10108 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 1995 / Notices

the publication of this notice in the

Federal Register. A separate service list

will be maintained by the Secretary for

those parties authorized to receive BPI

under the APO.

Staff report.—The prehearing staff

report in these investigations will be

placed in the nonpublic record on June

14, 1995, and a public version will be

issued thereafter, pursuant to section

207.21 of the Commission’s rules.

Hearing.—The Commission will hold

a hearing in connection with these

investigations beginning at 9:30 a.m. on

June 27, 1995, at the U.S. International

Trade Commission Building. Requests

to appear at the hearing should be filed

in writing with the Secretary to the

Commission on or before June 20, 1995.

A nonparty who has testimony that may

aid the Commission’s deliberations may

request permission to present a short

statement at the hearing. All parties and

nonparties desiring to appear at the

hearing and make oral presentations

should attend a prehearing conference

to be held at 9:30 a.m. on June 22, 1995,

at the U.S. International Trade

Commission Building. Oral testimony

and written materials to be submitted at

the public hearing are governed by

sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), and

207.23(b) of the Commission’s rules.

Parties are strongly encouraged to

submit as early in the investigations as

possible any requests to present a

portion of their hearing testimony in

camera.

Written submissions.—Each party is

encouraged to submit a prehearing brief

to the Commission. Prehearing briefs

must conform with the provisions of

section 207.22 of the Commission’s

rules; the deadline for filing is June 21,

1995. Parties may also file written

testimony in connection with their

presentation at the hearing, as provided

in section 207.23(b) of the Commission’s

rules, and posthearing briefs, which

must conform with the provisions of

section 207.24 of the Commission’s

rules. The deadline for filing

posthearing briefs is July 6, 1995;

witness testimony must be filed no later

than three (3) days before the hearing.

In addition, any person who has not

entered an appearance as a party to the

investigations may submit a written

statement of information pertinent to

the subject of the investigations on or

before July 6, 1995. All written

submissions must conform with the

provisions of section 201.8 of the

Commission’s rules; any submissions

that contain BPI must also conform with

the requirements of sections 201.6,

207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s

rules.

In accordance with sections 201.16(c)

and 207.3 of the rules, each document

filed by a party to the investigations

must be served on all other parties to

the investigations (as identified by

either the public or BPI service list), and

a certificate of service must be timely

filed. The Secretary will not accept a

document for filing without a certificate

of service.

Authority: These investigations are being

conducted under authority of the Tariff Act

of 1930, title VII. This notice is published

pursuant to section 207.20 of the

Commission’s rules.

Issued: February 17, 1995.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–4430 Filed 2–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

Possible Modifications to the

International Harmonized System

Nomenclature

AGENCY: International Trade

Commission.

ACTION: Request for proposals to amend

the international Harmonized System

nomenclature.

SUMMARY: The Commission is soliciting

proposals from interested parties and

agencies to amend the international

Harmonized Commodity Description

and Coding System (Harmonized

System), including the rules of

interpretation, section and chapter notes

and the texts of the headings and

subheadings, with a view to keeping the

System current with changes in

technology and trading patterns.

Specific proposals in this connection

will be reviewed by the Commission

staff for potential submission to the

Customs Co-operation Council, now

known as the World Customs

Organization (WCO), in Brussels,

Belgium.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 10, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eugene A. Rosengarden, Director, Office

of Tariff Affairs & Trade Agreements (O/

TA&TA) (telephone (202) 205–2592) or

Holm J. Kappler, Deputy Director (O/

TA&TA) ((202) 205–2598), U.S.

International Trade Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20436.

BACKGROUND: Beginning with its 11th

Session in March, 1995, the HS Review

Sub-Committee of the WCO will initiate

its second major review of the

Harmonized System. Administered by

the WCO, the Harmonized System

provides the basis for the customs tariff

and statistical nomenclatures of all

major trading countries of the world,

including the United States.

The Harmonized System was

established by an international

convention, which, inter alia, provides

that the System should be kept up-todate in the light of changes in

technology and patterns of international

trade.

The Commission, the U.S. Customs

Service and the Bureau of the Census

have been assigned responsibilities for

the development of U.S. technical

proposals related to the Harmonized

System under section 1210 of the

Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness

Act of 1988 (19 U.S.C. 3010). As

indicated in a 1988 notice issued by the

United States Trade Representative

(USTR) (53 FR 45646 of Nov. 10, 1988),

the Commission is the lead agency in

considering proposals for amendments

to the Harmonized System that are

intended to ensure that the System is

kept abreast of changes in technology

and patterns of international trade.

REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS: In accordance

with the USTR notice, the Commission

is seeking proposals for specific

modifications to the Harmonized

System (including the rules of

interpretation, section and chapter notes

and the texts of the headings and

subheadings) that will further the above

goals. No proposals for changes to the

national-level provisions (which include

U.S. 8-digit subheadings, statistical

annotations and rates of duty) will be

considered by the Commission as a part

of this review. Interested parties,

associations and government agencies

should submit specific language for

proposed amendments to the

Harmonized System together with

appropriate descriptive comments and,

to the extent available, trade data.

As part of this review, the

Commission particularly invites

proposals concerning the following

matters:

—The separate identification in the HS

of waste products of environmental

concern,

—The separate identification of

dangerous or toxic chemicals,

—The deletion of HS headings or

subheadings with low trade volume,

—The identification of new products

important in international trade,

—The simplification of the HS, e.g., by

the elimination of classification

provisions which are difficult to

administer.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Interested parties,

including other Federal agencies, are

invited to submit written proposals

concerning this review of the

Harmonized System. Proposals must be
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