8058 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2022 / Notices 

66Respondent also argued that he had taken steps 

to mitigate and remediate his recordkeeping issues. 

ALJX 30, at 22. One example of these efforts 

included taking a course on medical recordkeeping 

in 2013. Id. This does not seem to have been an 

effective remedial effort given that the 

recordkeeping violations at issue in this matter took 

place years later. Id. Regardless, where, as here, the 

Respondent has not credibly accepted 

responsibility for his misconduct, I do not generally 

consider evidence of remedial measures. See Jones 

Total Health Care Pharmacy, L.L.C., 81 FR 79,202– 

03. Even if he had adequately accepted 

responsibility, I cannot find that these remedial 

measures are adequate such that I could entrust him 

with a registration. 

where a registrant has committed acts 

inconsistent with the public interest, the 

registrant must accept responsibility for 

[the registrant’s] actions and 

demonstrate that [registrant] will not 

engage in future misconduct.’ ’’ Jayam 

Krishna-Iyer, 74 FR 459, 463 (2009) 

(quoting Medicine Shoppe, 73 FR 364, 

387 (2008)); see also Jackson, 72 FR 

23,853; John H. Kennedy, M.D., 71 FR 

35,705, 35,709 (2006); Prince George 

Daniels, D.D.S., 60 FR 62,884, 62,887 

(1995). 

The issue of trust is necessarily a factdependent determination based on the 

circumstances presented by the 

individual respondent; therefore, the 

Agency looks at factors, such as the 

acceptance of responsibility and the 

credibility of that acceptance as it 

relates to the probability of repeat 

violations or behavior and the nature of 

the misconduct that forms the basis for 

sanction, while also considering the 

Agency’s interest in deterring similar 

acts. See Arvinder Singh, M.D., 81 FR 

8247, 8248 (2016). 

Here, I agree with the ALJ’s statement: 

‘‘I cannot find that the Respondent has 

unequivocally accepted responsibility 

for his proven deficiencies.’’ RD, at 240. 

In his exceptions, Respondent claimed 

that ‘‘consistently throughout these 

proceedings . . . [Respondent] 

recognized that his medical 

recordkeeping needed improvement.’’ 66

However when testifying in his own 

words, Respondent admitted there were 

‘‘some mistakes’’ in his recordkeeping, 

seeming to accept responsibility in one 

breath, but then in the next maintained 

that ‘‘overall [his] charts [were] good’’ 

and ‘‘above average.’’ Tr. 1607. 

Respondent’s Exceptions also state, 

‘‘Respondent accepts that the 

repopulation of his physical findings 

created inaccuracies and were thus 

deficient.’’ ALJX 30, at 23. This claim is 

not supported by Respondent’s own 

testimony that the physical findings 

were not repopulated, but rather, 

Respondent conducted the same 

examination and made the same 

selections every visit, which simply 

produced an identical narrative. See 

supra II.C.; Tr. 1775–79; 1799–1801. I 

do not credit the acknowledgment of 

responsibility made in Respondent’s 

Exceptions over Respondent’s actual 

testimony, and I find that any of 

Respondent’s testimony that could be 

considered to be an acknowledgment of 

responsibility in this case was both 

equivocal and not credible. 

In all, Respondent failed to explain 

why, in spite of his misconduct, he can 

be entrusted with a registration. ‘‘The 

degree of acceptance of responsibility 

that is required does not hinge on the 

respondent uttering ‘‘magic words’’ of 

repentance, but rather on whether the 

respondent has credibly and candidly 

demonstrated that he will not repeat the 

same behavior and endanger the public 

in a manner that instills confidence in 

the Administrator.’’ Jeffrey Stein, M.D., 

84 FR 46,968, 49,973 (2019). Here, 

having considered Respondent’s case 

and statements, I am still left with no 

confidence in Respondent’s future 

compliance with the CSA. 

The Agency also looks to the 

egregiousness and extent of the 

misconduct, which are significant 

factors in determining the appropriate 

sanction. Garrett Howard Smith, M.D., 

83 FR 18,910 (collecting cases). In this 

case, the ALJ found, and I agree, that the 

record-keeping was so deficient that it 

‘‘delegitimize[d] the controlled 

substance prescriptions the subject 

records sought to justify.’’ RD, at 229. 

Furthermore, the record evidence 

contains testimony from the 

Government’s expert that explains 

exactly why recordkeeping is so 

important. In particular, Respondent 

was prescribing a dangerous 

combination of high dose controlled 

substances to a patient and his 

compliance with the state legal 

requirements regarding recordkeeping 

was so egregiously bad that it is difficult 

to determine what steps Respondent 

was taking to ensure this patient’s 

safety, or even why a particular 

controlled substance was being 

prescribed. These are not solely 

recordkeeping requirements—these 

requirements are in place to ensure that 

practitioners are actively considering 

the safety of their patients and 

documenting that they did so. As Dr. 

Munzing stated, the patient could be 

‘‘stable, stable, stable, stable, stable until 

they [did not] wake up.’’ Tr. 1266. 

Respondent argues that the sole 

findings of departures are related to 

documentation and therefore warrant a 

sanction less than revocation. ALJX 30, 

at 25. Respondent’s cavalier 

assumptions about his documentation 

responsibilities and the fact that he did 

not undertake this responsibility with 

seriousness weigh against my ability to 

entrust him with a registration. See 

Singh, M.D., 81 FR 8248 (‘‘[U]ntil . . . 

[a] Respondent can convincingly show 

he accepts the authority of the law and 

those bodies charged with enforcing it 

and regulating his activities, granting [ ] 

a DEA registration will gravely endanger 

the public.’’). The truth is that it is not 

possible to tell whether Respondent’s 

care was as appropriate as he claims 

because his recordkeeping was so 

abysmal. 

In sanction determinations, the 

Agency has historically considered its 

interest in deterring similar acts, both 

with respect to the respondent in a 

particular case and the community of 

registrants. See Joseph Gaudio, M.D., 74 

FR 10,083, 10,095 (2009); Singh, 81 FR 

8248. I find that considerations of both 

specific and general deterrence weigh in 

favor of revocation in this case. There is 

simply no evidence that Respondent’s 

behavior is not likely to recur in the 

future such that I can entrust him with 

a CSA registration; in other words, the 

factors weigh in favor of revocation as 

a sanction. 

I will therefore order that 

Respondent’s registration be revoked as 

contained in the Order below. 

Order 

Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the 

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

824(a) and 823(f), I hereby revoke DEA 

Certificate of Registration Nos. 

FQ7186174, FQ7906968, and 

BQ7364970. Pursuant to 28 CFR 

0.100(b) and the authority vested in me 

by 21 U.S.C. 824(a) and 823(f), I hereby 

deny the pending application for a new 

DEA Certificate of Registration, 

Application No. W18124091C, for John 

X. Qian, M.D., and hereby deny any 

pending application of John X. Qian, 

M.D. to renew or modify these 

registrations, as well as any other 

pending application of John X. Qian, 

M.D. for registration in California. This 

Order is effective March 14, 2022. 

Anne Milgram, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2022–02973 Filed 2–10–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2021–0102] 

Information Collection: NRC Form 655, 

‘‘EEO Counselor’s Report’’ 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2022 / Notices 8059 

ACTION: Proposed information 

collection; request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) invites public 

comment on this proposed information 

collection. The information collection is 

entitled, NRC Form 655, ‘‘EEO 

Counselor’s Report.’’ 

DATES: Submit comments by April 12, 

2022. Comments received after this date 

will be considered if it is practical to do 

so, but the Commission is able to ensure 

consideration only for comments 

received on or before this date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods; 

however, the NRC encourages electronic 

comment submission through the 

Federal rulemaking website: 

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2021–0102. Address 

questions about Docket IDs in 

Regulations.gov to Stacy Schumann; 

telephone: 301–415–0624; email: 

Stacy.Schumann@nrc.gov. For technical 

questions, contact the individual listed 

in the for FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section of this document. 

• Mail comments to: David Cullison, 

Office of the Chief Information Officer, 

Mail Stop: T–6 A10M, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001. 

For additional direction on obtaining 

information and submitting comments, 

see ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David C. Cullison, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415– 

2084; email: Infocollects.Resource@

nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2021– 

0102 when contacting the NRC about 

the availability of information for this 

action. You may obtain publicly 

available information related to this 

action by any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov/ and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2021–0102. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly 

available documents online in the 

ADAMS Public Documents collection at 

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 

adams.html. To begin the search, select 

‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.’’ For 

problems with ADAMS, please contact 

the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR) 

reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301– 

415–4737, or by email to 

PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. A copy of the 

collection of information and related 

instructions may be obtained without 

charge by accessing ADAMS Accession 

ML21160A151. The supporting 

statement is available in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML21160A150. 

• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and 

purchase copies of public documents, 

by appointment, at the NRC’s PDR, 

Room P1 B35, One White Flint North, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland 20852. To make an 

appointment to visit the PDR, please 

send an email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov 

or call 1–800–397–4209 or 301–415– 

4737, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. 

(ET), Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

• NRC’s Clearance Officer: A copy of 

the collection of information and related 

instructions may be obtained without 

charge by contacting the NRC’s 

Clearance Officer, David C. Cullison, 

Office of the Chief Information Officer, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 

301–415–2084; email: 

Infocollects.Resource@nrc.gov. 

B. Submitting Comments 

The NRC encourages electronic 

comment submission through the 

Federal rulemaking website (https://

www.regulations.gov). Please include 

Docket ID NRC–2021–0102 in your 

comment submission. 

The NRC cautions you not to include 

identifying or contact information in 

comment submissions that you do not 

want to be publicly disclosed in your 

comment submission. All comment 

submissions are posted at https://

www.regulations.gov/ and entered into 

ADAMS. Comment submissions are not 

routinely edited to remove identifying 

or contact information. 

If you are requesting or aggregating 

comments from other persons for 

submission to the OMB, then you 

should inform those persons not to 

include identifying or contact 

information that they do not want to be 

publicly disclosed in their comment 

submission. Your request should state 

that comment submissions are not 

routinely edited to remove such 

information before making the comment 

submissions available to the public or 

entering the comment into ADAMS. 

II. Background 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35), the NRC is requesting 

public comment on its intention to 

request the OMB’s approval for the 

information collection summarized 

below. 

1. The title of the information 

collection: NRC Form 655, ‘‘EEO 

Counselor’s Report.’’ 

2. OMB approval number: An OMB 

control number has not yet been 

assigned to this proposed information 

collection. 

3. Type of submission: New. 

4. The form number, if applicable: 

NRC Form 655. 

5. How often the collection is required 

or requested: On occasion. 

6. Who will be required or asked to 

respond: Aggrieved persons who believe 

they have been discriminated against in 

employment on the basis of race, color, 

religion, sex, national origin, age, 

disability, or genetic information. 

7. The estimated number of annual 

responses: 30. 

8. The estimated number of annual 

respondents: 30. 

9. The estimated number of hours 

needed annually to comply with the 

information collection requirement or 

request: 30 hours. 

10. Abstract: As set forth under 29 

CFR 1614, the Equal Employment 

Opportunity (EEO) complaint process 

prescribes that when an aggrieved 

individual believes that they have been 

discriminated against on the basis of 

their race, color, religion, sex (including 

sexual orientation, gender identity and 

expressions, and pregnancy), national 

origin, age, disability, genetic 

information (including family medical 

history), marital status, parental status, 

political affiliation, military service, and 

reprisal and seeks EEO counseling, the 

assigned EEO Counselor will conduct 

the pre-complaint (Informal) with the 

intentions of resolving the complaint 

within the Agency. At the conclusion of 

the pre-complaint (Informal) process 

and if the resolution was unsuccessful, 

the EEO Counselor during the final 

interview with the aggrieved person 

must discuss what occurred during the 

counseling process and provide the 

aggrieved with information to move the 

matter forward. Pursuant to 29 CFR 

1614.105(c), if the aggrieved individual 

decides to file a Formal complaint (i.e., 

NRC Form 646), the EEO Counselor 

must submit a written report (i.e., EEO 

Counselors Report) within 15 calendar 

days to the Office of Small Business and 

Civil Rights Director or designated 

official that will contain relevant 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
8060 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2022 / Notices 

information about the aggrieved 

individual, jurisdiction, claims, bases, 

Responding Management Officials, 

witnesses, requested remedies, and the 

EEO Counselor’s checklist. The NRC 

Form 655, ‘‘EEO Counselor’s Report’’ is 

completed by an EEO counselor during 

this consultation, which must be 

conducted within 45 days of the date of 

the matter alleged to be discriminatory 

or, in the case of personnel action, 

within 45 days of the effective date of 

the action. Once the form is completed, 

an authorized NRC representative will 

place the completed NRC Form 646 in 

a secure folder created specifically for 

the aggrieved individual within an 

automated tracking system. 

III. Specific Requests for Comments 

The NRC is seeking comments that 

address the following questions: 

1. Is the proposed collection of 

information necessary for the NRC to 

properly perform its functions? Does the 

information have practical utility? 

2. Is the estimate of the burden of the 

information collection accurate? 

3. Is there a way to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected? 

4. How can the burden of the 

information collection on respondents 

be minimized, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology? 

Dated: February 8, 2022. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

David C. Cullison, 

NRC Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2022–02944 Filed 2–10–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2021–0098] 

Information Collection: NRC Form 646, 

‘‘Formal Discrimination Complaint’’ 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed information 

collection; request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) invites public 

comment on this proposed information 

collection. The information collection is 

entitled, NRC Form 646, ‘‘Formal 

Discrimination Complaint.’’ 

DATES: Submit comments by April 12, 

2022. Comments received after this date 

will be considered if it is practical to do 

so, but the Commission is able to ensure 

consideration only for comments 

received on or before this date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods; 

however, the NRC encourages electronic 

comment submission through the 

Federal rulemaking website: 

• Federal Rulemaking website: Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2021–0098. Address 

questions about Docket IDs in 

Regulations.gov to Stacy Schumann; 

telephone: 301–415–0624; email: 

Stacy.Schumann@nrc.gov. For technical 

questions, contact the individual listed 

in the ‘‘For Further Information 

Contact’’ section of this document. 

• Mail comments to: David Cullison, 

Office of the Chief Information Officer, 

Mail Stop: T–6 A10M, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001. 

For additional direction on obtaining 

information and submitting comments, 

see ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David C. Cullison, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415– 

2084; email: Infocollects.Resource@

nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2021– 

0098 when contacting the NRC about 

the availability of information for this 

action. You may obtain publicly 

available information related to this 

action by any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking website: Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov/ and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2021–0098. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly 

available documents online in the 

ADAMS Public Documents collection at 

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 

adams.html. To begin the search, select 

‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.’’ For 

problems with ADAMS, please contact 

the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR) 

reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301– 

415–4737, or by email to 

PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. A copy of the 

collection of information and related 

instructions may be obtained without 

charge by accessing ADAMS Accession 

ML21165A134. The supporting 

statement is available in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML21165A132. 

• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and 

purchase copies of public documents, 

by appointment, at the NRC’s PDR, 

Room P1 B35, One White Flint North, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland 20852. To make an 

appointment to visit the PDR, please 

send an email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov 

or call 1–800–397–4209 or 301–415– 

4737, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. 

(ET), Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

• NRC’s Clearance Officer: A copy of 

the collection of information and related 

instructions may be obtained without 

charge by contacting the NRC’s 

Clearance Officer, David C. Cullison, 

Office of the Chief Information Officer, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 

301–415–2084; email: 

Infocollects.Resource@nrc.gov. 

B. Submitting Comments 

The NRC encourages electronic 

comment submission through the 

Federal rulemaking website (https://

www.regulations.gov). Please include 

Docket ID NRC–2021–0098 in your 

comment submission. 

The NRC cautions you not to include 

identifying or contact information in 

comment submissions that you do not 

want to be publicly disclosed in your 

comment submission. All comment 

submissions are posted at https://

www.regulations.gov/ and entered into 

ADAMS. Comment submissions are not 

routinely edited to remove identifying 

or contact information. 

If you are requesting or aggregating 

comments from other persons for 

submission to the OMB, then you 

should inform those persons not to 

include identifying or contact 

information that they do not want to be 

publicly disclosed in their comment 

submission. Your request should state 

that comment submissions are not 

routinely edited to remove such 

information before making the comment 

submissions available to the public or 

entering the comment into ADAMS. 

II. Background 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35), the NRC is requesting 

public comment on its intention to 

request the OMB’s approval for the 

information collection summarized 

below. 

1. The title of the information 

collection: NRC Form 646, ‘‘Formal 

Discrimination Complaint.’’ 

2. OMB approval number: An OMB 

control number has not yet been 

assigned to this proposed information 

collection. 

3. Type of submission: New. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1