Hearing of the Judicial Conference Committee on Evidence, 78694-78695 [2011-32401]

Download as PDF 78694 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 243 / Monday, December 19, 2011 / Notices Persons with questions regarding electronic 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. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary. This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.50(a)(4) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.50(a)(4)). Issued: December 14, 2011. By order of the Commission. James R. Holbein, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2011–32400 Filed 12–16–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 731–TA–683 (Third Review)] Fresh Garlic From China; Scheduling of an expedited five-year review United States International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of an expedited review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207). DATES: Effective Date: December 5, 2011. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keysha Martinez (202) 205–2136), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:31 Dec 16, 2011 Jkt 226001 Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (http:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for this review may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background.—On December 5, 2011, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution (76 FR 54487, September 1, 2011) of the subject five-year review was adequate and that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. The Commission did not find any other circumstances that would warrant conducting a full review.1 Accordingly, the Commission determined that it would conduct an expedited review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act. Staff report.—A staff report containing information concerning the subject matter of the review will be placed in the nonpublic record on March 21, 2012, and made available to persons on the Administrative Protective Order service list for this review. A public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.62(d)(4) of the Commission’s rules. Written submissions.—As provided in section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s rules, interested parties that are parties to the review and that have provided individually adequate responses to the notice of institution,2 and any party other than an interested party to the review may file written comments with the Secretary on what determination the Commission should reach in the review. Comments are due on or before March 26, 2012 and may not contain new factual information. Any person that is neither a party to the five-year review nor an interested party may submit a brief written statement (which shall not 1 A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner’s statements will be available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission’s web site. 2 The Commission has found the response submitted by the Fresh Garlic Producers Association and its individual members Christopher Ranch L.L.C., The Garlic Company, Valley Garlic, Inc., and Vessey and Company, Inc. to be individually adequate. Comments from other interested parties will not be accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)). PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 contain any new factual information) pertinent to the review by March 26, 2012. However, should the Department of Commerce extend the time limit for its completion of the final results of its review, the deadline for comments (which may not contain new factual information) on Commerce’s final results is three business days after the issuance of Commerce’s results. If comments contain business proprietary information (BPI), they must conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s rules. Please consult the Commission’s rules, as amended, 76 FR 61937 (Oct. 6, 2011) and the Commission’s Handbook on Filing Procedures, 76 FR 62092 (Oct. 6, 2011), available on the Commission’s web site at http://edis.usitc.gov. In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service. Determination.—The Commission has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)(B). Authority: This review is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: December 14, 2011. James R. Holbein, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2011–32399 Filed 12–16–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES Hearing of the Judicial Conference Committee on Evidence Judicial Conference of the United States, Advisory Committee on Evidence. ACTION: Notice of Cancellation of Open Hearing. AGENCY: The following public hearing on proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence has been canceled: Evidence Rules Hearing, January 7, 2012, Phoenix, Arizona. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Benjamin J. Robinson, Deputy Rules Officer and Counsel, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 243 / Monday, December 19, 2011 / Notices Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502–1820. registration, be, and it hereby is, denied. This Order is effective immediately.1 Dated: December 8, 2011. Benjamin J. Robinson, Rules Committee Deputy and Counsel. Dated: December 8, 2011. Michele M. Leonhart, Administrator. [FR Doc. 2011–32401 Filed 12–16–11; 8:45 am] Dedra S. Curteman, Esq., for the Government. Michael R. Lowe, Esq., for the Respondent. BILLING CODE 2210–55–P JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES Recommended Rulings, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision of the Administrative Law Judge Hearing of the Judicial Conference Committee on Criminal Rules Judicial Conference of the United States, Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules. ACTION: Notice of Cancellation of Open Hearing. AGENCY: The following public hearing on proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure has been canceled: Criminal Rules Hearing, January 6, 2012, Phoenix, Arizona. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Benjamin J. Robinson, Deputy Rules Officer and Counsel Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502–1820. SUMMARY: Dated: December 7, 2011. Benjamin J. Robinson, Rules Committee Deputy and Counsel. [FR Doc. 2011–31930 Filed 12–16–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 2210–55–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. 11–49] Barry M. Schultz, M.D.; Decision and Order On June 17, 2011, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Gail A. Randall issued the attached recommended decision. Neither party filed exceptions to the ALJ’s decision. Having reviewed the record in its entirety, I have decided to adopt the ALJ’s rulings, findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended order. emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 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), I order that DEA Certificate of Registration BS1314210, issued to Barry M. Schultz, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that any pending application of Barry M. Shultz, M.D., to renew or modify his VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:31 Dec 16, 2011 Jkt 226001 I. Facts Gail A. Randall, Administrative Law Judge. On April 19, 2011, the Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration (‘‘DEA’’ or ‘‘Government’’), issued an Order to Show Cause and an Immediate Suspension of Registration (‘‘Order to Show Cause’’ or ‘‘Order’’), immediately suspending the DEA Certificate of Registration, Number BS1314210, of Barry M. Schultz, M.D. (‘‘Respondent’’), as a practitioner, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(d) (2006), because the Respondent’s continued registration constitutes an imminent danger to the public health and safety. The Order also proposed to revoke the Respondent’s registration, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4), and deny any pending applications for renewal or modification of such registration, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f), because the Respondent’s continued registration is inconsistent with the public interest, as that term is defined in 21 U.S.C. 823(f). Specifically, the Order alleged that between May of 2009 and August of 2010, the Respondent issued prescriptions for an inordinate amount of controlled substances to ten patients for illegitimate medical purposes. [Order at 1]. The Government set out the various circumstances of those prescriptions including that during one month, the Respondent prescribed ‘‘over 5,000 thirty milligram oxycodone tablets to R.L.,’’ and ‘‘on one occasion [the Respondent] prescribed 1,980 thirty milligram oxycodone tablets per day that equates to an individual ingesting 66 thirty milligram oxycodone per day.’’ [Id. at 2]. The Order also alleged that from March 2009 through December 2009, the Respondent ordered approximately 281,000 dosage units of oxycodone to be delivered to his pain management clinic in Del Ray Beach, Florida. [Id. at 3]. The Order similarly alleged that from 1 For the same reasons that led me to order the Immediate Suspension of Respondent’s registration, I conclude that the public interest requires that this order be effective immediately. See 21 CFR 1316.67. PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 78695 January 2010 through August 2010, the Respondent ordered approximately 378,000 dosage units of oxycodone. [Id. at 3]. Further, the Government alleged that on March 24, 2011, the Respondent was arrested and charged with trafficking in oxycodone and writing illegal prescriptions. [Id. at 3]. Last, the Order alleged that on April 14, 2011, the Florida Department of Health suspended the Respondent’s authority to practice medicine in Florida. [Id. at 3]. On May 19, 2011, the Respondent, through counsel, timely filed a request for a hearing in the above-captioned matter. On May 20, 2011, the Government filed its Motion for Summary Disposition and Motion to Stay Proceedings (‘‘Government’s Motion’’). Therein, the Government requested that I grant its Motion for Summary Disposition, terminate the hearing in this matter, and forward the matter to the Deputy Administrator for a Final Order with a recommendation that the Respondent’s registration be revoked and pending applications be denied. [Government’s Motion (‘‘Govt’’) at 2]. The Government argues that summary disposition is appropriate where the Respondent lacks state authority to handle controlled substances as the DEA is barred by statute from continuing the Respondent’s registration. [Id. at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 801(21), 823(f), 824(a)(3); Layfe Robert Anthony, M.D., 67 FR 20,346 (2009)]. Hence, the Government argues, the DEA has consistently revoked such registrations. [Govt. at 1 (citing Roy Chi Lung, M.D., 74 FR 20,346 (2009); Michael Chait, M.D., 73 FR 40,382 (2008); Shahid Musud Siddiqui, 61 FR 14,818 (1996); Michael D. Lawton, 59 FR 17,792 (1994); Abraham A. Chaplan, M.D., 57 FR 55,280 (1992)]. In addition, the Government argues that summary revocation is appropriate even where the suspension of the state license is temporary and, thus, may be reinstated. [Govt. at 2 (citing Stuart A. Bergman, M.D., 70 FR 33,193 (2005); Roger A. Rodriguez, M.D., 70 FR 33,206 (2005)]. Consequently, the Government argues that summary revocation of the Respondent’s registration in this case is appropriate as he currently lacks state authority to handle controlled substances. [Govt. at 1–2]. The Government attached to its motion an order for the emergency suspension of the Respondent’s medical license (‘‘ESO’’), issued by the State of Florida Department of Health on April 13, 2011. [Govt. Exhibit (‘‘Exh.’’) A]. E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 243 (Monday, December 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78694-78695]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32401]


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

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES


Hearing of the Judicial Conference Committee on Evidence

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the United States, Advisory Committee on 
Evidence.

ACTION: Notice of Cancellation of Open Hearing.

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

SUMMARY: The following public hearing on proposed amendments to the 
Federal Rules of Evidence has been canceled: Evidence Rules Hearing, 
January 7, 2012, Phoenix, Arizona.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Benjamin J. Robinson, Deputy Rules 
Officer and Counsel, Administrative Office of the United States Courts,

[[Page 78695]]

Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.

    Dated: December 8, 2011.
Benjamin J. Robinson,
Rules Committee Deputy and Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2011-32401 Filed 12-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210-55-P