50408 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Notices 

Consortium, Inc. intends to file 

additional written notification 

disclosing all changes in membership. 

On November 19, 2004, Network 

Centric Operations Industry 

Consortium, 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 February 2, 2005 (70 FR 5486). 

The last notification was filed with 

the Department on May 11, 2005. A 

notice was published in the Federal 

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the 

Act on June 13, 2005 (70 FR 34150).

Dorothy B. Fountain, 

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust 

Division.

[FR Doc. 05–16961 Filed 8–25–05; 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—Storage Bridge Bay 

Working Group, Inc. 

Notice is hereby given that, on August 

9, 2005, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the 

National Cooperative Research and 

Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 

et. seq. (‘‘the Act’’), Storage Bridge Bay 

Working Group, Inc. (‘‘SBB’’) has filed 

written notifications simultaneously 

with the Attorney General and the 

Federal Trade Commission disclosing 

(1) the name and principal place of 

business of the standards development 

organization and (2) the nature and 

scope of its standards development 

activities. The notifications were filed 

for the purpose 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: Storage Bridge Bay 

Working Group, Inc., Redwood City, 

CA. The nature and scope of SBB’s 

standards development activities are: 

Promoting the computer industry by 

supporting and facilitating the 

development of interoperable and 

compatible storage components with 

reference to controller slot compatibility 

between and among storage solutions. 

These purposes include the objective of 

developing and publishing a ‘‘storage 

bridge bay’’ specification that will serve 

as a reference and guideline for defining 

physical, mechanical, electrical and 

low-level enclosure management 

requirements for an enclosure controller 

slot that will support a variety of storage 

controllers from a variety of 

independent hardware vendors and 

independent software vendors. Any 

storage controller design based on this 

specification shall be able to fit, 

connect, and operate within any storage 

enclosure controller slot design based 

on the same specification.

Dorothy B. Fountain, 

Deputy Director of Operations Antitrust 

Division.

[FR Doc. 05–16959 Filed 8–25–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. DEA–271N] 

Clarification of Existing Requirements 

Under the Controlled Substances Act 

for Prescribing Schedule II Controlled 

Substances

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA), Justice.

ACTION: Clarification.

SUMMARY: On January 18, 2005, DEA 

published in the Federal Register a 

solicitation of comments on the subject 

of dispensing controlled substances for 

the treatment of pain. Many of the 

comments that the agency received 

indicate that there is a need to issue a 

clarification regarding certain aspects of 

the prescription requirements for 

schedule II controlled substances. This 

document provides such clarification.

DATES: August 26, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patricia M. Good, Chief, Liaison and 

Policy Section, Office of Diversion 

Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration, Washington, DC 20537; 

Telephone: (202) 307–7297.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

January 18, 2005, the Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA) published in the 

Federal Register a Solicitation of 

Comments on the subject of dispensing 

controlled substances for the treatment 

of pain. 70 FR 2883. Most of the 

comments that the agency received 

sought clarification on the legal 

requirements governing the prescribing 

of schedule II controlled substances by 

physicians in view of DEA’s November 

16, 2004, Interim Policy Statement. 69 

FR 67170. Given these comments, DEA 

wishes to reiterate the following 

principles under the Controlled 

Substances Act (CSA) and DEA 

regulations. 

1. As the Interim Policy Statement 

states, ‘‘For a physician to prepare 

multiple prescriptions [for a schedule II 

controlled substance] on the same day 

with instructions to fill on different 

dates is tantamount to writing a 

prescription authorizing refills of a 

schedule II controlled substance.’’ To do 

so conflicts with the provision of the 

CSA which provides: ‘‘No prescription 

for a controlled substance in schedule II 

may be refilled.’’

2. Many of the comments that DEA 

received were from patients who said 

they have been receiving prescriptions 

for schedule II controlled substances for 

several years (for example, for the 

treatment of severe pain or attention 

deficit hyperactivity disorder) and have 

gotten into a routine of seeing their 

physician once every three months. 

Many such commenters were under the 

mistaken impression that, because of the 

Interim Policy Statement, they now 

must begin seeing their physician every 

month. DEA wishes to make clear that 

the Interim Policy did not state that 

such patients must visit their 

physician’s office every month to pick 

up a new prescription. There is no such 

requirement in the CSA or DEA 

regulations. What is required, in each 

instance where a physician issues a 

prescription for any controlled 

substance, is that the physician properly 

determine there is a legitimate medical 

purpose for the patient to be prescribed 

that controlled substance and that the 

physician be acting in the usual course 

of professional practice. 21 CFR 

1306.04(a); United States v. Moore, 423 

U.S. 122 (1975). 

At the same time, schedule II 

controlled substances, by definition, 

have the highest potential for abuse, and 

are the most likely to cause dependence, 

of all the controlled substances that 

have an approved medical use. 21 

U.S.C. 812(b). Physicians must, 

therefore, use the utmost care in 

determining whether their patients for 

whom they are prescribing schedule II 

controlled substances should be seen in 

person each time a prescription is 

issued or whether seeing the patient in 

person at somewhat less frequent 

intervals is consistent with sound 

medical practice and appropriate 

safeguards against diversion and 

misuse. Physicians must also abide by 

any requirements imposed by their state 

medical boards with respect to proper 

prescribing practices and what 

constitutes a bona fide physician-patient 

relationship. 21 U.S.C. 823(f)(1), (4). 

3. Under the circumstances described 

in paragraph 2, in those instances where 

the physician (who regularly sees a 

patient) issues a prescription for a 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Notices 50409

schedule II controlled substance for a 

legitimate medical purpose without 

seeing the patient in person, the 

physician may mail the prescription to 

the patient or pharmacy. In addition, as 

the DEA regulations state: ‘‘A 

prescription for a schedule II controlled 

substance may be transmitted by the 

practitioner or the practitioner’s agent to 

a pharmacy via facsimile equipment, 

provided that the original written, 

signed prescription is presented to the 

pharmacist for review prior to the actual 

dispensing of the controlled substance, 

except as noted [elsewhere in this 

section of the regulations].’’ 21 CFR 

1306.11(a). Thus, as this provision of 

the regulations provides, faxing may be 

used to facilitate the filling of a 

schedule II prescription, but only if the 

pharmacy receives the original written, 

signed prescription prior to dispensing 

the drug to the patient. 

4. The CSA and DEA regulations 

contain no specific limit on the number 

of days worth of a schedule II controlled 

substance that a physician may 

authorize per prescription. Some states, 

however, do impose specific limits on 

the amount of a schedule II controlled 

substance that may be prescribed. Any 

limitations imposed by state law apply 

in addition to the corresponding 

requirements under Federal law, so long 

as the state requirements do not conflict 

with or contravene the Federal 

requirements. 21 U.S.C. 903. Again, the 

essential requirement under Federal law 

is that the prescription for a controlled 

substance be issued for a legitimate 

medical purpose in the usual course of 

professional practice. In addition, 

physicians and pharmacies have a duty 

as DEA registrants to ensure that their 

prescribing and dispensing of controlled 

substances occur in a manner consistent 

with effective controls against diversion 

and misuse, taking into account the 

nature of the drug being prescribed. 21 

U.S.C. 823(f). 

Finally, as stated in the Solicitation of 

Comments, once DEA has completed its 

review of the comments, the agency 

plans to issue a new Federal Register

document, which will provide a 

recitation of the pertinent legal 

principles relating to the dispensing of 

controlled substances for the treatment 

of pain.

Dated: August 19, 2005. 

Michele M. Leonhart, 

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 05–16954 Filed 8–25–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–57,428] 

Americal Corporation, Henderson, NC; 

Notice of Termination of Investigation 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade 

Act of 1974, as amended, an 

investigation was initiated on June 22, 

2005 in response to a petition filed by 

a company official on behalf of workers 

at Americal Corporation, Henderson, 

North Carolina. 

The petitioner has requested that the 

petition be withdrawn. Consequently, 

the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day of 

July, 2005. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E5–4678 Filed 8–25–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–30–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–57,639 and TA-W–57,639A] 

Bernhardt Furniture Company, Plant # 

9, Shelby, NC, and Bernhardt Furniture 

Company, Plant # 14, Cherryville, NC; 

Notice of Termination of Investigation 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade 

Act of 1974, an investigation was 

initiated on July 28, 2005 in response to 

a petition filed by a company official on 

behalf of workers at Bernhardt Furniture 

Company, Plant #9, Shelby, North 

Carolina (TA–W–57,639) and Bernhardt 

Furniture Company, Plant #14, 

Cherryville, North Carolina (TA–W–

57,639A). 

The petitioner has requested that the 

petition be withdrawn. Consequently, 

the investigation has been terminated.

Signed in Washington, DC, this 10th day of 

August, 2005. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E5–4683 Filed 8–25–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–30–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–56,114] 

Bourns Microelectronics Modules, Inc., 

a Subsidiary of Bourns Inc., New 

Berlin, WI; Notice of Revised 

Determination on Remand 

On June 29, 2005, the United States 

Court of International Trade (USCIT) 

granted the Department of Labor’s 

motion for voluntary remand in Former 

Employees of Bourns Microelectronics 

Modules, Inc. v. U.S. Secretary of Labor

(Court No. 045–00350). 

A petition, dated November 30, 2004, 

for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) 

and Alternative Trade Adjustment 

Assistance (ATAA) was filed on behalf 

of workers and former workers of MMC 

Bidding, Inc., Division of Bourns, New 

Berlin, Wisconsin. The investigation 

revealed that the workers previously 

worked for Microelectronics Modules 

Corporation (MMC), New Berlin, 

Wisconsin and that the workers’

employment with MMC was terminated 

when Bourns acquired the assets of 

MMC on October 30, 2003. The 

investigation also revealed that the 

Department granted a certification for 

the former workers of MMC (TA–W–

42,217; expired December 6, 2004). 

On December 27, 2004, the 

investigation for the case at hand was 

terminated because it was believed that 

the workers were covered by the 

previous certification for MMC (TA–W–

42,217). (The Department had also 

terminated another investigation for a 

previous petition for the same location 

(TA–W–54,790) on June 4, 2004 because 

the Department found that the workers 

were covered by the certification for 

MMC (TA–W–42,217)). The 

Department’s Notice of Termination of 

Investigation for this case was published 

in the Federal Register (70 FR 3732). 

By letter dated January 14, 2005, the 

petitioner requested administrative 

reconsideration, stating that the workers 

were hired by and then separated from 

Bourns, that the petitioner helped ship 

machines and documentation to, and 

provided training to persons in Costa 

Rica, China and Taiwan, and that parts 

were being imported to satisfy 

customers’ demands. 

By letter dated March 10, 2005, the 

petitioner’s request for reconsideration 

was dismissed based on the finding that 

no new facts of a substantive nature 

which would bear importantly on the 

Department’s determination was 

provided by the petitioner. On March 

11, 2005, the Dismissal of Application