[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 19 (Friday, January 28, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page ]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-1815]
[Federal Register: January 28, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Academy of Justice San Diego; Denial of Application
On October 5, 1993, the Deputy Assistant Administrator (then-
Director), Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA), issued an Order to Show Cause to Academy of Justice [San Diego]
(Applicant), of San Diego, California proposing to deny its
applications, executed on February 19, 1991, for registration as a
teaching institution and as a researcher. The statutory basis for the
Order to Show Cause was that the Applicant did not have authorization
to conduct research with, or otherwise handle, controlled substances
under the laws of the State in which it intended to operate, and that
its registration would be inconsistent with the public interest under
21 U.S.C. 823(f).
The Order to Show Cause was served on the Applicant on October 14,
1993. More than thirty days have passed since the Order to Show Cause
was received by the Applicant and the Drug Enforcement Administration
has received no response from the Applicant or anyone purporting to
represent it.
Pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.54(d), the Acting Administrator finds that
the Applicant has waived its opportunity for a hearing. The Acting
Administrator has carefully considered the investigative file in this
matter, and enters his final order under the provisions of 21 CFR
1301.54(e) and 1301.57, based on findings of fact and conclusions of
law as hereinafter set forth.
The Acting Administrator finds that the Applicant applied for
registration as a researcher and as a teaching institution to handle
controlled substances in Schedules I through V apparently to engage in
providing training to law enforcement personnel in several areas,
including those the Applicant identified as drug identification, drug
abuse, and psychopharmacology. Neither the Applicant nor its principal
holds any California State controlled substance registration as a
practitioner, or in any other capacity. The Applicant has not offered
any evidence contrary to that stated in the Order To Show Cause, nor
has it provided any information that it is otherwise qualified as a
teaching institution or researcher under 21 U.S.C. 802(21).
The Acting Administrator also finds that although the Applicant
proposes to handle such highly abusable controlled substances such as
heroin, marijuana, LSD, methamphetamine and methaqualone, it did not
outline their proposed use in its instructional activities, nor did it
indicate that appropriate security safeguards are in place to ensure
against diversion. The Applicant also proposed to have an instructor
staff of approximately fifty people who would transport the controlled
substances, on their person, to various training sites throughout the
state. Furthermore, the Applicant's proposed ``teaching institution''
has had no permanent site from which DEA can judge the adequacy of its
security provisions.
The Administrator may deny an application for registration if he
determines that such registration would be inconsistent with the public
interest. Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f), ``[i]n determining the public
interest, the following factors will be considered:
(1) The recommendation of the appropriate State licensing board or
disciplinary authority.
(2) The applicant's experience in dispensing, or conducting
research with respect to controlled substances.
(3) The applicant's conviction record under Federal or State laws
relating to the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of controlled
substances.
(4) Compliance with applicable State, Federal, or local laws
relating to controlled substances.
(5) Such other conduct which may threaten the public health and
safety.''
It is well established that these factors are to be considered in
the disjunctive, i.e., the Administrator may properly rely on any one
or a combination of factors, and give each factor the weight he deems
appropriate. Henry J. Schwarz, Jr., M.D., Docket No. 88-42, 54 FR 16422
(1989).
The Acting Administrator finds that the Applicant has failed to
provide any information to indicate that the institution would be
engaged in bona fide research; any recommendations from its State
licensing boards; any supporting evidence that it has had experience in
dispensing controlled substances or conducting research; any evidence
that it or its facility is able to comply with all laws relating to
controlled substances; and any research protocol or statement
describing its proposed research activities.
Furthermore, the Acting Administrator has no statutory authority to
register practitioners if they are not licensed in the State in which
they practice. 21 U.S.C. 823(f); George P. Gotsis, M.D., 49 FR 33750
(1984); James W. Mitchell, M.D., 44 FR 71466 (1979). Thus, the
Administrator must deny an application for a DEA Certificate of
Registration if he determines that the applicant is not authorized to
dispense, or conduct research with respect to, controlled substances
under the laws of the State in which he operates. Based on all of the
foregoing, the Acting Administrator concludes that the applications of
Academy of Justice San Diego are inconsistent with the public interest
and must be denied.
Accordingly, the Acing Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, pursuant to the authority vested in him by 21 U.S.C.
823 and 824 and 28 CFR 0.100(b), hereby orders that the applications
for registration, executed on February 19, 1991, by Cindy Rawlins,
Director, on behalf of Academy of Justice San Diego, be, and they
hereby are, denied. This order is effective January 28, 1994.
Dated: January 21, 1994.
Stephen H. Greene,
Acting Administrator of Drug Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 94-1815 Filed 1-27-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
