Nicky Shah, M.D.; Decision and Order, 67496-67497 [2022-24299]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
67496
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 215 / Tuesday, November 8, 2022 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 22–37]
Nicky Shah, M.D.; Decision and Order
On June 29, 2022, the Drug
Enforcement Administration
(hereinafter, DEA or Government) filed
an Order to Show Cause (hereinafter,
OSC) issued to Nicky Shah, M.D.
(hereinafter, Respondent). OSC, at 1.
The OSC proposed the revocation of
Respondent’s Certificate of Registration
No. BS6061345 at the registered address
of 293 Corbett Ave., San Francisco, CA
94114. Id. The OSC alleged that
Respondent’s registration should be
revoked because Respondent is
‘‘without authority to handle controlled
substances in the State of California, the
state in which [he is] registered with
DEA.’’ Id. at 1–2 (citing 21 U.S.C.
824(a)(3)).1
By email dated August 3, 2022,
Respondent requested a hearing.2 On
August 23, 2022, the Government filed
a Motion for Summary Disposition,
which Respondent opposed. On
September 13, 2022, the ALJ granted the
Government’s Motion for Summary
Disposition and recommended the
revocation of Respondent’s registration
and the denial of Respondent’s request
to renew his registration, finding that
because Respondent lacks state
authority to handle controlled
substances in California, the state in
which he is registered with DEA, there
is no genuine issue of material fact.
Order Granting the Government’s
Motion for Summary Disposition, and
Recommended Rulings, Findings of
Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision
of the Administrative Law Judge
(hereinafter, Recommended Decision or
RD), at 5–6.
The Agency issues this Decision and
Order based on the entire record before
it, 21 CFR 1301.43(e), and makes the
following findings of fact.
Findings of Fact
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
On April 2, 2020, an Administrative
Law Judge from the State of California,
Office of Administrative Hearings,
issued a Proposed Decision revoking
Respondent’s California medical
license. Government Exhibit
(hereinafter, GX) B, at 2, 12. On May 13,
1 According to Agency records, Respondent’s
Certificate of Registration No. BS6061345 expired
on February 28, 2022, and Respondent’s request for
renewal of his registration was received on April 1,
2022.
2 On August 8, 2022, Respondent filed an
additional hearing request document that included
a more detailed response to the OSC.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:56 Nov 07, 2022
Jkt 259001
2020, the Medical Board of California
issued a Decision adopting the
Administrative Law Judge’s Proposed
Decision, effective June 12, 2020. Id. at
1.
According to California’s online
records, of which the Agency takes
official notice, Respondent’s state
medical license is revoked.3 Medical
Board of California License Verification,
https://www.mbc.ca.gov/LicenseVerification (last visited date of
signature of this Order). Accordingly,
the Agency finds that Respondent is not
licensed to engage in the practice of
medicine in California, the state in
which he is registered with the DEA.
Discussion
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the
Attorney General is authorized to
suspend or revoke a registration issued
under section 823 of the Controlled
Substances Act (hereinafter, CSA)
‘‘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, the 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. See, e.g.,
James L. Hooper, M.D., 76 FR 71371
(2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 F. App’x
826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh
Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27616, 27617
(1978).4
3 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). 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.’’ Accordingly,
Respondent may dispute the Agency’s finding by
filing a properly supported motion for
reconsideration of finding 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 Office of the
Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration at
dea.addo.attorneys@dea.usdoj.gov.
4 This rule derives from the text of two provisions
of the 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
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
According to California statute,
‘‘dispense’’ means ‘‘to deliver a
controlled substance to an ultimate user
or research subject by or pursuant to the
lawful order of a practitioner, including
the prescribing, furnishing, packaging,
labeling, or compounding necessary to
prepare the substance for that delivery.’’
Cal. Health & Safety Code section 11010
(West 2022). Further, a ‘‘practitioner’’
means a person ‘‘licensed, registered, or
otherwise permitted, to distribute,
dispense, conduct research with respect
to, or administer, a controlled substance
in the course of professional practice or
research in this state.’’ Id. at section
11026(c).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the
record is that Respondent lacks
authority to practice medicine in
California. As discussed above, a
physician must be a licensed
practitioner to dispense a controlled
substance in California. Thus, because
Respondent lacks authority to practice
medicine in California and, therefore, is
not authorized to handle controlled
substances in California, Respondent is
not eligible to maintain a DEA
registration based in California.
Accordingly, the Agency will order that
Respondent’s DEA registration be
revoked and that Respondent’s request
for renewal of his registration be
denied.5
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
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(f). Because Congress has
clearly mandated that a practitioner possess state
authority in order to be deemed a practitioner under
the CSA, the 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, 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, 43 FR at 27617.
5 Respondent argued that his registration should
be renewed because prior to the issuance of the
OSC, he had requested to renew his registration
with a change of registered address to Iowa, where
he maintains an unrestricted, active medical license
and an Iowa controlled substance registration. Resp
Opposition, at 4–6; see also RX B–D. As the ALJ
stated ‘‘[a]n attempt to modify the registered
location of a [registration] is deemed an application
for a new [registration].’’ RD, at 5 (citing 21 CFR
1301.51(c); Gazelle A. Craig, D.O., 83 FR 27628,
27631 (2018)). Here, the subject of the current
proceeding is Respondent’s Certificate of
Registration No. BS6061345, not Respondent’s
eligibility for a new registration based in Iowa. As
such, it is only of consequence whether Respondent
has state authority to handle controlled substances
in California, the state in which Certificate of
Registration No. BS6061345 is based.
E:\FR\FM\08NON1.SGM
08NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 215 / Tuesday, November 8, 2022 / Notices
of Registration No. BS6061345 issued to
Nicky Shah, M.D. Further, pursuant to
28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority
vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f), I
hereby deny any pending applications
of Nicky Shah, M.D., to renew or modify
this registration, as well as any other
pending application of Nicky Shah,
M.D., for additional registration in
California. This Order is effective
December 8, 2022.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug
Enforcement Administration was signed
on November 1, 2022, by Administrator
Anne Milgram. 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. 2022–24299 Filed 11–7–22; 8:45 am]
A. 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3): Loss of State
Authority
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the
Attorney General is authorized to
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
George M. Douglass, M.D.; Decision
and Order
On June 28, 2022, the Drug
Enforcement Administration
(hereinafter, DEA or Government)
issued an Order to Show Cause and
Immediate Suspension of Registration
(hereinafter, OSC/ISO) to George M.
Douglass, Jr., M.D., (hereinafter,
Registrant) of Lake Oswego, Oregon.
Request for Final Agency Action
(hereinafter, RFAA), Exhibit
(hereinafter, RFAAX) 2 (OSC/ISO), at 1.
The OSC/ISO informed Registrant of the
immediate suspension of his DEA
Certificate of Registration, Control No.
BD5898575, pursuant to 21 U.S.C.
824(d), alleging that Registrant’s
continued registration constitutes ‘‘ ‘an
imminent danger to the public health or
safety.’ ’’ Id. The OSC/ISO also proposed
the revocation of Registrant’s
registration, alleging that Registrant has
‘‘committed such acts as would render
[his] registration inconsistent with the
public interest’’ and that Registrant is
‘‘without authority to handle controlled
19:15 Nov 07, 2022
Jkt 259001
I. Findings of Fact
On June 2, 2022, the Oregon Medical
Board issued a Final Order Upon
Default revoking Registrant’s Oregon
medical license. RFAAX 3, at 4, 7.
According to Oregon’s online records, of
which the Agency takes official notice,
Registrant’s license is still revoked.3
Oregon Medical Board Licensee Search,
https://omb.oregon.gov/search (last
visited date of signature of this Order).
Accordingly, the Agency finds that
Registrant is not currently licensed to
engage in the practice of medicine in
Oregon, the state in which he is
registered with the DEA.
The Agency further finds that the
Government’s evidence shows that
Registrant continued to prescribe
controlled substances after his Oregon
medical license was revoked; he issued
at least six controlled substance
prescriptions from June 9–21, 2022.
RFAAX 4.
II. Discussion
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
substances in Oregon, the state in which
[he is] registered with DEA.’’ 1 Id. at 1,
3 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4), 823(f),
824(a)(3)).
The Agency makes the following
findings of fact based on the
uncontroverted evidence submitted by
the Government in its RFAA dated
September 20, 2022.2
1 The registered address of Registrant’s DEA
Certificate of Registration, Control No. BD5898575,
is 17355 Boones Ferry Road, Suite C, Lake Oswego,
Oregon 97035. Id. at 2.
2 Based on a Declaration from a DEA Diversion
Investigator, the Agency finds that the
Government’s service of the OSC/ISO on Registrant
was adequate. RFAAX 3, at 2. Further, based on the
Government’s assertions in its RFAA, the Agency
finds that more than thirty days have passed since
Registrant was served with the OSC/ISO and
Registrant has neither requested a hearing nor
submitted a written statement or corrective action
plan and therefore has waived any such rights.
RFAA, at 2; see also 21 CFR 1301.43 and 21 U.S.C.
824(c)(2).
3 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). 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.’’ 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 Office of the
Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration at
dea.addo.attorneys@dea.usdoj.gov.
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
67497
suspend or revoke a registration issued
under section 823 of the Controlled
Substances Act (hereinafter, CSA)
‘‘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, the 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. See, e.g.,
James L. Hooper, M.D., 76 FR 71,371
(2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 F. App’x
826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh
Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27,616, 27,617
(1978).4
According to Oregon statute,
‘‘dispense’’ means ‘‘to deliver a
controlled substance to an ultimate user
or research subject by or pursuant to the
lawful order of a practitioner, and
includes the prescribing, administering,
packaging, labeling or compounding
necessary to prepare the substance for
that delivery.’’ Or. Rev. Stat.
§ 475.005(10) (2022). Further, a
‘‘practitioner’’ means a person
‘‘licensed, registered or otherwise
permitted by law to dispense, conduct
research with respect to or to administer
a controlled substance in the course of
professional practice or research in [the]
state.’’ Id. at § 475.005(17).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the
record is that Registrant has had his
Oregon medical license revoked and
thus lacks authority to practice
medicine in Oregon. As discussed
above, an individual must be a licensed
practitioner to dispense a controlled
4 This rule derives from the text of two provisions
of the 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(f). Because Congress has
clearly mandated that a practitioner possess state
authority in order to be deemed a practitioner under
the CSA, the 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, 76 FR at 71,371–72; Sheran Arden
Yeates, M.D., 71 FR 39,130, 39,131 (2006);
Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51,104, 51,105
(1993); Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11,919, 11,920
(1988); Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 FR at 27,617.
E:\FR\FM\08NON1.SGM
08NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 215 (Tuesday, November 8, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67496-67497]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24299]
[[Page 67496]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 22-37]
Nicky Shah, M.D.; Decision and Order
On June 29, 2022, the Drug Enforcement Administration (hereinafter,
DEA or Government) filed an Order to Show Cause (hereinafter, OSC)
issued to Nicky Shah, M.D. (hereinafter, Respondent). OSC, at 1. The
OSC proposed the revocation of Respondent's Certificate of Registration
No. BS6061345 at the registered address of 293 Corbett Ave., San
Francisco, CA 94114. Id. The OSC alleged that Respondent's registration
should be revoked because Respondent is ``without authority to handle
controlled substances in the State of California, the state in which
[he is] registered with DEA.'' Id. at 1-2 (citing 21 U.S.C.
824(a)(3)).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ According to Agency records, Respondent's Certificate of
Registration No. BS6061345 expired on February 28, 2022, and
Respondent's request for renewal of his registration was received on
April 1, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By email dated August 3, 2022, Respondent requested a hearing.\2\
On August 23, 2022, the Government filed a Motion for Summary
Disposition, which Respondent opposed. On September 13, 2022, the ALJ
granted the Government's Motion for Summary Disposition and recommended
the revocation of Respondent's registration and the denial of
Respondent's request to renew his registration, finding that because
Respondent lacks state authority to handle controlled substances in
California, the state in which he is registered with DEA, there is no
genuine issue of material fact. Order Granting the Government's Motion
for Summary Disposition, and Recommended Rulings, Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and Decision of the Administrative Law Judge
(hereinafter, Recommended Decision or RD), at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ On August 8, 2022, Respondent filed an additional hearing
request document that included a more detailed response to the OSC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency issues this Decision and Order based on the entire
record before it, 21 CFR 1301.43(e), and makes the following findings
of fact.
Findings of Fact
On April 2, 2020, an Administrative Law Judge from the State of
California, Office of Administrative Hearings, issued a Proposed
Decision revoking Respondent's California medical license. Government
Exhibit (hereinafter, GX) B, at 2, 12. On May 13, 2020, the Medical
Board of California issued a Decision adopting the Administrative Law
Judge's Proposed Decision, effective June 12, 2020. Id. at 1.
According to California's online records, of which the Agency takes
official notice, Respondent's state medical license is revoked.\3\
Medical Board of California License Verification, https://www.mbc.ca.gov/License-Verification (last visited date of signature of
this Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds that Respondent is not
licensed to engage in the practice of medicine in California, the state
in which he is registered with the DEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 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). 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.'' Accordingly, Respondent may dispute the Agency's finding
by filing a properly supported motion for reconsideration of finding
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 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 section 823 of the
Controlled Substances Act (hereinafter, CSA) ``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, the 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. See, e.g., James L. Hooper,
M.D., 76 FR 71371 (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
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(f). Because
Congress has clearly mandated that a practitioner possess state
authority in order to be deemed a practitioner under the CSA, the
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, 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, 43 FR at
27617.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to California statute, ``dispense'' means ``to deliver a
controlled substance to an ultimate user or research subject by or
pursuant to the lawful order of a practitioner, including the
prescribing, furnishing, packaging, labeling, or compounding necessary
to prepare the substance for that delivery.'' Cal. Health & Safety Code
section 11010 (West 2022). Further, a ``practitioner'' means a person
``licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, to distribute,
dispense, conduct research with respect to, or administer, a controlled
substance in the course of professional practice or research in this
state.'' Id. at section 11026(c).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Respondent
lacks authority to practice medicine in California. As discussed above,
a physician must be a licensed practitioner to dispense a controlled
substance in California. Thus, because Respondent lacks authority to
practice medicine in California and, therefore, is not authorized to
handle controlled substances in California, Respondent is not eligible
to maintain a DEA registration based in California. Accordingly, the
Agency will order that Respondent's DEA registration be revoked and
that Respondent's request for renewal of his registration be denied.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Respondent argued that his registration should be renewed
because prior to the issuance of the OSC, he had requested to renew
his registration with a change of registered address to Iowa, where
he maintains an unrestricted, active medical license and an Iowa
controlled substance registration. Resp Opposition, at 4-6; see also
RX B-D. As the ALJ stated ``[a]n attempt to modify the registered
location of a [registration] is deemed an application for a new
[registration].'' RD, at 5 (citing 21 CFR 1301.51(c); Gazelle A.
Craig, D.O., 83 FR 27628, 27631 (2018)). Here, the subject of the
current proceeding is Respondent's Certificate of Registration No.
BS6061345, not Respondent's eligibility for a new registration based
in Iowa. As such, it is only of consequence whether Respondent has
state authority to handle controlled substances in California, the
state in which Certificate of Registration No. BS6061345 is based.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 67497]]
of Registration No. BS6061345 issued to Nicky Shah, M.D. Further,
pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C.
823(f), I hereby deny any pending applications of Nicky Shah, M.D., to
renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending
application of Nicky Shah, M.D., for additional registration in
California. This Order is effective December 8, 2022.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on
November 1, 2022, by Administrator Anne Milgram. 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. 2022-24299 Filed 11-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
