Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 32 / Friday, February 19, 2021 / Notices 10335 

destabilization, channel widening, 

arroyo mouth management, construction 

of inset floodplains, construction of 

wetland depressions, and use of 

supplemental water for on-site 

irrigation. 

Based on a review of the facts and 

analyses contained in the Amended 

Draft EA, the USIBWC has selected five 

projects as the Preferred Alternatives: 

Alternative D—Broad Canyon Arroyo, 

Alternative F—Las Cruces Effluent, 

Alternative G—Mesilla Valley Bosque 

State Park (MVBSP), Alternative H— 

Downstream of Courchesne Bridge, and 

Alternative J—Trujillo Arroyo. 

Alternatives Las Cruces Effluent and 

Downstream of Courchesne Bridge 

would require engineering designs prior 

to construction, while Alternatives 

Broad Canyon Arroyo and Trujillo 

Restoration Site, which are smaller and 

less complicated projects, could be 

constructed from conceptual designs. 

Downstream of Courchesne Bridge 

would be implemented as part of 

compensatory mitigation for future 

levee improvement projects. All 

alternatives would require appropriate 

permits from the United States Army 

Corps of Engineers for dredge and fill of 

Waters of the United States, per the 

Clean Water Act Sections 404 and 401. 

Potential impacts on natural, cultural, 

and other resources were evaluated in 

the Draft EA. The USIBWC has prepared 

a FONSI for the Preferred Alternatives, 

based on a review of the facts and 

analyses contained in the amended 

Draft EA. 

Availability: The electronic version of 

the amended Draft EA is available at the 

USIBWC web page: https://

www.ibwc.gov/EMD/EIS_EA_Public_

Comment.html. 

Dated: February 10, 2021. 

Jennifer Pen ̃ a, 

Chief Legal Counsel, International Boundary 

and Water Commission, United States 

Section. 

[FR Doc. 2021–03303 Filed 2–18–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7010–01–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–1217] 

Enforcement Proceeding; Certain 

Blowers and Components Thereof; 

Notice of Institution of Formal 

Enforcement Proceeding 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has instituted a formal 

enforcement proceeding relating to the 

Consent Order issued on November 12, 

2020, in the above-referenced 

investigation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cathy Chen, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202– 

205–2392. Copies of non-confidential 

documents filed in connection with this 

investigation may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at https://edis.usitc.gov. For help 

accessing EDIS, please email 

EDIS3Help@usitc.gov. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. 

Hearing-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 instituted the original 

investigation on September 8, 2020, 

based on a complaint filed by Regal 

Beloit America, Inc (‘‘Regal’’) of Beloit, 

Wisconsin. 85 FR 55491–92 (Sep. 8, 

2020). The complaint alleged violations 

of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the 

importation into the United States, the 

sale for importation, or the sale within 

the United States after importation of 

certain blowers and components thereof 

by reason of infringement of one or 

more of claims 1, 2, 7–10, and 15 of U.S. 

Patent No. 8,079,834 (‘‘the ’834 patent’’). 

Id. at 55492. The Commission’s notice 

of investigation named as respondents 

East West Manufacturing, LLC of 

Atlanta, Georgia, and East West 

Industries of Binh Duong, Vietnam 

(collectively, ‘‘Respondents’’). Id. at 

55492. The Office of Unfair Import 

Investigations (‘‘OUII’’) did not 

participate as a party in the original 

investigation. Id. 

On October 14, 2020, Respondents 

filed a motion to terminate the 

investigation with respect to themselves 

based upon a consent order stipulation. 

The motion included a consent order 

stipulation and a proposed consent 

order. 

On October 22, 2020, the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) issued 

an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) granting 

the motion and terminating the 

investigation with respect to 

Respondents based on the entry of a 

consent order. Order No. 6 at 3 (Oct. 22, 

2020). Thereafter, the Commission 

determined not to review the ID and 

issued a Consent Order. 85 FR 73511 

(Nov. 18, 2020). Respondents were 

therefore terminated from the original 

investigation and the investigation was 

terminated in its entirety. Id. 

On January 15, 2021, Regal filed a 

complaint requesting that the 

Commission institute a formal 

enforcement proceeding under 

Commission Rule 210.75 to investigate 

the alleged violation of the Consent 

Order by Respondents. 

Having examined the enforcement 

complaint and the supporting 

documents, the Commission has 

determined to institute a formal 

enforcement proceeding, pursuant to 19 

CFR 210.75(a), to determine whether a 

violation of the Consent Order, issued 

on November 12, 2020, in the original 

investigation has occurred and to 

determine what, if any, enforcement 

measures are appropriate. The named 

respondents are East West 

Manufacturing, LLC of Atlanta, Georgia, 

and East West Industries of Binh Duong, 

Vietnam. OUII is also named as a party. 

The Commission vote for this 

determination took place on February 

16, 2021. 

The authority for the Commission’s 

determination is contained in section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in Part 

210 of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR part 

p10. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: February 16, 2021. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2021–03409 Filed 2–18–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Milad I. Shaker, M.D.; Decision and 

Order 

On October 5, 2020, the Assistant 

Administrator, Diversion Control 

Division, Drug Enforcement 

Administration (hereinafter, 

Government), signed an Order to Show 

Cause (hereinafter, OSC) addressed to 

Milad I. Shaker, M.D. (hereinafter, 

Registrant). OSC, at 1. The OSC 

proposed the revocation of Registrant’s 

Certificate of Registration No. 

FS1471818. Id. It alleged that Registrant 

is without ‘‘authority to handle 

controlled substances in the State of 

Pennsylvania, the state in which 

[Registrant is] registered with DEA.’’ 

OSC, at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)). 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES
10336 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 32 / Friday, February 19, 2021 / Notices 

1The felony charges included allegations that 

Registrant ‘‘issued prescriptions for controlled 

substances to [two patients] in return for sexual 

favors;’’ issued thirty-six Schedule II controlled 

substance prescriptions ‘‘outside of the usual course 

of professional practice and not for a legitimate 

medical purpose;’’ issued 16 Schedule IV controlled 

substances ‘‘outside of the usual course of 

professional practice and not for a legitimate 

medical purpose;’’ and engaged in two ‘‘[f]elony 

counts of Health Care Fraud.’’ RFAAX 3, at 13–14. 

2One of the conditions required that Registrant 

‘‘contract for the services of a Board Approved 

Practice Monitor,’’ ‘‘allow the Practice Monitor 

access to all aspects of his practice,’’ and allow the 

Practice Monitor a minimum of ‘‘[m]onthly inperson overview[s] . . . to determine that the 

monitor’s directions are being implemented.’’ 

RFAAX 3 22–23. On September 3, 2019, 

Registrant’s practice monitor notified Registrant and 

the Board that they were ‘‘ceasing all services . . . 

effective immediately’’ based on Registrant’s failure 

to allow two of the required monthly visits and his 

failure to respond to communications. Id. at 50–51. 

On October 29, 2019, a Petition for Appropriate 

Relief was filed with the Board seeking suspension 

of Registrant’s license because ‘‘[Registrant’s] failure 

to fully cooperate and successfully comply with the 

monitoring terms and conditions of the probation 

[was] a violation of [the Consent Agreement].’’ Id. 

at 9. 

3 DEA obtained a copy of the Board’s Final Order 

after the OSC was issued to Registrant. RFAAX 10, 

at 3. The Final Order is not material as the record 

is clear that Registrant’s license had been 

suspended since the Preliminary Order issued on 

October 29, 2019. 

4The suspension of the license was retroactive to 

May 20, 2020. It appears that as of May 20, 2020, 

there were two concurrent suspension applied to 

Registrant’s license. The number of suspensions is 

not material as the record is clear that Registrant’s 

license had been suspended since October 29, 2019. 

I. Background 

The OSC alleged that the 

Pennsylvania State Board of Medicine 

(hereinafter, Board) issued a Preliminary 

Order October 29, 2019. Id. This 

Preliminary Order, according to the 

OSC, indefinitely suspended 

Registrant’s Pennsylvania Medical 

Physician and Surgeon license 

following the Board’s ‘‘finding of 

[Registrant’s] noncompliance with 

conditions of probation approved by the 

Board on December 18, 2018.’’ Id. 

The OSC notified Registrant of the 

right to request a hearing on the 

allegations or to submit a written 

statement, while waiving the right to a 

hearing, the procedures for electing each 

option, and the consequences for failing 

to elect either option. Id. at 2 (citing 21 

CFR 1301.43). The OSC also notified 

Registrant of the opportunity to submit 

a corrective action plan. OSC, at 3 

(citing 21 U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C)). 

a. Adequacy of Service 

According to the declaration of a DEA 

Diversion Investigator (hereinafter, DI), 

DEA made arrangements for service of 

the OSC on Registrant, while he was 

incarcerated at the United States 

Penitentiary (USP)—Hazelton 

correctional facility in Bruceton, West 

Virginia. Request for Final Agency 

Action (hereinafter, RFAA) Exhibit 

(hereinafter, RFAAX) 10 (Declaration of 

DI), at 1–3. To accomplish service, DEA 

established a point of contact with 

Special Investigative Services at USP— 

Hazelton, and made arrangements to 

serve the OSC on Registrant by hand 

delivery. Id. at 3; RFAAX 5 (emails to 

and from Special Investigative Services, 

dated October 20–21, 2020). According 

to the emails, the OSC was served on 

Registrant on October 21, 2020. RFAAX 

5, at 1; RFAAX 10, at 3. 

In its RFAA, the Government 

represents that ‘‘more than 30-days have 

passed since Registrant received the 

[OSC]’’ and that ‘‘Registrant has not 

submitted to DEA a request for hearing.’’ 

RFAA, at 2; see also RFAAX 6 (email, 

dated December 17, 2020, confirming no 

correspondence from Registrant). The 

Government also represents that DEA 

has not received ‘‘any other written 

correspondence, telephonic 

communication, or any other 

communication from Registrant, or any 

representative on his behalf in response 

to the [OSC].’’ RFAA, at 4. I find that 

more than thirty days have now passed 

since the Government accomplished 

service of the OSC. Accordingly, I find 

that Registrant has waived the right to 

a hearing and the right to submit a 

written statement and corrective action 

plan. 21 CFR 1301.43(d) and 21 U.S.C. 

824(c)(2)(C). I, therefore, issue this 

Decision and Order based on the record 

submitted by the Government, which 

constitutes the entire record before me. 

21 CFR 1301.46. 

II. Findings of Fact 

a. Registrant’s DEA Registration 

Registrant is the holder of DEA 

Certificate of Registration No. 

FS1471818 at the registered address of 

308 Bessemer Road, Suite 100, Mount 

Pleasant, Pennsylvania 15666. RFAA, at 

2; RFAAX 1 (Controlled Substance 

Registration Certificate); RFAAX 2 

(Certification of Registration History). 

Pursuant to this registration, Registrant 

is authorized to dispense controlled 

substances in schedules II through V as 

a practitioner. Id. Registrant’s 

registration expires on February 28, 

2021, and is ‘‘in an active pending 

status.’’ RFAAX 2, at 1. 

b. The Status of Registrant’s State 

License 

On October 2, 2018, Registrant was 

indicted by a grand jury for fifty-four 

felony charges, which appear to be 

related to Registrant’s practice of 

medicine (hereinafter, Indictment).1

RFAAX 3 (Board’s Preliminary Order 

with Exhibits), at 37–47. As a result of 

the Indictment, the Board petitioned for 

immediate temporary suspension of 

Registrant’s license, alleging that 

Registrant was ‘‘guilty of unprofessional 

conduct by failing to conform to the 

quality standard of the profession,’’ and 

an Order of Temporary Suspension was 

issued on October 9, 2018. Id. at 15; see 

also RFAAX 3, at 12. On December 13, 

2018, Registrant and the Board entered 

into a Consent Agreement and Order 

(hereinafter, Consent Agreement). Id. at 

11–36. 

Pursuant to the Consent Agreement, 

the Board indefinitely suspended 

Registrant’s state license, but 

immediately stayed the suspension ‘‘in 

favor of a period of indefinite 

probation.’’ Id. at 16–17 (emphasis 

omitted). The Board required that 

Registrant satisfy a number of 

conditions during his indefinite 

probation.2 Id. at 17–26. On October 29, 

2019, the Board made a probable cause 

determination that Registrant violated 

the terms of the Consent Agreement and 

issued a Preliminary Order. Id. at 2. The 

Preliminary Order stated ‘‘the stay of the 

suspension of [Registrant’s] license is 

now VACATED, the period of probation 

is now TERMINATED, and [Registrant’s] 

license to practice as a physician and 

surgeon, license number MD437512, 

along with any other licenses . . . are 

now actively indefinitely 

SUSPENDED.’’ Id. (emphasis in 

original). Registrant was ordered to 

‘‘immediately cease practicing the 

profession.’’ Id. The Preliminary Order’s 

indefinite suspension of Registrant’s 

state medical license served as the basis 

for the OSC’s allegation that Registrant 

lacked state authority to handle 

controlled substances. RFAAX 10, at 2; 

OSC, at 1. 

On April 30, 2020, the Board issued 

a Notice and Order of Automatic 

Suspension, which automatically 

suspended Registrant’s license to 

practice medicine and surgery based on 

Registrant’s ‘‘conviction in Federal court 

for unlawful distribution of a Schedule 

II controlled substance’’ (hereinafter, 

second suspension). RFAAX 8 (Final 

Order dated December 1, 2020 3), at 5. 

The second suspension was affirmed by 

the Board in a Final Order dated 

December 1, 2020. The Final Order was 

retroactive to July 28, 2020, and 

suspended Registrant’s license to 

practice medicine and surgery for at 

least 10 years.4 Id. at 1, 18. Similar to the 

Preliminary Order, the Final Order 

provided that Registrant ‘‘shall 

immediately CEASE the practice of 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 32 / Friday, February 19, 2021 / Notices 10337 

5Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an 

agency ‘‘may take official notice of facts at any stage 

in a proceeding—even in the final decision.’’ 

United States Department of Justice, Attorney 

General’s Manual on the Administrative Procedure 

Act 80 (1947) (Wm. W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint 

1979). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 556(e), ‘‘[w]hen an 

agency decision rests on official notice of a material 

fact not appearing in the evidence in the record, a 

party is entitled, on timely request, to an 

opportunity to show the contrary.’’ Accordingly, 

Registrant may dispute my finding by filing a 

properly supported motion for reconsideration of 

finding of fact within fifteen calendar days of the 

date of this Order. Any such motion shall be filed 

with the Office of the Administrator and a copy 

shall be served on the Government. In the event 

Registrant files a motion, the Government shall 

have fifteen calendar days to file a response. Any 

such motion and response shall be filed and served 

by email to the other party and to Office of the 

Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration at 

dea.addo.attorneys@dea.usdoj.gov. 

medicine and surgery.’’ Id. at 18 

(emphasis in original). 

According to DI, on December 17, 

2019, DI queried the Pennsylvania 

Department of State licensing 

verification website at https://

www.pals.pa.gov/#/page/searchresult 

and determined that Registrant’s 

medical physician license was still 

suspended at that time and that 

Registrant was without authorization to 

handle controlled substances or practice 

medicine in Pennsylvania. RFAAX 10, 

at 3. According to Pennsylvania’s online 

records, of which I take official notice, 

Registrant’s license is still revoked.5

Pennsylvania Licensing System 

Verification, https://www.pals.pa.gov/#/ 

page/search (last visited date of 

signature of this Order). 

Accordingly, I find that Registrant 

currently is neither licensed to engage 

in the practice of medicine nor 

registered to dispense controlled 

substances in Pennsylvania, the state in 

which Registrant is registered with the 

DEA. 

III. Discussion 

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the 

Attorney General is authorized to 

suspend or revoke a registration issued 

under section 823 of the Controlled 

Substances Act (hereinafter, CSA) 

‘‘upon a finding that the registrant . . . 

has had his State license or registration 

suspended . . . [or] revoked . . . by 

competent State authority and is no 

longer authorized by State law to engage 

in the . . . dispensing of controlled 

substances.’’ With respect to a 

practitioner, the DEA has also long held 

that the possession of authority to 

dispense controlled substances under 

the laws of the state in which a 

practitioner engages in professional 

practice is a fundamental condition for 

obtaining and maintaining a 

practitioner’s registration. See, e.g., 

James L. Hooper, M.D., 76 FR 71,371 

(2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 F. App’x 

826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh 

Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27,616, 27,617 

(1978). 

This rule derives from the text of two 

provisions of the CSA. First, Congress 

defined the term ‘‘practitioner’’ to mean 

‘‘a physician . . . or other person 

licensed, registered, or otherwise 

permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in 

which he practices . . . , to distribute, 

dispense, . . . [or] administer . . . a 

controlled substance in the course of 

professional practice.’’ 21 U.S.C. 

802(21). Second, in setting the 

requirements for obtaining a 

practitioner’s registration, Congress 

directed that ‘‘[t]he Attorney General 

shall register practitioners . . . if the 

applicant is authorized to dispense . . . 

controlled substances under the laws of 

the State in which he practices.’’ 21 

U.S.C. 823(f). Because Congress has 

clearly mandated that a practitioner 

possess state authority in order to be 

deemed a practitioner under the CSA, 

the 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. See, e.g., 

James L. Hooper, 76 FR at 71,371–72; 

Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 FR 

39,130, 39,131 (2006); Dominick A. 

Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51,104, 51,105 (1993); 

Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11,919, 11,920 

(1988); Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 FR 

at 27,617. 

Under the Pennsylvania Controlled 

Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic 

Act, ‘‘no controlled substance in 

Schedule II shall be dispensed without 

an electronic prescription of a 

practitioner.’’ 35 PA. Stat. and Const. 

Stat. Ann. § 780–111(a) (West October 

24, 2019). Further, ‘‘no controlled 

substance in Schedule III, IV or V shall 

be dispensed without an electronic 

prescription of a practitioner.’’ Id. at 

§ 780–111(b). The definition of 

‘‘practitioner,’’ as used in the state Act, 

includes a ‘‘physician . . . or other 

person licensed, registered or otherwise 

permitted to distribute, dispense, 

conduct research with respect to or to 

administer a controlled substance . . . 

in the course of professional practice 

. . . in the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania.’’ Id. at 780–102(b). 

Here, the undisputed evidence in the 

record is that Registrant currently lacks 

authority to practice medicine in 

Pennsylvania. As already discussed, a 

physician must be a licensed 

practitioner to dispense a controlled 

substance in Pennsylvania. Thus, 

because Registrant lacks a license to 

practice medicine in Pennsylvania and, 

therefore, is not authorized to handle 

controlled substances in Pennsylvania, 

Registrant is not eligible to maintain a 

DEA registration. Accordingly, I will 

order that Registrant’s DEA registration 

be revoked. 

Order 

Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the 

authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 

824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate 

of Registration No. FS1471818 issued to 

Milad I. Shaker, M.D. Further, pursuant 

to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority 

vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f), I 

hereby deny any pending application of 

Milad I. Shaker, M.D. to renew or 

modify this registration or for any other 

registration in Pennsylvania. This Order 

is effective March 22, 2021. 

D. Christopher Evans, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2021–03358 Filed 2–18–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 17–33] 

Michael W. Carlton, M.D.; Decision and 

Order 

On April 18, 2017, a former Assistant 

Administrator, Diversion Control 

Division, Drug Enforcement 

Administration (hereinafter, DEA or 

Government), issued an Order to Show 

Cause (hereinafter, OSC) to Michael W. 

Carlton, M.D. (hereinafter, Respondent). 

Administrative Law Judge Exhibit 

(hereinafter, ALJX) 1 (Order to Show 

Cause), at 1. The OSC proposed the 

revocation of Respondent’s Certificate of 

Registration No. BC3579969 pursuant to 

21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4) ‘‘because [his] 

continued registration is inconsistent 

with the public interest . . . .’’ Id. 

(citing 21 U.S.C. 823(f)). 

I. Procedural History 

The OSC alleged that ‘‘between May 

8, 2015 and November 21, 2015, on 

approximately forty-two (42) occasions, 

[Respondent] unlawfully prescribed 

controlled substances to thirty-one (31) 

patients by issuing prescriptions for 

other than a legitimate medical purpose 

and outside the usual course of 

professional practice.’’ OSC, at 1–2. The 

OSC alleged violations of 21 U.S.C. 

841(a), 21 CFR 1306.04(a), and Ariz. 

Rev. Stat. Ann. § 32–1401(27). Id. at 2. 

The OSC stated that ‘‘a medical expert 

has concluded that [Respondent’s] 

issuance of the [forty-two] prescriptions 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES