Traesa A. Brown, M.D.; Decision and Order, 24035-24036 [2024-07237]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Notices
purposes of this Investigation may be
disclosed to and used: (i) by the
Commission, its employees and Offices,
and contract personnel (a) for
developing or maintaining the records
of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in
internal investigations, audits, reviews,
and evaluations relating to the
programs, personnel, and operations of
the Commission including under 5
U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S.
government employees and contract
personnel,2 solely for cybersecurity
purposes. All nonconfidential written
submissions will be available for public
inspection at the Office of the Secretary
and on EDIS.3
This action is taken under the
authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337),
and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: April 1, 2024.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2024–07215 Filed 4–4–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 23–64]
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Traesa A. Brown, M.D.; Decision and
Order
On August 31, 2023, the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show
Cause and Immediate Suspension of
Registration (OSC/ISO) to Traesa A.
Brown, M.D. (Respondent) of Florence,
South Carolina. OSC, at 1, 5. The OSC/
ISO informed Respondent of the
immediate suspension of her DEA
Certificate of Registration (registration
or COR), Control No. BB9937624,
pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(d), alleging
that Respondent’s continued registration
constitutes ‘‘ ‘an imminent danger to the
public health or safety.’ ’’ Id. at 1
(quoting 21 U.S.C. 824(d)). The OSC/
ISO also proposed the revocation of
Respondent’s registration, alleging that
Respondent’s continued registration is
inconsistent with the public interest and
alleging that Respondent has no state
authority to handle controlled
substances. Id. (citing 21 U.S.C.
823(g)(1), 824(a)(3), 824(a)(4)).
2 All contract personnel will sign appropriate
nondisclosure agreements.
3 Electronic Document Information System
(EDIS): https://edis.usitc.gov.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:44 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
On September 20, 2023, Respondent
requested a hearing. On October 13,
2023, the Government filed a Motion for
Summary Disposition only pertaining to
the allegation that Respondent lacks
state authority to handle controlled
substances.1 See Government’s Notice of
Filing of Evidence and Motion for
Summary Disposition (Motion for
Summary Disposition), dated October
13, 2023.2 Respondent did not respond
to the Government’s Motion for
Summary Disposition. On October 23,
2023, Administrative Law Judge Paul E.
Soeffing (the ALJ) granted the
Government’s Motion for Summary
Disposition and recommended the
revocation of Respondent’s registration,
finding that because Respondent lacks
state authority to handle controlled
substances in South Carolina, the state
in which she is registered with DEA,
‘‘there is no other fact of consequence
for this tribunal to decide in order to
determine whether or not she is entitled
to hold a COR.’’ 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 (RD), at 6.
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 as
found in the RD and summarizes and
expands upon portions thereof herein.
Findings of Fact
The Government asserts that on
October 1, 2022, Respondent’s South
Carolina controlled substance
registration expired. RD, at 3–4.3
Further, the Government asserts that on
June 30, 2023, Respondent’s South
1 This suggests that the Government has dropped
the public interest allegation included in the OSC/
ISO; as such, the Agency will only consider the lack
of state authority allegation from the OSC/ISO.
2 The Government originally filed a Motion for
Summary Disposition on October 12, 2023, and
therein asserted that Respondent had failed to
timely file an Answer to the allegations in the OSC/
ISO. RD, at 2 n.4; Motion for Summary Disposition,
dated October 12, 2023, at 3–4. Later on October 12,
2023, the Government was informed that
Respondent had filed an Answer on October 10,
2023, and was provided with a copy of
Respondent’s Answer. RD, at 2 n.4. On October 13,
2023, the Government filed its amended Motion for
Summary Disposition, referenced in this Decision,
with revisions based on its receipt of the copy of
Respondent’s Answer. Id.; see also Motion for
Summary Disposition, dated October 13, 2023.
3 See also Motion for Summary Disposition, dated
October 13, 2023, Exhibit (GX) 1; Motion for
Summary Disposition, dated October 13, 2023, at 4–
5.
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
24035
Carolina medical license expired. RD, at
4.4
According to South Carolina online
records, of which the Agency takes
official notice, Respondent’s South
Carolina controlled substance
registration is expired.5 SC DHEC
Bureau of Drug Control, Controlled
Substances Registration Verification,
https://.dhec.sc.gov//Licensing/Home/
Verify (last visited date of signature of
this Order). Further, Respondent’s
South Carolina medical license is listed
as ‘‘lapsed.’’ South Carolina Board of
Medical Examiners, Licensee Lookup,
https://verify.llronline.com/LicLookup/
Med/Med.aspx (last visited date of
signature of this Order).
Accordingly, the Agency finds that
Respondent is not currently licensed to
engage in the practice of medicine nor
to handle controlled substances in
South Carolina, the state in which she
is registered with the DEA.
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,
71372 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481
4 See also Motion for Summary Disposition, dated
October 13, 2023, at 4. As noted by the ALJ, the
Government did not submit documentary evidence
regarding the status of Respondent’s South Carolina
medical license as they had for Respondent’s South
Carolina controlled substance registration, see
supra n.3. RD, at 4 n.8.
5 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.
E:\FR\FM\05APN1.SGM
05APN1
24036
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Notices
F. App’x 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick
Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27616,
27617 (1978).6
According to South Carolina statute,
‘‘[e]very person who manufactures,
distributes, or dispenses any controlled
substance or who proposes to engage in
the manufacture, distribution, or
dispensing of any controlled substance,
shall obtain a registration issued by the
[Department of Health and
Environmental Control] in accordance
with its rules and regulations.’’ S.C.
Code section 44–53–290(a) (2024).
Further, ‘‘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
the delivery.’’ Id. section 44–53–
110(15).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the
record is that Respondent currently
lacks authority to dispense controlled
substances in South Carolina because
her South Carolina controlled substance
registration is expired. As discussed
above, an individual must hold a
controlled substance registration to
dispense a controlled substance in
South Carolina. Thus, because
Respondent lacks authority to handle
controlled substances in South Carolina,
Respondent is not eligible to maintain a
DEA registration. 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
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
6 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 § 823(f), was redesignated as part of the
Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research
Expansion Act, Pub. L. 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 at
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 at 27,617.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:44 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
of Registration No. BB9937624 issued to
Traesa A. Brown, M.D. 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 Traesa A. Brown, M.D.,
to renew or modify this registration, as
well as any other pending application of
Traesa A. Brown, M.D., for additional
registration in South Carolina. This
Order is effective May 6, 2024.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug
Enforcement Administration was signed
on April 1, 2024, 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. 2024–07237 Filed 4–4–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 23–63]
Ralph Reach, M.D.; Decision And
Order
On August 30, 2023, the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show
Cause (OSC) to Ralph Reach, M.D.
(Respondent). OSC, at 1, 4. The OSC
proposed the revocation of
Respondent’s DEA Certificates of
Registration Nos. FR0673548 and
FR0004589 at the registered addresses of
142 Mall Church Road, Cedar Bluff,
Virginia 24609 and 102 North Broadway
Street, Johnson City, Tennessee 37601,
respectively. Id. at 1. The OSC alleged
that Respondent’s DEA registrations
should be revoked because Respondent
is ‘‘without authority to prescribe,
administer, dispense, or otherwise
handle controlled substances in the
State of Tennessee and the
Commonwealth of Virginia, the
jurisdictions in which [he is] registered
with DEA.’’ Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C.
824(a)(3)).
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
On September 14, 2023, Respondent
requested a hearing. On September 27,
2023, the Government filed a Motion for
Summary Disposition, which
Respondent opposed. On November 7,
2023, Administrative Law Judge Teresa
A. Wallbaum (the ALJ) granted the
Government’s Motion for Summary
Disposition and recommended the
revocation of Respondent’s registration,
finding that because Respondent lacks
state authority to handle controlled
substances in Tennessee and Virginia,
the states in which he is registered with
DEA, ‘‘[t]here is no genuine issue of
material fact in this case.’’ 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 (RD), at
7. On November 9, 2023, Respondent
filed a document titled ‘‘Notice of
Appeal’’ 1 in response 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 as
found in the RD and summarizes and
expands upon portions thereof herein.
Findings of Fact
Effective June 30, 2023, the Tennessee
Department of Health revoked
Respondent’s Tennessee medical
license. RD, at 5.2 Further, effective July
6, 2023, the Virginia Department of
Health Professions suspended
Respondent’s Virginia medical license.
Id.3
According to Tennessee and Virginia
online records, of which the Agency
takes official notice, Respondent’s
Tennessee medical license remains
revoked and Respondent’s Virginia
medical license remains suspended.4
1 The document blankly asserts that that
Respondent appeals the RD without explaining the
basis therefor or otherwise identifying his
exceptions to the RD pursuant to 21 CFR 1316.66.
See Respondent’s Notice of Appeal.
2 See also Government’s Notice of Filing of
Evidence and Motion for Summary Disposition,
Exhibit (GX) 3, at 1.
3 See also GX 1, at 1–2.
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
E:\FR\FM\05APN1.SGM
05APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 67 (Friday, April 5, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24035-24036]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-07237]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 23-64]
Traesa A. Brown, M.D.; Decision and Order
On August 31, 2023, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension of
Registration (OSC/ISO) to Traesa A. Brown, M.D. (Respondent) of
Florence, South Carolina. OSC, at 1, 5. The OSC/ISO informed Respondent
of the immediate suspension of her DEA Certificate of Registration
(registration or COR), Control No. BB9937624, pursuant to 21 U.S.C.
824(d), alleging that Respondent's continued registration constitutes
`` `an imminent danger to the public health or safety.' '' Id. at 1
(quoting 21 U.S.C. 824(d)). The OSC/ISO also proposed the revocation of
Respondent's registration, alleging that Respondent's continued
registration is inconsistent with the public interest and alleging that
Respondent has no state authority to handle controlled substances. Id.
(citing 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), 824(a)(3), 824(a)(4)).
On September 20, 2023, Respondent requested a hearing. On October
13, 2023, the Government filed a Motion for Summary Disposition only
pertaining to the allegation that Respondent lacks state authority to
handle controlled substances.\1\ See Government's Notice of Filing of
Evidence and Motion for Summary Disposition (Motion for Summary
Disposition), dated October 13, 2023.\2\ Respondent did not respond to
the Government's Motion for Summary Disposition. On October 23, 2023,
Administrative Law Judge Paul E. Soeffing (the ALJ) granted the
Government's Motion for Summary Disposition and recommended the
revocation of Respondent's registration, finding that because
Respondent lacks state authority to handle controlled substances in
South Carolina, the state in which she is registered with DEA, ``there
is no other fact of consequence for this tribunal to decide in order to
determine whether or not she is entitled to hold a COR.'' 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 (RD), at 6. Respondent did not file
exceptions to the RD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This suggests that the Government has dropped the public
interest allegation included in the OSC/ISO; as such, the Agency
will only consider the lack of state authority allegation from the
OSC/ISO.
\2\ The Government originally filed a Motion for Summary
Disposition on October 12, 2023, and therein asserted that
Respondent had failed to timely file an Answer to the allegations in
the OSC/ISO. RD, at 2 n.4; Motion for Summary Disposition, dated
October 12, 2023, at 3-4. Later on October 12, 2023, the Government
was informed that Respondent had filed an Answer on October 10,
2023, and was provided with a copy of Respondent's Answer. RD, at 2
n.4. On October 13, 2023, the Government filed its amended Motion
for Summary Disposition, referenced in this Decision, with revisions
based on its receipt of the copy of Respondent's Answer. Id.; see
also Motion for Summary Disposition, dated October 13, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 as found in the
RD and summarizes and expands upon portions thereof herein.
Findings of Fact
The Government asserts that on October 1, 2022, Respondent's South
Carolina controlled substance registration expired. RD, at 3-4.\3\
Further, the Government asserts that on June 30, 2023, Respondent's
South Carolina medical license expired. RD, at 4.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See also Motion for Summary Disposition, dated October 13,
2023, Exhibit (GX) 1; Motion for Summary Disposition, dated October
13, 2023, at 4-5.
\4\ See also Motion for Summary Disposition, dated October 13,
2023, at 4. As noted by the ALJ, the Government did not submit
documentary evidence regarding the status of Respondent's South
Carolina medical license as they had for Respondent's South Carolina
controlled substance registration, see supra n.3. RD, at 4 n.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to South Carolina online records, of which the Agency
takes official notice, Respondent's South Carolina controlled substance
registration is expired.\5\ SC DHEC Bureau of Drug Control, Controlled
Substances Registration Verification, https://.dhec.sc.gov//Licensing/
Home/Verify (last visited date of signature of this Order). Further,
Respondent's South Carolina medical license is listed as ``lapsed.''
South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners, Licensee Lookup, https://verify.llronline.com/LicLookup/Med/Med.aspx (last visited date of
signature of this Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 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].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the Agency finds that Respondent is not currently
licensed to engage in the practice of medicine nor to handle controlled
substances in South Carolina, the state in which she is registered with
the DEA.
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, 71372 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481
[[Page 24036]]
F. App'x 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR
27616, 27617 (1978).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 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 Sec. 823(f), was redesignated as part of the
Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act, Pub. L.
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 at 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 at 27,617.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to South Carolina statute, ``[e]very person who
manufactures, distributes, or dispenses any controlled substance or who
proposes to engage in the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of
any controlled substance, shall obtain a registration issued by the
[Department of Health and Environmental Control] in accordance with its
rules and regulations.'' S.C. Code section 44-53-290(a) (2024).
Further, ``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 the
delivery.'' Id. section 44-53-110(15).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Respondent
currently lacks authority to dispense controlled substances in South
Carolina because her South Carolina controlled substance registration
is expired. As discussed above, an individual must hold a controlled
substance registration to dispense a controlled substance in South
Carolina. Thus, because Respondent lacks authority to handle controlled
substances in South Carolina, Respondent is not eligible to maintain a
DEA registration. 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.
BB9937624 issued to Traesa A. Brown, M.D. 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 Traesa A. Brown, M.D., to renew
or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application
of Traesa A. Brown, M.D., for additional registration in South
Carolina. This Order is effective May 6, 2024.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on
April 1, 2024, 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. 2024-07237 Filed 4-4-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
