Notice of the Availability of the Finding of No Significant Impact for the Criminal Alien Requirement VI, 5083-5084 [E7-1624]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 22 / Friday, February 2, 2007 / Notices Findings Respondent holds DEA Certificate of Registration, BB2195116, which authorizes him to act as a practitioner under the Controlled Substances Act. Respondent’s registered location is 909 N. D Street, San Bernardino, CA. Respondent’s registration does not expire until July 31, 2007. Respondent was also the holder of a Physician and Surgeon’s license (G67327) issued by the Medical Board of California. According to the official records of the Medical Board (which were checked on December 18, 2006), Respondent surrendered his license with an effective date of December 16, 2004. Moreover, Respondent has submitted no evidence to this Agency showing that the State’s order has been vacated or that he has been granted a new license. Respondent therefore lacks authority under California law to practice medicine and handle controlled substances. sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES Discussion Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), a practitioner must be currently authorized to handle controlled substances in ‘‘the jurisdiction in which he practices’’ in order to maintain a DEA registration. See 21 U.S.C. 802(21) (‘‘[t]he term ‘practitioner’ means a physician * * * 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’’). See also id. sec. 823(f) (‘‘The Attorney General shall register practitioners * * * if the applicant is authorized to dispense * * *controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.’’). DEA has held repeatedly that the CSA requires the revocation of a registration issued to a practitioner whose state license has been suspended or revoked. See Sheran Arden Yeates, 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby Watts, 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988). See also 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)(authorizing the revocation of a registration ‘‘upon a finding that the registrant * * * has had his State license or registration suspended [or] revoked * * * and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the * * * distribution [or] dispensing of controlled substances’’). Following service of the Show Cause Order, Respondent submitted a letter asserting that he had rejected the Medical Board’s settlement stipulation. Respondent also contended that the stipulation was illegal because its terms VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:13 Feb 01, 2007 Jkt 211001 were illusory, fraudulent and unconscionable. As found above, the official records of the Medical Board of California indicate that Respondent does not hold a current state medical license and therefore is without authority to handle controlled substances in the State where he is registered with DEA. As for Respondent’s conclusory assertions regarding the illegality of the stipulation, DEA precedents hold that a registrant can not collaterally attack the results of a state criminal or administrative proceeding in a proceeding under section 304 of the CSA. See Shahid Musud Siddiqui, 61 FR 14818, 14818–19 (1996); Robert A. Leslie, 60 FR 14004, 14005 (1995). Thus, even if Respondent had submitted evidence establishing the illegality of the stipulation, a DEA Show Cause Proceeding is not the proper forum to litigate the issue. Because Respondent lacks authority under California law to handle controlled substances, he is not entitled to maintain his DEA registration. Accordingly, pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) & 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b) & 0.104, I hereby order that DEA Certificate of Registration, BB2195116, issued to Sunil Bhasin, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that any pending applications for renewal or modification of such registration be, and they hereby are, denied. This order is effective March 5, 2007. Dated: January 26, 2007. Michele M. Leonhart, Deputy Administrator. [FR Doc. E7–1711 Filed 2–1–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–09–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Parole Commission Record of Vote of Meeting Closure (Public Law 94–409) (5 U.S.C. 552b) I, Edward F. Reilly, Jr., Chairman of the United States Parole Commission, was present at a meeting of said Commission, which started at approximately 1:30 p.m., on Wednesday, January 24, 2007, at the U.S. Parole Commission, 5550 Friendship Boulevard, 4th Floor, Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815. The purpose of the meeting was to decide two petitions for reconsideration pursuant to 28 C.F.R. 2.27. Four Commissioners were Frm 00086 present, constituting a quorum when the vote to close the meeting was submitted. Public announcement further describing the subject matter of the meeting and certifications of General Counsel that this meeting may be closed by vote of the Commission present were submitted to the Commissioners prior to the conduct of any other business. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the following Commissioners voted that the meeting be closed: Edward F. Reilly, Jr., Cranston J. Mitchell, Isaac Fulwood, Jr., and Patricia Cushwa. In witness whereof, I make this official record of the vote taken to close this meeting and authorize this record to be made available to the public. Dated: January 25, 2007. Edward F. Reilly, Jr., Chairman, Parole Commission. [FR Doc. 07–456 Filed 2–1–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–01–M DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Federal Bureau of Prisons Order PO 00000 5083 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Notice of the Availability of the Finding of No Significant Impact for the Criminal Alien Requirement VI Federal Bureau of Prisons, Department of Justice. ACTION: Notice; Finding of No Significant Impact. AGENCY: SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) announces the availability of the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) concerning the Criminal Alien Requirement VI (CAR VI). The BOP is seeking flexibility in managing its current shortage of beds by contracting for those services with non-federal facilities to house federal inmates. This approach provides the BOP with flexibility to meet population capacity needs in a timely fashion, conform with federal law, and maintain fiscal responsibility, while successfully attaining the mission of the BOP. Initially, the BOP proposed to contract with multiple public and private corporations to house approximately 7,000 Federal, low-security, adult male, non-U.S. citizen, criminal aliens in existing Contractor-Owned/ContractorOperated facilities located in Arizona, California, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, or Texas. The awards would be granted to the responsible offerors whose offers are found to be most advantageous to the Government. Five existing facilities, have been offered in response to the BOP’s solicitation for E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM 02FEN1 5084 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 22 / Friday, February 2, 2007 / Notices services. The five responses provided a combined total of 10,243 beds. Environmental impacts of each facility have been evaluated in a combined Environmental Assessment (EA) based primarily on information provided by the Offerors. The EA evaluated the full effects of the potentially available of 10,243 inmate beds. sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES Background Information Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Council of Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500– 1508), BOP has prepared EA to contract with multiple public and private corporations to house approximately 7,000 federal, low-security, adult male, non-U.S. citizen, criminal aliens in existing Contractor-Owned/ContractorOperated facilities located in Arizona, California, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, or Texas. Five existing facilities, have been offered in response to the BOP’s solicitation for services. The five responses provided a combined total of 10,243 beds. The EA was published on December 12, 2006, for a 30-day comment period and prepared pursuant to NEPA. Project Information The BOP is responsible for carrying out judgements of the Federal courts whenever a period of confinement is ordered. Subsequently, the mission of the BOP is to protect society by confining offenders in the controlled environments of prisons and community-based facilities that are safe, humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately secure, and that provide work and other self-improvement opportunities to assist offenders in becoming law-abiding citizens. Approximately 162,200 inmates are currently housed within the 114 federal correctional institutions that have levels of security ranging from minimum to maximum; a number exceeding the combined rated capacities of all federal correctional facilities. Measures being taken to manage the growth of the federal inmate population include construction of new institutions, acquisition and adaptation of facilities originally intended for other purposes, expansion and improvement of existing correctional facilities, and expanded use of contract beds. Adding capacity through these various means allows the BOP to work toward the long-term goal of reduced system-wide crowding. Alternatives Considered The No Action alternative is defined as a decision not to proceed with the proposed action to award a contract to VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:13 Feb 01, 2007 Jkt 211001 house the described population. Instead, the BOP would continue the current and long-standing arrangement whereby low-security, adult male, criminal alien inmate populations are housed in facilities owned and operated by the BOP as well as with state, local, and private residential reentry centers and in alternative confinement. Adoption of the No Action alternative would avoid the potential impacts associated with use of a Contractor-Owned/ContractorOperated correctional facility to house low-security, federal inmates. Under the No Action alternative, the beneficial impacts on local and regional economies resulting from operational budget expenditures at potentially vacant or underutilized correctional facilities would not occur. The loss of jobs is likely at some facilities under the No Action alternative. The No Action alternative does not meet the purpose and need of the BOP’s Action alternative and would not address the demand for additional capacity to house the increasing federal inmate population. Five locations were evaluated in the EA. Because any given facility could be awarded a number of inmates up to its capacity, potential impacts at each facility were evaluated based upon its maximum possible capacity. The facilities and respective inmate populations evaluated were: Big Spring Correctional Center (BSCC), located in Big Springs, Texas, evaluated for its maximum capacity under this action to provide 3,307 beds. Eden Detention Center (EDC), Eden, Texas, evaluated for its maximum capacity to provide 1,556 beds. Giles W. Dalby Correction Center (GDCC) of Post, Texas, evaluated for its maximum capacity to provide 1,670 beds. Pine Prairie Correctional Facility (PPCF), Pine Prairie, Louisiana, evaluated for its maximum capacity to provide 1,090 beds. Reeves County Detention Center (RCDC), located in Pecos, Texas, evaluated for its maximum capacity to provide 2,620 beds. The impacts of the Action alternative on the environment were considered in an EA published on December 12, 2006, and prepared pursuant to NEPA. The EA evaluated the full effects of the potentially available of 10,243 inmate beds. Review of the EA with the necessary mitigation has led to a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), as that phrase is defined pursuant to NEPA. The Action alternative would result in negligible PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 impacts to public services of host communities. There would be no significant adverse impacts to surrounding land uses, utility systems, traffic patterns or other community considerations. No significant adverse on-site impacts as defined pursuant to NEPA are anticipated as a result of the Action alternative. After review of the comments received from interested agencies and local citizens concerning the EA, the BOP signed a FONSI for the Action alternative. Notice of Availability BOP provided written notices of the availability of the EA in five newspapers with local and regional circulations, and through five local public libraries. The BOP also distributed approximately 175 copies (each) of the EA to Federal and State agencies, state and local governments, elected officials, interested organizations, and individuals. Availability of The Finding of No Significant Impact The Finding of No Significant Impact and other information regarding this project are available upon request. To request a copy of the Finding of No Significant Impact, please contact: Pamela J. Chandler, Chief, or Issac J. Gaston, Site Selection Specialist, Site Selection and Environmental Review Branch, Federal Bureau of Prisons, 320 First Street, NW., Washington, DC 20534. Tel: 202–514–6470/Fax: 202– 616–6024/E-mail: pchandler@bop.gov-igaston@bop.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pamela J. Chandler, or Issac J. Gaston, Federal Bureau of Prisons. Dated: January 26, 2007. Issac J. Gaston, Site Selection Specialist, Site Selection and Environmental Review Branch. [FR Doc. E7–1624 Filed 2–1–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–5–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–60,197] C&C Smith Lumber Company, Inc., Summerhill, PA; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application dated November 29, 2006, a company official requested administrative reconsideration of the Department’s negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM 02FEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 22 (Friday, February 2, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5083-5084]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-1624]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Federal Bureau of Prisons


Notice of the Availability of the Finding of No Significant 
Impact for the Criminal Alien Requirement VI

AGENCY: Federal Bureau of Prisons, Department of Justice.

ACTION: Notice; Finding of No Significant Impact.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons 
(BOP) announces the availability of the Finding of No Significant 
Impact (FONSI) concerning the Criminal Alien Requirement VI (CAR VI). 
The BOP is seeking flexibility in managing its current shortage of beds 
by contracting for those services with non-federal facilities to house 
federal inmates. This approach provides the BOP with flexibility to 
meet population capacity needs in a timely fashion, conform with 
federal law, and maintain fiscal responsibility, while successfully 
attaining the mission of the BOP. Initially, the BOP proposed to 
contract with multiple public and private corporations to house 
approximately 7,000 Federal, low-security, adult male, non-U.S. 
citizen, criminal aliens in existing Contractor-Owned/Contractor-
Operated facilities located in Arizona, California, Louisiana, New 
Mexico, Oklahoma, or Texas. The awards would be granted to the 
responsible offerors whose offers are found to be most advantageous to 
the Government. Five existing facilities, have been offered in response 
to the BOP's solicitation for

[[Page 5084]]

services. The five responses provided a combined total of 10,243 beds. 
Environmental impacts of each facility have been evaluated in a 
combined Environmental Assessment (EA) based primarily on information 
provided by the Offerors. The EA evaluated the full effects of the 
potentially available of 10,243 inmate beds.

Background Information

    Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy 
Act of 1969 and the Council of Environmental Quality Regulations (40 
CFR parts 1500-1508), BOP has prepared EA to contract with multiple 
public and private corporations to house approximately 7,000 federal, 
low-security, adult male, non-U.S. citizen, criminal aliens in existing 
Contractor-Owned/Contractor-Operated facilities located in Arizona, 
California, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, or Texas. Five existing 
facilities, have been offered in response to the BOP's solicitation for 
services.
    The five responses provided a combined total of 10,243 beds. The EA 
was published on December 12, 2006, for a 30-day comment period and 
prepared pursuant to NEPA.

Project Information

    The BOP is responsible for carrying out judgements of the Federal 
courts whenever a period of confinement is ordered. Subsequently, the 
mission of the BOP is to protect society by confining offenders in the 
controlled environments of prisons and community-based facilities that 
are safe, humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately secure, and that 
provide work and other self-improvement opportunities to assist 
offenders in becoming law-abiding citizens. Approximately 162,200 
inmates are currently housed within the 114 federal correctional 
institutions that have levels of security ranging from minimum to 
maximum; a number exceeding the combined rated capacities of all 
federal correctional facilities. Measures being taken to manage the 
growth of the federal inmate population include construction of new 
institutions, acquisition and adaptation of facilities originally 
intended for other purposes, expansion and improvement of existing 
correctional facilities, and expanded use of contract beds. Adding 
capacity through these various means allows the BOP to work toward the 
long-term goal of reduced system-wide crowding.

Alternatives Considered

    The No Action alternative is defined as a decision not to proceed 
with the proposed action to award a contract to house the described 
population. Instead, the BOP would continue the current and long-
standing arrangement whereby low-security, adult male, criminal alien 
inmate populations are housed in facilities owned and operated by the 
BOP as well as with state, local, and private residential reentry 
centers and in alternative confinement. Adoption of the No Action 
alternative would avoid the potential impacts associated with use of a 
Contractor-Owned/Contractor-Operated correctional facility to house 
low-security, federal inmates.
    Under the No Action alternative, the beneficial impacts on local 
and regional economies resulting from operational budget expenditures 
at potentially vacant or underutilized correctional facilities would 
not occur. The loss of jobs is likely at some facilities under the No 
Action alternative. The No Action alternative does not meet the purpose 
and need of the BOP's Action alternative and would not address the 
demand for additional capacity to house the increasing federal inmate 
population.
    Five locations were evaluated in the EA. Because any given facility 
could be awarded a number of inmates up to its capacity, potential 
impacts at each facility were evaluated based upon its maximum possible 
capacity. The facilities and respective inmate populations evaluated 
were:

Big Spring Correctional Center (BSCC), located in Big Springs, Texas, 
evaluated for its maximum capacity under this action to provide 3,307 
beds.
Eden Detention Center (EDC), Eden, Texas, evaluated for its maximum 
capacity to provide 1,556 beds.
Giles W. Dalby Correction Center (GDCC) of Post, Texas, evaluated for 
its maximum capacity to provide 1,670 beds.
Pine Prairie Correctional Facility (PPCF), Pine Prairie, Louisiana, 
evaluated for its maximum capacity to provide 1,090 beds.
Reeves County Detention Center (RCDC), located in Pecos, Texas, 
evaluated for its maximum capacity to provide 2,620 beds.

    The impacts of the Action alternative on the environment were 
considered in an EA published on December 12, 2006, and prepared 
pursuant to NEPA. The EA evaluated the full effects of the potentially 
available of 10,243 inmate beds. Review of the EA with the necessary 
mitigation has led to a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), as 
that phrase is defined pursuant to NEPA. The Action alternative would 
result in negligible impacts to public services of host communities. 
There would be no significant adverse impacts to surrounding land uses, 
utility systems, traffic patterns or other community considerations. No 
significant adverse on-site impacts as defined pursuant to NEPA are 
anticipated as a result of the Action alternative. After review of the 
comments received from interested agencies and local citizens 
concerning the EA, the BOP signed a FONSI for the Action alternative.

Notice of Availability

    BOP provided written notices of the availability of the EA in five 
newspapers with local and regional circulations, and through five local 
public libraries. The BOP also distributed approximately 175 copies 
(each) of the EA to Federal and State agencies, state and local 
governments, elected officials, interested organizations, and 
individuals.

Availability of The Finding of No Significant Impact

    The Finding of No Significant Impact and other information 
regarding this project are available upon request. To request a copy of 
the Finding of No Significant Impact, please contact: Pamela J. 
Chandler, Chief, or Issac J. Gaston, Site Selection Specialist, Site 
Selection and Environmental Review Branch, Federal Bureau of Prisons, 
320 First Street, NW., Washington, DC 20534. Tel: 202-514-6470/Fax: 
202-616-6024/E-mail: pchandler@bop.gov-igaston@bop.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pamela J. Chandler, or Issac J. 
Gaston, Federal Bureau of Prisons.

    Dated: January 26, 2007.
Issac J. Gaston,
Site Selection Specialist, Site Selection and Environmental Review 
Branch.
 [FR Doc. E7-1624 Filed 2-1-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-5-P