Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2022 / Notices 30279 

3Respondent argues the ALJ did not give proper 

weight to his handling of controlled substances 

during the five years between the fraudulent 

prescriptions and the OSC. Exceptions, at 20–21. I 

agree with the ALJ that, while the record does not 

contain any evidence that Respondent has issued 

fraudulent prescriptions or tested positive for drugs 

since 2016 (an assertion for which he has provided 

no documentary support), I cannot conclude 

Respondent has learned from his mistakes and can 

be entrusted with a new registration because of his 

failure to acknowledge his fraud and the impact it 

had on those he manipulated and placed in legal 

jeopardy. RD, at 34. 

4 In his Exceptions, Respondent re-raises nine 

DEA cases he previously cited in his posthearing 

brief and cites to three additional cases, which, he 

argues, demonstrate revocation in this matter is 

improper. Exceptions, at 24–27. I disagree. As noted 

in the RD, clear Agency precedent requires full 

acceptance of responsibility, and Respondent has 

failed to demonstrate such acceptance. See RD, at 

38–39 (collecting cases). Imposing a sanction of 

revocation in this matter is consistent with recent 

agency decisions that have revoked registrations in 

matters where a registrant unlawfully obtained 

controlled substances for personal use and failed to 

accept full responsibility. See, e.g. David Mwebe, 

M.D., 85 FR 51065, 51068 (2020) (revoking 

registration based on fraudulent issuance of 

prescriptions for personal use); David W. Bailey, 

M.D., 81 FR 6045, 6047 (2016) (revoking registration 

of physician who issued controlled prescriptions in 

his wife’s name for personal use). For example, in 

Erica Grant, M.D., the Agency revoked the 

registration of a registrant with a substance abuse 

disorder because, while she had accepted 

responsibility for her unlawful use of controlled 

substances, her acceptance of responsibility did not 

cover all of the Agency’s charges against her. 86 FR 

40641, 40650 (2021); see also, Robert Wayne 

Locklear, M.D., 86 FR 33738, 33747–48 (2021). 

even if I were to consider Respondent’s 

remedial measures, they would not 

affect my ultimate decision in this 

matter. While I give Respondent credit 

for the rehabilitation he has pursued so 

far, it is significant that Respondent has 

never sustained his sobriety outside the 

context of a regulated drug program and 

has provided no documentary evidence 

corroborating his sobriety and remedial 

measures. I find it troubling that as of 

the date of the administrative hearing, 

he had no set plans for further treatment 

or other remedial measures once his 

PRN contract expired. Respondent’s 

remedial measures also dealt only with 

his drug addiction, and he provided no 

evidence of remedial measures with 

respect to his fraudulent scheme aside 

from taking general, required courses on 

proper prescribing. Tr. 193–94. Thus, 

Respondent’s remedial measures are 

inadequate given his lack of 

corroborating evidence of the measures 

he has already undertaken, his 

nonexistent plan for the future, and his 

failure to show any remedial measures 

related to his fraud.3

In addition to acceptance of 

responsibility, the Agency looks to the 

egregiousness and extent of the 

misconduct, Garrett Howard Smith, 

M.D., 83 FR at 18910 (collecting cases), 

and gives consideration to both specific 

and general deterrence when 

determining an appropriate sanction. 

Daniel A. Glick, D.D.S., 80 FR 74800, 

74810 (2015). Here, Respondent’s fraud 

was egregious—he perpetrated a 

calculated, sophisticated scheme, 

manipulating those who trusted him, 

and using his knowledge as a DEA 

registrant to evade detection. See Jana 

Marjenhoff, D.O., 80 FR 29067, 29095 

(2015). As for general deterrence, failing 

to impose a significant sanction against 

Respondent would send the wrong 

message to other registrants that the 

Agency does not take fraud seriously— 

especially a fraudulent scheme in which 

a registrant uses his knowledge of the 

controlled system of distribution to 

defeat it. Such a message would be 

inconsistent with past Agency 

precedent and the goals of the CSA. Id. 

As for specific deterrence, the 

‘‘Agency also looks to the nature of the 

crime in determining the likelihood of 

recidivism and the need for deterrence.’’ 

Jeffrey Stein, M.D., 84 FR 46968, 49973 

(2019). The Agency has previously 

found that criminal convictions and 

sanctions by state licensing authorities 

can sufficiently deter physicians from 

engaging in misconduct, making the 

revocation of a registration unnecessary 

to achieve specific deterrence. Kansky J. 

Delisma, M.D., 85 FR 23845, 23854 

(2020). Here, Respondent has not been 

criminally convicted and there is no 

evidence in the record that he has faced 

any sanctions by the state licensing 

authority. As a result, the interest of 

specific deterrence clearly favors the 

sanction of revocation. 

As discussed above, to avoid sanction 

when grounds for revocation exist, a 

respondent must convince the 

Administrator that he can be entrusted 

with a registration. I find that 

Respondent has not met this burden.4

Accordingly, I shall order the sanctions 

the Government requested, 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 21 U.S.C. 823(f), I hereby 

revoke DEA Certificate of Registration 

No. FH1510709 issued to Michael T. 

Harris, M.D. Pursuant to 28 CFR 

0.100(b) and the authority vested in me 

by 21 U.S.C. 823(f), I further hereby 

deny any pending application to renew 

or modify this registration, as well as 

any other pending applications of 

Michael T. Harris, M.D. This Order is 

effective June 17, 2022. 

Anne Milgram, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2022–10598 Filed 5–17–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS 

ADMINISTRATION 

[NARA–2022–041] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Submission for OMB 

Review; Comment Request 

AGENCY: National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: We have submitted a request 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for approval to continue to use 

a currently approved information 

collection. This information collection, 

OMB 3095–0037, covers requests for 

civilian service records from former 

Federal civilian employees or other 

authorized individuals—for information 

from, or copies of, documents in Official 

Personnel Files (OPF) or Employee 

Medical Files (EMF). We invite you to 

comment on this proposed information 

collection. 

DATES: OMB must receive written 

comments on or before June 17, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Send any comments and 

recommendations on the proposed 

information collection in writing to 

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. 

You can find this particular information 

collection by selecting ‘‘Currently under 

30-day Review—Open for Public 

Comments’’ or by using the search 

function. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tamee Fechhelm, Paperwork Reduction 

Act Officer, by email at 

tamee.fechhelm@nara.gov or by 

telephone at 301.837.1694 with any 

requests for additional information. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–13), we invite the public 

and other Federal agencies to comment 

on proposed information collections. 

We published a notice of proposed 

collection for this information collection 

on March 8, 2022 (87 FR 13011) and we 

received no comments. We are therefore 

submitting the described information 

collection to OMB for approval. 

If you have comments or suggestions, 

they should address one or more of the 

following points: (a) Whether the 

proposed information collection is 

necessary for NARA to properly perform 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
30280 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2022 / Notices 

its functions; (b) our estimate of the 

burden of the proposed information 

collection and its accuracy; (c) ways we 

could enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information we collect; (d) 

ways we could minimize the burden on 

respondents of collecting the 

information, including through 

information technology; and (e) whether 

this collection affects small businesses. 

In this notice, we solicit comments 

concerning the following information 

collection: 

Title: Requests for Civilian Service 

Records (formerly Forms Relating to 

Civilian Service Records). 

OMB number: 3095–0037. 

Agency form number: NA Forms 

13022, 13064, 13068. 

Type of review: Regular. 

Affected public: Former Federal 

civilian employees, their authorized 

representatives, state and local 

governments, and businesses. 

Estimated number of respondents: 

57,899. 

Estimated time per response: 5 

minutes per form. 

Frequency of response: On occasion, 

when individuals desire to acquire 

information from Federal civilian 

employee personnel or medical records. 

Estimated total annual burden hours: 

4,824 hours. 

Abstract: In accordance with rules 

issued by the Office of Personnel 

Management, the National Personnel 

Records Center (NPRC) of the National 

Archives and Records Administration 

(NARA) administers Official Personnel 

Folders (OPF) and Employee Medical 

Folders (EMF) of former Federal civilian 

employees. When former Federal 

civilian employees and other authorized 

individuals request information from or 

copies of documents in OPF or EMF, 

they must provide in their requests 

certain information about the employee 

and the nature of the request so that we 

can determine whether they are 

authorized to receive the information 

and so that we can find the correct 

records. The NA Form 13022, Returned 

Request Form, is used to request 

additional information about the former 

Federal employee. The NA Form 13064, 

Reply to Request Involving Relief 

Agencies, is used to request additional 

information about the former relief 

agency employee. The NA Form 13068, 

Walk-In Request for OPM Records or 

Information, is used by members of the 

public, with proper authorization, to 

request a copy of a personnel or medical 

record. 

Swarnali Haldar, 

Executive for Information Services/CIO. 

[FR Doc. 2022–10640 Filed 5–17–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7515–01–P 

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS 

ADMINISTRATION 

[NARA–2022–043] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Submission for OMB 

Review; Comment Request 

AGENCY: National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: We have submitted a request 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for approval to continue to use 

a currently approved information 

collection, Facility Access Media (FAM) 

Request, NA Form 6006, used by all 

individuals requesting recurring access 

to non-public areas of NARA’s facilities 

and IT network. We invite you to 

comment on this proposed information 

collection. 

DATES: OMB must receive written 

comments on or before June 17, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Send any comments and 

recommendations on the proposed 

information collection in writing to 

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. 

You can find this particular information 

collection by selecting ‘‘Currently under 

30-day Review—Open for Public 

Comments’’ or by using the search 

function. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tamee Fechhelm, Paperwork Reduction 

Act Officer, by email at 

tamee.fechhelm@nara.gov or by 

telephone at 301.837.1694 with any 

requests for additional information. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–13), we invite the public 

and other Federal agencies to comment 

on proposed information collections. 

We published a notice of proposed 

collection for this information collection 

on March 8, 2022 (87 FR 13010) and we 

received no comments. We are therefore 

submitting the described information 

collection to OMB for approval. 

If you have comments or suggestions, 

they should address one or more of the 

following points: (a) Whether the 

proposed information collection is 

necessary for NARA to properly perform 

its functions; (b) our estimate of the 

burden of the proposed information 

collection and its accuracy; (c) ways we 

could enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information we collect; (d) 

ways we could minimize the burden on 

respondents of collecting the 

information, including through 

information technology; and (e) whether 

this collection affects small businesses. 

In this notice, we solicit comments 

concerning the following information 

collection: 

Title: Facility Access Media (FAM) 

Request. 

OMB number: 3095–0057. 

Agency form number: NA Form 6006. 

Type of review: Regular. 

Affected public: Individuals or 

households. 

Estimated number of respondents: 

1,500. 

Estimated time per response: 3 

minutes. 

Frequency of response: On occasion. 

Estimated total annual burden hours: 

75 hours. 

Abstract: All individuals who require 

recurring access to non-public areas of 

NARA’s facilities and IT network (such 

as NARA employees, contractors, 

volunteers, NARA-related foundation 

employees, volunteers, interns, and 

other non-NARA Federal employees, 

such as Federal agency reviewers), 

herein referred to as ‘‘applicants,’’ 

complete the Facility Access Media 

(FAM) Request, NA Form 6006, in order 

to obtain NARA Facility Access Media 

(FAM). After we review the request, we 

issue the applicant a FAM, if approved, 

and they are then able to access nonpublic areas of NARA facilities and IT 

network. Collecting this information is 

necessary to comply with Homeland 

Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 

12 requirements for secure and reliable 

forms of personal identification issued 

by Federal agencies to their employees, 

contractors, and other individuals 

requiring recurring access to non-public 

areas of Government facilities and 

information services. We developed this 

form to comply with this requirement. 

Swarnali Haldar, 

Executive for Information Services/CIO. 

[FR Doc. 2022–10642 Filed 5–17–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7515–01–P 

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS 

ADMINISTRATION 

[NARA–2022–042] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Submission for OMB 

Review; Comment Request 

AGENCY: National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). 

ACTION: Notice. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1