You are on page 1of 4

4032 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No.

18 / Monday, January 29, 2007 / Notices

suspended but asserted that the state Georgia law allows Respondent to DEA has consistently held that the CSA
superior court had ruled that his alleged engage in some activities involving requires the revocation of a registration
offenses were misdemeanors and not controlled substances, the CSA makes issued to a practitioner whose state
felonies and that he was currently in plain that one must be currently license has been suspended or revoked.
negotiations with the Board for the authorized by the State to engage in the See Sheran Arden Yeates, 71 FR 39130,
reinstatement of his license. specific activities for which he holds a 39131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, 58 FR
Respondent’s Response at 1. DEA registration.1 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby Watts, 53
Respondent further contended that The CSA’s definition of the ‘‘[t]he FR 11919, 11920 (1988).
notwithstanding the suspension of his term ‘practitioner’ means a physician I therefore conclude that
medical license, ‘‘Georgia law allows * * * licensed, registered, or otherwise Respondent’s argument is without
unlicensed individuals to work as permitted, by * * * the jurisdiction in merit. Because Respondent has
subordinates and laborers in the which he practices * * * to distribute, produced no evidence that the Georgia’s
manufacturing, distributing, and dispense, [or] administer * * * a Board’s summary suspension order has
dispensing of controlled substances.’’ controlled substance in the course of been set aside or stayed, I conclude that
Id. at 3. Respondent further asserted that professional practice.’’ 21 U.S.C. Respondent lacks authority under
he was ‘‘still eligible to apply for 802(21) (emphasis added). Relatedly, Georgia law to handle controlled
employment in the state as a physician’s the CSA directs that ‘‘[t]he Attorney substances as a practitioner and is not
assistant, pharmacy technician, drug General shall register practitioners entitled to maintain his DEA
manufacturing employee or drug * * * if the applicant is authorized to registration.
representative, among other occupations dispense * * * controlled substances
involving the handling of controlled under the laws of the State in which he Order
substances.’’ Id. Respondent maintained practices.’’ Id. section 823(f). See also id. Accordingly, pursuant to the
that ‘‘[t]he fact that [21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)] section 802(10) (‘‘the term ‘dispense’ authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C.
requires both action on the means to deliver a controlled substance 823(f) & 824(a), as well as 28 CFR
Respondent’s license and an inability to to an ultimate user * * * pursuant to 0.100(b) & 0.104, I order that DEA
engage in the manufacture, distribution, the lawful order of a practitioner’’) Certificate of Registration, BD4754683,
and dispensing of drugs would seem to (emphasis added). issued to Gerald E. Dariah, M.D., be, and
indicate that suspension of one’s license As the CSA’s definition of the term it hereby is, revoked. I further order that
does not necessarily render the ‘‘practitioner’’ makes plain, a physician any pending applications for renewal or
individual unable to handle controlled must be currently authorized to modification of such registration be, and
substances.’’ Id. Respondent thus dispense a controlled substance ‘‘in the they hereby are, denied. This order is
contended that there was an issue of fact course of professional practice.’’ Id. effective February 28, 2007.
presented and an evidentiary hearing section 802(21). A physician whose
Dated: January 19, 2007.
was required. Id. state license has been suspended or
Michele M. Leonhart,
On April 17, 2006, the ALJ issued her revoked does not have authority under
state law to engage in the ‘‘professional Deputy Administrator.
opinion and recommended decision.
The ALJ rejected Respondent’s practice’’ of medicine and cannot [FR Doc. E7–1320 Filed 1–26–07; 8:45 am]
argument explaining that ‘‘[i]mplicit in’’ lawfully issue an order to dispense a BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEA’s long-standing interpretation of controlled substance. Accordingly,
the Controlled Substances Act ‘‘is the section 304 of the CSA authorizes the
assumption that the authority at issue is revocation of a registration ‘‘upon a DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
that inuring to the registrant as a finding that the registrant * * * has had
Drug Enforcement Administration
practitioner, not whatever authority the his State license or registration
state grants to individuals who do not suspended or revoked * * * and is no Stephen J. Heldman, Denial Of
hold a license to practice medicine.’’ longer authorized by State law to engage Application
ALJ Dec. at 3. The ALJ further explained in the * * * dispensing of controlled
that ‘‘[t]o hold otherwise would permit substances.’’ Id. § section824(a)(3).2 On November 18, 2005, the Deputy
unlicensed physicians to maintain DEA Assistant Administrator, Office of
registrations, contrary to the plain 1 Contrary to the understanding of Respondent’s Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement
purpose of the CSA.’’ Id. counsel, the word ‘‘handle’’ as used in DEA cases Administration, issued an Order to
interpreting the CSA is a term of art. It refers to a
The ALJ also found that it was registrant’s authority to perform the specific
Show Cause to Stephen J. Heldman of
undisputed that Respondent’s state activities for which registration is required. Cincinnati, Ohio (Respondent). The
license was suspended and that he was 2Even if it is true, Respondent’s ‘‘contention that Show Cause Order proposed to deny
without authority to handle controlled he is still authorized by state law to engage in the Respondent’s pending application for a
manufacturing [and] distribution * * * of
substances as a practitioner. Id. Because controlled substances,’’ Respondent Resp. at 3, is
DEA Certificate of Registration as a
there was no factual issue in dispute, irrelevant. Respondent was registered under the distributor of the List I chemicals
the ALJ granted the Government’s CSA as a practitioner and not as a manufacturer or ephedrine and pseudoephedrine on the
motion for summary disposition and distributor. The Act specifically defines ‘‘the term ground that his registration would be
‘distribute’’’ to exclude ‘‘dispensing.’’ 21 U.S.C.
recommended that Respondent’s DEA § 802(11). The only activity which is relevant in inconsistent with the public interest.
registration be revoked. Id. at 4. assessing whether Respondent can maintain his See 21 U.S.C. 823(h) & 824(a).
Having considered the record as a practitioner’s registration is dispensing. See id. The Show Cause Order specifically
whole, I hereby issue this decision and § 823(f); see also 21 CFR 1301.13(e) (table) alleged that Respondent was proposing
(distributing and dispensing are independent
final order. I adopt the ALJ’s opinion activities and require separate registrations).
to distribute products containing
and recommended decision. Finally, even if ‘‘Georgia law allows unlicensed pseudoephedrine and ephedrine, which
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES

Respondent’s contention that he is individuals to work as subordinates * * * in the are precursor chemicals used to
entitled to maintain his DEA registration * * * dispensing of controlled substances,’’ Resp. manufacture methamphetamine, to non-
Resp. at 3, Respondent does not maintain that he
notwithstanding that he lacks authority can lawfully issue a prescription for a controlled
traditional retailers of these products
under Georgia law to practice medicine substance under state law, which is what matters such as convenience stores and gas
is easily dismissed. Even assuming that for purposes of the CSA. stations. See Show Cause Order at 1–2.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:04 Jan 26, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\29JAN1.SGM 29JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 18 / Monday, January 29, 2007 / Notices 4033

The Show Cause Order alleged that methamphetamine, a schedule II in Ohio and adjacent states. One of the
these retailers are sources for the controlled substance. See 21 U.S.C. DIs contacted the buyer for Ameristop
diversion of these products into the 802(34); 21 CFR 1308.12(d). As noted in Corporation, who informed him that all
illicit manufacture of numerous DEA orders, company-owned stores and most of the
methamphetamine. See id. ‘‘methamphetamine is an extremely franchise-owned stores were supplied
The Show Cause Order next alleged potent central nervous system by Liberty Distribution, a subsidiary of
that during a pre-registration stimulant.’’ Sujak Distributors, 71 FR Ameristop Corp. The buyer
investigation, Respondent indicated that 50102, 50103 (2006); A–1 Distribution acknowledged that Respondent had
he had no prior experience in handling Wholesale, 70 FR 28573 (2005). supplied some items to ten Ameristop
List I chemical products, that he was Methamphetamine is highly addictive; stores but stated that Ameristop would
unaware of the problem of diversion of its abuse has destroyed lives and discourage its stores from buying List I
these products into the illicit families and ravaged communities. chemical products from Respondent or
manufacture of methamphetamine, and Moreover, because of the toxic nature of any other independent vendor.
that he was proposing to store listed the chemicals used to make the drug, its Subsequently, on August 23, 2005,
chemical products in a commercial self- manufacture creates serious DEA DIs executed an Administrative
storage locker which had inadequate environmental harms. David M. Starr, Inspection Warrant at R J General
security. See id. The Show Cause Order 71 FR 39367 (2006). Corporation, a Cincinnati-based firm
also alleged that while Respondent told On October 27, 2003, Respondent, a which was soon to become—as in that
investigators that he intended to sole proprietor, applied for a registration day—an ex-DEA registered distributor of
distribute only traditional products as a distributor of List I chemicals at the List I chemical products. During the
containing pseudoephedrine, the address of his residence in Cincinnati, inspection, the DIs interviewed Mr. John
primary business of one of his two Ohio. According to the investigative file, Meinerding, who admitted that R J
proposed suppliers is the distribution of on January 15, 2004, a DEA Diversion General had sold List I chemical
combination ephedrine products which Investigator (DI) contacted Respondent products to Respondent on various
are sold by gray market retailers. See id. requesting additional information. The dates between January 7, 2004, and
The Show Cause Order further alleged DI also contacted Respondent on December 8, 2004. Of note, on October
that during customer verifications, DEA additional occasions to request 11, 2004, Respondent had faxed a letter
investigators determined that several of information. On October 11, 2004, to DEA in which he stated that his firm
Respondent’s proposed customers Respondent sent a letter to the DI was a ‘‘wholesale distributor.’’
obtained List I chemical products from providing the requested information. In Moreover, in response to a question
other suppliers and had no intention of this letter, Respondent informed the DIs regarding whether he would engage in
purchasing these products from him. that the List I chemical products would retail sales of List I chemical products,
See id. at 3. Finally, the Show Cause actually be kept in a storage unit at a Respondent answered: ‘‘No.’’
Order alleged that during an August commercial storage facility.
2005 investigation of another DEA On December 16, 2004, the DIs Discussion
registrant, DEA investigators determined conducted an on-site inspection of the Under 21 U.S.C. 823(h), an applicant
that Respondent had obtained List I facility. Respondent’s proposed use of to distribute List I chemicals is entitled
chemicals without being registered to do the facility raised substantial concerns. to be registered unless the registration
so. See id. According to the investigative file, the would be ‘‘inconsistent with the public
On November 25, 2005, the entrance gate to the facility remained interest.’’ In making this determination,
Government initially attempted to serve open long enough to allow unauthorized Congress directed that I consider the
the Show Cause Order by Certified Mail, persons to obtain access to the facility. following factors:
Return Receipt Requested, by sending it Moreover, while Respondent’s storage
to the address Respondent gave on the unit had an alarm system, the alarm (1) maintenance by the applicant of
application for his proposed registered effective controls against diversion of listed
sounded only at the facility’s office and
chemicals into other than legitimate
location. The mailing, however, was not at the local police station. channels;
returned unclaimed. Thereafter, on Furthermore, during the visit, the (2) compliance by the applicant with
January 17, 2006, the Government facility’s office was unoccupied. Finally, applicable Federal, State, and local law;
served the Show Cause Order by First the DIs noted that it was unclear who (3) any prior conviction record of the
Class Mail. Since that date, neither would be responsible for handling the applicant under Federal or State laws relating
Respondent, nor anyone purporting to products that were delivered to the to controlled substances or to chemicals
represent him, has responded. Because storage facility. controlled under Federal or State law;
(1) more than thirty days have passed During the course of the investigation, (4) any past experience of the applicant in
since the service of the Show Cause the DIs determined that Respondent the manufacture and distribution of
engages in the business of distributing chemicals; and
Order, and (2) no request for a hearing (5) such other factors as are relevant to and
has been received, I conclude that assorted products to convenience stores, consistent with the public health and safety.
Respondent has waived his right to a gas stations, truck stops and liquor
hearing. See 21 CFR 1309.53(c). I stores. Respondent told the DIs that he Id.
therefore enter this final order without had no experience in the distribution of ‘‘These factors are considered in the
a hearing based on relevant material List I chemical products and that he had disjunctive.’’ Joy’s Ideas, 70 FR 33195,
found in the investigative file and make no knowledge of the diversion of these 33197 (2005). I may rely on any one or
the following findings. products into the illicit manufacture of a combination of factors, and may give
methamphetamine. each factor the weight I deem
Findings Respondent provided the DIs with a appropriate in determining whether an
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES

Pseudoephedrine and ephedrine are list of proposed customers for List I application for registration should be
List I chemicals that, while having products. A substantial number of the denied. See, e.g., Starr, 71 FR at 39367;
therapeutic uses, are easily extracted proposed customers were Ameristop Energy Outlet, 64 FR 14269 (1999).
from lawful products and used in the Food Marts, a chain of company-owned Moreover, I am ‘‘not required to make
illicit manufacture of and franchise-owned convenience stores findings as to all of the factors.’’ Hoxie

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:04 Jan 26, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\29JAN1.SGM 29JAN1
4034 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 18 / Monday, January 29, 2007 / Notices

v. DEA, 419 F.3d 477, 482 (6th Cir. regulations no longer exempt an (2004). DEA orders also establish that
2005); Morall v. DEA, 412 F.3d 165, applicant from the requirement of the sale of certain List I chemical
173–74 (D.C. Cir. 2005). In this case I obtaining a registration prior to products by non-traditional retailers is
conclude that Factors One, Two, Four, distributing List I chemical products. Id. an area of particular concern in
and Five establish that granting 1309.25. preventing diversion of these products
Respondent’s application would be Based on the evidence in the file, I into the illicit manufacture of
inconsistent with the public interest. conclude that Respondent violated methamphetamine. See, e.g., Joey
federal law by distributing List I Enterprises, 70 FR 76866, 76867 (2005).
Factor One—Maintenance of Effective chemicals without the required As Joey Enterprises explains, ‘‘[w]hile
Controls Against Diversion registration. See 21 U.S.C. 822(a)(1). As there are no specific prohibitions under
The investigative file establishes that I have previously noted, ‘‘[r]egistration the Controlled Substances Act regarding
Respondent does not have effective in one of the essential features of the the sale of listed chemical products to
controls against diversion. In this case, Controlled Substances Act.’’ Sato [gas stations and convenience stores],
it is unclear who would have access to Pharmaceutical, Inc., 71 FR 52165, DEA has nevertheless found that [these
List I chemical products upon their 52166 (2006). Respondent’s engaging in entities] constitute sources for the
delivery to the storage facility and the distribution of List I chemicals diversion of listed chemical products.’’
whether they would be handled in a without first obtaining a registration is Id. See also TNT Distributors, 70 FR
manner which would prevent theft. See a serious violation of the Act. I therefore 12729, 12730 (2005) (special agent
21 CFR 1309.71(b). Furthermore, conclude that this factor also provides testified that ‘‘80 to 90 percent of
Respondent’s proposed use of a sufficient reason by itself to deny ephedrine and pseudoephedrine being
commercial storage facility raises Respondent’s application.1 used [in Tennessee] to manufacture
substantial questions about the methamphetamine was being obtained
adequacy of his security controls. Factor Three—The Applicant’s
Experience in Distributing List I from convenience stores’’); OTC
Among other things, it appears that Distribution Co., 68 FR 70538, 70541
unauthorized persons can easily gain Chemicals
(2003) (noting ‘‘over 20 different
access to the facility. Moreover, Beyond the misconduct discussed seizures of [gray market distributor’s]
Respondent has no control over the above, Respondent stated in his letter to pseudoephedrine product at clandestine
selection of the facility’s other tenants the DIs that he had no experience in the sites,’’ and that in eight month period
or the persons they bring onto the sale of List I chemical products. Were distributor’s product ‘‘was seized at
property. See Sujak Distributors, 71 FR there no evidence of Respondent having clandestine laboratories in eight states,
50102, 50104 (2006). As I have engaged in illicit activity, I would with over 2 million dosage units seized
previously explained, the use of nonetheless conclude that his lack of in Oklahoma alone.’’); MDI
commercial storage facilities presents an experience bars his registration. Pharmaceuticals, 68 FR 4233, 4236
unacceptable risk that a criminal may Because the regulatory scheme (2003) (finding that ‘‘pseudoephedrine
gain access to the property and steal List imposed by federal law is complex and products distributed by [gray market
I chemical products. the risk of diversion is substantial, this distributor] have been uncovered at
Finally, while the facility has an is not a line of business that is suitable numerous clandestine
alarm system, the alarm sounds only at for a new entrant to learn through on- methamphetamine settings throughout
the facility’s office. This raises the the-job training. Accordingly, numerous the United States and/or discovered in
further question of whether the facility DEA final orders have made clear that the possession of individuals apparently
provides effective monitoring twenty- an applicant’s lack of experience in involved in the illicit manufacture of
four hours a day. I thus conclude that distributing List I chemicals is a factor methamphetamine’’).
Respondent does not maintain effective which weighs heavily against granting Significantly, all of Respondent’s
controls against diversion and that this an application for a registration. Tri- proposed customers participate in the
factor alone is dispositive in concluding County Bait Distributors, 71 FR 52160, non-traditional market for ephedrine
that granting him a registration would 52163 (2006); Jay Enterprises, 70 FR and pseudoephedrine products.
be inconsistent with the public interest. 24620, 24621 (2005); ANM Wholesale, Moreover, many of Respondent’s
69 FR 11652, 11653 (2004). I therefore proposed customers have other
Factor Two—The Applicant’s conclude that this factor further suppliers. Finally, Respondent’s lack of
Compliance With Applicable Laws supports the denial of Respondent’s knowledge regarding the diversion of
The investigative file contains application. List I chemicals into the illicit
disturbing evidence that Respondent manufacture of methamphetamine is
Factor Four—Other Factors That Are
repeatedly purchased List I chemicals also disconcerting.
Relevant to and Consistent With Public
products from R J General Corp., DEA orders recognize that there is a
Health and Safety
between January 7, 2004, and December substantial risk of diversion of List I
8, 2004. Moreover, in a letter which Numerous DEA orders recognize that chemicals into the illicit manufacture of
Respondent faxed to the DIs, he convenience stores and gas-stations methamphetamine when these products
expressly stated that he did not engage constitute the non-traditional retail are sold by non-traditional retailers. See,
in the retail sale of List I chemical market for legitimate consumers of e.g., Joy’s Ideas, 70 FR at 33199 (finding
products. products containing pseudoephedrine that the risk of diversion was ‘‘real,
Federal regulations clearly state that and ephedrine. See, e.g., Tri-County Bait substantial and compelling’’); Jay
‘‘[n]o person required to be registered Distributors, 71 FR at 52161; D & S Enterprises, 70 FR at 24621 (noting
shall engage in any activity for which Sales, 71 FR 37607, 37609 (2006); ‘‘heightened risk of diversion’’ should
registration is required until the Branex, Inc., 69 FR 8682, 8690–92 application be granted). Under DEA
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES

application for registration is approved precedents, an applicant’s proposal to


1 Because of the seriousness of this misconduct,
and a Certificate of Registration is sell into the non-traditional market
I conclude that even though there is no evidence
issued by the Administrator to such that Respondent has ever been convicted of an
weighs heavily against the granting of a
person.’’ 21 CFR 1309.31(a). Respondent offense related to listed chemicals, this factor is registration under factor five. So too
did not have a registration, and the entitled to no weight. here.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:04 Jan 26, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\29JAN1.SGM 29JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 18 / Monday, January 29, 2007 / Notices 4035

Because of the methamphetamine DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE id. The address was not, however, a
epidemic’s devastating impact on registered location. See id.
communities and families throughout Drug Enforcement Administration The Show Cause Order next alleged
the country, DEA has repeatedly denied that on November 24, 2003, Respondent
an application when an applicant [Docket No. 04–36] left a voicemail message with a DEA
proposed to sell into the non-traditional investigator in which she stated that she
market and analysis of one of the other Rose Mary Jacinta Lewis, M.D.; was ISMP’s medical director and was
statutory factors supports the Affirmance of Immediate Suspension using her medical license to order
conclusion that granting the application supplies. See id. According to the Show
would create an unacceptable risk of On March 22, 2004, I, the Deputy Cause Order, a DEA investigator then
diversion. Thus, in Xtreme Enterprises, Administrator of the Drug Enforcement called Respondent and advised her that
67 FR 76195, 76197 (2002), my Administration, issued an Order to R & S could not ship supplies to ISMP’s
predecessor denied an application Show Cause and Notice of Immediate office because it was not a registered
observing that the respondent’s ‘‘lack of Suspension of the practitioner’s location. Id. at 3. The Show Cause Order
a criminal record, compliance with the Certificate of Registration, AL8962993, alleged that during the conversation,
law and willingness to upgrade her held by Rose Mary Jacinta Lewis, M.D. Respondent stated that she was working
security system are far outweighed by (Respondent), of Richmond, CA. The for a non-profit project that provided
her lack of experience with selling List Notice of Immediate Suspension was medical supplies for AIDS patients in
I chemicals and the fact that she intends based on my preliminary finding that Nigeria, that the project ordered only
to sell ephedrine almost exclusively in substantial amounts of Schedule III AIDS-related drugs such as AZT, and
the gray market.’’ More recently, I controlled substances that had been that it was not ordering controlled
denied an application observing that the ordered using Respondent’s DEA substances. See id.
respondent’s ‘‘lack of a criminal record registration could not be accounted for. The Show Cause Order further alleged
and any intent to comply with the law Show Cause Order at 7. Based on the that following the conversation,
and regulations are far outweighed by significant risk that these drugs had Respondent submitted a written request
his lack of experience and the been diverted as well as evidence to change the address of her registered
company’s intent to sell ephedrine and showing that Respondent had allowed location to ISMP’s Richmond office. Id.
pseudoephedrine exclusively to the gray unregistered entities and individuals to The Show Cause Order alleged that in
market.’’ Jay Enterprises, 70 FR at use her registration to obtain controlled her letter requesting the change,
24621. Accord Prachi Enterprises, 69 FR substances, I concluded that Respondent stated that she worked with
69407, 69409 (2004). Respondent’s continued registration ISMP, a non-profit entity that ‘‘sends
The investigative file in this case ‘‘would constitute an imminent danger AIDS drugs to Nigeria.’’ Id. On
supports even more adverse findings to the public health and safety.’’ Id. December 1, 2003, DEA personnel
than those which DEA has repeatedly changed the address of Respondent’s
More specifically, the Show Cause registered location to ISMP’s office. Id.
held are sufficient to conclude that Order alleged that in September 2003, R
granting an application would be The Show Cause Order next alleged
& S Sales, a registered distributor, had that during the week of December 3,
inconsistent with the public interest. reported to DEA ‘‘that excessive
Here, Respondent clearly lacks effective 2003, R & S notified DEA that on
amounts of controlled substances were November 26, 2003, an order for 504
controls against diversion, has no being ordered under’’ Respondent’s
experience in the elicit wholesale bottles, each containing 500 tablets of
name and registration number. Id. at 2. hydrocodone/apap, had been placed
distribution of List I chemical products, The Show Cause Order further alleged
and yet intends to distribute these using Respondent’s registration. See id.
that shortly thereafter, DEA The Show Cause Order alleged that R &
products to non-traditional retailers, a investigators went to Respondent’s
market in which the risk of diversion is S was told to ship the order to
registered location and determined that Respondent’s former office, and that on
substantial. Furthermore, the file Respondent was no longer practicing
establishes that Respondent violated December 1, 2003, 19 packages were
medicine at the location and had retired received at that address and an
federal law by distributing List I from practice and vacated the premises
chemicals without a registration. Given additional package was sent to ISMP’s
six months earlier. See id. During the office. Id.
these findings, it is indisputable that attempted visit, DEA investigators found The Show Cause Order alleged that on
granting Respondent’s application several United Parcel Service (UPS) December 10, 2003, DEA investigators
would be ‘‘inconsistent with the public delivery notices including one from R & attempted to serve an Administrative
interest.’’ 21 U.S.C. 823(h). S. See id. According to the Show Cause Inspection Warrant at ISMP’s office but
Order Order, DEA investigators subsequently no one was present. See id. The Show
determined that on September 10, 2003, Cause Order next alleged that on
Pursuant to the authority vested in me
an order for 300 bottles, each containing January 15, 2004, DEA investigators
by 21 U.S.C. 823(h), and 28 CFR
500 count hydrocodone/apap 1 (7.5/75), interviewed Respondent at her home.
0.100(b) & 0.104, I order that the
a Schedule III controlled substance, had Id. During the interview Respondent
application of Respondent Stephen J.
been placed with R & S under allegedly told investigators that she had
Heldman, for a DEA Certificate of
Respondent’s registration and that UPS retired from medical practice and was
Registration as a distributor of List I
had been unable to deliver the order to working as ISMP’s medical director. Id.
chemicals be, and it hereby is, denied.
Respondent’s former office. See id. The The Show Cause Order further alleged
This order is effective February 28,
Show Cause Order further alleged that that Respondent told the investigators
2007.
the order was subsequently delivered to that she had provided her DEA number
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES

Dated: January 20, 2007. an entity known as International to Mr. Chuka Ogele, ISMP’s Chief
Michele M. Leonhart, Surplus Medical Products, Inc. (ISMP), Executive Officer, so that he could order
Deputy Administrator. at its Richmond, California office. See medical supplies and controlled
[FR Doc. E7–1326 Filed 1–26–07; 8:45 am] substances which were to be exported to
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 1 Apap is an abbreviation for acetaminophen. Nigeria, and that she denied personally

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:04 Jan 26, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\29JAN1.SGM 29JAN1