Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Notices 106585 

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 the DEA 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, M.D., 76 FR at 71,371–72; Sheran 

Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 FR 39,130, 39,131 (2006); 

Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51,104, 51,105 

(1993); Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11,919, 11,920 

(1988); Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR at 

27,617. 

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 

Nevada medical license is inactive. 

RFAAX 1, at 1. Further, on January 17, 

2024, Registrant’s Nevada controlled 

substance registration was revoked. Id. 

at 2. According to Nevada online 

records, of which the Agency takes 

official notice, Registrant’s Nevada 

medical license and Nevada controlled 

substance registration are currently 

listed as ‘‘Inactive-Probation’’ and 

‘‘Inactive’’ respectively.2 Nevada State 

Board of Medical Examiners Licensee 

Search, https://

nsbme.us.thentiacloud.net/webs/nsbme/ 

register (last visited date of signature of 

this Order); Nevada State Board of 

Pharmacy License Verification, https://

online.nvbop.org/#/verifylicense (last 

visited date of signature of this Order). 

Accordingly, the Agency finds that 

Registrant is not licensed to practice 

medicine nor to handle controlled 

substances in Nevada, 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. Gonzales v. 

Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 270 (2006) (‘‘The 

Attorney General can register a 

physician to dispense controlled 

substances ‘if the applicant is 

authorized to dispense . . . controlled 

substances under the laws of the State 

in which he practices.’ . . . The very 

definition of a ‘practitioner’ eligible to 

prescribe includes physicians ‘licensed, 

registered, or otherwise permitted, by 

the United States or the jurisdiction in 

which he practices’ to dispense 

controlled substances. § 802(21).’’). The 

Agency has applied these principles 

consistently. 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 Nevada statute, ‘‘[e]very 

practitioner or other person who 

dispenses any controlled substance 

within th[e] State or who proposes to 

engage in the dispensing of any 

controlled substance within th[e] State 

shall obtain biennially a registration 

issued by the [Nevada State Board of 

Pharmacy] in accordance with its 

regulations.’’ Nev. Rev. Stat. 

§ 453.226(1) (2023). Further, according 

to Nevada statute, ‘‘dispense’’ means ‘‘to 

deliver a controlled substance to an 

ultimate user, patient or research subject 

by or pursuant to the lawful order of a 

practitioner, including the prescribing, 

administering, packaging, labeling or 

compounding necessary to prepare the 

substance for that delivery.’’ Id. at 

§ 453.056(1). 

Here, the undisputed evidence in the 

record is that Registrant lacks authority 

to dispense controlled substances in 

Nevada because his Nevada controlled 

substance registration is inactive. As 

discussed above, an individual must 

hold a Nevada controlled substance 

registration to dispense a controlled 

substance in Nevada. Thus, because 

Registrant lacks authority to handle 

controlled substances in Nevada, 

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. FO4173845, issued 

to Matthew Okeke, 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 Matthew Okeke, M.D., to 

renew or modify this registration, as 

well as any other pending application of 

Matthew Okeke, M.D., for additional 

registration in Nevada. This Order is 

effective January 29, 2025. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Drug 

Enforcement Administration was signed 

on December 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 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. 2024–31325 Filed 12–27–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Kevin Petersen, M.D.; Decision and 

Order 

On November 22, 2023, the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA or 

Government) issued an Order to Show 

Cause (OSC) to Kevin Petersen, M.D., of 

Las Vegas, Nevada (Registrant). Request 

for Final Agency Action (RFAA), 

Exhibit (RFAAX) 2, at 1, 3. The OSC 

proposed the revocation of Registrant’s 

Certificate of Registration No. 

BP0967818, alleging that Registrant’s 

registration should be revoked because 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
106586 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Notices 

1According to Agency records, Registrant’s 

registration expired on March 31, 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). 

2Based on the Government’s submissions in its 

RFAA dated March 15, 2024, the Agency finds that 

service of the OSC on Registrant was adequate. The 

included declaration from the DEA Diversion 

Investigator (DI) indicates that on November 27, 

2023, under the belief that Registrant no longer 

lived in Nevada, the DI sent a copy of the OSC to 

DEA’s California Riverside Office for DEA 

investigators from that office to attempt to 

personally serve Registrant with a copy of the OSC 

at two California addresses associated with 

Registrant. RFAAX 1, at 1. Registrant was not 

present at either California address. Id. On 

November 30, 2023, the DI sent copies of the OSC, 

via certified mail, to three different addresses 

associated with Registrant, including two in 

California and one in Nevada. Id. at 2. On or about 

December 13, 2023, the DI received all three 

certified mailings back as undeliverable. Id. Finally, 

on or about January 30, 2024, the DI sent a copy 

of the OSC via email to two email addresses 

Registrant previously provided to DEA. Id. The 

Agency finds that Registrant was successfully 

served the OSC by email and that the DI’s efforts 

to serve Registrant by other means were 

‘‘ ‘reasonably calculated, under all the 

circumstances, to apprise [Registrant] of the 

pendency of the action.’ ’’ Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 

220, 226 (2006) (quoting Mullane v. Central 

Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 

(1950)); see also 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). Therefore, due process notice 

requirements have been satisfied. 

3Under 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 the DEA Office of 

the Administrator, Drug Enforcement 

Administration at dea.addo.attorneys@dea.gov. 

4According to Nevada online records, 

Registrant’s Nevada controlled substance license 

referenced in the OSC is revoked; however, there 

is an additional Nevada controlled substance 

license, not referenced in the OSC, that is active 

and is recorded under the same name as Registrant. 

Nevada State Board of Pharmacy License 

Verification, https://online.nvbop.org/#/ 

verifylicense (last visited date of signature of this 

Order). Nonetheless, because Registrant’s Nevada 

medical license is undoubtedly revoked, even if this 

active Nevada controlled substance license belongs 

to Registrant, Registrant would still lack authority 

to handle controlled substances in Nevada. See 

infra (Discussion). 

5This 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, M.D., 76 FR at 71,371–72; 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, M.D., 43 FR at 

27617. 

Registrant is ‘‘currently without 

authority to prescribe, administer, 

dispense, or otherwise handle 

controlled substances in the State of 

Nevada, the state in which [he is] 

registered with DEA.’’ Id. at 2 (citing 21 

U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).1

The OSC notified Registrant of his 

right to file 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. (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). 

Here, Registrant did not request a 

hearing. RFAA, at 3.2 ‘‘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). 

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, Registrant’s 

Nevada medical license expired on June 

30, 2023. RFAAX 1, at 2. Further, 

according to the OSC, Registrant’s 

Nevada controlled substance license 

was suspended and set to expire on 

October 31, 2024. Id. According to 

Nevada online records, of which the 

Agency takes official notice,3

Registrant’s Nevada medical license is 

revoked. Nevada State Board of Medical 

Examiners Licensee Search, https://

nsbme.us.thentiacloud.net/webs/nsbme/ 

register/# (last visited date of signature 

of this Order).4

Accordingly, the Agency finds that 

Registrant is not licensed to practice 

medicine in Nevada, 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. Gonzales v. 

Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 270 (2006) (‘‘The 

Attorney General can register a 

physician to dispense controlled 

substances ‘if the applicant is 

authorized to dispense . . . controlled 

substances under the laws of the State 

in which he practices.’ . . . The very 

definition of a ‘practitioner’ eligible to 

prescribe includes physicians ‘licensed, 

registered, or otherwise permitted, by 

the United States or the jurisdiction in 

which he practices’ to dispense 

controlled substances. § 802(21).’’). The 

Agency has applied these principles 

consistently. 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).5

According to Nevada statute, 

‘‘dispense’’ means ‘‘to deliver a 

controlled substance to an ultimate user, 

patient or research subject by or 

pursuant to the lawful order of a 

practitioner, including the prescribing, 

administering, packaging, labeling or 

compounding necessary to prepare the 

substance for that delivery.’’ Nev. Rev. 

Stat. § 453.056(1) (2023). Further, a 

‘‘practitioner’’ includes a ‘‘physician 

. . . who holds a license to practice his 

or her profession in [Nevada] and is 

registered pursuant to [the Nevada 

Uniform Controlled Substances Act].’’ 

Id. at § 453.126(1). 

Here, the undisputed evidence in the 

record is that Registrant lacks authority 

to practice medicine in Nevada. As 

discussed above, an individual must be 

a licensed practitioner to dispense a 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Notices 106587 

1See also Government’s Submission of Evidence 

and Motion for Summary Disposition (Motion for 

Summary Disposition), Exhibit 2, Attachment C, at 

11. The Agency notes that there is some 

inconsistency regarding the naming of the 

attachments included with the Government’s 

Exhibit 2 (the submitted Declaration from a DEA 

Diversion Investigator) when comparing how the 

attachments are named in the Declaration versus 

the Motion for Summary Disposition itself; 

however, this inconsistency does not appear to be 

substantive. 

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, 

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. 

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 

Continued 

controlled substance in Nevada. Thus, 

because Registrant lacks authority to 

practice medicine in Nevada, and, 

therefore, is not authorized to handle 

controlled substances in Nevada, 

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. BP0967818 issued to 

Kevin Petersen, 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 Kevin Petersen, M.D., to renew or 

modify this registration, as well as any 

other pending application of Kevin 

Petersen, M.D., for additional 

registration in Nevada. This Order is 

effective January 29, 2025. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Drug 

Enforcement Administration was signed 

on December 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 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. 2024–31323 Filed 12–27–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 24–67] 

Jason Lee Ray, PA–C; Decision and 

Order 

On August 22, 2024, the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA or 

Government) issued an Order to Show 

Cause (OSC) to Jason Lee Ray, PA–C, of 

Marbleton, Wyoming (Respondent). 

OSC, at 1, 4. The OSC proposed the 

revocation of Respondent’s DEA 

Certificate of Registration No. 

MR4038293, 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 

Wyoming, the state in which [he is] 

registered with DEA.’’ Id. at 2 (citing 21 

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

On September 4, 2024, Respondent 

requested a hearing and filed an 

Answer. On September 11, 2024, the 

Government filed a Motion for 

Summary Disposition, to which 

Respondent did not respond. On 

September 20, 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 state 

authority to handle controlled 

substances in Wyoming, the state in 

which he is registered with DEA, ‘‘there 

is no other fact of consequence for th[e] 

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 5–6. 

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 February 15, 2024, the Wyoming 

Board of Medicine suspended 

Respondent’s Wyoming physician 

assistant license. RD, at 3.1 According to 

Wyoming online records, of which the 

Agency takes official notice, 

Respondent’s Wyoming physician 

assistant license remains suspended.2

Wyoming Board of Medicine, Physician 

and PA License Lookup, https://

wyomedboard.wyo.gov/consumers/ 

license-lookup (last visited date of 

signature of this Order). Accordingly, 

the Agency finds that Respondent is not 

currently licensed to practice as a 

physician assistant in Wyoming, 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 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, 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. Gonzales v. 

Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 270 (2006) (‘‘The 

Attorney General can register a 

physician to dispense controlled 

substances ‘if the applicant is 

authorized to dispense . . . controlled 

substances under the laws of the State 

in which he practices.’ . . . The very 

definition of a ‘practitioner’ eligible to 

prescribe includes physicians ‘licensed, 

registered, or otherwise permitted, by 

the United States or the jurisdiction in 

which he practices’ to dispense 

controlled substances. § 802(21).’’). The 

Agency has applied these principles 

consistently. 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


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1