85664 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 29, 2020 / Notices 

CertainTeed Corporation of Malvern, 

Pennsylvania; Dupont De Nemours, Inc. 

and E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and 

Company, both of Wilmington, 

Delaware; Epilay, Inc. of Carson, 

California; GAF Corporation of 

Parsippany, New Jersey; Owens 

Corning, Owens Corning Roofing & 

Asphalt, LLC, and InterWrap Corp., 

each of Toledo, Ohio; SCC of Issaquah, 

Washington; and TAMKO Building 

Products, LLC of Joplin, Missouri. Id. 

The Office of Unfair Import 

Investigations is not named as a party. 

Id. 

On August 4, 2020, the Commission 

determined to amend the complaint and 

notice of investigation by substituting 

CertainTeed LLC for respondent 

CertainTeed Corporation and GAF 

Materials LLC for respondent GAF 

Corporation. Order No. 6 (July 14, 2020), 

unreviewed by 85 FR 47988 (Aug. 7, 

2020). That same day, the Commission 

also determined to terminate the 

investigation as to CertainTeed 

Corporation and GAF Corporation based 

on good cause. Order No. 7 (July 14, 

2020), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice 

(Aug. 4, 2020). On November 18, 2020, 

the Commission determined to 

terminate the investigation as to SCC 

based on settlement. Order No. 18 (Oct. 

22, 2020), unreviewed by Comm’n 

Notice (Nov. 18, 2020). 

On December 7, 2020, Kirsch filed an 

unopposed motion to terminate the 

investigation as to all respondents based 

on withdrawal of the complaint under 

Commission Rule 210.21(a)(1) (19 CFR 

210.21(a)(1)). Kirsch’s motion included 

a request to stay the procedural 

schedule pending termination of the 

investigation. Mot. at 3–4. No party 

responded to the motion. 

On December 9, 2020, the ALJ issued 

the subject ID granting the unopposed 

motion. The ID finds that the motion 

complies with the requirements of 

Commission Rule 210.21(a)(1) (19 CFR 

210.21(a)(1)); that the parties ‘‘appear to 

agree that there are no extraordinary 

circumstances’’ that would prevent 

termination; and that terminating the 

investigation ‘‘is in the public interest.’’ 

ID at 2–3. No petitions for review of the 

subject ID were filed. 

The Commission has determined not 

to review the subject ID. This 

investigation is terminated in its 

entirety. 

The Commission vote for this 

determination took place on December 

21, 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 22, 2020. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28778 Filed 12–28–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

Notice Pursuant to the National 

Cooperative Research and Production 

Act of 1993—Advanced Media 

Workflow Association, Inc. 

Notice is hereby given that, on 

December 15, 2020, pursuant to Section 

6(a) of the National Cooperative 

Research and Production Act of 1993, 

15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), 

Advanced Media Workflow Association, 

Inc. has filed written notifications 

simultaneously with the Attorney 

General and the Federal Trade 

Commission disclosing changes in its 

membership. The notifications were 

filed for the purpose of extending the 

Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of 

antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages 

under specified circumstances. 

Specifically, Alpha Video, Eden Prairie, 

MN; Aperi, Camarillo, CA; NTT 

Electronics Europe sr, Milano, ITALY; 

NVIDIA Corporate, Santa Clara, CA; 

SynaMedia, Lawrenceville, GA; and 

Telestream, LLC, Nevada City, CA, have 

been added as parties to this venture. 

Also, AXON Digital Design BV, Gilze, 

NETHERLANDS; Embrionex Design 

Inc., Laval Quebec, CANADA; Fox 

NE&O Technology Group, Los Angeles, 

CA; IML, Seoul, SOUTH KOREA; 

Mellanox Technologies Inc., Sunnyvale, 

CA; Nevion Limited, Theale, UNITED 

KINGDOM; UNIVISION 

Communications Inc., Miami, FL; and 

Vidispine, Kista, SWEDEN, have 

withdrawn as parties to this venture. 

No other changes have been made in 

either the membership or planned 

activity of the group research project. 

Membership in this group research 

project remains open, and Advanced 

Media Workflow Association, Inc. 

intends to file additional written 

notifications disclosing all changes in 

membership. 

On March 28, 2000, Advanced Media 

Workflow Association, Inc. filed its 

original notification pursuant to Section 

6(a) of the Act. The Department of 

Justice published a notice in the Federal 

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the 

Act on June 29, 2000 (65 FR 40127). 

The last notification was filed with 

the Department on September 15, 2020. 

A notice was published in the Federal 

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the 

Act on September 29, 2020 (85 FR 

61031). 

Suzanne Morris, 

Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, 

Antitrust Division. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28696 Filed 12–28–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Brian M. Manjarres, M.D.; Decision and 

Order 

On September 28, 2020, the Assistant 

Administrator, Diversion Control 

Division, Drug Enforcement 

Administration (hereinafter, 

Government), issued an Order to Show 

Cause (hereinafter, OSC) to Brian M. 

Manjarres, M.D. (hereinafter, 

Registrant). OSC, at 1. The OSC 

proposed the revocation of Registrant’s 

Certificate of Registration No. 

FM0288363. Id. It alleged that Registrant 

is without ‘‘authority to handle 

controlled substances in the State of 

California, the state in which [Registrant 

is] registered with the DEA.’’ Id. at 2 

(citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)). 

Specifically, the OSC alleged that on 

January 1, 2020, Registrant surrendered 

his medical license ‘‘after the Medical 

Board of California filed an Accusation 

against [him] alleging gross negligence, 

repeated negligent acts, incompetence, 

and failure to maintain adequate and 

accurate records in [his] care and 

treatment of numerous patients, and 

additionally alleging that [he] selfprescribed controlled substances and 

engaged in general unprofessional 

conduct.’’ 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 2–3 

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

A DEA Diversion Investigator 

personally served Registrant with the 

OSC on October 21, 2020, and 

Registrant signed a DEA Form 12, 


KHAMMOND on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 29, 2020 / Notices 85665 

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). 

Receipt for Cash or Other Items, to 

acknowledge his receipt of the OSC. 

Request for Final Agency Action 

(hereinafter, RFAA) Exhibit (hereinafter, 

RFAAX) 4, at 1–2 (Declaration of 

Diversion Investigator), 8 (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 otherwise 

corresponded or communicated with 

DEA regarding the Order served on 

him.’’ RFAA, at 1. Accordingly, I find 

that Registrant has waived the right to 

a hearing and the right to submit a 

written statement and 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. 

I. Findings of Fact 

a. Registrant’s DEA Registration 

Registrant is the holder of DEA 

Certificate of Registration No. 

FM0288363 at the registered address of 

Namaste Medical Group Inc., 1357 7th 

Avenue, Suite A, San Diego, California, 

92101–4381. RFAAX 1 (Certification of 

Registration Status). Pursuant to this 

registration, Registrant is authorized to 

dispense controlled substances in 

schedules II through V as a practitionerDW/30. Id. Registrant’s registration 

expires on January 31, 2022, and ‘‘is in 

an active pending status until the 

resolution of administrative 

proceedings.’’ Id. 

b. The Status of Registrant’s State 

License 

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 accusations surrounding the 

surrender included gross negligence 

involving the prescribing of controlled 

substances and self-prescribing 

controlled substances. Id. at 14–60. On 

December 12, 2019, the Medical Board 

of California entered an Order adopting 

the Stipulated Surrender with an 

effective date of January 1, 2020. Id. at 

1. 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. 

II. 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. FM0288363 issued to 

Brian M. Manjarres, 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 Brian M. Manjarres, M.D. 

to renew or modify this registration or 

for any other registrations in the State of 

California. This Order is effective 

January 28, 2021. 

Timothy J. Shea, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28677 Filed 12–28–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 


KHAMMOND on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES