65660 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Notices 

by renewal to the Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA) as a bulk 

manufacturer of Cocaine (9041), a basic 

class of controlled substance listed in 

schedule II. 

The company plans to manufacture 

small quantities of the above listed 

controlled substance for distribution to 

its customers for the purpose of 

research. 

Any other such applicant, and any 

person who is presently registered with 

DEA to manufacture such substance, 

may file comments or objections to the 

issuance of the proposed registration 

pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a). 

Any such written comments or 

objections should be addressed, in 

quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement 

Administration, Office of Diversion 

Control, Federal Register Representative 

(ODL), 8701 Morrissette Drive, 

Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be 

filed no later than December 27, 2010. 

Dated: October 14, 2010. 

Joseph T. Rannazzisi, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27037 Filed 10–25–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Importer of Controlled Substances; 

Notice of Application 

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 958(i), the 

Attorney General shall, prior to issuing 

a registration under this Section to a 

bulk manufacturer of a controlled 

substance in schedule I or II, and prior 

to issuing a regulation under 21 U.S.C. 

952(a)(2) authorizing the importation of 

such a substance, provide 

manufacturers holding registrations for 

the bulk manufacture of the substance 

an opportunity for a hearing. 

Therefore, in accordance with 21 CFR 

1301.34(a), this is notice that on July 9, 

2010, Noramco, Inc., 1440 Olympic 

Drive, Athens, Georgia 30601, made 

application by renewal to the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA) to 

be registered as an importer of the basic 

classes of controlled substances listed in 

schedule II: 

Drug Schedule 

Thebaine (9333) ........................... II 

Tapentadol (9780) ........................ II 

The company plans to import 

Thebaine (9333) analytical reference 

standards for distribution to its 

customers. The company plans to 

import an intermediate form of 

Tapentadol (9780) to bulk manufacture 

Tapentadol for distribution to its 

customers. 

Any bulk manufacturer who is 

presently, or is applying to be, 

registered with DEA to manufacture 

such basic class of controlled substance 

may file comments or objections to the 

issuance of the proposed registration, 

and may, at the same time, file a written 

request for a hearing on such 

application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43, 

and in such form as prescribed by 21 

CFR 1316.47. 

Any such comments or objections 

should be addressed, in quintuplicate, 

to the Drug Enforcement 

Administration, Office of Diversion 

Control, Federal Register Representative 

(ODL), 8701 Morrissette Drive, 

Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be 

filed no later than November 26, 2010. 

This procedure is to be conducted 

simultaneously with, and independent 

of, the procedures described in 21 CFR 

1301.34(b), (c), (d), (e), and (f). As noted 

in a previous notice published in the 

Federal Register on September 23, 1975, 

(40 FR 43745–46), all applicants for 

registration to import a basic class of 

any controlled substance in schedule I 

or II are, and will continue to be, 

required to demonstrate to the Deputy 

Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration, that the requirements 

for such registration pursuant to 21 

U.S.C. 958(a); 21 U.S.C. 823(a); and 21 

CFR 1301.34(b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) are 

satisfied. 

Dated: October 15, 2010. 

Joseph T. Rannazzisi, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27032 Filed 10–25–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Manufacturer of Controlled 

Substances; Notice of Registration 

By Notice dated October 21, 2009 and 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 28, 2009, (74 FR 55586), 

Archimica, Inc., 2460 W. Bennett Street, 

Springfield, Missouri 65807–1229, made 

application by letter to the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA) to 

be registered as a bulk manufacturer of 

Tapentadol (9780, a basic class of 

controlled substance listed in schedule 

II. 

The company plans to manufacture 

the listed controlled substance in bulk 

for distribution to its customers. 

One comment objecting to the 

granting of registration as a bulk 

manufacturer of the basic class of 

controlled substance listed to this 

applicant was received. However, after 

a thorough review of this matter, DEA 

has concluded that the issues raised in 

the comment and objection do not 

warrant the denial of this application. 

DEA has considered the factors in 21 

U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the 

registration of Archimica, Inc. to 

manufacture the listed basic class of 

controlled substance is consistent with 

the public interest at this time. DEA has 

investigated Archimica, Inc. to ensure 

that the company’s registration is 

consistent with the public interest. The 

investigation has included inspection 

and testing of the company’s physical 

security systems, verification of the 

company’s compliance with state and 

local laws, and a review of the 

company’s background and history. 

Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), 

and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, 

the above named company is granted 

registration as a bulk manufacturer of 

the basic class of controlled substance 

listed. 

Dated: October 19, 2010. 

Joseph T. Rannazzisi, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27035 Filed 10–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Steven B. Brown, M.D.; Revocation of 

Registration 

On May 13, 2010, I, the Deputy 

Administrator of the Drug Enforcement 

Administration, issued an Order to 

Show Cause and Immediate Suspension 

of Registration (‘‘Order’’) to Steven B. 

Brown, M.D. (‘‘Registrant’’), of Wilton 

Manors and Pompano Beach, Florida. 

The Order proposed the revocation of 

Registrant’s DEA Certificates of 

Registration, BB2972140 and 

FB1490349, as well as the denial of any 

pending applications for the renewal or 

modification of both registrations, on 

the ground that his ‘‘continued 

registrations are inconsistent with the 

public interest, as that term is defined 

in 21 U.S.C. 823(f).’’ Order, at 1. 

The Order alleged that Registrant 

‘‘issued illegal prescriptions for 

oxycodone, a Schedule II controlled 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Notices 65661 

1Oxycodone is a schedule II controlled 

substance. 21 CFR 1308.12(b)(1)(xiii). 

substance, for no legitimate medical 

purpose and outside the course of [his] 

professional practice.’’ Id. at 1–2 (citing 

21 U.S.C. 841(a) and 21 CFR 1306.04(a)). 

More specifically, the Order alleged that 

Registrant ‘‘prescribed oxycodone 30 

mg. tablets in amounts as high as 180 

dosage units to patients’’ and that he 

‘‘received half the dosage units back 

from the patients after the illegal 

prescription was filled and dispensed.’’ 

Id. at 2. The Order also alleged that on 

March 27, 2010, ‘‘[a]s a result of 

[Registrant’s] illegal prescribing and 

[his] illegal possession of controlled 

substances,’’ Registrant ‘‘was arrested by 

the Broward County Sheriff’s Office.’’ Id. 

Moreover, the Order alleged that on 

April 28, 2010, Registrant ‘‘illegally 

possessed amphetamine, a Schedule II 

controlled substance’’ and was ‘‘arrested 

by the Broward County Sheriff’s Office 

during an Administrative Inspection by 

the Florida Department of Health’’ at one 

of his registered locations. Id. Finally, 

the Order alleged that ‘‘[a]s a result of 

actions by the State of Florida 

Department of Health,’’ Registrant is 

‘‘currently without authority to handle 

controlled substances in the State of 

Florida,’’ the State in which he is 

registered with DEA. Id. 

Based on the above, I concluded ‘‘that 

[Registrant’s] continued registrations, 

while these proceedings are pending, 

constitute an imminent danger to the 

public health and safety.’’ Id. (citing 21 

U.S.C. 824(d) and 21 CFR 1301.36(e)). I, 

therefore, ordered the immediate 

suspension of both of Registrant’s 

registrations. Id. 

On May 17, 2010, the Order, which 

also notified Registrant of his right to 

request a hearing on the allegations or 

to submit a written statement in lieu of 

a hearing, the procedure for doing 

either, and the consequence for failing 

to do either, was served on him. See 

Order, at 3 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43); 

Gov’t Not. of Svc. of Order. Since the 

date of service of the Order, 30 days 

have passed and neither Respondent, 

nor anyone purporting to represent him, 

has requested a hearing or submitted a 

written statement in lieu of a hearing. I, 

therefore, hold that Respondent has 

waived his right to a hearing or to 

submit a written statement and issue 

this Decision and Final Order based on 

relevant evidence contained in the 

record submitted by the government. 21 

CFR 1301.43(d) & (e). I make the 

following findings of fact. 

Findings 

Registrant is a physician licensed by 

the State of Florida. He is the holder of 

two DEA Certificates of Registration: (1) 

BB2972140 (as well as XB2972140), at 

the registered address of 1749 N.E. 26th 

Street, Suite A, Wilton Manors, Florida; 

and (2) FB1490349, at the registered 

address of 605 East Atlantic Blvd, 

Pompano Beach, Florida. Both 

registrations do not expire until July 31, 

2012. 

Registrant practiced pain management 

at his Pompano Beach registered 

location. Order of Emergency 

Suspension of License, at 2, In re: 

Steven Barry Brown, M.D., (Fla. Dep’t of 

Health, Nos. 2010–06419, 2010–07923) 

(hereinafter, State Susp. Order). He is 

also registered under Florida law as a 

dispensing practitioner; this authorizes 

him to order and dispense controlled 

substances in the State. 

In March 2010, DEA and the Broward 

County Sheriff’s Office (‘‘BSO’’) received 

information from a confidential source 

(‘‘CS’’) that Registrant was issuing 

prescriptions for oxycodone 1 30 mg. to 

the CS and providing her with money to 

fill the prescriptions; in exchange, the 

CS gave Registrant half of the pills she 

obtained. Declaration of Diversion 

Investigator (DI), at 1–2. According to 

the CS, Registrant had been treating her 

for chronic pain for the last four years. 

However, after two years, Registrant 

proposed that he would write her 

prescriptions for 160 tablets of 

oxycodone 30 mg. and give her the 

money to pay for them ‘‘if the CS would 

give half the pills back to’’ him. Id.; see 

also Stat. Susp. Order, at 2. The CS 

agreed to the arrangement. Id. 

Each month for two years, Registrant 

wrote the CS prescriptions for up to 180 

tablets of oxycodone 30 mg. and gave 

her the money to fill them; the CS 

would then provide Registrant with half 

of the pills she obtained. Declaration, at 

2. Registrant told the CS to fill the 

prescriptions at local pharmacies and 

not at his clinic. Id. The CS also related 

to the Investigator that Registrant was 

abusing oxycodone and Dilaudid. Id. at 

2. 

At about 6:16 p.m. on March 27, 2010, 

the CS, under the direction of a BSO 

officer and a DI, made a consensually 

recorded telephone call to Registrant to 

arrange a delivery of oxycodone to him. 

During the call, Registrant twice asked 

the CS if she had split the oxycodone 

up; the CS answered affirmatively. The 

CS and Registrant then agreed to meet 

in the parking lot of a local fast food 

restaurant. 

During the delivery, which was 

observed by several law enforcement 

officers, the CS wore a recording device. 

Id. Upon meeting, Registrant asked the 

CS if she ‘‘want[ed] one of these hits?’’ 

and stated: ‘‘Oh their good.’’ The CS 

replied ‘‘Yeah’’ and Registrant then said: 

‘‘You know what I’m talking about right? 

It’s Percocet liquid.’’ The CS replied that 

she knew ‘‘that’s the Oxyfast’’ but added 

that she did not want any because it 

would upset her stomach. 

Acknowledging that the drug would do 

so, Registrant stated: ‘‘You know what I 

do? To make it taste better I put Wyler’s 

Raspberry in it.’’ Registrant then added: 

‘‘It’s so good.’’ The CS, however, again 

said that she did not want any of the 

drug. The CS then gave the oxycodone 

to Registrant, who gave her eighty 

dollars. The CS left, and shortly 

thereafter, Registrant was arrested and 

charged with trafficking in oxycodone. 

On May 5, 2010, the State Surgeon 

General, Florida Department of Health 

(DOH), issued an Order of Emergency 

Suspension of License which 

immediately suspended Registrant’s 

physician’s license. State Suspension 

Order, at 1, 12. The Order alleged that 

Registrant ‘‘violated Section 

458.331(1)(q)’’ of the Florida Statutes 

‘‘by prescribing medications to [three 

individuals] with no medical records 

justifying why the prescriptions were 

being written,’’ Id. at 10, as well as ‘‘by 

prescribing * * * a legend drug, 

including any controlled substance, 

other than in the course of the 

physician’s professional practice.’’ Id. at 

11. 

The State Suspension Order further 

alleged ‘‘that [Registrant] has shown a 

disregard for the safety of the public 

with his practice of prescribing 

medications to patients with no medical 

records to justify why the prescriptions 

were being written’’ and that his 

‘‘practice was especially egregious in 

that he was using his relationship as a 

physician with a patient to divert 

medication for his own use.’’ Id. 

Accordingly, the State Suspension 

Order concluded that Registrant’s 

‘‘actions clearly constitute prescribing 

outside the practice of medicine and 

present such an immediate, serious 

danger to the public health, safety or 

welfare that nothing short of the 

immediate suspension of his license to 

practice medicine will protect the 

public from this danger.’’ Id. 

Discussion 

Section 304(a) of the Controlled 

Substances Act (‘‘CSA’’) provides that a 

‘‘registration pursuant to section 823 of 

this title to * * * dispense a controlled 

substance * * * may be suspended or 

revoked by the Attorney General upon 

a finding that the registrant * * * has 

had his State license suspended, 

revoked, or denied by competent State 

authority and is no longer authorized by 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
65662 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Notices 

2 I conclude that it is not necessary to make 

findings under factor one because Registrant’s loss 

of his State authority will be considered separately 

in this Decision. 

As for factor three, while there is evidence that 

Registrant was arrested on drug charges, there is no 

evidence as to the disposition of the charges. Nor 

is there any evidence establishing that Registrant 

has otherwise been convicted of any offenses within 

the purview of factor three. However, DEA has 

repeatedly held that the absence of any convictions 

under factor three is not dispositive of the public 

interest inquiry. See, e.g., Edmund Chein, 72 FR 

6580, 6593 n.22 (2007). 

State law to engage in the * * * 

dispensing of controlled substances,’’ 21 

U.S.C. 824(a)(3), or ‘‘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.’’ Id. 

§ 824(a)(4). With respect to the latter 

ground for revocation, the CSA directs 

that the following factors be considered: 

(1) The recommendation of the 

appropriate State licensing board or 

professional disciplinary authority. 

(2) The applicant’s experience in 

dispensing * * * controlled substances. 

(3) The applicant’s conviction record 

under Federal or State laws relating to 

the manufacture, distribution, or 

dispensing of controlled substances. 

(4) Compliance with applicable State, 

Federal, or local laws relating to 

controlled substances. 

(5) Such other conduct which may 

threaten the public health and safety. 

21 U.S.C. 823(f). 

The public interest ‘‘factors are * * * 

considered in the disjunctive.’’ Robert A. 

Leslie, 68 FR 15227, 15230 (2003). I may 

rely on any one or a combination of 

factors and may give each factor the 

weight I deem appropriate in 

determining whether to revoke an 

existing registration or to deny an 

application. Id. Moreover, I am ‘‘not 

required to make findings as to all of the 

factors.’’ Hoxie v DEA, 419 F.3d 477, 482 

(6th Cir. 2005); see also Morall v DEA, 

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

As explained below, the investigative 

record clearly shows that Registrant’s 

experience in dispensing controlled 

substances and compliance with 

applicable laws is characterized by his 

unlawful use of his prescribing 

authority to obtain controlled 

substances for his personal use. 

Moreover, the record also shows that by 

virtue of the State Suspension Order, 

Registrant no longer has authority under 

Florida law to dispense controlled 

substances and thus, he no longer meets 

an essential requirement for holding a 

DEA registration. I will therefore order 

that Registrant’s Certificates of 

Registration be revoked. 

The Public Interest Grounds 

Factors Two, Four, and Five: 

Registrant’s Experience in Dispensing 

Controlled Substances, Record of 

Compliance With Applicable Controlled 

Substance Laws, and Such Other 

Conduct Which May Threaten Public 

Health and Safety 

Under a longstanding DEA regulation, 

a prescription for a controlled substance 

is not effective unless it 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). This 

regulation further provides that an 

‘‘order purporting to be a prescription 

issued not in the usual course of 

professional treatment * * * is not a 

prescription within the meaning and 

intent of * * * 21 U.S.C. 829 * * * and 

* * * the person issuing it, shall be 

subject to the penalties provided for 

violations of the provisions of law 

relating to controlled substances.’’ Id. 

See also 21 U.S.C. 802(10) (Defining the 

term ‘‘dispense’’ as meaning ‘‘to deliver 

a controlled substance to an ultimate 

user * * * by, or pursuant to the lawful 

order of, a practitioner, including the 

prescribing and administering of a 

controlled substance.’’) 

As the Supreme Court recently 

explained, ‘‘the prescription 

requirement * * * ensures patients use 

controlled substances under the 

supervision of a doctor so as to prevent 

addiction and recreational abuse. As a 

corollary, [it] also bars doctors from 

peddling to patients who crave the 

drugs for those prohibited uses.’’ 

Gonzales v Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 274 

(2006) (citing United States v Moore, 

423 U.S. 122, 135, 143 (1975)). 

As found above, in order to obtain 

drugs for his own use, Registrant 

entered into an agreement with the CS 

to provide her with monthly 

prescriptions for 160 to 180 tablets of 

oxycodone 30 mg. Registrant paid for 

the prescriptions in exchange for the 

CS’s providing him with half of the 

pills. Registrant wrote the prescriptions 

on a monthly basis for a two-year 

period. 

While during this period, Registrant 

may have been treating the CS for 

legitimate chronic pain (although with 

another drug), it is clear that Registrant’s 

primary purpose in writing these 

prescriptions was to obtain drugs that 

he then abused. Each of the 

prescriptions Registrant wrote thus 

violated 21 CFR 1306.04(a) and 

constituted an unlawful distribution of 

a controlled substance. See 21 U.S.C. 

841(a)(1) (‘‘Except as authorized by this 

subchapter, it shall be unlawful for any 

person knowingly or intentionally 

* * * to manufacture, distribute, or 

dispense, or possess with intent to 

manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a 

controlled substance.’’). See also 

Michael F. Myers, 72 FR 36464, 36486 

(2007) (finding Respondent ‘‘engaged in 

the criminal distribution of controlled 

substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841’’ 

where Respondent ‘‘issued [a] person 

prescriptions for hydrocodone on a 

monthly basis * * * [and the] person 

admitted * * * that he took very few 

hydrocodone tablets and regularly 

provided Respondent with 60 of them’’). 

Under the CSA, it is also ‘‘unlawful 

for any person knowingly or 

intentionally * * * to acquire or obtain 

possession of a controlled substance by 

misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, 

deception, or subterfuge.’’ 21 U.S.C. 

843(a)(3). Even assuming that the CS 

required her share of the oxycodone to 

treat a legitimate medical condition, by 

writing prescriptions in excess of the 

CS’s legitimate medical needs and for 

the purpose of obtaining the drugs for 

his own use, Registrant obtained 

possession of controlled substances by 

‘‘deception[] or subterfuge’’ and violated 

Federal law. 

Moreover, Florida prohibits the 

prescribing of ‘‘inappropriate quantities’’ 

of legend drugs, including controlled 

substances. Fla. Stat. 458.331(1)(q). 

Again, even assuming that the CS had 

a legitimate medical need for her share 

of the oxycodone, Registrant violated 

Florida law because the prescriptions he 

issued to her clearly exceeded the 

quantity necessary to treat her condition 

and were issued in those quantities so 

that he could obtain drugs for his own 

use. 

Additionally, DEA has long held that 

a practitioner’s self-abuse of controlled 

substances constitutes ‘‘conduct which 

may threaten public health and safety.’’ 

21 U.S.C. 823(f)(5). See Tony T. Bui, 75 

FR 49979, 49990 (2010); Kenneth Wayne 

Green, Jr., 59 FR 51453 (1994); David E. 

Trawick, 53 FR 5326 (1988). In addition 

to the evidence showing that Registrant 

issued prescriptions to the CS to obtain 

controlled substances for his own use, 

the evidence also shows that during the 

March 27, 2010 meeting with the CS, he 

offered her a hit of liquid oxycodone, 

stating ‘‘Oh their good,’’ and then 

explained how he made it more 

palatable to ingest. Thus, it is clear that 

Registrant is a drug abuser and a threat 

to public health and safety.2

I, therefore, conclude that the 

evidence pertinent to Registrant’s 

experience in dispensing controlled 

substances (factor two), his record of 

compliance with Federal and State laws 

related to controlled substances (factor 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Notices 65663 

3For the same reason that I ordered the 

immediate suspension of Registrant’s DEA 

registrations, I conclude that the public interest 

requires that this Order shall be effective 

immediately. 

four), and such other conduct which 

may threaten public health and safety 

(factor five), establishes that he has 

committed acts which render his 

continued registration ‘‘inconsistent 

with the public interest.’’ 21 U.S.C. 

824(a)(4). This finding provides reason 

alone to revoke Registrant’s registrations 

and to deny any pending applications to 

renew or modify his registrations. 

The Loss of State Authority Ground 

Under the CSA, a practitioner must 

possess authority to dispense controlled 

substances under the laws of the State 

in which he engages in his professional 

practice in order to obtain and maintain 

a DEA registration. See 21 U.S.C. 

802(21) (defining the term ‘‘practitioner’’ 

as a person ‘‘licensed, registered, or 

otherwise permitted, by the United 

States or the jurisdiction in which he 

practices * * * to distribute, dispense 

* * * [or] administer * * * a 

controlled substance’’), id. § 823(f) (‘‘The 

Attorney General shall register 

practitioners * * * to dispense * * * 

controlled substances * * * if the 

applicant is authorized to dispense 

* * * controlled substances under the 

laws of the State in which he 

practices.’’). As these provisions make 

plain, possessing authority under State 

law to handle controlled substances is 

an essential condition for holding a DEA 

registration. See John B. Freitas, 74 FR 

17524, 17525 (2009); Dominick A. Ricci, 

58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby 

Watts, 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988). 

DEA, has therefore, held repeatedly 

that the CSA requires the revocation of 

a registration issued to a practitioner 

whose State authority has been 

suspended or revoked. David W. Wang, 

72 FR 54297, 54298 (2007); Sheran 

Arden Yeates, 71 FR 39130, 39131 

(2006); Dominick A. Ricci, 58 FR 51104, 

51105 (1993); Bobby Watts, 53 FR 

11919, 11920 (1988). See also id. 

§ 824(a)(3) (a ‘‘registration pursuant to 

section 823 of this title to * * * 

dispense a controlled substance * * * 

may be suspended or revoked by the 

Attorney General upon a finding that 

the registrant * * * has had his State 

license suspended, revoked, or denied 

by competent State authority and is no 

longer authorized by State law to engage 

in the * * * dispensing of controlled 

substances’’). DEA has further held that 

revocation is warranted even where a 

practitioner’s State authority has been 

summarily suspended and the State has 

yet to provide the practitioner with a 

hearing to challenge the State’s action. 

See Robert Wayne Mosier, 75 FR 49950 

(2010) (‘‘revocation is warranted * * * 

even in those instances where a 

practitioner’s State license has only 

been suspended, and there is the 

possibility of reinstatement’’); accord 

Bourne Pharmacy, 72 FR 18273, 18274 

(2007). 

As found above, on May 5, 2010, the 

Florida Surgeon General immediately 

suspended Registrant’s State medical 

license. Registrant is therefore without 

authority to dispense controlled 

substances in the State where he holds 

his DEA registrations. Registrant’s loss 

of his State authority thus provides an 

additional basis for revoking his 

registrations. Accordingly, his 

registrations will be revoked and any 

pending application will be denied. 

Order 

Pursuant to the authority vested in me 

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

as 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, I order 

that DEA Certificates of Registration 

BB2972140, XB2972140, and 

FB1490349, issued to Stephen B. 

Brown, M.D., be, and they hereby are, 

revoked. I further order that any 

pending application of Stephen B. 

Brown, M.D., to renew or modify such 

registrations, be, and it hereby is, 

denied. This order is effective 

immediately.3

Dated: October 15, 2010. 

Michele M. Leonhart, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27031 Filed 10–25–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Gilbert Eugene Johnson, M.D.; 

Revocation of Registration 

On November 20, 2008, the Deputy 

Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration, issued an Order to 

Show Cause to Gilbert Eugene Johnson, 

M.D. (Respondent), of Idabel, 

Oklahoma. The Show Cause Order 

proposed the revocation of 

Respondent’s DEA Certificate of 

Registration, AJ6783535, as a 

practitioner, and the denial of any 

pending applications to renew or 

modify his registration, on the ground 

that Respondent’s ‘‘continued 

registration is inconsistent with the 

public interest, as that term is used in 

21 U.S.C. 823(f).’’ Show Cause Order at 

1. 

The Show Cause Order alleged that 

the Oklahoma State Board of Medical 

Licensure had found that: (1) 

Respondent ‘‘prescribed or administered 

a drug (i.e., meperidine, a schedule II 

controlled substance, and hydrocodone, 

a schedule III controlled substance) or 

treatment without sufficient 

examination or the establishment of a 

valid physician patient relationship’’; (2) 

Respondent ‘‘engaged in indiscriminate 

or excessive prescribing, dispensing or 

administering of controlled or narcotic 

drugs’’; and (3) Respondent ‘‘prescribed, 

dispensed or administered controlled 

substances or narcotic drugs in excess of 

the amount considered good medical 

practice or prescribed, dispensed or 

administered controlled substances or 

narcotic drugs without medical need.’’ 

Id. at 1–2. 

Next, the Show Cause Order alleged 

that on June 23, 2008, based on the 

Oklahoma Board’s action, the Medical 

Board of California ‘‘ordered the 

revocation of [Respondent’s] license to 

practice medicine in that state, effective 

July 23, 2008.’’ Id. at 2. Finally, the 

Order alleged that on July 7, 2008, 

Respondent ‘‘falsified’’ his application 

for renewal of his DEA registration ‘‘by 

answering ‘no’ to the question 

concerning whether [Respondent] had 

ever had a state professional license 

revoked or placed on probation or 

whether any such action was pending.’’ 

Id. 

On December 16, 2008, the Show 

Cause Order was served on Respondent 

by certified mail to him at the address 

which he had recently given the Agency 

as his new registered location on his 

application to modify his registration. 

On January 29, 2009, Respondent’s 

counsel filed a request for a hearing and 

the matter was placed on the docket of 

the Agency’s Administrative Law Judges 

(ALJs). 

Thereafter, the ALJ requested that the 

parties address whether Respondent had 

timely requested a hearing. See 

Corrected Order Cancelling Hearing and 

Terminating Proceedings, at 1. 

Following receipt of the parties’ 

submissions, the ALJ found that 

Respondent’s request was not timely 

because it was not filed within 30 days 

of service of the Show Cause Order as 

required by 21 CFR 1301.43(a). Id. at 2. 

Because Respondent had not 

‘‘provide[d] a basis upon which to find 

good cause,’’ the ALJ held that his 

failure to file a timely request 

constituted a waiver of his right to a 

hearing. Id. (citing 21 CFR 1301.43(d) 

and Brinton D. Glisson, 72 FR 54296 

(2007)). Accordingly, the ALJ canceled 

the scheduled hearing, terminated the 

proceedings, and directed that the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES