Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 15, 2021 / Notices 51381 

1A record of the Commissioners’ votes is 

available from the Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s website. 

2 Vice Chair Stayin did not participate in this 

proceeding. 

3The Commission has found the response to its 

notice of institution filed by the National Candle 

Association, a trade association whose 36 members 

are either producers or wholesalers of U.S. 

produced petroleum wax candles, to be adequate. 

Comments from other interested parties will not be 

accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of an expedited 

review pursuant to the Tariff Act of 

1930 (‘‘the Act’’) to determine whether 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

order on petroleum wax candles from 

China would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury within a reasonably foreseeable 

time. 

DATES: July 7, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie 

Duffy (202–708–2579), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter 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 (https://

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at https://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On July 7, 2021, the 

Commission determined that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (86 

FR 17203, April 1, 2021) of the subject 

five-year review was adequate and that 

the respondent interested party group 

response was inadequate. The 

Commission did not find any other 

circumstances that would warrant 

conducting a full review.1 Accordingly, 

the Commission determined that it 

would conduct an expedited review 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(3)).2

For further information concerning 

the conduct of this review and rules of 

general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B 

(19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207). 

Please note the Secretary’s Office will 

accept only electronic filings at this 

time. Filings must be made through the 

Commission’s Electronic Document 

Information System (EDIS, https://

edis.usitc.gov). No in-person paperbased filings or paper copies of any 

electronic filings will be accepted until 

further notice. 

Staff report.—A staff report 

containing information concerning the 

subject matter of the review has been 

placed in the nonpublic record, and will 

be made available to persons on the 

Administrative Protective Order service 

list for this review on September 10, 

2021. A public version will be issued 

thereafter, pursuant to section 

207.62(d)(4) of the Commission’s rules. 

Written submissions.—As provided in 

section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s 

rules, interested parties that are parties 

to the review and that have provided 

individually adequate responses to the 

notice of institution,3 and any party 

other than an interested party to the 

review may file written comments with 

the Secretary on what determination the 

Commission should reach in the review. 

Comments are due on or before 

September 17, 2021 and may not 

contain new factual information. Any 

person that is neither a party to the fiveyear review nor an interested party may 

submit a brief written statement (which 

shall not contain any new factual 

information) pertinent to the review by 

September 17, 2021. However, should 

the Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Commerce’’) extend the time limit for 

its completion of the final results of its 

review, the deadline for comments 

(which may not contain new factual 

information) on Commerce’s final 

results is three business days after the 

issuance of Commerce’s results. If 

comments contain business proprietary 

information (BPI), they must conform 

with the requirements of sections 201.6, 

207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s 

rules. The Commission’s Handbook on 

Filing Procedures, available on the 

Commission’s website at https://

www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_

on_filing_procedures.pdf, elaborates 

upon the Commission’s procedures with 

respect to filings. 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the rules, each document 

filed by a party to the review must be 

served on all other parties to the review 

(as identified by either the public or BPI 

service list), and a certificate of service 

must be timely filed. The Secretary will 

not accept a document for filing without 

a certificate of service. 

Determination.—The Commission has 

determined this review is 

extraordinarily complicated and 

therefore has determined to exercise its 

authority to extend the review period by 

up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)(B). 

Authority: This review is being 

conducted under authority of title VII of 

the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is 

published pursuant to section 207.62 of 

the Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: September 9, 2021. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2021–19827 Filed 9–14–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–1200] 

Certain Electronic Devices, Including 

Streaming Players, Televisions, Set 

Top Boxes, Remote Controllers, and 

Components Thereof; Commission 

Determination To Review the Final 

Initial Determination in Part and To 

Request Written Submissions on the 

Issues Under Review, Remedy, 

Bonding, and the Public Interest 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) has 

determined to review in part certain 

findings in a final initial determination 

(‘‘ID’’) issued by the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) and to 

solicit briefing on the issues under 

review, as well as remedy, bonding, and 

the public interest. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl 

P. Bretscher, Esq., Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–2382. Copies of non-confidential 

documents filed in connection with this 

investigation may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

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

accessing EDIS, please email 

EDIS3Help@usitc.gov. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

internet server at https://www.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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
51382 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 15, 2021 / Notices 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted this investigation 

on May 22, 2020, based on a complaint 

filed by Universal Electronics, Inc. 

(‘‘UEI’’) of Scottsdale, Arizona. 85 FR 

31211–212 (May 22, 2020). The 

complaint, as supplemented, alleges 

violations of section 337 of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 

(‘‘Section 337’’), in the importation into 

the United States, sale for importation, 

or sale in the United States after 

importation of certain electronic 

devices, including streaming players, 

televisions, set top boxes, remote 

controllers, and components thereof, by 

reason of infringement of one or more of 

the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 

7,696,514 (‘‘the ’514 patent’’); 9,911,325 

(‘‘the ’325 patent’’); 9,716,853 (‘‘the ’853 

patent’’); 7,589,642 (‘‘the ’642 patent’’); 

10,593,196 (‘‘the ’196 patent’’); and 

10,600,317 (‘‘the ’317 patent’’). Id. The 

complaint alleges that a domestic 

industry exists. Id. 

The Commission’s notice of 

investigation names the following 

respondents: Roku Inc. of Los Gatos, 

California (‘‘Roku’’); TCL Electronics 

Holdings Ltd. of New Territories, Hong 

Kong; Shenzhen TCL New Technology 

Co. Ltd. of Shenzhen, China; TCL King 

Electrical Appliances Co. Ltd. of 

Huizhou, China; TTE Technology Inc. of 

Corona, California; TCL Corp. of 

Huizhou City, China; TCL Moka Int’l 

Ltd. of New Territories, Hong Kong; TCL 

Overseas Marketing Ltd. of New 

Territories, Hong Kong; TCL Industries 

Holdings Co., Ltd. of New Territories, 

Hong Kong; and TCL Smart Device Co. 

of Bac Tan Uyen District, Vietnam 

(collectively, ‘‘the TCL Respondents’’); 

Hisense Co. Ltd. of Qingdao, China; 

Hisense Electronics Manufacturing Co. 

of America Corp. of Suwanee, Georgia; 

Hisense Import & Export Co. Ltd. of 

Qingdao, China; Qingdao Hisense 

Electric Co., Ltd. of Qingdao, China; and 

Hisense International Co., Ltd. of Shen 

Wang, Hong Kong (collectively, ‘‘the 

Hisense Respondents’’); Funai Electric 

Co., Ltd. of Osaka, Japan; Funai Corp. 

Inc. of Rutherford, New Jersey; and 

Funai Co., Ltd. of Nakhon Ratchasima, 

Thailand (collectively, ‘‘the Funai 

Respondents’’). Id. The Office of Unfair 

Import Investigations is not 

participating in this investigation. Id. 

The Commission partially terminated 

the investigation with respect to certain 

patents and patent claims that were 

withdrawn by UEI, including all of the 

asserted claims of the ’514 patent, ’325 

patent, and ’853 patent. See Order No. 

27 (Dec. 2, 2020), unreviewed by 

Comm’n Notice (Dec. 23, 2020); Order 

No. 32 (Dec. 21, 2020), unreviewed by 

Comm’n Notice (Jan. 5, 2021); Order No. 

33 (Dec. 29, 2020), unreviewed by 

Comm’n Notice (Jan. 13, 2021); Order 

No. 34 (Jan. 4, 2021), unreviewed by 

Comm’n Notice (Jan. 21, 2021); Order 

No. 44 (Feb. 2, 2021), unreviewed by 

Comm’n Notice (Feb. 19, 2021); Order 

No. 49 (Feb. 9, 2021), unreviewed by 

Comm’n Notice (Feb. 24, 2021); Order 

No. 66 (March 23, 2021), unreviewed by 

Comm’n Notice (April 8, 2021); Order 

No. 67 (Apr. 6, 2021), unreviewed by 

Comm’n Notice (Apr. 22, 2021). 

The Commission also terminated the 

investigation with respect to the Hisense 

Respondents, the TCL Respondents, and 

the Funai Respondents. Order No. 67 

(Apr. 6, 2021), unreviewed by Comm’n 

Notice (Apr. 22, 2021). 

On February 18, 2021, the 

Commission determined not to review 

an ID entering summary determination 

that claim 19 of the ’642 patent is 

practiced by the domestic industry 

products and infringed by the accused 

‘‘Elk’’ series of products. Order No. 38 

(Jan. 19, 2021), unreviewed by Comm’n 

Notice (Feb. 18, 2021). On February 24, 

2021, the Commission determined not 

to review an ID entering summary 

determination that the technical prong 

of the domestic industry requirement is 

satisfied for claims 1–3, 5–8, and 16 of 

the ’325 patent. Order No. 41 (Jan. 25, 

2021), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice 

(Feb. 24, 2021). 

On February 24, 2021, the 

Commission determined to review and 

reverse an ID granting Roku’s motion for 

summary determination that UEI lacks 

standing to assert the ’196 patent and to 

remand the standing question to the ALJ 

for further consideration. Order No. 40 

(Jan. 25, 2021), reviewed by Comm’n 

Notice (Feb. 24, 2021); see also Comm’n 

Op. (Mar. 3, 2021). 

The ALJ held on evidentiary hearing 

from April 19–23, 2021. By the time of 

the hearing, the only remaining 

respondent was Roku and the only 

remaining claims at issue for 

infringement or domestic industry 

purposes were claim 19 of the ’642 

patent; claims 3, 6, 9, and 11 of the ’347 

patent; and claims 1–3, 11, and 13–15 

of the ’196 patent. 

On July 9, 2021, the ALJ issued the 

subject final ID, finding a violation of 

Section 337 as to the ’196 patent but no 

violation with respect to either the ’642 

patent or ’317 patent. 

On July 23, 2021, both UEI and Roku 

filed petitions for review of certain 

findings in the final ID, pursuant to 

Commission Rule 210.43(a) (19 CFR 

210.43(a)). On August 2, 2021, the 

parties filed their respective replies, 

pursuant to Commission Rule 210.43(c) 

(19 CFR 210.43(c)). 

Having reviewed the record in this 

investigation, including the final ID, the 

parties’ petitions, and responses thereto, 

the Commission has determined to 

review all issues relating to the ’196 

patent, whether UEI satisfied the 

technical prong for the ’317 patent, and 

the ID’s conclusion that UEI satisfied 

the economic prong of the domestic 

industry requirement under Section 

337(a)(3)(B) with respect to the ’196 

patent, the ’317 patent, and the ’642 

patent. The Commission further notes 

that the parties have agreed that Roku’s 

Alice-5 remote control is not among the 

accused products. See ID at 23. The 

Commission has determined not to 

review any of the ID’s other findings. 

The parties are asked to provide 

additional briefing on the following 

issues under review: 

(A) Does the limitation ‘‘for use in 

configuring the remote control device to 

transmit’’ in the final clause of claim 1 

of the ’196 patent require construction? 

See ’196 patent at 17:23–25 (emphasis 

added). If so, how should it be 

construed? 

(B) In view of the response to 

Question (A), supra, do the accused 

Roku products infringe claim 1 of the 

’196 patent, with particular attention to: 

(i) Whether converting a radiofrequency 

(‘‘RF’’) signal to an infrared (‘‘IR’’) signal 

in the accused remote control devices 

satisfies the limitation ‘‘for use in 

configuring the remote control device to 

transmit a second command’’; and (ii) 

whether the accused products use the 

same ‘‘first data’’ to indicate whether 

the ‘‘second media device’’ will be 

‘‘responsive’’ or ‘‘unresponsive’’ to the 

‘‘first command,’’ as set forth in the final 

clause of claim 1. See ’196 patent at 

17:13–32. 

(C) Does your response to Question 

(A), supra, affect the ID’s invalidity 

analysis? Would the ID’s invalidity 

analysis with respect to the ’196 patent 

be affected if the term ‘‘for use in 

configuring the remote control device to 

transmit’’ in the final clause of claim 1 

was found not to cover converting an RF 

signal to an IR signal? 

(D) With respect to the ID’s invalidity 

analysis for the ’196 patent, explain 

whether or how Chardon (U.S. Patent 

Application Pub. No. 2012/0249890) or 

Mishra (U.S. Patent Application No. 

2001/0005197), singly or in 

combination, discloses to a person of 

ordinary skill in the art a ‘‘first media 

device’’ that either ‘‘cause[s] the first 

media device to be configured to 

transmit a first command directly to the 

second media device [via HDMI]’’ or 

‘‘transmit[s] a second data to a remote 

control device . . . for use in 

configuring the remote control device to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 15, 2021 / Notices 51383 

transmit a second command directly to 

the second media device,’’ depending 

on whether the ‘‘second media device’’ 

is ‘‘responsive’’ or ‘‘unresponsive’’ to a 

‘‘first command,’’ respectively, as set 

forth in the final clause of claim 1. See 

’196 patent at 17:13–32. Explain 

whether there is a motivation to 

combine the references and clear and 

convincing evidence of obviousness. 

(E) Do the Samsung televisions that 

UEI identified as satisfying the technical 

prong of the domestic industry 

requirement practice the asserted claims 

of the ’317 patent, with particular 

attention to: (i) Whether the term ‘‘a 

display device coupled to the controlled 

device’’ in claim 1 can cover an 

electronic component (e.g., LCD display 

screen) contained within an electronic 

device (e.g., an LCD television) (see ’317 

patent at 8:55–56 (emphasis added)); 

and (ii) identify the ‘‘controlled device,’’ 

‘‘receiver,’’ ‘‘transmitter,’’ ‘‘display 

device,’’ ‘‘processing device,’’ and other 

components recited in the asserted 

claims of the ’317 patent to the extent 

the asserted claims read on UEI’s 

domestic industry products. 

(F) Given that the domestic industry 

products for the ’196 and ’317 patents 

include downstream products, such as 

televisions (ID at 6, 51, 102), to what 

extent should an evaluation of the 

significance of investments in labor and 

capital under Section 337(a)(3)(B) take 

into account labor and capital 

associated with the downstream 

products? 

The parties are requested to brief only 

the discrete issues identified above, 

with reference to the applicable law and 

evidentiary record. The parties are not 

to brief any other issues on review, 

which have already been adequately 

presented in the parties’ previous 

filings. 

In connection with the final 

disposition of this investigation, the 

statute authorizes issuance of: (1) An 

order that could result in the exclusion 

of the subject articles from entry into the 

United States, and/or (2) cease-anddesist orders that could result in the 

respondents being required to cease and 

desist from engaging in unfair acts in 

the importation and sale of such 

articles. Accordingly, the Commission is 

interested in receiving written 

submissions that address the form of 

remedy, if any, that should be ordered. 

If a party seeks exclusion of an article 

from entry into the United States for 

purposes other than entry for 

consumption, the party should so 

indicate and provide information 

establishing that activities involving 

other types of entry either are adversely 

affecting it or likely to do so. For 

background, see Certain Devices for 

Connecting Computers via Telephone 

Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360, USITC 

Pub. No. 2843, Comm’n Op. at 7–10 

(December 1994). 

The statute requires the Commission 

to consider the effects of any remedy 

upon the public interest. The public 

interest factors the Commission will 

consider include the effect that an 

exclusion order and/or cease-and-desist 

order would have on: (1) The public 

health and welfare; (2) competitive 

conditions in the U.S. economy; (3) U.S. 

production of articles that are like or 

directly competitive with those that are 

subject to investigation; and (4) U.S. 

consumers. The Commission is 

therefore interested in receiving written 

submissions that address the 

aforementioned public interest factors 

in the context of this investigation. 

If the Commission orders some form 

of remedy, the U.S. Trade 

Representative, as delegated by the 

President, has 60 days to approve, 

disapprove, or take no action on the 

Commission’s action. See Presidential 

Memorandum of July 21, 2005. 70 FR 

43251 (July 26, 2005). During this 

period, the subject articles would be 

entitled to enter the United States under 

bond, in an amount determined by the 

Commission and prescribed by the 

Secretary of the Treasury. The 

Commission is therefore interested in 

receiving submissions concerning the 

amount of the bond that should be 

imposed if a remedy is ordered. 

Written Submissions: Parties to this 

investigation are requested to file 

written submissions on the issues 

identified above in this notice. In 

addition, the parties, interested 

government agencies, and any other 

interested parties are requested to file 

written submissions on the issues of 

remedy, the public interest, and 

bonding. Such initial submissions 

should include views on the 

recommended determination by the ALJ 

on remedy and bonding. Explain 

whether your views on public interest 

or bonding would differ if the 

redesigned products (or redesigned 

components of a product) put forward 

by Respondents were excluded from any 

remedy. 

In its initial submission, Complainant 

is requested to identify the remedy 

sought and to submit proposed remedial 

orders for the Commission’s 

consideration. Complainant is also 

requested to provide the HTSUS 

subheadings under which the accused 

products are imported. Complainant is 

further requested to supply the names of 

known importers of the Respondents’ 

products at issue in this investigation. 

Complainant is also requested to 

identify and explain, from the record, 

articles that it contends are 

‘‘components of’’ the subject products, 

and thus potentially covered by the 

proposed remedial orders, if imported 

separately from the subject products. 

See 85 FR at 31211. Failure to provide 

this information may result in waiver of 

any remedy directed to ‘‘components 

of’’ the subject products, in the event 

any violation may be found. 

The parties’ written submissions and 

proposed remedial orders must be filed 

no later than the close of business on 

September 24, 2021. Reply submissions 

must be filed no later than the close of 

business on October 1, 2021. Opening 

submissions are limited to 40 pages. 

Reply submissions are limited to 35 

pages. No further submissions on any of 

these issues will be permitted unless 

otherwise ordered by the Commission. 

Persons filing written submissions 

must file the original document 

electronically on or before the deadlines 

stated above. The Commission’s paper 

filing requirements in 19 CFR 210.4(f) 

are currently waived. 85 FR 15798 (Mar. 

19, 2020). Submissions should refer to 

the investigation number (‘‘Inv. No. 

337–TA–1200’’) in a prominent place on 

the cover page and/or first page. (See 

Handbook for Electronic Filing 

Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/ 

documents/handbook_on_filing_

procedures.pdf). Persons with questions 

regarding filing should contact the 

Secretary (202–205–2000). 

Any person desiring to submit a 

document to the Commission in 

confidence must request confidential 

treatment by marking each document 

with a header indicating that the 

document contains confidential 

information. This marking will be 

deemed to satisfy the request procedure 

set forth in Rules 201.6(b) and 

210.5(e)(2) (19 CFR 201.6(b) & 

210.5(e)(2)). Documents for which 

confidential treatment by the 

Commission is properly sought will be 

treated accordingly. All information, 

including confidential business 

information and documents for which 

confidential treatment is properly 

sought, submitted to the Commission for 

purposes of this Investigation may be 

disclosed to and used: (i) By the 

Commission, its employees and Offices, 

and contract personnel (a) for 

developing or maintaining the records 

of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in 

internal investigations, audits, reviews, 

and evaluations relating to the 

programs, personnel, and operations of 

the Commission including under 5 

U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. 

government employees and contract 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
51384 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 15, 2021 / Notices 

personnel, solely for cybersecurity 

purposes. All contract personnel will 

sign appropriate nondisclosure 

agreements. All non-confidential 

written submissions will be available for 

public inspection at the Office of the 

Secretary and on EDIS. 

The Commission vote for this 

determination took place on September 

9, 2021. 

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 Part 

210 of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 

210). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: September 9, 2021. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2021–19849 Filed 9–14–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

Granting of Requests for Early 

Termination of the Waiting Period 

Under the Premerger Notification 

Rules 

Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 

U.S.C. 18a, as added by Title II of the 

Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust 

Improvements Act of 1976, requires 

persons contemplating certain mergers 

or acquisitions to give the Federal Trade 

Commission and the Assistant Attorney 

General advance notice and to wait 

designated periods before 

consummation of such plans. Section 

7A(b)(2) of the Act permits the agencies, 

in individual cases, to terminate this 

waiting period prior to its expiration 

and requires that notice of this action be 

published in the Federal Register. The 

following transaction was granted early 

termination—on the date indicated—of 

the waiting period provided by law and 

the premerger notification rules. The 

listing includes the transaction number 

and the parties to the transaction. The 

Federal Trade Commission and the 

Assistant Attorney General for the 

Antitrust Division of the Department of 

Justice made the grants. Neither agency 

intends to take any action with respect 

to this proposed acquisitions during the 

applicable waiting period. 

EARLY TERMINATION GRANTED

08/26/2021 

20212939 ........................... G Alight, Inc.; Alight Solutions LLC; Aon plc; Aon Hewitt Health Market Insurance Solutions Inc. 

Suzanne Morris, 

Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, 

Antitrust Division, Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2021–19943 Filed 9–14–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–11–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. DEA–893] 

Importer of Controlled Substances 

Application: Cambridge Isotope 

Laboratories 

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement 

Administration, Justice. 

ACTION: Notice of application. 

SUMMARY: Cambridge Isotope 

Laboratories has applied to be registered 

as an importer of basic class(es) of 

controlled substance(s). Refer to 

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION listed below 

for further drug information. 

DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of 

the affected basic class(es), and 

applicants therefore, may file written 

comments on or objections to the 

issuance of the proposed registration on 

or before October 15, 2021. Such 

persons may also file a written request 

for a hearing on the application on or 

before October 15, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be sent to: Drug Enforcement 

Administration, Attention: DEA Federal 

Register Representative/DPW, 8701 

Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 

22152. All requests for a hearing must 

be sent to: Drug Enforcement 

Administration, Attn: Administrator, 

8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, 

Virginia 22152. All requests for a 

hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug 

Enforcement Administration, Attn: 

Hearing Clerk/OALJ, 8701 Morrissette 

Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and 

(2) Drug Enforcement Administration, 

Attn: DEA Federal Register 

Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette 

Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this 

is notice that on July 29, 2021, 

Cambridge Isotope Laboratories, 50 

Frontage Road, Andover, Massachusetts 

01810–5413, applied to be registered as 

an importer of the following basic 

class(es) of controlled substance(s): 

Controlled substance Drug 

code Schedule 

Gamma Hydroxybutyric 

Acid.

2010 I 

Tetrahydrocannabinols .... 7370 I 

Morphine .......................... 9300 II 

The company plans to import the listed 

controlled substances for analytical 

research. No other activity for this drug 

code is authorized for this registration. 

Approval of permit applications will 

occur only when the registrant’s 

business activity is consistent with what 

is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). 

Authorization will not extend to the 

import of Food and Drug 

Administration-approved or nonapproved finished dosage forms for 

commercial sale. 

Brian S. Besser, 

Acting Assistant Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2021–19944 Filed 9–14–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Proposed 

Consent Decree Under the Clean Air 

Act 

On September 9, 2021, the U.S. 

Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a 

Complaint and lodged a proposed 

Consent Decree with the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of 

Michigan in United States of America 

and Michigan Department of 

Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy 

v. Arbor Hills Energy LLC No. 5:21–cv– 

12098. 

The proposed Consent Decree 

resolves several Clean Air Act and State 

law claims against Arbor Hills Energy 

LLC (AHE), including for exceedances 

of permitted SO2 emissions limits, at 

AHE’s landfill gas-to-energy facility in 

Northville, Michigan. The AHE facility 

converts landfill gas (LFG), which is 

generated by decomposition of waste 

from an adjacent landfill, into electricity 

by burning it as fuel in four gas turbines. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES