Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 10095 

43 It is also noted that Respondent continued his 

internet prescribing for three months after he 

received the Show Cause Order, even though the 

Order put him on notice as to the requirements for 

a lawful prescription under both the CSA and state 

law. While Respondent did not dispute that he 

prescribed controlled substances during this period, 

I do not rely on this conduct in setting the sanction 

because the Government did not identify a single 

controlled substance prescription that he issued 

following the service of the Show Cause Order. If 

the Government had shown specific instances of 

Respondent’s prescribing of controlled substances 

following service of the Order, I would have found 

that he knowingly diverted controlled substances 

and revoked his registration. 

44Respondent can choose to commence serving 

his suspension earlier by tendering his Certificate 

of Registration and any order forms he has been 

issued to the nearest DEA office. 

misconduct for a year, during which 

time he likely issued between 800 to 

1,200 prescriptions. Yet the record does 

not establish the extent to which these 

prescriptions were for controlled 

substances.43

I acknowledge that proceedings under 

Section 304 are non-punitive. But even 

were I to ignore that Respondent has not 

accepted responsibility for his 

misconduct, and credit his testimony 

that he did not intend to resume his 

internet practice, I would still conclude 

that a lengthy suspension of his 

registration is warranted. 

As found above, the diversion and 

abuse of prescription drugs has 

increased dramatically, with the number 

of people admitting to such abuse 

(approximately 15.1 million) exceeding 

by twenty-three percent, the number 

who abuse cocaine, hallucinogens, 

inhalants and heroin combined. 

Moreover, the growth rate of 

prescription drug abuse is twice the 

growth rate of marijuana abuse and five 

times the growth rate of cocaine abuse; 

between 1992 and 2002, the growth in 

prescription opioid abuse among 

teenagers grew by 542 percent. 

The use of the internet and telephone 

to prescribe to individuals with whom 

a physician has not established a bona 

fide doctor-patient relationship is one of 

the primary means by which controlled 

substances are being diverted and 

obtained for recreational abuse. The 

growth of this means of diversion 

represents a grave threat to public 

health and safety. Accordingly, this 

Agency has repeatedly revoked the 

registrations of numerous practitioners 

who have committed similar acts by 

prescribing over the internet without 

establishing legitimate doctor-patient 

relationships. See, e.g., Kamir GarcesMejias, 72 FR 54931 (2007); William 

Lockridge, 71 FR 77791 (2006); Mario 

Diaz, 71 FR 70788 (2006). The ALJ did 

not, however, even acknowledge any of 

the numerous Agency decisions to this 

effect. 

Respondent maintains that his case is 

distinguishable from these and other 

reported decisions involving internet 

prescribers because he ‘‘genuinely 

believed * * * that he was practicing 

medicine properly and effectively[,]’’ 

and ‘‘genuinely made a good faith effort 

to do so.’’ Response to Gov.’s Exceptions 

at 10. He also contends that he ‘‘is an 

extraordinarily dedicated and tireless 

physician who saw the internet as a way 

to care for more patients,’’ and that 

while he ‘‘can be faulted’’ for ‘‘having 

trusted colleagues and new business 

associates when he should have been 

more skeptical,’’ ‘‘the price should not 

be his career.’’ Id. at 14. 

It is true that in other Agency 

decisions revoking the registrations of 

internet prescribers, the evidence 

strongly supported the conclusion that 

the physicians were engaged in 

intentional acts of diversion. Here, by 

contrast, the evidence does not establish 

that he knowingly distributed controlled 

substances to those who were seeking 

the drugs to abuse them or to sell them 

to abusers. His conduct—which is 

extraordinary for its recklessness— 

nonetheless violated the CSA. 

Continuing Respondent’s registration, 

subject only to the condition that he 

refrain from prescribing over the 

Internet, is no sanction at all given the 

numerous state laws and new Federal 

law which prohibit this practice in the 

manner Respondent engaged in it. 

Adopting the ALJ’s recommendation 

would not only ‘‘ignore how 

irresponsibly [Respondent] acted,’’ 

Southwood, 71 FR at 36503; it would 

also signal to others that one can ignore 

the law (and his obligation to determine 

what the law is) and yet incur no 

consequence for having done so. Given 

the extraordinary harm to public health 

and safety caused by internet 

prescribing, this is not the message that 

should be sent to those who 

contemplate prescribing controlled 

substances in this manner. Rather, such 

persons should understand that they are 

responsible for knowing the law and 

acting in conformity therewith, and that 

there will be serious consequences for 

those who fail to do so. 

Accordingly, I conclude that 

Respondent’s registration should be 

suspended for a period of one year. 

Moreover, Respondent’s pending 

application for renewal of his 

registration will be held in abeyance 

during the course of the suspension. 

Upon completion of the suspension, his 

application will be approved provided 

that he fulfills the following condition. 

Because Respondent has not 

acknowledged that his internet 

prescribing practices violated the CSA, 

he must provide a sworn statement to 

this effect. If Respondent complies with 

this condition (and he commits no other 

acts which would warrant the denial of 

his application), the Agency will 

expeditiously grant his renewal 

application. If, however, if he fails to do 

so, his application will be denied. 

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 the DEA Certificate of Registration 

issued to Joseph Gaudio, M.D., be, and 

it hereby is, suspended for a period of 

one year. I further order that 

Respondent’s pending application to 

renew his registration be, and it hereby 

will be, held in abeyance pending the 

completion of the period of suspension 

and Respondent’s providing to this 

Agency a sworn statement 

acknowledging that his internet 

prescribing activities violated the 

Controlled Substances Act and DEA 

regulations. This Order is effective April 

8, 2009.44

Dated: February 26, 2009. 

Michele M. Leonhart, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E9–4903 Filed 3–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Foreign Claims Settlement 

Commission 

F.C.S.C. Meeting Notice No. 2–09 

The Foreign Claims Settlement 

Commission, pursuant to its regulations 

(45 CFR Part 504) and the Government 

in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), 

hereby gives notice in regard to the 

scheduling of meetings for the 

transaction of Commission business and 

other matters specified, as follows: 

Date and Time: Wednesday, March 

18, 2009, at 10:30 a.m. 

Subject Matter: Issuance of Proposed 

Decisions, Amended Proposed 

Decisions, Final Decisions and Orders 

in claims against Albania. 

Status: Open. 

All meetings are held at the Foreign 

Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E 

Street, NW., Washington, DC. Requests 

for information, or advance notices of 

intention to observe an open meeting, 

may be directed to: Administrative 

Officer, Foreign Claims Settlement 

Commission, 600 E Street, NW., Room 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
10096 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 

6002, Washington, DC 20579. 

Telephone: (202) 616–6975. 

Mauricio J. Tamargo, 

Chairman. 

[FR Doc. E9–4956 Filed 3–5–09; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

Maritime Advisory Committee for 

Occupational Safety and Health 

(MACOSH) 

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), Labor. 

ACTION: MACOSH meeting, notice of. 

SUMMARY: The Maritime Advisory 

Committee for Occupational Safety and 

Health (MACOSH) was established to 

advise the Assistant Secretary of Labor 

for OSHA on issues relating to 

occupational safety and health in the 

maritime industries. The purpose of this 

Federal Register notice is to announce 

the MACOSH meeting scheduled for 

March 2009. 

DATES: The Committee will meet on 

March 24, 2009, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The Committee will meet at 

the U.S. Department of Labor, 200 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20210. On Tuesday, March 24, 2009, 

the committee will meet in conference 

room N–3437. Mail comments, views, or 

statements in response to this notice to 

Danielle Watson, Office of Maritime, 

OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room 

N–3609, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20210; phone (202) 

693–1870; fax: (202) 693–1663. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general information about MACOSH 

and this meeting, contact: Joseph V. 

Daddura, Director, Office of Maritime, 

OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room 

N–3609, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20210; phone: (202) 

693–2067. Individuals with disabilities 

wishing to attend the meeting should 

contact Danielle Watson at (202) 693– 

1870 no later than March 17, 2009, to 

obtain appropriate accommodations. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: All 

MACOSH meetings are open to the 

public. All interested persons are 

invited to attend the MACOSH meeting 

at the time and location listed above. 

The MACOSH agenda will include: A 

presentation on the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act, and committee ethics 

training; an OSHA activities update; 

introduction of the new and returning 

MACOSH committee members; a review 

of the accomplishments from the 

previous meetings during the last 

charter; and goals for the next two years, 

including establishment of the 

MACOSH workgroups. 

Public Participation: Written data, 

views, or comments for consideration by 

MACOSH on the various agenda items 

listed above should be submitted to 

Danielle Watson at the address listed 

above. Submissions received by March 

17, 2009, will be provided to Committee 

members and will be included in the 

record of the meeting. Requests to make 

oral presentations to the Committee may 

be granted as time permits. 

Authority: This notice was prepared under 

the direction of Donald G. Shalhoub, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational 

Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 

200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20210, pursuant to Sections 6(b)(1) and 

7(b) of the Occupational Safety and Health 

Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655, 656), the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), 

Secretary of Labor’s Order 5–2007 (72 FR 

31159), and 29 CFR part 1912. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 4th day of 

March, 2009. 

Donald G. Shalhoub, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for 

Occupational Safety and Health. 

[FR Doc. E9–4882 Filed 3–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Office 

37 CFR Part 201 

[Docket No. RM 2008–8] 

Notice of Public Hearings: Exemption 

to Prohibition on Circumvention of 

Copyright Protection Systems for 

Access Control Technologies 

AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of 

Congress. 

ACTION: Notice of Public Hearings. 

SUMMARY: The Copyright Office of the 

Library of Congress will be holding 

public hearings on the possible 

exemptions to the prohibition against 

circumvention of technological 

measures that control access to 

copyrighted works. In accordance with 

the Copyright Act, as amended by the 

Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the 

Office is conducting its triennial 

rulemaking proceeding to determine 

whether there are particular ‘‘classes of 

works‘‘ as to which users are, or are 

likely to be, adversely affected in their 

ability to make noninfringing uses if 

they are prohibited from circumventing 

such technological measures. 

DATES: The first public hearing will be 

held in Palo Alto, California on Friday, 

May 1, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. Public 

hearings will also be held in 

Washington, DC on Wednesday, May 6, 

2009, Thursday, May 7, 2009, and 

Friday, May 8, 2009, at 10:00 a.m. 

Requests to testify must be received by 

5:00 p.m. E.D.T. on Friday, April 3, 

2009. See SUPPLEMENTARY 

INFORMATION for additional 

information on other requirements. 

ADDRESSES: The Palo Alto hearings will 

be held in the Moot Court Room of the 

Stanford Law School, Crown 

Quadrangle, Palo Alto, CA. 

The Washington, DC round of public 

hearings will be held in the Copyright 

Hearing Room, LM–408 of the James 

Madison Building of the Library of 

Congress, 101 Independence Ave, SE., 

Washington, DC. See 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for 

additional address information and 

other requirements. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Kasunic, Principal Legal 

Advisor, Office of the General Counsel, 

Copyright GC/I&R, PO Box 70400, 

Washington, DC 20024–0400. 

Telephone (202) 707–8380; fax (202) 

707–8366. Requests to testify may be 

submitted through the request form 

available at http://www.copyright.gov/ 

1201/. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

October 6, 2008, the Copyright Office 

published a Notice of Inquiry seeking 

comments in connection with a 

rulemaking pursuant to section 

1201(a)(1) of the Copyright Act, 17 

U.S.C. 1201(a)(1), which provides that 

the Librarian of Congress may exempt 

certain classes of works from the 

prohibition against circumventing a 

technological measure that controls 

access to a copyrighted work. 73 FR 

58073 (October 6, 2008). On December 

29, 2008, the Copyright Office published 

a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking listing 

the proposed exemptions and requesting 

responsive comments. 73 FR 79425 

(December 29, 2008). For all of the 

documents submitted and published 

within the current rulemaking 

proceeding, and for a more complete 

statement of the background and 

purpose of the rulemaking, please see 

the Copyright Office’s website at: http:// 

www.copyright.gov/1201/. The 19 

initial written comments proposing 

classes of works to be exempted and the 

56 responsive comments also have been 

posted on the Office’s website; see 

http://www.copyright.gov/1201/. 

The Office will be conducting public 

hearings in Palo Alto, California and 

Washington, DC to hear testimony 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES