Skip to main content
Notice2026-19842

JT Medical, LLC; Decision and Order

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published
September 29, 2026

Issuing agencies

Justice DepartmentDrug Enforcement Administration

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 187 (Tuesday, September 29, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 29, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61446-61447]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-19842]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


JT Medical, LLC; Decision and Order

    On September 29, 2025, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or 
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to JT Medical, LLC, of 
Lewistown, Pennsylvania (Applicant). Request for Final Agency Action 
(RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 2, at 1, 6. The OSC proposed the denial of 
Applicant's application for DEA registration, Control No. W17047690E, 
alleging that Applicant's registration would be inconsistent with the 
public interest. Id. at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(a)).
    More specifically, the OSC alleged that Applicant could not provide 
a bona fide supply agreement and did not have ``a substantially secured 
cabinet to store marihuana.'' RFAAX 2, at 4 (citing 21 U.S.C. 822(f); 
21 U.S.C. 823(a); 21 CFR 1301.71; 21 CFR 1301.72(a)(1)(ii); 21 CFR 
1318.05(a)(1); 21 CFR 1318.05(b)(3)(i)). On November 24, 2025, the 
Government submitted an RFAA requesting that the Agency issue a default 
final order denying Applicant's application for registration. RFAA, at 
1-3.
    After carefully reviewing the entire record and conducting the 
analysis as set forth in detail below, the Agency \1\ grants the 
Government's RFAA and denies Applicant's application for registration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The CSA delegates authority to the Attorney General, who has 
delegated it to the Administrator of DEA (the Agency). 28 CFR 0.100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Default Determination

    As a preliminary matter, the Agency finds that service of the OSC 
was adequate. On October 1, 2025, a DEA Diversion Investigator 
``personally served'' the OSC on Applicant at its proposed place of 
business in Lewistown, Pennsylvania. RFAAX 3, at 1. At the time of 
service, Applicant's president, Mr. S.N., signed a Form DEA-12, Receipt 
for Cash or Other Items, acknowledging receipt of the OSC. RFAAX 3, at 
1-2 & Appendix A.
    Under 21 CFR 1301.43, an applicant 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, an applicant 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).
    Here, the OSC notified Applicant 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 4-5 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). 
Here, Applicant did not request a hearing or file an answer. RFAA, at 
2. Accordingly, Applicant is in default. 21 CFR 1301.43(c)(1).
    ``A default, unless excused, shall be deemed to constitute a waiver 
of [Applicant's] right to a hearing and an admission of the factual 
allegations of the [OSC].'' 21 CFR 1301.43(e). Because Applicant is in 
default and has not moved to excuse the default, the Agency finds that 
Applicant has admitted to the factual allegations in the OSC. 21 CFR 
1301.43(c)(1), (e), (f)(1).
    Further, ``[i]n the event that [an applicant] . . . 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.'' 21 CFR 1301.43(f)(1). Here, the 
Government has requested final agency action based on Applicant's 
default pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(c), (f)(1), and 1301.46. RFAA, at 2; 
see also 21 CFR 1316.67.

II. Applicable Law

    The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) states that the Agency shall 
register an applicant to manufacture controlled substances in schedule 
I or II if such registration is determined to be ``consistent with the 
public interest and with United States obligations under international 
treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971.'' 21 
U.S.C. 823(a); see 21 CFR 1318.03(a); RFAAX 2, at 2. The CSA provides 
six factors the Agency must consider in determining the public interest 
in the context of registering a manufacturer of controlled substances 
in schedule I or II. 21 U.S.C. 823(a)(1)-(6); 21 CFR 1318.05(a)(1)-(6); 
RFAAX 2, at 2.
    One of the CSA's required considerations is the ``maintenance of 
effective controls against diversion of particular controlled 
substances and any controlled substance in schedule I or II compounded 
therefrom into other than legitimate medical, scientific, research, or 
industrial channels, by limiting the importation and bulk manufacture 
of such controlled substances to a number of establishments which can 
produce an adequate and uninterrupted supply of these substances under 
adequately competitive conditions for legitimate medical, scientific, 
research, and industrial purposes.'' 21 U.S.C. 823(a)(1); 21 CFR 
1318.05(a)(1); RFAAX 2, at 2.
    DEA regulations further provide that in determining which 
applicants to grant a manufacturer registration, the Agency shall place 
``particular emphasis'' on certain ``criteria'' when assessing the six 
public interest factors of 21 U.S.C. 823(a). 21 CFR 1318.05(b); RFAAX 
2, at 3. Relevant here, DEA regulations direct the Agency to determine 
``the number of qualified applicants necessary to produce an adequate 
and uninterrupted supply of cannabis under adequately competitive 
conditions.'' 21 CFR 1318.05(b)(3)(i); RFAAX 2, at 3. In making this 
determination, the Agency ``shall place particular emphasis on the 
extent to which any applicant is able to supply cannabis or its 
derivatives in quantities and varieties that will satisfy the 
anticipated demand of researchers and other registrants in the United 
States who wish to obtain cannabis to conduct activities permissible 
under the [CSA], as demonstrated through a bona fide supply agreement 
with a registered researcher or manufacturer as defined in this 
subpart.'' 21 CFR 1318.05(b)(3)(i); RFAAX 2, at 3.
    In other words, the regulation directs the Agency to determine the 
number of qualified applicants necessary to produce an adequate supply 
of cannabis and, in doing so, to ``place particular emphasis'' on the 
extent to which a bona fide supply agreement demonstrates whether any 
individual applicant is capable of meeting demand. 21 CFR 
1318.05(b)(3)(i); RFAAX 2, at 3; MCRGC, LLC, 90 FR 48431, 48432 (2025).
    DEA regulations also establish various security requirements for 
the storage of controlled substances. 21 CFR 1301.71, .72; RFAAX 2, at 
4. In general, DEA regulations require that ``[a]ll applicants and 
registrants shall provide effective controls and procedures to guard 
against theft and diversion of controlled substances,'' and that in 
order for DEA ``to determine whether a registrant has provided 
effective controls against diversion, the Administrator shall use the 
security requirements set forth in [21 CFR 1301.72-1301.76] as 
standards for the physical security controls and

[[Page 61447]]

operating procedures necessary to prevent diversion.'' 21 CFR 
1301.71(a); RFAAX 2, at 4.
    DEA regulations also establish specific security requirements for 
controlled substances in schedules I and II. 21 CFR 1301.72(a); RFAAX 
2, at 4. Relevant here, these regulations require that the ``[r]aw 
material, bulk materials awaiting further processing, [and] finished 
products which are controlled substances listed in Schedule I or II . . 
. shall be stored in . . . a safe or steel cabinet . . . [w]hich safe 
or steel cabinet, if it weighs less than 750 pounds, is bolted or 
cemented to the floor or wall in such a way that it cannot be readily 
removed.'' 21 CFR 1301.72(a)(1)(ii); RFAAX 2, at 4.

III. Findings of Fact

    In light of Applicant's default, the factual allegations in the OSC 
are deemed admitted.\2\ 21 CFR 1301.43(e). Accordingly, Applicant 
admits that on or about May 22, 2017, Applicant's president submitted 
an application on behalf of Applicant to obtain a DEA registration as a 
manufacturer (bulk) in schedule I controlled substances (marihuana, 
marihuana extract, and tetrahydrocannabinol).\3\ RFAAX 2, at 4; 21 CFR 
1308.11(d)(23), (31), (58). Applicant further admits that it cannot 
provide a bona fide supply agreement and that it does not have ``a 
substantially secured cabinet to store marihuana.'' RFAAX 2, at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ According to the CSA, ``[f]indings of fact by the [DEA 
Administrator], if supported by substantial evidence, shall be 
conclusive.'' 21 U.S.C. 877. Here, where Applicant is found to be in 
default, all the factual allegations in the OSC are deemed to be 
admitted. These uncontested and deemed admitted facts constitute 
evidence that exceeds the ``substantial evidence'' standard of 21 
U.S.C. 877; it is unrebutted evidence.
    \3\ A Notice of Applicant's application was published in the 
Federal Register on August 27, 2019. Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled 
Substances Applications: Bulk Manufacturers of Marihuana, 84 FR 
44920, 44922 (2019); RFAAX 2, at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion

    Here, Applicant cannot provide a bona fide supply agreement, nor 
any other evidence, for the Agency to consider under 21 CFR 
1318.05(b)(3)(i). RFAAX 2, at 4; 21 U.S.C. 823(a)(1); MCRGC, LLC, 90 FR 
at 48432. In addition, Applicant does not have a secured cabinet to 
store marihuana for the Agency to consider under 21 CFR 1301.71 and 
.72. RFAAX 2, at 4; 21 U.S.C. 823(a)(1). Therefore, these criteria \4\ 
under Agency consideration weigh against Applicant. 21 U.S.C. 
823(a)(1); 21 CFR 1301.71, .72; 21 CFR 1318.05(a), (b)(3)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The burden is on the applicant to establish that its 
registration is consistent with the public interest. 21 CFR 
1301.44(a); 21 CFR 1318.03(b); RFAAX 2, at 2. Here, by virtue of its 
default, Applicant has failed to present any evidence whatsoever to 
establish its registration is consistent with the public interest, 
and the deemed admitted facts (i.e., the lack of a bona fide supply 
agreement and effective controls against diversion), weigh against a 
finding in favor of registration. Although the lack of a bona fide 
supply agreement and secured cabinet are only factors, they are 
dispositive here because Applicant's default means it not only 
waived the right to present evidence regarding these two factors, 
but it also waived the right to present any other evidence that its 
registration would be consistent with the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Considering the public interest factors of 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and 
specifically Applicant's failure to provide a bona fide supply 
agreement and have a secured cabinet to store schedule I controlled 
substances, the Agency determines that issuing Applicant a manufacturer 
registration (bulk) for marihuana would not be consistent with the 
public interest. Accordingly, the Agency will order the denial of 
Applicant's application for registration.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Denial of Applicant's application in this Order does not 
prohibit Applicant from submitting an application through the new 
framework established for issuing registrations based on state 
licenses to handle marihuana for medical purposes, if applicable. 
See Schedules of Controlled Substances: Rescheduling of Food and 
Drug Administration Approved Products Containing Marijuana From 
Schedule I to Schedule III; Corresponding Change to Permit 
Requirements, 91 FR 22714, 22721 (2026) (adding paragraph (k) to 21 
CFR 1301.13 ``establish[ing] an expedited review process for 
entities holding state medical marijuana licenses who seek 
registration as a marijuana manufacturer''); see also id. at 22722 
(adding paragraphs (g)(2)-(4) to 21 CFR 1308.13 placing into 
schedule III marihuana, marihuana extract, and delta-9-
tetrahydrocannabinols ``subject to a state medical marijuana 
license'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Order

    Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 
U.S.C. 823(a), I hereby deny the pending application for a DEA 
Certificate of Registration, Control No. W17047690E, submitted by JT 
Medical, LLC, as well as any other pending application of JT Medical, 
LLC, to amend or modify this application, or for additional 
registration in Pennsylvania. This Order is effective October 29, 2026.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on 
September 8, 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. 2026-19842 Filed 9-28-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P


</pre></body>
</html>
Indexed from Federal Register on September 29, 2026.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.