R.O. White & Company and Ceres Marine Terminals Inc. V. Port of Miami Terminal Operating Company, Continental Stevedoring & Terminals, Inc. et al.; Notice of Filing of Complaint and Assignment, 70965-70966 [E6-20757]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 2006 / Notices public comment period. Reviews were requested from three scientists and managers with expertise in recovery planning, statistical analyses, fisheries, and marine mammals. NMFS anticipates that many of the recommendations that will be made by the reviewers will be addressed and provided in detail in the final Plan. Dated: December 1, 2006. Angela Somma, Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6–20712 Filed 12–6–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 110306B] Small Coastal Shark 2007 Stock Assessment Data Workshop sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: NMFS announces the date, time, and location for the small coastal shark (SCS) stock assessment Data Workshop, the first of three stock evaluation workshops for the SCS stock assessment to be conducted in 2007. Any potential changes to existing management measures for SCS will be based, in large part, on the results of this 2007 stock assessment. The workshop is open to the public. DATES: The Data Workshop will start at 1 p.m. on Monday, February 5, 2007, and will conclude at 1 p.m. on Friday, February 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: The Data Workshop will be held at the Bay Point Marriott Resort, 4200 Marriott Drive, Panama City Beach, FL 32408. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Neer at (850) 234–6541; or Karyl Brewster-Geisz at (301) 713–2347, fax (301) 713–1917. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Atlantic shark fisheries are managed under the authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The Consolidated Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) (October 2, 2006; 71 FR 58058) is implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 635. Stock assessments are periodically conducted to determine stock status relative to current management criteria. VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:48 Dec 06, 2006 Jkt 211001 Collection of the best available scientific data and conducting stock assessments are critical to determine appropriate management measures for rebuilding stocks. Based on the last SCS stock assessment in 2002, NMFS determined that the SCS complex and three of the species in that complex are not overfished with no overfishing occurring. The only exception was for finetooth sharks, where fishing mortality in some years was above the mortality level associated with producing maximum sustainable yield (MSY). Any potential changes to existing management measures for SCS will be based, in large part, on the results of this 2007 stock assessment. This assessment will be conducted in a manner similar to the Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) process. SEDAR is a cooperative process initiated in 2002 to improve the quality and reliability of fishery stock assessments in the South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. Caribbean. SEDAR emphasizes constituent and stakeholder participation in assessment development, transparency in the assessment process, and a rigorous and independent scientific review of completed stock assessments. SEDAR is organized around three workshops. The first is a Data Workshop where datasets are documented, analyzed, and reviewed, and data for conducting assessment analyses are compiled. The second workshop is an Assessment Workshop where quantitative population analyses are developed and refined and population parameters are estimated. The third and final workshop is a Review Workshop where a panel of independent experts review the data and assessment and recommend the most appropriate values of critical population and management quantities. All workshops are open to the public. More information on the SEDAR process can be found at https:// WWW.SEFSC.NOAA.GOV/SEDAR/. The 2005/ 2006 large coastal shark stock assessment also followed this process. NMFS announces the Data Workshop, the first of three workshops for the SCS 2007 stock assessment. The Data Workshop will be held from February 5 - 9, 2007, at the Bay Point Marriott Resort in Panama City Beach, FL (see DATES and ADDRESSES). Prospective participants and observers will be contacted with the data workshop details. This workshop is open to the public. Persons interested in participating or observing the Data Workshop should contact Julie Neer (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Tentative dates for the next two workshops are May 7 - 11, 2007, for the PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 70965 Assessment Workshop and August 6 10, 2007, for the Review Workshop. The times and locations of these workshops will be announced in a future Federal Register notice. Special Accommodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Julie Neer at (850) 234–6541, at least 7 days prior to the Data workshop. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. Dated: November 29, 2006. Alan D. Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6–20723 Filed 12–6–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–S FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Sunshine Act Notices Cancellation of previously announced meetings: Wednesday, December 5, 2006, meeting closed to the public and Thursday, December 7, 2006, meeting open to the public. DATE AND TIME: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 at 10 a.m. PLACE: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC. STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public. ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED: Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g. Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g, 438(b), and title 26, U.S.C. Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration. Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a particular employee. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Biersack, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694–1220. Mary W. Dove, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. 06–9614 Filed 12–5–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6715–01–M FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION [Docket No. 06–11] R.O. White & Company and Ceres Marine Terminals Inc. V. Port of Miami Terminal Operating Company, Continental Stevedoring & Terminals, Inc. et al.; Notice of Filing of Complaint and Assignment Notice is given that a complaint has been filed with the Federal Maritime E:\FR\FM\07DEN1.SGM 07DEN1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES 70966 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 2006 / Notices Commission (‘‘Commission’’) by R.O. White & Company, Inc. and Ceres Marine Terminals, Inc. (‘‘Complainants’’), against the Port of Miami Terminal Operating Company, L.L.C. (‘‘POMTOC’’); Continental Stevedoring & Terminals, Inc.; Florida Stevedoring, Inc.; P&O Ports North America, Inc.; P&O Ports Florida, Inc.; Eller-Ito Stevedoring Company, L.L.C.; and Dante B. Fascell Port of Miami– Dade, aka Miami–Dade County Seaport Department (‘‘Respondents’’). Complainants assert that Ceres Marine Terminals, Inc. performs stevedoring and/or marine terminal services at numerous ports in the United States and Canada, and R.O. White & Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Ceres who holds a permit issued by Respondent Miami–Dade County Seaport Department (‘‘The Port’’) to perform stevedoring services at the Port. Complainants assert that all of the Respondents are marine terminal operators as defined in Section 3(14) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (‘‘The Act’’), 46 U.S.C. 40102(14). Complainants contend that Respondents have violated the Shipping Act in several ways. First, they contend that Respondents, who are parties to FMC Agreement No. 224–200616, have violated sections 5(a), 10(a)(2), and 10(a)(3) of the Act (46 U.S.C. 40302(a), 41102(b)(1) and (b)(2)) by: ‘‘failing to file their actual agreements; operating pursuant to agreements that were required to be filed, but not filed; operating outside and/or contrary to the terms of their filed agreement; and collectively agreeing to refuse R.O. White permission to perform stevedoring services at POMTOC facilities.’’ (Complaint at 11–12). Second, Complainants assert that POMTOC and/or its members 1 have violated sections 10(b)(10), 10(d)(1), 10(d)(3), and 10(d)(4) of the Act (46 U.S.C. 41104(10), 41102(c), 41106(3) and 41106(2)) by: Using POMTOC as a device to exclude competition for stevedoring services; precluding ocean common carriers from using R.O. White as their stevedore; refusing to allow R.O. White to use its Port-granted license to perform stevedoring services at POMTOC; requiring common carriers to use only POMTOC members for stevedoring services; and ‘‘denying R.O. White access to POMTOC while allowing access to other entities for the same or similar purposes.’’ (Complaint at 12). Third, Complainants assert that the Port violated sections 10(b)(10), 10(d)(1), 10(d)(3), and 10(d)(4) of the 1 POMTOC is a marine terminal services provider that was formed by four of the Respondents. VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:29 Dec 06, 2006 Jkt 211001 Act (46 U.S.C. 41104(10), 41102(c), 41106(3) and 41106(2)) by: ‘‘failing to prevent other Respondents from engaging in the unlawful conduct alleged in Counts I and II above; failing to ensure access by qualified stevedores to the only public, multi-user cargo terminal at the Port’’; (Complaint at 13) and failing to re-evaluate the current process and competitive structure for providing stevedore services at the Port. Complainants pray that the Commission require Respondents to answer to the charges, order Respondents to cease and desist the aforesaid violations, establish and put in force such practices and policies as the Commission determines to be lawful and reasonable; require Respondents to pay reparations to Complainants for the unlawful conduct including interest and attorney’s fees, and to make any further order or orders the Commission determines to be proper. This proceeding has been assigned to the Office of Administrative Law Judges. Hearing in this matter, if any is held, shall commence within the time limitations prescribed in 46 CFR 502.61, and only after consideration has been given by the parties and the presiding officer to the use of alternative forms of dispute resolution. The hearing shall include oral testimony and crossexamination in the discretion of the presiding officer only upon proper showing that there are genuine issues of material fact that cannot be resolved on the basis of sworn statements, affidavits, depositions, or other documents or that the nature of the matter in issue is such that an oral hearing and crossexamination are necessary for the development of an adequate record. Pursuant to the further terms of 46 CFR 502.61, the initial decision of the presiding officer in this proceeding shall be issued by November 30, 2007, and the final decision of the Commission shall be issued by March 10, 2008. By the Commission. Bryant L. VanBrakle, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6–20757 Filed 12–6–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730–01–P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Findings of Research Misconduct AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 and the Assistant Secretary for Health have taken final action in the following case: Jennifer Blaisdell, University of Pennsylvania and Retinal Consultants of Arizona, Ltd.: Based on the report of an investigation conducted by the University of Pennsylvania (UP) and additional analysis conducted by ORI in its oversight review, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) found that Ms. Jennifer Blaisdell, former Clinical Coordinator for Retinal Consultants of Arizona, Ltd. (RCA), committed research misconduct in a study sponsored by two cooperative agreements funded by the National Eye Institute (NEI), National Institutes of Health (NIH): U10 EY012261, ‘‘Agerelated Macular Degeneration Prevention Trial,’’ Dr. Stuart Fine, Principal Investigator (P.I.), and U10 EY012279, ‘‘Coordinating Center for AMD, Complications of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Prevention Trial’’ (CAPT), Dr. Maureen McGuire, P.I. Specifically, PHS found that Ms. Blaisdell knowingly and intentionally committed research misconduct by: 1. Fabricating a CAPT data form dated 5/29/02 reporting a 30-month telephone follow-up visit with patient 01–026; this patient died on 5/3/02; 2. Fabricating a CAPT data form dated 2/20/03 reporting a 43-month telephone follow-up visit with patient 01–019; this patient died on 2/10/03; 3. Falsifying a CAPT data form dated 2/13/01 reporting a visit to the clinic on that date for patient 01–049; this patient’s visit was 2/20/01; 4. Falsifying the CAPT form for patient 01–055 dated 4/11/01, when no clinic visit took place, by substituting information purportedly obtained at a non-study visit on 2/28/01. Ms. Blaisdell has entered into a Voluntary Exclusion Agreement in which she has voluntarily agreed, for a period of two (2) years, beginning on November 14, 2006: (1) To exclude herself from serving in any advisory capacity to PHS, including but not limited to service on any PHS advisory committee, board, and/or peer review committee, or as a consultant; and (2) That any institution that submits an application for PHS support for a research project on which Ms. Blaisdell’s participation is proposed or which uses her in any capacity on PHS supported research, or that submits a report of PHS-funded research in which she is involved, must concurrently submit a plan for supervision of Ms. Blaisdell’s duties to the funding agency for approval. The supervisory plan must be designed to ensure the scientific E:\FR\FM\07DEN1.SGM 07DEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 235 (Thursday, December 7, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70965-70966]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-20757]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

[Docket No. 06-11]


R.O. White & Company and Ceres Marine Terminals Inc. V. Port of 
Miami Terminal Operating Company, Continental Stevedoring & Terminals, 
Inc. et al.; Notice of Filing of Complaint and Assignment

    Notice is given that a complaint has been filed with the Federal 
Maritime

[[Page 70966]]

Commission (``Commission'') by R.O. White & Company, Inc. and Ceres 
Marine Terminals, Inc. (``Complainants''), against the Port of Miami 
Terminal Operating Company, L.L.C. (``POMTOC''); Continental 
Stevedoring & Terminals, Inc.; Florida Stevedoring, Inc.; P&O Ports 
North America, Inc.; P&O Ports Florida, Inc.; Eller-Ito Stevedoring 
Company, L.L.C.; and Dante B. Fascell Port of Miami-Dade, aka Miami-
Dade County Seaport Department (``Respondents''). Complainants assert 
that Ceres Marine Terminals, Inc. performs stevedoring and/or marine 
terminal services at numerous ports in the United States and Canada, 
and R.O. White & Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Ceres who 
holds a permit issued by Respondent Miami-Dade County Seaport 
Department (``The Port'') to perform stevedoring services at the Port. 
Complainants assert that all of the Respondents are marine terminal 
operators as defined in Section 3(14) of the Shipping Act of 1984 
(``The Act''), 46 U.S.C. 40102(14).
    Complainants contend that Respondents have violated the Shipping 
Act in several ways. First, they contend that Respondents, who are 
parties to FMC Agreement No. 224-200616, have violated sections 5(a), 
10(a)(2), and 10(a)(3) of the Act (46 U.S.C. 40302(a), 41102(b)(1) and 
(b)(2)) by: ``failing to file their actual agreements; operating 
pursuant to agreements that were required to be filed, but not filed; 
operating outside and/or contrary to the terms of their filed 
agreement; and collectively agreeing to refuse R.O. White permission to 
perform stevedoring services at POMTOC facilities.'' (Complaint at 11-
12). Second, Complainants assert that POMTOC and/or its members \1\ 
have violated sections 10(b)(10), 10(d)(1), 10(d)(3), and 10(d)(4) of 
the Act (46 U.S.C. 41104(10), 41102(c), 41106(3) and 41106(2)) by: 
Using POMTOC as a device to exclude competition for stevedoring 
services; precluding ocean common carriers from using R.O. White as 
their stevedore; refusing to allow R.O. White to use its Port-granted 
license to perform stevedoring services at POMTOC; requiring common 
carriers to use only POMTOC members for stevedoring services; and 
``denying R.O. White access to POMTOC while allowing access to other 
entities for the same or similar purposes.'' (Complaint at 12). Third, 
Complainants assert that the Port violated sections 10(b)(10), 
10(d)(1), 10(d)(3), and 10(d)(4) of the Act (46 U.S.C. 41104(10), 
41102(c), 41106(3) and 41106(2)) by: ``failing to prevent other 
Respondents from engaging in the unlawful conduct alleged in Counts I 
and II above; failing to ensure access by qualified stevedores to the 
only public, multi-user cargo terminal at the Port''; (Complaint at 13) 
and failing to re-evaluate the current process and competitive 
structure for providing stevedore services at the Port. Complainants 
pray that the Commission require Respondents to answer to the charges, 
order Respondents to cease and desist the aforesaid violations, 
establish and put in force such practices and policies as the 
Commission determines to be lawful and reasonable; require Respondents 
to pay reparations to Complainants for the unlawful conduct including 
interest and attorney's fees, and to make any further order or orders 
the Commission determines to be proper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ POMTOC is a marine terminal services provider that was 
formed by four of the Respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proceeding has been assigned to the Office of Administrative 
Law Judges. Hearing in this matter, if any is held, shall commence 
within the time limitations prescribed in 46 CFR 502.61, and only after 
consideration has been given by the parties and the presiding officer 
to the use of alternative forms of dispute resolution. The hearing 
shall include oral testimony and cross-examination in the discretion of 
the presiding officer only upon proper showing that there are genuine 
issues of material fact that cannot be resolved on the basis of sworn 
statements, affidavits, depositions, or other documents or that the 
nature of the matter in issue is such that an oral hearing and cross-
examination are necessary for the development of an adequate record. 
Pursuant to the further terms of 46 CFR 502.61, the initial decision of 
the presiding officer in this proceeding shall be issued by November 
30, 2007, and the final decision of the Commission shall be issued by 
March 10, 2008.

    By the Commission.
Bryant L. VanBrakle,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-20757 Filed 12-6-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P