Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 96 / Thursday, May 16, 1996 / Notices 24813

Respondent’s prehearing opportunities,

the Deputy Administrator finds that the

Respondent has failed to satisfy the

burden necessary to reopen the record

on this basis.

Next, the Respondent seeks to reopen

the evidence in order to cross examine

a witness, HH, concerning her drug

dealing activities during her association

with the Respondent in the summer of

1992. However, the facts concerning her

involvement, and subissues involving

other employees of the Respondent,

were not relied upon by Judge Tenney

nor by the Deputy Administrator in

reaching a determination of this case.

Further, the Respondent does not

provide a basis for asserting that HH’s

credibility would be material in

resolving this matter. Therefore, the

Deputy Administrator concludes that

such impeachment evidence would not

be relevant so as to provide a basis to

reopen the record.

Next, the Respondent seeks to reopen

the evidence in order to present

testimony from other physicians, whom

he claims will testify about being

deceived by the CI when they

prescribed controlled substances to her

during the relevant period of 1992. The

Deputy Administrator notes that the

Respondent had access to this

information prehearing, for he

introduced into the record the

prescription survey which identified the

prescribing physicians, and he testified

concerning his interview of some of

these physicians. Further, the

Respondent did not assert that the

testimony of these physicians was

previously unavailable. Therefore, the

Respondent has failed to meet the

requirements to reopen the record on

this basis.

The Respondent also asserted that the

Roswell police intentionally destroyed

or disposed of exculpatory evidence, to

include a tape recording of the CI’s and

the Respondent’s telephone

conversations on September 17, 1992,

and on October 1, 1992, and the

transcript of the transaction that

occurred on October 1, 1992, when the

Respondent refused to provide the CI

with a prescription for Xanax. Yet the

Deputy Administrator notes that there is

no dispute that the Respondent refused

to provide the CI with a Xanax

prescription on October 1, 1992.

Further, the Respondent presented no

evidentiary basis for his belief of

intentional destruction of evidence. He

also failed to demonstrate how the

evidence he now proposes to introduce

into the record on this point would be

material. Therefore, the Respondent

failed to meet his burden in reopening

the record on this basis.

Finally, the Respondent asserts that

the transcripts of the tape recordings

from the September 23, 1992,

transaction were not accurate. Yet the

Respondent had access to the tape

recordings and the transcripts well

before the hearing in this matter. Again,

the Respondent failed to establish the

requisite basis for reopening the record.

Accordingly, the Deputy Administrator

denies the Respondent’s motion to

reopen the record.

Both the Respondent and the

Government filed exceptions to Judge

Tenney’s opinion, and the Deputy

Administrator has considered these

exceptions. The exceptions were

extensive, are a part of the record, and

accordingly shall not be restated at

length herein.

However, the Deputy Administrator

finds no merit in the Respondent’s

exceptions, for the Respondent merely

reargued his case and his interpretation

of the credibility and sufficiency of the

evidence of record. For example, as to

the incident on October 20, 1992,

involving the Respondent, AP, and CI,

the Respondent takes exception to Judge

Tenney’s conclusion that the

Respondent provided a prescription in

the name of AP for the CI’s use. The

Respondent argues that it is significant

that the transcript reflects that all of the

statements relied upon by Judge Tenney

originated from the CI, not the

Respondent. What is significant is the

Respondent’s actions in light of the CI’s

statements, not his dialogue.

Specifically, despite the CI’s language

indicating her intent regarding the

prescription, the Respondent issued the

prescription in AP’s name, thus

providing the CI with the means to

facilitate her intention. As previously

written, the Deputy Administrator has

considered the Respondent’s arguments

and found that they were not

persuasive.

Likewise, the Deputy Administrator

finds that the Government’s exception

to Judge Tenney’s finding concerning

the Agent in 1985 also lacked merit. The

Deputy Administrator notes that the

conversations between the Agent and

the Respondent, and the interpretation

of the meaning of those conversations,

were strongly contested issues. Since

the transactions occurred over ten years

prior to the hearing in this matter, the

Record demonstrates that the Agent’s

recollection and resulting testimony

before Judge Tenney understandably

lacked precision. Although tape

recordings and transcripts were made at

the time, the DEA destroyed them in the

normal course of business. Therefore,

the Deputy Administrator agrees with

Judge Tenney, that ‘‘[a] tape or

transcript of the undercover visits,

revealing the precise language used by

[the Agent] and the Respondent would

be critical in determining whether the

medication was legitimately

prescribed.’’ Given the state of the

record, Judge Tenney concluded, and

the Deputy Administrator concurs, that

‘‘a preponderance of the evidence does

not support a finding that the

medication was prescribed to the Agent

for an illegitimate purpose.’’

Accordingly, the Deputy

Administrator of the Drug Enforcement

Administration, pursuant to the

authority vested in him by 21 U.S.C.

823, and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104,

hereby orders that DEA Certificate of

Registration, AG6243125, previously

issued to Robert M. Golden, M.D. be,

and it hereby is, revoked, and any

pending applications are hereby denied.

This order is effective June 17, 1996.

Dated: May 10, 1996.

Stephen H. Greene,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–12231 Filed 5–15–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

[DEA # 147F]

Controlled Substances: 1996

Aggregate Production Quotas

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA), Justice.

ACTION: Notice of final revised 1996

aggregate production quotas.

SUMMARY: The interim notice (61 FR

14336, April 1, 1996) which established

revised 1996 aggregate production

quotas for amobarbital and

hydromorphone, Schedule II controlled

substances, as required under the

Controlled Substances Act (CSA) (21

U.S.C. 826), is adopted without change.

DATES: This order is effective on May

16, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Howard McClain, Jr., Chief, Drug and

Chemical Evaluation Section, Drug

Enforcement Administration,

Washington, DC 20537, (202) 307–7183.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

306 of the Controlled Substances Act,

(21 U.S.C. 826), requires the Attorney

General to establish aggregate

production quotas for controlled

substances in Schedules I and II each

year. This responsibility has been

delegated to the Administrator of the

DEA pursuant to Section 0.100 of Title

28 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

The Administrator in turn, has

redelegated this function to the Deputy

Administrator of the DEA pursuant to
24814 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 96 / Thursday, May 16, 1996 / Notices

Section 0.104 of Title 28 of the Code of

Federal Regulations.

On April 1, 1996, an interim notice

establishing revised 1996 aggregate

production quotas for amobarbital and

hydromorphone was published in the

Federal Register (61 FR 11063). All

interested persons were invited to

comment on or object to these proposed

aggregate production quotas on or before

May 1, 1996. Since no comments or

objections were received, the interim

notice is adopted without change.

The Office of Management and Budget

has determined that notices of aggregate

production quotas are not subject to

centralized review under Executive

Order 12866. This action has been

analyzed in accordance with the

principles and criteria contained in

Executive Order 12612, and it has been

determined that this matter does not

have sufficient federalism implications

to warrant the preparation of a

Federalism Assessment.

The Deputy Administrator hereby

certifies that this action will have no

significant impact upon small entities

whose interests must be considered

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5

U.S.C. 601, et seq. The establishment of

annual aggregate production quotas for

Schedules I and II controlled substances

is mandated by law and by international

treaty obligations. While aggregate

production quotas are of primary

importance to large manufacturers, their

impact upon small entities is neither

negative nor beneficial. Accordingly, the

Deputy Administrator has determined

that this action does not require a

regulatory flexibility analysis.

Therefore, under the authority vested

in the Attorney General by Section 306

of the Controlled Substances Act of

1970 (21 U.S.C. 826), delegated to the

Administrator of the DEA by Section

0.100 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, and redelegated to the

Deputy Administrator, pursuant to

Section 0.104 of Title 28 of the Code of

Federal Regulations, the Deputy

Administrator hereby orders that the

revised 1996 aggregate production

quotas for the listed controlled

substances, expressed in grams of

anhydrous acid or base, be established

as follows:

Basic class

Established

revised 1996

quota

Amobarbital ........................... 301,000

Hydromorphone .................... 718,000

Dated: May 9, 1996.

Stephen H. Greene,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–12272 Filed 5–15–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

Notice of Determinations Regarding

Eligibility To Apply for Worker

Adjustment Assistance and NAFTA

Transitional Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of the

Trade Act of 1974, as amended, the

Department of Labor herein presents

summaries of determinations regarding

eligibility to apply for trade adjustment

assistance for workers (TA–W) issued

during the period of April, 1996.

In order for an affirmative

determination to be made and a

certification of eligibility to apply for

worker adjustment assistance to be

issued, each of the group eligibility

requirements of Section 222 of the Act

must be met.

(1) That a significant number or

proportion of the workers in the

workers’ firm, or an appropriate

subdivision thereof, have become totally

or partially separated,

(2) That sales or production, or both,

of the firm or sub-division have

decreased absolutely, and

(3) That increases of imports of

articles like or directly competitive with

articles produced by the firm or

appropriate subdivision have

contributed importantly to the

separations, or threat thereof, and to the

absolute decline in sales or production.

Negative Determinations for Worker

Adjustment Assistance

In each of the following cases the

investigation revealed that criterion (3)

has not been met. A survey of customers

indicated that increased imports did not

contribute importantly to worker

separations at the firm.

TA–W–32,058; Keystone Brewers, Inc.,

DBA Pittsburgh Brewing Co., Pittsburgh,

PA

TA–W–31,991; General Railway

Signal Corp., SADIB Div., Rochester, NY

TA–W–31,932; Hines Oregon Millwork

Enterprises, Hines, OR

TA–W–31,936; Boise Cascade Corp.,

Vancouver, WA

TA–W–32,145; Tampella Power Corp.,

Williamsport, PA

TA–W–31,929; Hollander Home

Fashions Corp., Rogers, AR

TA–W–32,020; Holliston-Mills, Inc.,

Kingsport, TN

In the following cases, the

investigation revealed that the criteria

for eligibility have not been met for the

reasons specified.

TA–W–32,053; General Mirror Corp.,

Flifton, NJ

TA–W–31,994; Silgan Containers

Corp., Hillsboro, OR

TA–W–32,098; OshKosh B’Gosh,

Columbia Cutting, Columbia, KY

TA–W–32,049; Lifeline

Manufacturing, Inc., Swainsboro, GA

TA–W–32,033; 3M Company, Data

Storage Products, Wahpeton, ND

Increased imports did not contribute

importantly to worker separations at the

firm.

TA–W–32,229; Fashion Development

Center, Inc., El Paso, TX

TA–W–31,986; Alemeda Equipment

Co., Inc., Master Equipment Center,

Amherst, NY

TA–W–31,924; Marine Transport

Lines, Inc., Weehawken, NJ

TA–W–32,069; Turnkey Services, El

Paso, TX, Workers Leasted to And

Working At Thompson Consumer

Electronics, El Paso, TX

TA–W–32,031; Brown Group, Inc.,

Cloth World Div., Clayton, MO

The workers firm does not produce an

article as required for certification under

Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.

TA–W–31,945; FMC/Crosby Valve &

Gage Co., Wretham, MA

The investigation revealed that

criterion (2) and criterion (3) have not

been met. Sales or production did not

decline during the relevant period as

required for certification. Increases of

imports of articles like or directly

competitive with articles produced by

the firm or appropriate subdivision have

not contributed importantly to the

separations or threat thereof, and the

absolute decline in sales or production.

Affirmative Determinations for Worker

Adjustment Assistance

The following certifications have been

issued; the date following the company

name & location for each determination

references the impact date for all

workers for such determination.

TA–W–32,030; Allied Signal

Aerospace Government Electronics

Systems, South Montrose, PA: February

28, 1995.

TA–W–31,928; McAllen Separation

Co., Mt. Gilead, NC: January 29, 1995.

TA–W–32,047; Laceyfair Mills Corp.,

Ratcliff, AR: February 23, 1995.

TA–W–32,228; Quintana Petroleum

Products, Houston, TX: March 15, 1995.

TA–W–32,203; Tetile Networks, Inc.,

Knoxville, TN: February 6, 1995.

TA–W–32,217; C.R. Bard, Inc.,

Medical Div., Nogales, AZ: April 3,

1995.