Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Notices 26207

order issued in the above-captioned

investigation and what if any

enforcement measures are appropriate.

The following were named as parties

to the formal enforcement proceeding:

(1) Crucible Materials Corporation, State

Fair Boulevard, P.O. Box 977, Syracuse,

New York 13201–0977 (complainant in

the above-captioned investigation and

requester of the formal enforcement

proceeding); (2) San Huan New

Materials High Tech, Inc., No. 8 South

3rd Street, Zhong Guan Cun Road,

Beijing, Peoples Republic of China

100080 (enforcement proceeding

respondent); (3) Ningbo Konit

Industries, Inc., Ningbo Economic and

Technical Development Zone, Zhejiang

Province, People’s Republic of China

(enforcement proceeding respondent);

(4) Tridus International, Inc., 8527

Alondra Boulevard, Suite 205,

Paramount California 90723

(enforcement proceeding respondent);

and (5) a Commission investigative

attorney to be designated by the

Director, Office of Unfair Import

Investigations.

This action is taken under the

authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337),

and section 210.75 of the Commission’s

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR

210.75).

Copies of the Commission’s order and

all other nonconfidential documents

filed in connection with this

enforcement proceeding are or will be

available for inspection during official

business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.)

in the Office of the Secretary, U.S.

International Trade Commission, 500 E

Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20436,

telephone 202–205–2000. Hearingimpaired persons are advised that

information on this matter can be

obtained by contacting the

Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810.

By order of the Commission.

Issued: May 16, 1996.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–13127 Filed 5–23–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE

UNITED STATES

Meeting of the Judicial Conference

Committee on Rules of Practice and

Procedure

AGENCY: Judicial conference of the

United States, Committee on Rules of

Practice and Procedure.

ACTION: Notice of Open Meeting.

SUMMARY: The Committee on Rules of

Practice and Procedure will hold a

three-day meeting. The meeting will be

open to public observation but not

participation.

DATES: June 19–21, 1996.

TIME:

June 19, 1:00 p.m.–5:00 p.m.

June 20, 8:30 a.m.–5:00 p.m.

June 21, 8:30 a.m.–5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Thurgood Marshall Federal

Judiciary Building, Federal Judicial

Center Classrooms, Concourse Level,

One Columbus Circle, N.E., Washington,

D.C.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee

Support Office, Administrative Office of

the United States Courts, Washington,

D.C. 20544, telephone (202) 273–1820.

Dated: May 17, 1996.

John K. Rabiej,

Chief, Rules Committee Support Office.

[FR Doc. 96–13082 Filed 5–23–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 2210–55–M

Hearings of the Judicial Conference

Advisory Committee on Rules of

Appellate Procedure

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the

United States, Advisory Committee on

Rules of Appellate Procedure.

ACTION; Notice of two open hearings.

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on

Rules of Appellate Procedure is

requesting comments to: Preliminary

Draft of Proposed Revision of the

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure

Using Guidelines for Drafting and

Editing Court Rules and Preliminary

Draft of Proposed Amendments to

Appellate Rules 27, 28, and 32.

Two public hearings will be held on

these proposals in: Washington, D.C. on

July 8, 1996, at the Thurgood Marshall

Federal Judiciary Building, Fourth Floor

Conference Room, One Columbus

Circle, N.E.; and Denver, Colorado on

August 2, 1996, at the Byron White

United States Courthouse, Ceremonial

Courtroom, 1823 Stout Street.

The Judicial Conference Committee

on Rules of Practice and Procedure

submits both the proposed revision and

the proposed amendments for public

comment. All comments and

suggestions with respect to them must

be placed in the hands of the Secretary

at least 30 days before each hearing.

Anyone interested in testifying should

write to Peter G. McCabe, Secretary,

Committee on Rules of Practice and

Procedure, Administrative Office of the

United States Courts, Washington, D.C.,

at least 30 days before each hearing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee

Support Office, Administrative Office of

the United States Courts, Washington,

D.C. 20544, telephone (202) 273–1820.

A copy of the proposed revision and

proposed amendments can be obtained

by contacting John K. Rabiej.

Dated: May 17, 1996.

John K. Rabiej,

Chief, Rules Committee Support Office.

[FR Doc. 96–13083 Filed 5–23–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 2210–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. 95–32]

Ying-Ming Chang, M.D., Revocation of

Registration

On February 23, 1995, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA), issued an Order

to Show Cause to Ying-Ming Chang,

M.D., (Respondent), of San Diego,

California, notifying him of an

opportunity to show cause as to why

DEA should not revoke his DEA

Certificate of Registration, BC0495122,

under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4) and deny any

pending applications for registration as

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

the reason that his continued

registration was inconsistent with the

public interest.

The Respondent filed a timely request

for a hearing, and the matter was

docketed before Administrative Law

Judge Mary Ellen Bittner. After a

lengthy delay at the request of the

Respondent, the hearing was scheduled

to commence on March 12, 1996.

However, prior to that date, the

Government filed a Motion for

Summary Disposition, noting that the

Respondent’s license to practice

medicine had been revoked by the

Division of Medical Quality, Medical

Board of California, Department of

Consumer Affairs, State of California

(Board) by final order effective October

9, 1995, a copy of which was attached

to the motion. The Respondent filed a

response on October 27, 1995, noting

that he had challenged the Board’s final

order in a pending Writ of Mandamus

action in the Superior Court of

California, San Diego, California. The

Respondent then argued that the Board’s

final order should not be the basis for

granting the motion for summary

disposition. The Respondent also

argued that an issue of fact remained for

determination; whether the Board’s
26208 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Notices

decision was proper. Therefore, he

concluded summary disposition of this

matter would not be appropriate.

However, the Respondent did not deny

that his state Physician’s and Surgeon’s

Certificate had been revoked, or that he

was, therefore, without authority to

hand controlled substances in the State

of California.

On November 15, 1995, Judge Bittner

issued her Opinion and Recommended

Decision, (1) finding that the Board had

revoked the Respondent’s Physician’s

and Surgeon’s Certificate and that,

therefore, the Respondent was without

authority to handle controlled

substances in California, (2) granting the

Government’s Motion for Summary

Disposition, and (3) recommending that

the Respondent’s DEA Certificate of

Registration be revoked. On December

18, 1995, the Respondent filed a Petition

for Reconsideration of Recommendation

of Administrative Law Judge to Revoke

Respondent’s DEA Certificate of

Registration, and by ruling dated

December 21, 1995, Judge Bittner

denied his petition. On January 11,

1996, Judge Bittner transmitted the

record of these proceedings and her

opinion to the Deputy Administrator.

The 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 Deputy

Administrator adopts, in full, the

Opinion and Recommended Decision of

the Administrative Law Judge, and 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 Deputy Administrator finds that

the parties do not dispute that (1) the

Board revoked the Respondent’s

Physician’s and Surgeon’s Certificate by

an order effective October 9, 1995, and

(2) consequently, the Respondent is

without authority to handle controlled

substances in the State of California.

The Drug Enforcement

Administration does not have statutory

authority under the Controlled

Substances Act to register or maintain

the registration of a practitioner who is

not duly authorized 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);

Myong S. Yi, M.D., 54 FR 30,618 (1989);

Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11,919 (1988).

Further, the Deputy Administrator

finds that Judge Bittner properly granted

the Government’s motion for summary

disposition. Here, the parties did not

dispute that the Respondent was

unauthorized to handle controlled

substances in California.Therefore, it is

well-settled that when no question of

fact is involved, a plenary, adversary

administrative proceeding involving

evidence and cross-examination of

witnesses is not obligatory. See

Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR at

51,104 (finding it well-settled that

where there is no question of material

fact involved, a plenary, adversarial

administrative hearing was not

required.); see also Phillip E. Kirk, M.D.,

48 FR 32,887 (1983), aff’d sub nom Kirk

v. McMullen, 749 F. 2d 297 (6th Cir.

1984); Alfred Tennyson Smurthwaite,

M.D., 43 FR 11,873 (1978); NLRB v.

International Association of Bridge,

Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers,

AFL–CIO, 549 F.2d 634 (9th Cir. 1977).

Also, the Deputy Administrator finds

that Judge Bittner appropriately denied

the Respondent’s petition for

reconsideration. The Respondent

asserted that, since he was licensed to

practice medicine in Hawaii, the ‘‘issue

of whether [his] DEA registration should

be revoked is not moot,’’ and that the

hearing in this matter should proceed as

scheduled. However, as Judge Bittner

noted, the Order to Show Cause

proposed to revoke the Respondent’s

registration to handle controlled

substances at his California place of

business, and thus, the status of the

Respondent’s licenses in other

jurisdictions has no bearing on the

pending matter. On that basis, Judge

Bittner denied the Respondent’s

petition, and the Deputy Administrator

concurs with her decision.

Accordingly, the 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 BC0495122, issued to YingMing Chang, M.D., be, and it hereby is,

revoked, and any application to renew

this registration is hereby denied. This

order is effective June 24, 1996.

Dated: May 17, 1996.

Stephen H. Greene,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–13050 Filed 5–23–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

[Docket No. 94–36]

Jeffrey Patrick Gunderson, M.D.;

Revocation of Registration

On March 11, 1994, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator (then Director),

Office of Diversion Control, Drug

Enforcement Administration (DEA),

issued an Order to Show Cause to

Jeffrey Patrick Gunderson, M.D.,

(Respondent) of Brunswick, Georgia,

notifying him of an opportunity to show

cause as to why DEA should not revoke

his Certificate of Registration,

BG1368516, under 21 U.S.C. 824(a), and

deny any pending applications for

registration as a practitioner under 21

U.S.C. 823(f), for the following reasons:

(1) On August 3, 1992, the

Respondent was arrested in St. Paul,

Minnesota, for felony possession of

LSD, a Schedule I controlled substance,

and, at the time of his arrest, he had in

his possession LSD, marijuana, and

Didrex;

(2) On September 9, 1992, the

Respondent pled guilty in state court to

a felony charge of possession of a

controlled substance, and was convicted

of this offense in November of 1992;

(3) In April of 1993, the Respondent

was observed inhaling cocaine several

hours prior to reporting for duty as an

emergency room physician;

(4) On several occasions during 1993,

the Respondent discussed plans to

purchase and distribute cocaine with

confidential informants; and

(5) During recent undercover

operations, the Respondent was in

possession of cocaine and LSD.

On April 15, 1994, the Respondent,

through counsel, filed a timely request

for a hearing, and following prehearing

procedures, a hearing was held in

Atlanta, Georgia, on October 26, 1994,

before Administrative Law Judge Mary

Ellen Bittner. At the hearing, both

parties called witnesses to testify and

introduced documentary evidence, and

after the hearing, counsel for both sides

submitted proposed findings of fact,

conclusions of law and argument. On

October 31, 1995, Judge Bittner issued

her Opinion and Recommended Ruling,

recommending that the Respondent’s

DEA Certificate of Registration be

revoked and any pending applications

for registration be denied. On December

1, 1995, Judge Bittner transmitted the

record of these proceedings to the

Deputy Administrator, after noting that

neither party had filed timely

exceptions to her decision. However, on

December 20, 1995, Judge Bittner

transmitted the Respondent’s request for

consideration of exceptions filed on

December 18, 1995. A copy of Judge