Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Notices 8749 

Dollar amount to be adjusted New (adjusted) dollar amount 

547(c)(9)—preferences, trustee may not avoid a transfer if, in a case 

filed by a debtor whose debts are not primarily consumer debts, the 

aggregate value of property is less than.

5,475 .............................................. 5,850 

707(b)—dismissal of a case or conversion to a case under chapter 11 

or 13 (means test) 

(1)—in paragraph (2)(A)(i)(I) ............................................................ 6,575 .............................................. 7,025 

(2)—in paragraph (2)(A)(i)(II) ........................................................... 10,950 ............................................ 11,725 

(3)—in paragraph (2)(A)(ii)(IV) ......................................................... 1,650 .............................................. 1,775 

(4)—in paragraph (2)(B)(iv)(I) .......................................................... 6,575 .............................................. 7,025 

(5)—in paragraph (2)(B)(iv)(II) ......................................................... 10,950 ............................................ 11,725 

(6)—in paragraph (5)(B) ................................................................... 1,100 .............................................. 1,175 

(7)—in paragraph 6(C) ..................................................................... 575 ................................................. 625 

(8)—in paragraph 7(A)(iii) ................................................................ 575 ................................................. 625 

1322(d)(1)(c) & (2)(c)—contents of chapter 13 plan, monthly income ... 575 (each time it appears) ............ 625 (each time it appears). 

1325(b)(3) & (b)(4)—chapter 13 confirmation of plan, disposable income.575 (each time it appears) ............ 625 (each time it appears). 

1326(b)(3)(B)—payments to former chapter 7 trustee ........................... 25 ................................................... 25 

[FR Doc. 2010–3807 Filed 2–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 2210–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Dwayne LaFrantz Wilson, M.D.; 

Revocation of Registration 

On October 22, 2008, the Deputy 

Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration, issued an Order to 

Show Cause to Dwayne LaFrantz 

Wilson, M.D. (Respondent), of 

Providence, Rhode Island. The Show 

Cause Order proposed the revocation of 

Respondent’s DEA Certificate of 

Registration, BW6030857, which 

authorizes him to dispense controlled 

substances as a practitioner, and the 

denial of any pending applications to 

renew or modify his registration, on the 

ground that his Rhode Island medical 

license had been suspended, and that he 

therefore lacks authority to handle 

controlled substances under the laws of 

Rhode Island, the State in which he is 

registered. Show Cause Order at 1. 

On October 23, 2008, the Government 

initially attempted to serve the Show 

Cause Order on Respondent by certified 

mail, return receipt requested, 

addressed to him at his registered 

address. However, the mailing was 

returned by the Post Office, with a 

sticker attached which stated: ‘‘NOT 

DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED, 

UNABLE TO FORWARD.’’ 

Thereafter, a DEA Investigator (DI) 

contacted the Rhode Island Board of 

Medicine in an attempt to obtain 

Respondent’s address. Declaration of 

Thomas Cook at 1. A board official 

indicated that he did not know 

Respondent’s current address, but had 

heard that he had moved to somewhere 

in the Southwestern United States. Id. 

The DI also unsuccessfully searched for 

Respondent through various online 

databases but could not find any 

information regarding the latter’s 

whereabouts. Id. The DI also tried to 

contact him through the e-mail address 

he had previously provided to DEA; 

Respondent did not, however, reply to 

the e-mail. Id. Finally, the DI contacted 

the owner of the apartment which 

Respondent had rented and used as his 

registered location. Id. at 2. 

Respondent’s ex-landlord advised that 

Respondent had moved in April 2008 

and did not leave a forwarding address. 

Id. Accordingly, the Government has 

been unable to provide actual notice of 

this proceeding to Respondent. 

In Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank 

& Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 315 (1950), 

the Supreme Court held that ‘‘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.’’ More recently, in a case 

in which a State attempted to serve a 

property owner with notice of a tax sale 

by certified mail which was returned as 

unclaimed, the Court explained that 

‘‘when a letter is returned by the post 

office, the sender will ordinarily attempt 

to resend it, if it is practicable to do so.’’ 

Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 230 

(2006) (citing Small v. United States, 

136 F.3d 1334, 1337 (DC Cir. 1998)). 

In Jones, the Court reaffirmed, 

however, that ‘‘[d]ue process does not 

require that a property owner receive 

actual notice before the government may 

take his property.’’ 547 U.S. at 226 

(citing Dusenbery v. United States, 534 

U.S. 161, 170 (2002)). Moreover, due 

process does not require ‘‘heroic efforts,’’ 

Dusenbery, 534 U.S. at 170, but rather, 

only that ‘‘the government * * * 

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.’ ’’ 547 U.S. at 

226 (quoting Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314). 

Applying these standards, I hold that 

the Government has satisfied the 

requirements of due process, 

notwithstanding that it has been unable 

to serve Respondent. In contrast to 

Jones, the Government was not required 

to resend the Show Cause Order by 

regular mail because the original 

certified mailing was not returned as 

unclaimed, but rather as undeliverable 

(apparently because Respondent did not 

leave a forwarding address with the Post 

Office). As the Court reasoned in Jones, 

‘‘if there were no reasonable additional 

steps the government could have taken 

upon return of the unclaimed notice 

letter, it cannot be faulted for doing 

nothing.’’ 547 U.S. at 234. Moreover, the 

Government made substantial efforts to 

locate Respondent. Even though its 

efforts were unsuccessful, they were 

‘‘reasonably calculated, under all the 

circumstances, to apprise [Respondent] 

of the pendency of the action,’’ and thus 

satisfy due process. Dusenbery, 534 U.S. 

at 173 (quoting Mullane, 339 U.S. at 

314). 

I further hold that this matter may 

proceed in absentia. I therefore enter 

this Decision and Final Order without a 

hearing based on the evidence 

contained in the record submitted by 

the Government. I make the following 

findings. 

Findings 

Respondent is the holder of DEA 

Certificate or Registration, BW6030857, 

which authorizes him to dispense 

controlled substances in schedules II 

through V as a practitioner. 

Respondent’s registered location is 388 

South Main St., #56, Providence, Rhode 

Island; his registration does not expire 

until May 31, 2010. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
8750 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Notices 

Respondent also holds both an 

allopathic physician’s license and a 

controlled substance registration as an 

allopathic physician which have been 

issued by the Rhode Island Board of 

Medical Licensure and Discipline. On 

January 24, 2008, Respondent entered 

into a consent order with the Rhode 

Island Board; the order suspended 

Respondent’s Rhode Island licenses 

based on the July 30, 2007 order of the 

New York Department of Health, State 

Board of Professional Medical Conduct, 

which had revoked his New York 

medical license on fourteen different 

grounds. The Rhode Island Board’s 

order became effective on February 13, 

2008. According to the online records of 

the Rhode Island Board, the suspension 

remains in effect as of the date of this 

Decision and Final Order. The Rhode 

Island Board’s online records further 

indicate that Respondent’s state 

controlled substances registration is 

inactive, because a prerequisite (i.e., his 

state medical license) is inactive. I 

therefore find that Respondent is not 

currently authorized under Rhode 

Island law to dispense controlled 

substances. 

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.’’). As these provisions make 

plain, possessing authority under state 

law to handle controlled substances is 

an essential condition for holding a DEA 

registration. 

Accordingly, 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. Scott Sandarg, 74 FR 17528, 

17529 (2009); 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, Respondent currently 

lacks authority to dispense controlled 

substances in Rhode Island, the State in 

which he holds his DEA registration. 

Because Respondent no longer meets 

the CSA’s fundamental requirement for 

holding a registration, see 21 U.S.C. 

823(f), his registration will be revoked. 

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 order that 

DEA Certificate of Registration, 

BW6030857, issued to Dwayne LaFrantz 

Wilson, M.D., be, and it hereby is, 

revoked. I further order that any 

pending application of Dwayne 

LaFrantz Wilson, M.D., to renew or 

modify his registration, be, and it hereby 

is, denied. This Order is effective March 

29, 2010. 

Dated: February 13, 2010. 

Michele M. Leonhart, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3766 Filed 2–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Office of the Secretary 

Submission for OMB Review: 

Comment Request 

February 19, 2010. 

The Department of Labor (DOL) 

hereby announces the submission of the 

following public information collection 

requests (ICR) to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and approval in accordance with 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). 

A copy of each ICR, with applicable 

supporting documentation; including 

among other things a description of the 

likely respondents, proposed frequency 

of response, and estimated total burden 

may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov 

Web site at http://www.reginfo.gov/ 

public/do/PRAMain or by contacting 

Darrin King on 202–693–4129 (this is 

not a toll-free number)/e-mail: 

DOL_PRA_PUBLIC@dol.gov. 

Interested parties are encouraged to 

send comments to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the 

Department of Labor—Employee 

Benefits Security Administration 

(EBSA), Office of Management and 

Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 

20503, Telephone: 202–395–7316/Fax: 

202–395–5806 (these are not toll-free 

numbers), e-mail: 

OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov within 

30 days from the date of this publication 

in the Federal Register. In order to 

ensure the appropriate consideration, 

comments should reference the OMB 

Control Number (see below). 

The OMB 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. 

Agency: Employee Benefits Security 

Administration. 

Type of Review: Extension without 

change of a currently approved 

collection. 

Title of Collection: Annual Report for 

Multiple Employer Welfare 

Arrangements (Form M–1). 

OMB Control Number: 1210–0116. 

Affected Public: Private sector. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

464. 

Total Estimated Annual Burden 

Hours: 62. 

Total Estimated Annual Costs Burden 

(excludes hourly wage costs): $44,000. 

Description: The Health Insurance 

Portability and Accountability Act of 

1996 (HIPAA), codified as Part 7 of Title 

I of the Employee Retirement Security 

Act of 1974 (ERISA), was enacted to 

improve the portability and continuity 

of health care coverage for participants 

and beneficiaries of group health plans. 

To insure compliance with Part 7, 

section 101(g) of ERISA, HIPAA permits 

the Secretary of Labor (the Secretary) to 

require multiple employer welfare 

arrangements (MEWAs), as defined in 

section 3(40) of ERISA, to report to the 

Secretary in such form and manner as 

the Secretary might determine. The 

Department of Labor (the Department) 

published a final rule providing for such 

reporting on an annual basis, together 

with a form (Form M–1) to be used by 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES