Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 8, 2021 / Notices
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1

initial letter she submitted in response to the OSC, it does not demonstrate sufficient acceptance of responsibility or remedial measures that would aid me in entrusting Respondent with a registration. See RFAAX B. In her letter, Respondent offers some explanation as to why she repeatedly failed to renew her Louisiana CDS license in a timely manner, and while the stressful circumstances that she described certainly garner sympathy, Respondent did not unequivocally acknowledge her own error in failing to keep track of the status of her CDS license, which was essential to her ability to lawfully prescribe controlled substances. Id.
Respondent stated in her letter that she had logged the expiration date for her CDS license in multiple places, that going forward, she would renew on the date she receives the renewal letter, and that she had already completed the most recent renewal in July 2019. RFAAX B.
However, Respondent has not provided any supporting documentation as to these statements. The fact that she repeatedly allowed this lapse to happen year-after-year, does not demonstrate confidence in her future compliance.
Moreover, Respondents errors regarding the prehearing processerrors that ultimately led to the termination of the proceedingsdo not inspire confidence that she has improved upon the underlying issue of responsibility regarding her professional licensure.
B. Specific and General Deterrence In addition to acceptance of responsibility, the Agency considers both specific and general deterrence when determining an appropriate sanction. Daniel A. Glick, D.D.S., 80 FR
74800, 74810 2015. Specific deterrence is the DEAs interest in ensuring that a registrant complies with the laws and regulations governing controlled substances in the future. Id. General deterrence concerns the DEAs responsibility to deter conduct similar to the proven allegations against the respondent for the protection of the public at large. Id. In this case, I believe revocation of her DEA registration would deter Respondent and the general registrant community from ignoring the serious state and federal requirements to have specific licensure in order to be entrusted with the responsibility of issuing prescriptions for controlled substances.
C. Egregiousness The Agency also looks to the egregiousness and the extent of the misconduct as significant factors in determining the appropriate sanction.
Garrett Howard Smith, M.D., 83 FR

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:53 Dec 07, 2021

Jkt 256001

18910 collecting cases. Although Respondents actions in failing to renew her CDS might seem minor or transactional, the extent of the misconduct was not. She issued thousands of prescriptions for controlled substances in Louisiana during three separate periods when her Louisiana CDS license was expired, with these three separate periods occurring successively and each ranging from 4 to 9 months. The record evidence demonstrates that Respondent had been given timely notice via letter that her license was terminated because she had failed to renew it within 30 days after its expiration date, and Respondent did not provide any documentation or explanation to support her claim that she was not made aware until much later. See RFAAX B and G2G11.
Moreover, the multiple and successive occurrences suggest that Respondent did not take sufficient measures to ensure that her mistake would not be repeated.
As discussed above, to maintain a registration when grounds for revocation exist, a respondent must convince the Administrator that her acceptance of responsibility is sufficiently credible to demonstrate that the misconduct will not reoccur and that she can be entrusted with a registration. I find that Respondent has not met this burden. Respondent has not offered any credible evidence on the record to rebut the Governments case for revocation. Further, Respondents description of corrective measures was unsupported by evidence, and given Respondents subsequent errors regarding the prehearing process, Respondent has not demonstrated that she can be trusted with the responsibility of registration at this time. Accordingly, I will order the revocation of Respondents certificate of registration.
Order Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100b and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C.
824a and 21 U.S.C. 823f, I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. BM7946835 issued to Tamika Mayo, M.D. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR
0.100b and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824a and 21 U.S.C. 823f, I hereby deny any pending application of Tamika Mayo, M.D. to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of Tamika
PO 00000

Frm 00075

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

69685

Mayo, M.D. for registration in Louisiana.
This Order is effective January 7, 2022.
Anne Milgram, Administrator.
FR Doc. 202126533 Filed 12721; 8:45 am BILLING CODE 441009P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Notice of Lodging of Proposed Third Amendment To Consent Decree Under the Clean Air Act On December 2, 2021, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Third Amendment to Consent Decree Amendment with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana in the lawsuit entitled United States and the State of Indiana v. BP
Products North America Inc., Civil Action No. 2:12CV207.
The Amendment relates to alleged violations of a 2012 Consent Decree Decree by BP Products North America Inc., BP Products at its refinery in Whiting, Indiana Whiting Refinery.
The Amendment will resolve BP
Products violations of particulate matter PM limits contained in the Decree and at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja that are applicable to two fluidized catalytic cracking units FCCUs at the Whiting Refinery, and a motion to enforce the Decree filed by several Plaintiff-Intervenors.
The Amendment requires more frequent PM testing, revised PM testing parameters, operating parameters for emissions and opacity monitors and for electrostatic precipitators ESPs, a PM emissions control technology, and the installation of various process analyzers. BP Products will also undertake a study to evaluate stack testing and ESP operation during unit startup and shutdown. BP Products will pay $512,450 in stipulated penalties after the Amendment is entered.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Amendment. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to United States and the State of Indiana v. BP Products North America Inc., D.J.
Ref. No. 9052109244. 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:

E:FRFM08DEN1.SGM

08DEN1