Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration, 68193 [E7-23480]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 4, 2007 / Notices 68193 court to permit anyone to intervene.’’ 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(2). This instruction explicitly writes into the statute the standard intended by the Congress that enacted the Tunney Act in 1974, as Senator Tunney then explained: ‘‘[t]he court is nowhere compelled to go to trial or to engage in extended proceedings which might have the effect of vitiating the benefits of prompt and less costly settlement through the consent decree process.’’ 119 Cong. Rec. 24,598 (1973) (statement of Senator Tunney). Rather, the procedure for the public interest determination is left to the discretion of the court, with the recognition that the court’s ‘‘scope of review remains sharply proscribed by precedent and the nature of Tunney Act proceedings.’’ SBC Commc’ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 11. 5 Schedule mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES the market structure, and its views of the nature of the case). Court approval of a consent decree requires a standard more flexible and less strict than that appropriate to court adoption of a litigated decree following a finding of liability. ‘‘[A] proposed decree must be approved even if it falls short of the remedy the court would impose on its own, as long as it falls within the range of acceptability or is ‘within the reaches of public interest.’ ’’ United States v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 552 F. Supp. 131, 151 (D.D.C. 1982) (citations omitted) (quoting United States v. Gillette Co., 406 F. Supp. 713, 716 (D. Mass. 1975)), aff’d sub nom. Maryland v. United States, 460 U.S. 1001 (1983); see also United States v. Alcan Aluminum Ltd., 605 F. Supp. 619, 622 (W.D. Ky. 1985) (approving the consent decree even though the court would have imposed a greater remedy). To meet this standard, the United States ‘‘need only provide a factual basis for concluding that the settlements are reasonably adequate remedies for the alleged harms.’’ SBC Commc’ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 17. Moreover, the Court’s role under the APPA is limited to reviewing the remedy in relationship to the violations that the United States has alleged in its Complaint, and does not authorize the Court to ‘‘construct [its] own hypothetical case and then evaluate the decree against that case.’’ Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1459. Because the ‘‘court’s authority to review the decree depends entirely on the government’s exercising its prosecutorial discretion by bringing a case in the first place,’’ it follows that ‘‘the court is only authorized to review the decree itself,’’ and not to ‘‘effectively redraft the complaint’’ to inquire into other matters that the United States did not pursue. Id. at 1459–60. As this court recently confirmed in SBC Communications, courts ‘‘cannot look beyond the complaint in making the public interest determination unless the complaint is drafted so narrowly as to make a mockery of judicial power.’’ SBC Commc’ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 15. In its 2004 amendments, Congress made clear its intent to preserve the practical benefits of utilizing consent decrees in antitrust enforcement, adding the unambiguous instruction ‘‘[n]othing in this section shall be construed to require the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing or to require the 5 See United States v. Enova Corp., 107 F. Supp. 2d 10, 17 (D.D.C. 2000) (noting that the ‘‘Tunney Act expressly allows the court to make its public interest determination on the basis of the competitive impact statement and response to comments alone’’); S. Rep. No. 93–298, 93d Cong., 1st Sess., at 6 (1973) (‘‘Where the public interest can VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:38 Dec 03, 2007 Jkt 214001 VIII. Determinative Documents There are no determinative materials or documents within the meaning of the APPA that were considered by the United States in formulating the proposed Final Judgment. Dated: November 13, 2007. Respectfully submitted, Robert W. Wilder, Esquire, United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Litigation II Section, 1401 H Street, NW., Suite 3000, Washington, DC 20530 (202) 307–6336 [FR Doc. 07–5902 Filed 12–3–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–11–M DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Drug Methadone Intermediate (9254) ... Dextropropoxyphene, bulk (nondosage forms) (9273). Fentanyl (9801) ............................ II II II The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk for sale to its customers for formulation into finished pharmaceuticals. No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Boehringer Ingelheim Chemicals, Inc. to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Boehringer Ingelheim Chemicals, Inc. to ensure that the company’s registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company’s physical security systems, verification of the company’s compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company’s background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed. Dated: November 26, 2007. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration. [FR Doc. E7–23480 Filed 12–3–07; 8:45 am] Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration BILLING CODE 4410–09–P By Notice dated August 16, 2007, and published in the Federal Register on August 27, 2007 (72 FR 49018), Boehringer Ingelheim Chemicals, Inc., 2820 N. Normandy Drive, Petersburg, Virginia 23805, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedules I and II: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Schedule Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370) ..... Amphetamine (1100) .................... Methylphenidate (1724) ................ Methadone (9250) ........................ I II II II be meaningfully evaluated simply on the basis of briefs and oral arguments, that is the approach that should be utilized.’’); United States v. Mid-Am. Dairymen, Inc., 1977–1 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 61,508, at 71,980 (W.D. Mo. 1977) (‘‘Absent a showing of corrupt failure of the government to discharge its duty, the Court, in making its public interest PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Drug Enforcement Administration Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration By Notice dated August 16, 2007, and published in the Federal Register on August 28, 2007, (72 FR 49315–49316), Cerilliant Corporation, 811 Paloma Drive, Suite A, Round Rock, Texas 78664, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedules I and II: finding, should* * * carefully consider the explanations of the government in the competitive impact statement and its responses to comments in order to determine whether those explanations are reasonable under the circumstances.’’). E:\FR\FM\04DEN1.SGM 04DEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 232 (Tuesday, December 4, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 68193]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-23480]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated August 16, 2007, and published in the Federal 
Register on August 27, 2007 (72 FR 49018), Boehringer Ingelheim 
Chemicals, Inc., 2820 N. Normandy Drive, Petersburg, Virginia 23805, 
made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration 
(DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of 
controlled substances listed in schedules I and II:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370)...............  I
Amphetamine (1100).........................  II
Methylphenidate (1724).....................  II
Methadone (9250)...........................  II
Methadone Intermediate (9254)..............  II
Dextropropoxyphene, bulk (non-dosage forms)  II
 (9273).
Fentanyl (9801)............................  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances 
in bulk for sale to its customers for formulation into finished 
pharmaceuticals.
    No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered 
the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of 
Boehringer Ingelheim Chemicals, Inc. to manufacture the listed basic 
classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest 
at this time. DEA has investigated Boehringer Ingelheim Chemicals, Inc. 
to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public 
interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the 
company's physical security systems, verification of the company's 
compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's 
background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in 
accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted 
registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled 
substances listed.

    Dated: November 26, 2007.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-23480 Filed 12-3-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P