination To Review the Final Initial Determination of the Administrative Law Judge and To Extend the Target Date for Completion of the Investigation by Two Weeks to June 7, 2013, 19309-19311 [2013-07297]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 61 / Friday, March 29, 2013 / Notices mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 3992) was removed from an unknown site near Cashion in Maricopa County, AZ, by an unknown individual. The fragment features one edge with a continuous curved arc and the other edge with uneven curves including one partial perforation near one end. Both stone fragments (DU 3991 and 3992) show evidence of being burned and are believed to have been removed from cremation burials. Museum records identify the stone fragments as part of the Hohokam Archeological tradition. The Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona, and the Salt River PimaMaricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona, have submitted repatriation claims for the cultural items described in this notice, on behalf of themselves and the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona and the Tohono O’odham Nation of Arizona (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘The Four Southern Tribes of Arizona’’). The Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona, has requested the repatriation of DU 3915 A–C, 3984, 3987 and 3991. The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona, has requested the repatriation of DU 3973, 3986, 3989, and 3992. The Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Reservation, Arizona, and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona, provided archeological, biological, geographical, kinship, linguistic, historical and oral tradition evidence establishing a close relationship of shared group identity that can be traced both historically and prehistorically between the Four Southern Tribes of Arizona and the Hohokam tradition. Oral tradition evidence also indicates a close relationship of shared group identity that can be traced both historically and prehistorically between the Hopi Tribe of Arizona and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico, and the Hohokam tradition. Determinations Made by the University of Denver Museum of Anthropology Officials of the University of Denver Museum of Anthropology have determined that: • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B), the 10 cultural items described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from a VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:34 Mar 28, 2013 Jkt 229001 specific burial site of a Native American. • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the unassociated funerary objects and the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; Tohono O’odham Nation of Arizona; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico. Additional Requestors and Disposition Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the unassociated funerary objects should contact Anne Amati, University of Denver Museum of Anthropology, 2000 E Asbury Ave, Denver, Colorado, 80208, telephone (303) 871–2687, before April 29, 2013. Repatriation of the unassociated funerary objects to the Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Reservation, Arizona, and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona, on behalf of the Four Southern Tribes of Arizona may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward. The University of Denver Museum of Anthropology is responsible for notifying the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; Tohono O’odham Nation of Arizona; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico that this notice has been published. Dated: February 26, 2013. Sherry Hutt, Manager, National NAGPRA Program. [FR Doc. 2013–07353 Filed 3–28–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312–50–P PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 19309 INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–823] Certain Kinesiotherapy Devices and Components Thereof; Commission Determination To Review the Final Initial Determination of the Administrative Law Judge and To Extend the Target Date for Completion of the Investigation by Two Weeks to June 7, 2013 U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review the final initial determination (‘‘final ID’’ or ‘‘ID’’) of the presiding administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) in its entirety in the above-captioned investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (‘‘section 337’’). The ALJ found no violation of section 337. The Commission has further determined to extend the target date for completion of the investigation by two weeks to June 7, 2013. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael K. Haldenstein, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–3041. 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 (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// 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: The Commission instituted this investigation on January 10, 2012, based on a complaint filed by Standard Innovation Corporation of Ottawa, ON, Canada and Standard Innovation (US) Corp. of Wilmington, Delaware (collectively, ‘‘Standard Innovation’’). 77 FR 1504 (Jan. 10, 2012). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 19 U.S.C. 1337, E:\FR\FM\29MRN1.SGM 29MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 19310 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 61 / Friday, March 29, 2013 / Notices by reason of infringement of certain claims of United States Patent Nos. 7,931,605 (‘‘the ‘605 patent’’) and D605,779 (‘‘the ’779 patent’’). The complaint named twenty one business entities as respondents, several of which have since been terminated from the investigation based upon consent order stipulations. On July 25, 2012, the Commission determined not to review an ID (Order No. 25) granting Standard Innovation’s motion to withdraw the ’779 patent from the investigation. An evidentiary hearing was held from August 21, 2012, to August 24, 2012. On January 8, 2013, the ALJ issued a final ID finding no violation of section 337. The ALJ also issued a recommended determination on remedy and bonding on January 22, 2013. Specifically, the ALJ found that Standard Innovation had not satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. The ALJ found, however, that the accused products infringe the asserted claims, that the asserted claims were not shown to be invalid, and that the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement was shown to be satisfied. On January 22, 2013, Standard Innovation and the Commission investigative attorney filed petitions for review of the final ID. Also on January 22, 2013, the respondents remaining in the investigation (Lelo Inc., Leloi AB, PHE, Inc. d/b/a Adam & Eve, Nalpac Enterprises, Ltd. d/b/a/Nalpac, Ltd., E.TC. Inc. d/b/a Eldorado Trading Company, Inc., Williams Trading Co. Inc., Honey’s Place Inc. and Lover’s Lane & Co.) filed a joint contingent petition for review. On January 30, 2013, the parties filed responses to the petitions. Having examined the final ID, the petitions for review, the responses thereto, and the relevant portions of the record in this investigation, the Commission has determined to review the final ID in its entirety. The Commission has further determined to extend the target date for completion of the investigation by two weeks to June 7, 2013. The parties are requested to brief their positions on only the following questions, with reference to the applicable law and the evidentiary record: 1. Please provide evidentiary support in the record showing U.S. investments relating to the components that are relied on by complainant to meet the domestic industry requirement, including as appropriate information relating to component providers, contractors, and subcontractors. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:34 Mar 28, 2013 Jkt 229001 2. Please comment on the significance of the relative contribution of domestic inputs as compared to total production (domestic and foreign) of complainant’s products alleged to practice the ‘605 patent. 3. Please provide evidentiary support in the record regarding whether the U.S. investments alleged by complainant are significant or substantial in the context of the complainant’s business, the relevant industry, and market realities. 4. Please explain how component purchasing expenditures for U.S. components not made specifically for the domestic industry products constitute an investment in plant and equipment, employment of labor or capital, or an investment in exploitation under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3). In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the Commission may issue (1) an order that could result in the 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 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 are likely to do so. For background information, see the Commission Opinion, Certain Devices for Connecting Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 and prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. 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 under review. The submissions should be concise and thoroughly referenced to the record in this investigation, including references to exhibits and testimony. Additionally, the parties to the investigation, interested government agencies, and any other interested persons are encouraged to file written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Such submissions should address the ALJ’s recommended determination on remedy and bonding. Complainant and the Commission investigative attorney are also requested to submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission’s consideration. Complainant is requested to supply the expiration date of the patent at issue and the HTSUS numbers under which the accused products are imported. The written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than the close of business on April 8, 2013, and should be no more than 25 pages. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on April 15, 2013, and should be no more than 15 pages. No further submissions will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission. Persons filing written submissions must do so in accordance with Commission rule 210.4(f), 19 CFR 210.4(f), which requires electronic filing. The original document and eight true copies thereof must also be filed on or before the deadlines stated above with the Office of the Secretary. Any person desiring to submit a document (or portion thereof) to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment unless the information has already been granted such treatment during the proceedings. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary of 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 is granted by the Commission will be treated accordingly. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary. E:\FR\FM\29MRN1.SGM 29MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 61 / Friday, March 29, 2013 / Notices This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and under sections 210.42–.46, .51(a) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42–.46, .51(a)). Issued: March 25, 2013. By order of the Commission. Lisa R. Barton, Acting Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2013–07297 Filed 3–28–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 731–TA–909 (Second Review)] Low Enriched Uranium From France; Notice of Commission Determination to Conduct a Full Five-Year Review United States International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES AGENCY: SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives notice that it will proceed with a full review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on low enriched uranium from France would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. A schedule for the review will be established and announced at a later date. For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207). DATES: Effective Date: March 8, 2013. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher J. Cassise (202–708–5408), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (http:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for this review may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:34 Mar 28, 2013 Jkt 229001 On March 8, 2013, the Commission determined that it should proceed to a full review in the subject five-year review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act. The Commission found that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution (77 FR 71626, December 3, 2012) was adequate and that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. The Commission also found that other circumstances warranted conducting a full review. A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner’s statements will be available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission’s Web site. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority: This review is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: March 26, 2013 Lisa R. Barton, Acting Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2013–07326 Filed 3–28–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–875] Certain Radio Frequency Identification (‘‘RFID’’) Products And Components Thereof; Institution of Investigation Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337 U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on February 22, 2013, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Neology, Inc. of Poway, California. A letter supplementing the complaint was filed on March 7, 2013. The complaint alleges violations of 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 radio frequency identification (‘‘RFID’’) products and components thereof by reason of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,081,819 (‘‘the ’819 Patent’’); U.S. Patent No. 7,671,746 (‘‘the ’746 Patent’’); and U.S. Patent No. 6,690,264 (‘‘the ’264 Patent’’). The complaint further alleges that an industry exists in the United States as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337. PO 00000 Frm 00133 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 19311 The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders. ADDRESSES: The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is 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., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205– 2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at http:// www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205–2560. Authority: The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 C.F.R. 210.10 (2012). Scope of Investigation: Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on March 25, 2013, Ordered That— (1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain radio frequency identification (‘‘RFID’’) products and components thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1–2 of the ’819 patent; claims 8–12 and 15–17 of the ’746 patent; and claims 1– 18 of the ’264 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337; (2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served: (a) The complainant is: E:\FR\FM\29MRN1.SGM 29MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 61 (Friday, March 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19309-19311]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07297]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-823]


Certain Kinesiotherapy Devices and Components Thereof; Commission 
Determination To Review the Final Initial Determination of the 
Administrative Law Judge and To Extend the Target Date for Completion 
of the Investigation by Two Weeks to June 7, 2013

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined to review the final initial determination 
(``final ID'' or ``ID'') of the presiding administrative law judge 
(``ALJ'') in its entirety in the above-captioned investigation under 
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 
(``section 337''). The ALJ found no violation of section 337. The 
Commission has further determined to extend the target date for 
completion of the investigation by two weeks to June 7, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael K. Haldenstein, Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3041. 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 
(http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation may be 
viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://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: The Commission instituted this investigation 
on January 10, 2012, based on a complaint filed by Standard Innovation 
Corporation of Ottawa, ON, Canada and Standard Innovation (US) Corp. of 
Wilmington, Delaware (collectively, ``Standard Innovation''). 77 FR 
1504 (Jan. 10, 2012). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 19 U.S.C. 1337,

[[Page 19310]]

by reason of infringement of certain claims of United States Patent 
Nos. 7,931,605 (``the `605 patent'') and D605,779 (``the '779 
patent''). The complaint named twenty one business entities as 
respondents, several of which have since been terminated from the 
investigation based upon consent order stipulations. On July 25, 2012, 
the Commission determined not to review an ID (Order No. 25) granting 
Standard Innovation's motion to withdraw the '779 patent from the 
investigation.
    An evidentiary hearing was held from August 21, 2012, to August 24, 
2012.
    On January 8, 2013, the ALJ issued a final ID finding no violation 
of section 337. The ALJ also issued a recommended determination on 
remedy and bonding on January 22, 2013. Specifically, the ALJ found 
that Standard Innovation had not satisfied the economic prong of the 
domestic industry requirement. The ALJ found, however, that the accused 
products infringe the asserted claims, that the asserted claims were 
not shown to be invalid, and that the technical prong of the domestic 
industry requirement was shown to be satisfied.
    On January 22, 2013, Standard Innovation and the Commission 
investigative attorney filed petitions for review of the final ID. Also 
on January 22, 2013, the respondents remaining in the investigation 
(Lelo Inc., Leloi AB, PHE, Inc. d/b/a Adam & Eve, Nalpac Enterprises, 
Ltd. d/b/a/Nalpac, Ltd., E.TC. Inc. d/b/a Eldorado Trading Company, 
Inc., Williams Trading Co. Inc., Honey's Place Inc. and Lover's Lane & 
Co.) filed a joint contingent petition for review. On January 30, 2013, 
the parties filed responses to the petitions.
    Having examined the final ID, the petitions for review, the 
responses thereto, and the relevant portions of the record in this 
investigation, the Commission has determined to review the final ID in 
its entirety. The Commission has further determined to extend the 
target date for completion of the investigation by two weeks to June 7, 
2013.
    The parties are requested to brief their positions on only the 
following questions, with reference to the applicable law and the 
evidentiary record:
    1. Please provide evidentiary support in the record showing U.S. 
investments relating to the components that are relied on by 
complainant to meet the domestic industry requirement, including as 
appropriate information relating to component providers, contractors, 
and subcontractors.
    2. Please comment on the significance of the relative contribution 
of domestic inputs as compared to total production (domestic and 
foreign) of complainant's products alleged to practice the `605 patent.
    3. Please provide evidentiary support in the record regarding 
whether the U.S. investments alleged by complainant are significant or 
substantial in the context of the complainant's business, the relevant 
industry, and market realities.
    4. Please explain how component purchasing expenditures for U.S. 
components not made specifically for the domestic industry products 
constitute an investment in plant and equipment, employment of labor or 
capital, or an investment in exploitation under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3).
    In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the 
Commission may issue (1) an order that could result in the 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 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 are likely to do so. For background 
information, see the Commission Opinion, Certain Devices for Connecting 
Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-360.
    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 and prescribed by the 
Secretary of the Treasury. 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 under review. The submissions 
should be concise and thoroughly referenced to the record in this 
investigation, including references to exhibits and testimony. 
Additionally, the parties to the investigation, interested government 
agencies, and any other interested persons are encouraged to file 
written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and 
bonding. Such submissions should address the ALJ's recommended 
determination on remedy and bonding. Complainant and the Commission 
investigative attorney are also requested to submit proposed remedial 
orders for the Commission's consideration. Complainant is requested to 
supply the expiration date of the patent at issue and the HTSUS numbers 
under which the accused products are imported. The written submissions 
and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than the close of 
business on April 8, 2013, and should be no more than 25 pages. Reply 
submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on April 
15, 2013, and should be no more than 15 pages. No further submissions 
will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.
    Persons filing written submissions must do so in accordance with 
Commission rule 210.4(f), 19 CFR 210.4(f), which requires electronic 
filing. The original document and eight true copies thereof must also 
be filed on or before the deadlines stated above with the Office of the 
Secretary. Any person desiring to submit a document (or portion 
thereof) to the Commission in confidence must request confidential 
treatment unless the information has already been granted such 
treatment during the proceedings. All such requests should be directed 
to the Secretary of 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 is granted by the 
Commission will be treated accordingly. All nonconfidential written 
submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of 
the Secretary.

[[Page 19311]]

    This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and under sections 
210.42-.46, .51(a) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure 
(19 CFR 210.42-.46, .51(a)).

     Issued: March 25, 2013.
    By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013-07297 Filed 3-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P