Michael Fletcher, M.D.; Decision and Order, 79313-79314 [2024-22205]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 188 / Friday, September 27, 2024 / Notices
of Adam L. Larson, M.D., to renew or
modify this registration, as well as any
other pending application of Adam L.
Larson, M.D., for additional registration
in Utah. This Order is effective October
28, 2024.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug
Enforcement Administration was signed
on September 17, 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. 2024–22191 Filed 9–26–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Michael Fletcher, M.D.; Decision and
Order
On June 29, 2023, the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show
Cause (OSC) to Michael Fletcher, M.D.,
of Cincinnati, OH (Registrant). Request
for Final Agency Action (RFAA),
Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1, 4. The OSC
proposed the revocation of Registrant’s
Certificate of Registration No.
FF0291005, alleging that Registrant’s
registration should be revoked because
Registrant is ‘‘currently without
authority to handle controlled
substances in the State of Ohio, the state
in which [he is] registered with DEA.’’
RFAAX 1, at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C.
824(a)(3)).
The OSC notified Registrant of his
right to file with DEA a written request
for hearing, and that if he failed to file
such a request, he would be deemed to
have waived his right to a hearing and
be in default. Id. at 2–3 (citing 21 CFR
1301.43). Here, Registrant did not
request a hearing. RFAA, at 2.1 ‘‘A
1 Based on the Government’s submissions in its
RFAA dated November 16, 2023, the Agency finds
that service of the OSC on Registrant was adequate.
Specifically, the RFAA’s included exhibits indicate
that Registrant was served a copy of the OSC via
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:09 Sep 26, 2024
Jkt 262001
default, unless excused, shall be
deemed to constitute a waiver of the
registrant’s/applicant’s right to a hearing
and an admission of the factual
allegations of the [OSC].’’ 21 CFR
1301.43(e).
Further, ‘‘[i]n the event that a
registrant . . . is deemed to be in
default . . . DEA may then file a request
for final agency action with the
Administrator, along with a record to
support its request. In such
circumstances, the Administrator may
enter a default final order pursuant to
[21 CFR] § 1316.67.’’ Id. § 1301.43(f)(1).
Here, the Government has requested
final agency action based on Registrant’s
default pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(c),
(f), 1301.46. RFAA, at 1; see also 21 CFR
1316.67.
Findings of Fact
The Agency finds that, in light of
Registrant’s default, the factual
allegations in the OSC are admitted.
According to the OSC, effective May 11,
2023, the State Medical Board of Ohio
issued an order prohibiting Registrant
from prescribing, dispensing, or
otherwise professionally utilizing
controlled substances. RFAAX 1, at 2.
According to Ohio online records, of
which the Agency takes official notice,2
Registrant’s Ohio medical license is
active but ‘‘limited and restricted by a
prohibition against prescribing,
dispensing, [and/or] utilizing controlled
substances in the course of practice.’’
eLicense Ohio Professional Licensure
License Look-Up, https://
elicense.ohio.gov/oh_verifylicense (last
visited date of signature of this Order).
Accordingly, the Agency finds that
Registrant is not licensed to handle
controlled substances in Ohio, the state
in which he is registered with DEA.
Discussion
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the
Attorney General is authorized to
suspend or revoke a registration issued
email on July 7, 2023, and Registrant acknowledged
receipt on July 9, 2023. RFAAX 3–4.
2 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,
Registrant 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
79313
under 21 U.S.C. 823 ‘‘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, 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, D.O., 76 FR 71371,
71372 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481
F. App’x 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick
Marsh Blanton, D.O., 43 FR 27616,
27617 (1978).3
According to Ohio statute, ‘‘[n]o
person shall knowingly obtain, possess,
or use a controlled substance or a
controlled substance analog,’’ except
pursuant to a ‘‘prescription issued by a
licensed health professional authorized
to prescribe drugs if the prescription
was issued for a legitimate medical
purpose.’’ Ohio Rev. Code Ann.
sections 2925.11(A), (B)(1)(d) (West
2024). Further, a ‘‘[l]icensed health
professional authorized to prescribe
drugs’’ or ‘‘prescriber’’ means ‘‘an
individual who is authorized by law to
prescribe drugs or dangerous drugs or
drug therapy related devices in the
course of the individual’s professional
practice.’’ Id. section 4729.01(I). The
definition further provides a limited list
of authorized prescribers, the relevant
provision of which is ‘‘[a] physician
authorized under Chapter 4731[ ] of the
Revised Code to practice medicine and
surgery, osteopathic medicine and
surgery, or podiatric medicine and
surgery.’’ Id. section 4729.01(I)(5).
Additionally, Ohio law permits ‘‘[a]
3 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). Because Congress
has clearly mandated that a practitioner possess
state authority in order to be deemed a practitioner
under the CSA, 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, D.O., 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick
A. Ricci, D.O., 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby
Watts, D.O., 53 FR 11919, 11120 (1988); Frederick
Marsh Blanton, 43 FR 27617.
E:\FR\FM\27SEN1.SGM
27SEN1
79314
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 188 / Friday, September 27, 2024 / Notices
licensed health professional authorized
to prescribe drugs, if acting in the
course of professional practice, in
accordance with the laws regulating the
professional’s practice’’ to prescribe or
administer schedule II, III, IV, and V
controlled substances to patients. Id.
section 3719.06(A)(1)(a)–(b).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the
record is that although Registrant is
currently authorized to practice
medicine in Ohio, Registrant is not
authorized to handle controlled
substances in accordance with his
practice of medicine. Thus, because
Registrant lacks authority to handle
controlled substances in Ohio,
Registrant is not eligible to maintain a
DEA registration. Accordingly, the
Agency will order that Registrant’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. FF0291005 issued to
Michael Fletcher, 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 Michael Fletcher, M.D.,
to renew or modify this registration, as
well as any other pending application of
Michael Fletcher, M.D., for additional
registration in Ohio. This Order is
effective October 28, 2024.
Signing Authority
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
This document of the Drug
Enforcement Administration was signed
on September 20, 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. 2024–22205 Filed 9–26–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:09 Sep 26, 2024
Jkt 262001
(f), 1301.46. RFAA, at 1; see also 21 CFR
1316.67.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Charles Sangmoah, P.A.; Decision and
Order
On January 18, 2024, the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show
Cause (OSC) to Charles Sangmoah, P.A.,
of Huntington Park, CA (Registrant).
Request for Final Agency Action
(RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1, 3. The
OSC proposed the revocation of
Registrant’s Certificate of Registration
No. MS2342842, alleging that
Registrant’s registration should be
revoked because Registrant is ‘‘currently
without authority to handle controlled
substances in California, the state in
which [he is] registered with DEA.’’ Id.
(citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).
The OSC notified Registrant of his
right to file with DEA a written request
for hearing, and that if he failed to file
such a request, he would be deemed to
have waived his right to a hearing and
be in default. Id. at 2 (citing 21 CFR
1301.43). Here, Registrant did not
request a hearing. RFAA, at 3.1 ‘‘A
default, unless excused, shall be
deemed to constitute a waiver of the
[registrant’s] right to a hearing and an
admission of the factual allegations of
the [OSC].’’ 21 CFR 1301.43(e).
Further, ‘‘[i]n the event that a
registrant . . . is deemed to be in
default . . . DEA may then file a request
for final agency action with the
Administrator, along with a record to
support its request. In such
circumstances, the Administrator may
enter a default final order pursuant to
[21 CFR] § 1316.67.’’ Id. § 1301.43(f)(1).
Here, the Government has requested
final agency action based on Registrant’s
default pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(d)–
1 Based
on the Government’s submissions in its
RFAA dated March 12, 2024, the Agency finds that
service of the OSC on Registrant was adequate. The
included declaration from a DEA Diversion
Investigator indicates that on February 2, 2024, the
OSC was unsuccessfully mailed to both Registrant’s
registered address and mail-to address. RFAAX 2,
at 1–2. On February 9, 2024, the DEA Diversion
Investigator received an email from the ‘‘Mail
Delivery Subsystem’’ account, confirming
successful delivery of the OSC to Registrant. Id. at
2; see also id., Attachment 3–4. On February 12,
2024, the OSC was unsuccessfully mailed to a third
address verified by the US Postal Inspection Service
to be associated with Registrant. RFAAX 2, at 2–3.
The Agency finds that Registrant was successfully
served the OSC by email and that the Diversion
Investigator’s efforts to serve Registrant by other
means were ‘‘ ‘reasonably calculated, under all the
circumstances, to apprise [Registrant] of the
pendency of the action.’ ’’ Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S.
220, 226 (2006) (quoting Mullane v. Central
Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314
(1950)). Therefore, due process notice requirements
have been satisfied.
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Findings of Fact
The Agency finds that, in light of
Registrant’s default, the factual
allegations in the OSC are admitted.
According to the OSC, effective May 31,
2023, Registrant surrendered his
California physician assistant license.
RFAAX 1, at 1. According to California
online records, of which the Agency
takes official notice, Registrant’s
California physician assistant license
remains surrendered.2 California DCA
License Search, https://
search.dca.ca.gov (last visited date of
signature of this Order). Accordingly,
the Agency finds that Registrant is not
licensed to practice as a physician
assistant in California, the state in
which he is registered with DEA.
Discussion
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the
Attorney General is authorized to
suspend or revoke a registration issued
under 21 U.S.C. 823 ‘‘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, 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, D.O., 76 FR 71371,
71372 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481
F. App’x 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick
Marsh Blanton, D.O., 43 FR 27616,
27617 (1978).3
2 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,
Registrant 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.
3 This rule derives from the text of two provisions
of the Controlled Substances Act (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
E:\FR\FM\27SEN1.SGM
27SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 188 (Friday, September 27, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79313-79314]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22205]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Michael Fletcher, M.D.; Decision and Order
On June 29, 2023, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Michael Fletcher,
M.D., of Cincinnati, OH (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action
(RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1, 4. The OSC proposed the revocation of
Registrant's Certificate of Registration No. FF0291005, alleging that
Registrant's registration should be revoked because Registrant is
``currently without authority to handle controlled substances in the
State of Ohio, the state in which [he is] registered with DEA.'' RFAAX
1, at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).
The OSC notified Registrant of his right to file with DEA a written
request for hearing, and that if he failed to file such a request, he
would be deemed to have waived his right to a hearing and be in
default. Id. at 2-3 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). Here, Registrant did not
request a hearing. RFAA, at 2.\1\ ``A default, unless excused, shall be
deemed to constitute a waiver of the registrant's/applicant's right to
a hearing and an admission of the factual allegations of the [OSC].''
21 CFR 1301.43(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on the Government's submissions in its RFAA dated
November 16, 2023, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on
Registrant was adequate. Specifically, the RFAA's included exhibits
indicate that Registrant was served a copy of the OSC via email on
July 7, 2023, and Registrant acknowledged receipt on July 9, 2023.
RFAAX 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, ``[i]n the event that a registrant . . . is deemed to be
in default . . . DEA may then file a request for final agency action
with the Administrator, along with a record to support its request. In
such circumstances, the Administrator may enter a default final order
pursuant to [21 CFR] Sec. 1316.67.'' Id. Sec. 1301.43(f)(1). Here,
the Government has requested final agency action based on Registrant's
default pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(c), (f), 1301.46. RFAA, at 1; see
also 21 CFR 1316.67.
Findings of Fact
The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the
factual allegations in the OSC are admitted. According to the OSC,
effective May 11, 2023, the State Medical Board of Ohio issued an order
prohibiting Registrant from prescribing, dispensing, or otherwise
professionally utilizing controlled substances. RFAAX 1, at 2.
According to Ohio online records, of which the Agency takes official
notice,\2\ Registrant's Ohio medical license is active but ``limited
and restricted by a prohibition against prescribing, dispensing, [and/
or] utilizing controlled substances in the course of practice.''
eLicense Ohio Professional Licensure License Look-Up, https://elicense.ohio.gov/oh_verifylicense (last visited date of signature of
this Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds that Registrant is not
licensed to handle controlled substances in Ohio, the state in which he
is registered with DEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 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, Registrant 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 21 U.S.C. 823 ``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, 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, D.O., 76 FR 71371, 71372 (2011), pet. for
rev. denied, 481 F. App'x 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh Blanton,
D.O., 43 FR 27616, 27617 (1978).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 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). Because
Congress has clearly mandated that a practitioner possess state
authority in order to be deemed a practitioner under the CSA, 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, D.O., 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci,
D.O., 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby Watts, D.O., 53 FR 11919,
11120 (1988); Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 FR 27617.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Ohio statute, ``[n]o person shall knowingly obtain,
possess, or use a controlled substance or a controlled substance
analog,'' except pursuant to a ``prescription issued by a licensed
health professional authorized to prescribe drugs if the prescription
was issued for a legitimate medical purpose.'' Ohio Rev. Code Ann.
sections 2925.11(A), (B)(1)(d) (West 2024). Further, a ``[l]icensed
health professional authorized to prescribe drugs'' or ``prescriber''
means ``an individual who is authorized by law to prescribe drugs or
dangerous drugs or drug therapy related devices in the course of the
individual's professional practice.'' Id. section 4729.01(I). The
definition further provides a limited list of authorized prescribers,
the relevant provision of which is ``[a] physician authorized under
Chapter 4731[ ] of the Revised Code to practice medicine and surgery,
osteopathic medicine and surgery, or podiatric medicine and surgery.''
Id. section 4729.01(I)(5). Additionally, Ohio law permits ``[a]
[[Page 79314]]
licensed health professional authorized to prescribe drugs, if acting
in the course of professional practice, in accordance with the laws
regulating the professional's practice'' to prescribe or administer
schedule II, III, IV, and V controlled substances to patients. Id.
section 3719.06(A)(1)(a)-(b).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that although
Registrant is currently authorized to practice medicine in Ohio,
Registrant is not authorized to handle controlled substances in
accordance with his practice of medicine. Thus, because Registrant
lacks authority to handle controlled substances in Ohio, Registrant is
not eligible to maintain a DEA registration. Accordingly, the Agency
will order that Registrant'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.
FF0291005 issued to Michael Fletcher, 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 Michael Fletcher, M.D., to
renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending
application of Michael Fletcher, M.D., for additional registration in
Ohio. This Order is effective October 28, 2024.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on
September 20, 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. 2024-22205 Filed 9-26-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
