59960 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2004 / Notices 

2While the Deputy Administrator in RX Returns

found revocation appropriate, the revocation was 

stayed and a one year period of probation was 

imposed. [Id. at 37,090]

registration in situations involving poor 

record keeping practices, even where no 

personal use or criminal convictions 

involving controlled substances were 

determined. RX Returns, Inc., 61 FR 

37081 (1996).2

2. Factor Five—Conduct Which May 

Threaten the Public Health and Safety 

The Respondent testified at the 

hearing concerning the reasons for her 

very poor record-keeping. She had no 

assistance to help with record-keeping 

and during the period at issue, she was 

going through extremely stressful 

circumstances. She developed a 

condition involving her pituitary gland 

that lowered her voice, caused her to 

grow a beard and lose hair. She thought 

that she might have to have brain 

surgery. At the same time, her son had 

a seizure and was diagnosed with a 

disease related to sickle cell anemia. 

Several friends died, included one 

suicide. She was very depressed during 

this period, and as a result, her 

recordkeeping suffered.

These circumstances may very well 

partly excuse some of the Respondent’s 

record-keeping failures. The Deputy 

Administrator is particularly disturbed, 

however, by the numerous occasions 

that the Respondent provided false 

information to DEA investigators and 

repeatedly frustrated their attempts to 

conduct their investigation. At the 

hearing, the Respondent claimed that 

she had never meant to mislead the 

investigators and denied making false 

statements. The Deputy Administrator 

finds, however, that the Respondent has 

no credibility, because it is absolutely 

clear that she lied to the investigators on 

numerous occasions. 

The Respondent lied about possessing 

controlled substances at her house. She 

lied about having a safe in her house in 

which to store controlled substances. 

She lied about treating patients from her 

home. She lied about the true identity 

of a friend for whom she had written 

prescriptions for controlled substances. 

She misled the investigators about the 

existence of patient records. She 

continually maintained that she had 

controlled substance records at her 

office, when in truth she did not. She 

later admitted that she had tried to 

create the records from memory. The 

Respondent’s refusal to cooperate with 

DEA investigators led DEA to request 

the issuance of an administrative 

inspection warrant of her South Marion 

Way location and subsequently, the 

Steele Street location. 

Moreover, the Respondent agreed to 

assist DEA investigators in their 

inspection of the Steele Street location, 

without telling them that she had been 

evicted from that location. The 

Respondent’s failure to cooperate with 

the investigators in their efforts to 

inspect the former registered location 

necessitated the execution of a search 

warrant. The Respondent also made 

false statements regarding the transfer of 

drugs. Despite her denials the 

investigators discovered that the 

Respondent had transferred Schedule IV 

controlled substances to Quality Care 

Pharmaceuticals. 

The circumstances surrounding the 

Respondent’s treatment of patients from 

her home is also troubling. As noted 

above, the Respondent was unable to 

account for between 7,000 and 11,000 

dosage units of controlled substances. 

While the Respondent asserted that the 

controlled substances were legitimately 

dispensed to patients, she had no 

records to support her assertion. The 

Respondent’s attempts at creating 

controlled substance records could not 

reconcile the shortages. Even the 

Respondent’s own patient records did 

not bear out her assertions that she 

continued to dispense drugs to patients 

throughout 1998, as many of the records 

showed entries which ended in 1997 

and early 1998. 

The Deputy Administrator does not 

necessarily find that these controlled 

substances were diverted. Nevertheless, 

the lack of proper documentation to 

account for the shortage of large 

quantities of drugs; the Respondent’s 

admission to the use of phentermine; 

her demonstrated lack of candor; empty 

drug vials around her home of which 

she was unable to account for their 

origins or disposition, all suggest 

possible drug use on the Respondent’s 

part, or by someone close to her. 

III. Conclusion 

The preponderance of evidence 

demonstrates that the Respondent’s 

continued registration would be 

contrary to the public interest. If the 

Respondent’s only failures involved 

record-keeping, the Deputy 

Administrator might find it appropriate 

to impose a lesser sanction than 

revocation of the Respondent’s DEA 

registration. The Respondent’s false and 

misleading statements, however, cannot 

be excused. DEA cannot maintain the 

integrity of its regulatory system if its 

registrants, when asked to provide 

information required by law, provide 

false information. Accordingly, the 

Deputy Administrator, pursuant to the 

authority vested in her by 21 U.S.C. 823 

and 824 and 28 CFR 0.100 and 0.104, 

hereby orders that the Respondent’s 

DEA Registration be, and it hereby is, 

revoked, and that any requests for 

renewal or modification be, and hereby 

are, denied. This order is effective 

November 5, 2004.

Dated: September 28, 2004. 

Michele M. Leonhart, 

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 04–22422 Filed 10–5–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Michael J. Schwartz, MD.; Revocation 

of Registration 

On January 5, 2004, the Deputy 

Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA), issued an Order 

to Show Cause to Michael J. Schwartz, 

M.D. (Dr. Schwartz) who was notified of 

an opportunity to show cause as to why 

DEA should not revoke his DEA 

Certificate of Registration, BS5860590, 

pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3). 

Specifically, the Order to Show Cause 

alleged that Dr. Schwartz was without 

State license to handle controlled 

substances in the State of Louisiana. 

The Order to Show Cause also notified 

Dr. Schwartz that should no request for 

a hearing be filed within 30 days, his 

hearing right would be deemed waived. 

The Order to Show Cause was sent by 

certified mail to Dr. Schwartz at his 

registered location in Kenner, Louisiana, 

with a second copy sent to Dr. 

Schwartz’ legal counsel in New Orleans. 

The order sent to Dr. Schwartz’ address 

of record was subsequently returned to 

DEA by the United States Postal Service 

with a stamped notation: ‘‘attempted, 

not known.’’ According to the return 

receipt of the second order sent to the 

registrant’s attorney, it was accepted on 

Dr. Schwartz’ behalf on or around 

January 15, 2004. DEA has not received 

a request for hearing or any other reply 

from Dr. Schwartz or anyone purporting 

to represent him in this matter. 

Therefore, the Deputy Administrator 

of DEA, finding that (1) thirty days 

having passed since the attempted 

delivery of the Order to Show Cause to 

the registrant’s address of record, as 

well as to a second address, and (2) no 

request for hearing having been 

received, concludes that Dr. Schwartz is 

deemed to have waived his hearing 

right. See David W. Linder, 67 FR 12579 

(2002). After considering material from 

the investigative file in this matter, the

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2004 / Notices 59961

Deputy Administrator now enters her 

final order without a hearing pursuant 

to 21 CFR 1301.43(d) and (3) and 

1301.46. 

The Deputy Administrator finds that 

Dr. Schwartz is currently registered with 

DEA as a practitioner authorized to 

handle controlled substances in 

Schedules II through V. According to 

information in the investigative file, on 

August 4, 2003, DEA received 

information from the Louisiana State 

Board of Medical Licensure (Board) that 

effective July 30, 2003, Dr. Schwartz 

was ‘‘no longer authorized to engage in 

the practice of medicine in any form in 

the State of Louisiana.’’ An 

accompanying document in the file 

reveals that the Board summarily 

suspended Dr. Schwartz’ State Medical 

license. The underlying basis for the 

board’s suspension order was not 

specified. 

Also on August 4, 2003, DEA received 

information that in response to the 

aforementioned suspension order of the 

Board, the Louisiana State Department 

of Health and Hospitals (LSDHH) 

summarily suspended Dr. Schwartz’

State Controlled Dangerous Substance 

License. According to a copy of a letter 

dated August 6, 2003 from LSDHH to 

Dr. Schwartz (obtained by a DEA 

investigator), Dr. Schwartz was 

prohibited from reapplying for 

reinstatement of his stated controlled 

substance registration ‘‘* * * until the 

[Board] notifies [LSDHH] in writing that 

[Dr. Schwartz’] controlled substance 

privileges have been reinstated.’’

There is no evidence before the 

Deputy Administrator to rebut findings 

that Dr. Schwartz’ Louisiana medical 

license, as well as his State controlled 

substance license, have been suspended, 

or that the suspensions have been lifted. 

Therefore, the Deputy Administrator 

finds that Dr. Schwartz is currently not 

authorized to handle controlled 

substances in Louisiana. 

DEA does not have statutory authority 

under the Controlled Substances Act to 

issue or maintain a registration if the 

applicant or registrant is without State 

authority to handle controlled 

substances in the State in which he 

conducts business. See 21 U.S.C. 

802(21), 823(f) and 824(a)(3). This 

prerequisite has been consistently 

upheld. See Richard J. Clement, M.D., 

68 FR 12103 (2003); Dominick A. Ricci, 

M.D., 58 FR 51104 (1993); Bobby Watts, 

M.D., 53 FR 11919 (1988). 

Here, it is clear that Dr. Schwartz’

State controlled substance license has 

been suspended and there is no 

information before the Deputy 

Administrator which points to the 

suspension having been lifted. As a 

result, Dr. Schwartz is not licensed to 

handle controlled substances in 

Louisiana, where he is registered with 

DEA. Therefore, he is not entitled to 

maintain that registration. 

Accordingly, the Deputy 

Administrator of the Drug Enforcement 

Administration, pursuant to the 

authority vested in her by 21 U.S.C. 823 

and 824 and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, 

hereby orders that DEA Certificate of 

Registration, BS5860590, issued to 

Michael J. Schwartz, MD., be, and it 

hereby is, revoked. The Deputy 

Administrator further orders that any 

pending applications for renewal or 

modification of the aforementioned 

registration be, and it hereby is, denied. 

This order is effective November 5, 

2004.

Dated: September 8, 2004. 

Michele M. Leonhart, 

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 04–22421 Filed 10–5–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Federal Bureau of Investigation 

Meeting of the Compact Council for the 

National Crime Prevention and Privacy 

Compact

AGENCY: Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, DOJ.

ACTION: Meeting notice.

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is 

to announce a meeting of the National 

Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact 

Council (Compact Council) created by 

the National Crime Prevention and 

Privacy Compact Act of 1998 (Compact). 

Thus far, the Federal Government and 

21 States are parties to the Compact 

which governs the exchange of criminal 

history records for licensing, 

employment, and similar purposes. The 

Compact also provides a legal 

framework for the establishment of a 

cooperative Federal-State system to 

exchange such records. 

The United States Attorney General 

appointed 15 persons from Federal and 

State agencies to serve on the Compact 

Council. The Compact Council will 

prescribe system rules and procedures 

for the effective and proper operation of 

the Interstate Identification Index 

system. 

Matters for discussion are expected to 

include: 

(1) Noncriminal Justice Outsourcing 

Rule; 

(2) Establishing minimum standards 

for identification verification of 

applicants when being fingerprinted; 

and 

(3) Discussion of the notice advising 

of the approved methods for positive 

identification. 

The meeting will be open to the 

public on a first-come, first-seated basis. 

Any member of the public wishing to 

file a written statement with the 

Compact Council or wishing to address 

this session of the Compact Council 

should notify Mr. Todd C. Commodore 

at (304) 625–2803, at least 24 hours 

prior to the start of the session. The 

notification should contain the 

requestor’s name and corporate 

designation, consumer affiliation, or 

government designation, along with a 

short statement describing the topic to 

be addressed, and the time needed for 

the presentation. Requestors will 

ordinarily be allowed up to 15 minutes 

to present a topic.

DATES AND TIMES: The Compact Council 

will meet in open session from 9 a.m. 

until 5 p.m., on November 3–4, 2004.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place 

at the Hyatt Regency Denver, 1750 

Welton Street, Denver, Colorado, 

telephone (303) 295–1234.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Inquiries may be addressed to Mr. Todd 

C. Commodore, FBI Compact Officer, 

Compact Council Office, Module C3, 

1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, 

West Virginia 26306–0148, telephone 

(304) 625–2803, fascimile (304) 625–

5388.

Dated: September 23, 2004. 

Monte C. Strait, 

Section Chief, Programs Development 

Section, Criminal Justice Information Services 

Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation.

[FR Doc. 04–22450 Filed 10–5–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–02–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employee Benefits Security 

Administration 

Proposed Extension of Information 

Collection Request Submitted for 

Public Comment and 

Recommendations: Prohibited 

Transaction Class Exemption T88–1

AGENCY: Employee Benefits Security 

Administration, Department of Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, 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