Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 1997 / Notices 62075

that, ‘‘[i]n preparing my response to the

pending motion, it has become evident

to me that I do not have certain

documents.’’ On April 30, 1997, the

Government submitted its Response to

Respondent’s Request for a Stay, arguing

that Respondent already has copies of

all of the documents that make up the

record in this proceeding, and that

‘‘neither the Administrative Procedures

Act nor DEA regulations provide for

Respondent’s prehearing discovery or

examination of DEA investigative

materials.’’ The Government requested

that Respondent’s request for a stay be

denied. Thereafter, on May 1, 1997,

Judge Randall issued her Memorandum

and Order agreeing with the

Government’s position and denying

Respondent’s request for a stay of the

proceedings. Respondent was given

until May 9, 1997, to respond to the

Government’s Motion for Summary

Disposition.

Subsequently, Respondent submitted

its Opposition to Government’s Motion

for Summary Disposition dated May 10,

1997, arguing that ‘‘the issue of fact

remains that the Respondent’s licenses

were NOT revoked in the States of

Pennsylvania and New Jersey after

recent hearings resulting from the New

York revocation.’’ Respondent

contended that ‘‘[t]he government bears

the burden of proof to address the status

of the Respondent’s medical licensure

nationally and then apply the applicable

DEA regulations and has failed to do

so.’’ Accordingly, Respondent requested

that the Government’s motion be

denied.

On May 13, 1997, Judge Randall

issued her Memorandum and Order

denying the Government’s Motion for

Summary Disposition. Judge Randall

found that there is no dispute that

Respondent is not currently authorized

to handle controlled substances in the

State of New York. The Administrative

Law Judge concluded that DEA does not

have the statutory authority to maintain

a registration, if the registrant is without

authorization to handle controlled

substances in the state in which he

practices. However, Respondent does

maintain state licensure in Pennsylvania

and New Jersey, and there was nothing

before the Administrative Law Judge

that asserted the location on the DEA

Certificate of Registration in dispute.

Consequently, Judge Randall found that

‘‘there is a genuine issue of material

fact, and this matter currently is not

appropriate for summary disposition.’’

Judge Randall then issued an Order

for Prehearing Statements, and on May

14, 1997, the Government filed its

prehearing statement. Respondent was

given until June 25, 1997, to file his

prehearing statement. In her Order for

Prehearing Statements, the

Administrative Law Judge cautioned

Respondent ‘‘that failure to file timely a

prehearing statement as directed above

may be considered a waiver of hearing

and an implied withdrawal of a request

for hearing.’’ On August 4, 1997, Judge

Randall issued an Order indicating that

she had not yet received a prehearing

statement from Respondent; reminding

Respondent that failure to timely file a

prehearing statement from Respondent;

reminding Respondent that failure to

timely file a prehearing statement may

be deemed a waiver of hearing; and

giving Respondent until August 20,

1997, to file such a statement along with

a motion for late acceptance.

On August 27, 1997, the

Administrative Law Judge issued an

Order Terminating Proceedings, finding

that Respondent has failed to file a

prehearing statement, and therefore

concluding that Respondent has waived

his right to a hearing. Judge Randall

noted that the record would be

transmitted to the Acting Deputy

Administrator for entry of a final order

based upon the investigative file.

Therefore, the Acting Deputy

Administrator, finding that Respondent

has waived his right to a hearing, hereby

enters his final order without a hearing

and based upon the investigative file,

pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(e) and

1301.46.

The Acting Deputy Administrator

finds that Respondent currently

possesses DEA Certificate of

Registration AP3110765 in Schedules II

through V issued to him at an address

in Staten Island, New York. One June 7,

1995, the Hearing Committee on the

Board ordered the revocation of

Respondent’s license to practice

medicine in the State of New York

based upon a finding that Respondent

practiced the medical profession while

impaired by mental disability from

approximately 1986 through 1994, and

a finding that Respondent has a

psychiatric condition which impairs his

ability to practice the medical

profession. In a Decision and Order

effective September 18, 1995, the

Board’s Administrative Review Board

sustained the Hearing Committee’s

findings and revocation of Respondent’s

New York medical license.

The Acting Deputy Administrator

finds that in light of the fact that

Respondent is not currently licensed to

practice medicine in the State of New

York, it is reasonable to infer that he is

not currently authorized to handle

controlled substances in that state.

Respondent does not dispute that he is

not currently authorized to practice

medicine or 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 Romeo J. Perez, M.D. 62

Fed. Reg. 16,193 (1997); Demetris A.

Green, M.D., 61 Fed. Reg. 60,728 (1996);

Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 Fed. Reg.

51,104 (1993).

Here it is clear that Respondent is not

currently authorized to handle

controlled substances in the State of

New York, the state where he is

registered with DEA. Therefore,

Respondent is not entitled to a DEA

registration in that state.

Respondent has argued that he is

licensed to practice medicine in

Pennsylvania and New Jersey. However,

the Acting Deputy Administrator

concludes that the fact that Respondent

is licensed to practice medicine in states

other than New York is irrelevant since

he is not authorized to practice in the

state where he is registered with DEA

and he has not sought to modify his

current registration to another state.

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 AP3110765, previously

issued to Vincent A. Piccone, 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 December 22, 1997.

Dated: November 13, 1997.

James S. Milford,

Acting Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–30592 Filed 11–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of the Secretary

Bureau of International Labor Affairs,

U.S. National Administrative Office:

North American Agreement on Labor

Cooperation; Notice of Determination

Regarding Review of Submission

#9702

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Labor.

ACTION: Notice.
62076 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 1997 / Notices

SUMMARY: The U.S. National

Administrative Office (NAO) gives

notice that on November 17, 1997,

Submission #9702 was accepted for

review. The submission was filed with

the NAO on October 30, 1997, by the

Support Committee for Maquiladora

Workers (SCMW), the International

Labor Rights Fund (ILRF), the National

Association of Democratic Lawyers of

Mexico (ANAD), and the Union of

Metal, Steel, Iron, and Allied Workers

(Sindicato de Trabajadores de la

Industria Meta ́lica, Acero, Hierro,

Conexos y Similares—STIMAHCS) of

Mexico and raises issues of freedom of

association involving workers at an

export processing (maquiladora) plant.

Article 16(3) of the North American

Agreement on Labor Cooperation

(NAALC) provides for the review of

labor law matters in Canada and Mexico

by the NAO. The objectives of the

review of the submission will be to

gather information to assist the NAO to

better understand and publicly report

on the Government of Mexico’s

compliance with the obligations set

forth in Articles 3 and 5 of the NAALC.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 17, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Irasema T. Garza, Secretary, U.S.

National Administrative Office,

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Room C–4327,

Washington, D.C. 20210. Telephone:

(202) 501–6653 (this is not a toll-free

number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

October 30, 1997, SCMW, ILRF, ANAD

and STIMAHCS filed a submission with

the NAO concerning allegations

involving freedom of association among

workers at an export processing

(maquiladora) plant. The submission

contains information alleging that

workers at the Han Young maquiladora

plant in Tijuana, Baja California,

Mexico, were harassed and intimidated

because of their support for an

independent union. It is also alleged

that several union supporters were fired

and one was physically attacked by the

plant manager. Finally, the submission

alleges that the local Conciliation and

Arbitration Board (CAB) failed to

enforce the appropriate provisions of

the Mexican labor law.

The submission maintains that

Mexico is in violation of NAALC Article

5(4) in failing to ensure that its labor

tribunal proceedings are impartial and

independent and do not have a

substantial interest in the outcome of

the matter; Article 5(1) in failing to

ensure that such proceedings are fair,

equitable and transparent; Article

5(1)(d) in failing to ensure that such

proceedings are not unnecessarily

complicated and do not entail

unwarranted delays; Article 5(2)(b) in

failing to ensure that final decisions in

labor proceedings are made available

without undue delay; and 3(1)(g) in

failing to enforce its labor laws

protecting workers’ rights through

appropriate actions.

The submission asserts that Mexico

has failed to enforce its labor laws

regarding freedom of association,

occupational safety and health, wages,

payment of wages, seniority, and profit

sharing as well as the Mexican

Constitution which guarantees freedom

of association. Finally, the submission

alleges that Mexico is in violation of

Convention 87 of the International

Labor Organization (ILO) on freedom of

association, which Mexico has ratified,

and ILO Convention 98 on freedom of

association and collective bargaining,

which Mexico has not ratified but is

nevertheless bound by as a member of

the ILO.

Article 16(3) of the NAALC provides

for the review of labor law matters in

Canada and Mexico by the NAO.

The procedural guidelines for the

NAO, published in the Federal Register

on April 7, 1994, 59 Fed. Reg. 16660,

specify that, in general, the Secretary of

the NAO shall accept a submission for

review if it raises issues relevant to

labor law matters in Canada or Mexico

and if a review would further the

objectives of the NAALC.

Submission #9702 relates to labor law

matters in Mexico. A review would

appear to further the objectives of the

NAALC, as set out in Article 1 of the

NAALC, among them freedom of

association; promoting compliance with

and effective enforcement by each Party

of, its labor law; and fostering

transparency in the administration of

labor law. Accordingly, this submission

has been accepted for review of the

allegations raised therein. The NAO’s

decision is not intended to indicate any

determination as to the validity or

accuracy of the allegations contained in

the submission.

The objectives of the review will be to

gather information to assist the NAO to

better understand and publicly report

on the right to organize and freedom of

association raised in the submission,

including the Government of Mexico’s

compliance with the obligations agreed

to under Articles 3 and 5 of the NAALC.

The review will be completed, and a

public report issued, within 120 days, or

180 days if circumstances require an

extension of time, as set out in the

procedural guidelines of the NAO.

Signed at Washington, D.C. on November

17, 1997.

Lewis Karesh,

Deputy Secretary, U.S. National

Administrative Office.

[FR Doc. 97–30491 Filed 11–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–28–M

NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY

Privacy Act; System of Records.

AGENCY: National Council on Disability.

ACTION: Notice of request for comments.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Privacy Act (% U.S.C. 552a(e)(11)), the

National Council on Disability is issuing

notice of our intent to amend the system

of records entitled the National Payroll

Center to include a new routine use.

The disclosure is required by the

Personal Responsibility and Work

Opportunity Reconciliation Act

(PRWORA, Pub. L. 104–193). We invite

public comment on this publication.

DATES: Persons wishing to comment on

the proposed routine use must do so by

December 10, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Interested individuals may

comment on this publication by writing

to the National Council on Disability,

1331 F Street, NW, Suite 1050,

Washington, DC 20004; 202–272–2022

(fax); ebriggs@ncd.gov (e-mail). All

comments received will be available for

public inspection at that address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ethel D. Briggs, Executive Director,

National Council on Disability, 1331 F

Street NW, Suite 1050, Washington,

D.C. 20004–1107; 202–272–2004

(Voice); 202–272–2074 (TTY); 202–272–

2022 (Fax); ebriggs@ncd.gov (e-mail).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to Public Law 104–93, the Personal

Responsibility and Work Opportunity

Reconciliation Act of 1996, the National

Council on Disability will disclose data

from its National Payroll Center system

of records to the Office of Child Support

Enforcement, Administration for

Children and Families, Department of

Health and Human Services for use in

the National Database of New Hires, part

of the Federal Parent Locator Service

(FPLS) and Federal Tax Offset System,

DHHS/OSCE No. 09–90–0074. A

description of the Federal Parent

Locator Service may be found at 62 FR

51663 (October 2, 1997).

FPLS is a computerized network

through which States may request

location information from Federal and

State agencies to find non-custodial

parents and their employers for

purposes of establishing paternity and