Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration, 68193 [E7-23480]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
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
