30 Day Federal Register Notice

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES

2478

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Notices

Detective stated that he would like to
get ‘‘a prescription instead of hitting
somebody up,’’ Applicant
acknowledged that ‘‘the only problem is
unless we have an actual pain diagnosis
psychiatrists can’t write for it’’ and then
asked the Detective if he had ‘‘ever been
diagnosed with a disk problem or
anything?’’ GX 4, at 10. Even then, the
Detective did not identify any pain
problem, and said: ‘‘I mean . . . if I just
gotta say I got something.’’ Id. Applicant
thus clearly knew that the Detective did
not have a legitimate pain condition.
Moreover, Applicant did not perform
a physical exam at either the Detective’s
second or third visit, each of which
lasted two to three minutes. Indeed, at
the second visit, Applicant merely
asked ‘‘what kind of pain is it? Is it back
pain or?’’ to which the Detective
replied: ‘‘That’s what you . . . told me
you put on there before.’’ Id. at 14. Here
again, Applicant issued the Detective an
additional prescription for OxyContin
and did so notwithstanding that he
knew that the Detective did not have
any pain.
So too, at the Detective’s third visit,
Applicant’s inquiry into the former’s
need for controlled substances involved
him asking, ‘‘[i]s this for your back?’’
with the Detective answering: ‘‘You
know yeah that’s well last time you told
me to it was my back yeah.’’ Id. at 18.
Applicant then asked ‘‘[i]s it more help
out your mood or what’s it do for you?’’
to which the Detective answered that he
did ‘‘concrete all day long’’ and was
‘‘working with people and stuff like
that,’’ and that after coming home, ‘‘it
helps unwind.’’ Respondent then stated:
‘‘Ok that one they’ll let us do.’’ Id.
Applicant then agreed to write the
Detective a prescription for Norco, a
schedule III combination drug which
contains hydrocodone. Id. Moreover, he
also wrote the Detective a prescription
for Xanax based solely on the
Detective’s asking him if he had
anything for sleep and did not ask him
a single question about his sleep
patterns. Id.
As the evidence shows, at each of the
above visits, Applicant knew that the
Detective was not seeking the drugs for
the purpose of treating a legitimate
medical condition, but rather, for the
purpose of abusing them. He also did
not perform a physical examination.
Applicant nonetheless issued the four
prescriptions to the Detective. Given the
evidence, expert testimony is not
necessary to conclude that Applicant
acted outside of the usual course of
professional practice and lacked a
legitimate medical purpose in issuing
each of the four prescriptions. 21 CFR
1306.04(a); see also T.J. McNichol, 77

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:32 Jan 13, 2014

Jkt 232001

FR 57133, 57147–48 (2012), pet. for rev.
denied McNichol v. DEA, No. 12–15292,
Slip. Op. at 4 (11th Cir. Oct. 17, 2013).
Indeed, these were outright drug
deals. See Moore, 423 U.S. at 142–43
(noting that evidence established that
physician ‘‘exceeded the bounds of
professional practice,’’ when, inter alia,
‘‘he gave inadequate physical
examinations or none at all’’ and
ignored signs of diversion); Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code section 2242(a) (requiring a
‘‘prior examination’’ before prescribing
medication); Gabriel Sanchez, M.D., 78
FR 59060, 59063–64 (2013) (finding that
a doctor acted outside the usual course
of professional practice by not
conducting an adequate physical
examination before prescribing
controlled substances). These findings
alone support the conclusion that
granting Applicant’s application for a
new registration ‘‘would be inconsistent
with the public interest.’’ 21 U.S.C.
823(f).
While these findings provide reason
alone to deny his application, the
evidence further shows that Applicant
violated several recordkeeping
requirements. See Volkman, 73 FR at
30644 (‘‘Recordkeeping is one of the
CSA’s central features; a registrant’s
accurate and diligent adherence to this
obligation is absolutely essential to
protect against the diversion of
controlled substances.’’). As found
above, at the time of the search,
Respondent possessed various
controlled substances including Ambien
(zolpidem), Lunesta (eszopiclone), and
Xanax (alprazolam). Applicant,
however, admitted to the DI that he ‘‘did
not maintain any records of acquisition
or dispensation’’ of controlled
substances and that he ‘‘did not
document the dispensation in the
patient’s chart.’’ GX 3, at 2.
Under the CSA, a ‘‘registered
individual practitioner is required to
maintain records of controlled
substances in Schedules II–V that are
dispensed and received, including the
number of dosage units, the date of
receipt or disposal, and the name,
address, and registration number of the
distributor.’’ Richard A. Herbert, 76 FR
53942, 53958 (2011) (citing 21 CFR
1304.03(b), 1304.22(c)); see also 21
U.S.C. 827(a) & (c). Thus, by his own
admission, Applicant violated federal
law by failing to maintain CSA-required
records. See Volkman, 73 FR at 30644);
see also Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section
2241.5(c)(5) (subjecting physician to
discipline for failing to ‘‘keep complete
and accurate records of purchases and
disposals of . . . controlled substances
scheduled in the federal Comprehensive
Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act

PO 00000

Frm 00072

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

of 1970’’). This finding provides an
additional basis for denying Applicant’s
application.
I therefore conclude that the
Government has met its prima facie
burden of showing that the issuance of
a registration to Applicant ‘‘would be
inconsistent with the public interest.’’
21 U.S.C. 823(f). Because Applicant
neither requested a hearing nor
submitted a written statement regarding
the allegations of the Order to Show
Cause, there is no evidence to the
contrary. Patrick K. Chau, 77 FR 36003,
36008 (2012). Accordingly, I will order
that Applicant’s application be denied.
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 James Clopton, M.D.,
for a DEA Certificate of Registration be,
and it hereby is, denied. This order is
effective immediately.
Dated: January 6, 2014.
Thomas M. Harrigan,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014–00524 Filed 1–13–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Executive Office for Immigration
Review
[OMB Number 1125–NEW]

Agency Information Collection
Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comments Requested; Request by
Organization for Accreditation of NonAttorney Representative (Form EOIR–
31A)
ACTION:

30-Day notice.

The Department of Justice (DOJ),
Executive Office for Immigration
Review (EOIR) will be submitting the
following information collection request
to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) 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. This proposed
information collection was previously
published in the Federal Register, 78 FR
66382, November 5, 2013, allowing for
a 60-day comment period.
The purpose of this notice is to allow
for an additional 30 days for public
comment until February 13, 2014. This
process is conducted in accordance with
5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions
regarding the items contained in this

E:\FR\FM\14JAN1.SGM

14JAN1

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Notices
notice, especially the estimated public
burden and associated response time,
should be directed to the Office of
Management and Budget, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Attention: Department of Justice Desk
Officer, Washington, DC 20530.
Additionally, comments also may be
submitted to OMB via facsimile to (202)
395–5806. 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 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 the collection
of information on those who elect 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.

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Overview of This Information
Collection

16:32 Jan 13, 2014

Jkt 232001

Dated: January 8, 2014.
Jerri Murray,
Department Clearance Officer for PRA,
United States Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 2014–00422 Filed 1–13–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–30–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. NRC–2014–0003]

Agency Information Collection
Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of pending NRC action to
submit an information collection
request to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) and solicitation of public
comment.
AGENCY:

(1) Type of Information Collection:
New Voluntary Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection:
Request by Organization for
Accreditation of Non-Attorney
Representative.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and
the applicable component of the
Department of Justice sponsoring the
collection: Form Number: EOIR–31A.
Executive Office for Immigration
Review, United States Department of
Justice.
(4) Affected public who may choose to
respond to this collection, as well as a
brief abstract: Primary: Non-profit
organizations seeking accreditation of
its representatives by the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) of the
Executive Office for Immigration
Review (EOIR). Other: None. Abstract:
This information collection will allow
an organization to seek accreditation for
a non-attorney representative to appear
before EOIR and/or the Department of
Homeland Security. The Form EOIR–

VerDate Mar<15>2010

31A will elicit, in a uniform manner, all
of the required information for EOIR to
determine whether a proposed
representative meets the eligibility
requirements for accreditation.
(5) An estimate of the total number of
respondents and the amount of time
estimated for an average respondent to
respond/reply: It is estimated that 544
respondents will complete the form
annually with an average of 2 hours per
response.
(6) An estimate of the total public
burden (in hours) associated with the
collection: There are an estimated 1,088
total burden hours associated with this
collection annually.
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 3W–
1407B, Washington, DC 20530.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) invites public
comment about our intention to request
the OMB’s approval for renewal of an
existing information collection that is
summarized below. We are required to
publish this notice in the Federal
Register under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Information pertaining to the
requirement to be submitted:
1. The title of the information
collection: Generic Customer
Satisfaction Surveys and NRC Form 671,
Request for Review of a Customer
Satisfaction Survey under Generic
Clearance.
2. Current OMB approval number:
3150–0197.

SUMMARY:

PO 00000

Frm 00073

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

2479

3. How often the collection is
required: On occasion.
4. Who is required or asked to report:
NRC licensees and the public will be
asked to report voluntarily.
5. The number of annual respondents:
3,884.
6. The number of hours needed
annually to complete the requirement or
request: 1,614 hours.
7. Abstract: Voluntary customer
satisfaction surveys will be used to
contact users of NRC’s services and
products to determine how the
Commission can improve its services
and products to better meet their needs.
In addition, focus groups will be
conducted to discuss questions
concerning those services and products.
Results from the surveys will provide
insight into how the NRC can make its
services and products more effective,
efficient and responsive to customer
needs. Each survey will be submitted to
the OMB for its review.
Submit, by March 17, 2014, comments
that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of
information necessary for the NRC to
properly perform its functions? Does the
information have practical utility?
2. Is the burden estimate accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the
information collection be minimized,
including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology?
The public may examine and have
copied for a fee publicly available
documents, including the draft
supporting statement, at the NRC’s
Public Document Room, Room O–1F21,
One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The
OMB clearance requests are available at
the NRC’s Web site: http://www.nrc.gov/
public-involve/doc-comment/omb/. The
document will be available on the
NRC’s home page site for 60 days after
the signature date of this notice.
Comments submitted in writing or in
electronic form will be made available
for public inspection.
Because your comments will not be
edited to remove any identifying or
contact information, the NRC cautions
you against including any information
in your submission that you do not want
to be publicly disclosed. Comments
submitted should reference Docket No.
NRC–2014–0003. You may submit your
comments by any of the following
methods: Electronic comments go to
http://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket No. NRC–2014–0003. Mail
comments to the NRC Clearance Officer,

E:\FR\FM\14JAN1.SGM

14JAN1