On December 17, 2025, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension of Registration (OSC/ISO) to Atlantic Treatment Center, LLC, of Pompano Beach, Florida (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 2, at 1, 7. The OSC/ISO informed Registrant of the immediate suspension of its DEA registration, No. RA0645400, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(d), alleging that its continued registration is “an imminent danger to the public health or safety.” Id. at 1. The OSC/ISO also proposed the revocation of its DEA registration, alleging that it lacks state authority and federal certification to continue operating as a provider of substance use disorder treatment services. Id. (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(h), 824(a), 824(a)(3)).^[1]

More specifically, the OSC/ISO alleged that Registrant, a detoxification treatment center providing substance use disorder treatment services, had its state license to provide such services revoked and was instructed by the applicable state governing body to “immediately cease and desist any and all services which require licensure for treatment.” RFAAX 2, at 3-4. The OSC/ISO also alleged that Registrant's federal certification to provide such services was withdrawn by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). ² Id. at 1, 5.

On April 8, 2026, the Government submitted an RFAA to the ( printed page 55621) Administrator requesting that the Agency ^[3] issue a default final order revoking Registrant's registration. RFAA, at 1, 10. After carefully reviewing the entire record and conducting the analysis as set forth in detail below, the Agency grants the Government's RFAA and revokes Registrant's registration.

I. Service of the OSC/ISO Satisfied Constitutional Due Process

Based on the Government's submissions in its RFAA, the Agency finds that service of the OSC/ISO on Registrant was adequate. Specifically, the Declaration from a DEA Diversion Investigator (DI) recounts in detail, under penalty of perjury, the multiple attempts and methods to serve the OSC/ISO on Registrant's owner and its attorney. RFAA, at 2-3; RFAAX 3 & Attachments.

On December 18, 2025, the day after the OSC/ISO was issued, DI and other DEA personnel traveled to Registrant's registered location and the residence of Registrant's owner to attempt personal service of the OSC/ISO. RFAAX 3, at 4-5. On the same day, DI emailed a copy of the OSC/ISO to Registrant's attorney. RFAAX 3, at 5 & Attachment G.

On December 19, 2025, DI and other DEA personnel again attempted personal service of the OSC/ISO at Registrant's registered location. RFAAX 3, at 5. On the same day, DI emailed Registrant, asking that Registrant “[p]lease call or respon[d] to [the] email as soon as possible . . . regarding the DEA Registration for ATLANTIC TREATMENT CENTER, LLC.” Id. & Attachment H.

On December 22, 2025, DI mailed a copy of the OSC/ISO by United States Postal Service (USPS) certified mail to Registrant's registered address. RFAAX 3, at 5. The certified mail receipt and USPS tracking data show that the OSC/ISO was successfully delivered on December 26, 2025. RFAAX 3, at 5 & Attachment I (signed receipt) & Attachment J (tracking data).

On December 22, 2025, DI mailed a copy of the OSC/ISO by USPS certified mail to Registrant's attorney. RFAAX 3, at 5-6. The certified mail receipt and USPS tracking data show that the OSC/ISO was successfully delivered on December 29, 2025. RFAAX 3, at 6 & Attachment I (signed receipt) & Attachment K (tracking data).

On December 22, 2025, DI mailed a copy of the OSC/ISO by USPS certified mail to the residential address of Registrant's owner. RFAAX 3, at 6. The USPS tracking data shows that the OSC/ISO was successfully delivered on December 26, 2025. Id. & Attachment L (tracking data).

On January 5, 2026, DI personally served the OSC/ISO on an individual at the office of Registrant's attorney. RFAAX 3, at 6 & Attachment M (a signed Form DEA-12, Receipt for Cash or Other Items, confirming service).

In sum, DI attempted to serve the OSC/ISO in-person at Registrant's registered location and residence. DI also attempted to serve the OSC/ISO by mail, and USPS certified mail receipts and tracking data show that the OSC/ISO was delivered to Registrant's registered location, residence, and its attorney's office. DI also emailed Registrant about its registration and did not receive a response. DI also successfully served the OSC/ISO in-person at Registrant's attorney's office. Accordingly, due to the multiple attempts and methods to serve the OSC/ISO on Registrant and its attorney, and the evidence showing that the OSC/ISO was received by certified mail at multiple locations and by an individual at Registrant's attorney's office, the Agency finds that constitutional due process notice requirements have been satisfied. See Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 226 (2006) (due process does not require actual notice but only “`notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action'” (quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950))); Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161, 170 (2002) (holding that the government is not required to undertake “heroic efforts” to ensure notice is delivered).

II. Registrant is in Default for Failure To Request a Hearing

Under 21 CFR 1301.43, a registrant entitled to a hearing who fails to file a timely hearing request “within 30 days after the date of receipt of the [OSC] . . . shall be deemed to have waived their right to a hearing and to be in default” unless “good cause” is established for the failure. 21 CFR 1301.43(a), (c)(1). In the absence of a demonstration of good cause, a registrant who fails to timely file an answer also is “deemed to have waived their right to a hearing and to be in default.” 21 CFR 1301.43(c)(2). Unless excused, a default is deemed to constitute “an admission of the factual allegations of the [OSC].” 21 CFR 1301.43(e).

The OSC/ISO notified Registrant of its right to file a written request for hearing and answer, and that if it failed to file such a request and answer, it would be deemed to have waived its right to a hearing and be in default. RFAAX 2, at 6 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). Here, Registrant did not request a hearing, file an answer, or respond to the OSC/ISO in any way. RFAA, at 1, 3-5. Thus, the Agency finds that Registrant is in default and therefore has admitted to the factual allegations in the OSC/ISO. 21 CFR 1301.43(c)(1), (e), (f)(1).

III. Applicable Law

Congress enacted the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) “to conquer drug abuse and control the legitimate and illegitimate traffic in controlled substances.” Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 12 (2005). A particular concern of Congress was “the need to prevent the diversion of drugs from legitimate to illicit channels,” and it “devised a closed regulatory system making it unlawful to manufacture, distribute, dispense, or possess any controlled substance except in a manner authorized by the CSA.” Id. at 12-13.

The CSA's requirements under this closed regulatory system include that “[e]very person who dispenses, or who proposes to dispense, any controlled substance, shall obtain from the [DEA] a registration.” 21 U.S.C. 822(a)(2); see Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. at 27-28. DEA regulations require a specific registration “as a narcotic treatment program” for an entity, such as Registrant, to administer or dispense controlled substances “for the purpose of . . . detoxification treatment.” 21 CFR 1306.07(a); RFAAX 2, at 2. To obtain a DEA registration for this activity requires the registrant to possess state authority and certification from SAMHSA. 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), (h)(1); 21 CFR 1306.07(a); 42 CFR 8.11(c).

State licensure to handle controlled substances is a prerequisite to obtaining and maintaining a DEA registration. 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3). Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under 21 U.S.C. 823 “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had [its] State license or registration suspended . . . [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” ^[4]

To conduct activities in Florida as a detoxification treatment facility, Registrant is required to comply with applicable Florida law, to include state law making it a felony to operate as a substance abuse service provider without a license. Fla. Stat. § 397.401(2); RFAAX 2, at 2; see Fla. Stat. § 397.401(1) (Florida law making it “unlawful for any person or agency to act as a substance abuse service provider unless it is licensed or exempt from licensure . . .”). Further, a pharmacy must maintain a state pharmacy license to operate as a pharmacy in Florida. Fla. Stat. § 465.015(1). Florida law defines “[t]he practice of the profession of pharmacy” to include “compounding, dispensing, and consulting concerning contents, therapeutic values, and uses of any medicinal drug.” Fla. Stat. § 465.003(22); see Fla. Stat. § 465.003(15) (defining “[m]edicinal drugs” or “drugs” as “those substances or preparations commonly known as `prescription' or `legend' drugs which are required by federal or state law to be dispensed only on a prescription”).

The CSA also authorizes DEA to revoke a detoxification treatment registration “upon a finding that the registrant has failed to comply with any standard referred to in section 823(h).” 21 U.S.C. 824(a) (paragraph below subsection (5)); ⁵ Hollywood Med. Rehab. Care, Inc.,90 FR 47827, 47830-31 & n.7 (2025). One of the “standard[s] referred to in section 823(h)” requires a detoxification treatment facility, such as Registrant, to possess a current and valid federal certification from SAMHSA. 21 U.S.C. 823(h)(1), 824(a); 42 CFR 8.11(a)(1). Specifically, the CSA provides that DEA “shall register an applicant to dispense narcotic drugs to individuals for . . . detoxification treatment” if, among other things, the Secretary of HHS, acting through SAMHSA, determines that the applicant is “qualified . . . to engage in” detoxification treatment. 21 U.S.C. 823(h)(1); RFAAX 2, at 2. To be qualified to engage in detoxification treatment, an opioid treatment program, such as Registrant, is required to “comply with all pertinent Federal and State laws and regulations,” and is required to hold “a current, valid certification from the Secretary [of HHS] to be considered qualified” under 21 U.S.C. 823(h)(1). 42 CFR 8.11(a)(1), (e)(1); RFAAX 2, at 2. Failure to maintain a current and valid certification from SAMHSA is grounds for revocation of a DEA detoxification treatment registration. 21 U.S.C. 823(h)(1), 824(a) (paragraph below subsection (5)); 42 CFR 8.11(a)(1), (e)(1).

IV. Findings of Fact

In light of Registrant's default, the factual allegations in the OSC/ISO are deemed admitted. 21 CFR 1301.43(e). According to the OSC/ISO, Registrant is registered with DEA as a detoxification treatment center and authorized to handle controlled substances in Schedules II and III. RFAAX 2, at 3; see RFAAX 1, at 1. As discussed in greater detail below, this matter concerns the revocation of Registrant's state license to operate as a substance abuse outpatient methadone detoxification treatment facility in Florida (number LIC-1048046), the loss of Registrant's state pharmacy license (number PH34389), and the withdrawal of its federal certification from SAMHSA to operate an opioid treatment program (number FL10218M). RFAAX 2, at 3-5.

A. Registrant's State Licenses

On or about April 18, 2025, the State of Florida Department of Children and Families (Department) issued an Administrative Complaint for License Revocation (Administrative Complaint) to Registrant providing notice of the revocation of Registrant's license, number LIC-1048046, to operate a substance abuse outpatient methadone detoxification treatment facility in Florida.^[6] RFAAX 2, at 4; see RFAAX 3, Attachment B.

According to Florida online records, of which the Agency takes official notice,^[7] Registrant's Florida outpatient methadone detoxification treatment facility license is currently in an inactive status.^[8] Florida Department of Children and Families, Provider Substance Use Disorder Licensing and Designation Search, sudprovidersearch.myflfamilies.com (last visited date of signature of this Order).^[9]

Accordingly, Registrant is currently without authority to provide substance use disorder treatment services in Florida. RFAAX 2, at 5. Due to the lack of state authority to provide substance use disorder treatment services, Registrant is unable to dispense controlled substances for such purposes in Florida, the state in which Registrant is registered with DEA as a detoxification treatment facility. ¹⁰ Id.

Further, Registrant also lacks state authority to handle controlled substances as a pharmacy in Florida. The Agency takes official notice, supra nn.7 & 9, that Registrant's Florida state pharmacy license, number PH34389, is listed in “disciplinary relinquish” status, meaning Registrant was disciplined by the state regulatory body and Registrant “offered to give up [its] license to practice in the state of Florida to avoid further prosecution in a disciplinary case,” and that Registrant “is not authorized to practice in the state of Florida.” Florida Department of Health License Verification, mqa-internet.doh.state.fl.us/​mqasearchservices/​healthcareproviders (last visited date of signature of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds that Registrant is not currently licensed to engage in the practice of pharmacy in Florida, the state in which Registrant is registered with DEA.

B. Registrant's Federal Certification

On or about July 23, 2025, Florida's Substance Use Disorders & State Opioid Treatment Authority notified SAMHSA of Registrant's involuntary discontinuation of opioid treatment. RFAAX 2, at 5; RFAAX 3, Attachment E, at 1. Therefore, on or about July 24, 2025, SAMHSA notified Registrant that, in accordance with 42 CFR 8.l l(c)(2), it was withdrawing Registrant's opioid treatment program certification. Id.

V. Discussion

Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant currently lacks state authority and federal certification to handle controlled substances for detoxification treatment in Florida. RFAAX 2, at 4-5. Specifically, Registrant's Florida state license was revoked, and its federal certification was withdrawn. Id. As discussed above, a registrant must maintain state licensure and federal certification to provide substance abuse treatment services in order to maintain a DEA registration as a detoxification treatment facility. Thus, because Registrant currently lacks such state authority and federal certification, and, therefore, is not currently authorized to handle controlled substances as a detoxification treatment facility in Florida, Registrant is not eligible to maintain a DEA detoxification treatment facility registration in Florida. Accordingly, the Agency will order that Registrant's DEA registration be revoked.^[11] 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), 823(h)(1), 824(a); 21 CFR 1306.07(a); 42 CFR 8.11(a)(1), (c), (e)(1); Fla. Stat. § 397.401(1)-(2); see Serenity Café,77 FR 35027, 35028 (2012) (denying application for narcotic treatment program registration because applicant lacked state authority and, therefore, did not meet the CSA's definition of a practitioner); Habit Mgmt. Inst., Inc.,60 FR 41900, 41900 (1995) (denying application for narcotic treatment program registration because applicant lacked the requisite authorization from the Food and Drug Administration).

In addition, publicly available state government evidence, of which the Agency takes official notice, supra nn.7 & 9, establishes that Registrant currently lacks authority to operate a pharmacy in Florida. As already discussed, a pharmacy must be licensed to dispense a medicinal drug, including a controlled substance, in Florida. Thus, because Registrant lacks authority to practice pharmacy in Florida and, therefore, is not authorized to dispense controlled substances in Florida, Registrant is not eligible to maintain DEA registration in that state. Accordingly, the Agency finds that lack of state authority to practice pharmacy in Florida provides an additional, independent basis for revocation of Registrant's DEA registration. 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3); Fla. Stat. §§ 465.015(1), 465.003(15), (22).

Order

Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(g), 823(h), 824(a), and 824(a)(3), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. RA0645400 issued to Atlantic Treatment Center, LLC. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(g), 823(h), 824(a), and 824(a)(3), I hereby deny any pending ( printed page 55624) applications of Atlantic Treatment Center, LLC, to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of Atlantic Treatment Center, LLC, for additional registration in Florida. This Order is effective September 28, 2026.

Signing Authority

This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on August 21, 2026, by DEA Administrator Terrance C. Cole. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .