[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 31, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4830-4831]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1976]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Southwest K-9; Decision and Order

    On August 16, 2011, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to

[[Page 4831]]

Show Cause to Southwest K-9 (hereinafter, Applicant), of New Braunfels, 
Texas. The Show Cause Order proposed the denial of Applicant's 
application for a DEA Certificate of Registration as a Canine Handler/
Researcher, on the ground that its ``registration would be inconsistent 
with the public interest.'' Show Cause Order at 1.
    More specifically, the Show Cause Order alleged that Applicant had 
applied for a registration as a Canine Handler/Researcher of controlled 
substances in schedule I but that it currently lacks authority to 
handle controlled substances in the State of Texas, the State in which 
it seeks a DEA registration. Id. The Show Cause Order further alleged 
that Applicant has failed to: (1) Obtain other required state licenses, 
(2) provide information required by DEA on the application for 
registration, (3) ``provide proposed procedures for sufficiently 
reporting findings of illicit drugs to law enforcement officials,'' (4) 
``provide evidence that [it has] taken steps to obtain dogs from a 
kennel or trainer,'' as well as to either lease or build its own kennel 
space, and (5) ``institute * * * procedures for ensuring that its 
services will not be offered to illegal drug traffickers.'' Id. at 2. 
In addition, the Order alleged that Applicant ``requested a 
registration to handle controlled substances in types and quantities 
far in excess of what is required to conduct research involving 
canines'' and that it ``failed to provide sufficient evidence of need'' 
for canine drug detection services in the area where it proposes to do 
business. Id. The Order also notified applicant of its right to request 
a hearing on the allegations or to submit a written statement in lieu 
of a hearing, the procedures for doing so, and the consequences for 
failing to do either. Id.
    As evidenced by the signed return receipt card, on September 6, 
2011, the Government served the Show Cause Order on Applicant. GX 4. 
Since then, more than thirty days have now passed and neither 
Applicant, nor anyone purporting to represent it, have requested a 
hearing or submitted a written statement in lieu of a hearing. 21 CFR 
1301.43(d). I therefore find that Applicant has waived its right to a 
hearing or to submit a written statement and issue this Decision and 
Final Order based on the record submitted by the Government. Id. 
1301.43(d) & (e). I make the following findings.

Findings

    On March 3, 2010, Applicant applied for a registration authorizing 
it to handle schedule I controlled substances as a canine handler, an 
activity which requires a researcher's registration. GX 6. Applicant 
provided as its proposed registered location an address in New 
Braunfels, Texas and checked each of the twenty-two schedule I 
controlled substances listed on the application form as drugs it sought 
authority to handle. Id. at 1-2. While on the application, Applicant 
was required to list any state licenses or controlled substances 
registration which authorizes it to engage in research or otherwise 
handle controlled substances, Applicant left this part of the form 
blank. Id. at 3. According to the affidavit of a Diversion Investigator 
(DI) who was assigned to review its application, Applicant possesses 
neither a Texas Controlled Substances Registration, which is required 
by Texas law, nor the license required by Texas law to operate a Guard 
Dog Company. GX 5, at 2. (citing Texas Health & Safety Code Sec.  
481.061(a) and Texas Occupations Code Sec.  1702.116).
    According to the DI, he interviewed Mr. Ryan Taylor, Applicant's 
co-owner, who stated he had two and one half years of law enforcement 
experience and that its manager, Ms. Mellissa Jones, was a retired 
police officer with twenty years of law enforcement experience. Id. 
However, Mr. Taylor ``provided no evidence that any of its employees 
and/or owners possessed any ability or experience [in] training * * * 
canines for drug detection.'' Id. (citing 21 CFR 1301.18(a)(1)(iii)). 
The DI also found Applicant's protocols to be deficient in that they 
did not explain how Applicant would screen its potential customers to 
ensure that it was not providing services to drug dealers. Id.

Discussion

    Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), a canine handler is 
deemed to be a researcher and is subject to the registration and 
licensing requirements of section 303(f), 21 U.S.C. 823(f). See Angelos 
Michalatos d/b/a Contraband Searches and Investigations, 54 FR 48161 
(1989) (applying registration standards of 21 U.S.C. 823(f) to canine 
handlers); see also 21 U.S.C. 802(21) (``The term `practitioner' means 
* * * [an] other person licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, 
by the United States or the jurisdiction in which he practices or does 
research, to distribute, * * * conduct research with respect to, * * * 
or use in teaching or chemical analysis, a controlled substance in the 
course of professional practice or research.''). Likewise, section 
823(f) imposes, as a condition of obtaining a registration under this 
provision, that the applicant must be currently authorized to handle 
controlled substances under the laws of the State in which it performs 
such activities. See 21 U.S.C. 823(f) (``The Attorney General shall 
register practitioners * * * to * * * conduct research with[] 
controlled substances * * * if the applicant is authorized to * * * 
conduct research with respect to controlled substances under the laws 
of the State in which he practices.''); see also id.Sec.  824(a)(3) 
(authorizing revocation of a registration ``upon a finding that the 
registrant * * * has had his State license or registration suspended 
[or] revoked * * * and is no longer authorized by State law to engage 
in the * * * distribution [or] dispensing of controlled substances''). 
See Michalatos, 54 FR at 48161; see also Robert G. Crummie, 76 FR 71369 
(2011); David W. Wang, 72 FR 54297 (2007).
    Under Texas law, ``a person who is not a registrant may not 
manufacture, distribute, prescribe, possess, analyze, or dispense a 
controlled substance in th[at] State.'' Tex. Health & Safety Code Sec.  
481.061(a).\1\ Because Applicant does not possess authority under Texas 
law to handle controlled substances, it therefore does not meet a 
threshold requirement for obtaining a registration as a researcher 
under the CSA.\2\ See 21 U.S.C. 802(21) & 823(f). Accordingly, 
Respondent's application will be denied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ While Texas law provides several exemptions from 
registration, none of these apply here. See Tex. Health & Safety 
Code Sec.  481.062(a).
    \2\ Because Respondent does not have current authority to handle 
controlled substances under Texas law, it is not necessary to make 
further findings as to whether its registration is consistent with 
the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Order

    Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f), as well 
as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that the application of Southwest K-9 for a 
DEA Certificate of Registration as a Canine Handler/Researcher, be, and 
it hereby is, denied. This Order is effective March 1, 2012.

    Dated: January 19, 2012.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-1976 Filed 1-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P