20010 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Notices 

1The Government did not explain the basis for its 

position that an application filed after a registration 

expires is nonetheless timely. 

2The Order was based on a recommended 

decision of a three-member panel designated by the 

Director of the DOPL to act as the presiding officer 

in the proceeding. The panel’s findings included, 

inter alia, that: 1) Respondent had ‘‘stored 

controlled substances [Versed and Provigil] * * * 

in his personal vehicle,’’ as well as ‘‘41 prescription 

pads which contained multiple blank prescriptions 

that had been presigned by other physicians’’ at a 

clinic he was no longer affiliated with, id. at 9, 11– 

12, 16–17; that he had failed to comply with a 

previous state order that he ‘‘submit a triplicate 

copy’’ of a controlled substance prescription (for 

testosterone, a schedule III steroid) for review by 

the Division, id. at 21–22; that he had committed 

unprofessional conduct when he advised A.S. to 

administer to her son a controlled substance 

(Klonopin) which he had prescribed to her, id. at 

21, 23–24; and that he had violated section 58–37– 

6(7)(o) of the Utah Controlled Substances Act by 

ATF utilizes the services of contract 

investigators to conduct security/ 

suitability investigations on prospective 

or current employees, as well as those 

contractors and consultants doing 

business with ATF. Persons interviewed 

by contract investigators will be 

randomly selected to voluntarily 

complete a questionnaire regarding the 

investigator’s degree of professionalism. 

(5) An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 

estimated for an average respondent to 

respond: It is estimated that 2,500 

respondents will complete a 5 minute 

form. 

(6) An estimate of the total public 

burden (in hours) associated with the 

collection: There are an estimated 250 

annual total burden hours associated 

with this collection. 

If additional information is required 

contact: Lynn Murray, Department 

Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning 

Staff, Justice Management Division, 

United States Department of Justice, 

Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street, 

NE., Room 2E–808, Washington, DC 

20530. 

Dated: April 5, 2011. 

Lynn Murray, 

Department Clearance Officer, PRA, 

Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8486 Filed 4–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–FY–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

Notice Pursuant to the National 

Cooperative Research and Production 

Act of 1993—DVD Copy Control 

Association 

Notice is hereby given that, on March 

9, 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’’), DVD Copy Control 

Association (‘‘DVD CCA’’) 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, 

Behavior Tech Computer Corp., Taipei, 

TAIWAN; Dongguan ChuDong 

Electronic Technology Co., Ltd., 

Dongguan City, Guangdong, PEOPLE’S 

REPUBLIC OF CHINA; and Wistron 

Corporation, Taipei Hsien, TAIWAN, 

have been added as parties to this 

venture. 

Also, Dongguan Qisheng Electronic 

Industrial Co., Ltd., Dongguan City, 

Guangdong, PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF 

CHINA; Global Publishing Inc., 

Fremont, CA; Inventec Corporation, 

Taipei, TAIWAN; and Marvell 

International Ltd., Hamilton, 

BERMUDA, 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 DVD CCA 

intends to file additional written 

notifications disclosing all changes in 

membership. 

On April 11, 2001, DVD CCA 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 August 3, 2001 (66 FR 40727). 

The last notification was filed with 

the Department on December 9, 2010. A 

notice was published in the Federal 

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the 

Act January 10, 2011 (76 FR 1460). 

Patricia A. Brink, 

Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust 

Division. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8366 Filed 4–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE M 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Layfe Robert Anthony, M.D.; Denial of 

Application 

On December 3, 2009, the Deputy 

Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration, issued an Order to 

Show Cause to Layfe Robert Anthony, 

M.D. (Respondent), of Salt Lake City, 

Utah. The Show Cause Order proposed 

the revocation of Respondent’s DEA 

Certificate of Registration, BA8835449, 

and the denial of any pending 

applications to renew or modify the 

registration, on the ground that because 

of actions taken by the Utah Division of 

Occupational and Professional 

Licensing, he lacks ‘‘authority to 

practice medicine or handle controlled 

substances in the State of Utah,’’ the 

State in which he is registered. Show 

Cause Order at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 

824(a)(3)). The Show Cause Order also 

notified Respondent of his right to 

request a hearing or to submit a written 

statement in lieu of a hearing, the 

procedures for doing so, and the 

consequences for his failing to do so. Id. 

at 2 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43 & 1316.47). 

On December 14, 2009, the Show 

Cause Order was served on Respondent 

by certified mail addressed to him at his 

registered location. Since that date, 

more than thirty days have passed and 

neither Respondent, nor anyone 

purporting to represent him, has 

requested a hearing or submitted a 

written statement. 21 CFR 1301.43(b) & 

(c). Accordingly, I conclude that 

Respondent has waived his right to a 

hearing and issue this Final Order based 

on the evidence contained in the 

investigative record. 21 CFR 1301.43(d) 

& (e). 

Respondent held DEA registration, 

BA8835449, which authorized him to 

dispense controlled substances in 

schedules II through V as a practitioner. 

According to the Agency’s registration 

records, Respondent’s registration 

expired on June 30, 2007, and 

Respondent did not submit his renewal 

application until July 2, 2007. Moreover, 

the Agency did not automatically renew 

his registration. 

Under 5 U.S.C. 558(c), ‘‘[w]hen the 

licensee has made timely and sufficient 

application for a renewal or a new 

license in accordance with agency rules, 

a license with reference to an activity of 

a continuing nature does not expire 

until the application has been finally 

determined by the agency.’’ Based on 

this provision, the Government 

maintains that his registration has 

continued in effect.1 It has not. 

However, an application remains 

pending before the Agency. 

On January 28, 2009, the Utah 

Department of Commerce, Division of 

Occupational and Professional 

Licensing (DOPL), revoked his ‘‘licenses 

to practice as a physician/surgeon and 

to administer and prescribe controlled 

substances.’’ Order, In re Layfe Robert 

Anthony, M.D., No. DOPL–OSC–2001– 

70 (Utah Div. Occ. & Prof. Lic. Jan. 28, 

2009).2 Accordingly, Respondent lacks 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES