5584 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2004 / Notices 

Corporation, 3500 Dekalb Street, St. 

Louis, Missouri 63118, made 

application by renewal to the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA) to 

be registered as an importer of the basic 

classes of controlled substances listed 

below:

Drug Schedule 

Cathinone (1235) .......................... I 

Methcathinone (1237) ................... I 

Aminorex (1585) ........................... I 

Gamma Hydroxybutyric Acid 

(2010) ........................................ I 

Methaqualone (2565) ................... I 

Ibogaine (7260) ............................ I 

Lysergic acid diethylamide (7315) I 

Mescaline (7381) .......................... I 

4-Bromo-2, 5-dimethoxy-amphetamine (7391) ............................. I 

4-Bromo-2, 5-

dimethoxyphenethylamine 

(7392) ........................................ I 

2, 5-Dimethoxyamphetamine 

(7396) ........................................ I 

3, 4-Methylenedioxyamphetamine 

(7400) ........................................ I 

N-Hydroxy-3, 4-

methylenedioxyamphetamine 

(7402) ........................................ I 

3, 4-Methylenedioxy-Nethylamphetamine (7404) ......... I 

3, 4-

Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) (7405) ................... I 

4-Methoxyamphetamine (7411) .... I 

Bufotenine (7433) ......................... I 

Psilocyn (7438) ............................. I 

Benzylpiperazine (BZP) (7493) .... I 

1-[3-(trifluoro-methyl)plenyl] Piperazine (TFMPP) (7494) .............. I 

Heroin (9200) ................................ I 

Normorphine (9313) ..................... I 

Etonitazene (9624) ....................... I 

Amphetamine (1100) .................... II 

Methamphetamine (1105) ............ II 

Methylphenidate (1724) ................ II 

Amobarbital (2125) ....................... II 

Pentobarbital (2270) ..................... II 

Secobarbital (2315) ...................... II 

Glutethimide (2550) ...................... II 

Phencyclidine (7471) .................... II 

Cocaine (9041) ............................. II 

Codeine (9050) ............................. II 

Diprenorphine (9058) .................... II 

Oxycodone (9143) ........................ II 

Hydromorphone (9150) ................ II 

Ecgonine (9180) ........................... II 

Ethylmorphine (9190) ................... II 

Hydrocodone (9193) ..................... II 

Levorphanol (9220) ...................... II 

Meperidine (9230) ........................ II 

Methadone (9250) ........................ II 

Dextropropoxyphene, bulk (nondosage forms) (9273) ............... II 

Morphine (9300) ........................... II 

Thebaine (9333) ........................... II 

Opium powdered (9649) ............... II 

Oxymorphone (9652) .................... II 

Fentanyl (9801) ............................ II 

The firm plans to repackage and offer 

as pure standards controlled substances 

in small quantities for drug testing and 

analysis. 

No comments or objections have been 

received. DEA has considered the 

factors in title 21, United States code, 

section 823(a) and determined that the 

registration of Sigma Aldrich Company 

to import the listed controlled 

substances is consistent with the public 

interest and with United States 

obligations under international treaties, 

conventions, or protocols in effect on 

May 1, 1971, at this time. DEA has 

investigated Sigma Aldrich Company on 

a regular basis to ensure that the 

company’s continued registration is 

consistent with the public interest. This 

investigation included inspection and 

testing of the company’s physical 

security systems, verification of the 

company’s compliance with State and 

local laws, and a review of the 

company’s background and history. 

Therefore, pursuant to section 1008(a) of 

the Controlled Substances Import and 

Export Act and in accordance with title 

21, Code of Federal Regulations, section 

1301.34, the above firm is granted 

registration as an importer of the basic 

classes of controlled substances listed.

Dated: January 12, 2004. 

Laura M. Nagel, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–2344 Filed 2–4–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration 

VI Pharmacy, Rushdi Z. Salem; 

Revocation of Registration 

On June 13, 2003, the Deputy 

Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA), issued an Order 

to Show Cause to VI Pharmacy (VI) and 

Rushdi Z. Salem of St. Thomas, U.S. 

Virgin Islands, notifying VI of an 

opportunity to show cause as to why 

DEA should not revoke VI’s DEA 

Certificate of Registration, BV5900421 

under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(1), (a)(2) and 

(a)(4) and deny any pending 

applications for renewal or modification 

of VI’s retail pharmacy registration. As 

a basis for revocation, the Order to 

Show Cause alleged that VI materially 

falsified an application for registration, 

that Mr. Salem, the owner/operator of VI 

had been convicted of a felony related 

to controlled substances and that VI’s 

continued registration was inconsistent 

with the public interest. The Order to 

Show Cause also notified VI that should 

no request for a hearing be filed within 

30 days, its hearing right would be 

deemed waived. 

The Order to Show Cause was sent by 

certified mail to VI and Mr. Salem, at 

VI’s registered location at 25 Dronings 

Gade Main Street, St. Thomas, U.S. 

Virgin Islands 00801. According to the 

return receipt, the Order to Show Cause 

was received at the registered address 

and receipted for by B. Nelthrop on or 

around June 23, 2003. 

DEA has not received a request for 

hearing or any other reply from VI or 

anyone purporting to represent it in this 

matter. Therefore, the Acting Deputy 

Administrator, finding that (1) 30 days 

have passed since the receipt of the 

Order to Show Cause, and (2) no request 

for a hearing having been received, 

concludes that VI is deemed to have 

waived its hearing right. See Samuel S. 

Jackson, D.D.S., 67 FR 65145 (2002); 

David W. Linder, 67 FR 12579 (2002). 

After considering material from the 

investigative file, the Acting Deputy 

Administrator now enters her final 

order without a hearing pursuant to 21 

CFR 1301.43(d) and (e) and 1301.46. 

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(1), the 

Acting Deputy Administrator may 

revoke a DEA Certificate of Registration 

and deny any pending applications for 

such a certificate upon a finding that the 

registrant has materially falsified any 

DEA application for registration. 

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(2), the 

Deputy Administrator may revoke a 

DEA Certificate of Registration and deny 

any pending applications for such a 

certificate upon a finding that the 

registrant has been convicted of a felony 

related to controlled substances under 

State or Federal law. 

In addition, the Acting Deputy 

Administrator may revoke a DEA 

Certificate of Registration and deny any 

pending applications for such certificate 

if she determines that the issuance of 

such registration would be inconsistent 

with the public interest as determined 

pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a)(4) and 

823(f). Section 823(f) requires the 

following factors be considered: 

(1) The recommendation of the 

appropriate state licensing board or 

professional disciplinary authority.

(2) The applicant’s experience in 

dispensing, or conducting research with 

respect to controlled substances. 

(3) The applicant’s conviction record 

under Federal or State laws relating to 

the manufacture, distribution, or 

dispensing of controlled substances. 

(4) Compliance with applicable State, 

Federal, or local laws relating to 

controlled substances. 

(5) Such other conduct which may 

threaten the public health or safety. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2004 / Notices 5585

As a threshold matter, it should be 

noted that the factors specified in 

section 823(f) are to be considered in the 

disjunctive: The Acting Deputy 

Administrator may properly rely on any 

one or a combination of the factors, and 

give each factor the weight she deems 

appropriate, in determining whether a 

registration should be revoked or 

denied. Henry J. Schwarz, Jr., M.D., 54 

FR 16422 (1989) 

The Acting Deputy Administrator 

finds that in 1998, VI Pharmacy, 

through and by Mr. Rushdi Salem, R.Ph, 

submitted an Application for DEA 

Registration as a retail pharmacy. 

Instead of the required evidence of 

State/jurisdiction licensure for the 

pharmacy, Mr. Rushdi submitted a copy 

of his personal Virgin Islands 

Pharmacist License, No. 125. Despite 

this, VI was issued and currently 

possesses DEA Certificate of 

Registration BV5900421 which, after its 

2001 renewal, currently expires on May 

31, 2004. 

On April 18, 2001, Mr. Salem 

submitted a renewal application for VI’s 

DEA Certificate of Registration, which 

he signed and certified as being true and 

correct. In response to question 3 of the 

application, asking if the applicant was 

authorized to distribute, dispense or 

otherwise handle controlled substances 

in the Virgin Islands, he checked the 

block ‘‘Yes’’ and represented that VI 

held Virgin Island registration number 

11387. However the Virgin Island Board 

of Pharmacy indicates VI has never held 

any Board of Pharmacy license to 

operate as a pharmacy in its 

jurisdiction. 

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a0(1), 

falsification of a DEA application 

constitutes independent grounds to 

revoke a registration. Past cases have 

established that the appropriate test for 

determining whether an applicant 

materially falsified any application is 

whether the applicant ‘‘knew or should 

have known’’ that the submitted 

application was false. See Barry H. 

Brooks, M.D., 66 FR 18305, 18307 

(2001); Terrance E. Murphy, M.D., 61 FR 

2841, 2844 (1996); Bobby Watts, M.D.,

58 FR 46995 (1993). 

Prior DEA cases have also held that 

‘‘ ‘[s]ince [it] must rely on the 

truthfulness of information supplied by 

applicants in registering them to handle 

controlled substances, falsification 

cannot be tolerated.’ ’’ See Terrance E. 

Murphy, M.D., supra, 61 FR at 2845 

(quoting Bobby Watts, M.D.., supra, 58 

FR at 46995.). Further, in prior DEA 

cases the Deputy Administrator has held 

that the totality of the circumstances is 

to be considered in determining 

whether a registration should be 

revoked because of a registrant’s 

material falsification of an application. 

See Barry H. Brooks, M.D., supra, 66 FR 

at 18308; Martha Hernandez, M.D., 62 

FR 61145, 61147–48. 

After considering the totality of the 

circumstances, the Acting Deputy 

Administrator finds that VI, through its 

owner Mr. Rushdi, provided false 

information in its April 18, 2001, 

Application for DEA Registration and 

this misrepresentation constitutes a 

material falsification of an application 

warranting revocation of VI’s certificate.

The Acting Deputy Administrator 

further finds that in December 2000, an 

undercover U.S. Federal agent posing as 

a patient contacted VI Pharmacy by 

phone requesting narcotics without a 

prescription. He was told to fax an order 

and credit card number. The agent later 

faxed a request for approximately 200 

dosage units of Schedule II and III 

narcotic controlled substances. VI 

Pharmacy, by return fax, quoted a perpill price for some, but not all of the 

drugs. In a subsequent phone call, Mr. 

Salem told the agent to come to VI in 

person to purchase the drugs. Later that 

month, without a prescription, the agent 

purchased 100 tablets of Vicodin, a 

controlled substance, from Mr. Salem. 

In February 2001, using the mail, the 

agent then bought another 100 tablets of 

Vicodin and on two occasions in May 

2001, the agent visited the pharmacy 

and purchased a total of 1,100 tablets of 

Vicodin. Finally, in June 2001, the agent 

purchased 1,500 tablets of Vicodin from 

Mr. Salem’s brother, an employee of VI. 

All of these purchases were made 

without a prescription. 

On January 20, 2003, in United States

v. Rushdi Z. Salem, United States 

District Court for the Virgin Islands, 

Criminal Case No. 2001–235, Mr. Salem 

pled guilty to 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), 

knowingly and intentionally 

distributing a controlled substance. It is 

well settled that a pharmacy operates 

under the control of owners, 

stockholders, pharmacists, or other 

employees, and if any such person is 

convicted of a felony offense related to 

controlled substances, grounds exist to 

revoke the pharmacy’s registration 

under 21 USC 824(a)(2). See Rick’s 

Pharmacy, Inc., 62 FR 42595, 42597 

(1997); Maxicare Pharmacy, 61 FR 

27368 (1996); Big-T Pharmacy, Inc., 47 

FR 51830 (1982). The Acting Deputy 

Administrator finds that grounds exist 

to revoke VI’s registration under 21 USC 

824(a)(2) based on the controlled 

substance related felony conviction of 

Mr. Rushdi. 

Finally, with regard to the public 

interest factors of 21 U.S.C. 823(f), the 

Acting Deputy Administrator considers 

the above facts as relevant and adverse 

to the registrant under factors two, 

three, four and five of section 823(f). 

She concludes that VI Pharmacy’s 

continued registration is inconsistent 

with the public interest, as that term is 

used in 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a)(4). 

Accordingly, the Acting 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 BV5900421, issued to VI 

Pharmacy, be, and it hereby is, revoked. 

The Acting Deputy Administrator 

further orders that any pending 

applications for renewal of such 

registration be, and they hereby are, 

denied. This order is effective March 8, 

2004.

Dated: January 7, 2004. 

Michele M. Leonhart, 

Acting Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 04–2343 Filed 2–4–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of the Secretary 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

January 23, 2004. 

The Department of Labor (DOL) has 

submitted the following public 

information collection request (ICR) to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and approval in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 

44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of each 

ICR, with applicable supporting 

documentation, may be obtained by 

contacting the Department of Labor. To 

obtain documentation, contact Ira Mills 

on 202–693–4122 (this is not a toll-free 

number) or e-mail: mills.ira@dol.gov.

Comments should be sent to Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the 

Employment and Training 

Administration (ETA), Office of 

Management and Budget, Room 10235, 

Washington, DC 20503, 202–395–7316 

(this is not a toll-free number), within 

30 days from the date of this publication 

in the Federal Register. 

The OMB is particularly interested in 

comments which: 

• 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;