32186 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 103 / Friday, May 27, 2022 / Notices 

1Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures: 

https://www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_on_

filing_procedures.pdf. 

2All contract personnel will sign appropriate 

nondisclosure agreements. 

3Electronic Document Information System 

(EDIS): https://edis.usitc.gov. 

1Because the Request for Hearing was emailed 

after 5:00 p.m. on January 25, 2022, it was deemed 

filed on January 26, 2022. Order Regarding Request 

for Hearing Attachments and Filing Procedures, at 

1. 

2 In the Request for Hearing email, Respondent’s 

wife represented that she had included her Power 

of Attorney in the form of fourteen file attachments, 

but the ALJ was unable to access the attachments. 

Order Regarding Request for Hearing Attachments 

and Filing Procedures, at 1; see also Request for 

Hearing. 

3The Government’s Notice of Filing of Evidence 

Regarding Proof of Service showed that Respondent 

was not served with the OSC until January 4, 2022, 

thus, Respondent’s Request for Hearing was timely 

filed. Order Granting the Government’s Motion for 

Summary Disposition, and Recommended Rulings, 

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision 

of the Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter, 

United States which could replace the 

subject articles if they were to be 

excluded; 

(iv) indicate whether complainant, 

complainant’s licensees, and/or third 

party suppliers have the capacity to 

replace the volume of articles 

potentially subject to the requested 

exclusion order and/or a cease and 

desist order within a commercially 

reasonable time; and 

(v) explain how the requested 

remedial orders would impact United 

States consumers. 

Written submissions on the public 

interest must be filed no later than by 

close of business, eight calendar days 

after the date of publication of this 

notice in the Federal Register. There 

will be further opportunities for 

comment on the public interest after the 

issuance of any final initial 

determination in this investigation. Any 

written submissions on other issues 

must also be filed by no later than the 

close of business, eight calendar days 

after publication of this notice in the 

Federal Register. Complainant may file 

replies to any written submissions no 

later than three calendar days after the 

date on which any initial submissions 

were due. No other submissions will be 

accepted, unless requested by the 

Commission. Any submissions and 

replies filed in response to this Notice 

are limited to five (5) pages in length, 

inclusive of attachments. Persons filing 

written submissions must file the 

original document electronically on or 

before the deadlines stated above. 

Submissions should refer to the docket 

number (‘‘Docket No. 3623’’) in a 

prominent place on the cover page and/ 

or the first page. (See Handbook for 

Electronic Filing Procedures, Electronic 

Filing Procedures 1). Please note the 

Secretary’s Office will accept only 

electronic filings during this time. 

Filings must be made through the 

Commission’s Electronic Document 

Information System (EDIS, https://

edis.usitc.gov.) No in-person paperbased filings or paper copies of any 

electronic filings will be accepted until 

further notice. Persons with questions 

regarding filing should contact the 

Secretary at EDIS3Help@usitc.gov. Any 

person desiring to submit a document to 

the Commission in confidence must 

request confidential treatment. All such 

requests should be directed to the 

Secretary to the Commission and must 

include a full statement of the reasons 

why the Commission should grant such 

treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents 

for which confidential treatment by the 

Commission is properly sought will be 

treated accordingly. All information, 

including confidential business 

information and documents for which 

confidential treatment is properly 

sought, submitted to the Commission for 

purposes of this Investigation may be 

disclosed to and used: (i) By the 

Commission, its employees and Offices, 

and contract personnel (a) for 

developing or maintaining the records 

of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in 

internal investigations, audits, reviews, 

and evaluations relating to the 

programs, personnel, and operations of 

the Commission including under 5 

U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. 

government employees and contract 

personnel,2 solely for cybersecurity 

purposes. All nonconfidential written 

submissions will be available for public 

inspection at the Office of the Secretary 

and on EDIS.3 This action is taken under 

the authority of section 337 of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 

1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: May 23, 2022. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2022–11379 Filed 5–26–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 22–14] 

Omar Garcia, M.D.; Decision and Order 

On November 4, 2021, the former 

Acting Assistant Administrator, 

Diversion Control Division, Drug 

Enforcement Administration 

(hereinafter, DEA or Government), 

issued an Order to Show Cause 

(hereinafter, OSC) to Omar Garcia, M.D. 

(hereinafter, Respondent) of Ocala, 

Florida. OSC, at 1 and 3. The OSC 

proposed the revocation of 

Respondent’s Certificate of Registration 

No. FG2055158. Id. at 1. It alleged that 

Respondent is ‘‘without authority to 

handle controlled substances in Florida, 

the state in which [he is] registered with 

DEA.’’ Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 

824(a)(3)). 

Specifically, the OSC alleged that on 

September 3, 2021, the Florida Board of 

Medicine entered an Order that, 

effective immediately, revoked 

Respondent’s state medical license after 

a finding that he had been convicted of 

six counts of Health Care Fraud and 

excluded for cause from participating in 

the Florida Medicaid program. Id. 

The OSC notified Respondent of the 

right to request a hearing on the 

allegations or to submit a written 

statement, while waiving the right to a 

hearing, the procedures for electing each 

option, and the consequences for failing 

to elect either option. Id. (citing 21 CFR 

1301.43). The OSC also notified 

Respondent of the opportunity to 

submit a corrective action plan. Id. at 3 

(citing 21 U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C)). 

By email dated January 25, 2022,1

Respondent’s wife submitted a Request 

for Hearing on Respondent’s behalf, 

stating that Respondent was in federal 

prison. Request for Hearing dated 

January 25, 2022. The Office of 

Administrative Law Judges put the 

matter on the docket and assigned it to 

Administrative Law Judge Teresa A. 

Wallbaum (hereinafter, the ALJ). On 

January 26, 2022, the ALJ issued an 

Order Regarding Request for Hearing 

Attachments and Filing Procedures 2 as 

well as an Order Directing the 

Government to File Evidence Regarding 

Service of the Order to Show Cause. On 

January 28, 2022, the Respondent’s wife 

filed a copy of her Power of Attorney as 

well as an updated Request for Hearing 

dated January 26, 2022. In the updated 

Request for Hearing, Respondent’s wife 

represented that although Respondent’s 

Florida medical license was revoked, 

his DEA registration had been issued in 

Illinois, not Florida. Request for Hearing 

dated January 26, 2022, at 1. 

Respondent’s wife also noted that 

Respondent holds three other state 

licenses and that his DEA registration 

record was ‘‘impeccable.’’ Id. On 

February 9, 2022, the Government filed 

its Notice of Filing of Evidence 

Regarding Proof of Service.3


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 103 / Friday, May 27, 2022 / Notices 32187 

Recommended Decision or RD); see also 

Government’s Notice of Filing of Evidence 

Regarding Proof of Service. 

4Because the request was emailed after 5:00 p.m. 

on March 21, 2022, it was deemed filed on March 

22, 2022. Id. at 3. 

5Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an 

agency ‘‘may take official notice of facts at any stage 

in a proceeding—even in the final decision.’’ 

United States Department of Justice, Attorney 

General’s Manual on the Administrative Procedure 

Act 80 (1947) (Wm. W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint 

1979). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 556(e), ‘‘[w]hen an 

agency decision rests on official notice of a material 

fact not appearing in the evidence in the record, a 

party is entitled, on timely request, to an 

opportunity to show the contrary.’’ Accordingly, 

Respondent may dispute my finding by filing a 

properly supported motion for reconsideration of 

findings of fact within fifteen calendar days of the 

date of this Order. Any such motion and response 

shall be filed and served by email to the other party 

and to Office of the Administrator, Drug 

Enforcement Administration at 

dea.addo.attorneys@dea.usdoj.gov. 

6Respondent argues that his DEA registration was 

issued in Illinois, not Florida, however, the record 

evidence shows that his DEA registration currently 

has a registered address in Florida. See Gov. Att. 2, 

Ex. 1 (Certificate of Registration). Further, even if 

Respondent’s registered address were in Illinois, 

according to Illinois online records, of which I take 

official notice, Respondent’s Illinois medical 

license is indefinitely suspended and Respondent’s 

Illinois controlled substances registration is 

expired. Illinois Department of Financial and 

Professional Regulation License Lookup, https://

online-dfpr.micropact.com/lookup/ 

licenselookup.aspx (last visited date of signature of 

this Order). Thus, Respondent is not currently 

licensed to engage in the practice of medicine nor 

registered to dispense controlled substances in 

Illinois. Respondent argues that he has other state 

medical licenses that could be used as a basis for 

DEA registration, however, as the ALJ stated, the 

argument fails ‘‘because Respondent provides no 

evidence to support this assertion; indeed, he does 

not even identify those other states.’’ RD, at 8. 

Moreover, ‘‘even if [Respondent] does have other 

valid state medical licenses, his DEA registration is 

based on his Florida medical license, and that has 

undeniably been revoked.’’ Id. 

On February 9, 2022, the ALJ issued 

an Order Directing the Government to 

File Evidence Regarding its Lack of 

State Authority Allegation and Briefing 

Schedule. The Government timely filed 

its Notice of Filing of Evidence and 

Motion for Summary Disposition 

(hereinafter, Motion for Summary 

Disposition) on February 25, 2022. RD, 

at 2. In its Motion, the Government 

represented that Respondent lacks 

authority to handle controlled 

substances in Florida, the state in which 

he is registered with the DEA, and 

argued that, therefore, Respondent’s 

DEA registration must be revoked. 

Motion for Summary Disposition, at 1– 

6. Respondent failed to timely file a 

response to the Government’s Motion 

and on March 25, 2022, the ALJ issued 

an Order Directing Compliance to 

Respondent. RD, at 2. By email dated 

March 21, 2022,4 Respondent’s wife 

requested additional time to file a 

response and on the same day, the ALJ 

issued an Order Regarding Respondent’s 

Extension Request extending the 

deadline. Id. On March 24, 2022, 

Respondent filed a Response to the 

Motion for Summary Disposition 

(hereinafter, Response). In his Response 

dated March 22, 2022, Respondent 

indicated that he missed the original 

deadline because he is incarcerated and 

it had been an oversight by his wife. 

Response, at 1. Respondent also stated 

that as of March 14, 2022, an updated 

DEA registration was sent to his home 

address, and that prior to the update, 

the registration was listed as being 

issued in Illinois. Id. at 2. Finally, 

Respondent reiterated that he had 

medical licenses in other states and 

noted that his underlying conviction 

was being appealed. Id. 

On March 29, 2022, the ALJ granted 

the Government’s Motion for Summary 

Disposition, finding that ‘‘[t]here is no 

genuine issue of material fact in this 

case.’’ RD, at 8. The ALJ recommended 

that Respondent’s registration be 

revoked and that any application to 

renew or modify his registration, and 

any applications for any other DEA 

registrations in Florida, be denied 

because Respondent lacks state 

authority to handle control substances. 

Id. at 9. By letter dated April 25, 2022, 

the ALJ certified and transmitted the 

record to me for final Agency action and 

noted that neither party filed 

exceptions. 

I issue this Decision and Order based 

on the entire record before me. 21 CFR 

1301.43(e). I make the following 

findings of fact. 

Findings of Fact 

Respondent’s DEA Registration 

Respondent is the holder of DEA 

Certificate of Registration No. 

FG2055158 at the registered address of 

7258 SE 2nd Ave., Ocala, FL 34480. 

Motion for Summary Disposition, 

Attachment (hereinafter, Gov. Att.) 2, 

Exhibit (hereinafter, Ex.) 1 (Certificate of 

Registration). Pursuant to this 

registration, Respondent is authorized to 

dispense controlled substances in 

schedules II through V as a practitioner. 

Id. Respondent’s registration expires on 

September 30, 2022. Id. On April 30, 

2021, DEA granted Respondent’s request 

to change his registered address from 

Illinois to Florida. Gov. Att. 2. 

The Status of Respondent’s State 

License 

On December 11, 2020, the State of 

Florida Department of Health 

(hereinafter, the Department) issued an 

Administrative Complaint against 

Respondent alleging that on or about 

February 27, 2020, the Florida Agency 

for Health Care Administration 

terminated Respondent’s participation 

in the state Medicaid program and 

therefore, Respondent was subject to 

Department discipline. Gov. Att. 1, Ex. 

1, at 5–7. On September 3, 2021, the 

State of Florida Board of Medicine 

(hereinafter, the Board) issued a Final 

Order revoking Respondent’s state 

medical license after finding that 

Respondent had been convicted of six 

counts of Health Care Fraud and that 

Respondent had been sanctioned and 

terminated with cause from 

participating in the Florida Medicaid 

program. Id. at 1–3. 

According to Florida’s online records, 

of which I take official notice, 

Respondent’s medical license is still 

revoked.5 Florida Department of Health 

License Verification, https://mqainternet.doh.state.fl.us/ 

MQASearchServices/ 

HealthCareProviders (last visited date of 

signature of this Order). Accordingly, I 

find that Respondent is not currently 

licensed to practice medicine in Florida, 

the state in which he is registered with 

the DEA.6

Discussion 

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the 

Attorney General is authorized to 

suspend or revoke a registration issued 

under section 823 of the Controlled 

Substances Act (hereinafter, CSA) 

‘‘upon a finding that the registrant . . . 

has had his State license or registration 

suspended . . . [or] revoked . . . by 

competent State authority and is no 

longer authorized by State law to engage 

in the . . . dispensing of controlled 

substances.’’ With respect to a 

practitioner, the DEA has also long held 

that the possession of authority to 

dispense controlled substances under 

the laws of the state in which a 

practitioner engages in professional 

practice is a fundamental condition for 

obtaining and maintaining a 

practitioner’s registration. See, e.g., 

James L. Hooper, M.D., 76 FR 71371 

(2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 F. App’x 

826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh 

Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27616, 27617 

(1978). 

This rule derives from the text of two 

provisions of the CSA. First, Congress 

defined the term ‘‘practitioner’’ to mean 

‘‘a physician . . . or other person 

licensed, registered, or otherwise 

permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in 

which he practices . . . , to distribute, 

dispense, . . . [or] administer . . . a 

controlled substance in the course of 

professional practice.’’ 21 U.S.C. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
32188 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 103 / Friday, May 27, 2022 / Notices 

7Chapter 458 regulates medical practice. 

802(21). Second, in setting the 

requirements for obtaining a 

practitioner’s registration, Congress 

directed that ‘‘[t]he Attorney General 

shall register practitioners . . . if the 

applicant is authorized to dispense . . . 

controlled substances under the laws of 

the State in which he practices.’’ 21 

U.S.C. 823(f). Because Congress has 

clearly mandated that a practitioner 

possess state authority in order to be 

deemed a practitioner under the CSA, 

the DEA has held repeatedly that 

revocation of a practitioner’s registration 

is the appropriate sanction whenever he 

is no longer authorized to dispense 

controlled substances under the laws of 

the state in which he practices. See, e.g., 

James L. Hooper, 76 FR at 71371–72; 

Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 FR 

39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, 

M.D., 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby 

Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988); 

Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 FR at 

27617. Moreover, because ‘‘the 

controlling question’’ in a proceeding 

brought under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) is 

whether the holder of a practitioner’s 

registration ‘‘is currently authorized to 

handle controlled substances in the 

[S]tate,’’ Hooper, 76 FR at 71371 

(quoting Anne Lazar Thorn, 62 FR 

12847, 12848 (1997)), the Agency has 

also long held that revocation is 

warranted even where a practitioner is 

still challenging the underlying action. 

Bourne Pharmacy, 72 FR 18273, 18274 

(2007); Wingfield Drugs, 52 FR 27070, 

27071 (1987). Thus, it is of no 

consequence that in this case, 

Respondent’s underlying conviction is 

being appealed. What is consequential 

is my finding that Respondent is no 

longer currently authorized to dispense 

controlled substances in Florida, the 

state in which he is registered with the 

DEA. 

According to Florida statute, ‘‘A 

practitioner, in good faith and in the 

course of his or her professional practice 

only, may prescribe, administer, 

dispense, mix, or otherwise prepare a 

controlled substance.’’ Fla. Stat. Ann. 

893.05(1)(a) (West 2022). Further, a 

‘‘practitioner’’ as defined by Florida 

statute includes ‘‘a physician licensed 

under chapter 458.7 ’’ Id. at § 893.02(23). 

Here, the undisputed evidence in the 

record is that Respondent currently 

lacks authority to practice medicine in 

Florida. As already discussed, a 

physician must be a licensed 

practitioner to dispense a controlled 

substance in Florida. Thus, because 

Respondent lacks authority to practice 

medicine in Florida and, therefore, is 

not authorized to handle controlled 

substances in Florida, Respondent is not 

eligible to maintain a DEA registration. 

Accordingly, I will order that 

Respondent’s DEA registration be 

revoked. 

Order 

Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the 

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

824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate 

of Registration No. FG2055158 issued to 

Omar Garcia, M.D. Further, pursuant to 

28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority 

vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f), I 

hereby deny any pending application of 

Omar Garcia, M.D. to renew or modify 

this registration, as well as any other 

pending application of Omar Garcia, 

M.D. for additional registration in 

Florida. This Order is effective June 27, 

2022. 

Anne Milgram, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2022–11507 Filed 5–26–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Proposed 

Consent Decree Under the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act 

On May 23, 2022, the Department of 

Justice lodged a proposed consent 

decree with the United States District 

Court for the District of Montana 

entitled United States and the State of 

Delaware v. Burlington Northern Santa 

Fe Railway Co. and Montana Rail Link, 

Inc., Civil Action No. 6:22–cv–00035– 

SEH. 

The United States filed this lawsuit 

under the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation 

and Liability Act (CERCLA). The 

complaint alleges that the defendants 

are liable in connection with the 

releases of hazardous substances at the 

East Helena Superfund Site (the ‘‘Site) 

in East Helena, Montana. Under the 

consent decree, the defendants will 

expend an estimated $852,200 to 

remediate an active railyard within the 

Site boundaries. They will also 

reimburse EPA’s costs of overseeing 

their work. In return, the United States 

and Delaware agree not to sue the 

defendants under sections 106 and 107 

of CERCLA. 

The publication of this notice opens 

a period for public comment on the 

consent decree. Comments should be 

addressed to the Assistant Attorney 

General, Environment and Natural 

Resources Division, and should refer to 

United States v. Burlington Northern 

Santa Fe Railway Co. and Montana Rail 

Link, Inc., D.J. Ref. No. 90–11–3–08633/ 

7. All comments must be submitted no 

later than thirty (30) days after the 

publication date of this notice. 

Comments may be submitted either by 

email or by mail: 

To submit 

comments: Send them to: 

By email ....... pubcomment-ees.enrd@

usdoj.gov. 

By mail ......... Assistant Attorney General, 

U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. 

Box 7611, Washington, DC 

20044–7611. 

During the public comment period, 

the consent decree may be examined 

and downloaded at this Justice 

Department website: https://

www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees. 

We will provide a paper copy of the 

consent decree without the exhibits 

upon written request and payment of 

reproduction costs. Please mail your 

request and payment to: Consent Decree 

Library, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 

7611, Washington, DC 20044–7611. 

Please enclose a check or money order 

for $10.50 (25 cents per page 

reproduction cost) payable to the United 

States Treasury. 

Jeffrey Sands, 

Assistant Section Chief, Environmental 

Enforcement Section, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division. 

[FR Doc. 2022–11489 Filed 5–26–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Comment Request; Worker 

Profiling and Reemployment Services 

Activity and Worker Profiling and 

Reemployment Services Outcomes 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor’s 

(DOL) Employment and Training 

Administration (ETA) is soliciting 

comments concerning a proposed 

extension for the authority to conduct 

the information collection request (ICR) 

titled, ‘‘Worker Profiling and 

Reemployment Services Activity and 

Worker Profiling and Reemployment 

Services Outcomes.’’ This comment 

request is part of continuing 

Departmental efforts to reduce 

paperwork and respondent burden in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1