42594 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 1997 / Notices

Del Sur, Inc., which decree was entered

by the Court in October, 1987 (‘‘Original

Consent Decree’’). The proposed

amended consent decree also resolves

the United States’ claims with respect to

the United States’ Motion to Enforce the

Consent Decree and United States’

Motion to Amend and Supplement the

Complaint.

The proposed amended consent

decree requires Proteco to close the

hazardous waste units at the facility

Proteco operates at Penuelas, Puerto

Rico (‘‘Facility’’) pursaunt to closure

plans approved by the Environmental

Protection Agency. In addition, the

proposed amended consent decree

requires Proteco to deposit $40,000 per

month in an escrow account, which

monies shall be spent to close the

hazardous waste units; Proteco is

required to continue to make deposits

into the escrow account until it has paid

into the account an amount equal to the

estimated cost of closure. Further,

Proteco’s civil penalty obligations under

the Original Consent Decree will be

modified to provide that the United

States will forgive $225,671 of the civil

penalty amount that Proteco owed. The

United States has already received at

least $283,750 in civil penalties under

the Original Consent Decree and the

United States will receive at least an

additional $690,000 after entry of the

amended consent decree. Further, if

Proteco sells its assets or over 50% of

its stock within one year of the public

notice of the proposed closure plan for

the Facility, Proteco will pay an

additional civil penalty in the amount of

$225,671.

The Department of Justice will receive

for a period of thirty (30) days from the

date of this publication comments

relating to the proposed amended

consent decree. Any comments should

be addressed to the Assistant Attorney

General of the Environment and Natural

Resources Division, Department of

Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, and

should refer to United States v.

Proteccion Tecnica Ecologica, Inc., et

al., D.J. Ref. 90–7–1–345a.

The proposed amended consent

decree may be examined at the Office of

the United States Attorney, Federal

Office Building, Carlos E. Chardon Ave.,

Hato Rey, Puerto Rico 00918, and at the

Region II office of the Environmental

Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, New

York, New York 10007–1866, and at the

Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street,

N.W., 4th Floor, Washington, D.C.

20005, (202) 624–0892. A copy of the

proposed amended consent decree may

be obtained in person or by mail from

the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G

Street, N.W., 4th Floor, Washington,

D.C. 20005. In requesting a copy, please

enclose a check (there is a 25 cent per

page reproduction cost) in the amount

of $9.00 payable to the Consent Decree

Library.

Bruce S. Gelber,

Deputy Chief, Environmental Enforcement

Section, Environment and Natural Resources

Division.

[FR Doc. 97–20842 Filed 8–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–15–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

Notice Pursuant to the National

Cooperative Research and Production

Act of 1993—MOST, Inc.

Notice is hereby given that, on June

17, 1997, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the

National Cooperative Research and

Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C.

§ 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), Toyota

Tsusho America, Inc. has filed written

notifications simultaneously with the

Attorney General and the Federal Trade

Commission disclosing (1) the identities

of the parties to and (2) the nature and

objectives of a production venture

known as MOST, Inc. The notifications

were filed for the purpose of invoking

the Act’s provisions limiting the

recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual

damages under specified circumstances.

Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the

identities of the parties are: Toyota

Tsusho America, Inc., New York, NY

(owned by Toyota Tsusho Corporation,

Nagoya, Japan); Daiki International

Trading Corporation, Torrance, CA

(owned by Daiki Alumni Industry Co.,

Ltd., Osaka, Japan); and Toyota Tsusho

Corporation. The general area of

planned activity is the buying, selling,

smelting and refining of secondary

aluminum metals.

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 97–20841 Filed 8–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

David Golden, M.D.; Suspension of

Registration

On August 21, 1996, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA), issued an Order

to Show Cause to David L. Golden,

M.D., of New Orleans, Louisiana,

notifying him of an opportunity to show

cause as to why DEA should not revoke

his DEA Certificates of Registration,

BG3086306 and BG3039218, under 21

U.S.C. 824(a)(3), and deny any pending

applications for registration as a

practitioner pursuant to 21 U.S.C.

823(f), for reason that he is not currently

authorized to handle controlled

substances in the State of Louisiana.

The order also notified Dr. Golden 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 to

both of Dr. Golden’s registered

locations, as well as to an address where

he had applied for a DEA registration.

All of these orders were returned to

DEA unclaimed. DEA investigators then

attempted to personally serve Dr.

Golden with the Order to Show Cause.

Both of Dr. Golden’s registered locations

were abandoned buildings. The address

indicated on Dr. Golden’s application

for registration was the location of

someone else’s office. The investigators

went to the address listed on the

driver’s license of a woman believed to

be Dr. Golden’s wife and were told that

the Goldens had moved the week before.

The investigators then went to the

address listed on Dr. Golden’s driver’s

license, which is also the last home

address that the Louisiana State Board

of Medical Examiners had for Dr.

Golden. This location appeared to be

abandoned. The mailman confirmed

that no one was currently living at the

address, but that mail was still delivered

there and picked up about once a

month. The investigators then left a

copy of the Order to Show Cause in the

mailbox at that location.

DEA ultimately received a letter from

Dr. Golden dated June 25, 1997,

indicating that he had received the

Order to Show Cause, and asking that

all correspondence be mailed to a post

office box. Dr. Golden did not request a

hearing on the issues raised by the

Order to Show Cause.

The Acting Deputy Administrator

finds that based upon Dr. Golden’s June

25, 1997 letter, it is clear that Dr. Golden

received the Order to Show Cause,

however, he did not request a hearing.

Therefore, Dr. Golden is deemed to have

waived his right to a hearing. After

considering the relevant material from

the investigative file in this matter, the

Acting Deputy Administrator now

enters his final order without a hearing

pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 (d) and (e)

and 1301.46.

The Acting Deputy Administrator

finds that by a Decision dated August

25, 1995, the Louisiana State Board of

Medical Examiners suspended Dr.

Golden’s license to practice medicine

for two years beginning on September 1,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 1997 / Notices 42595

1995, based upon a finding of medical

incompetency and a finding of

continuing or recurring medical practice

which fails to satisfy the prevailing and

usually accepted standards of medical

practice in the State of Louisiana. The

Acting Deputy Administrator finds that

in light of the fact that Dr. Golden is not

currently licensed to practice medicine

in the State of Louisiana, it is reasonable

to infer that he is not currently

authorized to handle controlled

substances in that state.

The 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 his business. 21

U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f) and 824(a)(3).

This prerequisite has been consistently

upheld. See Romeo J. Perez, M.D., 62 FR

16193 (1997); Demetris A. Green, M.D.,

61 FR 60728 (1996); Dominick A. Ricci,

M.D., 58 FR 51104 (1993).

Dr. Golden did not dispute that he is

not authorized to handle controlled

substances in Louisiana. Therefore, in

light of his lack of authorization in

Louisiana, Dr. Golden is not entitled to

a DEA registration in that state.

However, the Acting Deputy

Administrator finds that revocation of

Dr. Golden’s registrations is not

appropriate. The suspension of Dr.

Golden’s state privileges expires on

September 1, 1997, and presumably at

that time he will be authorized to

handle controlled substances in the

State of Louisiana. Given that his state

suspension was not based upon his

handling of controlled substances and

that his privileges will be reinstated in

approximately one month, the Acting

Deputy Administrator concludes that

Dr. Golden’s DEA registrations should

be suspended until such time as his

state privileges are reinstated.

Accordingly, the Acting Deputy

Administrator of the Drug Enforcement

Administration, pursuant to the

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

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

hereby orders that DEA Certificates of

Registration, BG3086306 and

BG3039218, previously issued to David

Golden, M.D., be, and they hereby are,

suspended until his state license to

practice medicine in Louisiana is

reinstated and he is thereby authorized

to handle controlled substances in that

state. The suspension shall remain in

effect until the DEA office in New

Orleans receives notification from Dr.

Golden that his state privileges have

been reinstated. Regarding any pending

applications for registration submitted

by David Golden, M.D., the Acting

Deputy Administrator orders that these

applications shall be granted upon

DEA’s receipt of notification from Dr.

Golden that his state privileges have

been reinstated and that he still desires

to be registered at the address listed on

the application. This order is effective

August 7, 1997.

Dated: August 1, 1997.

James S. Milford,

Acting Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–20786 Filed 8–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. 96–45]

Rick’s Pharmacy, Inc., Continuation of

Registration With Restrictions

On August 29, 1996, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA), issued an Order

to Show Cause to Rick’s Pharmacy, Inc.,

(Respondent) of Clayton, New Mexico,

notifying it of an opportunity to show

cause as to why DEA should not revoke

its DEA Certificate of Registration,

BR0924440, under 21 U.S.C. 824 (a)(2)

and (a)(4), and deny any pending

applications for registration as a retail

pharmacy under 21 U.S.C. 823(f), for

reason that its owner/pharmacist has

been convicted of a controlled substance

related felony offense and that its

continued registration would be

inconsistent with the public interest.

By letter dated September 5, 1996,

Respondent, through counsel, filed a

timely request for a hearing. In the

midst of prehearing proceedings,

Respondent’s counsel filed a motion to

withdraw as counsel, which was

granted. Thereafter, Respondent was

represented by Rick Balzano, the

principal shareholder and pharmacist of

Respondent. A hearing was held in

Santa Fe, New Mexico on February 5,

1997, before Administrative Law Judge

Gail A. Randall. At the hearing, both

parties called witnesses and introduced

documentary evidence. After the

hearing, Government counsel submitted

proposed findings of fact, conclusions of

law and argument, and Respondent

submitted a letter setting forth its

position. On May 16, 1997, Judge

Randall issued her Opinion and

Recommended Ruling, recommending

that Respondent’s registration be

continued subject to certain conditions.

On June 6, 1997, Government counsel

filed exceptions to the Opinion and

Recommended Ruling of the

Administrative Law Judge, and on June

18, 1997, Judge Randall transmitted the

record of these proceedings, including

the Government’s exceptions to the

Acting Deputy Administrator.

The Acting Deputy Administrator has

considered the record in its entirety,

and pursuant to 21 CFR 1316.67, hereby

issues his final order based upon

findings of fact and conclusions of law

as hereinafter set forth. the Acting

Deputy Administrator adopts, except as

specifically noted below, the Opinion

and Recommended Ruling of the

Administrative Law Judge. His adoption

is in no manner diminished by any

recitation of facts, issues and

conclusions herein, or of any failure to

mention a matter of fact or law.

The Acting Deputy Administrator

finds that Rick Balzano purchased

Respondent pharmacy with his parents

in 1987. Mr. Balzano is the president

and pharmacist-in-charge of

Respondent, his father is the vice

president and his mother is the

secretary and treasurer. In addition to

Respondent pharmacy, there is only one

other retail pharmacy and one hospital

pharmacy in Clayton, New Mexico, with

the next closest pharmacy

approximately 82 miles from Clayton.

Mr. Balzano is one of only two

pharmacists practicing in Clayton.

On October 6 and 7, 1992, New

Mexico Board of Pharmacy inspectors

went to Respondent pharmacy to

conduct a routine inspection and audit

of controlled substances. According to

Mr. Balzano, by the time the inspectors

arrived at the pharmacy at 4:00 p.m. on

the first day, he had already consumed

approximately 50 controlled substance

pills.

The audit covered the period from

January 6, 1991 to October 6, 1992, and

revealed overages and shortages for all

of the audited substances. Significantly,

Respondent could not account for

19,394 dosage units of Lortab 7.5 mg.;

8,201 dosage units of phentermine 30

mg.; 2,100 dosage units of ‘‘Darvon

Compound-65 generic’’; 1,430 dosage

units of Halcion 0.25 mg.; 1,121 dosage

units of temazepam 30 mg.; 1,546

dosage units of clorazepate 7.5 mg.;

1,244 dosage units of diazepam 10 mg.;

2,800 dosage units of Roxicet; and 1,397

dosage units of Tylox. Significant

overages, where Respondent could

account for more of a drug than it was

accountable for include, 1,521 dosage

units of Darvon-N-100; 1,606 Wygesic

generic; and 1,994 Tranxene 3.75 mg.

On October 28, 1992, the inspectors

went to Respondent pharmacy to return

the records used in conducting the audit

and to discuss the audit with Mr.

Balzano. At that time, Mr. Balzano