Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 1995 / Notices 10109

submitted by not later than May 15,

1995, in order to be considered by the

Commission. Commercial or financial

information that a party desires the

Commission to treat as confidential

must be submitted on separate sheets of

paper, each clearly marked

‘‘Confidential Business Information’’ at

the top. All submissions requesting

confidential treatment must conform

with the requirements of § 201.6 of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure (19 CFR 201.6). All written

submissions, except for confidential

business information, will be made

available for inspection by interested

persons. All submissions should be

addressed to the Secretary, United

States International Trade Commission,

500 E St. S.W., Washington, D.C. 20436.

Hearing impaired individuals are

advised that information on this matter

can be obtained by contacting our TDD

terminal on (202) 205–1810.

By order of the Commission.

Issued: February 14, 1995.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–4432 Filed 2–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. 94–67]

Barry S. Gleken, D.M.D.; Denial of

Application

On June 27, 1994, the Deputy

Administrator, Office of Diversion

Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA), issued an Order

to Show Cause to Barry S. Gleken

(Respondent), of Methuen,

Massachusetts, proposing to deny his

application for a DEA Certificate of

Registration, as a practitioner under 21

U.S.C. 823(f). The proposed action was

predicated, inter alia, on Respondent’s

lack of authorization to handle

controlled substances in the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 21

U.S.C. 824(a)(3). The Order to Show

Cause also alleged that Respondent’s

registration would be inconsistent with

the public interest as that term is used

in 21 U.S.C. 823(f) based on a number

of other allegations, including that

Respondent materially falsified his

present application by indicating that he

was currently authorized to handle

controlled substances in the state he

was proposing to operate, when, in fact,

he was not so authorized.

The Order to Show Cause was sent to

Respondent by registered mail.

Respondent, through counsel, timely

filed a request for a hearing. On August

18, 1994, the Government filed a motion

for summary disposition based upon

documentation that Respondent did not

possess a valid Massachusetts

Controlled Substances Registration and

that such a registration was necessary

before DEA could issue Respondent a

registration to handle controlled

substances in the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts.

Respondent filed a response which

did not deny that Respondent was not

currently authorized to handle

controlled substances in Massachusetts.

Respondent, however, urged the

administrative law judge to recommend

that Respondent be allowed to withdraw

his application without prejudice and

that no further action be taken by DEA.

Respondent maintained that such action

be taken because he intended to apply

for a Massachusetts Controlled

Substances Registration in the future.

Respondent, in support of his

response, asserted that Massachusetts

recently enacted regulations requiring

all dentists to be registered with the

State Department of Health for

authorization to handle controlled

substances and that Respondent had just

become aware of this requirement.

On September 6, 1994, in his opinion

and recommended decision, the

administrative law judge found that

Respondent was not currently

authorized to handle controlled

substances in Massachusetts. The

administrative law judge also found that

Respondent wanted to properly apply

for a Massachusetts registration, thereby

eliminating the ‘‘procedural’’ defect to

obtaining a DEA registration.

Consequently, he concluded that no

prejudice would accrue to DEA if

Respondent were allowed to withdraw

his application rather than denying the

application based upon his lack of state

authorization to handle controlled

substances in Massachusetts. The

administrative law judge recommended

that Respondent be permitted to

withdraw his application without

prejudice.

On September 26, 1994, the

Government filed exceptions to the

opinion and recommended decision of

the administrative law judge,

contending that Respondent’s

application should be denied based

upon the lack of state authorization

rather than allowing Respondent to

voluntarily withdraw his application.

The Government argued in the

alternative, that the Deputy

Administrator remand the case back to

the administrative law judge to allow

the Deputy Assistant Administrator,

Office of Diversion Control, to decide

whether to permit Respondent to

withdraw his application, as provided

under 21 CFR 1301.37 and 28 CFR 0.104

Appendix to Subpart R, Section 7(a).

Respondent did not file a response to

the Government exceptions.

The Deputy Administrator finds that,

pursuant to 28 CFR 0.104 Appendix to

Subpart R, Section 7(a), it is within the

discretion of the Deputy Assistant

Administrator, Office of Diversion

Control, to permit Respondent to

withdraw his application after an Order

to Show Cause has been filed. However,

the Deputy Administrator has

concluded that rather than remand the

matter for consideration of a withdrawal

of the application, the application

should be denied based on

Respondent’s current lack of

authorization to handle controlled

substances in Massachusetts.

As detailed in the Order to Show

Cause, Respondent is alleged to have

committed numerous wrongful acts, one

of which is the falsification of the

present application. Permitting the

withdrawal of this application would be

prejudicial to the Government and

potentially the public. It would

eliminate an important factor, the

alleged falsification of an application,

which should be considered in

determining whether future applications

should be granted.

The Deputy Administrator finds that

Respondent does not currently have

state authority to handle controlled

substances in the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts, the state in which he

proposes to be registered with the DEA.

The Deputy Administrator concludes

that the DEA does not have the statutory

authority under the Controlled

Substances Act to issue or maintain a

registration if the applicant or registrant

is without State authority to handle

controlled substances. See 21 U.S.C.

823(f). The Deputy Administrator and

his predecessors have consistently so

held. See Howard J. Reuben, M.D., 52 FR

8375 (1987); Ramon Pla, M.D., Docket

No. 86–54, 51 FR 41168 (1986); Dale D.

Shahan, D.D.S., Docket No. 85–57, 51

FR 23481 (1986); and cases cites therein.

Since there is no disagreement that

Respondent was not currently

authorized to handle controlled

substances in Massachusetts when he

filed his application, the Deputy

Administrator concludes that the

Government’s motion for summary

disposition should be granted.

Accordingly, the Deputy

Administrator of the Drug Enforcement

Administration, pursuant to the

authority vested in him by 21 U.S.C. 823

and 824 and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104
10110 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 1995 / Notices

hereby orders that the application for a

DEA Certificate of Registration,

submitted by Barry S. Gleken, D.M.D.,

be, and it is hereby denied. This order

is effective February 23, 1995.

Dated: February 16, 1995.

Stephen H. Greene,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–4334 Filed 2–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Implementation of The

Communications Assistance for Law

Enforcement Act

AGENCY: Federal Bureau of

Investigation, Justice.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Federal Bureau of

Investigation (FBI) is providing notice of

initial steps being taken to implement,

on behalf of the Attorney General,

certain provisions in the

Communications Assistance for Law

Enforcement Act.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Telecommunications Industry Liaison

Unit, (TILU), FBI, 1–800–551–0336.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

October 25, 1994, the President signed

into law the Communications

Assistance for Law Enforcement Act

(Pub. L. 103–414) (the Act). This law

requires telecommunications carriers, as

defined in the Act, to ensure law

enforcement’s ability, pursuant to court

order or other lawful authorization, to

intercept communications

notwithstanding advanced

telecommunications technologies.

Under the Act, certain

implementation responsibilities are

conferred upon the Attorney General.

The Attorney General has, pursuant to

an Attorney General Order, as codified

at 28 CFR 0.85(o), delegated

responsibilities set forth in the Act to

the Director, FBI, or his designee. The

Director, FBI, has designated personnel

in the Engineering Section, Information

Resources Division, to carry out these

responsibilities.

To effectively implement this law, the

Engineering Section has established the

Telecommunications Industry Liaison

Unit (TILU) to specifically address the

responsibilities set forth in the Act.

TILU personnel will respond to

questions and inquiries concerning this

Act, and act as the designated contact

point for facilitating communication

with the telecommunications industry.

Definition of ‘‘Telecommunications

Carrier’’

The Act defines a

‘‘telecommunications carrier’’ as any

‘‘person or entity engaged in the

transmission or switching of wire or

electronic communications as a

common carrier for hire’’ (section

102(8)(A)), and includes any ‘‘person or

entity engaged in providing commercial

mobile service, (as defined in section

332(d) of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended (47 U.S.C. 332(d))’’

(section 102(8)(B)). This definition

includes but is not limited to local

exchange and interexchange carriers;

competitive access providers; resellers,

cable operators, utilities, and shared

tenant services to the extent that they

offer telecommunications services as

common carriers for hire; cellular

telephone companies; personal

communications services (PCS)

providers; satellite-based mobile

communications providers; specialized

mobile radio services (SMRS) providers,

and enhanced SMRS providers; and

paging service providers.

The definition does not include

persons or entities insofar as they are

engaged in providing information

services such as electronic publishing

and messaging services.

Capability Requirements

The Act requires telecommunications

carriers to ensure that, within four years

from the date of enactment, their

systems have the capability to meet the

assistance capability requirements as

described in section 103 of the Act. A

document entitled Law Enforcement

Requirements for the Surveillance of

Electronic Communications, clarifies

the generic law enforcement assistance

capability requirements set forth in the

Act and gives additional guidance to

telecommunications carriers. This

document is available upon request

from TILU.

Under section 107(a)(2) of the Act, a

carrier will be deemed to be in

compliance if it adheres to publicly

available technical requirements, feature

descriptions, or standards adopted by an

industry association or standard-setting

organization relevant to the Act.

Telecommunications carriers may also

develop their own solutions. In any

case, carriers must meet the

requirements set forth in section 103 of

the Act. If no such technical

requirements or standards are issued, or

if they are challenged as being deficient,

upon petition, the Federal

Communications Commission (FCC) has

authority to develop them through a

rule making.

Notice of Maximum and Actual

Capacity Requirements

Within one year after enactment, the

Attorney General is required to publish

in the Federal Register, and to provide

to appropriate telecommunications

industry associations and standardsetting organizations, notice of the

estimated electronic surveillance

capacity requirements as of October 24,

1998, as well as the estimated maximum

capacity required to accommodate such

surveillance thereafter.

Compliance, Payment, Enforcement,

Exemption, Extensions, Consultation,

Systems Security, Cooperation

The mandated compliance with the

requirements set forth in section 103 of

the Act is affected by a number of

interrelated factors, including whether

the Attorney General is required to, and

has agreed to, pay for needed

modifications; whether the equipment,

facility, or service was deployed on or

before January 1, 1995; and whether

such modifications are reasonably

achievable under criteria set forth in the

Act. Under certain circumstances,

telecommunications carriers also may

petition regulatory authorities to adjust

changes, practices, classifications, and

regulations to recover costs expended

for making needed modifications.

Unexcused noncompliance can lead to

civil enforcement actions by the

Attorney General and imposition of civil

fines. The Act also includes provisions

for exemption, extension of the

compliance date, consultation with

industry, and systems security. In

addition, it requires

telecommunications transmission and

switching equipment manufacturers, as

well as providers of telecommunications

support services, to cooperate with

telecommunications carriers in

achieving the required capacities and

capabilities.

Commerce Business Daily Notice

The FBI Telecommunications

Contracts Audit Unit will issue a Notice

in the Commerce Business Daily

soliciting comments from the

telecommunications industry

concerning cost accounting procedures

and other rules regarding payment

procedures and criteria.

Dated: February 16, 1995.

Louis J. Freeh,

Director.

[FR Doc. 95–4376 Filed 2–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–02–M