Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 125 / Friday, July 2, 2021 / Notices 35339 

*A I have made minor, nonsubstantive, 

grammatical changes to the RD. Where I have made 

any substantive changes, omitted language for 

brevity or relevance, or where I have added to or 

modified the ALJ’s opinion, I have bracketed the 

modified language and explained the edit in a 

footnote marked with an asterisk and a letter in 

alphabetical order. 

1ALJ Ex. 1. 

2ALJ Ex. 2. 

3ALJ Ex. 3. 

is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). 

Authorization will not extend to the 

import of Food and Drug 

Administration-approved or nonapproved finished dosage forms for 

commercial sale. 

William T. McDermott, 

Assistant Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2021–14210 Filed 7–1–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 19–22] 

Keith A. Jenkins, N.P.; Decision and 

Order 

On February 19, 2020, the Drug 

Enforcement Administration 

(hereinafter, DEA or Government) 

Administrative Law Judge Mark M. 

Dowd (hereinafter, ALJ), issued a 

Recommended Rulings, Findings of 

Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision 

(hereinafter, RD) on the action to revoke 

the DEA Certificate of Registration 

Numbers MJ3401609 and MJ4509331 of 

Keith A. Jenkins, N.P. The ALJ 

transmitted the record to me on March 

10, 2020. Having reviewed and 

considered the entire administrative 

record before me, I adopt the ALJ’s RD 

with modifications, where noted 

herein.*A

Order 

Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the 

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

824(a), I hereby dismiss the Order to 

Show Cause issued to Keith A. Jenkins, 

N.P. I further order that any pending 

applications for renewal of DEA 

Certificates of Registration MJ3401609 

and MJ4509331 be granted. This Order 

is effective immediately. 

D. Christopher Evans, 

Acting Administrator. 

Paul Soeffing, Esq., for the Government 

Robert W. Liles, Esq. and Meaghan K. 

McCormick, Esq., for the Respondent 

Recommended Rulings, Findings of 

Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision 

of the Administrative Law Judge 

The Assistant Administrator, 

Diversion Control Division, Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA), 

issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC),1

dated April 23, 2019, seeking to revoke 

the Respondent’s Certificates of 

Registration (COR), numbers 

‘‘MJ3401609 and MJ4509331, pursuant 

to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(5), and deny any 

applications for renewal or modification 

of such registration and any 

applications for any other DEA 

registrations pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 

824(a)(5),’’ because the Respondent has 

been excluded from participation in a 

program pursuant to section 1320a–7(a) 

of Title 42. OSC, at 1. The Respondent 

requested a hearing on May 16, 2019,2

and prehearing proceedings were 

initiated.3 A hearing was conducted in 

this matter on November 20, 2019, at the 

DEA Hearing Facility in Arlington, 

Virginia. 

The issue ultimately to be adjudicated 

by the Acting Administrator, with the 

assistance of this recommended 

decision, is whether the record as a 

whole establishes by a preponderance of 

the evidence that the Respondent’s 

subject registration with the DEA should 

be revoked pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 

824(a)(5). 

After carefully considering the 

testimony elicited at the hearing, the 

admitted exhibits, the arguments of 

counsel, and the record as a whole, I 

have set forth my recommended 

findings of fact and conclusions of law 

below. 

The Allegations 

In the OSC, the Government contends 

that the DEA should revoke the 

Respondent’s DEA COR because he has 

been excluded from participation in a 

program pursuant to section 1320a–7(a) 

of Title 42. 

Specifically, the Government alleges 

the following: 

1. Respondent is registered with the 

DEA as an MLP-nurse practitioner in 

Schedules II through V under DEA 

Certificate of Registration MJ3401609, at 

105 Vanner Rd., Mt. Juliet, TN 37122. 

Respondent is also registered with the 

DEA under DEA Certificate of 

Registration MJ4509331, at 3909 

Woodley Rd., Toledo, OH 43606, with a 

mailing address of 105 Vanner Rd., Mt. 

Juliet, TN 37122. Respondent’s 

registrations both expire by their terms 

on December 31, 2020. Id. Prior to the 

current action, Respondent’s DEA 

Certificates of Registration have not 

been the subject of disciplinary or other 

adverse action by the DEA. 

2. On August 7, 2017, Respondent 

entered an ‘‘Alford Plea of Guilty to a 

Felony’’ to the offense of ‘‘False 

Statement to Medicaid.’’ On August 1l, 

2017, the Circuit Court of Fairfax 

County, Virginia entered its sentencing 

Order for Respondent’s offense of ‘‘False 

Statement for Payment (F)’’ in violation 

of Va. Code Section 32.1–314(F) FRD 

3337F9. See Commonwealth of Virginia 

v. Keith Allen Jenkins, No. FE–2017– 

0000711 (Fairfax Cty. Cir. Ct.). 

3. Based on Respondent’s conviction, 

the U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, Office of Inspector 

General (‘‘HHS/OIG’’), by letter dated 

February 28, 2018, mandatorily 

excluded Respondent from participation 

in Medicare, Medicaid and all federal 

health care programs for a minimum 

period of five years pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. 1320a–7(a), effective March 20, 

2018. Notwithstanding the fact that the 

underlying conduct for which the 

Respondent was convicted had no 

nexus to controlled substances, the 

Respondent’s mandatory exclusion from 

Medicare, Medicaid, and all federal 

health care programs by HHS/OIG 

warrants revocation of the Respondent’s 

registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 

824(a)(5). See, e.g., Richard Hauser, 

M.D., 83 FR 26308 (2018). 

The Hearing 

Government’s Opening Statement 

The Government outlined its case in 

its Opening Statement. The Government 

seeks the revocation of the Respondent’s 

registrations pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 

824(a)(5), as the Respondent has been 

excluded from a program pursuant to 

§ 1320a–7a of Title 2. Tr. 12. The 

Government explained that in 2017, the 

Respondent entered an Alford plea of 

guilty, to the felony offense of false 

statement to Medicaid, in the Circuit 

Court of Fairfax County, Virginia. On 

the basis of that conviction, in 2018, the 

Department of Health and Human 

Resources, Office of Inspector General 

mandatorily excluded the Respondent 

from participation in Medicare, 

Medicaid and all federal health care 

programs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1320a7(a). The Respondent’s exclusion 

remains in effect. Id. 

Respondent’s Opening Statement 

In his Opening Statement, the 

Respondent noted he has stipulated to 

all of the operative facts of the case. Id. 

at 13. The Respondent conceded he was 

convicted as charged, he was excluded 

from participation from Medicare, 

Medicaid and all federal health benefit 

programs, as alleged. Acknowledging 

the evidentiary burden shift to him, 

upon the prima facie showing of these 

facts, the Respondent argued that his 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
35340 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 125 / Friday, July 2, 2021 / Notices 

Registrations should not be revoked as 

that would be inconsistent with the 

public interest. The Respondent argued 

that he has accepted responsibility for 

his misconduct, and further that this 

type of conduct can no longer reoccur, 

as preventive safeguards are now in 

place. 

Referring to the five operative factors 

under § 823(f), the Respondent noted 

that the Respondent has the ‘‘backing 

and support’’ of the state nursing 

boards. Id. at 14. He is knowledgeable 

and experienced with respect to 

controlled substances. He has never 

been accused of any violation, state or 

federal, of controlled substance statutes. 

He has always complied with these 

statutes. Finally, there is no evidence 

that any of his ‘‘other conduct’’ could be 

a threat to the public safety. Thus, in 

balancing the five factors under § 823(f), 

the retention of his registrations would 

not be inconsistent with the public 

interest. Id. at 15. 

Government’s Case in Chief 

Before presenting witnesses, the 

Government offered the sworn and 

notarized COR history for the 

Respondent, which was admitted 

without objection. See GX 1. The 

Government otherwise presented its 

case in chief through the testimony of a 

single witness. The Government 

presented the testimony of a Diversion 

Investigator. 

Diversion Investigator (DI) 

The DI has worked for the Drug 

Enforcement Administration for five 

and a half years and holds a Bachelor’s 

Degree in Accounting and a Master’s 

Degree in Business Administration. Tr. 

16–17. She has graduated from the 12- 

week Basic Diversion Investigator 

School. Id. at 17. She has also received 

advanced diversion investigator 

training, tactical diversion training, and 

asset forfeiture training. Id. at 18. 

The instant investigation commenced 

when the DEA learned that the 

Respondent’s Tennessee Nursing license 

had been suspended by the Tennessee 

Board of Nursing. Id. The DI later 

learned that the Respondent had been 

excluded from Medicare, Medicaid and 

all other federal health care programs by 

HHS/OIG. The DI obtained a copy of the 

Respondent’s Alford plea of guilty to the 

Virginia felony offense of False 

Statement to Medicaid, a copy of the 

sentencing order and a copy of the 

Respondent’s exclusion letter by HHS/ 

OIG. Id. at 19–22; GX 3, 4, 5. The DI 

verified the Respondent’s exclusion by 

accessing the HHS website. Tr. 23; GX 

6. The DI confirmed on the HHS website 

the exclusion remained active as of the 

day of the hearing. Tr. 24. 

On cross-examination, the DI 

conceded the instant case did not 

involve the diversion of controlled 

substance, nor was she aware of any 

such violations by the Respondent. Id. 

at 24–25. 

Respondent’s Case in Chief 

Keith A. Jenkins, N.P. 

The Respondent, Keith A. Jenkins, is 

a licensed Advanced Practice Registered 

Nurse in Tennessee and Ohio. Id. at 33; 

RX 1, 7. He holds DEA registrations in 

Tennessee and Ohio. Tr. 33, 39–40; RX 

4. Other than this instant proceeding, 

the Respondent has never been 

disciplined or cautioned by the DEA. Tr. 

39, 61. The Respondent has never been 

admonished, reprimanded or 

disciplined by any of the state nursing 

boards regarding his prescribing 

practices. Id. at 61. The Respondent has 

never been convicted of any offense 

involving controlled substances. Id. 

His educational background includes 

an Associate’s Degree in Medical 

Laboratory Technology from 

Cumberland College in 1997, an 

Associate’s Degree in Nursing in 2002, 

a Master’s Degree in Nursing and Adult 

Bariatric Nurse Practitioner in 2014, 

post-Master’s Certificate for Family 

Nurse Practitioner in 2015, and postMaster’s Certificate for Psychiatric 

Nurse Practitioner in 2017. Id. at 28. 

The Respondent is currently working on 

his Doctorate, which he expects to 

complete by January 2020. 

The Respondent is an adjunct faculty 

member in a nurse practitioner program. 

Id. at 28–29; RX 1. He teaches various 

courses, including Pharmacology. Tr. 

41. He works part-time at two clinics, a 

bariatric clinic, and a primary care 

psychiatric clinic. Id. at 29. The 

Respondent typically prescribed 

controlled substances, Phentermine and 

Qsymia. At the psychiatric clinic, 

controlled substances typically 

prescribed include benzodiazepines, 

such as Clonazepam. Other controlled 

substances prescribed there include 

Alprazolam, Ritalin, and Adderall. Id. at 

30. The Respondent also volunteers at a 

free clinic and may prescribe, on 

average, one opioid per month. Id. at 31, 

80. 

The Respondent reported taking 

precautions in prescribing controlled 

substances, including checking the state 

database for patient drug use pattern or 

use history. Id. at 32. Additionally, he 

requires drug screens if warranted by 

the results of the database inquiry, as 

well as randomly. To remain current 

with obligations regarding prescribing 

controlled substances, the Respondent 

reported that he attends at least two 

medical conferences per year, a number 

of continuing education courses, and 

receives regulatory updates. Id. at 41, 

44; RX 9, 10, 11. His adjunct faculty 

position also requires him to stay 

current with prescribing protocol. 

The Respondent’s Ohio APRN 

includes the authority to prescribe 

controlled substances. Tr. 34; RX 7. At 

the time of the hearing, the 

Respondent’s authority to prescribe in 

Ohio was unrestricted. However, the 

Respondent’s Tennessee license 

reflected the disciplinary action of 

probation, requiring some continuing 

education as a result of the Virginia 

state court conviction. Tr. 36; RX 8. The 

Respondent has completed the required 

continuing education. Tr. 42–43; RX 9, 

10, 11. His Tennessee prescribing 

authority remained unrestricted. Tr. 36, 

60. In September 2019, despite 

disclosing the circumstances 

surrounding his Virginia conviction, the 

Respondent obtained South Carolina 

nursing licensure. Id. at 37–38; RX 12. 

He retains unrestricted prescribing 

authority in South Carolina. Tr. 38. 

As relates to the Respondent’s 

underlying misconduct, the Respondent 

worked for Actera Home Health from 

2008–2015, as Administrator. Id. at 45. 

He did not generally provide any 

clinical support or prescribe 

medication. Id. 

His employment there ended as a 

result of an audit by state authorities. 

The mother of a child patient of the 

home health service was found to be 

abusing medication. Id. at 46. In 

response to actions by the service, the 

mother filed a complaint with state 

regulators against the home health 

service, resulting in an investigation and 

audit. Id. Although the investigation 

revealed no wrongdoing by the service, 

the audit disclosed a billing 

discrepancy. A different child patient 

was signed up for ‘‘personal care’’ 

services. Id. at 47, 71, 73–74. The 

service used an Electronic Medical 

Record system (EMR) to maintain 

treatment records and to bill for 

services. The Respondent explained that 

the service’s EMR system could not 

directly bill Medicaid, so the service 

used a secondary billing system to bill 

Medicaid, which auto billed weekly. Id. 

at 48, 70. The secondary billing system 

would automatically ‘‘pull claims over’’ 

to it from the EMR. Id. at 48, 70–71. 

Services for this child were initiated 

and reported in the EMR system, which 

automatically initiated the Medicaid 

billing through the secondary billing 

system. Id. at 48, 71, 78. The normal 

checks and balances within the home 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 125 / Friday, July 2, 2021 / Notices 35341 

*B This fact seems to be reasonably inferred from 

the record. The clinic paid restitution ‘‘immediately 

once it was identified.’’ Tr. 52. 

health service involved squaring the 

care-giver service reports with the 

billing. Id. at 49, 72. If the caregiver 

reported a cessation of care or change in 

care, the billing would be ceased or 

adjusted to reflect that. Id. at 78–79. 

However, in this case, the grandmother/ 

custodian refused to allow care-givers to 

provide any care at all. As there were no 

care-giver reports generated, the billing 

to Medicaid continued automatically. 

There were no care-giver reports to 

prompt the review of that patient’s 

billing to Medicaid, [so the audit 

safeguards never caught the error.] Id. at 

49, 74–76, 78. The overpayment from 

Medicaid was approximately $80,000. 

Id. at 48. When the audit revealed this 

overpayment, Medicaid audited every 

patient the service billed Medicaid. No 

other discrepancies were discovered. Id. 

at 53, 78. 

The Respondent entered an Alford 

plea of guilty to false statement to 

Medicaid. Id. at 50, 52. The Respondent 

understood at the time of his plea that, 

as Administrator of the home health 

service, he was ‘‘responsible’’ for the 

improper claims to Medicaid, despite 

that he did not personally enter the 

claims. Id. at 50, 69. His sentence was 

three years suspended, three years 

inactive probation, and $83,027.56 in 

restitution. Id. at 51–52, 63. I asked the 

Respondent if he realized, at the time he 

plead guilty, the criminal offense of 

false statement to Medicaid required the 

intent of intentional or willful. The 

Respondent reported that his criminal 

attorney handled the plea negotiation 

and recommended the Respondent view 

the guilty plea as a ‘‘business decision.’’ 

Id. at 68–69. [Respondent stated, ‘‘Since 

they never got a record on him, it never 

got caught. In hindsight, it was a huge 

gap on our end or my end, really, that 

let that slip through.’’ Id. at 49. His 

attorney asked, ‘‘So whose fault was it?’’ 

Id. ‘‘Well, mine.’’ Id.] 

Conceding the Government proved its 

prima facie case, the Respondent argued 

that he should be permitted to keep his 

CORs. Id. at 57. He explained that the 

incident that gave rise to the felony 

conviction and the resultant HHS 

exclusion was [‘‘an isolated incident, it 

wasn’t intentional but [he does] realize 

that in [his] acting role as administrator, 

ultimately, it is [his] responsibility.’’] Id. 

at 58, 67. The Respondent did not have 

clinical duties at the service. He did not 

supervise the line care providers. They 

were supervised by the nursing director. 

Id. at 77–78. Although he had access to 

the billing records in the form of an 

electronic report, his duties did not 

include reviewing the accuracy of the 

billing report. Id. at 78. The accuracy of 

the billing was insured by periodic 

audits, which failed them in this case. 

Id. The Respondent did not benefit from 

the overpayment,*B other than his 

salary. 

For his Tennessee APRN, a physician 

supervisor is required. Id. at 59. The 

Respondent has a physician supervisor 

at each clinic where he works. Id. at 63– 

64. Although supervision is required 

once a month, he works closely with his 

physician supervisor and sees him 

weekly. The supervisor critically 

reviews patient charts and must sign off 

on each controlled substance 

prescription. Id. at 59. The Respondent 

reported that his supervisors have yet to 

reject any of the Respondent’s 

prescriptions. Id. at 65. 

The Respondent reported that he has 

not used his Ohio nursing license. He 

has not worked in Ohio. Id. at 66. 

The Respondent stated he remains 

fully compliant with state and federal 

controlled substance laws and 

regulations. Id. at 61. The Respondent 

noted he was an infrequent prescriber of 

controlled substances. Id. The 

Respondent believed it is in the public 

interest for him to retain his 

registrations. 

The Facts 

Stipulations of Fact 

The Government and the Respondent 

have agreed to each of the following 

stipulations, which I recommend be 

accepted as fact in these proceedings: 

1. Respondent is registered with the 

DEA as a MLP-nurse practitioner in 

Schedules II through V under DEA 

Certificate of Registration MJ3401609 at 

105 Vanner Rd., Mt. Juliet, TN 37122. 

Respondent is also registered with the 

DEA under DEA Certificate of 

Registration MJ4509331 at 3909 

Woodley Rd., Toledo, OH 43606, with a 

mailing address of 105 Vanner Rd., Mt. 

Juliet, TN 37122. Respondent’s 

registrations both expire by their terms 

on December 31, 2020. Prior to the 

current action, Respondent’s DEA 

Certificates of Registration have not 

been the subject to disciplinary or other 

adverse action by the DEA. 

2. From 2006 to 2013, Respondent 

worked in an administrative, nonclinical, capacity for a Virginia-based 

home health agency. While employed at 

the home health agency, the agency was 

audited by state Medicaid authorities 

and Respondent’s role in the billing of 

claims for a specific patient were 

investigated by the state. On August 7, 

2017, Respondent entered an ‘‘Alford 

Plea of Guilty to a Felony’’ to the offense 

of ‘‘False Statement to Medicaid.’’ On 

August 11, 2017, the Circuit Court of 

Fairfax County, Virginia, entered its 

sentencing Order for Respondent’s 

offense of ‘‘False Statement of 

Payment(F)’’ in violation of Va. Code 

Section 32.1–314(F) FRD3337F9. 

Commonwealth of Virginia v. Keith 

Allen Jenkins, No. FE–2017–0000711 

(Fairfax Cty. Cir. Ct.). Mr. Jenkins was 

sentenced to ‘‘3 years w/all 3 years 

suspended.’’ Furthermore, the Court 

Ordered that all ‘‘3 years [were subject 

to] inactive probation.’’ Simply put, Mr. 

Jenkins was not incarcerated, nor is he 

required to report to a Probation Officer 

during the period of his 3-year 

suspended sentence. 

3. Based on Respondent’s conviction, 

the U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, Office of Inspector 

General (‘‘HHS/OIG’’), by letter dated 

February 28, 2018, mandatorily 

excluded Respondent from participation 

in Medicare, Medicaid and all federal 

health care programs for a minimum 

period of five years pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. 1320a–7(a), effective March 20, 

2018. 

4. Reinstatement of eligibility to 

participate in Medicare, Medicaid and 

all federal health care programs after 

exclusion by HHS/OIG is not automatic. 

5. Respondent is currently excluded 

from participation in Medicare, 

Medicaid and all federal health care 

programs. 

6. Restitution in the amount of 

$83,027.56 to the Medicaid program was 

ordered by the Court. The restitution 

was paid in full by the time of 

Respondent’s Alford Plea filing. 

7. On April 23, 2019, the Assistant 

Administrator, Diversion Control 

Division, DEA, issued an Order to Show 

Cause to Respondent, giving 

Respondent notice of an opportunity to 

show cause why the DEA should not 

revoke Respondent’s DEA Certificates of 

Registration Nos. MJ3401609 

(Tennessee) and MJ4509331 (Ohio), 

pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(5), and 

deny any pending application(s) as a 

practitioner for registration in Schedules 

II through V, alleging that Respondent 

has been excluded from participation in 

all federal health care programs as 

defined in 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(5). 

8. On May 16, 2019, Respondent, 

through his legal counsel, filed a timely 

request for administrative hearing in the 

Matter of Keith A. Jenkins, N.P. 

9. On May 17, 2019, the 

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) 

assigned to this case issued the Court’s 

Order for Prehearing Statements to the 

DEA and Respondent. 

10. On May 29, 2019, counsel for the 

Government filed the Government’s 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
35342 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 125 / Friday, July 2, 2021 / Notices 

Prehearing Statement. Concurrent with 

this filing, counsel also filed the 

Government’s Motion for Summary 

Disposition. 

11. On May 30, 2019, Respondent 

filed an Unopposed Motion for 

Extension of Time to Submit 

Respondent’s Prehearing Statement and 

Respondent’s Response to the 

Government’s Motion for Summary 

Disposition. 

12. On May 31, 2019, the Court issued 

its Order Granting Respondent’s 

Unopposed Motion for Extension of 

Time until June 21, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. 

EST. 

13. Respondent is currently licensed 

by the Ohio Board of Nursing to practice 

as an Advanced Practice Registered 

Nurse (APRN), license number 

APRN.CNP.021771. The Respondent’s 

Ohio APRN license includes the 

authority to prescribe. 

14. Respondent is currently licensed 

by the Tennessee Board of Nursing to 

practice as an Advanced Practice 

Registered Nurse, license no. 19606. 

Respondent’s Tennessee APRN license 

is currently on probation but is 

unrestricted. 

15. At this time, Respondent’s DEA 

Certificates of Registration in Ohio and 

Tennessee are active and he is 

authorized to prescribe controlled 

substances in Schedules II through V. 

Findings of Fact 

The factual findings below are based 

on a preponderance of the evidence, 

including the detailed, credible, and 

competent testimony of the 

aforementioned witnesses, the exhibits 

entered into evidence, and the record 

before me. 

1. Respondent is registered with the 

DEA as a MLP-nurse practitioner in 

Schedules II through V under DEA 

Certificate of Registration MJ3401609 at 

105 Vanner Rd., Mt. Juliet, TN 37122. 

Respondent is also registered with the 

DEA under DEA Certificate of 

Registration MJ4509331 at 3909 

Woodley Rd., Toledo, OH 43606, with a 

mailing address of 105 Vanner Rd., Mt. 

Juliet, TN 37122. Stipulation (‘‘Stip.’’) l; 

ALJ Ex. 13 at 10. Respondent’s 

registrations both expire by their terms 

on December 31, 2020. Id. Prior to the 

current action, Respondent’s DEA 

Certificates of Registration have not 

been the subject of disciplinary or other 

adverse action by the DEA. Id. 

2. On August 7, 2017, Respondent 

entered an ‘‘Alford Plea of Guilty to a 

Felony’’ to the offense of ‘‘False 

Statement to Medicaid.’’ Stip. 2; ALJ Ex. 

13 at 10. On August 11, 2017, the 

Circuit Court of Fairfax County, 

Virginia, entered its sentencing Order 

for Respondent’s offense of ‘‘False 

Statement for Payment (F)’’ in violation 

of Va. Code Section 32.1–314(F) 

FRD3337F9. See Commonwealth of 

Virginia v. Keith Allen Jenkins, No. FE– 

2017–0000711 (Fairfax Cty. Cir. Ct.). 

3. Based on Respondent’s conviction, 

the U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, Office of Inspector 

General (‘‘HHS/OIG’’), by letter dated 

February 28, 2018, mandatorily 

excluded Respondent from participation 

in Medicare, Medicaid and all federal 

health care programs for a minimum 

period of five years pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. 1320a–7(a), effective March 20, 

2018. Stip. 3; ALJ Ex. 13 at 10–11. 

4. Reinstatement of eligibility to 

participate in Medicare, Medicaid and 

all federal health care programs after 

exclusion by HHS/OIG is not automatic. 

Stip. 4; ALJ Ex. 13 at 11. 

5. Respondent is currently excluded 

from participation in Medicare, 

Medicaid and all federal health care 

programs. Stip. 5; ALJ Ex. 13 at 11. 

6. Restitution in the amount of 

$83,027.56 to the Medicaid program was 

ordered by the Court. Stip. 6; ALJ Ex. 

13, at 11. 

7. On April 23, 2019, the Assistant 

Administrator, Diversion Control 

Division, DEA issued an Order to Show 

Cause to Respondent, giving 

Respondent notice of an opportunity to 

show cause why the DEA should not 

revoke Respondent’s DEA Certificates of 

Registration Nos. MJ3401609 

(Tennessee) and MJ4509331 (Ohio), 

pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(5), and 

deny any pending application(s) as a 

practitioner for registration in Schedules 

II through V, alleging that Respondent 

has been excluded from participation in 

all federal health care programs as 

defined in 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(5). Stip. 7; 

ALJ Ex. 13 at 11. 

8. On May 16, 2019, Respondent, 

through his legal counsel, filed a timely 

request for administrative hearing in the 

Matter of Keith A. Jenkins, N.P. Stip. 8; 

ALJ Ex. 13 at 11. 

9. On May 17, 2019, the 

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) 

assigned to this case issued the Court’s 

Order for Prehearing Statements to the 

DEA and Respondent. Stip. 9; ALJ Ex. 

13 at 11. 

10. On May 29, 2019, counsel for the 

Government filed the Government’s 

Prehearing Statement. Stip. 10; ALJ Ex. 

13 at 11. Concurrent with this filing, 

counsel also filed the Government’s 

Motion for Summary Disposition. Id. 

11. Respondent is currently licensed 

by the Ohio Board of Nursing to practice 

as an Advanced Practice Nurse (APRN), 

license number APRN.CNP.021771. 

Stip. 13; ALJ Ex. 13 at 12. 

12. The Respondent’s Ohio APRN 

license includes authority to prescribe. 

Id. 

13. Respondent is currently licensed 

by the Tennessee Board of Nursing to 

practice as an Advanced Practice 

Registered Nurse, license no. 19606. 

Stip. 14; ALJ Ex. 13 at 12. Respondent’s 

Tennessee APRN license is currently on 

probation but is unrestricted. Id. 

14. At this time, Respondent’s DEA 

Certificates of Registration in Ohio and 

Tennessee are active and he is 

authorized to prescribe controlled 

substances in Schedules II through V. 

Stip. 15; ALJ Ex. 13 at 12. 

15. Respondent testified that he works 

at a bariatric clinic where he 

predominately treats morbid obesity and 

typically prescribes Phentermine and 

Qsymia to those patients. Tr. 29. 

16. He also works at a primary 

behavioral health clinic where he treats 

depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, 

bipolar disorder, personality disorders, 

and substance abuse disorders and 

prescribes benzodiazepines such as 

Clonazepam and Alprazolam, as well as 

stimulants such as Ritalin and Adderall. 

Id. at 30. 

17. Respondent testified that at both 

the bariatric clinic and the behavioral 

health practice where he works, drug 

screens are performed to ensure that 

diversion doesn’t occur. Id. at 32. 

18. Respondent testified that although 

he holds two DEA Certificates of 

Registration, he does not use his 

registration for Ohio. Id. at 39. 

19. Respondent testified that to 

remain current in his knowledge of, and 

obligations with respect to, controlled 

substances and prescribing he attends 

conferences and takes continuing 

education. Id. at 41–42; RX 9; RX 11. 

20. Respondent testified that from 

2008 to 2015 he worked at Actera Home 

Health, which was a home health 

agency that provided skilled care, 

private duty and personal care. Tr. 45. 

21. Respondent testified that he did 

not generally provide clinical support at 

Actera Home Health, nor did he write 

prescriptions there. Id. 

22. Respondent testified that the 

mother of a child receiving services at 

Actera Home Health lodged a complaint 

against Actera Home Health. Id. at 46. 

23. Respondent testified that the 

complaint was not substantiated. Id. 

24. During investigation of the 

complaint by the state of Virginia a 

billing error was discovered for a 

different patient. Id. at 46, 71. 

25. Respondent testified that the 

billing error was an overpayment of 

approximately $80,000. Id. at 48. 

26. Respondent testified that the 

service’s billing checks-and-balance 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 125 / Friday, July 2, 2021 / Notices 35343 

system failed to disclose an improper 

billing to Medicaid. Once the initiation 

of a patient’s treatment is entered into 

the Electronic Medical Record (EMR), 

which triggers automatic billing, in this 

case to Medicaid, that billing continues 

until a treatment report noting cessation 

of treatment triggers the termination of 

billing. Here, the patient’s guardian 

refused treatment for the patient. So, no 

treatment reports were ever generated 

and automatic billing to Medicaid 

continued, despite no treatment being 

provided. Id. at 48, 71, 74. 

27. Respondent testified that ‘‘it was 

a huge gap on our end or my end, really, 

that let that slip through.’’ Id. at 49. 

28. Respondent testified that the fault 

was ‘‘mine’’ and that it was ‘‘my 

responsibility.’’ Id. 

29. Respondent testified that he 

entered an Alford plea regarding this 

incident. Id. at 29; GX 3. 

30. Respondent testified that he 

entered the Alford plea because ‘‘I did 

not personally go enter these claims, but 

I am responsible for it as the 

administrator.’’ Tr. 50. 

31. Respondent testified that he was 

sentenced to three years, but it was 

suspended and he served no time in jail. 

Id. at 51. 

32. Respondent testified that he was 

put on probation for three years, which 

remains in effect for another year. Id. at 

51–52. 

33. Respondent testified that the 

clinic paid restitution of $83,027.67. Id. 

at 42; GX 3. 

34. Respondent testified that his 

Alford plea resulted in his conviction of 

a felony for a ‘‘false statement to 

Medicaid.’’ Tr. 52. 

35. Respondent testified that he was 

excluded by the HHS/OIG from 

Medicare and Medicaid. Id. at 54, 57; 

GX 5. 

36. Respondent testified that his false 

statement to Medicaid ‘‘was an isolated 

incident,’’ ‘‘wasn’t intentional’’ but that 

as administrator ‘‘it is my 

responsibility.’’ Tr. 58. 

37. Respondent testified that ‘‘[t]he 

Board of Nursing did not deem me a 

threat to public welfare and safety’’ and 

that he has ‘‘no criminal background at 

all with substances.’’ Id. 

38. Respondent testified that he 

‘‘absolutely’’ accepts responsibility for 

the misconduct. Id. at 58, 67. 

39. Respondent testified that he 

considers his criminal conviction to be 

a serious violation. Id. at 67. 

40. Respondent testified that he is 

remorseful for his violation. Id. at 58, 

67. 

41. Respondent testified that this 

violation will not happen again because 

he no longer works in administrative 

roles, but instead provides direct patient 

care and does no billing. Id. at 58. 

42. Respondent testified that he also 

has a physician supervisor who 

provides oversight. Id. at 58–59. 

Respondent testified that, under 

Tennessee law, his physician supervisor 

must sign off on every controlled 

substance prescription that he writes. 

Id. at 59, 65. 

43. Respondent testified that his 

Tennessee nursing license is on 

probation, but that he has no restrictions 

on his practice or on prescribing. Id. at 

60. 

44. Respondent testified that none of 

the allegations against him from the 

home health agency involved controlled 

substances. Id. 

45. Respondent testified that his 

probation is scheduled to end in August 

2020. Id. at 64; GX 4. 

Analysis 

Findings as to Allegations 

The Government alleges that the 

Respondent’s COR should be revoked 

and any pending applications be denied 

because the Respondent has been 

excluded from all federal health care 

programs, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 

824(a)(5). The Agency has held that 

section 824(a)(5) authorizes the 

revocation of existing registrations, as 

well as the denial of applications. 

Dinorah Drug Store, Inc., 61 FR 15,972 

(1996); Kuen H. Chen, M.D., 58 FR 

65,401 (1993). 

In the adjudication of a revocation or 

suspension of a DEA COR, DEA has the 

burden of proving that the requirements 

for such revocation or suspension are 

satisfied. 21 CFR 1301.44(e) (2010). 

Where the Government has sustained its 

burden and made its prima facie case, 

a respondent must both accept 

responsibility for his actions and 

demonstrate that he will not engage in 

future misconduct. Patrick W. Stodola, 

M.D., 74 FR 20,727, 20,734 (2009). 

Acceptance of responsibility and 

remedial measures are assessed in the 

context of the ‘‘egregiousness of the 

violations and the [DEA’s] interest in 

deterring similar misconduct by [the] 

Respondent in the future as well as on 

the part of others.’’ David A. Ruben, 

M.D., 78 FR 38,363, 38,364 (2013). 

Where the Government has sustained its 

burden, that registrant must present 

sufficient mitigating evidence to assure 

the Acting Administrator that he/she 

can be entrusted with the responsibility 

commensurate with such a registration. 

Medicine Shoppe-Jonesborough, 73 FR 

364, 387 (2008). 

The burden of proof at this 

administrative hearing is a 

preponderance-of-the-evidence 

standard. Steadman v. SEC, 450 U.S. 91, 

100–01 (1981). The Acting 

Administrator’s factual findings will be 

sustained on review to the extent they 

are supported by ‘‘substantial 

evidence.’’ Hoxie v. DEA, 419 F.3d 477, 

481 (6th Cir. 2005). The Supreme Court 

has defined ‘substantial evidence’ as 

such relevant evidence as a reasonable 

mind might accept as adequate to 

support a conclusion. Consolidated 

Edison Co. of New York v. National 

Labor Relations Board, 305 U.S. 197, 

229 (1938). While ‘‘the possibility of 

drawing two inconsistent conclusions 

from the evidence’’ does not limit the 

Acting Administrator’s ability to find 

facts on either side of the contested 

issues in the case, Shatz v. U.S. Dep’t of 

Justice, 873 F.2d 1089, 1092 (8th Cir. 

1989); Trawick v. DEA, 861 F.2d 72, 77 

(4th Cir. 1988), all ‘‘important aspect[s] 

of the problem,’’ such as a respondent’s 

defense or explanation that runs counter 

to the Government’s evidence must be 

considered. Wedgewood Vill. Pharmacy 

v. DEA, 509 F.3d 541, 549 (D.C. Cir. 

2007); Humphreys v. DEA, 96 F.3d 658, 

663 (3rd Cir. 1996). The ultimate 

disposition of the case must be in 

accordance with the weight of the 

evidence, not simply supported by 

enough evidence to justify, if the trial 

were to a jury, a refusal to direct a 

verdict when the conclusion sought to 

be drawn from it is one of fact for the 

jury. Steadman, 450 U.S. at 99 (internal 

quotation marks omitted). 

Regarding the exercise of 

discretionary authority, the courts have 

recognized that gross deviations from 

past agency precedent must be 

adequately supported, Morall v. DEA, 

412 F.3d 165, 183 (D.C. Cir. 2005), but 

mere unevenness in application does 

not, standing alone, render a particular 

discretionary action unwarranted. Chein 

v. DEA, 533 F.3d 828, 835 (D.C. Cir. 

2008) (citing Butz v. Glover Livestock 

Comm’n Co., 411 U.S. 182, 188 (1973)). 

It is well-settled that since the 

Administrative Law Judge has had the 

opportunity to observe the demeanor 

and conduct of hearing witnesses, the 

factual findings set forth in this 

recommended decision are entitled to 

significant deference, Universal Camera 

Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 496 (1951), 

and that this recommended decision 

constitutes an important part of the 

record that must be considered in the 

Acting Administrator’s decision. Morall, 

412 F.3d at 179. However, any 

recommendations set forth herein 

regarding the exercise of discretion are 

by no means binding on the Acting 

Administrator and do not limit the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
35344 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 125 / Friday, July 2, 2021 / Notices 

*C Language omitted for clarity. 

*DAnalysis of public interest factors omitted for 

relevance. 

*EOmitted text for clarity. 

*FOmitted additional public interest analysis. 

*GAt the advice of his attorney, Respondent 

entered an Alford plea of guilty to the felony 

offense of false statement to Medicaid. Although 

entering this type of plea could be viewed as 

mitigating his actions, I do not find this to diminish 

Respondent’s acceptance of responsibility in this 

case. When asked if he had realized that the offense 

involved knowing or willful intent, Respondent 

replied that his attorney had handled the plea 

negotiation and had recommended that he view the 

Alford plea as a ‘‘business decision.’’ Tr. at 68–69. 

With regard to his Alford plea specifically, he 

stated, ‘‘my interpretation of it was essentially that 

I did not personally go enter these claims, but I am 

responsible for it as the administrator.’’ Id. at 50. 

As such, I find that Respondent made it clear that 

he was following the legal advice that his lawyer 

had given him regarding a particular legal element 

of his offense and that his understanding was that 

he was still taking responsibility. Therefore, in spite 

of Respondent’s Alford plea, I find that he 

consistently and completely accepted 

responsibility. 

exercise of that discretion. 5 U.S.C. 

557(b) (2006); River Forest Pharmacy, 

Inc. v. DEA, 501 F.2d 1202, 1206 (7th 

Cir. 1974); Attorney General’s Manual 

on the Administrative Procedure Act 8 

1947). 

Exclusion Under 42 U.S.C. 1320a–7(a) 

The Government has alleged that the 

Respondent has been excluded from 

participation in a program pursuant to 

section 1320a–7(a) of Title 42. The 

Government can meet its burden under 

§ 824(a)(5) simply by advancing 

evidence that the registrant has been 

excluded from a federal health care 

program under 42 U.S.C. 1320a–7(a). 

Johnnie Melvin Turner, M.D., 67 FR 

71,203 (2002); Dinorah Drug Store, Inc., 

61 FR at 15,973. The Administrator has 

sanctioned registrants where the 

Government introduced evidence of a 

registrant/applicant’s plea agreement 

and judgment, and the resulting letter of 

exclusion from the U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, Office of 

Inspector General, imposing mandatory 

exclusion under section 1320a–7(a). See 

Richard Hauser, M.D., 83 FR 26,308 

(2018). 

Additionally, the Agency has 

consistently held that the underlying 

conviction that led to mandatory 

exclusion does not need to involve 

controlled substances to support a 

revocation or denial. See, e.g., 

Mohammed Asgar, M.D., 83 FR 29,569 

(2018); Narciso A. Reyes, M.D., 83 FR 

61,678 (2018); Richard Hauser, M.D., 83 

FR at 26,308; Orlando Ortega-Ortiz, 

M.D., 70 FR 15,122 (2005); Juan PillotCostas, M.D., 69 FR 62,804 (2004). 

However, evidence that the underlying 

conviction does not relate to controlled 

substances can be used in mitigation. 

Mohammed Asgar, M.D., 83 FR at 

29,573 (noting respondent’s conviction 

‘‘did not involve the misuse of his 

registration to handle controlled 

substances’’); Kwan Bo Jin, M.D., 77 FR 

35,021, 35,027 (2012) (showing a lack of 

evidence concerning respondent’s 

‘‘prescribing practices’’).[ ] *C

Government’s Burden of Proof and 

Establishment of a Prima Facie Case 

Based upon my review of the 

allegation by the Government, it is 

necessary to determine if it has met its 

prima facie burden of proving the 

requirements for a sanction pursuant to 

21 U.S.C. 824(a). 

It is clear from the stipulations, the 

Government’s evidence, and the 

Respondent’s position in this matter 

that there is no controversy between the 

parties that the Respondent was 

convicted of the underlying criminal 

charge in Virginia State court, and was 

subsequently mandatorily excluded 

from all federal health care programs by 

HHS/OIG, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1320a– 

7(a). The Government’s evidence clearly 

demonstrates the necessary elements of 

proof under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(5) and I 

find that the Government has 

established a prima facie case for 

revocation of the Respondent’s COR and 

denial of any pending applications. 

Therefore, the remaining issue, and 

the central focus for determination in 

this matter, is whether the Respondent 

has sufficiently demonstrated that he 

has accepted responsibility for his 

actions, has demonstrated remorse and 

taken sufficient rehabilitative and 

remedial steps, to demonstrate to the 

Acting Administrator that he can be 

entrusted to maintain his COR. Kwan Bo 

Jin, M.D., 77 FR at 35,021. The Agency 

must determine whether revocation is 

the appropriate sanction ‘‘to protect the 

public from individuals who have 

misused controlled substances or their 

DEA Certificate of Registration and who 

have not presented sufficient mitigating 

evidence to assure the Administrative 

that they can be trusted with the 

responsibility carried by such a 

registration.’’ Jeffrey Stein, M.D., 84 FR 

46,968, 46,973 (2019) (quoting Leo R. 

Miller, M.D., 53 FR 21,931, 21,932 

(1988)). ‘‘The Agency also looks to the 

nature of the crime in determining the 

likelihood of recidivism and the need 

for deterrence.’’ Id. In determining 

whether and to what extent a sanction 

is appropriate, consideration must be 

given to both the egregiousness of the 

offenses established by the 

Government’s evidence and the 

Agency’s interest in both specific and 

general deterrence. David A. Ruben, 

M.D., 78 FR 38,363, 38,364, 38,385 

(2013).[ ] *D

Acceptance of Responsibility and 

Rehabilitative Measures 

The Government’s prima facie burden 

having been met, [ ] *E the Respondent 

must present sufficient mitigating 

evidence to assure the Administrator 

that he can be entrusted with the 

responsibility incumbent with such 

registration. Medicine ShoppeJonesborough, 73 FR 364, 387 (2008); 

Samuel S. Jackson, 72 FR 23,848, 23,853 

(2007).[ ] *F

The egregiousness and extent of an 

applicant’s misconduct are significant 

factors in determining the appropriate 

sanction. See Jacobo Dreszer, 76 FR 

19,386, 19,387–88 (2011) (explaining 

that a respondent can ‘‘argue that even 

though the Government has made out a 

prima facie case, his conduct was not so 

egregious as to warrant revocation’’); 

Paul H. Volkman, 73 FR 30,630, 30,644 

(2008); Gregory D. Owens, 74 FR 36,751, 

36,757 n.22 (2009). 

Since the discovery of the 

overpayment, the Respondent has 

maintained a consistent posture of 

acknowledging the impropriety and 

illegality of his actions, and of 

cooperation with the Government in 

resolving the matter.*G He has fully 

accepted responsibility for his conduct, 

which led to the underlying criminal 

conviction, both in his criminal 

prosecution, as well as in the instant 

proceeding. Tr. 58, 67; FoF 37. The 

Respondent testified credibly during the 

hearing when asked if he accepted 

responsibility for his misconduct: 

‘‘Absolutely. If I could go back and fix 

it, I would.’’ Tr. 58. When directly asked 

by Government counsel during crossexamination if he accepted 

responsibility, he stated, ‘‘absolutely.’’ 

Id. at 67; FoF 37. The Respondent has 

further demonstrated remorse for his 

crime. Tr. 67; FoF 39. 

[Moreover, it is noted that 

Respondent’s crime did not directly 

benefit Respondent and appears to have 

been a mistake that Respondent was not 

aware was occurring. Even so, 

Respondent did not at any point attempt 

to shift the blame to anyone, he never 

tried to cover up his offense or lie, and 

he credibly maintained that even though 

his actions were unintentional and 

indirect, he was still fully responsible in 

his role as the Administrator for a 

mistake that happened under his watch. 

Respondent credibly demonstrated 

remorse, and I find that he 

unequivocally accepted responsibility. 

When asked how much restitution he 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 125 / Friday, July 2, 2021 / Notices 35345 

*H Language added. 

*ILanguage added. 

*JLanguage omitted for clarity. 

*KOmitted text for clarity. 

paid as a result of his criminal sentence, 

he answered precisely to the cent. Tr. 

51. When he talked about the mistake in 

the billing, he corrected himself when 

he initially said ‘‘we,’’ and stated 

unequivocally that it was ‘‘really’’ him. 

Id. 49. In a situation such as this one 

that involved a mistake, it would have 

been very easy for Respondent to have 

shifted the blame or mitigated the 

circumstances surrounding his crime, 

but he unfalteringly maintained that it 

was his responsibility.] *H

Additionally, Respondent has 

consistently demonstrated that he has 

taken the necessary steps to correct the 

error. The Respondent has returned to 

clinical care, and is not involved in 

billing or any other administrative 

responsibility. [Respondent recognized 

that he should not hold a management 

or administrative position and 

Respondent changed his practice area. 

By doing so, Respondent has made the 

effort to ensure that there is no 

recurrence of his mistake in the future. 

I find this to be further evidence of his 

acceptance of responsibility that 

demonstrates that he has taken active 

steps to prevent future mistakes. He also 

attends a few conferences a year, 

receives regulatory update mailings, and 

stated that his role as adjunct faculty 

‘‘forces [him] to stay current.’’ Id. at 

41.] *I

Although correcting improper 

behavior and practices is very important 

to establish acceptance of responsibility, 

conceding wrongdoing is critical to 

reestablishing trust with the Agency. 

Holiday CVS, L.L.C., 77 FR 62,316, 

62,346 (2012); Daniel A. Glick, D.D.S., 

80 FR at 74,801. Based upon the 

evidence presented, I find that the 

Respondent has demonstrated the full 

measure of acceptance of responsibility, 

and has fully demonstrated that he is 

remorseful for his actions and has taken 

considerable steps to ensure that this 

conduct will not be repeated. 

Loss of Trust 

Where the Government has sustained 

its burden and established that a 

registrant has committed acts 

inconsistent with the public interest, 

that registrant must present sufficient 

mitigating evidence to assure the Acting 

Administrator that he can be entrusted 

with the responsibility commensurate 

with such a registration. Medicine 

Shoppe, 73 FR at 387. 

As demonstrated by the evidence 

presented in this matter, it is clear to me 

that the Respondent has unequivocally 

accepted responsibility for his conduct. 

His underlying criminal conduct did not 

relate to his handling of controlled 

substances and the Government has not 

alleged or demonstrated any 

deficiencies by the Respondent related 

to controlled substance. [ ] *J

There is no indication that the 

Respondent has ever improperly 

handled controlled substances or that he 

represents a danger to the public. Based 

upon the evidence presented, and 

consistent with Jackson, Miller, and 

Stein, the Respondent has clearly 

demonstrated that he can be entrusted 

to properly maintain his COR. 

Recommendation 

Considering the entire record before 

me, the conduct of the hearing, and 

observation of the testimony of the 

witnesses presented, I find that the 

Government has met its burden of proof 

and has established a prima facie case 

for revocation. However, [ ] *K the 

evidence suggests that the Respondent 

has unequivocally accepted 

responsibility, is remorseful for his 

conduct, has withdrawn from any 

responsibilities related to billing or 

other administrative duties, and has 

presented convincing evidence 

demonstrating that the Agency can 

entrust him to maintain his COR. 

Therefore, I recommend the 

Respondent’s DEA Certificates of 

Registration MJ3401609 and MJ4509331 

should not be revoked and any pending 

applications for renewal or modification 

of such registration, or for additional 

DEA registrations, be granted. 

Signed: February 19, 2020. 

Mark M. Dowd, 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

[FR Doc. 2021–14163 Filed 7–1–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Federal Bureau of Investigation 

[OMB Number 1110–0045] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Proposed eCollection 

eComments Requested; Extension of 

Currently Approved Collection; 

Customer Satisfaction Assessment 

Survey 

AGENCY: Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, Department of Justice. 

ACTION: 30-Day notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice, 

Federal Bureau of Investigation, 

Laboratory Division (LD) has submitted 

the following Information Collection 

Request to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review and 

clearance in accordance with the 

established review procedures of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The 

proposed information collection is 

published to obtain comments from the 

public and affected agencies. 

DATES: The Department of Justice 

encourages public comment and will 

accept input until August 2, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

PRAMain. Find this particular 

information collection by selecting 

‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open 

for Public Comments’’ or by using the 

search function. 

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; 

—Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and/or 

—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: 

Extension of a currently approved 

collection. 

2. The Title of the Form/Collection: 

Customer Satisfaction Assessment. 

3. The agency form number: FD–1000. 

4. Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: Respondents primarily include 

federal, state, and local law 

enforcement. Respondents also include 

the intelligence community, Department 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1