39784 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Notices 

participate in the determination in this 

investigation. 

1There is no corrective action plan, or indication 

that Respondent submitted a corrective action plan, 

in the record before me. 

Background 

The Commission, pursuant to section 

735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)), 

instituted this investigation effective 

June 28, 2017, following receipt of a 

petition filed with the Commission and 

Commerce by The Timken Company, 

North Canton, Ohio. The Commission 

scheduled the final phase of the 

investigation following notification of a 

preliminary determination by 

Commerce that imports of tapered roller 

bearings from Korea were being sold at 

LTFV within the meaning of section 

733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). 

Notice of the scheduling of the final 

phase of the Commission’s investigation 

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 27, 2018 

(83 FR 8504). The hearing was held in 

Washington, DC, on June 5, 2018, and 

all persons who requested the 

opportunity were permitted to appear in 

person or by counsel. 

The Commission made this 

determination pursuant to section 

735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)). 

It completed and filed its determination 

in this investigation on August 6, 2018. 

The views of the Commission are 

contained in USITC Publication 4806 

(August 2018), entitled Tapered Roller 

Bearings from Korea: Investigation No. 

731–TA–1380 (Final). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: August 6, 2018. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17125 Filed 8–9–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[USITC SE–18–036] 

Government in the Sunshine Act 

Meeting Notice 

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: United 

States International Trade Commission. 

TIME AND DATE: August 24, 2018 at 9:00 

a.m. 

PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 

(202) 205–2000. 

STATUS: Open to the public. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

1. Agendas for future meetings: None. 

2. Minutes. 

3. Ratification List. 

4. Vote on Inv. Nos. 731–TA–678–679 

and 681–682 (Fourth Review) (Stainless 

Steel Bar from Brazil, India, Japan, and 

Spain). The Commission is currently 

scheduled to complete and file its 

determinations and views of the 

Commission by September 11, 2018. 

5. Outstanding action jackets: None. 

In accordance with Commission 

policy, subject matter listed above, not 

disposed of at the scheduled meeting, 

may be carried over to the agenda of the 

following meeting. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: August 7, 2018. 

William Bishop, 

Supervisory Hearings and Information 

Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17260 Filed 8–8–18; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Bharanidharan Padmanabhan, M.D., 

Ph.D.; Decision and Order 

On October 20, 2017, the Acting 

Assistant Administrator, Diversion 

Control Division, Drug Enforcement 

Administration (hereinafter, DEA or 

Government), issued an Order to Show 

Cause to Bharanidharan Padmanabhan, 

M.D., Ph.D. (hereinafter, Respondent), of 

Brookline, Massachusetts. Order to 

Show Cause (hereinafter, OSC), at 1. 

The Show Cause Order proposes the 

revocation of Respondent’s Certificate of 

Registration on the ground that he does 

‘‘not have authority to handle controlled 

substances in the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts, the state in which . . . 

[he is] registered with the DEA.’’ Id. at 

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

Regarding jurisdiction, the Show 

Cause Order alleges that Respondent 

holds DEA Certificate of Registration 

No. BP7993290 at the registered address 

of 30 Gardner Road #6A, Brookline, 

Massachusetts 02445. OSC, at 1. This 

registration authorizes Respondent to 

dispense controlled substances in 

schedules II through V as a practitioner. 

The Show Cause Order alleges that this 

registration expires on March 31, 2020. 

Id. 

The substantive ground for the 

proceeding, as alleged in the Show 

Cause Order, is that Respondent is 

‘‘without authority to handle controlled 

substances in the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts, the state in which . . . 

[he is] registered . . . with the DEA.’’ Id. 

at 1. Specifically, the Show Cause Order 

alleges that the Massachusetts ‘‘Board of 

Registration in Medicine Indefinitely 

Suspended . . . [Respondent’s] medical 

license’’ on May 11, 2017, and that this 

indefinite suspension ‘‘became effective 

on July 11, 2017 and remains in effect.’’ 

Id. 

The Show Cause Order notifies 

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 notifies 

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 November 13, 2017, 

Respondent requested a hearing. 

Hearing Request, at 1. According to the 

Hearing Request, Respondent ‘‘wish[es] 

to show why . . . [he] should retain’’ 

Certificate of Registration No. 

BP7993290. Id. Respondent’s Hearing 

Request refers to the ‘‘alleged’’ action of 

the Massachusetts Board of Registration 

in Medicine (hereinafter, Massachusetts 

Board) ‘‘indefinitely suspending . . . 

[his] license’’ as ‘‘corrupt and legally 

void,’’ and states his ‘‘position [to be] 

that DEA must hold all action in 

abeyance till the federal courts have 

ruled on the unlawfulness of the 

racketeers’ action in May 2017.’’ Id. at 

2.1

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 

Denying The Respo[n]dent’s Request for 

Abeyance, 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 

January 26, 2018 (hereinafter, R.D.). 

On November 20, 2017, this tribunal 

ordered the Government to file evidence to 

support the allegations that the Respondent 

lacked state authority to handle controlled 

substances. 

On December 4, 2017, the Government 

filed a Motion for Summary Disposition 

. . . . The Government submitted evidence 

that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

Board of Registration in Medicine 

indefinitely suspended the Respondent’s 

medical license on May 11, 2017, in the form 

of the Final Decision and Order from 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Board of 

Registration . . . . Gov’t Mot. at Ex. 2, a. The 

Suspension was stayed for sixty days [a 

period which has since expired] to allow the 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Notices 39785 

2The record contains illegible material submitted 

by Respondent. Chambers staff was contacted to 

ascertain whether legible versions of Respondent’s 

submissions are available. The versions that 

Chambers staff provided are not more legible than 

the original versions that the ALJ certified and 

transmitted. I reviewed, analyzed, and considered 

the legible material in the record. As I am not able 

to read illegible material, my Decision and Order 

are based only on the legible material in the record. 

3 I agree with the ALJ’s conclusions about the 

Respondent’s following allegations and arguments. 

First, regarding Respondent’s allegations that 

Government personnel engaged in wrongdoing, I 

agree with the ALJ that, ‘‘There is no evidence 

before me suggesting [that the] DI . . . or any other 

Government personnel . . . engaged in any false 

assertions or misrepresentations to this tribunal.’’ 

R.D., at 5. I also agree with the ALJ that, ‘‘[T]here 

is no evidence in the record before me that the 

Government falsely defamed the Respondent as a 

liar, or even suggested that service at a later date 

than that of the tribunal was done for unfair 

advantage.’’ Id. Second, concerning Respondent’s 

claim that the Government deliberately violated an 

ALJ Order, I agree with the ALJ that ‘‘the 

Government has fully complied with this tribunal’s 

order.’’ Id. Third, as to Respondent’s position that 

these proceedings should be dismissed or held in 

abeyance pending the outcome of his federal court 

litigation, the ALJ’s Order Directing the Filing of 

Government Evidence of Lack of State Authority 

Allegation and Briefing Schedule states that, ‘‘A 

review of the docket sheets in the pending law suits 

cited by the Respondent fail[s] to disclose any order 

by the District Court to hold the instant proceeding 

in abeyance.’’ Order Directing the Filing of 

Government Evidence dated November 20, 2017, at 

1 n.2. Against the backdrop of the ALJ’s review, I 

agree with him that Respondent’s requests are 

inconsistent with Agency precedent. As the ALJ 

notes, ‘‘ ‘[i]t is not DEA’s policy to stay 

[administrative] proceedings . . . while registrants 

litigate in other forums.’ ’’ R.D., at 6, citing Newcare 

Home Health Servs., 72 FR 42,126, 42,127 n.2 

(2007). I agree with the ALJ that ‘‘the Respondent’s 

request for an abeyance—in essence to stay these 

proceedings—until the federal courts have ruled on 

his cases and his request to dismiss the 

proceedings’’ should be denied. R.D., at 7. As the 

Agency has pointed out, ‘‘Respondent can always 

apply for a new registration if [he] prevails’’ 

regarding the indefinite suspension of his medical 

license. Newcare Home Health Servs., 72 FR at 

42,127 n.2. 

I further note that the ALJ specifically granted 

Respondent ‘‘leave to file notice and proof 

regarding (but limited to) any restoration of his state 

medical license prior to the transmission of the 

matter to the Administrator.’’ R.D., at 7. According 

to the ALJ’s certification and transmittal of the 

record dated February 21, 2018, the Respondent 

had not filed notice and proof regarding any 

restoration of his State medical license by that time. 

The record, therefore, contains no evidence that 

Respondent is currently authorized to practice 

medicine in Massachusetts. 

Respondent to enter into a probation 

agreement with the Board and to comply 

with a series of conditions set out within the 

Board’s Final Decision and Order of 

Suspension. Id. The Government also offered 

the Declaration of . . . the Lead Diversion 

Investigator (DI . . .) in the instant 

investigation, who swore under oath that the 

Respondent’s Massachusetts Medical License 

remained suspended, as of December 1, 2017. 

Gov’t Mot. at Ex. 2. On the basis of the 

Respondent’s suspended medical license, the 

Government argued that the Respondent no 

longer meets the definition of ‘‘practi[ti]oner’’ 

under the Controlled Substances Act, 21 

U.S.C. 802(21), and under 21 U.S.C. 823(f), 

which ‘‘sets forth the requirements for 

obtaining a registration as a practi[ti]oner.’’ 

Gov’t Mot. at 4. As such, the Government 

argued that Respondent’s . . . [registration] 

should be revoked. Id. at 6. 

The Respondent . . . timely filed his 

Opposition to the Government’s Submission 

of Evidence and Request for Summary 

Disposition on December 15, 2017. In his 

reply, the Respondent avers three claims. 

First, ‘‘Respondent does indeed possess a 

Massachusetts medical license.’’ 3 [Resp’t 

Reply at 1.] [n.3: The Respondent argues that 

Merriam-Webster’s definition of the term 

‘‘possess’’ is controlling and that the 

Government ‘‘consciously 

mischaracterize[ed] the Respondent’s 

Request for a Hearing,’’ as the Respondent’s 

medical license[ ] is ‘‘still in his possession 

. . . . It still exists. It is owned.’’ Resp’t 

Reply at 1.] Second, that he has not lost state 

authority to handle controlled substances 

because his Massachusetts Controlled 

Substance Registration Certificate 

(Massachusetts CSR) issued by the 

Massachusetts Department of Health is still 

in effect, thus, he argues, there are factual 

and legal issues in dispute. Resp’t Reply at 

3–5. Third, this tribunal should not rely on 

[the] DI . . . affidavit as it ‘‘aims to conceal 

facts and falsely present the party line’’ and 

[the] DI . . . has ‘‘intentionally, deliberately, 

consciously [. . .] and in bad faith [. . .] 

made a concerted effort to mislead the ALJ 

in order to assist the market actors [to] 

exclude a competitor from the medical 

marketplace.’’ Id. at 9–10. Thus, the 

Respondent argued that ‘‘[g]ranting the 

Government’s request for a summary taking, 

euphemistically called here a ‘disposition,’ 

would be inequitable, contrary to law and 

would reward renting of state powers.’’ Id. at 

10. As such, the Respondent requested this 

tribunal deny the Government’s request for 

summary disposition and dismiss the instant 

case. Id. at 11. 

On December 19, 2017, this tribunal 

ordered the Government to respond to the 

Respondent’s reply opposing the 

Government’s submission of evidence and 

summary disposition request. The Order 

directed the Government to file a copy of the 

Respondent’s Massachusetts CSR Certificate 

and evidence of its present status, as well as 

any evidence of official state action that may 

have been taken regarding the Registration in 

2017. Moreover, the Government was ordered 

to brief relevant Massachusetts case law, 

statutory law, and regulations, as well as 

relevant federal case law, statutory law and 

regulations. 

The Government filed its response in 

further support of its request for summary 

disposition on January 5, 2018. The 

Government argued that ‘‘the formal status of 

Respondent’s Massachusetts CSR Certificate 

is irrelevant to these proceedings, as any 

Massachusetts CSR Certificate which 

Respondent possessed became void as a 

matter of law the moment that Respondent’s 

medical license was suspended’’ pursuant to 

105 Code of Massachusetts Regulations 

§ 700.120 and Massachusetts General Laws 

Ch. 94C §§ 7(f), 9(a). Gov’t Resp. Mot. at 4. 

On January 26, 2018, the Government filed a 

copy of Respondent’s Massachusetts CSR 

Certificate. Gov’t Mot for Leave, at . . . [5]. 

The Government does not ‘‘dispute 

Respondent’s assertion that he is in 

[physical] possession of a Massachusetts CSR 

Certificate and that the Massachusetts 

Department of Public Health has not yet 

taken action to revoke his certificate.’’ . . . 

[Gov’t Resp. Mot. at 5.] Rather, the 

Government argues that ‘‘it is irrelevant 

whether formal action has been taken to 

revoke Respondent’s Massachusetts CSR 

Certificate as it is already void . . . [for] the 

pendency of Respondent’s [medical license] 

suspension.’’ Id. at 6. Thus, while the 

Respondent does ‘‘possess a Massachusetts 

CSR Certificate, [ ] he does not possess 

authority to handle controlled substances.’’ 

Id. 

The Respondent replied to the 

Government’s Response further supporting 

summary disposition on January 24, 2018. 

The Respondent argues that the Government 

falsely defamed him as a liar, the 

Government deliberately flouted a clear order 

from this tribunal, the Respondent’s medical 

license suspension is void ab initio,4 and the 

controlling legal authority is the 

Massachusetts statute (Massachusetts General 

Laws Ch. 94C[)], not the regulation cited by 

the Government (105 Code of Massachusetts 

Regulations § 700.120). Resp’t Sur-Reply at 

1–6. [n.4: The Respondent cites multiple 

cases in support of his conclusion that ‘‘the 

May 2017 action by criminal racketeers 

within the state medical board in violation of 

the Sherman Act was extra-jurisdictional and 

legally void, it naturally follows that any 

action by other actors, state or federal, who 

claim authority based on a previous action 

that is void ab . . . [initio], is equally void.’’ 

Resp’t Sur-Rely at 5–6. These cases are inapt 

and irrelevant to Respondent’s argument, and 

relate to matters way beyond the narrow 

focus of this inquiry.] 2

R.D., at 2–4.3

The ALJ granted the Government’s 

Motion for Summary Disposition and 

recommended that Respondent’s 

registration be revoked. 

At this juncture, no dispute exists over the 

fact that the Respondent currently lacks state 

authority to handle controlled substances in 

the Commonwealth of Massachusetts because 

the Medical Board suspended his medical 

license, thus voiding his Massachusetts CSR 

Certificate. 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 10. By letter dated February 21, 

2018, the ALJ certified and transmitted 

the record to me for final Agency action. 

In that letter, the ALJ advised 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, legible record before me. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
39786 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Notices 

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 4. If Respondent disputes this 

finding, he may do so according to the terms stated 

in footnote 4. 

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. 

BP7993290, pursuant to which he is 

authorized to dispense controlled 

substances in schedules II through V as 

a practitioner, at the registered address 

of 30 Gardner Road #6A, Brookline, 

Massachusetts 02445. Government’s 

Submission of Evidence and Request for 

Summary Disposition dated December 

4, 2017 (hereinafter, Government 

Motion), Exh. 01 (Facsimile of 

Registration No. BP7993290). 

Respondent’s registration expires on 

March 31, 2020. Id. 

The Status of Respondent’s State 

License 

By Final Decision and Order dated 

May 11, 2017, the Massachusetts Board 

indefinitely suspended Respondent’s 

medical license number 209168. 

According to the Final Decision and 

Order, ‘‘the record demonstrates that the 

Respondent has rendered substandard 

care to two patients, maintained 

substandard medical records for seven 

patients, and dispensed controlled 

substances after his Massachusetts 

Controlled Substances Registration . . . 

expired.’’ Government Motion, Exh. 02, 

Attachment A, at 1 [footnotes omitted]. 

The Massachusetts Board’s Final 

Decision and Order afforded 

Respondent the opportunity to stay the 

indefinite suspension by entering into a 

Board-approved Probation Agreement 

and complying with its terms. Id. at 5– 

6. There is no evidence in the record 

that Respondent availed himself of this 

opportunity. Instead, the DI’s 

Declaration states that Respondent’s 

medical license remained ‘‘suspended’’ 

as of December 1, 2017. Government 

Motion, Exh. 02, at 2. Further, according 

to the online records of the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, of 

which I take official notice, I find that 

Respondent is still not authorized to 

practice medicine in Massachusetts, 

initially due to the suspension and, as 

of May 5, 2018, due to the expiration of 

license number 209168.4

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Board 

of Registration in Medicine Physician 

Profiles website, http://

profiles.ehs.state.ma.us/Profiles/Pages/ 

FindAPhysician.aspx (last visited July 

30, 2018). 

Further, according to Massachusetts’ 

online records, of which I also take 

official notice, Respondent is not listed 

among those authorized to handle 

controlled substances in 

Massachusetts.5 Massachusetts 

Controlled Substances Registration 

Verification website, https://

www.mass.gov/service-details/ 

registration-verification-mcsr (last 

visited July 30, 2018). Massachusetts’ 

online records show no active 

Massachusetts 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 the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 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 Massachusetts 

Controlled Substances Act, ‘‘every 

person who . . . dispenses . . . any 

controlled substance within the 

commonwealth shall . . . register with 

the commissioner of public health, in 

accordance with his regulations.’’ Mass. 

Gen. Laws ch. 94C, § 7(a) (Westlaw, 

current through Chapter 122 of the 2018 

2nd Annual Session). Further, the 

automatic issuance of a controlled 

substances registration to a physician is 

only required when the physician is 

‘‘duly authorized to practice his 

profession in the commonwealth.’’ 

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C § 7(f) 

(Westlaw, current through Chapter 122 

of the 2018 2nd Annual Session). 

Here, the undisputed evidence in the 

record is that Respondent’s medical 

license has been suspended. In addition, 

as already noted, Respondent’s medical 

license expired a few months ago. 

According to Massachusetts law, 

Respondent is not eligible to be issued 

a controlled substances registration if he 

is not authorized to practice medicine. 

Indeed, as noted above, Respondent is 

not on the list of those currently 

authorized to dispense controlled 

substances. This lack of authorization is 

consistent with the regulations that 

implement the Massachusetts 

Controlled Substances Act: ‘‘A 

registration is void if the registrant’s 

underlying professional licensure on 

which the registration is based is 

suspended or revoked.’’ 105 Mass. Code 

Regs. § 700.120 (Westlaw, current 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Notices 39787 

6Regarding the terms of 105 Mass. Code Regs. 

§ 700.120, I agree with the ALJ’s rejection of 

Respondent’s argument concerning the relationship 

between the Massachusetts Controlled Substances 

Act and the regulations implementing that law. As 

the ALJ notes, the ‘‘statute and regulation are not 

in conflict.’’ R.D., at 9. In addition, the 

Massachusetts Controlled Substances Act explicitly 

authorizes the Public Health Commissioner to 

‘‘promulgate rules and regulations relative to 

registration and control of the manufacture, 

distribution, dispensing and possession of 

controlled substances within the commonwealth.’’ 

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C, § 6 (Westlaw, current 

through Chapter 122 of the 2018 2nd Annual 

Session). See Goldberg v. Bd. of Health of Granby, 

444 Mass. 627, 633–34 (2005) (‘‘That the Legislature 

. . . did not anticipate the exact factual scenario 

presented here does not make the administrative 

regulations and rulings that did anticipate such 

situations invalid.’’). 

through Register No. 1369, dated July 

13, 2018).6

In sum, Respondent currently lacks 

authority in Massachusetts to practice 

medicine and to handle controlled 

substances. He is not, therefore, eligible 

for a DEA registration. As such, I will 

order that Respondent’s DEA 

registration be revoked. 

Order 

Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the 

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

824(a), I order that DEA Certificate of 

Registration No. BP7993290 issued to 

Bharanidharan Padmanabhan, M.D., 

Ph.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. This 

Order is effective September 10, 2018. 

Dated: July 30, 2018. 

Uttam Dhillon, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17141 Filed 8–9–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Office of Justice Programs 

[OJP (OJP) Docket No. 1747] 

Meeting of the Global Justice 

Information Sharing Initiative Federal 

Advisory Committee; Renewal of 

Charter 

AGENCY: Office of Justice Programs 

(OJP), Justice. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting and 

announcement of renewal of charter. 

SUMMARY: This is an announcement of a 

meeting of the Global Justice 

Information Sharing Initiative (Global) 

Federal Advisory Committee (GAC) to 

discuss the Global Initiative, as 

described at www.it.ojp.gov/global as 

well as an announcement of the renewal 

of the GAC charter. 

DATES: The meeting will take place on 

Wednesday, August 29, 2018, from 9:00 

a.m. ET to 4:30 p.m. ET. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place 

at the Office of Justice Programs offices 

(in the Main Conference Room), 810 7th 

Street, Washington, DC, 20531; Phone: 

(202) 514–2000 [note: this is not a tollfree number]. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tracey Trautman, Global Designated 

Federal Official (DFO), Bureau of Justice 

Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, 

810 7th Street, Washington, DC 20531; 

Phone (202) 305–1491 [note: this is not 

a toll-free number]; Email: 

tracey.trautman@ojp.usdoj.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

meeting is open to the public. Due to 

security measures, however, members of 

the public who wish to attend this 

meeting must register with Ms. Tracey 

Trautman at the above address at least 

(7) days in advance of the meeting. 

Registrations will be accepted on a 

space available basis. Access to the 

meeting will not be allowed without 

registration. All attendees will be 

required to sign in at the meeting 

registration desk. Please bring photo 

identification and allow extra time prior 

to the meeting. 

Anyone requiring special 

accommodations should notify Ms. 

Trautman at least seven (7) days in 

advance of the meeting. 

Purpose: The GAC will act as the focal 

point for justice information systems 

integration activities in order to 

facilitate the coordination of technical, 

funding, and legislative strategies in 

support of the Administration’s justice 

priorities. The GAC will guide and 

monitor the development of the Global 

information sharing concept. It will 

advise the Assistant Attorney General, 

OJP; the Attorney General; the President 

(through the Attorney General); and 

local, state, tribal, and federal 

policymakers in the executive, 

legislative, and judicial branches. The 

GAC will also advocate for strategies for 

accomplishing a Global information 

sharing capability. Interested persons 

whose registrations have been accepted 

may be permitted to participate in the 

discussions at the discretion of the 

meeting chairman and with approval of 

the DFO. 

Renewal of Council Charter: In 

addition to notifying the public about 

the Coordinating Council meeting, this 

Federal Register Notice notifies the 

public that the Charter of the Global 

Advisory Committee (GAC) has been 

renewed in accordance with the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act, Section 

14(a)(1). The renewal Charter was 

signed by U.S. Attorney General 

Jefferson B. Sessions on July 9, 2018. 

One can obtain a copy of the renewal 

Charter by accessing the Global website 

at www.it.ojp.gov/global. 

Tracey Trautman, 

Global DFO Deputy Director, Bureau of Justice 

Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. 

Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17196 Filed 8–9–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–18–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Office of the Secretary 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Submission for OMB 

Review; Comment Request; Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act 

Implementation Evaluation—Site Visit 

Protocols 

ACTION: Notice of availability; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor 

(DOL) is submitting the information 

collection request (ICR) proposal titled, 

‘‘Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act Implementation Evaluation—Site 

Visit Protocols,’’ to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and approval for use in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995. Public 

comments on the ICR are invited. 

DATES: The OMB will consider all 

written comments that agency receives 

on or before September 10, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: A copy of this ICR with 

applicable supporting documentation; 

including a description of the likely 

respondents, proposed frequency of 

response, and estimated total burden 

may be obtained free of charge from the 

RegInfo.gov website at http://

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201802-1290-001 

(this link will only become active on the 

day following publication of this notice) 

or by contacting Michel Smyth by 

telephone at 202–693–4129 (this is not 

a toll-free number) or by email at DOL_

PRA_PUBLIC@dol.gov. 

Submit comments about this request 

by mail to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk 

Officer for DOL–OS, Office of 

Management and Budget, Room 10235, 

725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 

20503; by Fax: 202–395–5806 (this is 

not a toll-free number); or by email: 

OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov. 

Commenters are encouraged, but not 

required, to send a courtesy copy of any 

comments by mail or courier to the U.S. 

Department of Labor-OASAM, Office of 

the Chief Information Officer, Attn: 

Departmental Information Compliance 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES