Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 1997 / Notices 14943

Dated: March 25, 1997.

Eluid L. Martinez,

Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation.

[FR Doc. 97–7948 Filed 3–27–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–94–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. 96–42]

Bruce A. Ames, M.D.; Revocation of

Registration

On July 22, 1996, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA), issued an Order

to Show Cause to Bruce A. Ames, M.D.

(Respondent), of Redding, California,

notifying him of an opportunity to show

cause as to why DEA should not revoke

his DEA Certificate of Registration

AA5878422, and deny any pending

applications for registration as a

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

and 824(a)(3), for reason that he is not

currently authorized to handle

controlled substances in the State of

California.

On August 19, 1996, Respondent filed

a timely request for a hearing, and the

matter was docketed before

Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen

Bittner. On August 21, 1996, Judge

Bittner issued an Order for Prehearing

Statements. On August 26, 1996, the

Government filed a Motion for

Summary Disposition, alleging that

effective May 12, 1995, the Medical

Board of California (Board) placed

Respondent’s license to practice

medicine in the State of California on

probation for five years, prohibited him

from handling controlled substances,

and ordered him to surrender his DEA

Certificate of Registration. In his

response to the Government’s motion,

Respondent asserted various defenses.

However, Respondent did not deny that

the Board prohibited him from handling

controlled substances.

On October 28, 1996, Judge Bittner

issued her Opinion and Recommended

Decision, finding that Respondent

lacked authorization to handle

controlled substances in the State of

California; granting the Government’s

Motion for Summary Disposition; and

recommending that Respondent’s DEA

Certificate of Registration be revoked.

Neither party filed exceptions to her

opinion, and on December 3, 1996,

Judge Bittner transmitted the record of

these proceedings to the Acting Deputy

Administrator.

The Acting 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 Acting

Deputy Administrator adopts, in full,

the Opinion and Recommended

Decision of the Administrative Law

Judge.

The Acting Deputy Administrator

finds that effective May 12, 1995, the

Board revoked Respondent’s license to

practice medicine in the State of

California, but stayed the revocation and

placed Respondent’s license on

probation for five years subject to

various terms and conditions. One of

these terms is that ‘‘Respondent shall

not prescribe, administer, dispense,

order or possess any controlled

substances as defined in the California

Uniform Controlled Substances Act.’’ In

addition, ‘‘Respondent is prohibited

from practicing medicine until [he]

provides documentary proof * * * that

[his] DEA permit has been surrendered

to the Drug Enforcement Administration

for cancellation * * *.’’ Therefore, the

Acting Deputy Administrator finds that

Respondent is not currently authorized

to handle controlled substances in the

State of 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.

802(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). In the instant case,

the record indicates that Respondent is

not currently authorized to handle

controlled substances in the State of

California. As Judge Bittner notes, ‘‘[i]t

is equally clear that because Respondent

lacks this state authority, Respondent is

not currently entitled to a DEA

registration.’’

Judge Bittner also 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 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); United States

v. Consolidated Mines & Smelting Co.,

44 F.2d 432 (9th Cir. 1971).

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 C.F.R. 0.100(b) and

0.104, hereby orders that DEA

Certificate of Registration AA5878422,

previously issued to Bruce A. Ames,

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

Acting Deputy Administrator further

orders that any pending applications for

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. 97–7883 Filed 3–27–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

Importer of Controlled Substances;

Notice of Registration

By Notice dated August 21, 1996, and

published in the Federal Register on

September 3, 1996, (61 FR 46488),

Calbiochem-Novabiochem Corporation,

10394 Pacific Center Court, Attn:

Receiving Inspector, San Diego,

California 92121–4340, made

application to the Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA) to renew its

registration to import small quantities of

the listed controlled substances to make

reagents for distribution to the

biomedical research community as an

importer of the basic classes of

controlled substances listed below:

Drug Schedule

Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370) ...... I

Mescaline (7381) .......................... I

Amphetamine (1100) .................... II

Phencyclidine (7471) .................... II

Phenylacetone (8501) .................. II

Cocaine (9041) ............................. II

No request for a hearing was filed

concerning Calbiochem-Novabiochem

Corporation’s 1996 application for

renewal of its registration. However, by

Notice dated July 5, 1995, CalbiochemNovabiochem Corporation made

application to the Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA) to renew its

registration as an importer of the basic

classes of controlled substances listed

above. Notice of this application was

published in the Federal Register on

July 13, 1995 (60 FR 36165). A

registered manufacturer filed a request

for a hearing with respect to

amphetamine for the 1995 application.
14944 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 1997 / Notices

The action on CalbiochemNovabiochem Corporation’s 1995

application to import amphetamine was

docketed before Administrative Law

Judge (ALJ) Mary Ellen Bittner.

By letter to the ALJ, dated August 31,

1995, the registered manufacturer

withdrew its request for a hearing based

on Calbiochem-Novabiochem

Corporation’s agreement to withdraw its

application to be registered with DEA to

manufacture amphetamine. The ALJ

terminated the administrative

proceeding on October 2, 1995. As of

October 1, 1996, CalbiochemNovabiochem Corporation has not filed

a request for withdrawal of its 1995

application for registration as a bulk

manufacturer of amphetamine and,

therefore, DEA did not process that

application. By letter dated October 25,

1996, Calbiochem-Novabiochem

Corporation’s request that amphetamine

be deleted from its 1996 renewal

application for registration.

DEA has considered the factors in

Title 21, United States Code, Section

823(a) and determined that the

registration of CalbiochemNovabiochem Corporation is consistent

with the public interest and with United

States obligations under international

treaties, conventions, or protocols in

effect on May 1, 1971, at this time.

Therefore, pursuant to Section 1008(a)

of the Controlled Substances Import and

Export Act and in accordance with Title

21, Code of Federal Regulations, Section

1311.42, the above firm is granted

registration as an importer of the basic

classes of controlled substances listed

above with the exception of

amphetamine (1100).

Dated: February 26, 1997.

Gene R. Haislip,

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–7878 Filed 3–27–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

[Docket No. 96–46]

Charles R. Griffin, Jr., D.D.S.

Revocation of Registration

On August 15, 1996, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA), issued an Order

to Show Cause to Charles R. Griffin, Jr.,

D.D.S. (Respondent), of Tucson,

Arizona, notifying him of an

opportunity to show cause as to why

DEA should not revoke his DEA

Certificate of Registration BG4084593,

and deny any pending applications for

registration as a practitioner pursuant to

21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a)(3), for reason

that he is not currently authorized to

practice dentistry in the State of

Arizona.

Respondent timely requested a

hearing, and the matter was docketed

before Administrative Law Judge Mary

Ellen Bittner. On October 21, 1996,

Judge Bittner issued an Order for

Prehearing Statements. On October 30,

1996, the Government filed a Motion for

Summary Disposition, alleging that

effective May 12, 1995, the Arizona

State Board of Dental Examiners (Board)

revoked Respondent’s license to

practice dentistry, and as a result,

Respondent is not currently authorized

to handle controlled substances in the

State of Arizona. Respondent did not

file a response to the Government’s

motion. However, in his letter

requesting a hearing, Respondent did

not dispute that he was not authorized

to handle controlled substances, but

rather asked for a postponement of the

revocation proceeding since he is

seeking reinstatement of his license

either by judicial action or by approval

of his application for reinstatement with

the Board.

On November 27, 1996, Judge Bittner

issued her Opinion and Recommended

Decision, finding that Respondent

lacked authorization to handle

controlled substances in the State of

Arizona; granting the Government’s

Motion for Summary Disposition; and

recommending that Respondent’s DEA

Certificate of Registration be revoked.

Neither party filed exceptions to her

opinion, and on January 8, 1997, Judge

Bittner transmitted the record of these

proceedings to the Acting Deputy

Administrator.

The Acting 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 Acting

Deputy Administrator adopts, in full,

the Opinion and Recommended

Decision of the Administrative Law

Judge.

The Acting Deputy Administrator

finds that by Order dated May 12, 1995,

the Board revoked Respondent’s license

to practice dentistry in the State of

Arizona. Like Judge Bittner, the Acting

Deputy Administrator finds it

reasonable to infer that because

Respondent is not licensed to practice

dentistry in Arizona, he is also not

authorized to handle controlled

substances in that State.

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.

802(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). Since the record is

clear that Respondent is not authorized

to handle controlled substances in the

State of Arizona, as Judge Bittner notes,

‘‘[i]t is equally clear that * * *

Respondent is not currently entitled to

a DEA registration.’’

Judge Bittner also 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 Arizona. 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 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); United States

v. Consolidated Mines & Smelting Co.,

44 F.2d 432 (9th Cir. 1971).

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 C.F.R. 0.100(b) and

0.104, hereby orders that DEA

Certificate of Registration BG4084593,

previously issued to Charles R. Griffin,

Jr., D.D.S., be, and it hereby is, revoked.

The Acting Deputy Administrator

further orders that any pending

applications for 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. 97–7882 Filed 3–27–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

Manufacturer of Controlled

Substances; Notice of Application

Pursuant to Section 1301.43(a) of Title

21 of the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR), this is notice that on November

22, 1996, Johnson & Johnson

Pharmaceutical Partners, HC–02 State

Road 933, KMO.1 Mamey Ward, HC–02

Box 19250, Gurabo, Puerto Rico 00778–