260 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 1998 / Notices

Act, 5 MRSA § 4553 et seq., as

implemented by the Maine Accessibility

Regulations, meets or exceeds the new

construction and alterations

requirements of title III of the

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

DATE: January 5, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Inquiries may be addressed

to: John L. Wodatch, Chief, Disability

Rights Section, Civil Rights Division,

U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. Box

66738, Washington, DC 20035–6738.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John L. Wodatch, Chief, Disability

Rights Section, Civil Rights Division,

U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. Box

66738, Washington, DC 20035–6738.

Telephone number (800) 514–0301

(Voice) or (800) 514–0383 (TDD).

Copies of this notice are available in

formats accessible to individuals with

vision impairments and may be

obtained by calling (800) 514–0301

(Voice) or (800) 514–0383 (TDD).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The ADA authorizes the Department

of Justice, upon application by a State

or local government, to certify that a

State or local law that establishes

accessibility requirements meets or

exceeds the minimum requirements of

title III of the ADA for new construction

and alterations. 42 U.S.C.

12188(b)(1)(A)(ii); 28 CFR 36.601 et seq.

Certification constitutes rebuttable

evidence, in any ADA enforcement

action, that a building constructed or

altered in accordance with the certified

code complies with the new

construction and alterations

requirements of title III of the ADA.

By letter dated July 21, 1995, the

Maine Human Rights Commission

requested that the Department of Justice

(Department) certify that the Maine

Human Rights Act, 5 MRSA section

4553 et seq., as implemented by the

Maine Accessibility Regulations

(together, the Maine law), meets or

exceeds the new construction and

alterations requirements of title III of the

ADA.

The Department analyzed the Maine

law, and made a preliminary

determination that it meets or exceeds

the new construction and alterations

requirements of title III of the ADA. By

letter, dated September 23, 1997, the

Department notified the Maine Human

Rights Commission of its preliminary

determination of equivalency.

On October 2, 1997, the Department

published notices in the Federal

Register announcing its preliminary

determination of equivalency and

requesting public comments thereon.

The period for submission of written

comments ended on December 1, 1997.

In addition, the Department held public

hearings in Augusta, Maine on October

17, 1997, and in Washington, DC on

December 2, 1997.

Three individuals submitted

comments. Commenters were disabilityrights advocates and an architect. The

Department has analyzed all of the

submitted comments and has consulted

with the U.S. Architectural and

Transportation Barriers Compliance

Board.

Two of the comments supported

certification of the Maine law. One

comment, while not opposing

certification of the Maine law, inquired

whether the Maine law’s coverage of

churches (if the building or facility is

open to the public for any reason) is

different from the ADA. Because

coverage of churches is neither required

nor prohibited by the ADA, such

coverage does not preclude certification.

Based on these comments, the

Department has determined that the

Maine law is equivalent to the new

construction and alterations

requirements of title III of the ADA.

Therefore, the Department has informed

the submitting official of its decision to

certify the Maine law.

Effect of Certification

The certification determination is

limited to the version of the Maine law

that has been submitted to the

Department. The certification will not

apply to amendments or interpretations

that have not been submitted and

reviewed by the Department.

Certification will not apply to

buildings constructed by or for State or

local government entities, which are

subject to title II of the ADA. Nor does

certification apply to accessibility

requirements that are addressed by the

Maine law that are not addressed by the

ADA Standards for Accessible Design.

Finally, certification does not apply to

variances or waivers granted under the

Maine law. Therefore, if a builder

receives a variance, waiver,

modification, or other exemption from

the requirements of the Maine law for

any element of construction or

alterations, the certification

determination will not constitute

evidence of ADA compliance with

respect to that element.

Dated: December 12, 1997.

Isabelle Katz Pinzler,

Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil

Rights.

[FR Doc. 98–149 Filed 1–2–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. 97–27]

Hemp Products Research Company;

Denial of Applications

On June 17, 1997, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA), issued two

Orders to Show Cause to Hemp

Products Research Company

(Respondent), of Bellevue, Nebraska,

notifying it of an opportunity to show

cause as to why DEA should not deny

its applications for DEA Certificates of

Registration as a manufacturer of

marijuana under 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and

as a researcher in the cultivation of

marijuana under 21 U.S.C. 823(f), for

reason that its registration would be

inconsistent with the public interest.

Respondent requested a hearing on the

issues raised by the Orders to Show

Cause and the matter was docketed

before Administrative Law Judge Gail A.

Randall.

On August 26, 1997, the Government

filed a Motion for Summary Disposition

seeking a recommendation from the

Administrative Law Judge that the

applications be denied without

convening a hearing. Thereafter, on

September 17, 1997, Respondent

submitted a prehearing statement which

included its response to the

Government’s motion. On October 8,

1997, Judge Randall issued her Opinion

and Recommended Ruling, concluding

that summary disposition is appropriate

in this matter, and therefore granting the

Government’s motion and

recommending that Respondent’s

applications for registration be denied.

Neither party filed exceptions to her

opinion, and on November 21, 1997,

Judge Randall 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 Ruling

of the Administrative Law Judge. his

adoption is in no manner diminished by

any recitation of facts, issues and

conclusions herein, or of any failure to

mention a matter of fact or law.

The Acting Deputy Administrator

finds that Respondent has two pending

applications for registration with DEA.

Respondent submitted an application

dated March 14, 1995, for registration
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 1998 / Notices 261

with DEA as a researcher in Schedule I,

listing the Administrative Drug Code

Number for marijuana. In addition,

Respondent listed on its application an

address in Bellevue, Nebraska. In

Respondent’s letter transmitting its

prehearing statement, the President of

Respondent indicated that this was his

home address, but that he was moving

to a new home in O’Neill, Nebraska.

Respondent admitted in its prehearing

statement that the address listed on its

application is not the location where it

intends to conduct research in the

cultivation of marijuana. Further, in its

research protocol, required pursuant to

21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 21 CFR 1301.18,

under the heading ‘‘Location Where The

Research Will Be Conducted,’’

Respondent states that ‘‘[t]his study is

based on farms ’’ in 20 states, and that

‘‘[b]iochemical and textile analysis will

be performed by [Respondent] in

contractual industrial laboratories.’’

However, Respondent fails to

specifically identify the location(s)

where it intends to conduct its research.

In its second application, dated May

18, 1995, Respondent seeks registration

as a Schedule I manufacturer, also

listing on this application the

Administrative Code Number for

marijuana. Respondent indicated on its

application that it wants to manufacture

marijuana for industrial purposes. Like

with the researcher application,

Respondent admitted that the address

listed on the manufacturer application

is not the location where Respondent

intends to manufacture marijuana.

Instead, Respondent has stated that it

‘‘is seeking approval of approximately

360,000 acres for industrial hemp

production in 18 states at this time.’’

Respondent ‘‘intends to cultivate itself,

and to subcontract out, the cultivation,

harvest and processing of low THC

industrial varieties of Cannabis hemp

stalk, seed, and waste materials * * *.’’

Respondent intends, at harvest, to

separate the leaf, flower, and other

waste from the stalk and seed of the

Cannabis sativa L. plant, and to use the

hemp stalk for textile analysis.

Respondent further intends to then use

the hemp seeds to grow new Cannabis

sativa L. plants.

Correspondence between DEA and

Respondent prior to the issuance of the

Orders to Show Cause indicate that

Respondent was advised that a separate

registration is required for each location

where marijuana will be manufactured

and that there are certain security

requirements for manufacturing

locations which must be inspected prior

to the issuance of any registration.

The Government, in its Motion for

Summary Disposition, argues that

summary disposition is appropriate in

this proceeding since there is no dispute

that Respondent has failed to comply

with the application requirements for

registration with DEA as a manufacturer

and as a researcher of a controlled

substance. First, the Government argues

that Respondent has failed to submit

separate applications for each location

where it intends to manufacturer

marijuana as required by 21 U.S.C. 822

and 21 CFR 1301.12. In its response,

Respondent contends that feral

industrial hemp is a ‘‘non-drug’’ with no

potential for abuse and therefore it is

unreasonable to require a separate

registration for each location where it

intends to manufacture. Next, the

Government argues that Respondent has

failed to disclose the location(s) where

it intends to conduct research on

marijuana and to submit separate

applications for those locations as

required by 21 U.S.C. 822 and 21 CFR

1301.12 and 1301.18(a)(2)(v).

Respondent argues that it has not yet

acquired a research facility, and that it

would be ‘‘economically foolish’’ to

obtain laboratory space without first

receiving a DEA registration. Finally,

the Government asserts that Respondent

has failed, or refused, to allow DEA to

conduct on-site inspections of any

location where it intends to

manufacture or conduct research,

thereby precluding DEA from

determining whether Respondent is in

compliance with security requirements.

Respondent contends that it has

provided DEA with a list of a number

of manufacturing locations, but that

DEA has never asked to conduct on-site

inspections at any of these locations.

The first question is whether

Respondent intends to manufacture or

conduct research on marijuana.

Respondent states that it does not want

‘‘anything whatsoever to do with

‘marijuana’ or ‘marihuana’. As stated in

applications and communications,

interest is based solely on the use of

industrial hemp for the production of

bioplastics, biofuels, cloth and paper.’’

In addition, Respondent asserts that it is

intending to deal with a ‘‘non-drug’’

since it has a very low concentration of

delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). As

Judge Randall noted, marijuana is

defined in 21 U.S.C. 802(16) as:

[A]ll parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L.,

whether growing or not; the seeds thereof;

the resin extracted from any part of such

plant; and every compound, manufacture,

salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of

such plant, its seeds or resin. Such term does

not include the mature stalks of such plant,

fiber produced from such stalks, oil and cake

made from the seeds of such plant, any other

compound, manufacture, salt, derivative,

mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks

(except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber,

oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such

plant which is incapable of germination.

Further, 21 U.S.C. 802(15) defines

manufacture as ‘‘the production,

preparation, propagation, compounding,

or processing of a drug or other

substance, either directly or indirectly

or by extraction from substances of

natural origin * * *.’’

As noted previously, Respondent

intends to process a substance that

originates from the Cannabis sativa L.

plant, by separating at harvest, the stalk

and seed materials from the leaf, flower

and other waste material, and then

using the seeds to grow new Cannabis

sativa L. plants. The Acting Deputy

Administrator agrees with Judge Randall

that ‘‘[s]ince the definition of marihuana

specifically includes all parts of the

plant, except the mature stalks, the

Respondent proposes to ‘process’ the

Cannabis sativa L. plant to reach the

hemp component of that plant.’’ In

addition, Respondent’s use of the seeds

to grow new Cannabis sativa L. plants

also falls within the statutory

definitions of the manufacture of

marijuana. Therefore, the Acting Deputy

Administrator concludes that

Respondent is proposing to engage in

the manufacture and research of

marijuana. As to Respondent’s assertion

that the substance that it intends to be

involved with is a ‘‘non-drug’’ due to its

low concentration of THC, the Acting

Deputy Administrator concludes that

the statutory definition of marijuana

does not address the degree of THC

concentration. Therefore, regardless of

the level of THC concentration of the

plants, Respondent’s proposed activities

fall within the statutory definitions of

the manufacture of marijuana.

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 822(a), ‘‘[e]very

person who manufactures or distributes

any controlled substance * * * or who

proposes to engage in the manufacture

or distribution of any controlled

substance * * * shall obtain annually a

registration issued by the Attorney

General * * *.’’

Since Respondent intends to

manufacture marijuana, a Schedule I

controlled substance, it is required to

obtain a DEA registration. Further, 21

U.S.C. 822(e) states that ‘‘[a] separate

registration shall be required at each

principal place of business or

professional practice where the

applicant manufactures, distributes, or

dispenses controlled substances. . . .’’

Respondent has submitted only one

application for registration to

manufacture marijuana, and Respondent

has admitted that it does not intend to

manufacture marijuana at the address
262 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 1998 / Notices

listed on the application. Instead,

Respondent has indicated that it intends

to manufacture marijuana on farms in a

number of different states, however it

has not submitted applications for

registration for these locations.

Therefore, since Respondent’s

manufacturer application fails to

identify the principal place(s) of

business where it intends to

manufacture marijuana, it does not

comply with 21 U.S.C. 822.

Regarding Respondent’s application

to conduct research, pursuant to 21

U.S.C. 823(f), DEA is authorized to

register ‘‘practitioners’’ to conduct

research with controlled substances.

‘‘Practitioner’’ is defined in 21 U.S.C.

802(21) as:

[A] physician, dentist, veterinarian,

scientific investigator, pharmacy, hospital, or

other person licensed, registered, or

otherwise permitted, by the United States or

the jurisdiction in which he practices or does

research, to distribute, dispense, conduct

research with respect to, administer, or use

in teaching or chemical analysis, a controlled

substance in the course of professional

practice or research.

Therefore, state authorization to

conduct research is a prerequisite to

DEA registration. See also 21 U.S.C.

823(f). Like with its manufacturer

application, Respondent’s researcher

application lists an address where

Respondent has conceded that it has no

intention of conducting research.

Instead, in its research protocol,

Respondent merely lists 20 states from

which it intends to obtain hemp, and

acknowledges that it has not yet

obtained laboratory space. Because

Respondent has not identified the

specific location(s) where it intends to

conduct its research on marijuana, DEA

cannot determine whether Respondent

is authorized to do so in the

jurisdiction(s) where the proposed

research will take place. Therefore, the

Acting Deputy Administrator concurs

with Judge Randall’s conclusion that

‘‘DEA lacks the authority under 21

U.S.C. 823(f) to register the Respondent

as a researcher.’’

It is well settled that where there is no

material question of fact involved, or

when the facts are agreed upon, there is

no need for a plenary, administrative

hearing. Congress did not intend for

administrative agencies to perform

meaningless tasks. Gilbert Ross, M.D., 61

FR 8664 (1996); Dominick A. Ricci,

M.D., 58 FR 51,104 (1993); Philip E.

Kirk, M.D., 48 FR 32,887 (1983), aff’d

sub nom Kirk v. Mullen, 749 F.2d 297

(6th Cir. 1984).

In this case, there does appear to be

some dispute as to whether or not

Respondent refused to allow DEA to

conduct on-site inspections of the

locations where it is proposing to

manufacture or conduct research on

marijuana. However, the Acting Deputy

Administrator finds it unnecessary to

reach this issue, since as Judge Randall

found, it is undisputed that ‘‘(1) the

Respondent has failed to submit

separate manufacturing [applications]

for each proposed manufacturing site;

(2) the address on the pending

manufacturing application is not a

proposed manufacturing site; and (3) the

Respondent has failed to identify the

location where it intends to do research

with a controlled substance.’’ Therefore,

Judge Randall concluded that

Respondent ‘‘has not complied with the

statutory and regulatory requirements

pertaining to the content of its

applications[,] * * * that there are no

relevant factual matters in dispute

concerning the information lacking in

the Respondent’s applications[,] * * *

[and] that the DEA lacks the authority

to grant the Respondent’s currently

pending, incomplete applications for

DEA Certificates of Registration.’’

As a result, Judge Randall granted the

Government’s Motion for Summary

Disposition and recommended that

Respondent’s applications for

registration be denied. The Acting

Deputy Administrator concurs with

Judge Randall’s conclusions. DEA is

precluded by statute to issue

Respondent a manufacturer registration

at a location where Respondent does not

intend to manufacture a controlled

substance which would authorize

Respondent to manufacture marijuana at

different locations in a number of states.

Further, since Respondent has failed to

specifically identify the state(s) where it

intends to conduct its research on

marijuana, DEA cannot determine

whether Respondent is properly

authorized by the state(s) to conduct

such research, and therefore, DEA is

precluded by statute from issuing

Respondent a researcher registration.

Consequently, the Acting Deputy

Administrator concludes that

Respondent’s applications for

registration cannot be granted. The

Acting Deputy Administrator agrees

with Judge Randall that since ‘‘the

current applications [are] so defective

that the DEA lack[s] authority to grant

them in their current state . . . it [is]

unnecessary to make any further

findings or conclusions concerning any

of the other issues raised by the parties

about the propriety of granting or

denying the Respondent’s applications.’’

In her November 21, 1997 letter

transmitting the record to the Acting

Deputy Administrator, Judge Randall

noted that Respondent had filed with

her office several exhibits including

‘‘hemp paper, fiber, hurds and stalks

(whole and chipped).’’ Judge Randall

asked to be advised whether the Acting

Deputy Administrator ‘‘would like for

these items to be destroyed or retrieved

for [his] viewing.’’ In light of the

conclusions made in this matter, the

Acting Deputy Administrator finds it

unnecessary to view these exhibits.

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 the applications

dated March 14, 1995, and May 18,

1995, submitted by Hemp Products

Research Company, for DEA Certificates

of Registration as a researcher and as a

manufacturer, be, and they hereby are,

denied. This order is effective February

4, 1998.

Dated: December 22, 1997.

James S. Milford,

Acting Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98–024 Filed 1–2–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND

SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Docket 97–170]

Notice of Prospective Patent License

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and

Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of prospective patent

license.

SUMMARY: NASA hereby gives notice

that Automated Analysis Corporation,

2805 South Industrial, Suite 100, Ann

Arbor, Michigan 48104–6767, has

applied for an exclusive copyright

license for computer software entitled

‘‘Structural Acoustics Optimization

(SAOpt) Software.’’ NASA received

assignment of the copyright on

September 18, 1997, from Lockheed

Martin Aeronautical Systems Company.

Written objections to the prospective

grant of a license should be sent to Ms.

Robin W. Edwards, Patent Attorney,

NASA Langley Research Center.

DATES: Responses to this notice must be

received by March 6, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Robin W. Edwards, Patent Attorney,

NASA Langley Research Center, Mail

Code 212, Hampton, VA 23681–0001,

telephone (757) 864–3230.