62080 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 204 / Friday, October 22, 2004 / Notices 

acquire the precursor products needed 

to manufacture the drug from 

convenience stores and gas stations 

which, in prior DEA decisions, have 

been identified as constituting the ‘‘grey 

market’’ for list I chemical products. 

Absolute’s intended customer base 

consists entirely of such businesses. 

While there are no specific 

prohibitions under the Controlled 

Substances Act regarding the sale of 

listed chemical products to these 

entities, DEA has nevertheless found 

these establishments serve as sources for 

the diversion of large amounts of listed 

chemical products. See, e.g., ANM 

Wholesale, 69 FR 11,652 (2004); Xtreme 

Enterprises, Inc., supra, 67 FR 76,195; 

Sinbad Distributing, 67 FR 10,232 

(2002); K.V.M. Enterprises, 67 FR 70,968 

(2002). 

The Deputy Administrator has 

previously found that many 

considerations weighed heavily against 

registering a distributor of list I 

chemicals because, ‘‘[v]irtually all of the 

Respondent’s customers, consisting of 

gas stations and convenience stores, are 

considered part of the grey market, in 

which large amounts of listed chemicals 

are diverted to the illicit manufacture of 

amphetamine and methamphetamine.’’

Xtreme Enterprises, Inc., supra, 67 FR at 

76,197. As in Xtreme Enterprises, Inc., 

Mr. Milton’s lack of a criminal record 

and stated intent to comply with the law 

and regulations are far outweighed by 

his lack of experience and the 

company’s intent to sell ephedrine 

exclusively to the gray market. 

Additionally, the Deputy 

Administrator is troubled by Mr. 

Milton’s comments suggesting he still 

questioned whether list I chemical 

products are being diverted for illicit 

manufacturing, even after being 

specifically educated by DEA 

investigators to the contrary. His 

professed personal ignorance of the 

methamphetamine manufacturing 

problem in Utah suggests he is 

motivated by financial gain and would 

be unable or unwilling to comply with 

the responsibilities of a DEA registrant. 

Based on the foregoing, the Deputy 

Administrator concludes that granting 

the pending application would be 

inconsistent with the public interest. 

Accordingly, the 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 the pending application 

for DEA Certificate of Registration, 

previously submitted by Absolute 

Distributing, Inc., be, and it hereby is, 

denied. This order is effective 

November 22, 2004.

Dated: October 5, 2004. 

Michelle M. Leonhart, 

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 04–23705 Filed 10–21–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 04–38] 

Roland F. Chalifoux, Jr., D.O.; 

Revocation of Registration 

On April 9, 2004, the Deputy 

Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA), issued an Order 

to show Cause to Roland F. Chalifoux, 

Jr., D.O. (Respondent) notifying him of 

an opportunity to show cause as to why 

DEA should not revoke his DEA 

Certificate of Registration, BC1457818, 

under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), and deny his 

pending application for renewal of that 

registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f). 

Specifically, the Order to Show Cause 

alleged in relevant part that on July 19, 

2002, the Texas State Board of Medical 

Examiners (Medical Board) temporarily 

suspended Respondent’s Texas medical 

license; that on March 20, 2003, the 

Texas Department of Public Safety 

(Department) revoked Respondent’s 

state controlled substances registration; 

and that as a result, Respondent is not 

authorized to handle controlled 

substances in Texas, the state in which 

he maintains his DEA registration. 

By letter dated May 7, 2004, the 

Respondent, through his legal counsel, 

timely requested a hearing in this 

matter. As part of his hearing request, 

the Respondent asserted that he ‘‘* * * 

has a license to practice medicine in 

Texas [and no] action has been taken to 

date that has deprived him of the 

license.’’ On May 24, 2004, the 

presiding Administrative Law Judge 

Mary Ellen Bittner (Judge Bittner) issued 

to counsel for DEA as well as the 

Respondent an Order for Prehearing 

Statements. 

In lieu of filing a Prehearing 

Statement, counsel for DEA filed 

Government’s Motion for Summary 

Disposition and Motion to Stay the 

Filing of Prehearing Statements on May 

25, 2004. In its motion, the Government 

recited the primary allegations raised in 

the Order to Show Cause regarding the 

July 2002 Temporary Suspension Order 

of the Medical Board suspending the 

Respondent’s medical license and the 

Department’s March 30, 2003 revocation 

of the Respondent’s Texas state 

controlled substance registration. In 

support of its motions, the Government 

attached copies of the aforementioned 

Temporary Suspension Order of the 

Medical Board as well as the revocation 

notice of the Department. Accordingly, 

the Government argued that a motion 

for summary disposition is appropriate 

in this matter and Respondent’s DEA 

Certicate of Registration should be 

revoked. 

On June 15, 2004, counsel for the 

Respondent filed a Response to Motion 

for Summary Disposition. In his reply 

brief, the Respondent argued in relevant 

part that because he currently has 

licenses to practice in jurisdictions 

outside of Texas, and since the DEA 

registration may be utilized in any 

jurisdiction where a practitioner has a 

license, the DEA matter is ‘‘premature.’’

The Respondent further argued that the 

Department’s revocation notice does not 

evidence a final action. The 

Respondent’s reply however did not 

address whether he is currently 

authorized to handle controlled 

substances under Texas state law. 

On June 28, 2004, 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 the 

Respondent lacked authorization to 

handle controlled substances in Texas, 

the jurisdiction in which he is registered 

with DEA. In granting the Government’s 

motion, Judge Bittner also 

recommended that the Respondent’s 

DEA registration be revoked. No 

exceptions were filed by either party to 

Judge Bittner’s Opinion and 

Recommended Decision, and on August 

10, 2004, the record of these 

proceedings was transmitted to the 

Office of the DEA Deputy 

Administrator.

The 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 Deputy 

Administrator adopts, in full, the 

Opinion and Recommended Decision of 

the Administrative Law Judge. 

The Deputy Administrator finds that 

the Respondent currently possesses 

DEA Certificate of Registration 

BC1457818, and is registered to handle 

controlled substances at a location in 

Arlington, Texas, as well as a second 

medical practice location in South Lake, 

Texas. As outlined above, the 

Respondent is currently without 

authorization to handle controlled 

substances in Texas based upon the 

suspension of his medical license, and 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 204 / Friday, October 22, 2004 / Notices 62081

most significant, the revocation of his 

Texas state controlled substances 

registration. While the Respondent has 

presented some evidence that he is 

licensed to practice medicine in 

jurisdictions other than Texas, there is 

no evidence before the Deputy 

Administrator that the Respondent 

applied for, or has been granted 

reinstatement of his Texas controlled 

substance license, the state where he 

holds a DEA 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 handle controlled 

substances in the state in which he 

conducts business. See 21 U.S.C. 

802(21), 823(f) and 824(a)(3). This 

prerequisite has been consistently 

upheld. See Kanwaljit S. Serai, M.D., 68 

FR 48943 (2003); Dominick A. Ricci, 

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

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

Here, it is clear that the Respondent’s 

state controlled substance license has 

been revoked and there is no 

information before the Deputy 

Administrator which points to the 

Department’s revocation order having 

been rescinded. As a result, the 

Respondent is not licensed to handle 

controlled substances in Texas, where 

he is registered with DEA, and therefore, 

he is not entitled to maintain that 

registration. 

In further support of his continued 

registration with DEA, Respondent 

argues that consideration should be 

given to his state licensure to practice 

medicine in jurisdictions other than 

Texas. However, as noted in Judge 

Bittner’s Opinion and Recommended 

Decision, DEA regulations require a 

separate registration ‘‘for each principal 

place of business or professional 

practice * * * where controlled 

substances are manufactured, 

distributed, imported, exported, or 

dispensed by a person.’’ Therefore, the 

Respondent’s assertions regarding his 

licensure status in jurisdictions outside 

of Texas are ultimately irrelevant since 

his DEA Certificate of Registration is for 

a Texas address, and he is currently not 

authorized to handle controlled 

substances in that state. See, Layfe 

Robert Anthony, M.D., 67 FR 35582 

(2002). 

Accordingly, the 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 DEA Certificate of 

Registration, BC1457818, issued to 

Roland F. Chalifoux, Jr., D.O., be, and it 

hereby is, revoked. The Deputy 

Administrator further orders that any 

pending applications for renewal or 

modification of such registration be, and 

they hereby are, denied. This order is 

effective November 22, 2004.

Dated: October 5, 2004. 

Michele M. Leonhart, 

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 04–23708 Filed 10–21–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 02–35] 

Imran I. Chaudry, M.D.; Revocation and 

Denial of Registration 

On February 6, 2002, the Deputy 

Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA), issued an Order 

to Show Cause to Imran I. Chaudry, 

M.D. (Respondent) at two separate 

addresses in Monroe, Louisiana. The 

Order to Show Cause notified 

Respondent of an opportunity to show 

cause as to why DEA should not revoke 

his DEA Certificate of Registration, 

BC4775233, and deny any pending 

applications for modification or renewal 

of that registration, pursuant to 21 

U.S.C. 824(a)(4) and 823(f), for reason 

that Respondent’s continued registration 

was inconsistent with the public 

interest. 

Specifically, the Order to Show Cause 

alleged that in March of 2001, 

Respondent, (1) had been abusing the 

controlled substances cocaine and 

methamphetamine, an (2) in April of 

2001, Respondent offered to purchase, 

and in fact purchased, approximately 14 

grams of methamphetamine, for which 

he was arrested and charged with 

Possession of Methamphetamine with 

Intent to Distribute, and Conspiracy to 

Distribute Methamphetamine. 

By letter dated March 5, 2002, 

Respondent through his legal counsel 

requested a hearing on the issues raised 

by the Order to Show Cause. Following 

pre-hearing procedures, a hearing was 

held on December 4, 2002, in Monroe, 

Louisiana. While both parties called 

witnesses to testify at the hearing, 

Respondent elected not to testify in his 

behalf. Both parties also introduced 

documentary evidence. After the 

hearing, both parties submitted written 

proposed findings of fact, conclusions of 

law, and argument. 

On June 13, 2003, Administrative Law 

Judge Gail A. Randall (Judge Randall) 

issued her Recommended Rulings, 

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law 

and Decision (Opinion and 

Recommended Ruling) in which she 

concluded that grounds existed to 

revoke Respondent’s DEA registration, 

but recommended that Respondent’s 

then-pending applications for renewal 

and change of registered address be 

granted, subject to certain conditions. 

On June 19, 2003, the Government filed 

exceptions to Judge Randall’s Opinion 

and Recommended Ruling and on July 

2, 2003, Respondent filed a response to 

the Government’s exceptions. On 

August 6, 2003, Judge Randall 

transmitted the record of these 

proceedings to the Administrator of 

DEA. 

The Deputy Administrator has 

considered the record in it 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. As set forth 

below, the Deputy Administrator adopts 

in part, the recommended findings of 

fact and conclusions of law of the 

Administrative Law Judge. The Deputy 

Administrator does not adopt the 

Administrative Law Judge’s 

recommendation that Respondent’s 

applications for renewal of registration 

and change of registered address be 

granted. 

The record before the Deputy 

Administrator shows that as of the date 

of the hearing, Respondent’s license to 

practice medicine in Louisiana was in 

good standing and that he possessed a 

then-current Louisiana narcotics 

license. Respondent practices medicine 

in the vicinity of Monroe, Louisiana as 

a cardiologist. In the rural area where 

Respondent’s practice is located, the 

ratio of physicians to patients is 

approximately 1 to 2,000 to 2,500. 

Respondent is the only cardiologist in 

that community. Evidence was also 

presented during the hearing that, 

although twenty-five percent of 

Louisiana’s citizens reside in rural areas 

of the state, only six percent of 

Louisiana’s practicing primary care 

physicians practice medicine in rural 

areas.

On August 19, 1998, DEA issued 

Certificate of Registration BC4775233 to 

Respondent and that certificate expired 

on August 31, 2001. Nevertheless, by 

application dated September 4, 2001, 

Respondent attempted to renew the 

registration and modify it to reflect a 

new address. A Government witness 

testified that because Respondent 

submitted a renewal application, he was 

authorized to prescribe controlled 

substances within the course of 

legitimate medical practice on a day-today basis until conclusion of these 

proceedings. However, since he was no