82638 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Notices 

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 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. 

1Based on the Government’s submissions in its 

RFAA dated February 26, 2024, the Agency finds 

that service of the OSC on Registrant was adequate. 

Specifically, the included Declaration from a DEA 

Diversion Investigator (DI) indicates that on January 

10, 2024, Registrant was successfully served a copy 

of the OSC via email to his registered email address, 

as the email was not returned as undeliverable. 

RFAAX 1, at 1, 3; Mohammed S. Aljanaby, M.D., 

82 FR 34552, 34552 (2017) (finding that service by 

email satisfies due process where the email is not 

returned as undeliverable and other methods have 

been unsuccessful). The DI notes in the Declaration 

that Registrant was mailed a copy of the OSC on 

or about December 8, 2023, but on January 10, 2024, 

the mailing was returned as undeliverable. RFAAX 

1, 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 

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. 

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 Kansas statute, 

‘‘dispense’’ means ‘‘to deliver a 

controlled substance to an ultimate user 

or research subject by or pursuant to the 

lawful order of a practitioner, including 

the packaging, labeling or compounding 

necessary to prepare the substance for 

that delivery . . . .’’ Kan. Stat. Ann. 

sec. 65–4101(l) (2024). Further, a 

‘‘practitioner’’ includes, among others, 

‘‘a person licensed to practice medicine 

and surgery . . . .’’ Id. sec. 65–4101(ll). 

Here, the undisputed evidence in the 

record is that Registrant lacks authority 

to practice medicine in Kansas. As 

discussed above, an individual must be 

a licensed practitioner to dispense a 

controlled substance in Kansas. Thus, 

because Registrant lacks authority to 

practice medicine in Kansas and, 

therefore, is not authorized to handle 

controlled substances in Kansas, 

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. BM8877473 issued 

to William J. Mack, 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 William J. Mack, M.D., 

to renew or modify this registration, as 

well as any other pending application of 

William J. Mack, M.D., for additional 

registration in Kansas. This Order is 

effective November 12, 2024. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Drug 

Enforcement Administration was signed 

on October 2, 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. 2024–23515 Filed 10–10–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Robert P. Hansen, M.D.; Decision and 

Order 

On November 29, 2023, the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA or 

Government) issued an Order to Show 

Cause (OSC) to Robert P. Hansen, M.D., 

of Fresno, California (Registrant). 

Request for Final Agency Action 

(RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 2, at 1, 4. The 

OSC proposed the revocation of 

Registrant’s Certificate of Registration 

No. BH4921727, 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 California, the state in which 

[he is] registered with DEA.’’ Id. 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 3.1 ‘‘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 August 

18, 2023, Registrant surrendered his 

California physician and surgeon 

license. RFAAX 2, at 2. According to 

California online records, of which the 

Agency takes official notice, Registrant’s 

California physician and surgeon 

license remains surrendered.2 California 

DCA License Search, https://

search.dca.ca.gov (last visited date of 

signature of this Order). Accordingly, 

the Agency finds that Registrant is not 

licensed to practice as a physician in 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Notices 82639 

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, 11120 (1988); Frederick 

Marsh Blanton, 43 FR 27617. 

1This registration expired on March 31, 2024. 

RFAAX 1. The fact that a registrant allows her 

registration to expire during the pendency of an 

administrative enforcement proceeding does not 

impact the Agency’s jurisdiction or prerogative to 

adjudicate the OSC to finality. Jeffrey D. Olsen, 

M.D., 84 FR 68474, 68479 (2019). 

2Based on the Government’s submissions in its 

RFAA dated December 18, 2023, the Agency finds 

that service of the OSC/ISO on Registrant was 

adequate. Attached to the Government’s RFAA is 

the Declaration of a DEA Diversion Investigator 

asserting that on June 21, 2023, the OSC/ISO was 

served on Registrant’s counsel, who confirmed 

receipt. RFAAX 3, appendix A, at 1. 

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, 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 California statute, 

‘‘dispense’’ means ‘‘to deliver a 

controlled substance to an ultimate user 

or research subject by or pursuant to the 

lawful order of a practitioner, including 

the prescribing, furnishing, packaging, 

labeling, or compounding necessary to 

prepare the substance for that delivery.’’ 

Cal. Health & Safety Code sec. 11010 

(West 2024). Further, a ‘‘practitioner’’ 

means a person ‘‘licensed, registered, or 

otherwise permitted, to distribute, 

dispense, conduct research with respect 

to, or administer, a controlled substance 

in the course of professional practice or 

research in [the] state.’’ Id. sec. 11026(c). 

Here, the undisputed evidence in the 

record is that Registrant currently lacks 

authority to practice as a physician in 

California. As discussed above, an 

individual must be a licensed 

practitioner to dispense a controlled 

substance in California. Thus, because 

Registrant currently lacks authority to 

practice as a physician in California 

and, therefore, is not currently 

authorized to handle controlled 

substances in California, 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. BH4921727 issued to 

Robert P. Hansen, 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 Robert P. Hansen, M.D., 

to renew or modify this registration, as 

well as any other pending application of 

Robert P. Hansen, M.D., for additional 

registration in California. This Order is 

effective November 12, 2024. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Drug 

Enforcement Administration was signed 

on October 2, 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. 2024–23514 Filed 10–10–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Janet S. Pettyjohn, D.O.; Decision and 

Order 

On June 21, 2023, the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA or 

Government) issued an Order to Show 

Cause and Immediate Suspension of 

Registration (OSC/ISO) to Janet S. 

Pettyjohn, D.O., of Tampa, Florida 

(Registrant). Request for Final Agency 

Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 2, at 1. 

The OSC/ISO informed Registrant of the 

immediate suspension of her DEA 

registration, Control No. AP6641713,1

pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(d), alleging 

that Registrant’s continued registration 

constitutes ‘‘ ‘an imminent danger to the 

public health or safety.’ ’’ Id. (quoting 21 

U.S.C. 824(d)). The OSC/ISO also 

proposed the revocation of Registrant’s 

registration, alleging that Registrant’s 

continued registration is inconsistent 

with the public interest. Id. (citing 21 

U.S.C. 823(g)(1), 824(a)(4)). 

The OSC/ISO notified Registrant of 

her right to file with DEA a written 

request for hearing within 30 days after 

the date of receipt of the OSC/ISO. 

RFAAX 2, at 6. The OSC/ISO also 

notified Registrant that if she failed to 

file such a request, she would be 

deemed to have waived her right to a 

hearing and be in default. Id. (citing 21 

CFR 1301.43). Here, Registrant did not 

request a hearing. RFAA, at 1–2.2 ‘‘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/ISO].’’ 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), because Registrant has not timely 

requested a hearing nor filed an Answer 

to the June 21, 2023 OSC/ISO. See also 

id. § 1316.67. 

I. Findings of Fact 

The Agency finds that, in light of 

Registrant’s default, the factual 

allegations in the OSC/ISO are admitted. 

21 CFR 1301.43(e). Accordingly, 

Registrant admits that between August 

2021 and February 2023, she issued 60 

prescriptions for controlled substances 

to six individuals without conducting 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1