Certain Encapsulated Integrated Circuit Devices and Products Containing Same; Commission Determination To Request Briefing and Set a Schedule for Filing Written Submissions on the Issues of Economic Prong of the Domestic Industry Requirement, and Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding, 35051-35052 [2013-13747]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 11, 2013 / Notices
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013–13745 Filed 6–10–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–501]
Certain Encapsulated Integrated
Circuit Devices and Products
Containing Same; Commission
Determination To Request Briefing and
Set a Schedule for Filing Written
Submissions on the Issues of
Economic Prong of the Domestic
Industry Requirement, and Remedy,
the Public Interest, and Bonding
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to request
briefing on the economic prong of the
domestic industry requirement, and on
remedy, bonding and the public interest
in the above-captioned investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–3115. 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: The
Commission instituted this investigation
under section 337 of the Tariff Act of
1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on December 19,
2003, based on a complaint filed by
Amkor Technology Inc. (‘‘Amkor’’). See
68 FR 70836 (Dec. 19, 2003). Amkor
alleged a violation of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19
U.S.C. 1337), by respondents Carsem
(M) Sdn Bhd; Carsem Semiconductor
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:13 Jun 10, 2013
Jkt 229001
Sdn Bhd; and Carsem, Inc. (collectively,
‘‘Carsem,’’ or respondents) in the
importation, sale for importation, and
sale within the United States after
importation of certain encapsulated
integrated circuit devices and products
containing same in connection with
claims 1–4, 7, 17, 18 and 20–23 of U.S.
Patent No. 6,433,277 (‘‘the ‘277 patent’’);
claims 1–4, 7 and 8 of U.S. Patent No.
6,630,728 (‘‘the ‘728 patent’’); and
claims 1, 2, 13 and 14 of U.S. Patent No.
6,455,356 (‘‘the ‘356 patent’’).
On November 18, 2004, the ALJ
issued a final initial determination
(‘‘Final ID’’) finding no violation of
section 337. After reviewing the Final ID
in its entirety, the Commission on
March 31, 2005, modified the ALJ’s
claim construction and remanded the
investigation to the ALJ with
instructions ‘‘to conduct further
proceedings and make any new findings
or changes to his original findings that
are necessitated by the Commission’s
new claim construction.’’ Commission
Order ¶ 8 (March 31, 2005). On
November 9, 2005, the ALJ issued a
remand initial determination (‘‘Remand
ID’’). The Remand ID made certain
findings as to the remanded issues.
Specifically, with respect to the issue of
infringement, the Remand ID found that
(1) claims 1–4, 7, 17, 18 and 20–23 of
the ‘277 patent are infringed by some or
all of Carsem’s accused imported
‘‘Micro Leadframe Packages’’ (‘‘MLPs’’)
products; (2) claims 1, 2 and 7 of the
‘728 patent are infringed by some or all
of Carsem’s accused imported MLP
products; and (3) claims 1, 2, 13 and 14
of the ‘356 patent are not infringed by
any of Carsem’s accused imported MLP
products. Furthermore, with respect to
the issue of validity, the Remand ID
found that claims 1, 7, 17, 18 and 20 of
the ‘277 patent are invalid under 35
U.S.C. 102(b) as anticipated by certain
prior art references, but claims 2–4 and
21–23 of the ‘277 patent are not; (2)
claims 1–4, 7 and 8 of the ‘728 patent
are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as
anticipated by certain prior art
references; (3) claims 1, 2, 13 and 14 of
the ’356 patent are not invalid under 35
U.S.C. 102(b) as anticipated by certain
prior art references; (4) claim 1 of the
‘277 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C.
103(a) as obvious in view of a
combination of certain prior art
references; (5) claims 2–4, 7, 17, 18 and
20–23 of the ‘277 patent are not invalid
under 35 U.S.C. 103(a); (6) claims 3, 4
and 8 of the ‘728 patent are invalid
under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious in
view of a combination of certain prior
art references; (7) claims 1, 2 and 7 of
the ‘728 patent are not invalid under 35
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
35051
U.S.C. 103(a); and (8) claims 1, 2, 13 and
14 of the ‘356 patent are not invalid
under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Finally, with
respect to the issue of the technical
prong of the domestic industry
requirement, the Remand ID found that
Amkor satisfied the technical prong for
both the ‘277 patent and the ‘728 patent,
but did not meet the technical prong for
the ‘356 patent.
Completion of this investigation was
delayed because of difficulty in
obtaining from third-party ASAT Inc.
certain documents relating to ASAT’s
invention (‘‘ASAT invention’’) that
Carsem asserted were critical for its
affirmative invalidity defenses. The
Commission’s efforts to enforce a
February 11, 2004, subpoena duces
tecum and ad testificandum directed to
ASAT resulted in a July 1, 2008, order
and opinion of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia granting the
Commission’s second enforcement
petition. On July 1, 2009, after ASAT
had complied with the subpoena, the
Commission issued a notice and order
remanding this investigation to the ALJ
so that the ASAT documents could be
considered. On October 30, 2009, the
ALJ issued a supplemental ID (‘‘First
Supplemental ID’’), finding that the
ASAT invention was not prior art.
On February 18, 2010, the
Commission reversed the ALJ’s finding
that ASAT invention is not prior art to
Amkor’s asserted patents, and remanded
the investigation to the ALJ to make
necessary findings with respect to the
issue of validity of the asserted patents
in light of the Commission’s
determination that the ASAT invention
is prior art. On March 22, 2010, the ALJ
issued a Supplemental ID (‘‘Second
Supplemental ID’’) in which he found
that the ‘277 and ‘728 patents were
invalid in view of ASAT prior art. On
July 20, 2010, the Commission
determined not to review the ALJ’s
Remand ID and Second Supplemental
ID. As a result, the Commission
determined that there is no violation of
section 337 in this investigation. Amkor
appealed the Commission’s decision to
the Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit.
On August 22, 2012, the Federal
Circuit ruled on Amkor’s appeal
reversing the Commission’s
determination that the ‘277 Patent is
invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102(g)(2),
declining to affirm the Commission’s
invalidity determination on the
alternative grounds raised by Carsem,
and remanding for further proceedings
consistent with its opinion. Amkor
Technology Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
692 F.3d 1250 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (‘‘Amkor
Technology’’). On October 5, 2012,
E:\FR\FM\11JNN1.SGM
11JNN1
35052
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 11, 2013 / Notices
Carsem filed a combined petition for
panel rehearing and for rehearing en
banc. The Court denied Carsem’s
petition on December 7, 2012, and
issued its mandate on December 19,
2012, returning jurisdiction to the
Commission.
On January 14, 2013, the Commission
issued an Order (‘‘Commission’s
Order’’) requesting the parties to the
investigation to submit initial comments
regarding what further proceedings
must be conducted to comply with the
Federal Circuit’s August 22, 2012,
judgment in Amkor Technology. The
parties filed their initial and responsive
submissions.
Having examined the record in this
investigation, including the parties’
submissions filed in response to the
Commission’s Order, the Commission
has determined to request briefing from
the parties on only the following issues,
with reference to the applicable law and
the evidentiary record:
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Whether there is any intervening legal
precedent since the issuance of the 2004
Final ID that precludes or warrants the ALJ’s
determination that Amkor satisfied the
economic prong of the domestic industry
requirement under section 337(a)(3)(A), and
did not satisfy the economic prong under
section 337(a)(3)(B). See 19 U.S.C.
1337(a)(3)(A) and (B).
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 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, see Certain Devices for
Connecting Computers via Telephone
Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360, USITC
Pub. No. 2843 Comm’n Op. (Dec. 1994).
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:13 Jun 10, 2013
Jkt 229001
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. The
Commission also requests briefing as to
the following question:
Whether for purposes of our public interest
analysis, there are products comparable to
the subject articles that are noninfringing
products in the U.S. market.
If the Commission orders some form
of remedy, the President has 60 days to
approve or disapprove the
Commission’s action. During this
period, the subject articles would be
entitled to enter the United States under
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.
Written Submissions: The parties to
the investigation are requested to file
written submissions on the issues
specified in this Notice. The
submissions should be concise and
thoroughly referenced to the record in
this investigation. 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
recommended determination by the ALJ
on remedy and bonding issued on
November 18, 2004. Complainant and
the Commission investigative attorney
are also requested to submit proposed
remedial orders for the Commission’s
consideration. Complainant is further
requested to provide the expiration
dates of the asserted patents at issue in
this investigation and state the HTSUS
number under which the accused
articles are imported. The written
submissions and proposed remedial
orders must be filed no later than the
close of business on Wednesday, June
19, 2013. Reply submissions must be
filed no later than the close of business
on Wednesday, June 26, 2013. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to
the investigation number (‘‘Inv. No.
337–TA–501’’) 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 of the Commission’s
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.42–.46).
Issued: June 5, 2013.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013–13747 Filed 6–10–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Importer of Controlled Substances;
Notice of Registration; Noramco, Inc.
By Notice dated March 12, 2013, and
published in the Federal Register on
March 20, 2013, 78 FR 17230, Noramco,
Inc., 1440 Olympic Drive, Athens,
Georgia 30601, made application by
renewal to the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) to be registered as
an importer of the basic classes of
controlled substances:
Drug
Phenylacetone (8501) ..................
Thebaine (9333) ...........................
Poppy Straw Concentrate (9670)
Tapentadol (9780) ........................
E:\FR\FM\11JNN1.SGM
11JNN1
Schedule
II
II
II
II
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 112 (Tuesday, June 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35051-35052]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13747]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-501]
Certain Encapsulated Integrated Circuit Devices and Products
Containing Same; Commission Determination To Request Briefing and Set a
Schedule for Filing Written Submissions on the Issues of Economic Prong
of the Domestic Industry Requirement, and Remedy, the Public Interest,
and Bonding
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to request briefing on the economic prong of
the domestic industry requirement, and on remedy, bonding and the
public interest in the above-captioned investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3115. 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: The Commission instituted this investigation
under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on
December 19, 2003, based on a complaint filed by Amkor Technology Inc.
(``Amkor''). See 68 FR 70836 (Dec. 19, 2003). Amkor alleged a violation
of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337),
by respondents Carsem (M) Sdn Bhd; Carsem Semiconductor Sdn Bhd; and
Carsem, Inc. (collectively, ``Carsem,'' or respondents) in the
importation, sale for importation, and sale within the United States
after importation of certain encapsulated integrated circuit devices
and products containing same in connection with claims 1-4, 7, 17, 18
and 20-23 of U.S. Patent No. 6,433,277 (``the `277 patent''); claims 1-
4, 7 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 6,630,728 (``the `728 patent''); and
claims 1, 2, 13 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 6,455,356 (``the `356
patent'').
On November 18, 2004, the ALJ issued a final initial determination
(``Final ID'') finding no violation of section 337. After reviewing the
Final ID in its entirety, the Commission on March 31, 2005, modified
the ALJ's claim construction and remanded the investigation to the ALJ
with instructions ``to conduct further proceedings and make any new
findings or changes to his original findings that are necessitated by
the Commission's new claim construction.'' Commission Order ] 8 (March
31, 2005). On November 9, 2005, the ALJ issued a remand initial
determination (``Remand ID''). The Remand ID made certain findings as
to the remanded issues. Specifically, with respect to the issue of
infringement, the Remand ID found that (1) claims 1-4, 7, 17, 18 and
20-23 of the `277 patent are infringed by some or all of Carsem's
accused imported ``Micro Leadframe Packages'' (``MLPs'') products; (2)
claims 1, 2 and 7 of the `728 patent are infringed by some or all of
Carsem's accused imported MLP products; and (3) claims 1, 2, 13 and 14
of the `356 patent are not infringed by any of Carsem's accused
imported MLP products. Furthermore, with respect to the issue of
validity, the Remand ID found that claims 1, 7, 17, 18 and 20 of the
`277 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as anticipated by
certain prior art references, but claims 2-4 and 21-23 of the `277
patent are not; (2) claims 1-4, 7 and 8 of the `728 patent are invalid
under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as anticipated by certain prior art references;
(3) claims 1, 2, 13 and 14 of the '356 patent are not invalid under 35
U.S.C. 102(b) as anticipated by certain prior art references; (4) claim
1 of the `277 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious in
view of a combination of certain prior art references; (5) claims 2-4,
7, 17, 18 and 20-23 of the `277 patent are not invalid under 35 U.S.C.
103(a); (6) claims 3, 4 and 8 of the `728 patent are invalid under 35
U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious in view of a combination of certain prior art
references; (7) claims 1, 2 and 7 of the `728 patent are not invalid
under 35 U.S.C. 103(a); and (8) claims 1, 2, 13 and 14 of the `356
patent are not invalid under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Finally, with respect to
the issue of the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement,
the Remand ID found that Amkor satisfied the technical prong for both
the `277 patent and the `728 patent, but did not meet the technical
prong for the `356 patent.
Completion of this investigation was delayed because of difficulty
in obtaining from third-party ASAT Inc. certain documents relating to
ASAT's invention (``ASAT invention'') that Carsem asserted were
critical for its affirmative invalidity defenses. The Commission's
efforts to enforce a February 11, 2004, subpoena duces tecum and ad
testificandum directed to ASAT resulted in a July 1, 2008, order and
opinion of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
granting the Commission's second enforcement petition. On July 1, 2009,
after ASAT had complied with the subpoena, the Commission issued a
notice and order remanding this investigation to the ALJ so that the
ASAT documents could be considered. On October 30, 2009, the ALJ issued
a supplemental ID (``First Supplemental ID''), finding that the ASAT
invention was not prior art.
On February 18, 2010, the Commission reversed the ALJ's finding
that ASAT invention is not prior art to Amkor's asserted patents, and
remanded the investigation to the ALJ to make necessary findings with
respect to the issue of validity of the asserted patents in light of
the Commission's determination that the ASAT invention is prior art. On
March 22, 2010, the ALJ issued a Supplemental ID (``Second Supplemental
ID'') in which he found that the `277 and `728 patents were invalid in
view of ASAT prior art. On July 20, 2010, the Commission determined not
to review the ALJ's Remand ID and Second Supplemental ID. As a result,
the Commission determined that there is no violation of section 337 in
this investigation. Amkor appealed the Commission's decision to the
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
On August 22, 2012, the Federal Circuit ruled on Amkor's appeal
reversing the Commission's determination that the `277 Patent is
invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102(g)(2), declining to affirm the Commission's
invalidity determination on the alternative grounds raised by Carsem,
and remanding for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Amkor Technology Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 692 F.3d 1250 (Fed. Cir.
2012) (``Amkor Technology''). On October 5, 2012,
[[Page 35052]]
Carsem filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and for rehearing
en banc. The Court denied Carsem's petition on December 7, 2012, and
issued its mandate on December 19, 2012, returning jurisdiction to the
Commission.
On January 14, 2013, the Commission issued an Order (``Commission's
Order'') requesting the parties to the investigation to submit initial
comments regarding what further proceedings must be conducted to comply
with the Federal Circuit's August 22, 2012, judgment in Amkor
Technology. The parties filed their initial and responsive submissions.
Having examined the record in this investigation, including the
parties' submissions filed in response to the Commission's Order, the
Commission has determined to request briefing from the parties on only
the following issues, with reference to the applicable law and the
evidentiary record:
Whether there is any intervening legal precedent since the
issuance of the 2004 Final ID that precludes or warrants the ALJ's
determination that Amkor satisfied the economic prong of the
domestic industry requirement under section 337(a)(3)(A), and did
not satisfy the economic prong under section 337(a)(3)(B). See 19
U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(A) and (B).
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
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, see Certain Devices for Connecting Computers via Telephone
Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-360, USITC Pub. No. 2843 Comm'n Op. (Dec. 1994).
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. The Commission also requests
briefing as to the following question:
Whether for purposes of our public interest analysis, there are
products comparable to the subject articles that are noninfringing
products in the U.S. market.
If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the President has 60
days to approve or disapprove the Commission's action. During this
period, the subject articles would be entitled to enter the United
States under 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.
Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation are requested
to file written submissions on the issues specified in this Notice. The
submissions should be concise and thoroughly referenced to the record
in this investigation. 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 recommended
determination by the ALJ on remedy and bonding issued on November 18,
2004. Complainant and the Commission investigative attorney are also
requested to submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission's
consideration. Complainant is further requested to provide the
expiration dates of the asserted patents at issue in this investigation
and state the HTSUS number under which the accused articles are
imported. The written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be
filed no later than the close of business on Wednesday, June 19, 2013.
Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on
Wednesday, June 26, 2013. 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-501'') 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 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 210.42-.46).
Issued: June 5, 2013.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013-13747 Filed 6-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P