76152 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Notices 

Controlled substance Drug 

code Schedule 

Thebaine ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 9333 II 

Dihydroetorphine ......................................................................................................................................................................... 9334 II 

Levo-alphacetylmethadol ............................................................................................................................................................. 9648 II 

Oxymorphone .............................................................................................................................................................................. 9652 II 

Noroxymorphone ......................................................................................................................................................................... 9668 II 

Phenazocine ................................................................................................................................................................................ 9715 II 

Thiafentanil .................................................................................................................................................................................. 9729 II 

Piminodine ................................................................................................................................................................................... 9730 II 

Racemethorphan ......................................................................................................................................................................... 9732 II 

Racemorphan .............................................................................................................................................................................. 9733 II 

Alfentanil ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 9737 II 

Remifentanil ................................................................................................................................................................................. 9739 II 

Sufentanil ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 9740 II 

Carfentanil ................................................................................................................................................................................... 9743 II 

Tapentadol ................................................................................................................................................................................... 9780 II 

Bezitramide .................................................................................................................................................................................. 9800 II 

Fentanyl ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 9801 II 

Moramide-intermediate ................................................................................................................................................................ 9802 II 

The company plans to bulk 

manufacture the listed controlled 

substances for distribution to its 

customers. In reference to dug codes 

7360 (Marihuana), and 7370 

(Tetrahydrocannabinols), the company 

plans to bulk manufacture these drugs 

as synthetic. No other activities for these 

drug codes are authorized for this 

registration. 

Marsha L. Ikner, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2024–21062 Filed 9–16–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. DEA–1432] 

Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled 

Substances Application: Eli-Elsohly 

Laboratories 

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement 

Administration, Justice. 

ACTION: Notice of application. 

SUMMARY: Eli-Elsohly Laboratories has 

applied to be registered as a bulk 

manufacturer of basic class(es) of 

controlled substance(s). Refer to 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION listed 

below for further drug information. 

DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of 

the affected basic class(es), and 

applicants therefore, may submit 

electronic comments on or objections to 

the issuance of the proposed registration 

on or before November 18, 2024. Such 

persons may also file a written request 

for a hearing on the application on or 

before November 18, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: The Drug Enforcement 

Administration requires that all 

comments be submitted electronically 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, 

which provides the ability to type short 

comments directly into the comment 

field on the web page or attach a file for 

lengthier comments. Please go to 

https://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions at that site for 

submitting comments. Upon submission 

of your comment, you will receive a 

Comment Tracking Number. Please be 

aware that submitted comments are not 

instantaneously available for public 

view on https://www.regulations.gov. If 

you have received a Comment Tracking 

Number, your comment has been 

successfully submitted and there is no 

need to resubmit the same comment. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this 

is notice that on August 16, 2024, EliElsohly Laboratories, 5 Industrial Park 

Drive, Oxford, Mississippi 38655–5343, 

applied to be registered as a bulk 

manufacturer of the following basic 

class(es) of controlled substance(s): 

Controlled substance Drug 

code Schedule 

Marihuana Extract .......... 7350 I 

Marihuana ....................... 7360 I 

Tetrahydrocannabinols ... 7370 I 

Dihydromorphine ............ 9145 I 

Amphetamine ................. 1100 II 

Methamphetamine .......... 1105 II 

Cocaine .......................... 9041 II 

Codeine .......................... 9050 II 

Dihydrocodeine ............... 9120 II 

Oxycodone ..................... 9143 II 

Ecgonine ......................... 9180 II 

Thebaine ......................... 9333 II 

The company plans to manufacture 

the listed controlled substances for 

product development reference 

standards. In reference to drug codes 

7360 (Marihuana), and 7370 

(Tetrahydrocannabinols), the company 

plans to isolate these controlled 

substances from procured 7350 

(Marihuana Extract). In reference to 

drug code 7360, no cultivation activities 

are authorized for this registration. 

In reference to drug code 9333 

(Thebaine), the company plans to 

manufacture a Thebaine derivative. No 

other activities for these drug codes are 

authorized for this registration. 

Marsha L. Ikner, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2024–21060 Filed 9–16–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 23–53] 

George D. Gowder, III, M.D.; Decision 

and Order 

On July 18, 2023, the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA or 

Government) issued an Order to Show 

Cause (OSC) to George Gowder, III, 

M.D., of Blairsville, Georgia 

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

proposed the denial of Respondent’s 

application for a DEA Certificate of 

Registration (registration), Control No. 

W22147308C, alleging that Respondent 

has been convicted of a felony relating 

to Federal controlled substance laws, 

and that he has been excluded from 

participation in Medicare, Medicaid, 

and all Federal health care programs. Id. 

at 1–2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), 

824(a)(2), 824(a)(5)). 

A hearing was held before DEA 

Administrative Law Judge Teresa A. 

Wallbaum (ALJ), who, on December 1, 

2023, issued her Recommended Rulings, 

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, 

and Decision (Recommended Decision 

or RD). The RD recommended that 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Notices 76153 

1The ALJ recommended that Respondent be 

required to submit to regular drug testing, refrain 

from taking controlled substances that are not 

lawfully prescribed, and hire a practice monitor to 

monitor his prescribing practices and submit 

regular reports to DEA. RD, at 20–21. The ALJ also 

recommended that Respondent’s registration be 

limited to Schedules III through V. Id. As noted 

herein, Respondent only applied for authority in 

Schedules III through V. 

2The Agency adopts the ALJ’s summary of each 

of the witnesses’ testimonies as well as the ALJ’s 

assessment of each of the witnesses’ credibility. See 

RD, at 3–10. The Agency agrees with the ALJ that 

the testimony from the DEA Diversion Investigator 

(DI), which was primarily focused on the 

introduction of the Government’s documentary 

evidence, was ‘‘sufficiently detailed, plausible, and 

internally consistent to be afforded full credibility.’’ 

Id. at 5. 

3The Agency agrees with the ALJ that 

‘‘Respondent testified clearly, candidly, and 

without hesitation,’’ notwithstanding that he 

‘‘unarguably possesses . . . the greatest motivation 

to enhance, modify, or even fabricate his 

testimony.’’ RD, at 9. Respondent ‘‘did not shy away 

from difficult questions and his answers contained 

no caveats or attempts to minimize his behavior,’’ 

and in fact, the primary details regarding his 

fraudulent conduct came from Respondent’s 

testimony and exhibits. Id. at 9–10. Therefore, the 

Agency agrees with the ALJ that Respondent’s 

testimony should be ‘‘afforded full credibility.’’ Id. 

at 10. 

4Respondent regained his state medical license in 

October of 2022. RD, at 6; Tr. 53. 

Respondent’s application be granted 

with restrictions.1 RD, at 20–21. The 

Government filed Exceptions to the RD. 

Having reviewed the entire record, the 

Agency adopts and hereby incorporates 

by reference the entirety of the ALJ’s 

rulings, credibility findings,2 findings of 

fact, and conclusions of law, and 

expands upon portions thereof herein. 

However, the Agency has determined 

based on Respondent’s unequivocal 

acceptance of responsibility and his 

fulsome demonstration of remediation 

that Respondent can be trusted with an 

unencumbered registration for 

Schedules III through V. 

I. Findings of Fact 

A. Felony Conviction 

On June 10, 2020, Respondent pled 

guilty to one count of ‘‘Dispensing 

Controlled Substances Outside 

Professional Practice’’ in violation of 21 

U.S.C. 841(a) and 841(b)(1)(C), and he 

was sentenced to 18 months in prison. 

RX 2, at 1; RD, at 8; Tr. 8. After serving 

15 months in prison, he was placed on 

two years of supervised release. RD, at 

8; Tr. 89–91. Respondent served one 

year of supervised release, but was 

released from the second. RD, at 8; Tr. 

91–92. 

Respondent’s Federal conviction was 

the culmination of more than a decade 

of diverting controlled substances for 

personal use.3 RD, at 5–6. Respondent 

testified that he began taking opioids in 

the early 2000s after they were lawfully 

prescribed for a back injury. Id. at 6; Tr. 

55. Respondent testified that, after 

finishing that prescription, he would 

occasionally ‘‘reward’’ himself by taking 

an opiate sample from the emergency 

room where he worked. RD, at 6; Tr. 55– 

56, 59. He would take an opiate once a 

month, which then progressed to once 

every two weeks. RD, at 6; Tr. 58–59. 

Respondent testified that his 

progression ‘‘from a user to an addict’’ 

took at least two or three years. RD, at 

6; Tr. 59–60. Respondent abused 

oxycodone and hydrocodone in pill 

form. Id. Respondent testified that when 

he became addicted to opiates, he 

‘‘started doing things [he] would never 

ha[ve] thought [he] would do,’’ 

including forging prescriptions and 

stealing drugs from patients. RD, at 6; 

Tr. 60. Respondent explained that he 

forged prescriptions in two different 

ways. RD, at 7–8; Tr. 85. First, he wrote 

prescriptions for himself and forged 

another physician’s name and DEA 

number. Id. Second, he wrote 

prescriptions purportedly for a 

homebound patient, went to the 

pharmacy to have the prescriptions 

filled, and used the drugs himself. RD, 

at 8; Tr. 85–86. 

Respondent’s misconduct led to a 

series of arrests by local law 

enforcement in 2015 and 2016, which 

resulted in charges for prescription 

forgery. RD, at 6–7; Tr. 62–68. After the 

first arrest in April of 2015, Respondent 

entered a residential treatment center 

for three months, and has remained 

drug-free since. See supra III.B; RD, at 

8; Tr. 93. While in recovery, local law 

enforcement referred his case to Federal 

law enforcement and Federal charges 

were brought. RD, at 7; Tr. 69–70. 

Respondent ultimately pled guilty and 

was federally convicted in June of 2020. 

RD, at 7; Tr. 64, 70, 79. 

B. Exclusion From Medicare 

The Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) notified Respondent by 

letter on October 29, 2021, that he 

would be ‘‘exclud[ed] from participation 

in all Federal health care programs . . . 

for a minimum period of [seven] years.’’ 

GX 3, at 1. The letter notified 

Respondent that the exclusion was a 

result of Respondent’s ‘‘felony 

conviction . . . related to the unlawful 

manufacture, distribution, prescription, 

or dispensing of a controlled 

substance.’’ Id. The letter also notified 

Respondent that his period of exclusion 

exceeded the minimum exclusion 

period of five years because his criminal 

sentence included prison time, and 

because the Georgia Composite Medical 

Board (Medical Board) had taken 

additional adverse action against 

Respondent by suspending his medical 

license.4 Id. HHS considered these 

factors to be ‘‘aggravating 

circumstances.’’ Id. The seven-year 

exclusion period became effective on 

November 18, 2021. Id. 

II. Discussion 

The Government alleged two 

independent grounds for denial: (1) that 

Respondent has been convicted of a 

felony relating to controlled substances, 

21 U.S.C. 824(a)(2), 823(g)(1), and (2) 

that Respondent has been excluded 

from participation in all Federal health 

care programs, id. sections 824(a)(5), 

823(g)(1). OSC, at 1–2. Having reviewed 

the record and the RD, the Agency 

agrees with the ALJ, adopts the ALJ’s 

analysis, and finds that the Government 

has satisfied its prima facie burden of 

demonstrating that both grounds for 

denial exist. Id. at 10–12. 

A. Felony Conviction 

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(2), the 

Attorney General is authorized to 

suspend or revoke a registration issued 

under section 823 of the Controlled 

Substances Act (CSA) ‘‘upon a finding 

that the registrant . . . has been 

convicted of a felony . . . relating to 

any . . . controlled substance.’’ 21 

U.S.C. 824(a)(2). The Agency has 

consistently held that it also may deny 

an application for a DEA registration 

upon finding that the registrant has been 

convicted of a felony relating to 

controlled substances. Arvinder Singh, 

M.D., 81 FR 8247, 8248 n.3 (2016) 

(quoting Kwan Bo Jin, M.D., 77 FR 

35021, 35021 n.2 (2012)) (‘‘[W]here a 

registration can be revoked under [21 

U.S.C.] 824, it can, a fortiori, be denied 

under [21 U.S.C. ] 823 since the law 

would not require an agency to indulge 

in the useless act of granting a license 

on one day only to withdraw it on the 

next.’’). Here, the undisputed and 

substantial record evidence 

demonstrates that Respondent has been 

convicted of a felony relating to 

controlled substances. OSC, at 10–11. 

RD, at 11; GX 2; RX 1, at 3–4; Tr. 87– 

88. 

B. Exclusion From Medicare 

Respondent’s application also may be 

denied ‘‘upon a finding that the 

registrant . . . has been excluded (or 

directed to be excluded) from 

participation in a program pursuant to 

section 1320a–7(a) of Title 42.’’ 21 

U.S.C. 824(a)(5), 823(g)(1); Arvinder 

Singh, 81 FR 8248 n.3. Here, the 

undisputed and substantial record 

evidence demonstrates that HHS 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
76154 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Notices 

5Respondent’s credible, unchallenged testimony 

regarding his acceptance of responsibility in his 

criminal proceedings weighs in his favor. See 

Michele L. Martinho, M.D., 86 FR 24012, 24020 n.*E 

(2021) (citing Mohammed Asgar, 83 FR 29569, 

29573 n.3 (2018)) (An AUSA or Judge’s comments 

regarding a respondent’s acceptance of 

responsibility during criminal proceedings are not 

binding on the Agency, but they are relevant 

evidence). 

6The Government seems to acknowledge in its 

Post-hearing Brief that Respondent accepted 

responsibility for his conduct. ALJX 23, at 25. 

mandatorily excluded Registrant from 

‘‘all Federal health care programs’’ 

under 42 U.S.C. 1320a–7(a)(4). RD, at 

11; GX 3; ALJX 14, at 2; Tr. 30–31. 

III. Sanction 

Where, as here, the Government has 

established sufficient grounds to deny a 

Respondent’s application, the burden 

shifts to the registrant to show why he 

can be entrusted with the responsibility 

carried by a registration. Garret Howard 

Smith, M.D., 83 FR 18882, 18904 (2018). 

When a registrant has committed acts 

inconsistent with the public interest, he 

must both accept responsibility and 

demonstrate that he has undertaken 

corrective measures. Holiday CVS, 

L.L.C., dba CVS Pharmacy Nos 219 and 

5195, 77 FR 62316, 62339 (2012). Trust 

is necessarily a fact-dependent 

determination based on individual 

circumstances; therefore, the Agency 

looks at factors such as the acceptance 

of responsibility, the credibility of that 

acceptance as it relates to the 

probability of repeat violations or 

behavior, the nature of the misconduct 

that forms the basis for sanction, and the 

Agency’s interest in deterring similar 

acts. See, e.g., Robert Wayne Locklear, 

M.D., 86 FR 33738, 33746 (2021). 

A. Acceptance of Responsibility 

Here, the Agency agrees with the ALJ 

that Respondent unequivocally accepted 

responsibility for his conduct. RD, at 

12–14. Respondent took every 

opportunity to acknowledge that his 

conduct was wrong and he made no 

efforts to minimize it. Id. at 13. He 

admitted that he was guilty of 

dispensing controlled substances 

outside of his professional practice 

because he forged prescriptions and 

fraudulently filled his patients’ 

prescriptions for his own use. RD, at 13; 

Tr. 84–85. Respondent testified that he 

did not want to defend or glorify his 

conduct, and stated that ‘‘it is a 

shameful, morally bad place to be.’’ RD, 

at 13; Tr. 56, 84–86. He also 

acknowledged that he ‘‘abused the 

public trust as a physician.’’ RD, at 13; 

Tr. 83. Respondent testified that he has 

‘‘been completely honest’’ about his 

behavior and conduct ‘‘with every 

single person that [he has] spoken to 

whether it’s law enforcement, whether 

in the legal system, [or] in treatment.’’ 

Tr. 89–90. Respondent testified that the 

judge presiding over his criminal 

sentencing hearing ‘‘spoke highly’’ of 

him, and noted his acceptance of 

responsibility and willingness to 

cooperate.5 RD, at 8; Tr. 80. 

Accordingly, the Agency agrees with the 

ALJ that Respondent unequivocally 

accepted responsibility for his 

misconduct,6 RD, at 12–14, and 

commends Respondent for his 

willingness to candidly reflect on his 

battle with addiction in a public forum. 

B. Remedial Measures 

Having found that Respondent has 

unequivocally accepted responsibility 

for his conduct, the Agency considers 

whether Respondent has implemented 

sufficient remedial measures to 

demonstrate that he will not engage in 

future misconduct and can be trusted 

with a registration. Jayam Krishna-Iyer, 

M.D., 74 FR 459, 463 (2009). The 

Agency has acknowledged that ‘‘[i]n 

self-abuse cases, . . . successful 

rehabilitation efforts are an important 

consideration in determining whether a 

respondent can be trusted with a 

registration.’’ Trenton F. Horst, D.O., 80 

FR 41079, 41091 (2015); see also Abbas 

E. Sina, M.D., 80 FR 53191, 53201 

(2015) (‘‘[T]he risk of relapse becomes 

critical in determining what steps are 

warranted when determining the public 

interest.’’). 

Respondent provided extensive 

testimony regarding his recovery and 

his efforts to remain sober. RD, at 15; Tr. 

106–108, 109–110. After his first arrest 

in April of 2015, he entered a residential 

treatment center for three months. RD, 

at 8; Tr. 93. He went into treatment 

partially because he knew he would not 

be able to regain his medical license 

without receiving treatment. RD, at 8; 

Tr. 94–95. After completing residential 

treatment, Respondent entered a 

‘‘Chemical Addiction Monitoring 

Agreement’’ with the Georgia 

Professional Health Program (PHP). RD, 

at 8–9; RX 2, at 1. The agreement 

required him to submit to random drug 

tests and attend self-help meetings, 

small-group counseling sessions, and 

meetings with other physicians in the 

PHP. RD, at 9; Tr. 96–97; RX 2, at 1–3. 

The initial agreement lasted for five 

years, and he completed it before 

entering Federal prison in July of 2020. 

RD, at 9; Tr. 107–09; RX 2, at 1. 

Respondent was not monitored by the 

PHP during his incarceration. RD, at 9; 

Tr. 108–109. Respondent entered a 

second agreement with the PHP in 

September of 2022, which required him 

to continue to attend various meetings 

and submit to random drug tests. RD, at 

9; Tr. 107–08; RX 2, at 9–17. 

Respondent testified that he entered the 

new agreement because he wanted ‘‘to 

do whatever [the] Georgia PHP felt was 

needed for [him] to be a reliable 

physician,’’ but that he also had an 

‘‘overwhelming desire not to fall back 

into addiction.’’ RD, at 15; Tr. 106. 

Because Respondent does ‘‘a good bit’’ 

more than is required by the Georgia 

PHP agreement, he was recently 

transitioned to a ‘‘senior monitoring 

agreement,’’ which still requires him to 

submit to random drug tests. RD, at 9, 

15; Tr. 111–12. 

Respondent testified that he plans to 

remain under the supervision of the 

Georgia PHP even if he is no longer 

required to do so to maintain his 

medical license. RD, at 15; Tr. 112. He 

also plans to continue taking random 

drug tests, because even though there is 

‘‘no part of [him] that wants to take a 

drug[,] . . . the statistics [are] brutal on 

relapses,’’ so he ‘‘[cannot] imagine what 

would possess [him] to not continue to 

be accountable to a urine drug test.’’ RD, 

at 15–16; Tr. 112. Respondent testified 

that drug testing is one of the best tools 

to reduce the likelihood of remission. 

RD, at 16; Tr. 112. Respondent testified 

that he has taken hundreds of drug tests, 

and that there has only been one onemonth period since April of 2015 that 

he has not been subject to random drug 

tests. Tr. 97. Respondent testified that 

he has never failed a drug test and that 

he has remained drug-free since 

entering treatment in April of 2015. Id. 

Perhaps the most concrete remedial 

measure that Respondent has taken— 

which addresses both his addiction and 

the prescription forgery—is that he 

applied for a registration to dispense 

drugs only in Schedules III through V. 

Id. at 16; Tr. 37; 114–115; GX 4, at 1. 

Respondent testified that he does not 

want authority to prescribe Schedule II 

drugs because those are the drugs that 

he previously abused. RD, at 16; Tr. 85– 

86, 114–115. 

Respondent believes that he can be 

trusted with a registration because of his 

understanding of addiction and his 

understanding of how doctors can abuse 

their power to write prescriptions. RD, 

at 16; Tr. 119. According to Respondent, 

with this knowledge, he is safer writing 

prescriptions than the majority of 

physicians. Id. Respondent requests 

authority to prescribe controlled 

substances in Schedules III through V so 

that he can work in an inpatient 

treatment facility that manages medical 

detoxification and treats patients with 

ongoing chronic illnesses, such as 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Notices 76155 

7The Agency has held that remedial measures are 

given ‘‘limited-to-no-weight’’ when they are 

implemented after enforcement begins. See, e.g., 

Morris & Dickson Co., LLC, 88 FR 34523, 34539–40 

(2023) (citing Mireille Lalanne, M.D., 78 FR 47750, 

47777 (2013) (‘‘The Agency has recognized that a 

cessation of illegal behavior only when ‘DEA comes 

knocking at one’s door,’ can be afforded a 

diminished weight borne of its own opportunistic 

timing.’’); Southwood Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 72 FR 

36487, 36503 (2007) (giving no weight to 

respondent’s ‘‘stroke-of-midnight decision’’ to cease 

supplying suspect pharmacies with controlled 

substances and to employ a compliance officer). 

This principle applies in even greater force here, 

where the remedial measures that Respondent has 

implemented appear to be mandatory under an 

agreement with the state medical board, rather than 

voluntary. 

8The Government argues in its Exceptions that 

‘‘the egregiousness of Respondent’s conduct 

supports denial and outweighs any acceptance of 

responsibility or proposed remedial measures.’’ 

Government’s Exceptions, at 4. The Agency agrees 

with the Government that Respondent’s conduct 

was egregious, but finds that other factors discussed 

throughout this Decision obviate the need for a 

sanction in this case. 

9For all of the reasons set forth herein, the 

Agency finds that it can fully trust Respondent with 

a registration. The Agency therefore finds that the 

ALJ’s recommended conditions on Respondent’s 

registration are unnecessary. RD, at 20–21. 

Continued 

diabetes or mental health issues. RD, at 

6; Tr. 58, 124. Respondent currently 

volunteers as a physician at a long-term 

recovery center where he is not required 

to possess a DEA registration. RD, at 5; 

Tr. 57, 123. 

Analysis of Respondent’s remedial 

measures is particularly complex. On 

one hand, the weight of the remedial 

evidence is reduced because the 

measures were not implemented until 

after Respondent was arrested, and 

many of these measures are mandatory 

under an agreement with the Medical 

Board.7 RD, at 15; Tr. 107. On the other 

hand, Respondent has made a sincere 

commitment to remaining drug-free for 

himself and for his family, and has gone 

above and beyond the Medical Board’s 

requirements to ensure he does so. RD, 

at 15; Tr. 111. For example, 

Respondent’s application seeks only to 

handle drugs in Schedules III through V 

to ensure that he does not have access 

to the Schedule II drugs that he abused 

in the past. RD, at 16; Tr. 85–86, 114– 

115. With these extensive remedial 

measures Respondent has remained 

sober for approximately nine years. 

Accordingly, the ALJ found, and the 

Agency agrees, that Respondent can be 

trusted with a DEA registration. RD, at 

16. 

C. Deterrent Effect and Egregiousness 

Acceptance of responsibility and 

remedial measures are assessed in the 

context of the ‘‘egregiousness of the 

violations and the [DEA’s] interest in 

deterring similar misconduct by [the] 

Respondent in the future as well as on 

the part of others.’’ Daniel A. Glick, 

D.D.S., 80 FR 74800, 74810 (2015); 

OakmontScript Limited Partnership, 87 

FR 21516, 21545 (2022). Because these 

administrative proceedings are intended 

to be remedial, rather than punitive, the 

Agency has previously found that, 

under appropriate circumstances, 

‘‘criminal convictions and sanctions by 

state licensing authorities can 

sufficiently deter physicians from 

engaging in misconduct, making the 

denial of an application . . . 

unnecessary to achieve the goal of 

general deterrence.’’ Gilbert Y. Kim, 

D.D.S., 87 FR 21139, 21145 (2022) 

(citing Kansky J. Delisma, M.D., 85 FR 

23845, 23854 (2020)). The Agency has 

also held that, sometimes, ‘‘such 

punitive measures can suffice to deter 

the registrant or applicant from future 

misconduct, making revocation or 

denial of an application unnecessary to 

achieve specific deterrence.’’ Id. 

Here, the Agency does not find that 

imposing a sanction is necessary to 

deter Respondent from engaging in 

future misconduct. Respondent has 

already faced significant legal 

consequences for his misconduct, 

including multiple arrests, jailtime, 

supervised release, and the loss of his 

state medical license and DEA 

registration. Respondent has also 

undergone significant monitoring to 

recover and maintain his state medical 

license, including taking hundreds of 

random drug tests and attending 

frequent substance abuse meetings. RD, 

at 9; Tr. 96–97; RX 2, at 1–3. 

Respondent testified that the 

consequences of his unlawful behavior 

have hurt him and his family. Tr. 131. 

Thus, the Agency finds that the 

punitive, remedial, and personal 

consequences that Respondent has 

suffered are sufficient to deter him from 

engaging in future misconduct, 

especially given Respondent’s strong 

personal and professional commitment 

to remaining drug-free. Respondent’s 

commitment to sobriety is a strong 

deterrent to future misconduct, as 

Respondent testified that the only 

reason that he engaged in the fraudulent 

conduct that led to the felony 

conviction and Medicare exclusion was 

to feed his personal addiction. RD, at 6; 

Tr. 60. Respondent’s decision not to 

request authority to prescribe the 

Schedule II drugs that he previously 

abused is also a significant deterrent. 

RD, at 16; Tr. 85–86, 114–115. 

Moreover, there is no evidence that 

Respondent has committed any 

additional CSA violations since entering 

treatment in April of 2015, which 

bolsters the Agency’s conclusion that 

Respondent has been sufficiently 

deterred from future violations. 

The Agency also finds that the 

significant consequences that 

Respondent has faced are sufficient to 

deter the general registrant community 

from committing similar misconduct of 

forging prescriptions and diverting 

controlled substances for personal use. 

This Decision should signal to the 

registrant community that CSA 

violations are likely to result in serious 

legal consequences—as Respondent 

confronted a protracted legal battle with 

local and Federal law enforcement, state 

regulators, and DEA as a result of his 

misconduct. But this Decision should 

also demonstrate to registrants 

recovering from addiction that, by 

accepting responsibility, remediating 

their actions, demonstrating sustained 

success with sobriety and conveying a 

strong commitment to remaining sober, 

cooperating with state and Federal 

enforcers, and demonstrating candor 

during enforcement proceedings, they 

may be shown leniency. 

Regarding egregiousness, there is no 

dispute that the conduct that led to 

Respondent’s conviction and 

subsequent exclusion from all Federal 

health care programs was egregious.8

RD, at 17. Respondent admitted to using 

extra samples at the hospital where he 

worked, forging prescriptions using 

other physicians’ DEA registrations, and 

writing prescriptions with his own DEA 

registration purportedly for home-bound 

patients. Id. Indeed, such cases of fraud 

and forgery are particularly egregious 

because Respondent used his 

knowledge as a DEA registrant to 

circumvent the closed system of 

distribution, and he diverted powerful 

Schedule II controlled substances. Id. 

‘‘These are actions that strike at the very 

heart of the responsibilities entrusted to 

a DEA registrant . . . .’’ Id. (citing Jana 

Marjenhoff, D.O., 80 FR 29067, 29095 

(2015)). 

However, the evidence 

overwhelmingly suggests that 

Respondent has unequivocally accepted 

responsibility, is remorseful for his 

conduct, has taken efforts to help others 

recover from addiction, and 

rehabilitated himself even before he was 

convicted and required to serve his 

time. He has also taken steps to reduce 

the likelihood of recurrence by limiting 

his application to drugs in Schedules III 

through V that he has never abused. In 

other words, Respondent has presented 

convincing evidence to demonstrate that 

the Agency can trust him with a 

registration.9 Therefore, the Agency will 

grant his application. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
76156 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Notices 

However, the Agency’s trust can be lost in the event 

of a relapse, so the Agency encourages Respondent 

to stick to his plan to continue taking random drug 

tests. As Respondent testified, ‘‘the statistics [are] 

brutal on relapses,’’ and drug testing is one of the 

best tools to reduce the likelihood of remission. RD, 

at 15–16; Tr. 112. 

Order 

Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the 

authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823 

and 824, I hereby dismiss the Order to 

Show Cause issued to George Gowder, 

III, M.D., and grant Respondent’s 

application number W22147308C in 

Schedules III through V. This Order is 

effective immediately. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Drug 

Enforcement Administration was signed 

on September 11, 2024, 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. 2024–21051 Filed 9–16–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Submission for OMB 

Review; Comment Request; Electrical 

Standards for Construction and 

General Industry 

ACTION: Notice of availability; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor 

(DOL) is submitting this Occupational 

Safety & Health Administration (OSHA)- 

sponsored information collection 

request (ICR) to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and approval in accordance with 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA). Public comments on the ICR are 

invited. 

DATES: The OMB will consider all 

written comments that the agency 

receives on or before October 17, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

PRAMain. Find this particular 

information collection by selecting 

‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open 

for Public Comments’’ or by using the 

search function. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nicole Bouchet by telephone at 202– 

693–0213, or by email at DOL_PRA_

PUBLIC@dol.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

information collection requirements 

specified in the Electrical Standards for 

Construction and General Industry are 

necessary for the prevention of 

inadvertent electrocution of workers. 

These provisions require labels, 

markings, written programs, 

notifications, and tags to alert workers 

of the presence and the different types 

of electrical hazards found in the 

workplace, thereby, preventing serious 

injuries and deaths from electrocutions. 

For additional substantive information 

about this ICR, see the related notice 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 1, 2024 (89 FR 54540). 

Comments are invited on: (1) whether 

the collection of information is 

necessary for the proper performance of 

the functions of the Department, 

including whether the information will 

have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of 

the agency’s estimates of the burden and 

cost of the collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; (3) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility and 

clarity of the information collection; and 

(4) ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

This information collection is subject 

to the PRA. A Federal agency generally 

cannot conduct or sponsor a collection 

of information, and the public is 

generally not required to respond to an 

information collection, unless the OMB 

approves it and displays a currently 

valid OMB Control Number. In addition, 

notwithstanding any other provisions of 

law, no person shall generally be subject 

to penalty for failing to comply with a 

collection of information that does not 

display a valid OMB Control Number. 

See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. 

DOL seeks PRA authorization for this 

information collection for three (3) 

years. OMB authorization for an ICR 

cannot be for more than three (3) years 

without renewal. The DOL notes that 

information collection requirements 

submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs 

receive a month-to-month extension 

while they undergo review. 

Agency: DOL–OSHA. 

Title of Collection: Electrical 

Standards for Construction and General 

Industry. 

OMB Control Number: 1218–0130. 

Affected Public: Private Sector— 

Businesses or other for-profits. 

Total Estimated Number of 

Respondents: 970,289. 

Total Estimated Number of 

Responses: 2,979,332. 

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 

210,693 hours. 

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs 

Burden: $15,835,311. 

(Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D)) 

Nicole Bouchet, 

Senior Paperwork Reduction Act Analyst. 

[FR Doc. 2024–21020 Filed 9–16–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Submission for OMB 

Review; Comment Request; Slings 

Standard 

ACTION: Notice of availability; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor 

(DOL) is submitting this Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA)-sponsored information 

collection request (ICR) to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and approval in accordance with 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA). Public comments on the ICR are 

invited. 

DATES: The OMB will consider all 

written comments that the agency 

receives on or before October 17, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

PRAMain. Find this particular 

information collection by selecting 

‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open 

for Public Comments’’ or by using the 

search function. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michelle Neary by telephone at 202– 

693–6312, or by email at DOL_PRA_

PUBLIC@dol.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

provisions of the standard require that 

the employer make a periodic 

inspection of alloy steel chain slings at 

least once a year and to make and 

maintain a record of the inspection. It 

also requires the employer to ensure 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1