Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 22 / Friday, February 2, 2007 / Notices 5083 

Findings 

Respondent holds DEA Certificate of 

Registration, BB2195116, which 

authorizes him to act as a practitioner 

under the Controlled Substances Act. 

Respondent’s registered location is 909 

N. D Street, San Bernardino, CA. 

Respondent’s registration does not 

expire until July 31, 2007. 

Respondent was also the holder of a 

Physician and Surgeon’s license 

(G67327) issued by the Medical Board of 

California. According to the official 

records of the Medical Board (which 

were checked on December 18, 2006), 

Respondent surrendered his license 

with an effective date of December 16, 

2004. Moreover, Respondent has 

submitted no evidence to this Agency 

showing that the State’s order has been 

vacated or that he has been granted a 

new license. Respondent therefore lacks 

authority under California law to 

practice medicine and handle controlled 

substances. 

Discussion 

Under the Controlled Substances Act 

(CSA), a practitioner must be currently 

authorized to handle controlled 

substances in ‘‘the jurisdiction in which 

he practices’’ in order to maintain a 

DEA registration. See 21 U.S.C. 802(21) 

(‘‘[t]he term ‘practitioner’ means a 

physician * * * licensed, registered, or 

otherwise permitted, by * * * the 

jurisdiction in which he practices * * * 

to distribute, dispense, [or] administer 

* * * a controlled substance in the 

course of professional practice’’). See 

also id. sec. 823(f) (‘‘The Attorney 

General shall register practitioners 

* * * if the applicant is authorized to 

dispense * * *controlled substances 

under the laws of the State in which he 

practices.’’). DEA has held repeatedly 

that the CSA requires the revocation of 

a registration issued to a practitioner 

whose state license has been suspended 

or revoked. See Sheran Arden Yeates, 71 

FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A. 

Ricci, 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby 

Watts, 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988). See 

also 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)(authorizing the 

revocation of a registration ‘‘upon a 

finding that the registrant * * * has had 

his State license or registration 

suspended [or] revoked * * * and is no 

longer authorized by State law to engage 

in the * * * distribution [or] dispensing 

of controlled substances’’). 

Following service of the Show Cause 

Order, Respondent submitted a letter 

asserting that he had rejected the 

Medical Board’s settlement stipulation. 

Respondent also contended that the 

stipulation was illegal because its terms 

were illusory, fraudulent and 

unconscionable. 

As found above, the official records of 

the Medical Board of California indicate 

that Respondent does not hold a current 

state medical license and therefore is 

without authority to handle controlled 

substances in the State where he is 

registered with DEA. As for 

Respondent’s conclusory assertions 

regarding the illegality of the 

stipulation, DEA precedents hold that a 

registrant can not collaterally attack the 

results of a state criminal or 

administrative proceeding in a 

proceeding under section 304 of the 

CSA. See Shahid Musud Siddiqui, 61 

FR 14818, 14818–19 (1996); Robert A. 

Leslie, 60 FR 14004, 14005 (1995). Thus, 

even if Respondent had submitted 

evidence establishing the illegality of 

the stipulation, a DEA Show Cause 

Proceeding is not the proper forum to 

litigate the issue. Because Respondent 

lacks authority under California law to 

handle controlled substances, he is not 

entitled to maintain his DEA 

registration. 

Order 

Accordingly, pursuant to the 

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

823(f) & 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 

0.100(b) & 0.104, I hereby order that 

DEA Certificate of Registration, 

BB2195116, issued to Sunil Bhasin, 

M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I 

further order that any pending 

applications for renewal or modification 

of such registration be, and they hereby 

are, denied. This order is effective 

March 5, 2007. 

Dated: January 26, 2007. 

Michele M. Leonhart, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E7–1711 Filed 2–1–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Parole Commission 

Record of Vote of Meeting Closure 

(Public Law 94–409) (5 U.S.C. 552b) 

I, Edward F. Reilly, Jr., Chairman of 

the United States Parole Commission, 

was present at a meeting of said 

Commission, which started at 

approximately 1:30 p.m., on 

Wednesday, January 24, 2007, at the 

U.S. Parole Commission, 5550 

Friendship Boulevard, 4th Floor, Chevy 

Chase, Maryland 20815. The purpose of 

the meeting was to decide two petitions 

for reconsideration pursuant to 28 

C.F.R. 2.27. Four Commissioners were 

present, constituting a quorum when the 

vote to close the meeting was submitted. 

Public announcement further 

describing the subject matter of the 

meeting and certifications of General 

Counsel that this meeting may be closed 

by vote of the Commission present were 

submitted to the Commissioners prior to 

the conduct of any other business. Upon 

motion duly made, seconded, and 

carried, the following Commissioners 

voted that the meeting be closed: 

Edward F. Reilly, Jr., Cranston J. 

Mitchell, Isaac Fulwood, Jr., and 

Patricia Cushwa. 

In witness whereof, I make this official 

record of the vote taken to close this 

meeting and authorize this record to be 

made available to the public. 

Dated: January 25, 2007. 

Edward F. Reilly, Jr., 

Chairman, Parole Commission. 

[FR Doc. 07–456 Filed 2–1–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Federal Bureau of Prisons 

Notice of the Availability of the Finding 

of No Significant Impact for the 

Criminal Alien Requirement VI 

AGENCY: Federal Bureau of Prisons, 

Department of Justice. 

ACTION: Notice; Finding of No 

Significant Impact. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) 

announces the availability of the 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) concerning the Criminal Alien 

Requirement VI (CAR VI). The BOP is 

seeking flexibility in managing its 

current shortage of beds by contracting 

for those services with non-federal 

facilities to house federal inmates. This 

approach provides the BOP with 

flexibility to meet population capacity 

needs in a timely fashion, conform with 

federal law, and maintain fiscal 

responsibility, while successfully 

attaining the mission of the BOP. 

Initially, the BOP proposed to contract 

with multiple public and private 

corporations to house approximately 

7,000 Federal, low-security, adult male, 

non-U.S. citizen, criminal aliens in 

existing Contractor-Owned/ContractorOperated facilities located in Arizona, 

California, Louisiana, New Mexico, 

Oklahoma, or Texas. The awards would 

be granted to the responsible offerors 

whose offers are found to be most 

advantageous to the Government. Five 

existing facilities, have been offered in 

response to the BOP’s solicitation for 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES