50944 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 2014 / Notices 

chilled taro is provided for in HTS 

subheading 0714.40.10, while fresh or 

chilled dasheens are provided for in 

HTS subheading 0714.90.10. As part of 

this investigation, the Commission 

intends to consider whether it is 

necessary or appropriate to recommend 

to the President that one of the two 

subheadings be deleted from the HTS. 

The second additional possible 

modification relates to the HTS 

nomenclature for corned beef, which is 

provided for in HTS subheading 

1602.50.10. The superior subheading to 

subheading 1602.50.10 provides for 

certain meat of bovine animals that is 

not cured. However, corned beef is a 

cured meat product. As part of this 

investigation, the Commission intends 

to consider whether it is necessary or 

appropriate to recommend to the 

President that the HTS be modified to 

provide for corned beef under a superior 

subheading for cured meat of bovine 

animals. 

An up-to-date copy of the HTS, which 

incorporates the Harmonized System in 

its overall structure, can be found on the 

Commission Web site at www.usitc.gov. 

Hard copies and electronic copies on CD 

can be found at many of the 1,400 

Federal Depository Libraries located 

throughout the United States and its 

territories; further information about 

these locations can be found at 

www.gpoaccess.gov or by contacting 

GPO Access by telephone at (866) 512– 

1800. 

Proposed Recommendations, 

Opportunity To Comment: In preparing 

its recommended modifications, the 

Commission will first prepare proposed 

recommendations and provide 

opportunity to interested Federal 

agencies and the public to present their 

views in writing on those proposed 

recommendations. The Commission 

expects to publish the proposed 

recommendations on its Web site in 

December 2014, and will publish a 

notice in the Federal Register at that 

time providing notice of their 

availability and the procedures for filing 

written views, including the date by 

which such written views must be filed. 

To assist the public in understanding 

the proposed changes and in developing 

comments, the Commission will 

include, with the proposed 

recommendations and in its report to 

the President, a non-authoritative crossreference table linking the proposed 

tariff codes to the corresponding current 

tariff codes. Persons using the 

successive versions of this table should 

be aware that the cross-references 

shown are subject to change during the 

course of the investigation. 

Recommendations to the President: 

The Commission will submit its 

recommended modifications to the 

President in the form of a report that 

will include a summary of the 

information on which the 

recommendations were based, together 

with a statement of the probable 

economic effect of each recommended 

change on any industry in the United 

States. The report also will include a 

copy of all written views submitted by 

interested Federal agencies and a copy 

or summary, prepared by the 

Commission, of the views of all other 

interested parties. The Commission 

expects to submit that report in July 

2015. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: August 20, 2014. 

Lisa R. Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2014–20175 Filed 8–25–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. DEA–378] 

Controlled Substances: Adjustment to 

the Established 2014 Aggregate 

Production Quota for Marijuana 

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement 

Administration, Department of Justice. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice addresses a 

comment received as a result of a notice 

with request for comments published 

May 5, 2014, adjusting the established 

2014 aggregate production quota for 

marijuana, a schedule I controlled 

substance under the Controlled 

Substances Act. 

DATES: Effective August 26, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Imelda L. Paredes, Office of Diversion 

Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 

Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 

22152, Telephone: (202) 598–6812. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Legal Authority 

The Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA) implements and 

enforces titles II and III of the 

Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention 

and Control Act of 1970, as amended. 

Titles II and III are referred to as the 

‘‘Controlled Substances Act’’ and the 

‘‘Controlled Substances Import and 

Export Act,’’ respectively, and are 

collectively referred to as the 

‘‘Controlled Substances Act’’ or the 

‘‘CSA’’ for the purpose of this action. 21 

U.S.C. 801–971. The DEA publishes the 

implementing regulations for these 

statutes in title 21 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR), parts 1300 to 1321. 

The CSA and its implementing 

regulations are designed to prevent, 

detect, and eliminate the diversion of 

controlled substances and listed 

chemicals into the illicit market while 

providing for the legitimate medical, 

scientific, research, and industrial needs 

of the United States. Controlled 

substances have the potential for abuse 

and dependence and are controlled to 

protect the public health and safety. 

Section 306 of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 

826) requires the Attorney General to 

establish aggregate production quotas 

for each basic class of controlled 

substance listed in schedules I and II 

each year. The Attorney General has 

delegated this authority under 21 U.S.C. 

826 to the Administrator of the DEA, 28 

CFR 0.100. 

Background 

The DEA established the initial 2014 

aggregate production quotas and 

assessments for annual need on 

September 9, 2013 (78 FR 55099). The 

notice stipulated that, as provided for in 

21 CFR 1303.13, all aggregate 

production quotas and assessments for 

annual need are subject to adjustment. 

On May 5, 2014, a notice titled, 

‘‘Controlled Substances: Adjustment to 

the Established 2014 Aggregate 

Production Quota for Marijuana,’’ was 

published in the Federal Register (79 

FR 55099). That notice adjusted the 

established 2014 aggregate production 

quota for marijuana for reasons stated 

therein. All interested persons were 

invited to comment on or object to the 

adjusted 2014 aggregate production 

quota for marijuana on or before June 4, 

2014. 

Comments Received 

The DEA received one comment on 

the notice with request for comments. 

The commenter supported the adjusted 

2014 aggregate production quota for 

marijuana. The DEA appreciates the 

support for this adjusted 2014 aggregate 

production quota for marijuana which 

will provide for the estimated scientific, 

research, and industrial needs of the 

United States. 

Determination for Adjusting the 

Established 2014 Aggregate Production 

Quota for Marijuana 

The DEA has taken into consideration 

the one comment received during the 

30-day period and the Administrator 

has determined, pursuant to Section 306 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 2014 / Notices 50945 

1The Show Cause Order also notified Registrant 

of his right to request a hearing on the allegations 

or to submit a written statement in lieu of a hearing, 

the procedure for electing either option, and the 

consequence for failing to do either. GX 1, at 5 

(citing 21 CFR 1301.43(a), (c), (d)–(e)). 

of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 826), based on all 

of the above, and for the reasons stated 

in the May 5, 2014, notice, that the 

adjusted established 2014 aggregate 

production quota for marijuana to be 

manufactured in the United States in 

2014 to provide for the estimated 

scientific, research, and industrial needs 

of the United States, and the 

establishment and maintenance of 

reserve stocks, expressed in grams of 

anhydrous acid or base, shall remain as 

follows: 

Basic class-schedule I 

Previously 

established 

2014 quota 

Adjusted 2014 

quota 

Marijuana ................................................................................................................................................................. 21,000 g 650,000 g 

Dated: August 20, 2014. 

Michele M. Leonhart, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2014–20317 Filed 8–25–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Richard C. Quigley, D.O.; Decision and 

Order 

On November 13, 2013, I, the Deputy 

Administrator, Drug Enforcement 

Administration, issued an Order to 

Show Cause and Immediate Suspension 

of Registration (hereinafter OTSC/ISO or 

Order) to Richard C. Quigley, D.O. 

(Registrant), of Oscoda, Michigan. The 

Order, which also sought the revocation 

of Registrant’s DEA Certificate of 

Registration and the denial of any 

pending applications to renew or 

modify his registration, alleged, inter 

alia, that on ten occasions between June 

6 and August 30, 2013, Registrant 

prescribed schedule III controlled 

substances combining hydrocodone and 

acetaminophen, to four undercover law 

enforcement officers, without 

‘‘conduct[ing] a physical examination or 

properly assess[ing] the needs of [the] 

individual[s] for controlled substances.’’ 

Id. at 2–3. The Order thus alleged that 

Registrant acted outside of the usual 

course of professional practice and 

lacked a legitimate medical purpose in 

issuing the prescriptions and thus 

violated both federal and state law. Id. 

(citing 21 CFR 1306.04(a); Mich. Comp. 

Laws sections 333.7333; 333.7405).1

Based on ‘‘the egregious and repeated 

nature of [his] misconduct,’’ the Order 

further concluded that Registrant’s 

‘‘continued registration during the 

pendency of these proceedings would 

constitute an imminent danger to the 

public health or safety.’’ Id. at 4. 

Accordingly, I ordered that Registrant’s 

registration be immediately suspended. 

Id. 

On November 18, 2013, a DEA 

Diversion Investigator (DI) attempted to 

serve the OTSC/ISO on Registrant. GX 2, 

at 2. However, she ‘‘discovered that 

[Registrant] had abandoned his practice, 

pulled his children out of school, and 

fled . . . to Canada.’’ Id. Upon inquiring 

with U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, the DI determined that 

Registrant ‘‘and his family entered 

Canada on September 26, 2013’’ and 

had not returned to the United States. 

Id. at 2–3. 

Simultaneously with the DI’s attempt 

to effect service, on November 18, 2013, 

a Legal Assistant with the Office of 

Chief Counsel mailed the OTSC/ISO to 

Registrant, at the mailing address he had 

previously provided the Agency, by 

certified mail, return receipt requested. 

GX 8. On November 21, 2013, the legal 

assistant queried the U.S. Postal 

Service’s Track and Confirm’’ Web page; 

the Web page stated: ‘‘Moved, Left No 

Address.’’ Id. Thereafter, on November 

29, the mailing was returned to the 

Office of Chief Counsel. Id. 

On December 2, 2013, the Legal 

Assistant re-mailed the OTSC/ISO to 

Registrant by First Class Mail to the 

same address. Id. However, on 

December 11, 2013, the mailing was 

returned bearing a label which read: 

‘‘MOVED LEFT NO ADDRESS, 

UNABLE TO FORWARD, RETURN TO 

SENDER.’’ Id. 

Concurrently with her attempts to 

effect service by mail, on November 20, 

the Legal Assistant emailed the OTSC– 

ISO to Registrant at the contact email 

address he had previously provided to 

the Agency’s Registrant Information 

Consolidated System (RICS). Id. at 2. 

According to the Legal Assistant, she 

‘‘received notification from my email 

program that delivery to the recipient 

was complete. I did not receive any 

error message that indicated that the 

email was not delivered.’’ Id. 

Based on the above, I find that the 

Government has complied with its 

constitutional obligation to ‘‘to provide 

‘notice reasonably calculated, under all 

the circumstances, to apprise interested 

parties of the pendency of the action 

and afford them an opportunity to 

present their objections.’ ’’ Jones v. 

Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 226 (2006) 

(quoting Mullane v. Central Hanover 

Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 

(1950)). Moreover, ‘‘ ‘when notice is a 

person’s due . . . [t]he means employed 

must be such as one desirous of actually 

informing the absentee might reasonably 

adopt to accomplish it.’ ’’ Jones, 547 

U.S. at 229 (quoting Mullane, 339 U.S. 

at 315). 

Here, while the Government’s efforts 

to effect service by both hand delivery 

and mail were not effective, several 

courts have held that the emailing of 

process can, depending on the facts and 

circumstances, satisfy due process, 

especially where service by 

conventional means is impracticable 

because a person secretes himself. See 

Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 

284 F.3d 1007, 1017–18 (9th Cir. 2002); 

Snyder, et al. v. Alternate Energy Inc., 

857 N.Y.S. 2d 442, 447–449 (N.Y. Civ. 

Ct. 2008); In re International Telemedia 

Associates, Inc., 245 B.R. 713, 721–22 

(Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2000). To be sure, 

courts have recognized that the use of 

email to serve process has ‘‘its 

limitations,’’ including that ‘‘[i]n most 

instances, there is no way to confirm 

receipt of an email message.’’ Rio 

Properties, 284 F.3d at 1018. 

Due process does not, however, 

require actual notice, Jones, 547 U.S. at 

226 (quoting Dusenberry, 534 U.S. 161, 

170 (2002)), but rather, only ‘‘ ‘notice 

reasonably calculated, under all the 

circumstances, to apprise interested 

parties of the pendency of the action 

and afford them an opportunity to 

present their objections.’ ’’ Id. (quoting 

Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314). Here, I 

conclude that because the Government’s 

use of traditional means of service was 

rendered futile by Registrant’s having 

fled the United States, the use of email 

to effect service at an email address he 

had previously provided the Agency 

was ‘‘reasonably calculated . . . to 

apprise [Registrant] of the pendency of 

the action’’ where the Government did 

not receive back either an error or 

undeliverable message. See Emilio 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES