88414 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 244 / Thursday, December 21, 2023 / Notices 

1Based on the Government’s submissions in its 

RFAA dated September 12, 2023, the Agency finds 

that service of the OSC on Registrant was adequate. 

Specifically, the Government’s included Notice of 

Service of Order to Show Cause includes as an 

attachment a Form DEA–12 signed by Registrant 

indicating that Registrant was personally served 

with the OSC on July 20, 2023. RFAAX 1, 

Attachment B. 

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 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) (this section, 

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

Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research 

Expansion Act, Pub. L. 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 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. 

request a hearing. RFAA, at 1–2.1 ‘‘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), 1301.46. RFAA, at 3; see also 21 CFR 

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, the Colorado 

Medical Board issued an Order of 

Suspension, effective April 20, 2023, 

suspending Registrant from the practice 

of medicine in the state of Colorado. 

RFAAX 2, at 2. According to Colorado 

online records, of which the Agency 

takes official notice, Registrant’s 

Colorado physician license remains 

suspended.’’ 2 Colorado Division of 

Professions and Occupations License 

Search, https://apps2.colorado.gov/ 

dora///licenselookup.aspx (last visited 

date of signature of this Order). 

Accordingly, the Agency finds that 

Registrant is not licensed to practice 

medicine in Colorado, 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, 

71372 (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 Colorado statute, 

‘‘[e]very person who manufactures, 

distributes, or dispenses any controlled 

substance within this state . . . shall 

obtain . . . a registration, issued by the 

respective licensing board . . . . For 

purposes of this section and this article 

[ ], ‘registration’ or ‘registered’ means 

. . . the licensing of physicians by the 

Colorado medical board . . . .’’ Colo. 

Rev. Stat. 18–18–302(1) (2023). 

Here, the undisputed evidence in the 

record is that Registrant lacks authority 

to practice medicine in Colorado. As 

discussed above, a physician must be a 

licensed practitioner to dispense a 

controlled substance in Colorado. Thus, 

because Registrant lacks authority to 

practice medicine in Colorado and, 

therefore, is not authorized to handle 

controlled substances in Colorado, 

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. BY9053240 issued to 

Mark Young, 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 Mark Young, M.D., to renew or 

modify this registration, as well as any 

other pending application of Mark 

Young, M.D., for additional registration 

in Colorado. This Order is effective 

January 22, 2024. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Drug 

Enforcement Administration was signed 

on December 12, 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. 2023–28016 Filed 12–20–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 23–52] 

Frank A. Hooper, D.V.M.; Decision and 

Order 

On June 6, 2023, the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA or 

Government) issued an Order to Show 

Cause (OSC) to Frank A. Hooper, D.V.M. 

(Respondent). OSC, at 1, 3. The OSC 

proposed the revocation of 

Respondent’s DEA Certificate of 

Registration No. BH4810518 at the 

registered address of 100B Old 

Woodruff Road, POB 123, Greer, South 

Carolina 29651. Id. at 1. The OSC 

alleged that Respondent’s DEA 

registration should be revoked because 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 244 / Thursday, December 21, 2023 / Notices 88415 

1See also Government’s Notice of Filing of 

Evidence of Lack of State Authority; Service of 

Order to Show Cause; and Motion for Summary 

Disposition, Exhibit (GX) 2, at 1; Declaration of 

S.N.R., at 3. 

2See also GX 7; Declaration of Diversion 

Investigator, at 3. 

3Under 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, 

Respondent 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 Office of the 

Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration at 

dea.addo.attorneys@dea.gov. 

4This 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 823(f), was redesignated as part of the 

Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research 

Expansion Act, Pub. L. 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, 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 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 

27617. 

Respondent is ‘‘without authority to 

prescribe, administer, dispense, or 

otherwise handle controlled substances 

in South Carolina, the state in which [he 

is] registered with DEA.’’ Id. at 2 (citing 

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

On July 19, 2023, Respondent 

requested a hearing. On July 27, 2023, 

the Government filed a Motion for 

Summary Disposition, to which 

Respondent did not respond. On August 

14, 2023, the Chief Administrative Law 

Judge (Chief ALJ) granted the 

Government’s Motion for Summary 

Disposition and recommended the 

revocation of Respondent’s registration, 

finding that because Respondent lacks 

state authority to handle controlled 

substances in South Carolina, the state 

in which he is registered with DEA, 

‘‘there is no other fact of consequence 

for this tribunal to decide.’’ Order 

Granting the Government’s Motion for 

Summary Disposition and 

Recommended Rulings, Findings of 

Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision 

of the Administrative Law Judge (RD), at 

5. Respondent did not file exceptions to 

the RD. 

Having reviewed the entire record, the 

Agency adopts and hereby incorporates 

by reference the entirety of the Chief 

ALJ’s rulings, findings of fact, 

conclusions of law, and recommended 

sanction as found in the RD and 

summarizes and expands upon portions 

thereof herein. 

Findings of Fact 

On February 21, 2023, the South 

Carolina State Board of Veterinary 

Medical Examiners issued an Order of 

Temporary Suspension that suspended 

Respondent’s South Carolina veterinary 

license. RD, at 4.1 Further, on March 27, 

2023, the South Carolina Department of 

Health and Environmental Control 

Bureau of Drug Control (SC DHEC 

Bureau of Drug Control) cancelled 

Respondent’s South Carolina controlled 

substances registration. RD. at 4 n.3.2

According to South Carolina online 

records, of which the Agency takes 

official notice, Respondent’s South 

Carolina veterinary license remains 

suspended.3 South Carolina Board of 

Veterinary Medical Examiners, Licensee 

Lookup, https://verify.llronline.com/ 

LicLookup/Vet/Vet.aspx?div=40 (last 

visited date of signature of this Order). 

Further, Respondent’s South Carolina 

controlled substances registration is 

listed with an expiration date of March 

27, 2023. SC DHEC Bureau of Drug 

Control, Controlled Substances 

Registration Verification, https://

apps.dhec.sc.gov/DrugControl/ 

Licensing/Home/Verify (last visited date 

of signature of this Order). 

Accordingly, the Agency finds that 

Respondent is not currently licensed to 

engage in veterinary practice nor to 

handle controlled substances in South 

Carolina, the state in which he 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 71371, 

71372 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 

F. App’x 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick 

Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27616, 

27617 (1978).4

According to South Carolina statute, 

‘‘[e]very person who manufactures, 

distributes, or dispenses any controlled 

substance or who proposes to engage in 

the manufacture, distribution, or 

dispensing of any controlled substance, 

shall obtain a registration issued by the 

[Department of Health and 

Environmental Control] in accordance 

with its rules and regulations.’’ S.C. 

Code 44–53–290(a) (2023). Further, 

‘‘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 

the delivery.’’ Id. 44–53–110(15). 

Here, the undisputed evidence in the 

record is that Respondent currently 

lacks authority to dispense controlled 

substances in South Carolina because 

his South Carolina controlled substance 

registration has been cancelled. As 

discussed above, an individual must 

hold a controlled substance registration 

to dispense a controlled substance in 

South Carolina. Thus, because 

Respondent lacks authority to handle 

controlled substances in South Carolina, 

Respondent is not eligible to maintain a 

DEA registration. RD, at 5. Accordingly, 

the Agency will order that Respondent’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. BH4810518 issued to 

Frank A. Hooper, D.V.M. 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 Frank A. Hooper, 

D.V.M., to renew or modify this 

registration, as well as any other 

pending application of Frank A. Hooper, 

D.V.M., for additional registration in 

South Carolina. This Order is effective 

January 22, 2024. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Drug 

Enforcement Administration was signed 

on December 12, 2023, by Administrator 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
88416 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 244 / Thursday, December 21, 2023 / Notices 

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. 2023–28015 Filed 12–20–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

[OMB Number 1117–0003] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Proposed eCollection 

eComments Requested; Extension of a 

Previously Approved Collection; 

ARCOS Transaction Reporting 

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement 

Administration, Department of Justice. 

ACTION: 60-Day notice. 

SUMMARY: The Drug Enforcement 

Administration, Department of Justice 

(DOJ), will be submitting the following 

information collection request to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and approval in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Comments are encouraged and 

will be accepted for 60 days until 

February 20, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have additional comments 

especially on the estimated public 

burden or associated response time, 

suggestions, or need a copy of the 

proposed information collection 

instrument with instructions or 

additional information, please contact 

Scott A Brinks, Regulatory Drafting and 

Policy Support Section, Drug 

Enforcement Administration; Mailing 

Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, 

Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: 

(571) 362–3261; Email: DPW@dea.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Written 

comments and suggestions from the 

public and affected agencies concerning 

the proposed collection of information 

are encouraged. Your comments should 

address one or more of the following 

four points: 

—Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

—Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

—Evaluate whether and if so how the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected can be 

enhanced; and 

—Minimize the burden of the collection 

of information on those who are to 

respond, including through the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms 

of information technology, e.g., 

permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Abstract: Section 307 of the 

Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 

827) requires controlled substance 

manufacturers and distributors to make 

periodic reports to DEA regarding the 

sale, delivery, and other disposal of 

certain controlled substances. These 

reports help ensure a closed system of 

distribution for controlled substances, 

and are used to comply with 

international treaty obligations. 

Overview of This Information 

Collection 

1. Type of Information Collection: 

Extension of a previously approved 

collection. 

2. The Title of the Form/Collection: 

ARCOS Transaction Reporting. 

3. The agency form number, if any, 

and the applicable component of the 

Department sponsoring the collection: 

DEA Form 333. The applicable 

component within the Department of 

Justice is the Drug Enforcement 

Administration, Diversion Control 

Division. 

4. Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as the 

obligation to respond: Affected Public: 

Private Sector—business or other forprofit. The obligation to respond is 

mandatory per 21 CFR 1304. 

5. An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 

estimated for an average respondent to 

respond: The DEA estimates that 1,181 

registrants participate in this 

information collection. The time per 

response is 0.50 minutes to complete 

the DEA–333 (paper) and 0.25 minutes 

to complete DEA–333 (online). 

6. An estimate of the total annual 

burden (in hours) associated with the 

collection: DEA estimates that this 

collection takes 2,850 annual burden 

hours. 

7. An estimate of the total annual cost 

burden associated with the collection, if 

applicable: $0. 

TOTAL BURDEN HOURS

Activity Number of 

respondents 

Total annual 

responses 

Time per 

response 

(hours) 

Total annual 

burden 

(hours) 

DEA Form: 333 (online) ................................................................................... 31 110 0.50 55 

DEA Form: 333 (paper) ................................................................................... 1,150 11,180 0.25 2,795

Unduplicated Totals .................................................................................. 1,181 11,290 ........................ 2,850 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES