Harriston Lee Bass, Jr., M.D.; Revocation of Registration, 34790-34791 [E8-13741]

Download as PDF 34790 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 18, 2008 / Notices Summary: States and Indian tribes having an approved reclamation plan may establish, administer and operate self-sustaining State and Indian Tribeadministered programs to insure private property against damages caused by land subsidence resulting from underground mining. States and Indian tribes interested in requesting monies for their insurance programs would apply to the Director of OSM. Bureau Form Number: None. Frequency of Collection: Once. Description of Respondents: States and Indian tribes with approved coal reclamation plans. Total Annual Responses: 1. Total Annual Burden Hours: 8. Total Annual Non-Wage Costs: $0. Dated: June 12, 2008. John R. Craynon, Chief, Division of Regulatory Support. [FR Doc. E8–13711 Filed 6–17–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–05–M [Investigation No. 731–TA–744 (Second Review)] Brake Rotors From China Determination On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject five-year review, the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on brake rotors from China would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES Background The Commission instituted this review on July 2, 2007 (72 FR 36037) and determined on October 5, 2007 that it would conduct a full review (72 FR 59111, October 18, 2007). Notice of the scheduling of the Commission’s review and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register on November 27, 2007 (72 FR 66187). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on April 15, 2008, and all persons who requested the 1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)). 18:01 Jun 17, 2008 By order of the Commission. Issued: June 12, 2008. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E8–13678 Filed 6–17–08; 8:45 am] Jkt 214001 Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on June 15, 2005 (70 FR 34796). Patricia A. Brink, Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division. [FR Doc. E8–13659 Filed 6–17–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–11–M DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. 07–42] Harriston Lee Bass, Jr., M.D.; Revocation of Registration BILLING CODE 7020–02–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—Joint Industry Project for Fluid Properties Meter Development and Support INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION VerDate Aug<31>2005 opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel. The Commission transmitted its determination in this review to the Secretary of Commerce on June 11, 2008. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4009 (June 2008), entitled Brake Rotors from China: Investigation No. 731–TA–744 (Second Review). Notice is hereby given that, on May 20, 2008, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘the Act’), Southwest Research Institute: Joint Industry Project for Fluid Properties Meter Development and Support (‘‘SwRI: Fluid Properties Meter’’) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its nature and objective. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, the period of performance has been extended to June 30, 2008. No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and SwRI: Fluid Properties Meter intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership. On November 30, 2004, SwRI: Fluid Properties Meter filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on February 2, 2005 (70 FR 5487). The last notification was filed with the Department on April 11, 2005. A notice was published in the Federal PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 On June 18, 2007, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to Show Cause to Harriston Lee Bass, M.D. (Respondent), of Las Vegas, Nevada. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Respondent’s DEA Certificate of Registration, BB0816441, as a practitioner, and the denial of any pending applications to renew or modify his registration, on three separate grounds. Show Cause Order at 1. First, the Show Cause Order alleged that on several dates, Respondent had committed acts inconsistent with the public interest by prescribing various controlled substances including Percocet, a schedule II narcotic, as well as schedule III narcotics containing hydrocodone, to an undercover officer, without a legitimate medical purpose and outside of the usual course of professional practice. Show Cause Order at 1–2 (citing 21 CFR 1306.04(a)). Relatedly, the Show Cause Order alleged that on June 1, 2006, the State of Nevada had executed a search warrant at Respondent’s office and residence and seized 10,882 dosage units of controlled substances notwithstanding that his state medical license authorized only the prescribing and administration of, and not the dispensing of, controlled substances. Id. at 2. Second, the Show Cause Order alleged that on June 16, 2006, the Nevada Board of Medical Examiners summarily suspended Respondent’s state medical license based on, inter alia, his improper prescribing of controlled substances to nine patients who became addicted to the drugs, and that his prescribing ‘‘contribut[ed] to the deaths of six of these patients.’’ Id. The Show Cause Order thus alleged that because Respondent lacks authority to handle controlled substances in the State in which he holds his DEA E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM 18JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 18, 2008 / Notices registration, he was not entitled to maintain his registration.1 Id. On July 17, 2007, Respondent requested a hearing on the allegations; the matter was assigned to Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mary Ellen Bittner. On August 3, 2007, the Government moved for summary disposition and to stay the proceeding pending the resolution of its motion. The basis of the Government’s motion was that the state board had suspended Respondent’s state medical license and Respondent therefore lacked authority to handle controlled substances in Nevada, the State in which he holds his DEA registration. Motion at 1–2. As support for its motion, the Government attached a copy of the June 16, 2006 order of the Nevada Board which suspended Respondent’s state license pending the resolution of disciplinary proceedings. Order of Summary Suspension at 1–3. Citing numerous agency decisions, the Government argued that because Respondent lacked authority under Nevada law to handle controlled substances, he was not entitled to maintain his DEA registration. Gov. Mot. at 1–2. Id. Respondent did not respond to the Government’s motion. The ALJ granted the Government’s motion. Noting that there was no dispute as to whether Respondent was without authority to handle controlled substances in Nevada, the ALJ applied the settled rule that a practitioner is not entitled to hold a DEA registration if he lacks authority to handle controlled substances under state law. ALJ Dec. at 2. The ALJ thus recommended that Respondent’s registration be revoked and forwarded the record to me for final agency action. Id. at 2–3. Having considered the record as a whole, I adopt the ALJ’s decision in its entirety.2 I find that on June 16, 2006, the Nevada Board of Medical Examiners suspended Respondent’s state medical license pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings.3 Based on rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES 1 The Show Cause Order also alleged that on June 18, 2005, Respondent had materially falsified his application to renew his DEA registration by failing to disclose a prior disciplinary action by the Nevada Board of Medical Examiners. Show Cause Order at 2. 2 Because Respondent did not deny the allegation that Respondent’s DEA registration does not expire until July 31, 2008, see Show Cause Order at 1, I deem the allegation admitted and find that Respondent has a current registration. 3 I further note that in its Order of Summary Suspension, the State Board found that ‘‘Respondent’s prescribing practices cannot be ruled out as contributing factors in the deaths of 6 patients, 5 of whom died of overdoses.’’ In re Harriston L. Bass, Jr., M.D., Order of Summary Suspension, at 2. (Nev. Bd. of Med. Examiners, Case No. 06–9455–1). VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:01 Jun 17, 2008 Jkt 214001 public information available at the Nevada’s Board Web site, I further find that Respondent’s state medical license remains suspended and that he is without authority under Nevada law to handle controlled substances. Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), a practitioner must be currently authorized to handle controlled substances in ‘‘the jurisdiction in which he practices’’ in order to maintain a DEA registration. See 21 U.S.C. 802(21) (‘‘[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’’). See also id. § 823(f) (‘‘The Attorney General shall register practitioners * * * if the applicant is authorized to dispense * * * controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.’’). As these provisions make plain, possessing authority to dispense a controlled substance under the laws of the State in which a physician practices medicine is an essential condition for holding a DEA registration. Accordingly, DEA has repeatedly 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). See also 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) (authorizing 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 * * * distribution [or] dispensing of controlled substances’’). Because Respondent’s Nevada medical license has been indefinitely suspended, he is not entitled to maintain his DEA registration. Order 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 hereby order that DEA Certificate of Registration, BB0816441, issued to Harriston L. Bass, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that any pending applications of Harriston L. Bass, M.D., for renewal or modification of his registration be, and they hereby are, denied. This order is effective immediately.4 4 My decision that this Order be made effective immediately is based on the state’s Board finding that ‘‘Respondent’s prescribing practices cannot be ruled out as contributing factors in the deaths of 6 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 34791 Dated: June 11, 2008. Michele M. Leonhart, Deputy Administrator. [FR Doc. E8–13741 Filed 6–17–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–09–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request June 11, 2008. The Department of Labor (DOL) hereby announces the submission of 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: OMB Desk Officer for the Employment and Training Administration (ETA), 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 patients, 5 of whom died of overdoses.’’ Order of Summary Suspension, at 2; see also 21 CFR 1316.67. E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM 18JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 18, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34790-34791]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-13741]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. 07-42]


Harriston Lee Bass, Jr., M.D.; Revocation of Registration

    On June 18, 2007, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to 
Show Cause to Harriston Lee Bass, M.D. (Respondent), of Las Vegas, 
Nevada. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Respondent's 
DEA Certificate of Registration, BB0816441, as a practitioner, and the 
denial of any pending applications to renew or modify his registration, 
on three separate grounds. Show Cause Order at 1.
    First, the Show Cause Order alleged that on several dates, 
Respondent had committed acts inconsistent with the public interest by 
prescribing various controlled substances including Percocet, a 
schedule II narcotic, as well as schedule III narcotics containing 
hydrocodone, to an undercover officer, without a legitimate medical 
purpose and outside of the usual course of professional practice. Show 
Cause Order at 1-2 (citing 21 CFR 1306.04(a)). Relatedly, the Show 
Cause Order alleged that on June 1, 2006, the State of Nevada had 
executed a search warrant at Respondent's office and residence and 
seized 10,882 dosage units of controlled substances notwithstanding 
that his state medical license authorized only the prescribing and 
administration of, and not the dispensing of, controlled substances. 
Id. at 2.
    Second, the Show Cause Order alleged that on June 16, 2006, the 
Nevada Board of Medical Examiners summarily suspended Respondent's 
state medical license based on, inter alia, his improper prescribing of 
controlled substances to nine patients who became addicted to the 
drugs, and that his prescribing ``contribut[ed] to the deaths of six of 
these patients.'' Id. The Show Cause Order thus alleged that because 
Respondent lacks authority to handle controlled substances in the State 
in which he holds his DEA

[[Page 34791]]

registration, he was not entitled to maintain his registration.\1\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Show Cause Order also alleged that on June 18, 2005, 
Respondent had materially falsified his application to renew his DEA 
registration by failing to disclose a prior disciplinary action by 
the Nevada Board of Medical Examiners. Show Cause Order at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 17, 2007, Respondent requested a hearing on the 
allegations; the matter was assigned to Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) 
Mary Ellen Bittner. On August 3, 2007, the Government moved for summary 
disposition and to stay the proceeding pending the resolution of its 
motion.
    The basis of the Government's motion was that the state board had 
suspended Respondent's state medical license and Respondent therefore 
lacked authority to handle controlled substances in Nevada, the State 
in which he holds his DEA registration. Motion at 1-2. As support for 
its motion, the Government attached a copy of the June 16, 2006 order 
of the Nevada Board which suspended Respondent's state license pending 
the resolution of disciplinary proceedings. Order of Summary Suspension 
at 1-3. Citing numerous agency decisions, the Government argued that 
because Respondent lacked authority under Nevada law to handle 
controlled substances, he was not entitled to maintain his DEA 
registration. Gov. Mot. at 1-2. Id. Respondent did not respond to the 
Government's motion.
    The ALJ granted the Government's motion. Noting that there was no 
dispute as to whether Respondent was without authority to handle 
controlled substances in Nevada, the ALJ applied the settled rule that 
a practitioner is not entitled to hold a DEA registration if he lacks 
authority to handle controlled substances under state law. ALJ Dec. at 
2. The ALJ thus recommended that Respondent's registration be revoked 
and forwarded the record to me for final agency action. Id. at 2-3.
    Having considered the record as a whole, I adopt the ALJ's decision 
in its entirety.\2\ I find that on June 16, 2006, the Nevada Board of 
Medical Examiners suspended Respondent's state medical license pending 
the outcome of disciplinary proceedings.\3\ Based on public information 
available at the Nevada's Board Web site, I further find that 
Respondent's state medical license remains suspended and that he is 
without authority under Nevada law to handle controlled substances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Because Respondent did not deny the allegation that 
Respondent's DEA registration does not expire until July 31, 2008, 
see Show Cause Order at 1, I deem the allegation admitted and find 
that Respondent has a current registration.
    \3\ I further note that in its Order of Summary Suspension, the 
State Board found that ``Respondent's prescribing practices cannot 
be ruled out as contributing factors in the deaths of 6 patients, 5 
of whom died of overdoses.'' In re Harriston L. Bass, Jr., M.D., 
Order of Summary Suspension, at 2. (Nev. Bd. of Med. Examiners, Case 
No. 06-9455-1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), a practitioner must be 
currently authorized to handle controlled substances in ``the 
jurisdiction in which he practices'' in order to maintain a DEA 
registration. See 21 U.S.C. 802(21) (``[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''). See also id. Sec.  823(f) (``The Attorney 
General shall register practitioners * * * if the applicant is 
authorized to dispense * * * controlled substances under the laws of 
the State in which he practices.''). As these provisions make plain, 
possessing authority to dispense a controlled substance under the laws 
of the State in which a physician practices medicine is an essential 
condition for holding a DEA registration.
    Accordingly, DEA has repeatedly 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). See also 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) 
(authorizing 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 * * * distribution [or] dispensing of controlled substances''). 
Because Respondent's Nevada medical license has been indefinitely 
suspended, he is not entitled to maintain his DEA registration.

Order

    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 hereby order that DEA 
Certificate of Registration, BB0816441, issued to Harriston L. Bass, 
M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that any pending 
applications of Harriston L. Bass, M.D., for renewal or modification of 
his registration be, and they hereby are, denied. This order is 
effective immediately.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ My decision that this Order be made effective immediately is 
based on the state's Board finding that ``Respondent's prescribing 
practices cannot be ruled out as contributing factors in the deaths 
of 6 patients, 5 of whom died of overdoses.'' Order of Summary 
Suspension, at 2; see also 21 CFR 1316.67.

    Dated: June 11, 2008.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
 [FR Doc. E8-13741 Filed 6-17-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.