Gerald M. Baltz, N.P.; Decision and Order, 67499-67500 [2022-24303]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 215 / Tuesday, November 8, 2022 / Notices
824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate
of Registration No. BD5898575 issued to
George M. Douglass, Jr., 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 George M. Douglass, Jr.,
M.D., to renew or modify this
registration, as well as any other
pending application of George M.
Douglass, Jr., M.D., for additional
registration in Oregon. This Order is
effective December 8, 2022.
correct the table to include the
following basic class of scheduled
controlled substance:
Controlled
substance
Drug code
Schedule
Cocaine .....
9041
II
Kristi O’Malley,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022–24105 Filed 11–7–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
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. 2022–24301 Filed 11–7–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. DEA–1083]
Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled
Substances Application: Chattem
Chemicals, Inc.; Correction
Drug Enforcement
Administration, Justice.
ACTION: Notice of application;
correction.
AGENCY:
The Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) published a
document in the Federal Register on
October 11, 2022, concerning a notice of
application that inadvertently did not
include the controlled substance
Cocaine (9041).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
SUMMARY:
Correction
In the Federal Register on October 11,
2022, in FR Doc No: 2022–21940 (87 FR
61368), on page 61368, in the second
column, under SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION, controlled substance table,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:33 Nov 07, 2022
Jkt 259001
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 22–34]
Gerald M. Baltz, N.P.; Decision and
Order
On June 3, 2022, the Drug
Enforcement Administration
(hereinafter, DEA or Government),
issued an Order to Show Cause
(hereinafter, OSC) to Gerald M. Baltz,
N.P. (hereinafter, Respondent). OSC, at
1, 3. The OSC proposed the revocation
of Respondent’s Certificate of
Registration No. MB2171128 at the
registered address of 8060 Melrose Ave.,
Ste. 200, Los Angeles, CA 90046. Id. at
1. 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 letter dated July 11, 2022,2
Respondent requested a hearing. On
July 12, 2022, Administrative Law Judge
Paul E. Soeffing (hereinafter, the ALJ)
issued an Order for Evidence of Lack of
State Authority and Directing the
Government to File Evidence Regarding
the Service of the Order to Show Cause
(hereinafter, Briefing Order). On July 26,
2022, the Government filed its
Submission of Evidence and Motion for
Summary Disposition (hereinafter,
Motion for Summary Disposition). On
August 10, 2022,3 Respondent filed his
1 According to Agency records, Respondent’s
Certificate of Registration No. MB2171128 expired
on July 31, 2022. The fact that a registrant allows
his registration to expire during the pendency of an
OSC does not impact the Agency’s jurisdiction or
prerogative under the Controlled Substances Act
(hereinafter, CSA) to adjudicate the OSC to finality.
Jeffrey D. Olsen, M.D., 84 FR 68,474 (2019).
2 The record demonstrates that service of the OSC
on Respondent was accomplished on or before June
28, 2022, see Government Exhibit (hereinafter, GX)
E, at 1–2, and the Government does not contest the
timeliness of the request for a hearing.
3 The record demonstrates that Respondent’s
filing was untimely. See Briefing Order, at 2; Order
Granting the Government’s Motion for Summary
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
67499
Opposition to Government’s Motion for
Summary Disposition (hereinafter,
Opposition).4
On August 25, 2022, the ALJ granted
the Government’s Motion for Summary
Disposition and recommended the
revocation of Respondent’s DEA
registration, finding that because
Respondent lacks authority to handle
controlled substances in California,
there is no genuine issue of material
fact. Recommended Decision, at 6.5
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 November 19, 2021, an
Administrative Law Judge from the
State of California, Office of
Administrative Hearings, issued a
Proposed Decision revoking
Respondent’s California nursing
licenses. Government Exhibit
(hereinafter, GX) C, at 45. On January
21, 2022, the State of California,
Department of Consumer Affairs, Board
of Registered Nursing (hereinafter, the
Board), issued a Decision and Order
adopting the Administrative Law
Judge’s Proposed Decision, effective
February 18, 2022. Id. at 1. On February
24, 2022, the Board issued an Order
Denying Reconsideration in which
Respondent’s request for
reconsideration of the Proposed
Decision was denied and the Board’s
January 21, 2022 Decision and Order
was made effective February 28, 2022.
GX B.
According to California’s online
records, of which the Agency takes
official notice, Respondent’s nursing
licenses are revoked. 6 California DCA
Disposition, and Recommended Rulings, Findings
of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision of the
Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter,
Recommended Decision), at 2 n.2. Nonetheless, the
Agency will fully consider the Respondent’s
arguments made therein.
4 In his Opposition, Respondent argued that his
DEA registration should not be revoked because he
maintains active nursing licenses in Colorado and
because he is still challenging the underlying action
against his California nursing licenses. Opposition,
at 3–6.
5 By letter dated September 21, 2022, the ALJ
certified and transmitted the record to the Agency
for final agency action and advised that neither
party filed exceptions.
6 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,
E:\FR\FM\08NON1.SGM
Continued
08NON1
67500
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 215 / Tuesday, November 8, 2022 / Notices
License Search, https://
search.dca.ca.gov (last visited date of
signature of this Order). Accordingly,
the Agency finds that Respondent is not
licensed to engage in the practice of
nursing in California, the state in which
he is registered with the DEA. 7
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
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 ‘‘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). 8
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.
7 Regarding Respondent’s argument that his DEA
registration should not be revoked because he
maintains active nursing licenses in Colorado,
Respondent’s DEA registration is based on his
California nursing licenses, which have undeniably
been revoked. Omar Garcia, M.D., 87 FR 32,186,
32,187 n.6 (2022).
8 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.
Moreover, because ‘‘the controlling question’’ in a
proceeding brought under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:56 Nov 07, 2022
Jkt 259001
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 § 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 § 11026(c).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the
record is that Respondent lacks
authority to practice nursing in
California. As discussed above, an
individual must be a licensed
practitioner to dispense a controlled
substance in California. Thus, because
Respondent lacks authority to practice
nursing in California and, therefore, is
not authorized to handle controlled
substances in California, Respondent is
not eligible to maintain a DEA
registration. Accordingly, the Agency
will order that Respondent’s DEA
registration be revoked.
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
of Registration No. MB2171128 issued
to Gerald M. Baltz, N.P. 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 Gerald M. Baltz, N.P., to
renew or modify this registration, as
well as any other pending application of
Gerald M. Baltz, N.P., 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
whether the holder of a practitioner’s registration
‘‘is currently authorized to handle controlled
substances in the [S]tate,’’ Hooper, 76 FR at 71,371
(quoting Anne Lazar Thorn, 62 FR 12,847, 12,848
(1997)), the Agency has also long held that
revocation is warranted even where a practitioner
is still challenging the underlying action. Bourne
Pharmacy, 72 FR 18,273, 18,274 (2007); Wingfield
Drugs, 52 FR 27,070, 27,071 (1987). Thus, it is of
no consequence that Respondent is still challenging
the underlying action. What is consequential is the
Agency’s finding that Respondent is not currently
authorized to dispense controlled substances in
California, the state in which he is registered with
the DEA.
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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. 2022–24303 Filed 11–7–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Notice of Lodging of Proposed Interim
Partial Consent Decree Under the
Clean Water Act
On October 31, 2022, the Department
of Justice lodged a proposed Interim
Partial Consent Decree with the United
States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, Western Division, in
the lawsuit entitled United States of
America and the State of Ohio v. City
of Lakewood, Ohio, Civil Action No.
1:22–cv–01964.
The United States and the State of
Ohio filed this lawsuit under the Clean
Water Act against the City of Lakewood,
Ohio. The complaint seeks injunctive
relief and civil penalties for violations
of the regulations that govern discharges
of pollutants to waters of the United
States. The Complaint alleges that on
numerous occasions since January 2016,
Lakewood has: (1) discharged untreated
sanitary sewage into nearby waterbodies
in violation of the Clean Water Act; and
(2) discharged effluent from combined
sewer overflow outfalls in violation of
its permit.
The United States and the State of
Ohio reached agreement with Lakewood
on an Interim Partial Consent Decree,
which will partially resolve the claims
in the complaint. It will resolve all civil
penalty claims, but will not fully resolve
the injunctive relief claims alleged in
the complaint. The Decree requires
Lakewood to undertake several projects
to greatly reduce discharges of untreated
sanitary sewage into Lake Erie and the
Rocky River. Lakewood will then be
required to submit an updated plan to
reduce discharges of sanitary sewage in
the remainder of Lakewood’s sewer
system. Lakewood will ultimately be
required to implement its updated plan
through a subsequent, enforceable
agreement with the United States and
the State of Ohio and demonstrate
compliance with the Clean Water Act,
which will fully resolve all of the
E:\FR\FM\08NON1.SGM
08NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 215 (Tuesday, November 8, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67499-67500]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24303]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 22-34]
Gerald M. Baltz, N.P.; Decision and Order
On June 3, 2022, the Drug Enforcement Administration (hereinafter,
DEA or Government), issued an Order to Show Cause (hereinafter, OSC) to
Gerald M. Baltz, N.P. (hereinafter, Respondent). OSC, at 1, 3. The OSC
proposed the revocation of Respondent's Certificate of Registration No.
MB2171128 at the registered address of 8060 Melrose Ave., Ste. 200, Los
Angeles, CA 90046. Id. at 1. 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. MB2171128 expired on July 31, 2022. The fact that a
registrant allows his registration to expire during the pendency of
an OSC does not impact the Agency's jurisdiction or prerogative
under the Controlled Substances Act (hereinafter, CSA) to adjudicate
the OSC to finality. Jeffrey D. Olsen, M.D., 84 FR 68,474 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By letter dated July 11, 2022,\2\ Respondent requested a hearing.
On July 12, 2022, Administrative Law Judge Paul E. Soeffing
(hereinafter, the ALJ) issued an Order for Evidence of Lack of State
Authority and Directing the Government to File Evidence Regarding the
Service of the Order to Show Cause (hereinafter, Briefing Order). On
July 26, 2022, the Government filed its Submission of Evidence and
Motion for Summary Disposition (hereinafter, Motion for Summary
Disposition). On August 10, 2022,\3\ Respondent filed his Opposition to
Government's Motion for Summary Disposition (hereinafter,
Opposition).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The record demonstrates that service of the OSC on
Respondent was accomplished on or before June 28, 2022, see
Government Exhibit (hereinafter, GX) E, at 1-2, and the Government
does not contest the timeliness of the request for a hearing.
\3\ The record demonstrates that Respondent's filing was
untimely. See Briefing Order, at 2; 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), at 2 n.2. Nonetheless,
the Agency will fully consider the Respondent's arguments made
therein.
\4\ In his Opposition, Respondent argued that his DEA
registration should not be revoked because he maintains active
nursing licenses in Colorado and because he is still challenging the
underlying action against his California nursing licenses.
Opposition, at 3-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 25, 2022, the ALJ granted the Government's Motion for
Summary Disposition and recommended the revocation of Respondent's DEA
registration, finding that because Respondent lacks authority to handle
controlled substances in California, there is no genuine issue of
material fact. Recommended Decision, at 6.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ By letter dated September 21, 2022, the ALJ certified and
transmitted the record to the Agency for final agency action and
advised that neither party filed exceptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 November 19, 2021, an Administrative Law Judge from the State of
California, Office of Administrative Hearings, issued a Proposed
Decision revoking Respondent's California nursing licenses. Government
Exhibit (hereinafter, GX) C, at 45. On January 21, 2022, the State of
California, Department of Consumer Affairs, Board of Registered Nursing
(hereinafter, the Board), issued a Decision and Order adopting the
Administrative Law Judge's Proposed Decision, effective February 18,
2022. Id. at 1. On February 24, 2022, the Board issued an Order Denying
Reconsideration in which Respondent's request for reconsideration of
the Proposed Decision was denied and the Board's January 21, 2022
Decision and Order was made effective February 28, 2022. GX B.
According to California's online records, of which the Agency takes
official notice, Respondent's nursing licenses are revoked. \6\
California DCA
[[Page 67500]]
License Search, https://search.dca.ca.gov (last visited date of
signature of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds that Respondent
is not licensed to engage in the practice of nursing in California, the
state in which he is registered with the DEA. \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 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].
\7\ Regarding Respondent's argument that his DEA registration
should not be revoked because he maintains active nursing licenses
in Colorado, Respondent's DEA registration is based on his
California nursing licenses, which have undeniably been revoked.
Omar Garcia, M.D., 87 FR 32,186, 32,187 n.6 (2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 ``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). \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 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. Moreover, because ``the controlling question'' in a
proceeding brought under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) is whether the holder
of a practitioner's registration ``is currently authorized to handle
controlled substances in the [S]tate,'' Hooper, 76 FR at 71,371
(quoting Anne Lazar Thorn, 62 FR 12,847, 12,848 (1997)), the Agency
has also long held that revocation is warranted even where a
practitioner is still challenging the underlying action. Bourne
Pharmacy, 72 FR 18,273, 18,274 (2007); Wingfield Drugs, 52 FR
27,070, 27,071 (1987). Thus, it is of no consequence that Respondent
is still challenging the underlying action. What is consequential is
the Agency's finding that Respondent is not currently authorized to
dispense controlled substances in California, the state in which he
is registered with the DEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Sec. 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 Sec. 11026(c).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Respondent
lacks authority to practice nursing in California. As discussed above,
an individual must be a licensed practitioner to dispense a controlled
substance in California. Thus, because Respondent lacks authority to
practice nursing in California and, therefore, is not authorized to
handle controlled substances in California, Respondent is not eligible
to maintain a DEA registration. Accordingly, the Agency will order that
Respondent's DEA registration be revoked.
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 of Registration No.
MB2171128 issued to Gerald M. Baltz, N.P. 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 Gerald M. Baltz, N.P., to renew or
modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of
Gerald M. Baltz, N.P., 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. 2022-24303 Filed 11-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
