16872 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Notices

The Acting Deputy Administrator

finds that on July 29, 1995, the

Louisiana State Board of Medical

Examiners (Board) issued an Opinion

and Ruling regarding Dr. Okun’s license

to practice medicine. The Board found

that Dr. Okun had entered a plea of nolo

contendere to a charge of assault with a

dangerous weapon—an automobile; had

answered untruthfully a question on his

1992 license renewal application as to

whether he had been charged with a

violation of any statute; and had run an

advertisement in a newspaper which

contained false, fraudulent or

misleading representations. It was the

Board’s opinion that in order to

determine the appropriate sanction

against his medical license, Dr. Okun

should be evaluated by a psychiatrist

and then he should personally appear

before the Board. The Board ordered

that if Dr. Okun did not comply with

these requirements within 60 days of

the Board’s Opinion and Ruling, his

medical license would be suspended

until he does comply. By letter dated

October 27, 1995, the Board advised

DEA that Dr. Okun’s license to practice

medicine was suspended effective

September 27, 1995.

The Acting Deputy Administrator

finds that there is no indication that Dr.

Okun has complied with the Board’s

requirements and therefore, his medical

license remains suspended. The Acting

Deputy Administrator concludes that it

is reasonable to infer that since Dr.

Okun is not currently licensed to

practice medicine in Louisiana, he is

also not authorized to handle controlled

substances in that state.

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 conducts his 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).

Here, it is clear that Dr. Okun is not

currently authorized to handle

controlled substances in the State of

Louisiana. Consequently, he is not

entitled to a DEA registration in that

state. While it appears that Dr. Okun is

currently living in California, he has not

submitted a request to modify his

registration to that state. Therefore, the

DEA registration issued to him in

Louisiana must be revoked.

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, BO1821354, previously

issued to James D. Okun, M.D., be, and

it hereby is, revoked. The Acting Deputy

Administrator further orders that any

pending requests for renewal of such

registration, be, and they hereby are,

denied. This order is effective May 8,

1997.

Dated: April 1, 1997.

James S. Milford,

Acting Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–8944 Filed 4–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

Raymond S. Sanders, D.P.M.;

Revocation of Registration

On June 18, 1996, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA), issued an Order

to Show Cause to Raymond S. Sanders,

D.P.M., of Sacramento, California,

notifying him of an opportunity to show

cause as to why DEA should not revoke

his DEA Certificate of Registration,

AS8739572, under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)

and 824(a)(4), and deny any pending

applications for registration as a

practitioner pursuant to 21 U.S.C.

823(f), for reason that he is not currently

authorized to handle controlled

substances in the State of California and

his continued registration would be

inconsistent with the public interest.

The order also notified Dr. Sanders that

should no request for a hearing be filed

within 30 days, his hearing right would

be deemed waived.

The DEA received a signed receipt

indicating that the order was received

by Dr. Sanders on July 1, 1996. No

request for a hearing or any other reply

was received by the DEA from Dr.

Sanders or anyone purporting to

represent him in this matter. Therefore,

the Acting 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.

Sanders is deemed to have waived his

hearing right. After considering the

relevant material from the investigative

file in this matter, the Acting Deputy

Administrator now enters his final order

without a hearing pursuant to 21 CFR

1301.54(e) and 1301.57.

The Acting Deputy Administrator

finds that on April 15, 1996, the Office

of Administrative Hearings, State of

California, issued an interim suspension

order suspending Dr. Sanders from

practicing podiatric medicine.

Thereafter, on April 29, 1996, the Board

of Podiatric Medicine for the State of

California (Board) filed an Accusation

charging, in part, that Dr. Sanders

engaged in unprofessional conduct by

prescribing, dispensing or furnishing

dangerous drugs to himself and his wife

without medical indication. The

Accusation proposed the revocation of

Dr. Sanders’ podiatric medicine license.

On June 19, 1996, the Board entered a

Default Decision revoking Dr. Sanders’

podiatric medicine license effective July

19, 1996. The Acting Deputy

Administrator finds that in light of the

fact that Dr. Sanders is not currently

licensed to practice podiatric medicine

in the State of California, it is reasonable

to infer that he is not currently

authorized to handle controlled

substances in that state.

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 conducts his 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).

Here, it is clear that Dr. Sanders is not

currently authorized to handle

controlled substances in the State of

California. Therefore, Dr. Sanders is not

entitled to a DEA registration. Because

Dr. Sanders is not entitled to a DEA

registration due to his lack of state

authorization to handle controlled

substances, the Acting Deputy

Administrator concludes that it is

unnecessary to address whether Dr.

Sanders’ continued registration would

be inconsistent with the public interest

as alleged in the Order to Show Cause.

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, AS8739572, previously

issued to Raymond S. Sanders, D.P.M.,

be, and it hereby is, revoked. The Acting

Deputy Administrator further orders

that any pending applications for

registration, be, and they hereby are,

denied. This order is effective May 8,

1997.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Notices 16873

Dated: April 1, 1997.

James S. Milford,

Acting Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–8946 Filed 4–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

National Institute of Justice

[OJP (NIJ) No. 1120]

RIN 1121–ZA67

National Institute of Justice

Solicitation for Investigator-Initiated

Research

AGENCY: Office of Justice Programs,

National Institute of Justice, Justice.

ACTION: Notice of solicitation.

SUMMARY: Announcement of the

availability of the National Institute of

Justice ‘‘Solicitation for InvestigatorInitiated Research.’’

ADDRESSES: Proposals should be mailed

to the National Institute of Justice, 633

Indiana Avenue, NW., Washington, DC

20531.

DATES: There are two deadlines for

receipt of proposals, June 17, 1997 and

December 16, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

general information about application

procedures for solicitations, please call

the U.S. Department of Justice Response

Center 1–800–421–6771.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority

This action is authorized under the

Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets

Act of 1968, secs. 201–03, as amended,

42 U.S.C. 3721–23 (1994).

Background

The National Institute of Justice is

soliciting proposals that respond to the

broad mandate of the Institute’s

solicitation for investigator-initiated

research. Applicants may submit

proposals to explore topics relevant to

State or local criminal justice practice or

policy. Some of the current themes of

interest to the Institute include:

Rethinking justice to meet the

challenges of the 21st century;

understanding the nexus between crime

and social problems; breaking the cycle

of offender recidivism and other

reoccurring criminal justice problems;

developing new technologies, practices,

and techniques for use in the criminal

justice system; expanding the horizons

of criminal justice by looking beyond

traditional crime definitions and into

new possibilities of study such as

transnational and cybercrimes. These

topics represent a broad vision of

directions that the Institute intends to

pursue in the next few years.

Researchers may relate their proposals

to these topics or develop projects that

fall outside of these themes on the

condition that the proposed research

falls within NIJ’s statutory mission.

Interested organizations should call the

National Criminal Justice Reference

Service (NCJRS) at 1–800–851–3420 to

obtain a copy of ‘‘Solicitation for

Investigator-Initiated Research’’ (refer to

document no. SL000201). The

solicitation is available electronically

via the NCJRS Bulletin Board, which

can be accessed via the Internet. Telnet

to ncjrsbbs.ncjrs.org, or gopher to

ncjrs.org:71. For World Wide Web

access, connect to the NCJRS Justice

Information Center at http://

www.ncjrs.org. Those without Internet

access can dial the NCJRS Bulletin

Board via modem: dial 301–738–8895.

Set the modem at 9600 baud, 8–N–1.

Dated: April 2, 1997.

Jeremy Travis,

Director, National Institute of Justice.

[FR Doc. 97–8911 Filed 4–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–18–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration

Maryland State Standards; Approval

1. Background

Part 1953 of Title 29, Code of Federal

Regulations, prescribes procedures

under section 18 of the Occupational

Safety and Health Act of 1970

(hereinafter called the Act) by which the

Regional Administrator for

Occupational Safety and Health

(hereinafter called the Regional

Administrator), under a delegation of

authority from the Assistant Secretary of

Labor for Occupational Safety and

Health (hereinafter called the Assistant

Secretary) (29 CFR 1593.4), will review

and approve standards promulgated

pursuant to a State plan which has been

approved in accordance with section

18(c) of the Act and 29 CFR part 1902.

On July 5, 1973, notice was published

in the Federal Register (38 FR 17834) of

the approval of the Maryland State plan

and the adoption of subpart O to part

1952 containing the decision.

The Maryland State plan provides for

the adoption of all Federal standards as

State standards after comments and

public hearing. Section 1952.210 of

subpart O sets forth the State’s schedule

for the adoption of Federal standards.

By letters dated (1) August 28, 1995; (2)

February 15, 1996; (3) February 23,

1996; (4) February 28, 1996; (5 and 6)

August 23, 1996; (7 and 8) January 6,

1997; and (9 and 10) February 13, 1997

from John P. O’Connor, Commissioner

of the Maryland Division of Labor and

Industry, to Linda R. Anku, Regional

Administrator, and incorporated as part

of the plan, the State submitted State

standards identical to amendments,

corrections, and revisions to: (1) 29 CFR

1910.1011 and 1910.1000, pertaining to

the Occupational Exposure to Asbestos

Standard, as published in the Federal

Register of February 21, 1995 (60 FR

9624), June 28, 1995 (60 FR 33344), June

29, 1995 (60 FR 33984), July 13, 1995

(60 FR 36043) and September 29, 1995

(60 FR 50411); (2) 29 CFR part 1926,

subpart E, and 29 CFR 1926.500,

pertaining to the Safety Standards for

Fall Protection in the Construction

Industry, as published in the Federal

Register of August 2, 1995 (60 FR

39255); (3) 29 CFR 1910.266, Safety

Standards for Logging Operations, as

published in the Federal Register of

September 8, 1995 (60 FR 47035); (4) 29

CFR 1910.1025, pertaining to the

Occupational Exposure to Lead

Standard for General Industry, as

published in the Federal Register of

October 11, 1995 (60 FR 52858); (5) 29

CFR 1910, 1926 and 1928, pertaining to

Miscellaneous Minor and Technical

Amendments to OSHA Standards, as

published in the Federal Register of

March 7, 1996 (61 FR 9230); (6) 29 CFR

1910.272, pertaining to Grain Handling

Facilities, as published in the Federal

Register of March 8, 1996 (61 FR 9583);

(7) 29 CFR 1910.133, 1910.135 and

1910.136, pertaining to Personal

Protective Equipment for General

Industry, as published in the Federal

Register of May 2, 1996 (61 FR 19548)

and May 9, 1996 (61 FR 21228); (8) 29

CFR 1910 and 1926, pertaining to

Consolidation of Repetitive Provisions:

Technical Amendments, as published in

the Federal Register of July 3, 1996 (61

FR 31429); (9) 29 CFR 1926.1101 and

1910.1001, pertaining to Occupational

Exposure to Asbestos, as published in

the Federal Register of August 23, 1996

(61 FR 43456); and (10) 29 CFR

1926.416 and 1926.417, pertaining to

General Industry Standards Applicable

to Construction Work, as published in

the Federal Register of August 12, 1996

(61 FR 41738).

These standards are contained in

COMAR 09.12.31. Maryland

Occupational Safety and Health

Standards were promulgated after

public hearings on (1) March 1, 1995; (2)