Federal
Register Notices > Registrant
Actions - 2005 >
ELK International, Inc., d.b.a. Tri-City Wholesale; Denial of
Application
FR Doc 05-9251 [Federal Register: May 10, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 89)]
[Notices] [Page 24615-24619] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10my05-104]
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 03-25]
ELK International, Inc., d.b.a. Tri-City Wholesale; Denial of Application
On April 11, 2003, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion
Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an Order to Show Cause to
ELK International, Inc., d/b/a Tri-City Wholesale (Respondent/Elk) proposing to
deny its application for a DEA Certification of Registration as a distributor of
list I chemicals. The Order to Show Cause alleged, in sum that granting the
application to distribute list I chemicals to what DEA has identified as the "gray
market,'' would be inconsistent with the public interest, as that term is used
in 21 U.S.C. 823(h)
and 824(a).
Respondent, proceeding pro se, requested a hearing on the issues raised by
the Order to Show Cause and the matter was docketed before Administrative Law
Judge Gail A. Randall. Respondent subsequently retained counsel and following
pre-hearing procedures, a hearing was held in Memphis, Tennessee, on March 9,
2004. At the hearing, both parties called witnesses to testify and introduced
documentary evidence. Subsequently, both parties filed Proposed Findings of
Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Argument.
On October 7, 2004, Judge Randall issued her Recommended Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and Decision of the Administrative Law Judge (Opinion and
Recommended Ruling), recommending that Respondent's application to distribute
pseudoephedrine and ephedrine chemical products be granted, subject to "close
monitoring'' by DEA. She did recommend denying ELK registration to distribute
phenylpropanolamine. The Government filed exceptions to the Opinion and
Recommended Ruling and on November 16, 2004, Judge Randall transmitted the
record of these proceedings to the Deputy Administrator.
The Deputy Administrator has considered the record in its entirety and
pursuant to 21
CFR 1316.67, hereby issues her final order based upon findings of fact and
conclusions of law hereinafter set forth. Except as otherwise set forth in this
final order, the Deputy Administrator adopts the findings of fact and
conclusions of law of the Administrative Law Judge. The Deputy Administrator
agrees with recommendation that Respondent be denied registration to distribute
phenylpropanolamine. However, she disagrees with the recommendation that
Respondent be approved to distribute ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, even under
monitored conditions.
On May 9, 2002, Respondent, a Tennessee corporation owned by Mr. and Mrs.
Nafez Elkhayyat, located in Memphis, submitted its application for registration
as a distributor of list I chemicals, seeking approval to distribute
pseudoephedrine, ephedrine and phenylpropanolamine.
Prior to moving to Memphis, the Elkhayyats had owned Tri-State Wholesale, Elk
International, Inc. (Tri-State), located in East Ridge, Tennessee, a suburb of
Chattanooga. In May 2001, Tri-State applied for DEA registration to distribute
list I chemicals in an application signed by Mrs. Elkhayyat. During a
pre-registration inspection by a Diversion Investigator from DEA's Nashville
Office, Mr. Elkhayyat was interviewed and stated he intended to carry whatever
products his customers wanted.
Despite having operating a retail grocery store for 27 years, Mr. Elkhayyat
had little or no knowledge of listed chemicals, was unaware that they were used
in illicit methamphetamine manufacturing and could not identify the names of
products containing listed chemicals.
While Tri-State was not registered with DEA, the Diversion Investigator found
numerous name-brand products at its facility containing listed chemicals. These
included Dayquil, Nyquil, Advil Cold and Sinus, Tylenol Cold and Sinus, Anacin
Cough and Cold, Alka Seltzer Plus and Robitussin. Mr. Elkhayyat advised he had
purchased these items from a grocery store in Texas and readily agreed to box
them up and return them to the supplier, which he did while the Diversion
Investigator was still on the premises. He was also provided materials and a
briefing regarding the dangers of diversion and the record keeping/reporting
requirements for registrants.
An Order to Show Cause proposing to deny Tri-State's application was issued
by DEA on May 21, 2002, and sent to the company's address in East Ridge.
However, by then the Elkhayyats had moved to Memphis and sold Tri-State's assets
to H & R Corporation, d.b.a. Tri-State Wholesale (H & R). At the time, H
& R was not seeking to distribute listed chemicals and the Elkhayyats had
not retained any ownership or control over H & R. Accordingly, DEA's Office
of Chief Counsel directed that Tri-State's application be administratively
withdrawn, as the entity submitting it no longer existed.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ It is noted that H & R Corporation's owners subsequently
applied for DEA registration to distribute list I chemicals. An Order to Show
Cause proposing to deny H & R registration was issued and the matter is
currently pending final agency action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In June 2002, a different Diversion Investigator than the one who interviewed
Mr. Elkhayyat in East Ridge a year earlier, conducted the pre-
[[Page 24616]]
registration investigation on Elk's application. He met Mr. Elkhayyat and his
brother at the company's Memphis facility and they discussed the problem of
diversion and record keeping requirements. Despite the information having been
provided him during the first pre-registration investigation, Mr. Elkhayyat did
not indicate that he had any familiarity with reporting requirements. He also
failed to disclose that his former company had previously applied for a DEA
registration.
In general, the Diversion Investigator was satisfied with Elk's physical
security and intended policies for verifying the legitimacy of prospective
customers. While the Elkhayyats did not yet have a customer list, they indicated
they intended to sell listed chemicals on a wholesale basis, primarily to "convenience
stores, service stations, gasoline stations, [and] small grocery stores.''
After returning to his office, the Diversion Investigator learned the
Elkhayyats had applied for registration under the Tri-State name and he prepared
a recommendation that an Order to Show Cause be issued to Elk based primarily on
its intent to distribute list I chemicals to what DEA has termed the "grey
market.''
List I chemicals are those that may be used in the manufacture of a
controlled substance in violation of the Controlled Substances Act. 21
U.S.C. 802(34); 21
CFR 1310.02(a). Pseudoephedrine and ephedrine are list I chemicals which are
legitimately manufactured and distributed in single entity and combination forms
as decongestants and bronchodilators, respectively. Both are used as precursor
chemicals in the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine and amphetamine.
Phenylpropanolamine, also a list I chemical, is a legitimately manufactured
and distributed product used to provide relief of the symptoms resulting from
inflammation of the sinus, nasal and upper respiratory tract tissues and for
weight control. Phenylpropanolamine is also used as a precursor in the illicit
manufacture of methamphetamine and amphetamine. In November 2000, the United
States Food and Drug Administration issued a public health advisory requestion
drug companies to discontinue marketing products containing phenylpropanolamine,
due to risk of hemorrhagic stroke. As a result, many pharmaceutical companies
have stopped using phenylpropanolamine as an active ingredient. See, Gazaly
Trading, 69 FR 22561 (2004).
As testified to by government witnesses and as addressed in previous DEA
final orders, methamphetamine is an extremely potent central nervous system
stimulant and its abuse is a persistent and growing problem in the United
States. See, e.g., Direct Wholesale, 69 FR 11654 (2004); Branex, Inc., 69 FR
8,682 (2004); Denver Wholesale, 67 FR 99986 (2002); Yemen Wholesale Tobacco and
Candy Supply, Inc., 67 FR 9997 (2002).
A Diversion Control Group Supervisor and Special Agent testified at the
hearing regarding the rapid proliferation of clandestine methamphetamine
laboratories in Tennessee and its adjoining states and described the local
methods of production. They recounted the multiple health hazards and social
costs stemming from the production and abuse of methamphetamine and testified to
a dramatic increase in local clandestine laboratories. As discussed in several
recently published final orders, Tennessee now leads the DEA Atlanta Region in
the number of clandestine laboratories seized. See, e.g., Prachi Enterprise,
Inc., 69 FR 69407 (2004); CWK Enterprises, Inc., 69 FR 69400 (2004). Further,
DEA has found that local "[d]istributors or retailers serving the illicit
methamphetamine trade observe no borders and trade across state lines.'' Id., 69
FR at 69401.
The Special Agent credibly testified that local manufacturers typically
acquired their pseudoephedrine and ephedrine precursors from area convenience
stores and small "mom and pop'' stores and would patronize multiple stores, in
order to deflect attention from their buying patterns. In his experience, the
precursor most often found in area laboratories was Max Brand, followed by other
"off name'' brands, such as Mini-Thins, Pseudo-60's and Two-Ways. The preferred
pseudoephedrine strength of illicit manufacturers is 60 mg. The Special Agent
further testified that he had never personally encountered nationally known
brand names at illicit sites, such as Advil Cold and Sinus, Tylenol Allergy and
Sinus, Tylenol Sinus, Tylenol Cold, Nyquil, Dayquil, Theraflu, BC Allergy Sinus
Cold or Alka Seltzer.
By written declaration, a DEA Diversion Investigator contrasted the "traditional''
market for list I chemicals with what DEA has termed the "gray market'' for
these products. The traditional market, characterized by a short distribution
chain from manufacturer to distributor to retailer, typically includes large
chain grocery stores, chain pharmacies, large convenience stores and large
discount stores. The gray market is characterized by additional layers of
distribution and includes such non-traditional retailers as small convenience
stores, gas stations and other retail establishments where customers do not
usually purchase over-the-counter medications. These non- traditional retailers
typically sell higher-strength products in larger package sizes, such as 100 or
120 count bottles of 60 mg. pseudoephedrine. The Diversion Investigator also
identified the off- name brands found in disproportionate numbers during
clandestine laboratory seizures. These included Max Brand, Mini Two Way,
MiniThin and Action-Pseudo products.
Max Brand Pseudo 60s has previously been identified by DEA as the "precursor
product predominantly encountered and seized at clandestine methamphetamine
laboratories'' and convenience stores are the "primary source'' for the purchase
of "Max Brand products, which are the preferred brand for use by illicit
methamphetamine producers * * *'' See, Express Wholesale, 69 FR 62086, 62087
(2004); see also, RAM, Inc. d/b/a American Wholesale Distribution Corp., 70 FR
11693 (2005).
A Group Supervisor from DEA's Nashville office testified that, in his view,
the area's demand for pseudoephedrine and ephedrine for legitimate medical
purposes, did not justify the supply. Mr. Elkhayyat testified at the hearing
that he and his wife were Elk's sole shareholders and the company sold candy,
tobacco and other sundry items on a wholesale basis to area convenience stores,
service stations and small restaurants. Judge Randall found Mr. Elkhayyat
credibly testified that, prior to Tri-State's application, he had been a retail
grocer and was unaware that a license was needed to distribute ephedrine and
pseudoephedrine products on a wholesale basis.
After selling Tri-State to H & R in 2001, the Elkhayyats moved to Memphis
and began their wholesale distribution business under Elk International's
corporate charter. Mr. Elkhayyat testified that he had no interest in selling "Max
Brand or Mini Thins'' and would abide by DEA regulations. He testified the
company would sell only name brand products such as Advil Cold and Sinus,
Tylenol Cold and Sinus, Nyquil, Dayquil, Theraflu, Alka Seltzer, Benadryl and
Vick's Cough Medicine, which the Special Agent had testified were rarely, if
ever, found at clandestine laboratories.
By declaration, the Government introduced evidence regarding ephedrine and
pseudoephedrine sales and the convenience store market from Mr. Jonathan Robbin,
a consultant in marketing information systems and
[[Page 24617]]
databases, who is an expert in statistical analysis and quantitative
marketing research.
Using the 1997 United States Economic Census of Retail Trade, Mr. Robbin
tabulated data indicating that over 97% of all sales of non- prescription drug
products, including non-prescription cough, cold and nasal congestion remedies,
occur in drug stores and pharmacies, supermarkets, large discount merchandisers,
mail-order houses and through electronic shopping. He characterized these five
retail industries as the traditional marketplace where such goods are purchased
by ordinary customers.
Analyzing national sales data specific to over-the-counter, non- prescription
drugs containing pseudoephedrine, Mr. Robbin's research and analysis showed that
a very small percentage of the sales of such goods occur in convenience stores;
only about 2.6% of the Health and Beauty Care category of merchandise or 0.05%
of total in-store (non- gasoline) sales. He determined that the normal expected
retail sales of pseudoephedrine tablets in a convenience store would range
between $10.00 and $30.00 per month, with an average monthly sales figure of
about $20.00 and that sales of more than $100.00 in a month would be expected to
occur in a random sampling about once in one million to the tenth power.
According to Mr. Robbin, "[h]alf of the Tennessee stores analyzed showed
implied sales over ten times expectation, with ten of them over twenty times
expectation.'' These differences were extremely significant statistically and in
his expert opinion, small Tennessee convenience stores were not selling
pseudoephedrine and ephedrine products "for their intended purpose as
non-prescription drugs'' and the assumption that they were supplying the gray
market was statistically supported "many times over* * *''
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(h), the
Deputy Administrator may deny an application for a Certificate of Registration
if she determines that granting the registration would be inconsistent with the
public interest, as determined under that section. Section 823(h) requires the
following factors be considered in determining the public interest:
(1) Maintenance of effective controls against diversion of listed chemicals
into other than legitimate channels;
(2) Compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local law;
(3) Any prior conviction record under Federal or State laws relating to
controlled substances or to chemicals controlled under Federal or State law;
(4) Any past experience in the manufacture and distribution of chemicals; and
(5) Such other factors as are relevant to and consistent with the public
health and safety;
As with the public interest analysis for practitioners nad pharmacies
pursuant to subsection (f) of section 823, these factors are considered in the
disjunctive, the Deputy Administrator may rely on any one or combination of
factors, and may give each factor the weight she deems appropriate in
determining whether a registration should be revoked or an application for
registration denied. See, e.g., Direct Wholesale, 69 FR 11654 (2004); Energy
Outlet, 64 FR 14269 (1999); Henry J. Schwartz, Jr., M.D., 54 FR 16422 (1989).
As to factor one, maintenance by the applicant of effective controls against
diversion, the Deputy Administrator agrees with Judge Randall that Elk's
proposed physical security is adequate. With regard to Elk's proposed monitoring
and business practices, Judge Randall noted the company's proposed practices "seemed
adequate'' and that, while the company had yet to prove the viability of these
practices, she concluded "such a lack would support close scrutiny by DEA, but
not* * * outright denial.'' Judge Randall therefore concluded that factor one
weighed in favor of registration.
The Deputy Administrator disagrees with that condition. As noted by the
Government in its Objections, even if Respondent was able to monitor sales to
gray market customers for excessive amonts, DEA has previously found that grey
market retailers supplying chemicals for illicit use regularly acquire their
product from multiple distributors in order to mask their acquisition of large
amounts of listed chemicals. See, Titan Wholesale, Inc., 70 FR 12,727 92005).
Thus, so long as Elk was distributing wholesale to this suspect market, even
sincere efforts by Respondent to self-regulate its customers would not thwart
gray market retailers from obtaining precursor chemicals from other
distributors, as well as from Elk, and then reselling them for illicit purposes.
Further, a policy of DEA Headquarters directing field offices to provide
individual registrants extraordinary scrutiny and monitoring, simply to justify
an otherwise unwarranted registration, would ultimately have an adverse
cumulative impact on the execution of DEA's mission, given the limited assets
and extraordinary demands placed upon its personnel in the field.
In sum, the Deputy Administrator concludes that factor one weighs against
granting Respondent's application, primarily because of its intent to
participate in the gray market, See, Titan Wholesale, Inc., supra, 70 FR 12727;
TNT Distributors, Inc., 70 FR 12729 (2005).
With regard to factor two, Respondent's compliance with applicable Federal,
state and local law, Judge Randall concluded this factor weights in favor of
registration. In doing so, she rejected the Government's argument that
Respondent's owners, while doing business as Tri-State, had distributed brand
name listed chemical products without a registration, thus violating law and
regulations. Because the products were only found by the Diversion Investigator
stocked on Tri- State's shelves and no direct evidence was introduced showing
they had been resold, Judge Randall concluded there was insufficient evidence to
show the Elkhayyat's had, in fact, distributed the listed chemicals products,
thus triggering a registration requirement.
The Government objected to that conclusion, arguing Tri-State was actively in
business as a wholesale at the time of the pre-registration inspection and that
all of the products at its unregistered facility, including listed chemicals,
were there for distribution to retail customers, not merely for storage. The
Deputy Administrator agrees with the Government that, under the facts of this
case, it is appropriate to infer the Elkhayyats, while operating Tri-State,
distributed, attempted to distribute or possessed with the intent to distribute,
list I chemicals without a requisite registration. However, the Deputy
Administrator considers this apparent non-compliance mitigated by Mr.
Elkhayyat's then-lack of knowledge as to what products actually contained listed
chemicals and his cooperation in immediately returning the items to his out of
state supplier.
More significant for factor two and factor five as well, the Deputy
Administrator notes that state legislatures throughout the United States are
actively considering legislation designed to impede the ready availability of
precursor chemicals. Many of these proposals are similar to legislation enacted
by the State of Oklahoma, titled the "Oklahoma Methamphetamine Reduction Act of
2004.'' Under that measure, as of April 6, 2004, pseudoephedrine tablets were
designated as Schedule V controlled
[[Page 24618]]
substances and may be sold only from licensed pharmacies within that state.
As a result, it is prohibited in Oklahoma to sell these products from gray
market establishments, such as independent convenience stores, which have
contributed so much to the scourage of methamphetamine abuse, See, e.g., Express
Wholesale, supra, 69 FR at 62809 [denying DEA registration to an Oklahoma gray
market distributor, in part, because of new state restrictions].
A review of data for 2004 reveals the Oklahoma law has resulted in an
apparent reduction in the number of seizures involving clandestine
methamphetamine laboratories in the state. These developments are encouraging
and represent an important step in the ongoing battle to curb methamphetamine
abuse in the United States. State legislation, such as Oklahoma's, reflects a
positive trend and growing recognition that the diversion of precursor chemicals
through the gray market insidiously impacts public health and safety. See, e.g.,
Tysa Management, d/b/a Osmani Lucky Wholesale, 70 FR 12732, 12734 (2005)
[denying registration to intended Oklahoma distributor, in part, on basis of
enactment of recent state legislation]; Express Wholesale, supra, 69 FR at
62089.
Of particular consequence to Elk and similarly situated Tennessee applicants
and registrants, after Judge Randall signed her Opinion and Recommended Ruling,
legislation was enacted by the State of Tennessee that is patterned after the
Oklahoma initiative. That legislation (Senate Bill 2318/House Bill 2334),
collectively known as the "Meth- Free Tennessee Act of 2005,'' was signed into
law by Governor Phil Bredeson on March 31, 2005, and makes it unlawful for
establishments, other than licensed pharmacies, to sell tableted pseudoephedrine
products in Tennessee after April 1, 2005. This includes both name brand and
off-name brand products.
Accordingly, Respondent's entire intended customer base is now prohibited by
state law from selling the pseudoephedrine products Elk seeks DEA registration
to distribute. Thus, factor two weighs heavily against registration. See, Tysa
Management, d/b/a Osmani Lucky Wholesale, supra, 70 FR at 12734; Express
Wholesale, supra, 69 FR at 62089.
As to factor three, any prior conviction record relating to listed chemicals
or controlled substances, the Deputy Administrator concurs with Judge Randall
that there is no evidence or any prior convictions of Respondent or its owners
related to listed chemicals or controlled substances. Accordingly, this factor
weighs in favor of registration.
With regard to factor four, the applicant's past experience in distributing
listed chemicals, Judge Randall found that while Elk's owners had no prior
experience in manufacturing or distributing these products, Mr. Elkhyyat had
extensive retail grocery experience and had taken steps to improve his knowledge
in this area. However, recognizing that lack of experience in handling list I
chemicals has been a factor in prior DEA final orders denying registration,
Judge Randall found this factor weighted against registration in a "close
call.'' The Deputy Administrator agrees. See, e.g., Direct Wholesale, supra, 69
FR 11654; ANM Wholesale, 69 FR 116522 (2004); Xtreme Enterprises, Inc., 67 FR
76195 (2002).
With regard to factor five, other factors relevant to public health and
safety, Judge Randall acknowledged DEA precedent denying registration to grey
market distributors under that factor, in particular, Xtreme Enterprises, Inc.,
supra, 67 FR 76195. In that case there was no evidence the applicant's owner had
failed to comply with Federal, State or local law or had any prior convictions
relating to controlled substance or chemicals. Further, she was willing to
provide adequate security for the listed chemicals.
However, the Deputy Administrator found Xtreme's owner had only a rudimentary
knowledge of what would constitute a suspicious order and no experience in the
manufacture or distribution of listed chemicals. Most significant for this and
similar cases, the Deputy Administrator also found that "[v]irtually all of the
Respondent's customers, consisting of gas station and convenience stores, are
considered part of the grey market, in which large amounts of listed chemicals
are diverted to the illicit manufacture of amphetamine and methamphetamine.''
Xtreme Enterprises, Inc., supra, 67 FR at 76197.
However, in her Opinion and Recommended Ruling, Judge Randall distinguished
the facts of Xtreme Enterprises from this matter. In Xtreme, the respondent's
supplier had received two warning letters from DEA that its product had been
found in situations indicating their use in illicit methamphetamine
manufacturing. Additionally, the applicant had received requests for list I
chemicals in packaging forms that were not normally seen in traditional retail
establishments.
In contrast, Judge Randall found Respondent in this case only intended to
distribute name brand products and did not intend to distribute Max Brand, the
precursor product most favored by illicit manufacturers. Based on these
distinctions, Judge Randall concluded Elk's intent to distribute listed
chemicals to the gray market did not "weigh as heavily'' under factor five as it
did against Xtreme Enterprises.
DEA has expansively applied the analysis of Xtreme Enterprises to a multitude
of applicants seeking to do business in the gray market. See e.g., Express
Wholesale, supra, 69 FR 624086; Value Wholesale, 69 FR 58548 (2004); K & Z
Enterprises, Inc., 69 FR 5175 (2004); William E. "Bill'' Smith d/b/a B & B
Wholesale, 69 FR 2259 (2004); Branex Incorporated, supra, 69 FR 8682; Shop It
for Profit. 69 FR 1311 (2003); Shani Distributors, 68 FR 62324 (2003).
As in those cases, the Elkhayyats' lack of criminal records, previous general
compliance with the law and regulations and their professed willingness to
comply with regulations and guard against diversion, are far outweighed by their
intent to sell ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, almost exclusively, in the gray
market.
This reasoning has also been consistently applied by the Deputy Administrator
in a series of final orders published after Judge Randall issued her Opinion and
Recommended Ruling in this matter. See, TNT Distributors, Inc., supra, 70 FR
12729; Titan Wholesale, Inc., supra, 70 FR 1227; RAM, Inc. d/b/a American
Wholesale Distribution Corp., supra, 70 FR 11693; Al-Alousi, Inc., 70 FR 3561
(2005); Volusia Wholesale, supra, 69 FR 69409; Prachi Enterprises, Inc., supra,
69 FR 69407; CWK Enterprises, Inc., 69 FR 69400 (2004); J & S Distributors,
69 FR 62089 (2004); Express Wholesale, supra, 69 FR 62086; Absolute
Distributing, Inc., 69 FR 62078 (2004).
In any event, Judge Randall's reason for not giving Xtreme Enterprises more
weight in this matter, i.e., Respondent's intent to carry only brand name
products, has been mooted by Tennessee's new requirement that all pill and
tablet pseudoephedrine products, including those marketed under traditional
brand names, be sold only through registered pharmacies. As this statute,
addressed more fully under factor two, effectively bars distribution of these
products though Tennessee's gray market establishments, it is also relevant
under factor five and weighs heavily against Respondent's registration. The
Deputy Administrator also notes with concern Mr. Elkhayyat's initially
[[Page 24619]]
professed willingness to sell his customers whatever products they wanted and
his apparent lack of candidness with investigators, when he failed to reveal
that his former company had applied for registration to distribute listed
chemicals.
Finally, as recommended by Judge Randall, due to the apparent lack of safety
associated with the use of phenylpropanolamine, factor five is also relevant to
Elk's proposal to distribute that product. DEA has previously determined that
such a request constitutes a ground under factor five for denial of an
application for registration. See J & S Distributors, supra, 69 FR 62089;
Gazaly Trading, supra, 69 FR 22561; William E. "Bill'' Smith d/b/a B & B
Wholesale, supra, 69 FR 22559; Shani Distributors, supra, 68 FR 62324.
Based on the foregoing, the Deputy Administrator concludes that granting
Respondent's pending application would be inconsistent with the public interest.
Accordingly, the Deputy Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration,
pursuant to the authority vested in her by 21
U.S.C. 823 and 28 C.F.R. 0.100(b) and 0.104, hereby orders that the pending
application for a DEA Certificate of Registration, previously submitted by Elk
International, Inc., d.b.a. Tri-City Wholesale, be, and it hereby is, denied.
This order is effective June 9, 2005.
Dated: May 2, 2005.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05-9251 Filed 5-9-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
NOTICE: This is an
unofficial version. An official version of these publications may be obtained
directly from the Government Printing Office (GPO).
|