Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Green Seal, Inc., 46843 [2011-19443]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2011 / Notices
Decree Library at the address given
above.
Maureen M. Katz,
Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement
Section, Environment and Natural Resources
Division.
[FR Doc. 2011–19657 Filed 8–2–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Notice Pursuant to the National
Cooperative Research and Production
Act of 1993—Green Seal, Inc.
Notice is hereby given that, on June
28, 2011, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the
National Cooperative Research and
Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), Green Seal, Inc.
(‘‘Green Seal’’) has filed written
notifications simultaneously with the
Attorney General and the Federal Trade
Commission disclosing additions or
changes to its standards development
activities. The notifications were filed
for the purpose of extending the Act’s
provisions limiting the recovery of
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages
under specified circumstances.
Specifically, Green Seal has issued a
new standard for personal care and
cosmetic products.
On January 26, 2011, Green Seal 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 March 7, 2011 (76 FR
12370).
Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement Antitrust
Division.
[FR Doc. 2011–19443 Filed 8–2–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–41–M
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 07–43]
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Terese, Inc., D/B/A Peach Orchard
Drugs; Admonition of Registrant
On July 25, 2007, the Deputy
Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement
Administration, issued an Order to
Show Cause to Terese, Inc., d/b/a/Peach
Orchard Drugs (Respondent), of
Augusta, Georgia. The Show Cause
Order proposed the revocation of
Respondent’s DEA Certificate of
Registration, which authorizes it to
dispense controlled substances as a
retail pharmacy, and the denial of any
pending applications to renew or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:24 Aug 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
modify its registration, on the ground
that its ‘‘continued registration is
inconsistent with the public interest.’’
ALJ Ex. 1, at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(f)
& 824(a)(4)).
The Order specifically alleged that
Ms. Terese Fordham, the president of
Terese, Inc., had applied for and
received a DEA Certificate of
Registration as a retail pharmacy. Id.
The Order alleged that Ms. Fordham
was married to John Duncan Fordham,
who was the pharmacist-in-charge and
owner of Duncan Drugs, which had
been located at the same address as
Respondent. Id. The Order further
alleged that on May 5, 2005, both Mr.
Fordham and Duncan Drugs were
convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 1347,
and that on May 25, 2005, Mr. Fordham
was ‘‘excluded from the Medicaid
program.’’ Id. The Order then alleged
that Mr. Fordham ‘‘violated his
conditions of release by unlawfully
dispensing Medicaid controlled
substances prescriptions by use of
another provider’s identification
number,’’ that Fordham was sentenced
to 52 months imprisonment, and that
Duncan Drugs ‘‘was forfeited to the
United States.’’ Id.
Next, the Show Cause Order alleged
that Ms. Fordham had falsified
Respondent’s application to enroll in
Medicaid, and that on December 2,
2006, the Georgia Department of
Community Health had denied
Respondent’s Medicaid application. Id.
at 2. The Order then alleged that at a
state hearing, ‘‘Ms. Fordham and
[Respondent’s] pharmacist-in-charge
declined to present evidence of
corporate ownership information to the
State.’’ Id.
Finally, the Show Cause Order alleged
that ‘‘DEA considers for purposes of the
Controlled Substances Act that a retail
pharmacy only operates through its
officers and agents’’ and that ‘‘[t]he
registration of a pharmacy may be
revoked as the result of the unlawful
activity of its owners, majority
shareholder, officer, managing
pharmacist or other key employee.’’ Id.
(emphasis added). The Order then
concluded by alleging that ‘‘[i]n this
matter, the restoration of the pharmacy
operations to the spouse of the prior
owner/operator is not a bona fide
transaction but more of a device to
retain a DEA registration with no change
of control or financial interest by the
previous owner who had engaged in
misconduct as a registrant.’’ Id.
Respondent timely requested a
hearing on the allegations, ALJ Ex. 2,
and the matter was placed on the docket
of the Agency’s Administrative Law
Judges (ALJs). Thereafter, on April 15,
PO 00000
Frm 00123
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46843
2008, an ALJ conducted a hearing in
Charleston, South Carolina, at which
both parties called witnesses to testify
and introduced documentary evidence.
ALJ at 2.
On May 13, 2009, the ALJ issued her
recommended decision. Therein, the
ALJ rejected the Government’s principal
theories that Respondent is the alter ego
of Duncan Drugs and that the creation
of the pharmacy is a sham transaction
which was carried out to avoid the
consequences of Duncan Drugs’ loss of
its registration. ALJ at 20–22. While the
ALJ also found that Respondent had
committed three recordkeeping
violations (it failed to note the date of
receipt of controlled-substance orders
on DEA Form 222, had failed to record
an initial inventory, and had not
executed a power of attorney
authorizing an employee to order
Schedule II controlled substances), she
found Respondent’s attempt to remedy
the violations to be ‘‘sincere’’ and that
the violations ‘‘would not, standing
alone, justify revoking its registration.’’
Id. at 22–24 (citing 21 CFR 1305.13(e),
1304.11(b), 1305.04, and 1305.05(a)).
The ALJ also noted that there was ‘‘no
evidence that there has been any
diversion of controlled substances from
Respondent.’’ Id. at 22. The ALJ thus
recommended that Respondent’s
registration ‘‘be continued, subject to
the condition that Mr. Fordham shall
have no involvement with Respondent
in any capacity, including ownership,
management, or as an employee, and
shall exercise no influence or control,
direct or indirect, over the operation of
Respondent.’’ Id. at 27.
Neither party filed exceptions to the
ALJ’s decision. Thereafter, the record
was forwarded to my office for final
agency action.
During the initial course of my
review, I noted that the record indicated
that two proceedings were then pending
which appeared to be material to the
allegations: the divorce proceeding filed
by Ms. Fordham and Respondent’s
appeal of the State’s denial of its
application to enroll in Medicaid.
Accordingly, I ordered that Respondent
address the status of these proceedings.
In responding to my order,
Respondent noted that Mrs. and Mr.
Fordham had voluntarily dismissed
without prejudice their claims in the
divorce proceeding. Respondent further
noted that the Georgia Department of
Community Health was now appealing
the order of the Superior Court of
Richmond County which vacated the
Department’s Decision.
Having considered the record as a
whole, I agree with the ALJ’s conclusion
that the three recordkeeping violations
E:\FR\FM\03AUN1.SGM
03AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 149 (Wednesday, August 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 46843]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19443]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and
Production Act of 1993--Green Seal, Inc.
Notice is hereby given that, on June 28, 2011, pursuant to Section
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993,
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Green Seal, Inc. (``Green Seal'')
has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney
General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing additions or
changes to its standards development activities. The notifications were
filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the
recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified
circumstances. Specifically, Green Seal has issued a new standard for
personal care and cosmetic products.
On January 26, 2011, Green Seal 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 March 7, 2011 (76 FR 12370).
Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2011-19443 Filed 8-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-41-M
