66406 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Notices 

The publication of this notice opens 

a period for public comment on the 

proposed Consent Decree. Comments 

should be addressed to the Assistant 

Attorney General, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division, and should 

refer to United States et al. v. Hyundai 

Motor Company et al. (Civil Action No. 

1:14–cv–1837), D.J. Ref. No. 90–5–2–1– 

10753. All comments must be submitted 

no later than thirty (30) days after the 

publication date of this notice. 

Comments may be submitted either by 

email or by mail: 

To submit 

comments: Send them to: 

By e-mail ...... pubcomment-ees.enrd@

usdoj.gov. 

By mail ......... Assistant Attorney General, 

U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. 

Box 7611, Washington, DC 

20044–7611. 

During the public comment period, 

the proposed Consent Decree may be 

examined and downloaded at this 

Justice Department Web site: http://

www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_

Decrees.html. We will provide a paper 

copy of the proposed Consent Decree 

upon written request and payment of 

reproduction costs. Please mail your 

request and payment to: Consent Decree 

Library, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 

7611, Washington, DC 20044–7611. 

Please enclose a check or money order 

for $11.00 (25 cents per page 

reproduction cost) payable to the United 

States Treasury. 

Maureen Katz, 

Assistant Section Chief, Environmental 

Enforcement Section, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division. 

[FR Doc. 2014–26512 Filed 11–6–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Martin L. Korn, M.D.; Decision and 

Order 

On August 23, 2013, I, the Deputy 

Administrator of the Drug Enforcement 

Administration, issued an Order to 

Show Cause and Immediate Suspension 

of Registration (hereinafter, OTSC/ISO 

or Order) to Martin L. Korn, M.D. 

(hereinafter, Registrant). GX 1, at 1. The 

OTSC/ISO proposed the revocation of 

Registrant’s DEA Certificate of 

Registration, pursuant to which he was 

authorized to dispense controlled 

substances as a practitioner, based on 

allegations that on ‘‘[o]n twelve separate 

occasions’’ between February 20 and 

June 24, 2013, Registrant prescribed 

controlled substances including 

alprazolam (schedule IV) and Adderall 

(schedule II), ‘‘to three law enforcement 

officers working in an undercover 

capacity . . . without a legitimate 

medical purpose and/or outside the 

usual course of professional practice.’’ 

Id. at 1–2 (citing 21 CFR 1306.04(a)). 

Based on the above, I further concluded 

that Registrant’s ‘‘continued registration 

while these proceedings [were] pending 

constitutes an imminent danger to the 

public health and safety’’ and ordered 

that his registration be immediately 

suspended. Id. at 3 (citing 21 U.S.C. 

§ 824(d)). The OTSC/ISO 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 procedures for electing either 

option, and the consequence of failing 

to elect either option. Id. at 3–4 (citing 

21 CFR 1301.43). 

On September 5, 2013, a DEA Special 

Agent served Registrant with the OTSC/ 

ISO at the Westchester County District 

Attorney’s Office. GX 2. According to 

the Government, Registrant has not 

requested a hearing on the allegations 

nor otherwise responded to the OTSC. 

Request for Final Agency Action, at 1. 

Based on the Government’s 

representation, I find that more than 

thirty (30) days have now passed since 

the OTSC/ISO was served on Registrant 

and that he has neither requested a 

hearing nor submitted a written 

statement in lieu of a hearing. I therefore 

find that Registrant has waived his right 

to a hearing or to submit a written 

statement in lieu of a hearing. 21 CFR 

1301.43(d). I make the following 

findings. 

Registrant previously held a DEA 

Certificate of Registration, pursuant to 

which he was authorized to dispense 

controlled substances as a practitioner 

at registered premises located in 

Larchmont, New York. On December 31, 

2013, this registration expired. GX 3, at 

1. According to the Agency’s 

registration records, Registrant has not 

filed a renewal application. 

Pursuant to the authority granted by 

21 U.S.C. § 824(f), DEA seized 

approximately 300 dosage units of 

various controlled substances which 

apparently were in prescription vials, 

some of which bore the names of 

patients. GX A, at 2. The drugs included 

two vials containing 144 and 19 dosage 

units of lorazepam .5mg bearing labels 

listing the patients as A.K. and C.A. 

respectively; a vial containing 16 tablets 

of phentermine 37.5mg bearing a label 

listing the patient as J.L.; a vial 

containing 80 tablets of oxazepam, its 

label having been ripped off; a vial 

containing 13 tablets of temazepam 

15mg bearing a label listing the patient 

as K.M.; a vial containing 10.5 tablets of 

hydrocodone 10/325 bearing a label 

listing the patient as A.K.; and vials 

containing 11 tablets of Lyrica 50mg and 

6 tablets of Lyrica 25mg, neither of 

which had a patient name. Id. 

On April 10, 2014, DEA’s New York 

Field Division wrote to Registrant 

noting that following the expiration of 

his DEA registration, he no longer had 

authority to handle controlled 

substances. Id. at 1. The letter further 

informed him that under federal law, 

the Agency was authorized to dispose of 

the drugs 180 days after the date on 

which they had been seized. Id. 

However, the letter instructed Registrant 

that ‘‘[i]n the event you wish to transfer 

title to the controlled substances to a 

registered successor in interest, you may 

notify this office within thirty (30) days 

from the date of this letter to make 

arrangements for such a transfer. . . . 

However, if you fail to notify the office 

within thirty days, DEA will dispose of 

. . . the controlled . . . substances it 

currently holds.’’ Id. According to the 

Government, Registrant did not respond 

to the letter. See Gov. Suggestion of 

Mootness, at 1. 

Discussion 

While the Government initially filed a 

Request for Final Agency Action, it now 

suggests that this case is moot because 

Registrant has allowed his registration 

to expire and ‘‘there is no need to 

determine title to the controlled 

substances that were seized.’’ Id. at 2. I 

agree. 

Ordinarily, where a registrant allows 

his registration to expire and also fails 

to file a renewal application, there is 

neither a registration to revoke nor an 

application to act upon, thus rendering 

the case moot. See, e.g., Ronald J. Riegel, 

63 FR 67132 (1998). DEA, however, has 

recognized a limited exception to this 

rule in cases which commence with the 

issuance of an immediate suspension 

order because of the collateral 

consequences which may attach with 

the issuance of such a suspension. See 

William R. Lockridge, 71 FR 77791, 

77797 (2006). Such ‘‘collateral 

consequences’’ may include the loss of 

title to any controlled substances that 

have been seized pursuant to the 

immediate suspension order, see 21 

U.S.C. § 824(f), harm to reputation, and 

having to report the suspension on 

future applications to either this Agency 

or a state board. See Lockridge, 71 FR at 

77797. 

While this case commenced with the 

issuance of an immediate suspension 

order, I nonetheless conclude it is now 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Notices 66407 

moot. Here, while various controlled 

substances were seized, the Government 

subsequently provided registrant with 

the opportunity to transfer the 

controlled substances to a registered 

successor in interest. See 21 U.S.C. 

§ 824(g). Thus, to the extent the 

controlled substances had any market 

value—which appears highly unlikely 

anyway given that they were in 

prescription vials and not sealed 

commercial containers—the 

Government disclaimed any interest in 

them. Registrant’s failure to respond to 

the Government’s offer itself constitutes 

a waiver of any claim to title to the 

drugs. Thus, there is no need to issue a 

decision on the merits to adjudicate the 

issue of title to the drugs. 

To the extent the issuance of the 

Immediate Suspension has harmed 

Registrant’s reputation and may result 

in his having to report this action on 

future applications for a DEA 

registration or a state license, Registrant 

was provided with the opportunity to 

request a hearing and challenge the 

basis of the Government’s action. 

Registrant did not, however, seek to do 

so. See Richard C. Quigley, 79 FR 50945, 

50947 (2014) (rejecting Government’s 

contention that ISO case was not moot 

because of potential harm to physician’s 

reputation when physician did not 

request a hearing). 

It is acknowledged that several federal 

appeals courts have held that ‘‘the mere 

possibility of adverse collateral 

consequences is sufficient to preclude a 

finding of mootness.’’ In re Surrick, 338 

F.3d 224, 230 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting 

Dailey v. Vought Aircraft Co., 141 F.3d 

224, 228 (5th Cir. 1998)). But in those 

cases, which involved sanctions 

imposed by courts on attorneys, the 

person who was sanctioned at least 

cared enough to litigate. Not so here. So 

too, this case stands in contrast to those 

cases where the Agency has ruled on the 

validity of a suspension order 

notwithstanding that a registrant 

allowed his/her registration to expire 

and failed to file a renewal application. 

See Lockridge, 71 FR at 77797 (holding 

case not moot where registrant subject 

to ISO did not allow registration to 

expire until after receiving adverse 

recommended decision from ALJ); see 

also Nirmal Saran & Nisha Saran, 73 FR 

7827, 7835 n.29 (2008) (holding case not 

moot where during proceeding, 

registrants’ registrations expired but 

registrants asserted that they intended to 

remain in professional practice and had 

attempted to renew their registrations 

online but been prevented from doing 

so). Accordingly, I conclude that this 

case is moot. See Tin T. Win, 78 FR 

52802 (2013) (holding ISO proceeding 

moot where physician, who allowed her 

registration to expire, failed to request a 

hearing and no controlled substances 

had been seized); Robert Charles Ley, 76 

FR 20033 (2011) (holding ISO 

proceeding moot where physician 

eventually waived his right to a hearing 

and no controlled substances had been 

seized). 

Order 

Pursuant to the authority vested in me 

by 21 U.S.C. § 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 

0.100(b) and 0.104, I order that the 

Order to Show Cause and Immediate 

Suspension of Registration issued to 

Martin L. Korn, M.D., be, and it hereby 

is, dismissed. This Order is effective 

immediately. 

Dated: October 23, 2014. 

Thomas M. Harrigan, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2014–26447 Filed 11–6–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. DEA–392] 

Manufacturer of Controlled 

Substances Registration: Alltech 

Associates, Inc. 

ACTION: Notice of registration. 

SUMMARY: Alltech Associates, Inc., 

applied to be registered as a 

manufacturer of certain basic classes of 

controlled substances. The DEA grants 

Alltech Associates, Inc. registration as a 

manufacturer of those controlled 

substances. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By notice 

dated May 2, 2014, and published in the 

Federal Register on May 15, 2014, 79 

FR 27936, Alltech Associates, Inc., 2051 

Waukegan Road, Deerfield, Illinois 

60015, applied to be registered as a 

manufacturer of certain basic classes of 

controlled substances. No comments or 

objections were submitted to this notice. 

The Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA) has considered 

the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 

determined that the registration of 

Alltech Associates, Inc., to manufacture 

the basic classes of controlled 

substances is consistent with the public 

interest and with United States 

obligations under international treaties, 

conventions, or protocols in effect on 

May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the 

company’s maintenance of effective 

controls against diversion by inspecting 

and testing the company’s physical 

security systems, verified the company’s 

compliance with state and local laws, 

and reviewed 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 classes of 

controlled substances listed:– 

Controlled substance Schedule 

Methcathinone (1237) .................. I 

N-Ethylamphetamine (1475) ........ I 

N,N-Dimethylamphetamine (1480) I 

4-Methylaminorex (cis isomer) 

(1590).

I 

Gamma Hydroxybutyric Acid 

(2010).

I 

Alpha-ethyltryptamine (7249) ....... I 

Lysergic acid diethylamide (7315) I 

2C-T-7 (2,5-Dimethoxy-4-(n)- 

propylthiophenethylamine) 

(7348).

I 

Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370) ..... I 

Mescaline (7381) .......................... I 

2C-T-2 (2-(4-Ethylthio-2,5- 

dimethoxyphenyl)ethanamine) 

(7385).

I 

4-Bromo-2,5- 

dimethoxyamphetamine (7391).

I 

4-Bromo-2,5- 

dimethoxyphenethylamine 

(7392).

I 

4-Methyl-2,5- 

dimethoxyamphetamine (7395).

I 

2,5-Dimethoxyamphetamine 

(7396).

I 

2,5-Dimethoxy-4- 

ethylamphetamine (7399).

I 

3,4-Methylenedioxyamphetamine 

(7400).

I 

N-Hydroxy-3,4- 

methylenedioxyamphetamine 

(7402).

I 

3,4-Methylenedioxy-N-ethylamphetamine (7404).I 

3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (7405).I 

4-Methoxyamphetamine (7411) ... I 

5-Methoxy-N-Ndimethyltryptamine (7431).I 

Alpha-methyltryptamine (7432) .... I 

Bufotenine (7433) ......................... I 

Diethyltryptamine (7434) .............. I 

Dimethyltryptamine (7435) ........... I 

Psilocybin (7437) .......................... I 

Psilocyn (7438) ............................. I 

5-Methoxy-N,Ndiisopropyltryptamine (7439).I 

N-Ethyl-1-phenylcyclohexylamine 

(7455).

I 

1-(1-Phenylcyclohexyl)pyrrolidine 

(7458).

I 

1-[1-(2- 

Thienyl)cyclohexyl]piperidine 

(7470).

I 

2C-E (2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4- 

ethylphenyl)ethanamine) (7509).

I 

2C-H (2-(2,5- 

Dimethoxyphenyl)ethanamine) 

(7517).

I 

2C-I (2-(4-lodo-2,5- 

dimethoxyphenyl)ethanamine) 

(7518).

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES