Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2023 / Notices 74521 

5This 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(g)(1) (this section, 

formerly section 823(f), was redesignated as part of 

the Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research 

Expansion Act, Public Law 117–215, 136 Stat. 2257 

(2022)). Because Congress has clearly mandated that 

a practitioner possess state authority in order to be 

deemed a practitioner under the CSA, 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 

71371–72; Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 FR 

39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 

FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 

11919, 11920 (1988); Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 

FR at 27,617. 

1On June 1, 2023, a DEA Diversion Investigator 

(DI) emailed Registrant at his personal email 

address, attaching a copy of the OSC with a delivery 

and read receipt request. RFAAX 2, at 2. DI received 

notification that the email was delivered 

successfully. Id. Registrant responded on the same 

day by email but did not request a hearing. RFAAX 

2, Attachment E. Based on the information in the 

record, the Agency finds that the Government’s 

service of the OSC on Registrant was adequate. 

RFAA, at 2 (citing Emilio Luna, M.D., 77 FR 4829, 

4830 (2012) (finding service via email can satisfy 

due process)). 

the Agency finds that Registrant is not 

licensed to engage in the practice of 

medicine in New York, the state in 

which he is registered with 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 Controlled 

Substances Act (hereinafter, 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, 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 71371 (2011), pet. for rev. 

denied, 481 F. App’x 826 (4th Cir. 

2012); Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 

43 FR 27616, 27617 (1978).5

According to the New York 

Controlled Substances Act (hereinafter, 

the Act), ‘‘[i]t shall be unlawful for any 

person to manufacture, sell, prescribe, 

distribute, dispense, administer, 

possess, have under his control, 

abandon, or transport a controlled 

substance except as expressly allowed 

by this article.’’ N.Y. Pub. Health Law 

section 3304 (McKinney 2023). Further, 

the Act defines a ‘‘practitioner’’ as ‘‘[a] 

physician . . . or other person licensed, 

or otherwise permitted to dispense, 

administer or conduct research with 

respect to a controlled substance in the 

course of a licensed professional 

practice. . . .’’ Id. at section 3302(27). 

Finally, New York regulations state that 

‘‘[a] prescription for a controlled 

substance may be issued only by a 

practitioner who is . . . authorized to 

prescribe controlled substances 

pursuant to his licensed professional 

practice. . . .’’ N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & 

Regs. tit. 10, section 80.64(a)(1) (2023). 

Here, the undisputed evidence in the 

record is that Registrant lacks authority 

to practice medicine in New York. As 

discussed above, a physician must be a 

licensed practitioner to dispense a 

controlled substance in New York. 

Thus, because Registrant lacks authority 

to practice medicine in New York and, 

therefore, is not authorized to handle 

controlled substances in New York, 

Registrant is not eligible to maintain a 

DEA registration. Accordingly, the 

Agency 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. BS8311502 issued to 

Dmitry Anatolevich Shelchkov, M.D. 

Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) 

and the authority vested in me by 21 

U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby deny any 

pending applications of Dmitry 

Anatolevich Shelchkov, M.D., to renew 

or modify this registration, as well as 

any other pending application of Dmitry 

Anatolevich Shelchkov, M.D., for 

additional registration in New York. 

This Order is effective November 30, 

2023. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Drug 

Enforcement Administration was signed 

on October 20, 2023, by Administrator 

Anne Milgram. That document with the 

original signature and date is 

maintained by DEA. For administrative 

purposes only, and in compliance with 

requirements of the Office of the Federal 

Register, the undersigned DEA Federal 

Register Liaison Officer has been 

authorized to sign and submit the 

document in electronic format for 

publication, as an official document of 

DEA. This administrative process in no 

way alters the legal effect of this 

document upon publication in the 

Federal Register. 

Heather Achbach, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, Drug 

Enforcement Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2023–23950 Filed 10–30–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Siamak Arassi, M.D.; Decision and 

Order 

On May 24, 2023, the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA or 

Government) issued an Order to Show 

Cause (OSC) to Siamak Arassi, M.D. 

(Registrant). Request for Final Agency 

Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1 at 1, 

3. The OSC proposed the revocation of 

Registrant’s Certificate of Registration 

No. BA8851809 at the registered address 

of 19115 W Capitol Dr., Suite 117, 

Brookfield, Wisconsin 53045. Id. at 1. 

The OSC alleged that Registrant’s 

registration should be revoked because 

Registrant is ‘‘currently without 

authority to handle controlled 

substances in the State of Wisconsin,’’ 

the state in which he is registered with 

DEA. Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)). 

The OSC notified Registrant of his 

right to file with DEA a written request 

for hearing, and that if he failed to file 

such a request, he would be deemed to 

be in default. OSC, at 2 (citing 21 CFR 

1301.43). Here, Registrant did not 

request a hearing. RFAA, at 2.1 ‘‘A 

default, unless excused, shall be 

deemed to constitute a waiver of the 

registrant’s/applicant’s right to a hearing 

and an admission of the factual 

allegations of the [OSC].’’ 21 CFR 

1301.43(e). 

Further, ‘‘[i]n the event that a 

registrant . . . is deemed to be in 

default . . . DEA may then file a request 

for final agency action with the 

Administrator, along with a record to 

support its request. In such 

circumstances, the Administrator may 

enter a default final order pursuant to 

[21 CFR] § 1316.67.’’ Id. § 1301.43(f)(1). 

Here, the Government has requested 

final agency action based on Registrant’s 

default pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(c), 

(f). See also id. § 1316.67. 

Findings of Fact 

The Agency finds that, in light of 

Registrant’s default, the factual 

allegations in the OSC are admitted. 

According to the OSC, on February 15, 

2023, the State of Wisconsin Medical 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
74522 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2023 / Notices 

2Under 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 the Agency’s finding by 

filing a properly supported motion for 

reconsideration of findings of fact within fifteen 

calendar days of the date of this Order. Any such 

motion and response shall be filed and served by 

email to the other party and to the DEA Office of 

the Administrator, Drug Enforcement 

Administration at dea.addo.attorneys@dea.gov. 

3This rule derives from the text of two provisions 

of the Controlled Substances Act (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(g)(1). Because Congress 

has clearly mandated that a practitioner possess 

state authority in order to be deemed a practitioner 

under the CSA, 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 71371–72; Sheran Arden 

Yeates, D.O., 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick 

A. Ricci, D.O., 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby 

Watts, D.O., 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988); Frederick 

Marsh Blanton, 43 FR 27617. 

1Based on the Government’s submissions in its 

RFAA dated April 25, 2023, the Agency finds that 

service of the OSC on Registrant was adequate. 

Specifically, the included copy of the certified mail 

return receipt indicates that on March 11, 2023, 

Registrant was personally served with the OSC at 

his personal address. RFAAX 1, at 8. 

Examining Board issued a Final 

Decision and Order indefinitely 

suspending Registrant’s license to 

practice medicine and surgery. RFAAX 

1, at 2; RFAAX 2, Attachment C, at 15. 

According to Wisconsin’s online 

records, of which the Agency takes 

official notice, Registrant’s Wisconsin 

medical license remains suspended.2

Wisconsin Department of Safety and 

Professional Services, Wisconsin 

Credential/License Search, https://

licensesearch.wi.gov/ (last visited date 

of signature of this Order). Therefore, 

the Agency finds that Registrant is not 

authorized to practice medicine nor to 

handle controlled substances in 

Wisconsin, the state in which he is 

registered with DEA. 

Discussion 

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the 

Attorney General is authorized to 

suspend or revoke a registration issued 

under 21 U.S.C. 823 ‘‘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, 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, D.O., 76 FR 71371 

(2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 F. App’x 

826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh 

Blanton, D.O., 43 FR 27616, 27617 

(1978).3

According to Wisconsin statute, 

‘‘dispense’’ means ‘‘to deliver a 

controlled substance to an ultimate user 

or research subject by or pursuant to the 

lawful order of a practitioner, including 

the prescribing, administering, 

packaging, labeling or compounding 

necessary to prepare the substance for 

that delivery.’’ Wis. Stat. section 

961.01(7) (2023). Further, a 

‘‘practitioner’’ means a ‘‘physician . . . 

or other person licensed, registered, 

certified or otherwise permitted to 

distribute, dispense, conduct research 

with respect to, administer or use in 

teaching or chemical analysis a 

controlled substance in the course of 

professional practice or research in 

[Wisconsin].’’ Id. section 961.01(19)(a). 

Here, the undisputed evidence in the 

record is that Registrant currently lacks 

authority to practice medicine in 

Wisconsin. As already discussed, a 

practitioner must be a licensed 

practitioner to dispense controlled 

substances in Wisconsin. Thus, because 

Registrant lacks a license to practice 

medicine in Wisconsin and, therefore, is 

not authorized to handle controlled 

substances in Wisconsin, Registrant is 

not eligible to maintain a DEA 

registration. Accordingly, the Agency 

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. BA8851809 issued to 

Siamak Arassi, M.D. Further, pursuant 

to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority 

vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I 

hereby deny any pending applications 

of Siamak Arassi, M.D., to renew or 

modify this registration, as well as any 

other pending application of Siamak 

Arassi, M.D., for additional registration 

in Wisconsin. This Order is effective 

November 30, 2023. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Drug 

Enforcement Administration was signed 

on October 20, 2023, by Administrator 

Anne Milgram. That document with the 

original signature and date is 

maintained by DEA. For administrative 

purposes only, and in compliance with 

requirements of the Office of the Federal 

Register, the undersigned DEA Federal 

Register Liaison Officer has been 

authorized to sign and submit the 

document in electronic format for 

publication, as an official document of 

DEA. This administrative process in no 

way alters the legal effect of this 

document upon publication in the 

Federal Register. 

Heather Achbach, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, Drug 

Enforcement Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2023–23958 Filed 10–30–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Demille W. Madoux, M.D.; Decision and 

Order 

On January 11, 2023, the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA or 

Government) issued an Order to Show 

Cause (OSC) to Demille W. Madoux, 

M.D. (Registrant). Request for Final 

Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit 

(RFAAX) 2, at 1, 4. The OSC proposed 

the revocation of Registrant’s Certificate 

of Registration No. BM0663523 at the 

registered address of 13921 N Meridian 

Ave., Suite 100, Oklahoma City, 

Oklahoma 73134. Id. at 1. The OSC 

alleged that Registrant’s registration 

should be revoked because Registrant is 

‘‘currently without authority to handle 

controlled substances in the State of 

Oklahoma, the state in which [he is] 

registered with DEA.’’ Id. at 2 (citing, 

inter alia, 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)). 

The OSC notified Registrant of his 

right to file with DEA a written request 

for hearing, and that if he failed to file 

such a request, he would be deemed to 

be in default. Id. at 2–3 (citing 21 CFR 

1301.43). Here, Registrant did not 

request a hearing. RFAA, at 1.1 ‘‘A 

default, unless excused, shall be 

deemed to constitute a waiver of the 

[registrant’s] right to a hearing and an 

admission of the factual allegations of 

the [OSC].’’ 21 CFR 1301.43(e). 

Further, ‘‘[i]n the event that a 

registrant . . . is deemed to be in 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1