Privacy Act of 1974; Publication in Full of All Notices of Systems of Records, Including Several New Systems, Substantive Amendments to Existing Systems, Decommissioning of Obsolete Legacy Systems, and Publication of Proposed Routines Uses, 47418-47419 [2016-17209]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
47418
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 140 / Thursday, July 21, 2016 / Notices
and is no longer authorized by State law
to engage in the . . . dispensing of
controlled substances.’’ This Agency has
further held that notwithstanding that
this provision grants the Agency
authority to suspend or revoke a
registration, other provisions of the
Controlled Substances Act ‘‘make plain
that a practitioner can neither obtain nor
maintain a DEA registration unless the
practitioner currently has authority
under state law to handle controlled
substances.’’ James L. Hooper, 76 FR
71371, 71372 (2011), pet. for rev.
denied, Hooper v. Holder, 481 F. App’x
826 (4th Cir. 2012).
These provisions include section
102(21), which defines the term
‘‘practitioner’’ to ‘‘mean[] 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,’’ 21 U.S.C.
802(21), as well as section 303(f), which
directs that ‘‘[t]he Attorney General
shall register practitioners . . . to
dispense . . . controlled substances . . .
if the applicant is authorized to
dispense . . . controlled substances
under the laws of the State in which he
practices.’’ Id. § 823(f). Based on these
provisions, the Agency has long held
that revocation is warranted even where
a state board has summarily suspended
a practitioner’s controlled substances
authority and the state’s order remains
subject to challenge in either
administrative or judicial proceedings.
See Gary Alfred Shearer, 78 FR 19009
(2013); Carmencita E. Gallora, 60 FR
47967 (1995).
Respondent nonetheless maintains
that the proposed revocation of his
registration would violate his right to
due process because the Hearing Officer
applied the wrong standard of proof
when he upheld the Emergency
Suspension Order. Response to Govt’s
Mot. for Summ. Judgment, at 4–8.
According to Respondent, this is so
because in holding that the Suspension
Order was justified by Respondent’s
indictment, the Hearing Officer applied
a probable cause standard rather than
the substantial evidence standard as
required by Kentucky law, and thus, the
Hearing Officer’s decision is arbitrary
and capricious. Id. at 5. Respondent
argues that he ‘‘established with
overwhelming and uncontested
evidence that his practice of medicine is
NOT a danger to the health, welfare, and
safety of his patients or the general
public.’’ Id. And he further argues that
‘‘the Hearing Officer improperly placed
the risk of non-persuasion on [him] and
applied the [Board’s] unconstitutional
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:15 Jul 20, 2016
Jkt 238001
regulatory provisions allowing an
indictment alone to serve as substantial
evidence of a violation of law.’’ Id. at 7.
However, ‘‘‘DEA has repeatedly held
that a registrant cannot collaterally
attack the results of a state criminal or
administrative proceeding in a
proceeding brought under section 304
[21 U.S.C. 824] of the CSA.’’’ Calvin
Ramsey, 76 FR 20034, 20036 (2011)
(quoting Hicham K. Riba, 73 FR 75773,
75774 (2008) (other citations omitted));
see also Shahid Musud Siddiqui, 61 FR
14818 (1996); Robert A. Leslie, 60 FR
14004 (1995). DEA is not vested with
authority to adjudicate either the
constitutionality of the Board’s
Suspension Order, or whether the
Board’s Order is arbitrary and
capricious. Respondent must therefore
seek relief from the State Board’s Order
in those administrative and judicial
forums provided by the State.
In a revocation proceeding brought
under section 824(a)(3), the only issue is
whether a respondent holds current
authority to dispense controlled
substances. Respondent’s various
contentions as to the validity of the
Board’s order are therefore not material
to this Agency’s resolution of whether
he is entitled to maintain his DEA
registration. Because it is undisputed
that Respondent does not hold authority
under the laws of Kentucky to dispense
controlled substances, he no longer
meets the definition of a practitioner
under the CSA and thus, he is not
entitled to maintain his registration.
See, e.g., Hooper, 76 FR at 71372.
Accordingly, I will order that
Respondent’s registration be revoked
and that any pending application to
renew or modify this registration be
denied.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Order
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Pursuant to the authority vested in me
by 21 U.S.C. 824(a) and 823(f), as well
as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA
Certificate of Registration BC8483430
issued to James Dustin Chaney, D.O., be,
and it hereby is, revoked. I further order
that any application of James Dustin
Chaney, D.O., to renew or modify this
registration, be, and it hereby is, denied.
This Order is effective August 22, 2016.
Service Contract Inventory; Notice of
Availability
In accordance with Section
743 of Division C of the FY 2010
Consolidated Appropriations Act,
Public Law 111–117, the Department of
Justice is publishing this notice to
advise the public of the availability of
its FY 2015 Service Contracts Inventory
and Inventory Supplement. The
inventory includes service contract
actions over $25,000 that were awarded
in Fiscal Year (FY) 2015. The inventory
supplement includes information
collected from contractors on the
amount invoiced and direct labor hours
expended for covered service contracts.
The Department of Justice analyzes this
data for the purpose of determining
whether its contract labor is being used
in an effective and appropriate manner
and if the mix of federal employees and
contractors in the agency is effectively
balanced. The inventory and
supplement do not include contractor
proprietary or sensitive information.
The FY 2015 Service Contract
Inventory and Inventory Supplement is
provided at the following link: https://
www.justice.gov/jmd/service-contractinventory.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara
M. Jamison, Procurement Policy Review
Group, Justice Management Division,
U.S. Department of Justice, Washington,
DC 20530; Phone: 202–616–3754; Email:
Tara.Jamison@usdoj.gov.
SUMMARY:
Dated: July, 19, 2016.
Jerri Murray,
Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S.
Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 2016–17248 Filed 7–20–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–DH–P
Office of the Secretary
Privacy Act of 1974; Publication in Full
of All Notices of Systems of Records,
Including Several New Systems,
Substantive Amendments to Existing
Systems, Decommissioning of
Obsolete Legacy Systems, and
Publication of Proposed Routines
Uses
[FR Doc. 2016–17250 Filed 7–20–16; 8:45 am]
Office of the Secretary, Labor.
Notice: Response to Comments
on the Department’s April 29, 2016
System of Records Notice.
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
SUMMARY:
Dated: July 11, 2016.
Chuck Rosenberg,
Acting Administrator.
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4703
AGENCY:
ACTION:
This notice announces a
response to public comments on the
Department’s April 29, 2016 System of
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM
21JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 140 / Thursday, July 21, 2016 / Notices
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Records Notice. In response to
comments, the Department is revising
one SORN. That SORN, and the
remainder of SORNs published on April
29, 2016, will become effective on the
date of publication of this notice.
DATES: The effective date for the
Department’s System of Records Notice
is the date of publication of this notice.
Effective Date: The date of publication
of this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joseph J. Plick, Counsel for FOIA and
Information Law, Office of the Solicitor,
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Room N–2420,
Washington, DC 20210, telephone (202)
693–5527, or by email to plick.joseph@
dol.gov.
Background: On April 29, 2016, the
Department of Labor issued a
Publication In Full of All Notices of
Systems of Records, including several
new systems; substantive amendments
to systems; decommissioning of obsolete
legacy systems; and publication of new
universal routine uses for all system of
records. The Department received
several public comments and one
Federal agency comment on this System
of Records Notice during the public
comment period, which ended June 8,
2016. The Department required
additional time to review and address
the comments, so, by Federal Register
notice of June 21, 2016, 81 FR 40352,
the effective date was postponed to July
23, 2016.
The Department is now publishing
this notice to address the eleven
comments to and revise SORN DOL/
Central-5 in response to those
comments.
Comment: Several comments
criticized Universal Routine Use #14,
which ‘‘permits the Department to
disclose information to the United
States Department of Justice (DOJ) and
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
that will be included in the National
Instant Criminal Background Check
System (NICS).’’ The commenters
argued that this Routine Use
impermissibly infringes on Second
Amendment rights. One commenter
stated, for example:
This rule (which refers specifically to 23
executive actions that Obama took on Jan. 16,
2013) infringes on the Second Amendment
by having developed through rule, manner in
which protected health information (PHI) is
now authorized to be released
unconstitutionally by HHS to agenc(ies) of
the federal government without the affected
individual’s consent, and the PHI is thus
used in a manner to target individuals and
unconstitutionally remove access to weapons
in connection with NICS.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:15 Jul 20, 2016
Jkt 238001
Response: The Department is required
by law—the Brady Handgun Violence
Prevention Act, as amended by the NICS
Improvement Amendments Act of
2007—to provide information to the
Attorney General to carry out its
provisions. Therefore, the Department is
declining to make changes to Universal
Routine Use #14.
Comment: One comment was critical
of Universal Routine Use #13, which
allows the Department to disclose
information to a state or local
government agency in charge of issuing
licenses to attorneys and health care
professionals. The commenter raised the
concern that state laws, particularly
California’s state laws, prohibit
information sharing with state and local
agencies.
Response: Under the Supremacy
Clause, federal law takes precedence
over state law. But to the extent that
state law in California may apply, the
Department has not identified any laws
which prohibit the disclosure
contemplated by Universal Routine Use
#13. On the contrary, California’s most
broadly applicable privacy law—the
Information Practices Act of 1977—
explicitly allows sharing ‘‘To a law
enforcement or regulatory agency when
required for an investigation of unlawful
activity or for licensing, certification, or
regulatory purposes, unless the
disclosure is otherwise prohibited by
law.’’ The Department declines to make
changes in response to this comment.
Comment: Several comments did not
specifically reference or provide
substantive feedback on any section of
the SORN. One commenter stated, for
example, ‘‘I do not favor the use of
funds for rail support that is not directly
supportive of General Aviation or
Airline services, viz. flights.’’ Another
argued ‘‘No undocumented alien should
have the same ability to sue for
discrimination because of their country
of origin, as an American Citizen does.’’
Response: The Department was
unable to identify any sections of the
SORN relevant to these comments, and,
therefore, is making no changes in
response.
Comment: Three commenters,
including the Office of Government
Information Services (OGIS) (within the
National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA)) suggested
changing the text of Routine Use (b) in
the DOL/Central-5 SORN, which covers
the Department’s Freedom of
Information Act files, to follow model
language drafted by OGIS and to
explicitly note that disclosure to OGIS
is a permissible routine use for FOIA
files. Specifically, the OGIS model
language states:
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
47419
To the National Archives and Records
Administration, Office of Government
Information Services (OGIS), to the extent
necessary to fulfill its responsibilities in 5
U.S.C. 552(h), to review administrative
agency policies, procedures and compliance
with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA),
and to facilitate OGIS’ offering of mediation
services to resolve disputes between persons
making FOIA requests and administrative
agencies.
Response: The Department agrees that
additional language can be helpful to
clarify that the scope of permissible
disclosures of FOIA files under Routine
Use (b) of DOL/Central 5 SORN includes
disclosure to OGIS in order to facilitate
its responsibilities related to FOIA
compliance and mediation.
Accordingly, the Department is revising
this routine use to incorporate this
model language. Routine Use (b) will
now read:
Information to other Federal agencies (e.g.,
Department of Justice or the Office of
Government Information Services within the
National Archives and Records
Administration) in order to obtain advice and
recommendations concerning matters on
which the agency has specialized experience
or particular competence; for use in making
required determinations; to fulfill agency
responsibilities to review administrative
agency policies, procedures, and compliance
under the Freedom of Information Act or the
Privacy Act of 1974; or to facilitate mediation
services between administrative agencies and
persons making Freedom of Information
requests.
The SORN will become effective, with
the change to DOL/Central-5, on the
date of publication of this notice.
Signed at Washington, DC this 15th July,
2016.
Thomas E. Perez,
Secretary of Labor.
[FR Doc. 2016–17209 Filed 7–20–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–HL–P
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
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM
21JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 140 (Thursday, July 21, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47418-47419]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17209]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Office of the Secretary
Privacy Act of 1974; Publication in Full of All Notices of
Systems of Records, Including Several New Systems, Substantive
Amendments to Existing Systems, Decommissioning of Obsolete Legacy
Systems, and Publication of Proposed Routines Uses
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Labor.
ACTION: Notice: Response to Comments on the Department's April 29, 2016
System of Records Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces a response to public comments on the
Department's April 29, 2016 System of
[[Page 47419]]
Records Notice. In response to comments, the Department is revising one
SORN. That SORN, and the remainder of SORNs published on April 29,
2016, will become effective on the date of publication of this notice.
DATES: The effective date for the Department's System of Records Notice
is the date of publication of this notice. Effective Date: The date of
publication of this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph J. Plick, Counsel for FOIA and
Information Law, Office of the Solicitor, Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-2420, Washington, DC 20210, telephone
(202) 693-5527, or by email to plick.joseph@dol.gov.
Background: On April 29, 2016, the Department of Labor issued a
Publication In Full of All Notices of Systems of Records, including
several new systems; substantive amendments to systems; decommissioning
of obsolete legacy systems; and publication of new universal routine
uses for all system of records. The Department received several public
comments and one Federal agency comment on this System of Records
Notice during the public comment period, which ended June 8, 2016. The
Department required additional time to review and address the comments,
so, by Federal Register notice of June 21, 2016, 81 FR 40352, the
effective date was postponed to July 23, 2016.
The Department is now publishing this notice to address the eleven
comments to and revise SORN DOL/Central-5 in response to those
comments.
Comment: Several comments criticized Universal Routine Use #14,
which ``permits the Department to disclose information to the United
States Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) that will be included in the National Instant
Criminal Background Check System (NICS).'' The commenters argued that
this Routine Use impermissibly infringes on Second Amendment rights.
One commenter stated, for example:
This rule (which refers specifically to 23 executive actions
that Obama took on Jan. 16, 2013) infringes on the Second Amendment
by having developed through rule, manner in which protected health
information (PHI) is now authorized to be released
unconstitutionally by HHS to agenc(ies) of the federal government
without the affected individual's consent, and the PHI is thus used
in a manner to target individuals and unconstitutionally remove
access to weapons in connection with NICS.
Response: The Department is required by law--the Brady Handgun
Violence Prevention Act, as amended by the NICS Improvement Amendments
Act of 2007--to provide information to the Attorney General to carry
out its provisions. Therefore, the Department is declining to make
changes to Universal Routine Use #14.
Comment: One comment was critical of Universal Routine Use #13,
which allows the Department to disclose information to a state or local
government agency in charge of issuing licenses to attorneys and health
care professionals. The commenter raised the concern that state laws,
particularly California's state laws, prohibit information sharing with
state and local agencies.
Response: Under the Supremacy Clause, federal law takes precedence
over state law. But to the extent that state law in California may
apply, the Department has not identified any laws which prohibit the
disclosure contemplated by Universal Routine Use #13. On the contrary,
California's most broadly applicable privacy law--the Information
Practices Act of 1977--explicitly allows sharing ``To a law enforcement
or regulatory agency when required for an investigation of unlawful
activity or for licensing, certification, or regulatory purposes,
unless the disclosure is otherwise prohibited by law.'' The Department
declines to make changes in response to this comment.
Comment: Several comments did not specifically reference or provide
substantive feedback on any section of the SORN. One commenter stated,
for example, ``I do not favor the use of funds for rail support that is
not directly supportive of General Aviation or Airline services, viz.
flights.'' Another argued ``No undocumented alien should have the same
ability to sue for discrimination because of their country of origin,
as an American Citizen does.''
Response: The Department was unable to identify any sections of the
SORN relevant to these comments, and, therefore, is making no changes
in response.
Comment: Three commenters, including the Office of Government
Information Services (OGIS) (within the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA)) suggested changing the text of Routine Use (b)
in the DOL/Central-5 SORN, which covers the Department's Freedom of
Information Act files, to follow model language drafted by OGIS and to
explicitly note that disclosure to OGIS is a permissible routine use
for FOIA files. Specifically, the OGIS model language states:
To the National Archives and Records Administration, Office of
Government Information Services (OGIS), to the extent necessary to
fulfill its responsibilities in 5 U.S.C. 552(h), to review
administrative agency policies, procedures and compliance with the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and to facilitate OGIS' offering
of mediation services to resolve disputes between persons making
FOIA requests and administrative agencies.
Response: The Department agrees that additional language can be
helpful to clarify that the scope of permissible disclosures of FOIA
files under Routine Use (b) of DOL/Central 5 SORN includes disclosure
to OGIS in order to facilitate its responsibilities related to FOIA
compliance and mediation. Accordingly, the Department is revising this
routine use to incorporate this model language. Routine Use (b) will
now read:
Information to other Federal agencies (e.g., Department of
Justice or the Office of Government Information Services within the
National Archives and Records Administration) in order to obtain
advice and recommendations concerning matters on which the agency
has specialized experience or particular competence; for use in
making required determinations; to fulfill agency responsibilities
to review administrative agency policies, procedures, and compliance
under the Freedom of Information Act or the Privacy Act of 1974; or
to facilitate mediation services between administrative agencies and
persons making Freedom of Information requests.
The SORN will become effective, with the change to DOL/Central-5,
on the date of publication of this notice.
Signed at Washington, DC this 15th July, 2016.
Thomas E. Perez,
Secretary of Labor.
[FR Doc. 2016-17209 Filed 7-20-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-HL-P
