Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Pistoia Alliance, Inc., 45656 [2012-18769]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
45656
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2012 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Authority: These reviews are being
conducted under authority of Title VII of the
Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published
pursuant to section 207.61 of the
Commission’s rules.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
operating conditions (using equipment
and machinery in place and ready to
operate), normal operating levels (hours
per week/weeks per year), time for
downtime, maintenance, repair, and
cleanup, and a typical or representative
product mix); and
(c) The quantity and value of your
firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of
Subject Merchandise and, if known, an
estimate of the percentage of total
exports to the United States of Subject
Merchandise from each Subject Country
accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports.
(12) Identify significant changes, if
any, in the supply and demand
conditions or business cycle for the
Domestic Like Product that have
occurred in the United States or in the
market for the Subject Merchandise in
the Subject Country(ies) since the Order
Date, and significant changes, if any,
that are likely to occur within a
reasonably foreseeable time. Supply
conditions to consider include
technology; production methods;
development efforts; ability to increase
production (including the shift of
production facilities used for other
products and the use, cost, or
availability of major inputs into
production); and factors related to the
ability to shift supply among different
national markets (including barriers to
importation in foreign markets or
changes in market demand abroad).
Demand conditions to consider include
end uses and applications; the existence
and availability of substitute products;
and the level of competition among the
Domestic Like Product produced in the
United States, Subject Merchandise
produced in the Subject Country(ies),
and such merchandise from other
countries.
(13) (Optional) A statement of
whether you agree with the above
definitions of the Domestic Like Product
and Domestic Industry; if you disagree
with either or both of these definitions,
please explain why and provide
alternative definitions.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
By order of the Commission.
Issued: July 24, 2012.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
Decision and Order; Perry T. Dobyns,
M.D.
[FR Doc. 2012–18441 Filed 7–31–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:53 Jul 31, 2012
Jkt 226001
Antitrust Division
Notice Pursuant to the National
Cooperative Research and Production
Act of 1993—Pistoia Alliance, Inc.
Notice is hereby given that, on June
29, 2012, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the
National Cooperative Research and
Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), Pistoia Alliance, Inc.
has filed written notifications
simultaneously with the Attorney
General and the Federal Trade
Commission disclosing changes in its
membership. 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, Certara L.P. Portugal,
Funchal, Madeira, PORTUGAL; Deloitte
Consulting LLP, New York, NY; Mary
Chitty (individual member), Needham,
MA; and Hewlett-Packard Company,
Palo Alto, CA, have been added as
parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in
either the membership or planned
activity of the group research project.
Membership in this group research
project remains open, and Pistoia
Alliance, Inc. intends to file additional
written notifications disclosing all
changes in membership.
On May 28, 2009, Pistoia Alliance,
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 July 15, 2009
(74 FR 34364).
The last notification was filed with
the Department on April 17, 2012. A
notice was published in the Federal
Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the
Act on May 14, 2012 (77 FR 28404).
Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust
Division.
denying Respondent’s application, ALJ
at 22, Respondent has been sober since
December 2008, that he has been in
compliance with his Indiana Physicians’
Assistance Program Continuing Care
Contract since November 2009, id. at 20,
and that he ‘‘has consistently taken
responsibility for his misconduct.’’ 1 Id.
at 21. The ALJ thus recommended that
Respondent be granted a restricted
registration subject to multiple
conditions. The Government did not file
exceptions to the ALJ’s decision.2
Having reviewed the record, I have
decided to adopt the ALJ’s findings of
fact, conclusions of law, and
recommended Order. Accordingly, I
will order that Respondent be granted a
registration subject to the following
conditions:
(1) Respondent shall be limited to
prescribing controlled substances and
may not administer or dispense directly
any controlled substances. In addition,
Respondent may not order any
controlled substances or accept any
samples of controlled substances. If
Respondent is employed at a practice in
which controlled substances are stored
on the premises, Respondent shall not
have access to the cabinet in which the
controlled substances are stored.
Respondent shall inform any medical
practice at which he becomes employed
of this restriction on his registration.
(2) Respondent is prohibited from
prescribing controlled substances to
himself or any family member.
(3) Respondent shall maintain a log of
all controlled substance prescriptions he
authorizes and shall file a report listing
in chronological order all such
prescriptions by date, and including the
following information: the name and
address of the patient, name and dosage
of the drug, quantity of the drug, and
number of refills authorized. Each
report shall be filed with the local DEA
field office no later than ten (10)
calendar days after the end of the
previous quarter, e.g., April 10 (for the
quarter ending on March 31), July 10
[FR Doc. 2012–18769 Filed 7–31–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 11–45]
On November 2, 2011, Administrative
Law Judge (ALJ) Gail A. Randall issued
the attached recommended decision.
Therein, the ALJ found that while the
Government had established grounds for
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
1 No evidence was put forward showing that
Respondent diverted controlled substances to
others.
2 In its post-hearing brief, the Government cites a
prior decision of this Agency, which after having
already ordered that the practitioner’s application
be granted, then noted ‘‘evidence of the
community’s need for a physician of his specialty
with prescribing capabilities.’’ Gov. Br. 11 (quoting
David M. Headley, 61 FR 39469, 39471 (1996)).
However, the Agency has since held in multiple
cases that community impact evidence is not
relevant in the public interest determination and
provided an extensive explanation as to why. See
Linda Sue Cheek, 76 FR 66972, 66973 (2011); Mark
De La Lama, 76 FR 20011, 20020 n.20 (2011);
Bienvenido Tan, 76 FR 17673, 17694 n.58 (2011);
Gregory D. Owens, 74 FR 36571, 36757 & n.22
(2009).
E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM
01AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 45656]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18769]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division
Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and
Production Act of 1993--Pistoia Alliance, Inc.
Notice is hereby given that, on June 29, 2012, pursuant to Section
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993,
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Pistoia Alliance, Inc. has filed
written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the
Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. 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, Certara L.P.
Portugal, Funchal, Madeira, PORTUGAL; Deloitte Consulting LLP, New
York, NY; Mary Chitty (individual member), Needham, MA; and Hewlett-
Packard Company, Palo Alto, CA, have been added as parties to this
venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group
research project remains open, and Pistoia Alliance, Inc. intends to
file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in
membership.
On May 28, 2009, Pistoia Alliance, 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 July 15, 2009 (74 FR 34364).
The last notification was filed with the Department on April 17,
2012. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to
Section 6(b) of the Act on May 14, 2012 (77 FR 28404).
Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2012-18769 Filed 7-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
