46524 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / 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 on behalf of Core Pipe Products, Inc., 

Shaw Alloying Piping Products, LLC, and Taylor 

Forge Stainless to be individually adequate. 

Comments from other interested parties will not be 

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

phase of these investigations beginning 

at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, December 6, 

2017, at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building. Requests to 

appear at the hearing should be filed in 

writing with the Secretary to the 

Commission on or before December 1, 

2017. A nonparty who has testimony 

that may aid the Commission’s 

deliberations may request permission to 

present a short statement at the hearing. 

All parties and nonparties desiring to 

appear at the hearing and make oral 

presentations should participate in a 

prehearing conference to be held on 

December 4, 2017, at the U.S. 

International Trade Commission 

Building, if deemed necessary. Oral 

testimony and written materials to be 

submitted at the public hearing are 

governed by sections 201.6(b)(2), 

201.13(f), and 207.24 of the 

Commission’s rules. Parties must submit 

any request to present a portion of their 

hearing testimony in camera no later 

than 7 business days prior to the date of 

the hearing. 

Written submissions.—Each party 

who is an interested party shall submit 

a prehearing brief to the Commission. 

Prehearing briefs must conform with the 

provisions of section 207.23 of the 

Commission’s rules; the deadline for 

filing is November 29, 2017. Parties may 

also file written testimony in connection 

with their presentation at the hearing, as 

provided in section 207.24 of the 

Commission’s rules, and posthearing 

briefs, which must conform with the 

provisions of section 207.25 of the 

Commission’s rules. The deadline for 

filing posthearing briefs is December 12, 

2017. In addition, any person who has 

not entered an appearance as a party to 

the investigations may submit a written 

statement of information pertinent to 

the subject of the investigations, 

including statements of support or 

opposition to the petition, on or before 

December 12, 2017. On December 29, 

2017, the Commission will make 

available to parties all information on 

which they have not had an opportunity 

to comment. Parties may submit final 

comments on this information on or 

before January 3, 2018, but such final 

comments must not contain new factual 

information and must otherwise comply 

with section 207.30 of the Commission’s 

rules. All written submissions must 

conform with the provisions of section 

201.8 of the Commission’s rules; any 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

Handbook on E-Filing, available on the 

Commission’s Web site at https://

www.usitc.gov/secretary/documents/ 

handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf, 

elaborates upon the Commission’s rules 

with respect to electronic filing. 

Additional written submissions to the 

Commission, including requests 

pursuant to section 201.12 of the 

Commission’s rules, shall not be 

accepted unless good cause is shown for 

accepting such submissions, or unless 

the submission is pursuant to a specific 

request by a Commissioner or 

Commission staff. 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

investigations must be served on all 

other parties to the investigations (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. 

Authority: These investigations are 

being conducted under authority of title 

VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice 

is published pursuant to section 207.21 

of the Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: September 29, 2017. 

Lisa R. Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21428 Filed 10–4–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–865–867 (Third 

Review)] 

Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings 

From Italy, Malaysia, and the 

Philippines; Scheduling of Expedited 

Five-Year Reviews 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of expedited 

reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 

1930 (‘‘the Act’’) to determine whether 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders on stainless steel butt-weld pipe 

fittings from Italy, Malaysia, and the 

Philippines would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury within a reasonably foreseeable 

time. 

DATES: September 5, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amanda Lawrence (202–205–3185), 

Office of Investigations, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. 

Hearing-impaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

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 (https://

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at https://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On September 5, 2017, 

the Commission determined that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (82 

FR 25324, June 1, 2017) of the subject 

five-year reviews was adequate and that 

the respondent interested party group 

response was inadequate for all reviews. 

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 

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(3)). 

For further information concerning 

the conduct of these reviews and rules 

of general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B 

(19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207). 

Staff report.—A staff report 

containing information concerning the 

subject matter of the reviews will be 

placed in the nonpublic record on 

November 2, 2017, 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 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Notices 46525 

reviews. Comments are due on or before 

November 17, 2017 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 

November 17, 2017. 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. The Commission’s rules with 

respect to filing were revised effective 

July 25, 2014. See 79 FR 35920 (June 25, 

2014), and the revised Commission 

Handbook on E-filing, available from the 

Commission’s Web site at https://

www.usitc.gov/secretary/documents/ 

handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf. 

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 these reviews are 

extraordinarily complicated and 

therefore has determined to exercise its 

authority to extend the review 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: September 29, 2017. 

Lisa R. Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21429 Filed 10–4–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Warren B. Dailey, M.D.; Decision and 

Order 

On February 7, 2017, the Assistant 

Administrator, Diversion Control 

Division, Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA), issued an Order 

to Show Cause to Warren B. Dailey, 

M.D. (Registrant), of Houston, Texas. 

The Show Cause Order proposed the 

revocation of Registrant’s DEA 

Certificate of Registration, pursuant to 

21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) and (5), on two 

grounds: (1) That he does not have 

authority to handle controlled 

substances in Texas, the State in which 

he is registered with the Agency; and (2) 

he has been excluded from participation 

in a program pursuant to section 1320a– 

7(a) of Title 42. GX 2 (Order to Show 

Cause), at 1. 

With respect to the Agency’s 

jurisdiction, the Show Cause Order 

alleged that Registrant is registered as a 

practitioner in schedules II through V, 

under Certificate of Registration No. 

AD9639038, at the registered address of 

2305 Southmore, Houston, Texas. Id. 

The Order alleged that Registrant’s 

registration expires by its terms on June 

30, 2018. Id. 

As to the substantive grounds for the 

proceeding, the Show Cause Order 

specifically alleged that ‘‘[o]n October 

12, 2016, the Texas Medical Board 

issued an Order of Suspension by 

Operation of Law, suspending 

[Registrant’s] Texas Medical License 

. . . based on [his] felony conviction on 

March 30, 2016 . . . for health care 

fraud.’’ Id. The Show Cause Order then 

alleged that Registrant is ‘‘currently 

without authority to practice medicine 

or handle controlled substances in the 

State of Texas, the [S]tate in which he 

registered with’’ the Agency, thus 

subjecting his registration to revocation. 

Id. at (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3); other 

citations omitted). 

The Show Cause Order also alleged 

that on December 30, 2016, the Office of 

Inspector General, U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS IG), 

issued a letter to Registrant ‘‘excluding 

[him] from participation in all Federal 

health care programs based on [his] 

felony conviction on March 30, 2016, in 

the U.S. District Court for the Southern 

District of Texas for health care fraud.’’ 

Id. at 2. The Show Cause Order further 

alleged that ‘‘[t]he exclusion was 

effective twenty days from the date of 

the letter and is for a minimum period 

of twenty years.’’ Id. The Show Cause 

Order then asserted that Registrant’s 

‘‘DEA registration is also subject to 

revocation based on [his] exclusion from 

participation in a program pursuant to 

section 1320a–7(a) of Title 42.’’ Id. 

(citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(5)). 

The Show Cause Order notified 

Registrant of his right to request a 

hearing on the allegations, or to submit 

a written statement in lieu of a hearing, 

the procedure for electing either option, 

and the consequence for failing to elect 

either option. Id. (citing 21 CFR 

1301.43). The Order also notified 

Registrant of his right to submit a 

corrective action plan under 21 U.S.C. 

824(c)(2)(C). Id. at 3. 

On February 7, 2017, the Show Cause 

Order was mailed to Registrant, via first 

class mail, addressed to him at his 

registered address at 2305 Southmore, 

Houston, Texas. GX 5. Affidavit of 

Service by DEA Analyst, Office of Chief 

Counsel. Also, on February 21, 2016, a 

Diversion Investigator (DI) with the 

Houston Division Office emailed the 

Show Cause Order to an attorney, who 

represented Registrant in the state board 

proceeding, who accepted service on his 

behalf. GX 4. In his email, the attorney 

represented that he was ‘‘accepting 

service upon’’ Registrant. Id. (copy of 

email between DI and attorney 

accepting service on Registrant.) 

On April 6, 2017 the Government 

forwarded a Request for Final Agency 

Action (RFAA) and an evidentiary 

record to my Office. On review, I found 

the Government’s attempts at service 

insufficient. As for the Government’s 

attempt to serve Registrant by mail 

addressed to his registered address, I 

found this inadequate because it clearly 

knew that Registrant had been convicted 

of multiple federal felony offenses more 

than a year earlier and was likely 

incarcerated in a United States 

Penitentiary. See Robinson v. 

Hanrahan, 409 U.S. 38, 40 (1972) 

(‘‘[T]he State knew that appellant was 

not at the address to which the notice 

was mailed . . . since he was at that 

very time confined in . . . jail. Under 

these circumstances, it cannot be said 

that the State made any effort to provide 

notice which was ‘reasonably 

calculated’ to apprise appellant of the 

pendency of the . . . proceedings.’’); see 

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

(2006) (citing with approval Robinson 

and noting that its cases ‘‘require[] the 

government to consider unique 

information about an intended recipient 

regardless of whether a statutory scheme 

is reasonably calculated to provided 

notice in the ordinary case’’). 

I also found the Government’s service 

on the attorney insufficient. In holding 

so, I explained that the CSA states that 

‘‘[b]efore taking action pursuant to [21 

U.S.C. 824(a)] . . . the Attorney General 

shall serve upon the . . . registrant an 

order to show cause why registration 

should not be . . . revoked[ ] or 

suspended.’’ 21 U.S.C. 824(c) (emphasis 

added). While I explained that the 

Agency has found that service on an 

attorney may satisfy the CSA’s 

requirement that a Show Cause Order be 

‘‘serve[d] upon the . . . registrant,’’ I 

noted that the Agency has made clear 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES