17522 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices 

24With respect to factor five, the ALJ found that 

Respondent’s ‘‘lack of candor * * * threatens 

public health and safety.’’ ALJ at 49. As support for 

this conclusion, the ALJ noted that most of the 

patients who were interviewed by the Investigators 

had stated that Respondent was treating them for 

substance abuse, yet Respondent testified that they 

were being treated for chronic pain but did not 

realize this. Id. 

While I agree with the ALJ that Respondent 

lacked candor, and appreciate that she personally 

observed his testimony, I do so based on different 

evidence. First, during the initial interview on Feb. 

28, 2010, Respondent told the investigators that he 

was operating a detox clinic and was using 

methadone to transfer his patients to Suboxone. Tr. 

43. Yet later that day, he claimed that he was 

prescribing methadone only for pain and had 

previously misspoken. Id. at 54–55. Second, when 

confronted with evidence that several of his 

methadone patients had come to him from 

methadone clinics, he attempted to justify his 

unlawful prescribing of methadone to them by 

claiming that the patients had actually gone to these 

clinics to treat their pain. See Tr. 695–96 (testimony 

regarding JB); id. at 699 (testimony regarding JC); id. 

at 716–17 (testimony regarding KI); id. at 728 

(testimony regarding TP). This factor thus also 

supports revocation. 

purpose; his prescribing of controlled 

substances to treat chronic pain without 

a legitimate medical purpose; his 

prescribing of Xanax to JC2; his issuance 

of prescriptions which lacked his 

practitioner’s registration number; his 

issuance of post-dated prescriptions; 

and his issuance of multiple 

prescriptions after his registration had 

been suspended. I further conclude that 

the Government has made a prima facie 

showing that Respondent has 

committed acts which render his 

registration ‘‘inconsistent with the 

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

that this conduct is sufficiently 

egregious to warrant the revocation of 

his registration.24

Sanction 

Under Agency precedent, where, as 

here, the Government has made out a 

prima facie case that a registrant has 

committed acts which render his 

‘‘registration inconsistent with the 

public interest,’’ he must ‘‘ ‘present[] 

sufficient mitigating evidence to assure 

the Administrator that [he] can be 

entrusted with the responsibility carried 

by such a registration.’ ’’ Samuel S. 

Jackson, 72 FR 23848, 23853 (2007) 

(quoting Leo R. Miller, 53 FR 21931, 

21932 (1988)). ‘‘Moreover, because ‘past 

performance is the best predictor of 

future performance,’ ALRA Labs., Inc. v. 

DEA, 54 F.3d 450, 452 (7th Cir. 1995), 

this Agency has repeatedly held that 

where a registrant has committed acts 

inconsistent with the public interest, the 

registrant must accept responsibility for 

[his] actions and demonstrate that [he] 

will not engage in future misconduct.’’ 

Medicine Shoppe-Jonesborough, 73 FR 

364 (2008). As the Sixth Circuit has 

recognized, this Agency also ‘‘properly 

consider[s]’’ a registrant’s admission of 

fault and his candor during the 

investigation and hearing to be 

‘‘important factors’’ in the public 

interest determination. See Hoxie, 419 

F.3d at 483. 

The ALJ found, and the record 

supports the conclusion, that 

Respondent eventually ceased 

prescribing methadone for maintenance 

and detoxification purposes. ALJ at 49– 

50. The record generally supports the 

conclusion that Respondent stopped 

writing controlled substance 

prescriptions which did not include his 

registration number, as required by DEA 

regulations. However, as found above, 

in September 2010, Respondent issued 

a further Adderall prescription to JB and 

did not include his registration number. 

The ALJ further noted that 

Respondent expressed remorse for some 

of his wrongdoing. ALJ at 50. However, 

while Respondent maintained that he 

had mistakenly issued the postsuspension prescriptions, and ‘‘would 

never do anything to violate an order,’’ 

Tr. 509, his testimony is belied by the 

evidence that upon being served with 

the Immediate Suspension Order, he 

stated his intention not to comply with 

it. Indeed, his testimony is patently 

disingenuous, given that he wrote the 

prescriptions only two days after he was 

served with the Order. In short, 

Respondent’s conduct manifests a 

deliberate and egregious disregard for 

his obligations as a DEA registrant. 

Finally, while the ALJ noted that 

‘‘Respondent testified passionately 

about the prevalence of narcotic abuse 

in Red Bay and his want to eliminate 

it,’’ she further concluded that he 

‘‘likely facilitated some of that abuse.’’ 

Id. The ALJ’s conclusion is well 

supported. Indeed, as found above, in 

numerous instances, Respondent issued 

controlled-substance prescriptions for 

the purported purpose of treating a 

patient’s pain, even though he recorded 

in the patient’s chart that the patient 

had ‘‘NO’’ pain and/or failed to make 

the findings required under the State’s 

Guidelines to properly diagnose the 

patient. Moreover, during one of the 

interviews by the Investigators, 

Respondent admitted that he did not 

follow the State’s Guidelines. Tr. 220. 

Respondent, however, offered no 

evidence that he now intends to comply 

with the Guidelines. 

Accordingly, I hold that Respondent 

has not rebutted the Government’s 

prima facie case. I will therefore order 

that Respondent’s registration be 

revoked and that any pending 

application be denied. For the same 

reasons that led me to order the 

Immediate Suspension of Respondent’s 

registration, I conclude that the public 

interest requires that this Order be 

effective immediately. 

Order 

Pursuant to the authority vested in me 

by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) & 824(a)(4), as well 

as by 28 CFR 0.100(b) & 0.104, I order 

that DEA Certificate of Registration, 

BC1701184, and Identification Number 

XC1701184, issued to Morris W. 

Cochran, M.D., be, and they hereby are, 

revoked. I further order that any 

application for renewal or modification 

of such registration be, and it hereby is, 

denied. This Order is effective 

immediately. 

Dated: March 16, 2012. 

Michele M. Leonhart, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7107 Filed 3–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Office of Justice Programs 

[OMB Number 1121–NEW] 

Agency Information Collection 

Agencies: New Collection; Comments 

Requested 

ACTION: 60-Day notice of information 

collection under review. 

The Department of Justice, Office of 

Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice 

Statistics, will be submitting the 

following information collection request 

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 additional 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: 

Ron Malega, 202–353–0487, Bureau of 

Justice Statistics, Office of Justice 

Programs, Department of Justice, 810 

Seventh Street NW., Washington DC 

20531 or Ronald.Malega@usdoj.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: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices 17523 

• 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 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: 

1. Type of information collection: 

New data collection, Census of ProblemSolving Courts (CPSC), 2012. 

2. The title of the form/collection: 

Census of Problem-Solving Courts or 

CPSC 2012. 

3. The agency form number, if any, 

and the applicable component of the 

Department sponsoring the collection: 

The form labels are CPSC, Bureau of 

Justice Statistics, Office of Justice 

Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. 

4. Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: Problem-solving courts at all 

levels of government. Abstract: The 

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) 

proposes to implement a Census of 

Problem-Solving Courts (CPSC). 

Problem-solving courts target 

defendants who have ongoing social 

and/or psychological conditions that 

underlie their repeated contact with the 

criminal justice system. Most of the 

existing information about problemsolving courts (PSC) consists of court 

evaluations or outcome analyses. No 

prior census of these courts has been 

conducted to date despite the 

substantial proliferation of such courts 

during the past thirty years. Hence, the 

CPSC will allow BJS to provide national 

level information on problem-solving 

courts and case processing statistics. 

The CPSC is designed to provide BJS 

and other interested stakeholders with 

the first systematic empirical 

information on problem-solving courts. 

A goal of the census is to obtain 

information on problem-solving court 

operations, staffing, administration, and 

to generate accurate and reliable 

aggregate statistics on offenders who 

enter problem-solving court programs. 

Information will be collected for the 

most recent 12-month period in 2012. 

The CPSC will collect information on 

the following categories: 

a. Court Operations and Staffing 

i. Provide the number of problem-solving 

courts by type (e.g., mental health, drug, 

etc.), 

ii. Determine PSCs level of government 

operations (e.g., local, state, etc.), court 

jurisdiction (e.g., limited, general, other) 

and intake of felony, misdemeanor, or 

status offenses, 

iii. Court session frequency, 

iv. Number of full- and part-time staff 

members currently employed by PSCs. 

b. Funding: Types and prevalence of PSC 

funding (e.g., local government budget, 

state budget, etc.) 

c. Commonly Used Services: 

i. Count the types and prevalence of 

offender/victim services (e.g., anger 

management), counseling or treatment 

services (e.g., outpatient mental health 

treatment), and general supportive 

services (e.g., life skills) 

d. Participant participation 

i. Participant inclusionary and 

exclusionary factors, 

ii. Participant point of entry (e.g. pre-plea, 

post-plea/pre-sentence, etc.) 

iii. Case closure: Benefits of successful 

participation in PSC program (e.g., case 

dismissal). 

e. Capacity and Enrollment 

i. Design Capacity: Total number of active 

participants PSC can manage at any one 

time, 

ii. Current number of active participants. 

f. Data Collection Practices: 

i. Use of automated case management 

systems, 

ii. Ability to share case management 

information with external agencies, 

iii. PSCs’ ability to track participant 

outcomes after graduation. 

g. Selected PSC Aggregate Participant 

information: 

i. Number of offenders admitted for 

participation in PSC over a 12 month 

period, 

ii. Number of offender participants exiting 

program over a 12 month period, 

including type of exit (e.g., successful 

program completion), 

iii. Percentage of participants by gender 

over a 12 month period, 

iv. Percentage of participants by race/ 

ethnicity over a 12 month period. 

5. An Estimate of the Total Number of 

Respondents and the Amount of Time 

Estimated for an Average Respondent to 

Respond: Estimates suggest 3,800 

respondents will take part in the Census 

of Problem-Solving Courts 2012. Based 

on pilot testing and in-house review, the 

average (mean) burden for each 

completed survey is expected to be 

approximately 30 minutes per 

respondent. The estimated range of 

burden for respondents is expected to be 

between 15 minutes to 1 hour for 

completion. The following factors were 

considered when creating the burden 

estimate: the estimated total number of 

problem-solving courts, the ability of 

problem-solving courts to access data, 

and the type of data capabilities 

generally found in the field. BJS 

estimates that nearly all of the 

approximately 3,800 respondents will 

fully complete the questionnaire. 

6. An Estimate of the Total Public 

Burden (in hours) Associated with the 

collection: The estimated public burden 

associated with this collection is 1,918 

hours. It is estimated that respondents 

will take 30 minutes to complete a 

questionnaire. The burden hours for 

collecting respondent data sum to 1,900 

hours (3,800 respondents × 0.5 hours = 

1,900 hours). In addition to 

respondents’ burden of completing the 

census questionnaire, the CPSC requires 

voluntary participation from State 

Points of Contacts (SPOCs) to develop 

an initial list of problem-solving court 

docket contact information. While 

SPOCs will not complete actual 

questionnaires, their effort is a 

necessary first step in identifying the 

universe of problem-solving courts 

nationwide. BJS estimates it will take, 

on average, 20 minutes for each SPOC 

to provide the requested list of problemsolving courts in their respective state. 

There are 54 SPOCS (including DC, 

Guam, Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico). 

The total time burden is 18 hours (54 

SPOCS × 20 minutes = 18 hours). 

Therefore the total estimated burden for 

the entire CPSC 2012 project is 1,918 

hours (1,900 hours for respondents + 18 

hours for SPOCS = 1,918 hours). 

If additional information is required 

contact: Jerri Murray, Department 

Clearance Officer, United States 

Department of Justice, Justice 

Management Division, Policy and 

Planning Staff, Two Constitution 

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

Washington, DC 20530. 

Jerri Murray, 

Department Clearance Officer, PRA, U.S. 

Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7172 Filed 3–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–18–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Office of Justice Programs 

[OMB Number 1121–0111] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Extension of a Currently 

Approved Collection; Comments 

Requested; National Crime 

Victimization Survey (NCVS) 

ACTION: 60-day Notice of Information 

Collection Under Review. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES