29568 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2018 / Notices 

1Stainless Steel Flanges from China and India: 

Scheduling of the Final Phase of Countervailing 

Duty and Antidumping Duty Investigations, 83 FR 

5459, February 7, 2018. 2Countervailing Duty Investigation of Stainless 

Steel Flanges From the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Affirmative Determination, 83 FR 15790, 

April 12, 2018. 3Stainless Steel Flanges From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination 

of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 83 FR 26959, June 

11, 2018. 

1The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 

CFR 207.2(f)). 

establish guidelines and procedures for 

the processing of these applications. 

Title of Collection: Conveyance of 

Federally-Owned Mineral Interests. 

OMB Control Number: 1004–0153. 

Form Numbers: None. 

Type of Review: Extension of a 

currently approved collection. 

Respondents/Affected Public: Owners 

of surface estates (i.e., individuals, 

businesses, or state, local, or tribal 

governments) that want to obtain 

underlying Federally-owned mineral 

estates. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Respondents: 5. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Responses: 5. 

Estimated Completion Time per 

Response: 1 hour. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Burden Hours: 5. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Required to 

Obtain or Retain a Benefit. 

Frequency of Collection: On occasion. 

Total Estimated Annual Nonhour 

Burden Cost: $250. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

The authority for this action is the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Jean Sonneman, 

Information Collection Clearance Officer, 

Bureau of Land Management. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13579 Filed 6–22–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–84–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–1383 (Final)] 

Stainless Steel Flanges From China; 

Supplemental Schedule for the Subject 

Investigation 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Celia Feldpausch (202–205–2387), 

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 investigations may be viewed on 

the Commission’s electronic docket 

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Effective 

January 23, 2018, the Commission 

established a general schedule for the 

conduct of the final phase of its 

investigations on stainless steel flanges 

from China and India,1 following a 

preliminary determination by the U.S. 

Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) 

that imports of the subject stainless steel 

flanges were subsidized by the 

government of China. Notice of the 

scheduling of the final phase of the 

Commission’s investigations and of a 

public hearing to be held in connection 

therewith was given by posting copies 

of the notice in the Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, Washington, DC, and by 

publishing the notice in the Federal 

Register of February 7, 2018 (83 FR 

5459). The hearing was held in 

Washington, DC, on April 10, 2018, and 

all persons who requested the 

opportunity were permitted to appear in 

person or by counsel. To date, 

Commerce has issued final affirmative 

determinations with respect to the 

subject stainless steel flanges from 

China.2 3 The Commission subsequently 

issued its final affirmative 

determination regarding subsidized 

imports from China on May 29, 2018 (83 

FR 25714, June 4, 2018). The 

Commission currently is issuing a 

supplemental schedule for its 

antidumping duty investigation on 

imports of stainless steel flanges from 

China. 

This supplemental schedule is as 

follows: The deadline for filing 

supplemental party comments on 

Commerce’s final antidumping duty 

determination regarding China is June 

25, 2018. Supplemental party comments 

may address only Commerce’s final 

antidumping duty determination 

regarding imports of certain stainless 

steel flanges from China. These 

supplemental final comments may not 

contain new factual information and 

may not exceed five (5) pages in length. 

The supplemental staff report in this 

antidumping duty investigation will be 

placed in the nonpublic record and a 

public version will be issued thereafter. 

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 20, 2018. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13557 Filed 6–22–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–860 (Third 

Review)] 

Tin- and Chromium-Coated Steel Sheet 

From Japan; Determination 

On the basis of the record 1 developed 

in the subject five-year review, the 

United States International Trade 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) 

determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 

1930 (‘‘the Act’’), that revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on tin- and 

chromium-coated steel sheet from Japan 

would be likely to lead to continuation 

or recurrence of material injury to an 

industry in the United States within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. 

Background 

The Commission, pursuant to section 

751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), 

instituted this review on May 1, 2017 

(82 FR 20378) and determined on 

August 4, 2017 that it would conduct a 

full review (82 FR 40168, August 24, 

2017). Notice of the scheduling of the 

Commission’s review and of a public 

hearing to be held in connection 

therewith was given by posting copies 

of the notice in the Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, Washington, DC, and by 

publishing the notice in the Federal 

Register on October 20, 2017 (82 FR 

49661). The hearing was held in 

Washington, DC, on February 27, 2018, 

and all persons who requested the 

opportunity were permitted to appear in 

person or by counsel. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2018 / Notices 29569 

1The Show Cause Order caption also listed an 

address in Posen, Illinois for Respondent. 

The Commission made this 

determination pursuant to section 

751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It 

completed and filed its determination in 

this review on June 19, 2018. The views 

of the Commission are contained in 

USITC Publication 4795 (June 2018), 

entitled Tin- and Chromium-Coated 

Steel Sheet from Japan: Investigation 

No. 731–TA–860 (Third Review). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: June 19, 2018. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13504 Filed 6–22–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Decision and Order: Mohammed 

Asgar, M.D. 

On March 29, 2017, the Assistant 

Administrator, Diversion Control 

Division, Drug Enforcement 

Administration (hereinafter, DEA), 

issued an Order to Show Cause to 

Mohammed Asgar, M.D. (hereinafter, 

Respondent), of Gary, Indiana.1 GX 6 

(Order to Show Cause), at 1. The Show 

Cause Order proposed the revocation of 

Respondent’s DEA Certificate of 

Registration as a practitioner, on the 

ground that the U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, Office of 

Inspector General (hereinafter, HHS 

OIG) notified Respondent 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).’’ 

Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(5)). The 

Show Cause Order also proposed the 

denial of any pending application by 

Respondent to modify or renew his 

registration. Id. at 1. 

As for the Agency’s jurisdiction, the 

Show Cause Order alleged that 

Respondent holds DEA Certificate of 

Registration No. FA3926055, which 

authorizes him to dispense controlled 

substances in schedules II through V as 

a practitioner, at the registered address 

of 600 Grant Street, Gary, Indiana 

46402. Id. The Show Cause Order 

alleged that this registration expires on 

June 30, 2019. GX 6, at 2. 

As to the substantive ground for the 

proceeding, the Show Cause Order 

specifically alleged that Respondent was 

‘‘notified by . . . [the HHS OIG] 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).’’ 

GX 6, at 2. It asserted that, ‘‘[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 Show Cause Order 

further asserted that ‘‘although your 

conviction was unrelated to your 

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)’’ to be warranted. Id. 

The Show Cause Order notified 

Respondent of his right to request a 

hearing on the allegations, or to submit 

a written statement in lieu of a hearing, 

the procedures for electing each option, 

and the consequences for failing to elect 

either option. Id. at 2–3 (citing 21 CFR 

1301.43). The Show Cause Order also 

notified Respondent of his right to 

submit a corrective action plan under 21 

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

By letter dated April 27, 2017, 

Respondent’s counsel acknowledged 

service of the Show Cause Order on 

April 4, 2017, waived Respondent’s 

right to a hearing, and stated that he was 

filing Respondent’s written response to 

the Show Cause Order. GX 7 (Written 

Statement), at 1. Attached to the Written 

Statement are the Show Cause Order, 22 

letters ‘‘submitted voluntarily by 

patients and colleagues’’ of Respondent, 

the transcript of Respondent’s 

Sentencing Hearing, and the 

Government’s Sentencing Memorandum 

concerning Respondent. Id. at 2. 

On October 13, 2017, DEA submitted 

a Request for Final Agency Action 

(RFAA) including an evidentiary record 

to support the Show Cause Order’s 

allegations and Respondent’s Written 

Statement and attachments. 

I issue this Decision and Order based 

on the entire record before me. 21 CFR 

1301.43(e). I make the following 

findings of fact. 

Findings of Fact 

Respondent’s DEA Registration 

Respondent is the holder of DEA 

Certificate of Registration No. 

FA3926055, pursuant to which he is 

authorized to dispense controlled 

substances in schedules II through V as 

a practitioner, at the registered address 

of 600 Grant Street, Gary, Indiana 

46402. GX 1 (copy of registration); GX 

2 (Certification of Registration Status), at 

1. This registration expires on June 30, 

2019. GX 1; GX 2, at 1. 

The Nature and Scope of Respondent’s 

Criminality 

Respondent’s criminal conduct began 

in Chicago in or about 2005. GX 3 (Plea 

Agreement, United States v. Asgar, No. 

12 CR 491–10 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 18, 2014) 

(hereinafter, Plea Agreement)), at 2. At 

this time, Respondent and another 

medical doctor, Dr. Farzana Begum, 

‘‘conspired with each other to 

knowingly and willfully refer Medicare 

beneficiaries to Grand Home Health for 

the provision of home health care 

services in exchange for illegal cash 

kickback payments.’’ Id. at 2–3. Each 

Medicare patient that the doctors 

referred resulted in a cash payment of 

$400 to Dr. Begum. Id. at 3. According 

to the Plea Agreement, Respondent 

‘‘knew that it was illegal to solicit and 

receive kickbacks . . . in exchange for 

. . . referrals of Medicare patients.’’ Id. 

‘‘From in or about January 2006 through 

May 2008,’’ Dr. Begum received about 

‘‘$141,100 in kickbacks in exchange for 

[Respondent’s] referral of Medicare 

beneficiaries to Grand Home Health.’’ 

Id. 

The relationship between Respondent 

and Dr. Begum ended in approximately 

May 2008. Id. As a result, Respondent 

ended the arrangement under which Dr. 

Begum received cash kickbacks in 

exchange for Respondent’s Medicare 

patient referrals. Id. 

About six months later, however, the 

cash kickback payments resumed. This 

time, Respondent received cash 

kickbacks in exchange for his referral of 

Medicare patients to Grand Home 

Health. Id. On or about February 9, 

2011, for example, Respondent received 

$1,500 in cash for his referral of three 

patients to Grand Home Health ‘‘for the 

furnishing of home health care services 

for which payment may be made in 

whole and in part under Medicare.’’ Id. 

at 3–4. For the two-year period between 

about February 2009 and February 2011, 

Respondent received about $15,900 in 

exchange for his referral of Medicare 

beneficiaries to Grand Home Health. Id. 

at 4. 

By May 2011, the Government was 

investigating the conspiracy. Id. On or 

about May 3, 2011, Respondent met 

with an individual who was cooperating 

with the investigation and recording the 

meeting. Id. During the meeting, 

Respondent received about $1,500 in 

exchange for the referral of three 

Medicare patients to Grand Home 

Health. Id. 

At another meeting that was recorded 

by a different individual, Respondent 

urged the individual to ‘‘deny right 

away’’ if anyone raised the kickback 

conspiracy. Id. Respondent said, ‘‘So 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1