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
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 164 / Friday, August 25, 2017 / Notices 40603 

first was published in the Federal 

Register at 82 FR 23840, and 50 

comments were received 57 responses 

were received from 3 different 

organizations/institutions/individuals. 

NSF is forwarding the proposed renewal 

submission to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for clearance 

simultaneously with the publication of 

this second notice. The full submission 

may be found at: http://

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

The National Science Foundation 

(NSF) is announcing plans to request 

renewed clearance of this collection. 

The primary purpose of this revision is 

to implement changes described in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this notice. Comments regarding (a) 

whether the collection of information is 

necessary for the proper performance of 

the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of burden including 

the validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance 

the quality, utility and clarity of the 

information to be collected; (d) ways to 

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. 

Summary of Comments on the National 

Science Foundation Proposal and 

Award Policies and Procedures Guide 

and NSF’s Responses 

The draft NSF PAPPG was made 

available for review by the public on the 

NSF Web site at http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/ 

dias/policy/. NSF received 57 responses 

from three commenters in response to 

the First Federal Register notice 

published on May 24, 2017, at 82 FR 

23840. Please see https://

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain 

for the comments received, and NSF’s 

responses. 

Title of Collection: ‘‘National Science 

Foundation Proposal & Award Policies 

& Procedures Guide.’’ 

OMB Approval Number: 3145–0058. 

Type of Request: Intent to seek 

approval to extend with revision an 

information collection for three years. 

Proposed Project: The National 

Science Foundation Act of 1950 (Pub. L. 

81–507) sets forth NSF’s mission and 

purpose: 

‘‘To promote the progress of science; 

to advance the national health, 

prosperity, and welfare; to secure the 

national defense . . . .’’ 

The Act authorized and directed NSF 

to initiate and support: 

• Basic scientific research and 

research fundamental to the engineering 

process; 

• Programs to strengthen scientific 

and engineering research potential; 

• Science and engineering education 

programs at all levels and in all the 

various fields of science and 

engineering; 

• Programs that provide a source of 

information for policy formulation; and 

• Other activities to promote these 

ends. 

NSF’s core purpose resonates clearly 

in everything it does: Promoting 

achievement and progress in science 

and engineering and enhancing the 

potential for research and education to 

contribute to the Nation. While NSF’s 

vision of the future and the mechanisms 

it uses to carry out its charges have 

evolved significantly over the last six 

decades, its ultimate mission remains 

the same. 

Use of the Information: The regular 

submission of proposals to the 

Foundation is part of the collection of 

information and is used to help NSF 

fulfill this responsibility by initiating 

and supporting merit-selected research 

and education projects in all the 

scientific and engineering disciplines. 

NSF receives more than 50,000 

proposals annually for new projects, 

and makes approximately 11,000 new 

awards. 

Support is made primarily through 

grants, contracts, and other agreements 

awarded to approximately 2,000 

colleges, universities, academic 

consortia, nonprofit institutions, and 

small businesses. The awards are based 

mainly on merit evaluations of 

proposals submitted to the Foundation. 

The Foundation has a continuing 

commitment to monitor the operations 

of its information collection to identify 

and address excessive reporting burdens 

as well as to identify any real or 

apparent inequities based on gender, 

race, ethnicity, or disability of the 

proposed principal investigator(s)/ 

project director(s) or the co-principal 

investigator(s)/co-project director(s). 

Burden on the Public 

It has been estimated that the public 

expends an average of approximately 

120 burden hours for each proposal 

submitted. Since the Foundation 

expects to receive approximately 52,000 

proposals in FY 2017, an estimated 

6,240,000 burden hours will be placed 

on the public. 

The Foundation has based its 

reporting burden on the review of 

approximately 50,500 new proposals 

expected during FY 2018. It has been 

estimated that anywhere from one hour 

to 20 hours may be required to review 

a proposal. We have estimated that 

approximately 5 hours are required to 

review an average proposal. Each 

proposal receives an average of 3 

reviews, resulting in approximately 

757,500 hours per year. 

The information collected on the 

reviewer background questionnaire 

(NSF 428A) is used by managers to 

maintain an automated database of 

reviewers for the many disciplines 

represented by the proposals submitted 

to the Foundation. Information collected 

on gender, race, and ethnicity is used in 

meeting NSF needs for data to permit 

response to Congressional and other 

queries into equity issues. These data 

also are used in the design, 

implementation, and monitoring of NSF 

efforts to increase the participation of 

various groups in science, engineering, 

and education. The estimated burden 

for the Reviewer Background 

Information (NSF 428A) is estimated at 

5 minutes per respondent with up to 

10,000 potential new reviewers for a 

total of 833 hours. 

The aggregate number of burden 

hours is estimated to be 6,817,500. The 

actual burden on respondents has not 

changed. 

Dated: August 22, 2017. 

Ann Bushmiller, 

Senior Counsel, National Science Board. 

[FR Doc. 2017–18078 Filed 8–24–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT 

CORPORATION 

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice 

TIME AND DATE: Thursday, September 14, 

2017, 2 p.m. (Open Portion) 2:15 p.m. 

(Closed Portion). 

PLACE: Offices of the Corporation, 

Twelfth Floor Board Room, 1100 New 

York Avenue NW., Washington, DC. 

STATUS: Meeting Open to the Public 

from 2 p.m. to 2:15 p.m., Closed portion 

will commence at 2:15 p.m. (approx.). 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

1. President’s Report. 

2. Minutes of the Open Session of the 

June 15, 2017, Board of Directors 

Meeting. 

FURTHER MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED

(Closed to the Public 2:15 p.m.): 

1. Proposed FY 2019 Budget. 

2. Insurance Project—Ukraine. 

3. Finance Project—Costa Rica. 

4. Minutes of the Closed Session of 

the June 15, 2017, Board of Directors 

Meeting. 

5. Reports and Budget. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES