Harry Kram, M.D.; Decision and Order, 24412-24414 [2025-10501]

Download as PDF ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 24412 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 110 / Tuesday, June 10, 2025 / Notices information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (https:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for Investigation Nos. 701–TA–650–651 (Final) (Second Remand) may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background.—In March 2021, the Commission determined that a domestic industry was materially injured by reason of imports of phosphate fertilizers from Morocco and Russia. Phosphate Fertilizers from Morocco and Russia, Inv. Nos. 701–TA–650–651 (Final), USITC Pub. 5172 (March 2021). Respondents, OCP S.A and EuroChem North America Corporation, contested the Commission’s determinations before the U.S. Court of International Trade (‘‘CIT’’), along with PhosAgro PJSC, International Materials Ltd., and Koch Fertilizer. On September 23, 2023, the CIT issued an order remanding the case to the Commission. OCP, S.A. v. United States, 658 F. Supp. 3d 1297, 1324 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2023). On January 17, 2024, the Commission filed its remand results in which it continued to find that the domestic industry was materially injured by reason of subject imports. Phosphate Fertilizers from Morocco and Russia, Inv. Nos. 701–TA–650–651, USITC Pub. 5490 (Jan. 2024) (Final) (Remand). On April 22, 2025, the CIT issued a decision under seal in which it remanded the Commission’s decision for further proceedings. OCP S.A. v. United States, Consol. Ct. No. 21–00219, Slip Op. No. 25–51 (April 22, 2025) (‘‘OCP III’’). The CIT’s decision has not been publicly released at this time. Participation in the remand proceedings.—Only those persons who were interested parties that participated in the investigations of Phosphate Fertilizers from Morocco and Russia and were also parties to the appeal may participate in these remand proceedings. Such persons need not file any additional appearances with the Commission to participate in the remand proceedings, unless they are adding new individuals to the list of persons entitled to receive business proprietary information (‘‘BPI’’) under administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’). BPI referred to during the remand proceedings will be governed, VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:53 Jun 09, 2025 Jkt 265001 as appropriate, by the APO issued in the investigations. The Secretary will maintain a service list containing the names and addresses of all persons or their representatives who are parties to the remand proceedings, and the Secretary will maintain a separate list of those authorized to receive BPI under the administrative protective order during the remand proceedings. Written submissions.—The Commission is not reopening the record and will not accept the submission of new factual information for the record. The Commission will permit the parties entitled to participate in the remand proceedings to file comments concerning how the Commission could best comply with the court’s remand instructions. The comments must be based solely on the information in the Commission’s record. The Commission will reject submissions containing additional factual information or arguments pertaining to issues other than those on which the court has remanded this matter. The deadline for filing comments is June 20, 2025. Comments must be limited to no more than twentyfive (25) double-spaced and single-sided pages of textual material, inclusive of attachments and exhibits. Parties are advised to consult with the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subpart A (19 CFR part 207) for provisions of general applicability concerning written submissions to the Commission. All written submissions must conform to the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s rules. Please note the Secretary’s Office will accept only electronic filings at this time. Filings must be made through the Commission’s Electronic Document Information System (EDIS, https:// edis.usitc.gov). No in-person paperbased filings or paper copies of any electronic filings will be accepted until further notice. The Commission’s Handbook on E-Filing, available on the Commission’s website at https:// edis.usitc.gov, elaborates upon the Commission’s rules with respect to electronic filing. Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission’s rules, will not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 request by a Commissioner or Commission staff. In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, each document filed by a party to the investigation must be served on all other parties to the investigation (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service. By order of the Commission. Issued: June 4, 2025. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2025–10452 Filed 6–9–25; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Harry Kram, M.D.; Decision and Order On September 24, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Harry Kram, M.D., of Torrance, California (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. AK1539444, alleging that Registrant’s registration should be revoked because Registrant is ‘‘currently without authority to handle controlled substances in the State of California, the state in which [he is] registered with DEA.’’ Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).1 The OSC notified Registrant of his right to file 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 2.2 ‘‘A default, unless 1 According to Agency records, Registrant’s registration expired on December 31, 2024. The fact that a registrant allows his registration to expire during the pendency of an OSC does not impact the Agency’s jurisdiction or prerogative under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to adjudicate the OSC to finality. Jeffrey D. Olsen, M.D., 84 FR 68474, 68476–79 (2019). 2 Based on the Government’s submissions in its RFAA dated December 12, 2024, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on Registrant was adequate. The included declaration from a DEA Diversion Investigator (DI) indicates that on October 2, 2024, the DI personally left a copy of the OSC at Registrant’s known personal residence. RFAAX 2, at 1–2. The DI also mailed a copy of the OSC to Registrant’s known personal residence, Registrant’s registered address, and two additional addresses associated with Registrant. Id. at 2. Finally, the DI emailed a copy of the OSC to five different email E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.SGM 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 110 / Tuesday, June 10, 2025 / Notices 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 ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 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 September 12, 2023, the Medical Board of California (the Board) revoked Registrant’s California medical license, but stayed the revocation for three years during which time Registrant was placed on probation subject to various terms and conditions. RFAAX 1, at 1– 2. On December 29, 2023, the Board issued a Cease Practice Order that prohibited Registrant from practicing medicine in California because Registrant violated the terms of his probation. Id. at 2. According to California online records, of which the Agency takes official notice,3 Registrant’s California medical license is ‘‘Delinquent’’ with no practice permitted. 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 addresses associated with Registrant. Id. Here, the Agency finds that Registrant was successfully served the OSC by email and that the DI’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)); see also Mohammed S. Aljanaby, M.D., 82 FR 34552, 34552 (2017) (finding that service by email satisfies due process where the email is not returned as undeliverable and other methods have been unsuccessful). 3 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). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:53 Jun 09, 2025 Jkt 265001 California, the state in which he is registered with DEA.4 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. § 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).5 4 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. 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 the DEA 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 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 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 24413 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 section 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. at section 11026(c). Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant currently lacks authority to practice medicine in California. As discussed above, an individual 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. AK1539444 issued to Harry Kram, 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 Harry Kram, M.D., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of Harry Kram, M.D., for additional registration in California. This Order is effective July 10, 2025. Signing Authority This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on June 4, 2025, by Acting Administrator Robert J. Murphy. 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 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 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, M.D., 43 FR 27617. E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.SGM 10JNN1 24414 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 110 / Tuesday, June 10, 2025 / Notices 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. 2025–10501 Filed 6–9–25; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–09–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Serge Menkin, M.D.; Decision and Order ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 On October 15, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Serge Menkin, M.D., of Holmdel, New Jersey (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. BM8723795, alleging that Registrant’s registration should be revoked because Registrant is ‘‘currently without authority to handle controlled substances in New Jersey, the state in which [he is] registered with DEA.’’ Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).1 The OSC notified Registrant of his right to file 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. (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). Here, Registrant did not request a hearing. RFAA, at 2.2 ‘‘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 1 According to Agency records, Registrant’s registration expired on January 31, 2025. The fact that a registrant allows his registration to expire during the pendency of an OSC does not impact the Agency’s jurisdiction or prerogative under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to adjudicate the OSC to finality. Jeffrey D. Olsen, M.D., 84 FR 68474, 68476–79 (2019). 2 Based on the Government’s submissions in its RFAA dated December 10, 2024, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on Registrant was adequate. Specifically, the included signed DEA–12 Form indicates that on October 17, 2024, Registrant was personally served with the OSC by a DEA Diversion Investigator. RFAAX 2. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:53 Jun 09, 2025 Jkt 265001 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 2; 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 July 9, 2024, the New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners suspended Registrant’s New Jersey medical license. RFAAX 1, at 1– 2. Further, according to the OSC, Registrant’s New Jersey controlled dangerous substance license is inactive. Id. at 1. According to New Jersey online records, of which the Agency takes official notice, Registrant’s New Jersey medical license is currently active, but Registrant’s New Jersey controlled dangerous substance license currently remains inactive.3 New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs License Verification, https:// newjersey.mylicense.com/verification (last visited date of signature of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds that while Registrant is licensed to practice medicine in New Jersey, the state in which he is registered with DEA, Registrant is not licensed to handle controlled substances in New Jersey.4 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 . . . 3 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). 4 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 handle controlled substances in New Jersey. Accordingly, Registrant may dispute the Agency’s finding 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. PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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).5 According to New Jersey statute, ‘‘[e]very person who manufactures, distributes, or dispenses any controlled dangerous substance within this State or who proposes to engage in the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of any controlled dangerous substance within this State, shall obtain a registration issued by the [Division of Consumer Affairs] in accordance with rules and regulations promulgated by it.’’ N.J. Rev. Stat. section 24:21–10(a) (2025). Further, ‘‘dispense’’ means ‘‘to deliver a controlled dangerous substance to an ultimate user or research subject by or pursuant to the lawful order of a practitioner, including the prescribing, administering, 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). 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. E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.SGM 10JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 110 (Tuesday, June 10, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24412-24414]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-10501]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Harry Kram, M.D.; Decision and Order

    On September 24, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or 
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Harry Kram, M.D., of 
Torrance, California (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. AK1539444, alleging that 
Registrant's registration should be revoked because Registrant is 
``currently without authority to handle controlled substances in the 
State of California, the state in which [he is] registered with DEA.'' 
Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ According to Agency records, Registrant's registration 
expired on December 31, 2024. The fact that a registrant allows his 
registration to expire during the pendency of an OSC does not impact 
the Agency's jurisdiction or prerogative under the Controlled 
Substances Act (CSA) to adjudicate the OSC to finality. Jeffrey D. 
Olsen, M.D., 84 FR 68474, 68476-79 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The OSC notified Registrant of his right to file 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 2.\2\ ``A default, unless

[[Page 24413]]

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Based on the Government's submissions in its RFAA dated 
December 12, 2024, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on 
Registrant was adequate. The included declaration from a DEA 
Diversion Investigator (DI) indicates that on October 2, 2024, the 
DI personally left a copy of the OSC at Registrant's known personal 
residence. RFAAX 2, at 1-2. The DI also mailed a copy of the OSC to 
Registrant's known personal residence, Registrant's registered 
address, and two additional addresses associated with Registrant. 
Id. at 2. Finally, the DI emailed a copy of the OSC to five 
different email addresses associated with Registrant. Id. Here, the 
Agency finds that Registrant was successfully served the OSC by 
email and that the DI'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)); see also 
Mohammed S. Aljanaby, M.D., 82 FR 34552, 34552 (2017) (finding that 
service by email satisfies due process where the email is not 
returned as undeliverable and other methods have been unsuccessful).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 September 12, 2023, the Medical Board of California (the 
Board) revoked Registrant's California medical license, but stayed the 
revocation for three years during which time Registrant was placed on 
probation subject to various terms and conditions. RFAAX 1, at 1-2. On 
December 29, 2023, the Board issued a Cease Practice Order that 
prohibited Registrant from practicing medicine in California because 
Registrant violated the terms of his probation. Id. at 2.
    According to California online records, of which the Agency takes 
official notice,\3\ Registrant's California medical license is 
``Delinquent'' with no practice permitted. 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 he is 
registered with DEA.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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).
    \4\ 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. 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 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 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).\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). 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 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, M.D., 43 FR 27617.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
section 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. at section 11026(c).
    Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant 
currently lacks authority to practice medicine in California. As 
discussed above, an individual 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. 
AK1539444 issued to Harry Kram, 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 Harry Kram, M.D., to renew or 
modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of 
Harry Kram, M.D., for additional registration in California. This Order 
is effective July 10, 2025.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on 
June 4, 2025, by Acting Administrator Robert J. Murphy. 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

[[Page 24414]]

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. 2025-10501 Filed 6-9-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.