6042 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 23 / Thursday, February 4, 2016 / Notices 

patent’’); 8,776,738; 8,820,276 (‘‘the ’276 

patent’’); and 7,059,282 (‘‘the ’282 

patent’’). The complaint further alleged 

that a domestic industry exists or is in 

the process of being established. The 

Commission’s Notice of Investigation 

named the following respondents: Fiat 

Chrysler Automobiles N.V. (‘‘Fiat’’) of 

Slough, United Kingdom; FCA US LLC 

of Auburn Hills, Michigan; FCA Mexico, 

S.A. de C.V. of Sante Fe, Mexico; FCA 

Melfi S.p.A. of Melfi, Italy; and FCA 

Serbia d.o.o. Kragujevac of Kragujevac, 

Serbia. The Office of Unfair Import 

Investigations is not participating in the 

investigation. Respondent Fiat and the 

following patents and patent claims 

were later terminated from the 

investigation: (1) The ’397 patent (ALJ’s 

Order No. 6, unreviewed, Comm’n 

Notice Aug. 18, 2015); (2) the ’492 

patent (ALJ’s Order No. 8, unreviewed, 

Comm’n Notice Oct. 26, 2015); (3) 

Claims 3, 5, 13–16, 18–19, 22, 35–36, 

38–44, 46–48, 50, and 54–56 of the ’738 

patent; claims 1–5, 7, 10, 19–23, and 

26–28 of the ’276 patent; and Fiat (see 

ALJ’s Order No. 13, unreviewed, 

Comm’n Notice Dec. 21, 2015); and (4) 

the ’282 patent (see ALJ’s Order No. 15, 

unreviewed, Comm’n Notice Jan. 29, 

2016). 

On January 6, 2016, complainant 

moved for termination of the 

investigation based on withdrawal of 

the complaint. No party opposed the 

motion. 

On January 7, 2016, the ALJ issued 

the subject ID (Order No. 16) granting 

complainant’s motion and finding that 

the motion for termination satisfies 

Commission Rule 210.21(a)(1) and that 

no ‘‘extraordinary circumstances’’ exist 

that would preclude granting the 

motion. No party petitioned for review 

of the ID. 

The Commission has determined not 

to review the ID and the Commission 

has terminated the 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 part 

210 of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 

210). 

By order of the Commission. 

Dated: January 29, 2016. 

Lisa R. Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02018 Filed 2–3–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–556 and 731– 

TA–1311 (Preliminary)] 

Truck and Bus Tires From China; 

Institution of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Investigations and 

Scheduling of Preliminary Phase 

Investigations 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the institution of investigations 

and commencement of preliminary 

phase antidumping and countervailing 

duty investigation Nos. 701–TA–556 

and 731–TA–1311 (Preliminary) 

pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the 

Act’’) to determine whether there is a 

reasonable indication that an industry 

in the United States is materially 

injured or threatened with material 

injury, or the establishment of an 

industry in the United States is 

materially retarded, by reason of 

imports of truck and bus tires from 

China, provided for in statistical 

reporting numbers 4011.20.1015 and 

4011.20.5020 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States, that are 

alleged to be sold in the United States 

at less than fair value and alleged to be 

subsidized by the Government of China. 

Unless the Department of Commerce 

extends the time for initiation, the 

Commission must reach a preliminary 

determination in antidumping and 

countervailing duty investigations in 45 

days, or in this case by March 14, 2016. 

The Commission’s views must be 

transmitted to Commerce within five 

business days thereafter, or by March 

21, 2016. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 29, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nathanael N. Comly, 202–205–3174, 

Office of Investigations, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. 

Hearing-impaired 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 (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. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background. These investigations are 

being instituted, pursuant to sections 

703(a) and 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 

1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)), 

in response to a petition filed on 

January 29, 2016, by United Steel, Paper 

and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, 

Energy, Allied Industrial and Service 

Workers International Union, Pittsburg, 

PA. 

For further information concerning 

the conduct of these investigations 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 and B (19 CFR part 207). 

Participation in the investigation and 

public service list. Persons (other than 

petitioners) wishing to participate in the 

investigations as parties must file an 

entry of appearance with the Secretary 

to the Commission, as provided in 

sections 201.11 and 207.10 of the 

Commission’s rules, not later than seven 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. Industrial users 

and (if the merchandise under 

investigation is sold at the retail level) 

representative consumer organizations 

have the right to appear as parties in 

Commission antidumping duty and 

countervailing duty investigations. The 

Secretary will prepare a public service 

list containing the names and addresses 

of all persons, or their representatives, 

who are parties to these investigations 

upon the expiration of the period for 

filing entries of appearance. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and BPI service list. Pursuant to section 

207.7(a) of the Commission’s rules, the 

Secretary will make BPI gathered in 

these investigations available to 

authorized applicants representing 

interested parties (as defined in 19 

U.S.C. 1677(9)) who are parties to the 

investigations under the APO issued in 

the investigations, provided that the 

application is made not later than seven 

days after the publication of this notice 

in the Federal Register. A separate 

service list will be maintained by the 

Secretary for those parties authorized to 

receive BPI under the APO. 

Conference. The Commission’s 

Director of Investigations has scheduled 

a conference in connection with these 

investigations for 9:30 a.m. on February 

19, 2016, at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC. Requests to appear at 

the conference should be emailed to 

William.bishop@usitc.gov and 

Sharon.bellamy@usitc.gov (do not file 

on EDIS) on or before February 17, 2016. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 23 / Thursday, February 4, 2016 / Notices 6043 

1The Show Cause Order also proposed the denial 

of any other pending application. Show Cause 

Order, at 1. 

Parties in support of the imposition of 

countervailing and antidumping duties 

in these investigations and parties in 

opposition to the imposition of such 

duties will each be collectively 

allocated one hour within which to 

make an oral presentation at the 

conference. A nonparty who has 

testimony that may aid the 

Commission’s deliberations may request 

permission to present a short statement 

at the conference. 

Written submissions. As provided in 

sections 201.8 and 207.15 of the 

Commission’s rules, any person may 

submit to the Commission on or before 

February 24, 2016, a written brief 

containing information and arguments 

pertinent to the subject matter of the 

investigations. Parties may file written 

testimony in connection with their 

presentation at the conference. If briefs 

or written testimony contain BPI, they 

must conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. Please consult the 

Commission’s rules, as amended, 76 FR 

61937 (Oct. 6, 2011) and the 

Commission’s Handbook on Filing 

Procedures, 76 FR 62092 (Oct. 6, 2011), 

available on the Commission’s Web site 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the rules, each document 

filed by a party to the investigations 

must be served on all other parties to 

the investigations (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. 

Authority: These investigations are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.12 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: January 29, 2016. 

Lisa R. Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02066 Filed 2–3–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Louis Watson, M.D.; Decision and 

Order 

On July 9, 2015, the Deputy Assistant 

Administrator, Office of Diversion 

Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA), issued an Order 

to Show Cause to Louis Watson, M.D. 

(Respondent). The Show Cause Order 

proposed the revocation of 

Respondent’s DEA Certificate of 

Registration FW2729804, and the denial 

of any pending application to renew or 

modify the registration, on ground that 

he ‘‘do[es] not have authority to practice 

medicine or handle controlled 

substances in California, the state in 

which he is registered with the DEA.’’ 

Show Cause Order, at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 

823(f) and 824(a)(3)).1

The Show Cause Order alleged that 

Respondent is registered with the DEA 

as a practitioner, pursuant to which he 

is authorized to dispense controlled 

substances in Schedules II through V, at 

the registered address of 99 N. San 

Antonio Ave., #140, Upland, California. 

Id. The Order also alleged that 

Respondent’s registration does not 

expire until May 31, 2017. Id. 

The Show Cause Order further alleged 

that effective September 12, 2014, the 

Medical Board of California (MBC) 

revoked Respondent’s California 

Physician’s and Surgeon’s Certificate, 

based on the recommendation of a state 

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who 

had conducted a hearing. Id. The Show 

Cause Order thus alleged that 

Respondent is currently ‘‘without 

authority to handle controlled 

substances in California, the state in 

which [he is] registered with the’’ 

Agency, and that ‘‘DEA must revoke 

[his] registration.’’ Id. (citing 21 U.S.C. 

802(21), 823(f), 824(a)(3)). 

The Show Cause Order also notified 

Respondent of his right to request a 

hearing on the allegations or to submit 

a written statement in lieu of a hearing, 

the procedure for electing either option, 

and the consequence of failing to elect 

either option. Id. at 2 (citing 21 CFR 

1301.43). The Show Cause Order further 

explained that ‘‘[m]atters are deemed 

filed upon receipt by the Hearing 

Clerk.’’ Id. 

On July 15, 2015, DEA Diversion 

Investigators (DIs) went to a location in 

Claremont, California which they 

believed to be Respondent’s residence. 

GX 3. The DI verified that the location 

was Respondent’s address with a 

neighbor and a pool maintenance 

employee. Id. The DI then left the Show 

Cause Order ‘‘on his front door.’’ Id; see 

also GX 6, at 11–12 (Declaration of DI). 

Thereafter, Respondent submitted a 

request for hearing to the DEA Office of 

Administrative Law Judges (OALJ). 

While Respondent’s request was dated 

August 9, 2015, it was not received by 

the OALJ until August 24, 2015. GX4. 

In his Hearing Request, Respondent 

listed the name and address of the 

attorney who was representing him in a 

state court challenge to the MBC’s order, 

thus suggesting that the attorney was 

representing him in this matter. Id. 

Thereafter, the Chief Administrative 

Law Judge (CALJ) issued an order 

directing the Government to file 

evidence to support its allegation that 

Respondent lacks state authority to 

handle controlled substances as well as 

any motion for summary disposition 

based on this ground no later than 

September 8, 2015; the order also 

directed that if the Government filed 

such a motion, Respondent was to file 

his response no later than September 22, 

2015. GX 5, at 1–2. In his order, the 

CALJ also noted that although 

Respondent’s Hearing Request listed the 

attorney retained to represent his appeal 

of the decision of the California Medical 

Board, there was no indication that this 

attorney was also representing him in 

the instant proceeding, and thus 

Respondent’s hearing request was 

construed to be ‘‘a pro se request.’’ Id. 

A copy of the CALJ’s order was mailed 

postage pre-paid to Respondent at 2058 

N. Mills Avenue #142, Claremont, 

California, the address listed on the 

envelope containing Respondent’s 

Hearing Request. GX 9, at 2; see also GX 

5, at 2. 

Thereafter, the Government filed a 

motion requesting that the CALJ deny 

Respondent’s request for a hearing on 

the ground that it was not timely filed 

pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(a), which 

requires the filing of a written request 

for hearing ‘‘within 30 days after the 

date of receipt of the order to show 

cause.’’ GX 6, at 1 (Motion to Preclude 

Response to the Order to Show Cause). 

Therein, the Government argued that 

Respondent’s hearing request was filed 

40 days after the date of service of the 

Order to Show Cause, and that 

Respondent had not shown good cause 

for the untimely filing. The Government 

thus argued that Respondent had 

waived his right to a hearing and that 

the CALJ should issue an order denying 

his hearing request and forwarding the 

file to the Administrator for a final 

decision. Id. at 3. 

On the same date, the Government 

also filed a Motion for Summary 

Disposition. Therein, the Government 

requested that the CALJ ‘‘issue a 

Recommended Decision to summarily 

revoke’’ Respondent’s DEA registration 

on the ground that he lacks state 

authority to dispense controlled 

substances in California, the State in 

which he hold his registration. GX 7, at 

1–2. As support for its motion, the 

Government submitted copies of the 

MBC’s Decision and the state ALJ’s 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES