Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 23 / Thursday, February 4, 2016 / Notices 6043 

1The Show Cause Order also proposed the denial 

of any other pending application. Show Cause 

Order, at 1. 

Parties in support of the imposition of 

countervailing and antidumping duties 

in these investigations and parties in 

opposition to the imposition of such 

duties will each be collectively 

allocated one hour within which to 

make an oral presentation at the 

conference. A nonparty who has 

testimony that may aid the 

Commission’s deliberations may request 

permission to present a short statement 

at the conference. 

Written submissions. As provided in 

sections 201.8 and 207.15 of the 

Commission’s rules, any person may 

submit to the Commission on or before 

February 24, 2016, a written brief 

containing information and arguments 

pertinent to the subject matter of the 

investigations. Parties may file written 

testimony in connection with their 

presentation at the conference. If briefs 

or written testimony contain BPI, they 

must conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. Please consult the 

Commission’s rules, as amended, 76 FR 

61937 (Oct. 6, 2011) and the 

Commission’s Handbook on Filing 

Procedures, 76 FR 62092 (Oct. 6, 2011), 

available on the Commission’s Web site 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the rules, each document 

filed by a party to the investigations 

must be served on all other parties to 

the investigations (as identified by 

either the public or BPI service list), and 

a certificate of service must be timely 

filed. The Secretary will not accept a 

document for filing without a certificate 

of service. 

Authority: These investigations are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.12 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: January 29, 2016. 

Lisa R. Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02066 Filed 2–3–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Louis Watson, M.D.; Decision and 

Order 

On July 9, 2015, the Deputy Assistant 

Administrator, Office of Diversion 

Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA), issued an Order 

to Show Cause to Louis Watson, M.D. 

(Respondent). The Show Cause Order 

proposed the revocation of 

Respondent’s DEA Certificate of 

Registration FW2729804, and the denial 

of any pending application to renew or 

modify the registration, on ground that 

he ‘‘do[es] not have authority to practice 

medicine or handle controlled 

substances in California, the state in 

which he is registered with the DEA.’’ 

Show Cause Order, at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 

823(f) and 824(a)(3)).1

The Show Cause Order alleged that 

Respondent is registered with the DEA 

as a practitioner, pursuant to which he 

is authorized to dispense controlled 

substances in Schedules II through V, at 

the registered address of 99 N. San 

Antonio Ave., #140, Upland, California. 

Id. The Order also alleged that 

Respondent’s registration does not 

expire until May 31, 2017. Id. 

The Show Cause Order further alleged 

that effective September 12, 2014, the 

Medical Board of California (MBC) 

revoked Respondent’s California 

Physician’s and Surgeon’s Certificate, 

based on the recommendation of a state 

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who 

had conducted a hearing. Id. The Show 

Cause Order thus alleged that 

Respondent is currently ‘‘without 

authority to handle controlled 

substances in California, the state in 

which [he is] registered with the’’ 

Agency, and that ‘‘DEA must revoke 

[his] registration.’’ Id. (citing 21 U.S.C. 

802(21), 823(f), 824(a)(3)). 

The Show Cause Order also notified 

Respondent of his right to request a 

hearing on the allegations or to submit 

a written statement in lieu of a hearing, 

the procedure for electing either option, 

and the consequence of failing to elect 

either option. Id. at 2 (citing 21 CFR 

1301.43). The Show Cause Order further 

explained that ‘‘[m]atters are deemed 

filed upon receipt by the Hearing 

Clerk.’’ Id. 

On July 15, 2015, DEA Diversion 

Investigators (DIs) went to a location in 

Claremont, California which they 

believed to be Respondent’s residence. 

GX 3. The DI verified that the location 

was Respondent’s address with a 

neighbor and a pool maintenance 

employee. Id. The DI then left the Show 

Cause Order ‘‘on his front door.’’ Id; see 

also GX 6, at 11–12 (Declaration of DI). 

Thereafter, Respondent submitted a 

request for hearing to the DEA Office of 

Administrative Law Judges (OALJ). 

While Respondent’s request was dated 

August 9, 2015, it was not received by 

the OALJ until August 24, 2015. GX4. 

In his Hearing Request, Respondent 

listed the name and address of the 

attorney who was representing him in a 

state court challenge to the MBC’s order, 

thus suggesting that the attorney was 

representing him in this matter. Id. 

Thereafter, the Chief Administrative 

Law Judge (CALJ) issued an order 

directing the Government to file 

evidence to support its allegation that 

Respondent lacks state authority to 

handle controlled substances as well as 

any motion for summary disposition 

based on this ground no later than 

September 8, 2015; the order also 

directed that if the Government filed 

such a motion, Respondent was to file 

his response no later than September 22, 

2015. GX 5, at 1–2. In his order, the 

CALJ also noted that although 

Respondent’s Hearing Request listed the 

attorney retained to represent his appeal 

of the decision of the California Medical 

Board, there was no indication that this 

attorney was also representing him in 

the instant proceeding, and thus 

Respondent’s hearing request was 

construed to be ‘‘a pro se request.’’ Id. 

A copy of the CALJ’s order was mailed 

postage pre-paid to Respondent at 2058 

N. Mills Avenue #142, Claremont, 

California, the address listed on the 

envelope containing Respondent’s 

Hearing Request. GX 9, at 2; see also GX 

5, at 2. 

Thereafter, the Government filed a 

motion requesting that the CALJ deny 

Respondent’s request for a hearing on 

the ground that it was not timely filed 

pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(a), which 

requires the filing of a written request 

for hearing ‘‘within 30 days after the 

date of receipt of the order to show 

cause.’’ GX 6, at 1 (Motion to Preclude 

Response to the Order to Show Cause). 

Therein, the Government argued that 

Respondent’s hearing request was filed 

40 days after the date of service of the 

Order to Show Cause, and that 

Respondent had not shown good cause 

for the untimely filing. The Government 

thus argued that Respondent had 

waived his right to a hearing and that 

the CALJ should issue an order denying 

his hearing request and forwarding the 

file to the Administrator for a final 

decision. Id. at 3. 

On the same date, the Government 

also filed a Motion for Summary 

Disposition. Therein, the Government 

requested that the CALJ ‘‘issue a 

Recommended Decision to summarily 

revoke’’ Respondent’s DEA registration 

on the ground that he lacks state 

authority to dispense controlled 

substances in California, the State in 

which he hold his registration. GX 7, at 

1–2. As support for its motion, the 

Government submitted copies of the 

MBC’s Decision and the state ALJ’s 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
6044 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 23 / Thursday, February 4, 2016 / Notices 

2 In his Order, the CALJ also noted that his staff 

had contacted by telephone the attorney listed by 

Respondent in his Hearing Request to determine the 

attorney’s status because he had not submitted any 

filings. GX 10, note 2. According to the CALJ, the 

attorney stated that he ‘‘was not currently, and has 

never been, [Respondent’s] counsel in this matter’’; 

the attorney also stated that upon his receipt of the 

Government’s motions he had called Respondent 

and clarified to him that he was not representing 

him in this matter. Id. 

Proposed Decision. GX 7, at 

Attachments 2 and 3. 

The CALJ then issued a second Order 

directing Respondent to respond to the 

Government’s Motion to Preclude by 

September 22, 2015, the same due date 

for Respondent’s reply, if any, to the 

Government’s Motion for Summary 

Disposition. GX 8. This order was also 

sent to Respondent’s address at 2058 N. 

Mills Avenue, #142, Claremont, 

California. Id. at 2. 

On September 24, the CALJ issued a 

Notice of Re-Service. GX 10. Therein, 

the CALJ explained the all of his prior 

orders had been sent to Respondent at 

the return address listed on the 

envelope the latter had used to mail his 

Hearing Request to the OALJ. The CALJ 

further noted that this address was 

different from the address the 

Government had used to serve 

Respondent with the Order to Show 

Cause and its motions. Thus, to ensure 

Respondent received sufficient notice of 

the response deadlines to the 

Government’s motions, the CALJ re-sent 

his orders to the address of 

Respondent’s residence and extended 

the time permitted to respond to the 

Government’s motions.2 Id. 

On October 7, 2015, the CALJ, having 

received no response from Respondent 

to either motion, granted the 

Government’s motion to terminate the 

proceedings, finding that Respondent’s 

request for a hearing was not timely 

filed and that he had neither sought an 

extension nor offered an explanation for 

the untimeliness of his hearing request. 

GX 9, at 3. The CALJ also denied the 

Government’s Motion for Summary 

Disposition as moot. Id at 4. 

Thereafter, the Government submitted 

its Request for Final Agency Action to 

this Office. The Government supported 

its request with various exhibits, 

including the Proposed Decision of the 

MBC’s ALJ and the MBC’s Decision. 

Based on the record, I find that 

Respondent’s Hearing Request was 

untimely and that he has failed to 

demonstrate good cause to excuse his 

untimeliness. 21 CFR 1301.43(d). 

Accordingly, I find that Respondent has 

waived his right to be heard on the 

matters of fact and law at issue and 

issue this Decision and Order based on 

the record submitted by the 

Government. I make the following 

findings of fact. 

Respondent is a physician authorized 

to handle controlled substances in 

schedules II through V at the registered 

address of 99 N. San Antonio Ave., 

#140, Upland, California. GX 2. His 

registration does not expire until May 

31, 2017. Id. 

On August 13, 2014, the MBC issued 

an order adopting the Proposed 

Decision of a state ALJ and ordered the 

revocation of Respondent’s Physician’s 

and Surgeon’s License to practice 

medicine in the State of California, 

effective September 12, 2014. GX 7, at 

9. Based on a search of the MBC’s 

license verification Web page, 

Respondent’s Physician’s and Surgeon’s 

license remains revoked. See 

www.breeze.ca.gov (accessed January 

14, 2016). 

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, ‘‘upon a finding that 

the Registrant . . . has had his State 

license . . . suspended [or] revoked 

. . . by competent State authority and is 

no longer authorized by State law to 

engage in the . . . dispensing of 

controlled substances.’’ Moreover, DEA 

has held repeatedly 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, 76 FR 71371 (2011), 

pet. for rev. denied, 481 Fed Appx. 826 

(4th Cir. 2012). 

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 physician 

possess state authority in order to be 

deemed a practitioner under the Act, 

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 medicine. See, 

e.g., Calvin Ramsey, 76 FR 20034, 20036 

(2011); Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 

FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A. 

Ricci, 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby 

Watts, 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988); see 

also Hooper v. Holder, 481 Fed. Appx. 

at 828. 

Based on the revocation of his 

California Physician’s and Surgeon’s 

Certificate, I find that Respondent 

currently lacks authority to dispense 

controlled substances in California, the 

State in which he holds his DEA 

registration. Accordingly, I will order 

that his registration be revoked and that 

any pending applications be denied. 

Order 

Pursuant to the authority vested in me 

by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a), as well 

as 21 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA 

Certificate of Registration FW2729804, 

issued to Louis Watson, M.D., be, and it 

hereby is, revoked. I further order that 

any pending application of Louis 

Watson, M.D., to renew or modify his 

registration, as well as any other 

pending application be, and it hereby is, 

denied. This Order is effective March 7, 

2016. 

Dated: January 18, 2016. 

Chuck Rosenberg, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02130 Filed 2–3–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. DEA–392] 

Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled 

Substances Application: Pharmacore, 

Inc. 

ACTION: Notice of application. 

DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of 

the affected basic classes, and 

applicants therefore, may file written 

comments on or objections to the 

issuance of the proposed registration in 

accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a) on 

or before April 4, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be sent to: Drug Enforcement 

Administration, Attention: DEA Federal 

Register Representative/ODW, 8701 

Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 

22152. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Attorney General has delegated her 

authority under the Controlled 

Substances Act to the Administrator of 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES