Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Notices 46529 

2While this ground was not cited in the Show 

Cause Order, the Government provided 

constitutionally adequate notice that it was also 

seeking revocation on this basis when it served 

Respondent with its Motion for Summary 

Disposition and Respondent had a meaningful 

opportunity to put forward evidence and contest 

the issue. See Hatem Ataya, 81 FR 8221, 8244–45 

(2016). 

3As for Respondent’s reliance on Leishman v. 

Associated Wholesale Electric Co., that case 

involved a motion for amended findings under Rule 

52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and has 

no relevance to this matter. 

4To the contrary, in his various filings, 

Respondent maintains that various agents ‘‘misle[d] 

the grand jury to get the original indictment’’ and 

that ‘‘no warrants were issued for 19 videotaped 

visits.’’ Resp.’s Hrng. Req., at 1. 

5Based on Respondent’s numerous convictions, I 

conclude that the public interest necessitates that 

this Order be effective immediately. 21 CFR 

1316.67. 

controlled substances under the laws of 

the State in which he practices.’’ Id. 

§ 823(f). Because Congress has clearly 

mandated that a practitioner possess 

state authority in order to be deemed a 

practitioner under the Act, 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 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 Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 FR 

27616 (1978). 

Based on the Board’s Final Order of 

Automatic Suspension, it is undisputed 

that Respondent is no longer currently 

authorized to dispense controlled 

substances in Pennsylvania, the State in 

which he is registered with the Agency. 

Respondent is therefore not entitled to 

maintain his registration. This provides 

reason alone to revoke his registration 

and to deny any pending application for 

registration in Pennsylvania.2

Respondent’s Criminal Convictions 

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(2), the 

Attorney General may also suspend or 

revoke a registration issued under 

section 823 of Title 21, ‘‘upon a finding 

that the registrant . . . has been 

convicted of a felony under this 

subchapter’’ (the Controlled Substances 

Act). Here too, it is undisputed that 

Respondent has been convicted of more 

than 100 different felony violations of 

the CSA, including two of counts of 

conspiracy to distribute controlled 

substances, 21 U.S.C. 846; 117 counts of 

distribution of controlled substances, in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and 

(b)(1)(C) and (b)(1)(E); and one count of 

distribution of controlled substances 

resulting in death, in violation of 21 

U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). While 

Respondent asserts that his convictions 

are not final because his case is on 

direct appeal, the District Court has 

entered the judgment and Respondent, 

who is currently incarcerated in a 

United States Penitentiary, points to no 

order by the Court vacating the 

judgment.3 Accordingly, I find that 

Respondent ‘‘has been convicted of a 

felony under this subchapter,’’ thus 

subjecting his registration to sanction. 

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

In contrast to a practitioner’s loss of 

his state authority, this finding does not 

mandate the revocation of his 

registration on this ground and the 

Agency has held that a conviction is not 

a per se bar to registration (as is the loss 

of state authority). See Jeffery M. 

Freesemann, 76 FR 60873 n.1 (2011) 

(citing The Lawsons, 72 FR 74334, 

74338 (2007)); Michael S. Moore, 76 FR 

45867 (2011). Here, however, 

Respondent’s criminal conduct, which 

involves 120 felony convictions for 

unlawful distribution, including for 

unlawful distribution resulting in death, 

is so obviously egregious that revocation 

is warranted. See Masters 

Pharmaceutical, Inc., v. DEA, 861 F.3d 

206, 226 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (recognizing 

Agency’s authority to revoke a 

registration based on extensive and 

egregious misconduct even if registrant 

had accepted responsibility); see also 

Hatem Attaya, 81 FR 8221, 8244 (2016) 

(‘‘[W]hile proceedings under 21 U.S.C. 

823 and 824 are remedial in nature, 

there are cases in which, 

notwithstanding a finding that a 

registrant has credibly accepted 

responsibility, the misconduct is so 

egregious and extensive that the 

protection of the public interest 

nonetheless warrants the revocation of a 

registration or the denial of an 

application.’’) (citation omitted). 

While ordinarily a respondent who 

has been convicted of a felony subject 

to section 824(a)(2) is entitled to present 

a case as to why his registration should 

not be revoked (or his application 

denied), I nonetheless conclude that the 

ALJ properly granted summary 

disposition in this matter because there 

is no issue of any disputed material fact. 

Here, even ignoring the manifest 

egregiousness of Respondent’s criminal 

conduct, he has put forward no 

evidence to show why he can be 

entrusted with a registration nor raised 

any contention that he acknowledges 

his misconduct and has undertaken 

remedial measures.4 See Medicine 

Shoppe-Jonesborough, 73 FR 364, 387 

(2008) (other citations omitted). Cf. 10B 

Charles Allen Wright, et al., Federal 

Practice and Procedure Civ. § 2727.2 

(4th ed. April 2017 update) (‘‘If the 

summary-judgment movant makes out a 

prima facie case that would entitle him 

to a judgment as a matter of law if 

uncontroverted at trial, summary 

judgment will be granted unless the 

opposing party offers some competent 

evidence that could be presented at trial 

showing that there is a genuine dispute 

as to a material fact.’’). And finally, as 

the evidence shows that Respondent is 

only one year into a 30-year term of 

imprisonment, he has clearly 

discontinued (even if involuntarily) his 

professional practice. Cf. 21 CFR 

1301.52 (‘‘the registration of any person 

. . . shall terminate . . . if and when 

such person . . . discontinues business 

or professional practice’’). Thus, even if 

his state license had not been 

suspended, his continued registration 

would violate DEA’s longstanding 

policy barring shelf registrations. See, 

e.g., Performance Construction, Inc., 67 

FR 9993 (2002). Accordingly, I conclude 

that the ALJ properly granted summary 

disposition on this ground. I further 

conclude that Respondent’s multiple 

felony convictions for violating the CSA 

provide an additional and independent 

basis for revoking his registration and 

denying any pending application. 

Order 

Pursuant to the authority vested in me 

by 21 U.S.C. 824(a) and 28 CFR 0.100(b), 

I order that DEA Certificate of 

Registration No. BO3937781 and DATAWaiver Identification No. XO3937781 

issued to William J. O’Brien, III, D.O., 

be, and they hereby are, revoked. I 

further order that any application of 

William J. O’Brien, III, D.O. to renew or 

modify this registration, or for any other 

DEA registration, be, and it hereby is, 

denied. This Order is effective 

immediately.5

Dated: September 28, 2017. 

Chuck Rosenberg, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21380 Filed 10–4–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Foreign Claims Settlement 

Commission 

[F.C.S.C. Meeting and Hearing Notice No. 

9–17] 

Sunshine Act Meeting 

The Foreign Claims Settlement 

Commission, pursuant to its regulations 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
46530 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Notices 

(45 CFR part 503.25) and the 

Government in the Sunshine Act (5 

U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in 

regard to the scheduling of open 

meetings as follows: 

Thursday, October 19, 2017: 

10:00 a.m.—Issuance of Proposed 

Decisions in claims against Iraq. 

STATUS: Open. 

All meetings are held at the Foreign 

Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E 

Street NW., Washington, DC. Requests 

for information, or advance notices of 

intention to observe an open meeting, 

may be directed to: Patricia M. Hall, 

Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 

600 E Street NW., Suite 6002, 

Washington, DC 20579. Telephone: 

(202) 616–6975. 

Brian M. Simkin, 

Chief Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21613 Filed 10–3–17; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4410–BA–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Proposed 

Consent Decree Under the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act 

On September 28, 2017, the 

Department of Justice lodged a Consent 

Decree with defendant Aramark 

Uniform & Career Apparel, LLC 

(‘‘Aramark’’) in the United States 

District Court for the Southern District 

of West Virginia, Civil Action No. 3:17– 

cv–04062. The Consent Decree resolves 

a claim under Section 107(a)(2) of the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 9607(a)(2), 

for past response costs incurred in 

connection with the release of PCE at 

the Coyne Textile Services Superfund 

Site, located in Huntington, West 

Virginia. The Complaint filed 

concurrently with the Consent Decree 

alleges that Aramark, through a 

predecessor company, owned and 

operated an industrial laundry business 

at the Site from 1972 to 1982 that 

included a dry cleaning process that 

utilized perchloroethylene (‘‘PERC’’ or 

‘‘PCE’’). The proposed consent decree 

obligates Aramark to reimburse $1.595 

million of the United States’ past 

response costs and provides Aramark a 

covenant not to sue for past response 

costs incurred through May 10, 2017. 

Aramark is performing the work at the 

Site pursuant to an administrative order 

and agreement with EPA, which 

addresses claims under Section 106(a) 

of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606(a), at the 

Site. 

The publication of this notice opens 

a period for public comment on the 

Consent Decree. Comments should be 

addressed to the Acting Assistant 

Attorney General, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division, and should 

refer to United States v. Aramark 

Uniform & Career Apparel, LLC, Civil 

Action No. 3:17–cv–04062 (S.D.W. Va.), 

DJ Ref. No. 90–11–3–11369. All 

comments must be submitted no later 

than 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 Web site: https://

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

We will provide a paper copy of the 

Consent Decree 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 $6.00 (25 cents per page 

reproduction cost) payable to the United 

States Treasury. For a paper copy 

without the exhibits and signature 

pages, the cost is $5.25. 

Jeffrey Sands, 

Assistant Section Chief, Environmental 

Enforcement Section, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21394 Filed 10–4–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

Workforce Information Advisory 

Council (WIAC) 

AGENCY: Employment and Training 

Administration, Labor. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014 

(WIOA), which amends the WagnerPeyser Act of 1933, notice is hereby 

given that the WIAC will meet on 

November 1 and 2, 2017. The meeting 

will take place at the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS) Janet Norwood Training 

and Conference Center in Washington, 

DC. The WIAC was established in 

accordance with provisions of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(FACA), as amended and will act in 

accordance with the applicable 

provisions of FACA and its 

implementing regulation. The meeting 

will be open to the public. 

DATES: The meeting will take place on 

Wednesday, November 1, and Thursday, 

November 2, 2017 from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m. Public statements and requests for 

special accommodations or to address 

the Advisory Council must be received 

by October 23, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the BLS Janet Norwood Training and 

Conference Center, Rooms 7 and 8, in 

the Postal Square Building at 2 

Massachusetts Ave. NE., Washington, 

DC 20212. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steven Rietzke, Chief, Division of 

National Programs, Tools, and 

Technical Assistance, Employment and 

Training Administration, U.S. 

Department of Labor, Room C–4510, 200 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 

20210; Telephone: 202–693–3912. Mr. 

Rietzke is the Designated Federal Officer 

for the WIAC. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background: The WIAC is an 

important component of the Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act. The 

WIAC is a Federal Advisory Committee 

of workforce and labor market 

information experts representing a 

broad range of national, State, and local 

data and information users and 

producers. The purpose of the WIAC is 

to provide recommendations to the 

Secretary of Labor, working jointly 

through the Assistant Secretary for 

Employment and Training and the 

Commissioner of Labor Statistics, to 

address: (1) The evaluation and 

improvement of the nationwide 

workforce and labor market information 

(WLMI) system and statewide systems 

that comprise the nationwide system; 

and (2) how the Department and the 

States will cooperate in the management 

of those systems. These systems include 

programs to produce employmentrelated statistics and State and local 

workforce and labor market information. 

The Department of Labor anticipates 

the WIAC will accomplish its objectives 

by: (1) Studying workforce and labor 

market information issues; (2) seeking 

and sharing information on innovative 

approaches, new technologies, and data 

to inform employment, skills training, 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES