Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices 5689

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

C. Van Nostrand-Perkins, M.D.;

Revocation of Registration

On August 5, 1999, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA), issued an Order

to Show Cause to C. Van NostrandPerkins, M.D., of Huntington Beach,

California, notifying her of an

opportunity to show cause as to why

DEA should not revoke her DEA

Certificate of Registration BP3939165

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

deny any pending applications for

renewal of such registration pursuant to

21 U.S.C. 823(f), for reason that she is

not currently authorized to handle

controlled substances in the State of

California. The order also notified Dr.

Van Nostrand-Perkins that should no

request for a hearing be filed within 30

days, her hearing right would be

deemed waived.

DEA received a signed receipt

indicating that the Order to Show Cause

was received on or about August 13,

1999. No request for a hearing or any

other reply was received by the DEA

from Dr. Van Nostrand-Perkins or

anyone purporting to represent her in

this matter. Therefore, the Deputy

Administrator, finding that (1) 30 days

have passed since the receipt of the

Order to Show Cause, and (2) no request

for a hearing having been received,

concludes that Dr. Van NostrandPerkins is deemed to have waived her

hearing right. After considering material

from the investigative file in this matter,

the Deputy Administrator now enters

his final order without a hearing

pursuant to 21 C.F.R. 1301.43(d) and (e)

and 1301.46. This final order replaces

and supersedes the final order issued on

January 3, 2000.

The Deputy Administrator finds that

Dr. Van Nostrand-Perkins currently

possesses DEA Certificate of

Registration BP3939165 issued to her in

California. The Deputy Administrator

further finds that effective August 14,

1997, the Division of Medical Quality,

Medical Board of California, Department

of Consumer Affairs, State of California

revoked Dr. Van Nostrand-Perkins’

license to practice medicine. The

Deputy Administrator concludes that

Dr. Van Nostrand-Perkins is not

currently licensed to practice medicine

in California, and therefore it is

reasonable to infer that she is not

currently authorized to handle

controlled substances in that state.

The DEA does not have the 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 she conducts her business. See

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 FR

16,193 (1997); Demetris A. Green, M.D.,

61 FR 60,728 (1996); Dominick A. Ricci,

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

Here it is clear that Dr. Van NostrandPerkins is not currently authorized to

handle controlled substances in the

State of California. As a result, she is not

entitled to a DEA registration in that

state.

Accordingly, the Deputy

Administrator of the Drug Enforcement

Administration, pursuant to the

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

and 824 C.F.R. 0.100(b) and 0.104,

hereby orders that DEA Certificate of

Registration BP3939165, previously

issued to C. Van Nostrand-Perkins,

M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. The

Deputy Administrator further orders

that any pending applications for the

renewal of such registration, be, and

they hereby are, denied. This order is

effective March 6, 2000, and is

considered 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. 00–2533 Filed 2–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

National Institute of Corrections

Advisory Board Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. on

Monday, March 6, 2000 and 8:30 a.m. to

12 noon to Tuesday, March 7, 2000.

PLACE: Westin Hotel—Seattle, 1900

Fifth Avenue, Seattle, Washington

98101.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Tours/

Presentations Concerning King County

Crisis Triage Unit/Pre-Booking

Diversion, Seattle Police Department

Crisis Intervention Team, King County

Mental Health Court Proceedings and

Post-Booking Diversion Proceedings;

Updates on Mentally Ill in Prisons and

Jails, the NIC Strategic Plan, Interstate

Compact Activities, Advisory Board

Hearings; Reports by Program Divisions;

FY 2001 Service Plan

Recommendations; and FY 2002 Budget

Recommendations.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Larry Solomon, Deputy Director, (202)

307–3106, ext. 155.

Morris L. Thigpen,

Director.

[FR Doc. 00–2515 Filed 2–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–36–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of the Secretary

Submission of OMB Review; Comment

Request

February 2, 2000.

The Department of Labor (DOL) has

submitted the following public

information collection requests (ICRs) to

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for review and approval in

accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13,

44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). A copy of each

individual ICR, with applicable

supporting documentation, may be

obtained by calling the Department of

Labor. To obtain documentation for

BLS, ETA, PWBA, and OASAM contact

Karin Kurz ((202) 219–5096 ext. 159 or

by E-mail to Kurz-Karin@dol.gov). To

obtain documentation for ESA, MSHA,

OSHA, and VETS contact Darrin King

((202) 219–5096 ext. 151 or by E-Mail to

King-Darrin@dol.gov).

Comments should be sent to Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Attn: OMB Desk Officer for BLS, DM,

ESA, ETA, MSHA, OSHA, PWBA, or

VETS, Office of Management and

Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC

20503 ((202) 395–7316), within 30 days

from the date of this publication in the

Federal Register.

The OMB is particularly interested in

comments which:

• evaluate whether the proposed

collection of information is necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of the agency, including

whether the information will have

practical utility;

• evaluate the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

proposed collection of information,

including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions used;

• enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and

• minimize the burden of the

collection of information on those who

are to respond, including through the

use of appropriate automated,

electronic, mechanical, or other