Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Notices 80151 

Commission filed a motion to stay the 

SFO appeal pending reinstatement of 

the SFO by the Commission or 

resolution of any CIT appeal by the 

Federal Circuit. On July 29, 2020, the 

Federal Circuit granted the 

Commission’s motion to stay the SFO 

appeal until the suspension of the SFO 

is lifted or until final disposition of the 

CIT appeal. 

Concurrently, on January 16, 2020, 

the Commission instituted a 

modification proceeding to determine 

whether Wirtgen’s redesigned series 

1810 machines infringe claim 19 of the 

’693 patent. On August 31, 2020, the 

Commission determined that Wirtgen’s 

redesigned machines do not infringe 

and issued modified remedial orders 

exempting the redesigned machines 

from the scope of the orders. Caterpillar 

did not appeal the Commission’s noninfringement determination to the 

Federal Circuit, and therefore, the 

Commission’s non-infringement 

determination is now final. 

Consequently, on November 5, 2020, the 

U.S. government moved to dismiss the 

CIT appeal. On December 4, 2020, the 

Federal Circuit dismissed the CIT 

appeal. 

In view of the Federal Circuit’s 

dismissal of the CIT appeal, the 

Commission has determined to institute 

a rescission proceeding and to 

permanently rescind the SFO. The 

rescission proceeding is hereby 

terminated. 

The Commission’s vote for this 

determination took place on December 

7, 2020. 

The authority for the Commission’s 

determination is contained in section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 

210 of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 

210). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: December 7, 2020. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27195 Filed 12–10–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE 

UNITED STATES 

Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy 

Rules; Hearing of the Judicial 

Conference 

AGENCY: Advisory Committee on the 

Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, 

Judicial Conference of the United States. 

ACTION: Notice of Cancellation of Open 

Hearing. 

SUMMARY: The following remote public 

hearing on proposed amendments to the 

Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 

has been canceled: Bankruptcy Rules 

Hearing on January 7, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rebecca A. Womeldorf, Secretary, 

Committee on Rules of Practice and 

Procedure of the Judicial Conference of 

the United States, Thurgood Marshall 

Federal Judiciary Building, One 

Columbus Circle NE, Suite 7–300, 

Washington, DC 20544, Telephone (202) 

502–1820, RulesCommittee_Secretary@

ao.uscourts.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Announcements for this hearing were 

previously published in 85 FR 48562. 

Authority: 28 U.S.C. 2073. 

Dated: December 8, 2020. 

Rebecca A. Womeldorf, 

Chief Counsel, Rules Committee Staff. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27279 Filed 12–10–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 2210–55–P 

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE 

UNITED STATES 

Advisory Committee on Appellate 

Rules; Hearing of the Judicial 

Conference 

AGENCY: Advisory Committee on the 

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, 

Judicial Conference of the United States. 

ACTION: Notice of Cancellation of Open 

Hearing. 

SUMMARY: The following remote public 

hearing on proposed amendments to the 

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 

has been canceled: Appellate Rules 

Hearing on January 4, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rebecca A. Womeldorf, Secretary, 

Committee on Rules of Practice and 

Procedure of the Judicial Conference of 

the United States, Thurgood Marshall 

Federal Judiciary Building, One 

Columbus Circle NE, Suite 7–300, 

Washington, DC 20544, Telephone (202) 

502–1820, RulesCommittee_Secretary@

ao.uscourts.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Announcements for this hearing were 

previously published in 85 FR 48562. 

Authority: 28 U.S.C. 2073. 

Dated: December 8, 2020. 

Rebecca A. Womeldorf, 

Chief Counsel, Rules Committee Staff. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27278 Filed 12–10–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 2210–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

King Wong, M.D.; Decision and Order 

On November 12, 2019, the Assistant 

Administrator, Diversion Control 

Division, Drug Enforcement 

Administration (hereinafter, 

Government), issued an Order to Show 

Cause (hereinafter, OSC) to King Wong, 

M.D. (hereinafter, Registrant). OSC, at 1. 

The OSC proposed the revocation of 

Registrant’s Certificate of Registration 

No. AL1804409. Id. It alleged that 

Registrant is without ‘‘authority to 

handle controlled substances in 

California, the state in which [Registrant 

is] registered with the DEA.’’ Id. (citing 

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

Specifically, the OSC alleged that 

Registrant surrendered his medical 

license pursuant to an agreement with 

the Medical Board of California on 

March 18, 2019, and that his license 

remains surrendered. Id. at 1–2. The 

OSC further alleged that because 

Registrant surrendered his medical 

license, Registrant lacks the authority to 

handle controlled substances in the 

State of California. Id. at 2. 

The OSC notified Registrant of the 

right to either request a hearing on the 

allegations or submit a written 

statement in lieu of exercising the right 

to a hearing, the procedures for electing 

each option, and the consequences for 

failing to elect either option. Id. (citing 

21 CFR 1301.43). The OSC also notified 

Registrant of the opportunity to submit 

a corrective action plan. Id. at 3 (citing 

21 U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C)). 

A DEA Diversion Investigator 

personally served Registrant with the 

OSC on December 13, 2019, and 

Registrant signed a DEA Form 12, 

Receipt for Cash or Other Items, to 

acknowledge his receipt of the OSC. 

Request for Final Agency Action Exhibit 

(hereinafter, RFAAX) 8, at 2–3 

(Declaration of Diversion Investigator); 

RFAAX 5 (DEA Form 12 signed by 

Registrant). I find that more than thirty 

days have now passed since the 

Government accomplished service of 

the OSC. Further, based on the 

Government’s written representations, I 

find that neither Registrant, nor anyone 

purporting to represent Registrant, 

requested a hearing, submitted a written 

statement while waiving Registrant’s 

right to a hearing, or submitted a 

corrective action plan. RFAAX 8, at 3; 

RFAAX 6 (Emails regarding no 

communication from Registrant). 

Accordingly, I find that Registrant has 

waived the right to a hearing and the 

right to submit a written statement and 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
80152 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Notices 

1Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an 

agency ‘‘may take official notice of facts at any stage 

in a proceeding—even in the final decision.’’ 

United States Department of Justice, Attorney 

General’s Manual on the Administrative Procedure 

Act 80 (1947) (Wm. W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint 

1979). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 556(e), ‘‘[w]hen an 

agency decision rests on official notice of a material 

fact not appearing in the evidence in the record, a 

party is entitled, on timely request, to an 

opportunity to show the contrary.’’ Accordingly, 

Registrant may dispute my finding by filing a 

properly supported motion for reconsideration 

within fifteen calendar days of the date of this 

Order. Any such motion shall be filed with the 

Office of the Administrator and a copy shall be 

served on the Government. In the event Registrant 

files a motion, the Government shall have fifteen 

calendar days to file a response. Any such motion 

and response may be filed and served by email 

(dea.addo.attorneys@dea.usdoj.gov). 

corrective action plan. 21 CFR 

1301.43(d) and 21 U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C). I, 

therefore, issue this Decision and Order 

based on the record submitted by the 

Government, which constitutes the 

entire record before me. 21 CFR 

1301.46. 

Findings of Fact 

REGISTRANT’S DEA REGISTRATION

Registrant is the holder of DEA 

Certificate of Registration No. 

AL1804409 at the registered address of 

2392 N. Euclid Ave, Upland, CA 91784. 

RFAAX 1 (Registrant’s DEA Certificate 

of Registration). Pursuant to this 

registration, Registrant is authorized to 

dispense controlled substances in 

schedules II through V as a practitioner. 

Id. Registrant’s registration will expire 

on its own terms on March 31, 2022. Id. 

THE STATUS OF REGISTRANT’S STATE

LICENSE

On March 5, 2019, Registrant and the 

Medical Board of California entered into 

a Stipulated Surrender of License and 

Order, whereby Registrant surrendered 

his California medical license. RFAAX 

3. The Medical Board of California’s 

online records, of which I take official 

notice, document that Registrant’s 

license is still surrendered. 1 Medical 

Board of California License Verification, 

https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Breeze/ 

License_Verification.aspx (last visited 

date of signature of this Order). 

Accordingly, I find that Registrant 

currently is not licensed to engage in the 

practice of medicine in California, the 

state in which Registrant is registered 

with the DEA. 

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 CSA ‘‘upon a 

finding that the registrant . . . has had 

his 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.’’ With respect to a 

practitioner, the DEA has also long 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, M.D., 76 FR 71,371 

(2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 Fed. 

Appx. 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick 

Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27,616, 

27,617 (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 CSA, 

the 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. See, e.g., 

James L. Hooper, 76 FR at 71,371–72; 

Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 FR 

39,130, 39,131 (2006); Dominick A. 

Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51,104, 51,105 (1993); 

Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11,919, 11,920 

(1988); Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 FR 

at 27,617. 

According to California statute, ‘‘[n]o 

person other than a physician . . . shall 

write or issue a prescription.’’ Cal. 

Health & Safety Code § 11150 (West 

2020). Further, ‘‘physician,’’ as defined 

by California statute, is a person who is 

‘‘licensed to practice’’ in California. Id. 

at § 11024. 

Here, the undisputed evidence in the 

record is that Registrant currently lacks 

authority to practice medicine in 

California. As already discussed, a 

physician must be a licensed 

practitioner to dispense a controlled 

substance in California. Thus, because 

Registrant lacks authority to practice 

medicine in California and, therefore, is 

not authorized to handle controlled 

substances in California, Registrant is 

not eligible to maintain a DEA 

registration. Accordingly, I will order 

that Registrant’s DEA registration be 

revoked. 

Order 

Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the 

authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 

824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate 

of Registration No. AL1804409 issued to 

King Wong, M.D. Further, pursuant to 

28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority 

vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f), I 

hereby deny any pending application of 

King Wong, M.D. to renew or modify 

this registration. This Order is effective 

January 11, 2021. 

Timothy J. Shea, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27232 Filed 12–10–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Zeljko Stjepanovic, M.D.; Decision and 

Order 

On May 1, 2018, a former Acting 

Administrator of the Drug Enforcement 

Administration (hereinafter, DEA or 

Government) issued an Order to Show 

Cause and Immediate Suspension of 

Registration to Zeljko Stjepanovic, M.D. 

(hereinafter, Registrant). Government’s 

Request for Final Agency Action Exhibit 

(hereinafter, RFAAX) 3, at 1 (Order to 

Show Cause and Immediate Suspension 

Order (hereinafter, collectively OSC)). 

The OSC informed Registrant of the 

immediate suspension of his DEA 

Certificate of Registration FS3042885 

pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(d), ‘‘because 

[his] continued registration constitutes 

an imminent danger to public health 

and safety.’’ Id. 

The substantive ground for the 

proceeding, as alleged in the OSC, is 

that Registrant’s ‘‘continued registration 

is inconsistent with the public interest, 

as that term is defined in 21 U.S.C. 

823(f).’’ Id. Specifically, the OSC alleges 

that on August 31, 2017, January 19, 

2018, February 16, 2018, and March 15, 

2018, Registrant unlawfully prescribed 

controlled substances in violation of 21 

U.S.C. 841(a) and 842(a). The OSC 

further alleges that on those dates, 

Registrant prescribed controlled 

substances to individuals that he ‘‘knew 

were not for a legitimate medical 

purpose and were not in the usual 

course of [his] professional practice,’’ 

because he issued them ‘‘without 

establishing bona fide practitionerVerDate Sep<11>2014 23:25 Dec 10, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00163 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11DEN1.SGM 11DEN1

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES