Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 204 / Friday, October 22, 2004 / Notices 62091

products from multiple wholesale 

distributors. In addition, many of these 

purported customers have expressed no 

desire to purchase listed chemical 

products from J & S and the wholesalers 

distribute listed chemical products 

primarily to convenience stores and gas 

stations. While there are no specific 

prohibitions under the Controlled 

Substance Act regarding the sale of 

listed chemical products to these 

entities, DEA has nevertheless found 

that business establishments such as gas 

stations and convenience stores 

constitute sources for the diversion of 

listed chemical products. See, e.g.,

Sinbad Distributing, 67 FR 10,232 

(2002); K.V.M. Enterprises, 67 FR 70,968 

(2002) (denial of application based in 

part upon information developed by 

DEA that the applicant proposed to sell 

listed chemicals to gas stations, and the 

fact that these establishments in turn 

have sold listed chemical products to 

individuals engaged in the illicit 

manufacture of methamphetamine); 

Xtreme Enterprises, Inc., supra. 

As noted above, there is no evidence 

in the investigative file that J & S has 

sought to modify its pending 

application with regard to the listed 

chemical products it seeks to distribute. 

Among the listed chemical products the 

firm intends to distribute is 

phenylpropanolamine. Accordingly, the 

Deputy Administrator also finds factor 

five relevant to J & S’ request to 

distribute phenylpropanolamine and the 

apparent lack of safety associated with 

the use that product. DEA has 

previously determined that an 

applicant’s request to distribute 

phenylpropanolamine constitutes a 

ground under factor five for denial of an 

application for registration. See William 

E. ‘‘Bill’’ Smith d/b/a B&B Wholesale, 

69 FR 22,559 (2004); Shani Distributors, 

68 FR 62,324 (2003). Based on the 

foregoing, the Deputy Administrator 

concludes that granting the pending 

application of J & S would be 

inconsistent with the public interest. 

Accordingly, the Deputy 

Administrator of the Drug Enforcement 

Administration, pursuant to the 

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

and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, hereby 

orders that the pending application for 

DEA Certificate of Registration, 

previously submitted by J & S 

Distributors be, and it hereby is, denied. 

This order is effective November 22, 

2004.

Dated: October 5, 2004. 

Michele M. Leonhart, 

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 04–23706 Filed 10–21–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 04–40] 

Sarfraz Mirza, M.D. Revocation of 

Registration 

On March 2, 2004, the Deputy 

Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA), issued an Order 

to Show Cause to Sarfraz Mirza, M.D. 

(Respondent) of Melbourne, FL, 

notifying him of an opportunity to show 

cause as to why DEA should not revoke 

his DEA Certificate of Registration, 

AM8413813, as a practitioner, pursuant 

to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) and deny any 

pending applications for renewal of that 

registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f). 

As a basis for revocation, the Order to 

Show Cause alleged that the Florida 

Department of Health had ordered an 

immediate suspension of Respondent’s 

license to practice medicine in Florida 

and accordingly, he was not authorized 

to handle controlled substances in the 

state in which he is registered. 

On May 17, 2004, through counsel, 

Respondent timely requested a hearing 

in this matter. On May 25, 2004, 

Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen 

Bittner (Judge Bittner) issued the 

Government, as well as Respondent, an 

Order for Prehearing Statements. 

In lieu of filing a prehearing 

statement, the Government filed 

Government’s Request for Stay of 

Proceedings and Motion for Summary 

Disposition. The Government argued 

Respondent was without authorization 

to handle controlled substances in the 

State of Florida, and as a result, further 

proceedings in the matter were not 

required. Attached to the Government’s 

motion was a copy of the State of 

Florida, Department of Health’s Order of 

Emergency Suspension of License, 

indefinitely suspending Respondent’s 

license to practice medicine in Florida, 

effective as of July 29, 2003. 

On June 4, 2003, Judge Bittner issued 

a Memorandum to Counsel, staying the 

filing of prehearing statements and 

giving Respondent an opportunity to 

respond to the Government’s motion. 

Respondent failed to file a response to 

the motion. 

On August 10, 2004, Judge Bittner 

issued her Opinion and Recommended 

Decision of the Administrative Law 

Judge (Opinion and Recommended 

Decision). As part of her recommended 

ruling, Judge Bittner granted the 

Government’s Motion for Summary 

Disposition, finding the Respondent 

lacked authorization to handle 

controlled substances in Florida, the 

jurisdiction in which he is registered. 

Judge Bittner recommended that 

Respondent’s DEA registration be 

revoked and any pending applications 

for renewal or modification of that 

registration be denied. No exceptions 

were filed by either party to Judge 

Bittner’s Opinion and Recommended 

Decision and on September 15, 2004, 

the record of these proceedings was 

transmitted to the Office of the DEA 

Deputy Administrator. 

The Deputy Administrator has 

considered the record in its entirety and 

pursuant to 21 CFR 1316.67, hereby 

issues her final order based upon 

findings of fact and conclusions of law 

as hereinafter set forth. The Deputy 

Administrator adopts, in full, the 

Opinion and Recommended Decision of 

the Administrative Law Judge.

The Deputy Administrator finds that 

Respondent holds DEA Certificate of 

Registration, AM8413813. The Deputy 

Administrator further finds that, 

effective as of July 29, 2003, the State of 

Florida, Department of Health issued its 

Order of Emergency Suspension of 

License, suspending Respondent’s 

authority to practice as a physician in 

the State of Florida. There is no 

evidence in the record indicating that 

this suspension has been lifted, stayed 

or that Respondent’s license has been 

reinstated. As a result, he is not 

currently authorized to prescribe, 

dispense, administer, or otherwise 

handle controlled substances in the 

State of Florida, his place of DEA 

registration. 

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 924(a)(3). This 

prerequisite has been consistently 

upheld. See Karen Joe Smiley, M.D., 68 

FR 48,944 (2003); Dominick A. Ricci, 

M.D., 58 FR 51,104 (1993); Bobby Watts, 

M.D., 53 FR 11,919 (1988). Revocation 

is also appropriate when a state license 

has been suspended, but with a 

possibility of future reactivation. See 

Anne Lazar Thorn, M.D., 62 FR 12,847 

(1997). 

Here, it is clear Respondent currently 

lacks authority to handle controlled 

substances in Florida, the state in which 

he is registered with DEA as a 

practitioner. Therrefore, DEA does not 

have authority to maintain Respondent’s 

DEA Certificate of Registration for his 

Florida practice or to grant any pending 

applications for renewal or modification 

of that registration. 

62092 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 204 / Friday, October 22, 2004 / Notices 

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, AM8413813, issued to 

Safraz Mirza, M.D., be, and it hereby is, 

revoked. The Deputy Administrator 

further orders that any pending 

applications for renewal or modification 

of such registration be, and they hereby 

are, denied. This order is effective 

November 22, 2004.

Dated: October 5, 2004. 

Michele M. Leonhart, 

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 04–23717 Filed–10–21–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 04–34] 

Richard Daniel Price, MD.; Revocation 

of Registration 

On March 15, 2004, the Deputy 

Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA), issued an Order 

to Show Cause to Richard Daniel Price, 

M.D. (Dr. Price) of Birmingham, 

Alabama, notifying him of an 

opportunity to show cause as to why 

DEA should not revoke his DEA 

Certificate of Registration, BP4769949, 

as a practitioner, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 

824(a)(3) and deny any pending 

applications for renewal of that 

registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f). 

As a basis for revocation, the Order to 

Show Cause alleged that Dr. Price’s 

license to practice medicine in Alabama 

had been revoked and accordingly, he 

was not authorized to handle controlled 

substances in Alabama, the state in 

which he is registered. 

On May 3, 2004, Dr. Price, acting pro 

se, timely requested a hearing in this 

matter. On May 5, 2004, Presiding 

Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen 

Bittner (Judge Bittner) issued the 

Government, as well as Dr. Price, an 

Order for Prehearing Statements. In lieu 

of filing a prehearing statement, the 

Government filed its Motion for 

Summary Judgment and to Stay the 

Time to File Prehearing Statements if 

Necessary. The Government argued Dr. 

Price’s license to practice medicine in 

Alabama had been revoked, that he was 

without authorization to handle 

controlled substances in that state and, 

as a result, further proceedings in the 

matter were not required. Attached to 

the government’s motion was a copy of 

the Alabama Medical Licensure 

Commission’s Order of March 31, 2003, 

revoking Dr. Price’s license to practice 

medicine in that state. 

On May 13, 2004, Judge Bittner issued 

an Order and Notice providing Dr. Price 

an opportunity to respond to the 

Government’s motion. Dr. Price did not 

file a response. On June 28, 2004, Judge 

Bittner issued her Opinion and 

Recommended Decision of the 

Administrative Law Judge (Opinion and 

Recommended Decision). As part of her 

recommended ruling, Judge Bittner 

granted the Government’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment, finding Dr. Price 

lacked authorization to handle 

controlled substances in Alabama, the 

jurisdiction in which he is registered. 

Judge Bittner recommended that Dr. 

Price’s DEA registration be revoked and 

any pending applications for renewal or 

modification of that registration be 

denied. No exceptions were filed by 

either party to the Opinion and 

Recommended Decision and on August 

10, 2004, the record of these 

proceedings was transmitted to the 

Office of the DEA Deputy 

Administrator. 

The Deputy Administrator has 

considered the record in its entirety and 

pursuant to 21 CFR 1316.67, hereby 

issues her final order based upon 

findings of fact and conclusions of law 

as hereinafter set forth. The Deputy 

Administrator adopts, in full, the 

Opinion and Recommended Decision of 

the Administrative Law Judge. 

The Deputy Administrator finds that 

Dr. Price holds DEA Certificate of 

Registration, BP4769949, which expires 

on March 31, 2005. The Deputy 

Administrator further finds that, 

effective as of March 31, 2003, the 

Medical Licensure Commission of 

Alabama revoked Dr. Price’s Alabama 

medical license based on his conviction 

of a felony, a violation of Alabama Code 

34–24–360(5) (1997). There is no 

evidence in the record indicating that 

the Commission’s order has been stayed 

or rescinded or that Dr. Price’s license 

has been reinstated. Therefore, the 

Deputy Administrator finds that Dr. 

Price is currently not licensed to 

practice medicine in Alabama and, as a 

result, it is reasonable to infer that he is 

also without authorization to handle 

controlled substances in that state. 

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 Kanwaljit S. Serai, M.D., 68 

FR 48943 (2003); Dominick A. Ricci, 

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

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

Here, it is clear that Dr. Price is not 

currently authorized to handle 

controlled substances in Alabama, 

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, BP4769949, 

issued to Richard Daniel Price, M.D., be, 

and it hereby is, revoked. The Deputy 

Administrator further orders that any 

pending applications for renewal or 

modification or such registration be, and 

they hereby are, denied. This order is 

effective November 22, 2004.

Dated: October 5, 2004. 

Michele M. Leonhart, 

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 04–23711 Filed 10–21–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Ivan D. Garcia-Ramirez, M.D.; 

Revocation of Registration 

On August 11, 2003, the Deputy 

Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA), issued an Order 

to Show Cause to Ivan D. GarciaRamirez, M.D. (Respondent), proposing 

to evoke his DEA Certificate of 

Registration, BG2485173, pursuant to 21 

U.S.C. 824(a)(2) and 824(a)(4). The 

Order to Show Cause alleged that 

Respondent had been convicted of a 

felony related to controlled substances 

and that his continued registration 

would be inconsistent with the public 

interest. 

By letter dated September 10, 2003, 

Respondent, through his counsel, 

requested a hearing and on September 

30, 2003, Presiding Administrative Law 

Judge Mary Ellen Bittner (Judge Bittner) 

issued the Government, as well as 

Respondent, an Order for Prehearing 

Statements. 

On October 2, 2003, the Government 

timely filed its prehearing statement. 

However, Respondent failed to file a 

prehearing statement and on December 

5, 2003, Judge Bittner issued an Order 

Terminating Proceedings, noting 

Respondent’s lack of response was