79308 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 188 / Friday, September 27, 2024 / Notices 

1Based on the Government’s submissions in its 

RFAA dated October 17, 2023, the Agency finds 

that service of the OSC on Registrant was adequate. 

Specifically, the included declaration from a DEA 

Diversion Investigator indicates that on August 31, 

2023, Registrant was personally served with the 

OSC at his registered address. RFAAX 2, at 1; see 

also id. at 3 (Form DEA–12 signed by Registrant on 

August 31, 2023). 

industry in the United States exists as 

required by subsection (a)(2) of section 

337; 

(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the 

plain language description of the 

accused products or category of accused 

products, which defines the scope of the 

investigation, is ‘‘televisions with smart 

features and functionality’’; 

(3) For the purpose of the 

investigation so instituted, the following 

are hereby named as parties upon which 

this notice of investigation shall be 

served: 

(a) The complainant is: Maxell, Ltd., 

1. Koizumi, Oyamazaki, Oyamazaki-cho, 

Otokuni-gun, Kyoto, 618–8525 Japan. 

(b) The respondents are the following 

entities alleged to be in violation of 

section 337, and are the parties upon 

which the complaint is to be served: 

TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a 

TCL, Multimedia Technology 

Holdings, Ltd.), 7th Floor, Building 

22E, 22 Science Park East Avenue, 

Hong Kong Science Park, Shatin, New 

Territories, Hong Kong 

TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd., 22nd 

Floor, TCL Technical Tower, Huifeng 

3 Road, Zhongkai Development, Zone 

Huizhou, Guangdong, China, 516006 

T.C.L. Industries Holdings (H.K.) 

Limited, 8th Floor, Building 22E, 

Phase Three, Hong Kong Science 

Park, Pak Shek Kok, New Territories, 

Hong Kong 

TTE Technology, Inc. (d/b/a TCL North 

America), 1860 Compton Avenue, 

Corona, CA 92881 

TTE Corporation, 7th Floor, Building 

22E, 22 Science Park East Avenue, 

Hong Kong Science Park, Shatin, New 

Territories, Hong Kong 

TCL King Electrical Appliances, 

(Huizhou) Co. Ltd., No. 78, Huifeng 4 

Road, Zhongkai Development Zone 

Huizhou, China, 516006 

Manufacturas Avanzadas S.A. de C.V., 

Blvd. Independecia No. 2151, Ciudad 

Juarez, Chihuahua, 32580, Mexico 

TCL Smart Device (Vietnam) Co., Ltd., 

No. 26 VSIP II–A, Street 32, Vietnam 

Singapore Industrial Park II–A, Tan 

Binh Commune, Bac Tan Uyen 

District, Binh Duong Province, 75000, 

Vietnam 

Shenzhen TCL New Technology Co., 

Ltd., 9th Floor, TCL Electronics 

Holdings Limited Building, TCL 

International E City, No. 1001 

Zhongshan Park Road, Nanshan, 

China, 518067 

TCL Optoelectronics Technology 

(Huizhou) Co., Ltd., No. 78, Huifeng 

4 Road, Zhongkai Development Zone 

Huizhou, China, 516006 

TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd., 5th Floor, 

Building 22E, 22 Science Park East 

Avenue, Hong Kong Science Park, 

Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong 

TCL Technology Group Corporation, (f/ 

k/a TCL Corp.), TCL Technology 

Building, No. 17, Huifeng Third Road, 

Zhongkai High-Tech Development 

Zone, Huizhou, Guangdong, China 

516001 

(c) The Office of Unfair Import 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW, Suite 

401, Washington, DC 20436; and 

(4) For the investigation so instituted, 

the Chief Administrative Law Judge, 

U.S. International Trade Commission, 

shall designate the presiding 

Administrative Law Judge. 

Responses to the complaint and the 

notice of investigation must be 

submitted by the named respondents in 

accordance with section 210.13 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 

19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), as 

amended in 85 FR 15798 (March 19, 

2020), such responses will be 

considered by the Commission if 

received not later than 20 days after the 

date of service by the complainant of the 

complaint and the notice of 

investigation. Extensions of time for 

submitting responses to the complaint 

and the notice of investigation will not 

be granted unless good cause therefor is 

shown. 

Failure of a respondent to file a timely 

response to each allegation in the 

complaint and in this notice may be 

deemed to constitute a waiver of the 

right to appear and contest the 

allegations of the complaint and this 

notice, and to authorize the 

administrative law judge and the 

Commission, without further notice to 

the respondent, to find the facts to be as 

alleged in the complaint and this notice 

and to enter an initial determination 

and a final determination containing 

such findings, and may result in the 

issuance of an exclusion order or a cease 

and desist order or both directed against 

the respondent. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: September 24, 2024. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2024–22187 Filed 9–26–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Theodore S. Wright Jr., M.D.; Decision 

and Order 

On August 30, 2023, the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA or 

Government) issued an Order to Show 

Cause (OSC) to Theodore S. Wright Jr., 

M.D., of Chicago, Illinois (Registrant). 

Request for Final Agency Action 

(RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1, 3. The 

OSC proposed the revocation of 

Registrant’s Certificate of Registration 

No. AW2016651, alleging that 

Registrant’s registration should be 

revoked because Registrant is ‘‘currently 

without authority to prescribe, 

administer, dispense, or otherwise 

handle controlled substances in the 

State of Illinois, the state in which [he 

is] registered with DEA.’’ Id. at 1–2 

(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. at 2 (citing 21 CFR 

1301.43). Here, Registrant did not 

request a hearing. RFAA, at 2.1 ‘‘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), 1301.46. RFAA, at 1; 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, effective 

February 21, 2023, the Illinois 

Department of Financial and 

Professional Regulation suspended 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 188 / Friday, September 27, 2024 / Notices 79309 

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 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). 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. 

4 ‘‘Dispense’’ means ‘‘to deliver a controlled 

substance to an ultimate user or research subject by 

or pursuant to the lawful order of a prescriber, 

including the prescribing, administering, packaging, 

labeling, or compounding necessary to prepare the 

substance for that delivery.’’ Id. 570/102(p). 

1On June 14, 2024, Respondent sought to 

continue the DEA proceedings while appealing the 

loss of his state authority; consistent with past 

precedent, the Administrative Law Judge denied the 

continuance. 

Registrant’s Illinois medical license. 

RFAAX 1, at 1. According to Illinois’s 

online records, of which the Agency 

takes official notice, Registrant’s Illinois 

medical license remains suspended.2

Illinois Department of Financial and 

Professional Regulation License Search, 

https://online-dfpr.micropact.com/ 

lookup/licenselookup.aspx/ (last visited 

date of signature of this Order). 

Accordingly, the Agency finds that 

Registrant is not licensed to practice 

medicine in Illinois, 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

Pursuant to the Illinois Controlled 

Substances Act, a practitioner in good 

faith (‘‘the regular course of professional 

treatment’’) may dispense a controlled 

substance. 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 570/ 

312(a), 570/102(u) (2024).4 A 

‘‘practitioner’’ means ‘‘a physician 

licensed to practice medicine in all its 

branches . . . or other person licensed, 

registered, or otherwise lawfully 

permitted by the United States or 

[Illinois] to distribute, dispense, 

conduct research with respect to, 

administer or use in teaching or 

chemical analysis, a controlled 

substance in the course of professional 

practice or research.’’ Id. 570/102(kk). 

Here, the undisputed evidence in the 

record is that Registrant currently lacks 

authority to practice medicine in 

Illinois. As discussed above, an 

individual must be a licensed 

practitioner to dispense a controlled 

substance in Illinois. Thus, because 

Registrant lacks authority to practice 

medicine in Illinois, and, therefore, is 

not authorized to handle controlled 

substances in Illinois, 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. AW2016651 issued 

to Theodore S. Wright Jr., 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 Theodore S. Wright Jr., 

M.D., to renew or modify this 

registration, as well as any other 

pending application of Theodore S. 

Wright Jr., M.D., for additional 

registration in Illinois. This Order is 

effective October 28, 2024. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Drug 

Enforcement Administration was signed 

on September 19, 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. 2024–22200 Filed 9–26–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 24–46] 

Wagner Gervais, P.A.; Decision and 

Order 

On May 7, 2024, the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA or 

Government) issued an Order to Show 

Cause (OSC) to Wagner Gervais, P.A., of 

Tucson, Arizona (Respondent). OSC, at 

1, 4. The OSC proposed the revocation 

of Respondent’s DEA Certificate of 

Registration No. MG7845778, alleging 

that Respondent’s DEA registration 

should be revoked because Respondent 

is ‘‘without authority to prescribe, 

administer, dispense, or otherwise 

handle controlled substances in the 

State of Arizona, the state in which [he 

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

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

On May 21, 2024, Respondent 

requested a hearing and filed an 

Answer. On June 4, 2024, the 

Government filed a Motion for 

Summary Disposition, to which 

Respondent did not respond.1 On June 

24, 2024, Administrative Law Judge 

Teresa A. Wallbaum (the 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 Arizona, the state in 

which he is registered with DEA, 

‘‘[t]here is no genuine issue of material 

fact in this case.’’ Order Granting the 

Government’s Motion for Summary 

Disposition, and Recommended 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1