Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 26 / Friday, February 7, 1997 / Notices 5845

convicted of a controlled substance

related crime, had ever surrendered a

DEA registration or had one revoked,

suspended, denied, or had a state

professional license or controlled

substance registration revoked,

suspended, denied, restricted or placed

on probation. Thereafter, Respondent

was issued a Notice of Hearing which

alleged that Respondent had been

charged with three felony violations of

state law and that he had been found

guilty of one count of possession of a

controlled substance. As Judge Bittner

correctly notes, ‘‘[a]s far as this record

shows, the Notice of Hearing did not

make any reference to Respondent’s

explanation on his application of his

answer to the liability question.’’

Respondent then participated in an

informal hearing with DEA personnel

and a representative from the United

States Attorney’s Office. Again as Judge

Bittner correctly notes, ‘‘there is no

evidence about the discussion at that

meeting and, more specifically, about

whether any of the government

personnel advised Respondent that his

statements on his [1990] application for

DEA registration were inadequate.’’

Respondent ultimately entered into a

memorandum of understanding in

August 1990 wherein he agreed to

‘‘answer fully and truthfully’’ the

questions on renewal applications.

However, there is nothing in the

memorandum of understanding that

documents that Respondent was told

that his previous explanation on the

1990 application was inadequate, nor

was there any testimony at the hearing

as to whether the parties discussed the

meaning of this provision of the

memorandum of understanding.

Respondent was then issued a DEA

registration. Given the lack of evidence

in the record that Respondent was

advised that his answer in 1990 was

inadequate, it is reasonable to accept

Respondent’s explanation for giving the

same answer on his 1993 renewal

application. Respondent testified, ‘‘I

figured if this was good enough the first

time, it’s good enough the second time.’’

Therefore, the Acting Deputy

Administrator concludes that while

Respondent may have technically

violated the memorandum of

understanding by failing to provide full

and truthful answers on future

applications, such a violation is

understandable given that he was

apparently not told his earlier

explanation was inadequate.

The Acting Deputy Administrator

concurs with Judge Bittner’s conclusion

that the Government has not established

by a preponderance of the credible

evidence that Respondent’s continued

registration would be inconsistent with

the public interest. While Respondent

handled controlled substances from

1982 to March 1984 without proper

state authorization and failed to

maintain the required records, these

events occurred over 12 years ago, and

there is no evidence in the record that

Respondent has improperly handled

controlled substances since being issued

a DEA registration in 1990. In addition,

there is no evidence in the record that

Respondent was ever advised that the

explanation on his 1990 application was

not sufficient, and therefore his use of

the same explanation on his 1993

application is understandable.

Judge Bittner recommended that

Respondent’s registration not be

revoked, but that it be subject to the

following restrictions:

(1) Respondent shall not prescribe,

administer or otherwise dispense any

controlled substances for any member of

his family or himself.

(2) Respondent shall handle

controlled substances only in treating

podiatric patients, and not for any

purpose outside the usual practice of

podiatry.

Under the circumstances of this case,

the Acting Deputy Administrator finds

Judge Bittner’s recommended

restrictions to be reasonable. Therefore,

the Acting Deputy Administrator

concludes that Respondent’s DEA

registration should be continued in

Schedules II through V subject to Judge

Bittner’s recommended restrictions. It

should be noted that it is unclear from

the record, which schedules Respondent

is currently registered to handle. He

applied for Schedule II through V in

1990, however, the memorandum of

understanding executed in August 1990

states, ‘‘[t]hat Respondent’s handling of

controlled substances pursuant to his

Federal controlled substances

registration upon issuance of such

registration by the DEA, shall be limited

to controlled drugs in Schedules III

through V and that Respondent not be

allowed to handle any controlled

substance found in Schedule II for a

period of not less than one (1) year from

the date of the execution of the

agreement.’’ His 1993 renewal

application, which is the subject of this

proceeding, indicates that Respondent

wishes his registration to be renewed in

Schedules II through V. Regardless of

Respondent’s current authorization, the

Acting Deputy Administrator concludes

that in light of all of the evidence,

Respondent should be registered in

Schedules II through V subject to the

above-referenced restrictions.

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.F.R. 0.100(b) and

0.104, hereby orders that DEA

Certificate of Registration BB2461604,

issued to Mark J. Beger, D.P.M., be

continued, and any pending

applications be granted in Schedules II

through V, subject to the above

restrictions. This order is effective

March 10, 1997.

Dated: January 30, 1997.

James S. Milford,

Acting Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–3082 Filed 2–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

Manufacturer of Controlled

Substances; Notice of Registration

By Notice dated July 25, 1996, and

published in the Federal Register on

July 31, 1996, (61 FR 39986), Guilford

Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Attn: Ross S.

Laderman, 6611 Tributary Street,

Baltimore, Maryland 21224, made

application to the Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA) to be registered as

a bulk manufacturer of cocaine (9041),

a basic class of controlled substance

listed in Schedule II.

No comments or objections have been

received. DEA has considered the

factors in 21 U.S.C. § 823(a) and

determined that the registration of

Guilford Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to

manufacture cocaine is consistent with

the public interest at this time.

Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 823

and 28 CFR §§ 0.100 and 0.104, the

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office

of Diversion Control, hereby orders that

the application submitted by the above

firm for registration as a bulk

manufacturer of the basic class of

controlled substance listed above is

granted.

Dated: January 9, 1997.

Gene R. Haislip,

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–3083 Filed 2–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

[Docket No. 95–20]

Jospeh S. Hayes, M.D.; Grant of

Restricted Registration

On January 25, 1995, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA) issued an Order

to Show Cause to Joseph S. Hayes, M.D.

(Respondent) of Bristol, Tennessee,

notifying him of an opportunity to show