Notice of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Air Act, 17671-17672 [2011-7399]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2011 / Notices
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Megan M. Valentine, Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
708–2301. Copies of non-confidential
documents filed in connection with this
investigation are or will be available for
inspection during official business
hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the
Office of the Secretary, U.S.
International Trade Commission, 500 E
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436,
telephone (202) 205–2000. General
information concerning the Commission
may also be obtained by accessing its
Internet server at https://www.usitc.gov.
The public record for this investigation
may be viewed on the Commission’s
electronic docket (EDIS) at https://
edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired
persons are advised that information on
this matter can be obtained by
contacting the Commission’s TDD
terminal on (202) 205–1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
investigation was instituted on
September 18, 2007, based on a
complaint filed by Pass & Seymour, Inc.
(‘‘P&S’’) of Syracuse, New York. The
complaint, as supplemented, alleged
violations of section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the
importation into the United States, the
sale for importation, and the sale within
the United States after importation of
certain ground fault circuit interrupters
and products containing the same by
reason of infringement of certain claims
of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,594,398 (‘‘the ‘398
patent’’); RE38,293; 7,154,718 (‘‘the ‘718
patent’’); 7,164,564 (‘‘the ‘564 patent’’);
7,212,386; and 7,256,973. The
complaint named various respondents,
including GPG, Trimone, ELE, and
ELE’s distributors. The complaint and
notice of investigation were
subsequently amended as to the patents
and claims asserted, and several
initially named respondents were
terminated from the investigation. U.S.
Patent No. 7,283,340 (‘‘the ‘340 patent’’)
was later added to the investigation.
On March 9, 2009, the Commission
terminated this investigation with a
finding of violation of Section 337 by
reason of infringement of one or more of
claims 1, 7, and 8 of the ‘398 patent,
claims 14, 18, and 30 of the ‘340 patent,
claim 52 of the ‘718 patent, and claims
1 and 15 of the ‘564 patent. The
Commission issued remedial orders,
including a limited exclusion order
(‘‘LEO’’) directed, inter alia, toward GPG
with respect to the ‘340 and ‘398
patents, toward Trimone with respect to
the ‘340 patent, and toward ELE and
ELE’s distributors with respect to the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:59 Mar 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
‘340, ‘398, and ‘564 patents. The
Commission also issued cease and
desist orders against ELE’s distributors.
Respondents GPG, Trimone, and ELE
subsequently appealed the
Commission’s final determination of
violation of Section 337 to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit.
On August 27, 2010, the Court issued
an opinion reversing the Commission’s
findings of infringement as to GPG and
Trimone and thus, the Commission’s
determination of violation as to those
respondents. See General Protecht
Group, Inc. v. ITC, 619 F.3d 1303 (Fed.
Cir. 2010), reh’g denied, (Fed. Cir. Dec.
14, 2010), mandate issued (Fed. Cir.
Dec. 21, 2010). The Court also reversed
the Commission’s findings of
infringement under the ‘340 patent as to
ELE, thus reversing in part the
Commission’s determination of
violation as to ELE.
On January 6, 2011, respondents GPG
and Trimone (but not ELE) petitioned
the Commission pursuant to
Commission Rule 210.76(a)(1) (19 CFR
210.76(a)(1)) to rescind in part the LEO
as to them. No responses to the petition
were filed.
Having reviewed the parties’
submission and considering the
mandate of the Federal Circuit, the
Commission has determined that the
petition satisfies the requirement of
Commission Rule 210.76 (a)(1) (19 CFR
210.76(a)(1)) that there be changed
conditions of fact or law and that the
remedial orders should be rescinded in
part and modified. The Commission
therefore has issued an order rescinding
in part the LEO previously issued in this
investigation with respect to
respondents GPG and Trimone,
modifying the LEO with respect to ELE
and ELE’s distributors, and modifying
the cease and desist orders directed to
ELE’s distributors.
The authority for the Commission’s
determination is contained in Section
337(k) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (19 U.S.C. 1337(k)), and in
section 210.76(b) of the Commission’s
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.76(b)).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: March 24, 2011.
James R. Holbein,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011–7412 Filed 3–29–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
17671
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Notice of Proposed Consent Decree
Under the Clean Air Act
Notice is hereby given that on March
21, 2011, a proposed Consent Decree in
United States v. Mariana Acquisition
Corp., Civil Action No. CV 11–0006,
was lodged with the United States
District Court for the Northern Marianas
Islands.
The Consent Decree in this Clean Air
Act enforcement action resolves
allegations by the Environmental
Protection Agency, asserted in a
complaint filed together with the
Consent Decree, under Section 113(b) of
the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7413(b), for
alleged environmental violations at
Mariana Acquisition Corporation’s bulk
gasoline terminal in Saipan, Northern
Marianas Islands. The violations
include failing to install a vapor
collection system for collecting total
volatile organic compounds (‘‘VOCs’’)
displaced from tank trucks during
product loading, as required by
regulations promulgated under the New
Source Performance Standards of the
Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7411(b)(1)(B),
and VOC emissions exceeding those
permitted by the regulations. The
proposed Consent Decree would require
defendant to install the required vapor
collection system, limit emissions of
volatile organic compounds, and pay
$826,000 in civil penalties to the United
States.
The Department of Justice will receive
comments relating to the proposed
Consent Decrees for a period of thirty
(30) days from the date of this
publication. 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 the
matter as United States v. Mariana
Acquisition Corp., DOJ Ref. No. 90–5–2–
1–09869.
The proposed Consent Decree may be
examined at the following Regional
Office of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency:
Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, California, 94105. The
Consent Decree may also be examined at
the Office of the United States Attorney,
Sirena Plaza, Suite 500, 108 Hernan
Cortez Avenue, Hagatna, Guam 96910,
and also at 3rd Floor, Horiguchi
Building, P.O. Box 500377, Saipan, MP
96950.
During the public comment period,
the proposed agreements may also be
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
17672
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2011 / Notices
examined on the following Department
of Justice Web site: https://
www.usdoj.gov/enrd/
Consent_Decrees.html. Copies of the
proposed agreements 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
from the Consent Decree Library a copy
of the consent decree for United States
v. Mariana Acquisition Corp., Civil
Action No. CV 11–0006 (D. Northern
Marianas), please enclose a check in the
amount of $7.50 (25 cents per page
reproduction cost) payable to the U.S.
Treasury.
Henry Friedman,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental
Enforcement Section, Environment and
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 2011–7399 Filed 3–29–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 10–64]
Alfred E. Boyce, M.D.; Decision and
Order
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
On August 12, 2010, Administrative
Law Judge (ALJ) John J. Mulrooney, II,
issued the attached recommended
decision. The Respondent did not file
exceptions to the decision.
Having reviewed the record in its
entirety including the ALJ’s
recommended decision, I have decided
to adopt the ALJ’s rulings, findings of
fact, conclusions of law, and
recommended Order.
Order
Pursuant to the authority vested in me
by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a), as well
as 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, I order
that DEA Certificate of Registration,
FB0003943, issued to Alfred E. Boyce,
M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I
further order that any pending
application of Alfred E. Boyce, M.D., to
renew or modify his registration, be, and
it hereby is, denied. This Order is
effective immediately.
Dated: March 18, 2011.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Administrator.
James Hambuechen, Esq., for the
Government;
Bradford M. Cohen, Esq., for the
Respondent
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:59 Mar 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
Order Granting Government Motion for
Summary Disposition and
Recommended Decision
John J. Mulrooney, Administrative
Law Judge. The Deputy Assistant
Administrator, Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA or Government),
issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC),
dated May 13, 2010, proposing to revoke
the DEA Certificate of Registration
(COR), Number FB0003943, of Alfred E.
Boyce, D.O. (Respondent), pursuant to
21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) and (4), and deny
any pending applications for renewal or
modification of the COR, pursuant to 21
U.S.C. 823(f), because the Respondent’s
continued registration is inconsistent
with the public interest as that term is
used in 21 U.S.C. 823(f). In the OSC, the
Government alleges that the Respondent
is, inter alia, ‘‘without authority to
handle controlled substances in the
state of Florida’’ as grounds for
revocation of Respondent’s DEA
registration.
On July 22, 2010, the DEA Office of
Administrative Law Judges (OALJ)
received two separate documents from
Respondent’s counsel, each dated July
19, 2010, reflecting a notice of attorney
appearance and a timely 1 request for
hearing.2
On July 27, 2010, an order issued
which directed, inter alia, that the
Government provide evidence to
support its allegation that Respondent
lacks state authority in the state in
which he is registered with DEA to
handle controlled substances. A briefing
schedule was also provided in the order
fixing dates for the requesting filings,
any Government motions for summary
judgment or termination of proceedings
based thereon, and any reply thereto by
the Respondent.
On July 28, 2010, the Government
timely filed a document styled
‘‘Government’s Motion for Stay of
Proceedings and Summary Disposition’’
(Government’s Motion) wherein it seeks
relief in the form of summary
disposition based on its assertion that
the Respondent ‘‘is not duly authorized
1 Because the initial record contained no
indication about the actual service date of the OSC
or other information allowing for an evaluation of
whether the Respondent’s hearing request was
timely made pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43, an order
issued on July 27, 2010 wherein the Government
was directed to provide evidence of the date of OSC
service. After review of the submissions of the
parties, it appears that the Respondent’s hearing
request was timely filed.
2 The Respondent’s request for a hearing ‘‘in the
matter of: Department of Health v. Alfred Eversley
Boyce, D.O., Case No. 10–3167PL’’ (emphasis
supplied), i.e. the state administrative action in
Florida, that was filed on OALJ is herein deemed
to constitute a sufficient request for hearing relative
to these proceedings.
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
to possess, dispense, or otherwise
handle controlled substances in the
State of Florida, the jurisdiction in
which the Respondent engages in the
practice of medicine.’’ Govt. Mot. at 1.
Attached to the Government’s Motion
was a copy of an Order of Emergency
Suspension of License (Emergency
Suspension Order) issued by the State of
Florida Department of Health (Florida
DOH) on April 28, 2010. Govt. Mot. at
Attach. 1 3 (Florida DOH Order of
Emergency Suspension of License dated
April 28, 2010). The Emergency
Suspension Order reflects the
immediate suspension of the
Respondent’s license to practice as an
osteopathic physician in the state,
pending further proceedings. The
Florida DOH action is not based upon
pending DEA proceedings, but based
upon on its own factual findings that
the Respondent violated numerous
Florida statutes and administrative code
provisions related to the prescribing of
controlled substances, and its
determination that the Respondent’s
‘‘continued practice as an osteopathic
physician constitutes an immediate
serious danger to the health, safety, or
welfare of the public.’’ Id. In its motion,
the Government correctly contends that
state authority is a necessary condition
precedent for the acquisition or
maintenance of a DEA registration, and
the suspension of the Respondent’s state
practitioner’s license precludes the
continued maintenance of his DEA
COR, thus requiring revocation. Govt.
Mot. at 2; see id. at Attach. 1.
The Respondent filed an opposition
on August 10, 2010, asserting, in
essence, that the CSA does not strictly
require COR revocation pursuant to 21
U.S.C. 824(a)(3) where a registrant’s
state license has been suspended and
the registrant has lost state authorization
to dispense controlled substances. The
Respondent argues that sanctions
provided for under the CSA that are
lesser than revocation are appropriate,
such as suspension of his COR,4 or
limiting the suspension or revocation of
his COR only ‘‘to the particular
controlled substance [] with respect to
which grounds for revocation or
suspension exist.’’ 21 U.S.C. 824(b). As
a mitigating basis for a sanction
recommendation lesser than revocation,
the Respondent points out that the cases
cited by the Government in its summary
disposition motion involve DEA COR
revocations based on conduct other than
3 The Government’s attachment will be included
in the record as Government Exhibit 1.
4 See 21 U.S.C. 824(a) (‘‘A registration * * * may
be suspended or revoked * * *.’’ (emphasis
supplied)).
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 61 (Wednesday, March 30, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17671-17672]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7399]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Notice of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Air Act
Notice is hereby given that on March 21, 2011, a proposed Consent
Decree in United States v. Mariana Acquisition Corp., Civil Action No.
CV 11-0006, was lodged with the United States District Court for the
Northern Marianas Islands.
The Consent Decree in this Clean Air Act enforcement action
resolves allegations by the Environmental Protection Agency, asserted
in a complaint filed together with the Consent Decree, under Section
113(b) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7413(b), for alleged
environmental violations at Mariana Acquisition Corporation's bulk
gasoline terminal in Saipan, Northern Marianas Islands. The violations
include failing to install a vapor collection system for collecting
total volatile organic compounds (``VOCs'') displaced from tank trucks
during product loading, as required by regulations promulgated under
the New Source Performance Standards of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.
7411(b)(1)(B), and VOC emissions exceeding those permitted by the
regulations. The proposed Consent Decree would require defendant to
install the required vapor collection system, limit emissions of
volatile organic compounds, and pay $826,000 in civil penalties to the
United States.
The Department of Justice will receive comments relating to the
proposed Consent Decrees for a period of thirty (30) days from the date
of this publication. 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 the matter as United States v. Mariana Acquisition Corp., DOJ
Ref. No. 90-5-2-1-09869.
The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the following
Regional Office of the United States Environmental Protection Agency:
Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California, 94105. The
Consent Decree may also be examined at the Office of the United States
Attorney, Sirena Plaza, Suite 500, 108 Hernan Cortez Avenue, Hagatna,
Guam 96910, and also at 3rd Floor, Horiguchi Building, P.O. Box 500377,
Saipan, MP 96950.
During the public comment period, the proposed agreements may also
be
[[Page 17672]]
examined on the following Department of Justice Web site: https://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html. Copies of the proposed
agreements 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 from the Consent Decree Library a
copy of the consent decree for United States v. Mariana Acquisition
Corp., Civil Action No. CV 11-0006 (D. Northern Marianas), please
enclose a check in the amount of $7.50 (25 cents per page reproduction
cost) payable to the U.S. Treasury.
Henry Friedman,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment
and Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 2011-7399 Filed 3-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
