Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Storage Bridge Bay Working Group, Inc., 50408 [05-16959]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
50408
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Notices
Consortium, Inc. intends to file
additional written notification
disclosing all changes in membership.
On November 19, 2004, Network
Centric Operations Industry
Consortium, Inc. filed its original
notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of
the Act. The Department of Justice
published a notice in the Federal
Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the
Act on February 2, 2005 (70 FR 5486).
The last notification was filed with
the Department on May 11, 2005. A
notice was published in the Federal
Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the
Act on June 13, 2005 (70 FR 34150).
Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust
Division.
[FR Doc. 05–16961 Filed 8–25–05; 8:45 am]
requirements for an enclosure controller
slot that will support a variety of storage
controllers from a variety of
independent hardware vendors and
independent software vendors. Any
storage controller design based on this
specification shall be able to fit,
connect, and operate within any storage
enclosure controller slot design based
on the same specification.
Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations Antitrust
Division.
[FR Doc. 05–16959 Filed 8–25–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–11–M
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
BILLING CODE 4410–11–M
[Docket No. DEA–271N]
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division
Notice Pursuant to the National
Cooperative Research and Production
Act of 1993—Storage Bridge Bay
Working Group, Inc.
Notice is hereby given that, on August
9, 2005, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the
National Cooperative Research and
Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
et. seq. (‘‘the Act’’), Storage Bridge Bay
Working Group, Inc. (‘‘SBB’’) has filed
written notifications simultaneously
with the Attorney General and the
Federal Trade Commission disclosing
(1) the name and principal place of
business of the standards development
organization and (2) the nature and
scope of its standards development
activities. The notifications were filed
for the purpose of invoking the Act’s
provisions limiting the recovery of
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages
under specified circumstances.
Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act,
the name and principal place of
business of the Standards development
organization is: Storage Bridge Bay
Working Group, Inc., Redwood City,
CA. The nature and scope of SBB’s
standards development activities are:
Promoting the computer industry by
supporting and facilitating the
development of interoperable and
compatible storage components with
reference to controller slot compatibility
between and among storage solutions.
These purposes include the objective of
developing and publishing a ‘‘storage
bridge bay’’ specification that will serve
as a reference and guideline for defining
physical, mechanical, electrical and
low-level enclosure management
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:18 Aug 25, 2005
Jkt 205001
Clarification of Existing Requirements
Under the Controlled Substances Act
for Prescribing Schedule II Controlled
Substances
Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA), Justice.
ACTION: Clarification.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: On January 18, 2005, DEA
published in the Federal Register a
solicitation of comments on the subject
of dispensing controlled substances for
the treatment of pain. Many of the
comments that the agency received
indicate that there is a need to issue a
clarification regarding certain aspects of
the prescription requirements for
schedule II controlled substances. This
document provides such clarification.
DATES: August 26, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Patricia M. Good, Chief, Liaison and
Policy Section, Office of Diversion
Control, Drug Enforcement
Administration, Washington, DC 20537;
Telephone: (202) 307–7297.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
January 18, 2005, the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) published in the
Federal Register a Solicitation of
Comments on the subject of dispensing
controlled substances for the treatment
of pain. 70 FR 2883. Most of the
comments that the agency received
sought clarification on the legal
requirements governing the prescribing
of schedule II controlled substances by
physicians in view of DEA’s November
16, 2004, Interim Policy Statement. 69
FR 67170. Given these comments, DEA
wishes to reiterate the following
principles under the Controlled
Substances Act (CSA) and DEA
regulations.
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
1. As the Interim Policy Statement
states, ‘‘For a physician to prepare
multiple prescriptions [for a schedule II
controlled substance] on the same day
with instructions to fill on different
dates is tantamount to writing a
prescription authorizing refills of a
schedule II controlled substance.’’ To do
so conflicts with the provision of the
CSA which provides: ‘‘No prescription
for a controlled substance in schedule II
may be refilled.’’
2. Many of the comments that DEA
received were from patients who said
they have been receiving prescriptions
for schedule II controlled substances for
several years (for example, for the
treatment of severe pain or attention
deficit hyperactivity disorder) and have
gotten into a routine of seeing their
physician once every three months.
Many such commenters were under the
mistaken impression that, because of the
Interim Policy Statement, they now
must begin seeing their physician every
month. DEA wishes to make clear that
the Interim Policy did not state that
such patients must visit their
physician’s office every month to pick
up a new prescription. There is no such
requirement in the CSA or DEA
regulations. What is required, in each
instance where a physician issues a
prescription for any controlled
substance, is that the physician properly
determine there is a legitimate medical
purpose for the patient to be prescribed
that controlled substance and that the
physician be acting in the usual course
of professional practice. 21 CFR
1306.04(a); United States v. Moore, 423
U.S. 122 (1975).
At the same time, schedule II
controlled substances, by definition,
have the highest potential for abuse, and
are the most likely to cause dependence,
of all the controlled substances that
have an approved medical use. 21
U.S.C. 812(b). Physicians must,
therefore, use the utmost care in
determining whether their patients for
whom they are prescribing schedule II
controlled substances should be seen in
person each time a prescription is
issued or whether seeing the patient in
person at somewhat less frequent
intervals is consistent with sound
medical practice and appropriate
safeguards against diversion and
misuse. Physicians must also abide by
any requirements imposed by their state
medical boards with respect to proper
prescribing practices and what
constitutes a bona fide physician-patient
relationship. 21 U.S.C. 823(f)(1), (4).
3. Under the circumstances described
in paragraph 2, in those instances where
the physician (who regularly sees a
patient) issues a prescription for a
E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 165 (Friday, August 26, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 50408]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-16959]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division
Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and
Production Act of 1993--Storage Bridge Bay Working Group, Inc.
Notice is hereby given that, on August 9, 2005, pursuant to Section
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993,
15 U.S.C. 4301 et. seq. (``the Act''), Storage Bridge Bay Working
Group, Inc. (``SBB'') has filed written notifications simultaneously
with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing
(1) the name and principal place of business of the standards
development organization and (2) the nature and scope of its standards
development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of
invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.
Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place
of business of the Standards development organization is: Storage
Bridge Bay Working Group, Inc., Redwood City, CA. The nature and scope
of SBB's standards development activities are: Promoting the computer
industry by supporting and facilitating the development of
interoperable and compatible storage components with reference to
controller slot compatibility between and among storage solutions.
These purposes include the objective of developing and publishing a
``storage bridge bay'' specification that will serve as a reference and
guideline for defining physical, mechanical, electrical and low-level
enclosure management requirements for an enclosure controller slot that
will support a variety of storage controllers from a variety of
independent hardware vendors and independent software vendors. Any
storage controller design based on this specification shall be able to
fit, connect, and operate within any storage enclosure controller slot
design based on the same specification.
Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 05-16959 Filed 8-25-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
