Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 4, 2009 / Notices 6055 

Bottomland hardwood forest 

management would be developed based 

on an inventory defining current 

conditions. Bottomlands would have 

management increased to open the 

canopy cover and increase structural 

and vegetation diversity. Water control 

structures and pumping capability 

would be improved to enhance moistsoil and cropland management for the 

benefit of wintering waterfowl. Invasive 

species would be mapped and protocols 

for control established with the addition 

of a forester. Partnerships would 

continue to be fostered for several 

biological programs, hunting 

regulations, law enforcement issues, and 

research projects. 

Under Alternative C, land acquisition, 

reforestation, and resource protection at 

Tensas River NWR would be intensified 

from the level now maintained in the 

‘‘No Action’’ Alternative. In the refuge’s 

Private Lands Program, staff would 

work with private landowners of 

adjacent tracts to manage and improve 

habitats. Staff would also explore 

opportunities with partners to protect 

existing and extend potential foraging 

areas off refuge lands. Alternative C 

would provide a full-time law 

enforcement officer, an equipment 

operator, a maintenance mechanic, and 

a wildlife technician. The refuge would 

develop and begin to implement a 

Cultural Resources Management Plan. 

Within 3 years of implementing the 

CCP, refuge staff would develop a 

Visitor Services Plan for use in 

expanding public use facilities and 

opportunities on the refuge. This stepdown management plan would provide 

overall, long-term direction and 

guidance in developing and running a 

larger public use program at Tensas 

River NWR. Alternative C would also 

increase opportunities for visitors by 

improving and/or adding facilities such 

as photo-blinds, observation sites, and 

trails. 

Next Step 

After the comment period ends, we 

will analyze the comments and address 

them. 

Public Availability of Comments 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Authority: This notice is published under 

the authority of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997, Public 

Law 105–57. 

Dated: January 28, 2009. 

Mike Piccirilli, 

Acting Regional Director. 

[FR Doc. E9–2304 Filed 2–3–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–646] 

In the Matter of Certain Power 

Supplies; Notice of Commission 

Determination Not To Review an Initial 

Determination Terminating the 

Investigation With Respect to 

Respondents Super Flower Computer, 

Inc. and Andyson International Co., 

Ltd. and Terminating the Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

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. 18) granting the 

motion of complainants Ultra Products, 

Inc. and Systemax, Inc. to terminate the 

investigation with respect to 

respondents Super Flower Computer, 

Inc. and Andyson International Co., Ltd. 

based on withdrawal of allegations from 

the Complaint and terminating the 

investigation. 

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 May 8, 2008, based on a complaint 

filed by Ultra Products, Inc. of Fletcher, 

Ohio and Systemax Inc. of Port 

Washington, New York (collectively 

‘‘Ultra’’). 73 FR 26144–5 (May 8, 2008). 

The complaint, as amended and 

supplemented, 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 power supplies by reason of 

infringement of certain claims of U.S. 

Patent No. 7,133,293. The complaint 

further alleges the existence of a 

domestic industry. The Commission’s 

notice of investigation named a number 

of respondents including Andyson 

International Co., Ltd. of Taipei, Taiwan 

(‘‘Andyson’’). On July 21, 2008, the 

Commission determined not to review 

an ID granting Ultra’s motion for leave 

to amend the complaint and notice of 

investigation to add a respondent, Super 

Flower Computer, Inc. (‘‘Super 

Flower’’). 73 FR 42365–6 (July 21, 

2008). 

On December 11, 2008, Ultra filed 

under Commission Rule 210.21(a) a 

motion for termination of the 

investigation with respect to 

respondents Andyson and Super Flower 

based on a withdrawal of allegations 

from the Complaint. Also on December 

11, Ultra filed a motion to stay the 

procedural schedule pending the ALJ’s 

decision on the motion to terminate. On 

December 22, 2008, the Commission 

Investigative Attorney filed a response 

in support of the motion to terminate 

Andyson and Super Flower. No other 

responses were filed. 

On January 5, 2009, the ALJ issued 

the subject ID, granting under 

Commission Rule 210.21(a) Ultra’s 

motion to terminate the investigation as 

to respondents Andyson and Super 

Flower. The ALJ noted that, with the 

termination of Andyson and Super 

Flower from the investigation, there are 

no longer any participating respondents 

in this investigation. All other named 

respondents were previously terminated 

from the investigation by way of 

settlement agreement, consent 

agreement, or default. The ALJ, 

therefore, terminated the investigation 

and stayed the procedural schedule. No 

petitions for review of this ID were filed. 

The Commission has determined not 

to review the ID. 

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 

section 210.42 of the Commission’s 

6056 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 4, 2009 / Notices 

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.42). 

Issued: January 29, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–2293 Filed 2–3–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Supplemental Notice of Lodging of 

Consent Decree Under the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) 

On January 15, 2009, the Department 

of Justice published notice of lodging of 

a proposed Consent Decree on January 

9, 2009, with the United States District 

Court for the District of Kansas in 

United States v. Citibank Global Market 

Holdings, Inc., Civil Action No. 09–CV– 

4002–SAC, under the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

(‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 9601–9675. See 

74 FR 2617 (Jan. 15, 2009). 

The Department of Justice hereby 

supplements its Notice to indicate that 

Citibank Global Market Holdings, Inc., 

is now known as Citigroup Global 

Market Holdings, Inc. Accordingly, the 

settlement parties are the United States, 

Citigroup Global Market Holdings, Inc., 

and the U.S. Steel Corporation. This 

opportunity to comment on the 

proposed consent decree is extended for 

30 days from the date of publication of 

this Supplemental Notice. 

Robert E. Maher, Jr., 

Assistant Section Chief, Environmental 

Enforcement Section, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division. 

[FR Doc. E9–2272 Filed 2–3–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Ladapo O. Shyngle, M.D.; Denial of 

Application 

On April 15, 2008, the Deputy 

Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration, issued an Order to 

Show Cause to Ladapo O. Shyngle, M.D. 

(Respondent), of Tampa, Florida. The 

Show Cause Order proposed the denial 

of Respondent’s pending application for 

a DEA Certificate of Registration as a 

practitioner, on the ground that his 

registration ‘‘would be inconsistent with 

the public interest.’’ Show Cause Order 

at 1. 

More specifically, the Show Cause 

Order alleged that Respondent had 

issued controlled-substance 

prescriptions to customers of an internet 

site who were located throughout the 

United States based on a questionnaire 

and/or telephone consultation, and that 

these prescriptions lacked ‘‘a legitimate 

medical purpose’’ and were issued 

‘‘outside the usual course of 

professional practice, in violation of 21 

CFR 1306.04(a) and 21 U.S.C. 

841(a)(1).’’ Id. The Order further alleged 

that notwithstanding that his Florida 

medical license had expired on August 

24, 2002, Respondent continued to issue 

prescriptions for controlled substances. 

Id. Relatedly, the Order alleged that 

Respondent had violated other state 

laws prohibiting the unauthorized 

practice of medicine by issuing 

prescriptions for controlled substances 

to residents of States where he was not 

licensed to practice. Id. at 1–2. 

On or about April 19, 2008, the Show 

Cause Order was served on Respondent 

by delivery to his residence. On May 14, 

2008, Respondent requested a hearing 

on the allegations and the matter was 

placed on the docket of the Agency’s 

Administrative Law Judges (ALJ). 

On the same date, Respondent also 

sought to withdraw his application, 

explaining that the State of Florida had 

criminally charged him with engaging 

in the unlicensed practice of medicine, 

that he intended ‘‘to vigorously defend’’ 

against this charge, and that in light of 

the pending proceeding, it was 

premature for the Agency to consider 

his application. On May 29, 2008, the 

Deputy Assistant Administrator denied 

Respondent’s request, reasoning that 

‘‘the facts supporting the Order to Show 

Cause will not be affected by the 

outcome of the state prosecution’’ and 

that Respondent ‘‘intend[ed] to continue 

professional medical practice and * * * 

reapply for a * * * [r]egistration at the 

conclusion of the state criminal case.’’ 

Letter from Joseph T. Rannazzisi to 

Respondent’s Counsel (May 29, 2008). 

Thereafter, on July 9, 2008, 

Respondent withdrew his request for a 

hearing. The next day, the ALJ issued an 

order terminating the proceeding. 

Based on Respondent’s letter 

withdrawing his request for a hearing, I 

conclude that Respondent has waived 

his right to a hearing. I therefore enter 

this Final Order without a hearing based 

on relevant material contained in the 

investigate file, see 21 CFR 1301.43, and 

make the following findings. 

Findings 

On October 3, 2005, Respondent 

applied for a DEA Certificate of 

Registration as a practitioner which 

would authorize him to dispense 

controlled substances in schedules II 

through V, at the proposed location of 

1493 Tampa Park Plaza, Tampa, Florida. 

Respondent previously held a 

practitioner’s registration which was 

issued on December 11, 2000, and 

which expired on February 29, 2004. 

On August 24, 2000, the Florida 

Department of Health issued a ‘‘medical 

doctor restricted’’ license to 

Respondent. The license expired, 

however, on August 24, 2002. 

Respondent did not obtain another 

medical license until September 16, 

2005, when the Florida Department of 

Health issued him a ‘‘medical doctor’’ 

license. This license remains in effect 

until January 31, 2010. I further find 

that Respondent was not licensed in any 

other State when he committed the acts 

at issue here. 

In 2002, Respondent was hired by 

Kenneth Shobola, the owner of a 

Tampa, Florida medical clinic (the 

Kenaday Medical Clinic), to perform 

consultations on persons who were 

seeking prescriptions for controlled 

substances through Shobola’s Web sites. 

While Respondent saw some walk-in 

patients at the clinic, in an interview 

with DEA Investigators, he admitted 

that he saw only about five percent of 

the persons he prescribed to, and that 

his contact with most of the patients 

was limited to a telephone consultation 

which lasted five to ten minutes. 

Based on the consultations, 

Respondent would then typically issue 

a prescription for a schedule III 

controlled substance containing 

hydrocodone; Respondent also issued 

prescriptions for diazepam (Valium), a 

schedule IV controlled substance, 21 

CFR 1308.14(c), and some noncontrolled drugs. While the 

prescriptions were initially filled at F & 

B Pharmacy (another Tampa-based 

pharmacy which was operated by Olu 

Oyekoya), F & B eventually pulled out 

of the arrangement and all of the 

prescriptions were then filled by Ken 

Drugs, a pharmacy owned by Shobola. 

Respondent would perform up to 

twenty consultations a day for Shobola’s 

clinic. According to computer records 

obtained by Investigators, Respondent 

issued over 3800 prescriptions which 

were filled by Shobola’s pharmacy. 

Approximately seventy-five percent of 

the prescriptions were for hydrocodone, 

and between the original prescriptions 

and refills, Respondent authorized the 

dispensing of more than 500,000 dosage