16820 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2011 / Notices 

Inc., Marshall, TX; Textronics, Inc., 

Wilmington, DE; Tiburon Associates, 

Inc., Arlington, VA; TPL Inc., 

Albuquerque, NM; Ultralife 

Corporation, Newark, NY; University of 

Rhode Island, Kingston, RI; and UXB 

International Inc., Blacksburg, VA. 

The general area of CEED’s planned 

activity is (a) to enter into a Section 845 

Other Transactions Agreement (The OT 

Agreement) with the U.S. Army (the 

Government) for the funding of certain 

research and development to be 

conducted, in partnership with the 

Government, the consortium and other 

Consortium Members, to enhance the 

capabilities of the U.S. government and 

its departments and agencies in the 

fields of energy, environment and 

demilitarization; (b) participate in 

establishment of sound technical and 

programmatic performance goals based 

on the needs and requirements of the 

Government’s Technology Objectives 

and create programs and secure funding 

for the Technology Objectives; (c) 

provide a unified voice to effectively 

articulate the strategically important 

role that renewable energy, the 

environment and demilitarization 

technologies play in current and future 

weapon systems; and (d) maximize the 

utilization of the Government and 

member capabilities to effectively 

develop critical energy, environment 

and demilitarization technologies that 

can be transitioned and commercialized. 

Additional information concerning 

the CEED can be obtained from Mr. 

Darold L. Griffin, Executive Director, 

CEED, in care of Engineering and 

Management Executives, Inc., (EME), 

101 South Whiting Street, Suite 204, 

Alexandria, VA 22304–3416, telephone 

(703) 212–8030, ext. 224, fax (703) 212– 

8035, e-mail: eme1bmt@aol.com; Mr. 

Charles McBride, President, CEED, 1140 

Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite 1050, 

Washington, DC 20036, telephone (202) 

466–4210, fax (202) 466–4213, e-mail: 

mcbride@mcbride.com; Mr. James W. 

Frankovic, Chief DEMIL and 

Environmental Technology Division, 

U.S. Army Research Development and 

Engineering Center, Picatinny Arsenal, 

NJ, 07806–5000, telephone (973) 724– 

6239, fax (973) 724–4308, e-mail: 

james.w.frankovic@us.army.mil. 

Patricia A. Brink, 

Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust 

Division. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6921 Filed 3–24–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

Notice Pursuant to the National 

Cooperative Research and Production 

Act of 1993—Interchangeable Virtual 

Instruments Foundation, Inc. 

Notice is hereby given that, on 

February 24, 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’’), 

Interchangeable Virtual Instruments 

Foundation, 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, Kikusui Electronics Corp., 

Yokohama City, Kanagawa, Japan, has 

been added as a party to this venture. 

Also, ICS Electronics, Pleasanton, CA; 

and BAE Systems, San Diego, CA, 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 

Interchangeable Virtual Instruments 

Foundation, Inc. intends to file 

additional written notifications 

disclosing all changes in membership. 

On May 29, 2001, Interchangeable 

Virtual Instruments Foundation, 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 30, 2001 (66 FR 

39336). 

The last notification was filed with 

the Department on July 8, 2010. A 

notice was published in the Federal 

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the 

Act September 8, 2010 (75 FR 54652). 

Patricia A. Brink, 

Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust 

Division. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6917 Filed 3–24–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

Notice Pursuant to the National 

Cooperative Research and Production 

Act of 1993—National Warheads and 

Energetics Consortium 

Notice is hereby given that, on 

February 25, 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’’), 

National Warheads and Energetics 

Consortium (‘‘NWEC’’) 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, Directed Energy 

Technologies, Inc., Sumerduck, VA; 

MaxPower, Inc., Harleysville, PA; 

Omnitek Partners, LLC, Ronkonkoma, 

NY; and Universal Propulsion 

Company, Inc., Fairfield, CA, have been 

added as parties to this venture. Also, 

NIC Industries, White City, OR; and The 

University of Southern Mississippi, 

Hattiesburg, MS, 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 NWEC 

intends to file additional written 

notifications disclosing all changes in 

membership. 

On May 2, 2000, NWEC 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 30, 2000 (65 FR 40693). 

The last notification was filed with 

the Department on November 30, 2010. 

A notice was published in the Federal 

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the 

Act on December 22, 2010 (75 FR 

80536). 

Patricia A. Brink, 

Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust 

Division. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6916 Filed 3–24–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

Notice Pursuant to the National 

Cooperative Research and Production 

Act of 1993—PXI Systems Alliance, 

Inc. 

Notice is hereby given that, on 

February 24, 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’’), PXI 

Systems Alliance, Inc. has filed written 

notifications simultaneously with the 

Attorney General and the Federal Trade 

Commission disclosing changes in its 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2011 / Notices 16821 

1While Respondent requested that the Deputy 

Assistant Administrator stay the issuance of the 

Final Order, given that the Deputy Assistant 

Administrator has no authority to issue the 

Agency’s Final Order, I address the request as if it 

was directed to this Office. 

2While in Bergman, the ALJ stayed the 

proceeding until after the registrant’s state board 

hearing, the decision of the Agency, which revoked 

his registration, did not endorse this practice. 

Moreover, the decision expressly noted that 

‘‘[d]enial or revocation is also appropriate when a 

state license has been suspended, but with the 

possibility of future reinstatement.’’ 70 FR at 33193 

(collecting cases). 

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, Strategic Test AB, Woburn, 

MA; Integrated Device Technology, Inc. 

(IDT), San Jose, CA; DGE Inc., Rochester 

Hills, MI; Tundra Semiconductor Corp., 

Fremont, CA; Tyco Electronics, 

Middletown, PA; and Crystek 

Corporation, Fort Myers, FL, 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 PXI Systems 

Alliance, Inc. intends to file additional 

written notifications disclosing all 

changes in membership. 

On November 22, 2000, PXI Systems 

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 March 8, 2001 (66 FR 13971). 

The last notification was filed with 

the Department on September 22, 2010. 

A notice was published in the Federal 

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the 

Act October 25, 2010 (75 FR 65511). 

Patricia A. Brink, 

Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust 

Division. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6915 Filed 3–24–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 11–2] 

Gregory F. Saric, M.D.; Decision and 

Order 

On November 2, 2010, Administrative 

Law Judge (ALJ) Timothy D. Wing 

issued the attached recommended 

decision. Thereafter, Respondent filed 

exceptions to the decision. 

Having reviewed the record in its 

entirety including the ALJ’s 

recommended decision, I have decided 

to adopt the ALJ’s rulings, findings of 

fact, conclusions of law, and 

recommended Order. 

In his Exceptions, Respondent argues 

that ‘‘the ALJ’s Recommended Decision 

fails to take into account certain 

exceptions where a suspension or stay 

of revocation has been granted in 

circumstances similar to that of 

Respondent’s.’’ Exceptions at 1 (citing 

Stuart A. Bergman, M.D., 70 FR 33193 

(2005)). Respondent notes that ‘‘[i]n 

Bergman[,], the ALJ delayed issuing her 

ruling on the Government’s Motion for 

Summary Disposition for over two 

months to allow for a pending state 

board hearing.’’ Id. Respondent states 

that ‘‘he is currently receiving treatment 

in [an] approved rehabilitation program 

and will likely complete his treatment 

next month,’’ that ‘‘[h]e is in full 

compliance with the Florida 

Department of Health and the Florida 

Professionals Resource Network and 

will appear before the Florida Board of 

Medicine to have his license reinstated 

in early 2011.’’ Id. at 1–2. 

Respondent contends that a stay of 

this Final Order ‘‘will allow him time to 

complete his rehabilitation and have the 

state suspension of his medical license 

lifted’’ and that ‘‘such a stay * * * is 

within the Deputy Assistant 

Administrator’s authority and would 

not disserve the public interest.’’ Id. 

Respondent thus requests that the 

issuance of this Final Order be stayed 

for ninety (90) days 1 in order to allow 

him ‘‘time to have the temporary 

suspension of his Florida medical 

license lifted.’’ Id. 

However, more than ninety days have 

already passed since Respondent filed 

his Exceptions, and yet Respondent has 

submitted no evidence to this Office 

establishing that the Florida Board of 

Medicine has re-instated his medical 

license. Nor has Respondent even 

submitted evidence as to when he is 

scheduled to appear before the Florida 

Board. 

Moreover, in circumstances similar to 

those raised by Respondent, DEA has 

repeatedly denied requests to stay the 

issuance of a final order of revocation, 

noting that ‘‘[u]nder the Controlled 

Substances Act, ‘a practitioner must be 

currently authorized to handle 

controlled substances in ‘‘the 

jurisdiction in which [he] practices’’ in 

order to maintain [his] DEA 

registration.’ ’’ Newcare Home Health 

Servs., 72 FR 42126 (2007) (quoting 

Bourne Pharmacy, Inc., 72 FR 18273, 

18274 (2007) (quoting 21 U.S.C. 

802(21))). See also 21 U.S.C. 802(21) 

(‘‘[t]he term ‘practitioner’ means a 

physician * * * licensed, registered, or 

otherwise permitted, by * * * the 

jurisdiction in which he practices * * * 

to * * * dispense * * * a controlled 

substance in the course of professional 

practice’’); id. § 823(f) (‘‘The Attorney 

General shall register practitioners 

* * * if the applicant is authorized to 

dispense * * * controlled substances 

under the laws of the State in which he 

practices.’’); Bourne Pharmacy, 72 FR at 

18274 (revoking registration; ‘‘Under the 

CSA, it does not matter whether the 

suspension is for a fixed term or for a 

duration which has yet to be determined 

because it is continuing pending the 

outcome of a state proceeding. Rather, 

what matters—as DEA has repeatedly 

held—is whether Respondent is without 

authority under [state] law to dispense 

a controlled substance.’’). 

Thus, Respondent’s reliance on 

Bergman is misplaced.2 As I further 

explained in Newcare, ‘‘[i]t is not DEA’s 

policy to stay proceedings under section 

304 while registrants litigate in other 

forums.’’ 72 FR at 42127 (citing Bourne 

Pharmacy, 72 FR at 18273; Oakland 

Medical Pharmacy, 71 FR 50100 (2006); 

Kennard Kobrin, M.D., 70 FR 33199 

(2005)). This is so, because in addition 

to the CSA’s requirement that a 

practitioner hold state authority in order 

to be registered, whether Respondent’s 

state license will be re-instated is 

entirely speculative. Nor is there any 

evidence in the record as to when such 

action may occur. 

Therefore, I adopt the ALJ’s 

recommendation that Respondent’s 

registration be revoked. 

Order 

Pursuant to the authority vested in me 

by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a), as well 

as 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, I order 

that DEA Certificate of Registration, 

BS5109889, issued to Gregory F. Saric, 

M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I 

further order that any pending 

application of Gregory F. Saric, M.D., to 

renew or modify his registration, be, and 

it hereby is, denied. This Order is 

effective April 25, 2011. 

Dated: March 10, 2011. 

Michele M. Leonhart, 

Administrator. 

Larry P. Cote, Esq., for the Government. 

George F. Indest, III, Esq., for 

Respondent. 

Recommended Ruling, Findings of Fact, 

Conclusions of Law, and Decision of the 

Administrative Law Judge 

Administrative Law Judge Timothy D. 

Wing. On September 9, 2010, the 

Deputy Assistant Administrator, DEA, 

issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) of 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES