[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 208 (Thursday, October 30, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48887-48888]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-19710]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Antony Vanbang, M.D.; Decision and Order
On June 9, 2025, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Antony Vanbang,
M.D., of Denver, Colorado (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action
(RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1 at 1, 4. The OSC proposed the revocation of
Registrant's Certificate of Registration, No. FV5019460, alleging that
Registrant's registration should be revoked because Registrant is
currently ``without authority to prescribe, administer, dispense, or
otherwise handle controlled substances in the State of Colorado, the
state in which [he is] registered with DEA.'' Id. at 2 (citing 21
U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).
The OSC notified Registrant of his right to file a written request
for hearing, and that if he failed to file such a request, he would be
deemed to have waived his right to a hearing and be in default. Id. at
2-3 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). Here, Registrant did not request a
hearing, and the Agency finds him to be in default. RFAA, at 2.\1\ ``A
default, unless excused, shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of the
registrant's/applicant's right to a hearing and an admission of the
factual allegations of the [OSC].'' 21 CFR 1301.43(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on the Government's submissions in its RFAA dated
August 11, 2025, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on
Registrant was adequate. Specifically, the Government's included
Declaration from a DEA Special Agent indicates that on June 23,
2025, Registrant was personally served with a copy of the OSC at his
residence. RFAAX 2, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, ``[i]n the event that a registrant . . . is deemed to be
in default . . . DEA may then file a request for final agency action
with the Administrator, along with a record to support its request. In
such circumstances, the Administrator may enter a default final order
pursuant to [21 CFR] 1316.67.'' Id. 1301.43(f)(1). Here, the Government
has requested final agency action based on Registrant's default
pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(c), (f), 1301.46. RFAA, at 1; see also 21
CFR 1316.67.
Findings of Fact
The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the
factual allegations in the OSC are deemed admitted. According to the
OSC, on April 16, 2025, the Colorado Medical Board suspended
Registrant's license to practice medicine in the State of Colorado.
RFAAX 1, at 2. According to Colorado online records, of which the
Agency takes official notice,\2\ Registrant's Colorado medical license
remains suspended. Colorado Division of Professions and Occupations,
https://apps2.colorado.gov/dora/licensing/lookup/licenselookup.aspx
(last visited date of signature of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency
finds that Registrant is not licensed to practice
[[Page 48888]]
medicine in Colorado, the state in which he is registered with DEA.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an agency ``may take
official notice of facts at any stage in a proceeding--even in the
final decision.'' United States Department of Justice, Attorney
General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act 80 (1947) (Wm.
W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint 1979).
\3\ Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 556(e), ``[w]hen an agency decision
rests on official notice of a material fact not appearing in the
evidence in the record, a party is entitled, on timely request, to
an opportunity to show the contrary.'' The material fact here is
that Registrant, as of the date of this decision, is not licensed to
practice medicine in Colorado. Accordingly, Registrant may dispute
the Agency's finding by filing a properly supported motion for
reconsideration of findings of fact within fifteen calendar days of
the date of this Order. Any such motion and response shall be filed
and served by email to the other party and to the DEA Office of the
Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration at
[email protected].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized
to suspend or revoke a registration issued under 21 U.S.C. 823 ``upon a
finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license or
registration suspended . . . [or] revoked . . . by competent State
authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . .
. dispensing of controlled substances.''
With respect to a practitioner, DEA has also long held that the
possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the
laws of the state in which a practitioner engages in professional
practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a
practitioner's registration. Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 270
(2006) (``The Attorney General can register a physician to dispense
controlled substances `if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . .
controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he
practices.' . . . The very definition of a `practitioner' eligible to
prescribe includes physicians `licensed, registered, or otherwise
permitted, by the United States or the jurisdiction in which he
practices' to dispense controlled substances. 802(21).''). The Agency
has applied these principles consistently. See, e.g., James L. Hooper,
M.D., 76 FR 71371, 71372 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 F. App'x 826
(4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27616, 27617
(1978).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the
Controlled Substances Act (CSA). First, Congress defined the term
``practitioner'' to mean ``a physician . . . or other person
licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, by . . . the
jurisdiction in which he practices . . . , to distribute, dispense,
. . . [or] administer . . . a controlled substance in the course of
professional practice.'' 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Second, in setting the
requirements for obtaining a practitioner's registration, Congress
directed that ``[t]he Attorney General shall register practitioners
. . . if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled
substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.'' 21
U.S.C. 823(g)(1). Because Congress has clearly mandated that a
practitioner possess state authority in order to be deemed a
practitioner under the CSA, DEA has held repeatedly that revocation
of a practitioner's registration is the appropriate sanction
whenever he is no longer authorized to dispense controlled
substances under the laws of the state in which he practices. See,
e.g., James L. Hooper, M.D., 76 FR at 71371-72; Sheran Arden Yeates,
M.D., 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR
51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988);
Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR at 27617.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Colorado statute, ``dispense'' means ``to deliver a
controlled substance to an ultimate user, patient, or research subject
by or pursuant to the lawful order of a practitioner, including the
prescribing, administering, packaging, labeling, or compounding
necessary to prepare the substance for that delivery.'' Colo. Rev.
Stat. 18-18-102(9) (2025). Further, a ``practitioner'' means a
``physician . . . or other person licensed, registered, or otherwise
permitted, by this state, to distribute, dispense, conduct research
with respect to, administer, or to use in teaching or chemical
analysis, a controlled substance in the course of professional practice
or research.'' Id. 18-18-102(29).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant
lacks authority to practice medicine in Colorado. As discussed above, a
physician must be a licensed practitioner to dispense a controlled
substance in Colorado. Thus, because Registrant lacks authority to
practice medicine in Colorado and, therefore, is not authorized to
handle controlled substances in Colorado, Registrant is not eligible to
maintain a DEA registration. Accordingly, the Agency will order that
Registrant's DEA registration be revoked.
Order
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21
U.S.C. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No.
FV5019460 issued to Antony Vanbang, M.D. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR
0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I
hereby deny any pending applications of Antony Vanbang, M.D., to renew
or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application
of Antony Vanbang, M.D., for additional registration in Colorado. This
Order is effective December 1, 2025.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on
October 17, 2025, by Administrator Terrance Cole. That document with
the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For
administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of
the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal
Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the
document in electronic format for publication, as an official document
of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect
of this document upon publication in the Federal Register.
Heather Achbach,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Drug Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2025-19710 Filed 10-29-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P