30974 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2018 / Notices 

1By letter dated October 6, 2017, Respondent 

submitted a ‘‘Correction [sic] Action Plan’’ stating 

that, ‘‘Now that I understand the law of 

proceedings, if I had a chance to continue to 

practice I will secure the prescriptions and never 

issue any refill without personally having seen 

those patients and will be having a licensed 

medical practitioner on site.’’ Corrective Action 

Plan, at 3. Respondent’ s Corrective Action Plan 

also stated that, ‘‘[S]hould I continue to be able to 

prescribe, I will assure that I implement all the safe 

modes of practices, bill only for the visits that I 

conduct face to face, not over the Skype and will 

never prescribe controlled substances again if 

necessary.’’ Id. 

By letter dated December 5, 2017, the Acting 

Assistance Administrator, Diversion Control 

Division, responded to Respondent’s Corrective 

Action Plan. ‘‘After careful review,’’ she stated, ‘‘I 

deny the request to discontinue or defer 

administrative proceedings.’’ Corrective Action Pan 

Denial, at 1. She added that, ‘‘I have determined 

there is no potential modification of your [Proposed 

Corrective Action Plan] that could or would alter 

my decision in this regard.’’ Id. 

2The October 11, 2017 document that the R.D. 

references is the ALJ’s Order Directing the Filing of 

Government Evidence of Lack of State Authority 

Allegation and Briefing Schedule, at 1. 

3The document the R.D. references is the 

document described in footnote 2, at 2. 

christine.hill@usdoj.gov 

[FR Doc. 2018–14192 Filed 6–29–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–11–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Ljudmil Kljusev, M.D.; Decision and 

Order 

On September 15, 2017, the Acting 

Assistant Administrator, Diversion 

Control Division, Drug Enforcement 

Administration (hereinafter, DEA or 

Government), issued an Order to Show 

Cause to Ljudmil Kljusev, M.D. 

(hereinafter, Respondent), of Milford, 

Connecticut. Order to Show Cause 

(hereinafter, OSC), at 1. The Show 

Cause Order proposed the revocation of 

Respondent’s Certificate of Registration 

on the ground that he does ‘‘not have 

authority to handle controlled 

substances in the State of Connecticut, 

the [S]tate in which . . . [he is] 

registered with the DEA.’’ Id. at 1 (citing 

21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a)(3)). 

As to the Agency’s jurisdiction, the 

Show Cause Order alleged that 

Respondent holds DEA Certificate of 

Registration No. BK7295834, which 

authorizes him to dispense controlled 

substances in schedules II through V as 

a practitioner, at the registered address 

of 227 Naugatuck Avenue, Milford, 

Connecticut 06460. OSC, at 1. The Show 

Cause Order alleged that this 

registration expires on December 31, 

2018. Id. 

As the substantive ground for the 

proceeding, the Show Cause Order 

alleged that Respondent is ‘‘currently 

without authority to practice medicine 

or handle controlled substances in the 

State of Connecticut, the [S]tate in 

which . . . [he is] registered with the 

DEA.’’ Id. at 2. More specifically, it 

alleged that, on November 30, 2016, 

Respondent’s ‘‘license to practice 

medicine in the State of Connecticut 

(No. 039302) lapsed; on February 28, 

2015 and December 6, 2016, 

respectively, Respondent’s Connecticut 

Controlled Substances Registrations, 

Nos. CSP.0030952 and CSP.0059205, 

expired; and on February 21, 2017, 

Respondent ‘‘entered into an agreement 

with the Connecticut Department of 

Health in which . . . [he] agreed not to 

renew or reinstate . . . [his] license to 

practice medicine in Connecticut.’’ Id. 

at 1. 

The Show Cause Order notified 

Respondent of his right to request a 

hearing on the allegations or to submit 

a written statement while waiving his 

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 Show Cause Order also notified 

Respondent of the opportunity to 

submit a Corrective Action Plan. OSC, at 

2–3 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C)). 

By letter dated October 2, 2017, 

Respondent requested ‘‘a hearing in the 

matter of Order to . . . [Show] Cause in 

timely manner, for why my DEA license 

should not be revoked or surrendered.’’ 

Hearing Request, at 1. According to the 

Hearing Request, Respondent ‘‘did not 

commit the alleged crimes of 

distribution of narcotics and money 

laundering,’’ although he admitted that, 

‘‘[he pled] guilty and served 26 months 

in federal prison.’’ Id. at 2. In the 

Hearing Request, Respondent admitted 

that he ‘‘voluntarily surrendered . . . 

[his] medical license’’ and also stated 

that he did not surrender his DEA 

license because his research ‘‘found that 

[it] is almost impossible to get it back’’ 

and because he ‘‘must say that . . . [he 

is] disheartened to surrender what has 

been . . . [his] livelihood.’’ Id. at 6.1

The Office of Administrative Law 

Judges put the matter on the docket and 

assigned it to Administrative Law Judge 

Mark M. Dowd (hereinafter, ALJ). I 

adopt the following statement of 

procedural history from the ALJ’s Order 

Granting the Government’s Motion for 

Summary Disposition and 

Recommended Rulings, Findings of 

Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision 

of the Administrative Law Judge dated 

November 15, 2017 (hereinafter, R.D.). 

Th[e ALJ], on October 11, 2017, ordered 

the Government to file evidence to support 

the allegations that the Respondent lacked 

state authority to handle controlled 

substances by October 23, 2017.2 Moreover, 

the Respondent was given until November 9, 

2017, to file a response to any allegations 

made by the Government.3

On October 19, 2017, the Government filed 

a Motion for Summary Disposition 

(Government’s Motion), seeking a 

recommended decision granting the 

Government’s Motion and recommending 

revocation. Gov’t Mot. at 5. The Government 

provided evidence that the Respondent 

voluntarily surrendered his license to 

practice as a physician and surgeon through 

the Declaration of . . . [a DEA Diversion 

Group Supervisor], the Respondent’s 

‘‘Voluntary Agreement Not To Renew Or 

Reinstate License,’’ a notarized letter from 

the Practitioner License and Investigations 

Section of the Connecticut Department of 

Public Health, and the State of Connecticut 

License Lookup website report. Gov’t Mot. at 

Attch. 1; Gov’t Mot. at Ex. 1; Gov’t Mot. at 

Ex. 2; Gov’t Mot. at Ex. 3. As to the 

Respondent’s State of Connecticut Controlled 

Substance Registrations, the Government 

. . . searched the State of Connecticut 

License Lookup website, where the 

Government produced evidence that the 

Respondent’s Controlled Substances 

Registrations no. CSP.0030952 and 

CSP.0059205 remain ‘inactive’ and expired 

on February 28, 2015, and December 6, 2016, 

respectively, Gov’t Mot. at Ex. 4, 5. 

To date, the Respondent failed to file any 

response to the Government’s Motion or 

evidence produced. 

R.D., at 2–3. 

In his R.D., the ALJ granted the 

Government’s Motion for Summary 

Disposition, and recommended that 

Respondent’s registration be revoked 

and that any pending applications for its 

renewal be denied. 

At this juncture, no dispute exists over the 

fact that the Respondent currently lacks state 

authority to handle controlled substances in 

Connecticut due to his voluntary surrender of 

his license to practice as a physician and 

surgeon on February 21, 2017 . . . . Because 

the Respondent lacks state authority at the 

present time, Agency precedent dictates that 

he is not entitled to maintain his DEA 

registration. Simply put, there is no contested 

factual matter that could be introduced at a 

hearing that would, in the Agency’s view, 

provide authority to allow the Respondent to 

continue to hold his . . . [DEA registration]. 

Id. at 5. By letter dated December 15, 

2017, the ALJ certified and transmitted 

the record to me for final agency action. 

In that letter, the ALJ stated that neither 

party filed exceptions and that the time 

period to do so had expired. 

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. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2018 / Notices 30975 

4Under 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, 

Respondent may dispute my finding by filing a 

properly supported motion for reconsideration 

within 20 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 Respondent files a 

motion, the Government shall have 20 calendar 

days to file a response. 

5See footnote 1. If Respondent disputes this 

finding, he may do so according to the terms stated 

in footnote 1. 

Findings of Fact 

Respondent’s DEA Registration 

Respondent is the holder of DEA 

Certificate of Registration No. 

BK7295834, pursuant to which he is 

authorized to dispense controlled 

substances in schedules II through V as 

a practitioner, at the registered address 

of 227 Naugatuck Avenue, Milford, 

Connecticut 06460. Declaration of DEA 

Diversion Group Supervisor dated 

October 18, 2017 (hereinafter, GS 

Declaration), at 1. Respondent’s 

registration expires on December 31, 

2018. Id. 

The Status of Respondent’s State 

License 

On February 21, 2017, Respondent 

signed a ‘‘Voluntary Agreement Not to 

Renew or Reinstate License’’ 

(hereinafter, Voluntary Agreement) 

prepared by the Connecticut 

Department of Public Health. Id. On 

February 28, 2017, a Public Health 

Services Manager of the Practitioner 

Licensing and Investigations Section, 

Healthcare Quality & Safety Branch of 

the Connecticut Department of Public 

Health, accepted Respondent’s 

Voluntary Agreement. In the Voluntary 

Agreement, Respondent stated that his 

license to practice as a physician and 

surgeon, license number 039302, lapsed 

on November 30, 2016. Voluntary 

Agreement, at 1. He ‘‘voluntarily’’ 

agreed ‘‘not to renew or reinstate’’ that 

license. Id. 

By notarized letter dated October 16, 

2017 (hereinafter, Certification of Lack 

of State Authority), a License and 

Applications Specialist of the 

Practitioner Licensing and 

Investigations Section certified that 

Respondent ‘‘voluntarily agreed not to 

renew or reinstate his Connecticut 

license,’’ and that Respondent ‘‘is not 

authorized to practice medicine in the 

[S]tate of Connecticut.’’ Certification of 

Lack of State Authority, at 1. Further, 

according to the online records of the 

State of Connecticut, of which I take 

official notice, I find that Respondent is 

still not authorized to practice medicine 

in Connecticut.4

According to Connecticut’s online 

records, of which I also take official 

notice, Respondent no longer has 

authority to handle controlled 

substances in Connecticut.5 Connecticut 

Controlled Substance Registration No. 

CSP.0030952, issued to Respondent on 

March 7, 2013, expired on February 28, 

2015, and Connecticut Controlled 

Substance Registration No. 

CSP.0059205, issued to Respondent on 

January 9, 2015, expired on December 6, 

2016. State of Connecticut’s eLicense 

website, https://www.elicense.ct.gov 

(last visited June 20, 2018). 

Connecticut’s online records show no 

active Connecticut Controlled Substance 

Registration issued to Respondent. Id. 

Accordingly, I find that Respondent 

currently is without authority to engage 

in the practice of medicine or to handle 

controlled substances in Connecticut, 

the State in which he is registered. 

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 Fed. 

Appx. 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., Hooper, supra, 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), Blanton, supra, 43 FR at 27,617. 

According to the Connecticut statute 

concerning Controlled Substance 

Registration, ‘‘[e]very practitioner who 

distributes, administers or dispenses 

any controlled substance or who 

proposes to engage in distributing, 

prescribing, administering or dispensing 

any controlled substance within this 

[S]tate shall . . . obtain a certificate of 

registration issued by the Commissioner 

of Consumer Protection in accordance 

with the provisions of this chapter.’’ 

Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 21a–317 (West, 

Westlaw through enactments of Public 

Acts enrolled and approved by the 

Governor on or before April 27, 2018 

and effective on or before April 27, 

2018). See also Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. 

§ 21a–316 (West, Westlaw through 

enactments of Public Acts enrolled and 

approved by the Governor on or before 

April 27, 2018 and effective on or before 

April 27, 2018) (‘‘Practitioner,’’ for 

purposes of Controlled Substance 

Registration, ‘‘means . . . [a] physician 

. . . or other person licensed, registered 

or otherwise permitted to . . . dispense 

. . . [or] administer a controlled 

substance in the course of professional 

practice’’ in Connecticut) and Conn. 

Agencies Regs. § 21a–326–2(e) (1984) 

(‘‘Practitioner’’ is a registration 

classification and includes ‘‘M.D.’’). 

Here, there is no dispute about the 

material fact that ‘‘Respondent currently 

lacks [S]tate authority to handle 

controlled substances in Connecticut 

due to his voluntary surrender of his 

license to practice as a physician and 

surgeon on February 21, 2017’’ and the 

expiration of his Connecticut Controlled 

Substance registrations. R.D., at 5. I will 

therefore order that Respondent’s DEA 

registration be revoked. 

Given my findings that Respondent 

lacks authority in Connecticut to 

dispense controlled substances, I agree 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
30976 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2018 / Notices 

with the former Acting Assistant 

Administrator of the Diversion Control 

Division, and I find that Respondent’s 

Corrective Action Plan provides no 

basis for me to discontinue or defer this 

proceeding. 21 U.S.C. 824(c)(3). 

Order 

Pursuant to the authority vested in me 

by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 

0.100(b), I order that DEA Certificate of 

Registration No. BK7295834 issued to 

Ljudmil Kljusev, M.D., be, and it hereby 

is, revoked. This Order is effective 

August 1, 2018. 

Dated: June 20, 2018. 

Robert W. Patterson, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14161 Filed 6–29–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Proposed 

Consent Decree Under the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act 

On June 22, 2018, the Department of 

Justice lodged a proposed consent 

decree with the United States District 

Court for the Middle District of North 

Carolina in the lawsuit entitled United 

States v. North Carolina Department of 

Transportation, Civil Action No. 1:18– 

cv–00541. 

The United States, on behalf of the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), filed this lawsuit under the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA). The complaint seeks 

performance of response action for 

Operable Unit 1 of the Aberdeen 

Contaminated Groundwater Superfund 

Site (‘‘Site’’), in Moore County, North 

Carolina. The contaminated area 

associated with Town of Aberdeen 

supply wells #5 and #9 is known as 

‘‘Operable Unit 1,’’ one of two operable 

units at the Site. 

The proposed consent decree would 

resolve the claim alleged in the 

complaint. It requires defendant NCDOT 

to implement the remedy selected by 

EPA for Operable Unit 1. 

The publication of this notice opens 

a period for public comment on the 

consent decree. Comments should be 

addressed to the Assistant Attorney 

General, Environment and Natural 

Resources Division, and should refer to 

United States v. North Carolina 

Department of Transportation, D.J. Ref. 

No. 90–11–3–1058/2. All comments 

must be submitted no later than thirty 

(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. 

By mail Assistant Attorney General, U.S. 

DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, 

Washington, D.C. 20044–7611. 

During the public comment period, 

the consent decree may be examined 

and downloaded at this Justice 

Department website: 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 $58.75 (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 $16. 

Henry S. Friedman, 

Assistant Section Chief, Environmental 

Enforcement Section, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14086 Filed 6–29–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

U.S. Marshals Service 

[OMB Number 1105—NEW] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Proposed eCollection 

eComments Requested; Proposed 

Collection; Comments Requested: 

Form USM–164, Applicant Reference 

Check Questionnaire 

AGENCY: U.S. Marshals Service, 

Department of Justice. 

ACTION: 30-Day notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice 

(DOJ), U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), 

will submit the following information 

collection request to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and approval in accordance with 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

The proposed information collection 

was previously published in the Federal 

Register on June 5, 2017, allowing for a 

60-day comment period. 

DATES: Comments are encouraged and 

will be accepted for an additional 30 

days until August 1, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have additional comments, 

particularly with respect to the 

estimated public burden or associated 

response time, have suggestions, need a 

copy of the proposed information 

collection instrument with instructions, 

or desire any other additional 

information, please contact Nicole 

Timmons either by mail at CG–3, 10th 

Floor, Washington, DC 20530–0001, by 

email at Nicole.Timmons@usdoj.gov, or 

by telephone at 202–236–2646. Written 

comments and/or suggestions can also 

be directed to the Office of Management 

and Budget, Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Attention: 

Department of Justice Desk Officer, 

Washington, DC 20503 or sent to OIRA_

submissions@omb.eop.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Written 

comments and suggestions from the 

public and affected agencies concerning 

the proposed collection of information 

are encouraged. Your comments should 

address one or more of the following 

four points: 

—Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

—Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

—Evaluate whether and if so how the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected can be 

enhanced; and 

—Minimize the burden of the collection 

of information on those who are to 

respond, including through the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms 

of information technology, e.g., 

permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Overview of This Information 

Collection 

(1) Type of Information Collection: 

New collection. 

(2) The Title of the Form/Collection: 

Form USM–164, Applicant Reference 

Check Questionnaire. 

(3) The agency form number, if any, 

and the applicable component of the 

Department sponsoring the collection: 

Form number: USM–164. 

Component: U.S. Marshals Service, 

U.S. Department of Justice. 

(4) Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES