Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 2015 / Notices 3653 

32Unlike factors two (‘‘[t]he applicant’s 

experience in dispensing’’) and three (‘‘[t]he 

applicant’s conviction record’’), neither factor four 

(‘‘Compliance with applicable laws related to 

controlled substances’’) nor factor five (‘‘Such other 

conduct which may threaten public health and 

safety’’) contain the limiting words of ‘‘[t]he 

applicant.’’ As the Supreme Court has held, 

‘‘[w]here Congress includes particular language in 

one section of a statute but omits it in another 

section of the same Act, it is generally presumed 

that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in 

the disparate inclusion or exclusion.’’ Russello v. 

United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983). Thus, the text 

of factors four and five suggest that these factors are 

not limited to assessing the applicant’s compliance 

with applicable laws and whether he has engaged 

in ‘‘such other conduct,’’ but rather authorize the 

Agency to also consider the effect of a sanction on 

inducing compliance with federal law by other 

practitioners. 

33 In his Exceptions, Respondent lists some 

twenty-three things that he promises to do in the 

future, which he hopes ‘‘will eliminate many 

loopholes and help with the problem of drug 

diversion.’’ Exceptions, at 2. These include, inter 

alia, that he ‘‘will familiarize [him]self with all of 

Georgia’s rules, statute, law and regulations and 

follow them,’’ he ‘‘will follow the . . . Georgia 

medical board pain management guidelines,’’ ‘‘stay 

up-to-date with changes implemented by the 

Georgia medical board,’’ ‘‘follow the board[’]s 

advice from medical newsletters . . . regarding red 

flags and pill mills,’’ ‘‘investigate [the] patient’s past 

history and past drug history,’’ ‘‘perform additional 

physical exam techniques to help with the 

diagnosis,’’ ’’ pay close attention to urine drug test 

and perform the test myself,’’ ‘‘correlate physical 

exam with radiological findings,’’ ‘‘avoid seeing 

patients who travel long distance,’’ discharge any 

patient ‘‘offering any kind of bribe,’’ and ‘‘verify all 

past medical records’’ including patient’s MRIs. Id. 

Respondent’s list of promises is not evidence in 

the case, and thus, I give it no weight. In any event, 

even if he had testified as to these promises and 

been found credible, because he has failed to 

acknowledge his misconduct, I would still hold that 

he has not refuted the conclusion that his 

registration is inconsistent with the public interest. 

registration when a registrant ‘has 

committed such acts as would render 

[his] registration . . . inconsistent with 

the public interest,’ id. § 824(a)(4), and 

[which] specifically directs the Attorney 

General to consider [‘such other conduct 

which may threaten public health and 

safety,’ id. § 823(f)].’’ 74 FR at 10094 

(quoting Southwood, 72 FR at 36504).32

I conclude that Respondent has not 

accepted responsibility for his 

misconduct. Notably, at the hearing, 

Respondent continued to maintain that 

he had lawfully prescribed to TFOs 

Lawson and Vickery. Indeed, with 

respect to the latter, Respondent 

claimed that even his prescribing at the 

fourth visit was legitimate because ‘‘he 

[Vickery] still had pain.’’ Tr. 373. So 

too, with respect to the patients whose 

charts were reviewed by Dr. Hurd, 

Respondent failed to acknowledge that 

the prescriptions were unlawful. 

Moreover, when asked why he did not 

obtain prior records, Respondent 

explained that ‘‘I didn’t do it, because 

it was the understanding that Mark [Del 

Percio] was going to take care of those 

things.’’ Id. at 345. Respondent’s failure 

to acknowledge his misconduct is 

reason alone to find that he has not 

produced sufficient evidence to refute 

the Government’s showing that his 

registration is inconsistent with the 

public interest. 

Even had Respondent made a 

sufficient showing that he accepts 

responsibility for his misconduct, he 

has failed to produce sufficient evidence 

of remedial measures to refute the 

Government’s prima facie case. Indeed, 

the only evidence Respondent offered 

regarding remedial measures was his 

assertion that he would take a course 

(on two Saturday mornings) to become 

‘‘board certified in pain management.’’ 

Tr. 354. However, Respondent conceded 

that he ‘‘never got around to’’ doing it. 

Id. at 355–56.33

Moreover, I conclude that revocation 

of Respondent’s registration is 

warranted given the egregious nature of 

Respondent’s misconduct and the need 

to deter other registrants from using 

their registrations to distribute 

controlled substances to those persons 

who seek the drugs to either personally 

abuse them or sell them to others. Here, 

the evidence shows that Respondent 

knowingly diverted controlled 

substances by issuing prescriptions 

outside of the usual course of 

professional practice and which lacked 

a legitimate medical purpose to 

numerous persons. See David A. Ruben, 

78 FR 38363 (2013). Moreover, there is 

substantial evidence that Respondent 

prescribed controlled substances to 

multiple persons who obtained them for 

redistribution to others. 

Such conduct strikes at the CSA’s 

core purpose of preventing the abuse 

and diversion of controlled substances. 

See Jack A. Danton, 76 FR 60900, 60903 

(2011); George Mathew, 75 FR 66138 

(2010). Indeed, this Agency has revoked 

a practitioner’s registration upon proof 

of as few as two acts of intentional 

diversion and has further explained that 

proof of a single act of intentional 

diversion is sufficient to support the 

revocation of a registration. See MacKay, 

75 FR at 49977 (citing Krishna-Iyer, 74 

FR at 463 (citing Alan H. Olefsky, 57 FR 

928, 928–29 (1992))). 

While Respondent’s misconduct 

would be egregious if it had been 

confined to Officer Vickery, it was not. 

As found above, the Government’s 

Expert provided credible evidence that 

Respondent diverted controlled 

substances to at least six patients, over 

the course of a year or more. And even 

after Respondent became aware of the 

State Board’s newsletter which listed 

various red flags associated with pills 

mills that were also present at Liberty, 

he continued to write unlawful 

prescriptions to these patients until the 

clinic was shut down. 

I therefore conclude that the public 

interest necessitates that Respondent’s 

registration be revoked and that any 

pending application be denied. Given 

the egregiousness of his misconduct, I 

further conclude that the public interest 

requires that this Order be effective 

immediately. 

Order 

Pursuant to the authority vested in me 

by 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4) and 823(f), as 

well as 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, I 

order that DEA Certificate of 

Registration BM0288983, issued to 

Samuel Mintlow, M.D., be, and it hereby 

is, revoked. I further order that any 

application of Samuel Mintlow, M.D., to 

renew or modify the above registration, 

be, and it hereby is, denied. This Order 

is effective immediately. 

Dated: December 30, 2014. 

Thomas M. Harrigan, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01219 Filed 1–22–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Comment Request for Information 

Collection for Tax Performance 

System, Extension Without Revision 

AGENCY: Employment and Training 

Administration (ETA), Labor. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Labor 

(Department), as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork and 

respondent burden, conducts a 

preclearance consultation program to 

provide the general public and Federal 

agencies with an opportunity to 

comment on proposed and/or 

continuing collections of information in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) (44 

U.S.C. 3506 (c) (2) (A)). This program 

helps to ensure that requested data can 

be provided in the desired format, 

reporting burden (time and financial 

resources) is minimized, collection 

instruments are clearly understood, and 

the impact of collection requirements on 

respondents can be properly assessed. 

Grants of funds that are made to states 

for administration of their employment 

security laws include funds for the 

establishment of a Quality Control Unit 

in each state in order for states to assess 

the quality of their unemployment 

insurance tax programs. States perform 

the assessment annually in accordance 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
3654 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 2015 / Notices 

with instructions issued by the 

Department. The assessment and 

instructions are referred to as the Tax 

Performance System (TPS). Currently, 

the ETA is soliciting comments 

concerning the collection of data 

pertaining to the TPS. 

DATES: Submit written comments to the 

office listed in the address section 

below on or before March 24, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Joseph 

Toth, Office of Unemployment 

Insurance, Employment and Training 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Labor, Room S–4522, 200 Constitution 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC, 20210. 

Telephone number 202–693–3894 (this 

is not a toll-free number). Individuals 

with hearing or speech impairments 

may access the telephone number above 

via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal 

Information Relay Service at 1–877– 

889–5627 (TTY/TDD). Email: 

toth.joseph@dol.gov. To obtain a copy of 

the proposed information collection 

request (ICR), please contact the person 

listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Since 1987, states have been required 

by regulation at 20 CFR part 602 to 

operate a program to assess their 

Unemployment Insurance (UI) tax and 

benefit programs. TPS is designed to 

assess the major internal UI tax 

functions by utilizing several 

methodologies: Computed Measures, 

which are indicators of timeliness and 

completeness based on data 

automatically generated via the existing 

ETA 581, Contribution Operations 

Report (Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) approval number 1205– 

0178, expiring 02/28/2015, and 

currently under review for extension at 

OMB); and Program Reviews, which 

assess accuracy through a two-fold 

examination. This examination 

involves: (a) ‘‘Systems Reviews’’ which 

examine tax systems for the existence of 

internal controls; and (b) extraction of 

small samples of those systems’ 

transactions which are then examined to 

verify the effectiveness of controls. 

II. Review Focus 

The Department is particularly 

interested in comments which: 

• 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. 

III. Current Actions 

Type of Review: Extension without 

change. 

Title: Tax Performance System. 

OMB Number: 1205–0332. 

Affected Public: State Workforce 

Agencies. 

Estimated Total Annual Respondents: 

52. 

Estimated Total Annual Responses:: 

1739 hours. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 90,428. 

Total Estimated Annual Other Cost 

Burden: $4,543,637. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of the ICR; they will also 

become a matter of public record. 

Portia Wu, 

Assistant Secretary for Employment and 

Training, Labor. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01137 Filed 1–22–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FW–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

Investigations Regarding Eligibility To 

Apply for Worker Adjustment 

Assistance 

Petitions have been filed with the 

Secretary of Labor under Section 221(a) 

of the Trade Act of 1974 (‘‘the Act’’) and 

are identified in the Appendix to this 

notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, 

the Director of the Office of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance, Employment 

and Training Administration, has 

instituted investigations pursuant to 

Section 221(a) of the Act. 

The purpose of each of the 

investigations is to determine whether 

the workers are eligible to apply for 

adjustment assistance under Title II, 

Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations 

will further relate, as appropriate, to the 

determination of the date on which total 

or partial separations began or 

threatened to begin and the subdivision 

of the firm involved. 

The petitioners or any other persons 

showing a substantial interest in the 

subject matter of the investigations may 

request a public hearing, provided such 

request is filed in writing with the 

Director, Office of Trade Adjustment 

Assistance, at the address shown below, 

not later than February 2, 2015. 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written comments regarding the 

subject matter of the investigations to 

the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment 

Assistance, at the address shown below, 

not later than February 2, 2015. 

The petitions filed in this case are 

available for inspection at the Office of 

the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment 

Assistance, Employment and Training 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Labor, Room N–5428, 200 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 8th day of 

January 2015. 

Michael W. Jaffe, 

Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment 

Assistance. 

APPENDIX

[33 TAA Petitions instituted between 12/15/14 and 1/2/15] 

TA–W Subject firm 

(petitioners) Location Date of institution 

Date of 

petition 

85719 ................ Mastercraft Specialties (Workers) ........................................ Red Lion, PA ......................... 12/15/14 12/15/14 

85720 ................ Xerox Commercial Solutions, LLC (State/One-Stop) ........... Kennett, MO .......................... 12/15/14 12/12/14 

85721 ................ IBM—International Business Machine (State/One-Stop) ..... San Antonio, TX .................... 12/15/14 12/12/14 

85722 ................ Triumph Aerostructures, Vought Aircraft Division (State/

One-Stop).

Red Oak, TX ......................... 12/15/14 12/12/14 

85723 ................ Covidien (Company) ............................................................. Costa Mesa, CA .................... 12/16/14 12/15/14 

85724 ................ Fiberoptic Lighting Inc. (State/One-Stop) ............................. Grants Pass, OR ................... 12/16/14 12/15/14 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES