39618 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 160 / Monday, August 21, 2017 / Notices 

7Cf. Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S.C. 330, 339 

(1979) (‘‘Canons of construction ordinarily suggest 

that terms connected by a disjunctive be given 

separate meanings, unless the context dictates 

otherwise[.]) (citing FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 

438 U.S. 726, 739–40 (1978)). 

8Based on the Board’s findings with respect to 

the sixth charge of the Administrative Complaint, 

which found that he violated state law by 

prescribing, dispensing, or administering legally 

controlled substances or any dependency-inducing 

medication without legitimate medical justification 

thereof or in other than a legal or legitimate 

manner,’’ I find that the public interest necessitates 

that this Order be effective immediately. Mot. for 

Summ. Disp., Appendix C, at 13, 15; see also 21 

CFR 1316.67. 

Lazaro Guerra, 68 FR 15226, 15227 

(2003) (‘‘mandatory exclusion from 

participation in the Medicare program 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1320a–7(a) . . . is 

an independent ground for revoking a 

DEA registration’’ (citing 21 U.S.C. 

824(a)(5)). See also Richard B. Lynch, 

Jr., 50 FR 7844, 7845 (1985) (Agency 

made findings under section 824(a) (1), 

824(a)(2), and 824(a)(3); ‘‘The 

Administrator concludes that there are 

three independent statutory grounds for 

denial of the subject application.’’). 

The Agency’s interpretation is 

buttressed by the CSA’s legislative 

history. As originally enacted, the CSA 

granted the Attorney General authority 

to suspend or revoke a registration: 

upon a finding that the registrant— 

(1) has materially falsified any application 

filed pursuant to or required by this title [the 

CSA] or title III [the Controlled Substance 

Import Export Act (CSIEA), 21 U.S.C. 951– 

971]; 

(2) has been convicted of a felony under 

[the CSA or CSIEA] or any other law of the 

United States, or of any State, relating to any 

substance defined in this title as a controlled 

substance; or 

(3) has had his state license or registration 

suspended, revoked, or denied by competent 

state authority and is no longer authorized by 

State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of 

controlled substances. 

Pub. L. 91–513, § 304, 84 Stat. 1255 

(codified at 21 U.S.C. 824(a)).7

Describing this provision, the House 

Report explained that ‘‘[s]ubsection (a) 

of this section empowers the Attorney 

General to revoke or suspend any 

registration issued under this title if it 

is found that the holder has falsified his 

application, lost his State license, or has 

been convicted of a felony violation 

relating to any controlled substance.’’ H. 

Rep. No. 91–1444 (1970), as reprinted in 

1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4566, 4608–09. 

Absent from this statement is any 

discussion that in determining the 

sanction, the Attorney General was 

required to consider not only whether a 

registrant had lost his state authority, 

but also whether he had also materially 

falsified his application or had been 

convicted of a felony related to a 

controlled substance. 

Moreover, while in 1984, Congress 

amended the CSA by granting the 

Attorney General authority to deny an 

application for a practitioner’s 

registration and to revoke an existing 

registration on public interest grounds, 

it did so to increase the Agency’s 

authority to respond to the ‘‘[i]mproper 

diversion of controlled substances by 

practitioners,’’ which Congress 

explained ‘‘is one of the most serious 

aspects of the drug abuse problem.’’ H. 

Rep. No. 98–1030, at 266 (1984), as 

reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3182, 

3448. The House Report explained that 

‘‘effective Federal actions against 

practitioners has been severely inhibited 

by the limited authority in current law 

to deny or revoke practitioner 

registrations’’ and that ‘‘the current 

limited grounds for revoking or denying 

a practitioner’s registration have been 

cited as contributing to the problem of 

diversion of dangerous drugs.’’ Id. 

Finding that ‘‘the overly limited bases in 

current law for denial or revocation of 

a practitioner’s registration do not 

operate in the public interest,’’ Congress 

amended section 823(f) ‘‘to expand the 

authority of the Attorney General to 

deny a practitioner’s registration 

application’’ based upon a finding ‘‘that 

registration would be ‘inconsistent with 

the public interest.’’’ Id. (emphasis 

added). 

While Congress also amended section 

‘‘824(a) to add to the current bases for 

denial, revocation, or suspension of 

registration a finding that registration 

would be inconsistent with the public 

interest on the grounds specified in 

[section] 823, which will include 

consideration of the new factors added 

by’’ the amendment, id. at 266–67, 

Congress did not otherwise alter the text 

of section 824(a), which makes clear 

that the various paragraphs of this 

provision are findings, each of which 

provides an independent and adequate 

ground to support agency action against 

a registration, and not discretionary 

factors to be considered by the Agency. 

Indeed, Respondent points to nothing in 

the language of section 824 or the CSA’s 

legislative history to support his 

position, which would fundamentally 

alter the scope of the Agency’s authority 

under section 824. 

Nor is there any merit to Respondent’s 

contention that denying him ‘‘the 

opportunity to present other evidence 

supporting [his] continued registration’’ 

denies him due process. Exceptions, at 

6. As explained above, in a proceeding 

brought against a practitioner under 

section 824(a)(3), the only fact that is 

material is whether the practitioner is 

currently authorized to dispense 

controlled substances under laws of the 

state in which he practices and is 

registered. Because ‘‘other evidence 

supporting [his] continued registration’’ 

is not material to the outcome of this 

proceeding, and Respondent was 

provided with the opportunity to put 

forward evidence disputing the only 

material fact at issue, I reject his 

contention that the use of summary 

disposition denied him due process. See 

Rezik A. Saqer, 81 FR 22122, 22124 

(2016) (citing cases). 

I therefore reject each of Respondent’s 

Exceptions. Based on the ALJ’s finding 

that Respondent is not currently 

authorized to dispense controlled 

substances in Louisiana, the State in 

which he holds the DEA registration at 

issue in this proceeding and seeks an 

additional registration, I will adopt the 

ALJ’s recommended order that I revoke 

his registration and deny his 

application. 

Order 

Pursuant to the authority vested in me 

by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 

0.100(b), I order that DEA Certificate of 

Registration No. BF4179203 issued to 

Arnold E. Feldman, M.D., as well as 

DATA Identification No. XF4179203, 

be, and they hereby are, revoked. I 

further order that the Application of 

Arnold E. Feldman, M.D., for a 

registration as a Hospital/Clinic, as well 

any application to renew the above the 

registration or for any other registration 

in the State of Louisiana, be, and it 

hereby is, denied. This ORDER is 

effective immediately.8

Dated: August 14, 2017. 

Chuck Rosenberg, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17640 Filed 8–18–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent 

Decree 

In accordance with Departmental 

Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby 

given that a proposed Consent Decree in 

United States v. Duarte Nursery, Inc. 

and John Duarte, Civil Action Number 

2:13–cv–02095–KJM–DB, was lodged 

with the United States District Court for 

the Eastern District of California, 

Sacramento District, on August 15, 

2017. 

This proposed Consent Decree 

concerns an answer and counterclaim 

filed by the United States on May 7, 

2014, against Duarte Nursery, Inc. and 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 160 / Monday, August 21, 2017 / Notices 39619 

John Duarte, pursuant to Sections 301(a) 

and 309(d) of the Clean Water Act, 33 

U.S.C. 1311(a) and 1319(d), to obtain 

injunctive relief from and impose civil 

penalties against the CounterclaimDefendants for violating the Clean Water 

Act by discharging pollutants without a 

permit into waters of the United States. 

The proposed Consent Decree resolves 

these allegations by requiring the 

Counterclaim-Defendants to restore the 

impacted areas and/or perform 

mitigation and to pay a civil penalty. 

The Department of Justice will accept 

written comments relating to this 

proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30) 

days from the date of publication of this 

Notice. Please address comments to 

Andrew Doyle, Senior Attorney, United 

States Department of Justice, 

Environment and Natural Resources 

Division, Environmental Defense 

Section, Post Office Box 7611, 

Washington, DC 20044, and refer to 

United States v. Duarte Nursery, Inc. 

and John Duarte, DJ # 90–5–1–4–19984. 

The proposed Consent Decree may be 

examined at the Clerk’s Office, United 

States District Court for the Eastern 

District of California, Sacramento 

District, 501 I Street, Room 4–200, 

Sacramento, CA 95814. In addition, the 

proposed Consent Decree may be 

examined electronically at http://

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

Cherie L. Rogers, 

Assistant Section Chief, Environmental 

Defense Section, Environment and Natural 

Resources Division. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17634 Filed 8–18–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET 

OMB Sequestration Update Report to 

the President and Congress for Fiscal 

Year 2018 

AGENCY: Executive Office of the 

President, Office of Management and 

Budget. 

ACTION: Notice of availability of the 

OMB Sequestration Update Report to 

the President and Congress for FY 2018. 

SUMMARY: OMB is issuing the OMB 

Sequestration Update Report to the 

President and Congress for Fiscal Year 

2018 to report on the status of the 

discretionary caps and on the 

compliance of pending discretionary 

appropriations legislation with those 

caps. For fiscal year 2017, the report 

finds enacted appropriations to be 

within the spending limits. For fiscal 

year 2018, the report finds that, if the 

current limits remain unchanged, under 

OMB’s estimates of actions to date by 

the House of Representatives for the 12 

annual appropriations bills would result 

in a sequestration of approximately 

$72.4 billion in defense programs. The 

report also finds that actions or funding 

guidance by the Senate would result in 

a sequestration of approximately $2.0 

billion in defense programs and $3.8 

billion for non-defense programs. 

Finally, the report also contains OMB’s 

Preview Estimate of the Disaster Relief 

Funding Adjustment for FY 2018. 

DATES: Date: August 20, 2017. Section 

254 of the Balanced Budget and 

Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 

requires the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) to issue a Sequestration 

Update Report on August 20th of each 

year. With regard to this update report 

and to each of the three required 

sequestration reports, section 254(b) 

specifically states the following: 

SUBMISSION AND AVAILABILITY OF 

REPORTS.—Each report required by this 

section shall be submitted, in the case of 

CBO, to the House of Representatives, the 

Senate and OMB and, in the case of OMB, 

to the House of Representatives, the Senate, 

and the President on the day it is issued. On 

the following day a notice of the report shall 

be printed in the Federal Register. 

ADDRESSES: The OMB Sequestration 

Reports to the President and Congress is 

available on-line on the OMB home 

page at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/ 

omb/public-releases/omb-reports. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Tobasko, 6202 New Executive 

Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, 

Email address: ttobasko@omb.eop.gov, 

telephone number: (202) 395–5745, FAX 

number: (202) 395–4768. Because of 

delays in the receipt of regular mail 

related to security screening, 

respondents are encouraged to use 

electronic communications. 

Mick Mulvaney, 

Director. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17595 Filed 8–18–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE 

ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES 

Meetings of Humanities Panel 

AGENCY: National Endowment for the 

Humanities. 

ACTION: Notice of meetings. 

SUMMARY: The National Endowment for 

the Humanities will hold nine meetings 

of the Humanities Panel, a Federal 

advisory committee, during September, 

2017. The purpose of the meetings is for 

panel review, discussion, evaluation, 

and recommendation of applications for 

financial assistance under the National 

Foundation on the Arts and Humanities 

Act of 1965. 

DATES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section for meeting dates. The meetings 

will open at 8:30 a.m. and will adjourn 

by 5:00 p.m. on the dates specified 

below. 

ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at 

Constitution Center at 400 7th Street 

SW., Washington, DC 20506, unless 

otherwise indicated. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Voyatzis, Committee 

Management Officer, 400 7th Street 

SW., Room, 4060, Washington, DC 

20506; (202) 606–8322; evoyatzis@

neh.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 

App.), notice is hereby given of the 

following meetings: 

1. Date: September 5, 2017 

This meeting will discuss 

applications for the Humanities 

Initiatives at Historically Black 

Colleges and Universities grant 

program, submitted to the Division 

of Education Programs. 

2. Date: September 6, 2017 

This meeting will discuss 

applications for the Humanities 

Initiatives at Hispanic-Serving 

Institutions grant program, 

submitted to the Division of 

Education Programs. 

3. Date: September 6, 2017 

This meeting will discuss 

applications on the subjects of Art 

and Culture for Digital Projects for 

the Public: Production Grants, 

submitted to the Division of Public 

Programs. 

4. Date: September 7, 2017 

This meeting will discuss 

applications on the subject of U.S. 

History for Digital Projects for the 

Public: Production Grants, 

submitted to the Division of Public 

Programs. 

5. Date: September 7, 2017 

This meeting will discuss 

applications for the Humanities 

Initiatives at Hispanic-Serving 

Institutions grant program, 

submitted to the Division of 

Education Programs. 

6. Date: September 8, 2017 

This meeting will discuss 

applications for the Humanities 

Initiatives at Hispanic-Serving 

Institutions grant program, 

submitted to the Division of 

Education Programs. 

7. Date: September 11, 2017 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES