Meeting of the Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, 44195-44196 [2014-17945]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 30, 2014 / Notices
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: The
Commission instituted this investigation
under section 337 of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on
September 20, 2013, based on a
complaint filed by Toyo Tire & Rubber
Co., Ltd. of Japan; Toyo Tire Holdings
of Americas Inc. of Cypress, California;
Toyo Tire U.S.A. Corp. of Cypress,
California; Nitto Tire U.S.A. Inc. of
Cypress, California; and Toyo Tire
North America Manufacturing Inc. of
White, Georgia (collectively, ‘‘Toyo’’).
The complaint, as supplemented,
alleges violation of section 337 by
reason of infringement of certain claims
of U.S. Design Patent Nos. D487,424
(‘‘the ‘424 patent’’); D610,975; D610,976
(‘‘the ‘976 patent’’); D610,977 (‘‘the ‘977
patent’’); D615,031; D626,913 (‘‘the ‘913
patent’’); D458,214 (‘‘the ‘214 patent’’);
and D653,200 by numerous
respondents. 78 FR 57882–83 (Sept. 20,
2013). Subsequently, the complaint and
notice of investigation were amended to
add Shandong Hengyu Science &
Technology Co., Ltd. (‘‘Shandong
Hengyu’’) as a respondent. Several
respondents were terminated from the
investigation based on settlement
agreements and consent orders.
On November 18, 2013, the ALJ
ordered certain respondents, including
WestKY, Tire & Wheel Master, Vittore,
and RTM, to show cause by December
4, 2013, why they should not be held in
default for failing to respond to the
Complaint and Notice of Investigation.
See Order No. 10 (Nov. 18, 2013). No
submissions were filed on behalf of
WestKY, Tire & Wheel Master, Vittore,
or RTM in response to ALJ Order No.
10. On December 5, 2013, the ALJ
issued an ID finding respondents
WestKY, Tire & Wheel Master, Vittore,
and RTM to be in default. See ALJ Order
17 (Dec. 5, 2013) (not reviewed on
December 27, 2013).
On December 24, 2013, the ALJ
ordered respondents Turbo, Lexani, and
WTD to show cause by January 10,
2014, why they should not be held in
default for failing to respond to the
Complaint and Notice of Investigation.
See Order No. 24 (Dec. 24, 2013). No
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Jul 29, 2014
Jkt 232001
submissions were filed in response to
ALJ Order No. 24. On February 3, 2014,
the ALJ issued an ID finding
respondents Turbo, Lexani, and WTD to
be in default. See ALJ Order 30 (Feb. 3,
2014) (not reviewed on March 6, 2014).
On January 28, 2014, the ALJ ordered
respondent Simple Tire to show cause
by February 12, 2014, why it should not
be held in default for failing to respond
to the Complaint and Notice of
Investigation. See Order No. 29 (Jan. 28,
2014). No submissions were filed in
response to ALJ Order No. 29. On
February 18, 2014, the ALJ issued an ID
finding respondent Simple Tire to be in
default. See ALJ Order 34 (Feb. 18,
2014) (not reviewed on March 20, 2014).
The Commission found that the
statutory requirements of section
337(g)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)) and
Commission rule 210.16(a) (19 CFR
210.16(a)) are met with respect to the
Defaulting Respondents. 79 FR 21484–
86 (Apr. 16, 2014). Accordingly,
pursuant to section 337(g)(1) (19 U.S.C.
1337(g)(1)) and Commission rule
210.16(c) (19 CFR 210.16(c)), the
Commission presumes the facts alleged
in the· complaint to be true and finds
that Defaulting Respondents are in
violation of section 337.
The Commission requested briefing
from the parties and the public on the
issues of remedy, the public interest,
and bonding. 79 FR at 21484–85.
Complainant Toyo and the Commission
investigative attorney (‘‘IA’’) filed timely
opening submissions. The IA further
filed a timely responsive submission on
May 2, 2014. Also, two submissions,
both dated May 2, 2014, were filed on
behalf of certain of Defaulting
Respondents: A ‘‘Reply Submission of
Katana Racing, Inc. d/b/a WTD
Respecting Remedy, the Public Interest
and Bonding,’’ and a ‘‘Reply Submission
of Turbo Tire Corporation Respecting
Remedy, the Public Interest, and
Bonding.’’ On May 7, 2014, complainant
Toyo filed ‘‘Complainants’ Response to
the Reply Submissions of Katana
Racing, Inc. d/b/a WTD, TURBO Tire
Corp., and LEXANI, Inc.’’ No other
submissions in response to the
Commission notice were received.
The Commission has determined that
the appropriate form of relief in this
investigation is a limited exclusion
order prohibiting the unlicensed entry
of certain tires and products containing
same that are manufactured abroad by
or on behalf of, or imported by or on
behalf of, the Defaulting Respondents by
reason of infringement of one or more of
the ‘424 patent; the ‘976 patent; the ‘977
patent; the ‘913 patent; and the ‘214
patent. The Commission has also
determined to issue cease and desist
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
44195
orders directed against each of the
Defaulting Respondents which prohibit,
inter alia, the importation, sale,
advertising, marketing, and distribution
of covered products in the United States
by the Defaulting Respondents. The
Commission has further determined that
the public interest factors enumerated in
section 337(g)(l) (19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(l))
do not preclude issuance of the
remedial orders. Finally, the
Commission has determined that the
bond for importation during the period
of Presidential review shall be in the
amount of 100 percent of the entered
value of the imported subject articles of
the Defaulting Respondents. The
Commission’s orders were delivered to
the President and the United States
Trade Representative on the day of their
issuance.
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 Part
210 of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part
210).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: July 24, 2014.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2014–17911 Filed 7–29–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE
UNITED STATES
Meeting of the Judicial Conference
Committee on Rules of Practice and
Procedure
Judicial Conference of the
United States Advisory Committee on
Rules of Appellate Procedure.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Notice of open meeting.
The Advisory Committee on
Rules of Appellate Procedure will hold
a one-day meeting. The meeting will be
open to public observation but not
participation.
SUMMARY:
October 20, 2014.
Time: 8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m.
DATES:
Thurgood Marshall Federal
Judiciary Building, Mecham Conference
Center, One Columbus Circle NE.,
Washington, DC 20544.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jonathan C. Rose, Secretary and Chief
Rules Officer, Rules Committee Support
Office, Administrative Office of the
United States Courts, Washington, DC
20544, telephone (202) 502–1820.
E:\FR\FM\30JYN1.SGM
30JYN1
44196
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 30, 2014 / Notices
Dated: July 25, 2014.
Jonathan C. Rose,
Secretary and Chief Rules Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014–17945 Filed 7–29–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Franklyn Seabrooks, M.D.; Decision
and Order
On April 8, 2014, the Deputy
Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement
Administration, issued an Order to
Show Cause to Franklyn Seabrooks,
M.D. (hereinafter, Registrant), of
Fairfield, California. The Show Cause
Order proposed the revocation of
Registrant’s DEA Certificate of
Registration BS4003795, which
authorizes him to dispense controlled
substances in schedules II–V as a
practitioner, on the ground that he does
‘‘not have authority to practice medicine
or handle controlled substances in the
[S]tate of California.’’ Show Cause Order
at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and
824(a)(3)).
The Show Cause Order alleged that
Registrant is registered as a practitioner
in Schedules II–V at the registered
address of 5140 Business Center Drive,
Suite 109, Fairfield, California. Show
Cause Order at 1. The Show Cause
Order further alleged that this
registration does not expire until
February 28, 2015. Id.
Next, the Show Cause Order alleged
that Registrant is currently without
authority to handle controlled
substances in California, the State in
which he is registered, because on July
12, 2012, the Medical Board of
California (MBC) filed a ‘‘Petition for Ex
Parte Interim Suspension Order,’’ which
was granted the following day by the
Medical Quality Hearing Panel
(‘‘Hearing Panel’’) of the State’s Office of
Administrative Hearings, thereby
suspending Registrant’s Physician’s and
Surgeon’s license on an interim basis.
Id. The Show Cause Order then alleged
that on November 7, 2012, an MBC
Hearing Panel ordered that the
suspension be continued, and that
following a further hearing, the MBC
revoked his license effective November
22, 2013. Id. The Order thus asserted
that based upon his lack of authority to
handle controlled substances in the
State of California, Registrant’s
Registration must be revoked. Id. (citing
21 U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f) and 824(a)(3)).
The Order also notified Registrant of his
right to request a hearing on the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Jul 29, 2014
Jkt 232001
allegations or to submit a written
statement in lieu of a hearing, the
procedure for electing either option, and
the consequence of failing to elect either
option. Id. (citing 21 CFR 1301.43).
According to the Declaration of a DEA
Diversion Investigator (DI), on April 11,
2014, the Order to Show Cause was
served on Registrant at his home unit at
the Napa State Hospital. GX 2. The DI
stated on that date, he and a DEA
Special Agent attempted to personally
serve Respondent after being advised by
Respondent’s attorney that Respondent
was a patient at that facility. Id. The DI
further stated that upon arriving at the
hospital gate, he was told that service of
the Show Cause Order would have to be
performed by a police officer, who
would then confirm service by an email
to the DI. Id. On April 14, 2014, the DI
received an email from a police officer
confirming that service had occurred.
Id.
On May 5, 2014, the DEA Office of
Administrative Law Judges received a
letter from David Brown, Esq., an
attorney with the law firm of Beyer,
Pongratz & Rosen, in Sacramento, CA.
GX 8. The letter, which is dated April
30, 2014 and appears to be printed on
the law firm’s letterhead, states: ‘‘The
undersigned, David L. Brown, hereby
waives a hearing regarding the Order to
Show Cause regarding Franklyn E.
Seabrooks, M.D. and his DEA Certificate
of Registration.’’ Id. The printed
signature line for David L. Brown states:
‘‘Attorney for Respondent, Franklyn E.
Seabrooks, II’’; however, the letter is
unsigned. Id. at 3. Attached to this letter
is a copy of the April 8, 2014 Order to
Show Cause issued to Registrant. Id. at
4–5.
Notwithstanding that the letter was
not signed, I note that the law firm on
the letterhead is the same firm that
represented Registrant before the MBC.
I therefore find that Mr. Brown is
Registrant’s attorney and based on his
representation in the letter, I find that
Registrant has waived his right to a
hearing or to submit a written statement
in lieu of a hearing. 21 CFR 1301.43(e).
I therefore issue this Decision and Order
based on relevant material contained in
the record submitted by the
Government. I make the following
factual findings:
Findings
Registrant is the holder of DEA
Certificate of Registration BS4003795,
which authorizes him to dispense
controlled substances in schedules II–V
as a practitioner, at the registered
address of 5140 Business Center Drive,
Suite 109, Fairfield CA. GX 3. This
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
registration does not expire until
February 28, 2015. Id.
On July 13, 2012, an administrative
law judge (ALJ) of the Office of
Administrative Hearings, Department of
Consumer Affairs, State of California,
heard a petition for Ex Parte Interim
Suspension of Registrant’s Physician’s
and Surgeons’ Certificate (hereinafter,
medical license). GX 4. Following an
evidentiary hearing during which
Registrant was neither present nor
represented but submitted documents
for consideration by the ALJ, the ALJ
ordered the immediate suspension of
Registrant’s medical license. The ALJ
found, inter alia, that Registrant had
‘‘engaged in actions constituting
violations of various laws and
regulations involving the practice of
medicine,’’ that permitting him to
continue ‘‘in the practice of medicine
will endanger the public health, safety
and welfare,’’ and that ‘‘serious injury
will result to the public before the
matter may be heard on regular notice.’’
Id. at 2. The ALJ then scheduled a
further hearing on the State’s petition.
Id.
On October 29, 2012, the hearing was
held before another state ALJ. GX 5. At
the hearing, Registrant was represented
by counsel, oral and documentary
evidence was presented, and oral
argument was offered. Following the
hearing, the ALJ found that Registrant
‘‘has engaged in acts or omissions
constituting a violation of the Medical
Practice Act and that he is unable to
practice medicine safely due to a mental
or physical condition, and that
permitting [him] to continue to engage
in the practice of medicine will
endanger the public health, safety or
welfare.’’ Id. at 19–20. Further finding
‘‘that the likelihood of injury to the
public in not issuing the order
outweighed the likelihood of injury to
[Registrant] in issuing the order,’’ on
November 7, 2012, the ALJ ordered that
the Interim Suspension Order on
Registrant’s medical license remain in
effect. Id. at 20.
On September 30, 2013, a further
hearing was held before a third state
ALJ. GX 6. Registrant was represented
by counsel but did not personally
appear. The ALJ found that ‘‘due to his
mental impairment, [Registrant] has
engaged in unprofessional conduct on
multiple occasions,’’ that ‘‘[c]ause exists
to revoke [his] Physician’s and
Surgeon’s certificate,’’ that his ability to
practice medicine safely is impaired
because he is ‘‘mentally ill, or
physically ill affecting competency,’’
and that ‘‘at this time, protection of the
public can be achieved only through
license revocation.’’ Id. at 20. The ALJ
E:\FR\FM\30JYN1.SGM
30JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 146 (Wednesday, July 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44195-44196]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17945]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES
Meeting of the Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice
and Procedure
AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the United States Advisory Committee on
Rules of Appellate Procedure.
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on Rules of Appellate Procedure will
hold a one-day meeting. The meeting will be open to public observation
but not participation.
DATES: October 20, 2014.
Time: 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
ADDRESSES: Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, Mecham
Conference Center, One Columbus Circle NE., Washington, DC 20544.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan C. Rose, Secretary and Chief
Rules Officer, Rules Committee Support Office, Administrative Office of
the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-
1820.
[[Page 44196]]
Dated: July 25, 2014.
Jonathan C. Rose,
Secretary and Chief Rules Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-17945 Filed 7-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210-55-P
