Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revision of a Previously Approved Collection, 3159-3160 [2016-00942]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 20, 2016 / Notices
tkelley on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
On October 27, 2015, the Government
filed a Motion for Summary Disposition
Based on Respondent’s Lack of State
Authorization to Handle Controlled
Substances and Submission of Evidence
in Support of Such Motion (‘‘Motion for
Summary Disposition’’). Therein, the
Government argued that the Respondent
currently lacks state authority in
Massachusetts and Connecticut to
handle controlled substances. Mot. for
Summ. Disp. at 3. First, the Government
argued that the Respondent voluntarily
agreed with the Massachusetts Board of
Registration in Medicine
(‘‘Massachusetts Board’’) to refrain from
practicing medicine. Mot. for Summ.
Disp. at 2. Attached to the Government’s
Motion is a copy of the Voluntary
Agreement Not to Practice Medicine,
entered into by the Respondent and the
Massachusetts Board. Mot. for Summ.
Disp. Ex. C, at 3–4. Second, the
Government argued that the
Respondent’s Connecticut controlled
substance registration was suspended
because the Respondent made false
statements in his renewal application.
Mot. for Summ. Disp. at 2. Attached to
the Government’s Motion is the
Connecticut Department of Consumer
Protection’s (‘‘CDCP’’) Order of
Immediate Suspension of Controlled
Substance Registration No. 22241. Mot.
for Summ. Disp. Ex. D, at 1–2.
On November 4, 2015, the
Respondent’s counsel filed an
Affirmation in Opposition
(‘‘Respondent’s Reply’’). In his Reply,
the Respondent’s counsel asserted that,
although the Respondent’s Connecticut
controlled substance registration
currently is suspended, the CDCP
conducted a hearing on September 17,
2015, regarding the suspension. Resp’t
Reply at 1–2. The Respondent’s counsel
asserted that the CDCP’s final decision
may change his registration status.
Resp’t Reply at 1–2, 7–8. The
Respondent’s counsel also asserted that,
although the Respondent signed an
agreement not to practice in
Massachusetts, that agreement was
predicated on the suspension of the
Respondent’s Rhode Island license, and
that his Rhode Island license may be
restored.3 Resp’t Reply at 4–5, 7.
3 The Respondent asserts that he entered a
voluntary agreement suspending his Massachusetts
license because his Rhode Island license was
suspended. Resp’t Reply at 4–6. The Respondent
also asserts that he requested a hearing on the
suspension of his Rhode Island license, but has not
challenged his Massachusetts license’s suspension.
Req. for Hr’g at 1; Resp’t Reply at 7. This case,
however, do not address any DEA registration to
dispense controlled substances in Rhode Island.
Thus, the status of the Respondent’s Rhode Island
license is not considered here. See Brian Earl
Cressman, M.D., 78 FR 12091, 12092 n.2 (2013)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:12 Jan 19, 2016
Jkt 238001
In revocation cases, the Government
has the burden of proving that the
requirements for revocation are
satisfied. 21 CFR 1301.44(e) (2015). The
Government also bears the initial
burden of production. If the
Government makes a prima facie case
for revocation, the burden of production
shifts to the registrant to show that
revocation is inappropriate. Morall v.
DEA, 412 F.3d 165, 174 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
To maintain a DEA registration, a
practitioner must be currently
authorized to handle controlled
substances in the jurisdiction where he
practices. See 21 U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f)
(2012). A registrant must possess state
authority to dispense controlled
substances in order to obtain and
maintain DEA registration. E.g., Serenity
´
Cafe, 77 FR 35027, 35028 (2012).
Accordingly, the Controlled Substances
Act ‘‘requires the revocation of a
registration issued to a practitioner
whose State license has been suspended
or revoked.’’ Scott Sandarg, D.M.D., 74
FR 17528, 17529 (2009).
The Respondent argues that his COR
should not be revoked because the
CDCP may restore his Connecticut
registration. However, ‘‘it does not
matter whether the suspension . . . [is]
pending the outcome of a state
proceeding. Rather, what matters—as
DEA has repeatedly held—is whether
Respondent is without authority under
[state] law to dispense a controlled
substance.’’ Bourne Pharmacy, Inc., 72
FR 18273, 18274 (2007); see also Grider
Drug #1 & Grider Drug #2, 77 FR 44069,
44104 n.97 (2012).
The Respondent requested a stay of
these proceedings until the CDCP
reaches a final decision regarding his
Connecticut registration. Req. for Hr’g at
2; Resp’t Reply at 8. This Agency
routinely denies ‘‘requests to stay the
issuance of a final order of revocation
. . . [because] a practitioner must be
currently authorized to handle
controlled substances . . . to maintain
[his] DEA registration.’’ Gregory F.
Saric, M.D., 76 FR 16821 (2011)
(emphasis added) (internal quotations
and citations omitted). Because
evaluating ‘‘whether Respondent’s state
license will be re-instated is entirely
speculative,’’ id., ‘‘[i]t is not DEA’s
policy to stay proceedings . . . while
registrants litigate in other forums.’’
Newcare Home Health Servs., 72 FR
42126, 42127 n.2 (2007) (citing Bourne
Pharmacy, 72 FR at 18273; Oakland
Med. Pharmacy, 71 FR 50100 (2006);
(noting that ‘‘a registrant’s controlled substance
privileges in a state outside the state of his DEA
registration [are] irrelevant’’) (citing Shahid Musud
Siddiqui, M.D., 61 FR 14818 (1996)).
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3159
Kennard Kobrin, M.D., 70 FR 33199
(2005)). Therefore, the Respondent’s
request to stay the proceedings pending
the CDCP’s final decision is denied.
The disposition of the Government’s
Motion depends on whether the
Respondent possesses state authority to
handle controlled substances. The
administrative record establishes that he
does not. The CDCP’s Order of
Immediate Suspension of Controlled
Substance Registration No. 22241
establishes that his Connecticut
controlled substances registration
currently is suspended. Accordingly,
the Respondent lacks authorization to
handle controlled substances in
Connecticut, where DEA COR Number
FA3033002 is registered. Additionally,
the Massachusetts Voluntary Agreement
Not to Practice Medicine establishes
that the Respondent currently lacks
authorization to handle controlled
substances in Massachusetts, where
DEA COR Number BA4089721 is
registered.
Where there is no genuine question of
fact, or there is agreement upon the
material facts, a plenary, adversarial
hearing is not required. See, e.g., Jesus
R. Juarez, M.D., 62 FR 14945 (1997).
Thus, summary disposition is warranted
here because ‘‘there is no factual dispute
of substance.’’ See Veg-Mix, Inc., 832
F.2d 601, 607 (D.C. Cir. 1987). As of the
date of this Recommended Decision, the
Respondent currently lacks state
authority to handle controlled
substances in both Connecticut and
Massachusetts; therefore, he cannot
maintain his DEA registrations. The
Government’s Motion for Summary
Disposition is granted, and it is
recommended that the Respondent’s
DEA registrations be revoked and any
pending applications for renewal be
denied.
Dated: November 6, 2015
Charles Wm. Dorman,
Administrative Law Judge.
[FR Doc. 2016–00895 Filed 1–19–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[OMB Number 1110–0011]
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Proposed eCollection
eComments Requested; Revision of a
Previously Approved Collection
Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Department of Justice
Violent Criminal Apprehension Program
(ViCAP).
ACTION: 60-day notice.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\20JAN1.SGM
20JAN1
3160
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 20, 2016 / Notices
The Department of Justice,
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Critical
Incident Response Group will submit
the following information collection
request to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and clearance
in accordance with established review
procedures of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995.
DATES: Comments are encouraged and
will be accepted for 60 days until March
21, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: All
comments, suggestions, or questions
regarding additional information, to
include obtaining a copy of the
proposed information collection
instrument with instructions, should be
directed to Lesa Marcolini, Program
Manager, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Critical Incident Response
Group, ViCAP, FBI Academy, Quantico,
Virginia 22135; facsimile (703) 632–
4239.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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:
—Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, 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;
—Evaluate whether and if so how the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected can be
enhanced; and
—Minimize the burden of the 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.
tkelley on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
Overview of This Information
Collection
1. Type of Information Collection:
Revision of a currently approved
collection.
2. The Title of the Form/Collection:
ViCAP Case Submission Form.
3. The agency form number, if any,
and the applicable component of the
Department sponsoring the collection:
The form number is FD–676. The
applicable component within the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:12 Jan 19, 2016
Jkt 238001
Department of Justice is the Federal
Bureau of Investigation.
4. Affected public who will be asked
or required to respond, as well as a brief
abstract: Primary: Federal, state, local,
and tribal government law enforcement
agencies charged with the responsibility
of investigating violent crimes.
Abstract: Established by the
Department of Justice in 1985, ViCAP
serves as the national repository for
violent crimes; specifically;
Homicides (and attempts) that are
known or suspected to be part of a series
and/or are apparently random,
motiveless, or sexually oriented.
Sexual assaults that are known or
suspected to be part of a series and/or
are committed by a stranger.
Missing persons where the
circumstances indicate a strong
possibility of foul play and the victim is
still missing.
Unidentified human remains where
the manner of death is known or
suspected to be homicide.
Comprehensive case information
submitted to ViCAP is maintained in the
ViCAP Web National Crime Database
and is automatically compared to all
other cases in the databases to identify
potentially related cases.
5. An estimate of the total number of
respondents and the amount of time
estimated for an average respondent to
respond: Of the approximately 18,000
government law enforcement agencies
that are eligible to submit cases, it is
estimated that thirty to fifty percent will
actually submit cases to ViCAP. The
time burden of the respondents is less
than 60 minutes per form.
6. An estimate of the total public
burden (in hours) associated with the
collection: 5,000 annual burden 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., 3E.405B,
Washington, DC 20530.
Dated: January 14, 2016.
Jerri Murray,
Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S.
Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 2016–00942 Filed 1–19–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–02–P
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Petitions for Modification of
Application of Existing Mandatory
Safety Standards
Mine Safety and Health
Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Section 101(c) of the Federal
Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and
Title 30 of the Code of Federal
Regulations Part 44 govern the
application, processing, and disposition
of petitions for modification. This notice
is a summary of petitions for
modification submitted to the Mine
Safety and Health Administration
(MSHA) by the parties listed below.
DATES: All comments on the petitions
must be received by the MSHA’s Office
of Standards, Regulations, and
Variances on or before February 19,
2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit your
comments, identified by ‘‘docket
number’’ on the subject line, by any of
the following methods:
1. Electronic Mail: zzMSHAcomments@dol.gov. Include the docket
number of the petition in the subject
line of the message.
2. Facsimile: 202–693–9441.
3. Regular Mail or Hand Delivery:
MSHA, Office of Standards,
Regulations, and Variances, 201 12th
Street South, Suite 4E401, Arlington,
Virginia 22202–5452, Attention: Sheila
McConnell, Acting Director, Office of
Standards, Regulations, and Variances.
Persons delivering documents are
required to check in at the receptionist’s
desk in Suite 4E401. Individuals may
inspect copies of the petitions and
comments during normal business
hours at the address listed above.
MSHA will consider only comments
postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or
proof of delivery from another delivery
service such as UPS or Federal Express
on or before the deadline for comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Barbara Barron, Office of Standards,
Regulations, and Variances at 202–693–
9447 (Voice), barron.barbara@dol.gov
(Email), or 202–693–9441 (Facsimile).
[These are not toll-free numbers.]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Background
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine
Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine
Act) allows the mine operator or
representative of miners to file a
petition to modify the application of any
mandatory safety standard to a coal or
E:\FR\FM\20JAN1.SGM
20JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3159-3160]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00942]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[OMB Number 1110-0011]
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection
eComments Requested; Revision of a Previously Approved Collection
AGENCY: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice Violent
Criminal Apprehension Program (ViCAP).
ACTION: 60-day notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 3160]]
SUMMARY: The Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Critical Incident Response Group will submit the following information
collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and clearance in accordance with established review procedures
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until
March 21, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: All comments, suggestions, or
questions regarding additional information, to include obtaining a copy
of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions,
should be directed to Lesa Marcolini, Program Manager, Federal Bureau
of Investigation, Critical Incident Response Group, ViCAP, FBI Academy,
Quantico, Virginia 22135; facsimile (703) 632-4239.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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:
--Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, 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;
--Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of
the information to be collected can be enhanced; and
--Minimize the burden of the 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 Collection
1. Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved
collection.
2. The Title of the Form/Collection: ViCAP Case Submission Form.
3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of
the Department sponsoring the collection: The form number is FD-676.
The applicable component within the Department of Justice is the
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Federal, state, local, and tribal
government law enforcement agencies charged with the responsibility of
investigating violent crimes.
Abstract: Established by the Department of Justice in 1985, ViCAP
serves as the national repository for violent crimes; specifically;
Homicides (and attempts) that are known or suspected to be part of
a series and/or are apparently random, motiveless, or sexually
oriented.
Sexual assaults that are known or suspected to be part of a series
and/or are committed by a stranger.
Missing persons where the circumstances indicate a strong
possibility of foul play and the victim is still missing.
Unidentified human remains where the manner of death is known or
suspected to be homicide.
Comprehensive case information submitted to ViCAP is maintained in
the ViCAP Web National Crime Database and is automatically compared to
all other cases in the databases to identify potentially related cases.
5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of
time estimated for an average respondent to respond: Of the
approximately 18,000 government law enforcement agencies that are
eligible to submit cases, it is estimated that thirty to fifty percent
will actually submit cases to ViCAP. The time burden of the respondents
is less than 60 minutes per form.
6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated
with the collection: 5,000 annual burden 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., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Dated: January 14, 2016.
Jerri Murray,
Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 2016-00942 Filed 1-19-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-02-P
