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
82640 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Notices 

3Hydromorphone is a schedule II opioid. 21 CFR 

1308.12(b)(1)(vii). 

4Alprazolam is a schedule IV depressant. 21 CFR 

1308.14(c)(2). 

5Oxycodone is a schedule II opioid. 21 CFR 

1308.12(b)(1)(xiv). 

6Methadone is a schedule II opioid. 21 CFR 

1308.12(c)(15). 

7As to Factor A, there is no record evidence of 

disciplinary action against Registrant’s State 

medical license. 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(A). State 

authority to practice medicine is ‘‘a necessary, but 

not a sufficient condition for registration. . . .’’ 

Robert A. Leslie, M.D., 68 FR at 15230. Therefore, 

‘‘[t]he fact that the record contains no evidence of 

a recommendation by a State licensing board does 

not weigh for or against a determination as to 

whether continuation of the [Registrant’s] DEA 

certification is consistent with the public interest.’’ 

Roni Dreszer, M.D., 76 FR 19434, 19444 (2011). As 

to Factor C, there is no evidence in the record that 

Registrant has been convicted of any Federal or 

State law offense ‘‘relating to the manufacture, 

distribution, or dispensing of controlled 

substances.’’ 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(C). However, as 

Agency cases have noted, ‘‘the absence of such a 

conviction is of considerably less consequence in 

the public interest inquiry’’ and is therefore not 

dispositive. Dewey C. MacKay, M.D., 75 FR 49956, 

49973 (2010). As to Factor E, the Government’s 

evidence fits squarely within the parameters of 

Factors B and D and does not raise ‘‘other conduct 

which may threaten the public health and safety.’’ 

21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(E). Accordingly, Factor E does 

not weigh for or against Registrant. 

medical examinations, evaluating the 

individuals, or maintaining any medical 

documentation to support the 

prescriptions. RFAAX 2, at 2–5. 

Registrant also admits that among these 

60 prescriptions, nine were issued in 

response to text messages requesting the 

prescriptions. Id. Registrant further 

admits that, for all 60 prescriptions, her 

conduct reflects negative experience in 

prescribing controlled substances and 

that her conduct was outside the usual 

course of professional practice. Id. at 1– 

3. 

A. Prescribing to S.G. 

Registrant admits that from August 

21, 2021, to February 9, 2023, Registrant 

issued to S.G. 27 prescriptions 

containing hydromorphone 3 and/or 

alprazolam 4 without conducting a 

medical examination or evaluation of 

S.G. and without maintaining any 

medical documentation to support the 

prescriptions. RFAAX 2, at 3. 

B. Prescribing to L.P. 

Registrant admits that from January 5, 

2022, to January 23, 2023, Registrant 

issued to L.P. 12 prescriptions 

containing oxycodone,5

hydromorphone, and/or alprazolam, 

including one hydromorphone 

prescription that was issued in response 

to a text message requesting the 

prescription, without conducting a 

medical examination or evaluation of 

L.P. and without maintaining any 

medical documentation to support the 

prescriptions. RFAAX 2, at 3–4. 

C. Prescribing to C.P–C. 

Registrant admits that from February 

3, 2022, to February 13, 2023, Registrant 

issued to C.P–C. 14 prescriptions 

containing oxycodone and/or 

alprazolam, including one oxycodone 

prescription that was issued in response 

to a text message requesting the 

prescription, without conducting a 

medical examination or evaluation of 

C.P–C. and without maintaining any 

medical documentation to support the 

prescriptions. RFAAX 2, at 4. 

D. Prescribing to J.A. 

Registrant admits that on January 12, 

2023, and February 16, 2023, Registrant 

issued to J.A. two prescriptions for 

oxycodone, each of which were issued 

in response to text messages requesting 

the prescriptions, without conducting a 

medical examination or evaluation of 

J.A. and without maintaining any 

medical documentation to support the 

prescriptions. RFAAX 2, at 4. 

E. Prescribing to DC 

Registrant admits that from February 

24, 2022, to January 12, 2023, Registrant 

issued to DC four prescriptions 

containing oxycodone, methadone,6

and/or alprazolam. RFAAX 2, at 4–5. 

Specifically, Registrant admits that on 

February 24, 2022, and January 12, 

2023, Registrant issued to DC two 

prescriptions for oxycodone in response 

to text messages requesting the 

prescriptions. Id. at 5. Registrant admits 

that on March 5, 2022, she issued to DC 

a prescription for alprazolam in 

response to a text message requesting 

the prescription. Id. Registrant admits 

that on December 29, 2022, she issued 

to DC a prescription for methadone in 

response to a text message requesting 

the prescription. Id. Registrant issued 

each of these prescriptions to DC 

without conducting a medical 

examination or evaluation of DC and 

without maintaining any medical 

documentation to support the 

prescriptions. Id. 

F. Prescribing to J.D. 

Registrant admits that on February 3, 

2023, Registrant issued to J.D. a 

prescription for oxycodone in response 

to a text message requesting the 

prescription and without conducting a 

medical examination or evaluation of 

J.D. or maintaining any medical 

documentation to support the 

prescription. RFAAX 2, at 5. 

II. Discussion 

A. 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1): The Five Public 

Interest Factors 

Under the Controlled Substances Act 

(CSA), ‘‘[a] registration . . . to . . . 

dispense a controlled substance . . . 

may be suspended or revoked by the 

Attorney General upon a finding that 

the registrant . . . has committed such 

acts as would render his registration 

under [section 823 of this title] 

inconsistent with the public interest as 

determined under such section.’’ 21 

U.S.C. 824(a)(4). In making the public 

interest determination, the CSA requires 

consideration of the following factors: 

(A) The recommendation of the 

appropriate State licensing board or 

professional disciplinary authority. 

(B) The [registrant’s] experience in 

dispensing, or conducting research with 

respect to controlled substances. 

(C) The [registrant’s] conviction record 

under Federal or State laws relating to the 

manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of 

controlled substances. 

(D) Compliance with applicable State, 

Federal, or local laws relating to controlled 

substances. 

(E) Such other conduct which may threaten 

the public health and safety. 

21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1). 

When making this determination, 

DEA considers the public interest 

factors in the disjunctive. Robert A. 

Leslie, M.D., 68 FR 15227, 15230 (2003). 

Each factor is weighed on a case-by-case 

basis. Morall v. Drug Enf’t Admin., 412 

F.3d 165, 173–74 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Any 

one factor, or combination of factors, 

may be decisive. David H. Gillis, M.D., 

58 FR 37507, 37508 (1993). 

While the Agency has considered all 

the public interest factors of 21 U.S.C. 

823(g)(1),7 the Government’s evidence 

in support of its prima facie case for 

sanction is confined to Factors B and D. 

See generally RFAAX 2. The 

Government has the burden of proof in 

this proceeding. 21 CFR 1301.44. 

Here, the Agency finds that the 

Government satisfied its prima facie 

burden of showing that Registrant’s 

continued registration would be 

‘‘inconsistent with the public interest.’’ 

21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4). 

1. Factors B and D 

Evidence is considered under Factors 

B and D when it reflects compliance or 

non-compliance with laws related to 

controlled substances and experience 

dispensing controlled substances. See 

Kareem Hubbard, M.D., 87 FR 21156, 

21162 (2022). In the current matter, the 

Government has alleged that Registrant 

has violated both Federal and Florida 

law regulating controlled substances. 

RFAAX 2, at 1–2. 

According to the CSA’s implementing 

regulations, a lawful controlled 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Notices 82641 

substance order or prescription is one 

that is ‘‘issued for a legitimate medical 

purpose by an individual practitioner 

acting in the usual course of his 

professional practice.’’ 21 CFR 

1306.04(a). A ‘‘practitioner must 

establish and maintain a bona fide 

doctor-patient relationship in order to 

act ‘in the usual course of . . . 

professional practice’ and to issue a 

prescription for a ‘legitimate medical 

purpose.’ ’’ Dewey C. Mackay, M.D., 75 

FR at 49973. Here, Registrant admits 

that her prescribing of controlled 

substances was outside the usual course 

of professional practice and that her 

conduct reflects negative experience in 

prescribing controlled substances. 

RFAAX 2, at 1–3. 

Regarding the standards for adequacy 

of medical records, Florida law requires 

that medical documentation must 

‘‘contain sufficient information to 

identify the patient, support the 

diagnosis, justify the treatment and 

document the course and results of 

treatment accurately, by including, at a 

minimum, patient histories; 

examination results; test results; records 

of drugs prescribed, dispensed, or 

administered; reports of consultations 

and hospitalizations; and copies of 

records or reports or other 

documentation obtained from other 

health care practitioners. . . .’’ Fla. 

Admin. Code section 64B8–9.003(3); 

RFAAX 2, at 2. Florida law also requires 

that medical documentation contain 

‘‘sufficient detail to clearly demonstrate 

why the course of treatment was 

undertaken.’’ Id. section 64B8–9.003(2); 

RFAAX 2, at 2. Here, Registrant admits 

that she issued 60 prescriptions for 

controlled substances to six individuals 

without maintaining any medical 

documentation whatsoever to justify the 

prescribing of controlled substances. 

RFAAX 2, at 2–5. 

Prior to prescribing a controlled 

substance for acute pain, Florida law 

requires practitioners to maintain 

‘‘accurate and complete’’ medical 

documentation that includes, but is not 

limited to, the patient’s medical history 

and physical examination; diagnostic 

results; consultations; treatment 

objectives; discussion of risks and 

benefits; treatments; medications; 

instructions and agreements; drug 

testing results; and periodic reviews. 

Fla. Stat. section 456.44(3); Fla. Admin. 

Code section 64B8–9.013(2); RFAAX 2, 

at 2. Here, not only does Registrant 

admit that she issued 60 prescriptions 

for controlled substances to six 

individuals without maintaining any 

medical documentation, she admits she 

never conducted the physical 

examinations she was required to 

document. RFAAX 2, at 2–5. Registrant 

further admits that nine of these 

prescriptions were issued in response to 

text messages requesting the controlled 

substances. Id. 

Based on Registrant’s admissions, the 

Agency finds that from August 21, 2021, 

to February 16, 2023, Registrant issued 

60 prescriptions to six individuals 

outside the usual course of professional 

practice and in violation of Federal and 

State laws. 21 CFR 1306.04(a); Fla. Stat. 

section 456.44(3); Fla. Admin. Code 

sections 64B8–9.003(2)–(3), 64B8– 

9.013(2). 

In sum, the Agency finds Registrant’s 

continued registration to be inconsistent 

with the public interest after balancing 

the factors of 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1). The 

Agency also finds that Registrant failed 

to provide sufficient mitigating evidence 

to rebut the Government’s prima facie 

case. 

III. Sanction 

Where, as here, the Government has 

established sufficient grounds to revoke 

Registrant’s registration, the burden 

shifts to the registrant to show why she 

can be entrusted with the responsibility 

carried by a registration. Garret Howard 

Smith, M.D., 83 FR 18882, 18910 (2018). 

‘‘[T]rust is necessarily a fact-dependent 

determination based’’ on individual 

circumstances; therefore, the Agency 

looks at factors such as ‘‘the acceptance 

of responsibility and the credibility of 

that acceptance as it relates to the 

probability of repeat violations or 

behavior.’’ Robert Wayne Locklear, 

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

effective, acceptance of responsibility 

must be unequivocal. Mohammed 

Asgar, M.D., 83 FR 29569, 29573 (2018). 

When a registrant has committed acts 

inconsistent with the public interest, 

she must both accept responsibility and 

demonstrate that she has undertaken 

corrective measures. Holiday CVS, 

L.L.C., d/b/a CVS/Pharmacy Nos. 219 

and 5195, 77 FR 62316, 62339 (2012) 

(internal quotations omitted). 

Here, Registrant did not request a 

hearing, submit a corrective action plan, 

respond to the OSC/ISO, or otherwise 

avail herself of the opportunity to refute 

the Government’s case. As such, 

Registrant has made no representations 

as to her future compliance with the 

CSA, has not demonstrated that she can 

be entrusted with registration, and has 

not accepted responsibility for the 

misconduct. Accordingly, the Agency 

will order the revocation of Registrant’s 

registration. 

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. AP6641713 issued to 

Janet S. Pettyjohn, D.O. 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 Janet S. Pettyjohn, D.O., 

to renew or modify this registration, as 

well as any other pending application of 

Janet S. Pettyjohn, D.O., for additional 

registration in Florida. 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. 2024–23511 Filed 10–10–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Submission for OMB 

Review; Comment Request, Sectoral 

Strategies and Employer Engagement 

Portfolio, New Collection 

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Policy, Chief Evaluation 

Office, Department of Labor. 

ACTION: Notice of information collection; 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor 

(DOL), as part of its continuing effort to 

reduce paperwork and respondent 

burden, conducts a preclearance 

consultation program to provide the 

general public and federal agencies with 

an opportunity to comment on proposed 

and/or continuing collections of 

information in accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA95). This program helps to ensure 

that requested data can be provided in 

the desired format, reporting burden 

(time and financial resources) is 

minimized, collection instruments are 

clearly understood, and the impact of 

collection requirements on respondents 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1