Agency Information Collection Agencies: New Collection; Comments Requested, 17522-17523 [2012-7172]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
17522
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices
purpose; his prescribing of controlled
substances to treat chronic pain without
a legitimate medical purpose; his
prescribing of Xanax to JC2; his issuance
of prescriptions which lacked his
practitioner’s registration number; his
issuance of post-dated prescriptions;
and his issuance of multiple
prescriptions after his registration had
been suspended. I further conclude that
the Government has made a prima facie
showing that Respondent has
committed acts which render his
registration ‘‘inconsistent with the
public interest,’’ 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4), and
that this conduct is sufficiently
egregious to warrant the revocation of
his registration.24
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Sanction
Under Agency precedent, where, as
here, the Government has made out a
prima facie case that a registrant has
committed acts which render his
‘‘registration inconsistent with the
public interest,’’ he must ‘‘ ‘present[]
sufficient mitigating evidence to assure
the Administrator that [he] can be
entrusted with the responsibility carried
by such a registration.’ ’’ Samuel S.
Jackson, 72 FR 23848, 23853 (2007)
(quoting Leo R. Miller, 53 FR 21931,
21932 (1988)). ‘‘Moreover, because ‘past
performance is the best predictor of
future performance,’ ALRA Labs., Inc. v.
DEA, 54 F.3d 450, 452 (7th Cir. 1995),
this Agency has repeatedly held that
where a registrant has committed acts
inconsistent with the public interest, the
registrant must accept responsibility for
[his] actions and demonstrate that [he]
will not engage in future misconduct.’’
Medicine Shoppe-Jonesborough, 73 FR
364 (2008). As the Sixth Circuit has
24 With respect to factor five, the ALJ found that
Respondent’s ‘‘lack of candor * * * threatens
public health and safety.’’ ALJ at 49. As support for
this conclusion, the ALJ noted that most of the
patients who were interviewed by the Investigators
had stated that Respondent was treating them for
substance abuse, yet Respondent testified that they
were being treated for chronic pain but did not
realize this. Id.
While I agree with the ALJ that Respondent
lacked candor, and appreciate that she personally
observed his testimony, I do so based on different
evidence. First, during the initial interview on Feb.
28, 2010, Respondent told the investigators that he
was operating a detox clinic and was using
methadone to transfer his patients to Suboxone. Tr.
43. Yet later that day, he claimed that he was
prescribing methadone only for pain and had
previously misspoken. Id. at 54–55. Second, when
confronted with evidence that several of his
methadone patients had come to him from
methadone clinics, he attempted to justify his
unlawful prescribing of methadone to them by
claiming that the patients had actually gone to these
clinics to treat their pain. See Tr. 695–96 (testimony
regarding JB); id. at 699 (testimony regarding JC); id.
at 716–17 (testimony regarding KI); id. at 728
(testimony regarding TP). This factor thus also
supports revocation.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:32 Mar 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
recognized, this Agency also ‘‘properly
consider[s]’’ a registrant’s admission of
fault and his candor during the
investigation and hearing to be
‘‘important factors’’ in the public
interest determination. See Hoxie, 419
F.3d at 483.
The ALJ found, and the record
supports the conclusion, that
Respondent eventually ceased
prescribing methadone for maintenance
and detoxification purposes. ALJ at 49–
50. The record generally supports the
conclusion that Respondent stopped
writing controlled substance
prescriptions which did not include his
registration number, as required by DEA
regulations. However, as found above,
in September 2010, Respondent issued
a further Adderall prescription to JB and
did not include his registration number.
The ALJ further noted that
Respondent expressed remorse for some
of his wrongdoing. ALJ at 50. However,
while Respondent maintained that he
had mistakenly issued the postsuspension prescriptions, and ‘‘would
never do anything to violate an order,’’
Tr. 509, his testimony is belied by the
evidence that upon being served with
the Immediate Suspension Order, he
stated his intention not to comply with
it. Indeed, his testimony is patently
disingenuous, given that he wrote the
prescriptions only two days after he was
served with the Order. In short,
Respondent’s conduct manifests a
deliberate and egregious disregard for
his obligations as a DEA registrant.
Finally, while the ALJ noted that
‘‘Respondent testified passionately
about the prevalence of narcotic abuse
in Red Bay and his want to eliminate
it,’’ she further concluded that he
‘‘likely facilitated some of that abuse.’’
Id. The ALJ’s conclusion is well
supported. Indeed, as found above, in
numerous instances, Respondent issued
controlled-substance prescriptions for
the purported purpose of treating a
patient’s pain, even though he recorded
in the patient’s chart that the patient
had ‘‘NO’’ pain and/or failed to make
the findings required under the State’s
Guidelines to properly diagnose the
patient. Moreover, during one of the
interviews by the Investigators,
Respondent admitted that he did not
follow the State’s Guidelines. Tr. 220.
Respondent, however, offered no
evidence that he now intends to comply
with the Guidelines.
Accordingly, I hold that Respondent
has not rebutted the Government’s
prima facie case. I will therefore order
that Respondent’s registration be
revoked and that any pending
application be denied. For the same
reasons that led me to order the
PO 00000
Frm 00121
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Immediate Suspension of Respondent’s
registration, I conclude that the public
interest requires that this Order be
effective immediately.
Order
Pursuant to the authority vested in me
by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) & 824(a)(4), as well
as by 28 CFR 0.100(b) & 0.104, I order
that DEA Certificate of Registration,
BC1701184, and Identification Number
XC1701184, issued to Morris W.
Cochran, M.D., be, and they hereby are,
revoked. I further order that any
application for renewal or modification
of such registration be, and it hereby is,
denied. This Order is effective
immediately.
Dated: March 16, 2012.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012–7107 Filed 3–23–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of Justice Programs
[OMB Number 1121–NEW]
Agency Information Collection
Agencies: New Collection; Comments
Requested
60-Day notice of information
collection under review.
ACTION:
The Department of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, will be submitting the
following information collection request
for review and approval in accordance
with the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995. The proposed information
collection is published to obtain
comments from the public and affected
agencies. Comments are encouraged and
will be accepted for ‘‘sixty days’’ until
May 25, 2012. This process is conducted
in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
If you have additional comments,
especially on the estimated public
burden or associated response time,
suggestions, or need a copy of the
proposed information collection
instrument with instructions or
additional information, please contact:
Ron Malega, 202–353–0487, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, Office of Justice
Programs, Department of Justice, 810
Seventh Street NW., Washington DC
20531 or Ronald.Malega@usdoj.gov.
Written comments and suggestions
from the public and affected agencies
concerning the proposed collection of
information are encouraged. Your
comments should address one or more
of the following four points:
E:\FR\FM\26MRN1.SGM
26MRN1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices
• Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
• Minimize the burden of 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, e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses.
Overview of this information:
1. Type of information collection:
New data collection, Census of ProblemSolving Courts (CPSC), 2012.
2. The title of the form/collection:
Census of Problem-Solving Courts or
CPSC 2012.
3. The agency form number, if any,
and the applicable component of the
Department sponsoring the collection:
The form labels are CPSC, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, Office of Justice
Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
4. Affected public who will be asked
or required to respond, as well as a brief
abstract: Problem-solving courts at all
levels of government. Abstract: The
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)
proposes to implement a Census of
Problem-Solving Courts (CPSC).
Problem-solving courts target
defendants who have ongoing social
and/or psychological conditions that
underlie their repeated contact with the
criminal justice system. Most of the
existing information about problemsolving courts (PSC) consists of court
evaluations or outcome analyses. No
prior census of these courts has been
conducted to date despite the
substantial proliferation of such courts
during the past thirty years. Hence, the
CPSC will allow BJS to provide national
level information on problem-solving
courts and case processing statistics.
The CPSC is designed to provide BJS
and other interested stakeholders with
the first systematic empirical
information on problem-solving courts.
A goal of the census is to obtain
information on problem-solving court
operations, staffing, administration, and
to generate accurate and reliable
aggregate statistics on offenders who
enter problem-solving court programs.
Information will be collected for the
most recent 12-month period in 2012.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:32 Mar 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
The CPSC will collect information on
the following categories:
a. Court Operations and Staffing
i. Provide the number of problem-solving
courts by type (e.g., mental health, drug,
etc.),
ii. Determine PSCs level of government
operations (e.g., local, state, etc.), court
jurisdiction (e.g., limited, general, other)
and intake of felony, misdemeanor, or
status offenses,
iii. Court session frequency,
iv. Number of full- and part-time staff
members currently employed by PSCs.
b. Funding: Types and prevalence of PSC
funding (e.g., local government budget,
state budget, etc.)
c. Commonly Used Services:
i. Count the types and prevalence of
offender/victim services (e.g., anger
management), counseling or treatment
services (e.g., outpatient mental health
treatment), and general supportive
services (e.g., life skills)
d. Participant participation
i. Participant inclusionary and
exclusionary factors,
ii. Participant point of entry (e.g. pre-plea,
post-plea/pre-sentence, etc.)
iii. Case closure: Benefits of successful
participation in PSC program (e.g., case
dismissal).
e. Capacity and Enrollment
i. Design Capacity: Total number of active
participants PSC can manage at any one
time,
ii. Current number of active participants.
f. Data Collection Practices:
i. Use of automated case management
systems,
ii. Ability to share case management
information with external agencies,
iii. PSCs’ ability to track participant
outcomes after graduation.
g. Selected PSC Aggregate Participant
information:
i. Number of offenders admitted for
participation in PSC over a 12 month
period,
ii. Number of offender participants exiting
program over a 12 month period,
including type of exit (e.g., successful
program completion),
iii. Percentage of participants by gender
over a 12 month period,
iv. Percentage of participants by race/
ethnicity over a 12 month period.
5. An Estimate of the Total Number of
Respondents and the Amount of Time
Estimated for an Average Respondent to
Respond: Estimates suggest 3,800
respondents will take part in the Census
of Problem-Solving Courts 2012. Based
on pilot testing and in-house review, the
average (mean) burden for each
completed survey is expected to be
approximately 30 minutes per
respondent. The estimated range of
burden for respondents is expected to be
between 15 minutes to 1 hour for
completion. The following factors were
considered when creating the burden
estimate: the estimated total number of
PO 00000
Frm 00122
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
17523
problem-solving courts, the ability of
problem-solving courts to access data,
and the type of data capabilities
generally found in the field. BJS
estimates that nearly all of the
approximately 3,800 respondents will
fully complete the questionnaire.
6. An Estimate of the Total Public
Burden (in hours) Associated with the
collection: The estimated public burden
associated with this collection is 1,918
hours. It is estimated that respondents
will take 30 minutes to complete a
questionnaire. The burden hours for
collecting respondent data sum to 1,900
hours (3,800 respondents × 0.5 hours =
1,900 hours). In addition to
respondents’ burden of completing the
census questionnaire, the CPSC requires
voluntary participation from State
Points of Contacts (SPOCs) to develop
an initial list of problem-solving court
docket contact information. While
SPOCs will not complete actual
questionnaires, their effort is a
necessary first step in identifying the
universe of problem-solving courts
nationwide. BJS estimates it will take,
on average, 20 minutes for each SPOC
to provide the requested list of problemsolving courts in their respective state.
There are 54 SPOCS (including DC,
Guam, Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico).
The total time burden is 18 hours (54
SPOCS × 20 minutes = 18 hours).
Therefore the total estimated burden for
the entire CPSC 2012 project is 1,918
hours (1,900 hours for respondents + 18
hours for SPOCS = 1,918 hours).
If additional information is required
contact: Jerri Murray, Department
Clearance Officer, United States
Department of Justice, Justice
Management Division, Policy and
Planning Staff, Two Constitution
Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 2E–508,
Washington, DC 20530.
Jerri Murray,
Department Clearance Officer, PRA, U.S.
Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 2012–7172 Filed 3–23–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–18–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of Justice Programs
[OMB Number 1121–0111]
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Extension of a Currently
Approved Collection; Comments
Requested; National Crime
Victimization Survey (NCVS)
60-day Notice of Information
Collection Under Review.
ACTION:
E:\FR\FM\26MRN1.SGM
26MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 58 (Monday, March 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17522-17523]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7172]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of Justice Programs
[OMB Number 1121-NEW]
Agency Information Collection Agencies: New Collection; Comments
Requested
ACTION: 60-Day notice of information collection under review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, will be submitting the following information
collection request for review and approval in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is
published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for ``sixty days'' until
May 25, 2012. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR
1320.10.
If you have additional comments, especially on the estimated public
burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the
proposed information collection instrument with instructions or
additional information, please contact: Ron Malega, 202-353-0487,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, Department of
Justice, 810 Seventh Street NW., Washington DC 20531 or
Ronald.Malega@usdoj.gov.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected
agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are
encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following
four points:
[[Page 17523]]
Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the
burden of the proposed collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
Minimize the burden of 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, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.
Overview of this information:
1. Type of information collection: New data collection, Census of
Problem-Solving Courts (CPSC), 2012.
2. The title of the form/collection: Census of Problem-Solving
Courts or CPSC 2012.
3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of
the Department sponsoring the collection: The form labels are CPSC,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.
Department of Justice.
4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Problem-solving courts at all levels of
government. Abstract: The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) proposes
to implement a Census of Problem-Solving Courts (CPSC). Problem-solving
courts target defendants who have ongoing social and/or psychological
conditions that underlie their repeated contact with the criminal
justice system. Most of the existing information about problem-solving
courts (PSC) consists of court evaluations or outcome analyses. No
prior census of these courts has been conducted to date despite the
substantial proliferation of such courts during the past thirty years.
Hence, the CPSC will allow BJS to provide national level information on
problem-solving courts and case processing statistics. The CPSC is
designed to provide BJS and other interested stakeholders with the
first systematic empirical information on problem-solving courts. A
goal of the census is to obtain information on problem-solving court
operations, staffing, administration, and to generate accurate and
reliable aggregate statistics on offenders who enter problem-solving
court programs. Information will be collected for the most recent 12-
month period in 2012. The CPSC will collect information on the
following categories:
a. Court Operations and Staffing
i. Provide the number of problem-solving courts by type (e.g.,
mental health, drug, etc.),
ii. Determine PSCs level of government operations (e.g., local,
state, etc.), court jurisdiction (e.g., limited, general, other) and
intake of felony, misdemeanor, or status offenses,
iii. Court session frequency,
iv. Number of full- and part-time staff members currently
employed by PSCs.
b. Funding: Types and prevalence of PSC funding (e.g., local
government budget, state budget, etc.)
c. Commonly Used Services:
i. Count the types and prevalence of offender/victim services
(e.g., anger management), counseling or treatment services (e.g.,
outpatient mental health treatment), and general supportive services
(e.g., life skills)
d. Participant participation
i. Participant inclusionary and exclusionary factors,
ii. Participant point of entry (e.g. pre-plea, post-plea/pre-
sentence, etc.)
iii. Case closure: Benefits of successful participation in PSC
program (e.g., case dismissal).
e. Capacity and Enrollment
i. Design Capacity: Total number of active participants PSC can
manage at any one time,
ii. Current number of active participants.
f. Data Collection Practices:
i. Use of automated case management systems,
ii. Ability to share case management information with external
agencies,
iii. PSCs' ability to track participant outcomes after
graduation.
g. Selected PSC Aggregate Participant information:
i. Number of offenders admitted for participation in PSC over a
12 month period,
ii. Number of offender participants exiting program over a 12
month period, including type of exit (e.g., successful program
completion),
iii. Percentage of participants by gender over a 12 month
period,
iv. Percentage of participants by race/ethnicity over a 12 month
period.
5. An Estimate of the Total Number of Respondents and the Amount of
Time Estimated for an Average Respondent to Respond: Estimates suggest
3,800 respondents will take part in the Census of Problem-Solving
Courts 2012. Based on pilot testing and in-house review, the average
(mean) burden for each completed survey is expected to be approximately
30 minutes per respondent. The estimated range of burden for
respondents is expected to be between 15 minutes to 1 hour for
completion. The following factors were considered when creating the
burden estimate: the estimated total number of problem-solving courts,
the ability of problem-solving courts to access data, and the type of
data capabilities generally found in the field. BJS estimates that
nearly all of the approximately 3,800 respondents will fully complete
the questionnaire.
6. An Estimate of the Total Public Burden (in hours) Associated
with the collection: The estimated public burden associated with this
collection is 1,918 hours. It is estimated that respondents will take
30 minutes to complete a questionnaire. The burden hours for collecting
respondent data sum to 1,900 hours (3,800 respondents x 0.5 hours =
1,900 hours). In addition to respondents' burden of completing the
census questionnaire, the CPSC requires voluntary participation from
State Points of Contacts (SPOCs) to develop an initial list of problem-
solving court docket contact information. While SPOCs will not complete
actual questionnaires, their effort is a necessary first step in
identifying the universe of problem-solving courts nationwide. BJS
estimates it will take, on average, 20 minutes for each SPOC to provide
the requested list of problem-solving courts in their respective state.
There are 54 SPOCS (including DC, Guam, Virgin Islands, and Puerto
Rico). The total time burden is 18 hours (54 SPOCS x 20 minutes = 18
hours). Therefore the total estimated burden for the entire CPSC 2012
project is 1,918 hours (1,900 hours for respondents + 18 hours for
SPOCS = 1,918 hours).
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray,
Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice,
Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two
Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 2E-508, Washington, DC
20530.
Jerri Murray,
Department Clearance Officer, PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 2012-7172 Filed 3-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-18-P
