Atlantic Treatment Center, LLC; Decision and Order

Issuing agencies

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 166 (Friday, August 28, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 166 (Friday, August 28, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55620-55624]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-17594]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Atlantic Treatment Center, LLC; Decision and Order

    On December 17, 2025, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or 
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension of 
Registration (OSC/ISO) to Atlantic Treatment Center, LLC, of Pompano 
Beach, Florida (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), 
Exhibit (RFAAX) 2, at 1, 7. The OSC/ISO informed Registrant of the 
immediate suspension of its DEA registration, No. RA0645400, pursuant 
to 21 U.S.C. 824(d), alleging that its continued registration is ``an 
imminent danger to the public health or safety.'' Id. at 1. The OSC/ISO 
also proposed the revocation of its DEA registration, alleging that it 
lacks state authority and federal certification to continue operating 
as a provider of substance use disorder treatment services. Id. (citing 
21 U.S.C. 823(h), 824(a), 824(a)(3)).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ According to the OSC/ISO and Agency records, Registrant's 
registration expired on June 30, 2026. RFAAX 2, at 3. The Agency has 
previously held that it is within its jurisdiction and discretion to 
adjudicate a matter to finality where a registration expired after 
issuance of an OSC and before issuance of a final order. Jeffrey D. 
Olsen, M.D., 84 FR 68474, 68475-79 (2019); see Abdul Naushad, M.D., 
89 FR 54059, 54060 (2024) (applying the same principle and 
adjudicating a matter to finality where a registration expired 
before issuance of the OSC). Here, adjudicating the matter to 
finality will achieve similar goals as in Olsen; it will support 
future interactions between the Agency and Registrant, inform 
current and prospective members of the registrant community about 
the Agency's expectations, provide continuing education to all DEA 
personnel, help coordinate law enforcement efforts, and inform 
stakeholders, such as legislators and the public, about the Agency's 
work. Olsen, 84 FR at 68479.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More specifically, the OSC/ISO alleged that Registrant, a 
detoxification treatment center providing substance use disorder 
treatment services, had its state license to provide such services 
revoked and was instructed by the applicable state governing body to 
``immediately cease and desist any and all services which require 
licensure for treatment.'' RFAAX 2, at 3-4. The OSC/ISO also alleged 
that Registrant's federal certification to provide such services was 
withdrawn by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
Administration (SAMHSA).\2\ Id. at 1, 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ SAMHSA, an agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services (HHS), has been delegated by statute the authority to 
``establish and implement . . . a comprehensive program to improve 
the provision of treatment and related services to individuals with 
respect to substance use disorders.'' 42 U.S.C. 290aa(a), (d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 8, 2026, the Government submitted an RFAA to the

[[Page 55621]]

Administrator requesting that the Agency \3\ issue a default final 
order revoking Registrant's registration. RFAA, at 1, 10. After 
carefully reviewing the entire record and conducting the analysis as 
set forth in detail below, the Agency grants the Government's RFAA and 
revokes Registrant's registration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Controlled Substances Act delegates authority to the 
Attorney General, who has delegated it to the Administrator of DEA 
(the Agency). 28 CFR 0.100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Service of the OSC/ISO Satisfied Constitutional Due Process

    Based on the Government's submissions in its RFAA, the Agency finds 
that service of the OSC/ISO on Registrant was adequate. Specifically, 
the Declaration from a DEA Diversion Investigator (DI) recounts in 
detail, under penalty of perjury, the multiple attempts and methods to 
serve the OSC/ISO on Registrant's owner and its attorney. RFAA, at 2-3; 
RFAAX 3 & Attachments.
    On December 18, 2025, the day after the OSC/ISO was issued, DI and 
other DEA personnel traveled to Registrant's registered location and 
the residence of Registrant's owner to attempt personal service of the 
OSC/ISO. RFAAX 3, at 4-5. On the same day, DI emailed a copy of the 
OSC/ISO to Registrant's attorney. RFAAX 3, at 5 & Attachment G.
    On December 19, 2025, DI and other DEA personnel again attempted 
personal service of the OSC/ISO at Registrant's registered location. 
RFAAX 3, at 5. On the same day, DI emailed Registrant, asking that 
Registrant ``[p]lease call or respon[d] to [the] email as soon as 
possible . . . regarding the DEA Registration for ATLANTIC TREATMENT 
CENTER, LLC.'' Id. & Attachment H.
    On December 22, 2025, DI mailed a copy of the OSC/ISO by United 
States Postal Service (USPS) certified mail to Registrant's registered 
address. RFAAX 3, at 5. The certified mail receipt and USPS tracking 
data show that the OSC/ISO was successfully delivered on December 26, 
2025. RFAAX 3, at 5 & Attachment I (signed receipt) & Attachment J 
(tracking data).
    On December 22, 2025, DI mailed a copy of the OSC/ISO by USPS 
certified mail to Registrant's attorney. RFAAX 3, at 5-6. The certified 
mail receipt and USPS tracking data show that the OSC/ISO was 
successfully delivered on December 29, 2025. RFAAX 3, at 6 & Attachment 
I (signed receipt) & Attachment K (tracking data).
    On December 22, 2025, DI mailed a copy of the OSC/ISO by USPS 
certified mail to the residential address of Registrant's owner. RFAAX 
3, at 6. The USPS tracking data shows that the OSC/ISO was successfully 
delivered on December 26, 2025. Id. & Attachment L (tracking data).
    On January 5, 2026, DI personally served the OSC/ISO on an 
individual at the office of Registrant's attorney. RFAAX 3, at 6 & 
Attachment M (a signed Form DEA-12, Receipt for Cash or Other Items, 
confirming service).
    In sum, DI attempted to serve the OSC/ISO in-person at Registrant's 
registered location and residence. DI also attempted to serve the OSC/
ISO by mail, and USPS certified mail receipts and tracking data show 
that the OSC/ISO was delivered to Registrant's registered location, 
residence, and its attorney's office. DI also emailed Registrant about 
its registration and did not receive a response. DI also successfully 
served the OSC/ISO in-person at Registrant's attorney's office. 
Accordingly, due to the multiple attempts and methods to serve the OSC/
ISO on Registrant and its attorney, and the evidence showing that the 
OSC/ISO was received by certified mail at multiple locations and by an 
individual at Registrant's attorney's office, the Agency finds that 
constitutional due process notice requirements have been satisfied. See 
Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 226 (2006) (due process does not 
require actual notice but only ```notice reasonably calculated, under 
all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of 
the action''' (quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 
U.S. 306, 314 (1950))); Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161, 170 
(2002) (holding that the government is not required to undertake 
``heroic efforts'' to ensure notice is delivered).

II. Registrant is in Default for Failure To Request a Hearing

    Under 21 CFR 1301.43, a registrant entitled to a hearing who fails 
to file a timely hearing request ``within 30 days after the date of 
receipt of the [OSC] . . . shall be deemed to have waived their right 
to a hearing and to be in default'' unless ``good cause'' is 
established for the failure. 21 CFR 1301.43(a), (c)(1). In the absence 
of a demonstration of good cause, a registrant who fails to timely file 
an answer also is ``deemed to have waived their right to a hearing and 
to be in default.'' 21 CFR 1301.43(c)(2). Unless excused, a default is 
deemed to constitute ``an admission of the factual allegations of the 
[OSC].'' 21 CFR 1301.43(e).
    The OSC/ISO notified Registrant of its right to file a written 
request for hearing and answer, and that if it failed to file such a 
request and answer, it would be deemed to have waived its right to a 
hearing and be in default. RFAAX 2, at 6 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). Here, 
Registrant did not request a hearing, file an answer, or respond to the 
OSC/ISO in any way. RFAA, at 1, 3-5. Thus, the Agency finds that 
Registrant is in default and therefore has admitted to the factual 
allegations in the OSC/ISO. 21 CFR 1301.43(c)(1), (e), (f)(1).

III. Applicable Law

    Congress enacted the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) ``to conquer 
drug abuse and control the legitimate and illegitimate traffic in 
controlled substances.'' Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 12 (2005). A 
particular concern of Congress was ``the need to prevent the diversion 
of drugs from legitimate to illicit channels,'' and it ``devised a 
closed regulatory system making it unlawful to manufacture, distribute, 
dispense, or possess any controlled substance except in a manner 
authorized by the CSA.'' Id. at 12-13.
    The CSA's requirements under this closed regulatory system include 
that ``[e]very person who dispenses, or who proposes to dispense, any 
controlled substance, shall obtain from the [DEA] a registration.'' 21 
U.S.C. 822(a)(2); see Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. at 27-28. DEA 
regulations require a specific registration ``as a narcotic treatment 
program'' for an entity, such as Registrant, to administer or dispense 
controlled substances ``for the purpose of . . . detoxification 
treatment.'' 21 CFR 1306.07(a); RFAAX 2, at 2. To obtain a DEA 
registration for this activity requires the registrant to possess state 
authority and certification from SAMHSA. 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), (h)(1); 
21 CFR 1306.07(a); 42 CFR 8.11(c).
    State licensure to handle controlled substances is a prerequisite 
to obtaining and maintaining a DEA registration. 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3). 
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 [its] 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.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ With respect to a practitioner, DEA has 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).'').
     This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the CSA. 
First, Congress defined the term ``practitioner'' to mean ``a 
physician . . . pharmacy, hospital, 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). Thus, Registrant, as a 
facility that dispenses controlled substances for the purpose of 
detoxification treatment, meets the definition of ``practitioner'' 
under the CSA. See 21 CFR 1306.07(a) (providing that registration 
``as a narcotic treatment program'' authorizes the registrant to 
administer or dispense controlled substances ``for the purpose of . 
. . detoxification treatment'').
     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 it is no longer authorized to 
dispense controlled substances under the laws of the state in which 
it practices. See, e.g., Elias Garcia Garcia, P.A., 90 FR 31242 
(2025); Jason Weakley, R.N., A.P.R.N., 90 FR 10085 (2025); Khursheed 
Haider, M.D., 90 FR 21950 (2025). The Agency has applied this 
principle consistently. See, e.g., Henry-Norbert O. Ndekwe, M.D., 90 
FR 15990 (2025); Benson Sergiles, P.A., 90 FR 32016 (2025); Lawrence 
Rudolph, D.M.D., 89 FR 79310 (2024).

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

[[Page 55622]]

    To conduct activities in Florida as a detoxification treatment 
facility, Registrant is required to comply with applicable Florida law, 
to include state law making it a felony to operate as a substance abuse 
service provider without a license. Fla. Stat. Sec.  397.401(2); RFAAX 
2, at 2; see Fla. Stat. Sec.  397.401(1) (Florida law making it 
``unlawful for any person or agency to act as a substance abuse service 
provider unless it is licensed or exempt from licensure . . .''). 
Further, a pharmacy must maintain a state pharmacy license to operate 
as a pharmacy in Florida. Fla. Stat. Sec.  465.015(1). Florida law 
defines ``[t]he practice of the profession of pharmacy'' to include 
``compounding, dispensing, and consulting concerning contents, 
therapeutic values, and uses of any medicinal drug.'' Fla. Stat. Sec.  
465.003(22); see Fla. Stat. Sec.  465.003(15) (defining ``[m]edicinal 
drugs'' or ``drugs'' as ``those substances or preparations commonly 
known as `prescription' or `legend' drugs which are required by federal 
or state law to be dispensed only on a prescription'').
    The CSA also authorizes DEA to revoke a detoxification treatment 
registration ``upon a finding that the registrant has failed to comply 
with any standard referred to in section 823(h).'' 21 U.S.C. 824(a) 
(paragraph below subsection (5)); \5\ Hollywood Med. Rehab. Care, Inc., 
90 FR 47827, 47830-31 & n.7 (2025). One of the ``standard[s] referred 
to in section 823(h)'' requires a detoxification treatment facility, 
such as Registrant, to possess a current and valid federal 
certification from SAMHSA. 21 U.S.C. 823(h)(1), 824(a); 42 CFR 
8.11(a)(1). Specifically, the CSA provides that DEA ``shall register an 
applicant to dispense narcotic drugs to individuals for . . . 
detoxification treatment'' if, among other things, the Secretary of 
HHS, acting through SAMHSA, determines that the applicant is 
``qualified . . . to engage in'' detoxification treatment. 21 U.S.C. 
823(h)(1); RFAAX 2, at 2. To be qualified to engage in detoxification 
treatment, an opioid treatment program, such as Registrant, is required 
to ``comply with all pertinent Federal and State laws and 
regulations,'' and is required to hold ``a current, valid certification 
from the Secretary [of HHS] to be considered qualified'' under 21 
U.S.C. 823(h)(1). 42 CFR 8.11(a)(1), (e)(1); RFAAX 2, at 2. Failure to 
maintain a current and valid certification from SAMHSA is grounds for 
revocation of a DEA detoxification treatment registration. 21 U.S.C. 
823(h)(1), 824(a) (paragraph below subsection (5)); 42 CFR 8.11(a)(1), 
(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As the Agency previously discussed in Hollywood Medical 
Rehabilitation Care, Inc., 90 FR at 47830-31 & n.7, the subsection 
of 21 U.S.C. 823 applicable to narcotic treatment programs was 
modified on December 2, 2022, and again on December 28, 2022. Prior 
to the modifications, the relevant subsection applicable to narcotic 
treatment programs was designated as 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), and it had 
three subparts, A-B, which outlined the prerequisites for 
registration as a narcotic treatment program. On December 2, 2022, 
the subsection was redesignated as 21 U.S.C. 823(h)(1), and it 
retained the same three subparts as the previous version, A-B. On 
December 28, 2022, the subsection was again redesignated as 21 
U.S.C. 823(h), and the three subparts outlining the registration 
prerequisites were redesignated as 1-3. The December 28, 2022, 
citation is used throughout this decision.
    21 U.S.C. 824(a), which authorizes the Attorney General to 
suspend or revoke the registration of a narcotic treatment program 
if the registration prerequisites are not met, references back to 
the relevant subsections of 21 U.S.C. 823. Prior to December 2, 
2022, the revocation provisions of 824(a) referred to the 
registration prerequisites in 823(g)(1)(A-B). On December 2, 2022, 
21 U.S.C. 824(a) was modified to reference the registration 
prerequisites in 823(h)(1)(A-B). However, 21 U.S.C. 824(a) was not 
modified again to reflect the December 28, 2022 redesignation from 
823(h)(1) to 823(h). As explained below, this was clearly an 
unintentional technical error.
    As currently written, 21 U.S.C. 824(a) would only authorize the 
Attorney General to revoke a registration if the applicant is not 
``qualified . . . to engage in the treatment with respect to which 
registration is sought,'' because it only references 823(h)(1), and 
not (h)(2) or (h)(3). However, there have not been any substantive 
changes to 823 or 824 that reflect an intent to limit the Attorney 
General's authority to revoke or suspend. Section 823(h) continues 
to clearly state that a registrant is not qualified to possess a 
registration unless all three subparts are met. Therefore, the 
Agency concludes that the failure to modify 824(a) on December 22, 
2022, was an oversight, and that Congress intended for the Attorney 
General to retain authority to suspend or revoke a registration if a 
registrant fails to adhere to any of the three registration 
prerequisites or standards referred to in section 823(h). See Dept. 
of Def., Army Air Force Exchange Serv. v. Fed. Labor Relations 
Auth., 659 F.2d 1140, 1160 (D.C. Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 
945 (1982) (stating a statute should be read in a ``manner which 
effectuates rather than frustrates the major purpose of the 
legislative draftsmen'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Findings of Fact

    In light of Registrant's default, the factual allegations in the 
OSC/ISO are deemed admitted. 21 CFR 1301.43(e). According to the OSC/
ISO, Registrant is registered with DEA as a detoxification treatment 
center and authorized to handle controlled substances in Schedules II 
and III. RFAAX 2, at 3; see RFAAX 1, at 1. As discussed in greater 
detail below, this matter concerns the revocation of Registrant's state 
license to operate as a substance abuse outpatient methadone 
detoxification treatment facility in Florida (number LIC-1048046), the 
loss of Registrant's state pharmacy license (number PH34389), and the 
withdrawal of its federal certification from SAMHSA to operate an 
opioid treatment program (number FL10218M). RFAAX 2, at 3-5.

A. Registrant's State Licenses

    On or about April 18, 2025, the State of Florida Department of 
Children and Families (Department) issued an Administrative Complaint 
for License Revocation (Administrative Complaint) to Registrant 
providing notice of the revocation of Registrant's license, number LIC-
1048046, to operate a substance abuse outpatient methadone 
detoxification treatment facility in Florida.\6\ RFAAX 2, at 4; see 
RFAAX 3, Attachment B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Department's Administrative Complaint provides that 
Registrant's license to operate a substance abuse outpatient 
methadone detoxification treatment facility in Florida was revoked 
due to Registrant's lack of accreditation by an accrediting 
organization and providing medication assisted treatment maintenance 
services for which Registrant is not licensed by the State of 
Florida. RFAAX 2, at 4; see RFAAX 3, Attachment B, at 1, 5. The 
Administrative Complaint further found that Registrant ``blatantly 
disregard[ed] Florida Statute and Florida Administrative Code 
requirements set forth for licensure of substance use disorder 
treatment as evidenced by continued non-compliance,'' therefore, 
``the Department is hereby revoking the current license.'' RFAAX 3, 
Attachment B, at 5.

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

[[Page 55623]]

    According to Florida online records, of which the Agency takes 
official notice,\7\ Registrant's Florida outpatient methadone 
detoxification treatment facility license is currently in an inactive 
status.\8\ Florida Department of Children and Families, Provider 
Substance Use Disorder Licensing and Designation Search, 
<a href="http://sudprovidersearch.myflfamilies.com">sudprovidersearch.myflfamilies.com</a> (last visited date of signature of 
this Order).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 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).
    \8\ After the Administrative Complaint notified Registrant of 
the revocation of its license, on or about April 30, 2025, 
Registrant sought to renew its revoked Florida license number LIC-
1048046 to continue operating as an outpatient methadone 
detoxification treatment facility in Florida. RFAAX 2, at 4. 
Following continuous requests for further information and 
unannounced site visits conducted by the Department, on or about May 
30, 2025--the date the license was set to expire--the Department 
issued an Administrative Complaint Notice of Denial of License 
Renewal Application (Notice of Denial), denying Registrant's 
application to renew its revoked license. Id.; see RFAAX 3, 
Attachment C, at 1, 5, 15. Thus, in addition to being revoked, 
effective May 30, 2025, Registrant's Florida license to provide 
outpatient methadone detoxification treatment expired and remained 
expired following denial of the renewal application. Id.
    \9\ 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 facts here are 
that Registrant, as of the date of this Order, lacks the requisite 
state authority and federal certification to handle controlled 
substances for detoxification treatment services in Florida, and 
also lacks state authority to operate a pharmacy in Florida. 
Accordingly, Registrant may dispute the Agency's findings 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 Office of the Administrator, Drug Enforcement 
Administration, at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2d49484c034c494942034c5959425f4348545e6d49484c034a425b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fd99989cd39c999992d39c8989928f9398848ebd99989cd39a928b">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, Registrant is currently without authority to provide 
substance use disorder treatment services in Florida. RFAAX 2, at 5. 
Due to the lack of state authority to provide substance use disorder 
treatment services, Registrant is unable to dispense controlled 
substances for such purposes in Florida, the state in which Registrant 
is registered with DEA as a detoxification treatment facility.\10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ On or about June 6, 2025, the Department issued a 
Notification of the Operation of Unlicensed Treatment Services 
(Notification of Unlicensed Treatment) to Registrant. RFAAX 2, at 4; 
RFAAX 3, Attachment D. The Department's Notification of Unlicensed 
Treatment reiterates that Registrant's Florida license to provide 
outpatient methadone detoxification treatment was revoked on April 
18, 2025, and renewal was denied on May 30, 2025. RFAAX 2, at 4; 
RFAAX 3, Attachment D, at 1.
    The Department's Notification of Unlicensed Treatment also noted 
that Registrant was operating unlicensed substance use disorder 
treatment services at its location in Pompano Beach, Florida. RFAAX 
2, at 4; RFAAX 3, Attachment D, at 1-2. The Department's 
Notification of Unlicensed Treatment stated that it was evident that 
clients were receiving methadone maintenance for which Registrant is 
not licensed. Id. Therefore, in the Department's Notification of 
Unlicensed Treatment, the Department issued a notification that 
Registrant must ``immediately cease and desist any and all services 
which require licensure for treatment.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, Registrant also lacks state authority to handle controlled 
substances as a pharmacy in Florida. The Agency takes official notice, 
supra nn.7 & 9, that Registrant's Florida state pharmacy license, 
number PH34389, is listed in ``disciplinary relinquish'' status, 
meaning Registrant was disciplined by the state regulatory body and 
Registrant ``offered to give up [its] license to practice in the state 
of Florida to avoid further prosecution in a disciplinary case,'' and 
that Registrant ``is not authorized to practice in the state of 
Florida.'' Florida Department of Health License Verification, <a href="https://mqa-internet.doh.state.fl.us/mqasearchservices/healthcareproviders">https://mqa-internet.doh.state.fl.us/mqasearchservices/healthcareproviders</a> 
(last visited date of signature of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency 
finds that Registrant is not currently licensed to engage in the 
practice of pharmacy in Florida, the state in which Registrant is 
registered with DEA.

B. Registrant's Federal Certification

    On or about July 23, 2025, Florida's Substance Use Disorders & 
State Opioid Treatment Authority notified SAMHSA of Registrant's 
involuntary discontinuation of opioid treatment. RFAAX 2, at 5; RFAAX 
3, Attachment E, at 1. Therefore, on or about July 24, 2025, SAMHSA 
notified Registrant that, in accordance with 42 CFR 8.l l(c)(2), it was 
withdrawing Registrant's opioid treatment program certification. Id.

V. Discussion

    Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant 
currently lacks state authority and federal certification to handle 
controlled substances for detoxification treatment in Florida. RFAAX 2, 
at 4-5. Specifically, Registrant's Florida state license was revoked, 
and its federal certification was withdrawn. Id. As discussed above, a 
registrant must maintain state licensure and federal certification to 
provide substance abuse treatment services in order to maintain a DEA 
registration as a detoxification treatment facility. Thus, because 
Registrant currently lacks such state authority and federal 
certification, and, therefore, is not currently authorized to handle 
controlled substances as a detoxification treatment facility in 
Florida, Registrant is not eligible to maintain a DEA detoxification 
treatment facility registration in Florida. Accordingly, the Agency 
will order that Registrant's DEA registration be revoked.\11\ 21 U.S.C. 
823(g)(1), 823(h)(1), 824(a); 21 CFR 1306.07(a); 42 CFR 8.11(a)(1), 
(c), (e)(1); Fla. Stat. Sec.  397.401(1)-(2); see Serenity Caf[eacute], 
77 FR 35027, 35028 (2012) (denying application for narcotic treatment 
program registration because applicant lacked state authority and, 
therefore, did not meet the CSA's definition of a practitioner); Habit 
Mgmt. Inst., Inc., 60 FR 41900, 41900 (1995) (denying application for 
narcotic treatment program registration because applicant lacked the 
requisite authorization from the Food and Drug Administration).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The OSC/ISO also alleged that a March 2025 on-site 
inspection revealed recordkeeping inadequacies and that an August 
2025 on-site inspection revealed unlicensed dispensing of controlled 
substances for substance abuse treatment. RFAAX 2, at 3-4. The OSC/
ISO, however, does not establish a factual basis for the 
recordkeeping inadequacies or specify the specific laws the 
unlicensed dispensing allegedly violated. Further, the RFAA bases 
the request for revocation on ``lack of state authorization and 
SAMHSA certification,'' and does not mention the recordkeeping or 
dispensing allegations. RFAA, at 6. Accordingly, this Decision does 
not adjudicate the recordkeeping or dispensing allegations. 
Regardless, Registrant's lack of state authority and federal 
certification are sufficient by themselves to support revocation of 
its registration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, publicly available state government evidence, of which 
the Agency takes official notice, supra nn.7 & 9, establishes that 
Registrant currently lacks authority to operate a pharmacy in Florida. 
As already discussed, a pharmacy must be licensed to dispense a 
medicinal drug, including a controlled substance, in Florida. Thus, 
because Registrant lacks authority to practice pharmacy in Florida and, 
therefore, is not authorized to dispense controlled substances in 
Florida, Registrant is not eligible to maintain DEA registration in 
that state. Accordingly, the Agency finds that lack of state authority 
to practice pharmacy in Florida provides an additional, independent 
basis for revocation of Registrant's DEA registration. 21 U.S.C. 
824(a)(3); Fla. Stat. Sec. Sec.  465.015(1), 465.003(15), (22).

Order

    Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 
U.S.C. 823(g), 823(h), 824(a), and 824(a)(3), I hereby revoke DEA 
Certificate of Registration No. RA0645400 issued to Atlantic Treatment 
Center, LLC. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority 
vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(g), 823(h), 824(a), and 824(a)(3), I 
hereby deny any pending

[[Page 55624]]

applications of Atlantic Treatment Center, LLC, to renew or modify this 
registration, as well as any other pending application of Atlantic 
Treatment Center, LLC, for additional registration in Florida. This 
Order is effective September 28, 2026.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on 
August 21, 2026, by DEA Administrator Terrance C. 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. 2026-17594 Filed 8-27-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>