60_Day_FR_Notice

4944

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2011 / Notices

(Indictment). The indictment charged
Registrant with one count of conspiring
with M.L.A. and M.I.R. (two of the
clinic’s staff) to distribute oxycodone, a
controlled substance, ‘‘[f]rom on or
before June 29, 2009 to on or about
September 9, 2009,’’ in violation of 21
U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and 846. Id. The
indictment further charged Registrant
with five counts of dispensing
oxycodone (on July 13 and 30, August
6 and 27, and September 9, 2009), a
controlled substance, in violation of 21
U.S.C. 841(a)(1). Id.
On March 11, 2010, a Federal Grand
Jury issued a superseding indictment.
United States v. Algirdas Krisciunas and
Maria Teresa Bulich, Superseding
Indictment (S.D. Fla. Mar. 11, 2010), No.
10–60007–CR–HURLEY(s). The new
indictment charged Registrant and his
wife with conspiring to unlawfully
dispense oxycodone; it also charged
Registrant and his wife with unlawfully
dispensing oxycodone on each of the
five dates as charged in the initial
indictment. Id. at 1–3 (citing 21 U.S.C.
841(a)(1), 846).
Thereafter, Registrant went to trial.
On July 6, 2010, a jury found Registrant
guilty on all six counts. U.S. v. Algirdas
Krisciunas, Verdict (July 6, 2010). On
October 13, 2010, the District Court
entered its Judgment adjudicating
Registrant guilty on all six counts and
sentenced him to 97 months
imprisonment to be followed by three
years of supervised release. U.S. v.
Algirdas Krisciunas, Judgment (Oct. 13,
2010).
Based on Registrant’s convictions, on
August 20, 2010, the Florida Surgeon
General ordered the summary
suspension of his medical license. Order
of Emergency Suspension of License, at
2–3 (citing Fla. Stat. § 456.074(1)).

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Discussion
Section 304(a) of the CSA provides
that a ‘‘registration pursuant to section
823 of this title to * * * dispense a
controlled substance * * * may be
suspended or revoked by the Attorney
General upon a finding that the
registrant * * * has been convicted of
a felony under this subchapter or
subchapter II of this chapter * * *
relating to any substance defined in this
subchapter as a controlled substance.’’
21 U.S.C. 824(a)(2). Section 304(a)
further provides that a registration may
be revoked or suspended where a
registrant ‘‘has had his State license or
registration suspended, revoked, or
denied by competent State authority
and is no longer authorized by State law

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:51 Jan 26, 2011

Jkt 223001

to engage in the * * * dispensing of
controlled substances.’’ 7 Id. § 842(a)(3).
As found above, the United States
District Court has adjudicated Registrant
guilty of one count of conspiring to
unlawfully distribute oxycodone, a
schedule II controlled substance, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. 846, and five
counts of unlawfully dispensing
oxycodone, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
841(a)(1). Both provisions are felonies
under the CSA. See 21 U.S.C.
841(b)(1)(C) (except as otherwise
provided, ‘‘[i]n the case of a controlled
substance in schedule I or II * * * such
person shall be sentenced to a term of
imprisonment of not more than 20
years’’); id. § 846 (‘‘Any person who
* * * conspires to commit any offense
defined in this subchapter shall be
subject to the same penalties as those
prescribed for the offense, the
commission of which was the object of
the * * * conspiracy.’’). Registrant’s
convictions for these offenses provide
reason alone to revoke his registration
and denied any pending applications.
21 U.S.C. 824(a)(2).
I further conclude that Registrant’s
registration should be revoked on the
ground that the State of Florida has
suspended his State medical license and
thus, he no longer has authority to
dispense controlled substances in the
State. 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3). The CSA
defines the term ‘‘practitioner’’ as a
person ‘‘licensed, registered, or
otherwise permitted, by the United
States or the jurisdiction in which he
practices * * * to distribute, dispense
* * * [or] administer * * * a
controlled substance in the course of
professional practice.’’ Id. § 802(21).
Likewise, the CSA limits registration to
an applicant who is ‘‘authorized to
dispense * * * controlled substances
under the laws of the State in which he
practices.’’ Id. § 823(f). Based on these
provisions, DEA has held repeatedly
that a practitioner whose State authority
to dispense controlled substances has
been suspended or revoked is not
entitled to maintain his CSA
registration. See John B. Freitas, 74 FR
17524, 17525 (2009); Worth S.
Wilkinson, 71 FR 30173 (2006); Stephen
J. Graham, 69 FR 11661, 11662 (2004);
Dominick A. Ricci, 58 FR 51104, 51105
(1993); Bobby Watts, 53 FR 11919,
11920 (1988). I therefore conclude that
7 Section 304(a)(4) also provides for the
suspension or revocation of a registration ‘‘upon a
finding that the registrant * * * has committed
such acts as would render his registration * * *
inconsistent with the public interest as determined
under * * * section’’ 823(f). 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4). In
light of my finding that Registrant has been
convicted of six felony counts of violating the CSA,
I conclude that it is not necessary to discuss the
applicability of this provision to his misconduct.

PO 00000

Frm 00087

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

Registrant’s loss of his State authority
provides a further ground to revoke his
registration and to deny any pending
application to renew or modify his
registration.
Order
Pursuant to the authority vested in me
by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a), as well
as by 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, I order
that DEA Certificate of Registration,
BK4015334, issued to Algirdas J.
Krisciunas, M.D., be, and it hereby is,
revoked. I further order that any
pending application of Algirdas J.
Krisciunas, M.D., to renew or modify his
registration be, and it hereby is, denied.
This Order is effective immediately.8
Dated: January 18, 2011.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011–1693 Filed 1–26–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
[Docket No. OSHA–2010–0030]

Ionizing Radiation Standard; Extension
of the Office of Management and
Budget’s (OMB) Approval of
Information Collection (Paperwork)
Requirements
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Request for public comments.
AGENCY:

OSHA solicits public
comments concerning its proposal to
extend OMB approval of the
information collection requirements
specified in the Ionizing Radiation
Standard (29 CFR 1910.1096). The
information collection requirements
contained in the Ionizing Radiation
Standard protect workers from the
adverse health effects that may result
from occupational exposure to ionizing
radiation including tissue damage and
cancer.
DATES: Comments must be submitted
(postmarked, sent, or received) by
March 28, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Electronically: You may
submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://
www.regulations.gov, which is the
Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the
instructions online for submitting
comments.
SUMMARY:

8 For the same reason that I ordered the
immediate suspension of Registrant’s registration, I
conclude that the public interest requires that this
Order be effective immediately. 21 CFR 1316.67.

E:\FR\FM\27JAN1.SGM

27JAN1

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2011 / Notices
Facsimile: If your comments,
including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the
OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693–1648.
Mail, hand delivery, express mail,
messenger, or courier service: When
using this method, you must submit
your comments and attachments to the
OSHA Docket Office, Docket No.
OSHA–2010–0030, U.S. Department of
Labor, Room N–2625, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Deliveries (hand, express mail,
messenger, and courier service) are
accepted during the Department of
Labor’s and Docket Office’s normal
business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.,
e.t.
Instructions: All submissions must
include the Agency name and OSHA
docket number for the Information
Collection Request (ICR) (OSHA–2010–
0030). All comments, including any
personal information you provide, are
placed in the public docket without
change, and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov.
For further information on submitting
comments see the ‘‘Public Participation’’
heading in the section of this notice
titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
Docket: To read or download
comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov
or the OSHA Docket Office at the
address above. All documents in the
docket (including this Federal Register
notice) are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index; however,
some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to
read or download through the Web site.
All submissions, including copyrighted
material, are available for inspection
and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
You also may contact Theda Kenney or
Todd Owen at the address below to
obtain a copy of the ICR.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Theda Kenney or Todd Owen,
Directorate of Standards and Guidance,
OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room
N–3609, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202)
693–2222.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

I. Background
The Department of Labor, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork
and respondent (i.e., employer) burden,
conducts a preclearance consultation
program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed
and continuing information collection
requirements in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:51 Jan 26, 2011

Jkt 223001

ensures that information is in the
desired format, reporting burden (time
and costs) is minimal, collection
instruments are clearly understood, and
OSHA’s estimate of the information
collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et
seq.) authorizes information collection
by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the OSH
Act or for developing information
regarding the causes and prevention of
occupational injuries, illnesses, and
accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act
also requires that OSHA obtain such
information with minimum burden
upon employers, especially those
operating small businesses, and to
reduce to the maximum extent feasible
unnecessary duplication of efforts in
obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).
The basic purpose of the information
collection requirements in the Standard
is to document that employers are
providing their workers with protection
from hazardous ionizing radiation
exposure.
Several provisions of the Standard
specify paperwork requirements,
including: Monitoring of worker
exposure to ionizing radiation,
instructing workers on the hazards
associated with ionizing radiation
exposure and precautions to minimize
exposure, posting of caution signs at
radiation areas, reporting of worker
overexposures to OSHA, maintaining
exposure records, and providing
exposure records to current and former
workers.
II. Special Issues for Comment
OSHA has a particular interest in
comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information
collection requirements are necessary
for the proper performance of the
Agency’s functions to protect workers,
including whether the information is
useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA’s estimate of
the burden (time and costs) of the
information collection requirements,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of
the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on
employers who must comply; for
example, by using automated or other
technological information collection
and transmission techniques.
III. Proposed Actions
OSHA is requesting that OMB extend
its approval of the information
collection requirements specified in the
Ionizing Radiation Standard. The

PO 00000

Frm 00088

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

4945

Agency will summarize the comments
submitted in response to this notice,
and will include this summary in the
request to OMB.
OSHA is requesting a 5,686 increase
in burden hours from the current level
of 39,531 hours to 45,217 hours. This
request is being made because of the
increased growth rate from previous
estimates of exposed workers and of
workers being monitored by employers.
There is an adjustment increase in the
estimated total cost from $2,341,440 to
$5,691,144. This increase is a result of
a rise in the cost of whole body
monitoring and extremity monitoring
badges.
Type of Review: Extension of a
currently approved collection.
Title: Ionizing Radiation Standard (29
CFR 1910.1096).
OMB Number: 1218–0103.
Affected Public: Business or other forprofits; not-for-profit institutions;
Federal Government; State, Local or
Tribal Governments.
Number of Respondents: 12,719.
Frequency: On Occasion; quarterly;
annually; immediately; within 24 hours;
within 30 days.
Total Responses: 256,914.
Average Time per Response: Time per
response varies from 5 minutes (.08
hour) to maintain radiation exposure
records to 20 minutes (.5 hours) for
employers to gather and prepare
training materials, and maintaining,
compiling, and sending records to the
worker.
Estimated Total Burden Hours:
45,217.
Estimated Cost (Operation and
Maintenance): $5,691,144.
IV. Public Participation—Submission of
Comments on This Notice and Internet
Access to Comments and Submissions
You may submit comments in
response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://
www.regulations.gov, which is the
Federal eRulemaking Portal; (2) by
facsimile; or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other
material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for this
ICR (Docket No. OSHA–2010–0030).
You may supplement electronic
submissions by uploading document
files electronically. If you wish to mail
additional materials in reference to an
electronic or a facsimile submission,
you must submit them to the OSHA
Docket Office (see the section of this
notice titled ADDRESSES). The additional
materials must clearly identify your
electronic comments by your name,
date, and docket number so the Agency
can attach them to your comments.

E:\FR\FM\27JAN1.SGM

27JAN1

4946

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2011 / Notices

Because of security procedures, the
use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of
comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the
delivery of materials by hand, express
delivery, messenger or courier service,
please contact the OSHA Docket Office
at (202) 693–2350 (TTY (877) 889–
5627).
Comments and submissions are
posted without change at http://
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA
cautions commenters about submitting
personal information such as Social
Security numbers and date of birth.
Although all submissions are listed in
the http://www.regulations.gov index,
some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to
read or download through this Web site.
All submissions, including copyrighted
material, are available for inspection
and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
Information on using the http://
www.regulations.gov Web site to submit
comments and access the docket is
available at the Web site’s ‘‘User Tips’’
link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office
for information about materials not
available through the Web site, and for
assistance in using the Internet to locate
docket submissions.
V. Authority and Signature
David Michaels, PhD, MPH, Assistant
Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, directed the
preparation of this notice. The authority
for this notice is the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
et seq.) and Secretary of Labor’s Order
No. 4–2010 (75 FR 55355).
Signed at Washington, DC, on January 21,
2011.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2011–1679 Filed 1–26–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Wage and Hour Division
RIN 1235–0005

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Proposed Extension of the Approval of
Information Collection Requirements
Wage and Hour Division,
Department of Labor.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:

The Department of Labor, as
part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent burden,
conducts a preclearance consultation
program to provide the general public

SUMMARY:

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:51 Jan 26, 2011

Jkt 223001

and Federal agencies with an
opportunity to comment on proposed
and/or continuing collections of
information in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA95). 44 U.S.C. 3056(c)(2)(A). This
program helps to ensure that requested
data can be provided in the desired
format, reporting burden (time and
financial resources) is minimized,
collection instruments are clearly
understood, and the impact of collection
requirements on respondents can be
properly assessed. Currently, the Wage
and Hour Division is soliciting
comments concerning its proposal to
extend Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) approval of the
Information Collection: Notice to
Examinee, Employee Polygraph
Protection Act. A copy of the proposed
information request can be obtained by
contacting the office listed below in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section of this Notice.
Written comments must be
submitted to the office listed in the
ADDRESSES section below on or before
March 28, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by Control Number 1235–
0005, by either one of the following
methods: E-mail:
[email protected]; Mail,
Hand Delivery, Courier: Division of
Regulations, Legislation, and
Interpretation, Wage and Hour, U.S.
Department of Labor, Room S–3502, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210. Instructions: Please submit
one copy of your comments by only one
method. All submissions received must
include the agency name and Control
Number identified above for this
information collection. Because we
continue to experience delays in
receiving mail in the Washington, DC
area, commenters are strongly
encouraged to transmit their comments
electronically via e-mail or to submit
them by mail early. Comments,
including any personal information
provided, become a matter of public
record. They will also be summarized
and/or included in the request for OMB
approval of the information collection
request.
DATES:

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Ziegler, Director, Division of
Regulations, Legislation, and
Interpretation, Wage and Hour, U.S.
Department of Labor, Room S–3502, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693–0406
(this is not a toll-free number). Copies
of this notice may be obtained in
alternative formats (Large Print, Braille,
Audio Tape, or Disc), upon request, by

PO 00000

Frm 00089

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

calling (202) 693–0023 (not a toll-free
number). TTY/TTD callers may dial tollfree (877) 889–5627 to obtain
information or request materials in
alternative formats.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background
The Wage and Hour Division (WHD)
of the Department of Labor (DOL)
administers the Employee Polygraph
Protection Act of 1988 (EPPA), 29 U.S.C.
2001 et seq. The EPPA prohibits most
private employers from using any lie
detector tests either for pre-employment
screening or during the course of
employment. The Act contains an
exemption applicable to Federal, State
and local government employers. The
EPPA also contains several limited
exemptions authorizing polygraph tests
under certain conditions, including
testing: (1) By the Federal Government
of experts, consultants, or employees of
Federal contractors engaged in national
security intelligence or
counterintelligence functions; (2) of
employees the employer reasonably
suspects of involvement in a workplace
incident resulting in economic loss or
injury to the employer’s business; (3) of
some prospective employees of private
armored cars, security alarm and
security guard firms; and (4) of some
current and prospective employees of
certain firms authorized to manufacture,
distribute, or dispense controlled
substances. The WHD may assess civil
money penalties of up to $10,000
against employers who violate any
EPPA provision.
II. Review Focus
The Department of Labor is
particularly interested in comments
which:
• 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;
• 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 submissions
of responses.

E:\FR\FM\27JAN1.SGM

27JAN1