54468 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 202 / Monday, October 20, 1997 / Notices

reasonable and prudent mitigation

measures are added, resulting from

formal consultation with the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service on the endangered

Sonoran pronghorn, the lesser longnosed bat, and the recently listed cactus

ferruginous pygmy-owl. The concept of

the proposed action is two-fold: within

the region, enact principles of the Man

and the Biosphere (MAB) program by

adopting a regional perspective to

improve visitor services and conserve

resources; and within the monument,

improve management capabilities to

enhance visitor opportunities and

protect resources and wilderness values.

The effect desired from implementing

these actions is to enhance protection,

understanding, and recognition of

Sonoran desert ecosystems and further

strengthen relations with the Tohono

O’odham Nation, Mexico, and other

neighbors of the monument. Under the

proposed plan, the NPS would seek

redesignation of the monument as

Sonoran Desert National Park. No tolls,

traffic re-routes, or speed limit

reductions are proposed for State Route

85.

In addition to the proposed action,

three other alternatives are presented

(which are detailed in the SEIS). The

Existing Conditions/No Action

Alternative would basically continue

the existing management situation. The

Former Preferred Future Alternative

proposed adding 2,130 acres to the

National Wilderness Preservation

System, and called for significant

cultural resource preservation efforts

and new facilities in several locations

within the monument. The New Ideas

Alternative proposed 3,650 acres for

wilderness, and existing or new park

facilities would be relocated at or

outside the monument boundary.

REVIEW COPIES: Copies of the FEIS will

be available for on-site review as

follows: (1) Office of Public Affairs,

National Park Service, Department of

the Interior, 18th and C Streets, NW,

Washington, DC 20240, (202) 208–6843;

(2) Planning Team Leader, Denver

Service Center, National Park Service,

12795 W. Alameda Parkway, Denver,

CO 80225–0287, (303) 969–2273; and (3)

Superintendent, Organ Pipe Cactus

National Monument, Route 1, Box 100,

Ajo, AZ 85321, (520) 387–7661. A

limited number of copies for

distribution are available on request

from either the Superintendent or

Planning Team Leader.

DECISION: A Record of Decision will be

approved no sooner than 30 days after

the Environmental Protection Agency’s

filing of their receipt of this FEIS in the

Federal Register. The National Park

Service officials jointly responsible for

the decision will be the Regional

Directors of the Intermountain and the

Pacific West Regions. Subsequently, the

officials responsible for implementing

the plan will be the Regional Director,

Intermountain Region and the

Superintendent, Organ Pipe Cactus

National Monument.

Dated: October 1, 1997.

John J. Reynolds,

Pacific West Region.

[FR Doc. 97–27732 Filed 10–17–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. 97–21

Robert M. Binenfeld, M.D. Revocation

of Registration

On June 23, 1997, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA), issued an Order

to Show Cause to Robert M. Binenfeld,

M.D., (Respondent), of Monroe, New

York. The Order to Show Cause notified

him of an opportunity to show cause as

to why DEA should not revoke his DEA

Certificate of Registration, AB4921210,

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

deny any pending applications for

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

for reason that he is not currently

authorized to handle controlled

substances in the State of New York.

On July 11, 1997, Respondent filed a

request for a hearing, and the matter was

docketed before Administrative Law

Judge Gail A. Randall. On July 21, 1997,

Judge Randall issued an Order for

Prehearing Statements. Thereafter, on

August 8, 1997, the Government filed a

Motion for Summary Disposition and

Motion to Stay Proceedings, alleging

that effective December 19, 1994, the

State of New York, Department of

Health, State Board for Professional

Medical Conduct (Board) revoked

Respondent’s license to practice

medicine and therefore, Respondent is

not authorized to handle controlled

substances in that state.

On August 11, 1997, Judge Randall

issued an Order providing Respondent

with an opportunity to respond to the

Government’s motion. In addition,

Judge Randall stayed the proceedings

pending her ruling on the Government’s

motion.

On August 21, 1997, Respondent filed

a response to the Government’s motion,

arguing that, ‘‘[m]any statements made

by the [Board] are untrue.’’ Respondent

however, did not deny that he is not

currently authorized to handle

controlled substances in the State of

New York.

On August 26, 1997, Judge Randall

issued her Opinion and Recommended

Decision, finding that Respondent

lacked authorization to handle

controlled substances in the State of

New York; granting the Government’s

Motion for Summary Disposition; and

recommending that Respondent’s DEA

Certificate of Registration be revoked.

Neither party filed exceptions to her

opinion, and on October 1, 1997, Judge

Randall transmitted the record of these

proceedings to the Acting Deputy

Administrator.

The Acting Deputy Administrator has

considered the record in its entirety,

and pursuant to 21 C.F.R. 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, in its

entirety, the Opinion and

Recommended Decision of the

Administrative Law Judge.

The Acting Deputy Administrator

finds that the Hearing Committee of the

Board issued a Decision and Order

dated August 26, 1994, finding among

other things, that Respondent

committed gross negligence, gross

incompetence, negligence and

incompetence in his practice of

medicine. As a result, the Hearing

Committee ordered the revocation of

Respondent’s license to practice

medicine in the State of New York.

Effective December 19, 1994, the

Board’s Administrative Review Board

affirmed the Hearing Committee’s

decision to revoke Respondent’s

medical license. Subsequently, on

February 21, 1995, the State of New

York, supreme Court-Appellate

Division, Third Judicial Department

denied Respondent’s request for a stay

of the Board’s order.

Therefore, the Acting Deputy

Administrator finds that Respondent is

not currently authorized to practice

medicine in the State of New York. As

a result, the Acting Deputy

Administrator concludes that it is

reasonable to infer that Respondent is

not 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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 202 / Monday, October 20, 1997 / Notices 54469

16,193 (1997); Demetris A. Green, M.D.,

61 FR 60,728 (1996); Dominick A. Ricci,

M.D., 58 FR 51,104 (1993). Since

Respondent lacks authority in the State

of New York to handle controlled

substances, he is not entitled to a DEA

registration in that state.

While, Respondent argues that many

untrue statements were made by the

Board in revoking his license to practice

medicine, he does not dispute that he is

currently not authorized to handle

controlled substances in the State of

New York. Under the circumstances,

Judge Randall properly granted the

Government’s Motion for Summary

Disposition. It is well-settled that when

no question of material fact is involved,

a plenary, adversary administrative

proceeding involving evidence and

cross-examination of witnesses is not

obligatory. See Phillip E. Kirk, M.D., 48

FR 32,887 (1983) aff’d sub nom Kirk V.

Mullen, 749 F.2d 297 (6th Cir. 1984);

NLRB v. International Association of

Bridge, Structural and Ornamental

Ironworkers, AFL–CIO, 549 F.2d 634

(9th Cir. 1977); United States v.

Consolidated Mines & Smelting Co., 44

F.2d 432 (9th Cir. 1971).

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 C.R.F. 0.100(b) and

0.104, hereby orders that DEA

Certificate of Registration AB4921210,

previously issued to Robert M.

Binenfeld, M.D., be, and it hereby is,

revoked. The Acting Deputy

Administrator further orders that any

pending applications for the renewal of

such registration be, and they hereby are

denied. This order is effective

November 19, 1997.

Dated: October 10, 1997.

James S. Milford,

Acting Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–27638 Filed 10–17–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

Benjamin R. Borja, D.M.D.; Revocation

of Registration

On June 23, 1997, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA), issued an Order

to Show Cause to Benjamin R. Borja,

D.M.D., of North Hills, California,

notifying him of an opportunity to show

case as to why DEA should not revoke

his DEA Certificate of Registration

AB8143024, under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3),

and deny any pending applications for

renewal of such 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 California.

The order also notified Dr. Borja that

should no request for a hearing be filed

within 30 days, his hearing right would

be deemed waived.

The DEA received a signed receipt

indicating that the order was received

by Dr. Borja on June 30, 1997. No

request for a hearing or any other reply

was received by the DEA from Dr. Borja

or anyone purporting to represent him

in his 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 Dr. Borja is

deemed to have waived his hearing

right. After considering 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 on March 22, 1996, the Board

of Dental Examiners, Department of

Consumer Affairs, State of California

issued a Default Decision and Order

revoking Dr. Borja’s dental license

effective May 1, 1996, based upon a

finding that Dr. Borja engaged in

unprofessional conduct, incompetence,

gross negligence, and/or repeated acts of

negligence in his treatment of a patient.

The Acting Deputy Administrator finds

that in light of the fact that Dr. Borja is

not currently licensed to practice

medicine in the State of California, it is

reasonable to infer that he is not

currently authorized to handle

controlled substances in that state.

The DEA does not have the 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

16,193 (1997); Demetris A. Green, M.D.,

61 FR 60,728 (1996); Dominick A. Ricci,

M.D., 58 FR 51,104 (1993).

Here it is clear that Dr. Borja is not

currently authorized to handle

controlled substances in the State of

California. Therefore, Dr. Borja is not

entitled to a DEA registration in that

state.

Accordingly, the Acting Deputy

Administrator of the Drug Enforcement

Administration, pursuant to the

authority vested in him by 1 U.S.C. 823

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

hereby orders that DEA Certificate of

Registration AB8143024, previously

issued to Benjamin R. Borja, D.M.D., be,

and it hereby is, revoked. The Acting

Deputy Administrator further orders

that any pending applications for the

renewal of such registration, be, and

they hereby are, denied. This order is

effective November 19, 1997.

James S. Milford,

Acting Deputy Administrator.

Dated: October 9, 1997.

[FR Doc. 97–27639 Filed 10–17–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of the Secretary

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

October 14, 1997.

The Department of Labor (DOL) has

submitted the following public

information collection requests (ICRs) 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

individual ICR, with applicable

supporting documentation, may be

obtained by calling the Department of

Labor, Departmental Clearance Officer,

Theresa M. O’Malley ((202) 219–5096

ext. 143) or by E-Mail to OMalleyTheresa@dol.gov. Individuals who use a

telecommunications device for the deaf

(TTY/TDD) may call (202) 219–4720

between 1:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern

time, Monday–Friday.

Comments should be sent to Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Attn: OMB Desk Officer for BLS, DM,

ESA, ETA, MSHA, OSHA, PWBA, or

VETS, Office of Management and

Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC

20503 ((202) 395–7316), 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 nececesary

for the proper performance of the

functions of the agency, including

whether the information will have

practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

proposed collection of information,

including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions used;