27000 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Notices 

32 It is acknowledged that Respondent holds a 

valid state license (factor one) and has not been 

convicted of an offense related to the dispensing of 

controlled substances (factor three). However, 

neither of these factors is dispositive. See Edmund 

Chein, 72 FR 6580, 6590 (2007), aff’d Chein v. DEA, 

533 F.3d 828 (DC Cir. 2008) (The authority to 

decide whether to grant an application for a DEA 

registration has been entrusted to the Attorney 

General and ‘‘has been delegated solely to the 

officials of this Agency.’’) See also id. at 6593 n.22 

(absence of criminal convictions not dispositive in 

public interest inquiry). 

I further note the DI’s testimony that Respondent 

violated Federal law because he wrote prescriptions 

at his Mississippi office and did not have a 

registration in this State. However, the Government 

put forward no evidence that identifies specific 

prescriptions that Respondent issued after the 

expiration of his Mississippi registration. Moreover, 

in its brief, the Government does not rely on this 

conduct. Thus, I do not consider the allegation. 

The Government also argues that Respondent’s 

conviction for possession of cocaine can be 

considered under factor three. However, the 

conviction was not for an offense related to the 

manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of 

controlled substances and is thus not properly 

considered under factor three. However, as the ALJ 

reasoned, consistent with Agency precedent, the 

conviction can be considered under factor five as 

such other conduct which may threaten public 

health and safety. See ALJ at 34–35. While there is 

evidence that Respondent underwent treatment, 

and the Government does not argue that 

Respondent has a continuing problem with drug 

abuse, when coupled with the other violations 

proved on this record, it buttresses the conclusion 

that Respondent is unwilling to conform to the law 

and that he cannot be entrusted with a new 

registration. 

has thus failed to offer any evidence to 

rebut the Government’s showing that he 

has committed acts which render 

granting him a registration inconsistent 

with the public interest.32 See Medicine 

Shoppe-Jonesborough, 73 FR 364, 387 

(2008) (‘‘Where the Government has 

made out its prima facie case, the 

burden shifts to the Respondent to show 

why [his] continued registration would 

nonetheless be consistent with the 

public interest.’’). Accordingly, these 

violations of the CSA and DEA 

regulations provide a further basis to 

deny Respondent’s application. 

Order 

Pursuant to the authority vested in me 

by 21 U.S.C. 823(f), as well as by 28 CFR 

0.100(b) and 0.104, I hereby order that 

the application of Alvin Darby, M.D., for 

a DEA Certificate of Registration as a 

practitioner, be, and it hereby is, denied. 

This order is effective immediately. 

Dated: April 16, 2010. 

Michele M. Leonhart, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11431 Filed 5–12–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Office of Justice Programs 

[OJP (OJP) Docket No. 1519] 

Hearings of the Review Panel on 

Prison Rape 

AGENCY: Office of Justice Programs, 

Justice. 

ACTION: Notice of hearing. 

SUMMARY: The Office of Justice Programs 

(OJP) announces that the Review Panel 

on Prison Rape (Panel) will hold 

hearings in Washington, DC on June 3– 

4, 2010. The hearing times and location 

are noted below. The purpose of the 

hearings is to assist the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics (BJS) in identifying common 

characteristics of victims and 

perpetrators of sexual victimization in 

juvenile facilities, and the common 

characteristics of juvenile facilities with 

the highest and lowest incidence of 

rape, respectively, based on an 

anonymous survey by the BJS of youth 

in a representative sample of juvenile 

facilities. On January 7, 2010, the BJS 

issued the report Sexual Victimization 

in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 

2008–09. The report provides a listing of 

juvenile facilities grouped according to 

the prevalence of reported sexual 

victimization, and formed the basis of 

the Panel’s decision about which 

facilities would be the subject of 

testimony. 

DATES: The hearing schedule is as 

follows: 

1. Thursday, June 3, 2010, 10 a.m. to 

5:45 p.m.: Bureau of Justice Statistics; 

Fort Bellefontaine, Missouri, Campus— 

facility with a low prevalence of sexual 

victimization; Rhode Island Training 

School—facility with a low prevalence 

of sexual victimization; and Pendleton, 

Indiana, Juvenile Correctional Facility— 

facility with a high prevalence of sexual 

victimization. 

2. Friday, June 4, 2010, 8:30 a.m. to 

1 p.m.: Woodland Hills, Tennessee, 

Youth Development Center—facility 

with a high prevalence of sexual 

victimization; and Corsicana, Texas, 

Residential Treatment Facility—facility 

with a high prevalence of sexual 

victimization. 

ADDRESSES: The hearings will take place 

at the Office of Justice Programs 

Building, Main Conference Room, Third 

Floor, U.S. Department of Justice, 810 

7th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20531. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher Zubowicz, Designated 

Federal Official, OJP, 

Christopher.Zubowicz@usdoj.gov, (202) 

307–0690 [Note: This is not a toll-free 

number.] 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Panel, 

which was established pursuant to the 

Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, 

Public Law 108–79, 117 Stat. 972 

(codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. 

15601–15609 (2006)), will hold its next 

hearings to carry out the review 

functions specified at 42 U.S.C. 

15603(b)(3)(A). Testimony from the 

hearings will assist the Panel in carrying 

out its statutory obligations. The witness 

list is subject to amendment; please 

refer to the Review Panel on Prison 

Rape Web site at http:// 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/ 

reviewpanel.htm for any updates 

regarding the hearing schedule. Space is 

limited at the hearing location. Special 

needs requests should be made to 

Christopher Zubowicz, Designated 

Federal Official, OJP, 

Christopher.Zubowicz@usdoj.gov or 

(202) 307–0690, at least one week before 

the hearings. 

Michael Alston, 

Office of Justice Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11369 Filed 5–12–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–18–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

Notice Pursuant to the National 

Cooperative Research and Production 

Act of 1993—LiMo Foundation 

Notice is hereby given that, on March 

12, 2010, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the 

National Cooperative Research and 

Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 8 

4301 et sect. (‘‘the Act’’), LiMo 

Foundation (‘‘LiMo’’) filed written 

notifications simultaneously with the 

Attorney General and the Federal Trade 

Commission disclosing changes in its 

membership. The notifications were 

filed for the purpose of extending the 

Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of 

antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages 

under specified circumstances. 

Specifically, Else Limited, Ra’anana, 

ISRAEL; Teleca Germany GmbH, 

Neuremberg, GERMANY; Mobi TV, and 

Emeryville, CA, have been added as 

parties to this venture. 

No other changes have been made in 

either the membership or planned 

activity of this group research project. 

Membership in this group research 

project remains open, and LiMo intends 

to file additional written notifications 

disclosing all changes in membership. 

On March 1, 2007, LiMo filed its 

original notification pursuant to Section 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Notices 27001 

6(a) of the Act. The Department of 

Justice published a notice in the Federal 

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the 

Act on April 9, 2007 (72 FR 17583). 

The last notification was filed with 

the Department on November 10, 2009. 

A notice was published in the Federal 

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the 

Act on December 17, 2010 (74 FR 

66995). 

Patricia A. Brink, 

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust 

Division. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11216 Filed 5–12–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

Notice Pursuant to the National 

Cooperative Research and Production 

Act of 1993—Institute of Electrical and 

Electronics Engineers 

Notice is hereby given that, on April 

15, 2010, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the 

National Cooperative Research and 

Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 

et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), the Institute of 

Electrical and Electronics Engineers 

(‘‘IEEE’’) has filed written notifications 

simultaneously with the Attorney 

General and the Federal Trade 

Commission disclosing additions or 

changes to its standards development 

activities. The notifications were filed 

for the purpose of extending the Act’s 

provisions limiting the recovery of 

antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages 

under specified circumstances. 

Specifically, 28 new standards have 

been initiated and 20 existing standards 

are being revised. More detail regarding 

these changes can be found at http:// 

standards.ieee.org/standardswire/sba/ 

02-2010.html and http:// 

standards.ieee.org/standardswire/sba/ 

03-2010.html. 

On September 17, 2004, IEEE filed its 

original notification pursuant to Section 

6(a) of the Act. The Department of 

Justice published a notice in the Federal 

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the 

Act on November 3, 2004 (69 FR 64105). 

The last notification was filed with 

the Department on January 8, 2010. A 

notice was published in the Federal 

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the 

Act on February 23, 2010 (75 FR 8115). 

Patricia A. Brink, 

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust 

Division. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11218 Filed 5–12–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–11–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

Comment Request for Information 

Collection for the SCSEP Data 

Collection System, OMB Control No. 

1205–0040, Extension With Revisions 

AGENCY: Employment and Training 

Administration. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, 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. Currently, the 

Employment and Training 

Administration is soliciting comments 

concerning the collection of data about 

the Senior Community Service 

Employment Program (SCSEP), expiring 

October 31, 2010. Changes are due to 

the following: (1) In December of 2009, 

SCSEP received additional funds 

authorized by the Department of Labor 

Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 111–117, 

section D) signed December 17, 2009, 

thus increasing the anticipated number 

of SCSEP participants and, therefore, 

increasing the overall record-keeping 

burden. (2) In addition, information 

collection forms have been modified as 

necessitated by the reauthorization of 

the SCSEP legislation (2006 

Amendments to the Older Americans 

Act, Pub. L. 109–365) and the Jobs for 

Veterans Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 07–288); 

changes in overall burden for some 

forms based on actual usage statistics; 

and the requirement to publish changes 

to the Internet-based SCSEP 

Performance and Results QPR (SPARQ) 

system that go into effect on July 1, 

2010. 

A copy of the proposed information 

collection request (ICR) can be obtained 

by contacting the office listed below in 

the addressee section of this notice. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted to the office listed in the 

addressee’s section below on or before 

July 12, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments 

to Alexandra Kielty, Room S–4203 

Employment and Training 

Administration, 200 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. 

Telephone number: 202–693–3730 (this 

is not a toll-free number). Fax: 202–693– 

3587. E-mail: kielty.alexandra@dol.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Originally authorized by the Older 

Americans Act of 1965, the Senior 

Community Service Employment 

Program (SCSEP) is funded for 

approximately $759 million for PY 2010 

and will provide over 78,000 positions 

in which nearly 120,000 low-income 

persons aged 55 or older will be placed 

in community service employment. At 

current placement rates, this should 

allow about 20,000 people to be exited 

from the program with the ultimate goal 

of unsubsidized placement in PY 2010. 

To ensure that the Senior Community 

Service Employment Program is 

properly administered, and to 

implement the performance measures 

and sanctions authorized by the 2006 

Amendments to the OAA (OAA–2006) 

and the Jobs for Veterans Act of 2002, 

it is necessary to modify the existing 

data collection forms. In addition, a 

collection of information is required 

under OMB Memorandum M–02–06, 

which has been adopted by the 

Department of Labor (the Department). 

This requirement necessitates a revision 

of data collection forms (listed below) 

and revisions to the overall data 

collection burden. The legal authority 

for the collection of additional 

information may be found at sections 

503, 508, 513, and 515 of the OAA– 

2006. 

II. Review Focus 

The Department of Labor 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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES