Notices. Notice

27,406 words·~125 min read·/register/2007/01/29/07-405

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 4310-Y7-M DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs Submission of Information Collection to the Office of Management and Budget AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Indian Affairs

(BIA)is submitting to OMB the information collection, titled Navajo Partitioned Lands Grazing Regulations Permits, OMB Control Number 1076-0162 for renewal; or, for review and approval. The purpose of this data collection is to collect information for 25 CFR Part 161 Navajo Partitioned Lands Grazing Regulations as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. DATES: Submit comments on or before February 28, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the information collection to the Desk Officer for Department of the Interior, by facsimile at

(202)395-6566 or you may send an e-mail to: *OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov* . Please send a copy of your comments to James R. Orwin, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Trust Services, Division of Natural Resources, Mail Stop 4655-MIB, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240, or by Fax to

(202)219-0006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You may request further information or obtain copies of the information collection request submission from James R. Orwin,

(202)208-6464 at the Bureau of Indian Affairs Central Office in Washington, DC. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This collection of information is authorized under Public Law 103-177, the “American Indian Agricultural Resource Management Act,” as amended. Tribes, tribal organizations, individual Indians, and those entering into permits with tribes or individual Indians submit information required by the regulation. The information is used by the Bureau of Indian Affairs to determine:

(a)Whether or not a permit for grazing may be approved or granted;

(b)The value of each permit;

(c)The appropriate compensation to landowners; and

(d)Provisions for violations of permit and trespass. A request for comments on this information collection request appeared in the **Federal Register** on October 30, 2006 (71 FR 63345). No comments were received. Request for Comments The Bureau of Indian Affairs requests you to send your comments on this collection to the locations listed in the ADDRESSES section. Your comments should address:

(a)The necessity of this information collection for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(b)The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (hours and cost) of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(c)Ways we could enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(d)Ways we could minimize the burden of the collection of the information on the respondents, such as through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Please note that an agency may not sponsor or request, and an individual need not respond to, a collection of information unless it has a valid OMB Control Number. OMB has up to 60 days to make a decision on the submission for renewal, but may make the decision after 30 days. Therefore, to receive the best consideration of your comments, you should submit them closer to 30 days than 60 days. *OMB Approval Number:* 1076-0162. *Title:* Navajo Partitioned Lands Grazing Regulations Permits, 25 CFR Part 161. *Brief description of collection:* Information is collected for the Navajo Partitioned Lands Grazing program from respondents who supply all necessary information needed to approve use of the lands, such as a grazing permit which includes: name, address, range unit requested, number of livestock, season of use, livestock owner's brand, kind of livestock, mortgage holder information, ownership of livestock, and requested term of use. *Type of review:* Renewal. *Respondents:* Possible respondents include: individual tribal members, individual non-Indians, individual tribal member-owned business, non-Indian owned businesses, tribal governments and land owners. Response is mandatory for respondents who wish to obtain a grazing permit. *Number of Respondents:* 700. *Estimated Time per Response:* 23 minutes. *Frequency of Response:* Annually and as needed. *Total Annual Responses:* 3,200. *Total Annual Hourly Burden to Respondents:* 1,227 hours. Dated: January 23, 2007. Michael D. Olsen, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. [FR Doc. E7-1294 Filed 1-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-W7-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [CA-310-0777-XG] Notice of Public Meeting: Northwest California Resource Advisory Council AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management

(BLM)Northwest California Resource Advisory Council will meet as indicated below. DATES: The meeting will be held Wednesday and Thursday, March 7 and 8, 2007, in Ukiah, California. On March 7, the council will convene at 10 a.m. at the BLM Ukiah Field Office, 2550 North State St., Ukiah, and depart for a field tour of public lands at Cow Mountain. On March 8, the council convenes at 8 a.m. in the Conference Room of the Ukiah Field Office. The council will hear public comments at 11 a.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rich Burns, BLM Ukiah Field Office manager,

(707)468-4000; or BLM Public Affairs Officer Joseph J. Fontana,

(530)252-5332. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 12-member council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Northwest California. At this meeting, agenda topics include a proposal for RAC involvement in developing recreation area business plans, a report on Redding Field Office interest in acquiring Pacific Gas and Electric lands, management issues at the Stornetta Public Lands on the Mendocino Coast, and development of a new management plan for public lands on Cow Mountain in Lake and Mendocino counties. All meetings are open to the public. Members of the public may present written comments to the council. Each formal council meeting will have time allocated for public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to speak, and the time available, the time for individual comments may be limited. Members of the public are welcome on field tours, but they must provide their own transportation and lunch. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation and other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided above. Dated: January 22, 2007. Joseph J. Fontana, Public Affairs Officer. [FR Doc. E7-1296 Filed 1-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-40-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [OR-027-1020-PH-029H; HAG 07-0052] Meeting Notice for the Southeast Oregon Resource Advisory Council AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior, Burns District. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Southeast Oregon Resource Advisory Council (SEORAC) will hold a meeting Thursday, February 8 from 8 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., at the U.S. Bureau of Land Management

(BLM)Burns District Office, 28910 Hwy 20 West in Hines. Agenda items for the 1-day meeting include an update on the Off-Highway Vehicle/Transportation Strategy for Oregon and Washington public lands; information sharing regarding the Malheur Wild and Scenic River litigation, adaptive management and monitoring, and manipulating livestock behavior; and review of District and Forest Fiscal Year 2007 work plans and Council subgroup and liaison assignments. Council members will also hear updates from the Designated Federal Officials, establish new subgroup and liaison assignments, give liaison and subgroup reports, discuss the Resources and People Camp, and develop agenda items for the May meeting. Any other matters that may reasonably come before the SEORAC may also be addressed. The public is welcome to attend all portions of the meeting and may contribute during the public comment period at 1 p.m. Those who verbally address the SEORAC during the public comment period are asked to also provide a written statement of their comments or presentation. Unless otherwise approved by the SEORAC Chair, the public comment period will last no longer than 30 minutes, and each speaker may address the SEORAC for a maximum of 5 minutes. If you have information you would like distributed to RAC members, please send it to Tara Martinak at the Burns District Office, 28910 Hwy 20 West, Hines, Oregon 97738, prior to the start of the meeting. If you send information or general correspondence to anyone at the Burns District Office and would like a copy given to the RAC, please write “COPY TO RAC” on the envelope and enclosed document(s). The SEORAC consists of 15 members chartered and appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. Their diverse perspectives are represented in commodity, conservation, and general interests. They provide advice to BLM and Forest Service resource managers regarding management plans and proposed resource actions on public land in southeast Oregon. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara Martinak, SEORAC Facilitator, Burns District Office, 28910 Hwy 20 West, Hines, Oregon 97738,

(541)573-4519, or *Tara_Wilson@blm.gov* . Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act management regulations (41 CFR 102-3.15(b)), in exceptional circumstances an agency may give less than 15 days notice of committee meeting notices published in the **Federal Register** . In this case, this notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to scheduling conflicts and difficulty obtaining a secure agenda. Dated: January 23, 2007. Dana R. Shuford, District Manager. [FR Doc. E7-1324 Filed 1-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-33-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [WO-260-09-1060-00-24 1A] Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board; Meeting AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Announcement of Meeting. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management

(BLM)announces that the Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board will conduct a meeting on matters pertaining to management and protection of wild, free-roaming horses and burros on the Nation's public lands. DATES: The Advisory Board will meet Monday, February 26, 2007 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., local time. This will be a one day meeting. ADDRESSES: The Advisory Board will meet at the Jefferson Hotel, 1200 16th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036. The Jefferson's phone number is 202-347-2200. Written comments pertaining to the Advisory Board meeting should be sent to: Bureau of Land Management, National Wild Horse and Burro Program, WO-260, Attention: Ramona DeLorme, 1340 Financial Boulevard, Reno, Nevada, 89502-7147. Submit written comments pertaining to the Advisory Board meeting no later than close of business, February 21, 2007. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access and filing address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ramona DeLorme, Wild Horse and Burro Administrative Assistant at 775-861-6583. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD)may reach *Ms. DeLorme* at any time by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Public Meeting Under the authority of 43 CFR part 1784, the Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board advises the Secretary of the Interior, the Director of the BLM, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Chief of the Forest Service, on matters pertaining to management and protection of wild, free-roaming horses and burros on the Nation's public lands. The tentative agenda for the meeting is: *Monday, February 26, 2007* (8 a.m.-5 p.m.) 8 a.m. *Call to Order & Introductions:* 8:15 a.m. *Old Business:* Approval of December 11, 2006 Minutes. Update Pending Litigation. 8:45 a.m. *Program Updates:* Gathers. Adoptions. Facilities. Forest Service Update. Break (9:30 a.m.-9:45 a.m.) 9:45 a.m. *Program Updates (continued):* Program Accomplishments. BLM Response to Advisory Board Recommendations. Lunch (11:45 a.m.-1 p.m.) 1 p.m. *New Business:* Break (2:45 p.m.-3 p.m.) 3 p.m. Public Comments. 4 p.m. Board Recommendations. 4:45 p.m. Recap/Summary/Next Meeting/Date/Site. 5 p.m. Adjourn. The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. An individual with a disability needing an auxiliary aid or service to participate in the meeting, such as an interpreting service, assistive listening device, or materials in an alternate format, must notify the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT two weeks before the scheduled meeting date. Although the BLM will attempt to meet a request received after that date, the requested auxiliary aid or service may not be available because of insufficient time to arrange it. The Federal Advisory Committee Management Regulations [41 CFR 101-6.1015(b),] require BLM to publish in the **Federal Register** notice of a meeting 15 days prior to the meeting date. II. Public Comment Procedures Members of the public may make oral statements to the Advisory Board on February 26, 2007 at the appropriate point in the agenda. This opportunity is anticipated to occur at 3 p.m., local time. Persons wishing to make statements should register with the BLM by noon on February 26, 2007 at the meeting location. Depending on the number of speakers, the Advisory Board may limit the length of presentations. At previous meetings, presentations have been limited to three minutes in length. Speakers should address the specific wild horse and burro-related topics listed on the agenda. Speakers must submit a written copy of their statement to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section or bring a written copy to the meeting. Participation in the Advisory Board meeting is not a prerequisite for submission of written comments. The BLM invites written comments from all interested parties. Your written comments should be specific and explain the reason for any recommendation. The BLM appreciates any and all comments, but those most useful and likely to influence decisions on management and protection of wild horses and burros are those that are either supported by quantitative information or studies or those that include citations to and analysis of applicable laws and regulations. Except for comments provided in electronic format, speakers should submit two copies of their written comments where feasible. The BLM will not necessarily consider comments received after the time indicated under the DATES section or at locations other than that listed in the ADDRESSES section. In the event there is a request under the Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA)for a copy of your comments, the BLM will make them available in their entirety, including your name and address. However, if you do not want the BLM to release your name and address in response to a FOIA request, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. The BLM will honor your request to the extent allowed by law. The BLM will release all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, in their entirety, including names and addresses. Electronic Access and Filing Address Speakers may transmit comments electronically via the Internet to: *Ramona_DeLorme@blm.gov* . Please include the identifier “WH&B” in the subject of your message and your name and address in the body of your message. Dated: January 23, 2007. Howard Lemm, Acting Assistant Director, Renewable Resources and Planning. [FR Doc. E7-1322 Filed 1-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-84-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Minerals Management Service Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior. ACTION: Notice of extension of an information collection (1010-0067). SUMMARY: To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), MMS is inviting comments on a collection of information that we will submit to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval. The information collection request

(ICR)concerns the paperwork requirements in the regulations under 30 CFR 250, Subpart E, “Oil and Gas Well-Completion Operations.” DATE: Submit written comments by March 30, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods listed below. Please use the Information Collection Number 1010-0067 as an identifier in your message. • E-mail MMS at *rules.comments@mms.gov* . Identify with Information Collection Number 1010-0067 in the subject line. • *Fax:* 703-787-1093. Identify with Information Collection Number 1010-0067. • Mail or hand-carry comments to the Department of the Interior; Minerals Management Service; *Attention:* Cheryl Blundon; 381 Elden Street, MS-4024; Herndon, Virginia 20170-4817. Please reference “Information Collection 1010-0067” in your comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheryl Blundon, Regulations and Standards Branch at

(703)787-1607. You may also contact Cheryl Blundon to obtain a copy, at no cost, of the regulations that require the subject collection of information. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* 30 CFR Part 250, Subpart E, Oil and Gas Well-Completion Operations. *OMB Control Number:* 1010-0067. *Abstract:* The Outer Continental Shelf

(OCS)Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1331 *et seq.* and 43 U.S.C. 1801 et. seq., requires the Secretary of the Interior to preserve, protect, and develop oil and gas resources in the OCS in a manner that is consistent with the need to make such resources available to meet the Nation's energy needs as rapidly as possible; balance orderly energy resources development with protection of the human, marine, and coastal environment; ensure the public a fair and equitable return on OCS resources; and preserve and maintain free enterprise competition. Section 1332(6) of the OCS Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1332) requires that “operations in the [O]uter Continental Shelf should be conducted in a safe manner by well-trained personnel using technology, precautions, and techniques sufficient to prevent or minimize the likelihood of blowouts, loss of well control, fires, spillages, physical obstruction to other users of the waters or subsoil and seabed, or other occurrences which may cause damage to the environment or to property, or endanger life or health.” This authority and responsibility are among those delegated to the Minerals Management Service (MMS). To carry out these responsibilities, MMS issues regulations governing oil and gas and sulphur operations in the OCS. This information collection request

(ICR)addresses 30 CFR part 250, Subpart E, Oil and Gas Well-Completion Operations and the associated supplementary Notices to Lessees and Operators

(NTL)intended to provide clarification, description, or explanation of these regulations. Regulations at 30 CFR part 250 implement these statutory requirements. The MMS District Managers analyze and evaluate the information and data collected under Subpart E to ensure that planned well-completion operations will protect personnel safety and natural resources. They use the analysis and evaluation results in the decision to approve, disapprove, or require modification to the proposed well-completion operations. Specifically, MMS uses the information to ensure:

(a)Compliance with personnel safety training requirements;

(b)crown block safety device is operating and can be expected to function to avoid accidents;

(c)proposed operation of the annular preventer is technically correct and provides adequate protection for personnel, property, and natural resources;

(d)well-completion operations are conducted on well casings that are structurally competent; and

(e)sustained casing pressures are within acceptable limits. We will protect information from respondents considered proprietary under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2) and under regulations at 30 CFR 250.197, “Data and information to be made available to the public.” No items of a sensitive nature are collected. Responses are mandatory. *Frequency:* On occasion, weekly, monthly, annually, and varies by section. *Estimated Number and Description of Respondents:* Approximately 130 Federal OCS lessees and operators. *Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Hour” Burden:* The currently approved annual reporting burden for this collection is 11,995 hours. The following chart details the individual components and respective hour burden estimates of this ICR. In calculating the burdens, we assumed that respondents perform certain requirements in the normal course of their activities. We consider these to be usual and customary and took that into account in estimating the burden. Citation 30 CFR 250 Subpart E & LTL/NTL Reporting and recordkeeping requirement Hour burden 502 Request approval not to shut-in well during equipment movement 1 hour 502 Notify MMS of well-completion rig movement on/off platform or from well to well on same platform (Form MMS-144) (reference § 250.403) Burden included in 1010-0150. 505; 513; 515(a) Submit forms MMS-123, MMS-124, MMS-125 for various approvals, including remediation procedure for SCP Burden included in 1010-0141. 506 Instruct crew members in safety requirements of operations to be performed; document meeting (weekly for 2 crews × 2 weeks per completion = 4) 20 minutes 511 Perform operational check of traveling-block safety device; document results (weekly × 2 weeks per completion = 2) 6 minutes 512 Request field well-completion rules be established, amended or canceled (on occasion, however, there have been no requests in many years) 1 hour. 514(c); 515(a) Calculate well-control fluid volume and post near operator's station; submit well-control procedure 1 hour. 516 tests; 516(i),(j) Record BOP test results; retain records 2 years following completion of well (when installed; minimum every 7 days; as stated for component); request alternative methods 1/4 hour. 516(d)(5) test; 516(i) Function test annulars and rams; document results (every 7 days between BOP tests-biweekly; note: part of BOP test when conducted) 1/2 hour. 516(e) Record reason for postponing BOP system tests (on occasion) 10 minutes. 516(f) Perform crew drills; record results (weekly for 2 crews × 2 weeks per completion = 4) 1/2 hour. 517(b) Pressure test, caliper, or otherwise evaluate tubing & wellhead equipment casing; submit results (every 30 days during prolonged operations) 9 hours. 517(c); LTL*/NTL Notify MMS if sustained casing pressure is observed on a well 1/4 hour. LTL/NTL Report failure of casing pressure to bleed to zero including plan to remediate 4 hours. LTL/NTL Notify MMS when remediation procedure is complete 1 hour. LTL Retain complete record of well's casing pressure for 2 years and retain diagnostic test records permanently 1/4 hour. LTL Record diagnostic test results 1/4 hours. 500-517 General departure and alternative compliance requests not specifically covered elsewhere in Subpart E regulations 2 hours. * LTL dated 13 January 1994. *Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-Hour Cost” Burden:* We have identified no “non-hour cost” burdens for this collection. *Public Disclosure Statement:* The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* ) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Until OMB approves a collection of information, you are not obligated to respond. *Comments:* Before submitting an ICR to OMB, PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) requires each agency “* * * to provide notice * * * and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information * * * ”. Agencies must specifically solicit comments to:

(a)Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful;

(b)evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

(c)enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(d)minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Agencies must also estimate the “non-hour cost” burdens to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information. Therefore, if you have costs to generate, maintain, and disclose this information, you should comment and provide your total capital and startup cost components or annual operation, maintenance, and purchase of service components. You should describe the methods you use to estimate major cost factors, including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, discount rate(s), and the period over which you incur costs. Capital and startup costs include, among other items, computers and software you purchase to prepare for collecting information, monitoring, and record storage facilities. You should not include estimates for equipment or services purchased:

(i)Before October 1, 1995;

(ii)to comply with requirements not associated with the information collection;

(iii)for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the Government; or

(iv)as part of customary and usual business or private practices. We will summarize written responses to this notice and address them in our submission for OMB approval. As a result of your comments, we will make any necessary adjustments to the burden in our submission to OMB. *Public Comment Procedures:* MMS's practice is to make comments, including names and addresses of respondents, available for public review. If you wish your name and/or address to be withheld, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. MMS will honor this request to the extent allowable by law; however, anonymous comments will not be considered. There may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the record a respondent's identity, as allowable by the law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. In addition, you must present a rationale for withholding this information. This rationale must demonstrate that disclosure “would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Unsupported assertions will not meet this burden. In the absence of exceptional, documentable circumstances, this information will be released. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public inspection in their entirety. *MMS Information Collection Clearance Officer:* Arlene Bajusz

(202)208-7744. Dated: January 19, 2007. E.P. Danenberger, Chief, Office of Offshore Regulatory Programs. [FR Doc. E7-1288 Filed 1-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Minerals Management Service Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior. ACTION: Notice of extension of an information collection (1010-0086). SUMMARY: To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), MMS is inviting comments on a collection of information that we will submit to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval. The information collection request

(ICR)concerns the paperwork requirements in the regulations under 30 CFR 250, Subpart P, “Sulphur Operations.” DATE: Submit written comments by March 30, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods listed below. Please use the Information Collection Number 1010-0086 as an identifier in your message. • E-mail MMS at *rules.comments@mms.gov.* Identify with Information Collection Number 1010-0086 in the subject line. • *Fax:* 703-787-1093. Identify with Information Collection Number 1010-0086. • Mail or hand-carry comments to the Department of the Interior; Minerals Management Service; *Attention:* Cheryl Blundon; 381 Elden Street, MS-4024; Herndon, Virginia 20170-4817. Please reference “Information Collection 1010-0086” in your comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheryl Blundon, Regulations and Standards Branch at

(703)787-1607. You may also contact Cheryl Blundon to obtain a copy, at no cost, of the regulations that require the subject collection of information. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* 30 CFR Part 250, Subpart P, Sulphur Operations. *OMB Control Number:* 1010-0086. *Abstract:* The Outer Continental Shelf

(OCS)Lands Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1331 *et seq.* and 43 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* ), authorizes the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to prescribe rules and regulations to administer leasing of the OCS. Such rules and regulations will apply to all operations conducted under a lease. Operations on the OCS must preserve, protect, and develop oil and natural gas resources in a manner that is consistent with the need to make such resources available to meet the Nation's energy needs as rapidly as possible; to balance orderly energy resource development with protection of human, marine, and coastal environments; to ensure the public a fair and equitable return on the resources of the OCS; and to preserve and maintain free enterprise competition. Section 5(a) of the OCS Lands Act requires the Secretary to prescribe rules and regulations “to provide for the prevention of waste, and conservation of the natural resources of the Outer Continental Shelf, and the protection of correlative rights therein” and to include provisions “for the prompt and efficient exploration and development of a lease area.” These authorities and responsibilities are among those delegated to the Minerals Management Service

(MMS)to ensure that operations in the OCS will meet statutory requirements; provide for safety and protection of the environment; and result in diligent exploration, development, and production of OCS leases. This information collection request addresses the regulations at 30 CFR Part 250, subpart P, Sulphur Operations, and the associated supplementary Notices to Lessees and Operators

(NTLs)intended to provide clarification, description, or explanation of these regulations. Regulations at 30 CFR part 250 implement these statutory requirements. MMS uses the information collected to ascertain the condition of drilling sites for the purpose of preventing hazards inherent in drilling and production operations and to evaluate the adequacy of equipment and/or procedures to be used during the conduct of drilling, well-completion, well-workover, and production operations. For example, MMS uses the information to: • Ascertain that a discovered sulphur deposit can be classified as capable of production in paying quantities. • Ensure accurate and complete measurement of production to determine the amount of sulphur royalty payments due the United States; and that the sale locations are secure, production has been measured accurately, and appropriate follow-up actions are initiated. • Ensure that the drilling unit is fit for the intended purpose. • Review expected oceanographic and meteorological conditions to ensure the integrity of the drilling unit (this information is submitted only if it is not otherwise available). • Review hazard survey data to ensure that the lessee will not encounter geological conditions that present a hazard to operations. • Ensure the adequacy and safety of firefighting plans. • Ensure the adequacy of casing for anticipated conditions. • Review log entries of crew meetings to verify that crew members are properly trained. • Review drilling, well-completion, and well-workover diagrams and procedures to ensure the safety of the proposed drilling, well-completion, and well-workover operations. • Review production operation procedures to ensure the safety of the proposed production operations. • Monitor environmental data during operations in offshore areas where such data are not already available to provide a valuable source of information to evaluate the performance of drilling rigs under various weather and ocean conditions. This information is necessary to make reasonable determinations regarding safety of operations and environmental protection. We will protect information from respondents considered proprietary under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2) and under regulations at 30 CFR 250.197, “Data and information to be made available to the public.” No items of a sensitive nature are collected. Responses are mandatory. *Frequency:* Varies by section, but information concerning drilling, well-completion, and well-workover operations and production is collected only once for each particular activity. *Estimated Number and Description of Respondents:* Approximately 1 Federal OCS sulphur lessee. *Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Hour” Burden:* The currently approved annual reporting burden for this collection is 903 hours. The following chart details the individual components and respective hour burden estimates of this ICR. In calculating the burdens, we assumed that respondents perform certain requirements in the normal course of their activities. We consider these to be usual and customary and took that into account in estimating the burden. Citation 30 CFR 250 Reporting and recordkeeping requirement Hour burden 1600 Submit exploration or development and production plan Burden in subpart B (1010-0151). 1603(a) Request determination whether sulphur deposit can produce in paying quantities 1 1604(f) Check traveling-block safety device for proper operation weekly and after each drill-line slipping; enter results in log 1/4 1605; 1617; 1618; 1619(b); 1622 Submit forms MMS-123 (Application for Permit to Drill), MMS-124 (Application for Permit to Modify), Form MMS-125 (End of Operations Report) Burden in subpart D (1010-0141). 1605(b)(3) Submit data and information on fitness of drilling unit 4 1605(c) Report oceanographic, meteorological, and drilling unit performance data upon request.* 1 1605(d) Submit results of additional surveys and soil borings upon request.* 1 1605(e)(5) Request copy of directional survey (by holder of adjoining lease).* 1 1605(f) Submit application for installation of fixed drilling platforms or structures Burden in subpart I (1010-0149). 1607 Request establishment, amendment, or cancellation of field rules for drilling, well-completion, or well-workover 8 1608 Submit well casing and cementing plan or modification 5 1609(a) Pressure test casing; record time, conditions of testing, and test results in log 2 1610(d)(8) Request exception to ram-type blowout preventer

(BOP)system components rated working pressure 1 1611(b); 1625(b) Request exception to water-rated working pressure to test ram-type and annular BOPs and choke manifold 1 1611(d)(3); 1625(d)(3) Record in driller's report the date, time, and reason for postponing pressure testings 10 minutes 1611(f); 1625(f) Request exception to recording pressure conditions during BOP tests on pressure charts.* 1 1611(f), (g); 1625(f),

(g)Conduct tests, actuations, inspections, maintenance, and crew drills of BOP systems at least weekly; record results in driller's report; retain records for 2 years following completion of drilling activity 6 1612 Request exception to requirements for well-control drills.* 1 1613(e) Pressure test diverter sealing element/valves weekly; actuate diverter sealing element/valves/ control system every 24 hours; test diverter line for flow every 24 hours; record test times and results in driller's report 2 1615 Request exception to blind-shear ram or pipe rams and inside BOP to secure wells 1 1616(c) Retain training records for lessee and drilling contractor personnel Burden in subpart O (1010-0128). 1619(a) Retain records for each well and all well operations for 2 years 12 1619(c), (d),

(e)Submit copies of records, logs, reports, charts, etc., upon request 1 1621 Conduct safety meetings prior to well-completion or well-workover operations; record date and time 1 1628(b),

(d)Submit application for design and installation features of sulphur production facilities and fuel gas safety system; certify new installation conforms to approved design 4 1628(b),

(d)Maintain information on approved design and installation features for the life of the facility 1 1629(b)(1)(ii),

(iv)Retain pressure-recording charts used to determine operating pressure ranges for 2 years 12 1629(b)(3) Request approval of firefighting systems; post firefighting system diagram 4 1630(a)(5) Notify MMS of pre-production test and inspection of safety system and commencement of production 1630(b) Maintain records for each safety device installed for 2 years 1 1631 Conduct safety device training prior to production operations and periodically thereafter; record date and time 1 1633(b) Submit application for method of production measurement 2 1634(b) Report evidence of mishandling of produced sulphur or tampering or falsifying any measurement of production 1 1600 thru 1634 General departure and alternative compliance requests not specifically covered elsewhere in subpart P 2 * We included a minimal burden, but it has not been necessary to request these data and/or no submissions received for many years. *Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-Hour Cost” Burden:* We have identified no “non-hour cost” burdens for this collection. *Public Disclosure Statement:* The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* ) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Until OMB approves a collection of information, you are not obligated to respond. *Comments:* Before submitting an ICR to OMB, PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) requires each agency “* * * to provide notice * * * and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information * * * ”. Agencies must specifically solicit comments to:

(a)Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful;

(b)evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

(c)enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(i)Before October 1, 1995;

(ii)to comply with requirements not associated with the information collection;

(iii)for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the Government; or

(202)208-7744. Dated: January 17, 2007. E.P. Danenberger, Chief, Office of Offshore Regulatory Programs. [FR Doc. E7-1289 Filed 1-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before January 13, 2007. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR Part 60 written comments concerning the significance of these properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation may be forwarded by United States Postal Service, to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St., NW., 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service,1201 Eye St., NW., 8th floor, Washington, DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447. Written or faxed comments should be submitted by February 13, 2007. John W. Roberts, Acting Chief, National Register/National Historic Landmarks Program. Arkansas Cross County Mt. Zion Methodist Episcopal Church South Cemetery, Approx. 2.5 mi. SE. of Vanndale on Cty, Rd. 367, Vanndale, 07000055 Pulaski County Robinson, Joseph Taylor, Memorial Auditorium, (New Deal Recovery Efforts in Arkansas MPS) 414 W. Markham, Little Rock, 07000056 Florida Flagler County Vocational Agriculture Building, (Florida's New Deal Resources MPS) 1001 E. Howe St., Bunnell, 07000058 Palm Beach County Northboro Park Historic District, Bounded by 40th N., Flagler Dr., 36th St. and Broadway, West Palm Beach, 07000059 St. Johns County Hastings Community Center, 401 N. Main St., Hastings, 07000057 Illinois Cook County Continental and Commercial National Bank, 208 S. LaSalle, Chicago, 07000064 Home Bank and Trust Company, 1200 N. Ashland Ave., Chicago, 07000061 Silhan, Mr. Robert, House, 3728 S. Cuyler Ave., Berwyn, 07000062 Montgomery County Belevidere Cafe, Motel and Gas Station, (Route 66 through Illinois MPS), 817 Old Rte 66, Litchfield, 07000060 Louisiana Beauregard Parish Hudson River Lumber Company General Manager's House, 411 S. Washington Ave., DeRidder, 07000068 Sills House, 211 W. Fourth St., DeRidder, 07000067 Toy House, 205 W. Fourth St., DeRidder, 07000066 Calcasieu Parish Muller's Department Store, 700 Ryan St., Lake Charles, 07000069 New York New York County Wall Street Historic District, Roughly bounded by Cedar St. and Maiden's Ln., Pearl St., Bridge and S. William St., and Greenwich St. and Trinity PL., New York, 07000063 North Carolina Hertford County Brown, Wiley and Jane Vann, House, NC 1108, 0.5 mi. N. of NC 561, Union, 07000073 Ohio Cuyahoga County Baker Motor Vehicle Company Building, 7100-7122 Euclid Ave., Cleveland, 07000071 Cleveland Warehouse Historic District (Boundary Increase), 1384-1410 West 10th St., Cleveland, 07000070 Superior Avenue Historic District, 1860-2553 Superior Ave., Cleveland, 07000072 Ross County Walke, Anthony, and Susan Cardinal, House, 381 Western Ave., Chillicothe, 07000065 Pennsylvania Clarion County Foxburg Country Club and Golf Course, 369 Harvey Rd., Foxburg, 07000076 South Carolina Bamberg County Bamberg Post Office, 11955 Heritage Hwy., Bamberg, 07000074 Darlington County Dove Dale, Address Restricted, Darlington, 07000075 Utah Carbon County Verde Homestead, 233 200 East, Helper, 07000079 Davis County Mills—Hancock House, (Centerville MPS), 571 S. 400 West, Centerville, 07000077 Salt Lake County Copperton Community Methodist Church, 410 E. Hillcrest Rd., Copperton, 07000080 Evergreen Avenue Historic District, Roughly bounded by Evergreen Ave., 2300 East, 3300 South and 2700 East, East Mill Creek, 07000081 Sandy Historic District, (Sandy City MPS), Roughly bounded by State St. 9000 South, 700 East and Pioneer Ave., Sandy, 07000084 Weber County Dumke, John F., and Lillia, House, 1607 Kiesel Ave., Ogden, 07000078 Virginia Loudoun County Locust Grove, 200 Locust Grove Dr., Purcellville, 07000083 Staunton Independent City Western State Hospital (Boundary Increase), 301 Greenville Ave., SE. Corner of VA 11 and VA 250, Staunton, (Independent City), 07000082 Requests for removals has been made for the following resources: Utah Carbon County Bruno, Giacomo and Maria, House and Farmstead, 524 N. Main St., Helper, 02000506 Iron County Hunter, Joseph S., House, 86 E. Center St., Cedar City, 82004126 Salt Lake County Bonnyview Elementary School, (Murray City, Utah MPS), 4984 S. 300 W., Murray, 01000473 Redman Van and Storage Company Building, (Sugar House Business District MPS), 1240 East 2100 South, Salt Lake City, 03000635 Shupe-Williams Candy Company Factory, 2605 Wall Ave., Ogden, 78002716 [FR Doc. E7-1295 Filed 1-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. 06-39] Gerald E. Dariah, M.D.; Revocation of Registration On October 12, 2005, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to Show Cause to Gerald E. Dariah, M.D. (Respondent) of Albany, Ga. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Respondent's Certificate of Registration, BD4754683, as a practitioner, and to deny any pending application for renewal of the registration, on the grounds that Respondent's state medical license had been revoked, and that Respondent had committed acts that rendered his registration inconsistent with the public interest. See 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) & (4); *id.* section 823(f). The Show Cause Order specifically alleged that Respondent had engaged in the pre-signing of prescriptions for controlled substances which were then issued to patients by Respondent's nurse. Show Cause Order at 2. The Show Cause Order further alleged that investigators from DEA and the Georgia Board of Medical Examiners (Board) had subsequently executed a search warrant at Respondent's office and seized approximately thirty blank pre-signed prescriptions. *See id.* The Show Cause Order also alleged that Respondent's nurse told investigators that each morning, Respondent provided her with four pages of blank, pre-signed prescriptions. *See id.* The Show Cause Order next alleged that Respondent had authorized his staff to fill in and issue numerous pre-signed prescriptions between November 23rd and December 29, 2003, when he was traveling abroad. *See id.* The Show Cause Order alleged that during this period, Respondent's staff issued prescriptions for Schedule II controlled substances to several patients. *See id.* Finally, the Show Cause Order alleged that on September 21, 2004, the Board issued an order which summarily suspended Respondent's medical license, that the order had not been stayed, and that his license had not been reinstated. *See id.* at 3. The Show Cause order thus alleged that Respondent was “not currently authorized to handle controlled substances in the State of Georgia.” *Id.* The Show Cause Order also informed Respondent of his right to a hearing. *Id.* On November 15, 2005, Respondent, through his counsel, timely requested a hearing. Respondent's counsel also moved to stay the proceedings until a pending criminal case brought against him by the State of Georgia was resolved. Respondent's counsel further noted that Respondent had been out of the country for “the past five and a half months” and that “[h]e anticipate[d] returning next month.” Letter from Respondent's Counsel to Hearing Clerk (Nov. 15, 2005). Alternatively, Respondent's counsel sought an extension of time to respond to the Show Cause Order. ALJ Dec. at 1. The case was assigned to Administrative Law Judge

(ALJ)Mary Ellen Bittner; the ALJ then issued a memorandum which offered the Government the opportunity to respond. On January 9, 2006, the Government opposed Respondent's motions. Specifically, the Government noted that Respondent had failed to provide any information regarding the dates of his return to the country and the resolution of the State criminal proceeding. Gov. Resp. at 2. The Government further argued that because Respondent was unable to participate in a hearing he should be deemed to have waived his right to a hearing. *Id.* The Government urged the ALJ to deny Respondent's motions, to hold that Respondent had waived his right to a hearing, and to issue an order terminating the proceeding. *Id.* at 3. On January 18, 2006, the ALJ denied Respondent's motions. The ALJ specifically noted that the motion had been filed more than two months earlier and that Respondent had subsequently failed to provide any information regarding “the duration of his stay abroad” and “when the criminal matters will be resolved.” ALJ Memorandum and Ruling 1 (Jan. 18, 2006). The ALJ thus denied both of Respondent's motions and issued an Order for Prehearing Statements. *Id.* at 2. Thereafter, on February 8, 2006, the Government moved for summary disposition. The basis of the Government's motion was that Respondent's state medical license had been summarily suspended by the Georgia Board, the suspension had not been lifted, and it was undisputed that Respondent was not authorized to handle controlled substances in Georgia, the State in which he holds his DEA registration. Gov. Mot. for Summary Disposition at 2. The Government attached to its motion a copy of the Georgia Board's Order of Summary Suspension. Upon receipt of the Government's motion, the ALJ offered Respondent the opportunity to respond. On March 15, 2006, Respondent filed a response. Respondent acknowledged that his state license had been suspended but asserted that the state superior court had ruled that his alleged offenses were misdemeanors and not felonies and that he was currently in negotiations with the Board for the reinstatement of his license. Respondent's Response at 1. Respondent further contended that notwithstanding the suspension of his medical license, “Georgia law allows unlicensed individuals to work as subordinates and laborers in the manufacturing, distributing, and dispensing of controlled substances.” *Id.* at 3. Respondent further asserted that he was “still eligible to apply for employment in the state as a physician's assistant, pharmacy technician, drug manufacturing employee or drug representative, among other occupations involving the handling of controlled substances.” *Id.* Respondent maintained that “[t]he fact that [21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)] requires both action on the Respondent's license and an inability to engage in the manufacture, distribution, and dispensing of drugs would seem to indicate that suspension of one's license does not necessarily render the individual unable to handle controlled substances.” *Id.* Respondent thus contended that there was an issue of fact presented and an evidentiary hearing was required. *Id.* On April 17, 2006, the ALJ issued her opinion and recommended decision. The ALJ rejected Respondent's argument explaining that “[i]mplicit in” DEA's long-standing interpretation of the Controlled Substances Act “is the assumption that the authority at issue is that inuring to the registrant as a practitioner, not whatever authority the state grants to individuals who do not hold a license to practice medicine.” ALJ Dec. at 3. The ALJ further explained that “[t]o hold otherwise would permit unlicensed physicians to maintain DEA registrations, contrary to the plain purpose of the CSA.” *Id.* The ALJ also found that it was undisputed that Respondent's state license was suspended and that he was without authority to handle controlled substances as a practitioner. *Id.* Because there was no factual issue in dispute, the ALJ granted the Government's motion for summary disposition and recommended that Respondent's DEA registration be revoked. *Id.* at 4. Having considered the record as a whole, I hereby issue this decision and final order. I adopt the ALJ's opinion and recommended decision. Respondent's contention that he is entitled to maintain his DEA registration notwithstanding that he lacks authority under Georgia law to practice medicine is easily dismissed. Even assuming that Georgia law allows Respondent to engage in some activities involving controlled substances, the CSA makes plain that one must be currently authorized by the State to engage in the specific activities for which he holds a DEA registration. 1 1 Contrary to the understanding of Respondent's counsel, the word “handle” as used in DEA cases interpreting the CSA is a term of art. It refers to a registrant's authority to perform the specific activities for which registration is required. The CSA's definition of the “[t]he term ‘practitioner’ means a physician * * * licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, by * * * the jurisdiction in which he practices * * * to distribute, dispense, [or] administer * * * a controlled substance *in the course of professional practice* .” 21 U.S.C. 802(21) (emphasis added). Relatedly, the CSA directs that “[t]he Attorney General shall register practitioners * * * if the applicant is authorized to dispense * * * controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.” *Id.* section 823(f). See also *id.* section 802(10) (“the term ‘dispense’ means to deliver a controlled substance to an ultimate user * * * pursuant *to the lawful order of a practitioner* ”) (emphasis added). As the CSA's definition of the term “practitioner” makes plain, a physician must be currently authorized to dispense a controlled substance “in the course of professional practice.” *Id.* section 802(21). A physician whose state license has been suspended or revoked does not have authority under state law to engage in the “professional practice” of medicine and cannot lawfully issue an order to dispense a controlled substance. Accordingly, section 304 of the CSA authorizes the revocation of a registration “upon a finding that the registrant * * * has had his State license or registration suspended or revoked * * * and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the * * * dispensing of controlled substances.” *Id.* § section824(a)(3). 2 DEA has consistently held that the CSA requires the revocation of a registration issued to a practitioner whose state license has been suspended or revoked. See Sheran Arden Yeates, 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby Watts, 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988). 2 Even if it is true, Respondent's “contention that he is still authorized by state law to engage in the manufacturing [and] distribution * * * of controlled substances,” Respondent Resp. at 3, is irrelevant. Respondent was registered under the CSA as a practitioner and not as a manufacturer or distributor. The Act specifically defines “the term ‘distribute”' to exclude “dispensing.” 21 U.S.C. § 802(11). The only activity which is relevant in assessing whether Respondent can maintain his practitioner's registration is dispensing. *See id.* § 823(f); see also 21 CFR 1301.13(e) (table) (distributing and dispensing are independent activities and require separate registrations). Finally, even if “Georgia law allows unlicensed individuals to work as subordinates * * * in the * * * dispensing of controlled substances,” Resp. Resp. at 3, Respondent does not maintain that he can lawfully issue a prescription for a controlled substance under state law, which is what matters for purposes of the CSA. I therefore conclude that Respondent's argument is without merit. Because Respondent has produced no evidence that the Georgia's Board's summary suspension order has been set aside or stayed, I conclude that Respondent lacks authority under Georgia law to handle controlled substances as a practitioner and is not entitled to maintain his DEA registration. Order Accordingly, pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) & 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b) & 0.104, I order that DEA Certificate of Registration, BD4754683, issued to Gerald E. Dariah, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that any pending applications for renewal or modification of such registration be, and they hereby are, denied. This order is effective February 28, 2007. Dated: January 19, 2007. Michele M. Leonhart, Deputy Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-1320 Filed 1-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Stephen J. Heldman, Denial Of Application On November 18, 2005, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to Show Cause to Stephen J. Heldman of Cincinnati, Ohio (Respondent). The Show Cause Order proposed to deny Respondent's pending application for a DEA Certificate of Registration as a distributor of the List I chemicals ephedrine and pseudoephedrine on the ground that his registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. See 21 U.S.C. 823(h) & 824(a). The Show Cause Order specifically alleged that Respondent was proposing to distribute products containing pseudoephedrine and ephedrine, which are precursor chemicals used to manufacture methamphetamine, to non-traditional retailers of these products such as convenience stores and gas stations. See Show Cause Order at 1-2. The Show Cause Order alleged that these retailers are sources for the diversion of these products into the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine. See id. The Show Cause Order next alleged that during a pre-registration investigation, Respondent indicated that he had no prior experience in handling List I chemical products, that he was unaware of the problem of diversion of these products into the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine, and that he was proposing to store listed chemical products in a commercial self-storage locker which had inadequate security. See id. The Show Cause Order also alleged that while Respondent told investigators that he intended to distribute only traditional products containing pseudoephedrine, the primary business of one of his two proposed suppliers is the distribution of combination ephedrine products which are sold by gray market retailers. See id. The Show Cause Order further alleged that during customer verifications, DEA investigators determined that several of Respondent's proposed customers obtained List I chemical products from other suppliers and had no intention of purchasing these products from him. See id. at 3. Finally, the Show Cause Order alleged that during an August 2005 investigation of another DEA registrant, DEA investigators determined that Respondent had obtained List I chemicals without being registered to do so. See id. On November 25, 2005, the Government initially attempted to serve the Show Cause Order by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, by sending it to the address Respondent gave on the application for his proposed registered location. The mailing, however, was returned unclaimed. Thereafter, on January 17, 2006, the Government served the Show Cause Order by First Class Mail. Since that date, neither Respondent, nor anyone purporting to represent him, has responded. Because

(1)more than thirty days have passed since the service of the Show Cause Order, and

(2)no request for a hearing has been received, I conclude that Respondent has waived his right to a hearing. See 21 CFR 1309.53(c). I therefore enter this final order without a hearing based on relevant material found in the investigative file and make the following findings. Findings Pseudoephedrine and ephedrine are List I chemicals that, while having therapeutic uses, are easily extracted from lawful products and used in the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine, a schedule II controlled substance. See 21 U.S.C. 802(34); 21 CFR 1308.12(d). As noted in numerous DEA orders, “methamphetamine is an extremely potent central nervous system stimulant.” Sujak Distributors, 71 FR 50102, 50103 (2006); A-1 Distribution Wholesale, 70 FR 28573 (2005). Methamphetamine is highly addictive; its abuse has destroyed lives and families and ravaged communities. Moreover, because of the toxic nature of the chemicals used to make the drug, its manufacture creates serious environmental harms. David M. Starr, 71 FR 39367 (2006). On October 27, 2003, Respondent, a sole proprietor, applied for a registration as a distributor of List I chemicals at the address of his residence in Cincinnati, Ohio. According to the investigative file, on January 15, 2004, a DEA Diversion Investigator

(DI)contacted Respondent requesting additional information. The DI also contacted Respondent on additional occasions to request information. On October 11, 2004, Respondent sent a letter to the DI providing the requested information. In this letter, Respondent informed the DIs that the List I chemical products would actually be kept in a storage unit at a commercial storage facility. On December 16, 2004, the DIs conducted an on-site inspection of the facility. Respondent's proposed use of the facility raised substantial concerns. According to the investigative file, the entrance gate to the facility remained open long enough to allow unauthorized persons to obtain access to the facility. Moreover, while Respondent's storage unit had an alarm system, the alarm sounded only at the facility's office and not at the local police station. Furthermore, during the visit, the facility's office was unoccupied. Finally, the DIs noted that it was unclear who would be responsible for handling the products that were delivered to the storage facility. During the course of the investigation, the DIs determined that Respondent engages in the business of distributing assorted products to convenience stores, gas stations, truck stops and liquor stores. Respondent told the DIs that he had no experience in the distribution of List I chemical products and that he had no knowledge of the diversion of these products into the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine. Respondent provided the DIs with a list of proposed customers for List I products. A substantial number of the proposed customers were Ameristop Food Marts, a chain of company-owned and franchise-owned convenience stores in Ohio and adjacent states. One of the DIs contacted the buyer for Ameristop Corporation, who informed him that all company-owned stores and most of the franchise-owned stores were supplied by Liberty Distribution, a subsidiary of Ameristop Corp. The buyer acknowledged that Respondent had supplied some items to ten Ameristop stores but stated that Ameristop would discourage its stores from buying List I chemical products from Respondent or any other independent vendor. Subsequently, on August 23, 2005, DEA DIs executed an Administrative Inspection Warrant at R J General Corporation, a Cincinnati-based firm which was soon to become—as in that day—an ex-DEA registered distributor of List I chemical products. During the inspection, the DIs interviewed Mr. John Meinerding, who admitted that R J General had sold List I chemical products to Respondent on various dates between January 7, 2004, and December 8, 2004. Of note, on October 11, 2004, Respondent had faxed a letter to DEA in which he stated that his firm was a “wholesale distributor.” Moreover, in response to a question regarding whether he would engage in retail sales of List I chemical products, Respondent answered: “No.” Discussion Under 21 U.S.C. 823(h), an applicant to distribute List I chemicals is entitled to be registered unless the registration would be “inconsistent with the public interest.” In making this determination, Congress directed that I consider the following factors:

(1)maintenance by the applicant of effective controls against diversion of listed chemicals into other than legitimate channels;

(2)compliance by the applicant with applicable Federal, State, and local law;

(3)any prior conviction record of the applicant under Federal or State laws relating to controlled substances or to chemicals controlled under Federal or State law;

(4)any past experience of the applicant in the manufacture and distribution of chemicals; and

(5)such other factors as are relevant to and consistent with the public health and safety. *Id.* “These factors are considered in the disjunctive.” Joy's Ideas, 70 FR 33195, 33197 (2005). I may rely on any one or a combination of factors, and may give each factor the weight I deem appropriate in determining whether an application for registration should be denied. See, *e.g.* , Starr, 71 FR at 39367; Energy Outlet, 64 FR 14269 (1999). Moreover, I am “not required to make findings as to all of the factors.” *Hoxie* v. *DEA* , 419 F.3d 477, 482 (6th Cir. 2005); *Morall* v. *DEA* , 412 F.3d 165, 173-74 (D.C. Cir. 2005). In this case I conclude that Factors One, Two, Four, and Five establish that granting Respondent's application would be inconsistent with the public interest. Factor One—Maintenance of Effective Controls Against Diversion The investigative file establishes that Respondent does not have effective controls against diversion. In this case, it is unclear who would have access to List I chemical products upon their delivery to the storage facility and whether they would be handled in a manner which would prevent theft. See 21 CFR 1309.71(b). Furthermore, Respondent's proposed use of a commercial storage facility raises substantial questions about the adequacy of his security controls. Among other things, it appears that unauthorized persons can easily gain access to the facility. Moreover, Respondent has no control over the selection of the facility's other tenants or the persons they bring onto the property. See Sujak Distributors, 71 FR 50102, 50104 (2006). As I have previously explained, the use of commercial storage facilities presents an unacceptable risk that a criminal may gain access to the property and steal List I chemical products. Finally, while the facility has an alarm system, the alarm sounds only at the facility's office. This raises the further question of whether the facility provides effective monitoring twenty-four hours a day. I thus conclude that Respondent does not maintain effective controls against diversion and that this factor alone is dispositive in concluding that granting him a registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. Factor Two—The Applicant's Compliance With Applicable Laws The investigative file contains disturbing evidence that Respondent repeatedly purchased List I chemicals products from R J General Corp., between January 7, 2004, and December 8, 2004. Moreover, in a letter which Respondent faxed to the DIs, he expressly stated that he did not engage in the retail sale of List I chemical products. Federal regulations clearly state that “[n]o person required to be registered shall engage in any activity for which registration is required until the application for registration is approved and a Certificate of Registration is issued by the Administrator to such person.” 21 CFR 1309.31(a). Respondent did not have a registration, and the regulations no longer exempt an applicant from the requirement of obtaining a registration prior to distributing List I chemical products. *Id.* 1309.25. Based on the evidence in the file, I conclude that Respondent violated federal law by distributing List I chemicals without the required registration. See 21 U.S.C. 822(a)(1). As I have previously noted, “[r]egistration in one of the essential features of the Controlled Substances Act.” Sato Pharmaceutical, Inc., 71 FR 52165, 52166 (2006). Respondent's engaging in the distribution of List I chemicals without first obtaining a registration is a serious violation of the Act. I therefore conclude that this factor also provides sufficient reason by itself to deny Respondent's application. 1 1 Because of the seriousness of this misconduct, I conclude that even though there is no evidence that Respondent has ever been convicted of an offense related to listed chemicals, this factor is entitled to no weight. 1 Factor Three—The Applicant's Experience in Distributing List I Chemicals Beyond the misconduct discussed above, Respondent stated in his letter to the DIs that he had no experience in the sale of List I chemical products. Were there no evidence of Respondent having engaged in illicit activity, I would nonetheless conclude that his lack of experience bars his registration. Because the regulatory scheme imposed by federal law is complex and the risk of diversion is substantial, this is not a line of business that is suitable for a new entrant to learn through on-the-job training. Accordingly, numerous DEA final orders have made clear that an applicant's lack of experience in distributing List I chemicals is a factor which weighs heavily against granting an application for a registration. Tri-County Bait Distributors, 71 FR 52160, 52163 (2006); Jay Enterprises, 70 FR 24620, 24621 (2005); ANM Wholesale, 69 FR 11652, 11653 (2004). I therefore conclude that this factor further supports the denial of Respondent's application. Factor Four—Other Factors That Are Relevant to and Consistent With Public Health and Safety Numerous DEA orders recognize that convenience stores and gas-stations constitute the non-traditional retail market for legitimate consumers of products containing pseudoephedrine and ephedrine. See, *e.g.* , Tri-County Bait Distributors, 71 FR at 52161; D & S Sales, 71 FR 37607, 37609 (2006); Branex, Inc., 69 FR 8682, 8690-92 (2004). DEA orders also establish that the sale of certain List I chemical products by non-traditional retailers is an area of particular concern in preventing diversion of these products into the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine. See, *e.g.* , Joey Enterprises, 70 FR 76866, 76867 (2005). As Joey Enterprises explains, “[w]hile there are no specific prohibitions under the Controlled Substances Act regarding the sale of listed chemical products to [gas stations and convenience stores], DEA has nevertheless found that [these entities] constitute sources for the diversion of listed chemical products.” Id. See also TNT Distributors, 70 FR 12729, 12730

(2005)(special agent testified that “80 to 90 percent of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine being used [in Tennessee] to manufacture methamphetamine was being obtained from convenience stores”); OTC Distribution Co., 68 FR 70538, 70541

(2003)(noting “over 20 different seizures of [gray market distributor's] pseudoephedrine product at clandestine sites,” and that in eight month period distributor's product “was seized at clandestine laboratories in eight states, with over 2 million dosage units seized in Oklahoma alone.”); MDI Pharmaceuticals, 68 FR 4233, 4236

(2003)(finding that “pseudoephedrine products distributed by [gray market distributor] have been uncovered at numerous clandestine methamphetamine settings throughout the United States and/or discovered in the possession of individuals apparently involved in the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine”). Significantly, all of Respondent's proposed customers participate in the non-traditional market for ephedrine and pseudoephedrine products. Moreover, many of Respondent's proposed customers have other suppliers. Finally, Respondent's lack of knowledge regarding the diversion of List I chemicals into the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine is also disconcerting. DEA orders recognize that there is a substantial risk of diversion of List I chemicals into the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine when these products are sold by non-traditional retailers. See, *e.g.* , Joy's Ideas, 70 FR at 33199 (finding that the risk of diversion was “real, substantial and compelling”); Jay Enterprises, 70 FR at 24621 (noting “heightened risk of diversion” should application be granted). Under DEA precedents, an applicant's proposal to sell into the non-traditional market weighs heavily against the granting of a registration under factor five. So too here. Because of the methamphetamine epidemic's devastating impact on communities and families throughout the country, DEA has repeatedly denied an application when an applicant proposed to sell into the non-traditional market and analysis of one of the other statutory factors supports the conclusion that granting the application would create an unacceptable risk of diversion. Thus, in Xtreme Enterprises, 67 FR 76195, 76197 (2002), my predecessor denied an application observing that the respondent's “lack of a criminal record, compliance with the law and willingness to upgrade her security system are far outweighed by her lack of experience with selling List I chemicals and the fact that she intends to sell ephedrine almost exclusively in the gray market.” More recently, I denied an application observing that the respondent's “lack of a criminal record and any intent to comply with the law and regulations are far outweighed by his lack of experience and the company's intent to sell ephedrine and pseudoephedrine exclusively to the gray market.” Jay Enterprises, 70 FR at 24621. Accord Prachi Enterprises, 69 FR 69407, 69409 (2004). The investigative file in this case supports even more adverse findings than those which DEA has repeatedly held are sufficient to conclude that granting an application would be inconsistent with the public interest. Here, Respondent clearly lacks effective controls against diversion, has no experience in the elicit wholesale distribution of List I chemical products, and yet intends to distribute these products to non-traditional retailers, a market in which the risk of diversion is substantial. Furthermore, the file establishes that Respondent violated federal law by distributing List I chemicals without a registration. Given these findings, it is indisputable that granting Respondent's application would be “inconsistent with the public interest.” 21 U.S.C. 823(h). Order Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(h), and 28 CFR 0.100(b) & 0.104, I order that the application of Respondent Stephen J. Heldman, for a DEA Certificate of Registration as a distributor of List I chemicals be, and it hereby is, denied. This order is effective February 28, 2007. Dated: January 20, 2007. Michele M. Leonhart, Deputy Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-1326 Filed 1-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. 04-36] Rose Mary Jacinta Lewis, M.D.; Affirmance of Immediate Suspension On March 22, 2004, I, the Deputy Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to Show Cause and Notice of Immediate Suspension of the practitioner's Certificate of Registration, AL8962993, held by Rose Mary Jacinta Lewis, M.D. (Respondent), of Richmond, CA. The Notice of Immediate Suspension was based on my preliminary finding that substantial amounts of Schedule III controlled substances that had been ordered using Respondent's DEA registration could not be accounted for. Show Cause Order at 7. Based on the significant risk that these drugs had been diverted as well as evidence showing that Respondent had allowed unregistered entities and individuals to use her registration to obtain controlled substances, I concluded that Respondent's continued registration “would constitute an imminent danger to the public health and safety.” *Id.* More specifically, the Show Cause Order alleged that in September 2003, R & S Sales, a registered distributor, had reported to DEA “that excessive amounts of controlled substances were being ordered under” Respondent's name and registration number. *Id.* at 2. The Show Cause Order further alleged that shortly thereafter, DEA investigators went to Respondent's registered location and determined that Respondent was no longer practicing medicine at the location and had retired from practice and vacated the premises six months earlier. *See id.* During the attempted visit, DEA investigators found several United Parcel Service

(UPS)delivery notices including one from R & S. *See id.* According to the Show Cause Order, DEA investigators subsequently determined that on September 10, 2003, an order for 300 bottles, each containing 500 count hydrocodone/apap 1 (7.5/75), a Schedule III controlled substance, had been placed with R & S under Respondent's registration and that UPS had been unable to deliver the order to Respondent's former office. *See id.* The Show Cause Order further alleged that the order was subsequently delivered to an entity known as International Surplus Medical Products, Inc. (ISMP), at its Richmond, California office. *See id.* The address was not, however, a registered location. *See id.* 1 Apap is an abbreviation for acetaminophen. The Show Cause Order next alleged that on November 24, 2003, Respondent left a voicemail message with a DEA investigator in which she stated that she was ISMP's medical director and was using her medical license to order supplies. *See id.* According to the Show Cause Order, a DEA investigator then called Respondent and advised her that R & S could not ship supplies to ISMP's office because it was not a registered location. *Id.* at 3. The Show Cause Order alleged that during the conversation, Respondent stated that she was working for a non-profit project that provided medical supplies for AIDS patients in Nigeria, that the project ordered only AIDS-related drugs such as AZT, and that it was not ordering controlled substances. *See id.* The Show Cause Order further alleged that following the conversation, Respondent submitted a written request to change the address of her registered location to ISMP's Richmond office. *Id.* The Show Cause Order alleged that in her letter requesting the change, Respondent stated that she worked with ISMP, a non-profit entity that “sends AIDS drugs to Nigeria.” *Id.* On December 1, 2003, DEA personnel changed the address of Respondent's registered location to ISMP's office. *Id.* The Show Cause Order next alleged that during the week of December 3, 2003, R & S notified DEA that on November 26, 2003, an order for 504 bottles, each containing 500 tablets of hydrocodone/apap, had been placed using Respondent's registration. *See id.* The Show Cause Order alleged that R & S was told to ship the order to Respondent's former office, and that on December 1, 2003, 19 packages were received at that address and an additional package was sent to ISMP's office. *Id.* The Show Cause Order alleged that on December 10, 2003, DEA investigators attempted to serve an Administrative Inspection Warrant at ISMP's office but no one was present. *See id.* The Show Cause Order next alleged that on January 15, 2004, DEA investigators interviewed Respondent at her home. *Id.* During the interview Respondent allegedly told investigators that she had retired from medical practice and was working as ISMP's medical director. *Id.* The Show Cause Order further alleged that Respondent told the investigators that she had provided her DEA number to Mr. Chuka Ogele, ISMP's Chief Executive Officer, so that he could order medical supplies and controlled substances which were to be exported to Nigeria, and that she denied personally placing any orders for controlled substances. *Id.* at 4. The Show Cause Order alleged that during the interview, Respondent stated that she did not know how what drugs and quantities Ogele had ordered from R & S and also had none of the records that she was required to maintain under federal law. *Id.* According to the Show Cause Order, Respondent also told the investigators that she did not have a key to the ISMP office, notwithstanding that it was her new registered location. *Id.* The Show Cause Order alleged that DEA investigators then contacted Ogele, who stated that he did not keep the records at ISMP's office but rather at his home. *Id.* According to the allegations, the investigators subsequently interviewed Ogele, who told them that controlled substances were ordered based on requests he received from Nigeria, and that he either personally carried the drugs to Nigeria or arranged for unidentified Nigerian “diplomats” to pick up the drugs in San Francisco and take them to Nigeria. *Id.* The Show Cause Order further alleged that the investigators inventoried the controlled substances at the ISMP office. *Id.* The Show Cause Order alleged that the office had neither a substantially constructed cabinet nor an alarm system. *Id.* at 4-5. The Show Cause Order next alleged that on January 22, 2004, an employee of the physician who had purchased Respondent's former office informed the investigators that several months earlier, a shipment of controlled substances had been received by a workman who was renovating the office and had been stored there. *See id.* at 5. The shipment was turned over to the investigators, who determined based on a packing slip, that five boxes were shipped by R & S on August 14, 2003, that each box held 36 bottles (each containing 500 tables of hydrocodone/apap), and that the order had been placed by Ogele. *See id.* The Show Cause Order further alleged that the other four boxes have not been accounted for. *See id.* The Show Court Order also alleged that on January 26, 2004, DEA investigators went to ISMP's office to serve an administrative inspection warrant. *Id.* According to the Order, the investigators seized thirty thousand dosage units of hydrocodone/apap (in sixty 500-count bottles) and 211,000 dosage units of codeine/apap (in 500 and 1,000 count bottles). *Id.* at 6. Finally, the Show Cause Order alleged that Respondent did not maintain any of the records documenting the receipt and disposition of the controlled substances that were ordered under her registration. *Id.* at 6-7. The Order further alleged that the disposition of “the bulk of the controlled substances ordered under [Respondent's] name and registration from March 2003” through the issuance of the Order of Immediate Suspension were unknown. *Id.* at 7. On April 5, 2004, DEA Investigators personally served Respondent with the Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension. ALJ Ex. 2, at 1. Thereafter, on May 3, 2004, Respondent through her counsel, timely requested a hearing. *See id.* Respondent also responded to the Show Cause Order's allegations. The matter was assigned to Administrative Law Judge

(ALJ)Gail Randall, who conducted a hearing in San Francisco, CA, on August 2 and 3, 2005. At the hearing, both parties called witnesses and introduced documentary evidence. Following the hearing, both parties submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. On September 26, 2006, the ALJ issued her decision. ALJ at 1. The ALJ concluded that the Government had proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the continuation of Respondent's registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. The ALJ also concluded that “Respondent's lack of responsible handling of the authority granted to her through her DEA registration poses a threat to the public health and safety,” and recommended that I revoke her Certificate of Registration. *Id.* at 38. Neither party filed exceptions. Having carefully reviewed the record as a whole, I hereby issue this decision and final order. I adopt the ALJ's findings of fact and conclusions of law except as expressly noted herein. I further affirm the immediate suspension of Respondent's registration and make the following findings. Findings Of Fact Respondent has held a California Physician and Surgeon's license since July 1, 1975, which remains in active status. Respondent practiced medicine as a plastic surgeon from 1980 until March 2003. During March 2003, Respondent closed her practice and sold her office condominium to Dr. Randy Weil. Her state license has never been subjected to disciplinary action. ALJ at 3-4. Respondent held DEA Certificate of Registration, AL8962993, which was issued on December 1, 2003, and expired on March 31, 2006. Gov. Ex. 1. According to DEA records, Respondent has not submitted a renewal application. 2 I thus find that Respondent is not currently registered. Respondent testified, however, that “[j]ust because [she] closed [her] practice didn't mean [she] was never going to work again.” Tr. 353. 2 Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), an agency “may take official notice of facts at any stage in a proceeding-even in the final decision.” U.S. Dept. of Justice, Attorney General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act 80

(1947)(Wm. W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint 1979). In accordance with the APA and DEA regulations, Respondent is “entitled on timely request, to an opportunity to show to the contrary.” 5 U.S.C. 556(e); see also 21 CFR 1316.59(e). To allow Respondent the opportunity to refute the fact of which I am taking official notice, publication of this final order shall be withheld for fifteen days, which shall begin on the date of service by placing this order in the mail. With respect to the events which are the subject of this proceeding, Respondent's registered location was initially 203 Willow St., Suite 303, San Francisco, CA. On December 1, 2003, Respondent's registered location was changed to 120 Broadway St. Suite 3, Richmond, CA. Gov. Ex. 2. On November 5, 1996, Chuka Ogele founded International Surplus Medical Products, Inc. (ISMP), which was organized for charitable purposes under section 501(c)(3), of the Internal Revenue Code. Resp. Ex. 10, at 2. According to its articles of incorporation, ISMP's purpose was “to distribute medical supplies in developing nations.” *Id.* Ogele appointed himself Chairman and Managing Director. Resp. Ex. 12. Sometime in either 2001 or 2002, Respondent was introduced to Ogele by Sherrone Smith, an ISMP board member who had taught Ogele at the College of Alameda. Tr. at 66-67, 262. Respondent met with Ogele, who told her that ISMP had been in existence for six or seven years and that the entity provided vitamins to developing countries. *Id.* at 262-63. Ogele told Respondent that he wanted to provide medications to treat HIV/AIDS. *Id.* at 263. Ogele offered Respondent a position on ISMP's board gave her the title of Associate Medical Director. *Id.* 263. Respondent subsequently gave Ogele a copy of her state medical license and her DEA registration. *Id.* 327. Respondent maintained that she did so to enable Ogele to order supplies, that “[a]ll the suppliers require that you give them both licenses,” and that she had “never had one, even if [she was not] ordering * * * controlled substances, [that] didn't request both licenses.” *Id.* Respondent further testified that she provided her DEA registration to Ogele without checking out his background. *Id.* at 329. The DEA Investigation Respondent first came to the attention of DEA in September 2003, when R & S Sales notified the DEA Louisville office of Respondent's excessive purchases of controlled substances including hydrocodone, acetaminophen with codeine, and promethazine with codeine. ALJ at 4 (citing Tr. 12-13). The information was forwarded to a Diversion Investigator

(DI)with the San Francisco Diversion Group. The DI went to Respondent's registered location at 203 Willow Street, San Francisco only to find that her office was vacant. Tr. 14-15. The DI inquired with the building's management company as to Respondent's whereabouts; the DI was told that, in March 2003, she had retired and vacated her office. *Id.* 15. The DI subsequently contacted R & S Sales. R & S advised the DI that, on September 10, 2003, an additional purchase of a controlled substance had been made with Respondent's registration. Tr. 15-16. The purchase was for 300 bottles, each containing 500 tablets of hydrocodone/apap. Gov. Ex. 17. The invoice lists the name “CHUKA” under the Purchase Order Number. *Id.* It also indicates that ISMP was to be billed for the order and that the drugs were to be shipped to Respondent at the Willow St. office which she had since vacated. *Id.* The DI contacted UPS to ascertain whether the shipment had been delivered. Tr. at 16. UPS informed the DI that it had attempted two deliveries at Respondent's former office and that someone had changed the address of the delivery to ISMP's office at 120 Broadway in Richmond. *Id.* UPS subsequently delivered the drugs to Chuka Ogele at this address. *Id.* On November 26, 2003, the DI received a voicemail message from Respondent. In this message, Respondent stated that Chuka Ogele, ISMP's chairman, had been attempting to call the DI regarding the ordering of supplies. *Id.* at 17. In the message, Respondent also stated that she was ISMP's medical director and that ISMP “was using her medical license to order medical supplies.” *Id.* Respondent requested that the DI call her. *Id.* at 18. The DI phoned Respondent. Respondent told the DI that R & S would not deliver medical products to ISMP's office because it was not registered under her name and address. *Id.* The DI told Respondent that she needed to change the address of her registration. *Id.* According to the DI, Respondent said during the call that “she was not ordering controlled substances, but was ordering * * * AIDS drugs such as AZT.” *Id.* Subsequently, Respondent submitted a letter requesting a change of the address of her registered location. *Id.* On December 1, 2003, DEA changed the address of her registered location to ISMP's office. *Id.* at 19. Shortly thereafter, the DI received another phone call from R & S. *Id.* During this call, the DI was informed that on November 26, 2003, another order for controlled substances had been placed using Respondent's registration and her former office as the address that the drugs were to be shipped to. *Id.* ; see also Gov. Ex. 16, at 2. This order was for 504 bottles each containing 500 count of hydrocodone/apap 7.5/750mg. 3 3 The order also included one bottle of 100 ativan (2 mg.) tablets. Gov. Ex. 16, at 2. Following the receipt of this information, the DI obtained an administrative inspection warrant for the ISMP's office. Tr. 19. On December 10, 2003, the DI, along with other DEA investigators, attempted to serve the warrant. *Id.* Upon their arrival at ISMP's office, the DIs could not serve the warrant because no one was present. *Id.* at 20. On January 15, 2004, the DI, accompanied by another DI and a Special Agent, went to Respondent's residence to interview her regarding the large quantities of controlled substances that were being ordered using her registration. *Id.* at 20-21. During the interview, Respondent told the investigators that she was the medical director of ISMP, that the organization assisted AIDS patients in Nigeria, and that Chuka Ogele was the chairman. *Id.* at 21. Respondent further told the DIs that Ogele was using her DEA number to order medical supplies from R & S Sales and that she had not personally placed any of the orders. *Id.* at 23. Respondent told the DI that “she did not know what types of controlled substances [were] being ordered by Ogele,” *id.,* but indicated that the drugs were being ordered for AIDS patients. *Id.* at 24. Respondent did not have any records documenting the purchases of the controlled substances but thought that the records might be at ISMP's office. *Id.* Respondent did not, however, have access to the office as Ogele “had the only key.” *Id.* During the interview, the other DI told Respondent that she was liable for giving her registration to another person and not knowing what drugs were being ordered. *Id.* at 25. Respondent stated that she understood. *Id.* The investigators also told Respondent that they needed to see the records. *Id.* Respondent contacted Ogele, who agreed to meet with the investigators later that day at ISMP's office. *Id.* at 25-26. The investigators subsequently met with Ogele at ISMP's office. *Id.* at 26. During the meeting, Ogele told the investigators that he was ISMP's chairman and that the controlled substances he was ordering from R & S were for Nigerian AIDS patients. *Id.* at 27-28. Ogele provided the investigators with several documents from officials of the Government of Benue State, Nigeria. *Id.* at 30; see also Gov. Ex. 6 & 7. While these documents show that Benue State Ministry of Health requested that ISMP supply it with various drugs for treating HIV and other opportunistic infections, Benue State officials did not request that ISMP supply any controlled substances. See Gov. Exs. 6 & 7. As for the controlled substance records, Ogele provided the investigators with four invoices for the purchase of controlled substances. Tr. 30. Subsequently, a DI determined that about thirteen orders for controlled substances had, in fact, been placed with R & S using Respondent's registration. *Id.* at 29. Moreover, Ogele did not provide any records documenting the distribution of the controlled substances. *Id.* at 27. During the interview, Ogele stated that he would sometimes take controlled substances to Nigeria in his luggage. *Id.* at 31. Ogele also stated that sometimes Nigerian diplomats would come to San Francisco to obtain the controlled substances and take them back to Nigeria. *Id.* Ogele did not hold any DEA registration and Respondent was not registered as an exporter. *Id.* at 31-32. The investigators told Ogele that he did not have the registration required under federal law to export controlled substances. *Id.* at 31. The investigators also determined that there were controlled substances on the premises and took an inventory. *Id.* at 32. On January 22, 2004, an employee of Dr. Randall Weil (who had purchased Respondent's former office) contacted DEA. *Id.* at 32-33. Dr. Weil's employee informed DEA that the office had received a shipment of controlled substances that had been shipped to Respondent. *Id.* at 33. The next day, the DI and her supervisor went to Dr. Weil's office and retrieved one box holding 36 bottles, each containing 500 tablets, of hydrocodone/apap 7.5/750. *Id.* at 34. The shipment's packing slip, which was dated August 14, 2003, indicated that a total of 180 bottles (five boxes) of the drug had been ordered. Resp. Ex 3, at 2. The investigators have not been able to determine the disposition of the other 144 bottles. Tr. 34. On January 26, 2004, the DI obtained and served another administrative inspection warrant at ISMP's office. *Id.* at 34-35. DEA personnel went to ISMP's office but found no one present. *Id.* at 37. The investigators then contacted Ogele by phone. *Id.* Following Ogele's arrival, the investigators informed Ogele that he was improperly using Respondent's registration. *Id.* at 39. The investigators then seized approximately 300 bottles of hydrocodone/apap and codeine/apap, which were taken to the DEA office. *Id.* at 39-40; Gov. Ex. 8. The investigators subsequently contacted Respondent and offered to arrange for the drugs to be returned to R & S with a credit to her account. *Id.* at 40. Respondent agreed and, on January 30, 2004, went to the DEA office to assist in the inventory. *Id.* at 40-41. The inventory differed, however, from the inventory that was taken during the January 26 administrative inspection by one bottle of hydrocodone/apap. *Id.* at 171. During this meeting, the DI told Respondent that DEA was concerned about the large orders of controlled substances that were placed with her registration. *Id.* at 41. The DI also told Respondent that it was improper to allow Ogele to use her DEA registration to order controlled substances for export to Nigeria. 4 *Id.* The DI also discussed with Respondent the shipment that DEA had retrieved from her former office. *Id.* at 42. Respondent told the DIs that she had not ordered those drugs. *Id.* 4 On some date which the record does not clearly establish, Ogele played for the ISMP board a tape recording of a phone message from a Mr. Dan Neeson, an employee of the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Export Administration. The message stated that “[m]ost medical products do not require an export license. And if you do require a license it would be for a particular country for a particular transaction. If you want more information, give me a call.” Resp. Ex. 36. Respondent asserted that Ogele told the board that he had contacted DEA and that Mr. Neeson had left the above message. Tr. 293. The Bureau of Export Administration is not part of DEA and does not enforce the Controlled Substances Act. The DI advised Respondent that DEA was seeking to suspend her registration. *Id.* at 45-46. The DI asked Respondent whether she would voluntarily surrender her registration. *Id.* Respondent refused. *Id.* at 46. The investigators subsequently obtained from R & S Sales, copies of the invoices documenting the controlled substance purchases made using Respondent's registration between August 15, 2002, and December 29, 2003. Tr. 52, Gov. Exs. 12 & 17. The Government also introduced into evidence a compilation of the purchases. See Gov. Ex.13. The compilation shows that Ogele used Respondent's registration to obtain from R & S, 1,537,500 tablets of hydrocodone/apap in various strengths and 450,000 dosage units of codeine/apap in various strengths; these drugs are schedule III controlled substances. See 21 CFR 1308.13(e). The compilation further shows that Respondent's registration was used to purchase from R & S, 97,340 dosage units of lorazepam (in various strengths), 19,900 dosage units of phenobarbital (in various strengths), 9700 dosage units of ativan (2mg.), 400 tablets of diazepam, and 3100 tablets of flurazepam. All of these drugs are schedule IV controlled substances. *Id.* 1308.14(c). Finally, the compilation shows that Respondent's registration was used to order 13,800 tablets of diphenoxylate/atropine sulfate, and 455,040 milliliters of promethazine/codeine cough syrup; both drugs are schedule V controlled substances. *Id.* 1308.15 The investigation also determined that Ogele used Respondent's registration to order controlled substances from an additional supplier, Priority Healthcare, between July 16, 2003, and September 15, 2004. 5 See Gov. Ex. 10. The compilation of these purchases shows that Ogele obtained 285,900 dosage units of codeine (30mg.)/apap and 135,900 dosage units of codeine (60 mg.)/apap. See Gov. Ex. 11, ALJ at 3. The compilation also shows that Ogele obtained 77,100 dosage units of hydrocodone/apap (of various strengths). *Id.* Finally, the compilation shows that Ogele obtained 46,694 sixteen oz. bottles of promethazine w/codeine, the wholesale price of this medication was approximately $664,900. 5 DEA did not become aware that Ogele had also made purchases from Priority Healthcare until after his arrest on September 22, 2004, at Hobby Airport in Houston, Texas. Ogele purchased the majority of the drugs from Priority after the service of the Notice of Immediate Suspension. See Gov. Exs. 10 & 11. Respondent did not become aware of the purchases from Priority until a few months before the hearing when Ogele's wife apparently found an invoice or some other document from Priority and told Respondent. Tr. 347. Respondent did not provide DEA with any records related to the receipt and distribution of these drugs. *Id.* 54-55. DEA has been unable to determine the disposition of the great majority of the drugs Ogele ordered using Respondent's registration. See ALJ at 15; Tr. at 53, 55, 64. The only drugs which can be accounted for are those which DEA retrieved from Respondent's former office and those seized during the execution of the warrant at ISMP's office. Tr. 53. On September 2, 2004, Ogele was arrested by local authorities at the George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, Texas. *Id.* at 55. At the time, Ogele was carrying $975,481 in cash and 395 Vicodin tablets for which he lacked a prescription. *Id.* ; see also Gov. Ex. 22. During an interview with Houston police, Ogele claimed that the cash had been donated to ISMP. Tr. 56. Ogele further stated that a person named Mike, who lived in Houston, would sometimes hold fundraisers at churches for ISMP. *Id.* at 56-57. Ogele did not, however, know Mike's last name or his address. *Id.* Initially, Ogele told the police that he did not know how to contact Mike. *Id.* at 57. Ogele later changed his story and stated that Mike had called him upon his arrival at his hotel and brought the cash to him. *Id.* Subsequently, Ogele waived his interest in the cash and forfeited it. Gov. Ex. 22. He was also charged with unlawful possession of controlled substances. Tr. 58. On September 22, 2004, Ogele was arrested at another Houston airport (William P. Hobby). Gov. Ex. 19. On this occasion, Ogele was carrying $7774 in cash and various controlled substances including 24 Vicodin tablets, 135 Ativan tablets, and two Lortab tablets. *Id.* at 2. He did not have a valid prescription for any of these drugs. Tr. 58. He also had in his possession thirteen invoices from Priority Healthcare. *Id.* at 58-59. The cash was again seized and forfeited. *Id.* at 58. Ogele was subsequently convicted of delivery of a controlled substance, a felony offense under Texas law, and sentenced to eight years of community supervision. Gov. Ex. 20. Respondent's Knowledge of Ogele's Use of Her DEA Registration One of the central issues in this case is whether Respondent knew that Ogele was using her DEA registration to order controlled substances. Both in her testimony and her post-hearing brief, Respondent has maintained that prior to the January 15, 2004 interview with DEA, she “did not know about the ordering of [the] controlled substances and is not responsible for record keeping involved with such orders.” Resp. Br. at 20. *See also id.* at 6 (Respondent “did no[t] anticipate that there would be any controlled substances ordered to be used in the project.”). In reference to Respondent's giving her DEA registration to Ogele, the ALJ found that “Respondent credibly testified that she told Mr. Ogele that she understood that ISMP would order ‘medications, primarily AIDS and AIDS-related medications, but no IV injectables and no narcotics.”' ALJ at 5-6 (FOF 17) (quoting Tr. at 351). The ALJ also found that “Respondent did not anticipate that there would be any controlled substances ordered by ISMP. ” *Id.* at 6 (quoting Tr. at 351). In her testimony, Respondent further maintained that she did not become aware that Ogele was using her registration to order controlled substances until January 15, 2004, when she was told this while being interviewed by DEA investigators. During cross examination, Respondent was asked whether she knew “there were any controlled substances being ordered?” Tr. 326. Respondent answered “No.” *Id.* The Government then asked Respondent: “[Y]ou didn't know there were any controlled substances being ordered until DEA informed you in January of 2004, correct?” *Id.* Respondent answered: “Yes.” *Id.* The ALJ found, however, that a preponderance of the evidence “supports the conclusion that * * * Respondent knew that controlled substances were being ordered using her DEA registration.” ALJ at 16 (FOF 61). Among other evidence, the ALJ noted the testimony of Dr. Green, another ISMP board member. Dr. Green testified that she had knowledge that Respondent allowed her registration to be used to obtain AIDS and pain medications, and that she and Ogele had also visited a company in the Midwest after which ISMP began receiving from it AIDS and “pain medications.” Tr. 236. The ALJ's finding does not, however, specify at what point in time Respondent knew that Ogele was using her registration to order controlled substances. Another finding appears to credit Respondent's testimony that she did not learn of this until the January 2004 DEA meeting and “was surprised” to find that Ogele was ordering controlled substances. ALJ at 10 (FOF 42). To the extent this finding was intended to credit Respondent's testimony that she did not learn of the controlled substance purchases until January 2004, I reject it. Instead, I find that Respondent knew at least as early as May 2003, that Ogele was using her registration to order controlled substances. In her letter requesting a hearing, Respondent filed a lengthy point by point response to the allegations of the Show Cause Order. See ALJ Ex. 2. In this filing, Respondent “admit[ted] that between May 2003 and August 2003 she authorized the ordering of hydrocodone or vicodin from R & S Sales.” ALJ 2 at 2. Respondent further stated that “[t]he purpose of these orders was to ship the vicodin to Nigeria to aid in the treatment of women with AIDS and HIV.” *Id.* More specifically, Respondent “admit[ted] to authorizing the ordering of three hundred bottles of hydrocodone (vicodin) from R & S * * * between May 2003 and August 2003,” that the “drugs were ordered on behalf of” ISMP, and that they “were purchased under [Respondent's] license for the purposes of export to Nigeria to fulfill existing commitments that [ISMP] has with the Nigerian military and other Nigerian government entities.” *Id.* In this same document, Respondent further stated that in her November 24, 2003 telephone conversation with a DEA investigator, she “never said she was ‘not ordering controlled substances’ because vicodin and [T]ylenol #3 is an integral part of the treatment of AIDS/HIV in Nigeria.” *Id.* at 3-4. Moreover, with respect to the order that was placed with R & S on November 26, 2003, Respondent “denie[d] ever having told the DEA agent that she was not ordering [V]icodin and Tylenol # 4 for the Nigeria project.” *Id.* at 4. Respondent further “admit[ted] authorizing the order and that the drugs were shipped to the Broadway Street address.” *Id.* Finally, Respondent stated that she “may not always have known the quantities of the substances ordered but she always knew what the drugs were that were being ordered and shipped. The orders are for standard quantities of particular drugs and do not vary very much, order to order.” *Id.* at 4-5. The ALJ did not acknowledge these admissions and thus did not discuss the fundamental inconsistencies between them and Respondent's statements under oath at the hearing. While I am mindful that the ALJ observed Respondent's testimony, deference to the ALJ's findings is clearly not appropriate where, as here, a witness tells two materially different tales and the ALJ gives no explanation as to why one is more credible than the other. Based on her written admissions, I thus find disingenuous Respondent's testimony on cross-examination that she did not become aware that Ogele was ordering controlled substances until the January 2004 interview with DEA investigators. And consistent with her admissions, I further find that Respondent knew at least as early as May 2003 that Ogele was ordering controlled substances. Respondent's Response to Ogele's Misuse of Her Registration On January 15, 2004, DEA investigators informed Respondent that an excessive amount of controlled substances had been ordered under her registration. Tr. 302. Furthermore, on January 26, 2004, DEA executed an administrative search warrant at ISMP's office and seized a substantial quantity of controlled substances. Notwithstanding these two events, Respondent did not demand that Ogele produce the invoices. Furthermore, she did not even talk to Ogele about the matter until “probably April.” *Id.* at 313. In her testimony, Respondent asserted that the reason she did not talk to Ogele about the matter was because he “left the country * * * early the next morning.” *Id.* Respondent testified, however, that Ogele had called her on January 26, 2004, the day that DEA investigators served the administrative warrant and told her that the investigators had already shown up at ISMP's office. *Id.* at 304. Respondent further testified that Ogele called her and asked her to go to the DEA office to conduct an inventory of the controlled substances because he “was getting ready to leave the country.” *Id.* at 305. The inventory occurred on January 30. While Respondent did not testify as to the date this phone call occurred, it is clear that Ogele was in the country for a substantial period of time following Respondent's receipt of information that her registration was being misused (during the January 15, 2004 interview) and that she made no effort to investigate the matter for at least three months. Respondent had long known that R & S Sales was one of ISMP's primary suppliers. Respondent testified that R & S was sending orders to her medical practice and that she contacted R & S in an attempt to have the orders shipped to the ISMP office. *Id.* at 267. Respondent did not, however, contact R & S during the period between the January 15 interview and service of the Show Cause Order to obtain copies of the invoices for the orders that had been placed under her registration. Furthermore, even following the service of the Show Cause Order, Respondent did not promptly contact R & S to obtain the invoices. *Id.* at 347; ALJ Ex. 2, at 5. While the record does not specify when Respondent finally contacted R & S, in her response to the Show Cause Order, Respondent stated that ISMP “has records of each drug shipment,” ALJ Ex. 2, at 5, and made no mention that she had obtained or was then attempting to obtain the records from R & S. Furthermore, when asked whether after service of the Show Cause Order she had “ask[ed] any of the suppliers for records?,” Respondent answered: “[n]ot at that time.” Tr. 347. Respondent further testified that she did not contact R & S until “later.” *Id.* Respondent did not obtain copies of the invoices from Priority Healthcare until “a few months” before the hearing, when Ogele's wife found some invoices from Priority and contacted it to obtain copies of them for her. *Id.* Finally, Respondent did not testify that she ever attempted to exercise her right as a director of ISMP to examine its books, records, and documents. See, *e.g.* , Cal. Corp. Code section 6334 (West 2006). Discussion Section 304(a) of the Controlled Substances Act provides that a registration to “dispense a controlled substance * * * may be suspended or revoked by the Attorney General upon a finding that the registrant * * * has committed such acts as would render [her] registration under section 823 of this title inconsistent with the public interest as determined under such section.” 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4). In making the public interest determination, the Act requires the consideration of the following factors:

(1)The recommendation of the appropriate State licensing board or professional disciplinary authority.

(2)The applicant's experience in dispensing * * * 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 and safety. *Id.* section 823(f). “[T]hese factors are * * * considered in the disjunctive.” Robert A. Leslie, M.D., 68 FR 15227, 15230 (2003). I “may rely on any one or a combination of factors, and may give each factor the weight [I] deem[] appropriate in determining whether a registration should be revoked.” *Id.* Moreover, case law establishes that I am “not required to make findings as to all of the factors.” *Hoxie* v. *DEA* , 419 F.3d 477, 482 (6th Cir. 2005); see also *Morall* v. *DEA* , 412 F.3d 165, 173-74 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Finally, section 304(d) provides that “[t]he Attorney General may, in his discretion, suspend any registration simultaneously with the institution of proceedings under this section, in cases where he finds that there is an imminent danger to the public health or safety.” 21 U.S.C. 824(d). In this case I conclude that Factors Four and Five conclusively establish that allowing Respondent to hold a registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. 6 Analyzing these factors, I also conclude that Respondent's conduct created “an imminent danger to the public health or safety,” id., and thus affirm the immediate suspension of her registration. 7 6 Having considered all of the factors, I deem it unnecessary to make findings on factors one, two, and three. 7 While Respondent's registration has expired and she did not submit a renewal application, this case began with the immediate suspension of her registration and thus is not moot. See William R. Lockridge, 71 FR 77791, 77796-97 (2006). Furthermore, Respondent testified that while she had closed her office, she might return to the practice of medicine. Factor Four—Respondent's Compliance With Applicable Laws The evidence in this case establishes that Respondent acted with complete disregard for the obligations imposed on her as a registrant under federal law and regulations. These actions included entrusting her registration to someone she had no effective control over and knew little about, her total failure to comply with the CSA's recordkeeping requirements and to ensure the security of controlled substances, and her authorizing Ogele to use her registration to obtain controlled substances knowing that they would be exported to a foreign country without a registration. While the record shows that Respondent was motivated by humanitarian concerns and was likely duped by Ogele, Respondent's disregard for federal law cannot be excused. As the evidence shows, Respondent entrusted her DEA number to Ogele shortly after meeting him and joining the ISMP board. She did so without investigating Ogele's background 8 and even though she had no effective control over him. Respondent's conduct violated the CSA because the Act does not authorize a registrant to allow an unregistered person to use her registration to handle controlled substances unless the latter is the employee or agent of the registrant. *See* 22 U.S.C. 822(c) (exempting from registration “an agent or employee” of a registrant but only “if such agent or employee is acting in the usual course of his business or employment”). 8 DEA regulations provide that a “registrant shall not employ as an agent or employee who has access to controlled substances, any person who has been convicted of a felony offense relating to controlled substances.” 21 CFR 1301.76(a). As explained in the text, Ogele was neither an employee nor an agent of Respondent. While by its terms the regulation does not apply to Respondent, it nonetheless demonstrates the recklessness of Respondent's authorizing Ogele to use her registration without conducting a background investigation. Respondent argues that authorizing Ogele to use her DEA number is “no different[t]” than “what goes on in the normal medical practice” where “[t]he doctor tells her nurse to order drugs under her number and the nurse does it on the doctor's behalf.” ALJ Ex. 2 at 4. Contrary to Respondent's contention, there is a fundamental difference between what she did and what goes on in normal medical practices because Ogele was not her employee and thus was not subject to her control through the measures employers customarily use to discipline employees. Moreover, Ogele was not Respondent's agent. The evidence clearly shows that Ogele did not act on Respondent's behalf but rather on behalf of ISMP and himself. The evidence further shows that Ogele was not Respondent's agent because while Respondent was a member of ISMP's board, she could not unilaterally remove him and had no effective means of controlling him. *See* , *e.g.* , *Restatement (Second) of Agency* section 1

(1958)(comment a) (“The relation of agency is created as a result of conduct by two parties manifesting that one of them is willing for the other to act for him subject to his control * * *. [T]he agent must act or agree to act on the principal's behalf and subject to his control.”); 9 Resp. Ex. 11. Respondent thus violated the CSA by entrusting her registration to Ogele, who was neither her employee nor her agent. 1 *Cf. id* . § 14 C (comment b) (“An individual director * * * has no power of [her] own to act on the corporation's behalf, but only *as one of the body of directors acting as a board* .”) (emphasis added). Respondent's conduct in authorizing Ogele to use her registration to order controlled substances violated the CSA for an additional reason. Respondent clearly contemplated that the drugs were being ordered to be shipped to Nigeria. A practitioner's registration, however, grants its holder authority to obtain controlled substances only for the limited purposes of conducting research or dispensing them to an ultimate user. *See* 21 U.S.C. 802(10) & (21); section 822(b). It does not provide its holder with authority to export a controlled substance. *Id* . section 822(b) (“Persons registered * * * under this subchapter to * * * dispense controlled substances * * * are authorized to possess * * * or dispense [controlled] substances * * * to the extent authorized by their registration.”). *See* also *id* . section 957(a) (“No person may * * * export from the United States any controlled substance * * * unless there is in effect with respect to such person a registration issued * * * under section 958 of this title.”). Consistent with the statutory scheme, DEA regulations provide that dispensing and exporting are activities which are “deemed to be independent of each other,” 21 CFR 1301.13(e); exporting is not a “coincident activity” which is authorized under a practitioner's registration. *Id* . (Table). DEA regulations further require that “[a]ny person who engages in more than one group of independent activities shall obtain a separate registration for each group of activities.” *Id* . 1301.13(e). While there is some question regarding the extent to which the controlled substances were actually exported to Nigeria (as opposed to being sold by Ogele in this country)—largely because of Respondent's failure to ensure that proper records were being maintained—Ogele told DEA investigators that he was personally carrying drugs to Nigeria. Moreover, Respondent made numerous admissions that show that she was aware that the controlled substances were being ordered for the purpose of export to Nigeria. Thus, it is clear that Respondent violated 21 U.S.C. § 957(a) by exporting controlled substances without a registration. Respondent also violated the Act by failing to adequately supervise Ogele's activities. Under DEA regulations, a registrant “shall provide effective controls and procedures to guard against theft and diversion of controlled substances,” 21 CFR 1301.71(a), including adequate systems “for monitoring the receipt, * * * distribution, and disposition of controlled substances in its operations. *Id* . 1301.71(b)(14). Cf. *id* . 1301.71(b)(11) (require an assessment of “[t]he adequacy of supervision over employees having access” to controlled substances). Respondent's supervision of Ogele's use of her registration was non-existent. As Respondent admitted, she “may not always have known the quantities of the substances ordered.” ALJ Ex. 2, at 4. Indeed, Respondent was clueless as to the scope of Ogele's ordering of controlled substances. *See* Tr. 328-29 (“I didn't supervise him” (Ogele) to ensure that he was keeping records.); *id* . at 329 (“I wasn't following those records, no.”). As the ALJ found, this was because Respondent did not ensure that the required records documenting the purchase and distribution of controlled substances were maintained. ALJ at 34; see, e.g., 21 CFR 1304.21(a) (“Every registrant required to keep records * * * shall maintain on a current basis a complete and accurate record of each such substance * * * received, sold, delivered, exported, or otherwise disposed of * * *.”). See also 21 CFR 1304.22. Nor did she ensure that the required inventories were conducted. *See id* . 1304.11. The direct consequence of Respondent's abdication of her obligations as a registrant is that the disposition of an extraordinary quantity of controlled substances cannot be accounted for and the drugs have likely been diverted. Of the drugs Ogele obtained from R & S, more than 2.1 million dosage units are unaccounted for. Moreover, none of the drugs Ogele obtained from Priority Healthcare (which included nearly 47,000 dosage units of promethazine with codeine cough syrup, with a wholesale price of nearly $ 65,000) have been accounted for. To be sure, Ogele ordered many of the drugs from Priority after DEA had told him to stop and Respondent was likely unaware of this. The fact remains, however, that Ogele would not have been able to do so if Respondent had never entrusted her registration to him in the first place. This Agency has previously held that a registrant who allows a non-registrant to use her registration is strictly liable for any misuse of the registration. *See Anthony L. Cappelli* , 59 FR 42,288 (1994). Finally, the record establishes that Respondent authorized the ordering of controlled substances that were shipped to her former office in San Francisco which remained her registered location until December 1, 2003. Because Respondent had sold and vacated her office some eight months earlier, she had no effective means of securing the drugs that were delivered to this address. The record also establishes that with Respondent's authorization, controlled substances were being stored at ISMP's Richmond office even though this facility was not a registered location. Indeed, she did not even have a key for the office. Both the shipping of drugs to her former office and the shipping of drugs to the ISMP office when it was not her registered location violated the CSA. 10 10 Under the CSA, “[a] separate registration [is] required at each principal place of business or professional practice where the [registrant] * * * distributes, or dispenses controlled substances.” 21 U.S.C. 822(e). The primary purpose of this requirement is to ensure that adequate security exists at each location. *See* 21 CFR 1301.71. I thus conclude that Respondent's record of non-compliance with federal law is extensive and egregious. As the ALJ explained, Respondent's conduct “evidences a reckless disregard for the legal obligations and responsibilities” of a registrant. ALJ at 34. The direct consequence of Respondent's indifference to her obligations under the CSA was to provide a drug dealer with the means to obtain his wares and to create an “imminent danger to the public health or safety.” 21 U.S.C. 824(d). I thus affirm the immediate suspension of Respondent's registration. I further conclude that this factor provides reason alone to conclude that allowing Respondent to hold a DEA registration would be “inconsistent with the public interest.” 21 U.S.C. 823(f). Factor Five: Such Other Conduct Which May Threaten Public Health and Safety As explained above, because of Respondent's failure to comply with the CSA and DEA regulations, it is likely that over two million dosage units of controlled substances have been diverted. Respondent, however, engaged in additional conduct which threatened public health and safety by failing to take prompt and reasonable action to investigate the circumstances surrounding Ogele's misuse of her registration. On January 15, 2004, DEA investigators told Respondent that an excessive amount of controlled substances had been ordered under her registration. Tr. 302. Moreover, on January 26, 2004, DEA seized controlled substances that Ogele had ordered under her registration. Notwithstanding the seriousness of each of these events, Respondent did not demand that Ogele produce the invoices. Indeed, she did not even talk to Ogele about the matter until “probably April.” *Id.* at 313. Nor did she contact R & S Sales to independently obtain the invoices until some date after May 3, 2004. Relatedly, the Show Cause Order, which was served on Respondent on April 5, 2004, alleged that “the bulk of the controlled substances ordered under [her] * * * registration,” which “include[d] over 750,000 dosage units of Schedule III controlled substances” could not be accounted for. Show Cause Order at 7. Furthermore, while there is conflicting evidence as to whether Respondent then attempted to obtain the invoices from Ogele, even giving her the benefit of the doubt on the issue, 11 Respondent did not then contact R & S to independently verify whether Ogele had provided her with all of the invoices. See Tr. 347. Those invoices would have shown that Ogele had ordered large amounts of additional controlled substances such as promethazine cough syrup with codeine and various benzodiazepines that were unrelated to “the Nigeria project.” Gov. Ex. 12 at 8, 13, 15, & 20. Nor did she exercise her right as a director of ISMP to inspect its books, records, and documents. See Cal. Corp. Code section 6334 (West 2006) (“Every director shall have the absolute right at any reasonable time to inspect and copy all books, records and documents of every kind * * * of the corporation of which such person is a director.”). 11 Compare Tr. 334 (Respondent answered “no” to Government's question regarding whether she had then attempted to obtain the invoices from Ogele) with ALJ Exh. 2 at 9 (listing in response to Show Cause Order seven different purchases of controlled substances). By the date the Show Cause Order was served on her, Ogele had obtained other drugs from R & S and had also placed numerous orders with Priority Healthcare. See Gov. Ex. 11. Taking timely action such as obtaining the invoices from R & S would have uncovered the fact that Ogele was ordering additional controlled substances and engaged in diversion. Furthermore, exercising her right as a director to inspect all of ISMP's records including its accounts payable and checking account records would likely have shown that Ogele was ordering from an additional supplier. To be sure, Ogele may have attempted to obstruct any such inquiry by withholding documents that showed that he was ordering controlled substances from Priority Healthcare. Respondent did not, however, take anything bordering on timely action to investigate the extent of Ogele's illegal use of her registration. Her failure to take even the most rudimentary steps to investigate the misuse of her registration was a breach of her duty as a registrant. Moreover, it likely allowed Ogele to continue his criminal activity well past the point at which it should have been stopped. Consistent with a registrant's obligation to “provide effective controls and procedures to guard against theft and diversion of controlled substances,” 21 CFR 1301.71(a), every registrant has a duty to conduct a reasonable investigation upon receiving credible information to suspect that a theft or diversion has occurred. Performing a reasonable investigation is essential to preventing the continuation of criminal activity. While the precise scope of this duty necessarily depends upon the facts and circumstances, doing nothing for months—as Respondent did here—clearly warrants a finding that a registrant has committed acts which threaten public health and safety. In her analysis of factor five, the ALJ further observed that Respondent “exhibited no remorse for her conduct at the hearing” and “downplayed her misconduct.” *Id.* at 36-37. I agree. Beyond that, I am especially disturbed by Respondent's testimony under oath that she did not know that Ogele was ordering controlled substances until DEA investigators informed her of this during the January 15, 2004 meeting. As explained above, this testimony was fundamentally inconsistent with the letter Respondent submitted in response to the Show Cause Order in which she stated that she had authorized the ordering of 300 bottles of hydrocodone and vicodin between May 2003 and August 2003. See, e.g., ALJ Ex. 2, at 2. Of course, Respondent's written statement was submitted before Ogele was arrested and pled guilty to drug offenses. I thus conclude that Respondent lied under oath to downplay her responsibility for supplying Ogele with the means to obtain his wares. Such conduct buttresses the conclusion that Respondent cannot be entrusted with a registration. Order Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824, as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b) & 0.104, the order of immediate suspension of DEA Certificate of Registration, AL8962993, issued to Rose Mary Jacinta Lewis, M.D., is hereby affirmed. The Office of Diversion Control is further directed to cancel Respondent's DEA number. This order is effective February 28, 2007. Dated: January 19, 2007. Michele M. Leonhart, Deputy Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-1318 Filed 1-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Wild West Wholesale Revocation of Registration On August 18, 2005, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to Show Cause to Wild West Wholesale (Respondent) of Cedaredge, Co. The Show Cause Order proposed to revoke Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration, 005516WWY, as a distributor of list I chemicals, and to deny any pending applications for renewal or modification of the registration, on the ground that Respondent's continued registration is inconsistent with the public interest. Show Cause Order at 1. The Show Cause Order specifically alleged that Respondent distributed list I chemical products containing ephedrine, a precursor chemical used to manufacture methamphetamine, a Schedule II controlled substance. *See id.* at 1-2. The Show Cause Order alleged that Respondent distributed combination ephedrine products to gas stations and convenience stores, which are non-traditional retailers of these products. *Id.* at 2. The Show Cause Order further alleged that Respondent was distributing “approximately five or more case of various ephedrine products to its 45 customers each month,” *id.* , and that only a very small percentage of the licit retail market for these products is sold in convenience stores and gas stations. *Id.* 2-3. Finally, the Show Cause Order alleged that Colorado and adjacent states “have experienced a proliferation of small methamphetamine laboratories” and that “[l]aw enforcement officials have observed that a substantial proportion of precursors found at illicit methamphetamine sites have involved non-traditional brands sold through convenience stores.” *Id.* On September 26, 2005, the Show Cause Order was served on Respondent by first class mail. 1 On October 14, 2005, Respondent, through its counsel, requested a hearing. The case was assigned to Administrative Law Judge

(ALJ)Mary Ellen Bittner, who ordered the parties to prepare pre-hearing statements. However, on February 22, 2006, Respondent withdrew its request for a hearing. The ALJ then ordered that the proceeding be terminated so that the investigative file could be forwarded to me for final agency action. 1 The Show Cause Order was initially sent by certified mail to the street address of Respondent's registered location but was returned with a notation indicating that Respondent's owner had moved and that the time for forwarding mail had lapsed. This address was also used by Respondent's owner when she submitted a renewal application in April 2005. In May 2004, Respondent's owner had submitted a request for a change of its registered location to the address at which Respondent was eventually served. I find that Respondent has waived its right to a hearing. I therefore enter this final order without a hearing based on information contained in the investigative file. Findings Respondent is a supplier of sundry items to approximately forty-five convenience stores and gas stations in western Colorado. Among the items which Respondent distributes are products containing the list I chemicals pseudoephedrine and ephedrine. Respondent is owned by Ms. Brenda Garcia and operated out of her home in Cedaredge, Co. While ephedrine and pseudoephedrine have therapeutic uses, they are easily extracted from lawful over-the-counter products and are used in the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine, a schedule II controlled substance. *See* 21 U.S.C. 802(34). Methamphetamine is a powerful and addictive central nervous system stimulant. *See Gregg Brothers Wholesale Co.,* 71 FR 59830 (2006). The illegal manufacture and abuse of methamphetamine pose a grave threat to this county. Methamphetamine abuse has destroyed numerous lives and families and ravaged communities. Moreover, because of the toxic nature of the chemicals used to make methamphetamine, its manufacture causes serious environment harms. *Id.* Respondent holds Certificate of Registration, #005516WWY, which authorizes it to distribute pseudoephedrine and ephedrine at the registered location of 224 SW 13th Circle, Cedaredge, Co. Respondent's registration expired on May 31, 2005, and was subsequently retired on December 31, 2005. Respondent did, however, file a renewal application on April 28, 2005, which was received by DEA on May 5, 2005. On May 12, 2004, Respondent's owner requested a modification of Wild West's registration seeking to change its registered location from the SW 13th Circle address to her home. Thereafter, on May 24, 2004, Respondent's owner submitted additional information. Included in this information was a sales report from one of Respondent's suppliers, Proactive Labs, Inc., which documented the firm's purchase of combination ephedrine products on various dates between December 12, 2002, and March 3, 2004. These records showed that during this period, Respondent purchased from Proactive Labs a total of 426,912 dosage units of combination ephedrine products. As noted in previous decisions, DEA has issued numerous warning letters to Proactive Labs because its products have been found repeatedly at illegal methamphetamine labs. *See D & S Sales,* 71 FR 37607, 37608 (2006). Thereafter, on July 14, 2004, two Diversion Investigators

(DIs)went to Respondent's new location to interview its owner and conduct a security inspection. During the interview, Respondent's owner told the DIs that list I chemicals comprised five to ten percent of its sales. She also informed them that Respondent obtained list I products from two additional suppliers. Respondent further provided the DIs with a customer list. Several months later, one of the DIs contacted twelve of Respondent's customers. Most of the customers claimed either that they did not purchase, or purchased only small amounts of, list I products from Respondent. On July 13, 2005, the DIs conducted an additional interview of Respondent's owner. During the interview, Respondent's owner told the DIs that Proactive Labs had been her exclusive supplier of ephedrine products since February 2005. Respondent's owner further told the DIs that the company had notified her that effective July 1, 2005, it was selling its products lines to Advantage Healthcare. Respondent's owner informed the DIs that prior to July 1, 2005, when Colorado law changed to require that pseudoephedrine and ephedrine products be sold in blister packaging, she had sold 48-count bottles of Bronch-eze Asthma Relief, a combination ephedrine product. Respondent's owner stated that she paid $1.26 per bottle and that the bottles sold at retail for $5.99. Respondent's owner told the DIs that a 48-count blister package cost $1.49 per box and sold at retail for $6.99. She also informed the DIs that the six-count combination ephedrine blister packs cost $.25 each and sold at retail for $.99. Respondent's owner provided the DIs with twelve invoices documenting its purchases of combination ephedrine products from Proactive Labs/Advantage Healthcare between January 31, 2005, and July 19, 2005. The invoices showed that Respondent had purchased $7003.80 worth of 48-count bottles and $2837.53 worth of six-count packets between January 31, 2005, and June 9, 2005. The two invoices for July 2005 showed that Respondent had purchased $1712.96 worth of 48-count blister pack boxes. Relatedly, at the time of the inspection, Respondent had on hand 543 bottles (48-count), which were to be returned following the change in Colorado law. Based on the retail price information provided to the DIs, Respondent distributed combination ephedrine products with a retail sales value of $40,916.76, 2 over the approximately six-month period or $6819.46 per month. On a per store basis, the estimated average monthly retail sale of the products was $151.54. 2 This figure was calculated based on the invoice amounts minus the inventory that was being returned. In numerous cases, DEA has established through expert testimony the monthly expected sales of combination ephedrine products by non-traditional retailers such as convenience stores and gas stations to meet legitimate demand, i.e., the purchase of the products for their medically approved use as a bronchodilator to treat asthma. *See, e.g., T. Young Associates, Inc.* , 71 FR 60567, 60567 n.2 & 60568 (2006); *Tri-County Bait Distributors* , 71 FR 52160, 52161-62 (2006); *D & S Sales* , 71 FR 37607, 37608-09 (2006). In these cases, DEA has proved by substantial evidence that the monthly expected retail sales range for combination ephedrine products by non-traditional retailers is between $0 and $25, with an average of $12.58. *See T. Young* , 71 FR at 60568; *Tri-County Bait* , 71 FR at 52162; *D & S* , 71 FR at 37609. DEA has also established that a monthly retail sale of $60 of ephedrine products “would occur about once in a million times in random sampling.” *T. Young* , 71 FR at 60568 (int. quotations and citations omitted). Respondent's owner also provided the DIs with a customer list. Using the customer list, a DI visited twenty-one of the stores and interviewed their managers regarding whether they sold list I products and, if so, the volume sold. At fifteen of the stores, the managers estimated that they were selling $60 or more per month of combination ephedrine products. Indeed, at ten of the stores, the managers estimated that they were selling $100 or more per month of the products, and at eight of the stores, the managers estimated that they were selling $300 or more per month. Discussion As an initial matter, the scope of this proceeding must be determined. According to the investigative file, Respondent's registration expired on May 31, 2005. On April 28, 2005, however, Respondent's owner submitted a renewal application. DEA received the application on May 5, 2005, and charged the application fee to its owner's credit card. Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), “[w]hen [a] licensee has made timely and sufficient application for a renewal or a new license in accordance with agency rules, a license with reference to an activity of a continuing nature does not expire until the application has been finally determined by the agency.” 5 U.S.C. 558(c). DEA's regulation which addresses renewal applications merely states that “[a]ny person who is registered may apply to be reregistered not more than 60 days before the expiration date of [her] registration.” 21 CFR 1309.31(b). This regulation does not specify a date by which DEA must received a renewal application in order for an existing registration to be continued in accordance with the APA. Another DEA regulation addresses the renewal of an existing registration when Show Cause Proceedings are pending. *See* 21 CFR 1309.45 (“Extension of registration pending final order”). This regulation provides that: [i]n the event that an applicant for reregistration (who is doing business under a registration previously granted and not revoked or suspended) has applied for reregistration at least 45 days before the date on which the existing registration is due to expire, and the Administrator has issued no order on the application on the date on which the existing registration is due to expire, the existing registration of the applicant shall automatically be extended and continue in effect until the date on which the Administrator issues his order. The Administrator may extend any other existing registration under the circumstances contemplated in this section even though the registrant failed to apply for reregistration at least 45 days before expiration of the existing registration, with or without request by the registrant, if the Administrator finds that such extension is not inconsistent with the public health and safety. *Id* . As demonstrated by its text, this regulation clearly contemplates that a Show Cause proceeding must be ongoing in order to trigger the requirement that a registrant submit a renewal at least 45 days in advance of the registration's expiration date in order to continue the registration. Here, however, Respondent's renewal was submitted four months before the Show Cause Order was issued and thus this regulation is not applicable. Instead, the timeliness of Respondent's renewal application is governed by 1309.31, which imposes no deadline by which the application must be filed. Therefore, I conclude that Respondent submitted a timely renewal application, and that under the APA, her registration has remained in effect pending the final order in this proceeding. The Public Interest Analysis Section 304(a) of the Controlled Substances Act provides that a registration to distribute a list I chemical “may be suspended or revoked * * * upon a finding that the registrant * * * has committed such acts as would render his registration under section 823 of this title inconsistent with the public interest as determined under such section.” 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4). In making this determination, Congress directed that I consider the following factors:

(1)Maintenance by the applicant of effective controls against diversion of listed chemicals into other than legitimate channels;

(2)compliance by the applicant with applicable Federal, State, and local law;

(3)any prior conviction record of the applicant under Federal or State laws relating to controlled substances or to chemicals controlled under Federal or State law;

(4)any past experience of the applicant in the manufacture and distribution of chemicals; and

(5)such other factors as are relevant to and consistent with the public health and safety. *Id.* section 823(h). “These factors are considered in the disjunctive.” *Joy's Ideas* , 70 FR 33195, 33197 (2005). I may rely on any one or a combination of factors, and may give each factor the weight I deem appropriate in determining whether a registration should be revoked or an application for a modification of a registration should be denied. *See, e.g.* , *David M. Starr* , 71 FR 39367, 39368 (2006); *Energy Outlet* , 64 FR 14269 (1999). Moreover, I am “not required to make findings as to all of the factors.” *Hoxie* v. *DEA* , 419 F.3d 477, 482 (6th Cir. 2005); *Morall* v. *DEA* , 412 F.3d 165, 173-74 (D.C. Cir. 2005). In this case, I conclude that Factors Four and Five establish that Respondent's continued registration would be “inconsistent with the public interest,” 21 U.S.C. 823(h), and that Respondent's registration should be revoked and its pending application for renewal should be denied. Factors Four and Five—The Registrant's Past Experience in the Distribution of Chemicals and Other Factors Relevant to and Consistent With Public Health and Safety As found above, the illicit manufacture and abuse of methamphetamine have had pernicious effects on families and communities throughout the nation. Cutting off the supply source of methamphetamine traffickers is of critical importance in protecting the public from the devastation wreaked by this drug. While combination ephedrine products have a legitimate medical use as a bronchodilator to treat asthma, DEA orders have established that convenience stores and gas stations constitute the non-traditional retail market for legitimate consumers of products containing ephedrine. *See, e.g., Tri-County Bait Distributors* , 71 FR at 52161; *D & S Sales* , 71 FR at 37609; *Branex, Inc.* , 69 FR 8682, 8690-92 (2004). DEA has further found that there is a substantial risk of diversion of list I chemicals into the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine when these products are sold by non-traditional retailers. *See, e.g., Joy's Ideas* , 70 FR at 33199 (finding that the risk of diversion was “real, substantial and compelling”); *Jay Enterprises* , 70 FR 24620, 24621

(2005)(noting “heightened risk of diversion” should application be granted) DEA orders thus establish that the sale of certain list I chemical products by non-traditional retailers is an area of particular concern in preventing diversion of these products into the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine. *See, e.g., Joey Enterprises* , 70 FR 76866, 76867 (2005). As *Joey Enterprises* explains, “[w]hile there are no specific prohibitions under the Controlled Substances Act regarding the sale of listed chemical products to [gas stations and convenience stores], DEA has nevertheless found that [these entities] constitute sources for the diversion of listed chemical products.” *Id. See also TNT Distributors* , 70 FR 12729, 12730

(2003)(finding that “pseudoephedrine products distributed by [gray market distributor] have been uncovered at numerous clandestine methamphetamine settings throughout the United States and/or discovered in the possession of individuals apparently involved in the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine”). Here, nearly all of Respondent's customers are convenience stores and gas stations, which are non-traditional retailers of list I chemical products. Most significantly, the investigative file establishes that the combination ephedrine products distributed by Respondent were not being sold to meet legitimate consumer demand but rather were being diverted to supply the illicit manufacturers of methamphetamine. As found above, the average monthly retail sales value of the combination ephedrine products distributed by Respondent was $151.54 per store. This figure grossly exceeds the monthly expected sales range of $0 to $25 (with an average of $12.58) by convenience stores to meet legitimate demand for these products as an asthma treatment. *See T. Young* , 71 FR at 60568; *D & S Sales* , 71 FR at 37609. Indeed, a monthly retail sale of $60 of ephedrine products at a convenience store should “occur about once in a million times in random sampling.” *T. Young* , 71 FR at 60568. The $151.54 average retail sale value of Respondent's products is 2.5 times this amount. Moreover, this figure is an average for all forty-five stores serviced by Respondent over a seven-month period. It is thus even more improbable than a one in a million probability that Respondent's products were being purchased to meet legitimate demand. I therefore conclude that a substantial portion of Respondent's products were diverted into the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine. *See T. Young* , 71 FR at 60572; *D & S Sales* , 71 FR at 37611 (finding diversion occurred “[g]iven the near impossibility that * * * sales were the result of legitimate demand”); *Joy's Ideas* , 70 FR at 33198 (finding diversion occurred in the absence of “a plausible explanation in the record for this deviation from the expected norm”). 3 Moreover, “the diversion of list I chemicals into the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine poses the same threat to public health and safety whether a registrant selsl the products knowing they will be diverted, sells them with a reckless disregard for the diversion, or sells them being totally unaware that the products were being diverted.” *T. Young* , 71 FR at 60572 (citing *D & S Sales* , 71 FR at 37610-12, & *Joy's Ideas* , 70 FR at 33198). In short, the statutory text does not require that the Government prove that a registrant acted with any particular *mens rea* to sustain a public interest revocation. *T. Young* , 71 FR at 60572. Accordingly, adverse findings are warranted under these factors even if Respondent's owner was unaware that its products were being diverted. 3 This finding is also supported by the customer verifications. At nearly half of the twenty-one stores visited, the managers told the DIs they were selling quantities of combination ephedrine products that would sell for $100 or more per month; at eight of the stores, the managers estimated that they were selling quantities of $300 or more per month. Here, while Respondent (and its owner lacks a criminal record) and the file does not establish that Respondent has failed to comply with applicable laws or lacks effective controls, 4 I nonetheless conclude that Factors Four and Five compel the conclusion that Respondent's continued registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. 4 The Government bears the burden of proof on each factor even when a registrant waives its right to a hearing. In this case, the investigative file contains no evidence to support a finding that Respondent does not maintain effective controls because it was aware of diversion occurring at the retail level and failed to act. Order Accordingly, pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(h) & section 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b) & 0.104, I order that DEA Certificate of Registration, 005516WWY, issued to Wild West Wholesale be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that Wild West Wholesale's pending applications for modification and/or renewal of its registration be, and they hereby are, denied. This order is effective February 28, 2007. Dated: January 20, 2007. Michele M. Leonhart, Deputy Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-1316 Filed 1-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Federal Bureau of Investigation [OMB Number 1110-0022] Electronic Surveillance Technology Section; Agency Information Collection Activities: Current Collection; Comment Requested ACTION: 30-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review of a Currently Approved Collection for which to due to Expire; Cost Recovery Regulations, Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation

(FBI)will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the **Federal Register** Volume 71, Number 229, pages 69146-69147 on November 29, 2006, allowing for a 60 day comment period. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional “thirty days” for public comment until February 28, 2007. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. If you have comments, especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Porter Dunn, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice, ESTS, 14800 Conference Center Drive, Suite 200, Chantilly, Virginia 20151. Written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:

(1)Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, *e.g.* , permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of This Information

(1)*Type of Information Collection:* Approval, without change, of a currently approved collection for which approval is due to expire.

(2)*Title of the Form/Collection:* Cost Recovery Regulations, 28 CFR 100.9 *et seq.*

(3)*Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection:* None. Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States Department of Justice.

(4)*Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:* Primary: Business or other for-profit. Other: None. The Cost Recovery Regulations have been adopted to assist the telecommunications industry in any submission of claims pursuant to Section 109(a) and

(e)of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, codified at 47 U.S.C. 1001-1010 (1994).

(5)*An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond/reply:* The average time burden of the approximately 4 respondents to provide the information requested is approximately 4 hours per response and an estimated 5 responses (per respondent).

(6)*An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection:* The total annual hour burden to provide the information requested through the Cost Recovery Regulations is therefore approximately 80 hours (4 respondents x 5 responses x 4 hours per response). *If additional information is required, contact:* Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Office, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Suite 1600, Patrick Henry Building, 601 D Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530. Dated: January 24, 2007. Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Office, PRA, United States Department of Justice. [FR Doc. E7-1358 Filed 1-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Request for Certification of Compliance—Rural Industrialization Loan and Grant Program AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, Labor. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Employment and Training Administration is issuing this notice to announce the receipt of a “Certification of Non-Relocation and Market and Capacity Information Report” (Form 4279-2) for the following: *Applicant/Location:* Dolphins America, LLC/Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina. *Principal Product:* The loan, guarantee, or grant application is for facility construction and start-up operating budget. The NAICS industry code for this enterprise is 713110 (Amusement Parks— *e.g.,* theme, water). DATES: All interested parties may submit comments in writing no later than February 12, 2007. Copies of adverse comments received will be forwarded to the applicant noted above. ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this notice to Anthony D. Dais, U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-4514, Washington, DC 20210; or e-mail *Dais.Anthony@dol.gov* ; or transmit via fax 202-693-3015 (this is not a toll-free number). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony D. Dais, at telephone number

(202)693-2784 (this is not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 188 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 1972, as established under 29 CFR Part 75, authorizes the United States Department of Agriculture

(USDA)to make or guarantee loans or grants to finance industrial and business activities in rural areas. The Secretary of Labor must review the application for financial assistance for the purpose of certifying to the Secretary of Agriculture that the assistance is not calculated, or likely, to result in:

(a)A transfer of any employment or business activity from one area to another by the loan applicant's business operation; or,

(b)An increase in the production of goods, materials, services, or facilities in an area where there is not sufficient demand to employ the efficient capacity of existing competitive enterprises unless the financial assistance will not have an adverse impact on existing competitive enterprises in the area. The Employment and Training Administration

(ETA)within the Department of Labor is responsible for the review and certification process. Comments should address the two bases for certification and, if possible, provide data to assist in the analysis of these issues. Signed: at Washington, DC, this 24th day of January, 2007. Gay M. Gilbert, Administrator, Office of Workforce Investment, Employment and Training Administration. [FR Doc. E7-1350 Filed 1-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P THE NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES Meetings Of Humanities Panel AGENCY: The National Endowment for the Humanities. ACTION: Notice of meetings. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), notice is hereby given that the following meetings of Humanities Panels will be held at the Old Post Office, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Gottry, Acting Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Endowment for the Humanities, Washington, DC 20506; telephone

(202)606-8322. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter may be obtained by contacting the Endowment's TDD terminal on

(202)606-8282. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed meetings are for the purpose of panel review, discussion, evaluation and recommendation on applications for financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including discussion of information given in confidence to the agency by the grant applicants. Because the proposed meetings will consider information that is likely to disclose trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential and/or information of a personal nature the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, pursuant to authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee meetings, dated July 19, 1993, I have determined that these meetings will be closed to the public pursuant to subsections (c)(4), and

(6)of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code. 1. *Date:* February 1, 2007. *Time:* 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Room:* 315. *Program:* This meeting will review applications for Collaborative Research in Philosophy, Science and Society, and Religion, submitted to the Division of Research Programs at the November 1, 2006 deadline. 2. *Date:* February 5, 2007. *Time:* 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Room:* 315. *Program:* This meeting will review applications for Collaborative Research in Archaeology: New World, submitted to the Division of Research Programs at the November 1, 2006 deadline. 3. *Date:* February 6, 2007. *Time:* 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. *Room:* 421. *Program:* This meeting will review applications for Colleges and Universities, submitted to the Office of Challenge Grants at the November 1, 2006 deadline. 4. *Date:* February 6, 2007. *Time:* 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Room:* Room LJ 113—Library of Congress. *Program:* This meeting will review applications for Kluge Fellowships, submitted to the Division of Research Programs at the August 15, 2006 deadline. 5. *Date:* February 7, 2007. *Time:* 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Room:* 315. *Program:* This meeting will review applications for Scholarly Editions: American History Editions, submitted to the Division of Research Programs at the November 1, 2006 deadline. 6. *Date:* February 8, 2007. *Time:* 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Room:* Room LJ 113—Library of Congress. *Program:* This meeting will review applications for Kluge Fellowships, submitted to the Division of Research Programs at the August 15, 2006 deadline. 7. *Date:* February 8, 2007. *Time:* 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. *Room:* 421. *Program:* This meeting will review applications for History, Art, and other Public Programs, submitted to the Office of Challenge Grants at the November 1, 2006 deadline. 8. *Date:* February 12, 2007. *Time:* 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Room:* 315. *Program:* This meeting will review applications for Collaborative Research in American Studies, submitted to the Division of Research Programs at the November 1, 2006 deadline. 9. *Date:* February 13, 2007. *Time:* 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Room:* 315. *Program:* This meeting will review applications for Collaborative Research in Literature and the Arts, submitted to the Division of Research Programs at the November 1, 2006 deadline. 10. *Date:* February 14, 2007. *Time:* 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Room:* 315. *Program:* This meeting will review applications for Scholarly Editions: Philosophy, History of Science, Religion, and Music Editions, submitted to the Division of Research Programs at the November 1, 2006 deadline. 11. *Date:* February 15, 2007. *Time:* 2 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. *Room:* 420. *Program:* This meeting, which will be by teleconference, will review applications for Digital Humanities Challenge Grants, submitted to the Office of Challenge Grants at the November 1, 2006 deadline. 12. *Date:* February 27, 2007. *Time:* 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Room:* 415. *Program:* This meeting will review applications for Art and Anthropology, submitted to the Division of Preservation and Access at the October 3, 2006 deadline. Heather Gottry, Acting Advisory Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E7-1308 Filed 1-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7536-01-P NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Sunshine Act Meetings; Notice; National Science Board The National Science Board, pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR Part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of meetings for the transaction of National Science Board business and other matters specified, as follows: Agency Holding Meeting: National Science Board. Date And Time: Thursday, February 8, 2007, at 10:30 a.m. Place: Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon (see below for meeting rooms and *http://oregonstate.edu/cw_tools/campusmap/* for a campus map). Status: Some portions open, some portions closed. Open Sessions 10:30 a.m.-10:45 a.m. 11 a.m.-11:30 a.m. 11:45 a.m.-12:15 p.m. 12:15 p.m.-1 p.m. 2:20 p.m.-3:50 p.m. Closed Sessions 10:45 a.m.-11 a.m. 11:30 a.m.-11:45 a.m. 2 p.m.-2:10 p.m. 2:10 p.m.-2:20 p.m. Agency Contact: Dr. Robert E Webber, *rwebber@nsf.gov* ,

(703)292-7000, *http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/.* Matters To Be Discussed: Committee on Strategy and Budget (CH2M HILL Alumni Center, Room 111A/B) Open Session (10:30 a.m.-10:45 a.m.) • Approval of November 30, 2006 CSB Minutes. • Committee Chairman's Remarks. • Status of NSF FY 2007 and FY 2008 Budget Requests. Closed Session (10:45 a.m.-11 a.m.) • Impact of FY 2007 NSF budget appropriation on development of future NSF budgets. Committee on Audit and Oversight (CH2M HILL Alumni Center, Room 111A/B) Open Session (11 a.m.-11:30 a.m.) • Approval of Minutes of November, 2006 Meeting. • Chairman's Remarks. • NSF Report on its Corrective Action Plan for Reportable Conditions in the FY2006 Financial Statement. • OIG comments on the Corrective Action Plan. • Chairman's Closing Remarks. Closed Session (11:30 a.m.-11:45 a.m.) • Update on ongoing investigation. Committee on Programs and Plans (CH2M HILL Alumni Center, Room 111A/B) Open Session (11:45 a.m.-12:15 p.m.) • Approval of Minutes. • Committee Chairman's Remarks. • Task Force on Transformative Research Draft Report. Committee on Education and Human Resources (CH2M HILL Alumni Center, Room 111A/B) Open Session (12:15 p.m.-1 p.m.) • Approval of November 2006 Minutes. • Chairman's Remarks. • Discussion of topics for future activities. Plenary Executive Closed (Reser Stadium, Club Level, 2 p.m.-2:10 p.m.) • Approval of November 2006 Minutes. • Approval of Honorary Award Recipients. Plenary Closed (Reser Stadium, Club Level, 2:10 p.m.-2:20 p.m.) • Approval of November 2006 Minutes. • Closed Committee Reports. Plenary Open (Reser Stadium, Club Level, 2:20 p.m.-3:50 p.m.) • Approval of November 2006 Minutes. • Resolution to Close March 2007 Meeting. • Chairman's Report. • NSB Discussion: NSB Commission on 21st Century Education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. • Director's Report. • Open Committee Reports. Michael P. Crosby, Executive Officer and NSB Office Director. [FR Doc. E7-1339 Filed 1-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 40-7102-MLA; ASLBP No. 07-852-01-MLA-BD01] Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation; Establishment of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Pursuant to delegation by the Commission dated December 29, 1972, published in the **Federal Register** , 37 FR 28,710 (1972), and the Commission's regulations, *see* 10 CFR 2.104, 2.300, 2.303, 2.309, 2.311, 2.318, and 2.321, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is being established to preside over the following proceeding: Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation (License Amendment Request for Decommissioning the Newfield Facility) This Board is being established pursuant to a November 9, 2006 Notice of License Amendment Request and Opportunity to Request a Hearing (71 FR 66,986 (Nov. 17, 2006)), regarding the request of Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation

(SMC)to amend its Source Material License No. SMB-743 to authorize the decommissioning of its Newfield Facility in Newfield, New Jersey. SMC submitted its revised Decommissioning Plan

(DP)by letter dated June 30, 2006, and the NRC Staff found the DP acceptable to begin a detailed technical review of its adequacy. This proceeding concerns the requests for hearing submitted by the Attorney General for the State of New Jersey, the Gloucester County Board of Chosen Freeholders, the County of Cumberland, the Residents of Newfield, New Jersey (by Terry Ragone), and Loretta Williams. This Board is comprised of the following administrative judges: Alan S. Rosenthal, Chair, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Dr. Richard E. Wardwell, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Dr. William Reed, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall be filed with the administrative judges in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302. Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of January 2007. E. Roy Hawkens, Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel. [FR Doc. E7-1346 Filed 1-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-245] Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Related to Exemption From the Recordkeeping Requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 for Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., License DPR-21, Millstone, Connecticut AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Hickman, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop: T7E18, Washington, DC 20555-00001. Telephone:

(301)415-3017; e-mail: *jbh@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)is considering granting a partial exemption from the recordkeeping requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.59(d)(3); 10 CFR 50.71(c); 10 CFR part 50, Appendix A Criterion 1; and 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B Criterion XVII, for the Millstone Power Station, Unit 1 (Millstone Unit 1) as requested by Dominion Nuclear Connecticut (DNC or the Licensee) on June 8, 2006. An Environmental Assessment

(EA)was performed by the NRC staff in support of its review of the exemption request. II. Environmental Assessment Background Millstone Unit 1 was a single-cycle, boiling water reactor with a Mark I containment which was designed, furnished and constructed by General Electric Company as the prime contractor for the licensee. The General Electric Company engaged Ebasco Services Incorporated as the architect-engineer. Millstone Unit 1 had a reactor thermal output of 2011 megawatts and a net electrical output of 652.1 megawatts. The Millstone site is located in the town of Waterford, New London County, Connecticut, on the north shore of Long Island Sound. Construction of Millstone Unit 1 was authorized by a provisional construction permit CPPR-20, on May 19, 1966, in AEC Docket 50-245. Millstone Unit 1 was completed and ready for fuel loading during October 1970. The plant went into commercial operation on December 28, 1970. On July 21, 1998, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(i) and 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(ii), the licensee certified to the NRC that, as of July 17, 1998, Millstone Unit No. 1 had permanently ceased operations and that fuel had been permanently removed from the reactor vessel. The issuance of this certification fundamentally changed the licensing basis of Millstone Unit 1 in that the NRC issued 10 CFR part 50 license no longer authorizes operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel in the reactor vessel. Safety related structures, systems, and components

(SSCs)and SSCs important to safety remaining at Millstone Unit 1 are associated with the spent fuel pool island where the Millstone Unit 1 spent fuel is stored. Other than non-essential systems supporting the balance of plant facilities, the remaining plant equipment has been de-energized, disabled and abandoned in place or removed from the unit and can no longer be used for power generation. This EA has been developed in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 51.21. Proposed Action DNC is requesting an exemption from the record retention requirements of:

(1)10 CFR 50.59(d)(3), which requires certain records be maintained until “termination of a license issued pursuant to” Part 50;

(2)10 CFR 50.71(c) which requires that records required by the regulations, by license condition, or by technical specifications must be retained for the period specified by the appropriate regulation, license condition, or technical specification or if a retention period is not otherwise specified, these records must be retained until the Commission terminates the facility license;

(3)10 CFR Part 50 Appendix A Criterion 1, which requires certain records be retained “throughout the life of the unit”; and

(4)10 CFR Part 50 Appendix B Criterion XVll, which requires certain records be retained consistent with regulatory requirements for a duration established by the licensee. DNC proposes to eliminate record retention requirements for Millstone Unit 1 SSCs associated with safe power generation that have been de-energized, disabled, and abandoned in place or removed from the unit. DNC is not requesting an exemption associated with record keeping requirements for storage of spent fuel in the Millstone Unit 1 spent fuel pool or for systems required to support the safe storage of spent fuel. Need for Proposed Action The requested exemption and application of the exemption will eliminate the requirement to maintain records that are no longer necessary due to the permanently shutdown status of the facility and thereby reduce the financial burden on ratepayers associated with the storage of a large volume of records. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The proposed action is purely administrative in nature and will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents. No changes are being made in the types of effluents that may be released off site and there is no significant increase in the amount of any effluent released offsite. There is no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents, and it has no other environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Accordingly, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will have no significant effect on the environment. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., the “no-action” alternative). Under this alternative DNC would continue to store the records in question until license termination which would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar. Agencies and Persons Consulted None. III. Finding of No Significant Impact Based on this review, the NRC staff has concluded that there are no significant impacts on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the staff has determined that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not warranted, and a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. IV. Further Information For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated June 8, 2006, (ADAMS Accession No. ML061590490). The NRC Public Documents Room is located at NRC Headquarters in Rockville, MD, and can be contacted at

(800)397-4209. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Library component on the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov* (the Public Electronic Reading Room). Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at *pdr@nrc.gov* . Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of January, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Keith I. McConnell, Deputy Director, Decommissioning and Uranium Recovery, Licensing Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. [FR Doc. E7-1345 Filed 1-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meetings Name of Agency: Postal Regulatory Commission. Time and Date: 10 a.m., Thursday, February 1, 2007 Place: Commission conference room, 901 New York Avenue, NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20268-0001. Status: Open. Matters to be Considered: 1. Agency organization—establishment of the Office of the Inspector General and the position of Inspector General of the Postal Regulatory Commission. 2. Agency organization—establishment of the Office of Public Affairs and Congressional Relations and the position of Director, Office of Public Affairs and Congressional Relations. Contact Person for More Information: Steven W. Williams, Secretary, 202-789-6842 or *steven.williams@prc.gov.* Dated: Thursday, January 25, 2007. Steven W. Williams, Secretary. [FR Doc. 07-405 Filed 1-25-07; 2:55 pm]

Connectionstraces to 36

Traces to 36 documents

U.S. Code