18862 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 28, 2012 / Notices 

1A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any 

individual Commissioner’s statements will be 

available from the Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

2The Commission has found the responses 

submitted by domestic producers Carpenter 

Technology Corporation, Crucible Industries, LLC, 

Electralloy a G.O. Carlson Inc. Co., Universal 

Stainless & Alloy Products, Inc., and Valbruna 

Slater Stainless, Inc. to be individually adequate. 

Comments from other interested parties will not be 

accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)). 

1The motions were titled ‘‘Motion for 

Reconsideration—Opposition for Summary 

Disposition’’ and ‘‘Amended Motion for 

Reconsideration—Exceptions to Order of Summary 

Disposition.’’ 

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 (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On March 5, 2012, the 

Commission determined that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (76 

FR 74807, December 1, 2011) of the 

subject five-year reviews was adequate 

and that the respondent interested party 

group response was inadequate. The 

Commission did not find any other 

circumstances that would warrant 

conducting full reviews.1 Accordingly, 

the Commission determined that it 

would conduct expedited reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act. 

Staff report.—A staff report 

containing information concerning the 

subject matter of the reviews will be 

placed in the nonpublic record on May 

8, 2012, and made available to persons 

on the Administrative Protective Order 

service list for these reviews. A public 

version will be issued thereafter, 

pursuant to section 207.62(d)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Written submissions.—As provided in 

section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s 

rules, interested parties that are parties 

to the reviews and that have provided 

individually adequate responses to the 

notice of institution,2 and any party 

other than an interested party to the 

reviews may file written comments with 

the Secretary on what determinations 

the Commission should reach in the 

reviews. Comments are due on or before 

May 11, 2012 and may not contain new 

factual information. Any person that is 

neither a party to the five-year reviews 

nor an interested party may submit a 

brief written statement (which shall not 

contain any new factual information) 

pertinent to the reviews by May 11, 

2012. However, should the Department 

of Commerce extend the time limit for 

its completion of the final results of its 

reviews, the deadline for comments 

(which may not contain new factual 

information) on Commerce’s final 

results is three business days after the 

issuance of Commerce’s results. If 

comments contain business proprietary 

information (BPI), they must conform 

with the requirements of sections 201.6, 

207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s 

rules. Please be aware that the 

Commission’s rules with respect to 

electronic filing have been amended. 

The amendments took effect on 

November 7, 2011. See 76 FR 61937 

(Oct. 6, 2011) and the newly revised 

Commission’s Handbook on E-Filing, 

available on the Commission’s Web site 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the rules, each document 

filed by a party to the reviews must be 

served on all other parties to the reviews 

(as identified by either the public or BPI 

service list), and a certificate of service 

must be timely filed. The Secretary will 

not accept a document for filing without 

a certificate of service. 

Determination.—The Commission has 

determined to exercise its authority to 

extend the reviews period by up to 90 

days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)(B). 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.62 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: March 22, 2012. 

James R. Holbein, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7345 Filed 3–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 332–524] 

Brazil: Competitive Factors Affecting 

U.S. and Brazilian Agricultural Sales in 

Selected Third Country Markets 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Extension of date for 

transmitting report. 

SUMMARY: Following the receipt of a 

letter on March 22, 2012, from the 

Committee on Finance of the United 

States Senate (Committee), the 

Commission has extended to April 26, 

2012, the date for transmitting its report 

to the Committee in investigation No. 

332–524, Brazil: Competitive Factors In 

Brazil Affecting U.S. and Brazilian 

Agricultural Sales in Selected Third 

Country Markets. 

DATES: 

March 22, 2012: Receipt of the letter 

from the Committee. 

April 26, 2012: New date for 

transmitting the Commission’s report to 

the Committee. 

Backround 

The Commission published notice of 

institution of the investigation in the 

Federal Register on May 24, 2011 (76 

FR 30195). In its original notice of 

investigation, the Commission indicated 

that it would transmit its report to the 

Committee on March 26, 2012. The 

notice is also available on the 

Commission Web site at http:// 

www.usitc.gov. All other information 

about the investigation, including a 

description of the subject matter to be 

addressed, contact information, and 

Commission addresses, remains the 

same as in the original notice. The 

public record for this investigation may 

be viewed on the Commission’s 

electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// 

www.usitc.gov/secretary/edis.htm. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: March 23, 2012. 

James R. Holbein, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7472 Filed 3–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 10–54] 

Zhiwei Lin, M.D.; Decision and Order 

On September 19, 2011, 

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) 

Timothy D. Wing issued the attached 

recommended decision (also ALJ). 

Therein, the ALJ found that Respondent 

is currently without authority to 

dispense controlled substances in 

California, the State in which he 

practices medicine and holds his DEA 

Registration and therefore 

recommended that his registration be 

revoked. Thereafter, Respondent filed 

two motions 1 and the Government filed 

a response to the motions. Having 

reviewed the record in its entirety 

including the ALJ’s recommended 

decision and the various pleadings, I 

have decided to adopt the ALJ’s rulings, 

findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 28, 2012 / Notices 18863 

2All citations to the ALJ’s decision are to the slip 

opinion. 

3But see Kamir Garces Mejias, 72 FR 54931, 

54932 (2007) (quoting De la Torre v. Continental 

Ins. Co., 15 F.3d 12, 15 (1st Cir. 1994) 

(‘‘Respondent’s claim ‘that [her] attorney was 

preoccupied with other matters * * * has been 

tried before and regularly has been found wanting.’ 

* * * ‘Most attorneys are busy most of the time and 

they must organize their work so as to be able to 

meet the time requirements of matters they are 

handling or suffer the consequences.’’’) (quoting 

Pinero Schroeder v. FNMA, 5874 F.2d 1117, 1118 

(1st Cir. 1978) (other citation omitted))). 

recommended order, except as noted 

below. 

Following the receipt of Respondent’s 

request for a hearing, the ALJ 

commenced pre-hearing procedures and 

issued an Order for Prehearing 

Statements. The Order clearly stated 

‘‘that in the case of a motion, the nonmoving party shall have until 4 p.m. 

EDT three business days after the date 

of service of any motion to file a 

responsive pleading’’ and that ‘‘[i]n the 

absence of good cause failure to file a 

written response * * * will be deemed 

a waiver of objection.’’ ALJ at 2–3 2

(citing Order for Prehearing Statements, 

at 3). 

On September 12, 2011, the 

Government filed a Motion for 

Summary Disposition, asserting that on 

July 28, 2011, the Medical Board of 

California (MBC) had issued an Interim 

Suspension Order against Respondent’s 

medical license, and that consequently, 

Respondent no longer has authority to 

handle controlled substances in 

California, the jurisdiction in which he 

maintains his DEA registration. Mot. for 

Summ. Disp., at 1. The Government 

served the motion by both first class 

mail and facsimile. See id. at 3. When, 

by September 19, 2011, Respondent had 

not filed a response to the Government’s 

motion, the ALJ issued his 

recommended decision finding that 

because Respondent was currently 

without authority under California law, 

he was not entitled to hold his DEA 

registration. ALJ at 4. The ALJ thus 

recommended that I revoke 

Respondent’s registration. Id. at 5. 

On September 20, 2011 Respondent 

filed a pleading titled Motion for 

Reconsider[sic]—Opposition for Motion 

for Summary Disposition (hereinafter, 

Motion for Reconsideration). On the 

same day, he also filed a document 

entitled Amended Motion for 

Reconsideration—Exceptions to Order 

of Summary Disposition—Opposition to 

Motion for Summary Disposition 

(Amended Motion). 

In both motions, Respondent asserted 

that he had good cause for having failed 

to timely file a response to the 

Government’s Motion for Summary 

Disposition within the time for filing a 

response. More specifically, 

Respondent’s attorney stated that he did 

not see the faxed copy sent by the 

Government to his office on September 

12, 2011 because he was in trial at the 

time and was receiving voluminous 

items of evidence by fax during that 

time. Motion for Reconsideration, at 

1–2. See also Amended Motion at 1–2. 

Respondent’s attorney further stated 

that the mailed copy of the 

Government’s Motion for Summary 

Disposition was not received in his 

office until September 16, 2011, and 

that because of his trial obligations he 

did not actually see the Government’s 

Motion until September 19, 2011, by 

which date the time for filing his 

opposition to the motion had expired. 

Id. at 1–2. 

Respondent’s Amended Motion also 

asserted good cause to set aside the 

Order for Summary Disposition, stating 

that the finality of the MBC’s 

Suspension Order should be questioned. 

Id. at 3–4. In the motion, Respondent 

argued that the Order to Show Cause 

and the MBC’s Interim Suspension 

Order ‘‘are based largely on an assertion 

that Respondent began prescribing 

Vicodin to [a] DEA Special Agent [who 

acted in an undercover capacity (UC)] 

without an adequate examination.’’ Id. 

at 2. Respondent asserted that the audio 

recording evidence of the initial 

appointment between the UC and 

Respondent was incomplete and 

contained a number of serious 

abnormalities that preclude 

authentication. Id. at 3. Respondent 

contended that the audio evidence may 

have been ‘‘intentionally erased, which 

would in turn impune (sic) Agent[’s] 

credibility both for the purposes of the 

Medical Board hearing and the DEA 

OSC hearing.’’ Id. at 3. 

Respondent further argued that the 

instant case is factually distinguishable 

from the DEA decisions cited in 

Government’s Motion for Summary 

Disposition because ‘‘in none of those 

cases was there credible evidence 

suggesting that the Department’s agents 

had destroyed crucial evidence leading 

to the State Medical Board License 

Revocation Proceeding as well as the 

DEA Order to Show Cause.’’ Id. 

Respondent contended that ‘‘[t]he DEA 

Administrative process has unique 

powers to compel the production of the 

[original recording and recording 

device] evidence that Respondent’s 

counsel needs to inspect.’’ Id. Finally, 

Respondent argued that ‘‘it is in the 

interest of justice for the [Agency] 

proceeding to determine whether * * * 

agents submitted falsified evidence to 

the [MBC], which * * *would lead to a 

ruling that would give cause for the 

Medical Board to set aside its 

suspension as well as for the 

Department to keep Respondent’s DEA 

certificate in force.’’ Id. 

On September 21, the Government 

filed a Response to Respondent’s 

Amended Motion for Reconsideration, 

arguing that Respondent’s assertion of 

good cause for his late submission of his 

opposition to its summary disposition 

motion was unpersuasive. Government 

Response to Motion for Reconsideration, 

at 1. The Government also argued that 

the evidentiary issues raised by 

Respondent are inapposite to the 

assertion that Respondent currently 

lacks authority to handle controlled 

substances in California, a fact which 

Respondent does not deny, and that 

therefore, he is not authorized to 

possess a DEA registration in that State. 

Government Response at 2 (citations 

omitted). 

On September 22, 2011, the ALJ 

denied Respondent’s motions. Ruling on 

Respondent’s Amended Motion for 

Reconsideration-Exceptions to Order of 

Summary Disposition-Opposition To 

Motion For Summary Disposition, at 4. 

While the ALJ found that Respondent 

had demonstrated good cause for the 

late filing of his motions (due to ‘‘an 

inadvertent office management error’’ by 

his counsel), the ALJ found that his 

‘‘request to set aside [the] previous 

ruling is without legal authority.’’ Id. at 

3. The ALJ further explained that 

‘‘[a]lthough Respondent’s arguments 

regarding the audio recording may be 

relevant at hearing, Respondent is not 

entitled to a hearing because he has 

failed to demonstrate that he has state 

authority to handle controlled 

substances.’’ Id. 

I need not decide whether 

Respondent established good cause 3 for 

his failure to timely file an opposition 

to the Government’s summary 

disposition motion because under the 

Administrative Procedure Act and DEA 

regulations, Respondent is entitled to 

file exceptions to the Administrative 

Law Judge’s decision, which is only a 

recommendation. 5 U.S.C. 557(c); 21 

CFR 1316.66. Under the Agency’s rule, 

exceptions must be filed within twenty 

days after the date on which the 

recommended decision is served and 

there is no dispute that Respondent’s 

pleading, which he also titled as 

exceptions, was timely filed. 21 CFR 

1316.66(a). Thus, I will consider 

Respondent’s post-ruling motions as 

timely filed exceptions to the ALJ’s 

recommended decision. 

As noted above, in his Exceptions, 

Respondent argues that the MBC’s 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
18864 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 28, 2012 / Notices 

4For the same reasons that the State imposed its 

emergency suspension of Respondent’s medical 

license, I conclude that the public interest requires 

that this Order be effective immediately. 21 CFR 

1316.67. 

Interim Suspension Order (Suspension 

Order) and this Agency’s subsequent 

Order to Show Cause is based on the 

allegation that he prescribed Vicodin to 

a DEA Special Agent ‘‘without an 

adequate examination.’’ Exceptions at 2. 

Respondent maintains that ‘‘the crucial 

events of [the Agent’s] conversations 

with Respondent are somehow ‘missing’ 

from the audio recording’’ of the Agent’s 

visit and that a copy of an audio 

recording of the visit ‘‘contains a 

number of serious abnormalities that 

preclude [its] authentication.’’ Id. at 3. 

Respondent thus raises the specter of 

Government misconduct arguing that 

there is ‘‘credible evidence suggesting 

that the Department’s agents ha[ve] 

destroyed crucial evidence leading to 

the State Medical Board License 

Revocation Proceeding.’’ Id. Respondent 

then contends that ‘‘[i]f indeed 

government Agents were actively 

involved in the destruction of evidence 

* * * leading to the license revocation 

action which forms the basis for the 

Motion for Summary Disposition, it is in 

the interest of justice for [the DEA] 

proceeding to determine whether the 

Department’s agents submitted falsified 

evidence to the [MBC] which, if further 

explored through the discovery process, 

would lead to a ruling that would give 

cause for the [MBC] to set aside its 

suspension as well as for the [Agency] 

to keep Respondent’s DEA certificate in 

force.’’ Id. 

This fishing expedition cannot leave 

the dock, however, for two reasons. 

First, Respondent’s license remains 

subject to the interim order of the MBC 

which suspended his California 

Physician and Surgeon’s Certificate. As 

explained in the ALJ’s decision, this 

action, which is undisputed, rendered 

Respondent without authority to 

dispense controlled substances in the 

State in which he practices medicine 

and holds his DEA registration, and thus 

he no longer meets an essential 

condition for holding a registration. See 

21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) (authorizing 

revocation of registration based ‘‘upon a 

finding that the registrant * * * has had 

his State license * * * suspended [or] 

revoked * * * by competent State 

authority and is no longer authorized by 

State law to engage in the * * * 

dispensing of controlled substances’’); 

see also id. § 802(21) (defining ‘‘the term 

‘practitioner’ [to] mean[] a * * * 

physician * * * or other person 

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’’); 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.’’). 

Second, Respondent’s contention is a 

collateral attack on the validity of the 

MBC’s Suspension Order. However, 

DEA has held repeatedly that a 

registrant cannot collaterally attack the 

result of a state criminal or 

administrative proceeding in a 

proceeding under section 304, 21 U.S.C. 

824, of the CSA. Calvin Ramsey, 76 FR 

20034, 20036 (2011) (other citations 

omitted); Brenton D. Glisson, 72 FR 

54296, 54297 n.2 (2007); Shahid Musud 

Siddiqui, 61 FR 14818, 14818–19 (1996). 

Rather, Respondent’s various challenges 

to the validity of the MBC’s Suspension 

Order must be litigated in the forums 

provided by the State of California. 

Thus, Respondent’s contentions 

regarding the validity of the MBC’s 

Suspension Order are therefore not 

material to this Agency’s resolution of 

whether he is entitled to maintain his 

DEA registration in California. 

Because it is undisputed that 

Respondent currently lacks authority to 

dispense controlled substances in 

California, the State in which he holds 

his DEA registration, Respondent is not 

entitled to maintain his registration. 

Accordingly, I adopt the ALJ’s 

recommended decision and will order 

that Respondent’s registration be 

revoked and that any pending 

application be denied. 

Order 

Pursuant to the authority vested in me 

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

as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA 

Certificate of Registration BL7325079, 

issued to Zhiwei Lin, M.D., be, and it 

hereby is, revoked. I further order that 

any pending application of Zhiwei Lin, 

M.D., to renew or modify his 

registration, be, and it hereby is, denied. 

This Order is effective immediately.4

Dated: March 20, 2012. 

Michele M. Leonhart, 

Administrator. 

Christine Menendez, Esq., for the 

Government 

Alan I. Kaplan, Esq., for the Respondent 

Recommended Ruling, Findings of Fact, 

Conclusions of Law and Decision of the 

Administrative Law Judge 

Timothy D. Wing, Administrative Law 

Judge. This proceeding is an 

adjudication governed by the 

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 

§ 551 et seq., to determine whether a 

practitioner’s Certificate of Registration 

(COR) with the Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA, Government or 

Agency) should be revoked and any 

pending applications for renewal or 

modification of that registration denied. 

Without this registration, Zhiwei Lin, 

M.D. (Respondent), would be unable to 

lawfully possess, prescribe, dispense or 

otherwise handle controlled substances. 

I. Procedural Posture 

On August 8, 2011, the Deputy 

Assistant Administrator, DEA, issued an 

Order to Show Cause (OSC) of DEA COR 

BL7325079. The OCS provided notice to 

Respondent of an opportunity to show 

cause as to why the DEA should not 

revoke Respondent’s DEA COR 

BL7325079, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 

§ 824(a)(4), and deny any pending 

applications for renewal or 

modification, on the grounds that 

Respondent’s continued registration 

would be inconsistent with the public 

interest under 21 U.S.C. § 823(f). On 

September 2, 2011, Respondent, through 

counsel, in a letter dated August 31, 

2011, timely requested a hearing with 

the DEA Office of Administrative Law 

Judges. 

I issued an Order for Prehearing 

Statements on September 6, 2011. 

On September 12, 2011, the 

Government filed a Motion for 

Summary Disposition, with a copy 

served on Respondent via U.S. mail. 

(Mot. at 3.) Pursuant to the September 

6, 2011 Order for Prehearing Statements, 

Respondent had ‘‘until 4 p.m. EDT three 

business days after the date of service of 

any motion to file a responsive 

pleading* * * . In the absence of good 

cause, failure to file a written response 

to the moving party’s motion after three 

business days will be deemed a waiver 

of objection.’’ (Order for Prehearing 

Statements at 3.) 

As of September 19, 2011, five 

business days after service of the 

Government’s Motion for Summary 

Disposition, Respondent had not yet 

filed a response. While not dispositive, 

Respondent is deemed to have waived 

any objection to the Government’s 

motion. 

II. The Parties’ Contentions 

A. The Government 

In support of its Motion for Summary 

Disposition, the Government asserts that 

on July 28, 2011, the Medical Board of 

California issued an Interim Suspension 

Order suspending Respondent’s medical 

license, and that Respondent 

consequently lacks authority to handle 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 28, 2012 / Notices 18865 

controlled substances in California, the 

jurisdiction in which he maintains his 

DEA registration. (Mot. at 1.) The 

Government contends that such state 

authority is a necessary condition for 

maintaining a DEA COR and therefore 

asks that I summarily recommend to the 

Administrator that Respondent’s COR 

be revoked and any pending 

applications for renewal or modification 

be denied. (Mot. at 1–2.) In support of 

its motion, the Government cites 

Agency precedent and attaches the 

Interim Suspension Order issued by the 

Medical Board of California, marked for 

identification as Exhibit B. 

B. Respondent 

As noted above, Respondent did not 

respond to the Government’s Motion for 

Summary Disposition, or seek an 

extension within the deadline for 

response, and is therefore deemed to 

waive objection. 

III. Discussion 

At issue is whether Respondent may 

maintain his DEA COR given that 

California has suspended Respondent 

from the practice of medicine or 

surgery. 

Under 21 U.S.C. § 824(a)(3), a 

practitioner’s loss of state authority to 

engage in the practice of medicine and 

to handle controlled substances is 

grounds to revoke a practitioner’s 

registration. Accordingly, this Agency 

has consistently held that a person may 

not hold a DEA registration if he is 

without appropriate authority under the 

laws of the state in which he does 

business. See Scott Sandarg, D.M.D., 74 

Fed. Reg. 17,528 (DEA 2009); David W. 

Wang, M.D., 72 Fed. Reg. 54,297 (DEA 

2007); Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 

Fed. Reg. 39,130 (DEA 2006); Dominick 

A. Ricci, M.D., 58 Fed. Reg. 51,104 (DEA 

1993); Bobby Watts M.D., 53 Fed. Reg. 

11,919 (DEA 1988). 

Summary disposition in a DEA 

suspension case is warranted even if the 

period of suspension of a respondent’s 

state medical license is temporary, or 

even if there is the potential for 

reinstatement of state authority because 

‘‘revocation is also appropriate when a 

state license had been suspended, but 

with the possibility of future 

reinstatement.’’ Stuart A. Bergman, 

M.D., 70 Fed. Reg. 33,193 (DEA 2005); 

Roger A. Rodriguez, M.D., 70 Fed. Reg. 

33,206 (DEA 2005). 

It is well-settled that when no 

question of fact is involved, or when the 

material facts are agreed upon, a 

plenary, adversarial administrative 

proceeding is not required, under the 

rationale that Congress does not intend 

administrative agencies to perform 

meaningless tasks. See Layfe Robert 

Anthony, M.D., 67 Fed. Reg. 35,582 

(DEA 2002); Michael G. Dolin, M.D., 65 

Fed. Reg. 5661 (DEA 2000); see also 

Philip E. Kirk, M.D., 48 Fed. Reg. 32,887 

(DEA 1983), aff’d sub nom. Kirk v. 

Mullen, 749 F.2d 297 (6th Cir. 1984). 

Accord Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer 

Auth. v. EPA, 35 F.3d 600, 605 (1st Cir. 

1994). 

In the instant case, the Government 

asserts, and Respondent does not 

contest, that Respondent’s California 

license to practice medicine and surgery 

is presently suspended. This allegation 

is confirmed by Government Exhibit B. 

I therefore find there is no genuine 

dispute as to any material fact, and that 

substantial evidence shows that 

Respondent is presently without state 

authority to handle controlled 

substances in California. Because ‘‘DEA 

does not have statutory authority under 

the Controlled Substances Act to 

maintain a registration if the registrant 

is without state authority to handle 

controlled substances in the state in 

which he practices,’’ Sheran Arden 

Yeates, M.D., 71 Fed. Reg. 39,130, 

39,131 (DEA 2006), I conclude that 

summary disposition is appropriate. It is 

therefore 

ORDERED that the hearing in this 

case, scheduled to commence on 

November 15, 2011, is hereby 

CANCELLED; and it is further 

ORDERED that all proceedings before 

the undersigned are STAYED pending 

the Agency’s issuance of a final order. 

Recommended Decision 

I grant the Government’s Motion for 

Summary Disposition and recommend 

that Respondent’s DEA COR BL7325079 

be revoked and any pending 

applications denied. 

September 19, 2011. 

s/Timothy D. Wing, 

Administrative Law Judge. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7421 Filed 3–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

Workforce Investment Act of 1998 

(WIA); Lower Living Standard Income 

Level (LLSIL) 

AGENCY: Employment and Training 

Administration (ETA), Labor. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Title I of WIA (Pub. L. 105– 

220) requires the U.S. Secretary of Labor 

(Secretary) to update and publish the 

LLSIL tables annually, for uses 

described in the law (including 

determining eligibility for youth). WIA 

defines the term ‘‘low income 

individual’’ as one who qualifies under 

various criteria, including an individual 

who received income for a six-month 

period that does not exceed the higher 

level of the poverty line or 70 percent 

of the LLSIL. This issuance provides the 

Secretary’s annual LLSIL for 2012 and 

references the current 2012 Health and 

Human Services ‘‘Poverty Guidelines.’’ 

DATES: This notice is effective March 28, 

2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR QUESTIONS

ON LLSIL: Please contact Samuel Wright, 

Department of Labor, Employment and 

Training Administration, 200 

Constitution Avenue NW., Room S– 

4231, Washington, DC 20210; 

Telephone: 202–693–2870; Fax: 202– 

693–33015 (these are not toll-free 

numbers); Email address: 

wright.samuel.e@dol.gov. Individuals 

with hearing or speech impairments 

may access the telephone number above 

via Text Telephone (TTY/TDD) by 

calling the toll-free Federal Information 

Relay Service at 1–877–889–5627 (TTY/ 

TDD). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR QUESTIONS

ON FEDERAL YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

PROGRAMS: Please contact Evan 

Rosenberg, Department of Labor, 

Employment and Training 

Administration, 200 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Room N–4464, 

Washington, DC 20210; Telephone: 

202–693–3593; Fax: 202–693–3110 

(these are not toll-free numbers); Email: 

Rosenberg.Evan@dol.gov. 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). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

purpose of WIA is to provide workforce 

investment activities through statewide 

and local workforce investment systems 

that increase the employment, retention, 

and earnings of participants. WIA 

programs are intended to increase the 

occupational skill attainment by 

participants and the quality of the 

workforce, thereby reducing welfare 

dependency and enhancing the 

productivity and competitiveness of the 

Nation. 

LLSIL is used for several purposes 

under the WIA. Specifically, WIA 

Section 101(25) defines the term ‘‘low 

income individual’’ for eligibility 

purposes, and Sections 127(b)(2)(C) and 

132(b)(1)(B)(v)(IV) define the terms 

‘‘disadvantaged youth’’ and 

‘‘disadvantaged adult’’ in terms of the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES