Notices. Notice of OHV use restrictions
16,942 words·~77 min read·
/register/2007/09/24/07-4724A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [UT-090-06-1220-PM] Revision of Recreation Use Restrictions for Indian Creek Canyon Corridor: Off-Highway Vehicle Use Restrictions AGENCY: Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. ACTION: Notice of OHV use restrictions. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that, effective immediately, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Monticello Field Office, is restricting off-highway vehicle
(OHV)travel to existing roads and trails on approximately 100,000 acres of public lands in the Indian Creek Canyon area near Monticello, UT. The public lands affected by this restriction are located in portions of T. 29 S., R. 19-21 E; T. 30 S., R. 19-22 E.; T. 31 S., R. 20-22 E; T. 32 S., R. 20-22 E. The Indian Creek Management boundary is depicted on the attached map. The purpose of this restriction is to protect riparian, soils, riparian, vegetation, visual and cultural resources that have been adversely impacted, or are at risk of being adversely impacted by cross-country OHV travel. The restriction will remain in effect until the Monticello Resource Management Plan Revision is completed. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nick Sandberg, Acting Field Office Manager, Monticello Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, P.O. Box 7, Monticello, Utah, 84535;
(435)587-1500. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: BLM is implementing this action on approximately 100,000 acres of public land in the Indian Creek Corridor area in San Juan County, which is located in southeast Utah. BLM's Monticello Field Office has observed and documented considerable adverse effects from cross-country OHV use in this area to soils, riparian, vegetation, visual and cultural resources. Based on this information, BLM's authorized officer has determined that cross-country OHV use in this area is causing, or will cause, considerable adverse effects upon soils, riparian, vegetation, visual and cultural resources. Consequently, OHV travel in this area is being limited to existing roads and trails. A map showing the restriction area is available for public inspection at the BLM's Monticello Field Office, at the above address. OHV use on the remainder of the public lands in San Juan County, Utah administered by BLM will be managed according to existing **Federal Register** orders and the 1991 San Juan Resource Area Resource Management Plan. This restriction order does not apply to:
(1)Any federal, state or local government law enforcement officer engaged in enforcing this closure order or member of an organized rescue or fire fighting force while in the performance of an official duty.
(2)Any Bureau of Land Management employee, agent, contractor, or cooperator while in the performance of an official duty. This order shall not be construed as a limitation on BLM's future planning efforts and/or management of OHV use on the public lands. BLM will periodically monitor resource conditions and rends in the restriction area and may modify this order or implement additional limitations or closures as necessary. The authority for this order is 43 CFR 8342.1. Dated: September 14, 2007. Sherwin N. Sandberg, Field Office Manager. [FR Doc. E7-18621 Filed 9-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-DQ-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Minerals Management Service Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior. ACTION: Notice of a reinstatement of an information collection (1010-0082). SUMMARY: To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), MMS is inviting comments on a collection of information that we will submit to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval. The information collection request
(ICR)concerns the paperwork requirements in the regulations under 30 CFR 281, Leasing for Minerals Other than Oil, Gas and Sulphur in the Outer Continental Shelf. DATES: Submit written comments by November 23, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods listed below. Please use the Information Collection Number 1010-0082 as an identifier in your message. • E-mail MMS at *rules.comments@mms.gov* . Identify with Information Collection Number 1010-0082 in the subject line. • *Fax:* 703-787-1093. Identify with Information Collection Number 1010-0082. • *Mail or hand-carry comments to the Department of the Interior; Minerals Management Service; Attention:* Cheryl Blundon; 381 Elden Street, MS-4024; Herndon, Virginia 20170-4817. Please reference “Information Collection 1010-0082” in your comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheryl Blundon, Regulations and Standards Branch at
(703)787-1607. You may also contact Cheryl Blundon to obtain a copy, at no cost, of the regulations that require the subject collection of information. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* 30 CFR Part 281, Leasing for Minerals Other than Oil, Gas, and Sulphur in the Outer Continental Shelf. *OMB Control Number:* 1010-0082. *Abstract:* Section 8(k) of the Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS)Lands Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1337), authorizes the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to grant to the qualified persons offering the highest cash bonuses on a basis of competitive bidding leases of any mineral other than oil, gas, and sulphur. This applies to any area of the Outer Continental Shelf not then under lease for such mineral upon such royalty, rental, and other terms and conditions as the Secretary may prescribe at the time of offering the area for lease. The Secretary is to administer the leasing provisions of the Act and prescribe the rule and regulations necessary to carry out those provisions. Regulations at 30 CFR Part 281 implement these statutory requirements. However, there has been no activity in the OCS for minerals other than oil, gas, and sulphur for many years and no information collected since we allowed the OMB approval to expire in 1991. Nevertheless, because these are regulatory requirements, the potential exists for information to be collected and we are requesting that OMB reinstate this collection of information. We use the information required by 30 CFR Part 281 to determine if statutory requirements are met prior to the issuance of a lease. Specifically, MMS uses the information to: • Evaluate the area and minerals requested by the lessee to assess the viability of offering leases for sale. • Allows the State(s) to initiate the establishment of a joint group. • Ensure excessive overriding royalty interests are not created that would put economic constraints on all parties involved. • Document that a leasehold or geographical subdivision has been surrendered by the record title holder. We protect proprietary information according to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR Part 2), and 30 CFR Parts 280 and 282. No items of a sensitive nature are collected. Responses are mandatory. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Estimated Number and Description of Respondents:* As there are no active respondents, we estimated the potential annual number of respondents to be one. Respondents are OCS lessees. *Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Hour” Burden:* The previous OMB inventory included 1,248 annual burden hours for the collection of information. The following chart details the individual components and respective hour burden estimates of this ICR. In calculating the burdens, we assumed that respondents perform certain requirements in the normal course of their activities. We consider these to be usual and customary and took that into account in estimating the burden. Citation 30 CFR 281 Reporting and/or recordkeeping requirement Hour burden Fee(s) Subpart A—General 6 Appeal decisions. Exempt under 5 CFR 1320.4(a)(2), (c). Subpart B—Leasing Procedures 11(a),
(c)Request approval for mineral lease with relevant information 60 All sections Submit response to Call for Information and Interest on areas for leasing of minerals (other than oil, gas, sulphur) in accordance with approved lease program, including information from States/local governments 120 13 States or local governments submit comments/ recommendations on planning, coordination, consultation, and other issues that may contribute to the leasing process 200 All sections Submit suggestions and relevant information in response to request for comments on proposed lease including information form States/local governments 160 18(a), (b), (c); 20(e), (f); 26(a) Submit bids (oral or sealed) and required information 250 18(c); 20(e),
(f)Tie bids—submit oral bids for highest bidder 20 20(a), (b), (c); 41(a) Establish a Company File for qualification; submit updated information, submit qualifications for lessee/bidder 58 21(a); 47(c) Request for reconsideration of bid rejection/cancellation Exempt as defined 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(9). Subpart C—Financial Considerations 26; 21(b), (e); 40(b); 41(b) Execute lease (includes submission of evidence of authorized agent and request for dating of leases) 100 31(b); 41 File application and required information for assignment or transfer for approval 160 $50 application fee 32(b),
(c)File application for waiver, suspension, or reduction and supporting documentation 80 33; 41(c) Submit surety or personal bond Burden covered under 1010-0081. Subpart E—Termination of Leases 46(a) File written request for relinquishment. 40 *Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-Hour Cost” Burden:* We have identified one “non-hour cost” burden for this collection, a $50 application fee under § 281.41. It should be noted that this fee was never previously included since the non-hour cost burdens were not subject to reporting under the 1980 Paperwork Reduction Act. Furthermore, this fee has never been collected since we have not had any leases for minerals other than oil, gas, and sulphur. *Public Disclosure Statement:* The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* ) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Until OMB approves a collection of information, you are not obligated to respond. *Comments:* Before submitting an ICR to OMB, PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) requires each agency “* * * to provide notice * * * and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information * * *”. Agencies must specifically solicit comments to:
(a)Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful;
(b)evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(c)enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Agencies must also estimate the “non-hour cost” burdens to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information. Therefore, if you have costs to generate, maintain, and disclose this information, you should comment and provide your total capital and startup cost components or annual operation, maintenance, and purchase of service components. You should describe the methods you use to estimate major cost factors, including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, discount rate(s), and the period over which you incur costs. Capital and startup costs include, among other items, computers and software you purchase to prepare for collecting information, monitoring, and record storage facilities. You should not include estimates for equipment or services purchased:
(i)Before October 1, 1995;
(ii)to comply with requirements not associated with the information collection;
(iii)for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the Government; or
(iv)as part of customary and usual business or private practices. We will summarize written responses to this notice and address them in our submission for OMB approval. As a result of your comments, we will make any necessary adjustments to the burden in our submission to OMB. *Public Comment Procedures:* 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. *MMS Information Collection Clearance Officer:* Arlene Bajusz
(202)208-7744. Dated: August 6, 2007. E.P. Danenberger, Chief, Office of Offshore Regulatory Programs. [FR Doc. E7-18643 Filed 9-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before September 8, 2007. Pursuant to § 60.13 of 36 CFR Part 60 written comments concerning the significance of these properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation may be forwarded by United States Postal Service, to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St., NW., 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1201 Eye St., NW., 8th floor, Washington DC 20005; or by fax: 202-371-6447. Written or faxed comments should be submitted by October 9, 2007. J. Paul Loether, Chief, National Register of Historic Places/National Historic Landmarks Program. ARIZONA Maricopa County Glendale Townsite—Catlin Court Historic District (Boundary Increase), Generally bounded by 55th Ave., 59th Ave., Palmaire Ave. and Orangewood Ave., Glendale, 07001088 OHIO Greene County Jamestown Opera House, 19 N. Limestone St., Jamestown, 07001093 Hamilton County American Can Company Building, 4101 Spring Grove Ave., Cincinnati, 07001092 Montgomery County Engineers Club of Dayton, 110 E. Monument Ave., Dayton, 07001091 Summit County Cole Avenue Housing Project Historic District, 744 Colette Dr., Akron, 07001090 Hartong, Levi J., House and Farm, 6521 Mt. Pleasant Rd., Green, 07001089 TEXAS Harris County San Jacinto Street Bridge over Buffalo, Bayou San Jacinto St. at Buffalo, Bayou Houston, 07001098 Wilson County Mueller Bridge, (Historic Bridges of Texas MPS) CR 337 over Cibolo Cr., La Vernia, 07001094 VERMONT Franklin County Billado Block, 371 Main St., Enosburg, 07001095 WISCONSIN Dane County First National Bank, 113 N. Main St., Oregon, 07001096 Oregon Water Tower and Pump House, 134 Janesville St., Oregon, 07001097 [FR Doc. E7-18724 Filed 9-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-51-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Reclamation Walker River Basin Acquisitions Program, Mineral, Lyon, and Douglas Counties, NV AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement
(EIS)and notice of public scoping meetings. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) proposes to prepare an EIS for the Walker River Basin Acquisitions Program. The primary purpose of the program is to comply with the requirements of Public Law 107-171 (Desert Terminal Lakes Program), which appropriates funds to provide water to at-risk natural desert terminal lakes, and with Public Law 109-103, which allocates funds to the University of Nevada for two specific purposes. The first purpose is to implement a program for environmental restoration to acquire from willing sellers land, water appurtenant to the land, and related interests in the Walker River Basin, Nevada. Acquired water rights would be transferred to provide water to Walker Lake. The second purpose of the University's funding is to establish and operate an agricultural and natural resources center. The actions to be analyzed in this EIS will be the purchase of water rights and related interests from willing sellers in the Walker River Basin, Nevada. DATES: A series of public scoping meetings will be held to solicit public input on the alternatives, concerns, and issues to be addressed in the EIS. The meetings dates are: • Monday, October 22, 2007, 6 to 8 p.m., Reno, NV • Tuesday, October 23, 2007, 6 to 8 p.m., Yerington, NV • Wednesday, October 24, 2007, 6 to 8 p.m., Hawthorne, NV • Thursday, October 25, 2007, 6 to 8 p.m., Bridgeport, CA Written comments on the scope of the EIS should be sent by November 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: The public scoping meetings locations are: • Reno at Rancho San Rafael Park, Main Ranch House, 1595 N. Sierra Street • Yerington at Yerington High School, gymnasium, 114 Pearl Street • Hawthorne at Mineral County Public Library, meeting room, 110 1st Street • Bridgeport at Bridgeport Memorial Hall, 73 N. School Street Send comments on the scope of the EIS to Mrs. Caryn Huntt DeCarlo, Bureau of Reclamation, 705 N. Plaza Street, Room 320, Carson City, NV 89701, via e-mail to *chunttdecarlo@mp.usbr.gov* , or faxed to 775-884-8376. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Huntt DeCarlo, 775-884-8352. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The project area is in the Walker River Basin within Nevada, and includes both the East and West Walker Rivers. The goal of the program is to acquire water rights sufficient to increase the long-term average annual inflow to Walker Lake by up to 50,000 acre-feet. To increase Walker Lake inflows by up to 50,000 acre-feet annually may require acquiring more than 50,000 acre-feet of water rights due to annual hydrologic variability. Special Assistance for Public Scoping Meeting If special assistance is required at the scoping meetings, please contact Caryn Huntt DeCarlo at 775-884-8352, TDD 775-882-3436, or via e-mail at *chunttdecarlo@mp.usbr.gov* . Please notify Mrs. Huntt DeCarlo as far in advance of the meetings as possible to enable Reclamation to secure the needed services. If a request cannot be honored, the requestor will be notified. A telephone device for the hearing impaired
(TDD)is available at 775-882-3436. Public Disclosure Before including your name, 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. Dated: August 21, 2007. Susan M. Fry, Regional Environmental Officer, Mid-Pacific Region. [FR Doc. E7-18738 Filed 9-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MN-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Reclamation Adoption of Amended Navajo Power Marketing Plan AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior. ACTION: Notice of adoption. SUMMARY: On September 18, 2007, the Commissioner of Reclamation adopted the Amended Navajo Power Marketing Plan (Amended Plan) on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), pursuant to section 107 of the Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984 (98 Stat. 1333). The Amended Plan is to provide for the future marketing of the United States' entitlement to generation from the Navajo Generating Station (Navajo) which is in excess of the pumping requirements of the Central Arizona Project
(CAP)and certain needs for desalting and protective pumping facilities. The Amended Plan was developed in consultation with representatives of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), Western Area Power Administration (Western), the Governor of Arizona, and the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD) as required by the Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984 (Act). At the request of Reclamation, Western published a notice in the **Federal Register** on August 14, 2006, to initiate and obtain public comments on the proposed Amended Plan. Western held public information forums on September 19, 2006, in Phoenix, Arizona, and on September 22, 2006, in Ontario, California. Western accepted oral and written comments on the proposed Amended Plan at public comment forums on October 10, 2006, in Phoenix, Arizona, and on October 11, 2006 in Ontario, California, and thereafter until November 13, 2006, the end of the public comment period. Additional public information forums will be held in advance of the time of the actual marketing of Navajo Surplus under the Amended Plan to address the procedures to be used in the actual marketing process. Public comments were received both with respect to the terms of the proposed Amended Plan and with respect to Western's presentations at the public forums relating to the implementation of the plan. Written comments were received from Aha Macav Power Service, Arizona Power Authority, Arizona Tribal Energy Association, Colorado River Indian Tribes, Ralph E. Hitchcock and Associates, Moyes Storey Law Offices, Santa Cruz Water & Power Districts Association, and Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District. Oral comments were received from the Central Arizona Water Conservation District, Ralph E. Hitchcock and Associates, and the Colorado River Indian Tribes. Comments and responses, paraphrased for brevity, are presented below. Reclamation considered all comments prior to the adoption of the Amended Plan. Reclamation determined that no modifications to the proposed Amended Plan were necessary as a result of the comments and in light of the proposed Amended Plan's flexible framework. Nevertheless, Reclamation has made edits to the proposed Amended Plan for clarification purposes. DATES: As provided in Part X of the Amended Plan, the Amended Plan will become effective thirty days after its date of publication in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ron Smith, Bureau of Reclamation, P.O. Box 61470, Boulder City, Nevada 89006, telephone
(702)293-8231, e-mail *AmendedPlan@lc.usbr.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States acquired an entitlement to 24.3 percent of generation available at Navajo for use by CAP pursuant to the Colorado River Basin Project Act (43 U.S.C. 1501, *et seq.* ). The CAP is a Reclamation multi-purpose water resource development and management project in Arizona. Section 107(a) of the Act provides that the capacity and energy associated with the United States interest in Navajo which is in excess of the pumping requirements of the CAP and any needs for desalting and protective pumping facilities (Navajo Surplus) shall be marketed and exchanged by the Secretary of Energy. Furthermore, Section 107(c) of the Act provides that in the marketing and exchanging of Navajo Surplus, the Secretary of the Department of the Interior shall adopt the plan deemed most acceptable, after consultation with the Secretary of Energy, the Governor of Arizona, and CAWCD (or its successor in interest to the repayment obligation for the CAP). On December 1, 1987, Reclamation, on behalf of the Secretary, adopted the Original Plan which provided for long-term contracts through September 30, 2011. This adopted Amended Plan contains the framework for the sale and exchange of Navajo Surplus, including an annual process to determine the power to be marketed, eligibility criteria, contract provisions, rate-setting provisions, and revenue collection and distribution criteria. The rate-setting provisions in the adopted Amended Plan were developed to accomplish the requirements of the Act to market and exchange Navajo Surplus “for the purposes of optimizing the availability of Navajo surplus and providing financial assistance in the timely construction and repayment of construction costs of authorized features of the Central Arizona project.” These provisions also provide that “rates shall not exceed levels that allow for an appropriate saving for the contractor.” The adopted Amended Plan implements provisions of the Revised Stipulation entered in the Central Arizona Project repayment litigation, *Central Arizona Water Conservation District* v. *United States, et al.* , No. CIV 95-625-TUC-WDB (EHC), No. CIV 95-1720-PHX-EHC (Consolidated Action). The Revised Stipulation requires, as a condition to the effectiveness of the Revised Stipulation, that the Original Plan be amended to provide for the establishment of rates for the sale or exchange of Navajo Surplus after September 30, 2011 “which optimize the availability and use of revenues” for the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund in a manner consistent with the Act. The Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2004, Public Law 108-451 amends statutory provisions relating to the use of Navajo Surplus revenues set forth in 43 U.S.C. 1543(f). The Original Plan also contains a provision to collect an additional rate component that allows CAWCD to recover an advance of funds made to Reclamation for the construction of authorized features of the CAP. This obligation will be fulfilled under the contract provisions of the Original Plan. The Original Plan also contains specified quantities of capacity and energy to be marketed under long-term contracts. This adopted Amended Plan provides for an annual determination of capacity and energy resources available for marketing as Navajo Surplus based upon the availability of water for CAP pumping, in conjunction with an annual determination of rates and the various capacity and energy products to be marketed. Navajo Surplus under this adopted Amended Plan will be placed under contract for various time periods, which may be short-term, annual, or multi-year. National Environmental Policy Act In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality regulations, and the Department of the Interior regulations for compliance with NEPA, Reclamation and Western determined that the adopted Amended Plan met the requirements of a categorical exclusion. Copies of the categorical exclusions prepared by Reclamation and Western will be made available to interested persons upon request. Public Comments and Responses *Comments relating to the term of Navajo Surplus contracts:* Material presented at the public information forums on the proposed Amended Plan indicates Navajo Surplus will be marketed on an annual or shorter term basis. This will expose the Development Fund to market volatility and discourage purchasers who require the certainty of longer term contracts. Navajo Surplus should be made available for multi-year terms of at least three years. A five-year contract provides greater stability than a one-year contract. At least a portion of the Navajo Surplus should be sold in long term contracts. *Response:* The Amended Plan is designed to be flexible. The Amended Plan permits both shorter and longer term contracts for the sale or exchange of Navajo Surplus. Article IV.A. of the Amended Plan states that Reclamation will on an annual or more frequent basis determine the quantity of Navajo Surplus available to be marketed and the period for which it is available. The annual determination process will allow Reclamation to take into account the varying power demand of the CAP and will reduce the need for the CAP to purchase power to supply its demand. Although the determination of available Navajo Surplus will be made at least annually, the period for which the power is sold or exchanged may vary. Reclamation anticipates that some blocks of power may be marketed in multi-year contracts and others marketed for shorter terms. *Comments relating to the pricing of Navajo Surplus:* Navajo Surplus should be sold at cost. Western does not have legal authority to market Navajo Surplus at market-based prices. Federal power sold to preference customers should be sold at cost-based prices. Western is proposing to depart from established cost-based principles governing pricing of federal power. This poses a threat to Western's preference customers. The plan to optimize revenue from the sale of Navajo Surplus should be balanced against the statutory requirement of an appropriate savings for the contractor to result in a below market price. The power should be sold at a price based on the market but reduced to eliminate costs incurred by the private sector but not by the federal government such as taxes. After the CAP is paid off, Navajo Surplus should be sold at cost. *Response:* Navajo Surplus has never been marketed at cost-based pricing. The Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984 and the Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2004 provide that the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund (Development Fund) is to be used to repay CAP construction costs and to fund specified purposes including Indian water projects and settlements. Congress has directed that revenues from the sale of Navajo Surplus be deposited into the Development Fund and be available for these purposes. Cost-based pricing of this resource would not result in revenue which could be dedicated to CAP construction costs or Indian water projects. This would run counter to intent of these Acts of Congress. The Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984 states that the rates for Navajo Surplus should not exceed levels that allow for an appropriate saving for the contractor but does not further define what is intended by “appropriate savings.” The marketing process for Navajo Surplus will permit the contractors to determine the price which represents to them an appropriate savings when, for example, placing a bid or submitting a request for proposal to Western. The provisions of the Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984 and the Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2004 which relate to the CAP, the sale of Navajo Surplus, and the purposes for which the Development Fund may be used have no bearing upon the marketing of power from other federal projects. *Comments relating to the possible auction of Navajo Surplus:* Western and Reclamation should support the use of an auction process to sell Navajo Surplus, using standard electricity products and standard market contract arrangements to promote efficiency. Such a process could accommodate those seeking smaller quantities of power. *Response:* The Amended Plan is designed for flexibility. It would allow Navajo Surplus to be auctioned as standard electricity products using standard contracts in a manner which promotes efficiency and which accommodates those seeking smaller quantities of power. *Comments relating to the exchange of Navajo Surplus:* The proposed Amended Plan, unlike the original Navajo Power Marketing Plan, does not specify the amount of power to be exchanged. *Response:* The Amended Plan is designed for flexibility. Whether and to what extent power is available for exchange will be determined by Reclamation in an annual process which takes into account the varying power needs of the CAP. *Comments relating to the resale of Navajo Surplus:* Western should not apply Western's General Power Contract Provisions (GPCP), Article 17, to sales of Navajo Surplus because this would not allow a contractor to resell Navajo Surplus. If a contractor acquires Navajo Surplus and is not permitted to resell unused portions, the risk for the contractor increases. With higher risk, the contractor is likely to offer a lower price for Navajo Surplus and this would defeat the purposes of the Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984 and the Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2004. *Response:* Article 17 of the GPCP was included in contracts for the sale of Navajo Surplus under the original Navajo Power Marketing Plan. At the time of actual contracting under the Amended Plan, Western will determine which GPCPs will be included in contracts marketing Navajo Surplus. *Comments relating to the first opportunity provisions of the original Navajo Power Marketing Plan:* The original Navajo Power Marketing Plan and the contracts entered into under that plan provide a first opportunity to existing contractors to enter into new contracts for Navajo Surplus when the existing contracts expire. New contracts should be entered into under the first opportunity provisions of the original plan. Exercise of the first opportunity provisions for new contracts may impact the extent to which Navajo Surplus is available to be marketed to others. *Response:* Reclamation is engaging in ongoing negotiations relating to the first opportunity provisions of the original Navajo Power Marketing Plan. These negotiations may result in new contracts for the sale of Navajo Surplus. The extent to which any such new contracts may affect the amounts of Navajo Surplus which is available to be marketed to others will not be known until the conclusion of those negotiations. *Comments relating to marketing Navajo Surplus to Indian tribes:* Many tribes in the Colorado River Basin are new participants in the electric energy business. It is unlikely that Indian tribes have the staff capabilities to successfully participate in an auction process. The federal government and Indian tribes have a long-standing trust relationship. Western should consider benefits to Arizona Indian tribes when marketing Navajo Surplus. Western should set aside the amount of Navajo Surplus necessary to meet the needs of Indian reservations. Tribes in Arizona should be included in the first priority group for eligibility to contract with Western for the sale or exchange of Navajo Surplus. Navajo Surplus should be sold to Indian tribes at cost or at the same cost as it is sold to larger utilities with sufficient staff to evaluate its value. Many tribes cannot take advantage of the sale of Navajo Surplus in large blocks of power or for single year periods. *Response:* The Amended Plan is designed to optimize the revenues from the sale of Navajo Surplus to fulfill Congressional purposes relating to the repayment of construction costs of the CAP and relating to funding specified purposes including Indian water projects and settlements. In order to optimize revenues, Reclamation anticipates that Western will market the power, through an auction or by a request for proposals. Indian tribes are welcome to participate in these processes. An auction is only one of several methods that Western may use to market Navajo Surplus under the Amended Plan. The Amended Plan provides that first priority will be given to Arizona preference entities. Western currently recognizes several Indian Tribes as qualifying as preference entities in Arizona. The Amended Plan provides for flexibility in designing the products for sale and exchange. The Amended Plan does not require the products be structured in any particular manner. Reclamation anticipates that both large and small blocks of power may be available to be marketed as Navajo Surplus and further anticipates that some blocks may be available in multi-year increments. Both Reclamation and Western recognize the trust relationship between the United States and Federally-recognized Indian Tribes. *Comments relating to the possible sale of Navajo Surplus as a firm product:* If Navajo Surplus is sold as a firm product, the proposed Amended Plan is unclear as to whether Western will be responsible for ensuring the firm product is delivered. Western should not firm Navajo Surplus at the expense of other Western customers. *Response:* The Amended Plan is designed to be flexible. The Amended Plan permits Western to market Navajo Surplus as a firm product and as a unit contingent product. Costs related to the marketing of Navajo Surplus will not be passed along to non-CAP Western customers, nor will generation resources from other federal projects be use to firm Navajo Surplus. *Comments relating to the integrated operation of the CAP water and power systems:* The CAP design assumes an integrated operation of the CAP water and power systems to optimize the efficiency of both. The proposed Amended Plan should place more emphasis on the integrated operation of the CAP water and power systems. *Response:* The Amended Plan addresses the integrated operation of the CAP water and power systems in Article V. The integrated operation will optimize revenues from the marketing of Navajo Surplus. The Amended Plan recognizes in Article VII(C) that CAWCD may be a party to contracts for the sale or exchange of Navajo Surplus for the purpose of affirming any obligations of CAWCD under the contract. Such contracts may further address CAP operations to enhance the availability and value of this resource. *Comments relating to participation of CAWCD in energy marketing:* The proposed Amended Plan does not ensure the availability of power to run CAP pumps in the event of an outage of the entire Navajo power plant. It is unclear whether the expectation is that CAWCD will actively participate in energy marketing or simply bear the financial responsibility for a replacement supply. *Response:* The Amended Plan solely addresses the marketing of Navajo Surplus. It does not address the availability of alternate supplies to run CAP pumps in the event of a complete outage of the Navajo Generating Station. Should such an outage occur, CAWCD, as the operating agent for the CAP, will make the decision whether to actively participate in energy marketing or to utilize another entity for this purpose. CAWCD currently participates in energy marketing. *Comments related to transmission of Navajo Surplus:* A section should be added requiring Western to consult with the Arizona Power Authority prior to entering into any contracts relating to the transmission of Navajo Surplus in order to avoid compromising transmission rights and paths for the delivery of Arizona's federal entitlement to power from Hoover Dam. *Response:* The Amended Plan addresses the marketing of Navajo Surplus. To the extent Western in its contracts for the sale or exchange of Navajo Surplus addresses transmission, Western will take into account transmission rights held by others. Western will not compromise the transmission rights and paths for the delivery of Arizona's federal entitlement to power from Hoover Dam. *Comments relating to credit requirements for purchasers of Navajo Surplus:* The proposed Amended Plan is silent as to the credit requirements for purchasers of Navajo Surplus. Western should not bear the credit risk and then pass it along to other Western customers. *Response:* Reclamation expects that Western will follow its standard procedures with respect to credit requirements to be applied to purchasers of Navajo Surplus. Western will not pass along to other Western customers any credit risk relating to purchasers of Navajo Surplus. *Comments relating to editing the proposed Amended Plan:* The proposed Amended Plan alternates between the use of the phrase “sold and exchanged” and “sold or exchanged” and should be consistent in its terminology. The definition of “Development Fund” should include the phrase “as amended or supplemented” because the statutory section establishing the fund has been amended. Article VI.D. (Eligibility) appears to paraphrase Section 107(c) of the 1984 Hoover Power Plant Act but should be modified to clearly and simply state the intent of Congress. *Response:* Reclamation believes the Amended Plan appropriately uses “and” and “or” in different contexts when describing actions related to the marketing of Navajo Surplus. Reclamation has accepted this change to the Development Fund definition. The Amended Plan carries the Eligibility language forward from the original Navajo Marketing Plan. Reclamation believes it accurately reflects the intent of Congress. Dated September 18, 2007. Robert W. Johnson, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation. Amended Plan The text of the adopted Amended Plan is as follows: Amended Navajo Power Marketing Plan I. *Purpose and Scope* Section 107 of the Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98-381, requires that a power marketing plan be developed to provide for marketing and Exchanging of Navajo Surplus for the purposes of optimizing the availability of Navajo Surplus and providing financial assistance in the timely construction and repayment of construction costs of authorized features of the Central Arizona Project. The Secretary of the Department of the Interior adopted the original Navajo Power Marketing Plan on December 1, 1987 (Original Plan). The Revised Stipulation entered in the Central Arizona Project repayment litigation, *Central Arizona Water Conservation District* v. *United States, et al.,* No. CIV 95-625-TUC-WDB (EHC), No. CIV 95-1720-PHX-EHC (Consolidated Action) requires, as a condition to the effectiveness of the Revised Stipulation, that the Original Plan be amended. The Revised Stipulation requires the amended Navajo Power Marketing Plan provide for the establishment and collection of rates for the sale or Exchange of Navajo Surplus that optimize the availability and use of revenues for the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund while allowing for an appropriate saving for the contractor. Satisfying the requirements of the Revised Stipulation is one of the elements necessary for final judgment to be entered in the above-referenced litigation. The entry of final judgment in that litigation permits the Secretary of the Department of the Interior to make a required finding under the terms of the Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108-451. A. This Amended Navajo Power Marketing Plan hereinafter called “Plan” shall be applicable to all new or amended contracts for Navajo Surplus entered into after this Plan is adopted. The Original Plan shall remain in effect for all Navajo Surplus contracts entered into before the adoption of this Plan and shall continue until such contracts terminate or are amended in accordance with this Plan. B. This Plan recognizes the obligation of the United States to use its entitlement to electrical capacity and energy from Navajo to provide necessary power for the pumping requirements of the Central Arizona Project and any such needs for desalting and protective pumping facilities as may be required under section 101(b)(2)(B) of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-320, as amended. C. This Plan provides that Western, working closely with Reclamation and CAWCD, will be the marketing entity responsible for the sale and Exchange of Navajo Surplus in accordance with applicable Federal law, regulations and the Revised Stipulation. Western shall market Navajo Surplus directly to, with or through the Arizona Power Authority and/or other entities having the status of preference entities under the Reclamation Project Act of 1939. Western may utilize Exchange, banking, purchase or sales agreements, or integration with other resources to fulfill any purpose of this Plan. D. This Plan sets parameters for the establishment of Rates, not to exceed levels that allow for an appropriate saving for the contractor, that will optimize the availability and use of revenues from the sale and Exchange of Navajo Surplus to provide financial assistance for payment of the operation and maintenance expenses associated with Navajo Surplus and for the purposes set forth in 43 U.S.C. 1543(f), as amended by the Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108-451. E. This Plan satisfies the obligation of the United States in accordance with the Revised Stipulation, to amend the Original Plan “to provide for the establishment and collection of rates for the sale or exchange of Navajo Surplus Power after September 30, 2011.” F. This Plan specifies that for so long as Navajo operates and there is Navajo Surplus, Western shall continue to market Navajo Surplus under this Plan with such amendments or revisions as may be adopted by the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, after consultation with the Secretary of Energy, CAWCD, and the Governor of Arizona and as provided by law, including the authorities set forth in section II. II. *Authorities* The authorities under which this Plan is developed are: A. Federal Reclamation laws (43 U.S.C. 372 *et seq.* , and all Acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto); in particular, the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968, Pub. L. 90-537, as amended, the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-320, as amended, the Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98-381, and the Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108-451. B. Rules, regulations, and agency agreements of Western and Reclamation issued or made pursuant to applicable law. III. *Definitions* The following terms wherever used herein shall have the following meanings: A. “Boulder City Marketing Area” shall mean the marketing area defined in the 1984 Conformed Criteria published in the **Federal Register** (49 FR 50585) on December 28, 1984. B. “Central Arizona Project” or “CAP” shall mean the Reclamation multipurpose water resource development and management project in Arizona authorized by the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968, Pub. L. 90-537, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1501 *et. seq.* ). C. “CAWCD” shall mean the Central Arizona Water Conservation District. D. “Conformed Criteria” shall mean the Conformed General Consolidated Power Marketing Criteria or Regulations for Boulder City Area Projects published in the **Federal Register** (49 FR 50582) on December 28, 1984. E. “Development Fund” shall mean the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund established under section 403 of the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968, Pub. L. 90-537, as amended. F. “Exchange” shall mean any arrangements providing for delivery of capacity and energy to Western and return of capacity and energy by Western from Navajo within a one year period. G. “Navajo” shall mean the Navajo Generating Station, the thermal generating power plant located near Page, Arizona, and associated transmission facilities. H. “Navajo Entitlement” shall mean the United States entitlement of 24.3 percent of the generation from Navajo. I. “Navajo Surplus” shall mean capacity and energy associated with the Navajo Entitlement which is in excess of the pumping requirements of the Central Arizona Project and any such needs for desalting and protective pumping facilities as may be required under section 101(b)(2)(B) of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-320, as amended. J. “New Waddell Dam” or “New Waddell Reservoir” shall mean the regulatory storage facilities constructed on the Agua Fria River as a feature of the CAP. K. “Original Plan” shall mean the original Navajo Power Marketing Plan adopted on December 1, 1987. L. “Plan” shall mean this Amended Navajo Power Marketing Plan. M. “Rate(s)” shall mean the price(s) established by a marketing process for various Navajo Surplus capacity or energy products marketed under this Plan to optimize the availability and use of revenues for the Development Fund. N. “Reclamation” shall mean the Bureau of Reclamation, United States Department of the Interior. O. “Revised Stipulation” shall mean the Revised Stipulation Regarding a Stay of Litigation, Resolution of Issues During the Stay and for Ultimate Judgment Upon the Satisfaction of Conditions, filed with the United States District Court for the District of Arizona in *Central Arizona Water Conservation District* v. *United States,* *et al.,* No. CIV 95-625-TUC-WDB (EHC), No. CIV 95-1720-PHX-EHC (Consolidated Action), and that court's order dated April 28, 2003, and any amendments or revisions thereto. P. “Western” shall mean the Western Area Power Administration, United States Department of Energy. IV. *Power To Be Marketed* A. Reclamation, in consultation with CAWCD, shall annually or more frequently, as appropriate, determine the Navajo Surplus available for sale and Exchange by Western, and the period for which it will be available for sale and Exchange, taking into consideration among other factors, the following: 1. Existing contractual commitments to deliver Navajo Surplus, including new contracts entered into under the first opportunity provisions of section IV.G. of the Original Plan. 2. CAP estimated pumping energy requirements in excess of capacity and energy supplied to CAWCD from Hoover Dam or New Waddell Dam, based on projected CAP water deliveries for that year and successive years. 3. Estimated capacity and energy needs of the United States for desalting and protective pumping facilities, as may be required under section 101(b)(2)(B) of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-320, as amended. 4. Projected Navajo generation. B. Any Navajo Surplus not sold or Exchanged in accordance with paragraph A of this section may, as determined by Western, in cooperation with CAWCD and Reclamation, be sold under appropriate long-term or short-term arrangements. V. *Optimization* A. To optimize the availability of Navajo Surplus, CAWCD shall utilize, for CAP pumping requirements, Hoover capacity and energy scheduled from Hoover Dam in accordance with the terms and conditions of CAWCD's contract with the Arizona Power Authority to permit additional Navajo capacity and energy to be sold or Exchanged by Western as Navajo Surplus. B. To optimize the availability and use of revenues from the sale and Exchange of Navajo Surplus: 1. CAWCD will use seasonal and daily power management. Specifically, CAWCD will divert maximum amounts of water from the Colorado River in the winter season for storage in the New Waddell Reservoir, and then serve CAP water demands in the summer season from water previously placed in storage. On a daily basis, CAWCD to the extent possible will pump off-peak to optimize the on-peak availability of Navajo Surplus. 2. Western, in consultation with Reclamation and CAWCD, shall develop capacity and energy products from the Navajo Surplus determined to be available under section IV.A for sale or Exchange, taking into account market prices for standard capacity and energy products. VI. *Eligibility* A. Western shall offer Navajo Surplus for sale in the following order of priority, in accordance with part IV, section A of the Conformed Criteria: 1. Preference entities within Arizona. 2. Preference entities within the Boulder City Marketing Area. 3. Preference entities in adjacent Federal marketing areas. 4. Non-preference entities in the Boulder City Marketing Area. B. In the event a bidding or request for proposal process is utilized, after the bids or proposals are received the bidding entities will be given first opportunity, in order of priority, to purchase at a price which is based on the highest offer. C. In the event that a potential contractor fails to place Navajo Surplus capacity and energy under contract within a reasonable period, as specified by Western and in accordance with the terms and conditions offered by Western, the amounts of capacity and energy not placed under contract will be reoffered in accordance with the order of priority specified in paragraph A of this section. D. Arizona entities, regardless of preference status, shall have first opportunity for electrical capacity and energy Exchange rights as necessary to implement this Plan. Western, in consultation with CAWCD and Reclamation, may determine that any capacity and energy not subscribed to by Arizona entities for Exchange may be offered for sale in the order of priority stated in paragraph A of this section or may be offered to non-Arizona entities for Exchange. VII. *Contract Provisions* A. Western, after consultation with Reclamation and CAWCD, shall enter into all power sales and Exchange contracts necessary to carry out the provisions of this Plan in selling and exchanging Navajo Surplus. Navajo Surplus shall be marketed, and Exchange rights granted, by Western on behalf of the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, under contracts consistent with this Plan and the Conformed Criteria. B. Contracts for the sale or Exchange of Navajo Surplus shall specify a delivery point on the Navajo or CAP transmission systems as may be available. If the contractor cannot take delivery of Navajo Surplus into its own system at these delivery points, transmission service arrangements to other delivery points will be the obligation of the contractor. C. CAWCD may be a party to contracts for the sale or Exchange of Navajo Surplus for the limited purposes of
(i)concurring that the contracts optimize the financial assistance available for the purposes set forth in 43 U.S.C. 1543(f), as amended by the Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108-451, and
(ii)affirming any rights and obligations of CAWCD under the contracts. D. Western and the contractor shall agree upon written metering and scheduling instructions prior to any deliveries under this Plan. The metering and scheduling instructions shall provide the operating and accounting procedures for such deliveries. Metering and scheduling instructions are intended to implement terms of the contract, not to modify or amend it, and therefore are subordinate to the contract. Western and the contractor may modify these instructions, as necessary, to reflect changing power system conditions. In the event the contractor fails or refuses to execute the initial metering and scheduling instructions or any revised instructions Western determines to be necessary, Western shall develop and implement temporary instructions until acceptable instructions have been developed and executed by Western and the contractor. VIII. *Rate-Setting* A. Rates for Navajo Surplus developed pursuant to section IV.A shall be established annually by Reclamation and Western, in consultation with CAWCD, through a competitive process that optimizes the availability and use of revenues for the Development Fund with priority to entities in accordance with section VI.A. and that allows for an appropriate saving for the contractor, taking into consideration, among other factors, prices for comparable capacity and energy products. B. Rates for Navajo Surplus developed under section IV.B or marketed under the first opportunity provision of the Original Plan shall be established in the contracts for sale of such Navajo Surplus, taking into consideration, among other factors, prices for comparable capacity and energy products, and allowing for an appropriate saving for the contractor. C. Rates developed annually pursuant to this Plan shall not be applicable to pre-existing contracts unless provided for in such contracts. D. Because of the Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984's, Pub. L. 98-381, requirements for noncost-based rates, the Rates established pursuant to this Plan are not suitable to the required review of Western's rates by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. All Rates promulgated by the Administrator of Western under this Plan shall be a final act of the Secretary of Energy and shall be subject to review pursuant to the judicial review provided by the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553, *et seq.* ). IX. *Revenue Collection and Distribution* Western shall deposit all revenue collected from the marketing of Navajo Surplus under this Plan into the Development Fund, where it will be used: A. First, to pay all costs of operation and maintenance determined to be associated with the sale and Exchange of Navajo Surplus, including actual costs for services performed by Reclamation and Western under this Plan including appropriate administrative expenses of Reclamation and Western. B. Second, for the purposes set forth in 43 U.S.C. 1543(f), as amended by the Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108-451, including crediting funds against the annual CAWCD repayment obligation and funding specific Indian water-related activities. X. *Effective Date* This Plan will become effective 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** following adoption by the Secretary of the Department of the Interior. XI. Consultation This Plan is deemed most acceptable in accordance with section 107(c) of the Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98-381, after consultation with Western (Secretary of Energy), the Governor of Arizona, and CAWCD. Adopted: Dated: September 18, 2007. Robert W. Johnson, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation. [FR Doc. E7-18744 Filed 9-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MN-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Inv. No. 337-TA-615] In the Matter of Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters and Products Containing the Same; Notice of Investigation AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Institution of investigation pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on August 16, 2007, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Pass & Seymour, Inc. of Syracuse, New York. Letters supplementing the complaint were filed on September 4, 5, and 6, 2007. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain ground fault circuit interrupters and products containing the same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,594,398, RE38,293, 7,154,718, 7,164,564, 7,212,386, and 7,256,973. The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337. The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a permanent exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders. 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: Bryan F. Moore, Esq., Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone
(202)205-2767. 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 (2006). *Scope of Investigation:* Having considered the amended complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on September 17, 2007, *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 ground fault circuit interrupters and products containing the same by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-36 of U.S. Patent No. 5,594,398; claims 12, 14, 19, 25, and 26 of U.S. Patent No. RE38,293; claims 52, 59, and 60 of U.S. Patent No. 7,154,718; claims 1-3, 13, 15, and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 7,164,564; claims 1, 9, and 15-17 of U.S. Patent No. 7,212,386; and claims 1-6, 8, 12, 21, 22, and 24-34 of U.S. Patent No. 7,256,973, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(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— Pass & Seymour, Inc., 50 Boyd Avenue, Syracuse, New York 13209.
(b)The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the amended complaint is to be served: General Protecht Group, Inc., 555 Daxing Rd West, Liushi Yueqing, Zhejiang 325600, China. General Protecht Group U.S., Inc., 3353 Peachtree Road NE., Suite 1040, Atlanta, Georgia 30326. Shanghai ELE Manufacturing Corporation, Sec 2 Xingcheng Industrial Zone, Qingpu 201703, Shanghai, China. Shanghai Meihao Electric, Inc., 58 Shane Rd., Jiangqiao Town Jiading Borough 201803, Shanghai, China. Wenzhou Trimone Company, Zhiguang Industrial Zone, Liushi Town Yueqing, Zhejiang 325604, China. Cheetah USA Corp., 9091 Sandy Parkway, Sandy, Utah 84070. GX Electric, 2001 NW 25th Avenue, Pompano Beach, Florida 33069. Nicor Inc., 2200 Midtown Place NE., Suite A, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87107. Orbit Industries, Inc., 2100 S. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, California 90007. The Designer's Edge, 11730 NE 12th Street, Bellevue, Washington 98005. Universal Security Instruments, Inc., 7-A Gwynns Mills Court, Owings Mills, Maryland 21117. Colacino Electric Supply, Inc., 319 West Union Street, Newark, New York 14513. Ingram Products, Inc., 8725 Youngerman Court, Suite 206, Jacksonville, Florida 32244. Lunar Industrial & Electrical, Inc., 15975 SW 117th Avenue, Miami, Florida 33177. Quality Distributing, LLC., 2056 NW Aloclek Drive, Suite 325, Hillsboro, Oregon 97124.
(c)The Commission investigative attorney, party to this investigation, is Bryan F. Moore, 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, the Honorable Carl C. Charneski is designated as 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(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 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 cease and desist order or both directed against a respondent. Issued: September 18, 2007. By order of the Commission. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E7-18753 Filed 9-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1103-NEW] Office of Community Oriented Policing Services; Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comments Requested ACTION: 60-Day notice of information collection under review: COPS Non Hiring Progress Report. The Department of Justice
(DOJ)Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
(COPS)will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The revision of a currently approved information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days for public comment until November 26, 2007. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Rebekah Dorr, Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 1100 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20530. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points: —Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; —Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; —Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and —Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of This Information Collection
(1)*Type of Information Collection:* Proposed collection; comments requested.
(2)*Title of the Form/Collection:* COPS Non-Hiring Progress Report.
(3)*Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection:* None. U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
(4)*Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:* *Primary:* Law enforcement and public safety agencies, institutions of higher learning and non-profit organizations that are recipients of COPS Non-Hiring grants.
(5)*An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond/reply:* It is estimated that approximately 2,975 annual, quarterly, and final report respondents can complete the report in an average of one hour.
(6)*An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection:* 3,200 total burden hours. If additional information is required contact: Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Patrick Henry Building, Suite 1600, 601 D Street NW., Washington, DC 20530. Dated: September 18, 2007. Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, PRA, Department of Justice. [FR Doc. E7-18780 Filed 9-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-AT-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Andrew Desonia, M.D.; Revocation of Registration On September 16, 2005, the Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to Show Cause to Andrew Desonia, M.D. (Respondent), of Knox, Indiana. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration, BD4985531, as a practitioner, on the ground that Respondent's “continued registration is inconsistent with the public interest.” Show Cause Order at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(f) & 824(a)(4)). The Show Cause Order also proposed to deny any pending applications for renewal or modification of Respondent's registration. More specifically, the Show Cause Order alleged that Respondent was a participant in a scheme run by Mr. Johar Saran, the owner of Carrington Health System/Infiniti Services Group (CHS/ISG) of Arlington, Texas. *Id* . at 5. According to the allegations, CHS/ISG operated several DEA-registered pharmacies, which obtained their registrations through sham-nominees and which were used to order large amounts of highly abused controlled substances from licensed distributors. *Id* . The Show Cause Order alleged that the controlled substances were then diverted to CHS/ISG, where they were used to fill approximately 3,000 to 4,000 orders per day which had been placed by persons through various Web sites. *Id* . The Show Cause Order further alleged that Respondent “participated in [this] scheme by authorizing drug orders under the guise of practicing medicine.” *Id.* The Show Cause Order alleged that Respondent “did not see the customers, had no prior doctor-patient relationships with the Internet customers, did not conduct physical exams,” and did not “create or maintain patient records.” *Id* . at 5-6. The Show Cause Order alleged that between October 13, 2004, and January 28, 2005, Respondent issued twenty-three prescriptions for controlled substances “to [i]nternet customers in at least 13 different states,” and that “in a single day,” Respondent “issued ten drug orders to [i]nternet customers in ten different states.” *Id* . at 6. The Show Cause Order also alleged that a DEA Diversion Investigator
(DI)had gone to a Web site and ordered Bontril (phendimetrazine) by completing a questionnaire. *Id.* Subsequently, the DI received the filled prescription, which had been issued by Respondent and filled by Tri-Phasic Pharmacy of Arlington, Texas. *Id.* The Show Cause Order alleged that Respondent issued the prescription without “contact[ing] the [DI]” and never “verif[ied] the information supplied” by the DI. *Id.* Finally, the Show Cause Order alleged that Respondent “did not establish legitimate physician-patient relationships with the [i]nternet customers to whom [he] prescribed controlled substances.” *Id.* The Show Cause order thus alleged that Respondent had violated 21 CFR 1306.04. On or about September 21, 2005, the Show Cause Order was personally served on Respondent. On October 20, 2005, Respondent, through his counsel, requested a hearing. The matter was assigned to Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ)Gail Randall, who proceeded to conduct pre-hearing procedures. The matter was subsequently stayed while Respondent's counsel attempted to locate a witness. On December 19, 2006, Respondent's counsel moved to withdraw. As grounds for the motion, Respondent's counsel established that he had sent two letters to Respondent by certified mail, which requested that Respondent contact him to discuss the case. Respondent's counsel further showed that Respondent had made no attempt to contact him. Respondent's counsel thus asserted that Respondent had “cut off all communication with [him] thus breaching the attorney-client relationship” and violating the retainer agreement between them. Motion to Withdraw at 2. In addition to seeking leave to withdraw, Respondent's counsel asked the ALJ to grant Respondent thirty days to find replacement counsel. Upon receipt of the motion, the ALJ ordered the Government to respond. On December 28, 2006, the Government filed its response stating that it did not object to the motion. On December 29, 2006, the ALJ granted the motion. In her order, the ALJ also directed Respondent to notify the hearing clerk by January 29, 2007, whether he intended “to proceed with a hearing.” Order Granting Resp. Counsel's Mot. to Withdraw at 3. The ALJ further informed Respondent that if he failed to file notice of his intention to proceed, he may be “deemed to have waived his right to the hearing,” and that the hearing, which was already scheduled, could be cancelled. *Id.* (citing 21 CFR 1301.43(e)). The Order was served on Respondent by certified mail sent to his last known address. 1 1 Government counsel had earlier served Respondent with a copy of a December 19, 2006 Status Report, at the address of 1547 Ohio Avenue, Anderson, Indiana. In this filing, the Government's counsel noted that Respondent's counsel had informed her that he intended to withdraw. The Government also noted its “position that all settlement negotiations have failed,” and that it “intended to seek the revocation of Respondent's * * * Registration as proposed in the September 16, 2005, Order to Show Cause.” Thereafter, on December 27, 2006, the Government's counsel received an undated letter from Respondent which appears to have been written in response to the Status Report. The Government also served both Respondent's counsel and Respondent with a copy of its response to the motion to withdraw. In that filing, the Government made clear that it objected to any further delays. Moreover, the Government sent its response to Respondent at two separate addresses, including the one used by Respondent in his letter which Government counsel had received the day before. The ALJ's December 29, 2006 Order, which granted the motion to withdraw and ordered Respondent to notify the hearing clerk if he still intended to proceed with a hearing, was served on Respondent at the 1547 Ohio Ave., Anderson, Indiana. This was the same address which Government counsel had used to serve the Status Report and which had elicited a response from Respondent. Respondent did not comply with Order. Accordingly, on February 12, 2007, the Government filed a motion which sought a finding that Respondent had waived his right to a hearing. The Government also requested that the ALJ cancel the hearing. On February 13, 2007, the ALJ granted the Government's motion. Noting that Respondent had failed to respond to her order, the ALJ found that “Respondent has effectively waived his right to a hearing in this matter.” Order Granting Gov. Mot. to Cancel Hearing at 1. The ALJ thus canceled the hearing and ordered that the matter be returned to the Government for further action. Thereafter, the investigative file was forwarded to me for final agency action. Based on his failure to notify the ALJ of his intent to proceed with the hearing, I conclude that Respondent has waived his right to a hearing. *See* 21 CFR 1301.43(d). I therefore enter this Final Order without a hearing based on relevant material contained in the investigative file, *see id.* 1301.43(e), and make the following findings. Findings Respondent is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration, BD4985531, which authorizes him to handle schedule II through V controlled substances as a practitioner at the registered location of 10530 East Division Road, Knox, Indiana. Respondent's registration does not expire until June 30, 2008. Respondent came to the attention of DEA during an investigation of Johar Saran, the owner of a majority stake in Carrington Healthcare Systems/Infiniti Services Group (CHS/ISG) of Arlington, Texas. According to the investigative file, CHS/ISG used several Internet facilitation centers
(IFCs)to solicit orders for controlled substances, which it then dispensed through numerous DEA registered pharmacies which CHS/ISG controlled. Under the scheme, a person seeking a controlled substance would go to a Web site, complete a questionnaire, and request a particular drug. The information would be forwarded to an IFC, which then sent the information on to a physician who would review the customer's information and authorize a prescription. Thereafter, an employee of CHS/ISG would access the Web site and download the prescriptions. The prescriptions were then typically filled by CHS/ISG at its Arlington, Texas facility, and sent to the purchaser using either FedEx or UPS. According to the investigative file, the IFCs that serviced CHS/ISG used at least 59 physicians including Respondent to write controlled substance prescriptions. According to the file, between October 13, 2004, and January 28, 2005, Respondent wrote twenty-three controlled substance prescriptions for persons located in thirteen different states including Alabama, Arizona, California, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas. The prescriptions were for phentermine (12 Rxs), Adipex (5 Rxs), Didrex (4 Rxs), Bontril SR (1 Rx) and phendimetrazine (1 Rx). Most of the prescriptions were filled by Tri-Phasic Pharmacy of Arlington, Texas, an entity which was controlled by Saran. Moreover, on January 19, 2005, Respondent wrote controlled substance prescriptions for persons located in ten different states including Kansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Arkansas, Georgia, California, Pennsylvania, and Alabama. The drugs prescribed were phentermine (37.5 mg), Adipex (37.5 mg), and Didrex (50 mg). Each of the prescriptions was filled by the Tri-Phasic Pharmacy. The investigative file further revealed that on November 15, 2004, two DEA Diversion Investigators
(DIs)visited the Web site, GiantRx.com, and using a fictitious name, made an undercover buy of 90 phendimetrazine (105 mg.) tablets. After the DIs provided a name and billing/shipping information, they were required to complete a “Medical History Form.” This form required the customer to indicate her height, weight, date of birth, sex, and whether she smoked. The form also asked the customer whether she had a physical exam within the last year, whether any diseases ran in her family, whether she was taking any other drugs, whether she was allergic to any medications, and to list any medical conditions she was being treated for and to provide her surgical history. The form also asked several “Phendimetrazine Specific Questions.” These included whether the customer agreed not to take any over-the-counter medicine while taking the drug, to certify that she had a Body Mass Index of at least 25, and to monitor her blood pressure every 14 days and discontinue use of the drug if it exceeded 140/90. Upon completion of the form and submission of payment information, the DIs received an e-mail from GiantRx.com indicating that the order had “been submitted to a physician for approval” and that an e-mail would be sent “as soon as the doctor has reviewed [your] order.” The e-mail further stated that “[t]he doctor may contact you if he/she has any further questions.” On November 29, 2004, the DIs received a package which contained 90 tablets of phendimetrazine (105 mg). The label indicated that Respondent was the prescribing physician and that Tri-Phasic Pharmacy of Arlington, Texas, was the dispensing pharmacy. Respondent did not perform a physical examination on the “patient” before issuing the prescription and there was no contact of any sort between Respondent and the DIs. On September 21, 2005, two DIs and a Special Agent interviewed Respondent at his registered location. During the interview, Respondent admitted that he reviewed questionnaires submitted to Internet sites by persons requesting controlled substances used for weight control purposes. Respondent stated that he would issue a prescription provided the questionnaire was complete, the person had indicated that he/she was between the ages of 27 and 45, and the person had a suitable Body Mass Index. Respondent further maintained that he rejected approximately twenty percent of the requests because the questionnaires were not complete. Respondent admitted to the investigators that he had been involved in Internet prescribing through two different Internet sites for approximately 13 months at the time of the interview. Respondent further admitted that during his involvement with Internet prescribing, he had approved thousands of prescriptions. Respondent stated that he received on average fifty questionnaires a day and had received as few as four per day and as many as one hundred a day to review. Respondent further told the investigators that while initially he had also prescribed opiates, he eventually decided to stop doing so and would approve only prescriptions for weight loss drugs and Viagra (a non-controlled drug). Respondent admitted that he really did not know if the persons requesting the controlled substances were providing truthful information on their questionnaires. Respondent asserted, however, that the situation was not much different than in-person encounters because patients often lie. Respondent further admitted that he had not established a doctor-patient relationship with the persons who had requested controlled substances through the Internet sites. Discussion Section 304(a) of the Controlled Substances Act provides that a registration to “dispense a controlled substance * * * may be suspended or revoked by the Attorney General upon a finding that the registrant * * * has committed such acts as would render his registration under section 823 of this title inconsistent with the public interest as determined under such section.” 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4). In making the public interest determination, the Act requires the consideration of the following factors:
(1)The recommendation of the appropriate State licensing board or professional disciplinary authority.
(2)The applicant's experience in dispensing * * * controlled substances.
(3)The applicant's conviction record under Federal or State laws relating to the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of controlled substances.
(4)Compliance with applicable State, Federal, or local laws relating to controlled substances.
(5)Such other conduct which may threaten the public health and safety. *Id.* “[T]hese factors are * * * considered in the disjunctive.” *Robert A. Leslie, M.D.* , 68 FR 15227, 15230 (2003). I “may rely on any one or a combination of factors, and may give each factor the weight [I] deem[] appropriate in determining whether a registration should be revoked.” *Id.* Moreover, I am “not required to make findings as to all of the factors.” *Hoxie* v. *DEA* , 419 F.3d 477, 482 (6th Cir. 2005); *see also Morall* v. *DEA* , 412 F.3d 165, 173-74 (D.C. Cir. 2005). In this case, I conclude that Factors Two and Four establish that allowing Respondent to continue to dispense controlled substances would be inconsistent with the public interest. Accordingly, I will order that Respondent's registration be revoked and that any pending renewal application be denied. Factors Two and Four—Respondent's Experience in Dispensing Controlled Substances and Record of Compliance With Applicable Laws The central issue in this case is whether the prescriptions Respondent issued through Web sites associated with CHS/ISG complied with Federal law. As explained below, the evidence conclusively demonstrates that Respondent repeatedly violated Federal law by issuing numerous prescriptions for controlled substances without establishing a valid doctor-patient relationship with the customers and which lacked a legitimate medical purpose. Under DEA regulations, a prescription for a controlled substance is not “effective” unless it is “issued for a legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of his professional practice.” 21 CFR 1306.04(a). This regulation further provides that “an order purporting to be a prescription issued not in the usual course of professional treatment * * * is not a prescription within the meaning and intent of [21 U.S.C. 829] and * * * the person issuing it, shall be subject to the penalties provided for violations of the provisions of law related to controlled substances.” *Id.* As the Supreme Court recently explained, “the prescription requirement * * * ensures patients use controlled substances under the supervision of a doctor so as to prevent addiction and recreational abuse. As a corollary, [it] also bars doctors from peddling to patients who crave the drugs for those prohibited uses.” *Gonzales* v. *Oregon* , 126 S.Ct. 904, 925
(2006)(citing *United States* v. *Moore* , 423 U.S. 122, 135 (1975)). It is fundamental that a practitioner must establish a bonafide doctor-patient relationship in order to be acting “in the usual course of * * * professional practice” and to issue a prescription for a “legitimate medical purpose.” 21 CFR 1306.04(a); *see also Moore* , 423 U.S. 141-43. Under existing professional standards, to establish a bonafide doctor-patient relationship, a “physician shall”: i. Obtain a reliable medical history and perform a physical examination of the patient, adequate to establish the diagnosis for which the drug is being prescribed and to identify underlying conditions and/or contraindications to the treatment recommended/provided; ii. have sufficient dialogue with the patient regarding treatment options and the risks and benefits of treatment(s); iii. as appropriate, follow up with the patient to assess the therapeutic outcome; iv. maintain a contemporaneous medical record that is readily available to the patient and * * * to his * * * other health care professionals; and v. include the electronic prescription information as part of the patient medical record. *American Medical Association, Guidance for Physicians on Internet Prescribing; see also William R. Lockridge* , 71 FR 77791, 77798 (2006). To similar effect are the guidelines issued by the Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States, Inc. *See Model Guidelines for the Appropriate Use of the Internet in Medical Practice* . According to the Guidelines, “[t]reatment and consultation recommendations made in an online setting, including issuing a prescription via electronic means, will be held to the same standards of appropriate practice as those in traditional (face-to-face) settings. *Treatment, including issuing a prescription, based solely on an online questionnaire or consultation does not constitute an acceptable standard of care.” Id.* at 4 (emphasis added). *Cf.* DEA, *Dispensing and Purchasing Controlled Substances over the Internet* , 66 FR 21181, 21183
(2001)(guidance document) (“Completing a questionnaire that is then reviewed by a doctor hired by the Internet pharmacy could not be considered the basis for a doctor/patient relationship.”). Consistent with these standards, the State of Indiana has promulgated an administrative rule which provides that “[t]reatment, including issuing a prescription, based solely on an on-line questionnaire or consultation is prohibited.” 844 IAC 5-3-3. Indiana has promulgated an additional rule entitled: “Prescribing to Persons Not Seen by the Physician.” This rule provides: Except in institutional settings, on-call situations, cross-coverage situations, and situations involving advanced practical nurses with prescription authority practicing in accordance with standard care arrangements * * * a physician shall not prescribe, dispense, or otherwise provide, or cause to be provided, any controlled substance to a person who the physician has never physically examined and diagnosed. 844 IAC 5-4-1. As found above, the evidence establishes that Respondent issued numerous prescriptions to persons he never physically examined and diagnosed. Rather, Respondent issued the prescriptions based solely on the questionnaires the customers had submitted. In issuing the prescriptions, Respondent violated not only existing professional standards, but also, Indiana law. Moreover, because Respondent failed to establish a valid doctor-patient relationship with the persons he issued controlled substance prescriptions for, he was not acting “in the usual course of * * * professional practice,” and the prescriptions were not “issued for a legitimate medical purpose.” 21 CFR 1306.04(a). Respondent thus also repeatedly violated Federal law. *See Moore* , 423 U.S. at 141-43. As recognized in *Lockridge* and other agency orders, “ ‘[le]gally there is absolutely no difference between the sale of an illicit drug on the street and the illicit dispensing of a licit drug by means of a physician's prescription.' ” 71 FR at 77800 (quoting *Mario Avello, M.D.* , 70 FR 11695, 11697 (2005)). *See also Floyd A. Santner, M.D.* , 55 FR 37581 (1990). In short, Respondent's involvement in this scheme did not constitute the legitimate practice of medicine, but rather, drug dealing. Accordingly, Respondent's experience in dispensing controlled substances and his record of compliance with applicable laws makes plain that his continued registration would “be inconsistent with the public interest.” 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4). Moreover, because Respondent's prescribing practices create an extraordinary threat to public health and safety, *see* , e.g., *Lockridge* , 71 FR at 77798-99 2 ; and it is unclear whether he has ceased engaging in them, I further conclude that this Order shall be effective immediately. 2 See also National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, “You've Got Drugs!” Prescription Drug Pushers on the Internet 6 (Feb. 2004) (diversion of controlled substances through the Internet “threatens the health and safety of millions of Americans—including our children”); National Institute on Drug Abuse, Community Drug Alert Bulletin, Prescription Drugs (Aug. 2005). Order Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) & 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b) & 0.104, I hereby order that DEA Certificate Registration, BD4985531, issued to Andrew Desonia, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that any pending application of Respondent for renewal of his registration be, and it hereby is, denied. This order is effective immediately. Dated: September 14, 2007. Michele M. Leonhart, Deputy Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-18775 Filed 9-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Brenton D. Glisson, M.D.; Revocation of Registration On May 9, 2006, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to Show Cause to Brenton D. Glisson, M.D. (Respondent), of Seneca, South Carolina. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration, BG4535641, as a practitioner, on the ground that in August 2005, the South Carolina Bureau of Drug Control suspended his State controlled substances registration and that he was without authority to handle controlled substances in the State in which he practiced medicine. Show Cause Order at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(2)). The Show Cause Order also advised Respondent of his right to a hearing and the procedures for requesting a hearing and/or submitting a written statement. Show Cause Order at 1-2. On June 1, 2006, the Show Cause Order was served on Respondent by certified mail, return receipt requested. On June 21, 2006, Respondent submitted a letter in which he admitted that his South Carolina medical license had been revoked based on “false allegations of sexual misconduct with a patient.” Respondent further stated that he was “in the process of appealing [the] decision,” and that the “case [was] going before an Administrative Judge.” Respondent also stated that he would contact the Agency upon the “renewal” of his license and requested that the DEA proceeding be held “off till then.” Upon receipt of the letter, the matter was assigned to Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ)Gail Randall. On July 11, 2006, the ALJ wrote to Respondent stating that she could not tell from his letter whether he was requesting a hearing. The ALJ thus instructed Respondent that if he was “seeking a hearing, you must clearly tell me so in a letter filed with my office.” The ALJ also advised Respondent that if his initial letter was intended to request a hearing, his “request may already be untimely.” Finally, the ALJ informed Respondent that if he failed to reply by July 25, 2006, he would be deemed to have waived his right to a hearing. Respondent did not comply. On July 11, 2006, the Government moved for summary disposition on the ground that Respondent was no longer authorized under South Carolina law to handle controlled substances. Motion for Summary Disp. at 1-2. As support for its motion, the Government attached a copy of the South Carolina State Board of Medical Examiners' July 16, 2005, Order of Temporary Suspension of Respondent's medical license. The Government also attached a copy of the South Carolina Bureau of Drug Control's Notice of Indefinite Suspension of Controlled Substances Registration. The ALJ did not, however, rule on the Government's motion. Instead, on August 7, 2006, the ALJ issued an order *sua sponte* terminating the proceeding on the ground that Respondent had waived his right to a hearing. On June 7, 2007, the case file was forwarded to my office for final agency action. Based on
(1)Respondent's failure to expressly request a hearing in his June 2006 letter, and
(2)his failure to respond to the ALJ's July 11, 2006 letter, I conclude that he has waived his right to a hearing. 21 CFR 1301.43(a) & (d). I therefore enter this Final Order without a hearing based on relevant material in the investigative file. *Id.* 1301.43(e). I make the following findings. Findings Respondent is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration, BG4535641, which authorizes him to handle controlled substances as a practitioner at the registered location of 1765 Blue Ridge Blvd., Seneca, South Carolina. Respondent's registration does not expire until September 30, 2007. On July 16, 2005, the South Carolina State Board of Medical Examiners ordered that Respondent's medical license be temporarily suspended. Thereafter, on August 19, 2005, the Bureau of Drug Control, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, suspended Respondent's South Carolina Controlled Substances Registration. 1 1 According to the notice of suspension, Respondent's South Carolina Controlled Substances Registration is “conditioned upon [his] license to practice the profession of Medicine with this State.” Notice of Indefinite Suspension of Controlled Substances Registration at 1. On June 7, 2006, following a hearing, the South Carolina Board found that Respondent had violated various State laws and regulations and issued a final order revoking his State medical license. There is no evidence in the investigative file indicating that the Board's final order has been stayed or set aside. Discussion Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), a practitioner must be currently authorized to handle controlled substances in “the jurisdiction in which he practices” in order to maintain a DEA registration. *See* 21 U.S.C. 802(21) (“[t]he term ‘practitioner' means a physician * * * licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, by * * * the jurisdiction in which he practices * * * to distribute, dispense, [or] administer * * * a controlled substance in the course of professional practice”). *See also id.* 823(f) (“The Attorney General shall register practitioners * * * if the applicant is authorized to dispense * * * controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.”). DEA has held repeatedly that the CSA requires the revocation of a registration issued to a practitioner whose state license has been suspended or revoked. *See Sheran Arden Yeates* , 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006); *Dominick A. Ricci* , 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); *Bobby Watts* , 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988). *See also* 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) (authorizing the revocation of a registration “upon a finding that the registrant * * * has had his State license or registration suspended [or] revoked * * * and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the * * * distribution [or] dispensing of controlled substances”). As found above, on June 7, 2006, the South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners issued a final order revoking Respondent's medical license and the South Carolina Bureau of Drug Control has suspended his State controlled substances registration. Respondent has submitted no evidence to this Agency establishing that the State orders have been stayed or set aside. Therefore, it is clear that Respondent lacks authority to handle controlled substances in South Carolina, the State in which he is registered with DEA. Respondent is therefore not entitled to maintain his Federal registration. 2 2 In his letter responding to the Show Cause Order, Respondent asserted that the revocation of his state medical license was based on “false allegations of sexual misconduct with a patient.” DEA precedents hold, however, “that a registrant can not collaterally attack the results of a state criminal or administrative proceeding in a proceeding under section 304 of the CSA.” *Sunil Bhasin, M.D.* , 72 FR 5082, 5083 (2007); *see also Shahid Musud Siddiqui* , 61 FR 14818, 14818-19 (1996); *Robert A. Leslie* , 60 FR 14004, 14005 (1995). Accordingly, I do not consider Respondent's defense. Order Accordingly, pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) & 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b) & 0.104, I hereby order that DEA Certificate of Registration, BG4535641, issued to Brenton D. Glisson, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that any pending applications for renewal or modification of such registration be, and they hereby are, denied. This order is effective October 24, 2007. Dated: September 14, 2007. Michele M. Leonhart, Deputy Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-18776 Filed 9-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration David W. Wang, M.D.; Revocation of Registration On August 7, 2006, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to Show Cause to David W. Wang, M.D. (Respondent), of Orlando, Florida. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration, AW2834528, as a practitioner, and the denial of his pending application to renew the registration, on two grounds. First, the Show Cause Order alleged that Respondent had committed acts which render his continued registration inconsistent with the public interest. *See* 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4). More specifically, the Show Cause Order alleged that Respondent had issued prescriptions for controlled substances to undercover operatives for no legitimate medical purpose and outside of the usual course of professional practice. *Id.* at 1-2. Second, the Show Cause Order alleged that on August 16, 2005, the Florida Department of Health ordered the emergency suspension of Respondent's state medical license and that the suspension remains in effect. *Id.* at 2. The Show Cause Order thus alleged that Respondent lacks “state authorization to handle controlled substances,” which is “a necessary prerequisite for DEA registration.” *Id.* (citing 21 U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f), & 824(a)(3)). On August 17, 2006, the Show Cause Order was served on Respondent by certified mail, return receipt requested. Thereafter, on September 5, 2006, Respondent submitted a letter in which he “den[ied] all of the allegations in the suspension of [his] Florida license,” and stated that he was pursuing various state law remedies to obtain reinstatement of his medical license. Letter from Resp. to Hearing Clerk (Sep. 5, 2006). Respondent further requested that the DEA proceeding be continued until the state administrative proceeding was completed. Respondent stated that he was “requesting to withdraw[] my renewal request and that [DEA] hold all proceedings against [his] DEA registration pending the outcome of the proceedings involving” his medical license. *Id.* Respondent added that “if there is no possible way to stop [the DEA] proceedings then I hereby request a formal hearing.” *Id.* Respondent added, however, that he would need to have the DEA hearing “postponed until I finish the” Florida medical license proceedings. The case was assigned to Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ)Mary Ellen Bittner. On September 25, 2006, the ALJ issued a Memorandum to the Parties regarding the issues Respondent raised in his letter. In the Memorandum, the ALJ denied Respondent's request “to hold this proceeding in abeyance pending the resolution of the Florida licensure proceedings.” Memorandum to Parties at 2. The ALJ further advised Respondent of the procedures that must be followed under DEA regulations to withdraw his renewal application. *Id.* The ALJ thus directed Respondent to advise her by October 16, 2006, whether he intended to withdraw his renewal application, or whether he intended to proceed with his request for a hearing. *Id.* at 3. Respondent did neither. Accordingly, on December 15, 2006, the Government moved to terminate the proceeding on the ground that Respondent had waived his right to a hearing. Motion to Terminate at 2. On December 18, 2006, the ALJ found that Respondent had “waived his right to a hearing.” Order Terminating Proceedings. The ALJ thus granted the Government's motion and ordered that the proceeding be terminated. *Id.* Thereafter, on June 11, 2007, the investigative file was forwarded to me for final agency action. Based on Respondent's failure to respond to the ALJ's Memorandum, I find that he has waived his right to a hearing. 21 CFR 1301.43(d). I therefore enter this Final Order without a hearing based on relevant material contained in the investigative file. *Id.* § 1301.43(e). I make the following findings. Findings Respondent is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration, AW2834528, which authorizes him to handle controlled substances as a practitioner at the registered location of 3827 Landlubber Street, Orlando, Florida. Respondent's registration expired on May 31, 2006. Respondent, however, applied for a renewal of his registration on May 24, 2006. Respondent's registration has therefore remained in effect pending the issuance of this Final Order. *See* 5 U.S.C. 558(c). On August 19, 2005, the Secretary of the Florida Department of Health issued to Respondent an “Amended Order of Emergency Suspension of License” (hereinafter, State Order). The State Order alleged that Respondent had prescribed drugs including controlled substances “other than in the course of the physician's professional practice.” State Order at 23. The State Order further alleged that Respondent had “inappropriately and excessively prescribed controlled substances * * * to six undercover agents without performing adequate physical examinations of them; by repeatedly prescribing controlled substances to these patients without ascertaining the etiology of their pain; and by prescribing controlled substances to the patients without medical justification.” *Id.* at 20. The State Order further alleged that “[o]n or about August 16, 2005, the Circuit Court for Brevard County, Florida issued an arrest warrant for [Respondent] based on charges of trafficking in hydrocodone over 28 grams in violation of [Fla. Stat. § 893.135], and unlawful distribution of controlled substances in violation of” Fla. Stat. § 893.13. *Id.* Relatedly, the State Order alleged that on August 17, 2005, Respondent was arrested by officers of the Melbourne, Florida Police Department. *Id.* The Order thus concluded that Respondent's “continued practice as a physician constitutes an immediate serious danger to the health, safety, and welfare of the public,” and “immediately suspended” his Florida medical license. *Id.* at 23-34. According to the online records of the Florida Department of Health, the emergency suspension order remains in effect. Moreover, according to the online records of the Brevard County Clerk of Courts, on July 17, 2006, Respondent was charged with two counts of trafficking in illegal drugs, a violation of Fla. Stat. § 893.135.1(c).1.C, and a first degree felony under Florida law. The criminal case remains pending. Discussion Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), a practitioner must be currently authorized to handle controlled substances in “the jurisdiction in which he practices” in order to maintain a DEA registration. *See* 21 U.S.C. 802(21) (“[t]he term ‘practitioner' means a physician * * * licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, by * * * the jurisdiction in which he practices * * * to distribute, dispense, [or] administer * * * a controlled substance in the course of professional practice”). *See also id.* § 823(f) (“The Attorney General shall register practitioners * * * if the applicant is authorized to dispense * * * controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.”). DEA has held repeatedly that the CSA requires the revocation of a registration issued to a practitioner whose state license has been suspended or revoked. 1 *See Sheran Arden Yeates,* 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006); *Dominick A. Ricci,* 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); *Bobby Watts,* 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988). *See also* 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) (authorizing the revocation of a registration “upon a finding that the registrant * * * has had his State license or registration suspended [or] revoked * * * and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the * * * distribution [or] dispensing of controlled substances”). 1 DEA regulations allow a registrant to submit “a written statement regarding such person's position on the matters of fact and law,” along with a waiver of the opportunity for a hearing. 21 CFR 1301.44(c). Even if I was to hold that Respondent's letter denying the allegations of the state suspension complied with this regulation, his statement is immaterial to the ground I rely on in revoking his registration. As found above, on August 19, 2005, the Secretary of the Florida Department of Health immediately suspended Respondent's state medical license and that suspension remains in effect. Respondent is therefore without authority to handle controlled substances in the State in which he is registered and is not entitled to maintain his DEA registration. Order Accordingly, pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) & 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b) & 0.104, I hereby order that DEA Certificate of Registration, AW2834528, issued to David W. Wang, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that any pending applications for renewal or modification of such registration be, and they hereby are, denied. This order is effective October 24, 2007. Dated: September 14, 2007. Michele M. Leonhart, Deputy Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-18778 Filed 9-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Request for Certification of Compliance—Rural Industrialization Loan and Grant Program AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, Labor. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Employment and Training Administration is issuing this notice to announce the receipt of a “Certification of Non-Relocation and Market and Capacity Information Report” (Form 4279-2) for the following: *Applicant/Location:* Hamley Land Company, LLC; Hamley Steakhouse, LLC; and, Hamley's, LLC/Pendleton, Oregon. *Principal Product:* The loan, guarantee, or grant application is for a mixed business project that plans to construct, through a real estate holding company, two new business ventures: A steakhouse, and a coffee, wine and gift shop while additionally expanding an existing retail facility. The NAICS industry codes for this enterprise are: 531120 Lessors of Nonresidential Buildings (except Miniwarehouses); 722110 Full-Service Restaurants; 722211 Limited-Service Restaurants; and, 448140 Family Clothing Stores. DATES: All interested parties may submit comments in writing no later than October 9, 2007. Copies of adverse comments received will be forwarded to the applicant noted above. ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this notice to Anthony D. Dais, U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room S-4231, Washington, DC 20210; or e-mail *Dais.Anthony@dol.gov* ; or transmit via fax 202-693-3015 (this is not a toll-free number). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony D. Dais, at telephone number
(202)693-2784 (this is not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 188 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 1972, as established under 29 CFR Part 75, authorizes the United States Department of Agriculture to make or guarantee loans or grants to finance industrial and business activities in rural areas. The Secretary of Labor must review the application for financial assistance for the purpose of certifying to the Secretary of Agriculture that the assistance is not calculated, or likely, to result in:
(a)A transfer of any employment or business activity from one area to another by the loan applicant's business operation; or,
(b)An increase in the production of goods, materials, services, or facilities in an area where there is not sufficient demand to employ the efficient capacity of existing competitive enterprises unless the financial assistance will not have an adverse impact on existing competitive enterprises in the area. The Employment and Training Administration within the Department of Labor is responsible for the review and certification process. Comments should address the two bases for certification and, if possible, provide data to assist in the analysis of these issues. Signed: at Washington, DC 18th of September, 2007. Gay M. Gilbert, Administrator, Office of Workforce Investment Employment and Training Administration. [FR Doc. E7-18708 Filed 9-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION Notice of Meeting Time and Date: 10 a.m. Thursday, September 27, 2007. Place: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3428. Status: Open. Matters to be Considered: 1. Request from Consolidated Federal Credit Union to Convert to a Community Charter. 2. Request from Connects Federal Credit Union to Convert to a Community Charter. 3. *Final Rule:* Section 701.3 of NCUA's Rules and Regulations, Member Inspection of Credit Union Books, Records, and Minutes. Recess: 11 a.m. Time and Date: 11:15 a.m., Thursday, September 27, 2007. Place: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3428. Status: Closed. Matters to be Considered: 1. Two
(2)Merger applications under Parts 704 and 708b of NCUA's Rules and Regulations. Closed pursuant to Exemption (8). 2. Appeal under section 701.14 and Part 747, Subpart J of NCUA's Rules and Regulations. Closed pursuant to Exemption (6). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703-518-6304. Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. 07-4724 Filed 9-20-07; 3:07 pm]
Connectionstraces to 21
Traces to 21 documents
U.S. Code
- Leases, easements, and rights-of-way on the outer Continental Shelf§ 1337
- Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings§ 552
- Purposes§ 3501
- Congressional declaration of purpose and policy§ 1501
- Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund§ 1543
- Water right as appurtenant to land and extent of right§ 372
- Rule making§ 553
- Unfair practices in import trade§ 1337
- Registration requirements§ 823
- Denial, revocation, or suspension of registration§ 824
- Prescriptions§ 829
- Definitions§ 802
- Imposition of sanctions; determination of applications for licenses; suspension, revocation, and expiration of licenses§ 558
statutes-at-large
18 references not yet in our index
- 43 CFR 8342.1
- 30 CFR 281
- 43 CFR 2
- 5 CFR 1320.4(a)(2)
- 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(9)
- 36 CFR 60
- Pub. L. 107-171
- Pub. L. 109-103
- Pub. L. 108-451
- Pub. L. 98-381
- Pub. L. 93-320
- Pub. L. 90-537
- 5 CFR 1320.10
- 419 F.3d 477
- 412 F.3d 165
- 423 U.S. 122
- 423 U.S. 141
- 29 CFR 75
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of OHV use restrictions
F. App'x419 F.3d 477
F. App'x412 F.3d 165
SCOTUS423 U.S. 122
Cites 39 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources