20042 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Notices 

that the prescriptions were unlawful. I 

thus hold that Respondent violated its 

corresponding responsibility under 

Federal law and DEA’s regulation by 

filling prescriptions which it had reason 

to know were not legitimate. 21 CFR 

1306.04(a); Bertolino, 55 FR at 4730. It 

is also clear that Respondent has 

breached the Settlement Agreement by 

failing to comply with Federal law and 

DEA regulations and by failing to 

institute a policy to prevent the filling 

of unlawful prescriptions. 

The evidence also supports the 

conclusion that Respondent violated 

Federal law when it dispensed 

numerous prescriptions for Lyrica to 

T.M. which were purportedly 

authorized by Dr. M. by telephone. The 

evidence shows that the prescriptions 

were fraudulent because Dr. M. had 

previously discharged T.M. from his 

practice and ceased writing 

prescriptions for her. The evidence also 

shows that Mr. Weeks falsely 

represented to a State inspector that 

Respondent had not dispensed Lyrica 

after November 28, 2008, when, in fact, 

it had dispensed the drug multiple 

times to her. At a minimum, Mr. Weeks’ 

willingness to lie about this issue 

(coupled with his failure to submit any 

evidence rebutting the allegation) 

supports the inference that he and 

Respondent had reason to know that the 

prescriptions were fraudulent and yet 

dispensed them anyway. See 21 U.S.C. 

841(a)(1) and 843(a)(3); 21 CFR 

1306.04(a). 

In addition, the evidence shows that 

Respondent repeatedly dispensed 

narcotic drugs such as hydromorphone 

(also purportedly authorized by Dr. M) 

to T.M. for more than six months after 

she had been discharged by him, and 

that during this time period, it also 

repeatedly dispensed hydrocodone 

based on prescriptions which were 

issued by J.B. (a nurse practitioner). Dr. 

M. and J.B. did not, however, practice 

together. Yet Respondent repeatedly 

dispensed both drugs to T.M. and even 

dispensed both drugs to her on the same 

day (May 1, 2009). Once again, it is clear 

that Respondent violated its 

corresponding responsibility under 21 

CFR 1306.04(a) and the Settlement 

Agreement on numerous occasions. 

The record further establishes that 

Respondent violated South Carolina law 

when, on August 7, 2009, it dispensed 

180 tablets of Roxicodone (oxycodone) 

30 mg. and 60 tablets of MS Contin 

(morphine sulfate) 100 mg. to J.W. based 

on prescriptions which were dated 

March 6, 2009. Both drugs are schedule 

II controlled substances under South 

Carolina law (as they are under the 

CSA). See S.C. Code § 44–53–210(a). 

Under South Carolina law, 

‘‘[p]rescriptions for Schedule II 

substances must be dispensed within 

ninety days of the date of issue, after 

which time they are void.’’ Id. § 44–53– 

360(e). However, on the date 

Respondent dispensed these two 

prescriptions, they were more than five 

months old and were void. I thus 

conclude that Respondent violated 

South Carolina law by dispensing these 

prescriptions. 

Finally, the Settlement Agreement 

clearly required that Respondent submit 

‘‘quarterly reports of all schedule II 

controlled substances [it] dispensed.’’ As 

found above, the DI’s affidavit 

establishes that Respondent has never 

submitted such a report. Respondent is 

therefore in violation of the Settlement 

Agreement for this reason as well. 

I therefore find that Respondent has 

committed acts which render its 

registration ‘‘inconsistent with the 

public interest.’’ 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4). 

Accordingly, Respondent’s registration 

will be revoked and its pending 

application to renew its registration will 

be denied. For the same reasons which 

led me to order the immediate 

suspension of Respondent’s registration, 

I conclude that this Order shall be 

effective immediately. 

Order 

Pursuant to the authority vested in me 

by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a), as well 

as 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, I hereby 

order that DEA Certificate of 

Registration, BT2981214, issued to The 

Medicine Dropper, be, and it hereby is, 

revoked. I further order that any 

pending application of The Medicine 

Dropper for renewal or modification of 

its registration be, and it hereby is, 

denied. This Order is effective 

immediately. 

Dated: April 1, 2011. 

Michele M. Leonhart, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8542 Filed 4–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 08–16] 

Four Seasons Distributors, Inc.; Order 

Accepting Settlement Agreement and 

Terminating Proceeding 

On October 31, 2007, the Deputy 

Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration, issued an Order to 

Show Cause to Four Seasons 

Distributors, Inc. (Respondent), of 

Belleville, Illinois. The Show Cause 

Order proposed the revocation of 

Respondent’s Certificate of Registration, 

which authorizes it to distribute listed 

chemicals, and the denial of any 

pending applications to renew or 

modify the registration, on the ground 

that Respondent’s registration is 

‘‘inconsistent with the public interest.’’ 

ALJ Ex. 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(h) & 

824(d)). 

Respondent, through its counsel, 

requested a hearing on the allegations 

and the matter was assigned to an 

agency Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), 

who conducted a hearing on April 21, 

2008. Thereafter, on October 30, 2009, 

the ALJ issued her recommended 

decision. Therein, the ALJ found that 

the Government ‘‘ha[d] not met its 

burden of proof in showing that the 

Respondent’s continued registration 

would be against the public interest’’ 

and recommended that its registration 

be continued. ALJ at 37. The 

Government apparently agreed as it did 

not file exceptions to the ALJ’s decision. 

The ALJ then forwarded the record to 

me for final agency action. 

Thereafter, the parties ‘‘reached a 

settlement of all administrative matters 

pending before’’ me and filed a joint 

motion which requests that I terminate 

the proceedings. Motion to Terminate 

Administrative Proceedings. The parties 

also included a copy of the 

Memorandum of Agreement, setting 

forth the terms of their settlement. 

Having reviewed the ALJ’s decision 

and the terms of the settlement 

agreement, I find that the settlement is 

appropriate and consistent with the 

public interest. Accordingly, the parties’ 

motion to terminate the proceeding is 

hereby granted and the Order to Show 

Cause is dismissed. 

It is so ordered. 

Dated: April 1, 2011. 

Michele M. Leonhart, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8537 Filed 4–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Federal Bureau of Investigation 

[OMB Number 1110–0002] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Collection, 

Comments Requested 

ACTION: 30-day Notice of Information 

Collection Under Review: Revision of a 

currently approved collection; 

Supplementary Homicide Report. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Notices 20043 

The Department of Justice, Federal 

Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice 

Information Services Division will be 

submitting 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. 

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 Volume 76, Number 21, page 

5611, on February 1, 2011, allowing for 

a 60 day comment period. 

The purpose of this notice is to allow 

for an additional 30 days for public 

comment until May 11, 2011. This 

process is conducted in accordance with 

5 CFR 1320.10. 

Written comments and/or suggestions 

regarding the items contained in this 

notice, especially the estimated public 

burden and associated response time, 

should be directed to Mr. Gregory E. 

Scarbro, Unit Chief, Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, Criminal Justice 

Information Services (CJIS) Division, 

Module E–3, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, 

Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306; 

facsimile (304) 625–3566 or sent to the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, Attn: DOJ Desk Officer. The best 

way to ensure your comments are 

received is to e-mail them to 

oira_submission@omb.eop.gov or fax 

them to 202–395–7285. All comments 

should reference the 8 digit OMB 

number for the collection or the title of 

the collection. If you have questions 

concerning the collection, please fax Mr. 

Gregory E. Scarbro at 304–625–3566 or 

call the DOJ Desk Officer at 202–395– 

3176. 

Written comments and suggestions 

from the public and affected agencies 

concerning the proposed collection of 

information are encouraged. Comments 

should address one or more of the 

following four points: 

(1) 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; 

(2) 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; 

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

(4) 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 of 

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: 

Supplementary Homicide Report. 

(3) The agency form number, if any, 

and the applicable component of the 

department sponsoring the collection: 

Form Number: 1–704; Sponsor: 

Criminal Justice Information Services 

Division, Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, Department of Justice. 

(4) Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: Primary: City, county, state, 

federal and tribal law enforcement 

agencies. Brief Abstract: This collection 

is needed to collect information on law 

enforcement officers killed or assaulted 

in the line of duty throughout the U.S. 

(5) An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 

estimated for an average respondent to 

respond: There are approximately 

17,985 law enforcement agency 

respondents that submit monthly for a 

total of 215,820 responses with an 

estimated response time of 9 minutes 

per response. 

(6) An estimate of the total public 

burden (in hours) associated with this 

collection: There are approximately 

32,373 hours, annual burden, associated 

with this information collection. 

If additional information is required 

contact: Lynn Murray, Department 

Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning 

Staff, Justice Management Division, 

United States Department of Justice, 

Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street, 

Room 2E–808, Washington, DC 20530. 

Dated: April 4, 2011. 

Lynn Murray, 

Department Clearance Officer, United States 

Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8489 Filed 4–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Federal Bureau of Investigation 

[OMB Number 1110–NEW] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: New Collection, Comments 

Requested 

ACTION: 30-day Notice of information 

collection for renewal: Final Disposition 

Report (R–84). 

The Department of Justice (DOJ), 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 

Criminal Justice Information Services 

(CJIS) Division will be submitting the 

following information collection 

renewal to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review in 

accordance with established review 

procedures of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995. The information collection 

is published to obtain comments from 

the public and affected agencies. The 

information collection was previously 

published in the Federal Register 

Volume 26, Page 6827, on February 8, 

2011, allowing for a 60-day comment 

period. 

The purpose of this notice is to allow 

for an additional 30 days for public 

comment until May 11, 2011. This 

process is conducted in accordance with 

5 CFR 1320.10. 

Written comments concerning this 

information collection should be sent to 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, Attn: DOJ Desk Officer. The best 

way to ensure your comments are 

received is to e-mail them to 

oira_submission@omb.eop.gov or fax 

them to 202–395–7285. All comments 

should reference the 8 digit OMB 

number for the collection or the title of 

the collection. If you have questions 

concerning the collection, please call 

Rachel K. Hurst at 1–304–625–2000 or 

the DOJ Desk Officer at 202–395–3176. 

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: 

(1) 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 a 

practical utility; 

(2) 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; 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES