Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2011 / Notices 17671 

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 http://www.usitc.gov. 

The public record for this investigation 

may be viewed on the Commission’s 

electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// 

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 

‘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 

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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

17672 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2011 / Notices 

1Because 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. 

2The 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. 

3The Government’s attachment will be included 

in the record as Government Exhibit 1. 

4See 21 U.S.C. 824(a) (‘‘A registration * * * may 

be suspended or revoked * * *.’’ (emphasis 

supplied)). 

examined on the following Department 

of Justice Web site: http:// 

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 

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 

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 

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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES