84194 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2024 / Notices 

from the Office of the Secretary and at 

the Commission’s website. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of 

the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is 

published pursuant to § 207.62 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: October 16, 2024. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2024–24295 Filed 10–18–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–1421] 

Certain Rechargeable Batteries and 

Components Thereof; Notice of 

Institution of Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a 

complaint was filed with the U.S. 

International Trade Commission on 

September 12, 2024, under section 337 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 

on behalf of LithiumHub, LLC of Norris, 

South Carolina; Lithiumhub 

Technologies, LLC of Marshall, Texas; 

and Mr. Martin Koebler of Norris, South 

Carolina. Supplements to the complaint 

were filed on September 30, October 2, 

and October 7, 2024. The complaint 

alleges violations of section 337 based 

upon the importation into the United 

States, the sale for importation, and the 

sale within the United States after 

importation of certain rechargeable 

batteries and components thereof by 

reason of the infringement of certain 

claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,412,994 

(‘‘the ’994 patent’’) and U.S. Patent No. 

9,954,207 (‘‘the ’207 patent’’). The 

complaint further alleges that an 

industry in the United States exists or 

is in the process of being established as 

required by the applicable Federal 

Statute. The complainant requests that 

the Commission institute an 

investigation and, after the 

investigation, issue a limited exclusion 

order and cease and desist orders. 

ADDRESSES: The complaint, except for 

any confidential information contained 

therein, may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at https://edis.usitc.gov. For help 

accessing EDIS, please email 

EDIS3Help@usitc.gov. Hearing impaired 

individuals are advised that information 

on this matter can be obtained by 

contacting the Commission’s TDD 

terminal on (202) 205–1810. Persons 

with mobility impairments who will 

need special assistance in gaining access 

to the Commission should contact the 

Office of the Secretary at (202) 205– 

2000. General information concerning 

the Commission may also be obtained 

by accessing its internet server at 

https://www.usitc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Pathenia M. Proctor, The Office of 

Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 

telephone (202) 205–2560. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority: The authority for 

institution of this investigation is 

contained in section 337 of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 

1337, and in section 210.10 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2024). 

Scope of Investigation: Having 

considered the complaint, the U.S. 

International Trade Commission, on 

October 15, 2024, ordered that— 

(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of 

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, an investigation be instituted 

to determine whether there is a 

violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of 

section 337 in the importation into the 

United States, the sale for importation, 

or the sale within the United States after 

importation of certain products 

identified in paragraph (2) by reason of 

infringement of one or more of claims 1, 

4–9, 11–16, and 18–23 of the ’994 patent 

and claims 1–10 and 12–20 of the ’207 

patent, and whether an industry in the 

United States exists or is in the process 

of being established as required by 

subsection (a)(2) of section 337; 

(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the 

plain language description of the 

accused products or category of accused 

products, which defines the scope of the 

investigation, is ‘‘lithium-ion batteries 

with 6V or more electrical potential, and 

components used for domestic assembly 

of lithium-ion batteries with 6V or more 

electrical potential, specifically, battery 

management systems and lithium-based 

rechargeable cells’’; 

(3) For the purpose of the 

investigation so instituted, the following 

are hereby named as parties upon which 

this notice of investigation shall be 

served: 

(a) The complainants are: 

LithiumHub, LLC, 125 Tate Road, 

Norris, SC 29667 

Lithiumhub Technologies, LLC, 104 E 

Houston, Ste. 150, Marshall, TX 

75670 

Mr. Martin Koebler, 125 Tate Road, 

Norris, SC 29667 

(b) The respondents are the following 

entities alleged to be in violation of 

section 337, and are the parties upon 

which the complaint is to be served: 

Bass Pro Outdoor World LLC, 2500 East 

Kearney Street, Springfield, MO 

65898 

Cabela’s LLC, 2500 East Kearney Street, 

Springfield, MO 65898 

Navico Group Americas LLC, N85 

W12545 Westbrook Crossing, 

Menomonee Falls, WI 53051 

Relion Battery (Shenzhen) Technology 

Co., Room 410, 4th Floor, Cui Hua Da 

Industrial, Park, No. 144 Botanical 

Garden Road, Nanyu E Community, 

Shenzhen, China 

Renogy New Energy Co., LTD, 25A, 

Hengye Platinum, No. 1338, Sanxiang 

Road, Gusu District, Suzhou City, 

Jiangsu, China 

RNG International Inc., 5050 S 

Archibald Avenue, Ontario, CA 91762 

Clean Republic SODO LLC, 225 S Lucile 

St., Seattle, WA 98108 

Shenzhen Yichen S-Power Tech Co. 

LTD, Floor 7, Building B4b, Yingzhan 

Industrial Zone, Longtian 

Community, Zehgzi Street, Pingshan 

District, Shenzhen, China 

Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics LTD, No 

4–5, Fendmenyuan Industrial Park, 

Fenfhuang Avenue, Longgang 

Shenzhen, Guangdong, China 

Shenzhen LiTime Technology Co., LTD, 

Room 301, Building B, Baolong 5th 

Road, Baolong Community, Baolong 

Street, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China 

Dragonfly Energy Corp., 1190 

Trademark Dr. #108, Reno, NV 89521 

Dragonfly Energy Holdings Corp., 1190 

Trademark Dr. #108, Reno, NV 89521 

MillerTech Energy Solutions LLC, 

14632 Old State Road, Middlefield, 

OH 44062 

(c) The Office of Unfair Import 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW, Suite 

401, Washington, DC 20436; and 

(4) For the investigation so instituted, 

the Chief Administrative Law Judge, 

U.S. International Trade Commission, 

shall designate the presiding 

Administrative Law Judge. 

Responses to the complaint and the 

notice of investigation must be 

submitted by the named respondents in 

accordance with section 210.13 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 

19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), as 

amended in 85 FR 15798 (March 19, 

2020), such responses will be 

considered by the Commission if 

received not later than 20 days after the 

date of service by the complainants of 

the complaint and the notice of 

investigation. Extensions of time for 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2024 / Notices 84195 

1The Agency adopts the ALJ’s summary of the 

witnesses’ testimonies as well as the ALJ’s 

assessment of the witnesses’ credibility. RD, at 3– 

21. 

2On May 30, 2024, Respondent signed a DEA 

Form 104, Surrender for Cause of DEA Certificate 

of Registration. See 21 CFR 1301.52(a). Even when 

a registration is terminated, the Agency has 

discretion to adjudicate the OSC to finality. See 

Jeffrey D. Olsen, M.D., 84 FR 68,474, 68,479 (2019) 

(declining to dismiss an immediate suspension 

order when the registrant allowed the registration 

to expire before final adjudication); Steven M. 

Kotsonis, M.D., 85 FR 85667, 85668–69 (2020) 

(concluding that termination of a registration under 

21 CFR 1301.52 does not preclude DEA from 

issuing a final decision and that the Agency would 

assess such matters on a case-by-case basis to 

determine if a final adjudication is warranted); The 

Pharmacy Place, 86 FR 21008, 21008–09 (2021) 

(‘‘Adjudicating this matter to finality will create a 

public record to educate current and prospective 

registrants about the Agency’s expectations 

regarding the responsibilities of registrant[s] . . . 

under the CSA and allow stakeholders to provide 

feedback regarding the Agency’s enforcement 

priorities and practices.’’); Creekbend Community 

Pharmacy, 86 FR 40627, 40628 n.4 (2021) 

(‘‘Adjudicating this matter to finality will create an 

official record the Agency can use in any future 

interactions with Respondent . . . or other persons 

who were associated with Respondent.’’). As in 

these cases, the Agency has evaluated the 

circumstances of this matter and determined that 

the matter should be adjudicated to finality for the 

purpose of creating an official record of the 

allegations and evidence, and educating the 

registrant community, the public, and stakeholders 

about the responsibilities associated with holding a 

DEA registration and the Agency’s enforcement 

priorities. 

3The ALJ found that ‘‘to the extent 

[Respondent’s] testimony contradicts with that 

offered by [the Diversion Investigator], [she] gives 

full credit to the [Diversion Investigator]’s 

testimony.’’ RD, at 21. The Agency agrees with the 

amount of weight that the ALJ afforded 

Respondent’s testimony. 

4CES’s staff did not hold DEA registrations. RD, 

at 5, 16; Tr. 50, 225–26. 

5A hard token is a physical device similar to a 

key fob that may be used to authenticate an 

electronic prescription. Tr. 45; 21 CFR 

1311.115(a)(3), 1311.140(a)(5). The hard token 

which Respondent used was not offered into 

evidence. Tr. 47. Instead, a picture of a hard token 

similar to one used by Respondent was admitted 

into evidence. Tr. 45–48; GX 22. The picture shows 

a small device, roughly two inches in length, with 

a small screen on which a PIN number would be 

displayed. Id. When a hard token is used to sign 

a prescription, the token generates a unique 

identification PIN number which serves as the 

signature on the prescription. RD, at 5; Tr. 46. The 

PIN is unique to each prescription and can be 

traced to the prescriber. Id. 

6The Agency agrees with the ALJ’s assessment 

that the DI was ‘‘a credible, reliable’’ witness and 

that her testimony was clear, objective, consistent, 

precise, and ‘‘corroborated by the documentary 

evidence.’’ RD, at 9. The ALJ found that ‘‘[t]o the 

extent her testimony conflicts with Respondent’s 

testimony, . . . [she] credits [the DI].’’ Id. The 

Agency agrees with the amount of weight that the 

ALJ afforded Respondent’s testimony. 

submitting responses to the complaint 

and the notice of investigation will not 

be granted unless good cause therefor is 

shown. 

Failure of a respondent to file a timely 

response to each allegation in the 

complaint and in this notice may be 

deemed to constitute a waiver of the 

right to appear and contest the 

allegations of the complaint and this 

notice, and to authorize the 

administrative law judge and the 

Commission, without further notice to 

the respondent, to find the facts to be as 

alleged in the complaint and this notice 

and to enter an initial determination 

and a final determination containing 

such findings, and may result in the 

issuance of an exclusion order or a cease 

and desist order or both directed against 

the respondent. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: October 16, 2024. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2024–24285 Filed 10–18–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 23–65] 

Neeraj B. Shah, M.D.; Decision and 

Order 

On August 30, 2023, the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA or 

Government) issued an Order to Show 

Cause (OSC) to Neeraj B. Shah, M.D., 

(Respondent) of Austin, Texas. 

Administrative Law Judge Exhibit 

(ALJX) 1 (OSC), at 1. The OSC proposed 

the revocation of Respondent’s DEA 

Certificate of Registration (registration), 

No. FS2968444, and alleged that 

Respondent’s continued registration is 

inconsistent with the public interest. Id. 

(citing 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), 824(a)(4)). 

A hearing was held before DEA 

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Teresa 

A. Wallbaum who, on March 8, 2024, 

issued her Recommended Rulings, 

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, 

and Decision of the Administrative Law 

Judge (RD). The RD recommended that 

Respondent’s registration be revoked. 

RD, at 33. Neither party filed exceptions 

to the RD. Having reviewed the entire 

record, the Agency adopts and hereby 

incorporates by reference the entirety of 

the ALJ’s rulings, credibility findings,1

findings of fact, conclusions of law, 

sanctions analysis, and recommended 

sanction in the RD and summarizes and 

expands upon portions thereof herein.2

I. Findings of Fact 

The Agency finds from clear, 

unequivocal, and convincing evidence 

that Respondent failed to maintain sole 

possession of his hard token for issuing 

electronic controlled substance 

prescriptions, that he allowed 

unauthorized individuals to issue 

electronic controlled substance 

prescriptions using his DEA credentials, 

and that in doing so, he allowed 

controlled substances to be prescribed 

outside the usual course of professional 

practice and without a legitimate 

medical purpose. RD, at 24–27. 

Respondent’s Hard Token, Credentials, 

and Electronic Prescribing 

In July 2019, Respondent 3 received 

an unsolicited fax offering employment 

as a prescribing practitioner with a 

telemedicine platform called Church 

Ekklasia Sozo (CES).4 RD, at 11–12; Tr. 

184–86, 327; Respondent’s Exhibit (RX) 

1. The company was based out of North 

Carolina and Respondent lived and 

worked in Texas. RD, at 4, 10, 12; ALJX 

8, at 2, Stips. 1–3. Respondent joined 

CES in September 2019 and had his first 

patient intake and clinical encounter in 

May 2020. RD, at 12; Tr. 197–98. 

Respondent worked as a contractor 

physician for CES from September 9, 

2019, to December 13, 2021. RD, at 4, 

11–12; Tr. 40, 192–94; ALJX 8, at 2, 

Stip. 2. As a condition of employment 

at CES, Respondent was required to 

obtain a hard token 5 for the purpose of 

issuing electronic controlled substance 

prescriptions and to give the hard token 

to CES staff in North Carolina. RD, at 4, 

6–7, 13; Tr. 44–45, 58–59, 227–29, 231, 

280, 284. Respondent admitted to giving 

his hard token to CES and allowing the 

company to keep his electronic 

signature on file to issue controlled 

substance prescriptions under his DEA 

registration. Id. 

On December 1, 2021, a DEA 

Diversion Investigator (DI) 6 conducted a 

regulatory inspection of Respondent’s 

registered premises. RD, at 3–4; Tr. 28, 

31–38, 138, 141–42, 156; Government’s 

Exhibit (GX) 2. At the inspection, the DI 

informed Respondent that over 1,900 

prescriptions for buprenorphine 

products (a schedule III controlled 

substance) had been issued under his 

registration in the past two years. RD, at 

4; Tr. 41–43. Respondent stated that this 

number was ‘‘too high’’ because he only 

saw ‘‘about 20 to 25 patients.’’ Id. The 

DI asked Respondent to show her a 

prescription that he had issued, and 

Respondent pulled up a recently issued 

controlled substance prescription for 

patient J.O. RD, at 5–6; Tr. 50–53; GX 

20, at 29. The prescription bore a time 

stamp indicating that it had been signed 

by Respondent while the DI was 

conducting the inspection. Id. Although 

the prescription for J.O. purported to be 

signed by Respondent, Respondent told 

the DI that he did not know this patient, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1