Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Notices 36745 

and, after the investigation, issue an 

exclusion order and a cease and desist 

order. 

ADDRESSES: The complaint, except for 

any confidential information contained 

therein, is 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., Room 

112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 

202–205–2000. 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 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Benjamin Levi, Esq., Office of Unfair 

Import Investigations, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, telephone (202) 

205–2781. 

Authority: The authority for 

institution of this investigation is 

contained in section 337 of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 

210.10 of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 

(2009). 

Scope of Investigation: Having 

considered the complaint, the U.S. 

International Trade Commission, on 

July 20, 2009, ordered that— 

(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of 

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, an investigation be instituted 

to determine: 

(a) 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 lighting control devices 

including dimmer switches or parts 

thereof that infringe one or more of 

claims 36, 38, 47, 58, 65, 67, 76, 87, 94, 

96, 105, 116, 178, 180, 189, and 197 of 

U.S. Patent No. 5,637,930, and whether 

an industry in the United States exists 

as required by subsection (a)(2) of 

section 337; and 

(2) 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 complainant is— Lutron 

Electronics Co., Inc., 7200 Suter Road, 

Coopersburg, PA 18036. 

(b) The respondent is the following 

entity alleged to be in violation of 

section 337, and is the party upon 

which the complaint is to be served: 

Neptun Light, Inc., 960 North Shore 

Drive, Lake Bluff, IL 60044. 

(c) The Commission investigative 

attorney, party to this investigation, is 

Benjamin Levi, Esq., Office of Unfair 

Import Investigations, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and 

(3) For the investigation so instituted, 

Paul J. Luckern, 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 respondent 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(d) and 210.13(a), such 

responses will be considered by the 

Commission if received not later than 20 

days after the date of service by the 

Commission of the complaint and the 

notice of investigation. Extensions of 

time for submitting responses to the 

complaint and the notice of 

investigation will not be granted unless 

good cause therefor is shown. 

Failure of the 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. 

Issued: July 20, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–17723 Filed 7–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree 

Under the Clean Air Act 

Under 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby 

given that on July 20, 2009 a Consent 

Decree in United States v. Tyler Holding 

Company, Inc., and Delek Refining, Ltd., 

Civil Action No. 6:09cv319 was lodged 

with the United States District Court for 

the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler 

Division. 

In a complaint that was filed 

simultaneously with the Consent 

Decree, the United States sought 

injunctive relief and penalties against 

Tyler Holding Company, Inc., f/k/a La 

Gloria Oil and Gas Co. (‘‘Tyler 

Holding’’), and Delek Refining, Ltd. 

(‘‘Delek’’), pursuant to section 113(b) of 

the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7413(b), for 

alleged Clean Air Act violations at a 

petroleum refinery in Tyler, Texas. 

Under the settlement, Delek will 

implement air pollution control 

practices to reduce emissions of sulfur 

dioxide and volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs) from the refinery. Delek will 

adopt a refinery-wide enhanced flaring 

protocol to investigate the root cause of 

flaring incidents. Delek will also 

undertake an enhanced fugitive 

emission control program to minimize 

emissions of VOCs. In addition, Tyler 

Holding will pay a $624,000 civil 

penalty for settlement of the claims in 

the complaint. 

The Department of Justice will receive 

comments relating to the Consent 

Decree for a period of thirty (30) days 

from the date of this publication. 

Comments should be addressed to the 

Assistant Attorney General, 

Environment and Natural Resources 

Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

20044–7611, or submitted via e-mail to 

pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov, and 

should refer to United States v. Tyler 

Holding Company, Inc., and Delek 

Refining, Ltd., D.J. Ref. No. 90–5–2–1– 

08279. 

The Consent Decree may be examined 

at the Offices of the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Dallas, Texas. During the 

public comment period, the Consent 

Decree may also be examined on the 

following Department of Justice Web 

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

Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the 

Consent 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 number (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 $18.50 (25 cents per 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
36746 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Notices 

1The Show Cause Order also alleged that 

Respondent had ‘‘assisted * * * a former DEA 

registrant, in maintaining his customer base [of 

convenience stores and gas stations] for 

combination ephedrine products, after he 

surrendered his * * * registration for cause.’’ Show 

Cause Order at 2. The Government, however, 

offered no evidence in support of this allegation. 

page reproduction cost) payable to the 

U.S. Treasury. 

Maureen M. Katz, 

Assistant Section Chief, Environmental 

Enforcement Section, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division. 

[FR Doc. E9–17622 Filed 7–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree 

Under the Clean Air Act 

Notice is hereby given that on June 

16, 2009, a proposed Consent Decree 

(Decree) in the case of United States v. 

American Laboratories, Inc., Civil 

Action No. 8:09–CV–00194, was lodged 

with the United States District Court for 

the District of Nebraska. Under this 

Consent Decree, the Settling Defendant 

is required to pay a total of $440,000 in 

civil penalty for alleged violations of the 

Clean Air Act, and recover and reuse at 

93% of total isopropyl alcohol and 

implement best available control 

technology at its pharmaceutical 

manufacturing plant in Omaha, 

Nebraska. 

For thirty (30) days after the date of 

this publication, the Department of 

Justice will receive comments relating to 

the Consent 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. In either case, the 

comments should refer to United States 

v. American Laboratories, Inc., D.J. Ref. 

No. 90–5–2–1–08313. 

The Decree may be examined at the 

Office of the United States Attorney, 

1620 Dodge Street, Suite 1400, Omaha, 

Nebraska 68102. During the comment 

period, the Consent Decree may be 

examined on the following Department 

of Justice Web site: http:// 

www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ 

Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the 

Consent 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 $9.25 (with 

attachments) or $8.00 (without 

attachments) (25 cents per page 

reproduction cost) payable to the United 

States Treasury or, if by e-mail or fax, 

forward a check in that amount to the 

Consent Decree Library at the stated 

address. 

Maureen M. Katz, 

Assistant Section Chief, Environmental 

Enforcement Section, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division. 

[FR Doc. E9–17696 Filed 7–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 07–14] 

CBS Wholesale Distributors; Grant of 

Renewal Application and Dismissal of 

Proceeding 

On January 5, 2007, the Deputy 

Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration, issued an Order to 

Show Cause to CBS Wholesale 

Distributors (Respondent), of 

Hephzibah, Georgia. The Show Cause 

Order proposed the revocation of 

Respondent’s DEA Certificate of 

Registration which authorizes it to 

distribute List I chemicals, and the 

denial of any pending applications to 

renew or modify the registration, on the 

ground that his ‘‘registration is 

inconsistent with the public interest.’’ 

Show Cause Order at 1. 

More specifically, the Show Cause 

Order alleged that Respondent is 

‘‘currently registered to distribute the 

List I chemicals pseudoephedrine and 

ephedrine,’’ id. at 2, and that both 

chemicals are ‘‘commonly used to 

illegally manufacture 

methamphetamine, a schedule II 

controlled substance.’’ Id. at 1. The 

Show Cause Order alleged that ‘‘there 

exists a ‘gray market’ in which certain 

pseudoephedrine and ephedrine 

products are distributed only to 

convenience stores and gas stations, 

from where they have a high incidence 

of diversion,’’ and that these 

establishments ‘‘continue to be the 

primary source for precursors to be 

diverted to illicit methamphetamine 

laboratory operations in many states.’’ 

Id. at 1–2. 

Next, the Show Cause Order alleged 

that DEA had retained ‘‘an expert in the 

field of retail marketing and statistics to 

analyze national sales data for over-thecounter non-prescription drugs.’’ Id. at 

2. The Order alleged that the expert had 

determined that ‘‘the average small store 

could expect to sell monthly only about 

$10.00 to $30.00 worth of 

pseudoephedrine products,’’ and ‘‘that 

the potential for sales of combination 

ephedrine products [was] only about 

one-fourth of those sales levels.’’ Id. 

The Show Cause Order further alleged 

that Respondent’s list I customers ‘‘are 

almost exclusively convenience stores 

and gas stations, which are part of the 

gray market for diversion’’ of these 

products, id. at 2, and that Respondent’s 

‘‘sales of combination ephedrine 

products are inconsistent with the 

known legitimate market and known 

end-user demand for products of this 

type.’’ Id. at 3. The Order further alleged 

that Respondent is ‘‘serving an 

illegitimate market and [that its] 

continued registration would likely lead 

to increased diversion of List I 

chemicals.’’ Id.1

Respondent timely requested a 

hearing on the allegations. The matter 

was placed on the docket of the 

Agency’s Administrative Law Judges 

(ALJ), and an ALJ conducted a hearing 

in Savannah, Georgia on December 4–5, 

2007. At the hearing, both the 

Government and Respondent elicited 

the testimony of witnesses and 

submitted documentary evidence. 

Following the hearing, both parties filed 

briefs containing their proposed 

findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 

arguments. 

On June 10, 2008, the ALJ issued her 

recommended decision (ALJ). In her 

decision, the ALJ found persuasive the 

expert testimony of the Agency’s expert 

witness that the average monthly sale of 

ephedrine products to meet legitimate 

demand is $14.39 and that Respondent’s 

customers were purchasing between five 

to eighty times this amount. ALJ at 33. 

The ALJ thus concluded that 

Respondent’s sales of ephedrine 

products ‘‘to gray market entities are so 

grossly excessive that there is a high 

probability that these products are being 

diverted for illicit purposes, and that 

this fact alone outweighs’’ the evidence 

that Respondent provided adequate 

physical security for the products, 

maintained adequate records, and was 

selling only to customers who had 

obtained the required certification 

under the Combat Methamphetamine 

Epidemic Act. Id. at 34. The ALJ thus 

also concluded that ‘‘Respondent’s 

continued registration would be 

inconsistent with the public interest,’’ 

id. at 36, and recommended that its 

registration be revoked and that any 

pending applications to renew or 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES