Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2010 / Notices 66137 

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: 

Reinstatement, with change, of a 

previously approved collection for 

which approval has expired. 

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: 

Firearms Inquiry Statistics (FIST) 

Program. 

(3) Agency form number, if any, and 

the applicable component of the 

Department of Justice sponsoring the 

collection: Not applicable. As 

applicable, tally sheets and an Excel 

spreadsheet are sent to relevant State 

and local agencies for reporting 

purposes. These data collection forms 

have not been assigned an agency form 

number but will be labeled with the 

appropriate OMB number as required. 

(4) Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: Primary: State and Local 

Governments. This information 

collection is a survey of State and local 

agencies that conduct background 

checks on individuals applying to 

purchase firearms from federally 

licensed firearm dealers. The 

information will provide national 

statistics on the total number of 

applications and rejections annually, 

reasons for rejection, and arrest and 

appeal information. 

(5) An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 

estimated for an average respondent to 

respond: The survey will be sent to an 

estimated 816 state and local agencies. 

It is estimated that 653 respondents (80 

percent of the sample) will spend a 

cumulative total of 15 minutes annually 

responding to the survey and/or 

verifying information. 

(6) An estimate of the total public 

burden (in hours) associated with the 

collection: 

There are an estimated 163.25 total 

annual burden hours associated with 

this collection. This estimate is higher 

than the figure reported on the 60 day 

notice (139.75 hours). The figure listed 

in the 60 day notice assumed a response 

rate of 70 percent. However, BJS and the 

data collection agent will continue to 

identify ways to encourage a higher 

response rate in future data collections 

and, as will be set forth in the FY2011 

funding announcement for the FIST 

program, BJS has established as a 

performance measure a goal of 

achieving an overall response rate of 80 

percent. To calculate the current 

estimated public reporting burden for 

this information collection, the 

estimated response rate submitted 

previously was reassessed and revised 

to reflect the current performance 

measure established for the data 

collection agent. 

This revised estimate remains lower 

than the estimated public burden 

approved in 2007 (341.5 hours). The 

decreased burden is associated with a 

change in data collection schedule from 

twice to once annually. BJS determined 

that the relevant data could be 

effectively obtained by administering 

the survey once a year, and this 

schedule is anticipated to continue in 

subsequent information collections. 

If additional information is required 

contact: Lynn Murray, Department 

Clearance Officer, United States 

Department of Justice, Justice 

Management Division, Policy and 

Planning Staff, Two Constitution 

Square, 145 N Street, NE., Suite 2E–502, 

Washington, DC 20530. 

Dated: October 21, 2010. 

Lynn Murray, 

Department Clearance Officer, PRA, U.S. 

Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27105 Filed 10–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–18–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 

and Explosives 

[OMB Number 1140–0055] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Collection; 

Comments Requested 

ACTION: 60-Day Notice of Information 

Collection Under Review: Identification 

of Explosive Materials. 

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 December 27, 2010. 

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, 

Room 6E405, 99 New York Avenue, NE., 

Washington, DC 20226. 

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. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
66138 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2010 / Notices 

1While I also immediately suspended 

Respondent’s registration based on my conclusion 

that his continued registration during the pendency 

of the proceeding ‘‘would constitute an immediate 

danger to public health and safety,’’ Show Cause 

Order at 7, on October 14, 2005, I subsequently 

stayed the suspension after Respondent maintained 

that he was the victim of identity theft. ALJ Ex. 4. 

Overview of This Information 

Collection 

(1) Type of Information Collection: 

Extension of a currently approved 

collection. 

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: 

Identification 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: None. The regulations of 

27 CFR 55.109 require that 

manufacturers of explosive materials 

place marks of identification on the 

materials manufactured. Marking of 

explosives enables law enforcement 

entities to more effectively trace 

explosives from the manufacturer 

through the distribution chain to the 

end purchaser. This process is used as 

a tool in criminal enforcement activities. 

(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 1,563 

respondents will respond to this 

information collection. Estimated time 

for a respondent to respond is none. 

Because the manufacturers are required 

to place markings on explosives, the 

burden hours are considered usual and 

customary. 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2) states, 

there is no burden when the collection 

of information is usual and customary. 

(6) An estimate of the total public 

burden (in hours) associated with the 

collection: The estimated annual total 

burden hours associated with this 

collection is 1 hour. 

If additional information is required 

contact: Lynn Murray, Department 

Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning 

Staff, Justice Management Division, 

United States Department of Justice, 

Two Constitution Square, Room 2E–502, 

145 N Street NE., Washington, DC 

20530. 

Dated: October 21, 2010. 

Lynn Murray, 

Department Clearance Officer, PRA, U.S. 

Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27115 Filed 10–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–FY–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 06–8] 

George Mathew, M.D.; Denial of 

Application 

On September 19, 2005, I, the Deputy 

Administrator of the Drug Enforcement 

Administration, issued an Order to 

Show Cause and Immediate Suspension 

of Registration to George Mathew, M.D. 

(Respondent), of Seattle, Washington. 

The Order proposed the revocation of 

Respondent’s DEA Certificate of 

Registration, BM5009065, which 

authorized him to dispense controlled 

substances in schedules II through V as 

a practitioner, 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, as 

that term is used in 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 

824(a)(4).’’ Show Cause Order at 1. 

The Show Cause Order alleged that 

Respondent had participated in a 

criminal scheme run by Johar Saran, the 

owner of Carrington Healthcare 

Systems/Infiniti Services Group (CHS/ 

ISG) of Arlington, Texas, which used 

numerous pharmacies owned by ‘‘sham 

corporations’’ to obtain the DEA 

registrations necessary to ‘‘purchase and 

dispense large quantities of controlled 

substances via the Internet.’’ Id. at 5. As 

for Respondent’s involvement, the 

Order alleged that between May 1, 2005 

and June 17, 2005, Respondent, who 

was licensed in the State of Washington, 

had authorized 136 prescriptions for 

residents of ‘‘at least 27 different states’’ 

and that ‘‘[n]inety-three percent of the 

[prescriptions] were for hydrocodone,’’ a 

schedule III controlled substance. Id. at 

6. The Order further alleged that 

Respondent ‘‘did not see [the] 

customers, had no prior doctor-patient 

relationships with the Internet 

customers, did not conduct physical 

exams, * * * did [not] create or 

maintain patient records,’’ and that 

‘‘[t]he only information usually 

reviewed prior to issuing [the] drug 

orders was the customer’s online 

questionnaire.’’ Id. The Order thus 

alleged that Respondent ‘‘participated’’ 

in a scheme to ‘‘facilitate [the] 

circumvention of legitimate medical 

practice’’ by ‘‘prescribing controlled 

substances to Internet customers despite 

never establishing a genuine doctorpatient relationship with the Internet 

customer.’’ Id. at 5. 

Next, the Show Cause Order alleged 

that a DEA Diversion Investigator (DI) 

had accessed a Web site, http:// 

www.heynowmeds.com, and, after 

providing his name, address, phone 

number, date of birth, gender, and 

filling out a brief medical questionnaire, 

purchased hydrocodone. Id. at 6. The 

Order further alleged that the DI 

received the drug three days later, that 

he had not been contacted by any one 

affiliated with the Web site, and that the 

bottle’s label listed Respondent as the 

prescriber and Southwest Fusion, an 

entity in Fort Worth, Texas, as the 

dispensing pharmacy. Id. 

The Show Cause Order thus alleged 

that Respondent ‘‘did not establish 

legitimate physician-patient 

relationships with the Internet 

customers to whom [he] prescribed 

controlled substances’’ and that ‘‘such 

prescriptions [were] not [issued] for a 

legitimate medical purpose in the usual 

course of professional practice.’’ Id. at 7. 

The Order thus alleged that the 

prescriptions violated 21 CFR 

1306.04(a).1

On September 22, 2005, Respondent 

requested a hearing on the allegations, 

which he denied, maintaining that he 

had been the victim of identity theft, 

ALJ Ex. 2; the matter was then placed 

on the docket of the Agency’s 

Administrative Law Judges (ALJ). 

Moreover, on October 7, 2005, 

Respondent requested a stay of the 

immediate suspension based on his 

contention of identity theft. See ALJ Ex. 

4. On October 14, 2005, I stayed the 

suspension pending resolution of his 

claim. Id. 

Thereafter, on October 19, 2005, the 

parties filed a Joint Motion to Stay the 

Proceedings, ALJ Ex. 3, and on October 

26, 2005, the ALJ granted a stay. ALJ Ex. 

5. On December 4, 2006, the parties 

filed a joint status report. ALJ Ex. 6. 

Therein, the parties notified the ALJ of 

their inability to reach a resolution of 

the matter and requested that the stay of 

the proceedings be lifted and that the 

hearing be held as soon as possible. Id. 

In its prehearing statement of January 

5, 2007, the Government notified 

Respondent that it also intended to 

present evidence regarding statements 

he made during an interview with DEA 

Investigators on September 22, 2005. 

Gov. Prehearing Statement at 7. More 

specifically, the Government alleged 

that Respondent had contracted with 

EDrugs, an entity which operated a Web 

site (http://www.eDrugstore.com), and 

that ‘‘on a daily basis’’ ‘‘for about 6 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES