Or rather a question of stability.
How will you know you aren't producing any plain MBDB, which will form on the oh-so-inevitable N-OH decomposition, most likely during workup? Myself and a few others have separately looked into N-hydroxy PEA/amphetamines, and the general consensus seemed that no matter how careful, the chance of at least
some* thermal decomposition to the parent amine is inevitable; in your case the parent amine is by all means a Schedule 1 substance.
In short, don't make this analogue if you expect to stay comfortably within the law. The odds are against even a skilled chemist working in a professional lab to completely avoid decomposition, however in his case that's fine; his decomposition product isn't a Schedule 1 substance. He will simply separate the amine during workup (after analysis has told him the impurity is present), while you are likely to produce a large amount of MBDB with only a trace of the desired N-OH product, yet you won't even know this until some of your product finds itself with the DEA for analysis.
Unless your decomposition product isn't a controlled drug itself, making N-OH's via all known reductive amination methods in a clandestine setting will almost surely get you in as much trouble as intentionally making the parent amine itself.
Some links on the subject, to read carefully:Extensions and commentary for MDOH:
http://www.erowid.org/library/books_online/pihkal/pihkal114.shtml
The whole thread, and, most importantly, the link I posted regarding UK analogues and a successful prosecution centering on the decomposition of N-OH DOB and 2C-B analogues:
Post 405601
(Chimimanie: "DOM analogs (Can J chem 51 1402 1973)", Novel Discourse)*Some,
any is enough.