USCA Case #13-5252 Document #1455974 Filed: 09/11/2013 .

10m ago
27 Views
3 Downloads
3.19 MB
198 Pages
Last View : 17d ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Alexia Money
Transcription

USCA Case #13-5252Document #1455974Filed: 09/11/2013ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULEDPage 1 of 198No. 13-5252IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUITNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS;CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE,Appellants,v.SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,Appellee,AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL USA; AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL LTD.,Intervenors for Appellee.On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, CaseNo. 1:13-cv-00635, Judge Robert L. WilkinsOPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANTSPeter D. KeislerJonathan F. CohnErika L. MyersSidley Austin LLP1501 K St., NWWashington, DC 20005202.736.8000pkeisler@sidley.comCounsel for Appellants the NationalAssociation of Manufacturers, the Chamberof Commerce of the United States of America,and Business RoundtableSeptember 11, 2013Additional Counsel on Inside Cover

USCA Case #13-5252Of Counsel:Rachel L. BrandSteven P. LehotskyNational ChamberLitigation Center, Inc.1615 H St., NWWashington, DC 20062202.463.5337Counsel for Appellant theChamber of Commerce of theUnited States of AmericaDocument #1455974Filed: 09/11/2013Of Counsel:Quentin RiegelNational Association ofManufacturers733 10th St., NWSuite 700Washington, DC 20001202.637.3000Counsel for Appellant theNational Association ofManufacturersPage 2 of 198Of Counsel:Maria GhazalBusiness Roundtable300 New Jersey Ave., NWSuite 800Washington, DC 20001202.496.3268Counsel for Appellant BusinessRoundtable

USCA Case #13-5252Document #1455974Filed: 09/11/2013Page 3 of 198CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASESThe following information is provided pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 28(a)(1):(A)Parties and AmiciAppellantsNational Association of ManufacturersChamber of Commerce of the United States of AmericaBusiness RoundtableAmici for AppellantsProfessor Marcia Narine; Ambassador Jendayi Frazer; Dr. J. Peter PhamAmerican Coatings Association, Inc.; American Chemistry Council; CanManufacturers Institute; Consumer Specialty Products Association; National RetailFederation; Precision Machined Products Association; The Society of the PlasticsIndustry, Inc.AppelleeUnited States Securities and Exchange CommissionIntervenors for AppelleeAmnesty International USAAmnesty International Ltd.Amici for AppelleeBetter Markets, Inc.Senator Barbara Boxer, Senator Dick Durbin, Russ Feingold, Howard Berman,Congressman Wm. Lacy Clay, Congressman Keith Ellison, Congressman RaulGrijalva, Congressman John Lewis, Congressman Ed Markey, Congressman JimMcDermott, Congresswoman Gwen Moore, Congresswoman Maxine Watersi

USCA Case #13-5252Document #1455974Filed: 09/11/2013Page 4 of 198Global Witness Limited; Fred Robarts; Gregory Mthembu-Salter(B)Rulings Under ReviewThis appeal challenges the final order in case 1:13-cv-00635, reproduced in theappendix at JA919, entered by Judge Robert L. Wilkins on July 23, 2013, denyingAppellants’ motion for summary judgment and granting Appellee’s and IntervenorAppellees’ cross-motions for summary judgment.(C)Related CasesThis case was previously before this Court as Case No. 12-1422, on a petitionfor direct review of Final Rule 13p-1 and Form SD, Conflict Minerals, 77 F.R. 56,274(Sept. 12, 2012). After the Court held in American Petroleum Institute v. SEC, 714 F.3d1329 (D.C. Cir. 2013), that it lacked jurisdiction over such petitions, at Appellants’request it transferred this case to the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1631.Order, Case No. 12-1422 (D.C. Cir. filed May 2, 2013). Counsel is aware of norelated cases currently pending in any other court.ii

USCA Case #13-5252Document #1455974Filed: 09/11/2013Page 5 of 198RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENTPursuant to Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and LocalRule 26.1, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Chamber of Commerce ofthe United States of America, and Business Roundtable respectfully submit thisCorporate Disclosure Statement and state as follows:1. The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) states that it is anonprofit trade association representing small and large manufacturers in everyindustrial sector and in all 50 states. The NAM is the preeminent U.S. manufacturers’association as well as the nation’s largest industrial trade association. The NAM hasno parent corporation, and no publicly held company has 10% or greater ownershipin the NAM.2. The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America (Chamber)states that it is a non-profit, tax-exempt organization incorporated in the District ofColumbia. The Chamber is the world’s largest business federation, representing300,000 direct members and indirectly representing an underlying membership ofmore than three million businesses and organizations of all sizes, sectors, and regions.The Chamber has no parent corporation, and no publicly held company has 10% orgreater ownership in the Chamber.3. Business Roundtable (BRT) states that it is an association of chief executiveofficers of leading U.S. companies with 7.4 trillion in annual revenues and more than16 million employees. BRT member companies comprise more than a third of theiii

USCA Case #13-5252Document #1455974Filed: 09/11/2013Page 6 of 198total value of the U.S. stock market and invest 158 billion annually in research anddevelopment—equal to 62 percent of U.S. private R&D spending. BRT companiespay more than 200 billion in dividends to shareholders and generate more than 540billion in sales for small and medium-sized businesses annually. BRT companies givemore than 9 billion a year in combined charitable contributions. BRT has no parentcorporation, and no publicly held company has 10% or greater ownership in BRT.iv

USCA Case #13-5252Document #1455974Filed: 09/11/2013Page 7 of 198TABLE OF CONTENTSCERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES . iRULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT . iiiTABLE OF AUTHORITIES . viiiGLOSSARY . xiiiINTRODUCTION. 1JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT . 2STATUTES AND REGULATIONS. 3STATEMENT OF ISSUES . 3STATEMENT OF THE CASE . 4STATEMENT OF FACTS . 5A.B.Factual Background . 51.Uses of Tin, Tantalum, Tungsten, and Gold . 52.Identifying the Country of Origin of Tin, Tantalum,Tungsten, and Gold . 83.Identifying the Mine of Origin . 114.Determining Whether Minerals Finance Armed Groups . 12Statutory And Regulatory Background . 141.Section 1502 . 142.The Rulemaking Process . 153.a.The Proposed Rule. 15b.The Final Rule . 18The District Court Decision . 21v

USCA Case #13-5252Document #1455974Filed: 09/11/2013Page 8 of 198SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT . 24STANDARD OF REVIEW. 25ARGUMENT . 26I.THE COMMISSION MISINTERPRETED THE STATUTE ANDARBITRARILY REJECTED ALTERNATIVES THAT WOULDHAVE SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED COSTS . 26A.B.II.The Commission Misinterpreted The Statute And ActedArbitrarily In Refusing To Create A De Minimis Exception . 261.The Commission Misinterpreted The Statute As PrecludingA De Minimis Exception . 272.The Commission’s Refusal To Create A De MinimisException Is Arbitrary And Capricious . 30The Commission Misinterpreted the Statute’s “Did Originate”Requirement And Imposed Unnecessary Burdens. 351.The Statute Says “Did Originate,” Not “May HaveOriginated.” . 352.The “May Have Originated” Standard Is Arbitrary AndCapricious, And Imposes Unnecessary Burdens . 39C.The Rule’s Inclusion Of Non-Manufacturers Is Contrary To TheStatute . 41D.The Phase-In Period Is Arbitrary And Capricious . 45E.The Commission’s Decisions Increased The Rule’s Costs WithoutCorresponding Benefits, In Violation Of the Commission’sStatutory Obligation Not To Impose Unnecessary Burdens . 47F.The Commission’s Errors Require Vacatur. 51SECTION 1502 AND THE RULE COMPEL SPEECH INVIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT . 52CONCLUSION. 58vi

USCA Case #13-5252Document #1455974Filed: 09/11/2013Page 9 of 198CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE . 59CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . 60ADDENDUMvii

USCA Case #13-5252Document #1455974Filed: 09/11/2013Page 10 of 198TABLE OF AUTHORITIESPage(s)CASESAdvocates for Highway & Auto Safety v. Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin.,429 F.3d 1136 (D.C. Cir. 2005) . 51Ala. Power Co. v. Costle,636 F.2d 323 (D.C. Cir. 1979) . 28, 33Am. Bar Ass’n v. FTC,430 F.3d 457 (D.C. Cir. 2005) . 29, 43Am. Petrol. Inst. v. SEC,714 F.3d 1329 (D.C. Cir. 2013) . 5Am. Petrol. Inst. v. SEC,No. 12-1668, 2013 WL 3307114 (D.D.C. July 2, 2013) . 28, 33Ass’n of Admin. Law Judges v. FLRA,397 F.3d 957 (D.C. Cir. 2005) . 28Boos v. Barry,485 U.S. 312 (1988) .56Bradford Nat’l Clearing Corp. v. SEC,590 F.2d 1085 (D.C. Cir. 1978) . 47*Bus. Roundtable v. SEC,647 F.3d 1144 (D.C. Cir. 2011) . 26, 46, 50Comcast Corp. v. FCC,579 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2009) . 51, 52Conn. Nat’l Bank v. Germain,503 U.S. 249 (1992) .42*Denotes authorities most relied upon.viii

USCA Case #13-5252Document #1455974Filed: 09/11/2013Page 11 of 198Edenfield v. Fane,507 U.S. 761 (1993) .54Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A.,131 S. Ct. 2060 (2011) .40Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project,130 S. Ct. 2705 (2010) . 55, 56Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,463 U.S. 29 (1983) . 26, 30, 49Nat’l Fuel Gas Supply Corp. v. FERC,468 F.3d 831 (D.C. Cir. 2006) . 29*Nat’l Ass’n of Mfrs. v. NLRB,717 F.3d 947 (2013). 57, 58*Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc. v. Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin.,471 F.3d 1350 (D.C. Cir. 2006) . 43, 44Prill v. NLRB,755 F.2d 941 (D.C. Cir. 1985) . 43Pub. Citizen v. Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin.,374 F.3d 1209 (D.C. Cir. 2004) . 40, 49*R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FDA,696 F.3d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 2012) . 43, 54, 56Rodriguez v. United States,480 U.S. 522 (1987) .50Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc.,547 U.S. 47 (2006) . 52SEC v. Wall Street Publ’g Inst.,851 F.2d 365 (D.C. Cir. 1988) . 54TSC Indus., Inc. v. Northway, Inc.,426 U.S. 438 (1976) . 38, 39, 40Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC,520 U.S. 180 (1997) .54ix

USCA Case #13-5252Document #1455974Filed: 09/11/2013Page 12 of 198United States v. Bean,537 U.S. 71 (2002) . 41, 43Vill. of Barrington, Ill. v. Surface Transp. Bd.,636 F.3d 650 (D.C. Cir. 2011) . 36, 39Yusupov v. Att’y Gen. of U.S.,650 F.3d 968 (3d Cir. 2011) . 55Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio,471 U.S. 626 (1985) .53STATUTES AND REGULATIONSDodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No.111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010) . 3, 4, 12, 13, 475 U.S.C. §706(2)(A)-(C) . 2515 U.S.C. §78c(f) . 4, 4915 U.S.C. §78l(h) . 2815 U.S.C. §78m(p) . 3, 4, 14, 15, 35, 37, 41, 42, 43, 5215 U.S.C. §78mm(a)(1) . 2815 U.S.C. §78w(a)(2) . 4, 23, 26, 47, 4928 U.S.C. §1291. 328 U.S.C. §1331. 277 F.R. 56,274 (Sept. 12, 2012). 3Release No. 34-63547, 2010 WL 5121983 (Dec. 15, 2010) . 15, 31LEGISLATIVE HISTORYThe Costs and Consequences of Dodd-Frank Section 1502: Impacts on America and theCongo: Hearing on Pub. L. 111-203 §1502 Before the H.R. Subcomm. on Int’lMonetary Policy & Trade (May 10, 2012), available /112-124.pdf . 7, 9, 54x

USCA Case #13-5252Document #1455974Filed: 09/11/2013Page 13 of 198The Unintended Consequences of Dodd-Frank’s Conflict Minerals Provision: HearingBefore the H.R. Subcomm. on Monetary Policy and Trade (May 21, 2013), availableat 13-23.pdf . 42156 Cong. Rec. S3103 (daily ed. May 4, 2010) . 42156 Cong. Rec. S3866 (daily ed. May 18, 2010) . 37, 42156 Cong. Rec. S3976 (daily ed. May 19,. 2010) . 37H.R. Rep. No. 111-517 (2010) (Conf. Rep.) . 37OTHER AUTHORITIESBSR, Conflict Minerals and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (2010), available athttp://www.bsr.org/reports/BSR Conflict Minerals and the DRC.pdf . 6CASM, Beyond Conflict 61 (2009), available %20Conflict RCS CASM.pdf. . 16Nicolas Cook, Congressional Research Serv., Conflict Minerals in Central Africa:U.S. and International Responses (July 20, 2012), available 34.pdf . 55Geology.com, Many Uses of Gold, http://geology.com/minerals/gold/uses-ofgold.shtml (last visited Sept. 10, 2013). . 7Gov’t Accountability Office, SEC Conflict Minerals Rule: Information on ResponsibleSourcing and Companies Affected (July 2013), available athttp://www.gao.gov/assets/660/655972.pdf . 8, 11, 13, 14, 17ITIA Newsletter, A Family’s Day With Tungsten (Dec. 2007), available athttp://www.itia.info/assets/files/Newsletter 2007 12.pdf. . 6OECD, Downstream Implementation of the OECD Due Diligence Guidance forResponsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas(Jan. 2013), available otJan2013.pdf . 6, 11, 14Oxford English Dictionary (2013) . 38Suzan Salman, A Clinical Study Evaluating the Effect of 0.4% Stannous Fluoride Gel inControlling Plaque and Gingivitis, 23 J. Baghdad College Dentistry 97 (2011) . 7xi

USCA Case #13-5252Document #1455974Filed: 09/11/2013Page 14 of 198U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries (2012) . 8World Bank, Growth with Governance in the Mining Sector ernance-mineral-sector-project . 16World Gold Council, Gold for Good: Gold and Nanotechnology in the Age of Innovation(Jan. 2010), available athttp://www.gold.org/download/rs archive/gold and nanotechnology inthe age of innovation.pdf. 7World Gold Council, Technology, http://www.gold.org/technology/ (access“Gold’s Role” hyperlink) (last visited Sept. 10, 2013) . 7xii

USCA Case #13-5252Document #1455974Filed: 09/11/2013Page 15 of 198GLOSSARYAPAAdministrative Procedure ActBRTBusiness RoundtableChamberChamber of Commerce of the United States of AmericaDRCDemocratic Republic of the CongoGAOGovernment Accountability OfficeNAMNational Association of ManufacturersOECDOrganisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopmentSECSecurities and Exchange Commissionxiii

USCA Case #13-5252Document #1455974Filed: 09/11/2013Page 16 of 198INTRODUCTIONThe Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) “conflict minerals” rulewas motivated by good intentions—to reduce funding to armed groups and help endthe terrible conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). But as thedissenting Commissioners observed, good intentions are no substitute for rigorousanalysis, and the Commission’s analysis was woefully inadequate. The Commissionmisinterpreted and misapplied the statute in four fundamental respects: refusing tocreate a de minimis exception, requiring companies to undertake onerous due diligenceand file reports whenever their minerals “may have originated” in the DRC,expanding the rule’s scope to non-manufacturers, and providing for an irrationaltransition period.In making these decisions, the Commission arbitrarily rejected alternatives thatwould have greatly reduced the rule’s astronomical costs. Indeed, this is one of thecostliest rules in SEC history by the SEC’s own calculations, imposing burdens onAmerican businesses of 3 to 4 billion for initial compliance, plus 200 to 600million annually thereafter. Yet the Commission admitted it had no idea whether therule would provide any benefits to the people of the DRC, and a number ofcommenters provided evidence that the rule would unintentionally make thehumanitarian situation worse by giving rise to a de facto embargo that would furtherimpoverish and destabilize the region.

USCA Case #13-5252Document #1455974Filed: 09/11/2013Page 17 of 198The SEC nonetheless contends, and the district court held, that theCommission did not need to evaluate whether the challenged aspects of the rule willfurther the statute’s purpose, simply because Congress directed the agency to create arule. At the same time, the SEC insists that the challenged aspects of the rule arediscretionary agency decisions warranting Chevron deference, and the district courtaccepted that argument as well. But these positions are irreconcilable; the SECcannot have it both ways.Furthermore, neither argument is defensible. First, Congress did not mandatethe challenged aspects of the rule, and the SEC’s conclusions to the contrarymisinterpret the statute. Second, the agency’s decisions were arbitrary and capricious,and in violation of its heightened obligations under the Securities Exchange Act of1934, because they greatly multiplied the rule’s unprecedented burdens without ashowing of any benefits to the Congolese people, and were otherwise irrational andunsupported.In addition, the rule and its authorizing statute violate the First Amendment bycompelling companies to indicate publicly on their websites that their productscontribute to human rights abuses in the DRC—a statement, for most companies, asunfounded as it is politically charged.JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENTThe district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331. On July 23,2013, it denied Appellants’ motion for summary judgment and granted Appellee’s and2

USCA Case #13-5252Document #1455974Filed: 09/11/2013Page 18 of 198Intervenor-Appellees’ cross-motions, finally disposing of the case. Appellants filed anotice of appeal on August 12, 2013. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.§1291.STATUTES AND REGULATIONSSection 1502 of Pub. L. No. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376, 2213-18 (2010), 15 U.S.C.§78m(p) (Section 1502), and 77 F.R. 56,274 (Sept. 12, 2012) are reproduced in theAddendum.STATEMENT OF ISSUES1.Whether the Commission erroneously concluded it lacked authority toadopt a de minimis exception, and whether its refusal to adopt such an exception isarbitrary and capricious.2.Whether the Commission’s interpretation of “did originate” in 15U.S.C. §78m(p)(1)(A) to mean “may have originated” is erroneous or arbitrary andcapricious.3.Whether the Commission’s interpretation of 15 U.S.C. §78m(p)(2)(B) asincluding non-manufacturers who contract for the manufacture of products iserroneous or arbitrary and capricious.4.Whether providing a shorter transition period for larger companies isarbitrary and capricious, when larger companies will have to depend on smallercompanies to comply with the rule.3

USCA Case #13-52525.Document #1455974Filed: 09/11/2013Page 19 of 198Whether the Commission violated its duty under 15 U.S.C. §78w(a)(2)and 15 U.S.C. §78c(f) to conduct an adequate analysis of the impact of its rule.6.Whether 15 U.S.C. §78m(p) and the rule compel speech in violation ofthe First Amendment.STATEMENT OF THE CASEIn 2010, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and ConsumerProtection Act. One provision, Section 1502, is directed at the issue of “conflictminerals”—tin, tantalum, tungsten, and gold. See §1502(a) (stating that “theexploitation and trade of conflict minerals originating in the Democratic Republic ofthe Congo is helping to finance conflict characterized by extreme levels of violence inthe eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, particularly sexual- and gender-basedviolence, and contributing to an emergency humanitarian situation”). The provisiondoes not directly restrict use of these minerals. Instead, it requires the SEC to issue arule requiring companies to submit reports and make public disclosures regardingtheir sourcing of these minerals.On August 22, 2012, by a 3-2 vote, the Commission adopted a final rule.JA719-810. The rule requires companies to determine whether any quantity of theminerals—even a “trace” amount—is “necessary to the functionality or production”of a product they manufacture or “contract to manufacture.” JA724, JA742. If so,the companies must conduct a “reasonable country of origin inquiry” to determinewhether there is reason to believe the minerals “may have originated” in the DRC or4

USCA Case #13-5252Document #1455974Filed: 09/11/2013Page 20 of 198one of nine adjoining countries, comprising most of central Africa (DRC region).JA758.If a company has reason to believe its minerals “may have originated” in thecovered countries, it must conduct “due diligence” on the minerals’ source, determinewhether the minerals may have directly or indirectly financed armed groups in theDRC region, obtain a private sector audit, and file a “Conflict Minerals Report” thatdescribes its due diligence and which of its products were not “found to be DRCconflict free.” JA726, JA758.The rule was published on September 12, 2012, and became effective onNovember 13, 2012. JA719. On October 19, 2012, Appellants petitioned this Courtfor review. After the Court held in American Petroleum Institute v. SEC, 714 F.3d 1329(D.C. Cir. 2013), that it lacked jurisdiction over such petitions, it transferred the caseto the district court at Appellants’ request. On July 23, 2013, the district court deniedAppellants’ motion for summary judgment and granted Appellees’ cross-motions forsummary judgment.STATEMENT OF FACTSA.Factual Background1.Uses of Tin, Tantalum, Tungsten, and GoldTin, tantalum, tungsten, and gold are commonly used in a multitude ofproducts, including “everyday goods like tin cans, light bulbs, ballpoint pens, andsewing thread.” JA704. A few examples illustrate their pervasive presence:5

USCA Case #13-5252Document #1455974Filed: 09/11/2013Page 21 of 198 Tin is found in solders, plastics, coatings for food cans, eyeglasses, watches,sports and fitness equipment, metallicized yarns, electrical products such astoys, phones, computers, audio equipment, GPS devices, and appliances, andautomotive parts such as brake pads. OECD, Downstream Implementation of theOECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from ConflictAffected and High-Risk Areas 11 (Jan. 2013) (OECD Report); BSR, Conflict Mineralsand the Democratic Republic of Congo 6 (2010) (BSR Report),http://www.bsr.org/reports/BSR Conflict Minerals and the DRC.pdf. Tantalum is present in superalloys for jet and power plant turbines, cuttingtools, BSR Report 6, camera lenses, corrosion-resistant equipment for chemicalprocessing, medical devices and implants, automotive parts such as airbags andskid control, and electronics such as cell phones and computers, OECD Report11. Tungsten is used in aerospace components, lighting, electronics, BSR Report 7,jewelry, decorative crafts, power tools, lawn mowers, OECD Report 12, windowheating systems, X-Ray machines, dental drills, golf clubs, darts, and remotecontrol racing cars, ITIA Newsletter, A Family’s Day With Tungsten 3-11 (Dec.2007), http://www.itia.info/assets/files/Newsletter 2007 12.pdf. Gold is used in jewelry, electronics, medical equipment, aerospace equipment,BSR Report 8, anti-lock brakes, airbag-inflating sensors,6

USCA Case #13-5252Document #1455974Filed: 09/11/2013Page 22 of 198http://www.gold.org/tec

1615 H St., NW Washington, DC 20062 202.463.5337 Counsel for Appellant the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America Of Counsel: Quentin Riegel National Association of Manufacturers 733 10th St., NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20001 202.637.3000 Counsel for Appellant the National Association of Manufacturers Of Counsel: Maria Ghazal

Related Documents:

series b, 580c. case farm tractor manuals - tractor repair, service and case 530 ck backhoe & loader only case 530 ck, case 530 forklift attachment only, const king case 531 ag case 535 ag case 540 case 540 ag case 540, 540c ag case 540c ag case 541 case 541 ag case 541c ag case 545 ag case 570 case 570 ag case 570 agas, case

Jain, Rakesh K, MD 7101 Jahnke Rd, Suite 550 Richmond VA 23225 804-560-8880 CMG-Stroobants Cardiovascular Center Anderson, Justin D, MD 2410 Atherholt Rd Lynchburg VA 24501 434-200-5252 Babburi, Haritha, MD 2410 Atherholt Rd Lynchburg VA 24501 434-200-5252 Bonyak, Edward, MD 2410 Atherholt Rd

case 721e z bar 132,5 r10 r10 - - case 721 bxt 133,2 r10 r10 - - case 721 cxt 136,5 r10 r10 - - case 721 f xr tier 3 138,8 r10 r10 - - case 721 f xr tier 4 138,8 r10 r10 - - case 721 f xr interim tier 4 138,9 r10 r10 - - case 721 f tier 4 139,5 r10 r10 - - case 721 f tier 3 139,6 r10 r10 - - case 721 d 139,8 r10 r10 - - case 721 e 139,8 r10 r10 - - case 721 f wh xr 145,6 r10 r10 - - case 821 b .

12oz Container Dome Dimensions 4.5 x 4.5 x 2 Case Pack 960 Case Weight 27.44 Case Cube 3.21 YY4S18Y 16oz Container Dome Dimensions 4.5 x 4.5 x 3 Case Pack 480 Case Weight 18.55 Case Cube 1.88 YY4S24 24oz Container Dome Dimensions 4.5 x 4.5 x 4.17 Case Pack 480 Case Weight 26.34 Case Cube 2.10 YY4S32 32oz Container Dome Dimensions 4.5 x 4.5 x 4.18 Case Pack 480 Case Weight 28.42 Case Cube 2.48 YY4S36

Case 4: Major Magazine Publisher 56 61 63 Case 5: Tulsa Hotel - OK or not OK? Case 6: The Coffee Grind Case 7: FoodCo Case 8: Candy Manufacturing 68 74 81 85 Case 9: Chickflix.com Case 10: Skedasky Farms Case 11: University Apartments 93 103 108 Case 12: Vidi-Games Case 13: Big School Bus Company Case 14: American Beauty Company 112 118

Eger’s petition does not address these legal standards and does not come close to meeting the rigorous requirements justifying the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. The petition focuses primarily on the fact that the Commission has not yet acted on Eger’s August 2015 ap

CDMA Development Group, Inc. Center for Democracy & Technology Center for Individual Freedom USCA Case #11-1355 Document #1381604 Filed: 07/02/2012 Page 5 of 116. iv Center for Media Justice, Consumers Union, Media Access

These have been graded as Very Easy (Level 1), Easy (Level 2), and Standard (Level 3). Penguin Readers/Pearson English Readers Penguin Readers and Pearson English Readers have a large selection of genres across 7 levels – Easystart to Level 6. CDs are included with some titles. Level Headwords CEFR Easystart 200 A1 Level 1 300 A1