[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 147 (Wednesday, August 1, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42118-42126]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-14822]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. 05-33]


Holloway Distributing; Revocation of Registration

    On May 25, 2005, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to 
Show Cause to Holloway Distributing, Inc. (Respondent), of Puxico, 
Missouri. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Respondent's 
DEA Certificate of Registration, 003219HIY, and the denial of 
Respondent's pending application for renewal of its registration, on 
the ground that its continued registration ``is inconsistent with the 
public interest.'' Show Cause Order at 1.
    More specifically, the Show Cause Order alleged that Respondent 
distributed list I chemical products containing pseudoephedrine, a 
precursor chemical used in the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine, 
a schedule II controlled substance, to convenience stores, gas 
stations, liquor and video stores, and bait and tackle shops in various 
parts of Missouri, the State which has repeatedly ranked first in the 
nation in the number of clandestine methamphetamine lab seizures. Id. 
at 2. The Show Cause Order alleged that these establishments constitute 
the non-traditional market for consumers who purchase pseudoephedrine 
products for legitimate uses. Id. at 7. The Show Cause Order further 
alleged that Respondent's ``sale of pseudoephedrine products is 
inconsistent with the known legitimate market and known end-user demand 
for products of this type.'' Id.
    The Show Cause Order also alleged that in March 2004, DEA 
investigators conducted verifications of several entities which 
Respondent identified as its customers. Id. at 3-4. According to the 
allegations, DEA investigators determined that several of Respondent's 
customers were purchasing additional list I chemical products from 
other distributors and also selling other products such as starting 
fluid and lantern fuel which are used in the illicit manufacture of 
methamphetamine. Id.
    The Show Cause Order next alleged that in March 2004, as part of a 
regulatory investigation of Respondent, DEA investigators conducted an 
accountability audit of five list I chemical products. Id. at 5. The 
Show Cause Order alleged that there were either overages or shortages 
for each product, and that DEA investigators found that Respondent had 
``failed to notify the agency of a significant loss of List I chemical 
products as required by 21 U.S.C. 830(b)(1)(C) and 21 CFR 
1310.05(a)(3).'' Id.
    Finally, the Show Cause Order alleged that between November 7, 
2003, and April 1, 2004, Respondent sold pseudoephedrine products on 
numerous occasions to one Keith Frankum, notwithstanding that Frankum 
had presented a sales tax exempt certificate which indicated that his 
business address was a local storage facility and was vague when asked 
about the nature of his business. Id. at 5-6. According to the 
allegations, notwithstanding that local law enforcement authorities had 
told one of Respondent's employees that Frankum's brother was ``a meth 
cook,'' and that its employees ``referred to [Frankum] as `the drug 
guy' whenever he arrived at Holloway to make a purchase,'' Respondent 
made additional sales of pseudoephedrine products to him. Id. at 6. The 
Show Cause Order further alleged that in early April 2004, Frankum was 
arrested and during a search incident to the arrest, was found to be in 
possession of twenty boxes of pseudoephedrine products sold by 
Respondent, an invoice from Respondent, and a handwritten note which 
read: ``Be careful when leaving here!'' Id. at 5. According to the 
allegations, Frankum subsequently told DEA investigators that he sold 
pseudoephedrine ``to several repeat customers'' and that it ``was a big 
seller because it was used to make drugs.'' Id. at 6. The Show Cause 
Order also alleged that Frankum admitted that he had a prior arrest for 
possession of methamphetamine and that he had done ``a lot of meth'' 
five years earlier. Id. The Show Cause Order further alleged that 
Respondent never reported to DEA its sales to Frankum. Id. at 5.
    On June 24, 2005, Respondent, through its counsel, requested a 
hearing. The matter was assigned to Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Gail 
A. Randall, who conducted a hearing in Arlington, Virginia, on February 
7, 2006, and in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, on February 22-23, 2006. 
During the hearing, both parties called witnesses to testify and 
introduced documentary evidence. Following the hearing, both parties 
submitted briefs containing proposed findings of fact, conclusions of 
law and argument.
    On December 19, 2006, the ALJ submitted her recommended decision 
(hereinafter, ALJ). In her decision, the ALJ concluded that the 
Government had ``initially * * * met its burden of proof * * * by 
demonstrating that the Respondent made `grossly excessive sales' of 
listed chemical products between October 1, 2003, and March 23, 2004.'' 
ALJ at 40 (citing FOF 26). The ALJ also acknowledged DEA precedent 
holding that a registrant's grossly excessive sales support a finding 
that its products were diverted and that its continued registration 
would be inconsistent with the public interest. Id. at 40-41.
    The ALJ concluded, however, that Respondent's continued 
registration would not be inconsistent with the public interest for two 
reasons. Id. at 41. First, the ALJ noted that Respondent had 
``demonstrated its willingness and its ability to develop and implement 
changes in its business processes consistent with the [agency's] 
recommendations.'' Id. Second, the ALJ relied on Missouri's recently 
enacted restrictions on pseudoephedrine sales. According to the ALJ, 
the statute showed that ``the State will be monitoring the gelcap and 
liquid pseudoephedrine products, if any, found in the methamphetamine 
labs,'' and that ``[s]uch heightened scrutiny leads to the conclusion 
that, if the products of the Respondent, as well as other distributors 
of List I chemical products in Missouri, are found in illicit 
methamphetamine laboratories, the State will close the legislative 
loophole afforded these limited products.'' Id. The ALJ reasoned that 
``[u]ntil such time as the problem is substantiated * * * the 
possibility of * * * Respondent's products being diverted [should] not 
be relied upon to revoke'' its registration. Id. The ALJ therefore 
recommended that I not revoke

[[Page 42119]]

Respondent's registration and not deny its pending application for 
renewal.
    On January 5, 2007, the Government filed exceptions to the ALJ's 
decision. On February 1, 2007, the ALJ forwarded the record to me for 
final agency action. Having reviewed the record as a whole, I hereby 
issue this decision and final order. I adopt the ALJ's findings of fact 
except as noted herein. I reject, however, the ALJ's conclusions of law 
with respect to factors one, two, four and five. I further reject the 
ALJ's ultimate conclusion that Respondent's continued registration 
``would not be inconsistent with the public interest.'' Id. 
Accordingly, I also reject the ALJ's recommendation that Respondent's 
registration should not be revoked and its pending renewal application 
should not be denied. I make the following findings.

Findings of Fact

    Respondent is a Missouri Corporation which is located at 210 East 
Owen Avenue, Puxico, Missouri. ALJ Ex. 2. Respondent is co-owned by Mr. 
Terry Holloway and his wife, Debbie Holloway. Tr. 720. Mr. Holloway is 
Respondent's president. Id. Respondent is a wholesale distributor of 
approximately 10,000 products including groceries, restaurant foods, 
candy, cigarettes, and tobacco. Id. at 724.
    Respondent, which has been registered since 1998, currently holds 
DEA Certificate of Registration, 003219HIY, which authorizes it to 
distribute list I chemicals. Gov. Ex. 1 & 2. Based on Respondent's 
submission of a timely renewal application in September 2004, 
Respondent's registration has remained in effect pending the final 
order in this matter. Gov. Ex. 2.

Methamphetamine and the Market for List I Chemicals

    Pseudoephedrine is lawfully marketed under the Food, Drug and 
Cosmetic Act as a decongestant. Gov. Ex. 4, at 4. Pseudoephedrine is, 
however, also regulated as a list I chemical under the Controlled 
Substances Act (CSA) because it is easily extracted from non-
prescription drug 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).
    Methamphetamine ``is a powerful and addictive central nervous 
system stimulant.'' T. Young Associates, Inc., 71 FR 60567 (2006) 
(other citations omitted). As noted in numerous DEA final orders, the 
illegal manufacture and abuse of methamphetamine pose a grave threat to 
this country. See id. Methamphetamine abuse has destroyed numerous 
lives and families. Id. Moreover, because of the toxic nature of the 
chemicals used in making the drug, illicit methamphetamine laboratories 
cause serious environmental harms. Id.
    The illicit manufacture and abuse of methamphetamine is an 
extraordinarily serious problem in Missouri. According to the record, 
during the years 2001 through 2004, Missouri repeatedly ranked first in 
the number of law enforcement seizures of methamphetamine laboratories. 
See Gov. Ex. 3, at 4. More specifically, in 2001, law enforcement 
authorities seized 2,181 labs; in 2003, 2,885 labs; and in 2004, 2,782 
labs. Id. Moreover, while legislation enacted by Missouri in June 2005 
(which made pseudoephedrine and ephedrine in tablet-form a schedule V 
controlled substance and limited its sale to pharmacies), appears to 
have led to a substantial reduction in the number of meth. lab 
seizures, law enforcement authorities still seized 745 labs in the 
latter half of 2005. See Gov. Ex. 28.
    The Missouri statute, however, exempts pseudoephedrine in liquid 
and liquid-filled gel caps. See Mo. Rev. Stat. 195.017.17; Tr. 309-11. 
Thus, in Missouri, these products can be sold by non-pharmacies. 
According to the record, ``[w]hile the vast majority of clandestine 
laboratories seized have utilized tableted pseudoephedrine and 
ephedrine products, gel-caps and liquid dosage form products can easily 
serve as a source of precursor material for the production of 
methamphetamine.'' Gov. Ex. 4, at 8. Furthermore, DEA studies show that 
pseudoephedrine ``can be easily extracted'' from liquid and gel cap 
products by using reagents and solvents which are ``readily available 
at hardware and auto parts stores in the U.S.'' Id.; see also Gov. Ex. 
6 (discussing study by DEA chemist who was able to extract 
pseudoephedrine from gel caps and obtain a 68 percent yield using 
equipment typically found in meth. labs). The record further 
establishes that in those States (including Missouri) which have 
exempted gel cap and liquid form listed chemical products, traffickers 
are using exempted products to make meth. See Gov. Ex. 5, at 13-14; 
Gov. Ex. 6, Gov. Ex. 7, Tr. 321-22.
    The Government also established that there is both a traditional 
and non-traditional market for pseudoephedrine. According to Jonathan 
Robbin, who has testified as an expert in statistical analysis of 
demographic, economic, geographic, survey and sales data in numerous 
DEA proceedings and several criminal and civil trials, over 97 percent 
of all non-prescription drug products are sold by drug stores, 
pharmacies, supermarkets, large discount merchandisers, and electronic 
shopping and mail order houses. Tr. 173. Mr. Robbin further testified 
that sales of non-prescription drugs by convenience stores (including 
both those that sell and do not sell gasoline), ``account for only 2.2% 
of the overall sales of all convenience stores that handle the line and 
only 0.7% of the total sales of all convenience stores.'' Gov. Ex. 8, 
at 5. Based on his study of U.S. Government Economic Census data, 
survey data obtained by the National Association of Convenience Stores, 
and commercially available point-of-transaction data, Mr. Robbin 
further stated that only about 1.2 percent of all non-prescription drug 
products are sold at convenience stores, Tr. 173, and cold remedies 
(including pseudoephedrine products) ``are [a] * * * much smaller'' 
portion of this. Id. at 174; Gov. Ex. 8, at 5. Mr. Robbin thus 
explained that convenience stores ``definitely constitute a 
`nontraditional market' for the sale of [OTC] non-prescription drug 
pseudoephedrine'' products. Gov. Ex. 8, at 5.
    Mr. Robbin further testified that ``the normal expected retail sale 
of pseudoephedrine (Hcl) tablets in a convenience store may range 
between $0 and $40 per month[,] with an average of $19.85 per month,'' 
and that the expected sales range of Actifed tablets in a convenience 
store ranges between $0 and $20 [per month], with an average of $ 
8.68.'' Id. at 8; Tr. 176. Mr. Robbin explained that ``[a] monthly 
retail sale of $60 of pseudoephedrine (Hcl) * * * would be expected to 
occur less than one in 1,000 times in random sampling,'' and [a] 
monthly retail sale of $100 a month of pseudoephedrine (Hcl) or of $50 
of Actifed tablets would be expected to occur about once in a million 
times in random sampling.'' Mr. Robbin also stated that gas stations 
without convenience stores, liquor stores, sporting goods stores, bait 
shops, video stores, gift stores, and head shops sell only ``trace 
amounts'' of these products. Gov. Ex. 8, at 8.
    DEA investigators provided Mr. Robbin with a list of 1,371 
transactions in which Respondent distributed either Select Brand 
[s]udafed or [a]ctifed during the period from October 1, 2003, through 
March 23, 2004. Id. at 12. The products were sold to 94 stores which 
included convenience stores, gas stations and liquor stores. Id. 
According to the data, Respondent distributed 3,129 packages of Select 
Brand [s]udafed, each containing 24 tablets, and 5,858 packages of 
Select Brand

[[Page 42120]]

[a]ctifed, each also containing 24 tablets. Gov. Ex. 8, at 12-13.
    Based on information obtained from Thomson Micromedex's Red Book, 
Mr. Robbin initially calculated an implied retail sales value of $4.58 
for Respondent's sudafed product and $4.34 for the actifed product. Id. 
at 12. Based on these values, Mr. Robbin then tabulated the imputed 
monthly sales of these products by Respondent's customers and 
calculated the probability that the sales were to meet legitimate 
consumer demand for the products. See Gov. Ex. 9, at B1-B10. Mr. Robbin 
found that ten of the seventy-five stores selling the sudafed had sold 
ten times the expected amount, and another five stores sold five to ten 
times expectation. Gov. Ex. 8, at 14. With respect to the actifed 
product, ``49 of the 71 stores (69.01%)'' sold amounts which Mr. Robbin 
described as ``extraordinarily excessive when compared to normal 
expectations.'' Id. at 15.
    Respondent did not, however, sell name brand Sudafed and Actifed, 
but rather, a generic brand. The evidence established that the 
suggested retail price (SRP) of these products was $1.83 for the 
generic sudafed and $2.81 for the generic actifed although Respondent 
did not produce any evidence establishing that its customers actually 
sold the product at the SRP.\1\ See Gov. Ex. 16, at 7, Gov. Ex. 23, at 
2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Indeed, there is evidence that some of Respondent's 
customers sold it for even higher prices than that used by Mr. 
Robbin. See Tr. 412.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Government therefore entered as a rebuttal exhibit a new 
tabulation of the average monthly sales by Respondent's customers. See 
Gov. Ex. 29. According to this table, three stores were selling the 
sudafed products at ten times expectation; another eight stores were 
selling the product at five to seven times expectation. Id. at B7.
    The data for the stores selling actifed was even more pronounced. 
This tabulation showed that one store was selling at over fifty times 
expectation, seven stores were selling at twenty-five to fifty times 
expectation, eleven stores were selling at ten to twenty-five times 
expectation, and another eleven stores were selling at five to ten 
times expectation. Id. at B10-B12.
    In his testimony, Mr. Robbin acknowledged that reducing the 
estimated retail price by half would ``certainly put more stores into 
the insignificant range.'' Tr. 279. Mr. Robbin, however, further 
testified that it would ``still leave a great many stores in the 
significant range.'' Id. Mr. Robbin also stated that even if he reduced 
the estimated retail ``price in half,'' he would still conclude that 
Respondent's sales were ``excessive.'' Id. at 254.
    Mr. Robbin further testified that he ``rule[d] out [the] location 
[of Respondent's customers] as being a factor in the degree of sales.'' 
Id. at 183. According to Mr. Robbin, wherever [people] live in 
Missouri,'' there is a ``a major pharmacy [or] chain pharmacy'' within 
``a half an hour drive time.'' Id. at 181. While acknowledging that a 
convenience store might be a five to ten minute drive, Mr. Robbin 
reiterated that ``ninety-seven percent'' of shoppers ``buy their non-
prescription drugs in pharmacies and supermarkets.'' Id. According to 
Mr. Robbin's testimony, ``non-prescription drugs are bad sellers in 
convenience stores. They are given very little shelf space, and * * * 
are classed among the impulse goods, meaning that nobody goes to a 
convenience store, or few people do, to buy them specifically.'' Id. at 
182. Mr. Robbin thus ``rule[d] out location as being a factor in the 
degree of sales,'' because while location might influence sales fifty 
percent either way (depending upon whether the store was in a rural or 
urban area), the differences between the expected sales range and 
Respondent's actual sales were ``vastly greater than fifty percent.'' 
Id. at 183-84.
    The ALJ found credible the testimony of Mr. Terry Holloway 
(Respondent's President and co-owner) that Doniphan, Missouri, a town 
in Respondent's market, is forty miles from a store in the traditional 
market. ALJ at 9-10. Mr. Holloway also testified that Doniphan was a 
town of 3,000 people and had ``a lot of attractions'' such as a river, 
which apparently is popular with canoeists, and campgrounds. Tr. 727. 
Mr. Robbin's conclusion that Respondent's customers had engaged in 
excessive sales was based, however, on sales that occurred in the 
October to March time frame, a period in which it does not seem likely 
that tourists would be flocking to Doniphan to go camping or canoeing. 
But in any event, Mr. Holloway's testimony does no more than call into 
question Mr. Robbin's conclusion regarding a few stores.\2\ Neither it 
nor the ALJ's observation that ``in some instances * * * Respondent 
sold list I chemical products in quantities much lower than expected,'' 
ALJ at 12 (FOF 27), refutes Mr. Robbin's ultimate finding that 
Respondent ``provides services to retailers outside the traditional 
market for [OTC] drug products and frequently has sold products 
containing pseudoephedrine (hcl) in extraordinary excess of normal or 
traditional demand.'' Gov. Ex. 8, at 17-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Mr. Holloway also testified that Fisk, Missouri, another 
town in Respondent's market, was located fifteen miles from a store 
in a traditional market. Tr. 729. Beyond the fact that fifteen miles 
on rural roads does not seem to be an excessively long drive, Mr. 
Robbin's analysis lists only one store as being located in Fisk. See 
Generally Gov. Ex. 29. Respondent's evidence thus does not provide 
reason to question Mr. Robbin's conclusion that numerous other 
stores had engaged in excessive sales of pseudoephedrine products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The DEA Investigation of Respondent

    In September 2003, a Diversion Investigator (DI) in the St. Louis 
Field Division was advised by a DEA Special Agent with the Cape 
Girardeau field office that Southeastern Missouri Drug Task Force 
officers were concerned that pseudoephedrine products being found in 
clandestine meth. labs had come from Respondent's customers. Tr. 348, 
354-55. In particular, the Special Agent told the DI that ``some of 
[Respondent's] customers were selling case quantities * * * out the 
back door'' of their stores. Id. at 355. The DI advised his Group 
Supervisor of the report and Respondent was scheduled for a regulatory 
investigation. Id. at 348-49.
    On March 23, 2004, the DI visited Respondent's registered location 
and conducted an inspection. Gov. Ex. 13. As part of the inspection, 
the DI conducted an accountability audit of five highly diverted list I 
chemical products including three products which contain 30 mg. of 
pseudoephedrine hydrochloride per tablet (Select Brand sudafed, Select 
Brand Sinus Allergy, and Contac Sever Cold & Flu Max Strength) and two 
products which contain 60 mg. of pseudoephedrine tablet (Select Brand 
Antihistamine Nasal Decongestant (actifed) and BC Allergy Sinus 
Headache). Gov. Ex. 21; Tr. 389. Accordingly, in the presence of one 
Respondent's employees, the DI inventoried these products. Gov. Ex. 21.
    The DI then proceeded to audit Respondent's handling of the 
products during the period beginning on October 1, 2003, through the 
close of business on March 23, 2004, and recorded the results on a 
chart.\3\ Gov. Ex. 22. Initially, the DI concluded that one of the 
products, Select Brand pseudoephedrine had an overage. Id. at 1. The DI 
also determined that Respondent had shortages in each of the remaining 
products. Id. Most significantly, Respondent was short 105 boxes of 
Select Brand Antihistamine Nasal Decongestant. Id. Respondent was also 
short five boxes of Select Brand Sinus Allergy, two boxes of Contac

[[Page 42121]]

Severe Cold and Flu, and one box of BC Allergy Sinus. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The DI established the beginning count based on Respondent's 
computer records. Tr. 392.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first chart did not, however, include Respondent's manual 
adjustments to inventory because Respondent had not properly documented 
them. Tr. 394-95. Nonetheless, the DI gave Respondent the ``benefit of 
the doubt that [the] manual adjustments * * * were * * * correct'' and 
prepared a second chart. Id. Respondent gave two explanations for the 
adjustments: (1) That the sudafed and actifed products were stored next 
to each other on the shelf and that an employee could have recorded one 
product when he had actually pulled the other product for distribution, 
and (2) that some products were bound together so that six boxes of a 
product might have been recorded as one box. Id. at 396.
    According to the second computation chart, Respondent still had 
shortages of each product. The most significant shortage (Select Brand 
[a]ctifed) had been reduced from 105 boxes to one. Gov. Ex. 22, at 2; 
Tr. 397-98. Another product, Select Brand [p]seudoephedrine, had gone 
from an overage of thirteen boxes to a shortage of thirteen boxes.\4\ 
Gov. Ex. 22, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ There were no adjustments to the inventories of the Contac 
Severe Cold & Flu and BC Allergy Sinus products. See Gov. Ex. 22, at 
1-2. After adjustments, the shortage in the remaining product, 
Select Brand Sinus Allergy was reduced by two boxes. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the initial on-site inspection, the DI visited seven of 
Respondent's customers including several convenience stores, a liquor 
store, a video store, and a gas station. Tr. 403-04; Gov. Ex. 25. The 
first store the DI visited was Millie's, a Citgo gas station located in 
Wappapello, Missouri. There, the DI found that the store was selling 
not only listed chemicals products it obtained from Respondent, but 
also Pro Active ephedrine products that were carried by another 
supplier. Tr. 405-06.
    The DI next visited Green's Grocery in Doniphan, Missouri. Id. at 
406. There, the DI also found that the store was selling Pro Active 
ephedrine products. Id. The DI interviewed Green's owner, who told her 
that twice a week, it purchased twelve boxes of twenty-four Select 
Brand [s]udafed from Respondent, and that it also purchased 72 boxes of 
40 count Pro Active Ephedrine Multi-Action. Id. The DI also found that 
Green's was selling lantern fuel and starting fluid, two products which 
are used in the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine. Id. at 409.
    The DI next went to Bart's Package Store, which is also located in 
Doniphan, Missouri. Id. at 410. There, the store owner told the DI that 
he purchased twelve boxes of Select Brand Pseudoephedrine (24 count) 
and twelve boxes of Select Brand Antihistamine (24 count) from 
Respondent every three weeks and sold the products for $7 a box. Id. at 
412.\5\ The DI also found that Bart's sold starting fluid and lantern 
fuel. Id. at 416. According to the father of the owner, initially 
Bart's had purchased three cans of starting fluid but was then ordering 
ten cases a week to meet demand. Id. at 417-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ According to the DI, several other DEA investigations had 
found that Bart's had purchased large quantities of listed chemical 
products from other distributors in the period circa 2000. Tr. 414-
15. Most significantly, Bart's had purchased ``over 6 million dosage 
units from Heartland Distributing for $563,234,'' during a three 
year period. Id. at 415. The DI testified, however, that she did not 
know whether Bart's had purchased listed chemical products from 
Respondent during this period. Id. at 416. While this testimony is 
not directly probative of Respondent's conduct, it does support what 
DEA has found in numerous cases--that non-traditional retailers of 
listed chemical products are frequently conduits for diversion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The DI then visited the Country Junction, a convenience store which 
is also located in Doniphan. Id. at 419. There, the DI found that the 
store was not only purchasing Select Brand sudafed from Respondent, it 
was also buying Pro Active Multi-Action Ephedrine from another 
distributor. Id. at 419-20.
    Next, the DI visited JB's Grocery, in Neelyville. Id. at 422. Here 
again, the DI found that the store was purchasing listed chemical 
products from both Respondent and another supplier. Id. at 423. The 
store was also selling starting fluid and lantern fuel.\6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The record indicates that JB's had purchased large 
quantities of pseudoephedrine from another distributor several years 
earlier. Tr. 424.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 5, 2004, after discussing the results of the investigation 
with her supervisor, the DI called Mr. Marvin Wheeler, who had served 
as Respondent's contact person during the inspection. Id. at 521. The 
DI told Mr. Wheeler that the office had decided that a ``verbal 
warning'' would suffice to address Respondent's failure to report the 
significant loss of list I chemical products, based on the products 
that were missing during the audit. Id. at 521, 531-32. As for 
Respondent's lack of documentation for its inventory adjustments, the 
DI ``suggested that they develop a standard procedure to * * * 
investigate [a] shortage or surplus and document it thoroughly.'' Id. 
at 532.
    Later that day, the DI received a telephone call from the same Cape 
Girardeau based Special Agent informing her that one Keith Frankum had 
been stopped by local law enforcement officers after leaving 
Respondent's premises. Id. at 356, 435-36. During the stop, which had 
occurred on April 1, 2004, the authorities found twenty boxes of 
pseudoephedrine products, an invoice documenting that Respondent had 
sold the products to Frankum, and a handwritten note which stated: ``Be 
Careful Leaving here!!'' Gov. Ex. 23. The investigation determined that 
the note had been written by Jennifer Holloway, the daughter of 
Respondent's owners who then worked in the customer service 
department.\7\ Tr. 438.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The ALJ also found that ``the record contains no evidence 
that Jennifer Holloway knew Mr. Frankum, and it is unclear why she 
passed to note to him.'' ALJ at 21 (FOF 62). According to her 
mother, when asked why she passed the note, she ``didn't really 
know.'' Tr. 702. Ultimately, it is not necessary to determine Ms. 
Holloway's motive to resolve the issues in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The DI subsequently determined that Frankum had purchased a total 
of 92 boxes of listed chemical products (58 boxes of Select Brand 
actifed (24 count) and 34 boxes of Select Brand pseudoephedrine (24 
count) on five separate occasions beginning on November 7, 2003, and 
ending on April 1, 2004. Id. at 453-54. According to the testimony of 
Jane Brotherton, Frankum had called Respondent and specifically asked 
whether it carried Sudafed and Actifed. Id. at 541. Notwithstanding 
that Frankum's question made her suspicious, id., Frankum was 
subsequently allowed to purchase these products upon his presentation 
of a Missouri Retail Sales License which indicated that the location of 
his business was a storage unit located in Dexter, Missouri. Id. at 
543; see also Resp. Ex. 10.
    During Frankum's first visit to Respondent, Ms. Brotherton asked 
him what type of business he had. Tr. 457. Frankum was vague. Id.; see 
also id. at 548 (testimony of Ms. Brotherton regarding Frankum's third 
visit; ``there was never any reference to opening up a business''). 
Moreover, Frankum paid cash for each purchase. Id. at 457 & 545; see 
also Resp. Ex. 11, at 1-5.
    Even after two other employees who live in Dexter confirmed to Ms. 
Brotherton that the address given by Frankum was a storage unit, 
Respondent made additional sales of listed chemical products to him. 
Tr. 544-47. Moreover, two weeks after Frankum's first purchase, a local 
police official told Ms. Brotherton that ``Frankum's brother was a meth 
cook.'' Id. at 459, 505. While Ms. Brotherton related this information 
to other employees, id. at 459, she

[[Page 42122]]

apparently never told Respondent's owners about this or any of the 
sales. Id. at 559-60.
    Some of Respondent's employees who worked in the customer service 
department referred to Frankum as ``the drug guy.'' Id. at 460; see 
also at 564 (testimony of Jane Brotherton; ``I'm sure the girls that 
worked up front probably [referred to Frankum as `the drug guy'] in 
conversation.''). While Frankum was suspicious enough to prompt Ms. 
Brotherton to call the local police after his numerous visits, see 
Resp. Ex. 9, Respondent sold listed chemical products to him up until 
his arrest.
    Respondent did not, however, report any of these sales to DEA. Tr. 
491. Moreover, during the March 2004 inspection, the DI ``specifically 
asked [Respondent's liaison] about intelligence information.'' Tr. 491. 
Even then, Respondent did not mention the sales to the DI. Id.
    After his arrest, DEA personnel interviewed Frankum. Id. at 451-52. 
Frankum admitted that he had previously been arrested for assault and 
possession of methamphetamine and stated that ``he did a lot of meth 
about five years ago.'' Id. at 451. Respondent told investigators that 
he sold the pseudoephedrine products to five main customers, whom he 
learned of ``through word of mouth''; that pseudoephedrine was a big 
seller ``because it was used to make drugs''; that ``[h]e didn't think 
anyone purchased the product for allergies or sinus problems''; and 
that ``[h]e knew that some of his customers likely used [the] 
pseudoephedrine that he sold them to make methamphetamine.'' Id. at 
452-53. Frankum subsequently pled guilty to possession of a 
methamphetamine precursor drug with intent to manufacture amphetamine, 
methamphetamine or any of their analogs, a felony offense under 
Missouri law, and was sentenced to three years of imprisonment. Resp. 
Ex. 13, at 1.
    Upon investigating the circumstances of Respondent's sales to 
Frankum, DEA investigators re-evaluated their initial position 
regarding its continued registration and requested that it surrender 
its registration. Tr. 483-86. Respondent's owner initially agreed to 
but then changed his mind. Id. at 484-85. This proceeding was then 
initiated.

Respondent's Remedial Measures and Its Policies

    The ALJ found that Respondent undertook several corrective actions 
to prevent diversion following the DEA inspection. These measures 
included instructing its employees on their obligation to report 
diversion committed by another employee, Resp. Ex. 18, and the issuance 
of a written policy which announced that the company was ``limiting the 
quantity of [Select Brand Sudafed] tablets to 10 each per order and * * 
* Actifed to 10 each per order.'' Resp. Ex. 20. The policy further 
stated that employees should ``[a]lso take notice [of] the attached 
list of items and regulate the quantity of items ordered from it 
also.'' Id. Finally, the policy instructed Respondent's employees to 
``[p]lease report any suspicious orders to a manager or Dalton 
McKnight,'' id., who the company had appointed as its DEA compliance 
officer. Tr. 480-81. According to the testimony of Respondent's 
President, the company voluntarily reduced the quantity of products 
that could be purchased per transaction because he did not ``want to 
see [the young generation] messed up in this stuff.'' Id. at 741.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The ALJ also found that Respondent had ``stopped selling 
Mini-thins in 1999 or 2000,'' another frequently diverted listed 
chemical product, because the Holloways ``knew it was going to 
things it shouldn't be going [to],'' ALJ at 23 (quoting Tr. 734), 
more specifically, the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine. Tr. 
734. When asked by his counsel how he learned to this, Mr. Holloway 
testified: ``you go to the coffee shop, you can learn about 
everything. It don't mean it always true, but basically, just 
through hearsay.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ALJ further found that Respondent had reduced the number of 
listed chemical products it carried from thirty to eighteen and had 
started a daily inventory of the products. ALJ at 23 (citing Tr. 871-
72). Respondent constructed a special cage in which its listed chemical 
products would be stored under lock; it also limited access to the cage 
to only three or four supervisory employees. Tr. 881-82. Respondent 
also adopted the suggestion of the DI that a supervisor fill the listed 
chemical product orders and created a separate ``pick ticket,'' a 
document which is used to fill orders and place them on the appropriate 
truck. Id. at 882. Finally, Respondent also issued a memorandum 
instructing its employees on the proper documenting of all 
transactions. See Resp. Ex. 21.
    As found above, the customer verifications indicated that 
Respondent's customers were also purchasing listed chemical products 
from other distributors. During his testimony, the Government asked Mr. 
Holloway whether he aware that J.B.'s Store was purchasing listed 
chemicals from another distributor. Tr. 774. Mr. Holloway answered that 
``none of us would have know[n] that.'' Id. at 774-75. Mr. Holloway 
then added: ``[o]ur salesmen [are] trained to be aware of that. They, 
you know, you don't get nosy in people's business.'' Id. at 775.
    The Government then asked Mr. Holloway whether he had ``ever asked 
any of [his] customer accounts whether they were purchasing listed 
chemical products from other suppliers?'' Id. Mr. Holloway answered: 
``[I]n the wholesale world, that's kind of a no-no. If you want [to be] 
throw[n] out the door * * * if you want your competitor to take [the 
business], well get too nosy and that's what happens.'' Id. When 
pressed by the Government as to whether his answer was ``no,'' Mr. 
Holloway explained: ``If the salesman don't want that account, he can 
go ask personal questions like that and he can lose them.'' Id. at 776. 
Mr. Holloway then added: ``[t]he answer is I taught them, [d]on't lose 
customers.'' Id.

Discussion

    Section 304(a) of the Controlled Substances Act provides that a 
registration to distribute a list I chemical ``may be suspended or 
revoked * * * upon a finding that the registrant * * * has committed 
such acts as would render his registration under section 823 of this 
title inconsistent with the public interest as determined under such 
section.'' 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4). 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. Sec.  823(h).
    ``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 a registration should be revoked or an application 
for a modification of a registration should be denied. See, e.g., David 
M. Starr, 71 FR 39367, 39368 (2006); 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).
    Based on factors one, two, four and five, I conclude that the 
Government has

[[Page 42123]]

proved that Respondent's continued registration would be ``inconsistent 
with the public interest.'' 21 U.S.C. 823(h). Moreover, having 
considered the evidence regarding the corrective actions taken by 
Respondent, I conclude that while some of these measures do adequately 
address the Agency's concerns, in other respects, they are insufficient 
to protect the public from the continued diversion of listed chemicals 
into the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine. Finally, I find wholly 
unpersuasive--and contrary to the public interest--the ALJ's suggestion 
that until the diversion of gel caps and liquid pseudoephedrine 
products is substantiated, I not rely on this ``possibility'' to revoke 
Respondent's registration. Accordingly, Respondent's registration will 
be revoked and its pending application will be denied.

Factor One--Maintenance of Effective Controls Against Diversion

    As the ALJ noted, DEA precedents establish that this factor 
encompasses a variety of considerations. ALJ at 31. These include the 
adequacy of security, the adequacy of record keeping and reporting, the 
conduct of the registrant and its employees, and the occurrence of 
diversion. See Rick's Picks, 72 FR 18275, 18278 (2007), John J. 
Fotinopoulos, 72 FR 24602, 24605 (2007), D & S Sales, 71 FR 37607, 
37610 (2006); Joy's Ideas, 70 FR 33195, 33197-98 (2005).
    As the ALJ found, Respondent constructed a special cage for storing 
listed chemical products and limited the number of persons with access 
to it. ALJ at 31. Moreover, the Government did not dispute whether 
other aspects of Respondent's physical arrangements were adequate. I 
thus conclude that Respondent provides adequate physical security for 
its products.
    Respondent's recordkeeping is another matter. As the record 
establishes, the accountability audits showed that there were 
discrepancies with respect to each of the five audited products. 
Furthermore, even after the audit took into account Respondent's manual 
adjustments--which were not supported by appropriate documentation--
there were still shortages.\9\ While some of the shortages involved 
small amounts as an absolute matter, they were significant on a 
percentage basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ As found above, one of the manual adjustments was for 105 
boxes of Select Brand antihistamine. I do not find Respondent's 
justification for the discrepancy to be persuasive. For example, if 
employees were mistakenly pulling this product from the shelf rather 
than the adjoinign product (Select Brand sudafed), given that both 
products were audited, one would think that there would be a 
substantial and corresponding overage in the audit of the actifed. 
The audit report indicates that there was ony a thirteen box overage 
on the initial count of the actifed and that after applying 
Respondent's adjustments, there was a shortage. See Gov. Ex. 22, at 
1-2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under DEA regulations, a registrant must have adequate ``systems 
for monitoring the receipt, distribution, and disposition of List I 
chemicals in its operations.'' 21 CFR 1309.71(b)(8). Respondent's lack 
of documentation for its inventory adjustments supports a finding that 
its recordkeeping and accountability controls were inadequate. 
Respondent did, however, implement several changes to its monitoring 
and record keeping practices. Were there no other evidence of 
Respondent's inadequate controls, Respondent's corrective actions might 
well support its being allowed to maintain its registration. There is, 
however, such evidence.
    Jonathan Robbin, the Government's expert witness testified that 
Respondent's customers are non-traditional retailers of pseudoephedrine 
products and that the normal expected sales range of these products at 
Respondent's customers is ``between $ 0 and $ 40 per month[,] with an 
average of $ 19.85 for pseudoephedrine (HCL) and between $ 0 and $ 20 
per month, with an average of $ 8.68'' for its actifed product. Mr. 
Robbin further testified that ``[a] monthly retail sale of $ 60 of 
pseudoephedrine (HCL) would be expected to occur less than one in 1,000 
times in random sampling,'' and ``[a] monthly retail sale of $ 100 a 
month of pseudoephedrine (HCL) or of $ 50 of Actifed tablets would be 
expected to occur about one in a million times in random sampling.'' 
Gov. Ex. 8, at 8.
    Moreover, the Government entered into evidence a rebuttal exhibit 
prepared by Mr. Robbin which showed that even using Respondent's 
suggested retail price for Select Brand Sudafed and Actifed,\10\ 
Respondent's customers were still selling these products in 
extraordinary quantities. More specifically, three stores were selling 
its sudafed product at ten times expectation; another eight stores were 
selling the product at five to seven times expectation. As for its 
actifed product, one store was selling it at over fifty times 
expectation, seven stores were selling it at twenty-five to fifty times 
expectation, eleven stores were selling it at ten to twenty-five times 
expectation, and another eleven stores were selling it at five to ten 
times expectation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ As explained above, Respondent did not produce any evidence 
that its customers actually sold the products at the suggested 
retail prices. Indeed, Mr. Holloway testified that under Missouri 
law, Respondent could not tell its customers what price to sell the 
products for. TR 783.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Respondent attempts to discredit Mr. Robbin's findings by arguing 
that one of the towns in Respondent's market (Doniphan) is forty miles 
from a store in the traditional market. This testimony only calls into 
question Mr. Robbin's findings with respect to the stores in Doniphan. 
It does not impeach his findings with respect to the other stores or 
his ultimate finding that Respondent ``frequently has sold products 
containing pseudoephedrine * * * in extraordinary excess of normal or 
traditional demand.'' Gov. Ex. 8, at 17-18. Because of the statistical 
improbability that these sales were to meet legitimate demand, I 
conclude that a preponderance of the evidence establishes that a 
substantial portion of Respondent's products have been diverted. See T. 
Young, 71 FR at 60572; see also D & S Sales, 71 FR at 37611 (finding 
diversion occurred ``[g]iven the near impossibility that * * * sales 
were the result of legitimate demand''); Joy's Ideas, 70 FR at 33198 
(finding diversion occurred in the absence of ``a plausible explanation 
in the record for this deviation from the expected norm'').
    The ALJ acknowledged that the Government had proved that Respondent 
had engaged in `` `grossly excessive sales' of listed chemical 
products,'' and that ``[i]n the past, this pattern of sales has 
supported a finding'' of diversion and that Respondent's continued 
registration ``would be adverse to the public interest.'' ALJ at 40-41. 
The ALJ noted, however, that ``Respondent ha[d] demonstrated its 
willingness and its ability to * * * implement changes in its business 
processes.'' Id. In this regard, the ALJ had earlier noted that 
Respondent had ``voluntarily lowered the maximum number of listed 
chemical products to be sold per transaction.'' Id. at 32.
    Respondent's action does not impress me. As the record indicates, 
Respondent lowered the number of boxes per order from twelve to ten. 
Tr. 645-46, 653 (testimony of Marvin Wheeler). Moreover, Respondent did 
not limit the number of times a customer could order in a month; 
indeed, the record indicates that its customers were allowed to 
purchase the products twice a week. Id. at 654 (testimony of Marvin 
Wheeler); see also id. at 484 (testimony of DI). Even using 
Respondent's suggested retail price for these products, Respondent's 
policy would allow a customer to obtain a quantity of products which 
would sell for approximately $225 per month (actifed) and $146 per 
month for its sudafed product, amounts which are far in

[[Page 42124]]

excess of the normal expected retail sales by a non-traditional 
retailer to meet legitimate demand. In short, Respondent's sales limit 
is not a consequential reform of its business practices and would not 
prevent diversion.\11\ I therefore hold that Respondent does not 
maintain effective controls against diversion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ It is acknowledged that this discussion involves products 
in tablet form that Respondent can no longer distribute under 
Missouri law. However, once the Government proved that Respondent's 
products have been diverted, the burden of proof shifted to 
Respondent to show that its controls were adequate. See Gregory D. 
Owens, 67 FR 50461, 50464 (2002); Thomas Johnston, 45 FR 72311 
(1980). Furthermore, this hearing took place eight months after 
Missouri changed its law.
    Respondent's memorandum instituting the sales limit vaguely 
instructed its employees to ``take notice to the attached list of 
items and regulate the quantity of items ordered from it also.'' 
Resp. Ex. 20, at 1. It is thus far from clear what limits Respondent 
has imposed on its sales of gelcap and liquid products. It was, 
however, Respondent's burden to show that its controls were adequate 
and that the sales limits it imposed would prevent diversion of its 
gel cap and liquid products. This it failed to do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Respondent's controls against diversion are inadequate for an 
additional reason, which the ALJ completely ignored. The record 
establishes that several of Respondent's customers were receiving 
listed chemical products from other sources. Yet notwithstanding the 
potential for diversion of listed chemical products, see Tr. 734, 
Respondent's President and co-owner testified that he had never 
inquired of his customers as to whether they were purchasing listed 
chemical products from other distributors. Id. at 775-76. Moreover, Mr. 
Holloway expressed the view that it was inappropriate for his salesmen 
to ask the firm's customers whether they were purchasing products from 
other distributors. According to Mr. Holloway, ``[i]f you want [to be] 
throw[n] out the door * * * if you want your competitor to take [the 
business], well get too nosy and that's what happens.'' Id. at 776. Mr. 
Holloway further explained that ``[i]f the salesman don't want that 
account, he can go ask personal questions like that and he can lose 
them.'' Id. Mr. Holloway then stated that he had ``taught'' his sales 
force, ``[d]on't lose customers.'' Id.
    Respondent's policy--which is fairly characterized as ``see no 
evil, hear no evil''--is fundamentally inconsistent with the 
obligations of a DEA registrant. See, e.g., D & S Sales, 71 FR at 
37610. As noted in numerous DEA orders, selling amounts below the 1,000 
gram threshold that triggers reporting requirements, see 21 CFR 
1310.04(f), does not create a safe harbor which allows a registrant to 
distribute listed chemical products in disregard for the ultimate 
disposition of those products. See Rick's Picks, L.L.C., 72 FR 18275, 
18278 (2007); D & S Sales, 71 FR 37607, 37609, 37611-12 (2006); see 
also United States v. Kim, 449 F.3d 933, 939 (2006). Rather, a 
registrant has an affirmative duty to protect against diversion by 
knowing its customers and the nature of their list I chemical sales. 
Under Federal law, a registrant cannot sell listed chemical products to 
a customer when it has ``reasonable cause to believe'' the products 
will be diverted. 21 U.S.C. 841(c)(2). A registrant cannot avoid the 
requirements of Federal law by instructing its sales force to ask no 
questions of its customers and thereby be deliberately ignorant of 
diversion.
    I therefore conclude that notwithstanding the corrective measures 
it has implemented, Respondent still does not maintain effective 
controls against diversion. Furthermore, this factor, by itself, 
establishes that Respondent's continued registration is inconsistent 
with the public interest and provides reason alone to revoke 
Respondent's registration.

Factor Two and Four--Respondent's Compliance with Applicable Laws and 
its Past Experience in the Distribution of Listed Chemicals

    Under this factor, the ALJ discussed Respondent's failure to report 
to DEA its transactions with Mr. Frankum notwithstanding their 
suspicious nature. See ALJ at 34. The ALJ did not, however, make any 
finding as to whether Respondent had in fact violated federal law 
because it reported the transactions to local authorities rather than 
DEA. See id.
    The Government offers no argument as to why Respondent's failure to 
report these transactions to DEA violated federal law. See Gov. 
Proposed Findings and Conclusions of Law at 44. In any event, the real 
issue is not Respondent's failure to report the transactions but its 
repeated sales to Mr. Frankum given the information it had obtained.
    It is a violation of federal law for ``[a]ny person [to] knowing or 
intentionally * * * distribute[] a listed chemical * * * having 
reasonable cause to believe, that the listed chemical will be used to 
manufacture a controlled substance except as authorized by'' the CSA. 
21 U.S.C. 841(c)(2). Moreover, ``[t]here is no quantity threshold 
exempting a merchant from criminal liability under Sec.  841(c)(2).'' 
Kim, 449 F.3d at 941.
    The record clearly establishes that Respondent's employees with 
requisite authority had knowledge of facts which created ``reasonable 
cause to believe'' that the pseudoephedrine products it sold to Frankum 
would be used to manufacture methamphetamine. United States v. Kaur, 
382 F.3d 1155, 1158 (9th Cir. 2004) (defining standard as whether 
defendant actually ``knew, or knew facts that would have made a 
reasonable person aware, that the pseudoephedrine would be used to make 
methamphetamine'').
    As found above, when Frankum first contacted Respondent, he 
specifically asked Ms. Brotherton whether the firm sold Actifed and 
Sudafed. Moreover, when Frankum visited Respondent, the sales tax 
certificate which he presented gave a storage unit as his business's 
address and when interviewed, Frankum was vague about the nature of his 
business. Furthermore, Frankum did not complete a credit application, 
but rather paid cash for his purchases. See U.S. Dept. of Justice, 
Report to the U.S. Attorney General by the Suspicious Order Task Force, 
Appendix A (1999).
    The record further establishes that within two weeks of Frankum's 
first visit, Officer Clark informed Ms. Brotherton that Frankum's 
brother was a ``meth cook.'' Tr. 459, 505. Moreover, Respondent's 
employees referred to Frankum as ``the drug guy.'' Id. at 460. Finally, 
Ms. Brotherton testified that even during Frankum's third visit, 
``there was never any reference to opening up a business.'' Id. at 548.
    I thus conclude that Respondent knowingly distributed listed 
chemical products to Frankum having reasonable cause to believe that 
the products would be used to manufacture methamphetamine. While the 
information Ms. Brotherton initially obtained may not have risen to the 
level of ``reasonable cause,'' having been told by law enforcement 
authorities that Frankum's brother was ``a meth cook,'' and Frankum's 
continued vagueness about the nature of his business, did establish 
reasonable cause.\12\ Furthermore, Respondent does not contend that the 
acts of Ms. Brotherton or the other employees involved in the 
transactions were unauthorized or were not undertaken for the 
corporation's benefit. See, e.g., United States v. Basic Construction 
Co., 711 F.2d 570, 573 (4th Cir. 1983); United States v. Cincotta, 689 
F.2d 238, 241-42 (1st Cir. 1982); see also United States v. Bank of New 
England, 821 F.2d 844, 856 (1st Cir. 1987) (``[T]he knowledge obtained 
by corporate employees acting within the

[[Page 42125]]

scope of their employment is imputed to the corporation.''). 
Accordingly, the violations involving the Frankum sales are properly 
charged to Respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ To establish a violation of this provision, the Government 
is not required to prove that the products were actually used to 
manufacture methamphetamine. See United States v. Johal, 428 F.3d 
823, 828 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Prather, 205 F.3d 1265, 
1269-70 (11th Cir. 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I acknowledge that Ms. Brotherton reported the Frankum sales to 
local authorities and that Frankum was eventually arrested and pled 
guilty to the state law offense of possession of a methamphetamine 
precursor with intent to manufacture. But Respondent should never have 
sold listed chemicals to Frankum in the first place. I thus find that 
Respondent violated federal law at least three times when it sold 
pseudoephedrine products to Frankum. While I acknowledge that 
Respondent appears to have implemented a training program that 
addresses the Frankum incidents, I nonetheless conclude that 
Respondent's record of compliance with applicable laws and its 
experience in distributing listed chemicals support a finding that its 
continued registration is inconsistent with the public interest.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ I acknowledge that Respondent has not been convicted of a 
criminal offense. The actual conduct of Respondent, however, 
outweighs the fact that it has not been charged and convicted of a 
criminal offense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Factor Five--Other Factors Relevant to and Consistent with the Public 
Health and Safety

    The illicit manufacture and abuse of methamphetamine have had 
pernicious effects on families and communities throughout the nation. 
This is especially so in Missouri which, notwithstanding the State's 
enactment of a law restricting the sale of certain pseudoephedrine 
products, still has an extraordinarily serious problem with illicit 
methamphetamine production and its abuse. See Gov. Ex. 28. As the 
record demonstrates, while the Missouri law has led to a substantial 
reduction in the number of meth. lab seizures, law enforcement 
authorities still seized 745 illegal labs in the latter half of 2005. 
The illicit production of methamphetamine thus remains a grave threat 
to public health and safety in Missouri. Cutting off the supply source 
of methamphetamine traffickers is of critical importance in protecting 
the citizens of Missouri and adjoining States from the devastation 
wreaked by this drug.
    While listed chemical products containing pseudoephedrine have 
legitimate medical uses, both DEA orders and the record here establish 
that convenience stores and gas-stations constitute the non-traditional 
retail market for legitimate consumers of products containing these 
chemicals. See, e.g., Tri-County Bait Distributors, 71 FR 52160, 52161-
62 (2006); D & S Sales, 71 FR at 37609; Branex, Inc., 69 FR 8682, 8690-
92 (2004). DEA has further found that there is a substantial risk of 
diversion of list I chemicals into the illicit manufacture of 
methamphetamine when these products are sold by non-traditional 
retailers. See, e.g., Joy's Ideas, 70 FR at 33199 (finding that the 
risk of diversion was ``real'' and ``substantial''); Jay Enterprises, 
Inc., 70 FR 24620, 24621 (2005) (noting ``heightened risk of 
diversion'' if application to distribute to non-traditional retailers 
was granted).
    Accordingly, ``[w]hile there are no specific prohibitions under the 
Controlled Substances Act regarding the sale of listed chemical 
products to [gas stations and convenience stores], DEA has nevertheless 
found that [these entities] constitute sources for the diversion of 
listed chemical products.'' Joey Enterprises, Inc., 70 FR 76866, 76867 
(2005). See also TNT Distributors, 70 FR 12729, 12730 (2005) (special 
agent testified that ``80 to 90 percent of ephedrine and 
pseudoephedrine being used [in Tennessee] to manufacture 
methamphetamine was being obtained from convenience stores'').\14\ 
Here, the record establishes that several of the stores that Respondent 
supplied had previously been found to be purchasing extraordinary 
quantities of listed chemicals. See Tr. 414-15, 424-25 (discussing 
purchases of Bart's and JB's).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See OTC Distribution Co., 68 FR 70538, 70541 (2003) (noting 
``over 20 different seizures of [gray market distributor's] 
pseudoephedrine product at clandestine sites,'' and that in eight-
month period distributor's product ``was seized at clandestine 
laboratories in eight states, with over 2 million dosage units 
seized in Oklahoma alone.''); MDI Pharmaceuticals, 68 FR 4233, 4236 
(2003) (finding that ``pseudoephedrine products distributed by [gray 
market distributor] have been uncovered at numerous clandestine 
methamphetamine settings throughout the United States and/or 
discovered in the possession of individuals apparently involved in 
the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, as found above under factor one, the evidence supports a 
finding that Respondent supplied numerous non-traditional retailers 
with listed chemical products and that it sold extraordinary quantities 
of these products to a substantial number of these establishments. The 
evidence thus also establishes that a substantial portion of 
Respondent's products have been diverted.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ While the ALJ concluded ``that diversion is the only 
conceivable explanation'' for Respondent's excessive sales, she 
further reasoned that Respondent may have been less likely to detect 
these sales because of its large customer base. ALJ at 38-39. 
Respondent itself did not make this argument and thus it need not be 
considered. In any event, DEA case law establishes that a 
registration can be revoked even when a registrant was ``an 
unknowing and unintentional contributor to [the] methamphetamine 
problem.'' Joy's Ideas, 70 FR at 33198. See also T. Young, 71 FR at 
60572.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ALJ also noted that Respondent's List I chemical sales are a 
``minute percentage of [its] total business,'' and stand in ``contrast 
to other revocation cases, where * * * List I chemicals products have 
represented a significant portion of business.'' ALJ at 39 (citations 
omitted). Be that as it may, even where List I products are a ``minute 
percentage'' of a registrant's total business, a substantial amount of 
products can still be diverted, especially where, as here, a registrant 
lacks effective controls to prevent diversion. See discussion of factor 
one.
    Finally, while the ALJ acknowledged that some methamphetamine 
traffickers ``have already begun to circumvent the new [Missouri] law'' 
by using liquid and gelcap forms of pseudoephedrine, ALJ at 39, the ALJ 
concluded that the law ``drastically reduce[s] the potential for 
diversion and harm to public safety.'' Id. at 40. The ALJ further 
explained that ``the State will be monitoring the gelcap and liquid 
pseudoephedrine products, if any, found in the methamphetamine labs. 
Such heightened scrutiny leads to the conclusion that, if the products 
of the Respondent, as well as other distributors of List I chemical 
products in Missouri, are found in illicit methamphetamine 
laboratories, the State will close the legislative loophole afforded 
these limited products.'' Id. at 41. The ALJ then reasoned that 
``[u]ntil such time as the problem is substantiated * * * I recommend 
that the possibility of the Respondent's products being diverted not be 
relied upon to revoke * * * Respondent's Certificate of Registration.'' 
Id.
    In T. Young Associates, an Order published before the issuance of 
the recommended decision in this matter, I rejected a similar argument. 
See 71 FR at 60573. There, I noted several studies (including those by 
the Washington State Patrol and McNeil Consumer and Specialty 
Pharmaceuticals) which show ``that methamphetamine can be produced from 
List I chemicals sold as liquid-filled gelcaps and liquids.'' Id. 
(citing DEA, Microgram Bulletin 96-97, 102 (June 2005)). Here, the 
record likewise establishes that pseudoephedrine ``can be easily 
extracted'' from gelcaps and liquid products using ``readily 
available'' reagents and solvents. Gov. Ex. 4, at 8.
    Contrary to the ALJ's understanding, the diversion of gelcap and 
liquid forms of pseudoephedrine into the illicit manufacture of 
methamphetamine has already been ``substantiated.'' See Gov. Ex. 7, Tr. 
87-88, 91 Moreover, as I noted

[[Page 42126]]

in T. Young, ``experience has taught DEA that in the aftermath of every 
major piece of legislation addressing the illicit manufacture of 
methamphetamine, traffickers have quickly found ways to circumvent the 
restrictions.'' 71 FR at 60573; see also Tr. 63-64. This Agency is not 
required to wait until the diversion of gelcap and liquid forms of 
pseudoephedrine reaches epidemic proportions before acting to protect 
the public interest. Therefore, I reject the ALJ's finding that factor 
five supports the continuation of Respondent's registration.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ In her analysis of factor five, the ALJ concluded that the 
Government had not proved that ``Respondent's continued distribution 
of liquid and gelcap forms of List I chemical products poses a 
threat to the public health and safety.'' ALJ at 40. The ALJ erred, 
however, because she applied the wrong legal standard.
    As I have previously explained, the Government is not required 
to prove that Respondent's conduct poses a threat to public health 
and safety to obtain an adverse finding under factor five. See T. 
Young, 71 FR at 60572 n.13. Rather, the statutory text directs the 
consideration of ``such other factors as are relevant to and 
consistent with the public health and safety.'' 21 U.S.C. Sec.  
823(h)(5). This standard thus grants the Attorney General broader 
discretion than that which applies in the case of other registrants 
such as practitioners. See id. Sec.  823(f)(5) (directing 
consideration of ``[s]uch other conduct which may threaten the 
public health and safety'').
    Accordingly, while proof of a threat to public health and safety 
clearly satisfies the standard of subsection 823(h)(5), it is not 
required. Distributing a product, which studies show can be easily 
used to make methamphetamine, clearly satisfies this standard even 
in the absence of evidence showing widespread diversion of the 
products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In conclusion, the record establishes that Respondent's products 
have been diverted. While Respondent has taken corrective actions, 
these measures are still not adequate to protect against the diversion 
of its products. Furthermore, Respondent violated federal law by 
knowingly distributing listed chemical products when it had reasonable 
cause to believe that the products would be used to manufacture 
methamphetamine. Finally, studies show that pseudoephedrine can be 
easily extracted from gelcap and liquid forms of pseudoephedrine and 
anecdotal evidence establishes that methamphetamine traffickers are 
already using these products. Factor five does not require that DEA 
wait until the diversion of these products becomes widespread before 
acting to protect the public interest. Therefore, I conclude that 
Respondent's continued registration is ``inconsistent with the public 
interest.'' 21 U.S.C. 823(h).

Order

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 
823(h) & 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b) 7 0.104, I order that DEA 
Certificate of Registration, 003219HIY, issued to Holloway 
Distributing, Inc., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that 
the pending application of Holloway Distributing, Inc., for renewal of 
its registration, be, and it hereby is, denied. This order is effective 
August 31, 2007.

    Dated: July 20, 2007.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. E7-14822 Filed 7-31-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P