Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Notices 13171

2Effective May 6, 1994, the Chicago and North

Western Transportation Company changed its name

to the ‘‘Chicago and North Western Railway

Company’’.

3The United Transportation Union filed a

petition to revoke on September 1, 1994. That

petition is currently pending.

1 GDOT proposes to acquire fee title from GC and

rehabilitate the line for the purpose of continued

rail operations. GC will sell the line to GDOT by

quitclaim deed. GC’s residual common carrier

obligation as lessor will be transferred to GDOT and

GC will have no common carrier obligation once the

transaction has been completed.

Commission d/b/a Wisconsin River Rail

Transit Commission (WRRTC) have

agreed to grant non-exclusive overhead

trackage rights and certain industry

access to Soo Line Railroad Company d/

b/a CP Rail System (CPRS), over and

upon WRRTC’s line of railroad (owned

in conjunction with the Wisconsin

Department of Transportation and

leased and operated by WICT and

WSOR). The trackage is located between

Madison, WI, milepost 138.58 +/¥ and

a connection with the Chicago and

North Western Transportation Company

(CNW) 2 at milepost 48.80 +/¥ in

Janesville, WI. The trackage rights will

(1) allow CPRS access to WRRTC’s lines

and WICT’s and WSOR’s leased trackage

between Madison and a connection with

the CNW in Janesville, and (2) offer

CPRS an alternative and additional

route for handling traffic between

Madison and Janesville. The trackage

rights were to become effective on or

after August 29, 1994.

This notice is filed under 49 CFR

1180.2(d)(7). 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.3 The

filing of a petition to revoke will not

automatically stay the transaction.

Pleadings must be filed with the

Commission and served on: Wayne C.

Serkland, 1000 Soo Line Bldg., 105

South 5th St., Minneapolis, MN 55402.

As a condition to the use of this

exemption, any employees adversely

affected by the trackage rights will be

protected under Norfolk and Western

Ry. Co.—Trackage Rights—BN, 354

I.C.C. 605 (1978), as modified in

Mendocino Coast Ry., Inc.—Lease and

Operate, 360 I.C.C. 653 (1980).

Decided: March 6, 1995.

By the Commission, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–5945 Filed 3–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7035–01–P

[Finance Docket No. 32664]

The Georgia Department of

Transportation—Acquisition

Exemption—Georgia Central Railway

The State of Georgia Department of

Transportation (GDOT), a noncarrier,

has filed a notice of exemption to

acquire 33.65 miles of railroad and

right-of-way from Georgia Central

Railway (GC) between milepost 577.85

at Vidalia and milepost 611.50 at

Helena, in Dodge and Telfair Counties,

GA.1 Under a new lease arrangement

with GDOT, GC will continue to operate

the line. The lease provides for GC to

operate and maintain the line, including

the crossing agreement with Norfolk

Southern Railway at Helena, on an

abandoned segment of track.

Consummation of the proposed

transaction is scheduled to take place on

or after March 8, 1995.

Any comments must be filed with the

Commission and served on: George P.

Shingler, 40 Capitol Square, Atlanta, GA

30334.

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. The filing of

a petition to revoke will not

automatically stay the transaction.

Decided: March 6, 1995.

By the Commission, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–5944 Filed 3–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7035–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. 94–50]

Michael Schumacher; Denial of

Registration

On May 18, 1994, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA), issued an Order

to Show Cause to Michael Schumacher,

General Television (Respondent), of

Urbana, Illinois, proposing to deny his

application for a DEA Certificate of

Registration as a manufacturer. 21

U.S.C. 823(a) (1992). The statutory basis

for the Order to Show Cause was

Respondent’s lack of authorization to

manufacture controlled substances in

the State of Illinois. 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3).

In addition, the Order to Show Cause

alleged that Respondent’s registration

would be inconsistent with the public

interest, as the term is used in 21 U.S.C.

823(a) and 824(a)(4).

The Order to Show Cause was sent to

Respondent’s registered location by

registered mail on May 18, 1994, and on

June 10, 1994, Respondent filed a

request for hearing with the Office of

Administrative Law Judges. The matter

was docketed before Administrative

Law Judge Mary Ellen Bittner. This case

was then consolidated with Docket No.

94–37 wherein Normaco of Delaware,

Inc. (Normaco) had requested a hearing

pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(a) (1994), in

response to a notice of Respondent’s

application for registration as a bulk

manufacturer of various Schedule II

controlled substances (58 FR 60061

(1994)). On June 28, 1994, the

administrative law judge granted

Normaco’s request to withdraw from

this matter.

Counsel for the Government filed a

motion for summary disposition on July

18, 1994, based on an order of the

Illinois Department of Professional

Regulation (DPR), dated July 10, 1992,

denying Respondent’s application for a

state license to manufacture and

conduct medical research under the

Illinois Controlled Substances Act.

Respondent did not file a response to

the Government’s motion.

On September 29, 1994, the

administrative law judge issued her

opinion and recommended decision.

The administrative law judge granted

the Government’s motion for summary

disposition finding that Respondent is

not eligible for a DEA registration as a

bulk manufacturer of Schedule I and II

controlled substances and therefore a

hearing would serve no purpose. The

administrative law judge found that

Respondent currently lacks state

authorization to handle controlled

substances in the State of Illinois

because Respondent was denied a state

license to manufacture controlled

substances by the Illinois DPR on July

10, 1992. As the administrative law

judge noted, DPR’s denial was based on

findings that Respondent was unaware

what substances were controlled under

Illinois law, that Respondent did not

have a background in those sciences

pertaining to controlled substances, and

that Respondent failed to demonstrate

that its application should be granted.

The administrative law judge noted that

21 U.S.C. 823(a), the provision requiring

registration of manufacturers of

Schedule I and II controlled substances,

contains no express threshold

requirement of state authorization.

Nonetheless, she concluded that where

as here state law requires manufacturers

of controlled substances to obtain a state
13172 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Notices

license, it would be pointless to grant a

Federal registration when Respondent

lacked state authority. The

administrative law judge then

recommended that in those cases where

an applicant for a DEA registration as a

manufacturer of controlled substances

has had a state license or registration

denied, suspended, revoked, or

restricted by a state regulatory agency

with jurisdiction to take that action,

DEA should not grant greater authority

to handle controlled substances than

has been granted by the state.

Consequently, the administrative law

judge granted Government’s motion for

summary disposition and recommended

that Respondent’s application for a DEA

Certificate of Registration be denied.

Neither party filed exceptions to the

opinion and recommended decision. On

November 2, 1994, the administrative

law judge transmitted the record to the

Deputy Administrator.

The Deputy Administrator has

carefully considered the entire record in

this matter and hereby adopts the

administrative law judge’s opinion and

recommended decision. The Deputy

Administrator, pursuant to 21 CFR

1316.67, hereby issues his final order in

this matter based upon findings of fact

and conclusions of law as hereinafter set

forth. It is undisputed that Respondent

is not authorized to manufacture

controlled substances in the State of

Illinois. Because 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)

provides that denial or revocation of a

state license or registration constitutes

grounds to revoke a DEA registration, if

Respondent were granted a registration,

DEA would immediately have grounds

to revoke it. It is well-settled that the

agency need not grant a license on one

day only to revoke it the next. Kuen H.

Chen, 58 FR 65401 (1993) (quoting

Serling Drug Co. and Detroit

Prescription Wholesaler, Inc., 40 FR

1118, 11919 (1975). Further, inasmuch

as DEA must consider ‘‘compliance with

applicable State and local law’’ when

determining whether to grant a DEA

registration to manufacture controlled

substances, 21 U.S.C. 823(a)(2), DEA’s

grant of a registration to Respondent

would put him in jeopardy of Illinois

law. Finally, despite the lack of a state

authority threshold for manufacturer

registrations, the Deputy Administrator

concludes that, inasmuch as Illinois had

denied Respondent a state license, DEA

cannot grant Respondent’s application

for a DEA Certificate of Registration. Cf.

Nathaniel S. Lehrman, M.D., 59 FR

44780 (1994) (holding that DEA has

consistently held that it cannot maintain

the registration of a practitioner who is

not authorized to handle controlled

substances in the state in which he

practices); accord Franz A. Arakaky

MD., 59 FR 42074 (1994); Elliott

Monroe, M.D., 57 FR 23246 (1992).

The Deputy Administrator concurs

with the administrative law judge’s

granting of the Government’s motion for

summary disposition. In the absence of

a question of material fact, a plenary

adversary administrative proceeding is

not required. Philip E. Kirk, M.D., 48 FR

32887 (1983), aff’d sub nom Kirk v.

Mullen, 749 F.2d 297 (6th Cir. 1984);

Alfred Tennyson Smurthwaite, N.D., 43

FR 11873 (1978); see also NLRB v.

International Association of Bridge,

Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers,

AFL–CIO, 549 F.2d 634 (9th Cir. 1977);

U.S. v. Consolidated Mines and

Smelting Co. Ltd., 44 F.2d 432, 453 (9th

Cir. 1971).

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,

hereby orders that the application for a

DEA Certificate of Registration

submitted by Michael Schumacher,

General Television, be, and it hereby is,

denied. This order is effective April 10,

1995.

Dated: March 3, 1995.

Stephen H. Greene,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–5833 Filed 3–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

Office of Special Counsel for

Immigration Related Unfair

Employment Practices

Immigration Related Employment

Discrimination Public Education

Grants

AGENCY: Office of Special Counsel for

Immigration Related Unfair

Employment Practices, Civil Rights

Division, Department of Justice.

ACTION: Notice of availability of funds

and solicitation for grant applications.

SUMMARY: The Office of Special Counsel

for Immigration Related Unfair

Employment Practices (‘‘OSC’’)

announces the availability of up to $1.5

million for grants to conduct public

education programs about the rights

afforded potential victims of

employment discrimination and the

responsibilities of employers under the

antidiscrimination provision of the

Immigration and Nationality Act (INA),

8 U.S.C. 1324b.

It is anticipated that a number of

grants will be competitively awarded to

applicants who can demonstrate a

capacity to design and successfully

implement public education campaigns

to combat immigration-related

employment discrimination. Grants will

range in size from $50,000 to $150,000.

OSC will accept proposals from

applicants who have access to potential

victims of discrimination or whose

experience qualifies them to educate

employers about the antidiscrimination

provision of INA. OSC welcomes

proposals from diverse nonprofit

organizations such as local, regional or

national ethnic and immigrants’ rights

advocacy organizations, trade

associations, industry groups,

professional organizations, or other

nonprofit entities providing information

services to potential victims of

discrimination and/or employers.

Applications will not be accepted from

individuals or public entities, including

state and local government agencies,

and public educational institutions.

APPLICATION DUE DATE: April 24, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patita McEvoy, Public Affairs Specialist,

Office of Special Counsel for

Immigration Related Unfair

Employment Practices, 1425 New York

Ave., NW., Suite 9000, PO Box 27728,

Washington, DC 20038–7728. Tel. (202)

616–5594, or (202) 616–5525 (TDD for

the hearing impaired).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office

of Special Counsel for Immigration

Related Unfair Employment Practices of

the Civil Rights Division of the

Department of Justice announces the

availability of funds to conduct public

education programs concerning the

antidiscrimination provisions of INA.

Funds will be awarded to selected

applicants who propose cost-effective

ways of educating employers and/or

members of the protected class, or to

those who can fill a particular need not

currently being met.

BACKGROUND: On November 6, 1986,

President Reagan signed into law the

Immigration Reform and Control Act of

1986 (IRCA), Pub. L. No. 99–603, which

amended the INA. Additional

provisions were signed into law by

President Bush in the Immigration Act

(IMMACT 90) on November 29, 1990.

IRCA and subsequently, IMMACT 90,

makes hiring aliens without work

authorization unlawful, and requires

employers to verify the identity and

work authorization of all new

employees. Employers who violate this

law are subject to sanctions, including

fines and possible criminal prosecution.

During the debate on IRCA, Congress

foresaw the possibility that employers,

fearful of sanctions, would refuse

employment to individuals simply