Christina Collins, APRN; Decision and Order, 17267-17268 [2023-05802]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 22, 2023 / Notices lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 [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, the DEA has also 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 3 for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner’s registration. See, e.g., James L. Hooper, M.D., 76 FR 71371 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 F. App’x 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27616, 27617 (1978).4 According to Alabama statute, ‘‘[e]very person who manufactures, distributes, or dispenses any controlled substance within [the] state or who proposes to engage in the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of any controlled substance within [the] state 3 As such, the Agency finds Respondent’s arguments regarding the permissive nature of 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), see Respondent’s Response, at 3– 4, to be unavailing. RD, at 5; see also Bhanoo Sharma, M.D., 87 FR 41355, 41356 n.4 (2022). 4 This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the CSA. First, Congress defined the term ‘‘practitioner’’ to mean ‘‘a physician . . . veterinarian . . . 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). Second, in setting the requirements for obtaining a practitioner’s registration, Congress 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 he practices.’’ 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1) (this section, formerly section 823(f), was redesignated as part of the Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act, Public Law 117–215, 136 Stat. 2257 (2022)). Because Congress has clearly mandated that a practitioner possess state authority in order to be deemed a practitioner under the CSA, the DEA has held repeatedly that revocation of a practitioner’s registration is the appropriate sanction whenever he is no longer authorized to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the state in which he practices. See, e.g., James L. Hooper, 76 FR 71371– 72; Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988); Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 FR 27617. Moreover, because ‘‘the controlling question’’ in a proceeding brought under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) is whether the holder of a practitioner’s registration ‘‘is currently authorized to handle controlled substances in the [S]tate,’’ Hooper, 76 FR at 71371 (quoting Anne Lazar Thorn, 62 FR 12847, 12848 (1997)), the Agency has also long held that revocation is warranted even where a practitioner is still challenging the underlying action. Bourne Pharmacy, 72 FR 18273, 18274 (2007); Wingfield Drugs, 52 FR 27070, 27071 (1987). Thus, it is of no consequence here that the final outcome of the underlying action against Respondent may still be pending. See Respondent’s Response, at 3–4. What is consequential is the Agency’s finding that Respondent is not currently authorized to dispense controlled substances in Alabama, the state in which she is registered with the DEA. Austin J. Kosier, M.D., 87 FR 4941, 4943 (2022). VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:52 Mar 21, 2023 Jkt 259001 must obtain annually a registration issued by the certifying boards in accordance with [their] rules.’’ Ala. Code section 20–2–51(a) (2022); see also Ala. Admin. Code r. 930–X–1.13(1) (2022) (‘‘[a]ll licensed veterinarians who handle controlled substances must register annually with the State Board and get a state controlled substance number from the Board’’). Further, ‘‘dispense’’ means ‘‘[t]o deliver a controlled substance to an ultimate user or research subject by or pursuant to the lawful order of a practitioner, including the prescribing, administering, packaging, labeling, or compounding necessary to prepare the substance for that delivery.’’ Ala. Code section 20–2– 2(7) (2022). Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Respondent currently lacks authority to dispense controlled substances in Alabama because her Alabama controlled substance license has been suspended. RD, at 5. As discussed above, an individual must hold an Alabama controlled substance license to dispense a controlled substance in Alabama. RD, at 5–6. Thus, because Respondent lacks authority to handle controlled substances in Alabama, Respondent is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration. See RD, at 6. Accordingly, the Agency will order that Respondent’s DEA registration be revoked. Order Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. FE4914164 issued to Heather M. Entrekin, DVM. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby deny any pending applications of Heather M. Entrekin, DVM, to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of Heather M. Entrekin, DVM, for additional registration in Alabama. This Order is effective April 21, 2023. Signing Authority This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on March 15, 2023, by Administrator Anne Milgram. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 17267 way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register. Heather Achbach, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Drug Enforcement Administration. [FR Doc. 2023–05804 Filed 3–21–23; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–09–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. 23–2] Christina Collins, APRN; Decision and Order On September 28, 2022, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Christina Collins, APRN (Respondent). OSC, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the denial of Respondent’s renewal application 1 because Respondent is ‘‘without authority to handle controlled substances in the State of Tennessee, the state in which [she is] registered with DEA.’’ Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)). Respondent requested a hearing; 2 thereafter the Government filed and the ALJ granted a Motion for Summary Disposition recommending the denial of Respondent’s renewal application for her registration. RD, at 7–8. Respondent did not file exceptions to the RD. Having reviewed the entire record, the Agency adopts and hereby incorporates by reference the entirety of the ALJ’s rulings, findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended sanction and summarizes and expands upon portions thereof herein. Findings of Fact On February 28, 2022, the Tennessee Board of Nursing issued a Final Order revoking Respondent’s Tennessee license to practice as an Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN license). RD, at 6–7; Government’s Submission of Evidence Regarding Proof of Service and Motion for Summary Disposition, Exhibit (GX) D, at 1, 11, 1 Certificate of Registration No. MC1638696 at the registered address of 6523 Central Avenue Pike, Knoxville, Tennessee 37912. Id. at 1. 2 Respondent’s Request for Hearing is dated October 31, 2022, see Administrative Law Judge Exhibit (ALJX) 4, at 1, but was deemed filed on November 1, 2022. Further, although Respondent’s Request for Hearing was untimely, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) accepted the filing. Order Granting the Government’s Motion for Summary Disposition, and Recommended Rulings, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision of the Administrative Law Judge (Recommended Decision or RD), at 2–4. E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM 22MRN1 17268 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 22, 2023 / Notices 13.3 According to Tennessee’s online records, of which the Agency takes official notice, Respondent’s APRN license is revoked.4 Tennessee Department of Health License Verification, https://apps.health.tn.gov/ Licensure/default.aspx (last visited date of signature of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds that Respondent is not licensed to practice as an Advanced Practice Registered Nurse in Tennessee, the state in which she is registered with the DEA. Discussion lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 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 his State license or registration 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, the DEA has also 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, M.D., 76 FR 71371 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 F. App’x 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27616, 27617 (1978).5 3 In that Order, the Board went on to state that, ‘‘[s]hould Respondent be granted a new advance practice registered nurse certificate by this Board [in the future], Respondent’s advance practice registered nurse certificate shall be restricted to prohibit Respondent from prescribing controlled substances.’’ GX D, at 11. 4 Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an agency ‘‘may take official notice of facts at any stage in a proceeding—even in the final decision.’’ United States Department of Justice, Attorney General’s Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act 80 (1947) (Wm. W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint 1979). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 556(e), ‘‘[w]hen an agency decision rests on official notice of a material fact not appearing in the evidence in the record, a party is entitled, on timely request, to an opportunity to show the contrary.’’ Accordingly, Respondent may dispute the Agency’s finding by filing a properly supported motion for reconsideration of findings of fact within fifteen calendar days of the date of this Order. Any such motion and response shall be filed and served by email to the other party and to Office of the Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration at dea.addo.attorneys@dea.gov. 5 This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the CSA. First, Congress defined the term ‘‘practitioner’’ to mean ‘‘a physician . . . 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). Second, in setting the requirements for obtaining a practitioner’s VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:52 Mar 21, 2023 Jkt 259001 According to Tennessee statute, ‘‘dispense’’ means ‘‘to deliver a controlled substance to an ultimate user or research subject by or pursuant to the lawful order of a practitioner, including the prescribing, administering, packaging, labeling, or compounding necessary to prepare the substance for that delivery.’’ Tenn. Code Ann. section 39–17–402(7) (2022). Further, a ‘‘practitioner’’ means ‘‘[a] physician . . . or other person licensed, registered or otherwise permitted to distribute, dispense, conduct research with respect to or to administer a controlled substance in the course of professional practice or research in this state.’’ Id. at section 39–17–402(23)(A). According to Tennessee nursing regulations, ‘‘[c]ertification by the Tennessee Board of Nursing to prescribe and/or issue legend drugs . . . shall authorize a nurse practitioner 6 to prescribe and/or issue such drugs. Any nurse who prescribes and/or issues drugs without proper certification by the Tennessee Board of Nursing shall be subject to disciplinary action by the Board of Nursing . . . .’’ Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 1000–04-.04(1) (2022). Here, the evidence in the record is that Respondent lacks authority to practice as an Advanced Practice registration, Congress 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 he practices.’’ 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1) (this section, formerly section 823(f), was redesignated as part of the Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act, Public Law 117–215, 136 Stat. 2257 (2022)). Because Congress has clearly mandated that a practitioner possess state authority in order to be deemed a practitioner under the CSA, the DEA has held repeatedly that revocation of a practitioner’s registration is the appropriate sanction whenever he is no longer authorized to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the state in which he practices. See, e.g., James L. Hooper, 76 FR 71371– 72; Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988); Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 FR 27617. Moreover, because ‘‘the controlling question’’ in a proceeding brought under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) is whether the holder of a practitioner’s registration ‘‘is currently authorized to handle controlled substances in the [S]tate,’’ Hooper, 76 FR 71371 (quoting Anne Lazar Thorn, 62 FR 12847, 12848 (1997)), the Agency has also long held that revocation is warranted even where a practitioner is still challenging the underlying action. Bourne Pharmacy, 72 FR 18273, 18274 (2007); Wingfield Drugs, 52 FR 27070, 27071 (1987). Thus, it is of no consequence that Respondent is still challenging the underlying action here. See Respondent’s Reply to the Government’s Motion for Summary Disposition, at 4–8; RD, at 6–7. What is consequential is the Agency’s finding that Respondent is not currently authorized to dispense controlled substances in Tennessee, the state in which she is registered with the DEA. Adley Dasilva, P.A., 87 FR 69341, 69341 n.2 (2022). 6 Prior to revocation, Respondent’s APRN license designated Respondent as a ‘‘Nurse Practitioner with Certificate of Fitness.’’ PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Registered Nurse in Tennessee. RD, at 7. As discussed above, an individual must be a licensed practitioner to dispense a controlled substance in Tennessee. Thus, because Respondent lacks authority to practice as an Advanced Practice Registered Nurse in Tennessee and, therefore, is not authorized to handle controlled substances in Tennessee, Respondent is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration. RD, at 7– 8. Accordingly, the Agency will order that Respondent’s application for renewal of her registration be denied. Order Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby deny the pending application of Christina Collins, APRN, for renewal of her DEA Certificate of Registration No. MC1638696, as well as any other pending application of Christina Collins, APRN, for additional registration in Tennessee. This Order is effective April 21, 2023. Signing Authority This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on March 15, 2023, by Administrator Anne Milgram. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register. Heather Achbach, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Drug Enforcement Administration. [FR Doc. 2023–05802 Filed 3–21–23; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–09–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. 23–12] Karl Kauffman, M.D.; Decision and Order On November 18, 2022, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Karl Kauffman, M.D. (Respondent). OSC, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the revocation of E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM 22MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 22, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17267-17268]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-05802]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. 23-2]


Christina Collins, APRN; Decision and Order

    On September 28, 2022, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or 
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Christina Collins, 
APRN (Respondent). OSC, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the denial of 
Respondent's renewal application \1\ because Respondent is ``without 
authority to handle controlled substances in the State of Tennessee, 
the state in which [she is] registered with DEA.'' Id. at 2 (citing 21 
U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Certificate of Registration No. MC1638696 at the registered 
address of 6523 Central Avenue Pike, Knoxville, Tennessee 37912. Id. 
at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Respondent requested a hearing; \2\ thereafter the Government filed 
and the ALJ granted a Motion for Summary Disposition recommending the 
denial of Respondent's renewal application for her registration. RD, at 
7-8. Respondent did not file exceptions to the RD. Having reviewed the 
entire record, the Agency adopts and hereby incorporates by reference 
the entirety of the ALJ's rulings, findings of fact, conclusions of 
law, and recommended sanction and summarizes and expands upon portions 
thereof herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Respondent's Request for Hearing is dated October 31, 2022, 
see Administrative Law Judge Exhibit (ALJX) 4, at 1, but was deemed 
filed on November 1, 2022. Further, although Respondent's Request 
for Hearing was untimely, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) 
accepted the filing. Order Granting the Government's Motion for 
Summary Disposition, and Recommended Rulings, Findings of Fact, 
Conclusions of Law, and Decision of the Administrative Law Judge 
(Recommended Decision or RD), at 2-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Findings of Fact

    On February 28, 2022, the Tennessee Board of Nursing issued a Final 
Order revoking Respondent's Tennessee license to practice as an 
Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN license). RD, at 6-7; 
Government's Submission of Evidence Regarding Proof of Service and 
Motion for Summary Disposition, Exhibit (GX) D, at 1, 11,

[[Page 17268]]

13.\3\ According to Tennessee's online records, of which the Agency 
takes official notice, Respondent's APRN license is revoked.\4\ 
Tennessee Department of Health License Verification, https://apps.health.tn.gov/Licensure/default.aspx (last visited date of 
signature of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds that Respondent 
is not licensed to practice as an Advanced Practice Registered Nurse in 
Tennessee, the state in which she is registered with the DEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In that Order, the Board went on to state that, ``[s]hould 
Respondent be granted a new advance practice registered nurse 
certificate by this Board [in the future], Respondent's advance 
practice registered nurse certificate shall be restricted to 
prohibit Respondent from prescribing controlled substances.'' GX D, 
at 11.
    \4\ Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an agency ``may take 
official notice of facts at any stage in a proceeding--even in the 
final decision.'' United States Department of Justice, Attorney 
General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act 80 (1947) (Wm. 
W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint 1979). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 556(e), 
``[w]hen an agency decision rests on official notice of a material 
fact not appearing in the evidence in the record, a party is 
entitled, on timely request, to an opportunity to show the 
contrary.'' Accordingly, Respondent may dispute the Agency's finding 
by filing a properly supported motion for reconsideration of 
findings of fact within fifteen calendar days of the date of this 
Order. Any such motion and response shall be filed and served by 
email to the other party and to Office of the Administrator, Drug 
Enforcement Administration at [email protected].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 his State license or registration 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, the DEA has also 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, 
M.D., 76 FR 71371 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 F. App'x 826 (4th 
Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27616, 27617 
(1978).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the 
CSA. First, Congress defined the term ``practitioner'' to mean ``a 
physician . . . 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). Second, in setting the requirements for obtaining a 
practitioner's registration, Congress 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 he practices.'' 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1) (this 
section, formerly section 823(f), was redesignated as part of the 
Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act, Public Law 
117-215, 136 Stat. 2257 (2022)). Because Congress has clearly 
mandated that a practitioner possess state authority in order to be 
deemed a practitioner under the CSA, the DEA has held repeatedly 
that revocation of a practitioner's registration is the appropriate 
sanction whenever he is no longer authorized to dispense controlled 
substances under the laws of the state in which he practices. See, 
e.g., James L. Hooper, 76 FR 71371-72; Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 
FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51104, 51105 
(1993); Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988); Frederick 
Marsh Blanton, 43 FR 27617. Moreover, because ``the controlling 
question'' in a proceeding brought under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) is 
whether the holder of a practitioner's registration ``is currently 
authorized to handle controlled substances in the [S]tate,'' Hooper, 
76 FR 71371 (quoting Anne Lazar Thorn, 62 FR 12847, 12848 (1997)), 
the Agency has also long held that revocation is warranted even 
where a practitioner is still challenging the underlying action. 
Bourne Pharmacy, 72 FR 18273, 18274 (2007); Wingfield Drugs, 52 FR 
27070, 27071 (1987). Thus, it is of no consequence that Respondent 
is still challenging the underlying action here. See Respondent's 
Reply to the Government's Motion for Summary Disposition, at 4-8; 
RD, at 6-7. What is consequential is the Agency's finding that 
Respondent is not currently authorized to dispense controlled 
substances in Tennessee, the state in which she is registered with 
the DEA. Adley Dasilva, P.A., 87 FR 69341, 69341 n.2 (2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to Tennessee statute, ``dispense'' means ``to deliver a 
controlled substance to an ultimate user or research subject by or 
pursuant to the lawful order of a practitioner, including the 
prescribing, administering, packaging, labeling, or compounding 
necessary to prepare the substance for that delivery.'' Tenn. Code Ann. 
section 39-17-402(7) (2022). Further, a ``practitioner'' means ``[a] 
physician . . . or other person licensed, registered or otherwise 
permitted to distribute, dispense, conduct research with respect to or 
to administer a controlled substance in the course of professional 
practice or research in this state.'' Id. at section 39-17-402(23)(A). 
According to Tennessee nursing regulations, ``[c]ertification by the 
Tennessee Board of Nursing to prescribe and/or issue legend drugs . . . 
shall authorize a nurse practitioner \6\ to prescribe and/or issue such 
drugs. Any nurse who prescribes and/or issues drugs without proper 
certification by the Tennessee Board of Nursing shall be subject to 
disciplinary action by the Board of Nursing . . . .'' Tenn. Comp. R. & 
Regs. 1000-04-.04(1) (2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Prior to revocation, Respondent's APRN license designated 
Respondent as a ``Nurse Practitioner with Certificate of Fitness.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Here, the evidence in the record is that Respondent lacks authority 
to practice as an Advanced Practice Registered Nurse in Tennessee. RD, 
at 7. As discussed above, an individual must be a licensed practitioner 
to dispense a controlled substance in Tennessee. Thus, because 
Respondent lacks authority to practice as an Advanced Practice 
Registered Nurse in Tennessee and, therefore, is not authorized to 
handle controlled substances in Tennessee, Respondent is not eligible 
to maintain a DEA registration. RD, at 7-8. Accordingly, the Agency 
will order that Respondent's application for renewal of her 
registration be denied.

Order

    Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 
U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby deny the pending application of Christina 
Collins, APRN, for renewal of her DEA Certificate of Registration No. 
MC1638696, as well as any other pending application of Christina 
Collins, APRN, for additional registration in Tennessee. This Order is 
effective April 21, 2023.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on 
March 15, 2023, by Administrator Anne Milgram. That document with the 
original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative 
purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the 
Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer 
has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic 
format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This 
administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this 
document upon publication in the Federal Register.

Heather Achbach,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Drug Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2023-05802 Filed 3-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P


This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.