Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 2006 / Notices 70793 

The Notice also discussed some Internet sites 

which ‘‘ask[ed] patients to waive the requirement 

for a physical and to agree to have a physical before 

taking a drug they purchase via the Internet.’’ Id. 

In this regard, the Notice stated: ‘‘[a]n after-the-fact 

physical does not take the place of establishing a 

doctor/patient relationship. The physical exam 

should take place before the prescription is 

written.’’ Id. 

7 I do not rely on the fact that Respondent worked 

as an anesthesiologist after he surrendered his DEA 

registration. While the administration of anesthesia 

invariably requires the use of controlled substances 

and it seems highly probable that Respondent 

further violated the CSA by administering 

controlled substances without a registration, this 

conduct was not alleged in the Show Cause Order. 

The Notice further stated that doctors 

who issued prescriptions without 

establishing a legitimate doctor/patient 

relationship could be subjected ‘‘to 

criminal, civil, or administrative 

actions,’’ and that ‘‘[f]or DEA registrants 

administrative action may include the 

loss of their DEA registration.’’ Id. Thus, 

contrary to Respondent’s suggestion that 

no information was publicly available 

regarding the potential illegality of the 

practice, DEA had given fair warning 

that prescribing a controlled substance 

based on an on-line questionnaire and 

without conducting a physical exam 

could be deemed a violation of the 

CSA’s longstanding requirement that a 

prescription must be issued for a 

legitimate medical purpose. DEA also 

warned that issuing a prescription 

without such a purpose could subject a 

physician to criminal, civil and 

administrative proceedings. 

Moreover, in April 2002, the 

Federation of State Medical Boards 

adopted its model guidelines for the use 

of the Internet in medical practice. 

Section Five of this document states that 

‘‘[a] documented patient evaluation, 

including history and physical 

evaluation adequate to establish 

diagnoses and identify underlying 

conditions and/or contra-indications to 

the treatment recommended/provided, 

must be obtained prior to providing 

treatment, including issuing 

prescriptions, electronically or 

otherwise.’’ Federation of State Medical 

Boards of the U.S., Inc., Model 

Guidelines for the Appropriate Use of 

the Internet in Medical Practice 5 (2002) 

(emphasis added). 

The guidelines further state that 

‘‘[t]reatment and consultation 

recommendations made in an online 

setting, including issuing a prescription 

via electronic means, will be held to the 

same standards of appropriate practice 

as those in traditional (face-to-face) 

settings.’’ Id. Finally, the guidelines 

state that ‘‘[t]reatment, including issuing 

a prescription, based solely on an online 

questionnaire or consultation, does not 

constitute an acceptable standard of 

care.’’ Id. 

Thus, while Respondent may have 

lacked actual knowledge of DEA’s 

interpretation of the CSA and the 

position of other entities involved in the 

regulation of his profession, I conclude 

that such information was readily 

available at the time Respondent 

commenced his contract with 

Pharmacon and therefore will not 

excuse his misconduct.7 Moreover, I 

find that Respondent’s experience in 

dispensing controlled substances and 

his record of compliance with 

applicable laws involve numerous 

violations of the CSA in that 

Respondent issued prescriptions 

without a legitimate medical purpose 

and that these factors demonstrate that 

granting Respondent’s application (in 

the event the State were to rescind its 

order) would be inconsistent with the 

public interest. Having found so, it is 

unnecessary to address the remaining 

factors. See, e.g., Hoxie, 419 F.3d at 483; 

Morall, 412 F.3d at 165. 

Order 

Accordingly, pursuant to the 

authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 

823(f), and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, 

I hereby order that the application of 

Mario Alberto Diaz for a DEA Certificate 

of Registration as a Practitioner be, and 

it hereby is, denied. This order is 

effective January 5, 2007. 

Dated: November 3, 2006. 

Michele M. Leonhart, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E6–20630 Filed 12–5–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Foreign Claims Settlement 

Commission 

[F.C.S.C. Meeting Notice No. 10–06] 

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice 

The Foreign Claims Settlement 

Commission, pursuant to its regulations 

(45 CFR Part 504) and the Government 

in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), 

hereby gives notice in regard to the 

scheduling of meetings for the 

transaction of Commission business and 

other matters specified, as follows: 

DATE AND TIME: Thursday, December 14, 

2006, at 10 a.m. 

SUBJECT MATTER: Issuance of Amended 

Proposed Decisions and Amended Final 

Decisions in claims against Albania. 

STATUS: Open. 

All meetings are held at the Foreign 

Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E 

Street, NW., Washington, DC. Requests 

for information, or advance notices of 

intention to observe an open meeting, 

may be directed to: Administrative 

Officer, Foreign Claims Settlement 

Commission, 600 E Street, NW., Room 

6002, Washington, DC 20579. 

Telephone: (202) 616–6988. 

Mauricio J. Tamargo, 

Chairman. 

[FR Doc. 06–9568 Filed 12–4–06; 10:10 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Office of the Secretary 

Submission for OMB Review: 

Comment Request 

November 29, 2006. 

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 this 

ICR, with applicable supporting 

documentation, may be obtained from 

RegInfo.gov at http://www.reginfo.gov/ 

public/do/PRAMain or by contacting 

Darrin King on 202–693–4129 (this is 

not a toll-free number)/e-mail: 

king.darrin@dol.gov. 

Comments should be sent to Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Bureau 

of Labor Statistics (BLS), Office of 

Management and Budget, Room 10235, 

Washington, DC 20503, Telephone: 

202–395–7316 / Fax: 202–395–6974 

(these are not toll-free numbers), 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 


PWALKER on PRODPC60 with NOTICES