Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 110 / Thursday, June 6, 1996 / Notices 28897

determines that such registration would

be inconsistent with the public interest.

In determining the public interest,

Section 823(f) requires that the

following factors be considered:

(1) The recommendation of the

appropriate State licensing board or

professional disciplinary authority.

(2) The applicant’s experience in

dispensing, or conducting research with

respect to controlled substances.

(3) The applicant’s conviction record

under Federal or State laws relating to

the manufacture, distribution, or

dispensing of controlled substances.

(4) Compliance with applicable State,

Federal, or local laws relating to

controlled substances.

(5) Such other conduct which may

threaten the public health or safety.

These factors are to be considered in

the disjunctive; the Deputy

Administrator may rely on any one or a

combination of factors and may give

each factor the weight he deems

appropriate in determining whether a

registration should be revoked or an

application for registration denied. See

Henry J. Schwarz, Jr., M.D., 54 FR 16422

(1989).

In this case, factors one, two, four,

and five are relevant in determining

whether the Respondent’s registration

would be inconsistent with the public

interest. As to factor one,

‘‘recommendation of the appropriate

State licensing board,’’ the file does not

contain a response from the Medical

Board relevant to the Respondent’s

latest conduct. The file does reflect that

the Medical Board reinstated the

Respondent’s medical license without

restrictions on September 25, 1994.

However, the Deputy Administrator

also finds it significant that the recent

DEA investigation revealed that the

Respondent actually violated the terms

of the Medical Board’s order in 1994.

Specifically, the Respondent had agreed

to obey all Federal and State laws, and

he had agreed not to possess controlled

substances unless such substances were

prescribed for his personal use by

another practitioner. Yet as early as

January of 1994, the Respondent

prescribed controlled substances to

patients by using another physician’s

DEA registration number, in violation of

the Controlled Substances Act. Further,

the Respondent took possession of

controlled substances from his patients

and stored them in his desk, all in

violation of the terms of his probation,

which did not end until September of

1994.

As to factor two, the Respondent’s

‘‘experience in dispensing * * *

controlled substances,’’ and factor four,

the Respondent’s ‘‘[c]ompliance with

applicable State, Federal, or local laws

relating to controlled substances,’’ the

Deputy Administrator finds it

significant that in 1994 and 1995, the

Respondent engaged in conduct in

violation of the Controlled Substances

Act. Specifically, 21 U.S.C. 843 (a)(2)

provides that ‘‘[i]t shall be unlawful for

any person knowingly or intentionally—

* * * (2) to use in the course of * * *

distribution, or dispensing of a

controlled substance * * * a

registration number which is * * *

issued to another person.’’ Here, the

Respondent used the registration

number of another person, Dr. S., to

prescribe controlled substances to

patients who were not seen or treated by

Dr. S., in violation of the Controlled

Substances Act. See also 21 CFR

1306.03 (‘‘A prescription for a

controlled substance may be issued only

by an individual practitioner who is

* * * either registered or exempted

from registration * * *’’). Further,

when he stored controlled substances in

his desk, the Respondent violated DEA

regulatory provisions governing the

permissible methods of storing

controlled substances in order to

prevent the unlawful diversion of such

drugs. See 21 CFR 1301.75, Physical

Security Controls for Practitioners.

Thus, this unregistered Respondent’s

total disregard for the statutory and

regulatory provisions governing the

handling of controlled substances

indicates that he cannot be entrusted

with a DEA registration. See generally,

Jude R. Hayes, M.D., 59 FR 41785

(1994).

As to factor five, ‘‘[s]uch other

conduct which may threaten the public

health or safety,’’ the Deputy

Administrator finds it significant that

the Respondent falsified patient records

by adding the initials of Dr. S. to the

patients’ charts, when Dr. S. had neither

seen nor treated the patients. Such

falsification of records to conceal the

Respondent’s unlawful prescribing

practices also serves as a basis for the

Deputy Administrator’s conclusion that

the public interest is best served by

denying the Respondent’s application

for a DEA Certificate of Registration.

The Deputy Administrator

acknowledges that the record contains

letters from the Respondent’s

colleagues, noting his continued

sobriety and adherence to his substance

abuse treatment program. Such behavior

is commendable. However, the

Respondent’s recent acts of falsifying

patients’ records and prescribing

controlled substances without a DEA

Certificate of Registration indicate that

the public interest is still better served

by denying the Respondent’s

application for registration at this time.

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 C.F.R. 0.100(b) and

0.104, hereby orders that the application

of Jerry Neil Rand, M.D., be, and it

hereby is, denied. This order is effective

July 8, 1996.

Dated: May 31, 1996.

Stephen H. Greene,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–14131 Filed 6–5–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

Federal Bureau of Investigation

DNA Advisory Board Meeting

Pursuant to the provisions of the

Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice

is hereby given that the DNA Advisory

Board (DAB) will meet on June 20 and

21, 1996, from 9:00 am until 5:00 pm on

June 20, 1996, and from 8:00 am until

1:30 pm on June 21, 1996. The meeting

will be held at the Financial Center

Marriott Hotel, 85 West Street, New

York, NY 10006. All attendees will be

admitted only after displaying personal

identification which bears a photograph

of the attendee.

The DAB’s scope of authority is: To

develop, and if appropriate, periodically

revise, recommended standards for

quality assurance to the Director of the

FBI, including standards for testing the

proficiency of forensic laboratories, and

forensic analysts, in conducting analysis

of DNA; To recommend standards to the

Director of the FBI which specify

criteria for quality assurance and

proficiency tests to be applied to the

various types of DNA analysis used by

forensic laboratories, including

statistical and population genetics

issues affecting the evaluation of the

frequency of occurrence of DNA profiles

calculated from pertinent population

database(s); To recommend standards

for acceptance of DNA profiles in the

FBI’s Combined DNA Index System

(CODIS) which take account of relevant

privacy, law enforcement and technical

issues; and, To make recommendations

for a system for grading proficiency

testing performance to determine

whether a laboratory is performing

acceptably.

The topics to be discussed at this

meeting include: a presentation by the

American Society of Crime Laboratory

Directors’ Laboratory Accreditation

Board; review and discussion of the

National Research Council’s Second

Report on DNA; Forensic DNA Testing
28898 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 110 / Thursday, June 6, 1996 / Notices

Standards; and a presentation on

training and other requirements for a

‘‘DNA Technical Manager’’ in a forensic

laboratory.

The meeting is open to the public on

a first-come, first seated basis. Anyone

wishing to address the DAB must notify

the Designated Federal Employee (DFE)

in writing at least twenty-four hours

before the DAB meets. The notification

must include the requestor’s name,

organizational affiliation, a short

statement describing the topic to be

addressed, and the amount of time

requested. Oral statements to the DAB

will be limited to five minutes and

limited to subject matter directly related

to the DAB’s agenda, unless otherwise

permitted by the Chairman.

Any member of the public may file a

written statement for the record

concerning the DAB and its work before

or after the meeting. Written statements

for the record will be furnished to each

DAB member for their consideration

and will be included in the official

minutes of a DAB meeting. Written

statements must be type-written on

81⁄2′′×11′′ xerographic weight paper, one

side only, and bound only by a paper

clip (not stapled). All pages must be

numbered. Statements should include

the Name, Organizational Affiliation,

Address, and Telephone number of the

author(s). Written statements for the

record will be included in minutes of

the meeting immediately following the

receipt of the written statement, unless

the statement is received within three

weeks of the meeting. Under this

circumstance, the written statement will

be included with the minutes of the

following meeting. Written statements

for the record should be submitted to

the DFE.

Inquiries may be addressed to the

DFE, Dr. Randall S. Murch, Chief,

Scientific Analysis Section, Laboratory

Division, 935 Pennsylvania Avenue,

Northwest, Washington, D.C. 20535,

(202) 324–4416, FAX (202) 324–1462.

Dated: May 30, 1996.

Randall S. Murch,

Chief, Scientific Analysis Section, Federal

Bureau of Investigation.

[FR Doc. 96–14304 Filed 6–5–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–02–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W31,870, etc.]

American Olean Tile Company,

Incorporated; Lansdale, PA, et al.;

Amended Certification Regarding

Eligibility To Apply for Worker

Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of the

Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the

Department of Labor issued an

Amended Certification of Eligibility to

Apply for Worker Adjustment

Assistance on March 18, 1996,

applicable to all workers of American

Olean Tile Company, Incorporated,

located in Lansdale, Pennsylvania and

operating at various locations in

numerous States. The amendment was

published in the Federal Register on

March 26, 1996 (61 FR 13219).

At the request of the State agency, the

Department reviewed the certification

for workers of the subject firm. The

worker certification for the subject firm

includes production and service center

workers at various locations in the

United States. Workers separated from

employment at the American Olean,

Lansdale, Pennsylvania location prior to

the February 15, 1996, impact date are

covered under TA–W–29,362.

Information received from the State

shows that worker separations at the

additional cited U.S. locations would

not be covered under the existing

February 15, 1996, impact date.

Accordingly, the Department is

amending the worker certification to

change the impact date for all of the

American Olean Tile Company,

Incorporated locations in the United

States, except Lansdale, Pennsylvania.

The amended notice applicable to

TA–W–31,870 is hereby issued as

follows:

All workers of American Olean Tile

Company, Incorporated, Lansdale,

Pennsylvania (TA–W–31,870), who became

totally or partially separated from

employment on or after February 15, 1996;

and all workers of American Olean Tile

Company, Incorporated at the various

locations cited below, who became totally or

partially separated from employment on or

after January 24, 1995 are eligible to apply for

adjustment assistance under Section 223 of

the Trade Act of 1974:

TA–W–31,870A Alabama

TA–W–31,870B Arizona

TA–W–31,870C California

TA–W–31,870D Connecticut

TA–W–31,870E Florida

TA–W–31,870F Georgia

TA–W–31,870G Illinois

TA–W–31,870H Indiana

TA–W–31,870I Kentucky

TA–W–31,870J Louisiana

TA–W–31,870K Maryland

TA–W–31,870L Massachusetts

TA–W–31,870M Minnesota

TA–W–31,870N Missouri

TA–W–31,870O Nevada

TA–W–31,870P New Jersey

TA–W–31,870Q New York

TA–W–31,870R Ohio

TA–W–31,870S Oklahoma

TA–W–31,870T Pennsylvania (except

Lansdale)

TA–W–31,870U Tennessee

TA–W–31,870V Texas

TA–W–31,870W Utah

TA–W–31,870X Virginia

TA–W–31,870Y Washington

TA–W–31,870Z Wisconsin.

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 9th day of

May 1996.

Russell T. Kile,

Acting Program Manager, Policy and

Reemployment Services, Office of Trade

Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 96–14284 Filed 6–5–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

[TA–W–32,312]

Cambridge Industries, Inc. Heavy

Truck Division, Ionia, MI; Notice of

Termination of Investigation

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade

Act of 1974, an investigation was

initiated on May 8, 1996, in response to

a worker petition which was filed April

9, 1996 on behalf of workers at

Cambridge Industries, Inc., Heavy Truck

Division, Ionia, Michigan (TA–W–

32,312).

The Department inadvertently

instituted the petition as a Trade

Adjustment Assistance petition, when

in fact, it was a NAFTA–TAA petition.

Consequently, further TAA

investigation in this case would service

no purpose, and the TAA investigation

has been terminated. The NAFTA–TAA

number assigned the case is NAFTA–

00982.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 16th day of

May 1996.

Russell T. Kile,

Acting Program Manager, Policy and

Reemployment Services, Office of Trade

Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 96–14285 Filed 6–5–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M