32282 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Notices 

3Chapter 458 regulates medical practice. 

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(f). 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 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, 43 FR 

at 27,617. 

According to Florida statute, ‘‘A 

practitioner, in good faith and in the 

course of his or her professional practice 

only, may prescribe, administer, [or] 

dispense . . . a controlled substance.’’ 

Fla. Stat. Ann. § 893.05(1)(a) (West, 

Current with laws of the 2021 First 

Regular Session of the Twenty-Seventh 

Legislature in effect through May 25, 

2021). Further, ‘‘practitioner,’’ as 

defined by Florida statute, includes ‘‘a 

physician licensed under chapter 458.’’ 

3 Fla. Stat. Ann. § 893.02(23) (West, 

Current with laws of the 2021 First 

Regular Session of the Twenty-Seventh 

Legislature in effect through May 25, 

2021). 

Here, the undisputed evidence in the 

record is that Registrant’s license to 

practice medicine is currently revoked. 

As such, he is not a ‘‘practitioner’’ as 

that term is defined by Florida statute. 

As already discussed, however, a 

physician must be a practitioner to 

dispense a controlled substance in 

Florida. Thus, because Registrant lacks 

authority to practice medicine in 

Florida, he is not currently authorized 

to handle controlled substances in 

Florida. 

B. Registrant’s Felony Conviction 

Pursuant to section 304(a)(2) of the 

CSA, the Attorney General is authorized 

to suspend or revoke a registration 

‘‘upon a finding that the registrant . . . 

has been convicted of a felony under 

this subchapter or subchapter II of this 

chapter or any other law of the United 

States . . . relating to any substance 

defined in this subchapter as a 

controlled substance or a list I 

chemical.’’ 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(2). Each 

subsection of Section 824(a) provides an 

independent ground to impose a 

sanction on a registrant. Arnold E. 

Feldman, M.D., 82 FR 39,614, 39,617 

(2017). 

Here, there is no dispute in the record 

that Registrant has been convicted of 

conspiracy to possess with intent to 

distribute furanyl fentanyl resulting in 

death, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846; 

distribution of furanyl fentanyl resulting 

in death, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

841(a)(1); attempt to possess with intent 

to distribute acetyl fentanyl, in violation 

of 21 U.S.C. 846; possession with intent 

to distribute oxycodone, in violation of 

21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1); and conspiracy to 

possess with intent to distribute 

hydrocodone and oxycodone, in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. 846, which 

constitutes a felony conviction ‘‘relating 

to’’ controlled substances as those terms 

are defined in 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(2). 21 

U.S.C. 846 and 841(a)(1); William J. 

O’Brien, III, D.O., 82 FR 46,527, 46,529 

(2017). 

Where, as here, the Government has 

met its prima facie burden of showing 

that two grounds for revocation exist, 

the burden shifts to the Registrant to 

show why he can be entrusted with a 

registration. See Jeffrey Stein, M.D., 84 

FR 46,968, 46,972 (2019). Registrant, as 

already discussed, failed to respond in 

any way to the OSC. See RFAA, at 6. 

Therefore, among other things, 

Registrant has not accepted 

responsibility for his criminality, shown 

any remorse for it, or provided any 

assurance that he would not repeat it. 

See Jeffrey Stein, M.D., 84 FR at 46,972– 

74. Such silence weighs against the 

Registrant’s continued registration. Zvi 

H. Perper, M.D., 77 FR 64,131 64,142 

(2012) (citing Medicine ShoppeJonesborough, 73 FR 264, 387 (2008); 

Samuel S. Jackson, 72 FR 23,848, 23,853 

(2007)); see also Jones Total Health Care 

Pharmacy, LLC v. Drug Enf’t Admin., 

881 F3d. 823, 831 (11th Cir. 2018) (‘‘ ‘An 

agency rationally may conclude that 

past performance is the best predictor of 

future performance.’ ’’ (quoting Alra 

Laboratories, Inc. v. Drug Enf’t Admin., 

54 F.3d 450, 452 (7th Cir. 1995))). 

Further, the CSA authorizes the 

Attorney General to ‘‘promulgate and 

enforce any rules, regulations, and 

procedures which he may deem 

necessary and appropriate for the 

efficient execution of his functions 

under this subchapter.’’ 21 U.S.C. 

871(b). This authority specifically 

relates ‘‘to ‘registration’ and ‘control,’ 

and ‘for the efficient execution of his 

functions’ under the statute.’’ Gonzales 

v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 259 (2006). A 

clear purpose of this authority is to 

‘‘bar[] doctors from using their 

prescription-writing powers as a means 

to engage in illicit drug dealing and 

trafficking . . . .’’ Id. at 270. In this 

case, Registrant has demonstrated the 

precise behavior that the Agency’s 

authority is intended to prevent by 

engaging in outright drug dealing with 

appalling disregard for the value of 

human life. Registrant’s behavior is ‘‘so 

obviously egregious that revocation is 

warranted.’’ William J. O’Brien, III, D.O., 

82 FR at 46,529. 

Based on the record before me, I 

conclude that Registrant’s founded 

criminality and lack of state authority to 

handle controlled substances in his state 

of DEA registration each make him 

ineligible to maintain a DEA 

registration. Accordingly, I shall order 

the sanctions the Government 

requested, as contained in the Order 

below. 

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. BB3725732 issued to 

Johnny C. Benjamin, Jr., M.D. Further, 

pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the 

authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 

823(f), I hereby deny any pending 

application of Johnny C. Benjamin, Jr., 

M.D. to renew or modify this 

registration, as well as any other 

pending application of Johnny C. 

Benjamin, Jr., M.D. for additional 

registration in Florida. This Order is 

effective July 19, 2021. 

D. Christopher Evans, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2021–12753 Filed 6–16–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Tareq A. Khedir Al-Tiae, M.D.; Decision 

and Order 

On February 11, 2021, the Assistant 

Administrator, Diversion Control 

Division, Drug Enforcement 

Administration (hereinafter, 

Government), issued an Order to Show 

Cause (hereinafter, OSC) to Tareq A. 

Khedir Al-Tiae, M.D. (hereinafter, 

Registrant) of Lincoln, NE. OSC at 1. 

The OSC proposed the revocation of 

Registrant’s Certificate of Registration 

No. FK4149882. It alleged that 

Registrant is without ‘‘authority to 

handle controlled substances in the 

State of Nebraska, the state in which 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Notices 32283 

1The Government provided a Certificate of 

Service that stated that the RFAA was served via 

Registrant’s registered address by mail and also via 

his email address on May 21, 2021. RFAA, at 7. 

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 my finding by filing a 

properly supported motion for reconsideration of 

finding 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.usdoj.gov. 

[Registrant is] registered with DEA.’’ Id. 

at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)). 

Specifically, the OSC alleged that the 

Nebraska Department of Health and 

Human Services suspended Registrant’s 

Nebraska medical license on July 1, 

2020. Id. According to the OSC, 

Registrant’s Nebraska medical license 

subsequently expired on October 1, 

2020. Id. 

The OSC notified Registrant of the 

right to request a hearing on the 

allegations or to submit a written 

statement, while waiving the right to a 

hearing, the procedures for electing each 

option, and the consequences for failing 

to elect either option. Id. (citing 21 CFR 

1301.43). The OSC also notified 

Registrant of the opportunity to submit 

a corrective action plan. Id. at 3 (citing 

21 U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C)). 

Adequacy of Service 

In a Declaration dated May 10, 2021, 

a Diversion Investigator (hereinafter, the 

DI) assigned to the Omaha Division 

stated that on February 26, 2021, he 

attempted to call Registrant at the phone 

number that Registrant provided to 

DEA, but received no answer and left a 

voice mail urging Registrant to return 

the call. Amended Request for Final 

Agency Action dated May 21, 2021 

(hereinafter, RFAA), Exhibit 

(hereinafter, RFAAX) 2 at 1–2. The DI 

stated that on the same day, he travelled 

to the address that Registrant provided 

to DEA as his registered and ‘‘mail to’’ 

address, 4211 N 8th Cir., Lincoln, NE 

68521–4805. Id. at 2. The DI stated that 

nobody answered the door and he left 

a business card with instructions for 

Registrant to contact him. Id. The DI 

stated that he then traveled to an 

address in Grand Island, NE, which was 

‘‘another address where [the DI] 

believed [Registrant] may be residing.’’ 

Id. The DI stated that again, nobody 

answered the door and he left a business 

card with instructions for Registrant to 

contact him. Id. The DI went on to 

describe how on March 2, 2021, and 

March 7, 2021, he made a second and 

third visit to Registrant’s registered and 

‘‘mail to’’ address. Id. The DI stated that 

both times, nobody answered the door 

and he left additional business cards 

with instructions for Registrant to call 

him, but the DI never received a return 

call. Id. 

The DI then described how on March 

9, 2021, he again called Registrant at the 

phone number that Registrant had 

provided to DEA. Id. The DI stated that 

although someone answered the phone, 

‘‘as soon as [the DI] identified [himself] 

and stated that [the DI] was looking for 

[Registrant], the person [on the phone] 

stated that [the DI] had reached the 

wrong phone number, denied that he 

was the [Registrant], and then hung up.’’ 

Id. The DI then stated that following the 

phone call, he sent Registrant an email 

at the email address Registrant had 

provided to DEA. Id. The DI stated that 

on March 11, 2021, he emailed a copy 

of the OSC to the same email address. 

Id. The DI concluded that Registrant did 

not respond to either email, did not 

return any of the DI’s calls, and did not 

respond to any of the messages that the 

DI left at the two addresses described 

above. Id. 

The Government forwarded its 

RFAA,1 along with the evidentiary 

record, to this office on May 21, 2021. 

In its RFAA, the Government represents 

that ‘‘more than thirty days have passed 

since the [OSC] was served on 

[Registrant] and no request for hearing 

has been received by DEA. RFAA, at 1. 

The Government requests that 

Registrant’s ‘‘DEA Certificate of 

Registration as a practitioner be revoked 

and his application for renewal denied, 

based on the [Registrant’s] lack of state 

authority.’’ Id. at 6. 

Based on the DI’s Declaration, the 

Government’s written representations, 

and my review of the record, I find that 

the Government accomplished service 

of the OSC on Registrant on (or before) 

March 11, 2021. I also find that more 

than thirty days have now passed since 

the Government accomplished service 

of the OSC. Further, based on the 

Government’s written representations, I 

find that neither Registrant, nor anyone 

purporting to represent the Registrant, 

requested a hearing, submitted a written 

statement while waiving Registrant’s 

right to a hearing, or submitted a 

corrective action plan. Accordingly, I 

find that Registrant has waived the right 

to a hearing and the right to submit a 

written statement and corrective action 

plan. 21 CFR 1301.43(d) and 21 U.S.C. 

824(c)(2)(C). I, therefore, issue this 

Decision and Order based on the record 

submitted by the Government, which 

constitutes the entire record before me. 

21 CFR 1301.43(e). 

Findings of Fact 

Registrant’s DEA Registration 

Registrant is the holder of DEA 

Certificate of Registration No. 

FK4149882 at the registered address of 

4211 N 8th Cir., Lincoln, NE 68521– 

4805. RFAAX 4. Pursuant to this 

registration, Registrant is authorized to 

dispense controlled substances in 

schedules II through V as a practitioner. 

Id. Registrant’s registration expires on 

December 31, 2022, and is in ‘‘active 

pending’’ status. Id. 

The Status of Registrant’s State License 

On July 1, 2020, the Nebraska 

Department of Health and Human 

Services suspended Registrant’s 

Nebraska medical license. RFAAX 3. On 

October 1, 2020, Registrant’s Nebraska 

medical license expired. Id. 

According to Nebraska’s online 

records, of which I take official notice, 

Registrant’s license remains 

suspended.2 Nebraska Department of 

Health and Human Services License 

Information System Search, https://

www.nebraska.gov/LISSearch/search.cgi 

(last visited date of signature of this 

Order). Nebraska’s online records show 

that Registrant’s medical license 

remains suspended and that Registrant 

is not authorized in Nebraska to practice 

medicine. Id. Accordingly, I find that 

Registrant is not currently licensed to 

engage in the practice of medicine in 

Nebraska, the State in which Registrant 

is registered with the 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 (hereinafter, 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 71,371 

(2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 F. App’x 

826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
32284 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Notices 

Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27,616, 27,617 

(1978). 

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(f). 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 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, 43 FR 

at 27,617. 

Under Nebraska law, ‘‘[d]ispense 

means to deliver a controlled substance 

to an ultimate user or a research subject 

pursuant to a medical order issued by a 

practitioner authorized to prescribe, 

including the packaging, labeling, or 

compounding necessary to prepare the 

controlled substance for such delivery.’’ 

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28–401(8) (Westlaw, 

Current through legislation effective 

May 6, 2021). Further, ‘‘[p]ractitioner 

means a physician . . . or any other 

person licensed, registered, or otherwise 

permitted to distribute, dispense, 

prescribe, conduct research with respect 

to, or administer a controlled substance 

in the course of practice or research in 

this state . . . .’’ Id. at § 28–401(21). 

Because Registrant is not currently 

licensed as a physician, or otherwise 

licensed, in Nebraska, he is not 

authorized to dispense controlled 

substances in Nebraska. 

Here, the undisputed evidence in the 

record is that Registrant currently lacks 

authority to practice medicine in 

Nebraska. As already discussed, a 

physician must be a licensed 

practitioner to dispense a controlled 

substance in Nebraska. Thus, because 

Registrant lacks authority to practice 

medicine in Nebraska and, therefore, is 

not authorized to handle controlled 

substances in Nebraska, Registrant is not 

eligible to maintain a DEA registration. 

Accordingly, I 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. FK4149882 issued to 

Tareq A. Khedir Al-Tiae, M.D. Further, 

pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the 

authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 

823(f), I hereby deny any pending 

application of Tareq A. Khedir Al-Tiae, 

M.D., to renew or modify this 

registration, as well as any other 

pending application of Tareq A. Khedir 

Al-Tiae M.D., for additional registration 

in Nebraska. This Order is effective July 

19, 2021. 

D. Christopher Evans, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2021–12755 Filed 6–16–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. DEA–852] 

Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled 

Substances Application: AMPAC Fine 

Chemicals Virginia, LLC 

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement 

Administration, Justice. 

ACTION: Notice of application. 

SUMMARY: AMPAC Fine Chemicals 

Virginia, LLC. has applied to be 

registered as a bulk manufacturer of 

basic class(es) of controlled 

substance(s). Refer to SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION listed below for further 

drug information. 

DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of 

the affected basic class(es), and 

applicants therefore, may file written 

comments on or objections to the 

issuance of the proposed registration on 

or before August 16, 2021. Such persons 

may also file a written request for a 

hearing on the application on or before 

August 16, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be sent to: Drug Enforcement 

Administration, Attention: DEA Federal 

Register Representative/DPW, 8701 

Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 

22152. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this 

is notice that on May 5, 2021, AMPAC 

Fine Chemicals Virginia, LLC., 2820 

North Normandy Drive, Petersburg, 

Virginia 23805–2380, applied to be 

registered as a bulk manufacturer of the 

following basic class(es) of controlled 

substance(s): 

Controlled substance Drug 

code Schedule 

Methylphenidate ........... 1724 II 

Levomethorphan ........... 9210 II 

Levorphanol .................. 9220 II 

Morphine ....................... 9300 II 

Thebaine ....................... 9333 II 

Noroxymorphone .......... 9668 II 

Tapentadol .................... 9780 II 

The company plans to bulk 

manufacture the listed controlled 

substances for the internal use 

intermediates or for sale to its 

customers. The company plans to 

manufacture the above-listed controlled 

substances in bulk for distribution to its 

customers. No other activities for these 

drug codes are authorized for this 

registration. 

William T. McDermott, 

Assistant Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2021–12812 Filed 6–16–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

[Notice: (21–035)] 

Notice of Intent To Grant an Exclusive, 

Co-Exclusive or Partially Exclusive 

Patent License 

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to grant 

exclusive, co-exclusive or partially 

exclusive patent license. 

SUMMARY: NASA hereby gives notice of 

its intent to grant an exclusive, coexclusive or partially exclusive patent 

license to practice the inventions 

described and claimed in the patents 

and/or patent applications listed in 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below. 

DATES: The prospective exclusive, coexclusive or partially exclusive license 

may be granted unless NASA receives 

written objections including evidence 

and argument, no later than July 2, 2021 

that establish that the grant of the 

license would not be consistent with the 

requirements regarding the licensing of 

federally owned inventions as set forth 

in the Bayh-Dole Act and implementing 

regulations. Competing applications 

completed and received by NASA no 

later than July 2, 2021 will also be 

treated as objections to the grant of the 

contemplated exclusive, co-exclusive or 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1