Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 164 / Friday, August 25, 2017 / Notices 40601 

the blackout of Dodger games. In my 

opinion collusion has occurred between 

DirecTV and Time Warner Cable (TWC) 

which was apparent in the filing of this 

case. The sharing of inside, confidential 

information between the parties has put 

TWC in the position to control their 

monopoly for the broadcast of Dodger 

games by knowing where all the 

competitors stand, giving them an unfair 

advantage in their negotiations. A 

settlement in favor of the public would 

be punishment of the parties either 

through a fine or requirement to carry 

the broadcasts and a separate suit 

against TWC for unfair business 

practices. 

Joe Macera 

Email: 

Work Cell: 

Personal Cell: 

[FR Doc. 2017–18091 Filed 8–24–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Binh M. Chung, M.D.; Decision and 

Order 

On June 29, 2017, the Acting 

Assistant Administrator, Diversion 

Control Division, issued an Order to 

Show Cause to Binh M. Chung, M.D. 

(hereinafter, Registrant), of Las Vegas, 

Nevada. The Show Cause Order 

proposed the revocation of Registrant’s 

Certificate of Registration and the denial 

of any pending application to renew his 

registration or for a new registration, on 

the grounds that: (1) He ‘‘ha[s] been 

convicted of a felony relating to a 

controlled substance’’; (2) he ‘‘do[es] not 

have authority to handle controlled 

substances in . . . Nevada, the [S]tate in 

which [he is] registered’’; and (3) he 

‘‘ha[s] committed acts which render 

[his] registration inconsistent with the 

public interest.’’ GX 2, at 1 (citing 21 

U.S.C. 824(a)(2), (3), & (4)). 

With respect to the Agency’s 

jurisdiction, the Show Cause Order 

alleged that Registrant holds Certificate 

of Registration No. BC9308936, which 

‘‘is valid for Drug Schedules II–V,’’ at 

the address of ‘‘8785 Warm Springs 

Rd.[,] Suite 109, Las Vegas, NV.’’ Id. The 

Order also alleged that his registration 

‘‘expires . . . on August 31, 2017.’’ Id. 

As to the substantive grounds for the 

proceeding, the Show Cause Order 

alleged that ‘‘[o]n May 22, 2017, 

[Registrant was] found guilty of 

engaging in a scheme related to [his] 

administering ketamine to sedate 

patients and then raping them in [his] 

medical office.’’ Id. The Order alleged 

that Registrant was found guilty in state 

court of ‘‘multiple sexual assault counts 

and multiple counts of the 

administering of a controlled substance 

to aid in the commission of a felony.’’ 

Id. The Order then asserted that ‘‘[t]his 

constitutes a conviction related to 

controlled substances under 21 U.S.C. 

824(a)(2)’’ and ‘‘acts which are 

inconsistent with the public interest.’’ 

Id. (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4) & 

823(f)(5)). 

The Show Cause Order further alleged 

that on June 23, 2015, Registrant’s 

medical license ‘‘was summarily 

suspended’’ by the Nevada Board of 

Medical Examiners and that he 

‘‘currently lack[s] authority to handle 

controlled substances in Nevada, the 

[S]tate in which [he is] registered with 

the’’ Agency. Id. The Order thus 

asserted that Registrant’s ‘‘lack of 

authority to handle controlled 

substances in Nevada is a separate and 

independent ground to revoke [his] 

registration.’’ Id. (citing 21 U.S.C. 

802(21) and 824(a)(3)). 

The Show Cause Order notified 

Registrant of his right to request a 

hearing on the allegations or to submit 

a written statement while waiving his 

right to a hearing, the procedure for 

electing either option, and the 

consequence of failing to elect either 

option. Id. at 2–3 (citing 21 CFR 

1301.43). Finally, the Show Cause Order 

notified Registrant of his right to submit 

a Corrective Action Plan. Id. at 3 (citing 

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

On June 29, 2017, a DEA Diversion 

Investigator personally served the Show 

Cause Order on Registrant who was then 

incarcerated at the Clark County 

Detention Center, Las Vegas, Nevada. 

GX 3, at 2. According to the 

Government, as of August 15, 2017, 

Registrant had not requested a hearing 

nor submitted a written statement in 

lieu of requesting a hearing. 

Supplemental Request for Final Agency 

Action, at 2; see also Supplemental 

Declaration of Diversion Investigator, at 

1. The Government further represents 

that Registrant has not submitted a 

Corrective Action Plan. See 

Supplemental Request for Final Agency 

Action, at 2; see also Supplemental 

Declaration of Diversion Investigator, at 

1–2. 

On July 31, 2017, the Government 

submitted a Request for Final Agency 

Action (RFAA) and an investigative 

record, and on August 16, 2017, it 

submitted a Supplemental Request for 

Final Agency Action. Therein, the 

Government seeks revocation of 

Registrant’s registration pursuant to 

each of the three grounds set forth 

above. 

Based on the Government’s 

submission, I find that more than 30 

days have now passed since the Show 

Cause Order was served on Registrant, 

and that neither Registrant, nor anyone 

purporting to represent him, has 

requested a hearing on the allegations or 

submitted a written statement in lieu of 

hearing. I therefore find that Registrant 

has waived his right to request a hearing 

or to submit a written statement and 

issue this Decision and Order based on 

relevant evidence in the investigative 

record. See 21 CFR 1301.43(d) & (e). 

Having reviewed the record, I conclude 

that the Government is entitled to relief 

only on the loss of state authority 

ground. I make the following factual 

findings. 

Findings 

Registrant is the holder of DEA 

Certificate of Registration No. 

BC9308936, pursuant to which he is 

authorized to dispense controlled 

substances in schedules II through V as 

a practitioner, at the registered address 

of 8785 W. Warmsprings Rd., Suite 109, 

Las Vegas, Nevada. GX 1. This 

Registration expires on August 31, 2017. 

Id. 

Registrant also holds a medical 

license issued by the Nevada State 

Board of Medical Examiners. GX 3B 

(Order of Summary Suspension & 

Notice of Hearing). However, on June 

23, 2015, the Board’s Investigative 

Committee immediately suspended his 

medical license based on ‘‘preliminary 

findings’’ that Registrant ‘‘injected a 

minor female [patient] with a 

medication that caused her to become 

groggy’’ and proceeded ‘‘to abuse her.’’ 

Id. at 2. While the Board’s Order set a 

hearing for July 27, 2015 ‘‘to determine 

whether [the] suspension may 

continue,’’ according to the Board’s Web 

site, of which I take official notice, see 

5 U.S.C. 556(e), the suspension remains 

in effect as of the date of this Order. I 

therefore find that Registrant is not 

currently authorized to dispense 

controlled substances under the laws of 

Nevada. 

On May 2, 2017, a Third Amended 

Indictment was issued in the criminal 

proceeding brought by the State of 

Nevada against Registrant. GX 3A, at 1. 

The indictment charged Registrant with, 

inter alia, four counts of sexual assault; 

one count of battery with intent to 

commit a sexual assault; one count of 

attempted sexual assault; and four 

counts of administering controlled 

substances including ketamine and/or 

midazolam, to aid in the commission of 

a felony (sexual assault and/or a 

kidnapping). Id. at 2–5. On May 22, 

2017, following a trial, a jury found 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
40602 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 164 / Friday, August 25, 2017 / Notices 

1While the Government also sought revocation 

on the ground that Registrant has been convicted of 

an offense related to controlled substances, it 

produced evidence only as to the existence of a jury 

verdict and not the existence of a judgment of 

conviction. The Agency has previously noted that 

the term ‘‘conviction’’ could mean either ‘‘a 

judgment of conviction or simply a finding of guilty 

which precedes the entry of a final judgment of 

conviction.’’ Roger A. Pellman, 76 FR 17704, 17709 

n.10 (citing Deal v. United States, 508 U.S. 129, 131 

(1993)). The Government, however, makes no 

argument as to why, in the context of the CSA’s 

registration provisions, the term includes a finding 

of guilty even where no final judgment has been 

entered. 

The Government also sought revocation under the 

public interest standard, arguing that his ‘‘conduct 

demonstrates [his] negative experience in 

dispensing controlled substances and noncompliance with state law relating to controlled 

substances under the public interest factors.’’ 

RFAA, at 5. However, because the Government 

produced no evidence that the court has entered a 

judgment of conviction, the jury’s findings are not 

entitled to preclusive effect. Cf. Restatement 

(Second) of Judgments, § 27 (‘‘When an issue of fact 

or law is actually litigated and determined by a 

valid and final judgment, and the determination is 

essential to the judgment, the determination is 

conclusive in a subsequent action . . . whether on 

the same or a different claim.’’). Similarly, because 

the Board’s suspension order was based on its 

preliminary findings, and there is no evidence that 

the Board has issued a final decision affirming these 

findings, these findings cannot support revocation 

under the public interest standard. 

2For the same reasons which led the Board to 

immediately suspend Registrant’s registration, I 

conclude that the public interest necessitates that 

this Order be effective immediately. 21 CFR 

1316.67. 

Registrant guilty of each of the counts 

set forth above with the exception of 

one count of administering controlled 

substances to aid in the commission of 

a felony. Id. at 9 (verdict form). The 

Government did not, however, submit a 

judgment of conviction, and it is unclear 

as to whether a judgment of conviction 

has been entered by the state court. 

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, ‘‘upon a finding that 

the Registrant . . . has had his State 

license . . . suspended [or] revoked 

. . . by competent State authority and is 

no longer authorized by State law to 

engage in the . . . dispensing of 

controlled substances.’’ Moreover, DEA 

has held repeatedly 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, 76 FR 71371 (2011), 

pet. for rev. denied, 481 Fed Appx. 826 

(4th Cir. 2012). 

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. 

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 physician 

possess state authority in order to be 

deemed a practitioner under the Act, 

DEA has held 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 medicine. See, 

e.g., Calvin Ramsey, 76 FR 20034, 20036 

(2011); Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 

FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A. 

Ricci, 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby 

Watts, 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988); see 

also Hooper v. Holder, 481 Fed. Appx. 

at 828. 

Also, because the CSA makes clear 

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 

both obtaining and maintaining a 

practitioner’s registration, ‘‘revocation is 

warranted even where a practitioner’s 

state authority has been summarily 

suspended and the State has yet to 

provide the practitioner with a hearing 

to challenge the State’s action at which 

he may ultimately prevail.’’ Kamal 

Tiwari, 76 FR 71604, 71606 (2011); see 

also Bourne Pharmacy, Inc., 72 FR 

18273, 18274 (2007); Anne Lazar Thorn, 

62 FR 12847 (1997). 

As a result of the Nevada Board’s June 

2015 Order of Summary Suspension, 

Registrant is not currently authorized to 

dispense controlled substances in 

Nevada, the State in which he is 

registered. Accordingly, I will order that 

his registration be revoked and that any 

pending application to renew his 

registration, or for any other registration 

in the State of Nevada be denied.1

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. BC9308936 issued to 

Binh M. Chung, M.D., be, and it hereby 

is, revoked. I further order that any 

application of Binh M. Chung, M.D., to 

renew or modify this registration, or for 

any other registration in the State of 

Nevada, be, and it hereby is, denied. 

This Order is effective immediately.2

Dated: August 17, 2017. 

Chuck Rosenberg, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2017–18081 Filed 8–24–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Comment Request 

AGENCY: National Science Foundation. 

ACTION: Submission for OMB review; 

comment request. 

SUMMARY: The National Science 

Foundation (NSF) has submitted the 

following information collection 

requirement to OMB for review and 

clearance under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 on the National 

Science Foundation Proposal and 

Award Policies and Procedures Guide. 

NSF may not conduct or sponsor a 

collection of information unless the 

collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB control number 

and the agency informs potential 

persons who are to respond to the 

collection of information that such 

persons are not required to respond to 

the collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

DATES: Comments regarding these 

information collections are best assured 

of having their full effect if received 

September 25, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to: Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: 

Desk Officer for National Science 

Foundation, 725 17th Street NW., Room 

10235, Washington, DC 20503, and to 

Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance 

Officer, National Science Foundation, 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1265, 

Arlington, Virginia 22230 or send email 

to splimpto@nsf.gov. Individuals who 

use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1– 

800–877–8339, which is accessible 24 

hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a 

year (including federal holidays). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Suzanne Plimpton, Reports Clearance 

Officer, 703–292–7556. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is the 

second notice for public comment; the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES