40650 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Notices 

19 I do not consider remedial measures when a 

Respondent does not unequivocally accept 

responsibility. As discussed, the scope of 

Respondent’s presentation of remedial efforts was 

limited and, therefore, unpersuasive and not 

reassuring. 

Howard Smith, M.D., 83 FR at 18,910; 

Samuel Mintlow, M.D., 80 FR at 3652. 

In terms of egregiousness, the 

violations that the substantial record 

evidence shows Respondent committed 

go to the heart of the CSA: Not 

complying with the closed regulatory 

system devised to ‘‘prevent the 

diversion of drugs from legitimate to 

illicit channels’’ and not prescribing 

controlled substances in compliance 

with the applicable standard of care and 

in the usual course of professional 

practice. Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. at 

13–14, 27. 

Respondent’s submissions address her 

acceptance of responsibility. RFAAX 10 

and RFAAX 11. According to her 

Written Statement, she has ‘‘always 

taken 100% responsibility’’ for her 

diversion of controlled substances.’’ 

RFAAX 10, at 1. It also states that she 

does ‘‘not deny nor . . . [has she] ever 

in the past the unfortunate course of 

actions . . . [she] decided to take by 

diverting controlled substances.’’ Id. at 

2. Her Written Statement continues with 

her ‘‘accept[ing] sole responsibility and 

. . . [stating that she has] taken actions 

to become sober and healthy and 

continue[s] to do such.’’ Id. 

Respondent’s choice to submit a 

Written Statement, instead of taking 

advantage of her right to a hearing, 

means that she cannot answer questions 

about her acceptance of responsibility. 

The several areas of concern I have 

about her acceptance of responsibility, 

therefore, remain unresolved. First, 

Respondent’s statements accepting 

responsibility are expressed only in the 

general terms of diverting controlled 

substances. Id. at 1, 2. Second, she does 

not accept responsibility for all of the 

OSC’s founded allegations. Instead, she 

is explicit in her ‘‘deni[al of] all the 

above charges against her,’’ meaning, at 

least, the OSC charges that she was 

convicted of a felony relating to a 

controlled substance and that she 

materially falsified her registration 

renewal application. RFAAX 11, at 1. 

Third, she does not address, let alone 

accept responsibility for, the conduct 

the TMB found as a basis for 

disciplining Respondent. RFAAX 3, at 

3–5 and RFAAX 11, at 11–13. 

Consequently, Respondent’s 

acceptance of responsibility is not broad 

enough to encompass all of the Agency’s 

charges against her. RFAAX 3, at 3–5 

and RFAAX 11, at 1, 11–13. As such, it 

is not unequivocal, as the Agency 

requires. Jeffrey Stein, M.D., 84 FR 

46,968, 46,972–73 (2019) (unequivocal 

acceptance of responsibility); Jayam 

Krishna-Iyer, M.D., 74 FR 459, 463 

(2009) (collecting cases). These 

deficiencies are concerning as they may 

mean that Respondent is not ready and/ 

or willing to appreciate (1) the full 

extent of her misconduct and the (2) 

breadth of the harm her misconduct 

caused. I am also left wondering what 

Respondent learned from her 

misconduct, and whether Respondent 

has the resources to avoid committing 

the misconduct again. 

For example, Respondent’s statements 

accepting responsibility connect this 

acceptance with a violation of ‘‘the oath 

. . . [she] took as a physician and 

trusted public figure.’’ RFAAX 10, at 1. 

This, of course, is good and appropriate, 

and it ties into her statements that she 

has ‘‘done everything in . . . [her] 

power to correct . . . [her] actions,’’ and 

that ‘‘she continue[s] to work hard at 

maintaining sobriety and gain[ing] the 

trust of those that . . . [she has] lost, 

including the public.’’ Id. Her 

acceptance of responsibility does not 

appear to extend beyond the impact of 

her misconduct on herself, her sobriety, 

and the public’s perception of her 

trustworthiness. For example, she 

focuses on herself as she characterizes 

as ‘‘unfortunate’’ Parkland Hospital’s 

taking legal action concerning her 

diversion of controlled substances. 

RFAAX 10, at 1; supra section II.F. She 

does not mention, let alone 

unequivocally accept responsibility for, 

potentially endangering the lives of the 

Hospital’s patients. RFAAX 3, at 3–4 

and RFAAX 11, at 11–12. By way of 

further example, she does not 

acknowledge that her misconduct, not 

complying with the closed regulatory 

system devised to ‘‘prevent the 

diversion of drugs from legitimate to 

illicit channels,’’ goes to the heart of the 

CSA. Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. at 13– 

14, 27. Her stated ‘‘hard work’’ goes to 

‘‘maintaining sobriety and gain[ing] the 

trust of those that . . . [she has] lost, 

including the public,’’ but not, 

apparently, also to regaining the trust of 

the Agency whose statutory 

responsibilities include determining 

who may be entrusted with the 

responsibilities of a controlled 

substance registration. 

For all of the above reasons, it is not 

reasonable for me, at this time, to trust 

that Respondent will comply with all 

controlled-substance related legal 

requirements in the future.19 Alra Labs., 

Inc. v. Drug Enf’t Admin., 54 F.3d at 452 

(‘‘An agency rationally may conclude 

that past performance is the best 

predictor of future performance.’’). 

Accordingly, I shall order that 

Respondent’s registration be revoked 

and that all pending applications to 

renew or modify Respondent’s 

registration, and any pending 

application for a new registration in 

Texas, be denied. 

Order 

Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the 

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

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

revoke DEA Certificate of Registration 

No. FG2374053 issued to Erica N. Grant, 

M.D. Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 

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

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

hereby deny any pending application of 

Erica N. Grant, M.D., to renew or modify 

this registration, as well as any other 

pending application of Erica N. Grant, 

M.D. for registration in Texas. This 

Order is effective August 27, 2021. 

Anne Milgram, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2021–16003 Filed 7–27–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

[OMB Number 1121–0277] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Proposed Collection and 

Comments Requested; Reinstatement 

With Change of Previously Approved 

Collection #1121–0277: OJJDP’s 

National Training and Technical 

Assistance Center (NTTAC) Feedback 

Form Package 

AGENCY: Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), 

Department of Justice. 

ACTION: 60-Day notice. 

SUMMARY: The Office of Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention, 

Department of Justice (DOJ), will be 

submitting the following information 

collection request to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and approval in accordance with 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Comments are encouraged and 

will be accepted for 60 days until 

September 27, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have comments, especially on the 

estimated public burden or associated 

response time, suggestions, or need a 

copy of the proposed information 

collection instrument with instructions 

or additional information, please 

contact Jill Molter, Web Content 

Manager, OJJDP’s NTTAC COR at 202– 

514–8871, Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention, Office of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Notices 40651 

Justice Programs, Department of Justice, 

810 7th Street NW, Washington, DC 

20530 or by email at jill.molter@

usdoj.gov. Written comments and/or 

suggestions can also be sent to the 

Office of Management and Budget, 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Attention Department of Justice 

Desk Officers, Washington, DC 20503 or 

sent to OIRA_submissions@

omb.eop.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Written 

comments and suggestions from the 

public and affected agencies concerning 

the proposed collection of information 

are encouraged. Your comments should 

address one or more of the following 

four points: 

— Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 

including whether the information 

will have practical utility; 

— Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

— Evaluate whether and if so how the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected can be 

enhanced; and 

— Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those 

who are to respond, including 

through the use of appropriate 

automated, electronic, mechanical, or 

other technological collection 

techniques or other forms of 

information technology, e.g., 

permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Overview of This Information 

Collection 

1. Type of Information Collection: 

Reinstatement with change of 

previously approved collection. 

2. The Title of the Form/Collection: 

OJJDP’s NTTAC Feedback Form 

Package. 

3. The agency form number: OJJDP’s 

NTTAC, all forms included in package 

#1121–0277. 

4. Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: 

Primary: Individuals or households. 

Other: Federal Government, State, 

local or tribal government; Not-for-profit 

institutions; Businesses or other forprofit. 

Abstract: The Office for Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

National Training and Technical 

Assistance Center (NTTAC) Feedback 

Form Package is designed to collect inperson and online data necessary to 

continuously assess the outcomes of the 

assistance provided for both monitoring 

and accountability purposes and for 

continuously assessing and meeting the 

needs of the field. OJJDP’s NTTAC will 

send these forms to technical assistance 

(TA) recipients; conference attendees; 

training and TA providers; online 

meeting participants; in-person meeting 

participants; and focus group 

participants to capture important 

feedback on the recipients’ satisfaction 

with the quality, efficiency, referrals, 

information, and resources provided 

and assess the recipients’ additional 

training and TA needs. The data will 

then be used to advise OJJDP’s NTTAC 

on ways to improve the support 

provided to its users; the juvenile justice 

field at-large; and ultimately improve 

services and outcomes for youth. 

5. An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 

estimated for an average respondent to 

respond: It is estimated that 5066 

respondents will complete forms and 

the response time will range from .03 

hours to 1.5 hours. 

6. An estimate of the total public 

burden (in hours) associated with the 

collection: An estimated 520.5 total 

annual burden hours are associated with 

this collection. 

If additional information is required, 

contact: Melody Braswell, Department 

Clearance Officer, United States 

Department of Justice, Justice 

Management Division, Policy and 

Planning Staff, Two Constitution 

Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405B, 

Washington, DC 20530. 

Dated: July 23, 2021. 

Melody Braswell, 

Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. 

Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2021–16078 Filed 7–27–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–18–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

[Docket No. OSHA–2007–0003] 

RIN 1218–AC98 

Mechanical Power Presses Update 

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), DOL. 

ACTION: Request for information (RFI). 

SUMMARY: OSHA requests information 

and comment on issues related to the 

mechanical power presses standard. The 

standard was issued in 1971 based upon 

the 1971 American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI) industry consensus 

standard for mechanical power presses. 

This ANSI standard has been updated a 

number of times since 1971. OSHA is 

seeking information regarding whether 

it should update the mechanical power 

presses standard and, if so, how closely 

the standard should follow the current 

ANSI standard for mechanical power 

presses. It is also seeking information on 

the types of presses that should be 

covered, the use and certification of 

equipment, and other topics such as 

presence-sensing device initiation 

(PSDI) systems, and requirements for 

press modifications, training, and injury 

reporting. OSHA will use the 

information received in response to this 

RFI to determine what action, if any, it 

may take to reduce regulatory burdens 

while maintaining worker safety. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

October 26, 2021. All submissions must 

bear a postmark or provide other 

evidence of the submission date. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted as follows: 

Electronically: You may submit 

comments, including attachments, 

electronically at http://

www.regulations.gov, the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

OSHA will place comments and 

requests for a hearing, including 

personal information, in the public 

docket, which will be available online. 

Therefore, OSHA cautions interested 

parties about submitting personal 

information such as Social Security 

numbers and birthdates. 

Docket: To read or download 

comments or other material in the 

docket, go to http://

www.regulations.gov. Documents in the 

docket are listed in the http://

www.regulations.gov index; however, 

some information (e.g., copyrighted 

material) is not publicly available to 

read or download through this website. 

All submissions, including copyrighted 

material, are available for inspection 

through the OSHA Docket Office. 

Contact the OSHA Docket Office for 

assistance in locating docket 

submissions. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Press Inquiries: Frank Meilinger, 

Director, OSHA Office of 

Communications; telephone: 202–693– 

1999; email: meilinger.francis2@dol.gov. 

General and technical information: 

Lisa Long, OSHA Directorate of 

Standards and Guidance; email: 

long.lisa@dol.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES