Sunil Bhasin, M.D.; Revocation of Registration, 5082-5083 [E7-1711]
Download as PDF
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
5082
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 22 / Friday, February 2, 2007 / Notices
August 5, 2005. A 30-day scoping
period was held to help the BLM define
‘‘phased development’’ and to identify
relevant issues that should be
considered and analyzed in the Draft
SEIS/Amendment. The Draft SEIS/
Amendment has been prepared by an
interdisciplinary team of specialists
with expertise in archeology, air quality,
economics, fisheries, geology,
hydrology, minerals, paleontology,
recreation, sociology, soils, vegetation
and wildlife. Three new alternatives
have been analyzed in the Draft SEIS/
Amendment to consider phased
development. Under Alternative F, the
BLM would limit the number of federal
applications for permit to drill (APD)
approved each year cumulatively and in
each fourth order watershed. The BLM
would also limit the percentage of
disturbance within identified crucial
sagebrush habitat. Finally, the BLM
would place a limit on the volume of
untreated water discharged to surface
waters from federal CBNG wells within
each fourth order watershed. Under
Alternative G, development of CBNG on
federal leases in the Billings and
Powder River RMP areas would be done
following the same management actions
as described under Alternative F.
However, while BLM would limit the
number of federal APDs approved each
year cumulatively, development would
be limited to a low range of predicted
wells (6,470) from the Statewide
Document Reasonably Foreseeable
Development scenario. Alternative H,
the BLM’s preferred alternative, has
three key components. First, a phased
development approach would be
implemented where CBNG proposals
would be reviewed against four filters or
screens to determine if the proposal
needs to be modified. Second, this
alternative would include extensive
requirements that an operator must meet
when submitting a Plan of Development
(POD). Third, mitigation measures and
subsequent modifications to existing
operations via adaptive management
would be considered and applied to
each POD, as appropriate.
Comments and information submitted
on the Draft SEIS/Amendment,
including names, email addresses, and
street addresses of respondents, will be
available for public review and
disclosure at the above address. The
BLM will not accept anonymous
comments. Individuals may request
confidentiality. Individuals who wish to
withhold their names or addresses from
public review or from disclosure under
the Freedom of Information Act must
state this prominently at the beginning
of their written comments. Such
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:13 Feb 01, 2007
Jkt 211001
requests will be honored to the extent
allowed by law. All submissions from
organizations and businesses, and from
individuals identifying themselves as
representatives or officials of
organizations or businesses, will be
available for public inspection in their
entirety.
Donald S. Smurthwaite,
Acting State Director.
[FR Doc. E7–1694 Filed 2–1–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–$$–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Sunil Bhasin, M.D.; Revocation of
Registration
On August 4, 2005, the Deputy
Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement
Administration, issued an Order to
Show Cause to Sunil Bhasin, M.D.
(Respondent), of San Bernardino, CA.
The Show Cause Order proposed to
revoke Respondent’s Certificate of
Registration, BB2195116, as a
practitioner, on the ground that
Respondent had surrendered his
California medical license, and was
therefore without authority to handle
controlled substances in the state where
he practiced medicine. Show Cause
Order at 1. The Show Cause Order
further notified Respondent of his right
to a hearing. Id. at 2.
The Show Cause Order was served by
certified mail, return receipt requested.
On September 2, 2005, Respondent
acknowledged receipt of the Show
Cause Order as demonstrated by the
signed return receipt card which is
contained in the investigative file.
In a letter dated September 5, 2005,
Respondent wrote the Deputy Assistant
Administrator asserting that he had
rejected the Medical Board of
California’s settlement stipulation.
Respondent further asserted that the
stipulation was illegal because its terms
were illusory, fraudulent and
unconscionable and that he was
litigating these issues in federal district
court.
On September 26, 2005, the
Government filed a request with the
Office of Administrative Law Judges to
docket the matter for a hearing. While
the Government noted that Respondent
‘‘did not specifically request a hearing,’’
it expressed the view that the case
required an on-the-record ‘‘factual
determination of the licensing issue’’
before the case was transmitted to me
for final agency action. Govt. Req. to
Docket Matter for Hearing at 1.
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Simultaneously, the Government
moved for summary disposition. The
basis of the Government’s motion was
that a Diversion Investigator (DI) would
testify that she had received documents
from the Medical Board of California
(MBC) which showed that Respondent
had surrendered his state license on
September 27, 2004, that the MBC had
adopted the surrender stipulation on
December 6, 2004, and that the MBC
Web site indicated that Respondent’s
license had been surrendered. Id. at 1–
2. Attached to the motion were
documents supporting each of the
Government’s contentions.
The matter was assigned
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mary
Ellen Bittner. On October 7, 2005, the
ALJ issued a Memorandum to Parties
(Memo 1). In Memo 1, the ALJ offered
Respondent the opportunity to respond
to the Government’s request to docket
the matter for hearing no later than
October 31, 2005. Memo 1, at 2.
A copy of Memo 1 was sent to
Respondent by certified mail. The
mailing, however, was returned
unclaimed. Thereafter, the ALJ issued a
new Memorandum to Parties which
offered Respondent the opportunity to
respond to the Government’s request by
December 19, 2005. Memorandum to
Parties 1 (Nov. 28, 2005) (Memo 2). The
ALJ further directed that Memo 2 be
sent to Respondent by both registered
mail with restricted delivery and first
class mail. See id. Again, Respondent
did not respond. See Memorandum to
Parties 2 (Mar. 24, 2006) (Memo 3).
Thereafter, on January 19, 2006, the
Government moved to terminate the
proceedings. Motion to Terminate
Proceedings 1. The Government also
requested that the ALJ find that
Respondent had waived his right to a
hearing. Id.
On March 24, 2006, the ALJ issued a
further Memorandum to Parties (Memo
3). In Memo 3, the ALJ offered
Respondent the opportunity to respond
to the Government’s motion to terminate
by April 13, 2006. Memo 3, at 2. When
once again, Respondent failed to
respond, the ALJ granted the
Government’s motion and ordered that
the proceedings be terminated. See
Order Terminating Proceedings 2. In her
order, the ALJ also found that
Respondent had failed to request a
hearing and had waived his right to a
hearing. See id.
The investigative file was then
forwarded to me for final agency action.
I adopt the ALJ’s finding that
Respondent has waived his right to a
hearing. I therefore enter this final order
without a hearing based on information
contained in the investigative file.
E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM
02FEN1
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
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 22 (Friday, February 2, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5082-5083]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-1711]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Sunil Bhasin, M.D.; Revocation of Registration
On August 4, 2005, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to
Show Cause to Sunil Bhasin, M.D. (Respondent), of San Bernardino, CA.
The Show Cause Order proposed to revoke Respondent's Certificate of
Registration, BB2195116, as a practitioner, on the ground that
Respondent had surrendered his California medical license, and was
therefore without authority to handle controlled substances in the
state where he practiced medicine. Show Cause Order at 1. The Show
Cause Order further notified Respondent of his right to a hearing. Id.
at 2.
The Show Cause Order was served by certified mail, return receipt
requested. On September 2, 2005, Respondent acknowledged receipt of the
Show Cause Order as demonstrated by the signed return receipt card
which is contained in the investigative file.
In a letter dated September 5, 2005, Respondent wrote the Deputy
Assistant Administrator asserting that he had rejected the Medical
Board of California's settlement stipulation. Respondent further
asserted that the stipulation was illegal because its terms were
illusory, fraudulent and unconscionable and that he was litigating
these issues in federal district court.
On September 26, 2005, the Government filed a request with the
Office of Administrative Law Judges to docket the matter for a hearing.
While the Government noted that Respondent ``did not specifically
request a hearing,'' it expressed the view that the case required an
on-the-record ``factual determination of the licensing issue'' before
the case was transmitted to me for final agency action. Govt. Req. to
Docket Matter for Hearing at 1.
Simultaneously, the Government moved for summary disposition. The
basis of the Government's motion was that a Diversion Investigator (DI)
would testify that she had received documents from the Medical Board of
California (MBC) which showed that Respondent had surrendered his state
license on September 27, 2004, that the MBC had adopted the surrender
stipulation on December 6, 2004, and that the MBC Web site indicated
that Respondent's license had been surrendered. Id. at 1-2. Attached to
the motion were documents supporting each of the Government's
contentions.
The matter was assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mary Ellen
Bittner. On October 7, 2005, the ALJ issued a Memorandum to Parties
(Memo 1). In Memo 1, the ALJ offered Respondent the opportunity to
respond to the Government's request to docket the matter for hearing no
later than October 31, 2005. Memo 1, at 2.
A copy of Memo 1 was sent to Respondent by certified mail. The
mailing, however, was returned unclaimed. Thereafter, the ALJ issued a
new Memorandum to Parties which offered Respondent the opportunity to
respond to the Government's request by December 19, 2005. Memorandum to
Parties 1 (Nov. 28, 2005) (Memo 2). The ALJ further directed that Memo
2 be sent to Respondent by both registered mail with restricted
delivery and first class mail. See id. Again, Respondent did not
respond. See Memorandum to Parties 2 (Mar. 24, 2006) (Memo 3).
Thereafter, on January 19, 2006, the Government moved to terminate
the proceedings. Motion to Terminate Proceedings 1. The Government also
requested that the ALJ find that Respondent had waived his right to a
hearing. Id.
On March 24, 2006, the ALJ issued a further Memorandum to Parties
(Memo 3). In Memo 3, the ALJ offered Respondent the opportunity to
respond to the Government's motion to terminate by April 13, 2006. Memo
3, at 2. When once again, Respondent failed to respond, the ALJ granted
the Government's motion and ordered that the proceedings be terminated.
See Order Terminating Proceedings 2. In her order, the ALJ also found
that Respondent had failed to request a hearing and had waived his
right to a hearing. See id.
The investigative file was then forwarded to me for final agency
action. I adopt the ALJ's finding that Respondent has waived his right
to a hearing. I therefore enter this final order without a hearing
based on information contained in the investigative file.
[[Page 5083]]
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.
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 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.
Order
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