35794 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2022 / Notices 

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, Imandra, Inc., Austin, TX; 

and Tormach, Inc., Madison, WI, have 

been added as parties to this venture. 

Also, Process Champ, LLC, Troy, MI, 

has withdrawn as a party to this 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 RIC-Americas 

intends to file additional written 

notifications disclosing all changes in 

membership. 

On April 30, 2014, RIC-Americas 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 9, 2014 (79 FR 

32999). 

The last notification was filed with 

the Department on March 24, 2022. A 

notice was published in the Federal 

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the 

Act on May 12, 2022 (87 FR 29181). 

Suzanne Morris, 

Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, 

Antitrust Division. 

[FR Doc. 2022–12599 Filed 6–10–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

Granting of Requests for Early 

Termination of the Waiting Period 

Under the Premerger Notification 

Rules 

Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 

U.S.C. 18a, as added by Title II of the 

Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust 

Improvements Act of 1976, requires 

persons contemplating certain mergers 

or acquisitions to give the Federal Trade 

Commission and the Assistant Attorney 

General advance notice and to wait 

designated periods before 

consummation of such plans. Section 

7A(b)(2) of the Act permits the agencies, 

in individual cases, to terminate this 

waiting period prior to its expiration 

and requires that notice of this action be 

published in the Federal Register. The 

following transactions were granted 

early termination—on the date 

indicated—of the waiting period 

provided by law and the premerger 

notification rules. The listing includes 

the transaction number and the parties 

to the transaction. The Federal Trade 

Commission and the Assistant Attorney 

General for the Antitrust Division of the 

Department of Justice made the grants. 

Neither agency intends to take any 

action with respect to this proposed 

acquisitions during the applicable 

waiting period. 

EARLY TERMINATION GRANTED

06/03/2022 

20220800 G General Dynamics Corporation; Walter P. Kitonis, III; 

Progeny Systems Corporation. 

20212748 G The Big Sky Trust; Welbilt, 

Inc. 

Suzanne Morris, 

Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, 

Antitrust Division, Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2022–12626 Filed 6–10–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–11–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 May 

23, 2022, 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, ADAGA Solutions, Ltd, 

Calgary, CANADA; Alfahive, Inc., 

Mississauga, CANADA; Analog Devices, 

Inc., Chelmsford, MA; Avancier 

Limited, New Malden, UNITED 

KINGDOM; BusCorp Inc., Calgary, 

CANADA; C-Risk, Paris La Defense 

Cedex, FRANCE; Crystal Group, 

Hiawatha, IA; DUG Technology 

(Australia) Pty Ltd, Perth, AUSTRALIA; 

ETNIC—Fe ́de ́ration Wallonie-Bruxelles, 

Bruxelles, BELGIUM; Expeditionary 

Engineering, Inc, San Diego, CA; 

Geologix Limited, Norwich, UNITED 

KINGDOM; GeoSoftware C.V., The 

Hague, THE NETHERLANDS; Glex AS, 

Bergen, NORWAY; II–VI Aerospace & 

Defense, Inc., Murrieta, CA; ITT Cannon 

LLC, Irvine, CA; Kyndryl, New York, 

NY; Leonardo DRS, Arlington, VA; 

Lloyd’s Register Digital Products 

Limited, Aberdeen, UNITED KINGDOM; 

Makel Engineering, Inc., Chico, CA; 

Nasuni Corporation, Boston, MA; Octo 

Security PTE LTD, Dubai, UNITED 

ARAB EMIRATES; Petroware AS, 

Stavanger, NORWAY; PIARA Inc., 

Pittsburgh, PA; Prores AS, 

Trondheim,NORWAY; Quantic 

Electronics, LLC, East Providence, RI; 

SARL SMARTEST, Ouled Fayet, 

ALGIERS; SI12 Technologies, Billerica, 

MA; The EOSYS Group, Inc., Smyrna, 

TN; Tracy A Barkhimer Acquisition 

Strategies & Consulting, LLC, White 

Salmon, WA; U.S. Army Project 

Manager, Positioning, Navigation and 

Timing (PM PNT), Aberdeen Proving 

Ground, MD; Variable Software, Inc., 

Denver, CO; VMWare Inc., Palo Alto, 

CA; Web Age Solutions Inc., Toronto, 

CANADA; and Wellsite Software LLC, 

Houston, TX, have been added as 

parties to this venture. 

Also, Ascendant Engineering 

Solutions, Austin, TX; Beyond Limits, 

Inc., Glendale, CA; Buurst, Inc., 

Houston, TX; CCTI SAS Consultoria en 

Technologia, Bogota, COLOMBIA; D2IQ, 

Inc., San Francisco, CA; Data Gumbo 

Corporation, Houston, TX; Dawan, 

Nantes, FRANCE; Devoteam Consulting 

A/S, Copenhagen, DENMARK; Digital 

Business Consulting LLC; McKinney, 

TX; DRS Training & Control Systems, 

LLC, Fort Walton Beach, FL; DT360, 

Inc., Natick, MA; Dux Diligens S.A. de 

C.V., Mexico City, MEXICO; Energy 

Systems Catapult Limited, Birmingham, 

UNITED KINGDOM; HIMA Paul 

Hildebrandt GmbH, Houston, TX; 

IBISKA Telecom, Inc., Ottawa, 

CANADA; Infinite Dimensions 

Integration, Inc., West Plains, MO; 

Merck KGaA, Molsheim, FRANCE; 

Netmind SL, Barcelona, SPAIN; 

Perspecta Labs, Inc., Red Bank, NJ; 

Rapid Imaging Software, Inc., 

Albuquerque, NM; Real Time 

Automation Inc., Pewaukee, WI; 

Samson Aktieneegesellschaft, Frankfurt, 

GERMANY; SYSGO AG, KleinWinternheim, GERMANY; University of 

Denver, Alexandria, VA; and Wavekoda, 

The Hague, THE NETHERLANDS, have 

withdrawn as parties to this venture. 

Additionally, ABB Automation has 

changed its name to ABB AG, Minden, 

GERMANY; Cegal AS to CegalSYSCO 

AS, Stavanger, NORWAY; Spirit Energy 

Norway to Sval Energi AS, Stavanger, 

NORWAY and Perecon AS to Resbridge 

AS, Bergen, NORWAY. 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2022 / Notices 35795 

1Administrative Law Judge Exhibit (ALJX) 1 

(OSC). 

2See Recommended Rulings, Findings of Fact, 

Conclusions of Law, and Decision of the 

Administrative Law Judge (‘‘Recommended 

Decision’’ or ‘‘RD’’). Respondent filed Exceptions, 

but later asked to withdraw them. Resp Notice to 

Dismiss, at 2–3. The Agency is granting 

Respondent’s request to withdraw his Exceptions, 

but declining Respondent’s request to adopt the 

Recommended Decision and instead issuing a Final 

Order based on consideration of the record in its 

entirety. 

3Stip. 14. Respondent’s partner’s name has been 

replaced with his initial. 

4 Govt Posthearing, at 3. In its Posthearing Brief, 

the Government also alleged that Respondent 

issued a prescription for phentermine, a controlled 

substance, in violation of N.J. Admin. Code § 13.35– 

7.5A(b) and 21 CFR 1306.04. This allegation is not 

sustained because its legal grounds were not 

properly noticed. 

5The Government has also alleged that 

Respondent’s conduct violated 21 U.S.C. 843(a)(2). 

Govt Posthearing, at 27. This provision was not 

fully briefed until after the RD. See Resp 

Exceptions, at 13–15; Govt Response to Resp 

Exceptions, at 11–15. The Agency declines to make 

a finding on this criminal violation because the 

factual record in this case has not been developed 

sufficiently to determine how section 843(a)(2) 

applies. 

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 March 2, 2022. A 

notice was published in the Federal 

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the 

Act on March 15, 2022 (87 FR 14574). 

Suzanne Morris, 

Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, 

Antitrust Division. 

[FR Doc. 2022–12606 Filed 6–10–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 19–24] 

Gary A. Matusow, D.O.; Decision and 

Order 

An official of the Drug Enforcement 

Administration (‘‘Government’’) issued 

an Order to Show Cause (OSC) seeking 

to deny the pending application for a 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

(DEA) Certificate of Registration of Gary 

Matusow, D.O. (‘‘Respondent’’).1 After a 

hearing, the Administrative Law Judge 

(ALJ) recommended that Respondent’s 

application be denied.2 The Agency 

agrees with the ALJ’s conclusion, and, 

for the reasons explained below, denies 

Respondent’s application as 

inconsistent with the public interest 

under 21 U.S.C. 823(f). 

I. Findings of Fact 

On November 14, 2018, Respondent 

submitted an application for a DEA 

Certificate of Registration. GX 1. 

Respondent was previously registered 

with DEA to handle controlled 

substances but voluntarily surrendered 

this registration for cause. GX 9. 

The Government and Respondent 

have agreed to fifty-eight stipulations, 

which are hereby incorporated into the 

record. See RD, at 41–47. 

Respondent was previously employed 

as an osteopathic physician partner at a 

practice in New Jersey that he shared 

with a partner, Dr. M.3 Between August 

9, 2015, and January 8, 2017, 

Respondent filled (or refilled) 

prescriptions for controlled substances 

that were issued with Dr. M’s DEA 

registration. Stip. 17–18. Respondent 

issued each of the prescriptions to 

himself by calling them into a pharmacy 

with Dr. M’s name. Stip. 19. Respondent 

picked up each of the prescriptions from 

the pharmacy. Stip. 20. Respondent is 

not a patient of Dr. M and was not a 

patient of his when the prescriptions 

were issued. Stip. 21. 

A. Allegations 

The Government argues that 

Respondent’s application for a new DEA 

registration should be denied because 

he displayed dishonesty in a number of 

ways and violated the law.4 The 

Government has shown that Respondent 

obtained controlled substances for his 

personal use in violation of state law, 

but the Government’s other allegations 

are not sustained. 

1. Respondent Obtained Controlled 

Substances Without a Valid Prescription 

in Violation of State Law 

The Government has alleged that 

Respondent violated N.J. Stat. Ann. 

§ 2C:35–10 when he filled the controlled 

substance prescriptions issued under 

Dr. M’s name and DEA registration 

number. Under N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:35– 

10, it is ‘‘unlawful for any person, 

knowingly or purposely, to obtain . . . 

a controlled dangerous substance . . . 

unless the substance was obtained 

directly, or pursuant to a valid 

prescription or order form from a 

practitioner, while acting in the course 

of his professional practice . . . .’’ 

Respondent admits that he obtained 

controlled substances pursuant to 

prescriptions authorized by Dr. M and 

under Dr. M’s DEA registration despite 

not being a patient of Dr. M. See Stip. 

21. Respondent testified that when he 

asked Dr. M for authorization to call in 

the prescriptions under Dr. M’s name, 

Respondent knew he should have been 

a patient of the practice and that the 

discussion between Respondent and Dr. 

M about his health issues should have 

been documented in a patient chart. Tr. 

358–59; see N.J. Admin. Code § 13:35– 

7.1A (‘‘[A] practitioner shall not 

dispense drugs or issue a prescriptions 

to an individual . . . without first 

having conducted an examination, 

which shall be properly documented in 

the patient record.’’). Respondent also 

admitted that he knew the prescriptions 

did not comply with state and federal 

regulations. See Tr. 456–59. When asked 

if he believed Dr. M had taken ‘‘those 

steps that you have to take before you 

prescribe controlled substances,’’ 

Respondent responded that he did not 

and that he thought that he and Dr. M 

were both negligent. Id. at 456. He also 

testified that he knew the Dr. M 

prescriptions were ‘‘off the books’’ and 

that they exposed Dr. M to professional 

and potential criminal liability. Id. at 

456–57. 

Based on Respondent’s admissions 

during the administrative hearing, the 

Agency finds that he knew the subject 

prescriptions were not valid 

prescriptions issued in the usual course 

of Dr. M’s professional practice. 

Accordingly, the Agency finds that 

Respondent violated N.J. Stat. Ann. 

§ 2C:35–10. 

2. Allegation That Respondent Used Dr. 

M’s DEA Registration To Fraudulently 

Obtain Controlled Substances 

The Government has alleged that 

Respondent fraudulently obtained 

controlled substances by using Dr. M’s 

DEA registration number without Dr. 

M’s authorization in violation of federal 

law (21 U.S.C. 843(a)(3)) and state law 

(N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:35–10). Dr. M and 

Respondent gave conflicting testimony 

as to whether Dr. M authorized 

Respondent’s use of Dr. M’s registration 

to obtain these controlled substances. 

The ALJ was in the best position to 

observe the demeanor of the witnesses, 

and having considered his credibility 

determinations in light of the 

‘‘consistency and inherent probability of 

the testimony,’’ the Agency adopts the 

ALJ’s findings regarding Dr. M’s and 

Respondent’s testimony on this issue. 

See Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 

340 U.S. 474, 496 (1951); see also Tr. 

242–43; RD, at 77–78, 85–88. 

Accordingly, the Agency finds no 

violation of these laws.5


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES