Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2018 / Notices 29575 

3The CALJ received and considered the 

Government’s Motion for Summary Disposition and 

Respondent’s Brief. In his brief, Respondent ‘‘d[id] 

not contest that he is subject to a temporary 

suspension of his state prescriptive authority.’’ 

Resp. Br. at 1. However, Respondent argued that he 

will be presenting evidence at ‘‘a probable cause 

hearing to be held on March 6, 2018,’’ that his 

suspension ‘‘was granted on flawed information 

and false allegations,’’ and that he ‘‘has not had the 

chance to defend his self [sic] against these 

allegations.’’ Id. However, as already noted above, 

the TSBN suspended Respondent’s nursing license 

and his authority to issue prescriptions. GX 2, at 17. 

As of the date of this order, Respondent has not 

filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground 

that the TSBN has lifted the suspension. The CALJ 

concluded that the fact that the State has yet to 

provide a hearing to challenge Respondent’s 

suspension does not change the undisputed fact 

that Respondent’s state prescriptive authority is 

suspended. R.D. at 7–8. Accordingly, if the CALJ 

had the authority to issue his conclusion rejecting 

Respondent’s argument, I would have adopted this 

conclusion. 

4For the same reasons which led the TSBN to 

suspend Respondent’s license and prescriptive 

authority, I conclude that the public interest 

necessitates that this Order be effective 

immediately. 21 CFR 1316.67. 

Also, DEA has 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, 

76 FR 71371 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 

481 Fed. Appx. 826 (4th Cir. 2012); see 

also Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 FR 

27616 (1978) (‘‘State authorization to 

dispense or otherwise handle controlled 

substances is a prerequisite to the 

issuance and maintenance of a Federal 

controlled substances registration.’’). 

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, 

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 engages in professional 

practice. 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); Blanton, 43 FR at 

27616. 

Moreover, because ‘‘the controlling 

question’’ in a proceeding brought 

under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) is whether the 

holder of a practitioner’s registration ‘‘is 

currently authorized to handle 

controlled substances in the [S]tate,’’ 

Hooper, 76 FR at 71371 (quoting Anne 

Lazar Thorn, 62 FR 12847, 12848 

(1997)), the Agency has also long held 

that revocation is warranted even where 

a practitioner has lost his state authority 

by virtue of the State’s use of summary 

process and the State has yet to provide 

a hearing to challenge the suspension. 

Bourne Pharmacy, 72 FR 18273, 18274 

(2007); Wingfield Drugs, 52 FR 27070, 

27071 (1987). Thus, it is of no 

consequence that the TSBN summarily 

suspended Respondent’s state medical 

license. What is consequential is the 

undisputed fact that Respondent is no 

longer currently authorized to dispense 

controlled substances in Texas, the State 

in which he is registered. Accordingly, 

Respondent is not entitled to maintain 

his DEA registration, and I will therefore 

order that his registration be revoked.3

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. 

MM2890312, issued to Kevin G. 

Morgan, RN/APN, be, and it hereby is, 

revoked. I further order that any 

pending application of Kevin G. Morgan 

to renew or modify the above 

registration, or any pending application 

of Kevin G. Morgan for any other DEA 

registration in the State of Texas, be, 

and it hereby is, denied. This Order is 

effective immediately.4

Dated: June 14, 2018. 

Robert W. Patterson, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13530 Filed 6–22–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Executive Office for Immigration 

Review 

[EOIR Docket No. 18–0202] 

RIN 1125–AA81 

EOIR Electronic Filing Pilot Program 

AGENCY: Executive Office for 

Immigration Review, Department of 

Justice. 

ACTION: Public notice. 

SUMMARY: The Executive Office for 

Immigration Review (EOIR) is creating a 

voluntary pilot program to test an 

expansion of electronic filing for cases 

filed with the immigration courts and 

the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). 

This notice describes the procedures for 

participation in the pilot program. 

DATES: The pilot program will be in 

effect from July 16, 2018 until July 31, 

2019. Initially, expanded electronic 

filing will be available in six 

immigration courts, but will be 

expanded to all remaining courts and 

the BIA incrementally. Eligible 

attorneys and accredited representatives 

may choose to participate at any time 

during the pilot program and will be 

permitted to continue using electronic 

filing throughout the pendency of 

electronically filed cases. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nathan Berkeley, Acting Chief, 

Communications and Legislative Affairs 

Division, Office of Policy, Executive 

Office for Immigration Review, 5107 

Leesburg Pike, Suite 2618, Falls Church, 

VA 22041, telephone (703) 305–0289 

(not a toll-free call) or email PAO.EOIR@

usdoj.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

In 1998, Congress passed the 

Government Paperwork Elimination 

Act, which required federal agencies to 

provide the public with the ability to 

conduct business electronically with the 

federal government. See Public Law 

105–277 (Oct. 21, 1998). Similarly, in 

2002, Congress passed the EGovernment Act of 2002, which 

promoted electronic government 

services and required agencies to use 

internet-based technology to increase 

the public’s access to government 

information and services. See Public 

Law 107–347 (Dec. 17, 2002). 

As a result, EOIR began pursuing a 

long-term agency plan to create an 

electronic case access and filing system 

for the immigration courts and BIA. See 

68 FR 71650 (Dec. 20, 2003) (‘‘The 

Department is . . . designing an 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
29576 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2018 / Notices 

1EOIR’s Office of Legal Access Programs reviews 

non-attorneys’ applications to become fully 

accredited representatives who, upon approval, can 

represent aliens in immigration court proceedings 

and before DHS. For more information, please see 

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/recognition-andaccreditation-program. This pilot is not available to 

partially accredited representatives. 

2EOIR also consolidated eRegistry, eInfo, and 

eFiling into a single application suite, known as I3. 

For more information about I 3, please visit https:// 

www.justice.gov/eoir/internet-immigration-info. 

3For information on service requirements, please 

see the Immigration Court Practice Manual and the 

Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual at 

www.justice.gov/eoir. 

electronic case access and filing system, 

to comply with the Government 

Paperwork Elimination Act, to achieve 

the Department’s vision for improved 

immigration adjudication processing, 

and to meet the public expectations for 

electronic government.’’). 

On April 1, 2013, EOIR completed the 

first portion of their electronic system 

by establishing eRegistry, a mandatory 

electronic registry for all attorneys and 

accredited representatives who practice 

before the immigration courts and the 

BIA. See 78 FR 19400 (April 1, 2013). 

At the same time, EOIR began allowing 

attorneys and fully accredited 

representatives 1 to electronically file 

the Notice of Entry of Appearance as 

Attorney or Representative (Form EOIR– 

27 and Form EOIR–28, for the BIA and 

immigration courts, respectively). 

Next, on May 4, 2015, EOIR launched 

eInfo, which allows registered attorneys 

and accredited representatives to view 

their clients’ case information.2 See 

News Release, The Executive Office for 

Immigration Review Announces I 3, 

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/ 

files/pages/attachments/2015/09/17/einfo-news-release-05042015.pdf. 

Attorneys and accredited 

representatives can login to the eInfo 

application to view a list of cases for 

which they have an active Notice of 

Entry of Appearance (Form EOIR–27 

and/or Form EOIR–28) and select one to 

view case-related information. 

Since January 2017, EOIR has been 

undertaking additional and more 

expansive initiatives to reduce its 

longstanding backlog of cases and 

working to ensure the more efficient 

handling of matters before the 

immigration court system. To that end, 

EOIR is moving towards implementing 

a long sought-after electronic system 

component that will allow parties to 

electronically file case-related 

documents with the immigration courts 

and the BIA. 

II. Pilot Program 

EOIR is now planning to pilot an 

expansion of electronic filing within 

eInfo to allow certain parties to 

electronically file case-related 

documents with the immigration courts 

and, eventually, the BIA. With the 

exception of entering a Notice of Entry 

of Appearance through I3, parties before 

the immigration courts and the BIA are 

currently required to submit paper 

filings to EOIR and to serve a copy on 

the other party in-person, by mail, or 

through DHS’s eService portal. 

Expanded electronic filing will meet 

the long sought-after requests of the 

private bar to accept electronic filings. 

See, e.g., AILA Testimony on EOIR, 

AILA Doc. No. 10061664 (June 17, 

2010). As the expanded electronic filing 

pilot is a major change to EOIR 

processes, the pilot will be limited to 

DHS personnel, and registered attorneys 

and accredited representatives eligible 

to practice before EOIR. 

The pilot will allow attorneys and 

accredited representatives to 

electronically file case-related 

documents directly through eInfo. 

Similarly, DHS representatives will be 

able to login to a parallel portal to 

electronically file case-related 

documents. The expanded electronic 

filing pilot will allow the parties to file 

documents at any time of day without 

having to mail the documents to the 

court or BIA, or to file them in-person 

at the court or BIA. Parties will receive 

an on-screen confirmation with a 

unique transaction ID, as well as an 

encrypted verification email, when their 

document is successfully uploaded. 

They will also receive an encrypted 

notification email when a new 

document has been filed in their case by 

the opposing party. Instructions to 

decrypt emails will be available on 

EOIR’s website. This will provide the 

parties with near-immediate access to 

filings in their cases. Both pilot 

participants and non-participants will 

be able to view any documents 

contained in their case by accessing 

eInfo and requesting to download the 

electronic Record of Proceeding (eROP). 

To ensure that parties receive proper 

notice from the opposing party to their 

case, pilot parties will be required to 

continue to meet current service 

requirements 3 for any documents that 

they are electronically filing with the 

court or BIA. Participation in the pilot 

neither relieves parties of the duty to 

provide a certificate of service with 

filings nor changes the time at which 

response documents are due. The 

timeline for responses begins at the time 

the system sends an email regarding a 

filing to the opposing party. 

Case-related documents EOIR 

generates at the pilot locations, such as 

decisions, orders, or notices, will be 

served only electronically on 

participating parties. Both parties will 

receive an encrypted email from EOIR 

with the document attached. This will 

constitute valid service and proper 

notice by EOIR during the pilot. To 

effectuate such service, attorneys and 

accredited representatives will be 

required to maintain a valid email 

address in the eRegistry application. 

Throughout the pilot, EOIR will 

continue to refine and develop 

electronic filing. In the future, the 

agency envisions making electronic 

filing mandatory for all attorneys and 

accredited representatives appearing 

before EOIR and optional for pro se 

respondents. To ensure the most 

efficient and user-friendly system 

possible, EOIR hopes to receive 

feedback from participating parties, both 

internal and external. Participants will 

be able to provide input at any time 

through an email link within eInfo. 

III. Eligibility To Participate 

Beginning in July 2018, EOIR is 

planning to roll out the expanded 

electronic filing to six initial pilot 

courts: San Diego and York in July; 

Denver and Atlanta in August; and 

Charlotte and Baltimore in September. 

Following an internal assessment of the 

pilot in those courts, EOIR anticipates 

expanding the pilot to additional courts 

every few weeks beginning in December 

2018. EOIR will also be working 

towards implementing expanded 

electronic filing at the BIA during this 

time period. Information regarding 

future pilot expansion will be located 

on EOIR’s website at https://

www.justice.gov/eoir/internetimmigration-info. 

Participation in the pilot program is 

voluntary. An opportunity to participate 

in the pilot will be available throughout 

the duration of the pilot to all EOIRregistered attorneys and accredited 

representatives in good standing. 

Information on participating in the pilot 

will be provided on EOIR’s website at 

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/internetimmigration-info. Only registered 

attorneys and accredited representatives 

will be permitted to participate in the 

pilot. 

IV. Procedures for Participation 

To participate in the expanded 

electronic filing pilot, attorneys and 

accredited representatives must be 

registered with EOIR through eRegistry 

pursuant to 8 CFR 1292.1(f). The 

eRegistry process for attorneys and 

accredited representatives will not 

change. Similarly, to participate in the 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2018 / Notices 29577 

pilot DHS personnel will also use 

eRegistry to register with EOIR. 

Once the eRegistry process is 

complete, attorneys and accredited 

representatives will have access to 

eInfo, located at https://

www.justice.gov/eoir/internetimmigration-info, and DHS personnel 

will have access to the parallel DHS 

electronic filing portal. When an 

attorney or accredited representative 

first accesses eInfo, the option to 

participate in the expanded electronic 

filing pilot is presented. The attorney or 

accredited representative must agree to 

a set of terms and conditions for the 

pilot, which explain the requirements 

for participation in the pilot and are 

mandatory for pilot participants. Failure 

to follow the pilot requirements to 

which attorneys and representatives 

agree upon signing up and agreeing to 

the terms and conditions may lead to 

serious adverse consequences, such as 

filings being rejected or not receiving 

service of documents from EOIR. Any 

future changes to the terms and 

conditions will be presented to the 

attorney or accredited representative in 

eInfo and will require their voluntary 

acceptance for continued participation 

in the pilot. 

An attorney or accredited 

representative’s acceptance of the pilot’s 

terms and conditions is an agreement to 

participate in the pilot for all cases for 

which they have filed a Notice of Entry 

of Appearance and an eROP is available. 

Throughout the pilot at participating 

immigration courts, eROPs will be 

available for all cases in which one of 

the parties files an initiating document, 

such as a Form I–862, Notice to Appear; 

Form I–863, Notice of Referral to 

Immigration Judge; or a bond 

redetermination request. An eROP will 

also be available when an attorney or 

accredited representative files a Notice 

of Entry of Appearance and the court 

staff scan the existing paper record of 

proceedings into the pilot system. 

Representatives will be able to tell 

which cases have an eROP by the active 

upload button that will appear in the 

system. 

Attorneys and accredited 

representatives will be able to 

electronically file documents in eligible 

cases beyond the pilot end date until the 

conclusion of all administrative 

proceedings in those cases, including 

any remands from the federal courts. In 

any case where a motion for change of 

venue is granted from a pilot location to 

a non-pilot location, or a clerical 

transfer occurs from a pilot location to 

a non-pilot location, the attorney or 

accredited representative will be 

required to follow the current nonelectronic filing requirements at the 

non-pilot location. 

The attorney or accredited 

representative may leave the pilot at any 

time by selecting the ‘‘opt out’’ option 

in eInfo. By leaving the pilot, the 

attorney or accredited representative 

must revert to following all current 

procedures and requirements for nonelectronic filing with the immigration 

courts and BIA for those cases that were 

part of the pilot. The eROP for those 

files already electronically filed will 

remain available for download, but 

electronic scanning or filing will be 

unavailable to that attorney during the 

pilot period unless the attorney opts 

back in to the pilot. The attorney or 

accredited representative may choose to 

join the pilot again by returning to eInfo 

and re-accepting the pilot terms and 

conditions during the pilot period. 

V. Additional Information 

Registered attorneys and registered 

accredited representatives will be held 

responsible for all activity conducted 

under their accounts. Misuse of the 

electronic filing system may result in 

EOIR revoking an attorney or accredited 

representative’s participation in the 

pilot, and in referral to EOIR’s 

disciplinary counsel or anti-fraud 

officer, or other appropriate parties, as 

necessary. 

If an attorney or accredited 

representative has been disbarred or 

suspended from practice before the 

immigration courts or the BIA or is 

otherwise not authorized to practice law 

before EOIR, EOIR will deactivate the 

user’s EOIR ID, which provides access 

to electronic filing, unless and until the 

BIA reinstates or otherwise permits the 

attorney or accredited representative to 

resume practice. See 8 CFR 1003.101 et 

seq. 

EOIR will not initially collect or 

accept any fee payments through this 

expanded electronic filing pilot. Any 

fees related to applications, forms, 

motions, or appeals that require a fee 

payment should continue to be paid to 

the Department of Homeland Security or 

the BIA through current procedures. See 

8 CFR 1003.24. Once expanded 

electronic filing is available at the BIA, 

EOIR expects electronic payments will 

be available for appeals and BIA 

motions that require a fee. 

Dated: June 19, 2018. 

Nathan Berkeley, 

Acting Chief, CLAD. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13578 Filed 6–22–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Charter Renewal 

AGENCY: Justice Department. 

ACTION: Notice of charter renewal of the 

Executive Advisory Board of the 

National Domestic Communications 

Assistance Center. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

provisions of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act, Title 5, United States 

Code, Appendix, and Title 41 of the 

U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, 

section 101–6.1015, notice is hereby 

given that the Charter of the National 

Domestic Communications Assistance 

Center (NDCAC) Executive Advisory 

Board (EAB) has been renewed. The 

Charter is on file with the General 

Services Administration. The Attorney 

General determined that the NDCAC 

EAB is in the public interest and is 

necessary in connection with the 

performance of duties of the United 

States Department of Justice. These 

duties can best be performed through 

the advice and counsel of this group. 

The purpose of the EAB is to provide 

advice and recommendations to the 

Attorney General or designee, and to the 

Director of the NDCAC that promote 

public safety and national security by 

advancing the NDCAC’s core functions: 

law enforcement coordination with 

respect to technical capabilities and 

solutions, technology sharing, industry 

relations, and implementation of the 

Communications Assistance for Law 

Enforcement Act (CALEA). The EAB 

consists of 15 voting members from 

Federal, State, local and tribal law 

enforcement agencies. Additionally, 

there are two non-voting members as 

follows: A federally-employed attorney 

assigned to the NDCAC to serve as a 

legal advisor to the EAB, and the DOJ 

Chief Privacy Officer or designee to 

ensure that privacy and civil rights and 

civil liberties issues are fully considered 

in the EAB’s recommendations. The 

EAB is composed of eight State, local, 

and/or tribal representatives and seven 

federal representatives. 

The EAB functions solely as an 

advisory body in compliance with the 

provisions of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act. The Charter has been 

filed in accordance with the provisions 

of the Act. 

Alice Bardney-Boose, 

Designated Federal Officer, National 

Domestic Communication Assistance Center, 

Executive Advisory Board. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13555 Filed 6–22–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–02–P 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1