62956 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 2014 / Notices 

1Electronic Document Information System 

(EDIS): http://edis.usitc.gov. 

2United States International Trade Commission 

(USITC): http://edis.usitc.gov. 

3Electronic Document Information System 

(EDIS): http://edis.usitc.gov. 

4Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures: 

http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/

rules/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf. 

Teresa Wilderness boundary within the 

northwest quarter of section 10, 

Township 6 South, Range 21 East, 

accepted July 8, 2014, and officially 

filed July 10, 2014, for Group 1132, 

Arizona. 

This plat was prepared at the request 

of the Bureau of Land Management. 

The plat representing the survey of 

the subdivision of the southwest quarter 

of the northeast quarter of the southwest 

quarter of section 8, Township 7 South, 

Range 27 East, accepted July 8, 2014, 

and officially filed July 10, 2014, for 

Group 1119, Arizona. 

This plat was prepared at the request 

of the Bureau of Land Management. 

A person or party who wishes to 

protest against any of these surveys 

must file a written protest with the 

Arizona State Director, Bureau of Land 

Management, stating that they wish to 

protest. 

A statement of reasons for a protest 

may be filed with the notice of protest 

to the State Director, or the statement of 

reasons must be filed with the State 

Director within thirty (30) days after the 

protest is filed. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

These plats will be available for 

inspection in the Arizona State Office, 

Bureau of Land Management, One North 

Central Avenue, Suite 800, Phoenix, 

Arizona 85004–4427. Persons who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 

to contact the above individual during 

normal business hours. The FIRS is 

available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 

to leave a message or question with the 

above individual. You will receive a 

reply during normal business hours. 

Gerald T. Davis, 

Chief Cadastral Surveyor of Arizona. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24997 Filed 10–20–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–32–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

Notice of Receipt of Complaint; 

Solicitation of Comments Relating to 

the Public Interest 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has received a complaint 

entitled Certain Windshield Wipers and 

Components Thereof, DN 3036; the 

Commission is soliciting comments on 

any public interest issues raised by the 

complaint or complainant’s filing under 

section 210.8(b) of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.8(b)). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa 

R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, 

U.S. International Trade Commission, 

500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 

20436, telephone (202) 205–2000. The 

public version of the complaint can be 

accessed on the Commission’s 

Electronic Document Information 

System (EDIS) at EDIS,1 and will be 

available for inspection during official 

business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) 

in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, 

telephone (202) 205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server at United 

States International Trade Commission 

(USITC) at USITC.2 The public record 

for this investigation may be viewed on 

the Commission’s Electronic Document 

Information System (EDIS) at 

EDIS.3Hearing-impaired persons are 

advised that information on this matter 

can be obtained by contacting the 

Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 

205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission has received a complaint 

and a submission pursuant to section 

210.8(b) of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure filed on behalf 

of Valeo North America, Inc. and 

Delmex de Juarez S. de R.L. de C.V. on 

October 15, 2014. The complaint alleges 

violations of section 337 of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the 

importation into the United States, the 

sale for importation, and the sale within 

the United States after importation of 

certain windshield wipers and 

components thereof. The complaint 

names as respondents Trico Products 

Corporation of Rochester Hills, MI; 

Trico Products of Brownsville, TX; and 

Trico Componentes SA de CV of 

Mexico. The complainant requests that 

the Commission issue a limited 

exclusion order and cease and desist 

orders. 

Proposed respondents, other 

interested parties, and members of the 

public are invited to file comments, not 

to exceed five (5) pages in length, 

inclusive of attachments, on any public 

interest issues raised by the complaint 

or section 210.8(b) filing. Comments 

should address whether issuance of the 

relief specifically requested by the 

complainant in this investigation would 

affect the public health and welfare in 

the United States, competitive 

conditions in the United States 

economy, the production of like or 

directly competitive articles in the 

United States, or United States 

consumers. 

In particular, the Commission is 

interested in comments that: 

(i) Explain how the articles 

potentially subject to the requested 

remedial orders are used in the United 

States; 

(ii) identify any public health, safety, 

or welfare concerns in the United States 

relating to the requested remedial 

orders; 

(iii) identify like or directly 

competitive articles that complainant, 

its licensees, or third parties make in the 

United States which could replace the 

subject articles if they were to be 

excluded; 

(iv) indicate whether complainant, 

complainant’s licensees, and/or third 

party suppliers have the capacity to 

replace the volume of articles 

potentially subject to the requested 

exclusion order and/or a cease and 

desist order within a commercially 

reasonable time; and 

(v) explain how the requested 

remedial orders would impact United 

States consumers. 

Written submissions must be filed no 

later than by close of business, eight 

calendar days after the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. There will be further 

opportunities for comment on the 

public interest after the issuance of any 

final initial determination in this 

investigation. 

Persons filing written submissions 

must file the original document 

electronically on or before the deadlines 

stated above and submit 8 true paper 

copies to the Office of the Secretary by 

noon the next day pursuant to section 

210.4(f) of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to 

the docket number (‘‘Docket No. 3036’’) 

in a prominent place on the cover page 

and/or the first page. (See Handbook for 

Electronic Filing Procedures, Electronic 

Filing Procedures 4). Persons with 

questions regarding filing should 

contact the Secretary (202–205–2000). 

Any person desiring to submit a 

document to the Commission in 

confidence must request confidential 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 2014 / Notices 62957 

5Electronic Document Information System 

(EDIS): http://edis.usitc.gov. 

1All citations to the Recommended Decision are 

to the slip opinion as issued by the ALJ. 

2 I decline to publish the ALJ’s discussion of the 

substantial evidence standard. It suffices to say that 

in reviewing the factual findings of a recommended 

decision, this Agency adheres to the principles set 

forth in Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 

474, 496 (1951). 

3The Board also found that he had ‘‘initiated 

treatment utilizing a Schedule IV controlled 

substance without having performed a review of the 

patient’s prior medical and weight-loss program 

records to determine that the patient had made a 

substantial good-faith effort to lose weight in a 

treatment program utilizing a regimen of weight 

reduction based on caloric restriction, nutritional 

counseling, behavior modification and exercise, 

without the utilization of controlled substances, 

and that said treatment had been ineffective, all in 

violation of Miss. Code Ann. § 73–25–29(13).’’ GX 

5, at 49 (citing 25 Miss. Code R. § 501(1)). 

treatment. All such requests should be 

directed to the Secretary to the 

Commission and must include a full 

statement of the reasons why the 

Commission should grant such 

treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents 

for which confidential treatment by the 

Commission is properly sought will be 

treated accordingly. All nonconfidential 

written submissions will be available for 

public inspection at the Office of the 

Secretary and on EDIS.5

This action is taken under the 

authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), 

and of sections 201.10 and 210.8(c) of 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: October 16, 2014. 

Lisa R. Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24972 Filed 10–20–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 13–16] 

Michael A. White, M.D.; Decision and 

Order 

On April 16, 2014, Administrative 

Law Judge (ALJ) Gail A. Randall issued 

the attached Recommended Decision 

(R.D.).1 Respondent filed Exceptions to 

the Recommended Decision. Having 

reviewed the entire record including 

Respondent’s Exceptions, I have 

decided to adopt the ALJ’s findings of 

fact, conclusions of law, and 

recommended sanction except as 

explained below.2 A discussion of 

Respondent’s Exceptions follows. 

Respondent’s Exceptions 

In his Exceptions, Respondent raises 

five different contentions. Notably, 

however, Respondent does not 

challenge any of the ALJ’s factual 

findings (including her findings that 

were based on the testimony of the 

Government’s Expert) regarding his 

prescribing of phentermine to the 

sixteen patients at issue in this 

proceeding. See generally Exceptions, at 

1–4. Nor does he challenge the ALJ’s 

legal conclusion ‘‘that Respondent 

failed to establish a bona-fide doctorpatient relationship before prescribing 

[p]hentermine to the sixteen patients at 

issue here, thus violating 21 CFR 

1306.04(a).’’ R.D. at 33; see also 

Exceptions, at 1–4. 

The ALJ also made extensive findings 

based on the results of a January 19, 

2012 hearing conducted by the 

Mississippi State Board of Medical 

Licensure regarding Respondent’s 

prescribing of phentermine to five other 

persons. GX 5. Following the hearing, at 

which Respondent was represented by 

counsel, the Board found him guilty of 

violating various provisions of both 

state law and the Board’s rules. 

More specifically, with respect to 

each of the five persons, the Board 

found that Respondent failed to obtain 

a thorough history or complete a 

thorough physical examination prior to 

initiating treatment utilizing a Schedule 

IV controlled substance.3 Id. at 49 (citing 

Miss. Code Ann. § 73–25–29(13); 25 

Miss. Code R. § 501(2)). The Board 

further found that Respondent had 

violated its rule prohibiting the 

continued prescribing of controlled 

substances classified as amphetamine 

like anorectics and/or central nervous 

system stimulants to a patient who had 

failed to lose weight after taking the 

controlled substances over a period of 

thirty days. Id. (citing Miss. Code Ann. 

§ 73–25–29(13)). 

Most significantly, with respect to 

each of the five patients at issue in the 

proceeding, the Board found 

Respondent ‘‘guilty of dispensing drugs 

having addiction-forming or addictionsustaining liability otherwise than in the 

course of legitimate professional 

practice.’’ Id. at 16 (citing Miss. Code 

Ann. § 73–25–29(3)). This finding is 

equivalent to a finding that Respondent 

violated 21 CFR 1306.04(a), which 

requires that a controlled-substance 

prescription ‘‘be issued for a legitimate 

medical purpose by an individual 

practitioner acting in the usual course of 

his professional practice.’’ 

Here again, Respondent did not 

challenge the ALJ’s findings of fact and 

conclusions of law which were based on 

the Board’s findings. Indeed, nowhere 

in his Exceptions does he dispute the 

ALJ’s legal conclusions that he violated 

the Controlled Substance Act’s 

prescription requirement with respect to 

some twenty-one patients. 

Instead, he argues that the denial of 

his application is unwarranted because 

there is no evidence that any person he 

prescribed to has been injured or died 

as a result of his unlawful prescribing of 

controlled substances. Exceptions, at 

1–2. The short answer to Respondent’s 

contention is that proving injury is not 

an element of an allegation that a 

physician violated 21 CFR 1306.04(a). 

Rather, proof of such a violation is 

established by showing that in issuing 

the prescription, the physician acted 

outside of the usual course of 

professional practice and lacked a 

legitimate medical purpose, and such 

proof establishes that a physician 

knowingly or intentionally diverted a 

controlled substance. 

Respondent also argues that the ALJ’s 

findings and recommendation are 

erroneous because he was found not 

guilty in a criminal proceeding ‘‘after 

the exact evidence was presented and 

the same witness testimony[ ] that was 

presented’’ at the DEA hearing. 

Exceptions, at 2. Putting aside whether 

the exact same evidence was presented 

at both his criminal trial and the DEA 

proceeding (the latter appearing to 

include evidence of his misconduct in 

prescribing to far more patients than 

were at issue in the former), Respondent 

ignores that the State Board also found 

him guilty of dispensing controlled 

substances other than in the course of 

legitimate professional practice (i.e., 

without a legitimate medical purpose). 

See GX 5, at 50. 

As for his related argument that ‘‘[t]he 

irony is overwhelming that the public 

who he could potentially harm did not 

buy the DEA’s assertions while sitting in 

the jury box,’’ Exceptions, at 2–3; 

Respondent ignores that because of the 

greater consequences that attach upon a 

criminal conviction, a higher standard 

of proof applies in a criminal trial than 

in an administrative proceeding. Indeed, 

given that Respondent does not 

challenge any of the ALJ’s findings with 

respect to whether he violated the CSA’s 

prescription requirement and diverted 

controlled substances, there is more 

than ample evidence to support the 

conclusion that he poses a potential 

danger to the public. See Gonzales v. 

Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 274 (2006) (‘‘the 

prescription requirement . . . ensures 

patients use controlled substances 

under the supervision of a doctor so as 

to prevent addiction and recreational 

abuse. As a corollary, [it] also bars 

doctors from peddling to patients who 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES