19386 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Notices 

1All citations to the ALJ’s Decision (ALJ) are to 

the slip opinion as issued on August 10, 2010, and 

not to the attached decision which has been 

reformatted. 

2The ALJ found that there is ‘‘no evidence that 

the Respondent ‘prescribe[d] and dispense[d] 

inordinate amounts of controlled substances.’’ ALJ 

at 21. While there is no evidence as to the amounts 

Respondent may have dispensed directly, there is 

such evidence, which is unrefuted, with respect to 

his prescriptions. As explained in my discussion of 

Respondent’s Exceptions, an Expert witness 

testified as to the usual starting doses of oxycodone 

and Xanax and that the prescriptions Respondent 

issued for both drugs, even at the initial visit, 

greatly exceeded the usual starting doses and lacked 

a legitimate medical purpose. 21 CFR 1306.04(a). 

Moreover, there is also unrefuted evidence that 

Respondent’s prescribing of drug cocktails of 

oxycodone and Xanax lacked a legitimate medical 

purpose. I thus reject the ALJ’s finding to the extent 

that it states that there was no evidence that 

Respondent prescribed inordinate amounts. 

3 I do not, however, adopt the ALJ’s discussion of 

the standards applied by the Agency in assessing 

a practitioner’s experience in dispensing controlled 

substances, which cites cases involving list 

chemical I distributors, a different category of 

registrant. See ALJ Dec. at 20–21. As the Agency has 

previously made clear, DEA can revoke based on a 

single act of intentional diversion and ‘‘evidence 

that a practitioner has treated thousands of patients’’ 

in circumstances that do not constitute diversion 

‘‘does not negate a prima facie showing that the 

practitioner has committed acts inconsistent with 

the public interest.’’ Jayam Krishna-Iyer, 74 FR 459, 

463 (2009). See also Dewey C. MacKay, 75 FR49956, 

49977 (2010); Medicine Shoppe-Jonesborough, 73 

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 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 to a currently approved 

collection; comments requested. 

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: 

Community Policing Self-Assessment 

(CP–SAT) 

(3) Agency form number, if any, and 

the applicable component of the 

Department sponsoring the collection: 

None. U.S. Department of Justice Office 

of Community Oriented Policing 

Services. 

(4) Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: Primary: Law Enforcement 

Agencies and community partners. The 

purpose of this project is to improve the 

practice of community policing 

throughout the United States by 

supporting the development of a series 

of tools that will allow law enforcement 

agencies to gain better insight into the 

depth and breadth of their community 

policing activities. 

(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 

approximately 29,235 respondents will 

respond with an average of 17 minutes 

per response. 

(6) An estimate of the total public 

burden (in hours) associated with the 

collection: The total estimated burden is 

10,847 hours across 1,213 agencies. 

If additional information is required 

contact: Lynn Murray, Department 

Clearance Officer, United States 

Department of Justice, Justice 

Management Division, Policy and 

Planning Staff, Two Constitution 

Square, 145 N Street, NE., Room 2E– 

808, Washington, DC 20530. 

Dated: March 28, 2011. 

Lynn Murray, 

Department Clearance Officer, PRA, U.S. 

Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7922 Filed 4–6–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–AT–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree 

Under Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act 

Under 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby 

given that on April 1, 2011, a proposed 

Consent Decree in United States v. 

Anacomp, Inc., et al, No. 3:10–cv–1158, 

was lodged with the United States 

District Court for the District of 

Connecticut. 

The proposed Consent Decree 

resolves claims of the United States, on 

behalf of the Environmental Protection 

Agency (‘‘EPA’’), under the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq., 

in connection with the Solvents 

Recovery Service of New England, Inc. 

Superfund Site (‘‘SRS Site’’) in 

Southington, Connecticut, against the 

defendant, Compagnone Holdings, Inc., 

f/k/a Mace Adhesives, Inc. The 

proposed Consent Decree requires the 

defendant to pay $30,463. 

The Department of Justice will receive 

for a period of 30 days from the date of 

this publication comments relating to 

the proposed Consent Decree. 

Comments should be addressed to the 

Assistant Attorney General of the 

Environment and Natural Resources 

Division, Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC 20530, and either emailed to pubcommentees.enrd@usdoj.gov or mailed to P.O. 

Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC 20044–7611, and 

should refer to United States v. 

Anacomp, Inc., et al, No. 3:10–cv–1158, 

D.J. No. 90–7–1–23/10. Commenters 

may request an opportunity for a public 

meeting in the affected area, in 

accordance with Section 7003(d) of 

RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6973(d). 

The proposed Consent Decree may be 

examined on the following Department 

of Justice Web site, http:// 

www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ 

Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the 

proposed Consent Decree may be 

obtained by mail from the Consent 

Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

20044–7611 or by faxing or e-mailing a 

request to Tonia Fleetwood 

(tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov), fax no. 

(202) 514–0097, phone confirmation 

number (202) 514–1547. In requesting a 

copy of the proposed Consent Decree, 

please enclose a check in the amount of 

$4.75 (25 cent per page reproduction 

cost), payable to the U.S. Treasury. 

Ronald Gluck, 

Assistant Section Chief, Environmental 

Enforcement Section, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8219 Filed 4–6–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 10–36] 

Jacobo Dreszer, M.D., Decision and 

Order 

On August 10, 2010, Administrative 

Law Judge (ALJ) John J. Mulrooney, II, 

issued the attached recommended 

decision.1 Thereafter, Respondent filed 

exceptions to the decision. 

Having reviewed the entire record 

including the ALJ’s recommended 

decision and Respondent’s exceptions, I 

have decided to adopt the ALJ’s rulings, 

findings of fact,2 conclusions of law,3

and recommended Order. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES