17504 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices 

received is to email them to oira_

submission@omb.eop.gov or fax to 202– 

395–7285. All comments should 

reference the eight digit OMB number 

for the collection or the title of the 

collection. If you have any questions 

concerning the collection, please 

contact John Spencer, fire_tech@atf.gov. 

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: 

—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. 

Summary of Collection 

(1) Type of Information Collection: 

Extension of a currently approved 

collection. 

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: 

Identification Markings Placed on 

Firearms. 

(3) Agency form number, if any, and 

the applicable component of the 

Department of Justice sponsoring the 

collection: Form Number: None. Bureau 

of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 

Explosives. 

(4) Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: Primary: Business or other forprofit. Other: None. Abstract: 

Need for Collection 

Each licensed firearms manufacturer 

or licensed importer must legibly 

identify each firearm by engraving, 

casting, stamping (impressing), or 

otherwise conspicuously placing on the 

frame or receiver an individual serial 

number. Also, ATF requires minimum 

height and depth requirements for 

identification markings placed on 

firearms. 

(5) An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 

estimated for an average respondent to 

respond: There will be an estimated 

2,962 respondents who will take 5 

seconds to mark the firearm. 

(6) An estimate of the total burden (in 

hours) associated with the collection: 

There are an estimated 2,500 total 

burden hours associated with this 

collection. 

If additional information is required 

contact: Jerri Murray, Department 

Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning 

Staff, Justice Management Division, 

Department of Justice, Two Constitution 

Square, Room 2E–508, 145 N Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20530. 

Jerri Murray, 

Department Clearance Officer PRA, United 

States Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7173 Filed 3–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–FY–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 

and Explosives 

[OMB Number 1140–0071] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Collection; 

Comments Requested: Notification to 

Fire Safety Authority of Storage of 

Explosive Materials 

ACTION: 60-Day Notice of Information 

Collection Under Review. 

The Department of Justice (DOJ), 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 

and Explosives (ATF), will be 

submitting the following information 

collection request to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and approval in accordance with 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

The proposed information collection is 

published to obtain comments from the 

public and affected agencies. Comments 

are encouraged and will be accepted for 

‘‘sixty days’’ until May 25, 2012. This 

process is conducted in accordance with 

5 CFR 1320.10. 

If you have comments especially on 

the estimated public burden or 

associated response time, suggestions, 

or need a copy of the proposed 

information collection instrument with 

instructions or additional information, 

please contact William Miller, Chief, 

Explosives Industry Programs Branch at 

eipb@atf.gov. 

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: 

—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 agencies 

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: 

Extension of a currently approved 

collection. 

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: 

Notification to Fire Safety Authority of 

Storage of Explosive Materials. 

(3) Agency form number, if any, and 

the applicable component of the 

Department of Justice sponsoring the 

collection: Form Number: None. Bureau 

of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 

Explosives. 

(4) Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: Primary: Business or other forprofit. Other: Farms, State, Local, or 

Tribal Government, Individuals or 

households. The information is 

necessary for the safety of emergency 

response personnel responding to fires 

at sites where explosives are stored. The 

information is provided both orally and 

in writing to the authority having 

jurisdiction for fire safety in the locality 

in which explosives are stored. 

(5) An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 

estimated for an average respondent to 

respond: It is estimated that 1,025 

respondents will take 30 minutes to 

complete the notifications. 

(6) An estimate of the total public 

burden (in hours) associated with the 

collection: There are an estimated 513 

annual total burden hours associated 

with this collection. 

If additional information is required 

contact: Jerri Murray, Department 

Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning 

Staff, Justice Management Division, 

Department of Justice, Two Constitution 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices 17505 

Square, Room 2E–508, 145 N Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20530. 

Jerri Murray, 

Department Clearance Officer, PRA, United 

States Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7190 Filed 3–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–FY–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 11–1] 

Morris W. Cochran, M.D.: Revocation 

of Registration 

On September 22, 2010, I, the thenDeputy Administrator of the Drug 

Enforcement Administration, issued an 

Order to Show Cause and Immediate 

Suspension of Registration to Morris W. 

Cochran, M.D. (Respondent), of 

Birmingham, Alabama. The Order 

proposed the revocation of 

Respondent’s DEA Certificate of 

Registration BC1701184, and the denial 

of any pending applications to renew or 

modify his registration, on the ground 

that his ‘‘continued registration is 

inconsistent with the public interest.’’ 

21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4). 

More specifically, the Order alleged 

that while Respondent is authorized to 

prescribe Suboxone and Subutex ‘‘for 

maintenance or detoxification treatment 

pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(2) under 

DEA identification number 

XC1701184,’’ he had ‘‘prescribed 

methadone,’’ a schedule II controlled 

substance, ‘‘to patients for the purpose 

of drug addiction treatment’’ without 

the registration required under 21 U.S.C. 

823(g)(1). ALJ Ex.1, at 1–2. 

Next, the Order alleged that 

Respondent had prescribed both 

methadone and Suboxone, the latter 

being a Schedule III controlled 

substance, to numerous patients whose 

charts show that he ‘‘did not obtain a 

prior medical history,’’ that he ‘‘did not 

perform an initial physical exam,’’ that 

he ‘‘established little or no basis for the 

diagnoses,’’ and that he ‘‘offered no 

other treatment other than prescribing 

controlled substances.’’ Id. at 2. The 

Order further alleged that ‘‘[s]uch 

prescribing was not for a legitimate 

medical purpose in the usual course of 

professional practice in violation of 21 

CFR 1306.04(a), and in violation of 

Alabama Administrative Code 540–X– 

11)(1), which requires that a physician 

personally obtain an appropriate 

history, perform a physical exam, make 

a diagnosis and formulate a therapeutic 

plan before prescribing drugs to a 

patient.’’ Id. Finally, the Order alleged 

that Respondent had ‘‘continue to 

prescribe alprazolam, a schedule IV 

controlled substances depressant, to a 

patient after [the] patient file explicitly 

noted that the patient abused this drug.’’ 

Id. 

Based on the above, I concluded that 

Respondent’s continued registration 

during the pendency of the proceeding 

‘‘constitute[d] an imminent danger to 

the public health and safety.’’ Id. I 

therefore invoked my authority under 

21 U.S.C. 824(d) and immediately 

suspended Respondent’s registration. 

Respondent requested a hearing on 

the allegations and the matter was 

placed on the docket of the Agency’s 

Administrative Law Judges (ALJs). On 

November 2–4, 2010, an ALJ conducted 

a hearing in Birmingham, Alabama. ALJ 

Decision (also ALJ), at 3. 

On January 5, 2011, the ALJ issued 

her decision which recommended that 

Respondent’s registration be revoked. 

Id. at 51. Therein, the ALJ found that the 

Alabama Medical Board had not made 

a recommendation in the matter (factor 

one) and that Respondent has not been 

convicted of an offense related to the 

manufacture and distribution of 

controlled substances (factor three). Id. 

at 43, 48. 

With respect to factors two 

(Respondent’s experience in dispensing 

controlled substances) and four 

(Respondent’s compliance with 

applicable laws related to controlled 

substances), the ALJ made extensive 

findings. First, the ALJ found that 

Respondent violated DEA regulations 

because he prescribed drugs other than 

Suboxone or Subutex on prescription 

forms that used only his Data Waiver (or 

X) number. ALJ at 43. The ALJ also 

found that Respondent ‘‘improperly 

prescribed Suboxone for substance 

abuse using his regular DEA registration 

number rather than the required ‘‘X’’ 

number.’’ Id. 

Next, the ALJ found that Respondent 

prescribed methadone for detoxification 

and maintenance treatment without 

holding the separate registration 

required to do so under Federal law. 

ALJ at 43–45. The ALJ specifically 

rejected Respondent’s testimony that he 

had prescribed methadone to nine 

patients to treat pain (which does not 

require a separate registration), noting 

that Respondent had initially told a 

DEA Investigator that he was 

prescribing methadone for 

detoxification purposes, that several 

patients who had received methadone 

had told the Investigator that they were 

being treated for substance abuse, and 

that several of the patients had come to 

Respondent’s clinic ‘‘directly after’’ 

being treated by a methadone clinic 

‘‘where the prescription of methadone 

for pain is prohibited’’ and had been 

diagnosed by Respondent as being 

substance abusers. Id. at 44–45. The ALJ 

also found that Respondent had violated 

the limitation imposed under Federal 

law and regulations which limit to 100, 

the number of patients who can be 

treated for substance abuse with 

Suboxone. ALJ at 46–47 (citing 21 

U.S.C. 823(g)(2)(B)(iii) and 21 CFR 

1301.28(b)(1)(iii)). 

Next, the ALJ found that Respondent 

violated both Federal and State 

regulations because his medical charts 

‘‘fail[ed] to list the source and severity 

of pain when chronic pain [wa]s the 

diagnosis. ALJ at 47 (citing Ala. Admin. 

Code 540–X–4.08; 21 CFR 1306.04(a) 

and 1306.07(c)). The ALJ further found 

that Respondent’s charts ‘‘fail[ed] to 

record when medical examinations were 

conducted and the specific results of 

those examinations in support of 

diagnoses,’’ and that ‘‘[i]n some 

instances, patients actually reported that 

no examination was conducted.’’ Id. 

The ALJ also found that the ‘‘charts 

failed to show the use of any treatment 

options besides the prescribing of 

controlled substances,’’ and that the 

‘‘lack of attempts of alternative 

treatment modalities prior to 

determining that the patient suffers from 

chronic pain violates 21 CFR 

1306.07(c).’’ Id. 

The ALJ further found that 

Respondent had post-dated 

prescriptions for schedule II controlled 

substances in violation of Federal 

regulations. Id. at 47–48 (citing 21 CFR 

1306.05(a) and 1306.12(b)). In addition, 

the ALJ found that Respondent had 

admitted to having issued a controlled 

substance prescription after he was 

served with the Immediate Suspension 

Order. Id. at 48. The ALJ then found that 

‘‘Respondent testified, and the record 

contains no expert evidence to the 

contrary, that his treatment of his 

patients met the standard of care.’’ Id. 

However, based on Respondent’s 

improper use of his data-waiver number 

on prescriptions, his unauthorized 

prescribing of methadone for 

maintenance and detoxification 

purposes, his incomplete records, his 

failure to recommend any treatment 

options for his chronic pain patients 

besides the prescribing of controlled 

substances, and his issuance of a 

controlled substance prescription after 

his registration was suspended, the ALJ 

concluded that these factors supported 

the revocation of his registration. Id. 

With respect to factor five—such 

other conduct which may threaten 

public health or safety—the ALJ found 

that Respondent lacked candor. More 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES