Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Notices 19385 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission has received a complaint 

filed on behalf of Ogma, LLC on April 

1, 2011. The complaint alleges 

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 motion-sensitive sound effects 

devices and image display devices and 

components and products containing 

same. The complaint names as 

respondents Activision Blizzard Inc. of 

CA; Apple Inc. of CA; Canon, Inc. of 

Japan; Canon USA, Inc. of NY; Seiko 

Epson Corporation of Japan; Epson 

America, Inc. of CA; HTC Corporation of 

Taiwan; HTC America, Inc. of WA; 

InFocus Corp. of OR; Jakks Pacific, Inc. 

of CA; Kyocera Communications, Inc. of 

CA; LEGO A/S (dba) LEGO Group of 

Denmark; LEGO Systems, Inc. of CT; 

Lenovo (United States), Inc. of NC; 

Lenovo Group Ltd. of China; Lenovo 

(Singapore) Pte. Ltd. of Singapore; Mad 

Catz, Inc. of CA; Motorola Mobility, Inc. 

of IL; Nintendo Co., Ltd. of Japan; 

Nintendo of America, Inc. of WA; Nyko 

Technologies, Inc. of CA; Sanyo North 

America Corp. of CA; Sanyo Electric 

Co., Ltd. of Japan; Sanyo Electronic 

Devices (U.S.A.) of CA; Sharp 

Corporation of Japan; Sharp Electronics 

Corporation of NJ; Sony Computer 

Entertainment America, LLC of CA; 

Sony Corporation of Japan; Sony 

Corporation of America of NY; Sony 

Electronics Inc. of CA; Sony Ericsson 

Mobile Communications (USA), Inc. of 

GA; Sony Ericsson Mobile 

Communications AB of Sweden; Vivitek 

Corporation of CA; VTech Electronic 

North America, LLC of IL; VTech 

Holdings, Ltd. of Hong Kong; ViewSonic 

Corp., Ltd. of CA; WowWee Group Ltd. 

of Hong Kong; and WowWee USA, Inc. 

of CA. 

The complainant, proposed 

respondents, other interested parties, 

and members of the public are invited 

to file comments, not to exceed five 

pages in length, on any public interest 

issues raised by the complaint. 

Comments should address whether 

issuance of an exclusion order and/or a 

cease and desist order in this 

investigation would negatively affect the 

public health and welfare in the United 

States, competitive conditions in the 

United States economy, the production 

of like or directly competitive articles in 

the United States, or United States 

consumers. 

In particular, the Commission is 

interested in comments that: 

(i) Explain how the articles 

potentially subject to the orders are used 

in the United States; 

(ii) Identify any public health, safety, 

or welfare concerns in the United States 

relating to the potential orders; 

(iii) Indicate the extent to which like 

or directly competitive articles are 

produced in the United States or are 

otherwise available in the United States, 

with respect to the articles potentially 

subject to the orders; and 

(iv) Indicate whether Complainant, 

Complainant’s licensees, and/or third 

party suppliers have the capacity to 

replace the volume of articles 

potentially subject to an exclusion order 

and a cease and desist order within a 

commercially reasonable time. 

Written submissions must be filed no 

later than by close of business, five 

business days after the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. There will be further 

opportunities for comment on the 

public interest after the issuance of any 

final initial determination in this 

investigation. 

Persons filing written submissions 

must file the original document and 12 

true copies thereof on or before the 

deadlines stated above with the Office 

of the Secretary. Submissions should 

refer to the docket number (‘‘Docket No. 

2799’’) in a prominent place on the 

cover page and/or the first page. The 

Commission’s rules authorize filing 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means only to the 

extent permitted by section 201.8 of the 

rules (see Handbook for Electronic 

Filing Procedures, http://www.usitc.gov/ 

secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/ 

documents/ 

handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf). 

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)). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: April 4, 2011. 

James R. Holbein, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8299 Filed 4–6–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

[OMB Number 1103–0105] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Revision to a Currently 

Approved Collection; Comments 

Requested 

AGENCY: Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services, Department of Justice. 

ACTION: 30-Day Notice of Information 

Collection Under Review. 

The Department of Justice (DOJ) 

Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services (COPS) will be submitting the 

following information collection request 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and approval in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. The information 

collection is published to obtain 

comments from the public and affected 

agencies. This proposed information 

collection was previously published in 

the Federal Register on January 28, 

2011 (76 FR 5207), allowing for a 60 day 

comment period. 

The purpose of this notice is to allow 

for 30 days for public comment until 

May 9, 2011. This process is conducted 

in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. 

If you have comments especially on 

the estimated public burden or 

associated response time, suggestions, 

or need a copy of the proposed 

information collection instrument with 

instructions or additional information, 

please contact Ashley Hoornstra, 

Department of Justice Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services, 

145 N Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20530. 

Written comments concerning this 

information collection should be sent to 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, Attn: DOJ Desk Officer. The best 

way to ensure your comments are 

received is to e-mail them to 

oira_submission@omb.eop.gov or fax 

them to 202–395–7285. All comments 

should reference the 8 digit OMB 

number for the collection or the title of 

the collection. If you have questions 

concerning the collection, please call 

Ashley Hoornstra at 202–616–1314 or 

the DOJ Desk Officer at 202–395–3176. 

Written comments and suggestions 

from the public and affected agencies 

concerning the proposed collection of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

19386 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Notices 

1All citations to the ALJ’s Decision (ALJ) are to 

the slip opinion as issued on August 10, 2010, and 

not to the attached decision which has been 

reformatted. 

2The ALJ found that there is ‘‘no evidence that 

the Respondent ‘prescribe[d] and dispense[d] 

inordinate amounts of controlled substances.’’ ALJ 

at 21. While there is no evidence as to the amounts 

Respondent may have dispensed directly, there is 

such evidence, which is unrefuted, with respect to 

his prescriptions. As explained in my discussion of 

Respondent’s Exceptions, an Expert witness 

testified as to the usual starting doses of oxycodone 

and Xanax and that the prescriptions Respondent 

issued for both drugs, even at the initial visit, 

greatly exceeded the usual starting doses and lacked 

a legitimate medical purpose. 21 CFR 1306.04(a). 

Moreover, there is also unrefuted evidence that 

Respondent’s prescribing of drug cocktails of 

oxycodone and Xanax lacked a legitimate medical 

purpose. I thus reject the ALJ’s finding to the extent 

that it states that there was no evidence that 

Respondent prescribed inordinate amounts. 

3 I do not, however, adopt the ALJ’s discussion of 

the standards applied by the Agency in assessing 

a practitioner’s experience in dispensing controlled 

substances, which cites cases involving list 

chemical I distributors, a different category of 

registrant. See ALJ Dec. at 20–21. As the Agency has 

previously made clear, DEA can revoke based on a 

single act of intentional diversion and ‘‘evidence 

that a practitioner has treated thousands of patients’’ 

in circumstances that do not constitute diversion 

‘‘does not negate a prima facie showing that the 

practitioner has committed acts inconsistent with 

the public interest.’’ Jayam Krishna-Iyer, 74 FR 459, 

463 (2009). See also Dewey C. MacKay, 75 FR49956, 

49977 (2010); Medicine Shoppe-Jonesborough, 73 

information are encouraged. Your 

comments should address one or more 

of the following four points: 

—Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

—Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

—Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

—Minimize the burden of the collection 

of information on those who are to 

respond, including through the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms 

of information technology, e.g., 

permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Overview of This Information 

Collection 

(1) Type of Information Collection: 

Revision to a currently approved 

collection; comments requested. 

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: 

Community Policing Self-Assessment 

(CP–SAT) 

(3) Agency form number, if any, and 

the applicable component of the 

Department sponsoring the collection: 

None. U.S. Department of Justice Office 

of Community Oriented Policing 

Services. 

(4) Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: Primary: Law Enforcement 

Agencies and community partners. The 

purpose of this project is to improve the 

practice of community policing 

throughout the United States by 

supporting the development of a series 

of tools that will allow law enforcement 

agencies to gain better insight into the 

depth and breadth of their community 

policing activities. 

(5) An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 

estimated for an average respondent to 

respond/reply: It is estimated that 

approximately 29,235 respondents will 

respond with an average of 17 minutes 

per response. 

(6) An estimate of the total public 

burden (in hours) associated with the 

collection: The total estimated burden is 

10,847 hours across 1,213 agencies. 

If additional information is required 

contact: Lynn Murray, Department 

Clearance Officer, United States 

Department of Justice, Justice 

Management Division, Policy and 

Planning Staff, Two Constitution 

Square, 145 N Street, NE., Room 2E– 

808, Washington, DC 20530. 

Dated: March 28, 2011. 

Lynn Murray, 

Department Clearance Officer, PRA, U.S. 

Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7922 Filed 4–6–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–AT–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree 

Under Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act 

Under 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby 

given that on April 1, 2011, a proposed 

Consent Decree in United States v. 

Anacomp, Inc., et al, No. 3:10–cv–1158, 

was lodged with the United States 

District Court for the District of 

Connecticut. 

The proposed Consent Decree 

resolves claims of the United States, on 

behalf of the Environmental Protection 

Agency (‘‘EPA’’), under the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq., 

in connection with the Solvents 

Recovery Service of New England, Inc. 

Superfund Site (‘‘SRS Site’’) in 

Southington, Connecticut, against the 

defendant, Compagnone Holdings, Inc., 

f/k/a Mace Adhesives, Inc. The 

proposed Consent Decree requires the 

defendant to pay $30,463. 

The Department of Justice will receive 

for a period of 30 days from the date of 

this publication comments relating to 

the proposed Consent Decree. 

Comments should be addressed to the 

Assistant Attorney General of the 

Environment and Natural Resources 

Division, Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC 20530, and either emailed to pubcommentees.enrd@usdoj.gov or mailed to P.O. 

Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC 20044–7611, and 

should refer to United States v. 

Anacomp, Inc., et al, No. 3:10–cv–1158, 

D.J. No. 90–7–1–23/10. Commenters 

may request an opportunity for a public 

meeting in the affected area, in 

accordance with Section 7003(d) of 

RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6973(d). 

The proposed Consent Decree may be 

examined on the following Department 

of Justice Web site, http:// 

www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ 

Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the 

proposed Consent Decree may 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 a 

copy of the proposed Consent Decree, 

please enclose a check in the amount of 

$4.75 (25 cent per page reproduction 

cost), payable to the U.S. Treasury. 

Ronald Gluck, 

Assistant Section Chief, Environmental 

Enforcement Section, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8219 Filed 4–6–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 10–36] 

Jacobo Dreszer, M.D., Decision and 

Order 

On August 10, 2010, Administrative 

Law Judge (ALJ) John J. Mulrooney, II, 

issued the attached recommended 

decision.1 Thereafter, Respondent filed 

exceptions to the decision. 

Having reviewed the entire record 

including the ALJ’s recommended 

decision and Respondent’s exceptions, I 

have decided to adopt the ALJ’s rulings, 

findings of fact,2 conclusions of law,3

and recommended Order. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES