Ammar Sabbagh; Denial of Application, 68196-68197 [E7-23476]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
68196
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 4, 2007 / Notices
Drug
Schedule
Methamphetamine (1105) ............
Phenylacetone (8501) ..................
Raw Opium (9600) .......................
Poppy Straw Concentrate (9670)
II
II
II
II
The company plans to import the
listed controlled substances to
manufacture bulk controlled substances
for sale to its customers.
No comments or objections have been
received. DEA has considered the
factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a)
and determined that the registration of
Chattem Chemicals, Inc. to import the
basic classes of controlled substances is
consistent with the public interest and
with United States obligations under
international treaties, conventions, or
protocols in effect on May 1, 1971, at
this time. DEA has investigated Chattem
Chemicals, Inc. to ensure that the
company’s registration is consistent
with the public interest. The
investigation has included inspection
and testing of the company’s physical
security systems, verification of the
company’s compliance with State and
local laws, and a review of the
company’s background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a)
and 958(a), and in accordance with 21
CFR 1301.34, the above named company
is granted registration as an importer of
the basic classes of controlled
substances listed.
Dated: November 26, 2007.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement
Administration.
[FR Doc. E7–23512 Filed 12–3–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Manufacturer of Controlled
Substances; Notice of Registration
By Notice dated August 16, 2007, and
published in the Federal Register on
August 27, 2007, (72 FR 49020), Chemic
Laboratories, Inc., 480 Neponset Street,
Building 7, Canton, Massachusetts
02021, made application by renewal to
the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA) to be registered as a bulk
manufacturer of Cocaine (9041), a basic
class of controlled substance listed in
schedule II.
The company plans to manufacture
small quantities of the above listed
controlled substance for distribution to
its customers for the purpose of
research.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:38 Dec 03, 2007
Jkt 214001
No comments or objections have been
received. DEA has considered the
factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and
determined that the registration of
Chemic Laboratories, Inc. to
manufacture the listed basic class of
controlled substance is consistent with
the public interest at this time. DEA has
investigated Chemic Laboratories, Inc.
to ensure that the company’s
registration is consistent with the public
interest. The investigation has included
inspection and testing of the company’s
physical security systems, verification
of the company’s compliance with State
and local laws, and a review of the
company’s background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823,
and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33,
the above named company is granted
registration as a bulk manufacturer of
the basic class of controlled substance
listed.
Dated: November 26, 2007.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement
Administration.
[FR Doc. E7–23511 Filed 12–3–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Ammar Sabbagh; Denial of Application
On June 12, 2006, the Deputy
Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement
Administration, issued an Order to
Show Cause to Ammar Sabbagh
(Respondent), of Sheridan, Oregon. The
Show Cause Order proposed the denial
of 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.’’
Show Cause Order at 1 (quoting 21
U.S.C. 823(h)).
More specifically, the Show Cause
Order alleged that on November 4, 2005,
Respondent pled guilty to conspiring to
distribute pseudoephedrine, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. 841(c)(2)–(3), and 846. Id.
at 2. The Show Cause Order thus alleged
that Respondent’s proposed sales of list
I chemical products would be
inconsistent with the public interest. Id.
The Show Cause Order further informed
Respondent of his right to request a
hearing on the allegations. Id.
On June 19, 2006, the Show Cause
Order was served on Respondent by
certified mail addressed to him at his
new residence at the Federal
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Correctional Institution in Sheridan,
Oregon. Since that time, neither
Respondent, nor anyone purporting to
represent him, has responded. Because
(1) more than thirty days have passed
since service of the Show Cause Order,
and (2) Respondent did not timely
request a hearing, I conclude that
Respondent has waived his right to a
hearing. See 21 CFR 1301.43(d). I
therefore enter this Final Order without
a hearing based on relevant material
contained in the investigative file and
make the following findings.
Findings
On December 10, 1999, Respondent
applied for a DEA Certificate of
Registration to distribute the list I
chemicals ephedrine and
pseudoephedrine. See 21 U.S.C.
802(34). While both chemicals have
therapeutic uses, they are easily
extracted from non-prescription drug
products and used in the illicit
manufacture of methamphetamine, a
schedule II controlled substance. See 21
CFR 1308.12(d).
Methamphetamine is a powerful and
addictive central nervous system
stimulant. See Gregg Brothers Wholesale
Co., Inc., 71 FR 59830 (2006). As noted
in numerous agency orders, the illegal
manufacture and abuse of
methamphetamine pose a grave threat to
this country. 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 environmental harms.
See, e.g., Id.
During the course of investigating
Respondent’s application, DEA became
aware that he was selling large
quantities of pseudoephedrine to an
individual he knew was using
methamphetamine. Thereafter,
Respondent also began supplying
pseudoephedrine to several
methamphetamine traffickers.
Respondent also met with a confidential
source and agreed to supply him with
twenty to twenty-five cases a month of
pseudoephedrine.
On March 2, 2005, a federal grand
jury returned an indictment which
charged Respondent with conspiring to
distribute pseudoephedrine, having
knowledge and reasonable cause to
believe that it would be used to
manufacture methamphetamine. First
Superseding Indictment, United States
v. Sabbagh, et. al., No. CR04–398L,
(W.D.Wash.) (citing 21 U.S.C. 841(c) &
(e); Id. 846). On March 10, 2005,
Respondent pled guilty to the charge,
and on November 4, 2005, the United
E:\FR\FM\04DEN1.SGM
04DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 4, 2007 / Notices
States District Court entered a judgment
of conviction. The court then sentenced
Respondent to terms of thirty-six
months imprisonment followed by three
years of supervised release. See United
States v. Sabbagh, Judgment at 1–3.
Discussion
Section 303(h) of the CSA provides
that ‘‘[t]he Attorney General shall
register an applicant to distribute a list
I chemical unless the Attorney General
determines that registration of the
applicant is inconsistent with the public
interest.’’ 21 U.S.C. 823(h). 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.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
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 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).
Given Respondent’s conviction for
conspiring to distribute
pseudoephedrine knowing that it would
be used to manufacture
methamphetamine, I conclude that
factor three is dispositive and that it is
unnecessary to make findings as to the
remaining factors. Respondent’s
conviction indisputably establishes that
granting him a registration would be
‘‘inconsistent with the public interest.’’
21 U.S.C. 823(h). Respondent’s
application will therefore be denied.
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 Ammar Sabbagh for a
DEA Certificate of Registration as a
distributor of list I chemicals be, and it
hereby is, denied. This order is effective
January 3, 2008.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:38 Dec 03, 2007
Jkt 214001
Dated: November 21, 2007.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. E7–23476 Filed 12–3–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Office of the Secretary
Submission for OMB Review:
Comment Request
November 28, 2007.
The Department of Labor (DOL)
hereby announces the submission the
following public information collection
requests (ICR) to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
A copy of each ICR, with applicable
supporting documentation; including
among other things a description of the
likely respondents, proposed frequency
of response, and estimated total burden
may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov
Web site at https://www.reginfo.gov/
public/do/PRAMain or by contacting
Darrin King on 202–693–4129 (this is
not a toll-free number)/e-mail:
king.darrin@dol.gov.
Interested parties are encouraged to
send comments to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Attn: Brenda Aguilar, OMB Desk Officer
for the Employee Benefits Security
Administration (EBSA), Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10235,
Washington, DC 20503, Telephone:
202–395–7316/Fax: 202–395–6974
(these are not toll-free numbers), E-mail:
OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov within
30 days from the date of this publication
in the Federal Register. In order to
ensure the appropriate consideration,
comments should reference the OMB
Control Number (see below).
The OMB is particularly interested in
comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
• 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;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
68197
use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology,
e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.
Agency: Employee Benefits Security
Administration.
Type of Review: Extension without
change of currently approved collection.
Title: Notice to Participants and
Beneficiaries and the Federal
Government of Electing One Percent
Increased Cost Exemption.
OMB Control Number: 1210–0105.
Affected Public: Private Sector:
Business or other for-profit.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
10.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 300.
Estimated Total Annual Cost Burden:
$7,000.
Description: Group health plans may
be exempted from Mental Health Party
Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–194)
requirements for parity between mental
health and medical/surgical benefits if
parity would result in cost increase of
one percent or more. This request
pertains to notice to participants and
beneficiaries and the Federal
Government that is required in order to
make use of the exemption. For
additional information, please refer to a
related notice published at 72 FR 54072
on September 21, 2007 and the interim
final rule published at 62 FR 66931 on
December 22, 1997.
Agency: Employee Benefits Security
Administration.
Type of Review: Extension without
change of currently approved collection.
Title: Calculation and Disclosure of
Documentation of Eligibility for
Exemption.
OMB Control Number: 1210–0106.
Affected Public: Private Sector:
Business or other for-profit.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
10.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 110.
Estimated Total Annual Cost Burden:
$216.
Description: The Mental Health Parity
Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–194) requires
parity between the dollar limits
imposed on mental health benefits and
those imposed on medical/surgical
benefits offered by group health plans
and issuers. Upon receipt of notice that
a plan claims exemption from these
requirements, participants and
beneficiaries may request a summary of
the information upon which the
exemption was based. This request
pertains to the calculation and
E:\FR\FM\04DEN1.SGM
04DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 232 (Tuesday, December 4, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68196-68197]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-23476]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Ammar Sabbagh; Denial of Application
On June 12, 2006, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to
Show Cause to Ammar Sabbagh (Respondent), of Sheridan, Oregon. The Show
Cause Order proposed the denial of 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.'' Show
Cause Order at 1 (quoting 21 U.S.C. 823(h)).
More specifically, the Show Cause Order alleged that on November 4,
2005, Respondent pled guilty to conspiring to distribute
pseudoephedrine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(c)(2)-(3), and 846. Id.
at 2. The Show Cause Order thus alleged that Respondent's proposed
sales of list I chemical products would be inconsistent with the public
interest. Id. The Show Cause Order further informed Respondent of his
right to request a hearing on the allegations. Id.
On June 19, 2006, the Show Cause Order was served on Respondent by
certified mail addressed to him at his new residence at the Federal
Correctional Institution in Sheridan, Oregon. Since that time, neither
Respondent, nor anyone purporting to represent him, has responded.
Because (1) more than thirty days have passed since service of the Show
Cause Order, and (2) Respondent did not timely request a hearing, I
conclude that Respondent has waived his right to a hearing. See 21 CFR
1301.43(d). I therefore enter this Final Order without a hearing based
on relevant material contained in the investigative file and make the
following findings.
Findings
On December 10, 1999, Respondent applied for a DEA Certificate of
Registration to distribute the list I chemicals ephedrine and
pseudoephedrine. See 21 U.S.C. 802(34). While both chemicals have
therapeutic uses, they are easily extracted from non-prescription drug
products and used in the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine, a
schedule II controlled substance. See 21 CFR 1308.12(d).
Methamphetamine is a powerful and addictive central nervous system
stimulant. See Gregg Brothers Wholesale Co., Inc., 71 FR 59830 (2006).
As noted in numerous agency orders, the illegal manufacture and abuse
of methamphetamine pose a grave threat to this country. 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
environmental harms. See, e.g., Id.
During the course of investigating Respondent's application, DEA
became aware that he was selling large quantities of pseudoephedrine to
an individual he knew was using methamphetamine. Thereafter, Respondent
also began supplying pseudoephedrine to several methamphetamine
traffickers. Respondent also met with a confidential source and agreed
to supply him with twenty to twenty-five cases a month of
pseudoephedrine.
On March 2, 2005, a federal grand jury returned an indictment which
charged Respondent with conspiring to distribute pseudoephedrine,
having knowledge and reasonable cause to believe that it would be used
to manufacture methamphetamine. First Superseding Indictment, United
States v. Sabbagh, et. al., No. CR04-398L, (W.D.Wash.) (citing 21
U.S.C. 841(c) & (e); Id. 846). On March 10, 2005, Respondent pled
guilty to the charge, and on November 4, 2005, the United
[[Page 68197]]
States District Court entered a judgment of conviction. The court then
sentenced Respondent to terms of thirty-six months imprisonment
followed by three years of supervised release. See United States v.
Sabbagh, Judgment at 1-3.
Discussion
Section 303(h) of the CSA provides that ``[t]he Attorney General
shall register an applicant to distribute a list I chemical unless the
Attorney General determines that registration of the applicant is
inconsistent with the public interest.'' 21 U.S.C. 823(h). 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 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).
Given Respondent's conviction for conspiring to distribute
pseudoephedrine knowing that it would be used to manufacture
methamphetamine, I conclude that factor three is dispositive and that
it is unnecessary to make findings as to the remaining factors.
Respondent's conviction indisputably establishes that granting him a
registration would be ``inconsistent with the public interest.'' 21
U.S.C. 823(h). Respondent's application will therefore be denied.
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 Ammar Sabbagh for
a DEA Certificate of Registration as a distributor of list I chemicals
be, and it hereby is, denied. This order is effective January 3, 2008.
Dated: November 21, 2007.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. E7-23476 Filed 12-3-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
