Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 1997 / Notices 16193

prescribing physicians on

approximately 85% of these

prescriptions and these doctors

indicated that the prescriptions were

forged and that no one from Hagura

Pharmacy had ever contacted them to

verify the legitimacy of the

prescriptions. Of the forged

prescriptions, 90% were filled prior to

February 28, 1985, while the pharmacy

was operating as Hagura Pharmacy with

Dr. Abdullah as the owner. Dr. Abdullah

contends that he should not be held

accountable for the forged prescriptions

that were filled at Hagura Pharmacy

since he was not actively involved in

the operation of the pharmacy at that

time.

Like Judge Bittner, the Acting Deputy

Administrator rejects Dr. Abdullah’s

contention. As the owner, he was

ultimately responsible for what

occurred at his pharmacy regardless of

whether he was involved in its daily

operation or not. It was Dr. Abdullah’s

responsibility to ensure that adequate

safeguards were in place to prevent the

diversion of controlled substances.

However, with Dr. Abdullah as the

owner, Hagura Pharmacy dispensed

thousands of dosage units of highly

abused Schedule II controlled

substances pursuant to fraudulent

prescriptions. The Acting Deputy

Administrator is troubled by Dr.

Abdullah’s continued assertions that he

should not be held accountable for the

improper dispensing that occurred at

Hagura Pharmacy. Dr. Abdullah’s failure

to accept responsibility, does not bode

well for Respondent’s future handling of

controlled substances.

Regarding factors three and four, there

is no evidence that Respondent or Dr.

Abdullah had ever been convicted

under state or Federal laws relating to

controlled substances. However, there is

evidence that Hagura Pharmacy, while

owned by Dr. Abdullah, failed to

comply with Federal laws relating to

controlled substances. Hagura Pharmacy

failed to maintain complete and

accurate records of controlled

substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. 827

and 21 CFR 1304.21, as evidenced by

the accountability audit results. In

addition, Hagura Pharmacy dispensed

controlled substances without a valid

prescription in violation of 21 U.S.C.

829 and 21 CFR 1306.04. Dr. Abdullah

again argues that he should not be held

accountable for Hagura Pharmacy’s

failure to comply with Federal laws

since he was not an active participant in

the operation of the pharmacy.

However, for the reasons discussed in

conjunction with factor two, the Acting

Deputy Administrator rejects this

argument.

As to factor five, Judge Bittner found

relevant ‘‘* * * Dr. Abdullah’s lack of

candor regarding the ownership of the

pharmacy. * * *’’ Dr. Abdullah

maintained that he was not the owner

of Khawaja Pharmacy and therefore

should not be held accountable for the

actions of that pharmacy. Judge Bittner

found this argument ‘‘at best

disingenuous’’ in light of the fact that

Dr. Abdullah arranged for the transfer of

the inventory to another pharmacy upon

Khawaja Pharmacy’s closure, an that his

brother-in-law had only made one

payment to Dr. Abdullah at the time the

pharmacy closed. But like Judge Bittner,

the Acting Deputy Administrator finds

it unnecessary to assess the impact of

this finding on the outcome of this

proceeding, since 90% of the fraudulent

prescriptions were filed by Hagura

Pharmacy while, without dispute, it was

owned by Dr. Abdullah.

Respondent asserts that the alleged

wrongdoing occurred more than ten

years ago and therefore the doctrine of

laches or other principles of equity

should preclude the denial of

Respondent’s application for

registration. DEA has consistently held

that while passage of time since the

wrongdoing is not, by itself, dispositive,

it is a consideration in assessing

whether Respondent’s registration

would be inconsistent with the public

interest. See Norman Alpert, M.D., 58

FR 67,420 (1993). In Alpert, the thenActing Administrator found significant,

‘‘Respondent’s recognition of the serious

abuse of his privileges as a DEA

registrant, and his sincere regret for his

actions.’’ Here however, Dr. Abdullah

maintains that he has done nothing

wrong and that he should not be held

accountable for the actions of Hagura

Pharmacy, even though he was its

owner.

Judge Bittner concluded that ‘‘[i]t is

clear from Dr. Abdullah’s suggestion

that he should not be held accountable

for the wrongdoing of his pharmacy

during his absence that he does not

appreciate or accept the responsibilities

that accompany owning a DEA

registrant. In addition, there is no

persuasive evidence in the record to

indicate that Dr. Abdullah would be a

more conscientious owner the second

time around.’’ The Acting Deputy

Administrator agrees. Dr. Abdullah has

exhibited a complete disregard for the

tremendous responsibilities that

accompany the issuance of a DEA

registration. Therefore, the Acting

Deputy Administrator concludes that it

would be inconsistent with the public

interest to grant Respondent pharmacy a

DEA registration.

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 application for

registration as a retail pharmacy

submitted by Hagura Pharmacy, be, and

it hereby is, denied. This order is

effective May 5, 1997.

Dated: March 27, 1997.

James S. Milford,

Acting Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–8558 Filed 4–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

Romeo J. Perez, M.D.; Revocation of

Registration

On July 31, 1996, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA) issued an Order

to Show Cause to Romeo J. Perez, M.D.,

of St. Louis, Missouri, notifying him of

an opportunity to show cause as to why

DEA should not revoke his DEA

Certificate of Registration AP1596014,

and deny any pending applications for

renewal of such 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

Missouri. The order also notified Dr.

Perez 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

on August 2, 1996. No request for a

hearing or any other reply was received

by the DEA from Dr. Perez or anyone

purporting to represent him in this

matter. Therefore, the Acting Deputy

Administrator, finding that: (1) Thirty

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. Perez 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, by order effective August 24,

1994, the State Board of Healing Arts,

State of Missouri (Board) revoked Dr.

Perez’ license to practice medicine. The

Board further ordered that Dr. Perez

shall not apply for reinstatement of his

license for at least two years and one

day from the effective date. The Acting

Deputy Administrator finds that there is
16194 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 1997 / Notices

no evidence in the record that Dr. Perez

has sought reinstatement of his medical

license. By letter dated September 6,

1994, the Missouri Bureau of Narcotics

and Dangerous Drugs informed Dr.

Perez that his Missouri controlled

substances registration terminated when

his license to practice medicine was

revoked, and therefore he is not

authorized to handle controlled

substances in Missouri. The Acting

Deputy Administrator concludes, based

upon the record before him, that Dr.

Perez is not currently authorized to

handle controlled substances in

Missouri.

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. Perez is neither

currently authorized to practice

medicine nor to dispense controlled

substances in the State of Missouri.

Therefore, Dr. Perez is not currently

entitled to a DEA registration.

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, AP1596014, previously

issued to Romeo J. Perez, 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 May

5, 1997.

Dated: March 24, 1997.

James S. Milford,

Acting Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–8561 Filed 4–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment Standards

Administration; Wage and Hour

Division

Minimum Wages for Federal and

Federally Assisted Construction;

General Wage Determination Decisions

General wage determination decisions

of the Secretary of Labor are issued in

accordance with applicable law and are

based on the information obtained by

the Department of Labor from its study

of local wage conditions and data made

available from other sources. They

specify the basic hourly wage rates and

fringe benefits which are determined to

be prevailing for the described classes of

laborers and mechanics employed on

construction projects of a similar

character and in the localities specified

therein.

The determinations in these decisions

of prevailing rates and fringe benefits

have been made in accordance with 29

CFR Part 1, by authority of the Secretary

of Labor pursuant to the provisions of

the Davis-Bacon Act of March 3, 1931,

as amended (46 Stat. 1494, as amended,

40 U.S.C. 276a) and of other Federal

statutes referred to in 29 CFR Part 1,

Appendix, as well as such additional

statutes as may from time to time be

enacted containing provisions for the

payment of wages determined to be

prevailing by the Secretary of Labor in

accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act.

The prevailing rates and fringe benefits

determined in these decisions shall, in

accordance with the provisions of the

foregoing statutes, constitute the

minimum wages payable on Federal and

federally assisted construction projects

to laborers and mechanics of the

specified classes engaged on contract

work of the character and in the

localities described therein.

Good cause is hereby found for not

utilizing notice and public comment

procedure thereon prior to the issuance

of these determinations as prescribed in

5 U.S.C. 553 and not providing for delay

in the effective date as prescribed in that

section, because the necessity to issue

current construction industry wage

determinations frequently and in large

volume causes procedures to be

impractical and contrary to the public

interest.

General wage determination

decisions, and modifications and

supersedes decisions thereto, contain no

expiration dates and are effective from

their date of notice in the Federal

Register, or on the date written notice

is received by the agency, whichever is

earlier. These decisions are to be used

in accordance with the provisions of 29

CFR Parts 1 and 5. Accordingly, the

applicable decision, together with any

modifications issued, must be made a

part of every contract for performance of

the described work within the

geographic area indicated as required by

an applicable Federal prevailing wage

law and 29 CFR Part 5. The wage rates

and fringe benefits, notice of which is

published herein, and which are

contained in the Government Printing

Office (GPO) document entitled

‘‘General Wage Determinations Issued

Under The Davis-Bacon And Related

Acts,’’ shall be the minimum paid by

contractors and subcontractors to

laborers and mechanics.

Any person, organization, or

governmental agency having an interest

in the rates determined as prevailing is

encouraged to submit wage rate and

fringe benefit information for

consideration by the Department.

Further information and selfexplanatory forms for the purpose of

submitting this data may be obtained by

writing to the U.S. Department of Labor,

Employment Standards Administration,

Wage and Hour Division, Division of

Wage Determinations, 200 Constitution

Avenue, NW., Room S–3014,

Washington, DC 20210.

New General Wage Determination

Decisions

The number of the decisions added to

the Government Printing Office

document entitled ‘‘General Wage

Determinations Issued Under the DavisBacon and related Acts’’ are listed by

Volume and States:

Volume III:

North Carolina

NC970053 (April 04, 1997)

Volume VI:

Utah

UT970035 (April 04, 1997)

UT970036 (April 04, 1997)

Modifications to General Wage

Determination Decisions

The number of decisions listed in the

Government Printing Office document

entitled ‘‘General Wage Determinations

Issued Under the Davis-Bacon and

Related Acts’’ being modified are listed

by Volume and State. Dates of

publication in the Federal Register are

in parentheses following the decisions

being modified.

Volume I:

Connecticut

CT970001 (Feb. 14, 1997)

CT970003 (Feb. 14, 1997)

CT970004 (Feb. 14, 1997)

Massachusetts

MA970002 (Feb. 14, 1997)

MA970003 (Feb. 14, 1997)

MA970015 (Feb. 14, 1997)

MA970020 (Feb. 14, 1997)

Maine

ME970005 (Feb. 14, 1997)

ME970007 (Feb. 14, 1997)

ME970010 (Feb. 14, 1997)

ME970022 (Feb. 14, 1997)

ME970032 (Feb. 14, 1997)

ME970037 (Feb. 14, 1997)

New York

NY970005 (Feb. 14, 1997)

NY970022 (Feb. 14, 1997)

NY970072 (Feb. 14, 1997)

Rhode Island