Soroosh Armandi, D.O.; Decision and Order, 106580-106581 [2024-31324]

Download as PDF 106580 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Notices Number, your comment has been successfully submitted and there is no need to resubmit the same comment. In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on August 26, 2024, Irvine Labs Inc., 7305 Murdy Circle, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Huntington Beach, California 92647– 3533, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s): Controlled substance Drug code Lysergic acid diethylamide ...................................................................................................................................... Mescaline ................................................................................................................................................................. Peyote ...................................................................................................................................................................... Diethyltryptamine ..................................................................................................................................................... Dimethyltryptamine .................................................................................................................................................. Psilocybin ................................................................................................................................................................. Psilocyn .................................................................................................................................................................... The company plans to bulk manufacture the above listed controlled substances for research and development purposes internally and for distribution to its research customers. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration. Matthew Strait, Deputy Assistant Administrator. [FR Doc. 2024–31293 Filed 12–27–24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–09–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 Soroosh Armandi, D.O.; Decision and Order On February 1, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Soroosh Armandi, D.O., of San Pedro, California (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Attachment (RFAAX) A, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the revocation of Registrant’s Certificate of Registration No. FA0060359, alleging that Registrant’s registration should be revoked because Registrant is ‘‘currently without authority to handle controlled substances in the State of California, the state in which [he is] registered with DEA.’’ Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).1 The OSC notified Registrant of his right to file a written request for hearing, and that if he failed to file such a request, he would be deemed to have waived his right to a hearing and be in default. Id. (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). Here, Registrant did not request a 1 According to Agency records, Registrant’s registration expired on June 30, 2024. 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 (CSA) to adjudicate the OSC to finality. Jeffrey D. Olsen, M.D., 84 FR 68474, 68476–68479 (2019). VerDate Sep<11>2014 23:58 Dec 27, 2024 Jkt 265001 hearing. RFAA, at 2.2 ‘‘A default, unless excused, shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of the [registrant’s] right to a hearing and an admission of the factual allegations of the [OSC].’’ 21 CFR 1301.43(e). Further, ‘‘[i]n the event that a registrant . . . 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.’’ Id. § 1301.43(f)(1). Here, the Government has requested final agency action based on Registrant’s default pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(c), (f), 1301.46. RFAA, at 1; see also 21 CFR 1316.67. Findings of Fact The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant’s default, the factual allegations in the OSC are admitted. According to the OSC, Registrant’s California medical license expired on March 31, 2023. RFAAX A, at 2. Further, effective June 29, 2023, the 2 Based on the Government’s submissions in its RFAA dated May 24, 2024, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on Registrant was adequate. The included declaration from a DEA Diversion Investigator (DI) indicates that she was ‘‘unable to locate Registrant and [she was] under the belief that Registrant was out of the country;’’ accordingly, on February 2, 2024, the DI emailed a copy of the OSC to Registrant’s registered email address. RFAAX 1, at 2. The DI did not state that an undeliverable message was ever received. Id. On the same date, the DI mailed a copy of the OSC to Registrant’s registered address. Id. On February 5, 2024, however, the OSC was returned to the DI, along with a notice of a forwarding address for Registrant. Id.; see also id., Attachment B. On February 14, 2024, the DI mailed a copy of the OSC to Registrant’s forwarding address and later received confirmation via the certified mailing receipt that the OSC was successfully delivered on February 17, 2024. Id. at 2; see also id., Attachment C. The Agency finds that the DI’s efforts to serve Registrant were ‘‘ ‘reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise [Registrant] of the pendency of the action.’ ’’ Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 226 (2006) (quoting Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)). Therefore, due process notice requirements have been satisfied. PO 00000 Frm 00175 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 7315 7381 7415 7434 7435 7437 7438 Schedule I I I I I I I Osteopathic Medical Board of California revoked Registrant’s California medical license. Id. According to California online records, of which the Agency takes official notice, Registrant’s California medical license remains revoked.3 California DCA License Search, https://search.dca.ca.gov (last visited date of signature of this Order).4 Accordingly, the Agency finds that Registrant is not licensed to practice medicine in California, the state in which he is registered with DEA. Discussion 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 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, 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. Gonzales v. 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.gov. 4 The OSC lists the number for Registrant’s California medical license as 20A9741, RFAAX A, at 1; however, the California DCA License Search lists Registrant’s California medical license number as 9741. E:\FR\FM\30DEN1.SGM 30DEN1 ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Notices 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).’’). The Agency has applied these principles consistently. See, e.g., James L. Hooper, M.D., 76 FR 71371, 71372 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 F. App’x 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27616, 27617 (1978).5 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 2024). 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 [the] state.’’ Id. § 11026(c). Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant lacks authority to practice medicine in California. As discussed above, an individual must be a licensed practitioner to dispense a controlled substance in California. Thus, because Registrant lacks authority to practice medicine in California and, therefore, is not authorized to handle controlled substances in California, Registrant is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration. Accordingly, the Agency will order that Registrant’s DEA registration be revoked. 5 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(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 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, M.D., 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, M.D., 43 FR at 27617. Drug Enforcement Administration VerDate Sep<11>2014 23:58 Dec 27, 2024 Jkt 265001 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. FA0060359 issued to Soroosh Armandi, D.O. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby deny any pending applications of Soroosh Armandi, D.O., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of Soroosh Armandi, D.O., for additional registration in California. This Order is effective January 29, 2025. Signing Authority This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on December 20, 2024, 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. 2024–31324 Filed 12–27–24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–09–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [Docket No. 24–52] Maria Dewitt, N.P.; Decision and Order On June 21, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Maria Dewitt, N.P. (Respondent). OSC, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the revocation of Respondent’s DEA Certificate of Registration No. MD7143960, at the registered address of 9038 High Branch, San Antonio, Texas. Id. at 1. The OSC alleged that Respondent’s DEA registration should be revoked because Respondent is ‘‘without authority to handle controlled substances in the State of Texas, the state in which [she is] registered with DEA.’’ Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)). PO 00000 Frm 00176 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 106581 On June 25, 2024, Respondent requested a hearing and filed an Answer to the OSC.1 On June 28, 2024, the Government filed a Notice of Filing of Evidence and Motion for Summary Disposition, which Respondent opposed.2 On August 2, 2024, Administrative Law Judge Teresa A. Wallbaum (the ALJ) granted the Government’s Motion for Summary Disposition and recommended the revocation of Respondent’s registration, finding that because Respondent lacks state authority to handle controlled substances in Texas, the state in which she is registered with DEA, ‘‘[t]here is no genuine issue of material fact in this case.’’ 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 (RD), at 8–9. Respondent did not file exceptions to the RD.3 Having reviewed the entire record, the Agency adopts and hereby incorporates by reference the entirety of the ALJ’s rulings, findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended sanction as found in the RD and summarizes and expands upon portions thereof herein. Findings of Fact The Government has alleged that Respondent lacks a prescriptive authority delegation agreement with a physician, which is required for a Texas advanced practice registered nurse to handle controlled substances. RD, at 4, 7–8.4 According to Texas online records, of which the Agency takes official notice, Respondent does not currently have a prescriptive authority delegation agreement with a physician.5 1 Respondent’s June 25, 2024, hearing request was an amended version of an initial document filed on June 24, 2024. Respondent also submitted an amended version of her Answer on the same day of its initial filing, June 25, 2024. 2 See Respondent’s Response to Government’s Motion for Summary Disposition and Request for Hearing (Opposition). 3 On August 5, 2024, Respondent filed a letter, dated August 2, 2024, seeking to appeal the ALJ’s Recommended Decision; however, in this letter, Respondent did not present any additional arguments for the Agency to consider. 4 See also Government’s Notice of Filing of Evidence and Motion for Summary Disposition, Exhibit (GX) 2. 5 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 E:\FR\FM\30DEN1.SGM Continued 30DEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 249 (Monday, December 30, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 106580-106581]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31324]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Soroosh Armandi, D.O.; Decision and Order

    On February 1, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or 
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Soroosh Armandi, 
D.O., of San Pedro, California (Registrant). Request for Final Agency 
Action (RFAA), Attachment (RFAAX) A, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the 
revocation of Registrant's Certificate of Registration No. FA0060359, 
alleging that Registrant's registration should be revoked because 
Registrant is ``currently without authority to handle controlled 
substances in the State of California, the state in which [he is] 
registered with DEA.'' Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ According to Agency records, Registrant's registration 
expired on June 30, 2024. 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 (CSA) to adjudicate the OSC to finality. Jeffrey D. 
Olsen, M.D., 84 FR 68474, 68476-68479 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The OSC notified Registrant of his right to file a written request 
for hearing, and that if he failed to file such a request, he would be 
deemed to have waived his right to a hearing and be in default. Id. 
(citing 21 CFR 1301.43). Here, Registrant did not request a hearing. 
RFAA, at 2.\2\ ``A default, unless excused, shall be deemed to 
constitute a waiver of the [registrant's] right to a hearing and an 
admission of the factual allegations of the [OSC].'' 21 CFR 1301.43(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Based on the Government's submissions in its RFAA dated May 
24, 2024, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on Registrant was 
adequate. The included declaration from a DEA Diversion Investigator 
(DI) indicates that she was ``unable to locate Registrant and [she 
was] under the belief that Registrant was out of the country;'' 
accordingly, on February 2, 2024, the DI emailed a copy of the OSC 
to Registrant's registered email address. RFAAX 1, at 2. The DI did 
not state that an undeliverable message was ever received. Id. On 
the same date, the DI mailed a copy of the OSC to Registrant's 
registered address. Id. On February 5, 2024, however, the OSC was 
returned to the DI, along with a notice of a forwarding address for 
Registrant. Id.; see also id., Attachment B. On February 14, 2024, 
the DI mailed a copy of the OSC to Registrant's forwarding address 
and later received confirmation via the certified mailing receipt 
that the OSC was successfully delivered on February 17, 2024. Id. at 
2; see also id., Attachment C. The Agency finds that the DI's 
efforts to serve Registrant were `` `reasonably calculated, under 
all the circumstances, to apprise [Registrant] of the pendency of 
the action.' '' Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 226 (2006) (quoting 
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 
(1950)). Therefore, due process notice requirements have been 
satisfied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, ``[i]n the event that a registrant . . . 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] Sec.  1316.67.'' Id. Sec.  1301.43(f)(1). Here, 
the Government has requested final agency action based on Registrant's 
default pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(c), (f), 1301.46. RFAA, at 1; see 
also 21 CFR 1316.67.

Findings of Fact

    The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the 
factual allegations in the OSC are admitted. According to the OSC, 
Registrant's California medical license expired on March 31, 2023. 
RFAAX A, at 2. Further, effective June 29, 2023, the Osteopathic 
Medical Board of California revoked Registrant's California medical 
license. Id. According to California online records, of which the 
Agency takes official notice, Registrant's California medical license 
remains revoked.\3\ California DCA License Search, https://search.dca.ca.gov (last visited date of signature of this Order).\4\ 
Accordingly, the Agency finds that Registrant is not licensed to 
practice medicine in California, the state in which he is registered 
with 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, 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 [email protected].
    \4\ The OSC lists the number for Registrant's California medical 
license as 20A9741, RFAAX A, at 1; however, the California DCA 
License Search lists Registrant's California medical license number 
as 9741.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion

    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 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, 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. 
Gonzales v.

[[Page 106581]]

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. 
Sec.  802(21).''). The Agency has applied these principles 
consistently. See, e.g., James L. Hooper, M.D., 76 FR 71371, 71372 
(2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 F. App'x 826 (4th Cir. 2012); 
Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27616, 27617 (1978).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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(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 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, M.D., 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, M.D., 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 
Sec.  11010 (West 2024). 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 [the] 
state.'' Id. Sec.  11026(c).
    Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant 
lacks authority to practice medicine in California. As discussed above, 
an individual must be a licensed practitioner to dispense a controlled 
substance in California. Thus, because Registrant lacks authority to 
practice medicine in California and, therefore, is not authorized to 
handle controlled substances in California, Registrant is not eligible 
to maintain a DEA registration. Accordingly, the Agency will order that 
Registrant'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. 
FA0060359 issued to Soroosh Armandi, D.O. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 
0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I 
hereby deny any pending applications of Soroosh Armandi, D.O., to renew 
or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application 
of Soroosh Armandi, D.O., for additional registration in California. 
This Order is effective January 29, 2025.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on 
December 20, 2024, 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. 2024-31324 Filed 12-27-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P


This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.