Sunshine Act Meeting, 46529-46530 [2017-21613]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Notices
controlled substances under the laws of
the State in which he practices.’’ Id.
§ 823(f). Because Congress has clearly
mandated that a practitioner possess
state authority in order to be deemed a
practitioner under the Act, DEA has
held repeatedly that revocation of a
practitioner’s registration is the
appropriate sanction whenever he is no
longer authorized to dispense controlled
substances under the laws of the State
in which he practices medicine. See,
e.g., Calvin Ramsey, 76 FR 20034, 20036
(2011); Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., 71
FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A.
Ricci, 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby
Watts, 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988); see
also Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 FR
27616 (1978).
Based on the Board’s Final Order of
Automatic Suspension, it is undisputed
that Respondent is no longer currently
authorized to dispense controlled
substances in Pennsylvania, the State in
which he is registered with the Agency.
Respondent is therefore not entitled to
maintain his registration. This provides
reason alone to revoke his registration
and to deny any pending application for
registration in Pennsylvania.2
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Respondent’s Criminal Convictions
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(2), the
Attorney General may also suspend or
revoke a registration issued under
section 823 of Title 21, ‘‘upon a finding
that the registrant . . . has been
convicted of a felony under this
subchapter’’ (the Controlled Substances
Act). Here too, it is undisputed that
Respondent has been convicted of more
than 100 different felony violations of
the CSA, including two of counts of
conspiracy to distribute controlled
substances, 21 U.S.C. 846; 117 counts of
distribution of controlled substances, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and
(b)(1)(C) and (b)(1)(E); and one count of
distribution of controlled substances
resulting in death, in violation of 21
U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). While
Respondent asserts that his convictions
are not final because his case is on
direct appeal, the District Court has
entered the judgment and Respondent,
who is currently incarcerated in a
United States Penitentiary, points to no
order by the Court vacating the
judgment.3 Accordingly, I find that
2 While this ground was not cited in the Show
Cause Order, the Government provided
constitutionally adequate notice that it was also
seeking revocation on this basis when it served
Respondent with its Motion for Summary
Disposition and Respondent had a meaningful
opportunity to put forward evidence and contest
the issue. See Hatem Ataya, 81 FR 8221, 8244–45
(2016).
3 As for Respondent’s reliance on Leishman v.
Associated Wholesale Electric Co., that case
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:52 Oct 04, 2017
Jkt 244001
Respondent ‘‘has been convicted of a
felony under this subchapter,’’ thus
subjecting his registration to sanction.
21 U.S.C. 824(a)(2).
In contrast to a practitioner’s loss of
his state authority, this finding does not
mandate the revocation of his
registration on this ground and the
Agency has held that a conviction is not
a per se bar to registration (as is the loss
of state authority). See Jeffery M.
Freesemann, 76 FR 60873 n.1 (2011)
(citing The Lawsons, 72 FR 74334,
74338 (2007)); Michael S. Moore, 76 FR
45867 (2011). Here, however,
Respondent’s criminal conduct, which
involves 120 felony convictions for
unlawful distribution, including for
unlawful distribution resulting in death,
is so obviously egregious that revocation
is warranted. See Masters
Pharmaceutical, Inc., v. DEA, 861 F.3d
206, 226 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (recognizing
Agency’s authority to revoke a
registration based on extensive and
egregious misconduct even if registrant
had accepted responsibility); see also
Hatem Attaya, 81 FR 8221, 8244 (2016)
(‘‘[W]hile proceedings under 21 U.S.C.
823 and 824 are remedial in nature,
there are cases in which,
notwithstanding a finding that a
registrant has credibly accepted
responsibility, the misconduct is so
egregious and extensive that the
protection of the public interest
nonetheless warrants the revocation of a
registration or the denial of an
application.’’) (citation omitted).
While ordinarily a respondent who
has been convicted of a felony subject
to section 824(a)(2) is entitled to present
a case as to why his registration should
not be revoked (or his application
denied), I nonetheless conclude that the
ALJ properly granted summary
disposition in this matter because there
is no issue of any disputed material fact.
Here, even ignoring the manifest
egregiousness of Respondent’s criminal
conduct, he has put forward no
evidence to show why he can be
entrusted with a registration nor raised
any contention that he acknowledges
his misconduct and has undertaken
remedial measures.4 See Medicine
Shoppe-Jonesborough, 73 FR 364, 387
(2008) (other citations omitted). Cf. 10B
Charles Allen Wright, et al., Federal
Practice and Procedure Civ. § 2727.2
(4th ed. April 2017 update) (‘‘If the
involved a motion for amended findings under Rule
52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and has
no relevance to this matter.
4 To the contrary, in his various filings,
Respondent maintains that various agents ‘‘misle[d]
the grand jury to get the original indictment’’ and
that ‘‘no warrants were issued for 19 videotaped
visits.’’ Resp.’s Hrng. Req., at 1.
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46529
summary-judgment movant makes out a
prima facie case that would entitle him
to a judgment as a matter of law if
uncontroverted at trial, summary
judgment will be granted unless the
opposing party offers some competent
evidence that could be presented at trial
showing that there is a genuine dispute
as to a material fact.’’). And finally, as
the evidence shows that Respondent is
only one year into a 30-year term of
imprisonment, he has clearly
discontinued (even if involuntarily) his
professional practice. Cf. 21 CFR
1301.52 (‘‘the registration of any person
. . . shall terminate . . . if and when
such person . . . discontinues business
or professional practice’’). Thus, even if
his state license had not been
suspended, his continued registration
would violate DEA’s longstanding
policy barring shelf registrations. See,
e.g., Performance Construction, Inc., 67
FR 9993 (2002). Accordingly, I conclude
that the ALJ properly granted summary
disposition on this ground. I further
conclude that Respondent’s multiple
felony convictions for violating the CSA
provide an additional and independent
basis for revoking his registration and
denying any pending application.
Order
Pursuant to the authority vested in me
by 21 U.S.C. 824(a) and 28 CFR 0.100(b),
I order that DEA Certificate of
Registration No. BO3937781 and DATAWaiver Identification No. XO3937781
issued to William J. O’Brien, III, D.O.,
be, and they hereby are, revoked. I
further order that any application of
William J. O’Brien, III, D.O. to renew or
modify this registration, or for any other
DEA registration, be, and it hereby is,
denied. This Order is effective
immediately.5
Dated: September 28, 2017.
Chuck Rosenberg,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017–21380 Filed 10–4–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Foreign Claims Settlement
Commission
[F.C.S.C. Meeting and Hearing Notice No.
9–17]
Sunshine Act Meeting
The Foreign Claims Settlement
Commission, pursuant to its regulations
5 Based on Respondent’s numerous convictions, I
conclude that the public interest necessitates that
this Order be effective immediately. 21 CFR
1316.67.
E:\FR\FM\05OCN1.SGM
05OCN1
46530
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Notices
(45 CFR part 503.25) and the
Government in the Sunshine Act (5
U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in
regard to the scheduling of open
meetings as follows:
Thursday, October 19, 2017:
10:00 a.m.—Issuance of Proposed
Decisions in claims against Iraq.
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: Patricia M. Hall,
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission,
600 E Street NW., Suite 6002,
Washington, DC 20579. Telephone:
(202) 616–6975.
Brian M. Simkin,
Chief Counsel.
of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606(a), at the
Site.
The publication of this notice opens
a period for public comment on the
Consent Decree. Comments should be
addressed to the Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Environment and
Natural Resources Division, and should
refer to United States v. Aramark
Uniform & Career Apparel, LLC, Civil
Action No. 3:17–cv–04062 (S.D.W. Va.),
DJ Ref. No. 90–11–3–11369. All
comments must be submitted no later
than 30 days after the publication date
of this notice. Comments may be
submitted either by email or by mail:
To submit
comments:
Send them to:
By email .......
pubcomment-ees.enrd@
usdoj.gov.
Assistant Attorney General,
U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O.
Box 7611, Washington, DC
20044–7611.
By mail .........
[FR Doc. 2017–21613 Filed 10–3–17; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4410–BA–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Notice of Lodging of Proposed
Consent Decree Under the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act
On September 28, 2017, the
Department of Justice lodged a Consent
Decree with defendant Aramark
Uniform & Career Apparel, LLC
(‘‘Aramark’’) in the United States
District Court for the Southern District
of West Virginia, Civil Action No. 3:17–
cv–04062. The Consent Decree resolves
a claim under Section 107(a)(2) of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 9607(a)(2),
for past response costs incurred in
connection with the release of PCE at
the Coyne Textile Services Superfund
Site, located in Huntington, West
Virginia. The Complaint filed
concurrently with the Consent Decree
alleges that Aramark, through a
predecessor company, owned and
operated an industrial laundry business
at the Site from 1972 to 1982 that
included a dry cleaning process that
utilized perchloroethylene (‘‘PERC’’ or
‘‘PCE’’). The proposed consent decree
obligates Aramark to reimburse $1.595
million of the United States’ past
response costs and provides Aramark a
covenant not to sue for past response
costs incurred through May 10, 2017.
Aramark is performing the work at the
Site pursuant to an administrative order
and agreement with EPA, which
addresses claims under Section 106(a)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:52 Oct 04, 2017
Jkt 244001
During the public comment period,
the Consent Decree may be examined
and downloaded at this Justice
Department Web site: https://
www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees.
We will provide a paper copy of the
Consent Decree upon written request
and payment of reproduction costs.
Please mail your request and payment
to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ—
ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC
20044–7611.
Please enclose a check or money order
for $6.00 (25 cents per page
reproduction cost) payable to the United
States Treasury. For a paper copy
without the exhibits and signature
pages, the cost is $5.25.
Jeffrey Sands,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental
Enforcement Section, Environment and
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 2017–21394 Filed 10–4–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
Workforce Information Advisory
Council (WIAC)
Employment and Training
Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
AGENCY:
Pursuant to the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014
(WIOA), which amends the WagnerPeyser Act of 1933, notice is hereby
given that the WIAC will meet on
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
November 1 and 2, 2017. The meeting
will take place at the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) Janet Norwood Training
and Conference Center in Washington,
DC. The WIAC was established in
accordance with provisions of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA), as amended and will act in
accordance with the applicable
provisions of FACA and its
implementing regulation. The meeting
will be open to the public.
DATES: The meeting will take place on
Wednesday, November 1, and Thursday,
November 2, 2017 from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m. Public statements and requests for
special accommodations or to address
the Advisory Council must be received
by October 23, 2017.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
the BLS Janet Norwood Training and
Conference Center, Rooms 7 and 8, in
the Postal Square Building at 2
Massachusetts Ave. NE., Washington,
DC 20212.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steven Rietzke, Chief, Division of
National Programs, Tools, and
Technical Assistance, Employment and
Training Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, Room C–4510, 200
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20210; Telephone: 202–693–3912. Mr.
Rietzke is the Designated Federal Officer
for the WIAC.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background: The WIAC is an
important component of the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act. The
WIAC is a Federal Advisory Committee
of workforce and labor market
information experts representing a
broad range of national, State, and local
data and information users and
producers. The purpose of the WIAC is
to provide recommendations to the
Secretary of Labor, working jointly
through the Assistant Secretary for
Employment and Training and the
Commissioner of Labor Statistics, to
address: (1) The evaluation and
improvement of the nationwide
workforce and labor market information
(WLMI) system and statewide systems
that comprise the nationwide system;
and (2) how the Department and the
States will cooperate in the management
of those systems. These systems include
programs to produce employmentrelated statistics and State and local
workforce and labor market information.
The Department of Labor anticipates
the WIAC will accomplish its objectives
by: (1) Studying workforce and labor
market information issues; (2) seeking
and sharing information on innovative
approaches, new technologies, and data
to inform employment, skills training,
E:\FR\FM\05OCN1.SGM
05OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 192 (Thursday, October 5, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46529-46530]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21613]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission
[F.C.S.C. Meeting and Hearing Notice No. 9-17]
Sunshine Act Meeting
The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, pursuant to its
regulations
[[Page 46530]]
(45 CFR part 503.25) and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C.
552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of open meetings
as follows:
Thursday, October 19, 2017:
10:00 a.m.--Issuance of Proposed Decisions in claims against Iraq.
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:
Patricia M. Hall, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E Street
NW., Suite 6002, Washington, DC 20579. Telephone: (202) 616-6975.
Brian M. Simkin,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2017-21613 Filed 10-3-17; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4410-BA-P
