Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Notices 78733 

investigation under section 337 of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 

U.S.C. 1337). 

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: The 

Commission instituted this investigation 

on July 8, 2010, based on a complaint 

filed by Batesville Services, Inc. of 

Batesville, Indiana (‘‘Batesville’’). 75 FR 

16837–38 (July 8, 2010). 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 caskets by 

reason of infringement of certain claims 

of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,611,124; 5,727,291; 

6,836,936; 6,976,294; and 7,340,810. 

The Commission’s notice of 

investigation named Ataudes Aguilares 

as the lone respondent. 

On August 12, 2010, Batesville 

moved, pursuant to Commission Rule 

210.16(b) (19 CFR 210.16(b)), for an 

order to show cause why Ataudes 

Aguilares should not be found in default 

for failure to respond to the Complaint 

and Notice of Investigation and for a 

finding of default upon the failure to 

show cause. On August 19, 2010, the 

Commission investigative attorney 

(‘‘IA’’) filed a response in support of the 

motion. The presiding administrative 

law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) issued the requested 

order, instructing Ataudes Aguilares to 

show cause, no later than the close of 

business on September 21, 2010, why it 

should not be found in default. Order 

No. 4 (Aug. 31, 2010). No response to 

Order No. 4 was filed, and the ALJ 

subsequently issued an initial 

determination (‘‘ID’’) finding Ataudes 

Aguilares in default. Order No. 5 (Sept. 

24, 2010). The Commission determined 

not to review the ID and issued a Notice 

requesting briefing from interested 

parties on remedy, the public interest, 

and bonding. 75 FR 65379–80 (Oct. 22, 

2010). 

The IA and Batesville submitted 

briefing responsive to the Commission’s 

request on November 3 and 4, 2010, 

respectively. Each proposed a limited 

exclusion order directed to Ataudes 

Aguilares’s accused products and 

recommended allowing entry under a 

bond of 100 percent of the entered value 

during the period of Presidential review. 

The Commission found that the 

statutory requirements of section 

337(g)(1)(A)–(E) (19 U.S.C. 

1337(g)(1)(A)–(E)) were met with respect 

to the defaulting respondent. 

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 presumed 

the facts alleged in the complaint to be 

true. 

The Commission has determined that 

the appropriate form of relief in this 

investigation is a limited exclusion 

order prohibiting the unlicensed entry 

of certain caskets that are manufactured 

abroad by or on behalf of, or imported 

by or on behalf of, respondent Aguilares 

by reason of infringement of claims 1, 

13, 27, and 44–53 U.S. Patent No. 

5,611,124; claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 16, 17, 19, 

and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 5,727,291; 

claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 

6,836,936; claims 1, 2, 5–8, 11, and 12 

of U.S. Patent No. 6,976,294; and claims 

1, 2, 4, and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 

7,340,810. The Commission further 

determined that the public interest 

factors enumerated in section 337(g)(1) 

(19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)) do not preclude 

issuance of the limited exclusion order. 

Finally, the Commission 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. 

The Commission’s order was delivered 

to the President and the United States 

Trade Representative on the day of its 

issuance. 

The Commission has terminated this 

investigation. 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 sections 210.16(c) and 

210.41 of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.16(c) and 210.41). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: December 13, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–31647 Filed 12–15–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree 

Under the Clean Air Act 

Notice is hereby given that on 

December 10, 2010, a proposed Consent 

Decree (the ‘‘Decree’’) in United States 

and Puget Sound Clean Air Agency v. 

U.S. Oil & Refining Co., Case No. 3:10– 

cv–05899, was lodged with the United 

States District Court for the Western 

District of Washington. 

In a complaint filed on the same day, 

the United States alleged that U.S. Oil 

& Refining Co. (‘‘U.S. Oil’’) was liable for 

violations at its refinery in Tacoma, 

Washington, pursuant to Section 113(b), 

42 U.S.C. 7413(b). Specifically, the 

complaint alleges that U.S. Oil violated 

the National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Benzene 

Waste Operations (the ‘‘Benzene 

NESHAP’’), 40 CFR part 61, Subpart FF, 

the National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Petroleum 

Refineries concerning leak detection 

and repair (the ‘‘LDAR regulations’’), 40 

CFR part 63, Subpart CC, and the 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Petroleum 

Refineries concerning emissions from 

catalytic reforming units and sulfur 

recovery plants, 40 CFR part 63, Subpart 

UUU. The complaint also alleges 

violations of Title V of the Clean Air 

Act, 42 U.S.C. 7661–7661f. 

Pursuant to the Decree, U.S. Oil will: 

(1) Pay a civil penalty of $230,000; (2) 

implement at least $746,000 in 

supplemental environmental projects; 

(3) enhance U.S. Oil’s Benzene NESHAP 

compliance program; and (4) implement 

measures, in addition to compliance 

with the LDAR regulations, to minimize 

or eliminate fugitive emissions from 

components in the light liquid and 

gaseous service in its refinery. 

The Department of Justice will 

receive, for a period of thirty (30) days 

from the date of this publication, 

comments relating to the Decree. 

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 United 

States and Puget Sound Clean Air 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
78734 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Notices 

1The correct statutory citation is actually 21 

U.S.C. 841(c)(2). 

Agency v. U.S. Oil & Refining Co., D.J. 

Ref. 90–5–2–1–09514. 

During the public comment period, 

the Decree may be examined on the 

following Department of Justice Web 

site, http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ 

Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the 

Decree 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 a copy from the Consent 

Decree Library, please enclose a check 

in the amount of $19.25 (25 cents per 

page reproduction cost) payable to the 

U.S. Treasury or, if by e-mail or fax, 

forward a check in that amount to the 

Consent Decree Library at the stated 

address. 

Maureen Katz, 

Assistant Section Chief, Environmental 

Enforcement Section, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division. 

[FR Doc. 2010–31551 Filed 12–15–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 06–63] 

R & M Sales Company, Inc.; 

Revocation of Registration 

On June 1, 2006, the Deputy Assistant 

Administrator, Office of Diversion 

Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA, or ‘‘the 

Government’’), issued an Order to Show 

Cause to R & M Sales Company, Inc. 

(Respondent), of Blountville, Tennessee. 

The Show Cause Order proposed the 

revocation of Respondent’s DEA 

Certificate of Registration, 004413RAY, 

which authorizes it to distribute List I 

chemicals, as well as the denial of any 

pending application to renew its 

registration, on the ground that 

Respondent’s continued registration is 

‘‘inconsistent with the public interest.’’ 

OTSC at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(h) & 

824(a)(4)). 

More specifically, the Show Cause 

Order alleged that during an inspection 

for its initial registration, Respondent 

received copies of DEA notices and cites 

to the Code of Federal Regulations 

pertinent to listed chemical distributors. 

Id. Relatedly, the Order alleged that ‘‘Mr. 

Mitchell was further advised by DEA 

personnel on proper record-keeping 

procedures for a DEA registrant, 

including, but not limited to, the 

requirement of maintaining records of 

the destruction of out of date listed 

chemical products.’’ Id. 

Next, the Show Cause Order alleged 

that many of Respondent’s customers 

are convenience stores, gas stations and 

small independent grocers located in 

the Cumberland Plateau area of 

Tennessee, which is known for its 

problem with illicit methamphetamine 

production, and that Respondent 

distributes pseudoephedrine and 

ephedrine products in both tablet and 

gel-capsule form, which are precursor 

chemicals used in the illicit 

manufacture of methamphetamine. Id. 

at 2–3. 

The Show Cause Order further alleged 

that on June 8 and 9, 2005, DEA 

Investigators (DIs) conducted an 

inspection of Respondent, during which 

they performed an accountability audit 

of its handling of two ephedrine 

products, MaxBrand 25 mg. ephedrine 

tablets (48-count bottles) and Ephedrine 

Multi-Action 25 mg. (also 48-count 

bottles), which revealed a shortage of 

each product. Id. at 3–4. The Order thus 

alleged that Respondent ‘‘failed to 

maintain complete and accurate records 

of a regulated transaction as required by 

21 CFR 1310.06(a).’’ Id. at 4. The Order 

also alleged that Respondent ‘‘stores List 

I chemical products in its delivery 

trucks and/or trailers * * * creat[ing] 

the potential for the diversion of List I 

chemicals.’’ Id. (citing 21 U.S.C. 

823(h)(1) and 21 CFR 1309.71). 

Next, the Show Cause Order alleged 

that based on its June 2005 inspection, 

DEA ‘‘developed additional information 

regarding [Respondent’s] sale of large 

quantities of ephedrine to various 

convenience stores and related 

establishments,’’ and that these ‘‘sales 

were vastly in excess of the amounts of 

this over-the-counter product needed to 

meet the medical and scientific needs of 

the community.’’ Id. The Order also 

alleged that Respondent engaged in 35 

regulated transactions with seven 

different customers in which it 

distributed 24-count, 36-count, and 48- 

count bottles of ephedrine products, 

‘‘knowing or having reason to believe 

that its product would be used in the 

illicit manufacture of controlled 

substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

841(d)(2).’’ 1 Id., at 4–6. In addition, the 

Order alleged that Respondent failed ‘‘to 

provide notification of ‘suspicious’ 

activity pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 

830(b)(1)(A) and 21 CFR 1310.05(a)(1) 

with respect to’’ these 35 transactions. 

Id. Finally, the Order alleged that DEA 

‘‘conducted [a] customer verification’’ at 

the Fast Stop Covington, a convenience 

store located in Covington, Virginia, 

during which the owner informed a DI 

‘‘that he purchased one case (144 

bottles) of ephedrine products from 

[Respondent] every two to four weeks’’; 

the Order then alleged that these 

purchases were ‘‘far in excess of 

legitimate demand for these products.’’ 

Id. at 6. 

On June 26, 2006, Respondent 

requested a hearing in the matter. ALJ 

Ex. 2. The matter was assigned to a DEA 

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who 

conducted a hearing in Arlington, 

Virginia on May 15 and 16, 2007. 

During the hearing, both parties called 

witnesses to testify and introduced 

documentary evidence. Following the 

hearing, both parties submitted briefs 

containing proposed findings of fact, 

conclusions of law, and argument. 

On February 13, 2009, the ALJ issued 

her recommended decision (ALJ), which 

concluded that Respondent’s continued 

registration would be inconsistent with 

the public interest. With respect to 

factor one—the maintenance of effective 

controls against diversion—the ALJ 

found that Respondent violated 21 CFR 

1309.71(b) by storing listed chemicals in 

trucks away from its premises, that it 

sold ‘‘excessive quantities of listed 

chemicals to some customers and failed 

to report suspicious order[s] for these 

chemicals to DEA,’’ and that it ‘‘failed to 

ascertain whether [its] customers 

purchased listed chemicals from other 

distributors.’’ Id. at 36. She therefore 

concluded that ‘‘Respondent does not 

maintain adequate controls against the 

diversion of the listed chemicals it 

sells,’’ and that ‘‘this factor weighs in 

favor of a finding that Respondent’s 

continued registration would be 

inconsistent with the public interest.’’ 

Id. 

With respect to factor two— 

Respondent’s compliance with 

applicable Federal, State and local 

law—the ALJ concluded that 

Respondent’s storage of chemicals away 

from its premises and its failure to 

report suspicious transactions 

constituted violations of Federal law 

and DEA regulations. Id. She also found 

that Respondent had failed to provide 

prior notification to DEA of mail 

shipments of listed chemical products, 

in violation of 21 CFR 1310.03(c), and 

that, having ‘‘sold excessive quantities of 

listed chemicals,’’ Respondent further 

violated 21 U.S.C. 841(c)(2) in that it 

‘‘should have known that some of those 

chemicals were likely to be diverted to 

the illicit manufacture of the controlled 

substance methamphetamine.’’ Id. at 36– 

37. The ALJ thus concluded that this 

factor supported a finding that 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES