82 FR 11238 - Frank D. Li, M.D.; Decision and Order

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 33 (February 21, 2017)

Page Range		11238-11241
FR Document		2017-03272
Federal Register, Volume 82 Issue 33 (Tuesday, February 21, 2017)
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 33 (Tuesday, February 21, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11238-11241]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03272]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. 16-34]


Frank D. Li, M.D.; Decision and Order

    On August 22, 2016, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to 
Show Cause to Frank D. Li, M.D. (hereinafter, Respondent), of Tukwila, 
Washington and Beverly Hills, California. The Show Cause Order proposed 
the revocation of four separate Certificates of Registration held by 
Respondent (three of which are for locations in Washington State and 
one which is for a location in California), pursuant to which he is 
authorized to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V, 
as a practitioner, on the ground that he does hold authority to 
dispense controlled substances in these States. Id. at 1 (citing 21 
U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a)(3)).
    With respect to the Agency's jurisdiction, the Show Cause Order 
alleged that Respondent holds three registrations in Washington State: 
(1) No. FL0680947, for the location of 1536 N 115th St., Suite 310, 
Seattle, which does not expire until March 31, 2017; (2) No. FL1688235, 
for the location of 801 SW 16th St., Suite 121, Renton, which does not 
expire until March 31, 2018; and (3) No. FL2601335, for the location of 
3624 Colby Ave., Suite B, Everett, which does not expire until March 
31, 2017. Show Cause Order, at 2. The Show Cause Order also alleged 
that Respondent holds registration No. BL7067261, for the location of 
8641 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200, Beverly Hills, California, and that 
this registration does not expire until March 31, 2019. Id.
    As for the substantive basis of the proposed action, the Show Cause 
Order alleged that the State of Washington, Department of Health, 
issued an ex parte order, which suspended Respondent's authority to 
practice medicine and surgery in that State effective on July 14, 2016. 
Id. at 2. The Show Cause Order also alleged that the Medical Board of 
California issued an order which suspended his authority to practice 
medicine in that State effective on August 5, 2016. Id. The Show Cause 
Order thus alleged that Respondent is currently without authority to 
handle controlled substances in Washington and California, the States 
in which he is registered with the Agency, and subjecting his DEA 
registrations to revocation.\1\ Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 802(21), 
823(f), and 824(a)(3)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Show Cause Order also notified Respondent of his right 
to request a hearing on the allegations or to submit a written 
statement while waiving his right to a hearing, and the procedure 
for electing either option. Show Cause Order, at 2-3 (citing 21 CFR 
1301.43). It also notified Respondent of his right to submit a 
corrective action plan. See 21 U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 20, 2016, Respondent, through his counsel, requested a 
hearing on the allegations. Resp. Hrng. Req. The matter was then placed 
on the docket of the Office of Administrative Law Judges, and assigned 
to ALJ Charles Wm. Dorman.
    On September 21, 2016, the ALJ issued an order directing the 
Government to submit evidence supporting the allegation and an 
accompanying dispositive motion by October 5, 2016. Briefing Schedule 
For Lack Of State Authority Allegations, at 1. The ALJ also ordered 
that if the Government filed such a motion, Respondent was to file his 
reply by October 12, 2016. Id.
    On September 22, 2016, the Government filed its Motion for Summary 
Disposition. See Gov. Mot. for Summ. Disp. As support for its Motion, 
the Government provided a copy of Respondent's registration information

[[Page 11239]]

for each registration in Washington State and California, an affidavit 
from a Diversion Investigator (DI), and certified copies of the 
Suspension Orders the DI obtained from the Washington Department of 
Health, Medical Quality Assurance Commission (MQAC) and the Medical 
Board of Californian (MBC). Id., at Appendices A-G. Based on the 
suspensions of his medical licenses by the MQAC and the MBC, the 
Government moved for summary disposition and a recommendation by the 
ALJ that Respondent's DEA certificates of registration as a 
practitioner be revoked. Govt. Mot., at 4.
    On October 12, 2016, Respondent filed his Reply. Respondent's 
Reply, at 1. While Respondent admitted that his licenses to practice 
medicine in Washington and California had been suspended, he stated 
that ``he has challenged the Boards' suspension and has every 
confidence that the current suspensions will be lifted and [that he] 
will have his medical license restored.'' Id. at 2. Respondent further 
stated that he has ``provided a detailed rebuttal to the Boards' 
unfounded allegations'' and provided a copy of this document (which was 
his answer in the MQAC proceeding). Resp's Reply, at 1-2; see also 
Resp's. Appendix A.
    Respondent also argued that the authority contained in 21 U.S.C. 
824(a)(3) is discretionary with respect to a practitioner's 
registration and that ``[t]here are numerous factors that the [Agency] 
should consider prior to summarily revoking [his] [r]egistration.'' 
Resp's Reply, at 3 (citing Bio-Diagnostic International, 78 FR 39327 
(2013)). And he maintains that the Agency is required to consider that 
he is appealing the state suspensions and that the DEA proceeding 
should be resolved ``through a suspension . . . and not a full 
revocation . . . given the many serious shortcomings that have been 
identified in the Boards' actions.'' Id. at 3-4.
    On October 20, 2016, the ALJ granted the Government's motion and 
recommended that Respondent's registrations be revoked. Order Granting 
Summary Disposition And Recommended Rulings, Findings Of Fact, 
Conclusions Of Law, And Decision, at 5. The ALJ noted various 
authorities holding that a practitioner must possess state authority in 
order to maintain a DEA registration. Id. at 3 (citations omitted). The 
ALJ then rejected Respondent's contention that Bio-Diagnostic 
International requires the Agency to consider various factors prior to 
ordering the revocation of his registration, noting that Bio-Diagnostic 
did not involve a practitioner, but rather a list I chemical 
distributor, and that the Agency has made clear ``that both the [CSA's] 
`definition of the term ``practitioner'' and the registration provision 
applicable to practitioners make clear that a practitioner must be 
currently authorized to dispense controlled substances by the State in 
which he practices in order to obtain and maintain a registration.' '' 
R.D. 4 (quoting Rezik A. Saqer, 81 FR 22122, 22125 (2016)). The ALJ 
then explained that even though Respondent has not yet been provided 
with a hearing to challenge the MQAC's action, revocation of his DEA 
registration was still warranted based on his lack of state authority. 
Id. (citing cases). Because ``the disposition of the Government's 
Motion depends only on whether the Respondent possess states authority 
to handle controlled substances,'' and ``it is undisputed that [he] 
lacks state authorization to handle controlled substances in'' both the 
States of Washington and California, the ALJ granted the Government's 
motion and recommended that his registrations be revoked. Id. at 4-5.
    Neither party filed exceptions to the ALJ's Recommended Decision. 
Thereafter, the record was forwarded to my Office for Final Agency 
Action. Having considered the record and the Recommended Decision, I 
adopt the ALJ's Recommended Decision. I make the following factual 
findings.

Findings

    Respondent holds four separate certificates of registration, 
pursuant to which he is authorized to dispense controlled substances in 
schedules II-V as a practitioner:
    1. Certificate of Registration FL0680947, at the registered address 
of 1536 N 115th St., Suite 310, Seattle, Washington, which does not 
expire until March 31, 2017.
    2. Certificate of Registration FL1688235, at the registered address 
of 801 SW 16th St., Suite 121, Renton, Washington, which does not 
expire until March 31, 2018.
    3. Certificate of Registration FL2601335, at the registered address 
of 3624 Colby Ave., Suite B, Everett, Washington, which does not expire 
until March 31, 2017.
    4. Certificate of Registration BL7067261, at the registered address 
of 8641 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200, Beverly Hills, California, which 
does not expire until March 31, 2019.

Govt. Mot., at Appendices A-D.
    On July 14, 2016, the State of Washington, Department of Health, 
MQAC, issued an ex parte order which summarily suspended Respondent's 
physician's and surgeon's license; the order alleged that Respondent 
violated Washington statutes and regulations regarding professional 
conduct and pain management in his treatment of patients at the Seattle 
Pain Center clinics he operated. Govt. Mot., at Appendix E, 1-2. The 
MQAC reviewed a statement of charges and supporting evidence submitted 
by an investigator and physician, and concluded that its factual 
findings ``establish an immediate danger to the public health, safety 
or welfare,'' and that ``summary suspension of the Respondent's medical 
license is necessary and adequately addresses the danger to the public 
health, safety or welfare.'' Id. at 1-4. According to the online 
records of the Washington Department of Health, of which I take 
official notice,\2\ Respondent's Washington physician's and surgeon's 
license remains suspended as of the date of this Decision and Order. 
See https://fortress.wa.gov/doh/providercredentialsearch/SearchCriteria.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 
an agency ``may take official notice of facts at any stage in a 
proceeding-even in the final decision.'' U.S. Dept. of Justice, 
Attorney General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act 80 
(1947) (Wm. W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint 1979). In accordance with 
the APA and DEA's regulations, Respondent is ``entitled on timely 
request to an opportunity to show to the contrary.'' 5 U.S.C. 
556(e); see also 21 CFR 1316.59(e). To allow Respondent the 
opportunity to refute the facts of which I take official notice, 
Respondent may file a motion for reconsideration within 15 calendar 
days of the date of service of this Order which shall commence on 
the date this Order is mailed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 5, 2016 the Medical Board of California issued a Notice 
of Out of State Suspension Order to Respondent, summarily suspending 
his California medical license on the basis of the suspension ordered 
by the MQAC. Govt. Mot. Appendix F, at 1. According to the online 
records of the MBC, Respondent's California Physician's and Surgeon's 
license remains suspended as of the date of this Decision and Order. 
See https://www.breeze.ca.gov/datamart/detailsCADCA.do.

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 of the 
Controlled Substances Act (CSA), ``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, 
DEA has long held that the possession of authority to dispense 
controlled substances under the laws of the State

[[Page 11240]]

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); Frederick Marsh 
Blanton, 43 FR 27616 (1978).
    This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the CSA. 
First, Congress 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 substance in 
the course of professional practice.'' 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Second, in 
setting the requirements for obtaining a practitioner's registration, 
Congress directed that ``[t]he Attorney General shall register 
practitioners . . . if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . 
controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he 
practices.'' 21 U.S.C. 823(f). Because Congress has clearly mandated 
that a practitioner possess state authority in order to be deemed a 
practitioner under the Act, DEA has held repeatedly that revocation of 
a practitioner's registration is the appropriate sanction whenever he 
is no longer authorized to dispense controlled substances under the 
laws of the State in which he practices medicine. See, e.g., Hooper, 76 
FR at 71371-72; Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006); 
Dominick A. Ricci, 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby Watts, 53 FR 11919, 
11920 (1988); Blanton, 43 FR at 27616.
    In his reply to the Government's Motion for Summary Disposition, 
Respondent argued that the authority contained in 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) 
is discretionary with respect to a practitioner's registration and that 
``[t]here are numerous factors that the [Agency] should consider prior 
to summarily revoking [his] [r]egistration.'' Resp's Reply, at 3 
(citing Bio-Diagnostic, 78 FR 39327). He maintains that the Agency is 
required to consider that he is appealing the state suspensions and 
that the DEA proceeding should be resolved ``through a suspension . . . 
and not a full revocation . . . given the many serious shortcomings 
that have been identified in the Boards' actions.'' Id. at 3-4.
    In Hooper v. Holder, 481 Fed. Appx. 826 (4th Cir. 2012), a 
practitioner challenged the Agency's order which revoked his 
registration after his state license was suspended for a one-year 
period. Id. at 826. Dr. Hooper argued that the revocation of his 
registration was ``arbitrary and capricious'' because the 
Administrator's ``decision . . . failed to recognize the discretion 
under Sec.  824(a) to revoke or suspend a registration and that it was 
impermissible for the [Administrator] to conclude that the CSA requires 
revocation of a practitioner's DEA registration when the practitioner's 
State license is suspended.'' Id. at 828. He further argued that the 
Agency's decision had `` `read[] the suspension option [in Sec.  
824(a)] out of the statute.' '' Id. (quoting Pet. Br. 11).
    The court of appeals rejected Hooper's contentions. While 
acknowledging that ``[s]ection 824(a) does state that the [Agency] may 
`suspend or revoke' a registration,'' the court noted that ``the 
statute provides for this sanction [suspension] in five different 
circumstances, only one of which is loss of a State license.'' Id. 
Continuing, the court explained that ``[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 [Agency'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.'' Id. The court further 
explained that the Agency's decision did not ``read[ ] the suspension 
option'' out of the statute, because that option may still be available 
for the other circumstances enumerated in Sec.  824(a). Id. See also 
Maynard v. DEA, 117 Fed.Appx. 941 (5th Cir. 2004) (rejecting 
physician's contention that DEA could not revoke his registration based 
on summary suspension of state medical license).
    As for Respondent's contention that Bio-Diagnostic requires that 
the Agency consider various factors before revoking his registration, 
that case involved a list I chemical distributor and not a 
practitioner. See 78 FR at 39327, 39330. Unlike a practitioner, which 
the CSA defines, in relevant part, as ``a physician . . . or other 
person 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,'' 21 U.S.C. 802(21), neither the definition of a distributor 
nor the registration provision applicable to a list I chemical 
distributor explicitly requires that an applicant/registrant holds a 
state license authorizing the applicant/registrant to engage in such 
activity. See id. Sec.  802(11) (``The term `distribute' means to 
deliver . . . a controlled substance or a listed chemical. The term 
`distributor' means a person who so delivers a controlled substance or 
a listed chemical.''); id. Sec.  823(h) (``The Attorney General shall 
register an applicant to distribute a list I chemical unless the 
Attorney General determines that registration of the applicant is 
inconsistent with the public interest.'').\3\ See also 78 FR at 39330. 
Thus, as the ALJ recognized, Bio-Diagnostic provides no comfort to 
Respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This is not to say that the Agency cannot deny an 
application or revoke a registration where an applicant/registrant 
does not possess authority under state law to engage in the 
distribution of a list I chemical. What it is to say is that the 
loss of such authority does not automatically require the denial or 
revocation of a registration. See Bio-Diagnostic, 78 FR at 39331.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, Respondent contends that revocation is not warranted 
``given the many serious shortcomings that have been identified in the 
Boards' actions.'' Resp. Reply, at 4. DEA, however, has no authority to 
adjudicate the validity of the decisions of state boards, which are 
deemed to be presumptively lawful for the purpose of the Controlled 
Substances Act. See Kamal Tiwari, et al., 76 FR 71604, 71607 (2011) 
(quoting George S. Heath, 51 FR 26610 (1986) (``DEA accepts as valid 
and lawful the action of a state regulatory board unless that action is 
overturned by a state court or otherwise pursuant to state law.'')). 
Rather, Respondent is required to litigate his claims challenging the 
validity of the suspensions in the administrative and judicial fora 
provided by the States of Washington and California. See Tiwari, 76 FR 
at 71607 (quoting Heath, 51 FR at 26610); Zhiwei Lin, 77 FR 18862, 
18864 (2012); Sunil Bhasin, 72 FR 5082, 5083 (2007).
    Here, there is no dispute that by virtue of the suspensions ordered 
by the MQAC and MBC, Respondent is currently without authority to 
dispense controlled substances in the States of Washington and 
California. Because he no longer satisfies the statutory requirement of 
holding authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of 
the States in which he is registered, he is not a practitioner within 
the meaning of the Act and it is of no consequence that he has yet to 
be afforded a hearing by the MQAC (or MBC) to challenge the 
suspensions. See Saqer, 81 FR at 22126; Bourne Pharmacy, 72 FR 18273, 
18274 (2007); Wingfield Drugs, 52 FR 27070, 27071 (1987). Accordingly, 
he is not entitled to maintain his DEA registrations in Washington and 
California and I will therefore order that his registrations be 
revoked.

ORDER

    Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), as well 
as 28 CFR

[[Page 11241]]

0.100(b), I order that DEA Certificates of Registration FL0680947, 
FL1688235, FL2601335, and BL7067261, issued to Frank D. Li, M.D., be, 
and they hereby are, revoked. Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 
21 U.S.C. 823(f), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I further order that any 
pending application of Frank D. Li, M.D., to renew or modify any of the 
aforesaid registrations, be, and it hereby is, denied. This Order is 
effective immediately.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For the same reasons that the MQAC summarily suspended 
Respondent's medical license, I conclude that the public interest 
necessitates that this Order be effective immediately. 21 CFR 
1316.67.

    Dated: February 13, 2017.
Chuck Rosenberg,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-03272 Filed 2-17-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
11240 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 33 / Tuesday, February 21, 2017 / Notices

in which a practitioner engages in the Administrator’s ‘‘decision . . . § 823(h) (‘‘The Attorney General shall
professional practice is a fundamental failed to recognize the discretion under register an applicant to distribute a list
condition for obtaining and maintaining § 824(a) to revoke or suspend a I chemical unless the Attorney General
a practitioner’s registration. See, e.g., registration and that it was determines that registration of the
James L. Hooper, 76 FR 71371 (2011), impermissible for the [Administrator] to applicant is inconsistent with the public
pet. for rev. denied, 481 Fed. Appx. 826 conclude that the CSA requires interest.’’).3 See also 78 FR at 39330.
(4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh revocation of a practitioner’s DEA Thus, as the ALJ recognized, Bio-
Blanton, 43 FR 27616 (1978). registration when the practitioner’s Diagnostic provides no comfort to
This rule derives from the text of two State license is suspended.’’ Id. at 828. Respondent.
provisions of the CSA. First, Congress He further argued that the Agency’s Finally, Respondent contends that
defined ‘‘the term ‘practitioner’ [to] decision had ‘‘ ‘read[] the suspension revocation is not warranted ‘‘given the
mean[ ] a . . . physician . . . or other option [in § 824(a)] out of the statute.’ ’’ many serious shortcomings that have
person licensed, registered or otherwise Id. (quoting Pet. Br. 11). been identified in the Boards’ actions.’’
permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in The court of appeals rejected Hooper’s Resp. Reply, at 4. DEA, however, has no
which he practices . . . to distribute, contentions. While acknowledging that authority to adjudicate the validity of
dispense, [or] administer . . . a ‘‘[s]ection 824(a) does state that the the decisions of state boards, which are
controlled substance in the course of [Agency] may ‘suspend or revoke’ a deemed to be presumptively lawful for
professional practice.’’ 21 U.S.C. registration,’’ the court noted that ‘‘the the purpose of the Controlled
802(21). Second, in setting the statute provides for this sanction Substances Act. See Kamal Tiwari, et
requirements for obtaining a [suspension] in five different al., 76 FR 71604, 71607 (2011) (quoting
practitioner’s registration, Congress circumstances, only one of which is loss George S. Heath, 51 FR 26610 (1986)
directed that ‘‘[t]he Attorney General of a State license.’’ Id. Continuing, the (‘‘DEA accepts as valid and lawful the
shall register practitioners . . . if the court explained that ‘‘[b]ecause § 823(f) action of a state regulatory board unless
applicant is authorized to dispense . . . and § 802(21) make clear that a that action is overturned by a state court
controlled substances under the laws of practitioner’s registration is dependent or otherwise pursuant to state law.’’)).
the State in which he practices.’’ 21 upon the practitioner having state Rather, Respondent is required to
U.S.C. 823(f). Because Congress has authority to dispense controlled litigate his claims challenging the
clearly mandated that a practitioner substances, the [Agency’s] decision to validity of the suspensions in the
possess state authority in order to be construe § 824(a)(3) as mandating administrative and judicial fora
deemed a practitioner under the Act, revocation upon suspension of a state provided by the States of Washington
DEA has held repeatedly that revocation license is not an unreasonable and California. See Tiwari, 76 FR at
of a practitioner’s registration is the interpretation of the CSA.’’ Id. The court 71607 (quoting Heath, 51 FR at 26610);
appropriate sanction whenever he is no further explained that the Agency’s Zhiwei Lin, 77 FR 18862, 18864 (2012);
longer authorized to dispense controlled decision did not ‘‘read[ ] the Sunil Bhasin, 72 FR 5082, 5083 (2007).
substances under the laws of the State suspension option’’ out of the statute, Here, there is no dispute that by
in which he practices medicine. See, because that option may still be virtue of the suspensions ordered by the
e.g., Hooper, 76 FR at 71371–72; Sheran available for the other circumstances MQAC and MBC, Respondent is
Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 FR 39130, 39131 enumerated in § 824(a). Id. See also currently without authority to dispense
(2006); Dominick A. Ricci, 58 FR 51104, Maynard v. DEA, 117 Fed.Appx. 941 controlled substances in the States of
51105 (1993); Bobby Watts, 53 FR (5th Cir. 2004) (rejecting physician’s Washington and California. Because he
11919, 11920 (1988); Blanton, 43 FR at contention that DEA could not revoke no longer satisfies the statutory
27616. his registration based on summary requirement of holding authority to
In his reply to the Government’s suspension of state medical license). dispense controlled substances under
Motion for Summary Disposition, As for Respondent’s contention that the laws of the States in which he is
Respondent argued that the authority Bio-Diagnostic requires that the Agency registered, he is not a practitioner
contained in 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) is consider various factors before revoking within the meaning of the Act and it is
discretionary with respect to a his registration, that case involved a list of no consequence that he has yet to be
practitioner’s registration and that I chemical distributor and not a afforded a hearing by the MQAC (or
‘‘[t]here are numerous factors that the practitioner. See 78 FR at 39327, 39330.
MBC) to challenge the suspensions. See
[Agency] should consider prior to Unlike a practitioner, which the CSA
Saqer, 81 FR at 22126; Bourne
summarily revoking [his] [r]egistration.’’ defines, in relevant part, as ‘‘a physician
Pharmacy, 72 FR 18273, 18274 (2007);
Resp’s Reply, at 3 (citing Bio-Diagnostic, . . . or other person licensed, registered
Wingfield Drugs, 52 FR 27070, 27071
78 FR 39327). He maintains that the or otherwise permitted, by . . . the
(1987). Accordingly, he is not entitled to
Agency is required to consider that he jurisdiction in which he practices . . .
maintain his DEA registrations in
is appealing the state suspensions and to distribute, dispense, [or] administer
Washington and California and I will
that the DEA proceeding should be . . . a controlled substance in the
therefore order that his registrations be
resolved ‘‘through a suspension . . . course of professional practice,’’ 21
revoked.
and not a full revocation . . . given the U.S.C. 802(21), neither the definition of
many serious shortcomings that have a distributor nor the registration ORDER
been identified in the Boards’ actions.’’ provision applicable to a list I chemical Pursuant to the authority vested in me
Id. at 3–4. distributor explicitly requires that an by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), as well as 28 CFR
In Hooper v. Holder, 481 Fed. Appx.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES

applicant/registrant holds a state license
826 (4th Cir. 2012), a practitioner authorizing the applicant/registrant to 3 This is not to say that the Agency cannot deny
challenged the Agency’s order which engage in such activity. See id. § 802(11) an application or revoke a registration where an
revoked his registration after his state (‘‘The term ‘distribute’ means to deliver applicant/registrant does not possess authority
license was suspended for a one-year . . . a controlled substance or a listed under state law to engage in the distribution of a
list I chemical. What it is to say is that the loss of
period. Id. at 826. Dr. Hooper argued chemical. The term ‘distributor’ means such authority does not automatically require the
that the revocation of his registration a person who so delivers a controlled denial or revocation of a registration. See Bio-
was ‘‘arbitrary and capricious’’ because substance or a listed chemical.’’); id. Diagnostic, 78 FR at 39331.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:15 Feb 17, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21FEN1.SGM 21FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 33 / Tuesday, February 21, 2017 / Notices 11241

0.100(b), I order that DEA Certificates of exercise all necessary functions with Underwriters, Inc. will pay $140,000,
Registration FL0680947, FL1688235, respect to the promulgation and DII Industries LLC will pay $720,000,
FL2601335, and BL7067261, issued to implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, Exide Technologies will pay $15,000,
Frank D. Li, M.D., be, and they hereby incident to the registration of and Gould Electronics Inc. will pay
are, revoked. Pursuant to the authority manufacturers, distributors, dispensers $230,000. In return, the United States
vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f), as well importers, and exporters of, controlled agrees not to sue the defendants under
as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I further order that substances (other than final orders in Sections 106 and 107 of CERCLA with
any pending application of Frank D. Li, connection with suspension, denial, or respect to the NL Depew Superfund
M.D., to renew or modify any of the revocation of registration) has been Site, subject to certain reservations.
aforesaid registrations, be, and it hereby redelegated to the Assistant
is, denied. This Order is effective Administrator of the DEA Diversion The publication of this notice opens
immediately.4 Control Division (‘‘Assistant a period for public comment on the
Administrator’’) pursuant to section 7 of consent decrees. Comments should be
Dated: February 13, 2017.
28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R. addressed to the Assistant Attorney
Chuck Rosenberg,
In accordance with 21 CFR General, Environment and Natural
Acting Administrator.
1301.34(a), this is notice that on October Resources Division, and should refer to
[FR Doc. 2017–03272 Filed 2–17–17; 8:45 am] 27, 2016, Hospira, 1776 North United States v. NL Industries, Inc. et
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P Centennial Drive, McPherson, Kansas al., D.J. Ref. No. 90–11–3–11341. All
67460–1247 applied to be registered as comments must be submitted no later
an importer of remifentanil (9739), a than thirty (30) days after the
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE basic class of controlled substance listed publication date of this notice.
Drug Enforcement Administration in schedule II. Comments may be submitted either by
The company plans to import
email or by mail:
[Docket No. DEA–392] remifentanil for use in dosage form
manufacturing.
Importer of Controlled Substances To submit Send them to:
Dated: February 8, 2017. comments:
Application: Hospira
Louis J. Milione,
ACTION: Notice of application. Assistant Administrator. By email ....... pubcomment-ees.enrd@
usdoj.gov.
[FR Doc. 2017–03273 Filed 2–17–17; 8:45 am]
DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of By mail ......... Assistant Attorney General,
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O.
the affected basic class, and applicants
Box 7611, Washington, DC
therefore, may file written comments on 20044–7611.
or objections to the issuance of the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
proposed registration in accordance
with 21 CFR 1301.34(a) on or before Notice of Lodging of Proposed During the public comment period,
March 23, 2017. Such persons may also Consent Decrees Under the the consent decrees may be examined
file a written request for a hearing on Comprehensive Environmental and downloaded at this Justice
the application pursuant to 21 CFR Response, Compensation, and Liability Department Web site: https://
1301.43 on or before March 23, 2017. Act www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should We will provide a paper copy of the
On February 10, 2017, the Department
be sent to: Drug Enforcement consent decrees upon written request
of Justice lodged two proposed consent
Administration, Attention: DEA Federal decrees with the United States District and payment of reproduction costs.
Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Court for the Western District of New Please mail your request and payment
Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia York in the lawsuit entitled United to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ—
22152. All requests for hearing must be States v. NL Industries, Inc., et al., Civil ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC
sent to: Drug Enforcement Action No. 1:17–cv–124. 20044–7611.
Administration, Attn: Administrator, The United States filed this lawsuit Please enclose a check or money order
8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, under the Comprehensive for $5.00 for the decree with NL, $6.50
Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing Environmental Response, Compensation for the decree with the remaining
should also be sent to: (1) Drug and Liability Act (CERCLA). The United defendants, or $11.50 for both decrees
Enforcement Administration, Attn: States’ complaint names NL Industries,
Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette (25 cents per page reproduction cost)
Inc., ACF Industries, LLC, American payable to the United States Treasury.
Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and Premier Underwriters, Inc., DII
(2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Industries LLC, Exide Technologies, and Robert E. Maher, Jr.,
Attn: DEA Federal Register Gould Electronics Inc. as defendants. Assistant Section Chief, Environmental
Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette The complaint requests recovery of Enforcement Section, Environment and
Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. costs that the United States incurred Natural Resources Division.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The responding to releases of hazardous [FR Doc. 2017–03294 Filed 2–17–17; 8:45 am]
Attorney General has delegated her substances at the NL Depew Superfund BILLING CODE 4410–CW–P
authority under the Controlled Site in Depew, Erie County, New York.
Substances Act to the Administrator of NL Industries, Inc. signed the first
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES

the Drug Enforcement Administration consent decree, and the remaining
(DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to defendants signed the second consent
decree. The defendants agree to pay the
4 For the same reasons that the MQAC summarily
following amounts of the United States’
suspended Respondent’s medical license, I
conclude that the public interest necessitates that
response costs: NL Industries, Inc. will
this Order be effective immediately. 21 CFR pay $3.677 million, ACF Industries, LLC
1316.67. will pay $80,000, American Premier

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:15 Feb 17, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\21FEN1.SGM 21FEN1
Document Created: 2018-02-01 15:04:31
Document Modified: 2018-02-01 15:04:31
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		82 FR 11238
82 FR 11238 - Frank D. Li, M.D.; Decision and Order

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICEDrug Enforcement Administration

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 33 (February 21, 2017)

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
