6802 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 30 / Thursday, February 13, 1997 / Notices

disposition upon clarification from the

Board that Respondent is unable to

handle controlled substances in the

State of Texas.

On June 20, 1996, the Government

renewed its motion for summary

disposition. Its motion was

accompanied by a letter from the Board

dated June 19, 1996, which states that

under the Agreed Order, Respondent ‘‘is

not authorized to ‘prescribe, administer,

or dispense any controlled substance’

even if the Drug Enforcement

Administration were to grant her

certificate for same.’’ Thereafter, on June

21, 1996, Judge Bittner issued her

Opinion and Recommended Decision,

finding that based upon the evidence

before her, Respondent lacked

authorization to handle controlled

substances in the State of Texas;

granting the Government’s motion for

summary disposition; and

recommending that Respondent’s

application for a DEA Certificate of

Registration be denied. Neither party

filed exceptions to her opinion, and on

July 24, 1996, Judge Bittner transmitted

the record of these proceedings to the

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 full,

the Opinion and Recommended

Decision of the Administrative Law

Judge.

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/she conducts business. 21

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

This prerequisite has been consistently

upheld. See Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58

FR 51,104 (1993); James H. Nickens,

M.D., 57 FR 59,847 (1992); Roy E.

Hardman, M.D., 57 FR 49,195 (1992). In

the instant case, the record indicates

that Respondent is not currently

authorized to handle controlled

substances in the State of Texas. As

Judge Bittner notes, ‘‘[i]t is equally clear

that because Respondent lacks this state

authority, she is not currently entitled to

a DEA registration.’’

In her letter dated April 5, 1996,

Respondent had noted that the terms of

the Agreed Order would be subject to

amendment one year after issuance of

the order. However, the Acting Deputy

Administrator finds that there is nothing

in the record to indicate that there has

been any amendment to the terms of the

Agreed Order. Accordingly, the Acting

Deputy Administrator concurs with

Judge Bittner’s conclusion that

Respondent is not currently authorized

to handle controlled substances and

therefore is not entitled to a DEA

registration.

Judge Bittner also properly granted

the Government’s motion for summary

disposition. Here, the parties did not

dispute the fact that Respondent was

unauthorized to handle controlled

substances in Texas. Therefore, it is

well-settled that when no question of

material fact is involved, a plenary,

adversary administrative proceeding

involving evidence and crossexamination of witnesses is not

obligatory. See Dominick A. Ricci, M.D.,

supra, (finding it well settled that where

there is no question of material fact

involved, a plenary, adversarial

administrative hearing was not

required.); see also 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).

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 the application

submitted by Barbara H. Briner, M.D. for

a DEA Certificate of Registration be, and

it hereby is, denied. This order is

effective March 17, 1997.

Dated: February 4, 1997.

[FR Doc. 97–3640 Filed 2–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

Manufacturer of Controlled

Substances Application

Pursunat to § 1301.43(a) of Title 21 of

the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),

this is notice that on November 11,

1996, Isotec, Inc., 3858 Benner Road,

Miamisburg, Ohio 45342, made

application, which was received for

processing December 30, 1996, by

renewal to the Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA) for registration as

a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes

of controlled substances listed below:

Drug Schedule

Cathinone (1235) ...................... I

Methcathinone (1237) ............... I

N-Ethylamphetamine (1475) ..... I

N,N-Dimethylamphetamine

(1480) .................................... I

Aminorex (1585) ....................... I

Methaqualone (2565) ................ I

Drug Schedule

Lysergic acid diethylamide

(7315) .................................... I

Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370) .. I

Mescaline (7381) ...................... I

2,5-Dimethoxyamphetamine

(7396) .................................... I

3,4-

Methylenedioxyamphetamine

(7400) .................................... I

3,4-Methylenedioxy-Nethylamphetamine (7404) ..... I

3,4-

Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (7405) ......................... I

4-Methoxyamphetamine (7411) I

Psilocybin (7437) ...................... I

Psilocyn (7438) ......................... I

N-Ethyl-1-

phenylcyclohexylamine

(7455) .................................... I

Dihydromorphine (9145) ........... I

Normorphine (9313) .................. I

Acetylmethadol (9601) .............. I

Alphacetylmethadol Except

Levo-Alphacetylmethadol

(9603) .................................... I

Normethadone (9635) ............... I

3-Methylfentanyl (9813) ............ I

Amphetamine (1100) ................ II

Methamphetamine (1105) ......... II

Methylphenidate (1724) ............ II

Amobarbital (2125) ................... II

Pentobarbital (2270) ................. II

Secobarbital (2315) .................. II

1-Phenylcyclohexylamine

(7460) .................................... II

Phencyclidine (7471) ................ II

Phenylacetone (8501) ............... II

1-

Piperidinocyclohexanecarbonitrile (8603) .......................... II

Codeine (9050) ......................... II

Dihydrocodeine (9120) ............. II

Oxycodone (9143) .................... II

Hydromorphone (9150) ............. II

Benzoylecgoine (9180) ............. II

Ethylmorphine (9190) ............... II

Hydrocodone (9193) ................. II

Isomethadone (9226) ................ II

Meperidine (9230) ..................... II

Methadone (9250) .................... II

Methadone intermediate (9254) II

Dextropropoxyphene, bulk

(non-dosage forms) (9273) ... II

Morphine (9300) ....................... II

Levo-Alphacetylmethadol

(9648) .................................... II

Oxymorphone (9652) ................ II

Fentanyl (9801) ......................... II

The firm plans to use small quantities

of the listed controlled substances to

produce standards for analytical

laboratories.

Any other such applicant and any

person who is presently registered with

DEA to manufacture such substances

may file comments or objections to the

issuance of the above application.

Any such comments or objections

may be addressed, in quintuplicate, to

the Deputy Assistant Administrator,

Office of Diversion Control, Drug
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 30 / Thursday, February 13, 1997 / Notices 6803

Enforcement Administration, United

States Department of Justice,

Washington, DC 20537, Attention: DEA

Federal Register Representative (CCR),

and must be filed no later than April 14,

1997.

Dated: January 27, 1997.

Gene R. Haislip,

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–3659 Filed 2–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

Manufacturer of Controlled

Substances, Notice of Application

Pursuant to Section 1301.43(a) of Title

21 of the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR), this is notice that on December

24, 1996, MD Pharmaceutical, Inc., 3501

West Garry Avenue, Santa Ana,

California 92704, made application by

renewal to the Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA) for registration as

a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes

of controlled substances listed below:

Drug Schedule

Methylphenidate (1724) ................ II

Diphenoxylate (9170) ................... II

The firm plans to manufacture the

listed controlled substances to make

finished dosage forms for distribution to

its customers.

Any other such applicant and any

person who is presently registered with

DEA to manufacture such substances

may file comments or objections to the

issuance of the above application.

Any such comments or objections

may be addressed, in quintuplicate, to

the Deputy Assistant Administrator,

Office of Diversion Control, Drug

Enforcement Administration, United

States Department of Justice,

Washington, DC 20537, Attention: DEA

Federal Register Representative (CCR),

and must be filed no later than April 14,

1997.

Dated: January 27, 1997.

Gene R. Haislip,

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–3642 Filed 2–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

Notice of Determinations Regarding

Eligibility To Apply for Worker

Adjustment Assistance and NAFTA

Transitional Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of the

Trade Act of 1974, as amended, the

Department of Labor herein presents

summaries of determinations regarding

eligibility to apply for trade adjustment

assistance for workers (TA–W) issued

during the period of January, 1997.

In order for an affirmative

determination to be made and a

certification of eligibility to apply for

worker adjustment assistance to be

issued, each of the group eligibility

requirements of Section 222 of the Act

must be met.

(1) That a significant number of

proportion of the workers in the

workers’ firm, or an appropriate

subdivision thereof, have become totally

or partially separated,

(2) That sales or production, or both,

of the firm or sub-division have

decreased absolutely, and

(3) That increases of imports of

articles like or directly competitive with

articles produced by the firm or

appropriate subdivision have

contributed importantly to the

separations, or threat thereof, and to the

absolute decline in sales or production.

Negative Determinations for Worker

Adjustment Assistance

In each of the following cases the

investigation revealed that criterion (3)

has not been met. A survey of customers

indicated that increased imports did not

contribute importantly to worker

separations at the firm.

TA–W–32,901; American Commercial

Vehicles, Stamping & Assembling

Div., Orrville, OH

TA–W–32,903; NOW Products, Inc.,

Chicago, IL

TA–W–32,817; Ingersoll-Dresser Pump

Co., Phillipsburg, NJ

TA–W–32,829; DuPont Films, Holly Run

Plant, Newport, DE

TA–W–32,935; Borg Warner Automotive,

Muncie, IN

TA–W–33,022; Quality Apparel

Manufacturing, Inc., New Bedford,

MA

TA–W–32,979; Collegeville Flag and

Manufacturing Co., Port Clinton, PA

In the following cases, the

investigation revealed that the criteria

for eligibility have not been met for the

reasons specified.

TA–W–33,038; United Healthcare Corp.

(Formerly Metra Health Corp),

Milwaukee, WI

TA–W–32,978; CSCS Caribbean N.V.,

Miami, FL

TA–W–32,959; Bowdon Manufacturing

Co., Bowdon, GA

TA–W–33,101; Donnkenny Apparel,

Inc., Mantachie Warehouse/

Mustang Warehouse, Mantachie,

MS

TA–W–32,790 & A; Walker Information,

Inc., Indianapolis, IN and Tempe,

AZ

TA–W–33,082; World Airways, Herdon,

VA

TA–W–33,023; Associated Food Stores,

Inc., Pocatello, ID

The workers firm does not produce an

article as required for certification under

Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.

TA–W–32,841; Kensington Window,

Inc., Vandergrift, PA

The investigation revealed that

criteria (1) and criteria (2) have not been

met. A significant number or proportion

of the workers did not become totally or

partially separated as required for

certification. Sales or production did

not decline during the relevant period

as required for certification.

TA–W–32, 866; W.W.I., Inc., Dover

Products Div., Dover, TN

TA–W–32, 967; Hasbro, Inc/Pant Ease,

Arcade, NY

TA–W–32, 951; AMP, Inc., Erie, PA

TA–W–33, 061; Ball-Foster Glass

Container Co., Laurens, SC

TA–W–32, 969; NEC Technologies, Inc

(NECTECH), Northboro, MA

Increased imports did not contribute

importantly to worker separations at the

firm.

TA–W–32, 822; Anchor Advance

Product, Inc., Morristown, TN

The investigation revealed that

production of toothbrushes was

transferred to a plant in Puerto Rico.

Puerto Rico is a commonwealth of U.S.

and therefore, it is considered domestic

U.S. production for purposes of the

Trade Act of 1974.

TA–W–32, 963; Sunbeam (Outdoor

products), Portland, TN

TA–W–32, 879; Agway, Inc., Country

Product Group, Waverly, NY

Layoffs are related to a company

decision to transfer production

performed at the subject firm to other

domestic locations.

Affirmative Determinations for Worker

Adjustment Assistance

The following certifications have been

issued; the date following the company

name & location for each determination

references the impact date for all

workers for such determination.