Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Notices 82641 

substance order or prescription is one 

that is ‘‘issued for a legitimate medical 

purpose by an individual practitioner 

acting in the usual course of his 

professional practice.’’ 21 CFR 

1306.04(a). A ‘‘practitioner must 

establish and maintain a bona fide 

doctor-patient relationship in order to 

act ‘in the usual course of . . . 

professional practice’ and to issue a 

prescription for a ‘legitimate medical 

purpose.’ ’’ Dewey C. Mackay, M.D., 75 

FR at 49973. Here, Registrant admits 

that her prescribing of controlled 

substances was outside the usual course 

of professional practice and that her 

conduct reflects negative experience in 

prescribing controlled substances. 

RFAAX 2, at 1–3. 

Regarding the standards for adequacy 

of medical records, Florida law requires 

that medical documentation must 

‘‘contain sufficient information to 

identify the patient, support the 

diagnosis, justify the treatment and 

document the course and results of 

treatment accurately, by including, at a 

minimum, patient histories; 

examination results; test results; records 

of drugs prescribed, dispensed, or 

administered; reports of consultations 

and hospitalizations; and copies of 

records or reports or other 

documentation obtained from other 

health care practitioners. . . .’’ Fla. 

Admin. Code section 64B8–9.003(3); 

RFAAX 2, at 2. Florida law also requires 

that medical documentation contain 

‘‘sufficient detail to clearly demonstrate 

why the course of treatment was 

undertaken.’’ Id. section 64B8–9.003(2); 

RFAAX 2, at 2. Here, Registrant admits 

that she issued 60 prescriptions for 

controlled substances to six individuals 

without maintaining any medical 

documentation whatsoever to justify the 

prescribing of controlled substances. 

RFAAX 2, at 2–5. 

Prior to prescribing a controlled 

substance for acute pain, Florida law 

requires practitioners to maintain 

‘‘accurate and complete’’ medical 

documentation that includes, but is not 

limited to, the patient’s medical history 

and physical examination; diagnostic 

results; consultations; treatment 

objectives; discussion of risks and 

benefits; treatments; medications; 

instructions and agreements; drug 

testing results; and periodic reviews. 

Fla. Stat. section 456.44(3); Fla. Admin. 

Code section 64B8–9.013(2); RFAAX 2, 

at 2. Here, not only does Registrant 

admit that she issued 60 prescriptions 

for controlled substances to six 

individuals without maintaining any 

medical documentation, she admits she 

never conducted the physical 

examinations she was required to 

document. RFAAX 2, at 2–5. Registrant 

further admits that nine of these 

prescriptions were issued in response to 

text messages requesting the controlled 

substances. Id. 

Based on Registrant’s admissions, the 

Agency finds that from August 21, 2021, 

to February 16, 2023, Registrant issued 

60 prescriptions to six individuals 

outside the usual course of professional 

practice and in violation of Federal and 

State laws. 21 CFR 1306.04(a); Fla. Stat. 

section 456.44(3); Fla. Admin. Code 

sections 64B8–9.003(2)–(3), 64B8– 

9.013(2). 

In sum, the Agency finds Registrant’s 

continued registration to be inconsistent 

with the public interest after balancing 

the factors of 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1). The 

Agency also finds that Registrant failed 

to provide sufficient mitigating evidence 

to rebut the Government’s prima facie 

case. 

III. Sanction 

Where, as here, the Government has 

established sufficient grounds to revoke 

Registrant’s registration, the burden 

shifts to the registrant to show why she 

can be entrusted with the responsibility 

carried by a registration. Garret Howard 

Smith, M.D., 83 FR 18882, 18910 (2018). 

‘‘[T]rust is necessarily a fact-dependent 

determination based’’ on individual 

circumstances; therefore, the Agency 

looks at factors such as ‘‘the acceptance 

of responsibility and the credibility of 

that acceptance as it relates to the 

probability of repeat violations or 

behavior.’’ Robert Wayne Locklear, 

M.D., 86 FR 33738, 33746 (2021). To be 

effective, acceptance of responsibility 

must be unequivocal. Mohammed 

Asgar, M.D., 83 FR 29569, 29573 (2018). 

When a registrant has committed acts 

inconsistent with the public interest, 

she must both accept responsibility and 

demonstrate that she has undertaken 

corrective measures. Holiday CVS, 

L.L.C., d/b/a CVS/Pharmacy Nos. 219 

and 5195, 77 FR 62316, 62339 (2012) 

(internal quotations omitted). 

Here, Registrant did not request a 

hearing, submit a corrective action plan, 

respond to the OSC/ISO, or otherwise 

avail herself of the opportunity to refute 

the Government’s case. As such, 

Registrant has made no representations 

as to her future compliance with the 

CSA, has not demonstrated that she can 

be entrusted with registration, and has 

not accepted responsibility for the 

misconduct. Accordingly, the Agency 

will order the revocation of Registrant’s 

registration. 

Order 

Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the 

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

824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate 

of Registration No. AP6641713 issued to 

Janet S. Pettyjohn, D.O. Further, 

pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the 

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

823(g)(1), I hereby deny any pending 

applications of Janet S. Pettyjohn, D.O., 

to renew or modify this registration, as 

well as any other pending application of 

Janet S. Pettyjohn, D.O., for additional 

registration in Florida. This Order is 

effective November 12, 2024. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Drug 

Enforcement Administration was signed 

on October 2, 2024, by Administrator 

Anne Milgram. That document with the 

original signature and date is 

maintained by DEA. For administrative 

purposes only, and in compliance with 

requirements of the Office of the Federal 

Register, the undersigned DEA Federal 

Register Liaison Officer has been 

authorized to sign and submit the 

document in electronic format for 

publication, as an official document of 

DEA. This administrative process in no 

way alters the legal effect of this 

document upon publication in the 

Federal Register. 

Heather Achbach, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, Drug 

Enforcement Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2024–23511 Filed 10–10–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Submission for OMB 

Review; Comment Request, Sectoral 

Strategies and Employer Engagement 

Portfolio, New Collection 

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Policy, Chief Evaluation 

Office, Department of Labor. 

ACTION: Notice of information collection; 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor 

(DOL), as part of its continuing effort to 

reduce paperwork and respondent 

burden, conducts a preclearance 

consultation program to provide the 

general public and federal agencies with 

an opportunity to comment on proposed 

and/or continuing collections of 

information in accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA95). This program helps to ensure 

that requested data can be provided in 

the desired format, reporting burden 

(time and financial resources) is 

minimized, collection instruments are 

clearly understood, and the impact of 

collection requirements on respondents 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
82642 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Notices 

is properly assessed. Currently, the 

Department of Labor is soliciting 

comments concerning the collection of 

data about the Sectoral Strategies and 

Employer Engagement Portfolio. A copy 

of the proposed Information Collection 

Request (ICR) can be obtained by 

contacting the office listed below in the 

addressee section of this notice. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted to the office listed in the 

addressee section below on or before 

December 10, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either one of the following methods: 

Email: ChiefEvaluationOffice@dol.gov; 

Mail or Courier: Evan Murphy, Chief 

Evaluation Office, OASP, U.S. 

Department of Labor, Room S–2312, 200 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20210. Instructions: Please submit 

one copy of your comments by only one 

method. All submissions received must 

include the agency name and OMB 

Control Number identified above for 

this information collection. Comments, 

including any personal information 

provided, become a matter of public 

record. They will also be summarized 

and/or included in the request for OMB 

approval of the information collection 

request. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Evan Murphy by email at 

ChiefEvaluationOffice@dol.gov or by 

phone at (202) 693–0224. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background: The Chief Evaluation 

Office (CEO) of the U.S. Department of 

Labor (DOL) intends to design and 

conduct an evaluation to document the 

implementation and assess the success 

of the three grant programs within the 

Sectoral Strategies and Employer 

Engagement Portfolio (SSEEP): Building 

Pathways to Infrastructure Jobs Grant 

(BP), Nursing Expansion Grant (NEG), 

and Critical Sectors Job Quality Grant 

(Critical Sectors). The goal of this 

project is to build knowledge about 

sector strategies. The SSEEP evaluation 

includes three components: (1) an 

implementation evaluation to 

understand program implementation, 

partnership development, and lessons 

for all 34 BP and 25 NEG grantees as 

well as all 5 Tier 2 Critical Sectors 

grantees; (2) an impact and cost-benefit 

evaluability assessment of the Building 

Pathways to Infrastructure Jobs Grant 

(BP) and Nursing Expansion Grant 

(NEG) programs to examine the 

feasibility of conducting a rigorous 

evaluation with these grant programs, 

and; (3) a formative study to identify 

effective strategies for reducing barriers 

to employment, engaging and working 

in partnership with employers, and 

applying the U.S. Department of Labor’s 

Good Jobs Principles to critical sector 

occupations. 

This Federal Register Notice provides 

the opportunity to comment on 

proposed data collection instruments 

that will be used in the implementation 

evaluation: a grantee survey for the BP 

and NEG grantees, a grantee survey for 

CS grantees, a partner survey, an 

employer survey, and semi-structured 

site visit discussion guides for program 

staff, partners, employers, and 

participants. 

1. Grantee Survey for BP and NEG 

Grantees. We will field a survey to the 

34 BP grantees and 25 NEG grantees. 

The grantee survey will systematically 

collect information on program 

operations and the types of activities 

and services provided across grantees. 

The grantee survey will be designed to 

primarily elicit closed-ended responses 

to help ensure comparability and 

completeness of responses and to allow 

for statistical summaries and analysis. 

The survey will be modular such that 

each topic and questions within that 

topic can be tailored to the specific 

aspects of each grant program. The 

grantee survey will be programmed and 

administered online using ConfirmIT or 

a similar survey program. 

2. Grantee Survey for CS grantees. We 

will field a survey to the five Critical 

Sectors Tier 2 grantees. Similar to the 

survey for NEG and BP grantees, this 

survey will systematically collect 

information on program operations and 

the types of activities and services 

provided across grantees. The grantee 

survey will be designed to primarily 

elicit closed-ended responses to help 

ensure comparability and completeness 

of responses and to facilitate analysis. 

The survey will be modular such that 

each topic and questions within that 

topic can be tailored to the specific 

aspects of each grant program. The 

grantee survey will be programmed 

using ConfirmIT or a similar survey 

software, and will be administered by 

study team members over the phone 

with grantee representatives. 

3. Partner Survey. We will field a 

survey to a subset of partners identified 

by grantees in response to the grantee 

survey and from their grant 

applications. The partner survey will 

contribute important information about 

the nature of partnerships between 

partner organizations and lead grantee 

organizations. The survey will be 

modular such that each topic and 

questions within that topic can be 

tailored to the specific aspects of each 

grant program. The partner survey will 

be programmed and administered 

online using ConfirmIT and fielded to 

partners of BP and NEG grantees. 

4. Employer Survey. We will field a 

survey to employers identified by 

grantees in response to the grantee 

survey. The employer survey will 

contribute important data about 

employer engagement strategies, 

employer roles in the sector strategies 

grant programs, and employer 

perceptions of the program. The survey 

will be modular such that each topic 

and questions within that topic can be 

tailored to the specific aspects of each 

grant program. The employer survey 

will be programmed through ConfirmIT 

and administered by evaluation team 

members over phone/webinar to help 

obtain complete, clear responses. 

5. Semi-structured discussion guides 

for program staff, partners, employers, 

and participants. We will conduct site 

visits to approximately 17 grantees 

across the BP, NEG, and Critical Sectors 

programs. Site visits will document the 

program context, program organization 

and staffing, program components 

including education/training activities 

and support services, and other relevant 

aspects of sector strategies programs. 

During the visits, site teams will 

interview key grantee administrators, 

program staff, partners (e.g., training 

providers, support service providers), 

and employers using discussion guides. 

During these site visits, we will also 

conduct semi-structured interviews 

with program participants. The 

discussion guides will also include 

guides for follow-up phone interviews. 

In the final year of the grant, we will 

conduct semi-structured follow-up 

phone calls with grantee staff to 

document changes that occurred after 

our visits, lessons and sustainability 

plans. 

II. Desired Focus of Comments: 

Currently, the Department of Labor is 

soliciting comments concerning the 

above data collection for the Sectoral 

Strategies and Employer Engagement 

Portfolio Program Evaluation. DOL is 

particularly interested in comments that 

do the following: 

Æ evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance functions of 

the agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

Æ evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s 

burden estimate of the proposed 

information collection, including the 

validity of the methodology and 

assumptions; 

Æ enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

Æ minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Notices 82643 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology— 

for example, permitting electronic 

submissions of responses. 

III. Current Actions: At this time, the 

Department of Labor is requesting 

clearance for the grantee survey, partner 

survey, employer survey, and semistructured site visit discussion guides 

for grantee staff, partners, employers, 

and participants. 

Type of Review: New information 

collection request. 

OMB Control Number: 1290–0NEW. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

households. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this request will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for Office of 

Management and Budget approval of the 

information collection request; they will 

also become a matter of public record. 

ESTIMATED ANNUAL BURDEN HOURS

Type of instrument 

(form/activity) 

Number of 

respondents 

Number of 

responses per 

respondent 

Total 

number of 

responses 

Average 

burden time 

per 

response 

(hours) 

Estimated 

burden 

hours 

Grantee survey for BP and NEG ......................................... 1 20 1 20 1.5 30 

Grantee survey for CS ......................................................... 2 2 1 2 1.5 3 

Partner survey ...................................................................... 3 98 1 98 .5 49 

Employer survey .................................................................. 4 98 1 98 .5 49 

Semi-structured site visit discussion guide: grantee staff ... 5 34 1 34 1.5 51 

Semi-structured site visit discussion guide: partners .......... 6 17 1 17 1 17 

Semi-structured site visit discussion guide: employers ....... 7 11 1 11 1 11 

Semi-structured site visit discussion guide: participants ..... 8 23 1 23 1 23 

Semi-structured follow-up phone interview guide ................ 9 8 1 8 1.5 12 

Total .............................................................................. 311 ........................ 311 ........................ 244 

1Assumes 100% response rate from 59 grantees involved in the BP and NEG implementation study over the three-year clearance period. This 

number is rounded up from 19.67. 2Assumes 100% response rate from 5 grantees involved in the CS implementation study over the three-year clearance period. This number is 

rounded up from 1.67. 3Assumes approximately 5 partners per 59 grantees over the three-year clearance period. This number has been rounded down from 98.33. 4Assumes approximately 5 employers per 59 grantees over the three-year clearance period. This number has been rounded up from 98.33. 5Assumes approximately 6 staff per site visit grantee for approximately 17 site visits over the three-year clearance period. 

6Assumes approximately 3 partners per site visit grantee for approximately 17 site visits over the three-year clearance period. 

7Assumes approximately 2 employers per site visit grantee for approximately 17 site visits over the three-year clearance period. This number 

has been rounded down from 11.33. 8Assumes approximately 4 worker-participants per site visit grantee for approximately 17 site visits over the three-year clearance period. This 

number has been rounded up from 22.67. 9Assumes 2 staff members per 12 grantees (six each from BP & NEG) over the three-year clearance period. 

Alix Gould-Werth, 

Chief Evaluation Officer, U.S. Department of 

Labor. 

[FR Doc. 2024–23527 Filed 10–10–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–HX–P 

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE 

ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES 

Federal Council on the Arts and the 

Humanities 

Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Panel 

Advisory Committee 

AGENCY: Federal Council on the Arts 

and the Humanities; National 

Foundation on the Arts and the 

Humanities. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act, notice is 

hereby given that the Federal Council 

on the Arts and the Humanities will 

hold a meeting of the Arts and Artifacts 

International Indemnity Panel. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

Thursday, November 14, 2024, from 

12:00 p.m. until adjourned. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held by 

videoconference originating at the 

National Endowment for the Arts, 

Washington, DC 20506. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Voyatzis, Committee 

Management Officer, 400 7th Street SW, 

Room 4060, Washington, DC 20506, 

(202) 606–8322; evoyatzis@neh.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

purpose of the meeting is for panel 

review, discussion, evaluation, and 

recommendation on applications for 

Certificates of Indemnity submitted to 

the Federal Council on the Arts and the 

Humanities, for exhibitions beginning 

on or after January 1, 2025. Because the 

meeting will consider proprietary 

financial and commercial data provided 

in confidence by indemnity applicants, 

and material that is likely to disclose 

trade secrets or other privileged or 

confidential information, and because it 

is important to keep the values of 

objects to be indemnified and the 

methods of transportation and security 

measures confidential, I have 

determined that that the meeting will be 

closed to the public pursuant to 

subsection (c)(4) of section 552b of title 

5, United States Code. I have made this 

determination under the authority 

granted me by the Chairman’s 

Delegation of Authority to Close 

Advisory Committee Meetings, dated 

April 15, 2016. 

Dated: October 7, 2024. 

Jessica Graves, 

Paralegal Specialist, National Endowment for 

the Humanities. 

[FR Doc. 2024–23522 Filed 10–10–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7536–01–P 

NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT 

CORPORATION 

Sunshine Act Meetings 

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Thursday, 

October 17, 2024. 

PLACE: via ZOOM. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1