Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 244 / Thursday, December 21, 2023 / Notices 88413 

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, 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 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. 

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 

Dental Board issued an Order of 

Suspension, effective October 12, 2022, 

suspending Registrant from the practice 

of dentistry in the state of Colorado. 

RFAAX 2, at 2. According to Colorado 

online records, of which the Agency 

takes official notice, Registrant’s 

Colorado dental 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 

dentistry 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 dentists by the 

Colorado dental board . . . .’’ Colo. 

Rev. Stat. 18–18–302(1) (2023). 

Here, the undisputed evidence in the 

record is that Registrant lacks authority 

to practice dentistry in Colorado. As 

discussed above, a dentist must be a 

licensed practitioner to dispense a 

controlled substance in Colorado. Thus, 

because Registrant lacks authority to 

practice dentistry 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. FP7517456 issued to 

Joeseph Potter, D.D.S. 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 Joeseph Potter, D.D.S, to renew or 

modify this registration, as well as any 

other pending application of Joeseph 

Potter, D.D.S., 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. 2023–28013 Filed 12–20–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Mark Young, M.D.; Decision and Order 

On July 14, 2023, the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA or 

Government) issued an Order to Show 

Cause (OSC) to Mark R. Young, M.D. 

(Registrant). Request for Final Agency 

Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 2, at 1, 

3. The OSC proposed the revocation of 

Registrant’s Certificate of Registration 

No. BY9053240 at the registered address 

of 401 23rd Street Suite 207, Glenwood 

Springs, Colorado 81601. Id. at 1. The 

OSC alleged that Registrant’s 

registration should be revoked because 

Registrant is ‘‘currently without 

authority to prescribe, administer, 

dispense, or otherwise handle 

controlled substances in Colorado, 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 

have waived his right to a hearing and 

be in default. Id. (citing 21 CFR 

1301.43). Here, Registrant did not 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
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