80_FR_46473 80 FR 46324 - Pedro E. Lopez, M.D.; Decision and Order

80 FR 46324 - Pedro E. Lopez, M.D.; Decision and Order

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 149 (August 4, 2015)

Page Range46324-46326
FR Document2015-19119

Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 149 (Tuesday, August 4, 2015) 
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 149 (Tuesday, August 4, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46324-46326]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19119]


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

 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. 15-16]


Pedro E. Lopez, M.D.; Decision and Order

    On March 20, 2015, Chief Administrative Law Judge (CALJ) John J. 
Mulrooney, II, issued the attached Recommended Decision. Neither party 
filed exceptions to the Recommended Decision.
    Having reviewed the record in its entirety, I adopt the CALJ's 
findings of fact,\1\ conclusions of law, and

[[Page 46325]]

recommended order. Accordingly, I will order that Respondent's DEA 
Certificate of Registration be revoked and that any pending 
applications to renew or modify his registration be denied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ I take official notice of the fact that, according to the 
registration records of the Agency, Respondent retains an active 
registration as of this date. Pursuant to 21 CFR 1316.59(e), 
Respondent may controvert this finding by filing a properly 
supported motion, no later than 10 days from the date of this Order.
     Notwithstanding that the language of section 824(a) authorizes 
either the suspension or revocation of a registration upon the 
making of one of the five findings enumerated therein, the Agency 
has consistently interpreted the CSA as mandating revocation where a 
practitioner's state authority has been suspended or revoked. As the 
Fourth Circuit has held, ``[b]ecause Sec.  823(f) and Sec.  802(21) 
make clear that a practitioner's registration is dependent upon the 
practitioner having state authority to dispense controlled 
substances, the [Administrator's] decision to construe Sec.  
824(a)(3) as mandating revocation upon suspension of a state license 
is not an unreasonable interpretation of the CSA.'' Hooper v. 
Holder, 2012 WL 2020079, *2 (4th Cir. 2012) (unpublished).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Order

    Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 
824(a)(3), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA Certificate of 
Registration BL2132049, issued to Pedro E. Lopez, M.D., be, and it 
hereby is, revoked. I further order that any pending application of 
Pedro E. Lopez, M.D., to renew or modify his registration, be, and it 
hereby is, denied. This Order is effective September 3, 2015.

    Dated: July 27, 2015.
Chuck Rosenberg,
Acting Administrator.

Brian Bayly, Esq., for the Government.
Alan Rhine, Esq., for the Respondent.

ORDER GRANTING THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION AND 
RECOMMENDED RULINGS, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND DECISION 
OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

    Chief Administrative Law Judge John J. Mulrooney, II. The Deputy 
Assistant Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or 
Government), issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC), dated February 6, 
2015, proposing to revoke the DEA Certificate of Registration (COR), 
Number BL2132049, of Pedro E. Lopez, M.D. (Respondent), pursuant to 21 
U.S.C. 824(a)(3) and 21 U.S.C. 823(f), and deny any pending 
applications for renewal or modification of the COR, pursuant to 21 
U.S.C. 823(f).
    In the OSC, the Government alleges that the Respondent is, inter 
alia, without ``authority to handle controlled substances in the State 
of Illinois'' as grounds for revocation of the Respondent's DEA 
registration. On March 6, 2015, the Respondent, by counsel, filed a 
Request for Hearing in the above-captioned matter. The Request for 
Hearing stated that a hearing is appropriate because ``the Respondent 
has instituted proceedings to restore his authority to handle 
controlled substances in Illinois.'' Req. for Hrg. at 1.
    Consistent with my direction, the parties have briefed the issues. 
On March 11, 2015, the Government filed a Motion for Summary 
Disposition and Evidence in Support of its Motion for Summary 
Disposition (Motion for Summary Disposition), seeking that this 
tribunal issue a Recommended Decision granting the Government's Motion 
on the ground that the Respondent is currently without state authority 
to handle controlled substances. Mot. for Summary Disp. at 1. According 
to the Government's Motion, the State of Illinois, Department of 
Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR) suspended the 
Respondent's license to practice medicine, effective March 12, 2014, 
and that suspension order remains in effect. Id. Attached to the 
Government's Motion is the IDFPR Order dated March 12, 2014 suspending 
the Respondent's state Physician and Surgeon License No. 036.074815 on 
the grounds that the Respondent failed to comply with the provisions an 
Agreement of Care, Counseling and Treatment that he had entered into 
with IDFPR.\2\ Id., Attachment 1 at 1-2. Under the IDPFR Order, the 
Respondent's state license was indefinitely suspended for a minimum 
period of six months. Id., Attachment 1 at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ No objection to consideration of the Government's exhibit, 
or factual challenge to the matters asserted therein was asserted by 
the Respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 20, 2015, the Respondent, through counsel, filed a reply 
styled ``Response to the Government's Motion for Summary Disposition 
and Evidence in Support of its Motion for Summary Disposition'' 
(Respondent's Reply). In his Reply, the Respondent alleges that he is 
in the process of seeking reinstatement of his medical license from the 
state of Illinois. Resp't Reply at 2. In opposing the Government's 
requested relief, the Respondent avers that inasmuch as he is currently 
not prescribing controlled substances, granting a hearing, or at least 
deferring adjudication until his state privileges are restored presents 
no cognizable danger to the public. Id. at 2-3.
    In order to revoke a registrant's DEA registration, the DEA has the 
burden of proving that the requirements for revocation are satisfied. 
21 CFR 1301.44(e) (2015). Once DEA has made its prima facie case for 
revocation of the registrant's DEA COR, the burden of production then 
shifts to the Respondent to show that, given the totality of the facts 
and circumstances in the record, revoking the registrant's registration 
would not be appropriate. Morall v. DEA, 412 F.3d 165, 174 (D.C. Cir. 
2005); Humphreys v. DEA, 96 F.3d 658, 661 (3d Cir. 1996); Shatz v. U.S. 
Dept. of Justice, 873 F.2d 1089, 1091 (8th Cir. 1989); Thomas E. 
Johnston, 45 FR 72311 (1980).
    The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) requires that, in order to 
maintain a DEA registration, a practitioner must be authorized to 
handle controlled substances in ``the jurisdiction in which he 
practices.'' See 21 U.S.C. 802(21) (2012) (``[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 21 U.S.C. 823(f) (2012) (``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.''). DEA has long held that possession 
of authority under state law to dispense controlled substances is an 
essential condition for obtaining and maintaining a DEA registration. 
Serenity Caf[eacute], 77 FR 35027, 35028 (2012); David W. Wang, 72 FR 
54297, 54298 (2007); Sheran Arden Yeates, 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006); 
Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51104 (1993); Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 
11919 (1988). Because ``possessing authority under state law to handle 
controlled substances is an essential condition for holding a DEA 
registration,'' this Agency has consistently held that ``the CSA 
requires the revocation of a registration issued to a practitioner who 
lacks [such authority].'' Roy Chi Lung, 74 FR 20346, 20347 (2009); see 
also Scott Sandarg, D.M.D., 74 FR 17528, 174529 (2009); John B. 
Freitas, D.O., 74 FR 17524, 17525 (2009); Roger A. Rodriguez, M.D., 70 
FR 33206, 33207 (2005); Stephen J. Graham, M.D., 69 FR 11661 (2004); 
Abraham A. Chaplan, M.D., 57 FR 55280 (1992); see also Harrell E. 
Robinson, 74 FR 61370, 61375 (2009).\3\ ``[R]evocation is warranted 
even where a practitioner's state authority has been summarily 
suspended and the State has yet to provide the practitioner

[[Page 46326]]

with a hearing to challenge the State's action at which he may 
ultimately prevail.'' Kamal Tiwari, M.D., 76 FR 71604, 71606, (2011); 
see also Bourne Pharmacy, Inc., 72 FR 18273, 18274 (2007); Anne Lazar 
Thorn, 62 FR 12847 (1997). Additionally, Agency precedent has 
established that the existence of other proceedings in which the 
Respondent is involved is not a basis upon which to justify a stay of 
DEA administrative enforcement proceedings. Grider Drug #1 & Grider 
Drug #2, 77 FR 44069, 44104 n.97 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ But see 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) (2012) (``A registration 
pursuant to section 823 of this title to manufacture, distribute, or 
dispense a controlled substance may be suspended or revoked by the 
Attorney General upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had 
his State license or registration suspended, revoked, or denied by 
competent State authority . . . .'') (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress does not intend for administrative agencies to perform 
meaningless tasks. See Philip E. Kirk, M.D., 48 FR 32887 (1983), aff'd 
sub nom. Kirk v. Mullen, 749 F.2d 297 (6th Cir. 1984); see also Puerto 
Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. EPA, 35 F.3d 600, 605 (1st Cir. 1994); 
NLRB v. Int'l Assoc. of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Ironworkers, 
AFL-CIO, 549 F.2d 634 (9th Cir. 1977); United States v. Consol. Mines & 
Smelting Co., 455 F.2d 432, 453 (9th Cir. 1971). Thus, it is well-
settled that, where no genuine question of fact is involved, or when 
the material facts are agreed upon, a plenary, adversarial 
administrative proceeding is not required. See Jesus R. Juarez, M.D., 
62 FR 14945 (1997); Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51104 (1993). Here, 
the supplied IDFPR Order establishes, and the Respondent does not 
contest, that the Respondent is currently without authorization to 
handle controlled substances in Illinois, the jurisdiction where the 
Respondent holds the DEA COR that is the subject of this litigation.
    Summary disposition of an administrative case is warranted where, 
as here, ``there is no factual dispute of substance.'' See Veg-Mix, 
Inc., 832 F.2d 601, 607 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (``an agency may ordinarily 
dispense with a hearing when no genuine dispute exists'').\4\ At this 
juncture, no genuine dispute exists over the fact that the Respondent 
lacks state authority to handle controlled substances in the state of 
Illinois. Because the Respondent lacks such state authority, both the 
plain language of applicable federal statutory provisions and Agency 
interpretive precedent dictate that the Respondent is not entitled to 
maintain his DEA registration. Simply put, there is no contested 
factual matter adducible at a hearing that would provide DEA with the 
authority to allow the Respondent to continue to hold his COR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Even assuming, arguendo, the possibility that the 
Respondent's state controlled substances privileges could be 
reinstated, summary disposition would still be warranted because 
``revocation is also appropriate when a state license has been 
suspended, but with the possibility of future reinstatement,'' 
Rodriguez, 70 FR at 33207 (citations omitted), and even where there 
is a judicial challenge to the state medical board action actively 
pending in the state courts. Michael G. Dolin, M.D., 65 FR 5661, 
5662 (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, I hereby
    GRANT the Government's Motion for Summary Disposition; and further
    DENY the Respondent's Request for Stay; and further
    RECOMMEND that the Respondent's DEA registration be REVOKED 
forthwith and any pending applications for renewal be DENIED.

    Dated: March 20, 2015.

JOHN J. MULROONEY, II,
Chief Administrative Law Judge.

[FR Doc. 2015-19119 Filed 8-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P

46324 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices 80 FR 22557, Sigma Aldrich Research Research Biochemicals, Inc. to company’s compliance with state and Biochemicals, Inc., 1–3 Strathmore manufacture the basic classes of local laws, and reviewing the company’s Road, Natick, Massachusetts 01760– controlled substances is consistent with background and history. 2447 applied to be registered as a the public interest and with United Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. manufacturer of certain basic classes of States obligations under international 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR controlled substances. No comments or treaties, conventions, or protocols in 1301.33, the above-named company is objections were submitted for this effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company’s maintenance granted registration as a bulk notice. The DEA has considered the factors in of effective controls against diversion by manufacturer of the basic classes of 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that inspecting and testing the company’s controlled substances listed: the registration of Sigma Aldrich physical security systems, verifying the Controlled substance Schedule Cathinone (1235) ......................................................................................................................................................................................... I Methcathinone (1237) .................................................................................................................................................................................. I Mephedrone (4-Methyl-N-methylcathinone) (1248) .................................................................................................................................... I Aminorex (1585) .......................................................................................................................................................................................... I Alpha-ethyltryptamine (7249) ...................................................................................................................................................................... I Lysergic acid diethylamide (7315) ............................................................................................................................................................... I Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370) ..................................................................................................................................................................... I 4-Bromo-2,5-dimethoxyamphetamine (7391) .............................................................................................................................................. I 4-Bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenethylamine (7392) .......................................................................................................................................... I 4-Methyl-2,5-dimethoxyamphetamine (7395) .............................................................................................................................................. I 2,5-Dimethoxyamphetamine (7396) ............................................................................................................................................................ I 3,4-Methylenedioxyamphetamine (7400) .................................................................................................................................................... I N-Hydroxy-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine (7402) .................................................................................................................................. I 3,4-Methylenedioxy-N-ethylamphetamine (7404) ........................................................................................................................................ I 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (7405) ............................................................................................................................................ I Dimethyltryptamine (7435) .......................................................................................................................................................................... I Psilocybin (7437) ......................................................................................................................................................................................... I 5-Methoxy-N,N-diisopropyltryptamine (7439) .............................................................................................................................................. I 1-[1-(2-Thienyl)cyclohexyl]piperidine (7470) ............................................................................................................................................... I N-Benzylpiperazine (7493) .......................................................................................................................................................................... I MDPV (3,4-Methylenedioxypyrovalerone) (7535) ....................................................................................................................................... I Methylone (3,4-Methylenedioxy-N-methylcathinone) (7540) ....................................................................................................................... I Heroin (9200) ............................................................................................................................................................................................... I Normorphine (9313) .................................................................................................................................................................................... I Amphetamine (1100) ................................................................................................................................................................................... II Methamphetamine (1105) ........................................................................................................................................................................... II Nabilone (7379) ........................................................................................................................................................................................... II 1-Phenylcyclohexylamine (7460) ................................................................................................................................................................. II Phencyclidine (7471) ................................................................................................................................................................................... II Cocaine (9041) ............................................................................................................................................................................................ II Codeine (9050) ............................................................................................................................................................................................ II Ecgonine (9180) .......................................................................................................................................................................................... II Levomethorphan (9210) .............................................................................................................................................................................. II Levorphanol (9220) ..................................................................................................................................................................................... II Meperidine (9230) ....................................................................................................................................................................................... II Metazocine (9240) ....................................................................................................................................................................................... II Methadone (9250) ....................................................................................................................................................................................... II Morphine (9300) .......................................................................................................................................................................................... II Thebaine (9333) .......................................................................................................................................................................................... II Levo-alphacetylmethadol (9648) ................................................................................................................................................................. II Remifentanil (9739) ..................................................................................................................................................................................... II Sufentanil (9740) ......................................................................................................................................................................................... II Carfentanil (9743) ........................................................................................................................................................................................ II Fentanyl (9801) ........................................................................................................................................................................................... II The company plans to manufacture DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE filed exceptions to the Recommended reference standards. Decision. Drug Enforcement Administration Dated: July 29, 2015. Having reviewed the record in its Joseph T. Rannazzisi, entirety, I adopt the CALJ’s findings of [Docket No. 15–16] fact,1 conclusions of law, and Deputy Assistant Administrator. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES [FR Doc. 2015–19166 Filed 8–3–15; 8:45 am] Pedro E. Lopez, M.D.; Decision and 1 I take official notice of the fact that, according BILLING CODE P Order to the registration records of the Agency, Respondent retains an active registration as of this On March 20, 2015, Chief date. Pursuant to 21 CFR 1316.59(e), Respondent Administrative Law Judge (CALJ) John J. may controvert this finding by filing a properly Mulrooney, II, issued the attached supported motion, no later than 10 days from the Recommended Decision. Neither party date of this Order. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Aug 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM 04AUN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices 46325 recommended order. Accordingly, I will is appropriate because ‘‘the Respondent production then shifts to the order that Respondent’s DEA Certificate has instituted proceedings to restore his Respondent to show that, given the of Registration be revoked and that any authority to handle controlled totality of the facts and circumstances in pending applications to renew or substances in Illinois.’’ Req. for Hrg. at the record, revoking the registrant’s modify his registration be denied. 1. registration would not be appropriate. Consistent with my direction, the Morall v. DEA, 412 F.3d 165, 174 (D.C. Order Cir. 2005); Humphreys v. DEA, 96 F.3d parties have briefed the issues. On Pursuant to the authority vested in me March 11, 2015, the Government filed a 658, 661 (3d Cir. 1996); Shatz v. U.S. by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a)(3), as Motion for Summary Disposition and Dept. of Justice, 873 F.2d 1089, 1091 well as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that Evidence in Support of its Motion for (8th Cir. 1989); Thomas E. Johnston, 45 DEA Certificate of Registration Summary Disposition (Motion for FR 72311 (1980). BL2132049, issued to Pedro E. Lopez, Summary Disposition), seeking that this The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I tribunal issue a Recommended Decision requires that, in order to maintain a further order that any pending granting the Government’s Motion on DEA registration, a practitioner must be application of Pedro E. Lopez, M.D., to the ground that the Respondent is authorized to handle controlled renew or modify his registration, be, and currently without state authority to substances in ‘‘the jurisdiction in which it hereby is, denied. This Order is handle controlled substances. Mot. for he practices.’’ See 21 U.S.C. 802(21) effective September 3, 2015. Summary Disp. at 1. According to the (2012) (‘‘[t]he term ‘practitioner’ means Dated: July 27, 2015. Government’s Motion, the State of a physician . . . licensed, registered, or Illinois, Department of Financial and otherwise permitted, by . . . the Chuck Rosenberg, Professional Regulation (IDFPR) jurisdiction in which he practices . . . Acting Administrator. suspended the Respondent’s license to to distribute, dispense, [or] administer Brian Bayly, Esq., for the Government. practice medicine, effective March 12, . . . a controlled substance in the Alan Rhine, Esq., for the Respondent. 2014, and that suspension order remains course of professional practice’’); see ORDER GRANTING THE in effect. Id. Attached to the also 21 U.S.C. 823(f) (2012) (‘‘The GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR Government’s Motion is the IDFPR Attorney General shall register SUMMARY DISPOSITION AND Order dated March 12, 2014 suspending practitioners . . . if the applicant is RECOMMENDED RULINGS, FINDINGS the Respondent’s state Physician and authorized to dispense . . . controlled OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, Surgeon License No. 036.074815 on the substances under the laws of the State AND DECISION OF THE grounds that the Respondent failed to in which he practices.’’). DEA has long ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE comply with the provisions an held that possession of authority under Agreement of Care, Counseling and state law to dispense controlled Chief Administrative Law Judge John substances is an essential condition for J. Mulrooney, II. The Deputy Assistant Treatment that he had entered into with IDFPR.2 Id., Attachment 1 at obtaining and maintaining a DEA Administrator, Drug Enforcement registration. Serenity Café, 77 FR 35027, Administration (DEA or Government), 1–2. Under the IDPFR Order, the Respondent’s state license was 35028 (2012); David W. Wang, 72 FR issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC), 54297, 54298 (2007); Sheran Arden dated February 6, 2015, proposing to indefinitely suspended for a minimum period of six months. Id., Attachment 1 Yeates, 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006); revoke the DEA Certificate of Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51104 Registration (COR), Number BL2132049, at 2. On March 20, 2015, the Respondent, (1993); Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11919 of Pedro E. Lopez, M.D. (Respondent), (1988). Because ‘‘possessing authority pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) and 21 through counsel, filed a reply styled ‘‘Response to the Government’s Motion under state law to handle controlled U.S.C. 823(f), and deny any pending substances is an essential condition for applications for renewal or modification for Summary Disposition and Evidence in Support of its Motion for Summary holding a DEA registration,’’ this of the COR, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f). Agency has consistently held that ‘‘the In the OSC, the Government alleges Disposition’’ (Respondent’s Reply). In his Reply, the Respondent alleges that CSA requires the revocation of a that the Respondent is, inter alia, registration issued to a practitioner who without ‘‘authority to handle controlled he is in the process of seeking reinstatement of his medical license lacks [such authority].’’ Roy Chi Lung, substances in the State of Illinois’’ as 74 FR 20346, 20347 (2009); see also grounds for revocation of the from the state of Illinois. Resp’t Reply at 2. In opposing the Government’s Scott Sandarg, D.M.D., 74 FR 17528, Respondent’s DEA registration. On 174529 (2009); John B. Freitas, D.O., 74 March 6, 2015, the Respondent, by requested relief, the Respondent avers that inasmuch as he is currently not FR 17524, 17525 (2009); Roger A. counsel, filed a Request for Hearing in Rodriguez, M.D., 70 FR 33206, 33207 the above-captioned matter. The prescribing controlled substances, granting a hearing, or at least deferring (2005); Stephen J. Graham, M.D., 69 FR Request for Hearing stated that a hearing 11661 (2004); Abraham A. Chaplan, adjudication until his state privileges are restored presents no cognizable M.D., 57 FR 55280 (1992); see also Notwithstanding that the language of section 824(a) authorizes either the suspension or danger to the public. Id. at 2–3. Harrell E. Robinson, 74 FR 61370, 61375 revocation of a registration upon the making of one In order to revoke a registrant’s DEA (2009).3 ‘‘[R]evocation is warranted even of the five findings enumerated therein, the Agency registration, the DEA has the burden of where a practitioner’s state authority has consistently interpreted the CSA as mandating has been summarily suspended and the revocation where a practitioner’s state authority has proving that the requirements for been suspended or revoked. As the Fourth Circuit revocation are satisfied. 21 CFR State has yet to provide the practitioner has held, ‘‘[b]ecause § 823(f) and § 802(21) make 1301.44(e) (2015). Once DEA has made tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES clear that a practitioner’s registration is dependent its prima facie case for revocation of the 3 But see 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) (2012) (‘‘A upon the practitioner having state authority to registration pursuant to section 823 of this title to dispense controlled substances, the registrant’s DEA COR, the burden of manufacture, distribute, or dispense a controlled [Administrator’s] decision to construe § 824(a)(3) as substance may be suspended or revoked by the mandating revocation upon suspension of a state 2 No objection to consideration of the Attorney General upon a finding that the registrant license is not an unreasonable interpretation of the Government’s exhibit, or factual challenge to the . . . has had his State license or registration CSA.’’ Hooper v. Holder, 2012 WL 2020079, *2 (4th matters asserted therein was asserted by the suspended, revoked, or denied by competent State Cir. 2012) (unpublished). Respondent. authority . . . .’’) (emphasis added). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Aug 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM 04AUN1

46326 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices with a hearing to challenge the State’s registration. Simply put, there is no DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE action at which he may ultimately contested factual matter adducible at a prevail.’’ Kamal Tiwari, M.D., 76 FR hearing that would provide DEA with Drug Enforcement Administration 71604, 71606, (2011); see also Bourne the authority to allow the Respondent to Pharmacy, Inc., 72 FR 18273, 18274 continue to hold his COR. [Docket No. DEA–392] (2007); Anne Lazar Thorn, 62 FR 12847 Accordingly, I hereby (1997). Additionally, Agency precedent GRANT the Government’s Motion for Manufacturer of Controlled has established that the existence of Summary Disposition; and further Substances Registration: National other proceedings in which the DENY the Respondent’s Request for Center for Natural Products Research Respondent is involved is not a basis Stay; and further (NIDA MPROJECT), Inc. upon which to justify a stay of DEA RECOMMEND that the Respondent’s administrative enforcement DEA registration be REVOKED forthwith ACTION: Notice of registration. proceedings. Grider Drug #1 & Grider and any pending applications for Drug #2, 77 FR 44069, 44104 n.97 renewal be DENIED. SUMMARY: National Center for Natural (2012). Dated: March 20, 2015. Products Research (NIDA MPROJECT), Congress does not intend for JOHN J. MULROONEY, II, Inc. applied to be registered as a administrative agencies to perform Chief Administrative Law Judge. manufacturer of certain basic classes of meaningless tasks. See Philip E. Kirk, controlled substances. The Drug [FR Doc. 2015–19119 Filed 8–3–15; 8:45 am] M.D., 48 FR 32887 (1983), aff’d sub Enforcement Administration (DEA) BILLING CODE 4410–09–P nom. Kirk v. Mullen, 749 F.2d 297 (6th grants National Center for Natural Cir. 1984); see also Puerto Rico Products Research (NIDA MPROJECT), Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. EPA, 35 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Inc. registration as a manufacturer of F.3d 600, 605 (1st Cir. 1994); NLRB v. those controlled substances. Int’l Assoc. of Bridge, Structural & Drug Enforcement Administration SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By notice Ornamental Ironworkers, AFL–CIO, 549 [Docket No. 12–49] dated April 14, 2015, and published in F.2d 634 (9th Cir. 1977); United States the Federal Register on April 22, 2015, v. Consol. Mines & Smelting Co., 455 AIM Pharmacy & Surgical S. Corp. 80 FR 22559, National Center for F.2d 432, 453 (9th Cir. 1971). Thus, it Order Natural Products Research (NIDA is well-settled that, where no genuine MPROJECT), Inc., University of question of fact is involved, or when the On May 8, 2015, the Administrator of Mississippi, 135 Coy Waller Complex, material facts are agreed upon, a the Drug Enforcement Administration, University, Mississippi 38677–1848 plenary, adversarial administrative noting that the expiration date of applied to be registered as a proceeding is not required. See Jesus R. Respondent’s registration was June 30, manufacturer of certain basic classes of Juarez, M.D., 62 FR 14945 (1997); 2014, ordered the parties to address controlled substances. No comments or Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51104 whether the case is now moot. The objections were submitted for this (1993). Here, the supplied IDFPR Order Administrator’s Order was served on notice. establishes, and the Respondent does Respondent’s counsel at his address of The DEA has considered the factors in not contest, that the Respondent is record. 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that The Government filed a timely the registration of National Center for currently without authorization to response and served a copy of its Natural Products Research (NIDA handle controlled substances in Illinois, response on Respondent’s counsel at his MPROJECT), Inc. to manufacture the the jurisdiction where the Respondent address of record. Govt. Response to basic classes of controlled substances is holds the DEA COR that is the subject Administrator’s May 8, 2015 Order, at 1. consistent with the public interest and of this litigation. Respondent has not filed a response.1 with United States obligations under Summary disposition of an In its Response, the Government administrative case is warranted where, international treaties, conventions, or advises that Respondent neither as here, ‘‘there is no factual dispute of protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The submitted a renewal application prior to substance.’’ See Veg-Mix, Inc., 832 F.2d DEA investigated the company’s the expiration of its registration nor an 601, 607 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (‘‘an agency maintenance of effective controls application for a new registration. Id. may ordinarily dispense with a hearing against diversion by inspecting and The Government therefore when no genuine dispute exists’’).4 At testing the company’s physical security acknowledges that this case is now this juncture, no genuine dispute exists systems, verifying the company’s moot. Id.; see Ronald J. Riegel, 63 FR over the fact that the Respondent lacks compliance with state and local laws, 67132, 67133 (1998). Accordingly, I state authority to handle controlled and reviewing the company’s dismiss the Order to Show Cause. substances in the state of Illinois. It is so ordered. background and history. Because the Respondent lacks such state Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. authority, both the plain language of Date: July 27, 2015. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR applicable federal statutory provisions Chuck Rosenberg, 1301.33, the above-named company is and Agency interpretive precedent Acting Administrator. granted registration as a bulk dictate that the Respondent is not [FR Doc. 2015–19116 Filed 8–3–15; 8:45 am] manufacturer of the basic classes of entitled to maintain his DEA BILLING CODE 4410–09–P controlled substances: tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 4 Even assuming, arguendo, the possibility that pending in the state courts. Michael G. Dolin, M.D., different address than that listed in the record. the Respondent’s state controlled substances 65 FR 5661, 5662 (2000). Notice of Recent Order and Government’s Response privileges could be reinstated, summary disposition 1 After both the Administrator’s Order and the II, at 1–2. The Government represents that on June would still be warranted because ‘‘revocation is also 30, 2015, it served both the Administrator’s Order Government’s Response were returned to the appropriate when a state license has been Agency as undelivered following efforts to serve and its Response on each of Respondent’s attorneys suspended, but with the possibility of future reinstatement,’’ Rodriguez, 70 FR at 33207 (citations both of Respondent’s counsels, the Government by mailing them to the addresses of Respondent’s omitted), and even where there is a judicial determined through the New York State Unified attorneys as listed in the New York Unified Court challenge to the state medical board action actively Court System’s database that each attorney had a System’s database. Id. at 2. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Aug 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM 04AUN1


Document Created: 2015-12-18 14:50:57
Document Modified: 2015-12-18 14:50:57
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionNotices
FR Citation80 FR 46324 
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR