Jay Enterprises of Spartanburg, Inc.; Denial of Registration, 24620-24622 [05-9252]
Download as PDF
24620
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 10, 2005 / Notices
Dated: May 2, 2005.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05–9250 Filed 5–9–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–M
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Jay Enterprises of Spartanburg, Inc.;
Denial of Registration
On September 28, 2004, the Deputy
Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA), issued an Order
to Show Cause to Jay Enterprises of
Spartanburg, Inc. (Jay Enterprises/
Respondent) proposing to deny its
January 15, 2004, application for DEA
Certificate of Registration as a
distributor of list I chemicals. The Order
to Show Cause alleged that granting
Respondent’s application would be
inconsistent with the public interest, as
that term is used in 21 U.S.C. 823(h).
The Order also notified Jay Enterprises
that should no request for a hearing be
filed within 30 days, it hearing right
would be deemed waived.
According to the DEA investigative
file, the Order to Show Cause was sent
by certified mail to Respondent at its
address of record at 136 Belvedere
Drive, Spartanburg, South Carolina
29301. A notice of receipt was signed on
behalf of Jay Enterprises and returned to
DEA on October 26, 2004. DEA has not
received a request for a hearing or any
other reply from Jay Enterprises or
anyone purporting to represent the
company in this matter.
Therefore, the Deputy Administrator
of DEA, finding that (1) thirty days have
passed since delivery of the Order to
Show Cause, and (2) no request for a
hearing having been received, concludes
that Jay Enterprises has waived its
hearing right. See Aqui Enterprises, 67
FR 12,576 (2002). After considering
relevant material from the investigative
file, the Deputy Administrator now
enters her final order without a hearing
pursuant to 21 CFR 1309.53(c) and (d)
and 1316.67. The Deputy Administrator
finds as follows.
List I chemicals are those that may be
used in the manufacture of a controlled
substance in violation of the Controlled
Substances Act. 21 U.S.C. 802(34); 21
CFR 1310.02(a). Pseudoephedrine and
ephedrine are list I chemicals which are
legitimately manufactured and
distributed in single entity and
combination forms as decongestants and
bronchodilators, respectively. Both are
used as precursor chemicals in the illicit
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:17 May 09, 2005
Jkt 205001
manufacture of methamphetamine and
amphetamine.
Phenylpropanolamine, also a list I
chemical, is a legitimately manufactured
and distributed product used to provide
relief of symptoms from inflammation of
the sinus, nasal and upper respiratory
tract tissues and for weight control.
Phenylpropanolamine is also used as a
precursor in the illicit manufacture of
methamphetamine and amphetamine. In
November 2000, the United States Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) issued
a public health advisory requesting that
drug companies discontinue marketing
products containing
phenylpropanolamine and that
consumers not use them, due to risk of
hemorrhagic stroke. As a result, many
pharmaceutical companies have
stopped using phenylpropanolamine as
an active ingredient and, based on
FDA’s findings, DEA has determined
that a request to distribute
phenylpropanolamine constitutes a
basis for denial of an application for
DEA registration. See, e.g., Gazaly
Trading, 69 FR 22561 (2004); Shani
Distributors, 68 FR 62234 (2003).
As noted in previous DEA final
orders, methamphetamine is an
extremely potent central nervous system
stimulant and its abuse is a persistent
and growing problem in the United
States. See, e.g., Direct Wholesale, 69 FR
11654 (2004); Branex, Inc., 69 FR 8682
(2004); Denver Wholesale, 67 FR 99986
(2002); Yemen Wholesale Tobacco and
Candy Supply, Inc., 67 Fr 9997 (2002).
The Deputy Administrator’s review of
the investigative file reveals that on or
about January 15, 2004, an application
was submitted by the President and sole
employee of Jay Enterprises, Mr. Desai
S. Devangkumar, seeking registration to
distribute ephedrine, pseudoephedrine
and phenylpropanolamine listed
chemical products. In connection with
the pending application, an on-site preregistration investigation was conducted
by DEA Diversion Investigators at the
proposed registered location, which
turned out to be Mr. Devangkumar’s
residence. There were no security
measures in place there and he stated he
would store the listed chemicals in a
rental unit at a nearby storage facility.
Neither location afforded adequate
physical security for storage of listed
chemicals, as required by 21 CFR
1309.71.
Mr. Devangkumar advised
investigators his company distributed
sundries to retailers and that customers
had requested that it carry list I
chemical products. Other than the two
brands which were specifically
requested by customers, ‘‘Max Brand’’
and ‘‘Mini-Thins,’’ he was unable to
PO 00000
Frm 00123
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
identify any other products he intended
to carry if registered. Mr. Devangkamur
also had no prior experience with list I
chemical and was unaware they were
used as precursors in illicitly
manufacturing methamphetamine.
While unable to provide a list of specific
customers, Mr. Devangkumar advised he
planned to sell list I chemical products
to area convenience stores and truck
stops.
DEA is aware that small illicit
laboratories operate with listed
chemical products often procured,
legally or illegally, from non-traditional
retailers of over-the-counter drug
products, such as gas stations and
convenience stores. Some retailers
acquire product from multiple
distributors to mask their acquisition of
large amounts of listed chemicals. In
addition, some individuals utilize sham
corporations or fraudulent records to
establish a commercial identity in order
to acquire listed chemicals.
Throughout the Southeastern United
States, there has been a consistent
increase in the number of illicit
laboratories and enforcement teams
continue to note a trend toward smaller
capacity laboratories. This is likely due
to the ease of concealment associated
with small laboratories, which continue
to dominate seizures and cleanup
responses.
DEA knows by experience that there
exists a ‘‘gray market’’ in which certain
high strength, high quantity
pseudoephedrine and ephedrine
products are distributed only to
convenience stores and gas stations,
from where they have a high incidence
of diversion. These grey market
products are rarely sold in large
discount stores, retail pharmacies or
grocery stores, where sales of
therapeutic over-the-counter drugs
predominate.
Max Brand has previously been
identified by DEA as the ‘‘precursor
product predominantly encountered
and seized at clandestine
methamphetamine laboratories’’ and
that ‘‘[c]onvenience stores are the
primary source for the purchase of the
Max Brand products, which are the
preferred brand for use by illicit
methamphetamine producers, and
users.’’ Express Wholesale, 69 FR 62086,
62087 (2004); see also, RAM, Inc. d/b/
a American Wholesale Distribution
Corp., 70 FR 11693, 11694 (2005).
Similarly, Mini-Thins has been
identified by DEA as a ‘‘prime product’’
in this gray market industry. See, e.g.,
Prachi Enterprises, Inc., 69 FR 69407,
69408 (2004).
As addressed in previous final orders,
DEA knows from industry data, market
E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM
10MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 10, 2005 / Notices
studies and statistical analysis that over
90% of over-the-counter drug remedies
are sold in drug stores, supermarket
chains and ‘‘big box’’ discount retailers.
Less than one percent of cough and cold
remedies are sold in gas stations or
convenience stores. Studies have
indicated that most convenience stores
could not be expected to sell more than
$20.00 to $40.00 worth of products
containing pseudoephedrine per month.
The expected sales of ephedrine
products are known to be even smaller.
Furthermore, convenience stores
handling gray market products often
order more product than what is
required for the legitimate market and
obtain chemical products from multiple
distributors. See, e.g., RAM, Inc. d/b/a
American Wholesale Distribution Corp.,
supra, 70 FR 11693; Volusia Wholesale,
69 FR 69409 (2004).
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(h), the
Deputy Administrator may deny an
application for a Certificate of
Registration if she determines that
granting the registration would be
inconsistent with the public interest.
Section 823(h) requires that the
following factors be considered in
determining the public interest;
(1) Maintenance of effective controls
against diversion of listed chemicals
into other than legitimate channels;
(2) Compliance with applicable
Federal, State and local law;
(3) Any prior conviction record under
Federal or State laws relating to
controlled substances or to chemicals
controlled under Federal or State law;
(4) Any past experience of the
applicant in the manufacture and
distribution of chemicals; and
(5) Such other factors as are relevant
to and consistent with the public health
and safety.
As with the public interest analysis
for practitioners and pharmacies
pursuant to subsection (f) of section 823,
these factors are to be considered in the
disjunctive; the Deputy Administrator
may rely on any one or a combination
of factors and may give each factor the
weight she deems appropriate in
determining whether a registration
should be revoked or an application for
registration denied. See, e.g., Energy
Outlet, 64 FR 14269 (1999). See also,
Henry J. Schwartz, Jr., M.D., 54 FR
16422 (1989).
The Deputy Administrator finds factor
one, four and five relevant to the
pending application for registration.
As to factor one, maintenance of
effective controls against diversion of
listed chemicals into other than
legitimate channels, the DEA preregistration inspection documented
inadequate security at the proposed
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:17 May 09, 2005
Jkt 205001
registered location, a personal
residence. See, e.g., John E. McRae d/b/
a J & H Wholesale, 69 FR 51480 (2004).
Mr. Devangkumar then proposed storing
listed chemical products in a rental unit
at a storage facility; which investigators
reported as also having little to no
security. Accordingly, this factor
weights against granting Respondent’s
application.
With regard to factor four, the
applicant’s past experience in the
distribution of chemicals, the Deputy
Administrator finds this factor relevant
based on Mr. Devangkumar’s lack of
knowledge and experience regarding the
laws and regulations governing
handling of list I chemical products. In
prior DEA decisions, this lack of
experience in handling list I chemical
products has been a factor in denying
pending applications for registration.
See, e.g., Direct Wholesale, supra, 69 FR
11654; ANM Wholesale, 69 FR 11652
(2004); Xtreme Enterprises, Inc., 67 FR
76195 (2002).
With regard to factor five, other
factors relevant to and consistent with
the public safety, the Deputy
Administrator finds this factor weighs
heavily against granting the application.
Unlawful methamphetamine use is a
growing public health and safety
concern throughout the United States
and the Southeast in particular.
Ephedrine and pseudoephedrine are
precursor products needed to
manufacture methamphetamine and
operators of illicit methamphetamine
laboratories regularly acquire the
precursor products needed to
manufacture the drug from convenience
stores and gas stations, which have been
identified as constituting the gray
market for list I chemical products. It is
apparent that Jay Enterprises intends on
being a participant in this market.
While there are no specific
prohibitions under the Controlled
Substances Act regarding the sale of
listed chemical products to these
entities, DEA has nevertheless found
these establishments serve as sources for
the diversion of large amounts of listed
chemical products, See, e.g., ANM
Wholesale, 69 FR 11,652 (2004); Xtreme
Enterprises, Inc., supra, 67 FR 76195;
K.V.M. Enterprises, 67 FR 70968 (2002);
Sinbad Distributing, 67 FR 10232
(2002).
The Deputy Administrator has
previously found that many
considerations weighed heavily against
registering a distributor of list I
chemicals because, ‘‘[v]irtually all of the
Respondent’s customers, consisting of
gas station and convenience stores, are
considered part of the gray market, in
which large amounts of listed chemicals
PO 00000
Frm 00124
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
24621
are diverted to the illicit manufacture of
amphetamine and methamphetamine.’’
Xtreme Enterprises, Inc., supra, 67 FR at
76197. As in Xtreme Enterprises, Inc.,
Mr. Devangkumar’s lack of a criminal
record and any intent to comply with
the law and regulations are far
outweighed by his lack of experience
and the company’s intent to sell
ephedrine and pseudoephedrine
exclusively to the gray market. Because
Respondent’s customers have also
requested it provide them specific
products identified as the preferred
precursors for illicit manufacturing, the
heightened risk of diversion should
Respondent’s application be granted is
both obvious and unacceptable.
The reasoning of Xtreme Enterprises
has been consistently applied by the
Deputy Administrator in a series of final
orders denying applications for
registration. See, TNT Distributors, Inc.,
70 FR 12729 (2005); Titan Wholesale,
Inc., supra, 70 FR 12,727; RAM, Inc. d/
b/a American Wholesale Distribution
Corp., supra, 70 FR 11693; Al-Alousi,
Inc., 70 FR 3561 (2005); Volusia
Wholesale, supra, 69 FR 69409; Prachi
Enterprises, Inc., supra, 69 FR 69407;
CWK Enterprises, Inc., 69 FR 69400
(2004); J & S Distributors, 69 FR 62089
(2004); Express Wholesale, supra, 69 FR
62086; Absolute Distributing, Inc., 69
FR 62078 (2004).
Finally, due to the apparent lack of
safety associated with the use of
phenylpropanolamine, factor five is also
relevant to Respondent’s proposal to
distribute that product. DEA has
previously determined such a request
constitutes a ground under factor five
for denial of an application for
registration. See J & S Distributors,
supra, 69 FR 62089; Gazaly Trading,
supra, 69 FR 22561; William E. ‘‘Bill’’
Smith d/b/a B & B Wholesale, 69 FR
22559 (2004); Shani Distributors, supra,
68 FR 62324.
Based on the foregoing, the Deputy
Administrator concludes that granting
the pending application would be
inconsistent with the public interest.
Accordingly, the Deputy
Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, pursuant to the
authority vested in her by 21 U.S.C. 823
and 824 and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104,
hereby orders the pending application
for DEA Certificate of Registration,
previously submitted by Jay Enterprises
of Spartanburg, Inc., be, and it hereby is
denied. This order is effective June 9,
2005.
E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM
10MYN1
24622
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 10, 2005 / Notices
Dated: May 2, 2005.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05–9252 Filed 5–9–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–M
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Stephen K. Jones, M.D.; Denial of
Registration
On November 10, 2004, the Deputy
Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA), issued an Order
to Show Cause to Stephen K. Jones,
M.D. (Dr. Jones) who was notified of an
opportunity to show cause as to why
DEA should not deny his application for
DEA Certificate Registration as a
practitioner to handle controlled
substances, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823
and 824.
The Order to Show Cause alleged in
relevant part, that Dr. Jones was not
licensed to practice medicine or handle
controlled substances in Utah, the state
in which he was applying for
registration and intended to practice.
Secondarily, the Order alleged Dr. Jones
had previously been disciplined in
Iowa, where he currently lives and
practices, for personal drug abuse,
signing a fraudulent prescription and
diverting controlled substances. The
Order to Show Cause also notified Dr.
Jones that should no request for a
hearing be filed within 30 days, his
hearing right would be deemed waived.
The Order to Show Cause was sent by
certified mail to Dr. Jones Residence at
3525 Mayfield Road, Iowa City, Iowa
and to his proposed registered location
in Salt Lake City, Utah. According to
certified mail receipt records, the Order
to Show Cause sent to his residence was
received by Dr. Jones on December 10,
2004. DEA has not received a request for
hearing or any other reply from Dr.
Jones or anyone purporting to represent
him in this matter.
Therefore, the Deputy Administrator
of DEA, finding that (1) thirty days
having passed since the delivery of the
Order to Show Cause to the applicant’s
home and address of record, and (2) no
request for hearing having been
received, concludes that Dr. Jones is
deemed to have waived his wearing
right. See David W. Linder, 67 FR
12,579 (2002). After considering
material from the investigate file in this
matter, the Deputy Administrator now
enters her final order without a hearing
pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(d) and (e)
and 1301.46.
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:17 May 09, 2005
Jkt 205001
The Deputy Administrator finds that
on July 2, 2004, Dr. Jones applied for
DEA registration to handle Schedule II
through IV controlled substances. His
proposed registered address was at the
LDS Hospital, 8th Avenue & C Street,
Salt Lake City, Utah 84143. The
application indicated Dr. Jones was
previously disciplined by the Iowa
Board of Medical Examiners which, in
April 2004, had suspended his Iowa
license to practice medicine for 30 days
and placed it in a probationary status
upon his completion of a two month
residential treatment program for opioid
dependency.
According to information in the
investigative file, on July 27, 2004, a
Diversion Investigator conducting an
inquiry into Dr. Jones application was
advised by the Utah Department of
Commerce, Division of Occupational
and Professional Licensing, that he did
not hold a Utah Physician and Surgeon
License or state Controlled Substance
License. Further, there is no evidence
before the Deputy Administrator
showing that Dr. Jones has since been
granted a license to practice medicine or
handle controlled substance in that
state.
DEA does not have statutory authority
under the Controlled Substances Act to
issue or maintain a registration if the
applicant or registrant is without state
authority to handle controlled
substances in the state in which he
conducts business. See 21 U.S.C.
802(21), 823(f) and 824(a)(3). This
prerequisite has been consistently
upheld. See Rory Patrick Doyle, M.D.,
69 FR 11,655 (2004); Dominick A. Ricci,
M.D., 58 FR 51,104 (1993); Bobby Watts,
M.D., 53 FR 11,919 (1988).
Here, it is clear Dr. Jones is not
licensed to practice medicine in Utah,
his state of applied-for-registration and
practice, and he is not authorized to
handle controlled substances in that
jurisdiction. Therefore, is not entitled to
a DEA registration in that state. As a
result of the finding that Dr. Jones lacks
state authorization to handle controlled
substances in his state of applied-forregistration, the Deputy Administrator
concludes it is unnecessary to address
further whether his application should
be denied based upon the public
interest grounds asserted in the Order to
Show Cause. See Samuel Silas Jackson,
D.D.S., 67 FR 67,145 (2002); NathanielAikens-Afful, M.D., 62 FR 16,871
(1997); Sam F. Moore, D.V.M., 58 FR
14,428 (1993).
Accordingly, the Deputy
Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, pursuant to the
authority vested in her by 21 U.S.C. 823
and 824 and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104,
PO 00000
Frm 00125
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
hereby orders that the application for
DEA Certificate of Registration
submitted by Stephen K. Jones, M.D.,
be, and it hereby is, denied. This order
is effective June 9, 2005.
Dated: May 2, 2005.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05–9246 Filed 5–9–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–M
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 04–56]
Michael J. Millette, M.D.; Revocation of
Registration
On May 17, 2004, the Deputy
Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) issued an Order
to Show Cause and Immediate
Suspension of Registration to Michael J.
Millette, M.D. (Dr. Millette) of Crystal
Lake, Illinois and Elizabethtown,
Kentucky. Dr. Millette was notified of
an opportunity to show cause as to why
DEA should not revoke his DEA
Certificates of Registration, BM2349012
and BM8086236, as a practitioner, and
deny any pending applications for
renewal or modification of such
registrations pursuant to 21 U.S.C.
823(f) and 824(a)(4) for reason that his
continued registration would be
inconsistent with the public interest. Dr.
Millette was further notified that his
DEA registrations were immediately
suspended as an imminent danger to the
public health and safety pursuant to 21
U.S.C. 824(d).
The Order to Show Cause and
Immediate Suspension alleged in sum,
that Dr. Millette was engaged in illegally
prescribing controlled substances as
part of a scheme in which controlled
substances were dispensed by
pharmacies, based on Internet
prescriptions issued by Dr. Millette and
associated physicians, based solely on
their review of Internet questionnaires
and without personal contact,
examination or bona fide physician/
patient relationships. Such
prescriptions were not issued ‘‘in the
usual course of professional treatment’’
and violated 21 CFR 1306.04 and 21
U.S.C. 841(a). This action was part of a
nationwide enforcement operation by
DEA titled Operation Pharmnet, which
targeted online suppliers of prescription
drugs, including owners, operators,
pharmacists and doctors, who have
illegally and unethically been marketing
controlled substances via the Internet.
E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM
10MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 10, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24620-24622]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-9252]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Jay Enterprises of Spartanburg, Inc.; Denial of Registration
On September 28, 2004, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office
of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an
Order to Show Cause to Jay Enterprises of Spartanburg, Inc. (Jay
Enterprises/Respondent) proposing to deny its January 15, 2004,
application for DEA Certificate of Registration as a distributor of
list I chemicals. The Order to Show Cause alleged that granting
Respondent's application would be inconsistent with the public
interest, as that term is used in 21 U.S.C. 823(h). The Order also
notified Jay Enterprises that should no request for a hearing be filed
within 30 days, it hearing right would be deemed waived.
According to the DEA investigative file, the Order to Show Cause
was sent by certified mail to Respondent at its address of record at
136 Belvedere Drive, Spartanburg, South Carolina 29301. A notice of
receipt was signed on behalf of Jay Enterprises and returned to DEA on
October 26, 2004. DEA has not received a request for a hearing or any
other reply from Jay Enterprises or anyone purporting to represent the
company in this matter.
Therefore, the Deputy Administrator of DEA, finding that (1) thirty
days have passed since delivery of the Order to Show Cause, and (2) no
request for a hearing having been received, concludes that Jay
Enterprises has waived its hearing right. See Aqui Enterprises, 67 FR
12,576 (2002). After considering relevant material from the
investigative file, the Deputy Administrator now enters her final order
without a hearing pursuant to 21 CFR 1309.53(c) and (d) and 1316.67.
The Deputy Administrator finds as follows.
List I chemicals are those that may be used in the manufacture of a
controlled substance in violation of the Controlled Substances Act. 21
U.S.C. 802(34); 21 CFR 1310.02(a). Pseudoephedrine and ephedrine are
list I chemicals which are legitimately manufactured and distributed in
single entity and combination forms as decongestants and
bronchodilators, respectively. Both are used as precursor chemicals in
the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine and amphetamine.
Phenylpropanolamine, also a list I chemical, is a legitimately
manufactured and distributed product used to provide relief of symptoms
from inflammation of the sinus, nasal and upper respiratory tract
tissues and for weight control. Phenylpropanolamine is also used as a
precursor in the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine and
amphetamine. In November 2000, the United States Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) issued a public health advisory requesting that
drug companies discontinue marketing products containing
phenylpropanolamine and that consumers not use them, due to risk of
hemorrhagic stroke. As a result, many pharmaceutical companies have
stopped using phenylpropanolamine as an active ingredient and, based on
FDA's findings, DEA has determined that a request to distribute
phenylpropanolamine constitutes a basis for denial of an application
for DEA registration. See, e.g., Gazaly Trading, 69 FR 22561 (2004);
Shani Distributors, 68 FR 62234 (2003).
As noted in previous DEA final orders, methamphetamine is an
extremely potent central nervous system stimulant and its abuse is a
persistent and growing problem in the United States. See, e.g., Direct
Wholesale, 69 FR 11654 (2004); Branex, Inc., 69 FR 8682 (2004); Denver
Wholesale, 67 FR 99986 (2002); Yemen Wholesale Tobacco and Candy
Supply, Inc., 67 Fr 9997 (2002).
The Deputy Administrator's review of the investigative file reveals
that on or about January 15, 2004, an application was submitted by the
President and sole employee of Jay Enterprises, Mr. Desai S.
Devangkumar, seeking registration to distribute ephedrine,
pseudoephedrine and phenylpropanolamine listed chemical products. In
connection with the pending application, an on-site pre-registration
investigation was conducted by DEA Diversion Investigators at the
proposed registered location, which turned out to be Mr. Devangkumar's
residence. There were no security measures in place there and he stated
he would store the listed chemicals in a rental unit at a nearby
storage facility. Neither location afforded adequate physical security
for storage of listed chemicals, as required by 21 CFR 1309.71.
Mr. Devangkumar advised investigators his company distributed
sundries to retailers and that customers had requested that it carry
list I chemical products. Other than the two brands which were
specifically requested by customers, ``Max Brand'' and ``Mini-Thins,''
he was unable to identify any other products he intended to carry if
registered. Mr. Devangkamur also had no prior experience with list I
chemical and was unaware they were used as precursors in illicitly
manufacturing methamphetamine. While unable to provide a list of
specific customers, Mr. Devangkumar advised he planned to sell list I
chemical products to area convenience stores and truck stops.
DEA is aware that small illicit laboratories operate with listed
chemical products often procured, legally or illegally, from non-
traditional retailers of over-the-counter drug products, such as gas
stations and convenience stores. Some retailers acquire product from
multiple distributors to mask their acquisition of large amounts of
listed chemicals. In addition, some individuals utilize sham
corporations or fraudulent records to establish a commercial identity
in order to acquire listed chemicals.
Throughout the Southeastern United States, there has been a
consistent increase in the number of illicit laboratories and
enforcement teams continue to note a trend toward smaller capacity
laboratories. This is likely due to the ease of concealment associated
with small laboratories, which continue to dominate seizures and
cleanup responses.
DEA knows by experience that there exists a ``gray market'' in
which certain high strength, high quantity pseudoephedrine and
ephedrine products are distributed only to convenience stores and gas
stations, from where they have a high incidence of diversion. These
grey market products are rarely sold in large discount stores, retail
pharmacies or grocery stores, where sales of therapeutic over-the-
counter drugs predominate.
Max Brand has previously been identified by DEA as the ``precursor
product predominantly encountered and seized at clandestine
methamphetamine laboratories'' and that ``[c]onvenience stores are the
primary source for the purchase of the Max Brand products, which are
the preferred brand for use by illicit methamphetamine producers, and
users.'' Express Wholesale, 69 FR 62086, 62087 (2004); see also, RAM,
Inc. d/b/a American Wholesale Distribution Corp., 70 FR 11693, 11694
(2005). Similarly, Mini-Thins has been identified by DEA as a ``prime
product'' in this gray market industry. See, e.g., Prachi Enterprises,
Inc., 69 FR 69407, 69408 (2004).
As addressed in previous final orders, DEA knows from industry
data, market
[[Page 24621]]
studies and statistical analysis that over 90% of over-the-counter drug
remedies are sold in drug stores, supermarket chains and ``big box''
discount retailers. Less than one percent of cough and cold remedies
are sold in gas stations or convenience stores. Studies have indicated
that most convenience stores could not be expected to sell more than
$20.00 to $40.00 worth of products containing pseudoephedrine per
month. The expected sales of ephedrine products are known to be even
smaller. Furthermore, convenience stores handling gray market products
often order more product than what is required for the legitimate
market and obtain chemical products from multiple distributors. See,
e.g., RAM, Inc. d/b/a American Wholesale Distribution Corp., supra, 70
FR 11693; Volusia Wholesale, 69 FR 69409 (2004).
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(h), the Deputy Administrator may deny an
application for a Certificate of Registration if she determines that
granting the registration would be inconsistent with the public
interest. Section 823(h) requires that the following factors be
considered in determining the public interest;
(1) Maintenance of effective controls against diversion of listed
chemicals into other than legitimate channels;
(2) Compliance with applicable Federal, State and local law;
(3) Any prior conviction record under Federal or State laws
relating to controlled substances or to chemicals controlled under
Federal or State law;
(4) Any past experience of the applicant in the manufacture and
distribution of chemicals; and
(5) Such other factors as are relevant to and consistent with the
public health and safety.
As with the public interest analysis for practitioners and
pharmacies pursuant to subsection (f) of section 823, these factors are
to be considered in the disjunctive; the Deputy Administrator may rely
on any one or a combination of factors and may give each factor the
weight she deems appropriate in determining whether a registration
should be revoked or an application for registration denied. See, e.g.,
Energy Outlet, 64 FR 14269 (1999). See also, Henry J. Schwartz, Jr.,
M.D., 54 FR 16422 (1989).
The Deputy Administrator finds factor one, four and five relevant
to the pending application for registration.
As to factor one, maintenance of effective controls against
diversion of listed chemicals into other than legitimate channels, the
DEA pre-registration inspection documented inadequate security at the
proposed registered location, a personal residence. See, e.g., John E.
McRae d/b/a J & H Wholesale, 69 FR 51480 (2004). Mr. Devangkumar then
proposed storing listed chemical products in a rental unit at a storage
facility; which investigators reported as also having little to no
security. Accordingly, this factor weights against granting
Respondent's application.
With regard to factor four, the applicant's past experience in the
distribution of chemicals, the Deputy Administrator finds this factor
relevant based on Mr. Devangkumar's lack of knowledge and experience
regarding the laws and regulations governing handling of list I
chemical products. In prior DEA decisions, this lack of experience in
handling list I chemical products has been a factor in denying pending
applications for registration. See, e.g., Direct Wholesale, supra, 69
FR 11654; ANM Wholesale, 69 FR 11652 (2004); Xtreme Enterprises, Inc.,
67 FR 76195 (2002).
With regard to factor five, other factors relevant to and
consistent with the public safety, the Deputy Administrator finds this
factor weighs heavily against granting the application. Unlawful
methamphetamine use is a growing public health and safety concern
throughout the United States and the Southeast in particular. Ephedrine
and pseudoephedrine are precursor products needed to manufacture
methamphetamine and operators of illicit methamphetamine laboratories
regularly acquire the precursor products needed to manufacture the drug
from convenience stores and gas stations, which have been identified as
constituting the gray market for list I chemical products. It is
apparent that Jay Enterprises intends on being a participant in this
market.
While there are no specific prohibitions under the Controlled
Substances Act regarding the sale of listed chemical products to these
entities, DEA has nevertheless found these establishments serve as
sources for the diversion of large amounts of listed chemical products,
See, e.g., ANM Wholesale, 69 FR 11,652 (2004); Xtreme Enterprises,
Inc., supra, 67 FR 76195; K.V.M. Enterprises, 67 FR 70968 (2002);
Sinbad Distributing, 67 FR 10232 (2002).
The Deputy Administrator has previously found that many
considerations weighed heavily against registering a distributor of
list I chemicals because, ``[v]irtually all of the Respondent's
customers, consisting of gas station and convenience stores, are
considered part of the gray market, in which large amounts of listed
chemicals are diverted to the illicit manufacture of amphetamine and
methamphetamine.'' Xtreme Enterprises, Inc., supra, 67 FR at 76197. As
in Xtreme Enterprises, Inc., Mr. Devangkumar's lack of a criminal
record and any intent to comply with the law and regulations are far
outweighed by his lack of experience and the company's intent to sell
ephedrine and pseudoephedrine exclusively to the gray market. Because
Respondent's customers have also requested it provide them specific
products identified as the preferred precursors for illicit
manufacturing, the heightened risk of diversion should Respondent's
application be granted is both obvious and unacceptable.
The reasoning of Xtreme Enterprises has been consistently applied
by the Deputy Administrator in a series of final orders denying
applications for registration. See, TNT Distributors, Inc., 70 FR 12729
(2005); Titan Wholesale, Inc., supra, 70 FR 12,727; RAM, Inc. d/b/a
American Wholesale Distribution Corp., supra, 70 FR 11693; Al-Alousi,
Inc., 70 FR 3561 (2005); Volusia Wholesale, supra, 69 FR 69409; Prachi
Enterprises, Inc., supra, 69 FR 69407; CWK Enterprises, Inc., 69 FR
69400 (2004); J & S Distributors, 69 FR 62089 (2004); Express
Wholesale, supra, 69 FR 62086; Absolute Distributing, Inc., 69 FR 62078
(2004).
Finally, due to the apparent lack of safety associated with the use
of phenylpropanolamine, factor five is also relevant to Respondent's
proposal to distribute that product. DEA has previously determined such
a request constitutes a ground under factor five for denial of an
application for registration. See J & S Distributors, supra, 69 FR
62089; Gazaly Trading, supra, 69 FR 22561; William E. ``Bill'' Smith d/
b/a B & B Wholesale, 69 FR 22559 (2004); Shani Distributors, supra, 68
FR 62324.
Based on the foregoing, the Deputy Administrator concludes that
granting the pending application would be inconsistent with the public
interest.
Accordingly, the Deputy Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, pursuant to the authority vested in her by 21 U.S.C.
823 and 824 and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, hereby orders the pending
application for DEA Certificate of Registration, previously submitted
by Jay Enterprises of Spartanburg, Inc., be, and it hereby is denied.
This order is effective June 9, 2005.
[[Page 24622]]
Dated: May 2, 2005.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05-9252 Filed 5-9-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M