81 FR 25425 - Abolghasem Rezaei, M.D.; Decision and Order

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 82 (April 28, 2016)

Page Range		25425-25427
FR Document		2016-09973

Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 82 (Thursday, April 28, 2016)

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 82 (Thursday, April 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25425-25427]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09973]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

Abolghasem Rezaei, M.D.; Decision and Order

On November 16, 2015, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to
Show Cause to Abolghasem Rezaei, M.D. (hereinafter, Registrant) of
Lawton, Oklahoma. GX 1. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of
Registrant's DEA Certificate of Registration, pursuant to which he is
authorized to dispense controlled substances in schedules IV and V as a
practitioner, on the ground that he does ``not have authority to handle
controlled substances in the State of Oklahoma, the State in which [he
is] registered with the'' Agency. Id. at 1.
More specifically, the Show Cause Order alleged that effective May
28, 2013, the Oklahoma State Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs
Control (hereinafter, OBNDD) issued a Stipulation and Agreed Order to
Registrant, pursuant to which his authority to dispense controlled
substances in schedules II and III was suspended ``for two years''; the
Order then alleged that his Oklahoma registration ``expired on October
31, 2014,'' and had not been renewed. Id.

[[Page 25426]]

The Show Cause Order thus alleged that Registrant did ``not have
authority in Oklahoma to order, dispense, prescribe or administer any
controlled substances,'' and that as a consequence, DEA ``must revoke
[his] . . . registrations.'' Id. (citing 21 U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f), and
824(a)(3)).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ The Show Cause Order also notified registrant of his right
to request a hearing on the allegations or to submit a written
statement while waiving his right to a hearing, the procedure for
electing either option, and the consequence for failing to elect
either option. GX 1, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thereafter, a DEA Diversion Investigator (DI) determined that
Registrant was no longer practicing at his registered location and was
advised by Agents of the OBNDD that the premises appeared vacant. GX 9,
at 1. The DI did, however, obtain an address for Registrant in Lawton,
Oklahoma, which appeared to be that of a residence, and mailed the Show
Cause Order to Registrant by certified mail, return receipt requested
to this address. Id. On November 30, 2015, the DI received back the
signed return-receipt card. Id. According to the DI, ``[t]he signature
appeared similar to the signature of [Registrant] . . . on other DEA
records, which [Registrant] signed.'' Id. The DI also emailed the Show
Cause Order to Registrant at an email address which Registrant had
listed when he applied for registration. Id.; GX 2, at 1; GX 8.
According to the DI, ``[t]he emailed copy was sent successfully on
November 16, 2015, but I never received a response to'' it. Id.
On January 5, 2016, the Government submitted its Request for Final
Agency Action. Therein, the Government stated that neither Registrant,
``nor anyone representing him[,] has requested a hearing or otherwise
corresponded with DEA.'' Req. for Final Agency Action, at 5. In its
Request, the Government sought a final order revoking Registrant's DEA
registration based on the May 28, 2013 Stipulation and Agreed Order
between the OBNDD and Registrant, as well as his act of allowing his
state registration to expire on October 31, 2014. Id. at 3.
However, on March 21, 2016, the Government filed a further
pleading. See Request for Dismissal of Order to Show Cause. Therein,
the Government noted that effective March 4, 2016, Registrant had
entered a subsequent Stipulation and Agreed Order with the OBNDD,
pursuant to which the OBNDD agreed to renew his state registration
subject to four conditions; the Government provided a copy of the Order
with its filing. Id. at 2. Those stipulations were that Registrant
shall: (1) ``Remain on probation for 18 months beginning on the date of
entry of'' the Order; (2) ``be prohibited from ordering, storing,
dispensing or administering'' any controlled substances ``during his
probation''; (3) ``be prohibited from'' prescribing controlled
substances in schedule II or III ``until January 1, 2017''; and (4) run
a PMP report of ``his own prescribing . . . at the end of each calendar
month'' and submit an ``affidavit that he has reviewed the PMP'' report
to the OBNDD and state that it ``accurately reflects the [controlled
substance] prescriptions he has authorized.'' In re Rezaei, Stipulation
and Agreed Order, at 2 (OBNDD, Mar. 4, 2016).
Noting that the sole basis for this proceeding was Registrant's
lack of state authority and that the OBNDD's Order has restored his
authority to prescribe schedule IV and V controlled substances, the
Government no longer seeks the revocation of Registrant's DEA
registration.\2\ See Request for Dismissal of Order to Show Cause, at
3. Notwithstanding that the Government seeks an Order dismissing the
Show Cause Order, it also requests an Order restricting Registrant's
DEA registration ``to the extent of his controlled substances
authorization under Oklahoma state law.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ The State Order, upon which this proceeding was based,
contained numerous stipulated findings that clearly would have
supported a prima facie case for revocation under the public
interest standard of 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4). These include: (1) That
during a November 5, 2012 inspection, an OBNDD Agent and Oklahoma
Board of Medical Licensure Investigator had conducted an inspection
of Respondent's clinic and found that Demerol and other drugs were
kept in a locked desk located in a common area of the clinic and
that the key was kept in an unlocked drawer at the receptionist's
desk; (2) that ``Respondent was unable to produce any . . . order
forms, invoices, or inventories'' for the drugs in the desk; (3)
that Respondent stored other controlled substances in an unlocked
cabinet in an area of the clinic which all employees, as well as
construction workers who were renovating the clinic, had access to;
(4) that Respondent also kept controlled substances in a large
plastic storage box on a counter below the aforesaid cabinet; (5)
that during the inspection, Respondent submitted to a urinalysis and
tested positive for oxycodone and that he ``did not have a valid
prescription'' for the drug; (6) that Respondent's administration
logs showed that ``on at least 3 occasions,'' controlled drugs
``were administered to either [himself] or [his] wife''; (6) that
there was no patient file for two patients who were listed in the
administration log; (7) that the drug administration log listed 11
entries for Demerol injections for ``skin care'' but did not list a
patient name; (8) that Respondent's wife owned a skin care clinic
that ``had a separate address from the medical clinic'' and which
was unregistered, and that the OBNDD Agent inspected the clinic and
found that controlled drugs were stored in an unlocked drawer in a
treatment room and Respondent stated that the drugs had been
prescribed but returned by his patients; (9) and that controlled
drugs that were stored at the skin care clinic were either
administered or dispensed to that clinic's ``clients without
maintaining an administration log.'' GX 6, at 1-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on the record submitted by the Government, I find that
Respondent has been served in a constitutionally adequate manner and I
find that service was effective no later than November 30, 2015. Based
on the Government's further representation that since the date of
service, neither Registrant, nor anyone representing him, has either
requested a hearing or submitted a written statement in lieu of a
hearing, I find that Registrant has waived his right to either request
a hearing or to submit a written statement. I therefore issue this
Decision and Final Order based solely on the Investigative Record
submitted by the Government. I make the following findings.

Findings

Registrant is the holder of DEA Registration #FR4496267, pursuant
to which he is authorized to dispense controlled substances in
schedules IV and V, at the registered address of Family Practice Clinic
& Minor Emergency Medicine, 4645 W. Gore Blvd., Suite 1-2, Lawton,
Oklahoma. GX 2. Registrant's registration does not expire until April
30, 2017. Id.
Registrant is also the holder of an active medical license issued
by the Oklahoma State Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision.
According to the Board's Web site, Respondent is now practicing at 2502
West Gore Blvd., Lawton, Oklahoma. See http://www.okmedicalboard.org/licensee/MD/23655. He has also recently obtained a new state
registration from the OBNDD. However, Registrant's OBNDD registration
prohibits him ``from ordering, storing, dispensing, or administering
[controlled substances] from any [s]chedule during his probation,''
which runs for 18 months beginning on March 4, 2016, and it further
prohibits him ``from authorizing prescriptions for [s]chedule II or
[s]chedule III [controlled substances] until January 1, 2017.''
Stipulation and Agreed Order, at 2.

Discussion

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized
to suspend or revoke a registration issued under section 823, ``upon a
finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license . . .
suspended [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no
longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of
controlled substances.'' Moreover, Congress has defined ``the term
`practitioner' [to] mean[] a . . . physician . . . or other person
licensed, registered or otherwise permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction
in which he practices . . . to distribute, dispense, [or] administer .
. . a controlled

[[Page 25427]]

substance in the course of professional practice.'' 21 U.S.C. 802(21).
Likewise, the CSA conditions the granting of a practitioner's
application for registration on his/her possession of authority to
dispense controlled substances under state law. See 21 U.S.C. 823(f)
(``The Attorney General shall register practitioners . . . to dispense
. . . controlled substances . . . if the applicant is authorized to
dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of the State in
which he practices.''). And of further note, the CSA defines the term
``dispense'' as meaning ``to deliver a controlled substance to an
ultimate user . . . by, or pursuant to the lawful order of, a
practitioner.'' Id. Sec. 802(10) (emphasis added).
Thus, the Agency has repeatedly held that the possession of
authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State
in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a
fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's
registration. See, e.g., James L. Hooper, 76 FR 71371 (2011), pet. for
rev. denied, 481 Fed. Appx. 826 (4th Cir. 2012). And because a
practitioner's authority under the CSA is based on his/her authority to
dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he
practices, the Agency has further held that ``to the extent a
practitioner is not authorized under state law to dispense certain
categories or schedules of controlled substances, he can no longer
lawfully dispense them under federal law.'' Kenneth Harold Bull, 78 FR
62666, 62672 (2013).
For the same reason, where a state board limits a practitioner's
controlled substance authority by prohibiting him from possessing
controlled substances or by limiting his authority to prescribing, the
practitioner's authority under his DEA registration must also be so
limited. See, e.g., Steven M. Abbadessa, 74 FR 10077, 10082 (2009)
(noting ambiguity in state agency's order as to whether it authorized
physician to administer controlled substances at his clinic and
requiring him to provide evidence that such activity was authorized by
the State prior to doing so); cf. United States v. Moore, 423 U.S. 122,
140-41 (1975) (``In the case of a physician, [the CSA] contemplates
that he is authorized by the State to practice medicine and to dispense
drugs in connection with his professional practice. The federal
registration . . . extends no further.'').
Accordingly, although the OBNDD's Stipulation and Agreed Order
effectively authorizes Registrant to prescribe schedule IV and V
controlled substances, it affirmatively prohibits him from ordering,
storing (possessing), administering and directly dispensing all
controlled substances. While Registrant's DEA registration does not
authorize him to handle schedule II and III controlled substances in
any manner, his registration currently provides authority for him to
order, store, administer and directly dispense schedule IV and V
controlled substances. Because Registrant's DEA registration can only
grant him authority to the extent that the State has granted him
authority, I will order that his registration be restricted to
authorize only the prescribing of controlled substances in schedules IV
and V.
Also, in the event Registrant intends to seek authority to
prescribe schedule II or III controlled substances upon the expiration
of the OBNDD's condition, he must apply for a modification of his DEA
registration before doing so. See 21 CFR 1301.51. So too, in the event
Registrant seeks to engage in the ordering, storing, dispensing or
administering of any controlled substance upon the expiration of his
probation, he must apply for a modification of his DEA registration
before doing so. Finally, because the Oklahoma Medical Board's records
list Registrant's practice address as being different from his DEA
registered address, and it appears that Registrant is no longer
practicing at the latter address, he is directed to inquire of the
local DEA office as to whether he must obtain a modification of his
registration to reflect his new practice address. See 21 CFR 1301.12(a)
& (b).

Order

Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), as well
as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA Certificate of Registration#
FR4496267 issued to Abolghasem Rezaei, M.D., be, and it hereby is,
restricted to authorize only the prescribing of controlled substances
in schedules IV and V. This Order is effective immediately.

Dated: April 21, 2016.
Chuck Rosenberg,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-09973 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2016 / Notices 25425

make a mockery of judicial power.’’ SBC IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT instructions before making the transfer.
Commc’ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 15. COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF If the payment is made by cashier’s
In its 2004 amendments, Congress COLUMBIA check, the check shall be made payable
made clear its intent to preserve the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, c/o
to the United States Department of
practical benefits of utilizing consent Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. Justice and delivered to: Janie Ingalls,
decrees in antitrust enforcement, adding 20530, Plaintiff, v. LEUCADIA NATIONAL United States Department of Justice,
the unambiguous instruction that CORPORATION, 520 Madison Avenue, New Antitrust Division, Antitrust Documents
‘‘[n]othing in this section shall be York, NY 10022, Defendant. Group, 450 5th Street NW., Suite 1024,
construed to require the court to CASE NO.: 1:15–cv–01547 Washington, DC 20530.
conduct an evidentiary hearing or to JUDGE: Randolph D. Moss Defendant shall pay the full amount
require the court to permit anyone to FILED: 09/22/2015 of the civil penalty within thirty (30)
intervene.’’ 15 U.S.C. § 16(e)(2); see also FINAL JUDGMENT days of entry of this Final Judgment. In
U.S. Airways, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 76 the event of a default or delay in
(indicating that a court is not required Plaintiff, the United States of payment, interest at the rate of eighteen
to hold an evidentiary hearing or to America, having commenced this action (18) percent per annum shall accrue
permit intervenors as part of its review by filing its Complaint herein for thereon from the date of the default or
under the Tunney Act). The language violation of Section 7A of the Clayton delay to the date of payment.
wrote into the statute what Congress Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a, commonly known as
the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust III.
intended when it enacted the Tunney
Act in 1974, as Senator Tunney Improvements Act of 1976, and Plaintiff Each party shall bear its own costs of
explained: ‘‘[t]he court is nowhere and Defendant Leucadia National this action.
compelled to go to trial or to engage in Corporation, by their respective
attorneys, having consented to the entry IV.
extended proceedings which might have
the effect of vitiating the benefits of of this Final Judgment without trial or Entry of this Final Judgment is in the
prompt and less costly settlement adjudication of any issue of fact or law public interest.
through the consent decree process.’’ herein, and without this Final Judgment Dated: lllll
constituting any evidence against or an
119 Cong. Rec. 24,598 (1973) (statement lllllllllllllllllllll
of Sen. Tunney). Rather, the procedure admission by the Defendant with United States District Judge
for the public interest determination is respect to any such issue:
Now, therefore, before the taking of [FR Doc. 2016–09915 Filed 4–27–16; 8:45 am]
left to the discretion of the court, with BILLING CODE 4410–11–P
any testimony and without trial or
the recognition that the court’s ‘‘scope
adjudication of any issue of fact or law
of review remains sharply proscribed by
herein, and upon the consent of the
precedent and the nature of Tunney Act DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
parties hereto, it is hereby Ordered,
proceedings.’’ SBC Commc’ns, 489 F.
Adjudged, and Decreed as follows: Drug Enforcement Administration
Supp. 2d at 11.5 A court can make its
public interest determination based on I.
the competitive impact statement and Abolghasem Rezaei, M.D.; Decision
The Court has jurisdiction of the and Order
response to public comments alone. subject matter of this action and of the
U.S. Airways, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 76. Plaintiff and the Defendant. The On November 16, 2015, the Deputy
VIII. DETERMINATIVE DOCUMENTS Complaint states a claim upon which Assistant Administrator, Office of
relief can be granted against the Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement
There are no determinative materials Defendant under Section 7A of the Administration, issued an Order to
or documents within the meaning of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a. Show Cause to Abolghasem Rezaei,
APPA that were considered by the M.D. (hereinafter, Registrant) of Lawton,
United States in formulating the II. Oklahoma. GX 1. The Show Cause
proposed Final Judgment. Judgment is hereby entered in this Order proposed the revocation of
Date: April 20, 2016 matter in favor of Plaintiff United States Registrant’s DEA Certificate of
Respectfully Submitted, of America and against Defendant, and, Registration, pursuant to which he is
ll/s/ Kenneth A. Libby pursuant to Section 7A(g)(1) of the authorized to dispense controlled
Kenneth A. Libby Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a(g)(1), the substances in schedules IV and V as a
Special Attorney Debt Collection Improvement Act of practitioner, on the ground that he does
1996, Pub. L. 104–134 31001(s) ‘‘not have authority to handle controlled
5 See United States v. Enova Corp., 107 F. Supp.
(amending the Federal Civil Penalties substances in the State of Oklahoma, the
2d 10, 17 (D.D.C. 2000) (noting that the ‘‘Tunney
Act expressly allows the court to make its public
Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 State in which [he is] registered with
interest determination on the basis of the U.S.C. 2461), and Federal Trade the’’ Agency. Id. at 1.
competitive impact statement and response to Commission Rule 1.98, 16 CFR 1.98, 61 More specifically, the Show Cause
comments alone’’); United States v. Mid-Am. FR 54549 (Oct. 21, 1996), and 74 FR 857 Order alleged that effective May 28,
Dairymen, Inc., No. 73–CV–681–W–1, 1977–1 Trade
Cas. (CCH) ¶ 61,508, at 71,980, *22 (W.D. Mo. 1977)
(Jan. 9, 2009), Defendant Leucadia 2013, the Oklahoma State Bureau of
(‘‘Absent a showing of corrupt failure of the National Corporation is hereby ordered Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control
government to discharge its duty, the Court, in to pay a civil penalty in the amount of (hereinafter, OBNDD) issued a
making its public interest finding, should . . . two hundred forty thousand dollars Stipulation and Agreed Order to
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES

carefully consider the explanations of the
government in the competitive impact statement
($240,000). Payment of the civil penalty Registrant, pursuant to which his
and its responses to comments in order to ordered hereby shall be made by wire authority to dispense controlled
determine whether those explanations are transfer of funds or cashier’s check. If substances in schedules II and III was
reasonable under the circumstances.’’); S. Rep. No. the payment is made by wire transfer, suspended ‘‘for two years’’; the Order
93–298, at 6 (1973) (‘‘Where the public interest can
be meaningfully evaluated simply on the basis of
Defendant shall contact Janie Ingalls of then alleged that his Oklahoma
briefs and oral arguments, that is the approach that the Antitrust Division’s Antitrust registration ‘‘expired on October 31,
should be utilized.’’). Documents Group at (202) 514–2481 for 2014,’’ and had not been renewed. Id.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:09 Apr 27, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\28APN1.SGM 28APN1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2016 / Notices 25427

substance in the course of professional substances, it affirmatively prohibits DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
practice.’’ 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Likewise, him from ordering, storing (possessing),
[OMB Number 1140–0011]
the CSA conditions the granting of a administering and directly dispensing
practitioner’s application for registration all controlled substances. While Agency Information Collection
on his/her possession of authority to Registrant’s DEA registration does not Activities; Proposed eCollection
dispense controlled substances under authorize him to handle schedule II and eComments Requested; Application To
state law. See 21 U.S.C. 823(f) (‘‘The III controlled substances in any manner, Make and Register a Firearm (ATF
Attorney General shall register his registration currently provides Form 1 (5320.1)
practitioners . . . to dispense . . . authority for him to order, store,
controlled substances . . . if the AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
administer and directly dispense
applicant is authorized to dispense . . . Firearms and Explosives, Department of
schedule IV and V controlled
controlled substances under the laws of Justice
the State in which he practices.’’). And substances. Because Registrant’s DEA
ACTION: 30-Day notice.
of further note, the CSA defines the term registration can only grant him authority
‘‘dispense’’ as meaning ‘‘to deliver a to the extent that the State has granted SUMMARY: The Department of Justice
controlled substance to an ultimate user him authority, I will order that his (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
. . . by, or pursuant to the lawful order registration be restricted to authorize Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will
of, a practitioner.’’ Id. § 802(10) only the prescribing of controlled submit the following information
(emphasis added). substances in schedules IV and V. collection request to the Office of
Thus, the Agency has repeatedly held Also, in the event Registrant intends Management and Budget (OMB) for
that the possession of authority to to seek authority to prescribe schedule review and approval in accordance with
dispense controlled substances under II or III controlled substances upon the the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
the laws of the State in which a expiration of the OBNDD’s condition, he The proposed information collection
practitioner engages in professional was previously published in the Federal
must apply for a modification of his
practice is a fundamental condition for Register 81 FR 8099, on February 17,
DEA registration before doing so. See 21
obtaining and maintaining a 2016, allowing for a 60-day comment
practitioner’s registration. See, e.g., CFR 1301.51. So too, in the event period.
James L. Hooper, 76 FR 71371 (2011), Registrant seeks to engage in the
ordering, storing, dispensing or DATES: Comments are encouraged and
pet. for rev. denied, 481 Fed. Appx. 826 will be accepted for an additional 30
(4th Cir. 2012). And because a administering of any controlled
substance upon the expiration of his days until May 31, 2016.
practitioner’s authority under the CSA
probation, he must apply for a FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
is based on his/her authority to dispense
controlled substances under the laws of modification of his DEA registration you have additional comments
the State in which he practices, the before doing so. Finally, because the especially on the estimated public
Agency has further held that ‘‘to the Oklahoma Medical Board’s records list burden or associated response time,
extent a practitioner is not authorized Registrant’s practice address as being suggestions, or need a copy of the
under state law to dispense certain proposed information collection
different from his DEA registered
categories or schedules of controlled instrument with instructions or
address, and it appears that Registrant is
substances, he can no longer lawfully additional information, please contact
no longer practicing at the latter Gary Schaible, Industry Liaison Analyst,
dispense them under federal law.’’ address, he is directed to inquire of the
Kenneth Harold Bull, 78 FR 62666, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
local DEA office as to whether he must and Explosives (ATF), 99 New York
62672 (2013). obtain a modification of his registration
For the same reason, where a state Ave. NE., Washington, DC 20226 at
to reflect his new practice address. See email: nfaombcomments@atf.gov.
board limits a practitioner’s controlled
21 CFR 1301.12(a) & (b). Written comments and/or suggestions
substance authority by prohibiting him
from possessing controlled substances Order can also be directed to the Office of
or by limiting his authority to Management and Budget, Office of
prescribing, the practitioner’s authority Pursuant to the authority vested in me Information and Regulatory Affairs,
under his DEA registration must also be by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), as well as 28 CFR Attention Department of Justice Desk
so limited. See, e.g., Steven M. 0.100(b), I order that DEA Certificate of Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent
Abbadessa, 74 FR 10077, 10082 (2009) Registration# FR4496267 issued to to OIRA_submissions@omb.eop.gov.
(noting ambiguity in state agency’s order Abolghasem Rezaei, M.D., be, and it SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Written
as to whether it authorized physician to hereby is, restricted to authorize only comments and suggestions from the
administer controlled substances at his the prescribing of controlled substances public and affected agencies concerning
clinic and requiring him to provide in schedules IV and V. This Order is the proposed collection of information
evidence that such activity was effective immediately. are encouraged. Your comments should
authorized by the State prior to doing address one or more of the following
so); cf. United States v. Moore, 423 U.S. Dated: April 21, 2016. four points:
122, 140–41 (1975) (‘‘In the case of a Chuck Rosenberg, • Evaluate whether the proposed
physician, [the CSA] contemplates that Acting Administrator. collection of information is necessary
he is authorized by the State to practice [FR Doc. 2016–09973 Filed 4–27–16; 8:45 am] for the proper performance of the
medicine and to dispense drugs in functions of the agency, including
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
connection with his professional whether the information will have
practice. The federal registration . . . practical utility;
extends no further.’’). • Evaluate the accuracy of the
Accordingly, although the OBNDD’s agency’s estimate of the burden of the
Stipulation and Agreed Order proposed collection of information,
effectively authorizes Registrant to including the validity of the
prescribe schedule IV and V controlled methodology and assumptions used;

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:09 Apr 27, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\28APN1.SGM 28APN1

Document Created: 2016-04-28 01:05:33
Document Modified: 2016-04-28 01:05:33

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Notices
FR Citation		81 FR 25425

81 FR 25425 - Abolghasem Rezaei, M.D.; Decision and Order

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICEDrug Enforcement Administration

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 82 (April 28, 2016)

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration