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