[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 144 (Wednesday, July 28, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40899-40900]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-19181]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 99-8]


Mark L. Beck, D.D.S.; Revocation of Registration

    On November 17, 1998, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) issued an 
Order to Show Cause to Mark L. Beck, D.D.S. (Respondent) of Washington, 
DC. The Order to Show Cause notified Dr. Beck of an opportunity to show 
cause as to why DEA should not revoke his DEA Certificate of 
Registration BB3603114 pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), for reason that 
he is not currently authorized to handle controlled substances in the 
District of Columbia.
    On December 3, 1998, Respondent, through counsel, filed a request 
for a hearing and the matter was docketed before Administrative Law 
Judge Mary Ellen Bittner. On December 8, 1998, Judge Bittner issued an 
Order for Prehearing Statements. In lieu of filing a prehearing 
statement, the Government filed a Motion for Summary Disposition on 
December 14, 1998, alleging that Respondent is currently registered 
with DEA to handle controlled substances in the District of Columbia, 
however he is currently without state authority to handle controlled 
substances in the District of Columbia. Although given an opportunity 
to file a response to the Government's motion, Respondent did not do 
so.
    On January 15, 1999, Judge Bittner issued her Opinion and 
Recommended Ruling, finding that Respondent lacks authorization to 
handle controlled substances in the District of Columbia; granting the 
Government's Motion for Summary Disposition; and recommending that 
Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration be revoked. Neither party 
filed exceptions to her opinion, and on February 17, 1999, Judge 
Bittner transmitted the record of these proceedings to the Deputy 
Administrator.
    The Deputy Administrator has considered the record in its entirety, 
and pursuant to 21 CFR 1316.67, hereby issues his final order based 
upon findings of fact and conclusions of law as hereinafter set forth. 
The Deputy Administrator adopts, in full, the Opinion and Recommended 
Decision of the Administrative Law Judge.
    The Deputy Administrator finds that in its Motion for Summary 
Disposition, the Government asserted that Respondent's District of 
Columbia controlled substances registration

[[Page 40900]]

expired on March 30, 1997, and his license to practice dentistry in the 
District of Columbia expired on December 31, 1997. According to the 
Government neither of these licenses were renewed.
    The Deputy Administrator further finds that while there is no 
documentation in the record to support the Government's assertions, 
Respondent did not dispute that his licenses to practice dentistry and 
to handle controlled substances in the District of Columbia both 
expired without being renewed. Therefore, the Deputy Administrator 
finds that Respondent is not currently authorized to handle controlled 
substances in the District of Columbia, where he is registered with 
DEA.
    The DEA does not have the statutory authority under the Controlled 
Substances Act to issue or maintain a registration if the applicant or 
registrant is without state authority to handle controlled substances 
in the state in which he conducts his business. See 21 U.S.C. 802(21), 
823(f), and 824(a)(3). This prerequisite has been consistently upheld. 
See Romeo J. Perez, M.D., 62 FR 16,193 (1997); Demetris A. Green, M.D., 
61 FR 60,728 (1996); Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51,104 (1993).
    Here it is clear that Respondent is not licensed to handle 
controlled substances in the District of Columbia. Since Respondent 
lacks this authority, he is not entitled to a DEA registration there.
    In light of the above, Judge Bittner properly granted the 
Government's Motion for Summary Disposition. The parties did not 
dispute the fact that Respondent is currently unauthorized to handle 
controlled substances in the District of Columbia. Therefore, it is 
well-settled that when no question of material fact is involved, a 
plenary, adversary administrative proceeding involving evidence and 
cross-examination of witnesses is not obligatory. See Philip E. Kirk, 
M.D., 48 FR 32,887 (1983), aff'd sub nom Kirk v. Mullen, 749 F.2d 297 
(6th Cir. 1984); See also NLRB v. International Association of Bridge, 
Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers AFL-CIO, 549 F.2d 634 (9th Cir. 
1977); United States v. Consolidated Mines & Smelting Co., 44 F.2d 432 
(9th Cir. 1971).
    According, the Deputy Administrator of the Drug Enforcement 
Administration, pursuant to the authority vested in him by 21 U.S.C. 
823 and 824 and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, hereby orders that DEA 
Certificates of Registration BB3603114, previously issued to Mark L. 
Beck, D.D.S., be, and it hereby is, revoked. The Deputy Administrator 
further orders that any pending applications for renewal of such 
registration be, and they hereby are, denied. This order is effective 
August 27, 1999.

    Dated: June 23, 1999.
Donnie R. Marshall,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-19181 Filed 7-27-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M