81 FR 22312 - Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof (I); Commission's Determination To Review In-Part a Final Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Request for Written Submissions

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 73 (April 15, 2016)

Page Range		22312-22314
FR Document		2016-08680

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 February 2, 2016, finding a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the above-captioned investigation.

Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 73 (Friday, April 15, 2016)

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 73 (Friday, April 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22312-22314]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08680]

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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-944]

Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof
(I); Commission's Determination To Review In-Part a Final Initial
Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Request for 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 February 2, 2016, finding a violation of section 337 of
the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the above-captioned
investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amanda Pitcher Fisherow, Esq., Office
of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E
Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2737. 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 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 27, 2015, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Cisco
Systems, Inc. (``Complainant'') of San Jose, California. 80 FR 4314-15
(Jan. 27, 2015). The complaint was filed on December 19, 2014 and a
supplement was filed on January 8, 2015. 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 network devices, related software and
components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S.
Patent No. 7,162,537 (``the '537 patent''); U.S. Patent No. 8,356,296
(``the '296 patent''); U.S. Patent No. 7,290,164 (``the '164 patent'');
U.S. Patent No. 7,340,597 (``the '597 patent''); U.S. Patent No.
6,741,592 (``the '592 patent''); and U.S. Patent No. 7,200,145 (``the
'145 patent''), and alleges that an industry in the United States
exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337. The '296 patent
was previously terminated from the investigation. A Commission
investigative attorney (``IA'') is participating in the investigation.
On February 2, 2016, the ALJ issued his final ID finding a
violation of section 337. The ID found a violation with respect to the
'537, '592 and '145 patents. The ID found no violation for the '597 and
'164 patents. On February 11, 2016, the ALJ issued his Recommended
Determination on Remedy and Bonding (``RD'').
On February 17, 2016, Cisco and Arista filed petitions for review.
On March 3, 2016, the parties, including the IA, filed responses to the
respective petitions for review.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the
final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the
Commission has determined to review the final ID on the following
issues: (1) Infringement of the '537, '597, '592 and '145 patents; (2)
patentability of the '597, '592, and '145 patents under 35 U.S.C. 101;
(3) the construction of ``said router configuration data managed by
said database system and derived from configuration commands supplied
by a user and executed by a router configuration subsystem before being
stored in said database'' of claims 1, 10, and 19 of the '537 patent;
(4) the construction of ``a change to a configuration''/``a change in
configuration'' of claims 1, 39, and 71 of the '597 patent; (5)
equitable estoppel; (6) laches; (7) the technical prong of domestic
industry for the '537, '597, '592 and '145 patents; (8) economic prong
of domestic industry; and (9) importation. To the extent any findings
that the Commission is reviewing herein implicates the ID's findings
for the '164 patent (e.g., intent to induce infringement), the
Commission reviews those findings for the '164 patent.
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 interested in
only responses to the following questions. For each argument presented,
the parties' submissions should set forth whether such argument was
presented to the ALJ and if so include citations to the record.

[[Page 22313]]

1. Please provide a chart identifying for each asserted claim of
the '537, '597, '592 and '145 patents: (1) The basis for Cisco's
infringement allegation (i.e., direct infringement, contributory
infringement, and/or induced infringement); (2) identification and
description of each accused product [[ ]].
2. If the Commission were to reverse the ID's finding [[ ]]?
3. Did Arista waive its argument that it had a good-faith basis
for its belief of noninfringement by failing to present the argument
to the ALJ? See Arista Pet. at 33; Cisco Reply at 36. If not, did
Arista demonstrate a good-faith belief of noninfringement?
4. [[ ]]?
5. Can evidence of [[ ]] establish intent to indirectly
infringe? Please discuss relevant case law pertaining to specific
intent [[ ]].
6. [[ ]].
7. [[ ]].
8. Please discuss the relevant case law pertaining to whether [[
]] is ``material'' to establish contributory infringement for the
'537, '592 and '145 patents. See e.g., Arista Pet. at 39-42, 67.
9. Please discuss and cite any record evidence that demonstrates
when Cisco came into possession of RX-2964C, CX-0479, and RX-4007C.
[[ ]]?
10. Please discuss whether the ``materially prejudiced''
requirement has been satisfied here for purposes of laches and
equitable estoppel. In responding to this question, please address
the prejudice demonstrated for each of the '537, '592, and '145
patents independently and discuss the relevant case law in your
response.
11. Please discuss whether laches should be an available defense
in a Section 337 investigation. In your response, please address how
SCA Hygiene Products v. First Quality Baby Prod., 807 F.3d 1311
(Fed. Cir. 2015) applies and any statutory support for your
position.
12. Does the ID's construction of ``a change to a
configuration''/ ``a change in configuration'' in the asserted
claims of the `537 patent to mean ``a change to the state of the
device'' read out the phrase ``of the subsystem'' from the claims?
Does this construction require that the change in state be to the
subsystem or the device as a whole?
13. Please discuss whether anything in the specification,
prosecution history or claims limit what constitutes ``changes'' in
the ``a change to a configuration''/ ``a change in configuration''
limitations of the asserted claims of the '597 patent. Please also
address, if the Commission were to adopt the construction proposed
by Arista, what would constitute a ``change''?
14. Is the determination by [[ ]] that would meet the ``detect a
change to a configuration of said subsystem''/ ``detect/[ing] a
change in a configuration of a subsystem'' limitations of the
asserted claims of the '597 patent under the ID's construction?
15. Discuss whether the accused products meet the limitations of
``detect a change to a configuration of said subsystem''/ ``detect/
[ing] a change in a configuration of a subsystem'' limitations of
the asserted claims. Please address (1) the ID's construction, which
requires detecting ``a change to the state of the device'', and (2)
a construction that requires detecting a ``change to the state'' of
the subsystem. See e.g., Arista Pet. at 85.
16. With respect to the public interest factors, please discuss
the facts in the record pertaining to the following: (1) Whether RFC
5517 is a de facto industry standard; (2) whether the '592 and '145
patents are essential to an industry standard; (3) whether licensing
obligations apply to RFC 5517; (4) whether Cisco complied with any
licensing obligations with respect to an industry standard; and (5)
whether patent hold-up and/or patent hold-out have been demonstrated
in the record of this investigation. See Respondent Arista's Public
Interest Submission Under 210.50(a) at 4-5 (March 17, 2016). Provide
an analysis as to how these issues relate to the statutory public
interest factors of Section Sec. 337(d) and (f), 19 U.S.C. 1337(d),
(f).
17. For purposes of the analysis of the statutory public
interest factors, describe in detail the specific course of conduct
on the part of Cisco, or other factors, that would support a finding
that F/RAND commitments have arisen with respect to the '592 and
'145 patents here. How does the RFC 5517 document factor into the
analysis since it specifically states that what is described with
respect to the '592 and '145 patents is not a standard? Arista
argues that Cisco ``never offered Arista a chance to license this de
facto standard used by Cisco's other networking competitors.''
Respondent Arista's Public Interest Submission Under 210.50(a) at 5.
Describe in detail any attempts that Arista made to license the '592
and '145 patents from Cisco. Please describe Cisco's response to
these attempts.

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. When 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 a party seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the United
States for purposes other than entry for consumption, the party should
so indicate and provide information establishing that activities
involving other types of entry either are adversely affecting it or
likely to do so. For background, see Certain Devices for Connecting
Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-360, USITC Pub. No. 2843
(December 1994) (Commission Opinion).
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 identified in this notice.
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. The complainant and the IA are also requested to
submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission's consideration.
Complainant is also requested to state the date that the asserted
patents expire and the HTSUS numbers under which the accused products
are imported. Complainant is further requested to supply the names of
known importers of the products at issue in this investigation. The
written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later
than close of business on Monday, April 25, 2016. Reply submissions
must be filed no later than the close of business on Thursday, May 5,
2016. No further submissions on these issues will be permitted unless
otherwise ordered by the Commission. The page limit for the parties'
initial submissions is 125 pages. The parties

[[Page 22314]]

reply submissions, if any, are limited to 75 pages.
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-944'') in a prominent place on
the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic
Filing Procedures, http://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 Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
part 210).

By order of the Commission.

Issued: April 11, 2016.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2016-08680 Filed 4-14-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P

22312 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2016 / Notices

provided in section 207.24 of the INTERNATIONAL TRADE Patent No. 7,162,537 (‘‘the ’537 patent’’);
Commission’s rules, and posthearing COMMISSION U.S. Patent No. 8,356,296 (‘‘the ’296
briefs, which must conform with the patent’’); U.S. Patent No. 7,290,164 (‘‘the
[Investigation No. 337–TA–944]
provisions of section 207.25 of the ’164 patent’’); U.S. Patent No. 7,340,597
Commission’s rules. The deadline for Certain Network Devices, Related (‘‘the ’597 patent’’); U.S. Patent No.
filing posthearing briefs is August 11, Software and Components Thereof (I); 6,741,592 (‘‘the ’592 patent’’); and U.S.
2016. In addition, any person who has Commission’s Determination To Patent No. 7,200,145 (‘‘the ’145 patent’’),
not entered an appearance as a party to Review In-Part a Final Initial and alleges that an industry in the
the investigations may submit a written Determination Finding a Violation of United States exists as required by
statement of information pertinent to Section 337; Request for Written subsection (a)(2) of section 337. The
the subject of the investigations, Submissions ’296 patent was previously terminated
including statements of support or from the investigation. A Commission
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade investigative attorney (‘‘IA’’) is
opposition to the petition, on or before
Commission. participating in the investigation.
August 11, 2016. On August 29, 2016, On February 2, 2016, the ALJ issued
ACTION: Notice.
the Commission will make available to his final ID finding a violation of section
parties all information on which they SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 337. The ID found a violation with
have not had an opportunity to the U.S. International Trade respect to the ’537, ’592 and ’145
comment. Parties may submit final Commission has determined to review patents. The ID found no violation for
comments on this information on or in-part the final initial determination the ’597 and ’164 patents. On February
before August 31, 2016, but such final (‘‘ID’’) issued by the presiding 11, 2016, the ALJ issued his
comments must not contain new factual administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on Recommended Determination on
information and must otherwise comply February 2, 2016, finding a violation of Remedy and Bonding (‘‘RD’’).
with section 207.30 of the Commission’s section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 On February 17, 2016, Cisco and
rules. All written submissions must U.S.C. 1337, in the above-captioned Arista filed petitions for review. On
conform with the provisions of section investigation. March 3, 2016, the parties, including the
201.8 of the Commission’s rules; any IA, filed responses to the respective
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
submissions that contain BPI must also petitions for review.
Amanda Pitcher Fisherow, Esq., Office
conform with the requirements of Having examined the record of this
of the General Counsel, U.S. investigation, including the final ID, the
sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the International Trade Commission, 500 E
Commission’s rules. The Commission’s petitions for review, and the responses
Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, thereto, the Commission has determined
Handbook on E-Filing, available on the telephone (202) 205–2737. Copies of
Commission’s Web site at http:// to review the final ID on the following
non-confidential documents filed in issues: (1) Infringement of the ’537, ’597,
edis.usitc.gov, elaborates upon the connection with this investigation are or
Commission’s rules with respect to ’592 and ’145 patents; (2) patentability
will be available for inspection during of the ’597, ’592, and ’145 patents under
electronic filing. official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 35 U.S.C. 101; (3) the construction of
Additional written submissions to the p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. ‘‘said router configuration data managed
Commission, including requests International Trade Commission, 500 E by said database system and derived
pursuant to section 201.12 of the Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, from configuration commands supplied
Commission’s rules, shall not be telephone (202) 205–2000. General by a user and executed by a router
accepted unless good cause is shown for information concerning the Commission configuration subsystem before being
accepting such submissions, or unless may also be obtained by accessing its stored in said database’’ of claims 1, 10,
the submission is pursuant to a specific Internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. and 19 of the ’537 patent; (4) the
request by a Commissioner or The public record for this investigation construction of ‘‘a change to a
Commission staff. may be viewed on the Commission’s configuration’’/‘‘a change in
electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// configuration’’ of claims 1, 39, and 71 of
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired
and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, the ’597 patent; (5) equitable estoppel;
persons are advised that information on (6) laches; (7) the technical prong of
each document filed by a party to the this matter can be obtained by domestic industry for the ’537, ’597,
investigations must be served on all contacting the Commission’s TDD ’592 and ’145 patents; (8) economic
other parties to the investigations (as terminal on (202) 205–1810. prong of domestic industry; and (9)
identified by either the public or BPI SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The importation. To the extent any findings
service list), and a certificate of service Commission instituted this investigation that the Commission is reviewing herein
must be timely filed. The Secretary will on January 27, 2015, based on a implicates the ID’s findings for the ’164
not accept a document for filing without complaint filed on behalf of Cisco patent (e.g., intent to induce
a certificate of service. Systems, Inc. (‘‘Complainant’’) of San infringement), the Commission reviews
Authority: These investigations are being Jose, California. 80 FR 4314–15 (Jan. 27, those findings for the ’164 patent.
conducted under authority of title VII of the 2015). The complaint was filed on The parties are requested to brief their
Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published December 19, 2014 and a supplement positions on the issues under review
was filed on January 8, 2015. The with reference to the applicable law and
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

pursuant to section 207.21 of the
Commission’s rules. complaint alleges violations of section the evidentiary record. In connection
By order of the Commission. 337 based upon the importation into the with its review, the Commission is
Issued: April 11, 2016. United States, the sale for importation, interested in only responses to the
and the sale within the United States following questions. For each argument
Lisa R. Barton,
after importation of certain network presented, the parties’ submissions
Secretary to the Commission. devices, related software and should set forth whether such argument
[FR Doc. 2016–08650 Filed 4–14–16; 8:45 am] components thereof by reason of was presented to the ALJ and if so
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P infringement of certain claims of U.S. include citations to the record.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Apr 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15APN1.SGM 15APN1

22314 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2016 / Notices

reply submissions, if any, are limited to Administration (DEA) grants Mylan DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
75 pages. Technologies, Inc. registration as an
Persons filing written submissions importer of those controlled substances. [OMB Number 1117–0038]
must file the original document
electronically on or before the deadlines SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By notice Agency Information Collection
stated above and submit 8 true paper dated November 27, 2015, and Activities; Proposed eCollection,
copies to the Office of the Secretary by published in the Federal Register on eComments Requested; Extension
noon the next day pursuant to section December 3, 2015, 80 FR 75688, Mylan Without Change of a Previously
210.4(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Technologies, Inc., 110 Lake Street, Approved Collection Reporting and
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR Saint Albans, Vermont 05478 applied to Recordkeeping for Digital Certificates
210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to be registered as an importer of certain AGENCY: Drug Enforcement
the investigation number (‘‘Inv. No. basic classes of controlled substances. Administration, Department of Justice.
337–TA–944’’) in a prominent place on No comments or objections were
ACTION: 30-Day notice.
the cover page and/or the first page. (See submitted for this notice.
Handbook for Electronic Filing The DEA has considered the factors in SUMMARY: The Department of Justice
Procedures, http://www.usitc.gov/ 21 U.S.C. 823, 952(a) and 958(a) and (DOJ), Drug Enforcement
secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/ determined that the registration of Administration (DEA), will be
handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf). submitting the following information
Mylan Technologies, Inc. to import the
Persons with questions regarding filing collection request to the Office of
basic classes of controlled substances is
should contact the Secretary (202–205– Management and Budget (OMB) for
consistent with the public interest and
2000). review and approval in accordance with
Any person desiring to submit a with United States obligations under
international treaties, conventions, or the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
document to the Commission in This proposed information collection
confidence must request confidential protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The
DEA investigated the company’s was previously published in the Federal
treatment. All such requests should be Register at 81 FR 7592, on February 12,
directed to the Secretary to the maintenance of effective controls
2016, allowing for a 60 day comment
Commission and must include a full against diversion by inspecting and
period.
statement of the reasons why the testing the company’s physical security
Commission should grant such systems, verifying the company’s DATES: Comments are encouraged and
treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents compliance with state and local laws, will be accepted for an additional 30
for which confidential treatment by the and reviewing the company’s days until May 16, 2016.
Commission is properly sought will be background and history. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
treated accordingly. A redacted non- you have comments on the estimated
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C.
confidential version of the document public burden or associated response
952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance
must also be filed simultaneously with time, suggestions, or need a copy of the
with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above-named
the any confidential filing. All non- proposed information collection
company is granted registration as an instrument with instructions or
confidential written submissions will be
importer of the following basic classes additional information, please contact
available for public inspection at the
Office of the Secretary and on EDIS. of controlled substances: Barbara J. Boockholdt, Office of
The authority for the Commission’s Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement
Controlled substance Schedule Administration; Mailing Address: 8701
determination is contained in section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as Methylphenidate (1724) ................ II
Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia
amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part Fentanyl (9801) ............................ II
22152; Telephone: (202) 598–6812.
210 of the Commission’s Rules of Written comments and/or suggestions
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part can also be directed to the Office of
210). The company plans to import the Management and Budget, Office of
listed controlled substances in finished Information and Regulatory Affairs,
By order of the Commission.
dosage form (FDF) from foreign sources Attention Department of Justice Desk
Issued: April 11, 2016. for analytical testing and clinical trials Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent
Lisa R. Barton, in which the foreign FDF will be to OIRA_submissions@omb.eop.gov.
Secretary to the Commission. compared to the company’s own SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Written
[FR Doc. 2016–08680 Filed 4–14–16; 8:45 am] domestically-manufactured FDF. This comments and suggestions from the
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P analysis is required to allow the public and affected agencies concerning
company to export domestically- the proposed collection of information
manufactured FDF to foreign markets. are encouraged. Your comments should
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE address one or more of the following
Dated: April 11, 2016.
Louis J. Milione,
four points:
Drug Enforcement Administration
Deputy Assistant Administrator. —Evaluate whether the proposed
[Docket No. DEA–392] collection of information is necessary
[FR Doc. 2016–08846 Filed 4–14–16; 8:45 am]
for the proper performance of the
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Importer of Controlled Substances BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
functions of the agency, including
Registration: Mylan Technologies, Inc. whether the information will have
ACTION: Notice of registration. practical utility;
—Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s
SUMMARY: Mylan Technologies, Inc. estimate of the burden of the
applied to be registered as an importer proposed collection of information,
of certain basic classes of controlled including the validity of the
substances. The Drug Enforcement methodology and assumptions used;

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Apr 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15APN1.SGM 15APN1

Document Created: 2016-04-15 00:54:43
Document Modified: 2016-04-15 00:54:43

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Notices
Action		Notice.
Contact		Amanda Pitcher Fisherow, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2737. 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 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.
FR Citation		81 FR 22312