Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 29 / Monday, February 13, 1995 / Notices 8251

1 Simultaneously with the filing of the notice of

exemption, CSS filed a petition to dismiss; and, on

October 20, 1994, it submitted exhibits

inadvertently omitted from its petition. The

Railway Labor Executives’ Association and United

Transportation Union, respectively, filed comments

on October 24 and November 3, 1994. Chicago Rail

Link (CRL), on November 3, 1994, petitioned to

revoke the exemption and replied to CSS’s petition

to dismiss. Patrick W. Simmons, Illinois Legislative

Board Director, United Transportation Union

(Simmons), on November 9, 1994, petitioned to

reject or revoke the exemption and replied to the

petition to dismiss. CSS, on November 22, 1994,

withdrew its petition to dismiss the exemption and

submitted a copy of a CRL letter withdrawing the

latter’s petition to revoke. Thereafter, on November

29, 1994, CSS replied to Simmons’ petition to reject

or revoke and reply to CSS’s petition to dismiss.

Simmons’ petition was considered as an appeal in

a separate decision, and that decision is being

served simultaneously with this notice of

exemption.

Dated: January 27, 1995.

Mollie H. Beattie,

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 95–3510 Filed 2–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M

INTERSTATE COMMERCE

COMMISSION

[Finance Docket No. 32425]

Chicago SouthShore & South Bend

Railroad—Operation Exemption—

Illinois International Port District

Chicago SouthShore & South Bend

Railroad (CSS) filed a notice of

exemption to provide nonexclusive

switching service over 8.7 miles of yard

and switching track entirely within the

Illinois International Port District. The

track generally is located north of 130th

Street and east of Doty Avenue on the

west bank of Lake Calumet in Chicago,

IL. The exemption was to become

effective on or about October 20, 1994.

Any comments must be filed with the

Commission and served on: Jo A.

DeRoche, Weiner, Brodsky, Sidman &

Kider, P.C., 1350 New York Avenue,

N.W., Suite 800, Washington, D.C.

20005–4797.

This notice is filed under 49 CFR

1150.31. If the notice contains false or

misleading information, the exemption

is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the

exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10505(d)

may be filed at any time.1 The filing of

a petition to revoke will not

automatically stay the transaction.

Decided: February 1, 1995.

By the Commission, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–3516 Filed 2–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7035–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[DEA No. 129P]

Proposed 1995 Aggregate Production

Quota for a Schedule II Controlled

Substance

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement

Administration.

ACTION: Notice of a proposed 1995

aggregate production quota.

SUMMARY: This notice proposes a 1995

aggregate production quota for

hydrocodone (for conversion), a

controlled substance in Schedule II of

the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

DATES: Comments or objections must be

received on or before March 15, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Send comments or

objections to the Administrator, Drug

Enforcement Administration,

Washington, DC 20537, Attn: DEA

Federal Register Representative/CCR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Howard McClain, Jr., Chief, Drug &

Chemical Evaluation Section, Drug

Enforcement Administration,

Washington, DC 20537, Telephone:

(202) 307–7183.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

306 of the Controlled Substances Act

(CSA) (21 U.S.C. 826) requires that the

Attorney General establish aggregate

production quotas for controlled

substances in Schedules I and II each

year. This responsibility has been

delegated to the Administrator of the

DEA pursuant to Section 0.100 of Title

28 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

The Administrator, in turn, has

redelegated this function to the Deputy

Administrator pursuant to 59 FR 23637

(May 6, 1994).

A company submitted an application

for a manufacturing quota for

hydrocodone (for conversion) a

Schedule II controlled substance. Based

on the review of this application and

other information available to the DEA,

the Deputy Administrator of the DEA,

under the authority vested in the

Attorney General by Section 306 of the

Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (21

U.S.C. 826), delegated to the

Administrator by Section 0.100 of Title

28 of the Code of Federal Regulations,

and redelegated to the Deputy

Administrator pursuant to 59 FR 23637

(May 6, 1994), hereby proposes that the

1995 aggregate production quota for the

following controlled substance,

expressed in grams of anhydrous base,

be established as follows:

Basic class

Proposed

1995 aggregate production

quota

(grams)

Hydrocodone (for conversion) .. 2,200,000

All interested persons are invited to

submit comments or objections, in

writing, regarding this proposal. If a

person believes that one or more of

these issues warrant a hearing, the

individual should so state and

summarize the reasons for this belief.

In the event that comments or

objections to this proposal raise one or

more issues which the Administrator

finds warrant a hearing, the

Administrator shall order a public

hearing by notice in the Federal

Register, summarizing the issues to be

heard and setting the time for the

hearing.

The Office of Management and Budget

has determined that notices of aggregate

production quotas are not subject to

centralized review under Executive

Order 12866.

This action has been analyzed in

accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in the Executive

Order 12612 and it has been determined

that this matter does not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

The Deputy Administrator hereby

certifies that this action will have no

significant impact upon small entities

within the meaning of and intent of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C., 601,

et seq. The establishment of annual

aggregate production quotas for

Schedules I and II controlled substances

is mandated by law and by international

treaty obligations. While aggregate

production quotas are of primary

importance to large manufacturers, their

impact upon small entities is neither

negative nor beneficial. Accordingly, the

Deputy Administrator has determined

that this action does not require a

regulatory flexibility analysis.

Dated: February 6, 1995.

Stephen H. Green,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–3456 Filed 2–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M