5850 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 26 / Friday, February 7, 1997 / Notices

well as Dr. Kleiner’s letters, the Acting

Deputy Administrator now enters his

final order without a hearing pursuant

to 21 C.F.R. 1301.54(e) and 1301.57.

The Acting Deputy Administrator

finds that by order dated December 15,

1994, the State Board for Professional

Medical Conduct, State of New York

(Board) revoked Dr. Kleiner’s license to

practice medicine and assessed an

$80,000 fine against him. This action

was based upon findings that Dr.

Kleiner prescribed drugs for which there

was no medical indication; that he

indiscriminately prescribed habitforming drugs; that he failed to produce

medical records for his patients despite

being issued a subpoena for the records;

that he willfully harassed a patient; and,

that he exercised undue influence on a

patient.

While Dr. Kleiner has indicated in

letters dated May 14 and June 4, 1996,

that there is pending civil litigation

regarding the Board’s action, there is no

indication in the record that the Board’s

revocation has been stayed pending the

outcome of the civil proceeding.

Consequently, the Acting Deputy

Administrator finds that in light of the

Board’s revocation of Dr. Kleiner’s

medical license, he is not currently

authorized to handle controlled

substances in the State of New York.

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 Earl G. Rozeboom M.D., 61

Fed. Reg. 60,730 (1996); Charles L.

Novosad, Jr., M.D., 60 Fed. Reg. 47,182

(1995); Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 Fed.

Reg. 51,104 (1993). Here, Dr. Kleiner is

not entitled to a DEA registration.

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, AK1048203, previously

issued to Kenneth Kleiner, M.D., be, and

it hereby is, revoked. The Acting Deputy

Administrator further orders that any

pending applications for registration be,

and they hereby are, denied. This order

is effective March 10, 1997.

Dated: January 28,1 997

James S. Milford,

Acting Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–3051 Filed 2–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

Keith A. Lasko, M.D.; Revocation of

Registration

On March 13, 1996, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA), issued an Order

to Show Cause to Keith A. Lasko, MD.,

of Meridian, Mississippi, proposing the

revocation of his DEA Certificate of

Registration BL3109940 and denial of

any pending applications for renewal of

such registration as a practitioner

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

reason that he is not currently

authorized to handle controlled

substances in the State of Mississippi.

The order also advised 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

Dr. Lasko by registered mail to his DEA

registered address, but was returned to

DEA with the notation ‘‘attempted,

unkown’’. DEA made numerous other

attempts to locate Dr. Lasko.

Investigators determined through the

American Medical Association that he

was not currently practicing in any of

the other states where he was licensed

to practice medicine. A check of drivers’

license records in a number of states

revealed that Dr. Lasko did not have a

current driver’s license in any of those

states. Earlier attempts to deliver

correspondence to Dr. Lasko at various

locations via registered mail were

unsuccessful, and Dr. Lasko did not

leave any forwarding address.

The Acting Deputy Administrator

finds that DEA has made numerous

attempts to locate Dr. Lasko and has

determined that his whereabouts are

unknown. It is quite evident that Dr.

Lasko is no longer practicing medicine

at the address listed on his DEA

Certificate of Registration. The Acting

Deputy Administrator concludes that

considerable effort has been made to

serve Dr. Lasko with the Order to Show

Cause without success. Dr. Lasko is

therefore deemed to have waived his

opportunity for a hearing. The Acting

Deputy Administrator now enters his

final order in this matter without a

hearing and based on the investigative

file. 21 CFR 1301.54 and 1301.57.

The Acting Deputy Administrator

finds that in June 1992, the Medical

Board of California filed an accusation

against Dr. Lasko alleging, among other

things, that he excessively used

diagnostic procedures; that he

committed acts of dishonesty in that he

falsely billed for diagnostic procedures;

and that he created false medical

records. The Medical Board of

California then entered a default

decision revoking Dr. Lasko’s license to

practice medicine in the State of

California effective January 22, 1992.

Subsequently, on July 24, 1992, the

Mississippi State Board of Medical

Licensure (Board) issued a summons to

Dr. Lasko ordering him to appear before

the Board and alleging that grounds

exist to take action against his license to

practice medicine in the State of

Mississippi based upon the revocation

of his California medical license. By

letter dated October 20, 1992, Dr. Lasko

informed the Board that he no longer

wishes to practice medicine in the State

of Mississippi and ‘‘am hereby revoking

my Mississippi medical license.’’

Thereafter, on November 23, 1992, the

Board issued an Order Accepting

Surrender of License finding that Dr.

Lasko’s letter ‘‘expresses a clear intent

to surrender his license to practice

medicine in the State of Mississippi.’’ A

letter in the investigative file dated

February 16, 1996, from the Board states

that its records indicate that Dr. Lasko’s

license expired as of June 30, 1992.

Consequently, the Acting Deputy

Administrator finds that in light of the

foregoing, Dr. Lasko is not currently

licensed to practice medicine, nor

authorized to handle controlled

substances, in the State of Mississippi.

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 Earl G. Rozeboom, M.D., 61

FR 60,730 (1996); Charles L. Novosad,

Jr., M.D., 60 FR 47,182 (1995); Dominick

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

Here, Dr. Lasko is not currently licensed

to practice medicine, and therefore not

authorized to handle controlled

substances, in the State of Mississippi.

Hence, Dr. Lasko is not entitled to a

DEA registration.

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 Certificate of

Registration BL3109940, previously

issued to Keith A. Lasko, M.D., 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 10, 1997.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 26 / Friday, February 7, 1997 / Notices 5851

Dated: January 28, 1997.

James S. Milford,

Acting Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–3050 Filed 2–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

Durg Enforcement Administration

David William Nyman, D.O.; Denial of

Application

On April 16, 1996, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA), issued an Order

to Show Cause to David William

Nyman, D.O., Colorado Springs,

Colorado, notifying him of an

opportunity to show cause as to why

DEA should not deny his application,

dated January 20, 1995, for a DEA

Certificate of Registration pursuant to 21

U.S.C. 823(f), as being inconsistent with

the public interest. The order also

notified Dr. Nyman that, should no

request for a hearing be filed within 30

days, his hearing right would be deemed

waived.

The DEA mailed the show cause order

to Dr. Nyman be certified mail, and a

signed return receipt dated April 27,

1996, was received by the DEA.

However, no request for a hearing or any

other reply was received the DEA from

Dr. Nyman or anyone purporting to

represent him in this matter. Therefore,

the Acting Deputy Administrator,

finding that (1) thirty days have passed

since receipt of the Order to Show

Cause, and (2) no request for a hearing

having been received, concludes that Dr.

Nyman 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

1301.54(e) and 1301.57.

The Acting Deputy Administrator

finds that on March 23, 1994, the

Colorado State Board of Medical

Examiners (Board) issued an order

summarily suspending Dr. Nyman’s

license to practice medicine. This action

was based upon the Board’s findings

that Dr. Nyman first came to the

attention of the Colorado Physician

Health Program (CPHP) in July 1986

after he collapsed and an emergency

toxicology report revealed Darvon and

codeine. He subsequently received

treatment with CPHP for opiate abuse.

Dr. Nyman relapsed into substance

abuse and was hospitalized for

treatment from January 5 to 23, 1994.

After his discharge, he participated in

an intensive outpatient treatment

program. However, on February 22,

1994, CPHP was advised that Dr. Nyman

had relapsed into substance abuse again.

It was discovered that he was abusing

the synthetic narcotic Buprenex. Dr.

Nyman underwent a five-day inpatient

detoxification program and then

resumed intensive outpatient treatment.

On March 16, 1994, CPHP learned that

Dr. Nyman had repeatedly called a

pharmacy during the week of March 7,

1994, in an attempt to obtain a personal

order for Valium and Buprenex.

The Acting Deputy Administrator

finds that as a result of the summary

suspension of his license to practice

medicine, Dr. Nyman surrendered his

previous DEA Certificate of Registration,

AN3166635.

Subsequently, on November 9, 1995,

the Board approved a Stipulation and

Final Agency Order (Order) wherein,

the suspension of Dr. Nyman’s medical

license was lifted. However, pursuant to

the Order, his license shall remain

suspended indefinitely until he

provides evidence indicating that he has

been accepted into a residency program

and that his participation in the

residency program would be subject to

terms set forth in the Order.

The Acting Deputy Administrator

finds that there is no evidence in the

record that Dr. Nyman has provided the

Board with evidence of his acceptance

into such a residency program, and

therefore concludes that Dr. Nyman’s

medical license remains suspended. Dr.

Nyman has not presented any evidence

to the contrary. Thus, the Acting Deputy

Administrator concludes that Dr.

Nyman is not currently licensed to

practice medicine in the State of

Colorado and consequently he is not

currently authorized to handle

controlled substances in the 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) and 823(f). This

prerequisite has been consistently

upheld. See Earl G. Rozeboom, M.D., 61

FR 60,730 (1996); Charles L. Novosad,

Jr., M.D., 60 FR 47,182 (1995); Dominick

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

Here, Dr. Nyman is not currently

licensed to practice medicine, and

therefore not authorized to handle

controlled substances, in the State of

Colorado. Hence, Dr. Nyman is not

entitled to a DEA registration. Because,

Dr. Nyman is not entitled to a DEA

registration due to his lack of state

authorization to handle controlled

substances, the Acting Deputy

Administrator concludes that it is

unnecessary to address whether Dr.

Nyman’s registration would be

inconsistent with the public interest.

Accordingly, the Acting Deputy

Administrator of the Drug Enforcement

Administration, pursuant to the

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

and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, hereby

orders that the application for a DEA

Certificate of Registration submitted by

David William Nyman, D.O., be, and it

hereby is, denied. This order is effective

March 10, 1997.

Dated: January 30, 1997.

James S. Milford,

Acting Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–3052 Filed 2–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

Drug Enforcement Administration

[DEA Number 155N]

Reports of Certain Distributions by

Postal Service or Private or

Commercial Carriers to Nonregulated

Persons

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA), Justice.

ACTION: Notice; guidance.

SUMMARY: This notice provides

temporary guidance to persons who

distribute ephedrine, pseudoephedrine,

and phenylpropanolamine, including

drug products containing those

chemicals, to nonregulated persons by

either the Postal Service or private or

commercial carriers. The

comprehensive Methamphetamine

Control Act of 1996 requires that, as of

October 3, 1996, any person who

engages in the above distributions must

make a monthly report of each such

transaction to the Attorney General in

such a manner as the Attorney General

shall establish by regulation. This notice

provides temporary guidance that will

allow affected persons to comply with

the new reporting requirements pending

promulgation of the appropriate

regulations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Wolf, Jr., Chief, Chemical

Operations Section, Office of Diversion

Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration, Washington, D.C.

20537, Telephone (202) 307–7204.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

October 3, 1996, the Comprehensive

Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996

(MCA) was signed into law. Section 402

of the MCA requires that ‘‘(A) Each

regulated person who engages in a

transaction with a nonregulated person

which—(i) involves ephedrine,

pseudoephedrine, or