86940 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 240 / Friday, December 15, 2023 / Notices 

of invoking the Act’s provisions limiting 

the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 

actual damages under specified 

circumstances. 

Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the 

name and principal place of business of 

the standards development organization 

is: Alliance for OpenUSD Series LLC, 

series of Joint Development Foundation 

Projects, LLC, Dover, DE. The nature 

and scope of AOUSD’s standards 

development activities are: 

standardizing, developing, and evolving 

Universal Scene Description (USD) in 

an open forum to promote 

interoperability of 3D content to 

empower creators and consumers 

worldwide. AOUSD will initially focus 

on standardizing essential features of 

USD (including technical details or 

requirements on composition model, 

file format, data model, and schema) 

that are stable, understood, 

implemented and important for 3D 

authoring and transmission. In the 

future, AOUSD may also develop 

additional standards specifications to 

promote interoperability of 3D content 

through USD. AOUSD will also develop 

educational, marketing, and 

informational materials to facilitate the 

understanding and adoption of its 

standards. 

Suzanne Morris, 

Deputy Director Civil Enforcement 

Operations, Antitrust Division. 

[FR Doc. 2023–27580 Filed 12–14–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

Notice Pursuant to the National 

Cooperative Research and Production 

Act of 1993—Cooperative Research 

Group on Numerical Propulsion 

System Simulation 

Notice is hereby given that, on 

November 10, 2023, 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 

<<Project_Name>> (‘‘<<Acronym>>’’) 

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, GEII, Cambridge, MA, 

has been added as a party 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 NPSS intends 

to file additional written notifications 

disclosing all changes in membership or 

planned activities. 

On December 11, 2013, NPSS 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 February 20, 2014, (79 FR 9767). 

The last notification was filed with 

the Department on April 25, 2022. A 

notice was published in the Federal 

Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the 

Act on May 13, 2023, (87 FR 29380). 

Suzanne Morris, 

Deputy Director Civil Enforcement 

Operations, Antitrust Division. 

[FR Doc. 2023–27624 Filed 12–14–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

Notice Pursuant to the National 

Cooperative Research and Production 

Act of 1993—The Open Group, L.L.C. 

Notice is hereby given that, on 

September 29, 2023, pursuant to section 

6(a) of the National Cooperative 

Research and Production Act of 1993, 

15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), The 

Open Group, L.L.C. (‘‘TOG’’) 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, 

5HART–IT OPLEIDINGEN B.V., Velp, 

THE NETHERLANDS; Actenum 

Corporation, Vancouver, CANADA; 

Apogee Semiconductor, Inc., Plano, TX; 

ARK CLS, Bedford, UNITED KINGDOM; 

Beijing Jurassic Software Co., Ltd., 

Beijing,PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF 

CHINA; BKO Services, Houston, TX; 

Boomi, Chesterbrook, PA; C3RiOS 

Systems, Inc., Montreal, CANADA; 

CNPC USA Corporation, Houston, TX; 

COMPETENSIS, Fontaines St Martin, 

FRANCE; Cornet Technology Inc., 

Springfield, VA; Denodo Technologies 

Inc., Palo Alto, CA; Docaposte Institute, 

Ivry Sur Seine, FRANCE; Dragos, Inc., 

Hanover, MD; EastSea Star Software 

Ltd, Ho Chi Minh, VIETNAM; 

Engineering Simulation and Scientific 

Software LTDA, Floriano ́polis, BRAZIL; 

Freelance Provider, Lac 1, TUNISIA; 

Glasspaper Learning AS, Oslo, 

NORWAY; GooBiz—Goal Oriented 

Business, Cergy, FRANCE; Indra 

Soluciones Tecnologı ́as de la 

Informacio ́n S.L.U., Alcobendas, SPAIN; 

Innoflight, LLC, San Diego, CA; 

LearnQuest s.r.o., Prague, CZECH 

REPUBLIC; Lin and Associates, Inc., 

Phoenix, AZ; Marine Corps Systems 

Command, Product Manager EWS, 

Stafford, VA; Microchip Technology 

Inc., Chandler, AZ; National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA), Washington, DC; Net Zero 

Matrix Ltd., Douglas, UNITED 

KINGDOM; One Stop Systems, Inc., 

Escondido, CA; OnTime Networks, LLC, 

Latham, NY; Onyx Data LLC, 

Engelwood, CO; ORSYS Formation, 

Paris, FRANCE; Palladio Consulting 

GmbH & Co. KG, Bavaria, GERMANY; 

Petroleum Development Oman L.L.C., 

Muscat, SULTANATE OF OMAN; Red 

Hat Inc., McLean, VA; and SAS 

Acceliance, Le Raincy, FRANCE, have 

been added as parties to this venture. 

Also, Akridata, Inc., Los Altos, CA; 

Buurst, Inc., Houston, TX; 

CommandPrompt, Inc., Bellingham, 

WA; CRI2M SRL, Brussels, BELGIUM; 

DeepIQ, LLC, Houston, TX; EnergyVue 

Services Limited; Aberdeen, UNITED 

KINGDOM; G42 Cloud Technology 

L.L.C., Al Reem Island, UNITED ARAB 

EMIRATES; Galp Explorac ̧a ̃o e 

Produc ̧a ̃o Petrolı ́fera S.A., Lisbon, 

PORTUGAL; Geopost Consultoria em 

Geologia e Geofı ́sica Ltda; Rio de 

Janeiro, BRAZIL; GeoSynergy Pty Ltd, 

Brisbane, AUSTRALIA; Green Horizon 

AS, Sandnes, NORWAY; JourneyOne, 

West Perth, AUSTRALIA; Luxembourg 

Institute of Science and Technology 

(LIST), Luxembourg-Kirchberg, 

LUXEMBOURG; Magseis Fairfield ASA, 

Lysaker, NORWAY; Midwest 

Microwave Solutions, Inc., Hiawatha, 

IA; PAS Global LLC, Houston, TX; PM 

Expert Group UK LIMITED, Noida, 

INDIA; Prediktor AS, Fredrikstad, 

NORWAY; RDRTec, Inc., Roebling, NJ; 

Ruths Analytics and Innovation, Inc. (d/ 

b/a ‘‘Petro.ai’’), Houston, TX; Security 

Compass, Ontario, CANADA; Softeam, 

Paris, FRANCE; Softserve Inc, Austin, 

TX; Tech Mahindra Limited, Mumbai, 

INDIA; The Board of Supervisors of 

Louisiana State University, Baton 

Rouge, LA; VMTC—Vincenzo Marchese 

Training & Consulting, London, 

UNITED KINGDOM; and Zodiac Data 

Systems, Alpharetta, GA, have 

withdrawn as parties to this venture. 

Additionally, Koch Industries has 

changed its name to Koch Capabilities, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 240 / Friday, December 15, 2023 / Notices 86941 

1Effective December 2, 2022, the Medical 

Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion 

Act, Public Law 117–215, 136 Stat. 2257 (2022) 

(Marijuana Research Amendments or MRA), 

amended the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and 

other statutes. Relevant to this matter, the MRA 

redesignated 21 U.S.C. 823(f), cited in the OSC, as 

21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1). Accordingly, this Decision cites 

to the current designation, 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), and 

to the MRA-amended CSA throughout. 

The Federal and state substantive violations 

alleged in the OSC include 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(2) and 

842(a)(1); 21 CFR 1306.04(a) and 1306.06; Fla. Stat. 

893.055(3)(a)(3); and Fla. Admin. Code r. 64B16– 

27.810(1) and (2), Fla. Admin. Code r. 64B16– 

27.831(1)(b) and (c), (2)(c), and (4), and Fla. Admin. 

Code r. 64B16–27.1001(4). 

2The OSC’s substantive headings describe the 

allegations as ‘‘Improper Filling of Prescriptions to 

Undercover Officers,’’ specifically referencing July 

7, 2022, July 14, 2022, and July 15, 2022, ‘‘Issuing 

Prescriptions to Dead Patients,’’ and ‘‘Imminent 

Danger.’’ The OSC cites federal and state authorities 

as the bases of its allegations. Supra n.1. 

This Decision is adjudicating only OSC 

allegations that Respondent filled controlled 

substance prescriptions issued to individuals who 

were deceased. Because these allegations alone are 

sufficient to revoke Respondent’s registration, the 

Agency does not reach the other OSC allegations. 

The other OSC allegations include various 

references to conduct observed by and involving 

undercover officers; the record evidence related to 

those observations and interactions is periodically 

referenced herein as relevant to the analysis of 

Respondent’s credibility and trustworthiness. 

3The admitted exhibits do not support the 

owner/PIC’s testimony that he always makes a copy 

of the IDs. GX 4; GX 5. They indicate that the 

owner/PIC made copies of controlled substance 

prescriptions and patient history forms. E.g., GX 5, 

at 1, 5. They do not indicate, however, that the 

owner/PIC made a copy of any of the IDs that the 

undercover officers handed him. See, e.g., GX 5, at 

2, 10. Accordingly, the Agency finds that the 

testimony of Respondent’s owner/PIC lacks 

credibility. See also infra section V (credibility 

discussion). 

LLC, Wichita, KS; Oriola Defense & 

Security LLC to Safran Federal Systems, 

Inc., Rochester, NY; Integrata AG to 

Cegos Integrata GmbH, Stuttgart, 

GERMANY; and NovaTech Process 

Solutions to Valmet Automation Oy, 

Vespoo, FINLAND. 

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 TOG intends 

to file additional written notifications 

disclosing all changes in membership. 

On April 21, 1997, TOG 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 13, 1997 (62 FR 32371). 

The last notification was filed with 

the Department on June 29, 2023. A 

notice was published in the Federal 

Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the 

Act on August 23, 2023 (88 FR 57478). 

Suzanne Morris, 

Deputy Director Civil Enforcement 

Operations, Antitrust Division. 

[FR Doc. 2023–27558 Filed 12–14–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 22–48] 

APEXX Pharmacy, LLC; Decision and 

Order 

I. Introduction 

On August 2, 2022, the Administrator 

of the Drug Enforcement Administration 

(DEA or Government) issued an Order to 

Show Cause and Immediate Suspension 

of Registration (collectively, OSC) to 

APEXX Pharmacy, LLC (Respondent), of 

Hudson, Florida. OSC, at 1, 9. The OSC 

immediately suspended, and proposes 

the revocation of, Respondent’s DEA 

registration No. FA5493363, pursuant to 

21 U.S.C. 824(d) and (a)(4), and 21 

U.S.C. 823(g)(1).1 Id. at 1. The OSC more 

specifically alleges that Respondent’s 

‘‘continued registration is inconsistent 

with the public interest.’’ Id. It also 

alleges violations of Florida law. Supra 

n.1. 

The hearing Respondent requested 

was held on December 13 and 14, 2022. 

Hearing Transcript. The Recommended 

Rulings, Findings of Fact, Conclusions 

of Law, and Decision of the 

Administrative Law Judge (RD) 

concludes that Respondent’s registration 

should be revoked. RD, at 27. This 

Decision and Order, based solely on 

OSC allegations that Respondent filled 

controlled substances under the names 

of three individuals who, at the time, 

were deceased, agrees.2 Fla. Admin. 

Code r. 64B16–27.1001(4). Accordingly, 

the Agency will revoke Respondent’s 

registration. Infra Order. 

II. Findings of Fact 

The Allegation That Respondent Filled 

Controlled Substance Prescriptions 

Issued to Deceased Individuals 

The OSC alleges, among other things, 

that Respondent filled controlled 

substance prescriptions issued to 

individuals who, at the time, were 

deceased. OSC, at 9. According to the 

Government’s evidence, Respondent 

filled at least forty-seven such 

controlled substance prescriptions. See, 

e.g., GX 6–GX 8 and GX 12–GX 14. 

Respondent does not dispute that it 

filled the forty-seven Schedule II 

controlled substance prescriptions. See, 

e.g., Tr. 366. It does not, however, take 

responsibility for doing so. Instead, it 

maintains that it acted properly and 

suggests, without any documentary or 

evidentiary support, a complex and 

layered theory of misconduct by others. 

According to the testimony of 

Respondent’s owner/Pharmacist-inCharge (PIC), whom the Agency finds to 

be not credible, infra, the ‘‘only way’’ he 

can determine the validity of a 

prescription is to call the issuing doctor 

and ask whether the doctor wrote the 

specific elements of the order for the 

individual to whom the prescription is 

issued. Id. at 368–69. He testified that 

he does this for all of the prescriptions 

presented to his pharmacy. Id. at 369. 

He also testified that, for the forty-seven 

controlled substance prescriptions, each 

issuing doctor provided the verification. 

Id. 

Further, Respondent’s owner/PIC 

testified, for the forty-seven 

prescriptions, as with all other 

prescriptions, that ‘‘every patient that 

comes into the pharmacy ha[s] to have 

an ID,’’ that he ‘‘get[s] their ID,’’ and that 

he has ‘‘to have an ID that matches the 

person in front of . . . [him].’’ Tr. 367. 

He specifically testified that he 

‘‘always’’ makes a copy of the IDs to put 

in the pharmacy’s files, and that those 

prescriptions were not an exception.3

Id. 

While he acknowledged the 

Government-sponsored testimony that 

no copies of IDs presented for the fortyseven prescriptions were found in 

Respondent’s files, the owner/PIC 

testified that ‘‘that is impossible’’ 

because ‘‘[f]or every patient there ha[s] 

to be an ID to match the—the patient. 

They have to fill the information sheet 

and they have to give me an ID to match 

them and the prescription that they are 

filling.’’ Id. at 368. He further testified 

that he was provided IDs for the three 

deceased individuals’ prescriptions, that 

he made copies of them, and that ‘‘those 

IDs seem to match the prescriptions that 

were presented to’’ him. Id. The owner/ 

PIC could not recall whether, for each 

of the forty-seven prescriptions, the 

individual presenting the Schedule II 

controlled substance prescription 

provided an ID in hard copy or 

electronically. Id. at 367; see also RD, at 

23 (owner/PIC’s ‘‘testimony is 

undermined by his statement that he 

could not remember whether the 

customer presented a physical 

identification or emailed him one from 

a phone application’’). Regardless, as 

already noted, Respondent’s owner/PIC 

testified that he has ‘‘to have an ID that 

matches the person in front of . . . 

[him].’’ Tr. 367. 

When asked for his explanation as to 

how Respondent filled any of the fortyseven Schedule II controlled substance 

prescriptions issued to deceased 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1