Margaret Sprague, M.D.; Decision and Order, 13200-13201 [2025-04754]

Download as PDF 13200 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 53 / Thursday, March 20, 2025 / Notices date of signature of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds that Registrant is not licensed to practice nursing nor licensed as a nurse practitioner in Mississippi, the state in which he is registered with DEA. Discussion ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 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. Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 270 (2006) (‘‘The Attorney General can register a physician to dispense controlled substances ‘if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.’ . . . The very definition of a ‘practitioner’ eligible to prescribe includes physicians ‘licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, by the United States or the jurisdiction in which he practices’ to dispense controlled substances. § 802(21).’’). The Agency has applied these principles consistently. See, e.g., James L. Hooper, M.D., 76 FR 71371, 71372 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 F. App’x 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27616, 27617 (1978).4 4 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, M.D., 76 FR 71371–72; Sheran Arden Yeats, 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, M.D., 43 FR 27617. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 19, 2025 Jkt 265001 According to Mississippi 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.’’ Miss. Code Ann. section 41–29–105(j) (2024). Further, a ‘‘practitioner’’ means a 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. section 41– 29–105(y)(i). Because Registrant is not currently licensed as a registered nurse, nurse practitioner, or otherwise licensed in Mississippi, he is not authorized to dispense controlled substances in Mississippi. Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant currently lacks authority to practice nursing in Mississippi. As already discussed, a person must be a licensed practitioner to dispense a controlled substance in Mississippi. Thus, because Registrant lacks authority to practice nursing in Mississippi and, therefore, is not authorized to handle controlled substances in Mississippi, 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. MN5005788 issued to William Needham, N.P. 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 William Needham, N.P., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of William Needham, N.P., for additional registration in Mississippi. This Order is effective April 21, 2025. Signing Authority This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on March 13, 2025, by Acting Administrator Derek Maltz. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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. 2025–04753 Filed 3–19–25; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–09–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Margaret Sprague, M.D.; Decision and Order On July 15, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Margaret Sprague, M.D., of La Jolla, California (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 4, at 1, 4. The OSC proposed the revocation of Registrant’s Certificate of Registration No. FS8371267, alleging that Registrant’s registration should be revoked because Registrant is ‘‘currently without authority to prescribe, administer, dispense, or to otherwise handle controlled substances in the State of California, the state in which [she is] registered with DEA.’’ Id. at 1– 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)). The OSC notified Registrant of her right to file a written request for hearing, and that if she failed to file such a request, she would be deemed to have waived her 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 3.1 ‘‘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 September 23, 2024, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on Registrant was adequate. On August 2, 2024, Registrant was personally served with the OSC. RFAAX 1, at 1. On September 4, 2024, Registrant filed a ‘‘Response to Order to Show Cause,’’ to which, on the same date, Administrative Law Judge Paul E. Soeffing (the ALJ) issued an Order directing Registrant to file a request for hearing and an Answer to the allegations of the OSC by September 11, 2024. Id. at 1–2; see also RFAAX 2. On September 10, 2024, Registrant filed a ‘‘Request for Extension of Time to File Request for Hearing and Answer,’’ to which the ALJ granted Registrant a two-day extension. RFAAX 1, at 2; see also RFAAX 3. Ultimately, Registrant failed to file a request for hearing or Answer by the new deadline. RFAAX 1, at 2. On September 13, 2024, the ALJ terminated the proceedings. Id. at 3. Further, Registrant was ‘‘deemed to have waived her right to a hearing and [to be] in default.’’ Id. E:\FR\FM\20MRN1.SGM 20MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 53 / Thursday, March 20, 2025 / Notices 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, on or about November 30, 2023, the Medical Board of California revoked Registrant’s state medical license. RFAAX 4, at 2. According to California online records, of which the Agency takes official notice, Registrant’s California medical license remains revoked.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 medicine in California, the state in which she is registered with DEA.3 ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 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 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). 3 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.’’ The material fact here is that Registrant, as of the date of this decision, is not licensed to practice medicine in California. Registrant may dispute this fact 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 the DEA Office of the Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration at dea.addo.attorneys@dea.gov. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 19, 2025 Jkt 265001 professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner’s registration. Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 270 (2006) (‘‘The Attorney General can register a physician to dispense controlled substances ‘if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.’ . . . The very definition of a ‘practitioner’ eligible to prescribe includes physicians ‘licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, by the United States or the jurisdiction in which he practices’ to dispense controlled substances. § 802(21).’’). The Agency has applied these principles consistently. See, e.g., James L. Hooper, M.D., 76 FR 71,371, 71,372 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 F. App’x 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27,616, 27,617 (1978).4 According to California 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, furnishing, packaging, labeling, or compounding necessary to prepare the substance for that delivery.’’ Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11010 (West 2024). Further, a ‘‘practitioner’’ means a person ‘‘licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, to distribute, dispense, conduct research with respect to, or administer, a controlled substance in the course of professional practice or research in [the] state.’’ Id. § 11026(c). Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant currently lacks authority to practice medicine in California. As discussed above, a physician must be a licensed practitioner to dispense a controlled substance in California. Thus, because 4 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 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, M.D., 76 FR at 71,371–72; Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 FR 39,130, 39,131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51,104, 51,105 (1993); Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11,919, 11,920 (1988); Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR at 27,617. PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 13201 Registrant currently lacks authority to practice medicine in California and, therefore, is not currently authorized to handle controlled substances in California, 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. FS8371267 issued to Margaret Sprague, 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 Margaret Sprague, M.D., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of Margaret Sprague, M.D., for additional registration in California. This Order is effective April 21, 2025. Signing Authority This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on March 13, 2025, by Acting Administrator Derek Maltz. 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. 2025–04754 Filed 3–19–25; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–09–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Hazem Barmada, M.D.; Decision and Order On February 2, 2022, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Hazem Barmada, M.D. of Ocean Springs, Mississippi (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the revocation of Registrant’s Certification of Registration No. BB4130162, alleging that Registrant’s registration should be E:\FR\FM\20MRN1.SGM 20MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 53 (Thursday, March 20, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13200-13201]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-04754]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Margaret Sprague, M.D.; Decision and Order

    On July 15, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or 
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Margaret Sprague, 
M.D., of La Jolla, California (Registrant). Request for Final Agency 
Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 4, at 1, 4. The OSC proposed the 
revocation of Registrant's Certificate of Registration No. FS8371267, 
alleging that Registrant's registration should be revoked because 
Registrant is ``currently without authority to prescribe, administer, 
dispense, or to otherwise handle controlled substances in the State of 
California, the state in which [she is] registered with DEA.'' Id. at 
1-2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).
    The OSC notified Registrant of her right to file a written request 
for hearing, and that if she failed to file such a request, she would 
be deemed to have waived her 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 3.\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 
September 23, 2024, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on 
Registrant was adequate. On August 2, 2024, Registrant was 
personally served with the OSC. RFAAX 1, at 1. On September 4, 2024, 
Registrant filed a ``Response to Order to Show Cause,'' to which, on 
the same date, Administrative Law Judge Paul E. Soeffing (the ALJ) 
issued an Order directing Registrant to file a request for hearing 
and an Answer to the allegations of the OSC by September 11, 2024. 
Id. at 1-2; see also RFAAX 2. On September 10, 2024, Registrant 
filed a ``Request for Extension of Time to File Request for Hearing 
and Answer,'' to which the ALJ granted Registrant a two-day 
extension. RFAAX 1, at 2; see also RFAAX 3. Ultimately, Registrant 
failed to file a request for hearing or Answer by the new deadline. 
RFAAX 1, at 2. On September 13, 2024, the ALJ terminated the 
proceedings. Id. at 3. Further, Registrant was ``deemed to have 
waived her right to a hearing and [to be] in default.'' Id.

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

[[Page 13201]]

    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, on 
or about November 30, 2023, the Medical Board of California revoked 
Registrant's state medical license. RFAAX 4, at 2. According to 
California online records, of which the Agency takes official notice, 
Registrant's California medical license remains revoked.\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 medicine in California, the state in which 
she is registered with DEA.\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).
    \3\ 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.'' The material fact here is 
that Registrant, as of the date of this decision, is not licensed to 
practice medicine in California. Registrant may dispute this fact 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 the DEA 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. 
Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 270 (2006) (``The Attorney General 
can register a physician to dispense controlled substances `if the 
applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under 
the laws of the State in which he practices.' . . . The very definition 
of a `practitioner' eligible to prescribe includes physicians 
`licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, by the United States or 
the jurisdiction in which he practices' to dispense controlled 
substances. Sec.  802(21).''). The Agency has applied these principles 
consistently. See, e.g., James L. Hooper, M.D., 76 FR 71,371, 71,372 
(2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 F. App'x 826 (4th Cir. 2012); 
Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27,616, 27,617 (1978).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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 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, M.D., 76 FR at 71,371-72; Sheran Arden 
Yeates, M.D., 71 FR 39,130, 39,131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 
58 FR 51,104, 51,105 (1993); Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11,919, 11,920 
(1988); Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR at 27,617.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to California 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, furnishing, packaging, labeling, or compounding necessary 
to prepare the substance for that delivery.'' Cal. Health & Safety Code 
Sec.  11010 (West 2024). Further, a ``practitioner'' means a person 
``licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, to distribute, 
dispense, conduct research with respect to, or administer, a controlled 
substance in the course of professional practice or research in [the] 
state.'' Id. Sec.  11026(c).
    Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant 
currently lacks authority to practice medicine in California. As 
discussed above, a physician must be a licensed practitioner to 
dispense a controlled substance in California. Thus, because Registrant 
currently lacks authority to practice medicine in California and, 
therefore, is not currently authorized to handle controlled substances 
in California, 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. 
FS8371267 issued to Margaret Sprague, 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 Margaret Sprague, M.D., to 
renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending 
application of Margaret Sprague, M.D., for additional registration in 
California. This Order is effective April 21, 2025.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on 
March 13, 2025, by Acting Administrator Derek Maltz. 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. 2025-04754 Filed 3-19-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P

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