Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2010 / Notices 66165 

54Respondent also elicited the testimony of Mr. 

Aalyson, a lawyer who practiced workers 

compensation law in Portsmouth and who knew 

most of the local doctors, that Mr. Fletcher had 

called and asked him if knew whether Dr. Volkman 

was a legitimate doctor. Tr. 1159. Mr. Aalyson 

testified that the phone call occurred in October 

2006, more than a year after Mr. Fletcher started 

filling Volkman’s prescriptions and eight months 

after DEA suspended Volkman’s registration and 

thus could no longer prescribe. 

To the extent this testimony was offered to 

support the contention that Mr. Fletcher tried to do 

due diligence, it provides no comfort to him as the 

conversation occurred more than a year after he 

started filling Volkman’s prescriptions. Moreover, 

even if the conversation had occurred shortly after 

Mr. Fletcher started filling Volkman’s prescriptions 

(the apparent point of Respondent’s repeated 

questioning of Mr. Aalyson regarding when the 

conversation occurred), his testimony that Mr. 

Fletcher stated that he was ‘‘getting a lot of people 

coming in, and I’m beginning to wonder if the guy 

is legitimate,’’ Tr. 1159, would actually support the 

Government’s case that Mr. Fletcher knew 

Volkman’s prescriptions were not legitimate. 

depression. Accordingly, even if 

Volkman told Mr. Fletcher that he did 

blood tests and MRIs, this would not 

make the prescriptions any more 

legitimate.54

This alone supports the conclusion 

that Mr. Fletcher violated Federal law in 

dispensing the Volkman prescriptions. 

21 CFR 1306.04(a). The other 

evidence—such as that related to the 

quantities of the various drugs being 

prescribed, the dosing, and lack of 

individualization of therapy; the 

distances the patients were travelling 

and the typical method of payment; the 

fact that Mr. Fletcher knew that other 

pharmacists had refused to fill 

Volkman’s prescriptions; the percentage 

and number of Volkman’s prescriptions 

that were for controlled substances—is 

simply icing on the cake. 

Moreover, even after a DEA 

Investigator had interviewed Mr. 

Fletcher and asked him if he found it 

suspicious that Volkman’s patients were 

travelling long distances to fill their 

prescriptions, Mr. Fletcher proceeded to 

fill numerous oxycodone and 

alprazolam prescriptions for residents of 

Kentucky who had travelled to South 

Florida to obtain the prescriptions. 

Indeed, even one of Respondent’s 

employees was ‘‘skeptical’’ as to whether 

these were legitimate prescriptions. 

While Respondent contends that Mr. 

Fletcher stopped filling prescriptions 

issued by Florida pain-clinic physicians 

after he received the Ohio Board of 

Pharmacy’s Notice, Mr. Fletcher did not 

testify in this proceeding and so has 

failed to offer any explanation as to why 

he filled the prescriptions in the first 

place. Furthermore, a responsible DEA 

registrant should be able to make these 

determinations without the authorities 

having to provide the information to 

him on a silver platter. 

Nor was this the end of Respondent’s 

abysmal experience in dispensing 

controlled substances. On November 4, 

2009, Respondent dispensed to B.A., a 

recovering drug addict who lived in 

Morehead, Kentucky, four controlledsubstance prescriptions issued by a 

Portsmouth physician, including two for 

Roxicodone 30 mg. (totaling 240 

tablets), one for 120 oxycodone 15 mg., 

and one for 30 alprazolam; B.A. had 

been directed by the doctor’s staff to fill 

his prescriptions at Respondent. Later 

that day, B.A. got high, and the next 

morning, he was found dead; the 

detective who found the prescription 

vials noted that there were only 

nineteen tablets left out of the total of 

240 Roxicodone 30 mg., there were only 

fifty-two tablets left out of the 120 

oxycodone 15 mg., and only eight 

tablets out of the 30 alprazolam. The 

quantity of oxycodone provided by 

these prescriptions totaled 300 mg. per 

day, an amount which was five to ten 

times the normal daily dose of 

oxycodone (5 to 10 mg. every four 

hours) as testified to by the 

Government’s Expert. Moreover, on this 

single day, Respondent dispensed three 

prescriptions for the same schedule II 

narcotic. According to the Government’s 

Expert, both the multiple prescriptions 

which B.A. presented and the large 

quantities prescribed were ‘‘red flags’’ 

which are suggestive of abuse and ‘‘no 

reasonable pharmacist would fill’’ the 

prescriptions. Here again, however, Mr. 

Fletcher failed to testify and thus 

offered no explanation as to why he did 

so. 

DEA Investigators also obtained an 

OARRS report which showed that on 

eighteen different occasions between 

November 6, 2007 and October 30, 2009, 

Respondent had dispensed oxycodone 

to S.P. based on prescriptions she 

obtained from seven different doctors; 

most of the doctors practiced in 

different cities (Waverly, Beavercreek, 

Dayton and Wheelersburg), and while 

three of the doctors practiced in 

Portsmouth, two of them practiced at 

different clinics. Notwithstanding that 

its own dispensing records should have 

shown that S.P. was a doctor shopper 

(indeed, there was no need for Mr. 

Fletcher to check the OARRS to make 

this determination), Respondent 

repeatedly dispensed this highly abused 

schedule II controlled substance to her. 

Here again, Mr. Fletcher did not testify 

and thus has failed to explain why he 

ignored the information in his own 

records. 

Respondent and Mr. Fletcher also 

violated the CSA and DEA regulations 

because during the November 6, 2009 

inspection, it could not produce the 

biennial inventory of controlled 

substances which it is required to 

maintain. See 21 U.S.C. 827(a)(1) (‘‘every 

registrant * * * shall * * * as soon 

* * * as such registrant first engages in 

the * * * dispensing of controlled 

substances, and every second year 

thereafter, make a complete and 

accurate record of all stocks thereof on 

hand’’); see also 21 CFR 1304.11. 

Moreover, Mr. Fletcher was unaware 

that there is such a requirement. Finally, 

as found by the Ohio Board of 

Pharmacy, Mr. Fletcher and Respondent 

violated Ohio law on three occasions 

because Mr. Fletcher, as ‘‘the 

responsible pharmacist[,] failed to 

maintain supervision and control over 

the custody and possession of 

dangerous drugs’’ which had been 

delivered to the pharmacy. 

I therefore conclude that the evidence 

relevant to Respondent’s experience in 

dispensing controlled substances and its 

record of compliance with applicable 

Federal and State laws related to 

controlled substances shows that it has 

committed acts which render its 

continued registration inconsistent with 

the public interest and which justified 

the suspension of its registration. 

Notably, Mr. Fletcher failed to testify in 

this proceeding; Respondent therefore 

has not rebutted the Government’s 

prima facie case. While there is only the 

suspension order to review (because 

Respondent allowed its registration to 

expire), which I affirm, had Respondent 

filed a renewal application, I would 

have denied it. 

Order 

Pursuant to the authority vested in me 

by 21 U.S.C. 824, as well as by 28 CFR 

0.100(b) and 0.104, I hereby affirm my 

order which immediately suspended the 

now-expired DEA Certificate of 

Registration, BE5902615, issued to East 

Main Street Pharmacy. This Order is 

effective immediately. 

Dated: October 15, 2010. 

Michele M. Leonhart, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27096 Filed 10–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET 

Information Collection Activities: 

Proposed Collection; Comment 

Request 

AGENCY: Office of Management and 

Budget, Office of Federal Financial 

Management. 

ACTION: Notice; request for comments. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
66166 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2010 / Notices 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.), the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) invites the general 

public and Federal agencies to comment 

on the renewal of the SF–LLL, 

Disclosure of Lobbying Activities. 

Although OMB proposes no changes to 

the SF–LLL as part of this notice, we are 

seeking public comments on whether 

changes are warranted. We are 

particularly interested in comments on 

whether the information collected in the 

forms could be more consistent with 

other similar governmentwide 

information collections or whether 

additional information should be 

collected to further the aims of 

government transparency. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

November 26, 2010. Due to potential 

delays in OMB’s receipt and processing 

of mail sent through the U.S. Postal 

Service, we encourage respondents to 

submit comments electronically to 

ensure timely receipt. We cannot 

guarantee that comments mailed will be 

received before the comment closing 

date. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent to 

regulations.gov, a Federal E-Government 

Web site that allows the public to find, 

review, and submit comments on 

documents that agencies have published 

in the Federal Register and that are 

open for comment. Simply type ‘‘SF– 

LLL renewal-10’’ (in quotes) in the 

Comment or Submission search box, 

click Go, and follow the instructions for 

submitting comments. Comments 

received by the date specified above 

will be included as part of the official 

record. 

Marguerite Pridgen, Office of Federal 

Financial Management, Office of 

Management and Budget, 725 17th 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503; 

telephone 202–395–7844; fax 202–395– 

3952; e-mail mpridgen@omb.eop.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marguerite Pridgen at the addresses 

noted above. 

OMB Control No.: 0348–0046. 

Title: Disclosure of Lobbying 

Activities. 

Form No.: SF–LLL. 

Type of Review: Extension of a 

currently approved collection. 

Respondents: Contractors, States, 

Local Governments, Universities, NonProfit Organizations, For-Profit 

Organizations, Individuals. 

Number of Responses: 1,000. 

Estimated Time per Response: 10 

minutes. 

Needs and Uses: The SF–LLL is the 

standard disclosure form for lobbying 

paid for with non-Federal funds, as 

required by the Byrd Amendment and 

amended by the Lobbying Disclosure 

Act of 1995. The Federal awarding 

agencies use information reported on 

this form for the award and general 

management of Federal contracts and 

assistance program awards. 

Debra J. Bond, 

Deputy Controller. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Summary of Comments and 

Responses 

On June 22, 2010, OMB published in 

the Federal Register a notice seeking 

comments on the Standard form LLL, 

Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF– 

LLL) in accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act [75 FR 35507]. OMB 

Watch, Project on Government 

Oversight, Sunlight Foundation, and 

Thomas M. Susman submitted their 

combined comments in a single letter 

(‘‘proposal’’) dated August 19, 2010. 

Their comments were the only 

comments received in response to the 

June 22 notice and included 

recommendations for major changes to 

the system of disclosing lobbying 

activities. In summary, the August 19 

proposal recommends expanding the 

information collected by the SF–LLL; 

raising the thresholds for reporting from 

$100,000 and $150,000 to $250,000; 

adding a form and process for 

government employees to report 

contacts with lobbyists; posting SF–LLL 

content from electronic submissions on 

a centralized, public, searchable Web 

site within three days of receiving it; 

and creating a system to ensure 

enforcement of the new reporting 

requirements. 

II. Next Steps 

The August 19 proposal, which can be 

viewed at regulations.gov, includes 

several recommendations that would 

require changes in policy and the 

process of lobbying disclosure that 

cannot be implemented before the SF– 

LLL expires. Therefore, the SF–LLL will 

be renewed without change to prevent 

any disruption in collecting lobbying 

disclosure information by Executive 

Branch agencies. Concurrent with the 

renewal without change, the August 19 

proposal will be carefully reviewed and 

assessed for further action separate from 

this renewal process. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27153 Filed 10–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS 

ADMINISTRATION 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Submission for OMB 

Review; Comment Request 

AGENCY: National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: NARA is giving public notice 

that the agency has submitted to OMB 

for approval the information collection 

described in this notice. The public is 

invited to comment on the proposed 

information collection pursuant to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted to OMB at the address below 

on or before November 26, 2010 to be 

assured of consideration. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Mr. 

Nicholas A. Fraser, Desk Officer for 

NARA, Office of Management and 

Budget, New Executive Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202–395– 

5167; or electronically mailed to 

Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the proposed information 

collection and supporting statement 

should be directed to Tamee Fechhelm 

at telephone number 301–837–1694 or 

fax number 301–713–7409. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–13), NARA invites the 

general public and other Federal 

agencies to comment on proposed 

information collections. NARA 

published a notice of proposed 

collection for this information collection 

on August 4, 2010 (75 FR 47029 and 

47030). No comments were received. 

NARA has submitted the described 

information collection to OMB for 

approval. 

In response to this notice, comments 

and suggestions should address one or 

more of the following points: (a) 

Whether the proposed information 

collection is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of NARA; 

(b) the accuracy of NARA’s estimate of 

the burden of the proposed information 

collection; (c) ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (d) 

ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on 

respondents, including the use of 

information technology; and (e) whether 

small businesses are affected by this 

collection. In this notice, NARA is 

soliciting comments concerning the 

following information collections: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES