Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 23 / Thursday, February 4, 2016 / Notices 6049 

6While Respondent also asked that I delay the 

resolution of this matter, ‘‘in circumstances similar 

to those raised by Respondent, DEA has repeatedly 

denied requests to stay the issuance of a final order 

of revocation, noting that [u]nder the Controlled 

Substances Act, a practitioner must be currently 

authorized to handle controlled substances in the 

jurisdiction in which [he] practices in order to 

maintain [his] DEA registration.’’ Gregory F. Saric, 

76 FR 16821, 16822 (2011) (internal quotations and 

citations omitted). Of further note, Respondent’s 

state medical license was suspended more than 18 

months ago, and yet his license still remains 

suspended. 

Finally, while Respondent asserts that New 

Mexico is a medically underserved area, in the case 

of individual practitioners, DEA has held that 

community impact evidence is irrelevant in the 

public interest determination as it is in a 

proceeding based on a loss of state authority. See 

Linda Sue Cheek, 76 FR 66972, 66972 (2011); 

Gregory Owens, 74 FR 36751, 36757 (2009). So too, 

Respondent’s statement regarding his acceptance of 

responsibility is not a defense to a revocation based 

on the loss of state authority, because the CSA 

mandate that a practitioner possess such authority 

to obtain and maintain a DEA registration. 

7Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of 

law which led the NMMB to immediately suspend 

Registrant’s license until he successfully completes 

Board approved re-training,’’ GX 4, at 1; I conclude 

that the public interest requires that this Order be 

effective immediately. See 21 CFR 1316.67. 

This rule derives from the text of two 

provisions of the CSA. First, Congress 

defined ‘‘the term ‘practitioner’ [to] 

mean[ ] a . . . physician . . . or other 

person 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.’’ 21 U.S.C. 

802(21). Second, in setting the 

requirements for obtaining a 

practitioner’s registration, Congress 

directed that ‘‘[t]he Attorney General 

shall register practitioners . . . if the 

applicant is authorized to dispense . . . 

controlled substances under the laws of 

the State in which he practices.’’ 21 

U.S.C. 823(f). Because Congress has 

clearly mandated that a practitioner 

possess state authority in order to be 

deemed a practitioner under the Act, 

DEA has held repeatedly that revocation 

of a practitioner’s registration is the 

appropriate sanction whenever he is no 

longer authorized to dispense controlled 

substances under the laws of the State 

in which he practices medicine. See, 

e.g., Calvin Ramsey, 76 FR 20034, 20036 

(2011); Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 

FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A. 

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

Watts, 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988). 

Thus, the Agency has held that 

revocation is warranted even where, as 

here, the state board has suspended (as 

opposed to revoked) a practitioner’s 

dispensing authority and that authority 

may be restored at some point in the 

future through further proceedings. See 

Ramsey 76 FR at 20036 (citations 

omitted). As the Agency has held, the 

controlling question is not whether a 

practitioner’s license to practice 

medicine in the state is suspended or 

revoked; rather, it is whether the 

Respondent is currently authorized to 

handle controlled substances in the 

state. James L. Hooper, 76 FR 71371 

(2011) (collecting cases), pet. for rev. 

denied, Hooper v. Holder, 481 Fed. 

Appx. 826 (4th Cir. 2012). 

Respondent further argues that I 

should consider that the Medical 

Board’s case ‘‘rested entirely on 

unsworn hearsay evidence in the form 

of’’ the CPEP Report and that his expert 

witness ‘‘disagreed with’’ the Board’s 

conclusion that he should undergo a 

‘‘residency-type program to continue 

practicing. GX 8, at 2. This argument is 

simply a collateral attack on the State 

Board proceeding. The Agency has held, 

however, ‘‘that a registrant cannot 

collaterally attack the result of a state 

criminal or administrative proceeding in 

a proceeding under section 304, 21 

U.S.C. 824, of the CSA.’’ Muzaffer 

Aslan, 77 FR 37068, 37069 (2012) (other 

citations omitted). ‘‘Rather, 

Respondent’s challenge to the validity 

of the [New Mexico Board’s] Order must 

be litigated in the forums provided by 

the State of [New Mexico], and his 

contentions regarding the validity of the 

[Board’s] order are not material to this 

Agency’s resolution of whether he is 

entitled to maintain his DEA registration 

in’’ New Mexico. Id. 

Because it is undisputed that 

Respondent’s New Mexico medical 

license remains suspended, I find that 

he no longer has authority under the 

laws of New Mexico, the State in which 

he is registered, to dispense controlled 

substances. Therefore, he is not entitled 

to maintain his DEA registration. See 21 

U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f), 824(a)(3). 

Accordingly, I will order that his 

registration be revoked and that any 

pending application to renew or modify 

his registration be denied.6

Order 

Pursuant to the authority vested in me 

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

as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA 

Certificate of Registration AB5662552, 

issued to Kenneth Harold Bull, M.D., be, 

and it hereby is, revoked. I further order 

that any application of Kenneth Harold 

Bull, M.D., to renew or modify his 

registration, be, and it hereby is, denied. 

This Order is effective immediately.7

Dated: January 18, 2016. 

Chuck Rosenberg, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02129 Filed 2–3–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Proposed Partial 

Consent Decree Under the Clean Water 

Act 

On January 28, 2016, the Department 

of Justice lodged a proposed Partial 

Consent Decree with the United States 

District Court for the Northern District 

of Mississippi in the lawsuit entitled 

United States and the State of 

Mississippi v. City of Greenville, 

Mississippi, Civil Action No. 4:16–cv– 

00018–DMB–JMV. 

The United States and the State of 

Mississippi filed this lawsuit under the 

Clean Water Act and the Mississippi Air 

and Water Pollution Control Law. The 

complaint seeks injunctive relief and 

civil penalties for violations in 

connection with the City’s sanitary 

sewer system. The City has grouped 

mini-systems within the sewer system 

into three different groups and 

prioritized Sewer Group 1 and Sewer 

Group 2 for sewer assessment and 

rehabilitation work. The Partial Consent 

Decree provides for the City to conduct 

early action projects; capacity, 

management, operations, and 

maintenance program; and assessment 

and rehabilitation of Sewer Groups 1 

and 2. The partial settlement will not 

resolve the claims for civil penalties or 

for injunctive relief related to Sewer 

Group 3, as those will be the topics of 

future negotiation among the parties. 

The publication of this notice opens 

a period for public comment on the 

Partial Consent Decree. Comments 

should be addressed to the Assistant 

Attorney General, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division, and should 

refer to United States and the State of 

Mississippi v. City of Greenville, 

Mississippi, D.J. Ref. No. 90–5–1–1– 

10932. All comments must be submitted 

no later than thirty (30) days after the 

publication date of this notice. 

Comments may be submitted either by 

email or by mail: 

To submit 

comments: Send them to: 

By email ....... pubcomment-ees.enrd@

usdoj.gov. 

By mail ......... Assistant Attorney General, 

U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. 

Box 7611, Washington, DC 

20044–7611. 

During the public comment period, 

the Partial Consent Decree may be 

examined and downloaded at this 

Justice Department Web site: http://

www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees. 

We will provide a paper copy of the 

Partial Consent Decree upon written 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
6050 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 23 / Thursday, February 4, 2016 / Notices 

request and payment of reproduction 

costs. Please mail your request and 

payment to: Consent Decree Library, 

U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, 

Washington, DC 20044–7611. 

Please enclose a check or money order 

for $60.50 (25 cents per page 

reproduction cost) payable to the United 

States Treasury. For a paper copy 

without the appendices, the cost is $14. 

Henry S. Friedman, 

Assistant Section Chief, Environmental 

Enforcement Section, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02068 Filed 2–3–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

[OMB Number 1121–0302] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Proposed eCollection 

eComments Requested; 

Reinstatement, With Change, of a 

Previously Approved Collection for 

Which Approval has Expired: 2016 

Supplemental Victimization Survey 

(SVS) 

AGENCY: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 

Department of Justice. 

ACTION: 60-day notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice 

(DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, 

Bureau of Justice Statistics, 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. 

DATES: Comments are encouraged and 

will be accepted for 60 days until April 

4, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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 

Jennifer Truman or Rachel Morgan, 

Statisticians, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 

810 Seventh Street NW., Washington, 

DC 20531 (email: Jennifer.Truman@

usdoj.gov; telephone: 202–514–5083; 

email: Rachel.Morgan@usdoj.gov; 

telephone: 202–616–1707). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 Bureau of Justice 

Statistics, 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; 

—Evalute whether and if so how the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected can be 

enchanced; 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: 

Reinstatement of the Supplemental 

Victimization Survey (SVS), with 

change, to a previously approved 

collection for which approval has 

expired. 

(2) The Title of the Form/Collection: 

2016 Supplemental Victimization 

Survey (SVS) 

(3) The agency form number, if any, 

and the applicable component of the 

Department sponsoring the collection: 

The form number for the questionnaire 

is SVS–1. The applicable component 

within the Department of Justice is the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics, in the Office 

of Justice Programs. 

(4) Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: Respondents will be persons 

16 years or older living in households 

located throughout the United States 

sampled for the National Crime 

Victimization Survey (NCVS). The SVS 

will be conducted as a supplement to 

the NCVS in all sample households for 

a six (6) month period. The SVS is 

primarily an effort to measure the 

prevalence of stalking victimization 

among persons, the types of stalking 

victimization experienced, the 

characteristics of stalking victims, the 

nature and consequences of stalking 

victimization, and patterns of reporting 

to the police. BJS plans to publish this 

information in reports and reference it 

when responding to queries from the 

U.S. Congress, Executive Office of the 

President, the U.S. Supreme Court, state 

officials, international organizations, 

researchers, students, the media, and 

others interested in criminal justices 

statistics. 

(5) An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 

estimated for an average respondent to 

respond: An estimate of the total 

number of respondents is 111,960. 

About 98.5% (110,280) will have no 

stalking victimization and will complete 

the short interview with an average 

burden of four (4) minutes. Among the 

1.5% of respondents (1,679) who 

experience stalking victimization, the 

time to ask the detailed questions 

regarding the aspects of their stalking 

victimization is estimated to take an 

average of 8.25 minutes. Respondents 

will be asked to respond to this survey 

only once during the six month period. 

The burden estimates are based on data 

from the prior administration of the 

SVS. 

(6) An estimate of the total public 

burden (in hours) associated with the 

collection: There are an estimated 7,583 

total burden hours associated with this 

collection. 

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., 3E.405B, 

Washington, DC 20530. 

Dated: February 1, 2016. 

Jerri Murray, 

Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. 

Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02125 Filed 2–3–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–18–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

[Docket No. OSHA–2016–0002] 

Federal Advisory Council on 

Occupational Safety and Health 

(FACOSH) 

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), Labor. 

ACTION: Announcement of FACOSH 

meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Advisory Council 

on Occupational Safety and Health 

(FACOSH) will meet Thursday, 

February 18, 2016, in Washington, DC. 

DATES: FACOSH meeting: FACOSH will 

meet from 1 to 4:30 p.m., Thursday, 

February 18, 2016. 

Submission of comments, requests to 

speak, speaker presentations, and 

requests for special accommodations: 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES