[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 24 (Friday, February 4, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5682-5686]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2541]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. 99-1]


Michael Alan Patterson, M.D.; Grant of Restricted Registration

    On September 23, 1998, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office 
of Diversion Control Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an 
Order to Show Cause to Michael Alan Patterson, M.D. (Respondent) of 
Memphis, Tennessee, notifying him of an opportunity to show causes as 
to why DEA should not deny his application for registration as a 
practitioner pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f), for reason that his 
registration would be inconsistent with the public interest.
    By letter dated October 22, 1998, Respondent, through counsel, 
requested a hearing on the issues raised by the Order to Show Cause. 
Following prehearing procedures, a hearing was held in Nashville, 
Tennessee on March 10, 1999, before Administrative Law Judge Gail A. 
Randall. At the hearing, both parties called witnesses to testify and 
introduced documentary evidence. After the hearing, both parties 
submitted proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and argument. 
On August 11, 1999, Judge Randall issued her Recommended Rulings, 
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision (Opinion), 
recommending that Respondent's application for registration be granted 
subject to various conditions. Neither party filed exceptions to Judge 
Randall's Opinion, and on September 15, 1999, Judge Randall transmitted 
the record of these proceedings to the Deputy Administrator.
    The Deputy Administrator has considered the record in its entirety, 
and pursuant to 21 CFR 1316.67, hereby issues his final order based 
upon findings of fact and conclusions of law as hereinafter set forth. 
This final order

[[Page 5683]]

replaces and supersedes the final order issued on December 22, 1999, 
and published at 64 FR 73,587 (December 30, 1999). The Deputy 
Administrator adopts, with specifically noted exceptions, the 
Recommended Rulings, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision 
of the Administration Law Judge. His adoption is in no manner 
diminished by any recitation of facts, issues or conclusions herein, or 
of any failure to mention a matter of factor or law.
    The Deputy Administrator finds that Respondent admits to a history 
of drug and alcohol abuse, beginning with marijuana and beer on the 
weekends as a teenager. When Respondent entered college in 1980, he 
used cocaine sporadically after being introduced to the drug by one of 
his brothers.
    Respondent received his medical degree in 1983, and from July 1983 
through June 1986, Respondent was a resident in family practice in 
Florida. During his residency Respondent used a DEA certificate of 
Registration issued to him in Florida that expired on March 31, 1987. 
As a resident, his drug use remained sporadic but became more frequent.
    In 1986, Respondent moved to Mississippi to fulfill an obligation 
to the National Health Service Corps. Respondent obtained medical 
licenses in both Mississippi and Tennessee. Ultimately, Respondent was 
issued DEA Certificate of Registration in both states.
    In order to earn additional income, Respondent also worked for an 
emergency room service and for a freestanding urgent care center from 
1986 through 1989. During this time he worked approximately 80 to 100 
hours per week. According to Respondent, in 1986 his drug use 
``progress[ed] to heavy,'' and the use of cocaine helped him stay awake 
so he could continue working.
    Respondent testified that financial, marital, and work-related 
stress contributed to his drug use. He further testified that he began 
staying out late at night, if he returned home at all, and he 
frequented topless clubs. He failed to show up for work, and if he did 
show up, he was too ``crashed out'' to be productive. Eventually, 
Respondent's former wife notified his employer that Respondent had a 
cocaine problem.
    As a result, the then-medical director the Tennessee Medical 
Foundation, Physicians Health Program (PHP), set up an intervention 
with Respondent, and Respondent entered treatment on March 16, 19990. 
According to Respondent he was very resistant to treatment at that time 
and fought it ``tooth and nail.'' Respondent completed the four-month 
treatment program in July or August 1990; however, he did not enter 
into an ongoing contract with the treatment center at that time.
    After his treatment, Respondent returned to work part-time at the 
freestanding urgent care center, and later in 1990, he began a second 
job working full-time at a 24-hour minor medical emergency center. 
Additionally, in November or December 1991, Respondent began working at 
a hospital center. Respondent's employers were aware of his drug abuse 
problems and treatment.
    In the spring or summer of 1991, Respondent began drinking again, 
and allowed his DEA registrations to expire. Although he had been sent 
notices to renew his registrations, Respondent testified that he 
``avoid[ed] the mail'' during this time because he owed debts to 
several bill collectors. By January 1992, Respondent began using 
cocaine and crack cocaine again. As a result of his relapse, Respondent 
was fired from the 24-hour minor medical emergency center in March 
1992.
    Respondent was not aware that he had let his DEA registrations 
lapse until the hospital where he was working requested a copy of his 
current DEA registration. Respondent attempted to renew his 
registration in Tennessee, but he inadvertently sent the wrong form to 
DEA with the fee. When the incorrect form and money were returned to 
Respondent, he spent the money on cocaine and failed to renew his 
registration. Since he still needed to have a current registration to 
submit to the hospital, Respondent's then-girlfriend altered his 
expired DEA Certificate of Registration to reflect a 1995 expiration 
date instead of the actual 1991 expiration date. This forgery resulted 
in the hospital terminating Respondent's employment on September 15, 
1992. At the hearing Respondent testified that he was abusing drugs and 
alcohol at the time of the alteration of his Certificate of 
Registration, and that ``there's no real justification to give you, 
other than I was sick and irresponsible.''
    Respondent's substance abuse worsened, and during this time he was 
arrested and charged with the misdemeanors of drunk driving, reckless 
driving, public intoxication and possession of drug paraphernalia. 
Respondent pled guilty to two of the charges. In addition, from the 
summer of 1991 to November 1992, Respondent prescribed controlled 
substances without a valid registration and exchanged prescriptions for 
discounts on the cost of cocaine.
    An investigation of Respondent began in 1992 based upon information 
from a confidential informant that she received controlled substance 
prescriptions from Respondent for no legitimate medical reason. On 
February 16, 1993, Respondent voluntarily met with law enforcement 
personnel. At this time, Respondent was currently undergoing inpatient 
treatment at a halfway house for his addiction. Respondent cooperated 
and provided full disclosure during this meeting, as well as subsequent 
meetings.
    The investigation of Respondent, as well as his own admissions, 
revealed that Respondent had written controlled substance prescriptions 
to a number of individuals for no legitimate medical reason. He 
exchanged these prescriptions for services to include topless or 
private dances. He traded cocaine for sex and private dances, and he 
used cocaine and marijuana with these dancers.
    Respondent acknowledged his prior behavior, his activity regarding 
his relationship with these individuals, and his unlawful prescribing 
of controlled substances. Respondent has accepted responsibility for 
his actions.
    Subsequently, Respondent agreed to cooperate with the local police 
department. He provided a list of people that he had written controlled 
substance prescriptions to for no legitimate medical purpose. He also 
provided the names of individuals from whom he had purchased drugs from 
in the past and indicated from whom he thought he could buy drugs from 
in the future. Respondent agreed to work with the local police 
department to make telephone calls and contacts in an effort to set up 
undercover buys for drugs. Respondent was not very successful in 
gaining evidence against others since it was known that Respondent was 
in trouble. Respondent's cooperation with the local police department 
continued until August 1993.
    Respondent entered treatment for a second time in November 1992, 
this time voluntarily. Respondent testified that he realized that his 
first attempt at treatment was ``a half-hearted effort'' and that at 
that time he was in denial of his addiction. By the time of his second 
attempt at treatment he had essentially lost everything. He testified, 
``if I didn't get into treatment at that time, I really didn't think I 
would be here much longer.'' Respondent was in inpatient treatment for 
three weeks and then continued to undergo inpatient treatment at a 
halfway house for impaired professionals until June 1993.
    While in treatment, Respondent's Tennessee medical license expired 
on

[[Page 5684]]

December 31, 1992. Respondent did not submit a renewal application for 
this license until March 23, 1993 and did not pay the license fee until 
May 11, 1993. Respondent continued to practice medicine even though his 
license had not been renewed. Respondent explained that when he 
returned to work in 1993, he thought his medical license was in a 
``grace period.''
    After completing his treatment in June 1993, Respondent returned to 
work at the 24-hour minor medical emergency center and for the 
emergency room service, both of which were aware of Respondent's prior 
drug treatments. On his application for employment with the emergency 
room service submitted on September 29, 1993, Respondent indicated that 
his privileges or professional services at any hospital had never been 
revoked, even though his privileges at the hospital center had been 
revoked in September 1992. At the hearing, Respondent admitted that 
this mistake was an oversight and that ``[he] had no reason to 
intentionally try and mislead or lie on that application.''
    Respondent has maintained a contract with the PHP since March 3, 
1993. After treatment, the PHP coordinates and monitors physicians' 
recovery process for a minimum of two years. As part of this contract 
with the PHP physicians agree to attend weekly peer group meetings and 
monthly meetings with PHP personnel, to undergo random drug testing, to 
attend Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous meetings, and to 
participate in individualized therapy.
    After fulfilling the terms of his initial two-year contract with 
the PHP, Respondent has continued to renew his contract. Respondent has 
complied with the terms of his contract.
    As a result of Respondent's past behavior, the Tennessee Board of 
Medical Examiners (Board) sought to take action against Respondent's 
Tennessee medical license. Respondent failed to appear for a scheduled 
hearing before the Board on June 21, 1994. According to Respondent he 
never received notice from the Board that the hearing was going to take 
place. As a result, on June 22, 1994, the board entered a Default Order 
revoking Respondent's Tennessee medical license and assessing a $4,300 
civil penalty. The Board found among other things that Respondent had 
lied on his Tennessee medical license renewal form and on his 
employment application dated September 29, 1993, that he engaged in 
unprofessional, dishonorable or unethical conduct, that he was 
habitually intoxicated which affected his ability to practice medicine, 
and that he dispensed controlled substances not in the course of 
professional practice. Respondent stopped practicing medicine when he 
received written notification in July 1994 of the Board's action.
    Based upon his conduct in 1991 and 1992, Respondent was indicted on 
July 19, 1995, in the United States District Court for the Western 
District of Tennessee, and charged with 387 felony counts related to 
his handling of controlled substances. On November 18, 1996, Respondent 
pled guilty to 17 counts of the unlawful distribution of controlled 
substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1). On March 27, 1997, 
Respondent was sentenced to three years probation, 2,000 hours of 
community service, and assessed a fine of $850. As conditions of his 
probation, Respondent is required to submit a random drug screens and 
to meet monthly with his probation officer. As of the date of the 
hearing Respondent had completed 1,500 to 1,600 hours of his community 
service obligation and had complied with all of the conditions of his 
probation.
    On July 1, 1995, Respondent began a three-year psychiatry residency 
program at the University of Tennessee. He was selected for the 
position of Chief Resident in psychiatry by his fellow residents and 
faculty. During his residency, Respondent used the institutional DEA 
numbers of the institutions where he worked as a resident. No questions 
were ever raised by any official or representative at the University of 
Tennessee regarding Respondent's handling of controlled substances.
    After his indictment and while in his residency program, Respondent 
assisted DEA in undercover activities for close to a year. Respondent's 
assistance produced four controlled substance buys, two of which 
resulted in convictions.
    Effective October 6, 1997, the Board reinstated Respondent's 
medical license, finding that ``[t]he [Respondent] has been monitored 
by the Tennessee Medical Foundation's Physician Health Program and is 
currently in good standing with the program. He presented evidence of 
five (5) years of sobriety.'' The Board placed several restrictions on 
Respondent's medical license including that he maintain an affiliation 
with the PHP for five years to include at least five unannounced drug 
screens per year; that he only apply for a DEA registration in 
Schedules III, IV and V; and that he only practice in a supervised 
setting under a licensed physician acceptable to the Board until his 
criminal probation is lifted, but for not less than two years.
    Respondent has been in compliance with the Board's restrictions. On 
average, Respondent is tested for drugs eight to ten times per year. 
According to Respondent, he plans to maintain a lifetime relationship 
with the PHP, not just the five years imposed by the Board.
    The medical director of the PHP testified at the hearing that he 
has been in frequent contact with Respondent for over three and a half 
years. He believes that Respondent's prognosis for continued recovery 
from his drug addiction is excellent. The medical director testified 
that he does not have any reservations concerning Respondent's ability 
to handle Schedules III, IV and V controlled substances and that he 
``fully support[s]'' the granting of Respondent's application. However, 
both Respondent and the medical director testified that Respondent may 
benefit from a course on the proper handling of controlled substances.
    Respondent testified that he has been sober since November 6, 1992. 
He further testified that he would pay greater attention to detail 
about his registration status, and the proper maintenance and renewal 
of his DEA and state registration ``won't be a problem in the future at 
any time.'' He feels that he is ``much more responsible'' now. 
Respondent is ashamed of his previous conduct. He testified however 
that ``today I know that I'm not the same person that I was six, seven, 
eight years ago * * * who was sick and addicted.'' Respondent testified 
that he understands the consequences of a relapse.
    Since 1998, Respondent has been employed at a treatment facility 
where, for the most part, he practices addiction medicine. Presently, 
if Respondent's treatment of a patient requires the use of controlled 
substances, one of Respondent's supervisors writes the prescription. 
The Board has approved Respondent's employment at the treatment 
facility and any change in employment would require additional Board 
approval.
    On October 28, 1997, Respondent executed the application for 
registration that is the subject of these proceedings. Respondent 
applied to be registered in Schedules III, IV and V and provided his 
home address as his ``Proposed Business Address.'' Respondent testified 
that he does not intend to handle controlled substances at his 
residence and that the address on his application should be modified to 
reflect the address at the treatment facility where he is currently 
employed.

[[Page 5685]]

    Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f), the Deputy Administrator may deny an 
application for a DEA Certificate of Registration, if he determines 
that the registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. 
Section 823(f) requires that the following factors be considered in 
determining the public interest:
    (1) The recommendation of the appropriate State licensing board or 
professional disciplinary authority.
    (2) The applicant's experience in dispensing, or conducting 
research with respect to controlled substances.
    (3) The applicant's conviction record under Federal or State laws 
relating to the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of controlled 
substances.
    (4) Compliance with applicable State, Federal, or local laws 
relating to controlled substances.
    (5) Such other conduct which may threaten the public health and 
safety.
    These factors are to be considered in the disjunctive; the Deputy 
Administrator may rely on any one or a combination of factors and may 
give each factor the weight he deems appropriate in determining whether 
a registration should be revoked or an application for registration 
denied. See Henry J. Schwarz, Jr., M.D., 54 FR 16422 (1989).
    As to factor one, the Board revoked Respondent's Tennessee medical 
license in June of 1994. However, three years later the Board 
reinstated Respondent's license subject to various restrictions. In 
reinstating Respondent's license, the Board recognized that Respondent 
had been drug-free for five years and was in good standing with the 
PHP. Therefore, it is undisputed that Respondent is currently 
authorized to handle controlled substances in Tennessee.
    While state licensure is a prerequisite for a DEA registration, it 
is not dispositive of whether Respondent's registration would be in the 
public interest. However, it is noteworthy that the Board stated that 
``[a]ny DEA certificate that the [Respondent] shall apply for shall be 
limited to Schedule III, IV and V.'' The Deputy Administrator agrees 
with Judge Randall that, ``[a]lthough this restriction is not an 
endorsement by the Board for issuing a DEA registration to the 
Respondent, at a minimum, this statement expresses the Board's 
confidence in the Respondent's ability to handle the responsibilities 
of a DEA registrant, particularly regarding the Respondent's ability to 
handle Schedules III, IV and V controlled substances.''
    Respondent's experience in dispensing controlled substances and his 
compliance with laws related to controlled substances may be considered 
under factors two and four. The Deputy Administrator finds that 
Respondent's handling of controlled substances was abysmal during his 
active drug abuse. Respondent violated 21 U.S.C. 843(a)(2) by 
prescribing controlled substances without a valid DEA registration. He 
caused his expired DEA Certificate of Registration to be altered. In 
addition, Respondent violated 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) by prescribing 
controlled substances to individuals for no legitimate medical purpose. 
He wrote these prescriptions in exchange for discounts on his cocaine 
and crack purchases and in exchange for topless dances from women.
    The Deputy Administrator finds this conduct to be reprehensible, 
and certainly could justify denying Respondent's application for 
registration. However, all of this conduct occurred when Respondent was 
heavily involved in substance abuse. Respondent has been drug-free 
since November 1992. He underwent intensive treatment and is still 
actively participating in aftercare treatment.
    Also of concern is that Respondent continued to practice medicine 
in 1993 after he failed to timely renew his state medical license. 
However, this occurred when Respondent was undergoing substance abuse 
treatment and he thought his license was subject to a grace period.
    Other than his practice of medicine without a current state 
license, there is no evidence that Respondent improperly handled 
controlled substances after he entered treatment in November 1992. In 
fact, Respondent handled controlled substances without question from 
July 1, 1995 to June 30, 1998 when using institutional numbers issued 
to him by the University of Tennessee during his residency.
    Regarding factor three, it is undisputed that when Respondent was 
abusing drugs and alcohol, he was arrested for drunk driving, reckless 
driving, public intoxication and possession of drug paraphernalia. He 
pled guilty to two of these charges. In addition, on November 18, 1996, 
Respondent pled guilty to 17 counts of unlawful distribution of 
controlled substances. Respondent was sentenced to three years 
probation and 2,000 hours of community service. Evidence in the record 
indicates that Respondent has complied with the terms of his probation. 
While such convictions clearly could justify denying Respondent's 
application for registration, the Deputy Administrator finds it 
significant that these convictions resulted from Respondent's behavior 
when he was addicted to drugs and alcohol, and as has been previously 
discussed, Respondent has been drug-free for seven years and his 
prognosis for continued recovery is excellent.
    As to factor five, other conduct which may threaten the public 
health and safety, it is undisputed that Respondent was previously 
addicted to alcohol and drugs, including marijuana, cocaine and crack 
cocaine. According to Respondent, his conduct was ``dangerous, illegal, 
[and] irresponsible'' when he was addicted. However, Respondent has 
under gone intensive treatment for his substance abuse and his 
treatment is ongoing.
    It is true that Respondent previously had undergone treatment but 
had relapsed. However, Respondent admits that he was resistant to 
treatment at that time. The second time that Respondent entered 
treatment, he did so voluntarily and is committed to such treatment. 
The evidence suggests that his chances of relapse are slight. He 
understands the consequences of a relapse. He intends to maintain a 
lifetime relationship with the PHP and he currently works with others 
who are addicted to drugs and alcohol.
    Judge Randall also found it significant under this factor that 
Respondent incorrectly listed his home address on his application for 
registration. However, she further found that it was not so egregious 
as to warrant a denial of Respondent's application for registration. 
The Deputy Administrator agrees that this incorrect listing of his 
business address does not warrant denial of Respondent's application.
    Judge Randall concluded, and the Deputy Administrator agrees, that 
the Government has made a prima facie case for denial of Respondent's 
application. Respondent unlawfully prescribed controlled substances, 
altered his DEA Certificate of Registration, abused alcohol and drugs, 
and was convicted of offenses relating to controlled substances. 
However, it is not in the public interest to deny Respondent's 
application.
    Respondent has acknowledged his past unlawful behavior and has 
accepted responsibility for his conduct. Respondent had a serious 
addiction to drugs and alcohol during his unlawful conduct. He has been 
sober since November 1992 and his chances of continued recovery are 
excellent. He intends to maintain a lifetime relationship with the PHP 
and he is currently still being monitored by the State of Tennessee. 
The evidence suggests that Respondent is clearly committed to his 
recovery and is seeking to help others with substance abuse problems by 
predominantly

[[Page 5686]]

practicing addiction psychiatry. Judge Randall also found it 
significant that Respondent cooperated with law enforcement by fully 
disclosing his unlawful conduct, by providing information against 
others, and by assisting in undercover buys.
    Therefore, the Deputy Administrator agrees with Judge Randall that 
it would not be in the public interest to deny Respondent's 
application. However given the egregiousness of Respondent's past 
behavior, Judge Randall recommended that restrictions be imposed on 
Respondent's registration that would ``add a measure of protection to 
the public interest, while affording [Respondent] the opportunity to 
demonstrate his ability and willingness to handle controlled substances 
responsibly in his medical practice.'' Judge Randall recommended that 
Respondent's application for registration be granted subject to the 
following restrictions:
    (1) The Respondent must resubmit a registration application 
reflecting his ``Proposed Business Address'' as required by regulation;
    (2) The Respondent be granted a Certificate of Registration only 
for Schedules III, IV and V;
    (3) By not later than two years after the date of the final order, 
the Respondent shall submit to the local DEA office evidence of 
successful completion, after August of 1999, of formal training in the 
proper handling or prescribing of controlled substances. Such training 
should be provided by an accredited institution at the Respondent's own 
expense;
    (4) For three years after the effective date of the final order in 
this case, the Respondent shall submit, on a quarterly basis, a log of 
all of the controlled substances he has prescribed, administered or 
dispensed during the previous quarter, to the Special Agent in Charge 
of the nearest DEA office, or his or her designee. The log should 
include: the patient's name; the date that the controlled substance was 
prescribed, administered or dispensed; and the name, dosage and 
quantity of the controlled substance prescribed, administered or 
dispensed. If no controlled substances are prescribed, administered or 
dispensed during a given quarter, the Respondent shall indicate that 
fact in writing, in lieu of submission of the log. Review of such a log 
should provide adequate assurances for his future responsible conduct 
as a registrant.
    The Deputy Administrator agrees with Judge Randall that 
Respondent's application for registration should be granted and that it 
is appropriate to impose restrictions on such registration. However, 
the Deputy Administrator finds it unnecessary to require Respondent to 
resubmit an application listing his proper business address. At the 
hearing in this matter, Respondent requested that his application be 
modified to reflect the address of his current place of employment. The 
Deputy Administrator finds that this request is sufficient to modify 
his application and a new application for registration is not required. 
However, if Respondent's place of employment has changed from that 
represented at the hearing, a new written request for modification of 
the address on his application must be submitted.
    In addition, the Deputy Administrator disagrees with Judge 
Randall's recommendation that Respondent be given two years to present 
evidence of successful completion of formal training in the proper 
handling or prescribing of controlled substances. Given the nature of 
Respondent's past conduct, the Deputy Administrator finds that it is in 
the public interest for such training to be completed within one year 
of being issued his DEA registration.
    Finally, the Deputy Administrator believes that it is prudent to 
require Respondent to continue his affiliation with the PHP for three 
years regardless of whether such affiliation is required by the Board.
    Therefore, the Deputy Administrator concludes that Respondent 
should be granted a DEA Certificate of Registration in Schedules III, 
IV and V subject to the following restrictions:
    (1) By not later than one year after the Certificate of 
Registration is issued, Respondent shall submit to the DEA office in 
Nashville, Tennessee evidence of successful completion, after August of 
1999, of formal training in the proper handling or prescribing of 
controlled substances. Such training should be provided by an 
accredited institution at the Respondent's own expense.
    (2) For three years after the issuance of the Certificate of 
Registration, Respondent shall submit, on a quarterly basis, a log of 
all of the controlled substances he has prescribed, administered, or 
dispensed during the previous quarter, to the Resident Agent in Charge 
of the DEA office in Nashville, Tennessee, or his or her designee. The 
log should include: The patient's name; the date that the controlled 
substance was prescribed, administered or dispensed; and the name, 
dosage and quantity of the controlled substance prescribed, 
administered, or dispensed. If no controlled substances are prescribed, 
administered or dispensed during a given quarter, the Respondent shall 
indicate that fact in writing, in lieu of submission of the log.
    (3) Respondent shall continue his affiliation with the Tennessee 
Medical Foundation's Physicians' Health Program for at least three 
years from the issuance of the Certificate of Registration, regardless 
of whether such affiliation is required by the Tennessee Board of 
Medical Examiners.
    Accordingly, the 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 the 
application for registration submitted by Michael Alan Patterson, M.D., 
be, and it hereby is, granted subject to the above described 
restrictions. This order is effective upon the issuance of the DEA 
Certificate of Registration, but no later than March 6, 2000, and is 
the final agency action for appellate purposes pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 
877.

    Dated: January 18, 2000.
Donnie R. Marshall,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 00-2541 Filed 2-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M