Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 1, 1996 / Notices 19321

Patent 4,161,650 and whether there

exists an industry in the United States

as required by subsection (a)(2) of

section 337.

(2) For the purpose of the

investigation so instituted, the following

are hereby named as parties upon which

this notice of investigation shall be

served:

(a) The complainant is—Patton

Electronics Co., 7622 Rickenbacker

Drive, Gaithersburg, MD 20879–4773.

(b) The respondents are the following

companies alleged to be in violation of

section 337, and are the parties upon

which the complaint shall also be

served:

RAD Data Communications, Ltd., 12

Hanechoshet Street, Tel Aviv, 69710,

Israel

RAD Data Communications, Inc., 900

Corporate Drive, Mahwah, New Jersey

07430

(c) John M. Whealan, Esq., Office of

Unfair Import Investigations, U.S.

International Trade Commission, 500 E

Street, S.W., Room 401P, Washington,

DC 20436, shall be the Commission

investigative attorney, party to this

investigation; and

(3) For the investigation so instituted,

the Honorable Paul J. Luckern is

designated as the presiding

Administrative Law Judge.

Responses to the complaint and the

notice of investigation must be

submitted by the named respondents in

accordance with section 210.13 of the

Commission’s Final Rules of Practice

and Procedure, 19 C.F.R. §§ 210.13.

Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. sections 201.16(d)

and 210.13(a) of the Commission’s Final

Rules of Practice and Procedure, such

responses will be considered by the

Commission if received not later than 20

days after the date of service by the

Commission of the complaint and the

notice of investigation. Extensions of

time for submitting responses to the

complaint will not be granted unless

good cause therefor is shown.

Failure of a respondent to file a timely

response to each allegation in the

complaint and in this notice may be

deemed to constitute a waiver of the

right to appear and contest the

allegations of the complaint and this

notice, and to authorize the

administrative law judge and the

Commission, without further notice to

the respondent, to find the facts to be as

alleged in the complaint and this notice

and to enter both an initial

determination and a final determination

containing such findings, and may

result in the issuance of a limited

exclusion order or a cease and desist

order or both directed against such

respondent.

Issued: April 26, 1996.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–10819 Filed 4–30–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. 94–65]

East Towne Save Rite Pharmacy;

Suspension of Registration

On May 26, 1994, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA), issued an Order

to Show Cause to East Towne Save Rite

Pharmacy, (Respondent) of Bremerton,

Washington, notifying it of an

opportunity to show cause as to why

DEA should not revoke its DEA

Certificate of Registration, BE1740770,

as a retail pharmacy, and deny any

pending application for modification of

registration or change of address. The

general reason stated for the proposed

action was that the Respondent’s owner

had been convicted of a felony related

to controlled substances warranting

consideration under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(2),

and that the Respondent’s continued

registration would be inconsistent with

the public interest as that term is used

in 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4) and 823(f).

On May 31, 1994, the Respondent,

through counsel, filed a timely request

for a hearing, and following prehearing

procedures, a hearing was held in

Seattle, Washington, on July 26 through

July 27, 1995, before Administrative

Law Judge Paul A. Tenney. At the

hearing, both parties called witnesses to

testify and introduced documentary

evidence, and after the hearing, counsel

for both sides submitted proposed

findings of fact, conclusions of law and

argument. On October 20, 1995, Judge

Tenney issued his Findings of Fact,

Conclusions of Law, and Recommended

Ruling, recommending that the

Respondent’s DEA Certificate of

Registration be suspended for a period

of six months. After the six-month

suspension, should be Respondent

apply for a modification of its DEA

registration to change the address of the

pharmacy, then Judge Tenney

recommended that the modification be

granted. On November 7, 1995, the

Respondent filed exceptions to Judge

Tenney’s opinion, and on November 9,

1995, the Government filed a response

to the Respondent’s exceptions. On

November 28, 1995, Judge Tenney

transmitted the record of these

proceedings and the parties’ exceptions

to the Deputy Administrator.

The Deputy Administrator has

considered the record in its entirety,

and pursuant to 21 CFR 1316.67, hereby

issues his final order based upon

findings of fact and conclusions of law

as hereinafter set forth. The Deputy

Administrator adopts, in full, the

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law,

and Recommend Ruling of the

Administrative Law Judge, and his

adoption is in no manner diminished by

any recitation of facts, issues and

conclusions herein, or of any failure to

mention a matter of fact or law.

The Deputy Administrator finds that

on September 12, 1991, the Respondent

was issued DEA Certificate of

Registration BE1740770, as a retail

pharmacy located on Wheaton Way in

Bremerton, Washington. On March 2,

1991, Mr. Patrick Swanson, (Owner)

owner and pharmacist for the

Respondent pharmacy, was arrested for

possession of a controlled substance,

methylphenidate. The prescription

bottle containing the substance was

discovered during an investigatory stop

of the Owner’s vehicle. The Owner was

convicted of possession of a controlled

substance on June 24, 1992, and was

sentenced to two days of confinement

and to the performance of 204 hours of

community service. He was also placed

on a program of community supervision

for a period of one year.

In September of 1991, upon

notification of the Owner’s arrest,

investigators from the Washington State

Board of Pharmacy (Pharmacy Board)

conducted an audit at the Respondent

pharmacy for Schedule II controlled

substances, specifically dexedrine and

methylphenidate. They discovered that

there was a 37.2% combined shortage

for those two controlled substances, as

well as missing DEA 222 order forms for

Schedule I and II controlled substances.

The Owner had stated to the

investigators that his pharmacy had

been burglarized and that he had

reported the burglary to the local police.

However, the Owner admitted at his

hearing before the Pharmacy Board and

before Judge Tenney that a portion of

the discovered shortage was due to his

own diversion of the controlled

substances.

On December 9, 1991, the Pharmacy

Board issued a Statement of Charges

against the Owner. These charges were

primarily based upon the Owner’s

unlawful possession of a controlled

substance and the shortage of dexetrine

and methylphenidate at the Respondent

pharmacy. On March 24, 1992, the

Pharmacy Board imposed an Order of
19322 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 1, 1996 / Notices

Continuance and Imposing Summary

Restrictions, prohibiting the Owner

from using legend drugs and controlled

substances unless legitimately

prescribed, requiring the Owner’s

physician to report to the Pharmacy

Board all prescriptions issued to the

Owner, requiring the Owner to submit

to drug urine testing twice a week, and

requiring the Owner to undergo an

evaluation by a Board-approved

psychiatrist with experience in

substance abuse.

On May 18, 1992, the Owner

underwent an evaluation by Dr. Maurice

Lustgarten, a Pharmacy Board-approved

psychiatrist. Dr. Lustgarten wrote a

report for the Pharmacy Board, noting

that ‘‘[a]fter spending two hours in

historical review and evaluation of [the

Owner], I have determined that he is

sincerely motivated to discontinue all

drug usage.’’ Further, Dr. Lustgarten

concluded that ‘‘I’m satisfied that under

the present circumstances and the

apparent honesty of [the Owner], he is

succeeding in his battle with drugs and

that he can put this behind him and

have a successful career in pharmacy.’’

On March 18, 1993, the Pharmacy

Board issued its Final Order,

suspending the Owner’s pharmacist

license for five years, but staying the

suspension on the condition that he

comply with certain terms of probation.

Specifically, the Order required, among

other things, that the Owner (1) abstain

from alcohol and the non-therapeutic

use of legend drugs and controlled

substances; (2) report any prescriptions

for controlled substances issued to him

for therapeutic purposes; (3) participate

in an approved chemical dependence

treatment plan for a minimum of three

years; (4) submit to random drug testing

twice a week; (5) attend three AA or

other support group meetings per week,

and submit to the Pharmacy Board

signed attendance records each month;

and (6) ensure that all required reports

be submitted to the Pharmacy Board in

a timely manner.

However, in response to a second

Statement of Charges and a hearing held

on November 18, 1993, the Pharmacy

Board issued a second Final Order dated

January 19, 1994, finding that the

Owner had violated certain terms of his

probation. Specifically, the Owner had

informed the Pharmacy board that (1) he

was taking prescriptions for several

legend drugs, but he failed to submit

reports from physicians verifying those

prescriptions; (2) he had taken Toradol,

a legend drug, that had been prescribed

for his wife: (3) he had submitted

quarterly reports of his compliance with

the conditions of his probation late, for

the subject reports were due on the first

day of April and July 1993, but had been

submitted on August 16, 1993; (4) he

had untimely submitted the signed

attendance records for his support group

meeting; (5) he had failed to timely

name a responsible pharmacist to

operate the Respondent pharmacy while

his pharmacist license was suspended;

and (6) he had allowed an unlicensed

person, his assistant, to take charge of

the pharmacy. As a result, the Pharmacy

board ordered the Owner to be placed

on another five-year probationary period

beginning from the date of the order,

January 19, 1994. The probationary

conditions were many of the same

conditions found in the first final order,

plus the Owner was to undergo another

substance abuse evaluation. Dr.

Lustgarten reevaluated the Owner on

March 18, 1994, and in his report he

concluded that the Owner was

benefiting from his counselling sessions

with Dr. Wolborsky, and that he was

satisfied that the Owner was complying

with the Pharmacy Board’s

‘‘expectations in performance of his

profession.’’

On April 6, 1994, the Owner was

arrested for Driving Under the

Influence, and he admitted to having

three alcoholic drinks with friends, as

well as to having taken prescription

Soma tablets. The Owner consented to

a breathalyzer test, which showed his

blood alcohol content to be 0.05, well

below the presumptive level of

intoxication in the State of Washington,

which is 0.10 or higher. However, as

noted by Judge Tenney, in Washington,

‘‘a person can be guilty of driving under

the influence if the person drives while

under the combined influence of or

affected by intoxicating liquor and any

drug. Wash. Rev. Code 46.61.502

(1994).’’ The Owner was not prosecuted

on this charge, however, but entered

into a deferred prosecution agreement in

which he was to attend a one year

program for alcohol education.

On May 9, 1995, the Pharmacy board

filed a third Statement of Charges

against the Owner, alleging that (1) he

had failed to timely submit signed

attendance records of his support group

meetings for the months of July and

August 1994; (2) he had failed to attend

the required amount of AA meetings

during the second week in August 1994;

and (3) that he had failed to submit to

urinalysis testing on April 29 and May

13, 1994. The Owner answered these

allegations, admitting that he had

submitted the July attendance record

late, and that he had missed the AA

meetings during the second week in

August 1994, because he was on

vacation with his family. Upon

returning from vacation, the Owner

notified Mr. Bob Johnson, his

compliance officer with the Washington

Recovery Assistance Program for

Pharmacy, of his failure to attend the

meetings, and how, after considerable

effort, he was unable to locate any such

meetings at this vacation site.

Subsequently, the Owner’s regular AA

group gave him a toll free number to

call, should this problem arise in the

future. However, during the vacation

week, the Owner had submitted to his

bi-weekly urine testing, having arranged

the testing in advance with a local

hospital. Finally, the Owner claimed

that the sole reason for missing the

urine testing on the dates in April and

May of 1994, was that the testing center

he routinely utilized was either closed

or there was no male observer available.

This Statement of Charges was awaiting

disposition by the Pharmacy board as of

the time of Judge Tenney’s decision and

the closing of the record.

The Respondent’s DEA Certificate of

Registration was for a location on

Wheaton Way in Bremerton,

Washington. However, following the

retirement of the Owner’s father, the

Owner moved his pharmacy from the

Wheaton Way address to an address on

Bertha Avenue in Bremerton,

Washington. Prior to the move, the

Owner sought permission from the

Pharmacy Board, and he received an

application packet from the Pharmacy

Board which had included an

application for a DEA registration for

the new address. The Owner filed an

application with the Pharmacy Board,

and after a hearing was held on the

matter, the Pharmacy Board granted the

Owner permission to relocate the

pharmacy. On April 14, 1994, the

Owner sent a letter to the DEA office in

Seattle, Washington, notifying the DEA

of his intent to move the pharmacy and

to rename it. However, the Owner failed

to obtain the DEA’s approval prior to

relocating the Respondent pharmacy, as

required. Accordingly, in April of 1994,

DEA diversion investigators entered the

Bertha Avenue location and seized the

controlled substance located at that

unregistered site. Since that time, the

Owner has remained unauthorized to

handle controlled substances at the

Bertha Avenue location.

The Owner testified that he thought

he had followed all appropriate

procedures to relocate his pharmacy,

and that he believed that a new DEA

registration for the Bertha Avenue

address would follow the pharmacy

upon notification of the move to the

DEA. The Owner testified that he had

understood that it did not matter

whether the notification letter preceded

or followed the actual relocation, and
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 1, 1996 / Notices 19323

that he had relied upon information he

had receive after he had placed a phone

call to the Seattle DEA office during the

winter of 1994. However, noting that the

Owner may have misunderstood the

modification regulations that were

conveyed to him, Judge Tenney found

that the diversion investigators at the

DEA Seattle Office were all aware that

modification requests must be

submitted in writing to the DEA before

any relocation. Once the modification

was approved, then the pharmacy

would have been issued a new DEA

registration number at the new address.

Only after receiving the new DEA

registration number would the

pharmacy’s pharmacists be authorized

to handle controlled substances at the

new location. However, Judge Tenney

also found that the Owner had ‘‘made a

good faith attempt to comply with the

regulations of the agencies governing

the relocation of pharmacies. * * * He

did not make this more surreptitiously,

or without consideration of the

regulations governing such changes.’’

The Owner also testified that he had

sought help for his substance abuse

problem in May of 1989 with Dr. Barry

Wolborsky, a licensed clinical

psychologist who specializes in

chemical dependency. Since that time,

the Owner has been seeing Dr.

Wolborsky twice a month. Although the

Owner admits that when he first began

his treatment he was unable to stop

abusing controlled substances, he also

testified that he has not abused

controlled substances since January 30,

1991. Also, although Dr. Wolborsky has

suggested that the Owner abstain from

drinking alcohol, the Owner testified

that he had remained a social drinker

until his arrest for driving while

intoxicated in April of 1994. Since that

date, however, the Owner testified that

he has abstained from drinking alcohol.

Dr. Wolborsky testified before Judge

Tenney, concerning his treatment of the

owner. He concluded that he believed

that the Owner’s prognosis for

continued recovery was excellent.

Under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(2), the Deputy

administrator may suspend or revoke a

DEA registration and deny any pending

modifications to the registration based

upon a finding that the registrant has

been convicted of a felony relating to

controlled substances. Here, the Owner

of the Respondent and its pharmacist

was convicted of the felony of

possession of a controlled substance in

June of 1992.

Additionally, pursuant to 21 U.S.C.

824(a)(4), the deputy administrator may

revoke or suspend a DEA Certificate of

Registration and deny any pending

application for such registration, if he

determines that granting the registration

would be inconsistent with the public

interest. Section 823(f) requires that the

following factors be considered in

determining the ‘‘public interest:’’

(1) The recommendation of the

appropriate State licensing board or

professional disciplinary authority.

(2) The applicant’s experience in

dispensing, or conducting research with

respect to controlled substances.

(3) The applicant’s conviction record

under Federal or State laws relating to

the manufacture, distribution, or

dispensing of controlled substances.

(4) Compliance with applicable State,

Federal, or local laws relating to

controlled substances.

(5) Such other conduct which may

threaten the public health or safety.

These factors are to be considered in

the disjunctive; the Deputy

Administrator may rely on any one or a

combination of factors and may give

each factor the weight he deems

appropriate in assessing the ‘‘public

interest’’ and in determining whether a

registration should be revoked or an

application for registration denied. See

Henry J. Schwarz, Jr., M.C., Docket No.

88–42, 54 FR 16422 (1989).

In this case, factors one, three, four,

and five of Section 823 are relevant in

determining whether the Respondent’s

registration would be inconsistent with

the public interest. As to factor one,

‘‘recommendation of the appropriate

State licensing board, * * *’’ the

Pharmacy Board has not expressly made

a recommendation in this case.

However, the Pharmacy Board has taken

adverse action against the Owner’s

pharmacist license, by placing him on a

five-year probationary period and by

requiring him to comply with

comprehensive probation conditions.

Also, Judge Tenney noted that the

Owner had engaged in a pattern of

violations of the Pharmacy Board’s

conditions of probation, to include

untimely submission of required

reports, violation of the prohibition on

the use of alcohol, and failure to

undergo required urine testing.

Therefore, the Deputy Administrator

agrees with Judge Tenney’s finding that

‘‘the Board is properly concerned with

his pattern of non-compliance to its

conditions of probation. However, the

Board has concluded that [the Owner]

should be placed on probation for an

extended period of time as opposed to

suspension of his license.’’

As to factor three, the Respondent’s

‘‘conviction record under Federal or

State laws relating to * * * controlled

substances,’’ and factor four,

‘‘[c]compliance with applicable State,

Federal, or local laws relating to

controlled substances,’’ it is

uncontroverted that in June of 1992, the

Owner was convicted of illegal

possession of a controlled substance.

The Owner has also violated state law

and DEA regulations regarding the

handling of controlled substances,

evidenced by the audit results which

revealed a 37.2% shortage of Schedule

II controlled substances, some of which

the Owner admitted he had diverted for

his personal use.

Further, the Owner also violated DEA

regulations when he relocated the

Respondent pharmacy without first

receiving the required DEA approval.

Judge Tenney noted that ‘‘While I have

found that the incompliance was

inadvertent, it nonetheless is consistent

with [the Owner’s] pattern of noncompliance with state and DEA

regulations.’’

As to factor five, ‘‘[s]uch other

conduct which may threaten the public

health and safety,’’ the Owner has

admitted that he had abused controlled

substances for many years, and that it

was not until January of 1991 that he

was able to control his substance-abuse

problem. However, the Deputy

Administrator agrees with Judge

Tenney’s conclusion, that the record

supports the Owner’s assertion of

abstinence, for all ‘‘of his urinalysis

results for the past three years have been

negative.’’

Further, the Deputy Administrator

agrees with Judge Tenney’s finding that

the Owner’s ‘‘conviction relating to

controlled substances, the shortage of

controlled substances discovered during

the audit of the Respondent pharmacy,

[the Owner’s] arrest for Driving Under

the Influence in April 1994, and the

violations of the terms of his probation

justify the Government’s proposed

revocation of Responsent’s DEA

registration. * * * The Government has

also proven violations of DEA

regulations, dealing with relocating the

Respondent pharmacy without DEA

approval and the submission of all

relevant DEA 222 forms.’’

However, the Owner has also

presented considerable evidence of

rehabilitation. The record demonstrated

the inadvertent nature of his

administrative errors during his

probation, such as the untimely

submission of reports and his failure to

provide the required paperwork to the

DEA prior to the relocation of the

Respondent pharmacy. Further, Dr.

Lustgarten has concluded that the

Owner was honest and sincere in his

desire to end his substance abuse, and

Dr. Wolborsky testified that the Owner’s

prognosis for continued recovery was

excellent. The Owner has provided over
19324 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 1, 1996 / Notices

three years of negative urinalysis test

results, demonstrating his successful

efforts of recovery since 1992. He also

continues to attend three AA meetings

a week and counseling sessions with Dr.

Wolborsky.

In light of the above, the Deputy

Administrator agrees with Judge

Tenney’s conclusion that ‘‘[u]nder these

circumstances, revocation would be too

harsh a sanction. * * * While it is true

that [the Owner] has violated some of

the Board’s probationary conditions,

these violations were relatively minor

and do not outweigh in balance his

continuing recovery from his

addiction.’’

Therefore, the Deputy Administrator

adopts Judge Tenney’s recommendation

and orders the Respondent’s DEA

Certificate of Registration, BE1740770,

suspended for a period of six months.

However, the Deputy Administrator also

takes note of the Respondent’s

exception to the start date of this

suspension, for the Owner has been

without authorization to handle

controlled substances at the Bertha

Avenue location since his relocation in

1994. Such lack of authorization

resulted in a de factor suspension dating

from April of 1994. Given the totality of

the circumstances in this case, the

Deputy Administrator has determined

that the suspension of the Respondent’s

registration should be given an effective

date of October 20, 1995, the date Judge

Tenney issued his opinion with which

the Deputy Administrator totally

concurs. Therefore, on or after April 20,

1996, the Respondent may apply for a

modification of its DEA registration to

change the address of the pharmacy,

and if the Owner’s circumstances

remain consistent with the facts in this

record, the modification may be given

favorable consideration.

Accordingly, the Deputy

Administrator of the Drug Enforcement

Administration, pursuant to the

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

823, and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104,

hereby orders that the DEA Certificate of

Registration, BE1740770, belonging to

East Towne Save Rite Pharmacy, be, and

it hereby is, suspended for a period of

six months, which period to have

commenced on October 20, 1995, and to

conclude on April 20, 1996.

Furthermore, given the Respondent’s

interest in being authorized to apply for

a modification of its DEA Certificate of

Registration as soon as possible, the

Deputy Administrator concludes that it

is in the Respondent’s interest, as well

as in the public’s interest, for this order

to be effective upon publication in the

Federal Register, and it is so ordered.

Dated: April 24, 1996.

Stephen H. Greene,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–10760 Filed 4–30–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

BOARD

National Labor Relations Board

Advisory Committee on Agency

Procedure

AGENCY: National Labor Relations

Board.

ACTION: Notice of meetings.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

provisions of the Federal Advisory

Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. app. 2

(1972), and 29 C.F.R. Sec. 102.136

(1993), the National Labor Relations

Board has established a National Labor

Relations Board Advisory Committee on

Agency Procedure, the purpose of

which is to provide input and advice to

the Board and General Counsel on

changes in Agency procedures that will

expedite case processing and improve

Agency service to the public. A notice

of the establishment of the Advisory

Committee was published in the

Federal Register on May 13, 1994 (59

FR 25128).

As indicated in that notice, the

Committee consists of two Panels which

will meet separately, one composed of

Union-side representatives and the

other of Management-side

representatives. Pursuant to Section

10(a) of FACA, the Agency hereby

announces that the next meetings of the

Advisory Committee Panels will be held

on June 18 (Union-side) and June 20,

1996 (Management-side).

Time and Place: The meeting of the

Union-side Panel of the Advisory

Committee will be held at 10:00 a.m. on

Tuesday, June 18, 1996, at the National

Labor Relations Board, 1099 14th Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C., in the Board

Hearing Room, Rm 11000. The meeting

of the Management-side Panel of the

Advisory Committee will be held at

10:00 a.m. on Thursday, June 20, 1996,

at the same location.

Agenda: The agenda at the meetings

of both Advisory Committee Panels will

be:

(1) The March 14 request by

Congressman John E. Porter, Chairman

of the House Appropriations Committee

on Labor, Health and Human Services,

Education and Related Agencies that the

NLRB consider reducing its caseload by

raising the jurisdictional thresholds to

account for inflation since 1959.

(2) Changes in Board Procedures,

Streamlining and Status of 1996 and

1997 Budgets—update and discussion.

(3) Proposal to consolidate all Federal

Administrative Law Judges into a single

agency.

Public Participation: The meetings

will be open to the public. As indicated

in the Agency’s prior notice, within 30

days of adjournment of the later of the

Advisory Committee Panel meetings,

any member of the public may present

written comments to the Committee on

matters considered during the meetings.

Written comments should be submitted

to the Committee’s Management Officer

and Designated Federal Official, Miguel

A. Gonzalez, Executive Assistant to the

Chairman, National Labor Relations

Board, 1099 14th Street, N.W., Suite

11104, Washington, D.C. 20570–0001;

telephone: (202)273–2864.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Advisory Committee Management

Officer and Designated Federal Official,

Miguel A. Gonzalez, Executive Assistant

to the Chairman, National Labor

Relations Board, 1099 14th Street, N.W.,

Suite 11104, Washington, D.C. 20570–

0001; telephone: (202)273–2864.

Dated, April 25, 1996.

By direction of the Board:

John J. Toner,

Acting Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–10766 Filed 4–30–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7545–01–P

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Special Emphasis Panel in Civil and

Mechanical System; Notice of Meeting

In accordance with the Federal

Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–

463, as amended), the National Science

Foundation announces the following

meeting.

Name and Committee Code: Special

Emphasis Panel in Civil and Mechanical

Systems (#1205).

Date and Time: May 24, 1996, 8:30 am to

5:00 pm.

Place: Rooms 530 and 580, National

Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard,

Arlington, VA 22230.

Type of Meeting: Closed.

Contact Person: John B. Scalzi, Program

Director Division of Civil and Mechanical

Systems, Room 545, National Science

Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard,

Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 306–

1360.

Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and

recommendations concerning proposals

submitted to NSF for financial support.

Agenda: To review and evaluate ARI

Equipment and Instrumentation Program

proposals as part of the selection process for

awards.