First Choice Surgery Center of Baton Rouge, L.L.C.; Decision and Order, 55642-55643 [2017-25288]

Download as PDF 55642 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 22, 2017 / Notices The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of these registrants to manufacture the applicable 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 each of the company’s maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing each company’s physical security systems, verifying each company’s compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing each company’s background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the DEA has granted a registration as a bulk manufacturer to the above listed persons. Dated: November 16, 2017. Demetra Ashley, Acting Assistant Administrator. [FR Doc. 2017–25285 Filed 11–21–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–09–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. 17–35] asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES First Choice Surgery Center of Baton Rouge, L.L.C.; Decision and Order On May 24, 2017, the Assistant Administrator, Diversion Control Division, issued an Order to Show Cause to First Choice Surgery Center of Baton Rouge, L.L.C (Respondent), of Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Respondent’s DEA Certificate of Registration No. FF4394209, on the ground that ‘‘the clinic does not have authority to dispense controlled substances in Louisiana, the [S]tate in which the clinic is located.’’ Show Cause Order, at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a)(3)). The Show Cause Order also proposed revocation on the ground that Respondent’s owner, ‘‘Dr. Arnold Feldman, M.D., has been found guilty by the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners of misconduct related to controlled substances.’’ Id. (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a)(2); 21 CFR 1306.04). As to the jurisdictional basis for the proceeding, the Show Cause Order alleged that Respondent is ‘‘registered . . . as a hospital/clinic in [s]chedules II–V pursuant to [Registration No.] FF4394209 at 505 East Airport Drive, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.’’ Id. at 2. The VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Nov 21, 2017 Jkt 244001 Order alleged that this registration does not expire until ‘‘September 30, 2019.’’ Id. As to the substantive grounds for the proceeding, the Show Cause Order alleged that Respondent ‘‘is without authority to dispense controlled substances in Louisiana.’’ Id. The Show Cause Order alleged that while Respondent ‘‘previously held’’ a Louisiana controlled substance license, ‘‘[t]his license expired on September 23, 2016 and has not been renewed.’’ Id. The Order then asserted that ‘‘based upon [Respondent’s] lack of [s]tate authority to dispense controlled substances in . . . Louisiana,’’ its registration must be revoked. Id. As to the allegation based on its owner’s misconduct, the Show Cause Order alleged that ‘‘[o]n August 15, 2016, the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners found [Respondent’s owner] guilty of violating [state law] by giving his staff pre-signed controlled substance prescriptions and/or allowing his staff to utilize a ‘Ghost writer’ to affix his signature to controlled substances prescriptions.’’ Id. The Order further alleged that its owner’s conduct violated 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and 21 CFR 1306.04. Id. The Show Cause Order notified Respondent of its right to request a hearing on the allegations or to submit a written statement while waiving its right to a hearing and the procedure for electing either option. Id. (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). In addition, the Order notified Respondent of its right to submit a corrective action plan pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C). Id. at 3–4. On June 15, 2017, Respondent, through its counsel, requested a hearing on the allegations. Letter from Respondent to Hearing Clerk, Office of Administrative Law Judges (June 15, 2017). The matter was assigned to Administrative Law Judge Charles Wm. Dorman (hereinafter, ALJ), who, on June 16, 2017, issued an order directing the Government to file evidence supporting the allegations by June 29, 2017 at 2 p.m., as well any motion for summary disposition. Briefing Schedule For Lack Of State Authority Allegations, at 1. The ALJ’s order also provided that if the Government moved for summary disposition, Respondent’s opposition was due by July 13, 2017 at 2 p.m. Id. On June 20, 2017, the Government filed its Motion for Summary Disposition. In its Motion, the Government argued that Respondent is a ‘‘practitioner’’ under the CSA and that because its ‘‘state authority has terminated, [it] no longer meets the statutory definition of a practitioner’’ and is not entitled to maintain its PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 registration. Motion, at 3. The Government thus sought a Recommendation that Respondent’s registration be revoked. Id. As support for its motion, the Government provided: (1) A copy of Respondent’s registration; (2) a letter dated May 22, 2017 from the Assistant Executive Director of the Louisiana Board of Pharmacy to a DEA Diversion Investigator (DI) stating that Respondent’s Louisiana Controlled Dangerous Substance (CDS) license expired September 23, 2016; (3) a November 16, 2016 Order of the Louisiana Board of Pharmacy indefinitely suspending the Controlled Dangerous Substance license of Arnold E. Feldman based on the suspension of his Louisiana Medical license; and (4) a declaration of the aforementioned DI that Respondent ‘‘currently has no authority to handle controlled substances in Louisiana.’’ Mot. for Summ. Disp., Appendices A, B, and C. The Government did not, however, seek summary disposition based on the allegation that Respondent’s owner had been found guilty by the Louisiana Board of misconduct related to controlled substances. Compare Mot. for Summ. Disp. with Show Cause Order, at 1–2. Respondent did not file a Reply to the Government’s Motion, and on July 25, 2017, the ALJ granted the Government’s Motion. Order Granting Summary Disposition (R.D.), at 3, 6. Noting that the Government had ‘‘provided a certified letter from the Louisiana Board of Pharmacy indicating that the Respondent held Louisiana Board of Pharmacy Number CDS.043803–ASC, but that this license expired on September 23, 2016,’’ id. at 2, the ALJ found it ‘‘undisputed that the Respondent lacks state authorization to dispense controlled substances in Louisiana, where [it] is registered.’’ Id. at 5. Applying the Agency’s longstanding rule ‘‘that a practitioner must be currently authorized to dispense controlled substances by the State in which [it] practices in order to obtain and maintain a registration,’’ id. at 4 (citation omitted), the ALJ concluded that ‘‘Respondent cannot maintain a DEA registration for any location in’’ Louisiana and recommended that I revoke its registration.1 Id. at 5–6. 1 With respect to the allegation that Respondent’s owner had been found guilty of misconduct by the Louisiana Board of Medical Examiners, the ALJ noted that [t]he Government did not provide any argument or evidence in its Motion.’’ R.D. 6 n.1. However, as the ALJ observed, ‘‘Respondent’s lack of state authority to dispense controlled substances E:\FR\FM\22NON1.SGM 22NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 22, 2017 / Notices Having considered the record, I adopt the ALJ’s finding of fact that Respondent’s Louisiana CDS license has expired and his of conclusion of law that Respondent lacks state authorization to dispense controlled substances in Louisiana. I will therefore adopt the ALJ’s recommendation that I revoke Respondent’s registration. I make the following findings. asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES Findings of Fact Respondent is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration No. FF4394209, pursuant to which it is authorized to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V as a Hospital/Clinic, at the registered address of: First Choice Surgery Center of Baton Rouge, L.L.C., 505 East Airport Drive, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Mot. for Summ. Disp., Appendix A. This registration does not expire until September 30, 2019. Id. Respondent is owned by Arnold E. Feldman, M.D. Resp.’s Hrng. Req, at 1. Respondent also previously held Louisiana Controlled Dangerous Substance License No.043803–ASC. Id., at Appendix B. However, Respondent allowed this license to expire on September 23, 2016. Id. Accordingly, I find that Respondent currently lacks authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State of Louisiana. Discussion Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under section 823 of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), ‘‘upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had [its] State license . . . suspended [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.’’ With respect to a practitioner, which includes a hospital or clinic, see 21 U.S.C. 802(21), DEA has long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner’s registration. See, e.g., James L. Hooper, 76 FR 71371 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 Fed. Appx. 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 FR 27616 (1978). This rule derives from the text of two other provisions of the CSA, section 802(21), which defines the term is a sufficient independent ground to recommend the revocation of [its] registration.’’ Id. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Nov 21, 2017 Jkt 244001 ‘‘practitioner,’’ and section 823(f), which sets forth the registration requirements for practitioners. Notably, in section 802(21), Congress defined ‘‘the term ‘practitioner’ [to] mean[ ] a . . . physician . . . hospital, or other person licensed, registered or otherwise permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in which he practices . . . to distribute, dispense, [or] administer . . . a controlled substance in the course of professional practice.’’ 21 U.S.C. 802(21) (emphasis added). The text of this provision makes clear that a hospital is not a practitioner within the meaning of the CSA if it is not ‘‘licensed, registered or otherwise permitted, by the jurisdiction in which [it] practices . . . to dispense [or] administer . . . a controlled substance in the course of professional practice.’’ Id. To the same effect, Congress, in setting the requirements for obtaining a practitioner’s registration, directed that ‘‘[t]he Attorney General shall register practitioners . . . if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of the State in which [it] practices.’’ 21 U.S.C. 823(f). Based on these provisions, the Agency held nearly forty years ago that ‘‘[s]tate authorization to dispense or otherwise handle controlled substances is a prerequisite to the issuance and maintenance of a Federal controlled substances registration.’’ Blanton, 43 FR at 27617 (revoking physician’s registration based on one-year suspension of his state license) (emphasis added). Having allowed its Louisiana CDS license to expire, Respondent is no longer authorized to dispense controlled substances in the State.2 Because Congress has clearly mandated that a practitioner possess state authority in order to be deemed a practitioner under the Act, and Respondent is no longer authorized to dispense controlled substances under the laws of Louisiana, the State in which it is registered, I adopt the ALJ’s recommended order and will order that its registration be revoked. See, e.g., Hooper, 76 FR at 71371–72; Sheran Arden Yeates, 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby Watts, 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988); Blanton, 43 FR at 27616. Order Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA Certificate of 2 Subsequent to the ALJ’s issuance of his Recommended Decision, Respondent has not filed a motion supported by any evidence that its CDS license has been reinstated with either the ALJ or my Office. PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 55643 Registration No. FF4394209 issued to First Choice Surgery Center of Baton Rouge, L.L.C., be, and it hereby is, revoked. This order is effective immediately.3 Dated: November 13, 2017. Robert W. Patterson, Acting Administrator. [FR Doc. 2017–25288 Filed 11–21–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–09–P NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [Notice: 17– 087] NASA Advisory Council; Meeting National Aeronautics and Space Administration. ACTION: Notice of meeting. AGENCY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC). DATES: Thursday, December 7, 2017, 1:00–5:00 p.m.; and Friday, December 8, 2017, 9:00 a.m.–12:00 noon, Local Time. ADDRESSES: NASA Headquarters, Program Review Center (PRC), Room 9H40, 300 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20546. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Marla King, NAC Administrative Officer, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358–1148 or marla.k.king@nasa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the meeting room. This meeting is also available telephonically and by WebEx. You must use a touch-tone phone to participate in this meeting. Any interested person may dial the Toll Number 1–630–395–0139 or Toll Free Number 1–888–603–9606 and then the numeric passcode 8148619, followed by the # sign, on both days. Note: If dialing in, please ‘‘mute’’ your phone. To join via WebEx, the link is https://nasa.webex.com/. The meeting number on December 7 is 996 950 837 and the meeting password is NACDEC717! (case sensitive); the meeting number on December 8 is 997 757 737 and the meeting password is NACDEC817@(case sensitive). SUMMARY: 3 As found above, Respondent is owned by Dr. Arnold E. Feldman. For the same reasons which led the former Acting Administrator to revoke Dr. Feldman’s Louisiana registration with an immediate effective date, see Arnold E. Feldman, 82 FR 39614, 39618 & n.8 (2017), I conclude that the public interest necessitates that this Order be effective immediately. 21 CFR 1316.67. E:\FR\FM\22NON1.SGM 22NON1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 224 (Wednesday, November 22, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55642-55643]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25288]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. 17-35]


First Choice Surgery Center of Baton Rouge, L.L.C.; Decision and 
Order

    On May 24, 2017, the Assistant Administrator, Diversion Control 
Division, issued an Order to Show Cause to First Choice Surgery Center 
of Baton Rouge, L.L.C (Respondent), of Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The Show 
Cause Order proposed the revocation of Respondent's DEA Certificate of 
Registration No. FF4394209, on the ground that ``the clinic does not 
have authority to dispense controlled substances in Louisiana, the 
[S]tate in which the clinic is located.'' Show Cause Order, at 1 
(citing 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a)(3)). The Show Cause Order also 
proposed revocation on the ground that Respondent's owner, ``Dr. Arnold 
Feldman, M.D., has been found guilty by the Louisiana State Board of 
Medical Examiners of misconduct related to controlled substances.'' Id. 
(citing 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a)(2); 21 CFR 1306.04).
    As to the jurisdictional basis for the proceeding, the Show Cause 
Order alleged that Respondent is ``registered . . . as a hospital/
clinic in [s]chedules II-V pursuant to [Registration No.] FF4394209 at 
505 East Airport Drive, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.'' Id. at 2. The Order 
alleged that this registration does not expire until ``September 30, 
2019.'' Id.
    As to the substantive grounds for the proceeding, the Show Cause 
Order alleged that Respondent ``is without authority to dispense 
controlled substances in Louisiana.'' Id. The Show Cause Order alleged 
that while Respondent ``previously held'' a Louisiana controlled 
substance license, ``[t]his license expired on September 23, 2016 and 
has not been renewed.'' Id. The Order then asserted that ``based upon 
[Respondent's] lack of [s]tate authority to dispense controlled 
substances in . . . Louisiana,'' its registration must be revoked. Id.
    As to the allegation based on its owner's misconduct, the Show 
Cause Order alleged that ``[o]n August 15, 2016, the Louisiana State 
Board of Medical Examiners found [Respondent's owner] guilty of 
violating [state law] by giving his staff pre-signed controlled 
substance prescriptions and/or allowing his staff to utilize a `Ghost 
writer' to affix his signature to controlled substances 
prescriptions.'' Id. The Order further alleged that its owner's conduct 
violated 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and 21 CFR 1306.04. Id.
    The Show Cause Order notified Respondent of its right to request a 
hearing on the allegations or to submit a written statement while 
waiving its right to a hearing and the procedure for electing either 
option. Id. (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). In addition, the Order notified 
Respondent of its right to submit a corrective action plan pursuant to 
21 U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C). Id. at 3-4.
    On June 15, 2017, Respondent, through its counsel, requested a 
hearing on the allegations. Letter from Respondent to Hearing Clerk, 
Office of Administrative Law Judges (June 15, 2017). The matter was 
assigned to Administrative Law Judge Charles Wm. Dorman (hereinafter, 
ALJ), who, on June 16, 2017, issued an order directing the Government 
to file evidence supporting the allegations by June 29, 2017 at 2 p.m., 
as well any motion for summary disposition. Briefing Schedule For Lack 
Of State Authority Allegations, at 1. The ALJ's order also provided 
that if the Government moved for summary disposition, Respondent's 
opposition was due by July 13, 2017 at 2 p.m. Id.
    On June 20, 2017, the Government filed its Motion for Summary 
Disposition. In its Motion, the Government argued that Respondent is a 
``practitioner'' under the CSA and that because its ``state authority 
has terminated, [it] no longer meets the statutory definition of a 
practitioner'' and is not entitled to maintain its registration. 
Motion, at 3. The Government thus sought a Recommendation that 
Respondent's registration be revoked. Id.
    As support for its motion, the Government provided: (1) A copy of 
Respondent's registration; (2) a letter dated May 22, 2017 from the 
Assistant Executive Director of the Louisiana Board of Pharmacy to a 
DEA Diversion Investigator (DI) stating that Respondent's Louisiana 
Controlled Dangerous Substance (CDS) license expired September 23, 
2016; (3) a November 16, 2016 Order of the Louisiana Board of Pharmacy 
indefinitely suspending the Controlled Dangerous Substance license of 
Arnold E. Feldman based on the suspension of his Louisiana Medical 
license; and (4) a declaration of the aforementioned DI that Respondent 
``currently has no authority to handle controlled substances in 
Louisiana.'' Mot. for Summ. Disp., Appendices A, B, and C. The 
Government did not, however, seek summary disposition based on the 
allegation that Respondent's owner had been found guilty by the 
Louisiana Board of misconduct related to controlled substances. Compare 
Mot. for Summ. Disp. with Show Cause Order, at 1-2.
    Respondent did not file a Reply to the Government's Motion, and on 
July 25, 2017, the ALJ granted the Government's Motion. Order Granting 
Summary Disposition (R.D.), at 3, 6. Noting that the Government had 
``provided a certified letter from the Louisiana Board of Pharmacy 
indicating that the Respondent held Louisiana Board of Pharmacy Number 
CDS.043803-ASC, but that this license expired on September 23, 2016,'' 
id. at 2, the ALJ found it ``undisputed that the Respondent lacks state 
authorization to dispense controlled substances in Louisiana, where 
[it] is registered.'' Id. at 5. Applying the Agency's longstanding rule 
``that a practitioner must be currently authorized to dispense 
controlled substances by the State in which [it] practices in order to 
obtain and maintain a registration,'' id. at 4 (citation omitted), the 
ALJ concluded that ``Respondent cannot maintain a DEA registration for 
any location in'' Louisiana and recommended that I revoke its 
registration.\1\ Id. at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ With respect to the allegation that Respondent's owner had 
been found guilty of misconduct by the Louisiana Board of Medical 
Examiners, the ALJ noted that [t]he Government did not provide any 
argument or evidence in its Motion.'' R.D. 6 n.1. However, as the 
ALJ observed, ``Respondent's lack of state authority to dispense 
controlled substances is a sufficient independent ground to 
recommend the revocation of [its] registration.'' Id.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 55643]]

    Having considered the record, I adopt the ALJ's finding of fact 
that Respondent's Louisiana CDS license has expired and his of 
conclusion of law that Respondent lacks state authorization to dispense 
controlled substances in Louisiana. I will therefore adopt the ALJ's 
recommendation that I revoke Respondent's registration. I make the 
following findings.

Findings of Fact

    Respondent is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration No. 
FF4394209, pursuant to which it is authorized to dispense controlled 
substances in schedules II through V as a Hospital/Clinic, at the 
registered address of: First Choice Surgery Center of Baton Rouge, 
L.L.C., 505 East Airport Drive, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Mot. for Summ. 
Disp., Appendix A. This registration does not expire until September 
30, 2019. Id. Respondent is owned by Arnold E. Feldman, M.D. Resp.'s 
Hrng. Req, at 1.
    Respondent also previously held Louisiana Controlled Dangerous 
Substance License No.043803-ASC. Id., at Appendix B. However, 
Respondent allowed this license to expire on September 23, 2016. Id.
    Accordingly, I find that Respondent currently lacks authority to 
dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State of 
Louisiana.

Discussion

    Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized 
to suspend or revoke a registration issued under section 823 of the 
Controlled Substances Act (CSA), ``upon a finding that the registrant . 
. . has had [its] State license . . . suspended [or] revoked . . . by 
competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to 
engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.'' With respect 
to a practitioner, which includes a hospital or clinic, see 21 U.S.C. 
802(21), DEA has long held that the possession of authority to dispense 
controlled substances under the laws of the State in which a 
practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental 
condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's registration. 
See, e.g., James L. Hooper, 76 FR 71371 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 
481 Fed. Appx. 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 FR 
27616 (1978).
    This rule derives from the text of two other provisions of the CSA, 
section 802(21), which defines the term ``practitioner,'' and section 
823(f), which sets forth the registration requirements for 
practitioners. Notably, in section 802(21), Congress defined ``the term 
`practitioner' [to] mean[ ] a . . . physician . . . hospital, or other 
person licensed, registered or otherwise permitted, by . . . the 
jurisdiction in which he practices . . . to distribute, dispense, [or] 
administer . . . a controlled substance in the course of professional 
practice.'' 21 U.S.C. 802(21) (emphasis added). The text of this 
provision makes clear that a hospital is not a practitioner within the 
meaning of the CSA if it is not ``licensed, registered or otherwise 
permitted, by the jurisdiction in which [it] practices . . . to 
dispense [or] administer . . . a controlled substance in the course of 
professional practice.'' Id.
    To the same effect, Congress, in setting the requirements for 
obtaining a practitioner's registration, directed that ``[t]he Attorney 
General shall register practitioners . . . if the applicant is 
authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of 
the State in which [it] practices.'' 21 U.S.C. 823(f). Based on these 
provisions, the Agency held nearly forty years ago that ``[s]tate 
authorization to dispense or otherwise handle controlled substances is 
a prerequisite to the issuance and maintenance of a Federal controlled 
substances registration.'' Blanton, 43 FR at 27617 (revoking 
physician's registration based on one-year suspension of his state 
license) (emphasis added).
    Having allowed its Louisiana CDS license to expire, Respondent is 
no longer authorized to dispense controlled substances in the State.\2\ 
Because Congress has clearly mandated that a practitioner possess state 
authority in order to be deemed a practitioner under the Act, and 
Respondent is no longer authorized to dispense controlled substances 
under the laws of Louisiana, the State in which it is registered, I 
adopt the ALJ's recommended order and will order that its registration 
be revoked. See, e.g., Hooper, 76 FR at 71371-72; Sheran Arden Yeates, 
71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, 58 FR 51104, 51105 
(1993); Bobby Watts, 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988); Blanton, 43 FR at 
27616.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Subsequent to the ALJ's issuance of his Recommended 
Decision, Respondent has not filed a motion supported by any 
evidence that its CDS license has been reinstated with either the 
ALJ or my Office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Order

    Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), as well 
as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA Certificate of Registration No. 
FF4394209 issued to First Choice Surgery Center of Baton Rouge, L.L.C., 
be, and it hereby is, revoked. This order is effective immediately.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As found above, Respondent is owned by Dr. Arnold E. 
Feldman. For the same reasons which led the former Acting 
Administrator to revoke Dr. Feldman's Louisiana registration with an 
immediate effective date, see Arnold E. Feldman, 82 FR 39614, 39618 
& n.8 (2017), I conclude that the public interest necessitates that 
this Order be effective immediately. 21 CFR 1316.67.

    Dated: November 13, 2017.
Robert W. Patterson,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-25288 Filed 11-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4410-09-P