Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Border Security Technology Consortium, 34551-34552 [2017-15584]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 25, 2017 / Notices
Office of the Chancellor, Long Beach,
CA; Cerego, San Francisco, CA; Data
Recognition Corp., Maple Grove, MN;
Digitalme, Leeds, UNITED KINGDOM;
Indiana University, Bloomington, IN;
Learning Machine, Dallas, TX; School
District of Philadelphia, Philadelphia,
PA; Seattle Public Schools, Seattle, WA;
South Carolina Department of
Education, Columbia, SC; and Galena
Park Independent School District,
Houston, TX, have been added as
parties to this venture.
Also, Intersective, Sydney,
AUSTRALIA; Intel, Santa Clara, CA;
and Utah Valley University, Orem, UT,
have withdrawn as parties to this
venture.
In addition, an existing member,
CODE–OUJ, has changed its name to
Online Education Center of OUJ, Chiba,
JAPAN.
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 IMS Global
intends to file additional written
notifications disclosing all changes in
membership.
On April 7, 2000, IMS Global 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 September 13, 2000 (65 FR
55283).
The last notification was filed with
the Department on April 19, 2017. A
notice was published in the Federal
Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the
Act on May 2, 2017 (82 FR 20488).
Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust
Division.
Antitrust Division
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
BILLING CODE P
Notice Pursuant to the National
Cooperative Research and Production
Act of 1993—Border Security
Technology Consortium
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Notice Pursuant to the National
Cooperative Research and Production
Act of 1993—Cooperative Research
Group on Mechanical Stratigraphy and
Natural Deformation in the Permian
Strata of Texas and New Mexico:
Implications for Exploitation of the
Permian Basin
Notice is hereby given that, on June
22, 2017, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the
National Cooperative Research and
Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), Southwest Research
Institute—Cooperative Research Group
on Mechanical Stratigraphy and Natural
Jkt 241001
[FR Doc. 2017–15582 Filed 7–24–17; 8:45 am]
Antitrust Division
BILLING CODE P
19:30 Jul 24, 2017
Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust
Division.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[FR Doc. 2017–15583 Filed 7–24–17; 8:45 a.m.]
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Deformation in the Permian Strata of
Texas and New Mexico: Implications for
Exploitation of the Permian Basin
(‘‘Permian Basin’’) 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, Diamondback E&P LLC,
Midland, TX; and Noble Energy, Inc.,
Houston, TX, 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 Permian
Basin intends to file additional written
notifications disclosing all changes in
membership.
On April 18, 2017, Permian Basin
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 May 12, 2017 (82 FR
22159).
The last notification was filed with
the Department on May 17, 2017. A
notice was published in the Federal
Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the
Act on June 20, 2017 (82 FR 28092).
Notice is hereby given that, on June 8,
2017, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the
National Cooperative Research and
Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), Border Security
Technology Consortium (‘‘BSTC’’) 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, AeroVironment, Inc.,
SimiValley, CA; AirRobot US, Inc.,
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
34551
Arlington, VA; Applied Research
Associates, Inc. (ARA), Albuquerque,
NM; Aventura Technologies, Inc.,
Hauppauge, NY; C Speed, LLC,
Liverpool, NY; Capgemini Government
Solutions, LLC, Herndon, VA; CCSN,
LLC, Guynabo, P.R.; Chartis Consulting
Corporation, Falls Church, VA;
Commdex Consulting, LLC, Norcross,
GA; CONVERUS, Inc., Lehi, UT; Drone
Co-Habitation Services, LLC, Herndon,
VA; Elbit Systems of America, Inc.,
McLean, VA; EnZoo, Inc., Woodinville,
WA; Exelis, Inc., Fort Wayne, IN; FLIR
Detection, Inc., Arlington, VA; Georgia
Tech Applied Research Corporation,
Atlanta, GA; Guidepost Solutions, LLC,
New York, NY; HiTech Systems, Inc.,
D.B.A. Pulsiam, Los Angeles, CA; ICF,
Fairfax, VA; IEC Infrared Systems,
Middleburg Heights, OH; Innovative
Wireless Technologies, Lynchburg, VA;
International Business Machines
Corporation (IBM), Bethesda, MD;
Leidos, Reston, VA; Logos Technologies,
LLC, Fairfax, VA; Lukos, LLC, Tampa,
FL; Michael Baker Jr., Inc., Phoenix, AZ;
Polaris Sensor Technologies, Huntsville,
AL; Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC),
McLean, VA; Priority 5 Holdings, Inc.,
Needham, MA; Rajant, Malvern, PA;
Red Team Defense Group, Spring
Branch, TX; Rhombus Power, Inc.,
Moffett Field, CA; Salient Federal
Solutions, Fairfax, VA; SRI
International, Menlo Park, CA; Stark
Aerospace, Arlington, VA; StrongWatch
Corporation, Tucson, AZ; TigerSwan,
Inc., Apex, NC; Toyon Research
Corporation, Goleta, CA; Unmanned
Experts, Inc., Denver, CO; Unmanned
Solutions Technology, LLC,
Beavercreek, OH; USTETA, Washington,
DC; ViON Corporation, Herndon, VA;
and XLA Associates, Springfield, VA,
have been added as parties to this
venture.
Also, ADDSS Incorporated, Tucson,
AZ; Azos AI LLC, Haymarket, VA;
Digital Barriers Services, LTD, London,
UK; Hurley IR, Mount Airy, MD; ICS
Consulting, LLC, Arlington, VA; ICx
Tactical Platforms, Forest Park, GA;
Morpho Detection, Newark, CA; Morpho
Trak, Alexandria, VA; NAVISTAR,
Lisle, IL; ProQual-I.T., Inc., Rockville,
MD; Rapiscan Systems, Torrence, CA;
Symetrica, Maynard, MA; University of
Arizona, Tucson, AZ; and Whitney
Bradley & Brown, Inc., Reston, VA, have
withdrawn 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 BSTC intends
to file additional written notifications
disclosing all changes in membership.
E:\FR\FM\25JYN1.SGM
25JYN1
34552
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 25, 2017 / Notices
On May 30, 2012, BSTC 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 June 18, 2012 (77 FR 36292).
The last notification was filed with
the Department on October 5, 2012. A
notice was published in the Federal
Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the
Act on November 6, 2012 (77 FR 66635).
Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust
Division.
[FR Doc. 2017–15584 Filed 7–24–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
Mohammed S. Aljanaby, M.D.; Decision
and Order
On February 10, 2017, the Assistant
Administrator, Division of Diversion
Control, Drug Enforcement
Administration, issued an Order to
Show Cause to Mohammed S. Aljanaby,
M.D. (hereinafter, Registrant),1 of West
Hartford, Connecticut. Show Cause
Order, at 1. The Show Cause Order
proposed the revocation of Registrant’s
DEA Certificate of Registration, on the
ground that he does not have authority
to handle controlled substances in
Connecticut, the State in which he is
registered with DEA. Id.
As to the Agency’s jurisdiction, the
Show Cause Order alleged that
Registrant possesses a practitioner’s
registration for schedules II through V,
and that his registered address is 74
Park Road, West Hartford, Connecticut.
Id. The Order further alleged that
Registrant’s registration ‘‘expires by its
own terms on June 30, 2017.’’ Id.
As to the substantive ground for the
proposed action, the Show Cause Order
alleged that ‘‘[o]n November 15, 2017,
the State of Connecticut Medical
Examining Board revoked [his] license
to practice medicine due to [his] (1)
inappropriate physical and/or sexual
conduct with one or more female
patients; and (2) false statements on
[his] Connecticut medical license
renewal application.’’ Id. (emphasis
added). The Show Cause Order also
alleged that the Board’s ‘‘order remains
in effect.’’ Id.2 The Order further
1 Notwithstanding that Dr. Aljanaby is now an exregistrant, he is referred to as Registrant throughout
this Decision.
2 The Show Cause Order also notified Registrant
of his right to request a hearing or to submit a
written statement while waiving his right to a
hearing, the procedure for electing either option,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:30 Jul 24, 2017
Jkt 241001
asserted that Registrant’s registration
was subject to revocation based on his
lack of state authority. Id. at 2.
The Government attempted to serve
the Order to Show Cause on Registrant
through a variety of ways. These
included: (1) Mailing by first class mail
addressed to him at his registered
address; (2) a Diversion Investigator (DI)
going to his registered address, where he
was told that Registrant ‘‘had not
worked there for a very long time’’ and
his current location was unknown; (3)
the DI going to Registrant’s purported
residence on Laird Drive in Bristol,
Connecticut where no one answered the
door; 3 (4) mailing the Show Cause
Order by Certified Mail, Return Receipt
Requested, addressed to him at his
registered address; (5) mailing the Show
Cause Order by Certified Mail, Return
Receipt Requested, to his purported
residence address; (6) mailing the Show
Cause Order by Certified Mail, Return
Receipt Requested, to a second property
in Bristol, Connecticut, which is
purportedly owned by Registrant; (7)
mailing the Show Cause Order by
Certified Mail, Return Receipt
Requested, to an address in New York
State where he receives his property tax
bill from the Town of Bristol; and (8)
email sent to an address obtained from
a public access database maintained by
Thomson Reuters, which also
corresponds to the email address
Registrant provided to the Connecticut
Board. GX 3, at 1–2 (DI Declaration).
The first mailing was accomplished on
February 10, 2017; the other attempts at
service were made on February 22–23,
2017. Id.; see also GX 4 (Declaration of
Chief Counsel Analyst).
With the exception of the mailing to
his registered address (where he no
longer worked), each of the other
mailings was returned to the
Government and marked as
undelivered. GX 3, at 2. The
Government represents, however, that
the attempt to email the Show Cause
Order did not generate an error or
undeliverable message.
Of note, several courts have held that
the emailing of process can, depending
on the facts and circumstances, satisfy
due process, especially where service by
conventional means is impracticable
because a person secretes himself. See
and the consequence of failing to elect either
option. Show Cause Order, at 2. The Order also
notified Registrant of his right to submit a
Corrective Action Plan. Id. at 2–3 (citing 21 U.S.C.
824(c)(2)(C)).
3 According to the Connecticut Medical
Examining Board’s Order, when the Board
attempted to served Registrant at this address its
mailing was returned and marked: ‘‘Return to
sender, No Such Street, Unable to Forward.’’ GX 3,
Appendix C, at 3.
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink,
284 F.3d 1007, 1017–18 (9th Cir. 2002);
Snyder, et al. v. Alternate Energy Inc.,
857 N.Y.S. 2d 442, 447–449 (N.Y. Civ.
Ct. 2008); In re International Telemedia
Associates, Inc., 245 B.R. 713, 721–22
(Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2000); see also Richard
C. Quigley, 79 FR 50945 (2014); Emilio
Luna, 77 FR 4829, 4830 (2012). Given
the multiple attempts by the
Government to serve the Show Cause
Order by conventional means, including
by mailing it to the address where he
receives his property tax bills, I
conclude that the Government’s use of
email satisfies its obligation with
respect to service of the Show Cause
Order. See, e.g., Jones v. Flowers, 547
U.S. 220, 226 (2006) (due process does
not require actual notice but only
‘‘‘notice reasonably calculated, under all
the circumstances, to apprise interested
parties of the pendency of the action
and afford them an opportunity to
present their objections.’ ’’ Id. (quoting
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank &
Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)).
On May 8, 2017, the Government
submitted a Request for Final Agency
Action. Therein, it represents that
Registrant did not request a hearing or
submit a written statement while
waiving his right to a hearing. The
Government thus seeks a final order
revoking Registrant’s registration.
I deny the Government’s Request for
an Order of Revocation. As support for
the proposed revocation, the
Government submitted a copy of the
Board’s Order revoking Registrant’s state
license, which states that it was actually
issued on the ‘‘15th day of November,
2016.’’ GX 3, Appendix C, at 9.
However, as noted above, the Show
Cause Order alleges that the Board
revoked his state license ‘‘[o]n
November 15, 2017.’’ See GX 2, at 1. I
need not decide, however, whether this
typographical error renders the Show
Cause Order defective as this case is
now moot.4
As noted above, the Show Cause
Order alleges that Registrant’s
registration was due to expire on June
30, 2017. Id. According to the
registration records of the Agency of
4 Had Registrant requested a hearing, the
Government could have corrected its error as to the
date of the Board’s Order by motion. And by
offering the Board’s Order to support a motion for
summary disposition, the Government would have
refuted any claim of prejudice. Cf. United States v.
Cina, 699 F.2d 853, 857 (7th Cir. 1983) (holding in
criminal prosecution that trial court’s amendment
of the alleged commencement date of conspiracy
charge by two years did not ‘‘affect[] a ‘material
element’ of the . . . charge, causing prejudice to the
defendant’’). Furthermore, as long as the Board’s
Order was still in effect, the date of its Order would
not be material.
E:\FR\FM\25JYN1.SGM
25JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34551-34552]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15584]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division
Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and
Production Act of 1993--Border Security Technology Consortium
Notice is hereby given that, on June 8, 2017, pursuant to Section
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993,
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Border Security Technology
Consortium (``BSTC'') 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, AeroVironment, Inc., SimiValley, CA; AirRobot US, Inc.,
Arlington, VA; Applied Research Associates, Inc. (ARA), Albuquerque,
NM; Aventura Technologies, Inc., Hauppauge, NY; C Speed, LLC,
Liverpool, NY; Capgemini Government Solutions, LLC, Herndon, VA; CCSN,
LLC, Guynabo, P.R.; Chartis Consulting Corporation, Falls Church, VA;
Commdex Consulting, LLC, Norcross, GA; CONVERUS, Inc., Lehi, UT; Drone
Co-Habitation Services, LLC, Herndon, VA; Elbit Systems of America,
Inc., McLean, VA; EnZoo, Inc., Woodinville, WA; Exelis, Inc., Fort
Wayne, IN; FLIR Detection, Inc., Arlington, VA; Georgia Tech Applied
Research Corporation, Atlanta, GA; Guidepost Solutions, LLC, New York,
NY; HiTech Systems, Inc., D.B.A. Pulsiam, Los Angeles, CA; ICF,
Fairfax, VA; IEC Infrared Systems, Middleburg Heights, OH; Innovative
Wireless Technologies, Lynchburg, VA; International Business Machines
Corporation (IBM), Bethesda, MD; Leidos, Reston, VA; Logos
Technologies, LLC, Fairfax, VA; Lukos, LLC, Tampa, FL; Michael Baker
Jr., Inc., Phoenix, AZ; Polaris Sensor Technologies, Huntsville, AL;
Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC), McLean, VA; Priority 5 Holdings, Inc.,
Needham, MA; Rajant, Malvern, PA; Red Team Defense Group, Spring
Branch, TX; Rhombus Power, Inc., Moffett Field, CA; Salient Federal
Solutions, Fairfax, VA; SRI International, Menlo Park, CA; Stark
Aerospace, Arlington, VA; StrongWatch Corporation, Tucson, AZ;
TigerSwan, Inc., Apex, NC; Toyon Research Corporation, Goleta, CA;
Unmanned Experts, Inc., Denver, CO; Unmanned Solutions Technology, LLC,
Beavercreek, OH; USTETA, Washington, DC; ViON Corporation, Herndon, VA;
and XLA Associates, Springfield, VA, have been added as parties to this
venture.
Also, ADDSS Incorporated, Tucson, AZ; Azos AI LLC, Haymarket, VA;
Digital Barriers Services, LTD, London, UK; Hurley IR, Mount Airy, MD;
ICS Consulting, LLC, Arlington, VA; ICx Tactical Platforms, Forest
Park, GA; Morpho Detection, Newark, CA; Morpho Trak, Alexandria, VA;
NAVISTAR, Lisle, IL; ProQual-I.T., Inc., Rockville, MD; Rapiscan
Systems, Torrence, CA; Symetrica, Maynard, MA; University of Arizona,
Tucson, AZ; and Whitney Bradley & Brown, Inc., Reston, VA, have
withdrawn 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 BSTC intends to file additional
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
[[Page 34552]]
On May 30, 2012, BSTC 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 June 18,
2012 (77 FR 36292).
The last notification was filed with the Department on October 5,
2012. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to
section 6(b) of the Act on November 6, 2012 (77 FR 66635).
Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2017-15584 Filed 7-24-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
