Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Notice of Application, 4828-4829 [2012-1975]

Download as PDF 4828 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2012 / Notices Summary of Information Collection DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: FFL Out-of-Business Records Request. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Justice sponsoring the collection: Form Number: ATF F 5300.3A. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Business or other forprofit. Other: None. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Need for Collection Firearms licensees are required to keep records of acquisition and disposition. These records remain with the licensee as long as they are in business. The ATF F 5300.3A, FFL Outof-Business Records Request is used by ATF to notify licensees who go out of business. When discontinuance of the business is absolute, such records shall be delivered within thirty days following the business discontinuance to the ATF Out-of-Business Records Center. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: It is estimated that 2,285 respondents will take approximately 5 minutes to complete the form. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: There are an estimated 190.4 annual total burden hours associated with this collection. If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Department of Justice, Two Constitution Square, Room 2E–508, 145th Street NE., Washington, DC 20530. Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, PRA, U.S. Department of Justice. [FR Doc. 2012–2030 Filed 1–30–12; 8:45 am] wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES BILLING CODE 4410–FY–P VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:20 Jan 30, 2012 Jkt 226001 [OMB Number 1140–0060] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comments Requested: Firearms Disabilities for Nonimmigrant Aliens The last notification was filed with the Department on April 4, 2011. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on April 28, 2011 (76 FR 23839). Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division. [FR Doc. 2012–2041 Filed 1–30–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P Correction In notice document 2012–1057 appearing on page 3006 in the issue of Friday, January 20, 2012 make the following correction: In the first column, in the next to last paragraph, starting in the third line ‘‘[insert the date 30 days from the date this notice is published in the Federal Register]’’ should read ‘‘February 21, 2012’’. [FR Doc. C1–2012–1057 Filed 1–30–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505–01–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—OPENSAF Foundation Notice is hereby given that, on January 4, 2012, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), OpenSAF Foundation has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. 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, GoAhead Software, Bellevue, WA; and Huawei Industrial Base, Shenzhen, Guangdong, PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, have withdrawn as parties to this venture. 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 OpenSAF Foundation intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership. On April 8, 2008, OpenSAF Foundation 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 May 16, 2008 (73 FR 28508). PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Notice of Application Pursuant to § 1301.33(a), Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on November 7, 2011, Mallinckrodt, LLC, 3600 North Second Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63147, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances: Drug Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370) ..... Codeine-N-oxide (9053) ............... Dihydromorphine (9145) ............... Difenoxin (9168) ........................... Morphine-N-oxide (9307) ............. Normorphine (9313) ..................... Norlevorphanol (9634) .................. Amphetamine (1100) .................... Methamphetamine (1105) ............ Methylphenidate (1724) ................ Nabilone (7379) ............................ 4-Anilino-N-phenethyl-4-piperidine (8333). Codeine (9050) ............................. Dihydrocodeine (9120) ................. Oxycodone (9143) ........................ Hydromorphone (9150) ................ Diphenoxylate (9170) ................... Ecgonine (9180) ........................... Hydrocodone (9193) ..................... Levorphanol (9220) ...................... Meperidine (9230) ........................ Methadone (9250) ........................ Methadone intermediate (9254) ... Metopon (9260) ............................ Dextropropoxyphene, bulk. (non-dosage forms) (9273) .......... Morphine (9300) ........................... Oripavine (9330) ........................... Thebaine (9333) ........................... Opium tincture (9630) .................. Opium, powdered (9639) ............. Oxymorphone (9652) ................... Noroxymorphone (9668) .............. Alfentanil (9737) ........................... Remifentanil (9739) ...................... Sufentanil (9740) .......................... Fentanyl (9801) ............................ E:\FR\FM\31JAN1.SGM 31JAN1 Schedule I I I I I I I II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2012 / Notices The firm plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances for internal use and for sale to other companies. Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such substances, may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a). Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no later than April 2, 2012. Dated: January 23, 2012. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration. [FR Doc. 2012–1975 Filed 1–30–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–09–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Emilio Luna, M.D.; Decision and Order On July 12, 2011, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to Show Cause to Emilio Luna, M.D. (Registrant), of Phoenix, Arizona. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Registrant’s DEA Certificate of Registration as a practitioner, on the grounds that he does not possess authority to handle controlled substances in Arizona, the State in which he is registered with DEA, and that his continued registration is inconsistent with the public interest. Show Cause Order at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) & (4)). More specifically, the Show Cause Order alleged that on September 1, 2010, the Federal Bureau of Investigation arrested and charged Registrant with distributing child pornography in interstate commerce. Id. The Order further alleged that on September 3, 2010, the Arizona Medical Board issued an Interim Order for Practice Restriction and Consent Order, under which Registrant is prohibited ‘‘from prescribing any form of treatment including prescription medications.’’ Id. The Show Cause Order also notified Registrant of his right to request a hearing on the allegations or to submit a written statement in lieu of a hearing, the procedures for doing either, and the consequence for failing to do either. Id. at 2 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:20 Jan 30, 2012 Jkt 226001 The Government initially attempted to serve the Show Cause Order on Registrant by certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to him at his registered location. However, the mailing was returned to the Agency and stamped ‘‘Returned to Sender Attempted Not Known’’; in addition, the word ‘‘Refused’’ was handwritten on the envelope. GX 4. Simultaneously, the Show Cause Order was emailed to Registrant at the email address he had previously provided to the Agency. GX 5. Thereafter, the Government did not receive back either an error or undeliverable message. See Gov. Statement Re: Service of the Order to Show Cause. In addition, several weeks later, Diversion Investigators attempted to personally serve Registrant at his registered location. GX 6, at 1. However, the DIs were told that Registrant ‘‘was not present and no longer practices at the clinic.’’ Id. Before proceeding to the merits, it is necessary to determine whether the means employed by the Government to serve the Show Cause Order on Registrant were constitutionally sufficient. The Supreme Court has long held ‘‘that due process requires the government to provide ‘notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.’ ’’ Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 226 (2006) (quoting Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)). Moreover, ‘‘ ‘when notice is a person’s due * * * [t]he means employed must be such as one desirous of actually informing the absentee might reasonably adopt to accomplish it.’ ’’ Jones, 547 U.S. at 229 (quoting Mullane, 339 U.S. at 315). In Jones, the Court further noted that its cases ‘‘require[] the government to consider unique information about an intended recipient regardless of whether a statutory scheme is reasonably calculated to provide notice in the ordinary case.’’ Id. at 230. The Court cited with approval its decision in Robinson v. Hanrahan, 409 U.S. 38 (1972), where it ‘‘held that notice of forfeiture proceedings sent to a vehicle owner’s home address was inadequate when the State knew that the property owner was in prison.’’ Jones, 547 U.S. at 230.1 See also Robinson, 409 U.S. at 1 The CSA states that ‘‘[b]efore taking action pursuant to [21 U.S.C. 824(a)] * * * the Attorney General shall serve upon the * * * registrant an order to show cause why registration should not be * * * revoked[] or suspended.’’ 21 U.S.C. 824(c). In contrast to the schemes challenged in Jones and Robinson, which provided for service to the PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 4829 40 (‘‘[T]he State knew that appellant was not at the address to which the notice was mailed * * * since he was at that very time confined in * * * jail. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the State made any effort to provide notice which was ‘reasonably calculated’ to apprise appellant of the pendency of the * * * proceedings.’’); Covey v. Town of Somers, 351 U.S. 141 (1956) (holding that notice by mailing, publication, and posting was inadequate when officials knew that recipient was incompetent). The Jones Court further explained that ‘‘under Robinson and Covey, the government’s knowledge that notice pursuant to the normal procedure was ineffective triggered an obligation on the government’s part to take additional steps to effect notice.’’ 547 U.S. at 230. The Court also noted that ‘‘a party’s ability to take steps to safeguard its own interests [such as by updating his address] does not relieve the State of its constitutional obligation.’’ Id. at 232 (quoting Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 16 n.5 (quoting Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791, 799 (1983))). However, the Government is not required to undertake ‘‘heroic efforts’’ to find a registrant. Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161, 170 (2002). Nor is actual notice required. Id. Thus, in Jones, the Court held that where the State had received back a certified mailing of process as unclaimed and took ‘‘no further action’’ to notify the property owner, the State did not satisfy due process. 547 U.S. at 230. Rather, the State was required to ‘‘take further reasonable steps if any were available.’’ Id. I conclude that the Government has satisfied its obligation under the Due Process Clause ‘‘to provide ‘notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.’ ’’ Id. at 226 (quoting Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314). Even assuming that the Government’s attempts to serve Registrant by certified mail and personal service 2 did not property owner’s address as listed in state records, neither the CSA nor Agency regulations state that service shall be made at any particular address such as the registered location. In any event, while in most cases, service to a registrant’s registered location provides adequate notice, the Supreme Court’s clear instruction is that the Government cannot ignore ‘‘unique information about an intended recipient’’ when its seeks to serve that person with notice of a proceeding that it is initiating. Jones, 547 U.S. at 230. 2 As for the use of mail, after Jones, it seems relatively clear that when certified mail is returned E:\FR\FM\31JAN1.SGM Continued 31JAN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 31, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4828-4829]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1975]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Notice of Application

    Pursuant to Sec.  1301.33(a), Title 21 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on November 7, 2011, 
Mallinckrodt, LLC, 3600 North Second Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63147, 
made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration 
(DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic 
classes of controlled substances:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370)...............  I
Codeine-N-oxide (9053).....................  I
Dihydromorphine (9145).....................  I
Difenoxin (9168)...........................  I
Morphine-N-oxide (9307)....................  I
Normorphine (9313).........................  I
Norlevorphanol (9634)......................  I
Amphetamine (1100).........................  II
Methamphetamine (1105).....................  II
Methylphenidate (1724).....................  II
Nabilone (7379)............................  II
4-Anilino-N-phenethyl-4-piperidine (8333)..  II
Codeine (9050).............................  II
Dihydrocodeine (9120)......................  II
Oxycodone (9143)...........................  II
Hydromorphone (9150).......................  II
Diphenoxylate (9170).......................  II
Ecgonine (9180)............................  II
Hydrocodone (9193).........................  II
Levorphanol (9220).........................  II
Meperidine (9230)..........................  II
Methadone (9250)...........................  II
Methadone intermediate (9254)..............  II
Metopon (9260).............................  II
Dextropropoxyphene, bulk...................
(non-dosage forms) (9273)..................  II
Morphine (9300)............................  II
Oripavine (9330)...........................  II
Thebaine (9333)............................  II
Opium tincture (9630)......................  II
Opium, powdered (9639).....................  II
Oxymorphone (9652).........................  II
Noroxymorphone (9668)......................  II
Alfentanil (9737)..........................  II
Remifentanil (9739)........................  II
Sufentanil (9740)..........................  II
Fentanyl (9801)............................  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 4829]]

    The firm plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances for 
internal use and for sale to other companies.
    Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently 
registered with DEA to manufacture such substances, may file comments 
or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 
21 CFR 1301.33(a).
    Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in 
quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of 
Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 
Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no 
later than April 2, 2012.

     Dated: January 23, 2012.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-1975 Filed 1-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.