Notice of Denial of Georgia's Application for a “Cap” of the 2013 Credit Reduction Under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, 76327-76328 [2013-29854]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2013 / Notices
See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 725(c)
(requiring a medical basis for
prescribing controlled substances); 21
CFR 1306.04(a) (‘‘A prescription for a
controlled substance to be effective
must be issued for a legitimate medical
purpose’’). Applicant only treated the
patients with controlled substances,
failed to document treatment plans,
failed take into account the patient’s
past history of drug abuse, and
continuously prescribed high doses of
opiates without documenting any
explanation for doing so in their
medical records. Stipulated Surrender,
at 17–23.
Moreover, as the Expert explained,
Applicant ignored signs of misuse with
respect to E.G., and signs of misuse and
diversion with respect to R.E. Expert’s
Report, at 11 (‘‘signs of misuse on the
part of [E.G.] did not seem to affect
[Applicant’s] prescribing practices’’); id.
at 29–30 (noting that R.E. requested
specific controlled substances, reported
stolen opioids, and ‘‘reported persistent
or increased pain at almost every visit’’
notwithstanding that ‘‘the opioid . . .
doses had been significantly increased’’
and that Applicant ‘‘fail[ed] to respond
to clues that [R.E.] was misusing or
diverting medication’’). Most
significantly, with respect to both E.G.
and R.E., the Expert concluded that
Applicant’s treatment ‘‘fell far outside
the usual professional practice of
medicine.’’ Id. at 32.
I therefore find that Applicant
violated the CSA’s prescription
requirement when he prescribed
controlled substance to E.G. and R.E. 21
CFR 1306.04(a). I also find that
Applicant unlawfully distributed
controlled substances to E.G. and R.E.
See 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1); see also Moore,
423 U.S. at 142–43 (noting that evidence
established that physician ‘‘exceeded
the bounds of ‘professional practice,’’’
when ‘‘he gave inadequate physical
examinations or none at all,’’ ‘‘ignored
the results of the tests he did make,’’
and ‘‘took no precautions against . . .
misuse and diversion’’).
Finally, with respect to patient J.G.,
the evidence shows that Applicant
‘‘assumed the methadone maintenance
of a known opiate addict despite his
lack of qualification and without the
guidance of qualified addiction
specialists.’’ Id. at 28. Applicant did so
notwithstanding that he did not hold
the registration required by the CSA to
dispense narcotic drugs for the purposes
of providing maintenance or
detoxification treatment. See 21 U.S.C.
823(g)(1) (‘‘practitioners who dispense
narcotic drugs to individuals for
maintenance treatment or detoxification
treatment shall obtain annually a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:45 Dec 16, 2013
Jkt 232001
separate registration for that purpose.’’)
(emphasis added); George C. Aycock,
M.D., 74 FR 17529, 17543 n.32 (2009)
(‘‘Under federal law, a practitioner must
meet extensive requirements and be
separately registered to lawfully
dispense narcotic drugs for maintenance
or detoxification treatment.’’).
Applicant further violated federal law
when he prescribed methadone, a
schedule II narcotic, for the purpose of
treating J.G.’s opioid dependency.
Expert Report, at 22. Under a DEA
regulation, a practitioner (who is
properly registered), ‘‘may administer or
dispense (but not prescribe) a narcotic
drug . . . to a narcotic depend[e]nt
person for the purpose of maintenance
or detoxification treatment.’’ 21 CFR
1306.07(a). Applicant thus also violated
this provision when he prescribed
methadone to treat J.G.’s opioid
dependency.7
Accordingly, I hold that the evidence
with respect to factors two and four
supports the conclusion that
Applicant’s registration ‘‘would be
inconsistent with the public interest.’’
21 U.S.C. 823(f). Because Applicant
waived his right to a hearing or to
submit a written statement in lieu of
hearing, there is no evidence to the
contrary. See, e.g., Medicine ShoppeJonesborough, 73 FR 364, 387 (2008)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Accordingly, I will deny Applicant’s
application.
Order
Pursuant to the authority vested in me
by 21 U.S.C. 823(f), as well as 28 CFR
0.100(b) and 0.104, I hereby order that
the application of Thomas Neuschatz,
M.D., for a DEA Certificate of
Registration as a practitioner be, and it
hereby is, denied. This order is effective
immediately.
Dated: December 6, 2013.
Thomas M. Harrigan,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013–29956 Filed 12–16–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
76327
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
Notice of Approval of South Carolina’s
Application for Avoidance of 2013
Credit Reduction Under the Federal
Unemployment Tax Act
Employment and Training
Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Sections 3302(c)(2) and
3302(d)(3) of the Federal
Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) provide
that employers in a state that has an
outstanding balance of advances under
Title XII of the Social Security Act at the
beginning of January 1 of two or more
consecutive years are subject to a
reduction in credits otherwise available
against the FUTA tax for the calendar
year in which the most recent such
January 1 occurs, if a balance of
advances remains at the beginning of
November 10 of that year. Because the
account of South Carolina in the
Unemployment Trust Fund had a
balance of advances at the beginning of
January 1 of 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and
2013, and still had a balance of
advances at the beginning of November
10, 2013, South Carolina employers
were potentially liable for a reduction in
their FUTA offset credit for 2013.
Section 3302(g) of FUTA provides
that a state may avoid credit reduction
for a year by meeting certain criteria.
South Carolina applied for avoidance of
the 2013 credit reduction under this
section. It has been determined that
South Carolina met all of the criteria of
section 3302(g) and thus qualifies for
credit reduction avoidance. Therefore,
South Carolina employers will have no
reduction in FUTA offset credit for
calendar year 2013.
SUMMARY:
Signed in Washington, DC, this 5th day of
December, 2013.
Eric M. Seleznow,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Employment
and Training.
[FR Doc. 2013–29851 Filed 12–16–13; 8:45 am]
7 To
similar effect, California law provides that a
physician cannot ‘‘administer dangerous drugs or
controlled substances to a person he or she knows
or reasonably believes is using or will use the drugs
or substances for a nonmedical purpose.’’ Cal. Bus.
& Prof. Code § 2241(b). Thus, ‘‘an order for an
addict or habitual user of controlled substances,
which is issued not in the course of professional
treatment or as part of an authorized narcotic
treatment program, for the purpose of providing the
user with controlled substances,’’ is illegal. Cal.
Health & Safety Code § 11153(a)(2); People v.
Gandotra, 14 Cal. Rptr. 2d 896, 901 (Cal. Ct. App.
1992) (‘‘[S]ection 11153 . . . prohibits practitioners
from writing controlled substance prescriptions that
. . . are outside the course of their usual
professional practice.’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
BILLING CODE 4510–FW–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
Notice of Denial of Georgia’s
Application for a ‘‘Cap’’ of the 2013
Credit Reduction Under the Federal
Unemployment Tax Act
Employment and Training
Administration, Labor.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\17DEN1.SGM
17DEN1
76328
ACTION:
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2013 / Notices
Notice.
Sections 3302(c)(2) and
3302(d)(3) of the Federal
Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) provide
that employers in a state that has an
outstanding balance of advances under
Title XII of the Social Security Act at the
beginning of January 1 of two or more
consecutive years are subject to a
reduction in credits otherwise available
against the FUTA tax for the calendar
year in which the most recent such
January 1 occurs, if a balance of
advances remains at the beginning of
November 10 of that year. By virtue of
Georgia’s Unemployment Trust Fund
account having an outstanding balance
of Title XII advances on January 1 of
four consecutive years, Georgia
employers are potentially liable for a 0.9
percent reduction in their FUTA offset
credit for 2013.
Georgia applied for a cap on the credit
reduction under FUTA, section 3302(f),
and 20 CFR 606.20. If the State meets
the specified criteria the 2013 credit
reduction would have stayed at the 2012
percentage of 0.6 percent instead of
increasing to 0.9 percent.
It was determined that Georgia did
not meet all of the criteria of section
3302(f) since the estimated State average
tax rate on total wages for calendar year
2013 did not equal or exceed the State’s
average benefit cost rate for calendar
years 2008–2012. Thus Georgia does not
qualify for a credit reduction cap and
therefore employers in Georgia will
have a 0.9 percent FUTA credit
reduction for calendar year 2013.
SUMMARY:
Signed in Washington, DC, this 5th day of
December, 2013.
Eric M. Seleznow,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Employment
and Training.
outstanding balance of advances under
Title XII of the Social Security Act at the
beginning of January 1 of two or more
consecutive years are subject to a
reduction in credits otherwise available
against the FUTA tax for the calendar
year in which the most recent such
January 1 occurs, if a balance of
advances remains at the beginning of
November 10 of that year. Further,
section 3302(c)(2) of FUTA provides
that a state may face additional credit
reduction for a year by failing to meet
certain criteria.
South Carolina applied for a waiver of
the 2013 additional credit reduction
under section 3302 (c)(2)(C) of FUTA
and it has been determined that South
Carolina met all of the criteria of this
section necessary to qualify for the
waiver of the additional credit
reduction. Therefore, South Carolina
employers will have no additional
credit reduction applied for calendar
year 2013.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 5th day of
December, 2013.
Eric M. Seleznow,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Employment
and Training.
[FR Doc. 2013–29850 Filed 12–16–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FW–P
Employment and Training
Administration
Notice of Approval of Indiana’s
Application for a Waiver of the
Additional Credit Reduction That Was
To Be Applied to the 2013 Credit
Reduction Under the Federal
Unemployment Tax Act
Employment and Training
Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Notice.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
SUMMARY:
AGENCY:
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Employment and Training
Administration
Notice of Approval of South Carolina’s
Application for a Waiver of the
Additional Credit Reduction That Was
To Be Applied to the 2013 Credit
Reduction Under the Federal
Unemployment Tax Act
Employment and Training
Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Sections 3302(c)(2) and
3302(d)(3) of the Federal
Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) provide
that employers in a state that has an
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:45 Dec 16, 2013
Jkt 232001
Sections 3302(c)(2) and
3302(d)(3) of the Federal
Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) provide
that employers in a state that has an
outstanding balance of advances under
Title XII of the Social Security Act at the
beginning of January 1 of two or more
consecutive years are subject to a
reduction in credits otherwise available
against the FUTA tax for the calendar
year in which the most recent such
January 1 occurs, if a balance of
advances remains at the beginning of
November 10 of that year. Also section
3302(c)(2) of FUTA provides that a state
may face additional credit reduction for
a year by failing to meet certain criteria.
Indiana applied for a waiver of the 2013
additional credit reduction under
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Signed in Washington, DC, this 5th day of
December 2013.
Eric M. Seleznow,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Employment
and Training.
[FR Doc. 2013–29849 Filed 12–16–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FW–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 70–7018; NRC–2008–0369]
Application for Renewal of Special
Nuclear Material License SNM–2014
From Tennessee Valley Authority for
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, Spring
City, Tennessee
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Environmental assessment and
finding of no significant impact, notice
of availability.
AGENCY:
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
[FR Doc. 2013–29854 Filed 12–16–13; 8:45 am]
section 3302(c)(2)(C) of FUTA and
because Indiana has taken no action to
reduce the solvency of their
Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund in
the 12 months ending September 30,
2013, they have successfully qualified
for the waiver. It has therefore been
determined that Indiana meets all of the
criteria of this section and thus qualifies
for the waiver of additional credit
reduction and therefore employers in
Indiana will have no additional credit
reduction applied for calendar year
2013.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering the
renewal of Special Nuclear Material
(SNM) License SNM–2014, issued in
June 2011 and held by Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA), to authorize the
continued receipt, possession,
inspection, and storage of Special
Nuclear Material SNM in the form of
fresh fuel assemblies at TVA’s Watts Bar
site in Spring City, TN.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID
NRC–2008–0369 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of
information regarding this document.
You may access publicly-available
information related to this action by the
following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2008–0369. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–287–3422;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
technical questions, contact the
individual(s) listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\17DEN1.SGM
17DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76327-76328]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29854]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
Notice of Denial of Georgia's Application for a ``Cap'' of the
2013 Credit Reduction Under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act
AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
[[Page 76328]]
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Sections 3302(c)(2) and 3302(d)(3) of the Federal Unemployment
Tax Act (FUTA) provide that employers in a state that has an
outstanding balance of advances under Title XII of the Social Security
Act at the beginning of January 1 of two or more consecutive years are
subject to a reduction in credits otherwise available against the FUTA
tax for the calendar year in which the most recent such January 1
occurs, if a balance of advances remains at the beginning of November
10 of that year. By virtue of Georgia's Unemployment Trust Fund account
having an outstanding balance of Title XII advances on January 1 of
four consecutive years, Georgia employers are potentially liable for a
0.9 percent reduction in their FUTA offset credit for 2013.
Georgia applied for a cap on the credit reduction under FUTA,
section 3302(f), and 20 CFR 606.20. If the State meets the specified
criteria the 2013 credit reduction would have stayed at the 2012
percentage of 0.6 percent instead of increasing to 0.9 percent.
It was determined that Georgia did not meet all of the criteria of
section 3302(f) since the estimated State average tax rate on total
wages for calendar year 2013 did not equal or exceed the State's
average benefit cost rate for calendar years 2008-2012. Thus Georgia
does not qualify for a credit reduction cap and therefore employers in
Georgia will have a 0.9 percent FUTA credit reduction for calendar year
2013.
Signed in Washington, DC, this 5th day of December, 2013.
Eric M. Seleznow,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training.
[FR Doc. 2013-29854 Filed 12-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
