```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 188 (Friday, September 27, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79310-79312]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22204]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

Lawrence Rudolph, D.M.D.; Decision and Order

    On July 12, 2023, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or 
Government) issued an Order to Show

[[Page 79311]]

Cause (OSC) to Lawrence Rudolph, D.M.D., of Pittsburgh, PA, Washington, 
PA, and Cranberry TWP, PA (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action 
(RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 3, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the revocation of 
Registrant's Certificates of Registration Nos. FR0070538, FR7760728, 
and FR7760730, alleging that Registrant's registrations should be 
revoked because Registrant is ``currently without authority to 
prescribe, administer, dispense, or otherwise handle controlled 
substances in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the state in which [he 
is] registered with DEA.'' Id. at 1-2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ According to Agency records, Registrant's registrations 
expired on April 30, 2024. The fact that a registrant allows his 
registration to expire during the pendency of an OSC does not impact 
the Agency's jurisdiction or prerogative under the Controlled 
Substances Act (CSA) to adjudicate the OSC to finality. Jeffrey D. 
Olsen, M.D., 84 FR 68474, 68476-79 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\2\ ``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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Based on the Government's submissions in its RFAA dated 
March 20, 2024, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on 
Registrant was adequate. Specifically, the submitted Declaration 
from a DEA Diversion Investigator indicates that Registrant was 
personally served with the OSC on August 23, 2023. RFAAX 2, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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] Sec.  1316.67.'' Id. Sec.  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, 
Registrant's Pennsylvania dental license expired on March 31, 2023. 
RFAAX 3, at 2. According to Pennsylvania online records, of which the 
Agency takes official notice, Registrant's dental license remains 
expired.\3\ Pennsylvania Licensing System Verification Service, https://www.pals.pa.gov/#!/page/search (last visited date of signature of this 
Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds that Registrant is not licensed 
to practice dentistry in Pennsylvania, the state in which he is 
registered with DEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Under 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 [email protected].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 27,616, 27,617 (1978).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This 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). 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to Pennsylvania statute, ``dispense'' means ``to deliver 
a controlled substance, other drug or device 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 such item for that delivery.'' 35 Pa. 
Stat. and Cons. Stat. Ann. Sec.  780-102(b) (West 2024). Further, a 
``practitioner'' means ``a physician . . . dentist . . . or other 
person licensed, registered or otherwise permitted to distribute, 
dispense, conduct research with respect to or to administer a 
controlled substance, other drug or device in the course of 
professional practice or research in the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania.'' Id.
    Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant 
lacks authority to practice dentistry in Pennsylvania. As discussed 
above, an individual must be a licensed practitioner to dispense a 
controlled substance in Pennsylvania. Thus, because Registrant lacks 
authority to practice dentistry in Pennsylvania and, therefore, is not 
authorized to handle controlled substances in Pennsylvania, 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. 
FR0070538, FR7760728, and FR7760730 issued to Lawrence Rudolph, D.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 Lawrence 
Rudolph, D.M.D., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any 
other pending application of Lawrence Rudolph, D.M.D., for additional 
registration in Pennsylvania. This Order is effective October 28, 2024.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on 
September 20, 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

[[Page 79312]]

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. 2024-22204 Filed 9-26-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
```