Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree, 63202-63203 [2010-25876]

Download as PDF jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 63202 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Notices Commission determined not to review an ID (Order No. 13) terminating the investigation as to respondent InkPlusToner based upon a settlement agreement. On June 7, 2010, the Commission determined not to review an ID (Order No. 14) terminating the investigation as to respondent SmartOne based upon a settlement agreement. On June 3, 2010, the Commission determined not to review an ID (Order No. 17) terminating the investigation as to the ’985 patent and the ’630 patent. On June 17, 2010, HP filed an unopposed motion pursuant to Commission Rule 210.21(a) to withdraw all allegations related to claims 7 and 10 of the ’687 patent and claims 2 and 3 of the ’301 patent from the complaint, and to terminate the investigation with respect to those claims. On May 7, 2010, HP moved for summary determination on the issues of domestic industry, importation, and violation of section 337. Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.16(c)(2), 19 CFR 216(c)(2), HP also stated that it was seeking a general exclusion order and a cease and desist order against Mextec. On June 2, 2010, the Commission investigative attorney submitted a response in support of a finding that a domestic industry exists and that the defaulting respondents, Mipo International, Mextec, Shanghai Angel, Shenzhen Print Media, Zhuhai National, Tatrix, and Ourway have violated section 337 by infringing claims 6 and 9 of the ’687 patent and claims 1, 5, and 6 of the ’301 patent. On August 30, 2010, the presiding administrative law judge issued the subject ID, Order No. 18, granting: (1) HP’s motion to terminate the investigation as to claims 7 and 10 of the ’687 patent and claims 2 and 3 of the ’301 patent, and (2) HP’s motion for summary determination of violation of section 337 with respect to the defaulting respondents. He also recommended a general exclusion order, a cease and desist order directed to domestic respondent Mextec, and a 100 percent bond to permit importation during the period of Presidential review. No petitions for review were filed. The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID. 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. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:30 Oct 13, 2010 Jkt 223001 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 In the Matter of Certain Devices for Connecting Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360, USITC Pub. No. 2843 (December 1994) (Commission Opinion). If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders would have on (1) The public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this investigation. If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve or disapprove the Commission’s action. See Presidential Memorandum of July 21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). During this period, the subject articles would be entitled to enter the United States under bond, in an amount determined by the Commission. 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, interested government agencies, and any other interested parties 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. Complainants and the IA are also requested to submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission’s consideration. Complainants are also requested to state the dates that the patents expire and the HTSUS numbers under which the accused products are imported. The written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than close of business on Thursday, October 28, 2010. Reply submissions PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 must be filed no later than the close of business on Thursday, November 4, 2010. No further submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission. Persons filing written submissions must file the original document and 12 true copies thereof on or before the deadlines stated above with the Office of the Secretary. Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment unless the information has already been granted such treatment during the proceedings. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary of the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 210.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is sought will be treated accordingly. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary. 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 and 210.50 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42–46 and 210.50). By order of the Commission. Issued: October 7, 2010. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2010–25812 Filed 10–13–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Notice is hereby given that on September 23, 2010, an electronic version of a proposed Consent Decree was lodged in the United States District Court for District of Arizona in United States v. CalPortland Company, No. 4:10–CV–00573–DCB. The Consent Decree settles the United States’ claims for civil penalties and injunctive relief against CalPortland Company (‘‘CPC’’) based on violations of the Clean Air Act (the ‘‘Act’’), 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., and the Air Implementation Plan for the State of Arizona approved by EPA pursuant to the Act, in connection with modifications to CPC’s cement manufacturing plant in Rillito, Arizona (the ‘‘Facility’’). Under the terms of the proposed Consent Decree, CPC will pay a civil penalty of $350,000 and will perform injunctive relief. The proposed decree sets forth two compliance options for E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM 14OCN1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Notices CPC and requires CPC to inform EPA of its choice of compliance option within 30 days from the effective date of the decree. Under Option 1, CPC will construct a new Kiln 6 as authorized by an Arizona Department of Environmental Quality permit within a 42-month time period and permanently shut down kilns 1–4 within six months of commencing operation of Kiln 6. Under Option 2, CPC will continue to operate Kilns 1 through 4 but will install Particulate Matter controls (enclosures, spraybars and upgrades to existing baghouses) and accept more stringent limits than those already in the permit on equipment previously modified. Option 2 requires stricter opacity standards for some limestone storage piles, mill feed hoppers, and mill rejects bins. Option 2 also imposes lower emission limits on various baghouses and dust collectors and requires the installation of a bag leak detection system. Option 2 also requires CPC to install software to optimize the operation of the existing kilns, which EPA expects will lead to reduced fuel use and reduced combustion emissions. The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either e-mailed to pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov or mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044–7611, and should refer to United States v. CalPortland Company, No. 4:10–CV–00573–DCB and DOJ No. 90– 5–2–1–08306. The Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona, 405 W. Congress Street, Suite 4800, Tucson, AZ 85701–5040. During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site: https:// www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the Consent Decree may also be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044–7611, or by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia Fleetwood, tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov, Fax No. (202) 514–0097, phone confirmation number (202) 514–1547. In requesting a copy from the Consent Decree Library, please enclose a check in the amount of $11.25 (25 cents per VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:30 Oct 13, 2010 Jkt 223001 page reproduction cost) payable to the U.S. Treasury. Maureen Katz, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division. [FR Doc. 2010–25876 Filed 10–13–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–15–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application Pursuant to § 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on January 28, 2010, PCAS–Nanosyn, LLC, 3331–B Industrial Drive, Santa Rosa, California 95403, made application to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedule II: Drug Schedule Amphetamine (1100) .................... Methamphetamine (1105) ............ Methylphenidate (1724) ................ Phencyclidine (7471) .................... Codeine (9050) ............................. Diprenorphine (9058) ................... Oxycodone (9143) ........................ Hydromorphone (9150) ................ Hydrocodone (9193) ..................... Methadone (9250) ........................ Morphine (9300) ........................... Oxymorphone (9652) ................... Fentanyl (9801) ............................ II II II II II II II II II II II II II The company is a contract manufacturer. At the request of the company’s customers, it manufactures derivatives of controlled substances in bulk form only. The primary service provided by the company to its customers is the development of the process of manufacturing the derivative. As part of its service to its customers, the company distributes the derivatives of the controlled substances it manufactures to those customers. The company’s customers use the newlycreated processes and the manufactured derivatives in furtherance of formulation processes and dosage form manufacturing; pre-clinical studies, including toxicological studies; clinical studies supporting investigational Drug Applications; and use in stability studies. Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such substances, may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR § 1301.33(a). PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 63203 Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no later than December 13, 2010. Dated: October 6, 2010. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration. [FR Doc. 2010–25849 Filed 10–13–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–09–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration [Docket No. OSHA–2010–0044] Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH); Notice of Reestablishment of Charter Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor. ACTION: Notice of reestablishment of the ACCSH Charter. AGENCY: The Secretary of Labor has reestablished the Charter of the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH) for two years. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Francis Dougherty, Office of Construction Services, Directorate of Construction, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N–3468, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693–2020 (TTY (877) 889–5627). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2), and its implementing regulations (41 CFR 102–3 et seq.), the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) is reestablishing the ACCSH Charter for two years. The Charter will be dated, signed, and filed on October 29, 2010 and will expire two years from the date filed. ACCSH is a continuing advisory committee established under Section 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (Construction Safety Act (CSA))(40 U.S.C. 3704(d)(4)), to advise the Secretary and the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health in the formulation of construction safety and health standards as well as on policy matters arising under the CSA and the Occupational SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM 14OCN1

Agencies

Department of Justice

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 198 (Thursday, October 14, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63202-63203]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25876]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree

    Notice is hereby given that on September 23, 2010, an electronic 
version of a proposed Consent Decree was lodged in the United States 
District Court for District of Arizona in United States v. CalPortland 
Company, No. 4:10-CV-00573-DCB. The Consent Decree settles the United 
States' claims for civil penalties and injunctive relief against 
CalPortland Company (``CPC'') based on violations of the Clean Air Act 
(the ``Act''), 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., and the Air Implementation Plan 
for the State of Arizona approved by EPA pursuant to the Act, in 
connection with modifications to CPC's cement manufacturing plant in 
Rillito, Arizona (the ``Facility'').
    Under the terms of the proposed Consent Decree, CPC will pay a 
civil penalty of $350,000 and will perform injunctive relief. The 
proposed decree sets forth two compliance options for

[[Page 63203]]

CPC and requires CPC to inform EPA of its choice of compliance option 
within 30 days from the effective date of the decree.
    Under Option 1, CPC will construct a new Kiln 6 as authorized by an 
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality permit within a 42-month 
time period and permanently shut down kilns 1-4 within six months of 
commencing operation of Kiln 6.
    Under Option 2, CPC will continue to operate Kilns 1 through 4 but 
will install Particulate Matter controls (enclosures, spraybars and 
upgrades to existing baghouses) and accept more stringent limits than 
those already in the permit on equipment previously modified. Option 2 
requires stricter opacity standards for some limestone storage piles, 
mill feed hoppers, and mill rejects bins. Option 2 also imposes lower 
emission limits on various baghouses and dust collectors and requires 
the installation of a bag leak detection system.
    Option 2 also requires CPC to install software to optimize the 
operation of the existing kilns, which EPA expects will lead to reduced 
fuel use and reduced combustion emissions.
    The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication comments relating to the 
proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant 
Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and 
either e-mailed to pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov or mailed to P.O. Box 
7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should 
refer to United States v. CalPortland Company, No. 4:10-CV-00573-DCB 
and DOJ No. 90-5-2-1-08306.
    The Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United 
States Attorney for the District of Arizona, 405 W. Congress Street, 
Suite 4800, Tucson, AZ 85701-5040. During the public comment period, 
the Consent Decree may also be examined on the following Department of 
Justice Web site: https://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html. A 
copy of the Consent Decree may also be obtained by mail from the 
Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, 
Washington, DC 20044-7611, or by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia 
Fleetwood, tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov, Fax No. (202) 514-0097, phone 
confirmation number (202) 514-1547. In requesting a copy from the 
Consent Decree Library, please enclose a check in the amount of $11.25 
(25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the U.S. Treasury.

Maureen Katz,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment 
and Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 2010-25876 Filed 10-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.