Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2004 / Notices 5585

As a threshold matter, it should be 

noted that the factors specified in 

section 823(f) are to be considered in the 

disjunctive: The Acting Deputy 

Administrator may properly rely on any 

one or a combination of the factors, and 

give each factor the weight she deems 

appropriate, in determining whether a 

registration should be revoked or 

denied. Henry J. Schwarz, Jr., M.D., 54 

FR 16422 (1989) 

The Acting Deputy Administrator 

finds that in 1998, VI Pharmacy, 

through and by Mr. Rushdi Salem, R.Ph, 

submitted an Application for DEA 

Registration as a retail pharmacy. 

Instead of the required evidence of 

State/jurisdiction licensure for the 

pharmacy, Mr. Rushdi submitted a copy 

of his personal Virgin Islands 

Pharmacist License, No. 125. Despite 

this, VI was issued and currently 

possesses DEA Certificate of 

Registration BV5900421 which, after its 

2001 renewal, currently expires on May 

31, 2004. 

On April 18, 2001, Mr. Salem 

submitted a renewal application for VI’s 

DEA Certificate of Registration, which 

he signed and certified as being true and 

correct. In response to question 3 of the 

application, asking if the applicant was 

authorized to distribute, dispense or 

otherwise handle controlled substances 

in the Virgin Islands, he checked the 

block ‘‘Yes’’ and represented that VI 

held Virgin Island registration number 

11387. However the Virgin Island Board 

of Pharmacy indicates VI has never held 

any Board of Pharmacy license to 

operate as a pharmacy in its 

jurisdiction. 

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a0(1), 

falsification of a DEA application 

constitutes independent grounds to 

revoke a registration. Past cases have 

established that the appropriate test for 

determining whether an applicant 

materially falsified any application is 

whether the applicant ‘‘knew or should 

have known’’ that the submitted 

application was false. See Barry H. 

Brooks, M.D., 66 FR 18305, 18307 

(2001); Terrance E. Murphy, M.D., 61 FR 

2841, 2844 (1996); Bobby Watts, M.D.,

58 FR 46995 (1993). 

Prior DEA cases have also held that 

‘‘ ‘[s]ince [it] must rely on the 

truthfulness of information supplied by 

applicants in registering them to handle 

controlled substances, falsification 

cannot be tolerated.’ ’’ See Terrance E. 

Murphy, M.D., supra, 61 FR at 2845 

(quoting Bobby Watts, M.D.., supra, 58 

FR at 46995.). Further, in prior DEA 

cases the Deputy Administrator has held 

that the totality of the circumstances is 

to be considered in determining 

whether a registration should be 

revoked because of a registrant’s 

material falsification of an application. 

See Barry H. Brooks, M.D., supra, 66 FR 

at 18308; Martha Hernandez, M.D., 62 

FR 61145, 61147–48. 

After considering the totality of the 

circumstances, the Acting Deputy 

Administrator finds that VI, through its 

owner Mr. Rushdi, provided false 

information in its April 18, 2001, 

Application for DEA Registration and 

this misrepresentation constitutes a 

material falsification of an application 

warranting revocation of VI’s certificate.

The Acting Deputy Administrator 

further finds that in December 2000, an 

undercover U.S. Federal agent posing as 

a patient contacted VI Pharmacy by 

phone requesting narcotics without a 

prescription. He was told to fax an order 

and credit card number. The agent later 

faxed a request for approximately 200 

dosage units of Schedule II and III 

narcotic controlled substances. VI 

Pharmacy, by return fax, quoted a perpill price for some, but not all of the 

drugs. In a subsequent phone call, Mr. 

Salem told the agent to come to VI in 

person to purchase the drugs. Later that 

month, without a prescription, the agent 

purchased 100 tablets of Vicodin, a 

controlled substance, from Mr. Salem. 

In February 2001, using the mail, the 

agent then bought another 100 tablets of 

Vicodin and on two occasions in May 

2001, the agent visited the pharmacy 

and purchased a total of 1,100 tablets of 

Vicodin. Finally, in June 2001, the agent 

purchased 1,500 tablets of Vicodin from 

Mr. Salem’s brother, an employee of VI. 

All of these purchases were made 

without a prescription. 

On January 20, 2003, in United States

v. Rushdi Z. Salem, United States 

District Court for the Virgin Islands, 

Criminal Case No. 2001–235, Mr. Salem 

pled guilty to 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), 

knowingly and intentionally 

distributing a controlled substance. It is 

well settled that a pharmacy operates 

under the control of owners, 

stockholders, pharmacists, or other 

employees, and if any such person is 

convicted of a felony offense related to 

controlled substances, grounds exist to 

revoke the pharmacy’s registration 

under 21 USC 824(a)(2). See Rick’s 

Pharmacy, Inc., 62 FR 42595, 42597 

(1997); Maxicare Pharmacy, 61 FR 

27368 (1996); Big-T Pharmacy, Inc., 47 

FR 51830 (1982). The Acting Deputy 

Administrator finds that grounds exist 

to revoke VI’s registration under 21 USC 

824(a)(2) based on the controlled 

substance related felony conviction of 

Mr. Rushdi. 

Finally, with regard to the public 

interest factors of 21 U.S.C. 823(f), the 

Acting Deputy Administrator considers 

the above facts as relevant and adverse 

to the registrant under factors two, 

three, four and five of section 823(f). 

She concludes that VI Pharmacy’s 

continued registration is inconsistent 

with the public interest, as that term is 

used in 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a)(4). 

Accordingly, the Acting Deputy 

Administrator of the Drug Enforcement 

Administration, pursuant to the 

authority vested in her by 21 U.S.C. 823 

and 824 and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, 

hereby orders that DEA Certificate of 

Registration BV5900421, issued to VI 

Pharmacy, be, and it hereby is, revoked. 

The Acting Deputy Administrator 

further orders that any pending 

applications for renewal of such 

registration be, and they hereby are, 

denied. This order is effective March 8, 

2004.

Dated: January 7, 2004. 

Michele M. Leonhart, 

Acting Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 04–2343 Filed 2–4–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of the Secretary 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

January 23, 2004. 

The Department of Labor (DOL) has 

submitted the following public 

information collection request (ICR) to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and approval in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 

44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of each 

ICR, with applicable supporting 

documentation, may be obtained by 

contacting the Department of Labor. To 

obtain documentation, contact Ira Mills 

on 202–693–4122 (this is not a toll-free 

number) or e-mail: mills.ira@dol.gov.

Comments should be sent to Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the 

Employment and Training 

Administration (ETA), Office of 

Management and Budget, Room 10235, 

Washington, DC 20503, 202–395–7316 

(this is not a toll-free number), within 

30 days from the date of this publication 

in the Federal Register. 

The OMB 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; 

5586 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2004 / Notices 

• 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. 

Agency: Veterans’ Employment and 

Training Service. 

Type of Review: Extension of a 

currently approved collection. 

Title: Eligibility Data Form: 

Uniformed Services Employment and 

Reemployment Rights Act and Veteran’s 

Preference. 

OMB Number: 1293–0002. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

households. 

Type of Response: Recordkeeping; 

reporting. 

Frequency: On occasion. 

Number of Respondents: 1,500. 

Annual Responses: 1,500. 

Total Burden: 375. 

Total Annualized Capital/Startup 

Costs: $0. 

Total Annual Costs (operating/

maintaining systems or purchasing 

services): $0. 

Description: The Form VETS/

USERRA/VP–1010 is used to file 

complaints with the Department of 

Labor’s Veterans’ Employment and 

Training Service under either the 

Uniformed Services Employment and 

Reemployment Rights Act or laws and 

regulations related to veteran’s 

preference in the Federal employment.

Ira L. Mills, 

Departmental Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 04–2493 Filed 2–4–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of the Secretary 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

January 29, 2004. 

The Department of Labor (DOL) has 

submitted the following public 

information collection request (ICR) to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and approval in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 

44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of each 

ICR, with applicable supporting 

documentation, may be obtained by 

contacting the Department of Labor. To 

obtain documentation, contact Ira Mills 

on 202–693–4122 (this is not a toll-free 

number) or e-mail: mills.ira@dol.gov.

Comments should be sent to Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the 

Employment and Training 

Administration (ETA), Office of 

Management and Budget, Room 10235, 

Washington, DC 20503, 202–395–7316 

(this is not a toll-free number), within 

30 days from the date of this publication 

in the Federal Register. 

The OMB 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; 

• 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. 

Agency: Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration. 

Type of Review: Extension of a 

currently approved collection. 

Title: Manufacture’s Certification of 

Modifications Made to Construction 

Aerial Lifts (29 CFR 1926.453). 

OMB Number: 1218–0216. 

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit; Federal government; State, local 

or tribal government. 

Type of Response: Recordkeeping. 

Frequency: On occasion. 

Number of Respondents: 300. 

Annual Responses: 300. 

Total Burden: 15. 

Total Annualized Capital/Startup 

Costs: $0. 

Total Annual Costs (operating/

maintaining systems or purchasing 

services): $0. 

Description: Employers who modify 

an aerial lift for uses other than those 

provided by the manufactures must 

obtain a certificate from the 

manufacturer or equivalent entity 

certifying that the modification is in 

conformance with applicable American 

National Standards Institute (ANSI) 

standards and this standard, and the 

equipment is as safe as it was prior to 

the modification. The manufacturer’s 

certification demonstrates to interested 

parties that the manufacturer or an 

equally qualified entity assessed a 

modified aerial lift and found that it: 

Was safe for use by, or near employees; 

and would provide employees with a 

level of protection at least equivalent to 

the protection by the lift prior to 

modification.

Ira L. Mills, 

Departmental Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 04–2494 Filed 2–4–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of the Secretary 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

January 29, 2004. 

The Department of Labor (DOL) has 

submitted the following public 

information collection request (ICR) to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and approval in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 

44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of each 

ICR, with applicable supporting 

documentation, may be obtained by 

contacting the Department of Labor. To 

obtain documentation, contact Ira Mills 

on 202–693–4122 (this is not a toll-free 

number) or e-mail: mills.ira@dol.gov.

Comments should be sent to Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the 

Employment and Training 

Administration (ETA), Office of 

Management and Budget, Room 10235, 

Washington, DC 20503, 202–395–7316 

(this is not a toll-free number), within 

30 days from the date of this publication 

in the Federal Register.

The OMB 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; 

• Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and