26308 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2018 / Notices 

1 Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber From China, 

India, Korea, and Taiwan; Scheduling of the Final 

Phase of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping 

Duty Investigations, 82 FR 56050, November 27, 

2017. 

2Countervailing Duty Investigation of Fine Denier 

Polyester Staple Fiber From the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Affirmative Determination, 83 FR 

3120, January 23, 2018; and Countervailing Duty 

Investigation of Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber 

From India: Final Affirmative Determination, 83 FR 

3122, January 23, 2018. 

3 Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 83 

FR 24740, May 30, 2018; Fine Denier Polyester 

Staple Fiber from the India: Final Affirmative 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 83 

FR 24737, May 30, 2018; Fine Denier Polyester 

Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea: Final 

Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, 83 FR 24743, May 30, 2018; and Fine 

Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan: Final 

Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, 83 FR 24745, May 30, 2018. 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–1369–1372 

(Final)] 

Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber 

From China, India, Korea, and Taiwan; 

Supplemental Schedule for the Subject 

Investigations 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

DATES: May 30, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jordan Harriman (202–205–2610), Office 

of Investigations, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired 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 investigations may be viewed on 

the Commission’s electronic docket 

(EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Effective 

November 6, 2017, the Commission 

established a general schedule for the 

conduct of the final phase of its 

investigations on fine denier polyester 

staple fiber (‘‘fine denier PSF’’) from 

China, India, Korea, and Taiwan,1

following preliminary determinations 

by the U.S. Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Commerce’’) that imports of fine 

denier PSF were subsidized by the 

governments of China and India. To 

date, Commerce has issued final 

affirmative countervailing duty 

determinations with respect to fine 

denier PSF from China and India 2 and 

most recently final affirmative 

antidumping duty determinations with 

respect to China, India, Korea, and 

Taiwan.3 The Commission, therefore, is 

issuing a supplemental schedule for its 

antidumping duty investigations on 

imports of fine denier PSF from China, 

India, Korea, and Taiwan. 

The Commission’s supplemental 

schedule is as follows: The deadline for 

filing supplemental party comments on 

Commerce’s final determinations is June 

12, 2018; the staff report in the final 

phase of these investigations will be 

placed in the nonpublic record on June 

21, 2018; and a public version will be 

issued thereafter. 

Supplemental party comments may 

address only Commerce’s final 

antidumping duty determinations 

regarding fine denier PSF from China, 

India, Korea, and Taiwan. These 

supplemental final comments may not 

contain new factual information and 

may not exceed five (5) pages in length. 

For further information concerning 

these investigations see the 

Commission’s notice cited above and 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B 

(19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207). 

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: June 1, 2018. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2018–12169 Filed 6–5–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Richard Hauser, M.D.; Decision and 

Order 

On September 26, 2017, the Acting 

Assistant Administrator, Diversion 

Control Division, Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA), issued an Order 

to Show Cause to Richard Hauser, M.D. 

(Registrant), of Clear Lake, Iowa. The 

Show Cause Order proposed the 

revocation of Registrant’s DEA 

Certificate of Registration No. 

BH2140692 ‘‘pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 

824(a)(5).’’ Government Exhibit (GX) 2 

to Government’s Request for Final 

Agency Action (RFAA), at 1. For the 

same reason, the Order also proposed 

the denial of ‘‘any pending application 

to modify or renew such registration.’’ 

Id. 

With respect to the Agency’s 

jurisdiction, the Show Cause Order 

alleged that Registrant is the holder of 

Certificate of Registration No. 

BH2140692, pursuant to which he is 

authorized to dispense controlled 

substances as a practitioner in schedules 

II through V, at the registered address of 

Hauser Clinic Consultation Services, 

308 14th Street, Clear Lake, Iowa. Id. 

Regarding the substantive ground for 

the proceeding, the Show Cause Order 

alleged that on April 28, 2017, the 

Office of the Inspector General for the 

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) notified Registrant of his 

‘‘mandatory exclusion from 

participation in all Federal health care 

programs for a minimum period of five 

years pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1320a–7(a)’’ 

as a result of his guilty plea in the 

United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Iowa to two counts 

of Health Care Fraud in violation of 18 

U.S.C. 1347. Id. at 2. As a result, the 

Order asserted that Registrant’s 

‘‘[m]andatory exclusion from Medicare 

is an independent ground for revoking 

a DEA registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 

824(a)(5).’’ Id. The Order further 

contended that, although Registrant’s 

underlying conviction is ‘‘unrelated to 

[Registrant’s] handling of controlled 

substances, DEA has nevertheless found 

that the underlying conviction forming 

the basis for a registrant’s exclusion 

from participating in federal health care 

programs need not involve controlled 

substances for revocation under 21 

U.S.C. 824(a)(5).’’ Id. (citations omitted). 

The Show Cause Order notified 

Registrant of (1) his right to request a 

hearing on the allegations or to submit 

a written statement in lieu of a hearing, 

(2) the procedure for electing either 

option, and (3) the consequence for 

failing to elect either option. Id. at 2–3 

(citing 21 CFR 1301.43). The Show 

Cause Order also notified Applicant of 

his right to submit a corrective action 

plan. Id. at 3–4 (citing 21 U.S.C. 

824(c)(2)(C)). 

The Government states that on 

October 4, 2017, a DEA Diversion 

Investigator (DI) served Registrant with 

a copy of the Show Cause Order. RFAA, 

at 3 (citing Declaration of DI attached as 

GX 4). Specifically, a DI assigned to the 

St. Louis Field Division’s Des Moines 

Resident Office stated in a declaration 

that he was advised by Registrant’s 

Attorney that Registrant could be served 

at his residence at 2310 20th Street, SW, 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2018 / Notices 26309 

1 In his January 24, 2018 Declaration, the DI 

stated that Registrant ‘‘indicated that he would 

surrender his DEA Certificate of Registration, but 

has thus far failed to do so.’’ GX 4, at 2. Likewise, 

the Government stated in its RFAA (dated Feb. 8, 

2018) that Registrant had not surrendered his DEA 

registration. RFAA, at 2. Thus, I find that the record 

reflects that Registrant has not surrendered his DEA 

registration, despite any prior statement by him of 

his intention to do so. 

2See Oct. 19, 2016 Plea Agreement, attached as 

GX 3 to RFAA, at 1. In its RFAA, the Government 

states that Registrant ‘‘entered a guilty plea’’ on 

October 19, 2016, citing ‘‘Exhibit 3 (October 19, 

2016 Guilty Plea).’’ However, Exhibit 3 to the RFAA 

is only the plea agreement, establishing Registrant’s 

agreement to enter into a guilty plea but not when 

he entered the plea nor when the court accepted it. 

I have reviewed the publicly available docket for 

this case, and it states that the plea agreement was 

accepted on October 19, 2016. Thus, I take official 

notice that Registrant in fact entered his guilty plea 

(and that the court accepted the plea) on October 

19, 2016. 

Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 

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

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

U.S. Dept. of Justice, Attorney General’s Manual on 

the Administrative Procedure Act 80 (1947) (Wm. 

W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint 1979). In accordance 

with the APA and DEA’s regulations, Registrant is 

‘‘entitled on timely request to an opportunity to 

show to the contrary.’’ 5 U.S.C. 556(e); see also 21 

CFR 1316.59(e). To allow Registrant the opportunity 

to refute the facts of which I take official notice, 

Registrant may file a motion for reconsideration 

within 15 calendar days of service of this order 

which shall commence on the date this order is 

mailed. 

3The Government did not include a copy of the 

final judgment in Registrant’s criminal case. 

Consequently, I take official notice of the facts set 

forth in this publicly available final judgment under 

the authority already set forth supra in footnote 2. 

4Section 1128(a)(1) of the SSA is codified at 42 

U.S.C. 1320a–7(a)(1). 

5 In his Declaration, the DI stated that when he 

took over the investigation, he noticed that ‘‘the 

case file contained an April 28, 2017 letter from’’ 

HHS to Registrant. GX 4, at 1. To authenticate the 

HHS Letter, the DI ‘‘verified with the prior case 

agent that this was a true and correct copy of the 

exclusion letter that he received’’ and then attached 

it to his Declaration. Id. The Declaration in the 

record reflects no other statements establishing the 

authenticity or accuracy of the HHS Letter. Nor 

does the record contain a declaration from the DI 

who actually received the HHS Letter. However, I 

have reviewed the official website of HHS, which 

contains a publicly available verification of 

mandatory exclusions that reflects the same (1) 

Registrant name, (2) address, (3) exclusion type 

(‘‘1128(a)(1)—Program-Related Conviction’’), and 

(4) exclusion date (May 18, 2017) as in the HHS 

Letter attached to the Declaration. I take official 

notice of the foregoing facts set forth on the HHS 

official website regarding Registrant’s mandatory 

exclusion (pursuant to the authority set forth supra 

in footnote 2), and I find that it sufficiently 

corroborates the HHS Letter attached to the DI’s 

Declaration for me to accept the HHS Letter into the 

record as a true and correct copy of the HHS Letter 

sent to Registrant and as an accurate reflection of 

the mandatory exclusion that HHS imposed on 

Registrant. 

Mason City, Iowa. GX 4, at 1–2. The DI 

then stated that he traveled to that 

location, verified Registrant’s identity, 

and ‘‘handed him a copy of the 

September 26, 2017 Order to Show 

Cause on October 4, 2017.’’ Id. at 2. 

On February 9, 2018, the Government 

forwarded its Request for Final Agency 

Action and evidentiary record to my 

Office. In its Request, the Government 

represents that Registrant ‘‘has not 

requested a hearing or made any other 

filings in this matter.’’ RFAA, at 3. 

Based on the Government’s 

representation and the record, I find that 

more than 30 days have passed since the 

Order to Show Cause was served on 

Registrant, and he has neither requested 

a hearing nor submitted a written 

statement in lieu of a hearing. See 21 

CFR 1301.43(d). Accordingly, I find that 

Registrant has waived his right to a 

hearing or to submit a written statement 

and issue this Decision and Order based 

on relevant evidence submitted by the 

Government. See id. I make the 

following findings. 

Findings of Fact 

Registrant is a physician who is 

registered with the DEA as a practitioner 

in schedules II–V pursuant to Certificate 

of Registration BH2140692, at the 

registered address of Hauser Clinic 

Consultation Services, 308 14th Street, 

Clear Lake, Iowa.1 Respondent’s DEA 

Certificate of Registration (attached to 

RFAA as GX 1). Although not alleged in 

the Show Cause Order, I also find that 

Registrant is the holder of DATA-Waiver 

Identification Number XH2140692, see 

id., which authorizes Registrant to 

dispense or prescribe schedule III–V 

narcotic controlled substances which 

‘‘have been approved by the Food and 

Drug Administration . . . specifically 

for use in maintenance or detoxification 

treatment’’ for up to 100 patients. 21 

CFR 1301.28(a) & (b)(1)(iii). Registrant’s 

DEA registration and DATA-Waiver 

authority do not expire until October 31, 

2019. Id. 

On October 19, 2016, Registrant 

entered a guilty plea in the United 

States District Court for the Southern 

District of Iowa to a criminal 

information charging him with two 

counts of Health Care Fraud in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. 1347.2 As part of his plea, 

Registrant entered into a plea agreement 

in which he admitted to knowingly 

executing a scheme with the intent to 

defraud the State of Iowa Medicaid 

program (hereinafter ‘‘Iowa Medicaid’’) 

and Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue 

Shield (hereinafter ‘‘Wellmark’’) into 

paying him for the delivery of 

healthcare services that he did not 

actually perform between November 

2011 and December 2012. See GX 3, at 

2–6. Specifically, in his role as a boardcertified psychiatrist, Registrant ‘‘upcoded’’ his billing to a more expensive 

(and unperformed) service than the 

service he actually performed for the 

purpose of receiving a higher 

reimbursement from Iowa Medicaid and 

Wellmark. See id. at 4–6. In his plea 

agreement, Registrant admitted that 

Wellmark ‘‘over-reimbursed’’ him ‘‘as a 

result of his [fraudulent] conduct’’ by a 

net amount of $25,965.72. Id. at 6. Due 

to similarly fraudulent conduct, 

Registrant also admitted that Iowa 

Medicaid ‘‘over-reimbursed’’ him by 

$4,913.60. Id. In exchange for his guilty 

plea, the Government agreed to 

recommend that Registrant receive 

credit for acceptance of responsibility 

pursuant to United States Sentencing 

Guideline § 3E1.1. Id. at 8. 

On February 28, 2017, a federal court 

entered judgment and sentenced 

Registrant to a term of imprisonment of 

two months on each count, but provided 

that the sentences would ‘‘be served 

concurrently.’’ United States v. Hauser, 

No. 16–CR–00157, ‘‘Judgment in 

Criminal Case’’ (S.D. Iowa filed Feb. 28, 

2017), at 2.3 The sentencing judge also 

ordered Registrant to make restitution 

payments in the amounts of $25,965.72 

and $4,913.60 to Wellmark and to Iowa 

Medicaid, respectively, in addition to a 

$200 assessment. Id. at 5–7. The judge 

further imposed on Registrant a term of 

supervised release for three years after 

the conclusion of his sentence. Id. at 3. 

The record also includes an April 28, 

2017 letter from HHS notifying 

Applicant that he was ‘‘being excluded 

from participation in any capacity in the 

Medicare, Medicaid, and all Federal 

health care programs as defined in 

section 1128B(f)’’ of the SSA ‘‘for the 

minimum statutory period of five 

years.’’ Attachment to GX 4 (hereinafter 

HHS Letter or HHS Ltr), at 1 (emphasis 

in original). The letter explained that 

Registrant was being excluded ‘‘due to 

[his] conviction . . . in the United 

States District Court for the Southern 

District of Iowa, of a criminal offense 

related to the delivery of an item or 

service under the Medicare or a State 

health care program.’’ Id. The letter 

states that ‘‘[t]his action is being taken 

under section 1128(a)(1) of the [SSA] 4

and is effective’’ on May 18, 2017. Id. 

(citing 42 U.S.C. 1320a–7(a)).5

Discussion 

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(5), the 

Attorney General is authorized to 

suspend or revoke a registration issued 

under section 823 of Title 21, ‘‘upon a 

finding that the registrant . . . has been 

excluded . . . from participation in a 

program pursuant to section 1320a–7(a) 

of Title 42.’’ Under § 1320a–7(a)(1), HHS 

is required to exclude from participation 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
26310 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2018 / Notices 

in any federal health care program any 

individual who has been convicted of a 

criminal offense ‘‘related to the delivery 

of an item or service under [42 U.S.C. 

1395 et seq.] or under any State health 

care program.’’ The Agency has long 

held that the underlying conviction 

forming the basis for a registrant’s 

mandatory exclusion from participation 

in federal health care programs need not 

involve controlled substances for the 

Agency to revoke a DEA registration 

pursuant to § 824(a)(5). E.g., Orlando 

Ortega–Ortiz, M.D., 70 FR 15122, 15123 

(2005); Juan Pillot-Costas, M.D., 69 FR 

62084, 62085 (2004); Daniel OrtizVargas, M.D., 69 FR 62095, 62095– 

62096 (2004); KK Pharmacy, 64 FR 

49507, 49510 (1999); Stanley Dubin, 

D.D.S., 61 FR 60727, 60728 (1996); 

Nelson Ramirez-Gonzalez, M.D., 58 FR 

52787, 52788 (1993). 

Here, Registrant was convicted of two 

counts of felony Health Care Fraud 

related to billing for services that were 

not rendered. The Agency has 

previously held that a mandatory 

exclusion based on a felony fraud 

conviction for overbilling warranted 

revocation of a Registrant’s registration 

pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(5). E.g., 

Johnnie Melvin Turner, M.D., 67 FR 

71203, 71203–71204 (2002) (revocation 

where mandatory exclusion was based 

on guilty plea to one felony count of 

mail fraud ‘‘by billing for services that 

were not rendered’’); Dubin, 61 FR at 

60728 (revocation where mandatory 

exclusion ‘‘based upon fraudulent 

billing’’); Ramirez-Gonzalez, 58 FR at 

52788 (revocation where mandatory 

exclusion based on submission of false 

claims). Moreover, Registrant has failed 

to come forward with any evidence 

explaining or mitigating his overbilling 

conduct or otherwise explaining why 

his registration should not be revoked, 

and the record reflects no such 

evidence. See Joseph M. Piacentile, 

M.D., 62 FR 35527, 35528 (1997) 

(revoking DEA registration where 

Registrant ‘‘did not offer any evidence 

into the record regarding why his 

registration should not be revoked’’ 

pursuant to § 824(a)(5)). 

Based on the 2017 HHS letter, I find 

that the evidence shows that HHS 

excluded Registrant from participation 

in any federal health care program based 

on his federal convictions for health 

care fraud related to overbilling. 

Registrant has thus been excluded 

pursuant to the mandatory exclusion 

provisions of 42 U.S.C. 1320a–7(a), and 

I hold that this unchallenged basis for 

his mandatory exclusion is sufficient to 

warrant revocation of his DEA 

registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 

824(a)(5). 

Accordingly, I will order that his 

registration be revoked and deny any 

pending applications to renew or to 

modify his registration, as requested in 

the Show Cause Order. Order to Show 

Cause, at 1. Finally, because Registrant’s 

DATA-Waiver authority is contingent 

on Registrant being a practitioner with 

a valid DEA registration, see 21 U.S.C. 

823(g)(2)(A); 21 CFR 1301.28(a), I will 

revoke his DATA-Waiver authority as 

well. 

Order 

Pursuant to the authority vested in me 

by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a), as well 

as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA 

Certificate of Registration No. 

BH2140692 and DATA-Waiver 

Identification Number XH2140692, 

issued to Richard Hauser, M.D., be, and 

they hereby are, revoked. I further order 

that any pending application of Richard 

Hauser to renew or to modify the above 

registration, be, and it hereby is, denied. 

This Order is effective July 6, 2018. 

Dated: May 25, 2018. 

Robert W. Patterson, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2018–12138 Filed 6–5–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT 

CORPORATION 

Annual Board of Directors Meeting; 

Sunshine Act 

TIME AND DATE: 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, 

June 20, 2018. 

PLACE: NonProfit HR, 1400 Eye Street 

NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005. 

STATUS: Open (with the exception of 

Executive Sessions). 

CONTACT PERSON: Rutledge Simmons, 

Acting EVP & General Counsel/ 

Secretary, (202) 760–4105; RSimmons@

nw.org. 

Agenda 

I. Call to Order 

II. Approval of Minutes 

III. Report from Interim CEO 

IV. Board Elections 

V. Executive Session: Internal Audit 

Report 

VI. Adjournment 

The General Counsel of the 

Corporation has certified that in his 

opinion, one or more of the exemptions 

set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(2) and (4) 

permit closure of the following 

portion(s) of this meeting: 

• Report from CEO 

• Internal Audit Report 

Rutledge Simmons, 

Acting EVP & General Counsel/Corporate 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2018–12309 Filed 6–4–18; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7570–02–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–458; NRC–2017–0141] 

Entergy Operations, Inc.; River Bend 

Station, Unit 1 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Draft supplemental 

environmental impact statement; 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is issuing for public 

comment a draft plant-specific 

Supplement 58 to the Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, 

NUREG–1437, regarding the renewal of 

operating license NPF–47 for an 

additional 20 years of operation for 

River Bend Station (RBS), Unit 1. The 

RBS is located in West Feliciana Parish, 

Louisiana. Possible alternatives to the 

proposed action (license renewal) 

include no action and reasonable 

alternative energy sources. 

DATES: Submit comments by July 23, 

2018. Comments received after this date 

will be considered, if it is practical to do 

so, but the NRC staff is able to ensure 

consideration only for comments 

received on or before this date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking website: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2017–0141. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Jennifer 

Borges; telephone: 301 287–9127: 

Jennifer.Borges@nrc.gov. For technical 

questions, contact the individual listed 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document. 

• Mail comments to: May Ma, Chief, 

Office of Administration, Mail Stop: 

TWFN–7–A60M, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001. 

For additional direction on obtaining 

information and submitting comments, 

see ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Drucker, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES