51430 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 160 / Thursday, August 18, 2011 / Notices 

(which was limited to the statements of 

counsel in a post-hearing brief and 

which do not constitute evidence, see 

INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183, 186 

n.6 (1984)), I conclude that none of the 

‘‘favorable facts’’ cited by the ALJ 

provide any reason to impose a sanction 

less than revocation. Jayam KrishnaIyer, 74 FR 459, 463 (2009). Indeed, 

none of Respondent’s proposed 

remedial measures mitigate the 

egregious harm Respondent has caused 

to public health and safety. 

I therefore conclude that it would be 

inconsistent with the public interest to 

grant her even a restricted registration. 

Accordingly, I will order that 

Respondent’s registration be revoked 

and that any pending application be 

denied. 

Order 

Pursuant to the authority vested in me 

by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a), as well 

as by 28 CFR 0.100(b), I hereby order 

that DEA Certificate of Registration, 

AD9234446, issued to Satinder K. Dang, 

M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I 

further order that any pending 

application of Satinder K. Dang, M.D., to 

renew or modify her registration be, and 

it hereby is, denied. This Order is 

effective September 22, 2011. 

Dated: August 9, 2011. 

Michele M. Leonhart, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–21065 Filed 8–17–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Roots Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; 

Revocation of Registration 

On September 9, 2010, the Deputy 

Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration, issued an Order to 

Show Cause to Roots Pharmaceuticals, 

Inc. (Registrant), of American Fork, 

Utah. The Show Cause Order proposed 

the revocation of Registrant’s DEA 

Certificate of Registration BR9610571, 

which authorizes it to dispense 

controlled substances as a retail 

pharmacy, on the ground that 

Registrant’s state pharmacy and 

controlled substance licenses had 

expired on September 30, 2009, and that 

it therefore lacks authority under the 

laws of the State in which it is 

registered with DEA to dispense 

controlled substances. Show Cause 

Order at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 

824(a)(3)). The Show Cause Order also 

notified Registrant of its right to request 

a hearing on the allegations or to submit 

a written statement in lieu of a hearing, 

the procedures for doing either, and the 

consequence for failing to do either. Id. 

at 2. 

The Government’s initial attempt to 

serve Registrant by certified mail was 

unsuccessful. Thereafter, as evidenced 

by the signed return receipt card, on 

January 14, 2011, the Government 

accomplished service by mailing the 

Show Cause Order to Registrant’s 

Registered Agent. On January 11, 2011, 

the Government also sent an electronic 

version of the Show Cause Order to 

Registrant’s Registered Agent at the email address he had previously 

provided to the Agency. However, since 

the date of service of the Show Cause 

Order, no person has requested a 

hearing, or submitted a written 

statement in lieu of a hearing, on behalf 

of Registrant. Because thirty days have 

now passed since service of the Show 

Cause Order, I find that Registrant has 

waived its right to request a hearing or 

to submit a written statement in lieu of 

a hearing. See 21 CFR 1301.43(a), (c), 

and (d). I therefore issue this Decision 

and Final Order without a hearing based 

on relevant evidence contained in the 

record submitted by the Government. Id. 

§ 1301.43(e). 

Findings 

Registrant is the holder of DEA 

Certificate of Registration BR9610571, 

which authorizes it to dispense 

controlled substances in schedules II 

through V as a retail pharmacy, at the 

registered location of 12 W 100N, Suite 

201B, American Fork, Utah. GX A. 

Registrant’s registration does not expire 

until April 30, 2012. Id. 

According to a Pharmacy Licensing 

Specialist with the State of Utah, 

Department of Commerce, Division of 

Occupational and Professional 

Licensing, Registrant’s Utah Pharmacy 

License and Utah Controlled Substance 

Dispensing License expired on 

September 30, 2009. GX B. Registrant 

did not renew either license. Id. 

Discussion 

Under the Controlled Substances Act 

(CSA), a practitioner must be currently 

authorized to handle controlled 

substances in the ‘‘jurisdiction in which 

[it] practices’’ in order to maintain a 

DEA registration. See 21 U.S.C. 802(21) 

(‘‘[t]he term ‘practitioner’ means a * * * 

pharmacy * * * licensed, registered, or 

otherwise permitted, by * * * the 

jurisdiction in which [it] practices 

* * * to * * * dispense * * * a 

controlled substance in the course of 

professional practice’’). See also id. 

§ 823(f) (The Attorney General shall 

register practitioners * * * to dispense 

* * * controlled substances * * * if 

the applicant is authorized to dispense 

* * * controlled substances under the 

laws of the State in which [it] 

practices.’’). As these provisions make 

plain, possessing authority under state 

law to handle controlled substances is 

an essential condition for obtaining and 

maintaining a DEA registration. 

The CSA further authorizes the 

Agency to revoke a registration ‘‘upon a 

finding that the registrant * * * has had 

[its] State license or registration 

suspended [or] revoked * * * and is no 

longer authorized by State law to engage 

in the * * * distribution [or] dispensing 

of controlled substances.’’ 21 U.S.C. 

824(a)(3). Moreover, because holding 

state authority is a statutory requirement 

for registration as a practitioner, see 21 

U.S.C. 802(21) and 823(f), DEA has held 

that revocation is warranted even when 

a registrant has merely allowed his state 

licenses to expire. James Stephen 

Ferguson, 75 FR 49994, 49995 (2010); 

Mark L. Beck, 64 FR 40899, 40900 

(1999). See also Anne Lazar Thorn, 62 

FR 12847, 12848 (1997) (‘‘the 

controlling question is not whether a 

practitioner’s license to practice 

medicine in the state is suspended or 

revoked; rather, it is whether the 

Respondent is currently authorized to 

handle controlled substances’’). 

As found above, Registrant allowed its 

state pharmacy and controlled 

substance licenses to expire, and thus, 

it no longer holds authority under Utah 

law to dispense controlled substances. 

See Utah Code Ann. §§ 58–17b–302(1); 

58–37–6(2)(a)(i). Accordingly, Registrant 

no longer satisfies the CSA’s 

requirement that it be currently 

‘‘authorized to dispense controlled 

substances’’ under Utah law. 21 U.S.C. 

823(f). Accordingly, its DEA registration 

will be revoked. Id. § 824(a)(3). 

Order 

Pursuant to the authority vested in me 

by 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), as well as 28 CFR 

0.100(b), I order that DEA Certificate of 

Registration BR9610571, issued to Roots 

Pharmaceuticals, Inc., be, and it hereby 

is, revoked. I further order that any 

pending application of Roots 

Pharmaceuticals, Inc., to renew or 

modify its registration, be, and it hereby 

is, denied. This Order is effective 

September 19, 2011. 

Dated: August 5, 2011. 

Michele M. Leonhart, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–21063 Filed 8–17–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES