86944 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 240 / Friday, December 15, 2023 / Notices 

10The Agency notes the record evidence, in GX 

5, of two incidents when Respondent’s owner/PIC 

declined to provide the undercover officers with 

additional controlled substances without a 

prescription. GX 5, at 6, 8–9. These incidents do not 

excuse Respondent’s owner/PIC’s otherwise laserfocused pursuit of controlled substances sales 

regardless of legal requirements. Supra section II. 

11Respondent’s owner/PIC testified that ‘‘filling 

controls is a lot of headache. You have to record 

it down, you have to go through a lot of process, 

and nobody wants to deal with that.’’ Tr. 297. 

Respondent’s owner/PIC further testified that when 

he worked for larger pharmacies in the past, he 

would tell customers that controlled substances 

were not in stock because he got paid the same 

amount whether he filled controlled or noncontrolled substances. Id. He testified, ‘‘why would 

pharmacies . . . want to fill a control medication 

for somebody when it can come back to haunt him 

when he can say I don’t have it, I will fill just the 

non-controls.’’ Id. 

12While only the evidence relating to the found 

violation, supra, was used to determine that the 

Government made a prima facie case, the entire 

record supports the Agency’s determination that 

Respondent’s owner/PIC is not credible and that, 

therefore, the Agency cannot entrust Respondent 

with a registration. 

13 GX 5, at 1 (‘‘S/A: ‘Can I drop you some more 

scripts?’ . . . . Respondent’s owner/PIC: ‘How 

many is there?’ ’’); GX 5, at 7 (‘‘Undercover Officer: 

‘I got some more people I’m taking to the doc. you 

good with me bringing them here again? Um next 

week.’ . . . . Respondent’s owner/PIC: ‘Next week, 

yeah, next week that’s fine.’ ’’). 

1Based on the Government’s submissions in its 

RFAA dated August 3, 2023, the Agency finds that 

service of the OSC on Registrant was adequate. 

Specifically, the included declaration by a DEA 

Diversion Investigator (DI) indicates that on March 

13, 2023, the DI personally ‘‘served [Respondent] a 

copy of the [OSC] by hand delivery.’’ RFAAX 2, at 

1. 

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 

believe that Respondent’s future 

controlled substance prescription filling 

will comply with legal requirements.10

Indeed, Respondent’s owner/PIC’s own 

testimony suggests that he has no 

intention of complying with the CSA in 

the future because he believes 

compliance is unduly burdensome.11

Further, given the foundational nature 

and vast number of Respondent’s 

violations, a sanction less than 

revocation would send a message to the 

existing and prospective registrant 

community that compliance with the 

law is not a condition precedent to 

maintaining a registration. 

The Agency finds that it cannot 

entrust Respondent with a 

registration.12 It finds that Respondent’s 

actions were motivated by profiting 

while avoiding DEA’s detection and 

lacked any genuine care for the health 

and welfare of its customers. For 

example, the record evidence shows 

that Respondent coached customers 

regarding what to write on their forms 

in order to get the desired controlled 

substances, see, e.g., GX 5, at 3, 4, and 

shows the complete willingness of 

Respondent’s owner/PIC to continue to 

fill the controlled substance 

prescriptions that S/A and undercover 

officer ‘‘sponsors’’ were bringing him. 

GX 5, at 1, 7.13

Respondent’s owner/PIC’s testimony 

regarding those matters further erodes 

the Agency’s trust in the truthfulness of 

Respondent’s owner/PIC and in the 

ability of Respondent to maintain a 

registration in compliance with the law. 

In sum, the record supports the 

imposition of a sanction because 

Respondent did not unequivocally 

accept responsibility for its egregious 

and extensive violations, and has not 

convinced the Agency that it can be 

entrusted with a registration. 

Accordingly, the Agency shall order 

the sanction the Government requested, 

as contained in the Order below. 

Order 

Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the 

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

824(a)(4), I hereby revoke DEA 

registration No. FA5493363 issued to 

APEXX Pharmacy, LLC. 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 

application of APEXX Pharmacy, LLC, 

for a DEA Registration in Florida. This 

Order is effective January 16, 2024. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Drug 

Enforcement Administration was signed 

on December 7, 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. 2023–27524 Filed 12–14–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Gary R. Wisner, M.D.; Decision and 

Order 

On March 1, 2023, the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA or 

Government) issued an Order to Show 

Cause (OSC) to Gary R. Wisner, M.D. 

(Registrant). Request for Final Agency 

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

3. The OSC proposed the revocation of 

Registrant’s Certificates of Registration 

(COR) Nos. FW8432471 and 

AW2971073 at the registered addresses 

of 621 S. Ham Ln., Ste. A, Lodi, 

California 95242, and 16246 N. Locust 

Tree Road, Lodi, California 95240, 

respectively. Id. at 1. The OSC alleged 

that Registrant’s registrations should be 

revoked because Registrant was 

‘‘without authority to prescribe, 

administer, dispense, or otherwise 

handle controlled substances in the 

State of California, the state in which 

[he is] registered with DEA.’’ Id. at 2 

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

CFR 1301.37(b)). 

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 (citing 21 CFR 

1301.43(c)(1)). 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 

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), and 1301.46. RFAA, at 1. 

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, ‘‘[e]ffective 

January 30, 2023, as part of an 

agreement with the [Medical Board of 

California] . . . [Registrant] surrendered 

[his] license to practice medicine in the 

State of California.’’ RFAAX 1, at 1–2. 

According to California’s online 

records, of which the Agency takes 

official notice, the status of Registrant’s 

physician and surgeon license (type A) 

is listed as surrendered, and he is not 

permitted to practice.2 California 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 240 / Friday, December 15, 2023 / Notices 86945 

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. 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 at 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. 

4Although additional specified categories of 

persons are permitted to write or issue 

prescriptions, none of those practitioner categories 

are applicable to Registrant. 

Department of Consumer Affairs, 

License Search, https://search.dca.

ca.gov/ (last visited date of signature of 

this Order). Therefore, the Agency finds 

that Registrant is not currently 

authorized to dispense or handle 

controlled substances in California, 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 California statute and 

relevant to Registrant’s COR, ‘‘[n]o 

person other than a physician . . . shall 

write or issue a prescription.’’ 4 Cal. 

Health & Safety Code 11150. Further, 

‘‘physician,’’ as defined by California 

statute, is a person who is ‘‘licensed to 

practice’’ in California. Id. 11024. 

Here, the evidence in the record is 

that Registrant currently lacks authority 

to handle controlled substances in 

California because his California 

physician and surgeon license has been 

surrendered. As already discussed, a 

person must hold a valid license to 

dispense a controlled substance in 

California. Thus, because Registrant 

lacks authority to handle controlled 

substances in California, Registrant is 

not eligible to maintain a DEA 

registration. Accordingly, the Agency 

will order that Registrant’s DEA 

registrations 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 Certificates 

of Registration Nos. FW8432471 and 

AW2971073 issued to Gary R. Wisner, 

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 Gary R. 

Wisner, M.D., to renew or modify these 

registrations, as well as any other 

pending application of Gary R. Wisner, 

M.D., for additional registration in 

California. This Order is effective 

January 16, 2024. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Drug 

Enforcement Administration was signed 

on December 7 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. 2023–27522 Filed 12–14–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Bureau of Labor Statistics 

Technical Advisory Committee; 

Request for Nominations 

AGENCY: Bureau of Labor Statistics 

(BLS), Department of Labor. 

ACTION: Request for nominations. 

SUMMARY: The BLS is soliciting new 

members for the Technical Advisory 

Committee (TAC) to address four 

member terms expiring on April 13, 

2024, and any additional vacancies that 

may occur on the TAC between the date 

of publication of this notice and April 

13, 2024. 

DATES: Nominations for the TAC 

membership should be transmitted by 

January 16, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Nominations for the TAC 

membership should be emailed to 

BLSTAC@bls.gov. Nominations are only 

being accepted through email as BLS is 

in maximum telework status pending its 

relocation to Suitland. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay 

Stewart, Senior Research Economist, 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

Telephone: 202–691–7376. This is not a 

toll-free number. Email: BLSTAC@

bls.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The TAC 

provides advice to the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics on technical aspects of data 

collection and the formulation of 

economic measures and makes 

recommendations on areas of research. 

On some technical issues, there are 

differing views and receiving feedback 

at public meetings provides BLS with 

the opportunity to consider all 

viewpoints. 

The Committee consists of 

approximately 16 members who serve as 

Special Government Employees. 

Members are appointed by the BLS and 

are approved by the Secretary of Labor. 

Committee members are experts in 

economics, statistics, data science, and 

survey design. Members typically have 

Ph.D.s in their field and have significant 

experience. They are prominent experts 

in their fields and recognized for their 

professional achievements and 

objectivity. The economic experts will 

have research experience with technical 

issues related to BLS data and will be 

familiar with employment and 

unemployment statistics, price index 

numbers, compensation measures, 

productivity measures, occupational 

and health statistics, or other topics 

relevant to BLS data series. The 

statistical experts will have experience 

with sample design, data analysis, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1