Certain Communications or Computing Devices and Components Thereof Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation in its Entirety Based Upon Settlement; Termination of Investigation; and Vacatur of Order No. 34; Correction, 46321-46322 [2015-18984]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices
TEXAS
Travis County
All Saints’ Chapel, 209 W. 27th St., Austin,
15000543
Simpson Memorial Methodist Church, (East
Austin MRA) 1701 E. 12th St., Austin,
15000544
VIRGINIA
Accomack County
Tangier Island Historic District (Boundary
Increase), S. of Tangier Island in
Chesapeake Bay, Tangier, 15000545
Chesapeake Independent City
Cornland School, 2309 Benefit Rd.,
Chesapeake (Independent City), 15000546
Danville Independent City
Danville Historic District (Boundary
Increase), Jefferson Ave., Chestnut Pl.,
Grove, Chambers, 100 blks. Ross &
Holbrook Sts., Danville (Independent City),
15000547
Halifax County
Mountain Road Historic District (Boundary
Increase), Mountain Rd., Academy St.,
Poplar Ln., Halifax, 15000548
Hopewell Independent City
Downtown Hopewell Historic District
(Boundary Increase and Decrease), E.
Broadway Ave., S. Main & E. Poythress
Sts., Hopewell (Independent City),
15000549
Pittsylvania County
Chatham Southern Railway Depot, 340
Whitehead St., Chatham, 15000550
WISCONSIN
Green County
Chalet of the Golden Fleece, 618 2nd St.,
New Glarus, 15000551
Rock County
Courier Building, 513 Vernal Ave., Milton,
15000552
[FR Doc. 2015–19011 Filed 8–3–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–51–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
[Investigation No. 337–TA–925]
Certain Communications or Computing
Devices and Components Thereof
Commission Determination Not To
Review an Initial Determination
Terminating the Investigation in its
Entirety Based Upon Settlement;
Termination of Investigation; and
Vacatur of Order No. 34; Correction
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Correction of Notice. The
Commission hereby corrects the
summary section of the notice
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Aug 03, 2015
Jkt 235001
published in the Federal Register July
29, 2015 (80 FR 45232).
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined not to
review the presiding administrative law
judge’s (‘‘ALJ’’) initial determination
(‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 41) terminating the
above-captioned investigation in its
entirety based upon settlement. The
commission has also determined to
vacate Order No. 34 as moot.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–3042. 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: The
Commission instituted this investigation
on August 21, 2014, based on a
Complaint filed by Enterprise Systems
Technologies S.a.r.l. of Luxembourg
(‘‘Enterprise’’). 79 FR 49537–38 (Aug.
21, 2014). The Complaint alleges
violations of section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended, 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 communications
or computing devices and components
thereof by reason of infringement of
certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos.
6,691,302 (‘‘the ’302 patent’’); 5,870,610;
6,594,366; and 7,454,201. The notice of
investigation named the following
respondents: HTC Corporation of
Taoyuan, Taiwan; HTC America, Inc. of
Bellevue, Washington; LG Electronics
Inc. of Seoul, Republic of Korea; LG
Electronics USA, Inc. of Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey; LG Electronics
MobileComm U.S.A., Inc. of San Diego,
California; Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
of Seoul, Republic of Korea; Samsung
Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield
Park, New Jersey; Samsung
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46321
Telecommunications America, LLC of
Richardson, Texas (collectively,
‘‘Remaining Respondents’’); Apple Inc.
of Cupertino, California (‘‘Apple’’); and
Cirrus Logic Inc. of Austin, Texas
(‘‘Cirrus’’). The Office of Unfair Import
Investigations was also named as a party
to the investigation.
On September 9, 2014, the ALJ issued
an initial determination, Order No. 6,
granting intervenor status to Google Inc.
of Mountain View, California
(‘‘Google’’). On March 9, 2015, the ALJ
issued an ID, Order No. 20, terminating
the investigation as to Cirrus. On June
5, 2015, the ALJ issued an ID, Order No.
37, terminating the investigation as to
Apple. The Commission determined not
to review those IDs.
On May 21, 2015, the ALJ issued
Order No. 34, an initial determination
terminating the ’302 patent from the
investigation based upon a lack of
standing. Enterprise filed a petition for
review on May 28, 2015. The parties
subsequently moved for a 60-day
extension to file any further briefing on
the issue. The Commission granted the
motion on June 1, 2015, and extended
the date for determining whether to
review Order No. 34 to August 21, 2015.
Thus, Order No. 34 remains
outstanding.
On June 22, 2015, Enterprise,
Remaining Respondents, and Google
jointly moved to terminate the
investigation in its entirety based upon
settlement. On June 29, 2015, the
Commission investigative attorney filed
a response in support of the motion. No
other responses to the motion were
received.
The ALJ issued the subject ID on July
1, 2015, and a corrected version on July
17, 2015, granting the joint motion for
termination. The ALJ found that the
settlement agreement satisfies the
requirements of Commission Rule
210.21(b). She further found, pursuant
to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(2), that
there is no indication that termination
of the investigation would adversely
impact the public interest. No one
petitioned for review of the ID.
The Commission has determined not
to review the ID as corrected. In light of
the settlement, the Commission has
determined to vacate Order No. 34 as
moot.
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 art
210 of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part
210).
By order of the Commission.
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
46322
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices
Issued: July 29, 2015.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
Controlled substance
Poppy Straw Concentrate (9670)
Fentanyl (9801) ............................
[FR Doc. 2015–18984 Filed 8–3–15; 8:45 am]
Schedule
II
II
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
The company plans to import
thebaine derivatives and fentanyl as
reference standards.
The company plans to import the
remaining listed controlled substances
as raw materials, to be used in the
manufacture of bulk controlled
substances, for distribution to its
customers.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. DEA–392]
Importer of Controlled Substances
Registration: Johnson Matthey, Inc.
ACTION:
Notice of registration.
Johnson Matthey, Inc. applied
to be registered as an importer of certain
basic classes of controlled substances.
The Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA) grants Johnson Matthey, Inc.,
registration as an importer of those
controlled substances.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By notice
dated April 14, 2015, and published in
the Federal Register on April 22, 2015,
80 FR 22559, Johnson Matthey, Inc.,
Pharmaceutical Materials, 2003 Nolte
Drive, West Deptford, New Jersey
08066–1742 applied to be registered as
an importer of certain basic classes of
controlled substances. No comments or
objections were submitted for this
notice. Comments and requests for
hearings on applications to import
narcotic raw material are not
appropriate. 72 FR 3417, (January 25,
2007).
The DEA has considered the factors in
21 U.S.C. 823, 952(a) and 958(a) and
determined that the registration of
Johnson Matthey, Inc. to import the
basic classes of controlled substances is
consistent with the public interest and
with United States obligations under
international treaties, conventions, or
protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The
DEA investigated the company’s
maintenance of effective controls
against diversion by inspecting and
testing the company’s physical security
systems, verifying the company’s
compliance with state and local laws,
and reviewing the company’s
background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C.
952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance
with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above-named
company is granted registration as an
importer of the basic classes controlled
substances:
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
Controlled substance
Schedule
Coca Leaves (9040) .....................
Thebaine (9333) ...........................
Opium, raw (9600) .......................
Noroxymorphone (9668) ..............
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Aug 03, 2015
II
II
II
II
Jkt 235001
Dated: July 29, 2015.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015–19107 Filed 8–3–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 15–15]
Adeline Davies Essien, M.D.; Decision
and Order
On March 25, 2015, Administrative
Law Judge (ALJ) Christopher B. McNeil
issued the attached Recommended
Decision. Neither party filed exceptions
to the Recommended Decision.
Having reviewed the record in its
entirety, I adopt the ALJ’s findings of
fact, conclusions of law and
recommended order.1 Accordingly, I
will order that Respondent’s DEA
Certificate of Registration be revoked
and that any pending application to
renew or modify her registration be
denied.
Order
Pursuant to the authority vested in me
by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a)(3), as
well as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that
DEA Certificate of Registration
BE6969541, issued to Adeline Davies
Essien, M.D., be, and it hereby is,
revoked. I further order that any
pending application of Adeline Davies
Essien, M.D., to renew or modify her
registration, be, and it hereby is, denied.
This Order is effective September 3,
2015.
1 I take official notice of the fact that, according
to the registration records of the Agency,
Respondent retains an active registration as of this
date. Pursuant to 21 CFR 1316.59(e), Respondent
may controvert this finding by filing a properly
supported motion, no later than 10 days from the
date of this Order.
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Dated: July 27, 2015.
Chuck Rosenberg,
Acting Administrator.
Frank W. Mann, Esq., for the
Government.
Thomas P. O’Connell, Esq., for the
Respondent.
ORDER GRANTING THE
GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY DISPOSITION and
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW, AND RECOMMENDED
DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW JUDGE
Administrative Law Judge
Christopher B. McNeil. On January 21,
2015, the Deputy Assistant
Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) issued an Order
to Show Cause as to why the DEA
should not revoke DEA Certificate of
Registration Number BE6969541 issued
to Adeline Davies Essien, M.D., the
Respondent in this matter. The Order
seeks to revoke Respondent’s
registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C.
824(a)(4) and 823(f), and to deny any
pending applications for renewal or
modification of such registration, and
deny any applications for any new DEA
registrations pursuant to 21 U.S.C.
823(f). As grounds for denial, the
Government alleges that Respondent is
‘‘currently without authority to handle
controlled substances in the State of
Illinois, the state in which [Respondent
is] registered with the DEA.’’
On February 27, 2015, the DEA’s
Office of Administrative Law Judges
received Respondent’s written request
for a hearing, which is dated February
26, 2015. Respondent stated that she
objected to the Government’s allegation
regarding Respondent’s authority to
handle controlled substances.
Respondent further stated that she
‘‘does have authority to practice
medicine and handle controlled
substances.’’
On March 3, 2015, this Office issued
an Order for Briefing on Allegations
Concerning Respondent’s Lack of State
Authority, Order for Prehearing
Statements, and Order Setting the
Matter for Hearing. In the Order, I
mandated that the parties provide briefs
regarding the allegation that Respondent
lacks state authority to handle
controlled substances no later than 2:00
p.m. on March 17, 2015. In my Order,
I also provided that responses to any
briefs be submitted by no later than 2:00
p.m. on March 24, 2015. On March 17,
2015, I timely received the
Government’s Response to Order and
Motion for Summary Disposition.
According to the Government’s motion,
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 149 (Tuesday, August 4, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46321-46322]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18984]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-925]
Certain Communications or Computing Devices and Components
Thereof Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination
Terminating the Investigation in its Entirety Based Upon Settlement;
Termination of Investigation; and Vacatur of Order No. 34; Correction
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Correction of Notice. The Commission hereby corrects the
summary section of the notice published in the Federal Register July
29, 2015 (80 FR 45232).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined not to review the presiding administrative
law judge's (``ALJ'') initial determination (``ID'') (Order No. 41)
terminating the above-captioned investigation in its entirety based
upon settlement. The commission has also determined to vacate Order No.
34 as moot.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3042. 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: The Commission instituted this investigation
on August 21, 2014, based on a Complaint filed by Enterprise Systems
Technologies S.a.r.l. of Luxembourg (``Enterprise''). 79 FR 49537-38
(Aug. 21, 2014). The Complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 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 communications or computing
devices and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain
claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,691,302 (``the '302 patent''); 5,870,610;
6,594,366; and 7,454,201. The notice of investigation named the
following respondents: HTC Corporation of Taoyuan, Taiwan; HTC America,
Inc. of Bellevue, Washington; LG Electronics Inc. of Seoul, Republic of
Korea; LG Electronics USA, Inc. of Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey; LG
Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc. of San Diego, California; Samsung
Electronics Co. Ltd. of Seoul, Republic of Korea; Samsung Electronics
America, Inc. of Ridgefield Park, New Jersey; Samsung
Telecommunications America, LLC of Richardson, Texas (collectively,
``Remaining Respondents''); Apple Inc. of Cupertino, California
(``Apple''); and Cirrus Logic Inc. of Austin, Texas (``Cirrus''). The
Office of Unfair Import Investigations was also named as a party to the
investigation.
On September 9, 2014, the ALJ issued an initial determination,
Order No. 6, granting intervenor status to Google Inc. of Mountain
View, California (``Google''). On March 9, 2015, the ALJ issued an ID,
Order No. 20, terminating the investigation as to Cirrus. On June 5,
2015, the ALJ issued an ID, Order No. 37, terminating the investigation
as to Apple. The Commission determined not to review those IDs.
On May 21, 2015, the ALJ issued Order No. 34, an initial
determination terminating the '302 patent from the investigation based
upon a lack of standing. Enterprise filed a petition for review on May
28, 2015. The parties subsequently moved for a 60-day extension to file
any further briefing on the issue. The Commission granted the motion on
June 1, 2015, and extended the date for determining whether to review
Order No. 34 to August 21, 2015. Thus, Order No. 34 remains
outstanding.
On June 22, 2015, Enterprise, Remaining Respondents, and Google
jointly moved to terminate the investigation in its entirety based upon
settlement. On June 29, 2015, the Commission investigative attorney
filed a response in support of the motion. No other responses to the
motion were received.
The ALJ issued the subject ID on July 1, 2015, and a corrected
version on July 17, 2015, granting the joint motion for termination.
The ALJ found that the settlement agreement satisfies the requirements
of Commission Rule 210.21(b). She further found, pursuant to Commission
Rule 210.50(b)(2), that there is no indication that termination of the
investigation would adversely impact the public interest. No one
petitioned for review of the ID.
The Commission has determined not to review the ID as corrected. In
light of the settlement, the Commission has determined to vacate Order
No. 34 as moot.
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 art 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
part 210).
By order of the Commission.
[[Page 46322]]
Issued: July 29, 2015.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2015-18984 Filed 8-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
