Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 5, 2000 / Notices 75969

16114, 16116 (DEA 1991); Arthur Sklar,

R.Ph., d/b/a King Pharmacy, 54 FR

34623 (DEA 1989).

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 DEA Certificate of

Registration BM2751736, issued to

Medicap Pharmacy, be, and hereby is,

revoked, and any pending applications

for renewal of such registration be

denied. This order is effective January 4,

2001.

Dated: November 21, 2000.

Julio F. Mercado,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 00–30930 Filed 12–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

Manufacturer of Controlled

Substances; Notice of Registration

By Notice dated August 8, 2000, and

published in the Federal Register on

August 23, 2000, (65 FR 51331), Radian

International LLC, 14050 Summit Drive

#121, P.O. Box 201088, Austin, Texas

78720–1088, made application by

renewal to the Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA) to be registered as

a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes

of controlled substances listed below:

Drug Schedule

Gamma hydroxybutyric acid

(2010).

I

Thebaine (9333) ........................... II

The firm plans to manufacture small

quantities of the listed controlled

substances to make deuterated and nondeuterated drug reference standards

which will be distributed to analytical

and forensic laboratories for drug testing

programs.

No comments or objections have been

received. DEA has considered the

factors in Title 21, United States code,

section 823(a) and determined that the

registration of Radian International LLC

to manufacture the listed controlled

substances is consistent with the public

interest at this time. DEA has

investigated Radian International LLC

on a regular basis to ensure that the

company’s continued registration is

consistent with the public interest.

These investigations have included

inspection and testing of the company’s

physical security systems, audits of the

company’s records, verification of the

company’s compliance with state and

local laws, and a review of the

company’s background and history.

Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823

and 28 CFR 0.100 and 0.104, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, hereby orders that

the application submitted by the above

firm for registration as a bulk

manufacturer of the basic classes of

controlled substances listed above is

granted.

Dated: November 20, 2000.

John H. King,

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–30934 Filed 12–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. 99–7]

In the Matter of Mary Thomson, M.D.;

Continuation of Registration With

Restrictions

The Deputy Assistant Administrator,

Office of Diversion Control, Drug

Enforcement Administration (DEA),

issued an Order to Show Cause dated

October 30, 1998, to Mary Thomson,

M.D. (Respondent), seeking to revoke

the Respondent’s DEA Certificate of

Registration, BT3320203, pursuant to 21

U.S.C. 824(a)(2) and (4); and deny any

pending application for renewal of such

registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f)

because her registration would be

inconsistent with the public interest as

defined by 21 U.S.C. 823(f). Specifically,

the Order to Show Cause alleged that

Respondent (1) became opiate

dependent on Demerol, a Schedule II

Controlled Substance, and received inpatient treatment for chemical

dependency; (2) tested positive for

opiates and benzodiazepines in October

of 1995 and had her hospital privileges

suspended; (3) obtained controlled

substances by fraud or

misrepresentation by issuing

prescriptions for controlled substances

in names of persons for whom such

controlled substances were not intended

and administered the controlled

substances to herself for no legitimate

medical purpose and not in the usual

course of her professional practice; (4)

pled guilty to one felony count of

obtaining controlled substances by fraud

and received three years of probation,

community service, and a fine; and (5)

admitted to using controlled substances

without a legitimate medical purpose

and diverting controlled substances to

her own use. Respondent requested to

hearing in a letter filed November 30,

1998. The requested hearing was held in

Dallas, Texas, on April 6–8, 1999. 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

January 4, 2000, Judge Randall issued

her Opinion and Recommended

Rulings, Findings of Fact, Conclusions

of Law, and Decision, recommending

that Respondent’s registration be

continued, subject to three restrictions.

The Government thereafter filed

Exceptions to Judge Randall’s Opinion

and Recommended Rulings, Findings of

Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision;

and Respondent filed Responses to the

Government’s Exceptions, The record

was transmitted to the Deputy

Administrator for final decision

February 16, 2000.

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. The Deputy

Administrator adopts the Opinion and

Recommended Rulings, Findings of

Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision

of the Administrative Law Judge, but

includes additional restrictions on

Respondent’s continued registration.

His adoption is in no manner

diminished by any recitation of facts,

issues, and conclusions herein, or of any

failure to mention a fact or matter of

law. The Deputy Administrator finds

the following facts especially relevant to

his decision.

Respondent was a practicing

pharmacist from 1980 until 1987.

Respondent has practiced medicine

since 1994, when she completed her

medical education. During the course of

her medical education, Respondent

earned several performance awards,

including ‘‘Resident Physician of the

Month,’’ ‘‘Resident of the Year,’’ and

‘‘Outstanding Third Year Resident.’’

Respondent was employed by St. Mary’s

Hospital from 1994 until she resigned

by letter received May 6, 1996.

Respondent is currently employed as

the sole full time physician for Special

Health Resources of East Texas

(SHRET). SHRET is a non-profit public

organization funded at least in part by

government grants. Respondent works

in three clinics serving a large part of

East Texas and also provides treatment

for HIV patients at the Well Spring

Recovery Center, a center for patients

with HIV and substance abuse

problems. Most of the patients who

avail themselves of SHRET’s services

75970 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 5, 2000 / Notices

are the needy and indigent, and who are

also mostly suffering from HIV and

related complications. Respondent also

administers Phase III clinical trials of

experimental AIDS drugs, and follows

the treatment of participating patients.

Respondent’s co-workers at SHRET

variously describe her patient care as

‘‘excellent’’ and ‘‘exceptional.’’

Respondent also provides HIV/AIDS

awareness and treatment training to

local healthcare professionals, including

other physicians.

Before, during, and after the events at

issue, Respondent suffered from a

number of serious medical disorders,

including Lyme Disease and Bipolar

Disorder, Type II. The Bipolar Disorder

was diagnosed in June of 1996,

subsequent to the events forming the

basis for the Show Cause Order. Prior to

this diagnosis, Respondent’s Bipolar

Disorder symptoms had been incorrectly

diagnosed as depression, and were

being treated as such. Judge Randall

credited Respondent’s treating

psychiatrist’s testimony that this

misdiagnosis of Respondent’s Bipolar

Disorder contributed to her

susceptibility to drug use. Since her

diagnosis, Respondent’s Bipolar

Disorder has been treated with lithium,

and her levels are monitored by a

psychiatrist on a monthly basis.

On June 28, 1995, Respondent was

escorted from St. Mary’s Health Care

clinic, her place of employment,

because nurses there noticed

Respondent behaving strangely, that her

speech was slurred, and that she was

unsteady on her feet. Following

Respondent’s departure, hospital staff

found in Respondent’s desk drawer two

used syringes and four vials labeled

‘‘Demerol 50 mg’’, one partially empty.

Each vial listed the same patient’s name,

hereinafter referred to as J.T. Rather

Than resign, or submit to close

monitoring by St. Mary’s Hospital,

Respondent entered an in-patient

recovery center for one week, and

thereafter attended recovery groups

three to five times a week.

On October 13, 1995, nurses working

with Respondent again noticed strange

behavior by Respondent, who seemed

confused while examining patients, and

again exhibited slurred speech.

Respondent agreed to provide a urine

sample to test for controlled substances.

The test was positive for opiates and

benzodiazepines. At the time, however,

Respondent had just had minor surgery,

and the evidence shows that the

positive results of this test were from

validly prescribed drugs related to this

surgery.

On November 15, 1995, Respondent

entered into an impaired physician

agreement with St. Mary’s Hospital. The

agreement provided that Respondent

would submit to weekly drug testing,

would attend Alcoholics Anonymous

meetings three times a week, and that

Respondent would not prescribe any

medication for herself.

On March 20, 1996, Respondent

tested positive for amphetamines, and

subsequently resigned from St. Mary’s,

rather than face a peer review

committee. Respondent’s supervisor

subsequently testified that this drug test

was a false positive, that could be

explained by Respondent’s use of a

decongestant, an antihistamine, or by

prescription antidepressant drugs.

On February 11, 1997, Respondent

was indicted in the United States

District Court for the Northern District

of Texas, Lubbock Division (Court), for

12 counts of knowingly and

intentionally obtaining and acquiring

injectable meperidine, also known as

Demerol, a Schedule II narcotic

controlled substance, by

misrepresentation, fraud, forgery,

deception, or subterfuge, in violation of

21 U.S.C. 843(a)(3), and one count of

knowingly and intentionally obtaining

and acquiring oxycodone, a Schedule II

narcotic controlled substance, by

misrepresentation, fraud, forgery,

deception, or subterfuge, in violation of

21 U.S.C. 843(a)(3). On June 9, 1997,

Respondent pled guilty to count eight of

the indictment and was sentenced to

three years probation. Pursuant to the

plea agreement, Respondent was

required to participate in a program for

the treatment of narcotic dependency,

including drug testing; refrain from

employment as a physician or

pharmacist for the duration of probation

except with the written consent of the

Court; participate in mental health

services as directed by the probation

officer; provide 50 hours of community

service; and pay a fine.

On August 9, 1997, the Texas Board

of Medical Examiners (Board) revoked

Respondent’s license to practice

medicine in Texas; however, the Board

probated the revocation, placing

Respondent on probation for ten years,

subject to the terms and conditions set

forth in an Agreed Order with

Respondent. The Deputy Administrator

finds the following conditions set by the

Board especially relevant: (1)

Respondent shall obtain written consent

from the United States District Court

during the probationary period for

employment as a physician in the State

of Texas; (2) Respondent may only

practice in an institutional setting as

approved by the Board; (3) Respondent

shall not consume alcohol, dangerous

drugs, or controlled substances unless

prescribed by another physician for a

legitimate and therapeutic purpose; (4)

Respondent shall submit to random

drug and alcohol testing at the request

of the authorized representative of the

Board and at the request of any of the

physicians required and authorized to

authorized to evaluate or treat

Respondent pursuant to the terms of the

Order; (5) Respondent shall submit to a

Board approved psychiatrist for

monthly counseling and evaluation of

her lithium level; (6) Respondent shall

participate in an ongoing substance

abuse program approved by the Board at

least three times a week, and shall

provide written reports to the Board

documenting the number and locations

of the meetings attended; (7)

Respondent shall participate in

physician health and rehabilitation

society meetings and make written

reports documenting the Respondent’s

attendance and participation; (8)

Respondent shall complete at least 50

hours per year of continuing AMA

approved medical education; (9)

Respondent must keep a log book

available for inspection at all times of

all prescriptions of controlled

substances or dangerous drugs with

potential for abuse; (10) Respondent’s

medical practice must be monitored by

at least one or more physicians

approved by the Board and practicing in

Texas; (11) Respondent must not treat or

otherwise serve as physician for her

immediate family; (12) Respondent shall

not unilaterally withdraw from any

evaluation, treatment, or medical care

required by the Order, upon penalty of

the suspension of her medical license;

(13) Respondent shall provide written

reports regarding any aspect of

Respondent’s mental or physical

condition and compliance with the

terms of the Order upon the request of

the Board or Board Staff; (14)

Respondent may not possess alcohol,

controlled substances, or dangerous

drugs with potential for abuse, except as

authorized by the Order; and (15)

Respondent must cooperate with all

requests by the Board and Board Staff to

monitor her compliance with this

Agreed Order.

On October 20, 1997, the Court issued

an order consenting to Respondent’s

‘‘accepting employment as a physician

with SHRET, and practicing medicine

with that organization in accordance

with the Agreed Order, dated August 9,

1997, issued by the Texas State Board of

Medical Examiners.’’ Respondent has

been employed by SHRET since July or

August of 1997 as a consultant, and

since November of 1997 as a physician.

She has not maintained nor dispensed

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 5, 2000 / Notices 75971

controlled substances since her

employment with SHRET.

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a), the

Deputy Administrator may revoke a

DEA Certificate of Registration as a

practitioner if the registrant has been

convicted of a felony inter alia under

any law of the United States, relating to

controlled substances; or if the

continuance of such a registration

would be inconsistent with the public

interest. Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f)

and 824(a)(4) and subdelegations of

authority thereunder, (28 CFR 0.100(b)

and 0.104 (1998)), the Deputy

Administrator may deny pending

applications for renewal or modification

of this registration as a practitioner if

the issuance of such application would

be inconsistent with the public interest.

Section 823(f) requires that the

following factors be considered in

evaluating 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;

and (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 be denied. See Henry J.

Schwarz, Jr., MD., 54 FR 16,422 (1989).

It is undisputed that Respondent in

this case has been convicted of a felony

within the meaning of 21 U.S.C.

824(a)(2). Her June 9, 1997, plea of

guilty to count eight of the indictment

for violating 21 U.S.C. 843(a)(3) resulted

in a sentence of three years probation

with standard and additional

conditions. Respondent’s DEA

Certificate of Registration may be

revoked upon this basis alone. See

George Forest Landman, D.O., 52 FR

1,258 (1987); Fairbanks T. Chua, M.D.,

51 FR 41,676 (1986). The statute is

discretionary, however, and the relevant

language states ‘‘A registration pursuant

to section 823 of this title * * * may be

suspended or revoked by the Attorney

Generla upon a finding that the

registrant—* * * (2) has been convicted

of a felony under this subchapter

* * * ’’ (Emphasis added). In this case,

the Deputy Administrator finds that the

public interest is best served by

continuing Respondent’s registration, as

set forth below.

Regarding factor one of the public

interest analysis pursuant to 21 U.S.C.

823(f) and 824(a)(4), the Deputy

Administrator finds that it is

undisputed that Respondent’s license to

practice medicine in the State of Texas

was revoked, and the revocation

probated for ten years subject to the

Agreed Order dated August 9, 1997. The

Texas Board placed no restrictions on

Respondent’s authority to prescribe,

administer, or dispense controlled

substances, except that she keep a log of

such prescriptions available for

inspection at all times, and that she only

possess such substances as permitted by

the Agreed Order. Thus, Respondent is

authorized to practice medicine and

handle controlled substances in the

State of Texas, pursuant to the Agreed

Order. While 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)

requires a registrant to have a valid State

license or registration, this is not the

only requirement for DEA registration,

and therefore is not determinative.

Regarding factor two, Respondent has

been employed as both a pharmacist

and a physician during her career.

While Judge Randall found that

Respondent demonstrated a knowledge

and understanding of applicable State

and federal laws and regulations

concerning the handling of controlled

substances, the Government accurately

points out in its Exceptions that Judge

Randall failed to take note of her finding

that Respondent failed to understand

that DEA regulation required

Respondent to notify DEA of

Respondent’s new registered address,

even though Respondent neither

dispensed nor maintained controlled

substances at that place of business. It

is undisputed that Respondent failed to

formally notify DEA of the change of her

registered address after she began

employment with SHRET. This

oversight, however, while cause for

some concern, is also not dispositive.

Regarding factor three, it is

undisputed that Respondent pled guilty

to one count of knowingly and

intentionally obtaining and acquiring

injectable Demerol, a Schedule II

narcotic substance, by

misrepresentation, fraud, forgery,

deception, and subterfuge. This

conviction resulted from Respondent’s

actions on June 26, 1995, when she

wrote a prescription for Demerol for J.T.,

and administered the Demerol to herself

while at work. Judge Randall credited

the testimony of Respondent and her

treating psychiatrist in finding that

Respondent’s drug use was caused by

her various medical and emotional

diagnoses, and especially her previously

undiagnosed Bipolar Disorder. The

Deputy Administrator finds the record

contains no evidence that Respondent’s

illegal actions harmed anyone other

than herself. In addition, there appears

to be no evidence in the record that

Respondent’s patients failed to receive

needed medications. On the other hand,

there is significant evidence in the

record that Respondent is successfully

recovering from her drug abuse, and she

has effective professional and personal

support networks in place to ensure

against further relapse. It is undisputed

that Respondent has not improperly

used controlled substances since at least

May of 1996.

Regarding factor four, Respondent

admitted to diverting controlled

substances on at least two or three

occasions, between February 15, 1995,

and June 26, 1995. This is in addition

to the specific instance forming the

basis of her conviction. Respondent

alleges that she cannot remember

exactly how many times she diverted

controlled substances to her own use,

nor from whose prescriptions the

controlled substances were diverted.

The Deputy Administrator shares Judge

Randall’s concern with regard to

respondent’s diversion history. While

the record is not clear regarding the

number of occasions the Respondent

diverted, nor the quantity of controlled

substances she diverted, the Deputy

Administrator finds that there is

sufficient evidence in the record to

believe that Respondent’s estimates

regarding her diversion history

substantially minimize the extent of her

illegal activity. Judge Randall twice

noted in her Recommended Rulings that

Respondent’s attitude at the hearing

showed an attempt to minimize her

illegal actions. Not only did Respondent

studiously avoid admitting that she

diverted the very Demerol upon which

her criminal conviction was based, she

further alleged that she could not

remember any specific instances of

diversion whatsoever. In addition, Judge

Randall credited the Government’s

showing that Respondent’s claims of an

ongoing patient-physician relationship

with J.T. were false, and that the

Respondent was using J.T.’s name

merely to obtain Demerol and to conceal

her own illicit use. Judge Randall found,

and the Deputy Administrator concurs,

that absent the evidence of

Respondent’s strong efforts to

rehabilitate herself, her continual

minimizations of her criminal actions

and significant breaches of professional

judgment would weigh heavily against

her retention of a DEA Certificate of

75972 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 5, 2000 / Notices

Registration. It is undisputed, however,

that Respondent is in compliance with

the terms of her Federal probation, and

also with the terms of the Agreed Order.

Finally, with regard to the fifth factor,

there is no question that Respondent

abused controlled substances while

performing her duties as a physician.

Also troubling is Respondent’s false

physician-patient relationship with J.T.,

which Respondent continued to refuse

to acknowledge as a subterfuge to

supply Respondent’s own drug

addition. Fortunately for Respondent’s

patients, and for Respondent herself,

there is no evidence that Respondent’s

illicit drug abuse harmed any others

than herself, and further, there is no

evidence that Respondent’s patients

failed to receive needed medications.

Without the strong and extensive

controls set in place by the Agreed

Order, and without the strong evidence

of Respondent’s sincere efforts to

rehabilitate herself, her retention of a

DEA Certificate of Registration would

not be in accord with the public

interest.

The Deputy Administrator agrees with

Judge Randall that the Government has

met its prima facie burden in its case to

revoke Respondent’s DEA Certificate of

Registration and to deny her pending

application for renewal. As Judge

Randall notes in her Recommended

Rulings, however, the governing statute

is discretionary. 21 U.S.C. 823(f) states

in relevant part that ‘‘[t]he Attorney

General may deny an application for

such registration if he determines that

the issuance of such registration would

be inconsistent with the public

interest.’’ (Emphasis added). The

Deputy Administrator previously has

concluded that, in exercising his

discretion in determining the

appropriate remedy in any given case,

he should consider all the facts and

circumstances of the case. See Martha

Hernandez, M.D., 62 FR 61,145 (1997).

The Deputy Administrator concurs with

Judge Randall that the Respondent has

presented sufficient evidence to alter

the ultimate determination of her case.

Specifically, the Deputy

Administrator finds that the Texas

Board’s Agreed Order with the

Respondent provides the public and

Respondent herself with effective

protection against future criminal

diversion of controlled substances. The

evidence shows that Respondent is in

compliance with all terms of the Agreed

Order. In addition, Respondent

currently maintains a lifestyle that will

help to prevent a relapse of the

substance abuse problems she

experienced in 1995. Currently, the

Respondent attends a substance

recovery group, maintains a relationship

with a therapist, receives lithium to

control the effects of her Bipolar

Disorder, submits to regular drug

testing, and has developed strong

familial and religious associations.

Another significant factor influencing

the Deputy Administrator’s decision in

this case is that Respondent’s current

professional position at SHRET is

devoted to serving the public interest.

The Deputy Administrator finds that the

public interest is best served in this case

by continuing Respondent’s registration,

with appropriate restrictions, as set

forth below. Through SHRET,

Respondent provides critical services to

a medically under-served community.

Respondent also is committed to

performing training and continuing

education to other health professionals,

including physicians, regarding AIDS

and HIV issues, over a large geographic

area. At least some of this training is

performed during her personal time,

and not during her regular work hours.

Respondent additionally has been

approved by the FDA to administer

Phase III clinical trials of experimental

AIDS drugs, and thereafter to monitor

the results. As of the date Respondent’s

testimony in the present hearing, she

had administered six trials in the

previous 18 month period. Respondent

and her co-workers all credibly testified

that her work at SHRET gives

Respondent great professional

satisfaction. Additionally, Respondent’s

quality of work at SHRET was credibly

characterized by co-workers as

‘‘excellent’’ and ‘‘exceptional.’’

Respondent is also the medical director

at Well Spring, a recovery center

designed to assist individuals who are

suffering from HIV and who are also

substance abusers. The 60 to 90 day

program is designed to teach

participants alternative methods of pain

and stress management, including

massage, Acudetox, and neuro-feedback.

Well Spring Recovery Center is the only

program of its type in Texas, and one of

only three in the United States (the

other two are located on the East and

West Coasts).

The Deputy Administrator agrees with

Judge Randall’s finding that Respondent

effectively has addressed the personal

and professional problems that

contributed to her drug abuse. While it

is troubling that Respondent attempted

to tailor her testimony to limit and

minimize her illicit activity, the record

indicates that Respondent did take

affirmative responsibility for her

misconduct. The strong and extensive

controls set by the Texas Board’s Agreed

Order, combined with Respondent’s

actions clearly showing a great personal

desire to rehabilitate herself personally

and professionally, provide a sufficient

level of protection for both Respondent

and the public that Respondent should

be allowed to maintain her DEA

Registration, with restrictions.

Therefore, the Deputy Administrator

concludes that Respondent’s DEA

Certificate of Registration should be

continued subject to the following

restrictions for three years from the

effective date of this final order.

1. Respondent is to forward on a

quarterly basis her prescription log to

the DEA regional office for the entire

three year period of this registration;

2. Respondent is to promptly forward

whatever evidence of drug screen

results available to her to the DEA

regional office for the entire three year

period of this registration;

3. Respondent is to promptly forward

to the DEA regional office any changes

the Texas Board of Medical Examiners

may make to the terms of her probation;

4. Respondent shall not prescribe,

dispense, administer, or otherwise

handle any narcotic controlled

substance as defined under the

Controlled Substances Act; this

restriction shall also extend to the

Controlled Substances Buprenorphine,

Butorphanol, and Pentazocine; and

5. Consistent with the Court’s October

20, 1997 order, Respondent’s

Registration is contingent upon

continuing her employment with

SHRET for the entire three year period

of the Registration. If for any reason

Respondent terminates her employment

with SHRET, Respondent shall

promptly notify the DEA regional office

in writing, setting forth the facts and

circumstances leading to said

termination of employment.

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 DEA Certificate of

Registration BT3320203, submitted by

Mary Thomson, M.D. be, and hereby is,

continued, and any pending

applications for renewal be granted, for

Schedules II, III, IV, and V nonnarcotics, excepting Butorphanol and

Pentazocine, and subject to the abovedescribed restrictions. This order is

effective upon the issuance of the DEA

Certificate of Registration, but no later

than January 4, 2001.

Dated: November 21, 2000.

Julio F. Mercado,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 00–30931 Filed 12–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M