79312 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 188 / Friday, September 27, 2024 / Notices 

1Under 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, 

Respondent 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. 

2 In his Answer, Respondent contends that the 

correct registered address for his DEA Certificate of 

Registration No. FL0432815 is in Arizona. Answer 

of Respondent [ ] and Evidence of State Authority 

(Respondent’s Answer), at 1., However, Agency 

records show that the registered address for 

Respondent’s DEA Certificate of Registration 

FL0432815 is 12340 South 450 East, Draper, Utah 

84020. 

Respondent also argues that despite lacking 

authority to handle controlled substances in Utah, 

he has authority to handle controlled substances 

elsewhere, referencing a different DEA Certificate of 

Registration with a Texas address. Respondent’s 

Answer, at 1. Because Respondent’s DEA 

registration at issue is based on his Utah licenses, 

which have undeniably been surrendered, it is of 

no consequence that he may maintain valid 

authority and a separate DEA registration 

elsewhere. Ralph Reach, M.D., 89 FR 24036, 24037 

n.5 (2024); Omar Garcia, M.D., 87 FR 32186, 32187 

n.6 (2022). 

3This 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, the 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, M.D., 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick 

A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby 

Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988); Frederick 

Marsh Blanton, 43 FR 27617. 

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 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 24–30] 

Adam L. Larson, M.D.; Decision and 

Order 

On February 23, 2024, the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA or 

Government) issued an Order to Show 

Cause (OSC) to Adam L. Larson, M.D., 

of Draper, Utah (Respondent). OSC, at 1, 

3. The OSC proposed the revocation of 

Respondent’s DEA Certificate of 

Registration No. FL0432815, alleging 

that Respondent is ‘‘without authority to 

handle controlled substances in Utah, 

the state in which [he is] registered with 

DEA.’’ Id. at 1–2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 

824(a)(3)). 

Respondent requested a hearing and 

filed an Answer. On March 15, 2024, the 

Government filed a Submission of 

Evidence and Motion for Summary 

Disposition. On April 9, 2024, 

Administrative Law Judge Paul E. 

Soeffing (the ALJ) granted the 

Government’s Motion for Summary 

Disposition and recommended the 

revocation of Respondent’s registration, 

finding that because Respondent lacks 

authority to handle controlled 

substances in Utah, the state in which 

he is registered with DEA, ‘‘there is no 

other fact of consequence for this 

tribunal to decide.’’ Order Granting the 

Government’s Motion for Summary 

Disposition, and Recommended 

Rulings, Findings of Fact, Conclusions 

of Law, and Decision of the 

Administrative Law Judge (RD), at 6. 

Respondent did not file exceptions to 

the RD. 

Having reviewed the entire record, the 

Agency adopts and hereby incorporates 

by reference the entirety of the ALJ’s 

rulings, findings of fact, conclusions of 

law, and recommended sanction as 

found in the RD and summarizes and 

expands upon portions thereof herein. 

Findings of Fact 

On January 3, 2024, Respondent 

surrendered his Utah medical license 

and Utah controlled substance license. 

RD, at 3; see also Government’s 

Submission of Evidence and Motion for 

Summary Disposition, Exhibit (GX) 2, at 

7, 11. According to Utah online records, 

of which the Agency takes official 

notice, Respondent’s Utah medical 

license and Utah controlled substance 

license both remain surrendered.1 Utah 

Division of Professional Licensing, 

Licensee Lookup & Verification System, 

https://secure.utah.gov/llv/search/ 

search.html (last visited date of 

signature of this Order). Accordingly, 

the Agency finds that Respondent is not 

licensed to practice medicine nor to 

handle controlled substances in Utah, 

the state in which he is registered with 

DEA.2

Discussion 

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), 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 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, the 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, M.D., 76 FR 71371, 

71372 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 

F. App’x 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick 

Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27616, 

27617 (1978).3

According to Utah statute, ‘‘[e]very 

person who manufactures, produces, 

distributes, prescribes, dispenses, 

administers, conducts research with, or 

performs laboratory analysis upon any 

controlled substance in Schedules I 

through V within [the] state . . . shall 

obtain a license issued by the [Division 

of Professional Licensing].’’ Utah Code 

Ann. section 58–37–6(2)(a)(i) (2024). 

Here, the undisputed evidence in the 

record is that Respondent lacks 

authority to handle controlled 

substances in Utah because he 

surrendered both his Utah medical 

license and his Utah controlled 

substance license. As discussed above, 

an individual must hold a controlled 

substance license to dispense a 

controlled substance in Utah. Thus, 

because Respondent lacks authority to 

handle controlled substances in Utah, 

Respondent is not eligible to maintain a 

DEA registration in Utah. RD, at 5–6. 

Accordingly, the Agency will order that 

Respondent’s DEA registration in Utah 

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. FL0432815 issued to 

Adam L. Larson, 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 188 / Friday, September 27, 2024 / Notices 79313 

1Based on the Government’s submissions in its 

RFAA dated November 16, 2023, the Agency finds 

that service of the OSC on Registrant was adequate. 

Specifically, the RFAA’s included exhibits indicate 

that Registrant was served a copy of the OSC via 

email on July 7, 2023, and Registrant acknowledged 

receipt on July 9, 2023. RFAAX 3–4. 

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 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, 11120 (1988); Frederick 

Marsh Blanton, 43 FR 27617. 

of Adam L. Larson, M.D., to renew or 

modify this registration, as well as any 

other pending application of Adam L. 

Larson, M.D., for additional registration 

in Utah. This Order is effective October 

28, 2024. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Drug 

Enforcement Administration was signed 

on September 17, 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. 2024–22191 Filed 9–26–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Michael Fletcher, M.D.; Decision and 

Order 

On June 29, 2023, the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA or 

Government) issued an Order to Show 

Cause (OSC) to Michael Fletcher, M.D., 

of Cincinnati, OH (Registrant). Request 

for Final Agency Action (RFAA), 

Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1, 4. The OSC 

proposed the revocation of Registrant’s 

Certificate of Registration No. 

FF0291005, alleging that Registrant’s 

registration should be revoked because 

Registrant is ‘‘currently without 

authority to handle controlled 

substances in the State of Ohio, the state 

in which [he is] registered with DEA.’’ 

RFAAX 1, 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. at 2–3 (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/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 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 May 11, 

2023, the State Medical Board of Ohio 

issued an order prohibiting Registrant 

from prescribing, dispensing, or 

otherwise professionally utilizing 

controlled substances. RFAAX 1, at 2. 

According to Ohio online records, of 

which the Agency takes official notice,2

Registrant’s Ohio medical license is 

active but ‘‘limited and restricted by a 

prohibition against prescribing, 

dispensing, [and/or] utilizing controlled 

substances in the course of practice.’’ 

eLicense Ohio Professional Licensure 

License Look-Up, https://

elicense.ohio.gov/oh_verifylicense (last 

visited date of signature of this Order). 

Accordingly, the Agency finds that 

Registrant is not licensed to handle 

controlled substances in Ohio, 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 Ohio statute, ‘‘[n]o 

person shall knowingly obtain, possess, 

or use a controlled substance or a 

controlled substance analog,’’ except 

pursuant to a ‘‘prescription issued by a 

licensed health professional authorized 

to prescribe drugs if the prescription 

was issued for a legitimate medical 

purpose.’’ Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 

sections 2925.11(A), (B)(1)(d) (West 

2024). Further, a ‘‘[l]icensed health 

professional authorized to prescribe 

drugs’’ or ‘‘prescriber’’ means ‘‘an 

individual who is authorized by law to 

prescribe drugs or dangerous drugs or 

drug therapy related devices in the 

course of the individual’s professional 

practice.’’ Id. section 4729.01(I). The 

definition further provides a limited list 

of authorized prescribers, the relevant 

provision of which is ‘‘[a] physician 

authorized under Chapter 4731[ ] of the 

Revised Code to practice medicine and 

surgery, osteopathic medicine and 

surgery, or podiatric medicine and 

surgery.’’ Id. section 4729.01(I)(5). 

Additionally, Ohio law permits ‘‘[a] 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1