[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 237 (Monday, December 11, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71555-71557]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-20981]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Orlando Wholesale, L.L.C. Denial of Application

    On November 18, 2005, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to 
Show Cause to Orlando Wholesale, L.L.C., of Orlando, Florida 
(Respondent). The Show Cause Order proposed to deny Respondent's 
pending application for a DEA Certificate of Registration as a 
distributor of List I chemicals on the ground that its registration 
would be inconsistent with the public interest. See 21 U.S.C. 823(h) 
and 824(a).
    The Show Cause Order specifically alleged that Respondent was 
proposing to distribute List I chemical products containing 
pseudoephedrine, a precursor chemical which is used to manufacture 
methamphetamine, to convenience stores in the Orlando area and that 
methamphetamine manufacturers often obtain the chemical from 
convenience stores. See Show Cause Order at 1-2. The Show Cause Order 
alleged that during DEA's pre-

[[Page 71556]]

registration investigation, investigators had determined that one of 
Respondent's co-owners had previously been involved in a firm that 
distributed List I chemicals without obtaining a proper registration. 
See id. The Show Cause Order further alleged that DEA Diversion 
Investigators (DIs) had requested that Respondent's owner provide them 
with information regarding his immigration status, his business 
licenses, and the nature of the co-owner's involvement in Respondent. 
See id. The Show Cause Order alleged that Respondent had failed to 
provide any of the requested information. See id.
    On November 25, 2005, the Government attempted to serve the Show 
Cause Order on Respondent by certified mail, return receipt requested, 
at the address of its proposed registered location, 9500 Satellite 
Blvd., 230, Orlando, FL. The mailing was returned with a 
notation that Respondent's forwarding address was 1167 Doss Ave., 
Orlando, FL. Thereafter, on December 30, 2005, two DEA DIs went to the 
latter address and personally served Respondent's owner, Mr. Shakil 
Isani, with the Show Cause Order. Since that time, neither Respondent, 
nor anyone purporting to represent it, has responded. Because (1) more 
than thirty days have passed since Respondent's receipt of the Show 
Cause Order, and (2) no request for a hearing has been received, I 
conclude that Respondent has waived its right to a hearing. See 21 CFR 
1309.53(c). I therefore enter this final order without a hearing based 
on relevant material found in the investigative file and make the 
following findings.

Findings

    Pseudoephedrine is a List I chemical that, while having a 
therapeutic use, is easily extracted from lawful products and used in 
the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine, a schedule II controlled 
substance. See 21 U.S.C. 802(34); 21 CFR 1308.12(d). As noted in 
numerous DEA orders, ``methamphetamine is an extremely potent central 
nervous system stimulant.'' Sujak Distributors, 71 FR 50102, 50103 
(2006); A-1 Distribution Wholesale, 70 FR 28573 (2005). Methamphetamine 
is highly addictive; its abuse has destroyed lives and families and 
ravaged communities. Moreover, because of the toxic nature of the 
chemicals used to make the drug, its manufacture creates serious 
environmental harms. David M. Starr, 71 FR 39367 (2006).
    Respondent is a Florida corporation which has been in business 
since October 2003. On March 22, 2004, Respondent applied for a 
registration as a distributor of List I chemicals and gave as the 
address of its proposed registered location: 9500 Satellite Blvd., 
 230, Orlando, FL. On June 15, 2004, two DEA DIs conducted a 
pre-registration investigation at this address. At some point 
thereafter, Respondent changed its address to 1167 Doss Avenue, 
Orlando. Respondent did not, however, notify DEA.
    During the pre-registration investigation, the DIs met with 
Respondent's owner, Mr. Shakil Isani. Mr. Isani told the DIs that 
Respondent is a wholesale distributor of some 700 different items to 
approximately 109 convenience stores in the greater Orlando area. Mr. 
Isani further advised the DIs that he is the owner and only officer of 
Respondent. When the DIs asked Mr. Isani for a copy of Respondent's 
Articles of Incorporation, Mr. Isani stated that three other 
individuals were listed as being managing members of the firm but that 
he planned on removing them. One of these individuals had previously 
come to the attention of DEA because he was operating a business (on 
behalf of his brother who had been convicted of several federal 
criminal offenses and was then serving a sentence of incarceration) 
which distributed List I chemicals without a valid DEA registration.
    The DIs asked Mr. Isani to provide them with documentation 
regarding the removal of the other members of his firm. The DIs also 
asked Mr. Isani for personal data such as date, place of birth, and 
social security numbers for the other members. Mr. Isani agreed to 
provide the information. Mr. Isani has not, however, provided the 
information.
    The DIs also asked Mr. Isani about his immigration status. Mr. 
Isani told the DIs that he was in the country under a work permit but 
that he did not have the documentation on him. The DIs then asked Mr. 
Isani to provide them with documentation of his status. Subsequently, 
the DIs conducted a check of Mr. Isani's status and determined that he 
was not legally in the United States and appeared to be subject to 
removal proceedings. The check, however, also showed that Mr. Isani had 
applied for an adjustment of status to become a resident alien. 
According to the investigative file, Mr. Isani has not provided the DIs 
with updated information on his status.
    During the on-site inspection, the DIs also asked Mr. Isani to 
provide copies of his business licenses. Again, Mr.Isani has not 
provided any of the information that the DIs requested.

Discussion

    Under 21 U.S.C. 823(h), an applicant to distribute List I chemicals 
is entitled to be registered unless the registration would be 
``inconsistent with the public interest.'' In making this 
determination, Congress directed that I consider the following factors:

    (1) Maintenance by the applicant of effective controls against 
diversion of listed chemicals into other than legitimate channels;
    (2) Compliance by the applicant with applicable Federal, State, 
and local law;
    (3) Any prior conviction record of the applicant under Federal 
or State laws relating to controlled substances or to chemicals 
controlled under Federal or State law;
    (4) Any past experience of the applicant in the manufacture and 
distribution of chemicals; and
    (5) Such other factors as are relevant to and consistent with 
the public health and safety.

Id.

    ``These factors are considered in the disjunctive.'' Joy's Ideas, 
70 FR 33195, 33197 (2005). I may rely on any one or a combination of 
factors, and may give each factor the weight I deem appropriate in 
determining whether an application for registration should be denied. 
See, e.g., Starr, 71 FR at 39367; Energy Outlet, 64 FR 14269 (1999). 
Moreover, I am ``not required to make findings as to all of the 
factors.'' Hoxie v. DEA, 419 F.3d 477, 482 (6th Cir. 2005); Morall v. 
DEA 412 F.3d 165, 173-74 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
    Here, I conclude that an analysis of each factor is unnecessary and 
that Respondent's application should be denied for two reasons. First, 
Respondent's owner has failed to submit necessary information regarding 
three issues: (1) His business licenses, (2) his immigration status, 
and (3) the role of persons listed as managing members of the firm 
including one individual who has previously come to the attention of 
DEA. Second, Respondent changed its address--without notifying DEA--and 
after the on-site inspection was conducted.
    DEA regulations expressly provide that ``[t]he Administrator may 
require an applicant to submit such documents * * * relevant to the 
application as [she] deems necessary to determine whether the 
application should be granted.'' 21 CFR 1309.35. The information sought 
by the DIs regarding Respondent's business licenses and its owner's 
immigration status was reasonably necessary to evaluate Respondent's 
compliance with applicable laws. See 21 U.S.C. 823(h)(2). In light of 
Respondent's failure to produce this information (as well as the 
information contained in the

[[Page 71557]]

investigative file), I conclude that Respondent was not in compliance 
with federal immigration laws and that Respondent does not possess the 
required state and/or local business licenses. Moreover, the 
information sought with respect to Respondent's managing members was 
essential to evaluate whether the firm would maintain ``effective 
controls against diversion.'' Id. Sec.  823(h)(1). Based on the 
information contained in the investigative file that one of 
Respondent's managing members had previously operated a business which 
distributed List I chemicals without a valid registration and 
Respondent's failure to provide any documentation showing that this 
individual no longer has a management or ownership interest in it, I 
conclude that Respondent does not maintain effective control against 
diversion.
    Respondent's change of address provides further reason to deny its 
application. Under the Controlled Substances Act, a registration is 
location specific. See 21 U.S.C. 822(e) (``A separate registration 
shall be required at each principal place of business * * * where the 
applicant * * * distributes * * * list I chemicals.''). Respondent 
applied for a registration at 9500 Satellite Blvd.,  230, 
Orlando, Fl. It was at this location that the pre-registration 
investigation was conducted and the adequacy of Respondent's security 
controls was evaluated. See 21 CFR 1309.71(b). Respondent's change of 
its location after DEA conducted the pre-registration inspection 
renders moot the information obtained regarding its security measures 
and its application for registration at its prior place of business. 
Furthermore, Respondent has not submitted an application for its new 
location. Because Respondent applied to distribute List I chemicals 
from the Satellite Blvd. location and it is no longer in business at 
that location, I conclude that granting its application for a 
registration would be inconsistent with the public interest.

Order

    Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(h), and 28 
CFR 0.100(b) & 0.104, I hereby order that the application of Respondent 
Orlando Wholesale L.L.C., for a DEA Certificate of Registration as a 
distributor of List I chemicals be, and it hereby is, denied. This 
order is effective January 10, 2007.

    Dated: December 1, 2006.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
 [FR Doc. E6-20981 Filed 12-8-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P