Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 1997 / Notices 14945

9629, made application by renewal,

which was received for processing

February 14, 1997, to the Drug

Enforcement Administration (DEA) for

registration as a bulk manufacturer of

sufentanil (9740), a basic class of

controlled substance in Schedule II.

The firm plans to manufacture the

listed controlled substance for bulk

distribution to its customers.

Any other such applicant and any

person who is presently registered with

DEA to manufacture such substance

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, D.C. 20537, Attention: DEA

Federal Register Representative (CCR),

and must be filed no later than May 27,

1997.

Dated: February 28, 1997.

Gene R. Haislip,

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–7879 Filed 3–27–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

[Docket No. 95–25]

Jesus R. Juarez, M.D. Revocation of

Registration

On February 27, 1995, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Division Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA) issued an Order

to Show Cause to Jesus R. Juarez, M.D.

(Respondent), of Fresno, California,

notifying him of an opportunity to show

cause as to why DEA should not revoke

his DEA Certificate of Registration

BJ0925290, and deny any pending

applications for renewal of such

registration as a practitioner under 21

U.S.C. 823(f). The Order to Show Cause

alleged as grounds for the proposed

action that Respondent’s continued

registration would be inconsistent with

the public interest pursuant to 21 U.S.C.

824(a)(4), and that pursuant to 21 U.S.C.

824(a)(2), Respondent had been

convicted of a controlled substance

related felony offense.

Respondent, through counsel, filed a

timely request for a hearing, and the

matter was docketed before

Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen

Bittner. Following prehearing

procedures, a hearing was held on

February 27 and 28, 1996, in Fresno,

California. After the hearing, both

parties submitted proposed findings of

fact, conclusions of law and argument.

On July 24, 1996, while the matter was

still pending before Judge Bittner,

counsel for the Government filed a

Motion for Summary Disposition,

alleging that Respondent is currently

without authority to handle controlled

substances in the State of California.

The motion was supported by a copy of

the Proposed Decision of an

Administrative Law Judge for the

Medical Board of California

recommending that Respondent’s state

license to practice medicine be revoked,

and by a copy of the Decision of the

Medical Board dated July 10, 1996,

adopting the Proposed Decision

effective August 9, 1996.

Respondent filed a response to the

Government’s Motion for Summary

Disposition on August 15, 1996, stating

that the Medical Board’s decision was

not yet final because Respondent had

petitioned for a rehearing, and if

unsuccessful, would seek judicial

review of the Medical Board’s action.

Respondent, however, did not deny that

he was currently without authority to

handle controlled substances in the

State of California.

Thereafter, on August 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 California and therefore, he was

not entitled to a DEA registration in that

state; granting the Government’s Motion

for Summary Disposition; and

recommending that Respondent’s

application for DEA registration be

denied. Neither party filed exceptions to

her opinion, and on September 23,

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

finds that on June 20, 1996, an

Administrative Law Judge for the

Medical Board of California

recommended that Respondent’s license

to practice medicine in the State of

California be revoked. On July 10, 1996,

the Medical Board of California adopted

the Proposed Decision of the

Administrative Law Judge effective

August 9, 1996. As Judge Bittner noted,

it is reasonable to infer ‘‘that because

[Respondent] is not authorized to

practice medicine, he is also not

authorized to handle controlled

substances.’’ Respondent argues that the

revocation of his license to practice

medicine in the State of California is not

yet final because he is seeking a

rehearing before the Medical Board.

However, Respondent does not dispute

that he is currently without authority to

handle controlled substances in

California.

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 he conducts business. 21 U.S.C.

801(21), 823(f), and 824(a)(3). This

prerequisite has been consistently

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

Fed. Reg. 51,104 (1993); James H.

Nickens, M.D., 57 Fed. Reg. 59,847

(1992); Roy E. Hardman, M.D., 57 Fed.

Reg. 49,195 (1992). Accordingly, the

Acting Deputy Administrator concurs

with Judge Bittner’s conclusion that

Respondent is not currently authorized

to handle controlled substances in the

State of California and therefore is not

entitled to a DEA registration in that

state. The Acting Deputy Administrator

concurs with Judge Bittner’s

recommendation that Respondent’s

application be denied, but also finds

that Respondent’s DEA registration must

be revoked based upon his lack of

authorization to handle controlled

substances in California.

The Acting Deputy Administrator

finds that Judge Bittner 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 California. 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 Fed. Reg. 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).

The Acting Deputy Administrator

concludes that because Respondent is

not entitled to a DEA registration due to

his lack of state authorization to handle

controlled substances, it is unnecessary

to address whether Respondent’s

registration should be revoked based

upon the grounds alleged in the Order

to Show Cause.
14946 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 1997 / Notices

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 BJ0925290, previously

issued to Jesus R. Juarez, 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 April

28, 1997.

Dated: March 14, 1997.

James S. Milford,

Acting Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–7881 Filed 3–27–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

Importation of Controlled Substances;

Notice of Application

Pursuant to Section 1008 of the

Controlled Substances Import and

Export Act (21 U.S.C. 958(i)), the

Attorney General shall, prior to issuing

a registration under this Section to a

bulk manufacturer of a controlled

substance in Schedule I or II and prior

to issuing a regulation under Section

1002(a) authorizing the importation of

such a substance, provide

manufacturers holding registrations for

the bulk manufacture of the substance

an opportunity for a hearing.

Therefore, in accordance with Section

1311.42 of Title 21, Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR), notice is hereby

given that on December 13, 1996, Knight

Seed Company, Inc., 151 W. 126th

Street, Burnsville, Minnesota 55337,

made application, which was received

for processing January 29, 1997, to the

Drug Enforcement Administration to

renew its registration as an importer of

marihuana (7360), a basic class of

controlled substance in Schedule I.

This application is exclusively for the

importation of marihuana seed which

will be rendered non-viable and used as

bird seed.

Any manufacturer holding, or

applying for, registration as a bulk

manufacturer of this basic class of

controlled substance may file written

comments on or objections to the

application described above and may, at

the same time, file a written request for

a hearing on such application in

accordance with 21 CFR 1301.54 in

such form as prescribed by 21 CFR

1316.47.

Any such comments, objections, or

requests for a hearing may be addressed,

in quintuplicate, to the Deputy Assistant

Administrator, Office of Diversion

Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration, United States

Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register

Representative (CCR), and must be filed

no later than (30 days from publication).

This procedure is to be conducted

simultaneously with and independent

of the procedures described in 21 CFR

1311.42 (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f). As noted

in a previous notice at 40 FR 43745–46

(September 23, 1975), all applicants for

registration to import basic classes of

any controlled substances in Schedule I

or II are and will continue to be required

to demonstrate to the Deputy Assistant

Administrator, Office of Diversion

Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration that the requirements

for such registration pursuant to 21

U.S.C. 958(a), 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and 21

CFR 1311.42 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f)

are satisfied.

Dated: February 21, 1997.

Gene R. Haislip,

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–7874 Filed 3–27–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

Importation of Controlled Substances;

Notice of Application

Pursuant to Section 1008 of the

Controlled Substances Import and

Export Act (21 U.S.C. 958(i)), the

Attorney General shall, prior to issuing

a registration under this Section to a

bulk manufacturer of a controlled

substance in Schedule I or II and prior

to issuing a regulation under Section

1002(a) authorizing the importation of

such a substance, provide

manufacturers holding registrations for

the bulk manufacture of the substance

an opportunity for a hearing.

Therefore, in accordance with Section

1311.42 of Title 21, Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR), notice is hereby

given that on January 27, 1997,

Mallinckrodt Chemical, Inc.,

Wallinckrodt & Second Streets, St.

Louis, Missouri 63147, made

application by renewal which was

received for processing on March 4,

1997, to the Drug Enforcement

Administration to be registered as an

importer of the basic classes of

controlled substances listed below:

Drug Schedule

Coca Leaves (9040) ..................... II

Opium, raw (9600) ........................ II

Opium poppy (9650) ..................... II

Poppy Straw Concentrate (9670) II

The firm plans to import the listed

controlled substances to manufacture

bulk finished products.

Any manufacturer holding, or

applying for, registration as a bulk

manufacturer of these basic classes of

controlled substances may file written

comments on or objections to the

application described above and may, at

the same time, file a written request for

a hearing on such application in

accordance with 21 CFR 1301.54 in

such form as prescribed by 21 CFR

1316.47.

Any such comments, objections, or

requests for a hearing may be addressed,

in quintuplicate, to the Acting Deputy

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration, United States

Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register

Representative (CCR), and must be filed

no later than April 28, 1997.

This procedure is to be conducted

simultaneously with and independent

of the procedures described in 21 CFR

1311.42 (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f). As noted

in a previous notice at 40 FR 43745–46

(September 23, 1975), all applicants for

registration to import basic classes of

any controlled substances in Schedule I

or II are and will continue to be required

to demonstrate to the Acting Deputy

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration that the requirements

for such registration pursuant to 21

U.S.C. 958(a), 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and 21

CFR 1311.42 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f)

are satisfied.

Dated: March 14, 1997.

Terrance W. Woodworth,

Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office

of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–7877 Filed 3–27–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

Importation of Controlled Substances;

Notice of Application

Pursuant to Section 1008 of the

Controlled Substances Import and

Export Act (21 U.S.C. 958(i)), the

Attorney General shall, prior to issuing

a registration under this Section to a

bulk manufacturer of a controlled

substance in Schedule I or II and prior

to issuing a regulation under Section

1002(a) authorizing the importation of

such a substance, provide

manufacturers holding registrations for

the bulk manufacture of the substance

an opportunity for a hearing.

Therefore, in accordance with Section

1311.42 of Title 21, Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR), notice is hereby