Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 85 / Thursday, May 3, 2007 / Notices 24607 

the possession of individuals apparently involved 

in the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine’’). 

1 Upon being directed by the ALJ to file a 

response to the Government’s motion, Respondent 

sought a six month extension. The ALJ concluded, 

however, that an extension of such duration would 

unduly delay the proceedings. Instead, the ALJ 

granted Respondent a sixty day extension. 

appears that all of Respondent’s 

customers are convenience stores and 

gas stations, which are non-traditional 

retailers of list I chemical products and 

entities which DEA has repeatedly 

found are conduits for the diversion of 

these products into the illicit 

manufacture of methamphetamine. 

Here, unlike in other cases where the 

Government’s evidence established that 

a distributor had made excessive sales 

and that these sales supported a finding 

of diversion, the Government’s proof 

does not support such a finding. 

Nonetheless, Respondent’s wholly 

inadequate recordkeeping substantially 

hinders the efforts of this Agency and its 

local partners to investigate the 

suppliers of methamphetamine 

traffickers and the traffickers 

themselves. Moreover, even if 

Respondent’s recordkeeping is 

attributable to neglect, it still impedes 

the protection of public safety. I 

therefore conclude that this factor also 

supports a finding that Respondent’s 

continued registration would be 

inconsistent with the public interest. 

In sum, Respondent violated Federal 

law by distributing products from an 

unregistered location. Indeed, this 

misconduct is especially egregious 

because he did so even after being told 

by a DEA official to stop. Respondent 

also does not maintain effective controls 

against diversion as evidenced by his 

wholly inadequate recordkeeping and 

the inadequate security he provided for 

list I products. Moreover, 

notwithstanding his years of experience 

distributing list I chemicals, Respondent 

clearly lacked knowledge of which 

products contained listed chemicals and 

he did not even know what the Code of 

Federal Regulations is. Finally, 

Respondent’s attitude reflects 

indifference to his obligations under 

federal law and regulations. Given all of 

the above, it is indisputable that 

Respondent’s continued registration 

would be inconsistent with the public 

interest. 

Order 

Accordingly, pursuant to the 

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

823(h) & 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 

0.100(b) & 0.104, I order that DEA 

Certificate of Registration, 002964JTY, 

issued to John J. Fotinopoulos be, and 

it hereby is, revoked. I further order that 

the pending applications for 

modification and renewal of the 

registration issued to John J. 

Fotinopoulos be, and they hereby are, 

denied. This order is effective June 4, 

2007. 

Dated: April 25, 2007. 

Michele M. Leonhart, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E7–8453 Filed 5–2–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 06–52] 

Green Acres Farms, Inc.; Denial of 

Application 

On February 6, 2006, the Deputy 

Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration, issued an Order to 

Show Cause to Green Acres Farms, Inc., 

(Respondent) of Tacoma, Washington. 

The Show Cause Order proposed to 

deny Respondent’s pending application 

for registration as a bulk manufacturer 

of the Schedule I controlled substances 

marijuana and tetrahydrocannabinols, 

on the grounds that its registration 

would be inconsistent with the public 

interest, see 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and with 

the United States’ obligations under the 

Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 

March 30, 1961, 18 U.S.T. 1407. Show 

Cause Order at 1. 

More specifically, the Show Cause 

Order alleged that on June 28, 2004, 

Respondent’s owners, Mr. and Mrs. 

Keith Yale, submitted an application to 

DEA to manufacture marijuana and 

tetrahydrocannabinols and that DEA 

then sent the Yales a standardized 

questionnaire which all applicants for 

registration to manufacture controlled 

substances in Schedules I and II are 

required to complete. See id. The Show 

Cause Order alleged that Respondent’s 

owners indicated on the questionnaire 

that the firm sought to grow marijuana 

to supply ‘‘persons who qualify to 

receive marijuana under the Washington 

State Medical Use of Marijuana Act.’’ 

See id. at 2. The Show Cause Order 

further alleged that Mrs. Yale stated on 

the questionnaire that she had obtained 

authorization from a physician to use 

marijuana and that she planned to use 

some of the marijuana grown by 

Respondent. Id. The Show Cause Order 

also alleged that Respondent intended 

‘‘to supply marijuana to patients in 

other states, which have laws that 

permit the ‘medical use’ of marijuana,’’ 

and that Respondent also intended to 

distribute its marijuana to Washingtonbased pharmacies and cooperatives. Id. 

The Show Cause Order alleged that 

Respondent’s owners had also stated 

that they intended to extract THC from 

their marijuana and develop an 

ingestible form of medication to create 

an alternative to smoked marijuana. Id. 

The Show Cause Order further alleged 

that neither marijuana nor 

tetrahydrocannabinols have been 

approved under the Food, Drug and 

Cosmetic Act, as ‘‘safe and effective’’ for 

medical use, and neither drug has an 

‘‘accepted medical use in * * * the 

United States.’’ Id. at 3 (citing 21 U.S.C. 

321(p) & 812(b)(1)(B)). Relatedly, the 

Show Cause Order alleged that 

Respondent’s proposed distribution of 

marijuana would constitute a felony 

under 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1). Id. at 4. 

Finally, the Show Cause Order alleged 

that Respondent’s proposed activity was 

not permitted under the Washington act. 

See id. at 4. 

Respondent requested a hearing; the 

matter was assigned to Administrative 

Law Judge (ALJ) Mary Ellen Bittner. 

Thereafter, the Government moved for 

summary disposition.1

The basis for the Government’s 

motion was that marijuana and 

tetrahydrocannabinols have not been 

approved under the Food, Drug and 

Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 321(p), as ‘‘safe 

and effective’’ for medical use. Gov. 

Mot. at 3–4. The Government also 

argued that both marijuana and 

tetrahydrocannabinols are Schedule I 

controlled substances and ‘‘have no 

currently accepted medical use in 

treatment in the United States.’’ Id. 

(citing 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1)(B)). 

Relatedly, the Government argued that 

‘‘there is a lack of accepted safety for 

use of these [drugs] under medical 

supervision.’’ Id. (citing 21 U.S.C. 

812(b)(1)(C)). The Government further 

noted this Agency’s previous denial of 

a similar application to grow marijuana 

for medical use. Id. at 5 (citing Church 

of the Living Tree, 68 FR 17403 (2003)). 

The Government also argued that in 

United States v. Oakland Cannabis 

Buyer’s Coop, 532 U.S. 483 (2001), the 

Supreme Court had rejected the 

‘‘medical necessity’’ defense raised by 

an entity which distributed marijuana 

for purportedly medical purposes. Gov. 

Mot. at 5. According to the Government, 

‘‘any distribution of marijuana as 

proposed by [Respondent] would 

constitute an unlawful distribution of a 

controlled substance in violation of 21 

U.S.C. 841(a)(1), a felony.’’ The 

Government further contended that 

unless and until ‘‘these substances are 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

24608 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 85 / Thursday, May 3, 2007 / Notices 

approved [by the FDA] for medical use 

and placed in a Schedule other than 

Schedule I, DEA cannot grant an 

application to manufacture * * * these 

substances to anyone who seeks to 

manufacture [them] for the purpose of 

distributing * * * or dispensing [them] 

to[ ] ‘patients.’ ’’ Id. 

The Government also argued that 

marijuana and tetrahydrocannabinols 

are Schedule I controlled substances 

under Washington law and that the 

State’s Medical Use of Marijuana Act 

creates only ‘‘a narrow exception to the 

classification of marijuana as a Schedule 

I controlled substance.’’ Id. at 5–6. 

According to the Government, the 

exception allows only a ‘‘qualifying 

patient’’ to possess marijuana, and such 

person may only ‘‘ ‘possess no more 

marijuana than is necessary for the 

patient’s personal, medical use, not 

exceeding the amount necessary for a 

sixty-day supply.’ ’’ Id. at 6 (quoting 

RCW section 69.51A.040(2)(b)). The 

Government thus contends that 

Respondent’s proposed activities go 

‘‘well beyond what is permitted to be 

manufactured under applicable 

Washington * * * law,’’ and thus 

Respondent would be non-compliant 

with state law. Id. (citing 21 U.S.C. 

823(a)(2)) (requiring Attorney General to 

consider ‘‘compliance with applicable 

State law’’ in considering application to 

manufacture Schedule I controlled 

substances). 

In its submission, Respondent’s 

owners stated that ‘‘there are no 

witnesses,’’ that ‘‘[a]ll documents have 

been submitted,’’ and that ‘‘[o]ther 

testimony ha[d] been submitted in the’’ 

questionnaire they had previously sent 

to DEA. Resp. Letter 1 (July 11, 2006). 

Respondent’s owners further stated that 

it was their ‘‘intention to manufacture, 

package and sell [marijuana] to the 

various authorized outlets (state 

pharmacies within the state of 

Washington).’’ Id. With respect to the 

legal issue presented, Respondent stated 

that it is ‘‘[t]he position and law of the 

State of Washington * * * that certain 

qualified persons in this State have the 

right as given by the voice of the people 

to possess and use marijuana for 

specific medical needs as described in 

Washington State law.’’ Id. Respondent 

further maintained that ‘‘DEA should 

allow the State of Washington and 

[itself] to engage [in] the legal and 

correct distribution of marijuana.’’ Id. 

Concluding that there were no 

material facts in dispute, the ALJ 

granted the Government’s motion. As 

the ALJ explained, marijuana and 

tetrahydrocannabinols ‘‘have a high 

potential for abuse, have no currently 

accepted medical use in treatment, and 

lack safety for use in treatment under 

medical supervision.’’ ALJ Dec. at 3. 

Because ‘‘these substances cannot be 

manufactured for distribution to 

patients for medical use,’’ the ALJ 

concluded that DEA ‘‘cannot register an 

applicant with the intention to 

manufacture and distribute contrary to 

federal law.’’ Id. Finally, the ALJ also 

held that the Washington state law 

exception does not ‘‘extend to the 

manufacturing of these substances and 

therefore Respondent lacks state 

authority’’ to conduct its proposed 

activity. The ALJ thus recommended 

that I deny Respondent’s application 

and forwarded the record to me for final 

agency action. Neither party filed 

exceptions. 

Having considered the record as a 

whole, I adopt the ALJ’s opinion in its 

entirety and deny Respondent’s 

application. Section 303(a) of the 

Controlled Substances Act provides that 

the ‘‘Attorney General shall register an 

applicant to manufacture controlled 

substances in schedule I or II if he 

determines that such registration is 

consistent with the public interest.’’ 21 

U.S.C. 823(a). While Congress provided 

six factors to be considered in 

determining the public interest, id., it is 

well settled that I may rely on any one 

or a combination of factors, and may 

give each factor the weight I deem 

appropriate in determining whether an 

application for registration should be 

denied. See ALRA Laboratories, Inc., 59 

FR 50620, 50621 (1994). Moreover, I am 

‘‘not required to make findings as to all 

of the factors.’’ Hoxie v. DEA, 419 F.3d 

477, 482 (6th Cir. 2005); Morall v. DEA, 

412 F.3d 165, 173–74 (D.C. Cir. 2005). 

Here, it is clear that Respondent’s 

proposed activity would not comply 

with applicable Federal and State laws 

and would be inconsistent with public 

health and safety. See 21 U.S.C. 

823(a)(2) & (6). Congress placed 

marijuana (and tetrahydrocannabinols) 

on Schedule I based on its 

determination that both substances have 

‘‘ ‘no currently accepted medical use’ at 

all.’’ Oakland Cannabis Buyers, 532 U.S. 

at 483, 491 (2001). Until Congress 

revises that determination, it is a federal 

criminal offense to manufacture either 

of these substances for any purpose 

other than to supply an FDA preapproved research project. See Gonzales 

v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 14 (2005). 

Moreover, it also appears that 

Respondent’s proposed activities would 

violate Washington law. See State v. 

Tracy, 147 P.3d 559, 561–62 (Wash. 

2006) (upholding conviction for 

possession and manufacturing of 

marijuana because ‘‘only qualifying 

patients are entitled to the defense 

under the act’’). Accordingly, 

Respondent’s registration would be 

inconsistent with the public interest. 

See 21 U.S.C. 823(a). 

Order 

Pursuant to the authority vested in me 

by 21 U.S.C. 823(a), as well as by 28 

CFR 0.100(b) & 0.104, I hereby order 

that the application of Green Acres 

Farm, Inc., for a DEA Certificate of 

Registration to manufacture marijuana 

and tetrahydrocannabinols be, and it 

hereby is, denied. This order is effective 

June 4, 2007. 

Dated: April 25, 2007. 

Michele M. Leonhart, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E7–8454 Filed 5–2–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. DEA–290R] 

Controlled Substances: Proposed 

Revised Aggregate Production Quotas 

for 2007 

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA), Justice. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed revised 2007 

aggregate production quotas. 

SUMMARY: This notice proposes revised 

2007 aggregate production quotas for 

controlled substances in schedules I and 

II of the Controlled Substances Act 

(CSA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

postmarked, and electronic comments 

must be sent, on or before May 24, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: To ensure proper handling 

of comments, please reference ‘‘Docket 

No. DEA–290R on all written and 

electronic correspondence. Written 

comments being sent via regular mail 

should be sent to the Deputy Assistant 

Administrator, Office of Diversion 

Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration, Washington, DC 20537, 

Attention: DEA Federal Register 

Representative/ODL. Written comments 

sent via express mail should be sent to 

DEA Headquarters, Attention: DEA 

Federal Register Representative/ODL, 

2401 Jefferson-Davis Highway, 

Alexandria, VA 22301. Comments may 

be directly sent to DEA electronically by 

sending an electronic message to 

dea.diversion.policy@usdoj.gov. 

Comments may also be sent 

electronically through http:// 

www.regulations.gov using the 

electronic comment form provided on 

that site. An electronic copy of this 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB