Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2004 / Notices 5583

registration is consistent with the public 

interest. This investigation included 

inspection and testing of the company’s 

physical security systems, verification 

of the company’s compliance with State 

and local laws, and a review of the 

company’s background and history. 

Therefore, pursuant to section 1008(a) of 

the Controlled Substances Import and 

Export Act and in accordance with Title 

21, Code of Federal Regulations, section 

1301.34, the above firm is granted 

registration as an importer of the basic 

classes of controlled substances listed.

Dated: December 24, 2003. 

Laura M. Nagel, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–2340 Filed 2–4–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 03–14] 

Prescriptionline.com Revocation of 

Registration 

On December 18, 2002, the Deputy 

Administrator of the Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA) issued an Order 

to Show Cause and Immediate 

Suspension of Registration to 

Prescriptiononline.com (Respondent) of 

Las Vegas, Nevada. Relying on 21 U.S.C. 

823(f) and 824(a)(3), (a)(4) and (d), the 

Order proposed revoking Respondent’s 

retail pharmacy Certificate of 

Registration, BP6558069, and denying 

any pending applications for renewal or 

modification of such registration. It 

further notified Respondent that its 

registration was suspended 

immediately, that the suspension would 

remain in effect until a final 

determination in this proceeding and 

that DEA agents were authorized to and 

directed to place under seal and remove 

all controlled substances possessed by 

Respondent and take into their 

possession, Respondent’s certificate of 

registration. 

As grounds for revocation, the Order 

to Show Cause alleged, among other 

things, that between March 12 and 

September 26, 2002, Respondent 

provided 1,599,828 dosage units of 

controlled substances via the Internet 

pursuant to prescriptions issued by 

physicians who had not established 

physician-patient relationships with the 

persons to whom the prescriptions were 

issued. 

On January 22, 2003, Respondent, 

through counsel, timely requested a 

hearing in this matter and on January 

24, 2003, the Presiding Administrative 

Law Judge Mary Ellen Bittner (Judge 

Bittner) issued the Government, as well 

as Respondent, an Order for Prehearing 

Statements. On February 12, 2003, in 

lieu of filing a prehearing statement, the 

Government filed Government’s Motion 

for Summary Judgment and to Extend 

the Time to File Prehearing Statements 

if Necessary. The Government argued 

Respondent had entered into a 

stipulation and agreement with the 

Nevada State Board of Pharmacy 

(Nevada Board) in which, among other 

things, Respondent agreed to revocation 

of its Nevada pharmacy license, that on 

January 27, 2003, the Nevada Board 

ratified the stipulation and agreement 

and that as a result, Respondent is no 

longer authorized to dispense or 

otherwise handle controlled substances 

in the State of Nevada, the jurisdiction 

in which it is registered, a prerequisite 

for DEA registration. Attached to the 

Government’s motion was a copy of the 

stipulation and agreement and the 

Nevada Board’s order ratifying it. 

On February 14, 2003, Judge Bittner 

issued a Memorandum to Counsel and 

Order staying the filing of prehearing 

statements and providing Respondent 

until February 28, 2003, to respond to 

the Government’s motion. Respondent 

did not file any response. 

On March 19, 2003, Judge Bittner 

issued her Opinion and Recommended 

Decision of the Administrative Law 

Judge (Opinion and Recommended 

Decision). As part of her recommended 

ruling, Judge Bittner granted the 

Government’s Motion for Summary 

Disposition and found that Respondent 

lacked authorization to handle 

controlled substances in Nevada, the 

jurisdiction in which it was registered. 

Judge Bittner also recommended that 

the Respondent’s DEA certificate of 

registration be revoked and that any 

pending applications for renewal or 

modification be denied. No exceptions 

were filed by either party to Judge 

Bittner’s Opinion and Recommended 

Decision and on April 22, 2003, the 

record of these proceedings was 

transmitted to the Office of the thenDEA Deputy Administrator. 

The Acting Deputy Administrator has 

considered the record in its entirety and 

pursuant to 21 CFR 1316.67, hereby 

issues her final order based upon 

findings of fact and conclusions of law 

as hereinafter set forth. The Acting 

Deputy Administrator adopts, in full, 

the Opinion and Recommended 

Decision of the Administrative Law 

Judge. 

The Acting Deputy Administrator 

finds that Respondent, registered to do 

business in the State of Nevada, was 

issued DEA Certificate of Registration 

BP6558069 as a retail pharmacy. The 

Acting Deputy Administrator further 

finds that on January 22, 2003, 

Respondent voluntarily entered into a 

‘‘Stipulation and Agreement between 

Board Staff and Prescriptionline.com’’

in which Respondent agreed to 

revocation of its State of Nevada 

pharmacy license. On January 27, 2003, 

the Nevada Board issued an Order 

ratifying the stipulation and agreement. 

Respondent has not denied that it 

currently is not licensed to practice 

pharmacy in Nevada, its jurisdiction of 

registration. 

DEA does not have statutory authority 

under the Controlled Substances Act to 

issue or maintain a registration if the 

applicant or registrant is without State 

authority to dispense or handle 

controlled substances in the State in 

which it conducts business. See 21 

U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f) and 824(a)(3). 

This prerequisite has been consistently 

upheld. See Karen Joe Smily, M.D., 68 

FR 48944 (2003); Dominick A. Ricci, 

M.D., 58 FR 51104 (1993); Bobby Watts, 

M.D., 53 FR 11919 (1988); Wingfield 

Drugs, Inc., 52 FR 27070 (1987). 

Here, it is clear that Respondent is not 

currently licensed to handle controlled 

substances in Nevada, the jurisdiction 

in which it maintains a DEA 

registration. Therefore, it is not 

currently entitled to a DEA registation. 

Accordingly, the Acting Deputy 

Administrator of the Drug Enforcement 

Administration, pursuant to the 

authority vested in her by 21 U.S.C. 823 

and 824 and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, 

hereby orders that the DEA Certificate of 

Registration issued to 

Prescriptionline.com be, and it hereby 

is, revoked. The Acting Deputy 

Administrator further orders that any 

pending applications for renewal of 

such registration be, and they hereby 

are, denied. This order is effecting 

March 8, 2004.

Dated: January 7, 2004. 

Michele M. Leonhart, 

Acting Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 04–2342 Filed 2–4–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Importer of Controlled Substances 

Notice of Registration 

By notice dated September 2, 2003, 

and published in the Federal Register

on October 27, 2003 (68 FR 61234–

61235), Sigma Aldrich Company, 

Subsidiary of Sigma-Aldrich