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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Notices 13173

because they looked or sounded foreign.

Consequently, Congress enacted Section

102 of IRCA, an antidiscrimination

provision. Section 102 prohibits

employers of four or more employees

from discriminating on the basis of

citizenship status or national origin in

hiring, firing, recruitment or referral for

a fee. Citizens and certain classes of

work authorized individuals are

protected from citizenship status

discrimination. Protected non-citizens

include permanent residents, temporary

residents under the amnesty, the Special

Agricultural Workers (SAWs) or the

Replenishment Agricultural Workers

(RAWs) programs, refugees and asylees

who apply for naturalization within six

months of being eligible to do so.

Citizens and all work authorized

individuals are protected from

discrimination on the basis of national

origin. However, this prohibition

applies to employers with four to

fourteen employees. National origin

discrimination complaints against

employers with fifteen or more

employees remain under the

jurisdiction of the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission under Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Congress created the OSC to enforce

Section 102. OSC is responsible for

receiving and investigating

discrimination charges and, when

appropriate, filing complaints with a

specially designated administrative

tribunal. OSC also initiates independent

investigations of possible Section 102

violations.

While OSC has established a record of

vigorous enforcement, studies by the

U.S. General Accounting Office and

other sources have shown that there is

an extensive lack of knowledge on the

part of protected individuals and

employers about the antidiscrimination

provisions. Enforcement cannot be

effective if potential victims of

discrimination are not aware of their

rights. Moreover, discrimination can

never be eradicated so long as

employers are not aware of their

responsibilities.

PURPOSE: OSC seeks to educate both

potential victims of discrimination

about their rights and employers about

their responsibilities under the

antidiscrimination provision of INA.

Because previous grantees have

developed a wealth of materials (e.,g.,

brochures, posters, booklets,

information packets, and videos) to

educate these groups, OSC has

determined that the focus of the

program should be on the actual

delivery of said education. More

specifically, in keeping with the

purpose of the grant program, OSC seeks

proposals that will use existing

materials effectively to educate large

numbers of workers or employers about

exercising their rights or fulfilling their

obligations under the antidiscrimination

provisions.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: The program is

designed to develop and implement cost

effective approaches to educate

potential victims of employment

discrimination about their rights and to

educate employers about their

responsibilities under INA’s

antidiscrimination provisions.

Applications may propose to educate

potential victims only, employers only,

or both in a single campaign. Program

budgets must include the travel, lodging

and other expenses necessary for at

least one, but not more than two,

program staff members to attend the

mandatory OSC grantee training (2

days) held in Washington, D.C. at the

beginning of the grant period (late

Autumn). Proposals should outline the

flowing key elements of the program:

Part I: Targeted Population

The educational efforts under the

grant should directed to (1) work

authorized non-citizens who are

protected individuals, since this groups

is especially vulnerable to employment

discrimination; (2) those citizens who

are most likely to become victims of

employment discrimination; and/or to

(3) employers. The proposals should

define the characteristics of the work

authorized population or the employer

group(s) targeted for the educational

campaign, and the applicant’s

qualifications to credibly and effectively

reach large segments of the campaign

targets.

The proposals should also detail the

reasons for targeting each group of

protected individuals or employers by

describing particular needs or other

factors to support the selection. In

defining the campaign targets and

supporting the reasons for the selection,

applicants may use studies, surveys, or

any other sources of information of

generally accepted reliability.

Part II: Campaign Strategy

We encourage applicants to devise

effective and creative means of public

education and information

dissemination that are specifically

designed to reach the widest possible

targeted audience. Those applicants

proposing educational campaigns

addressing potential victims of

discrimination should keep in mind that

some of the traditional methods of

public communication may be less than

optimal for educating members of

national or linguistic groups that have

limited community-based support and

communication networks.

Proposals should discuss the

components of the campaign strategy,

detail the reasons supporting the choice

of each component, and explain how

each component will effectively

contribute to the overall objective of

cost-effective dissemination of useful

and accurate information to a wide

audience of protected individuals or

employers. Discussions of the campaign

strategies and supporting rationale

should be clear, concise, and based on

sound evidence and reasoning.

Since there presently exists a wealth

of materials for use in educating the

public, proposals should include in

their budgets the costs for printing from

camera-ready materials received from

OSC or from current/past OSC grantees.

To the extent that applicants believe the

development of original materials

particularly suited to their campaign is

necessary, their proposal should

articulate in detail the circumstances

requiring the development of such

materials. All such materials must be

approved by OSC to ensure legal

accuracy and proper emphasis prior to

production. It should be noted that

proposed revisions/translations of OSC

approved materials must also be

submitted for clearance. All information

distributed should also include mention

of the OSC as a source of assistance,

information and action, and the correct

address and telephone numbers of the

OSC (including the toll-free and TDD

toll-free numbers for the hearing

impaired).

Part III: Evaluation of the Strategy

One of the central goals of this

program is determining what public

education strategies are most effective

and thus, should be included in future

public education efforts.

Therefore, it is crucial that the

methods of evaluating the campaign

strategy and public education materials

and their results be carefully detailed. A

full evaluation of a project’s

effectiveness is due within 60 days of

the conclusion of a campaign.

SELECTION CRITERIA: The final selection

of grantees for award will be made by

the Special Counsel for Immigration

Related Unfair Employment Practices.

Proposals will be submitted to a peer

review panel. OSC anticipates seeking

assistance from sources with specialized

knowledge in the areas of employment

and immigration law, as well as in

evaluating proposals, including the

agencies that are members of the

Antidiscrimination Outreach Task

Force: the Department of Labor, the
13174 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Notices

Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission, the Small Business

Administration, and the Immigration

and Naturalization Service. Each

panelist will evaluate proposals for

effectiveness and efficiency with

emphasis on the various factors

enumerated below. The panel’s results

are advisory in nature and not binding

on the Special Counsel. Letters of

support, endorsement, or

recommendation will not be accepted or

considered.

In determining which applications to

fund, OSC will consider the following

(based on a one-hundred point scale):

1. Program Design (50 points)

Sound program design and cost

effective strategies for educating the

targeted population are imperative.

Consequently, areas that will be closely

examined include the following:

a. Evidence of in-depth knowledge of

the goals and objectives of the project.

(15 points)

b. Selection and definition of the

target group(s) for the campaign, and the

factors that support the selection,

including special needs, and the

applicant’s qualifications to effectively

reach the target. (10 points)

c. A cost effective campaign strategy

for educating targeted employers and/or

members of the protected class, with a

justification for the choice of strategy.

(15 points)

d. The evaluation methods proposed

by the applicant to measure the

effectiveness of the campaign and their

precision in indicating to what degree

the campaign is successful. (10 points)

2. Administrative Capability (20 points)

Proposals will be rated in terms of the

capability of the applicant to implement

the targeting, public education and

evaluation components of the campaign:

a. Evidence of proven ability to

provide high quality results. (10 points)

b. Evidence that the applicant can

implement the campaign, and complete

the evaluation component within the

time lines provides.

Note: OSC’s experience during previous

grant cycles has shown that a number of

applicants choose to apply as a consortium

of individual entities; or, if applying

individually, propose the use of

subcontractors to undertake certain limited

functions. It is essential that these applicants

demonstrate the proven management

capability and experience to ensure that, as

lead agency, they will be directly accountable

for the successful implementation,

completion, and evaluation of the project. (10

points)

3. Staff Capability (10 points)

Applictions will be evaluated in terms

of the degree to which:

a. The duties outlined for grantfunded positions appear appropriate to

the work that will be conducted under

the award. (5 points)

b. The qualifications of the grantfunded positions appear to match the

requirements of these positions. (5

points)

Note: If the grant project manager or other

member of the professional staff is to be hired

later as part of the grant, or should there be

any change in professional staff during the

grant period, hiring is subject to review and

approval by OSC at that time.

4. Previous Experience (20 points)

The proposals will be evaluated on

the degree to which the applicant

demonstrates that it has successfully

carried out programs or work of a

similar nature in the past.

ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS: This grant

competition is open to nonprofit

organizations that serve 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.

GRANT PERIOD AND AWARD AMOUNT: It is

anticipated that several grants will be

awarded and will range in size from

$50,000 to $150,000.

During evaluation, the panel will

closely examine those proposals that

guarantee maximum exposure and

penetration in the employer or potential

victims target populations. Thus, a

campaign designed to reach a very large

proportion of employers (or potential

victims) in the state of Texas would take

precedence over a campaign designed to

reach a more limited number of

employers (or potential victims)

nationwide.

Publication of this announcement

does not require OSC to award any

specific number of grants, to obligate the

entire amount of funds available, or to

obligate any part thereof. The period of

performance will be twelve months

from the date of the grant award. Those

grantees who successfully achieve their

goals may be considered for

supplementary funding for a second

year based on the availability of funds.

APPLICATION DEADLINE: All applications

must be received by 6:00 p.m. EDT,

April 24, 1995 at the Office of Special

Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair

Employment Practices, 1425 New York

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

Washington, DC 20038–7728.

Applications submitted via facsimile

machine will not be accepted or

considered.

APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS: Applicants

should submit an original and two (2)

copies of their complete proposal by the

deadline established above. All

submissions must contain the following

items in the order listed below:

1. A completed and signed

Application for Federal Assistance

(Standard Form 424) and Budget

Information (Standard Form 424A).

2. OJP Form 4061/6 (Certification

Regarding Lobbying; Debarment,

Suspension and Other Responsibility

Matters; and Drug-Free Workplace

Requirements).

3. An abstract of the full proposal, not

to exceed one page.

4. A program narrative of not more

than fifteen (15) double-spaced typed

pages which include the following:

a. A clear statement describing the

approach and strategy to be utilized to

complete the tasks identified in the

program description;

b. A clear statement of the proposed

goals and objectives, including a listing

of the major events, activities, products

and timetables for completion;

c. The proposed staffing plan (NOTE:

if the grant project manager or other

professional staff member is to be hired

later as part of the grant, or should there

be a change in professional staff during

the grant period, hiring is subject to

review and approval by OSC at that

time); and

d. Description of how the project will

be evaluated.

5. A proposed budget outlining all

direct and indirect costs for personnel,

fringe benefits, travel, equipment,

supplies, subcontracts, and a short

narrative justification of each budgeted

line item cost. If an indirect cost rate is

used in the budget, then a copy of a

current fully executed agreement

between the applicant and the Federal

cognizant agency must accompany the

budget.

Note: Program budgets must include the

travel, lodging and other expenses necessary

for at least one, but not more than two,

program staff members to attend the

mandatory OSC grantee training (2 days) held

in Washington, D.C. at the beginning of the

grant period (late Autumn).

6. Copies of resumes for the

professional staff proposed in the

budget.

7. Detailed technical materials that

support or supplement the description

of the proposed effort should be

included in the appendix.

In order to facilitate handling, please

do not use covers, binders or tabs.

Application forms may be obtained by

writing or telephoning: Office of Special
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Notices 13175

Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair

Employment Practices, 1425 New York

Ave. NW., Suite 9000 P.O. Box 27728,

Washington, DC 20038–7728. (Tel. (202)

616–5594, or (202) 616–5525 (TDD for

the hearing impaired).

Dated: March 6, 1995.

Approved:

William Ho-Gonzalez,

Special Counsel, Office of Special Counsel

for Immigration Related Unfair Employment

Practices.

[FR Doc. 95–5960 Filed 3–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Bureau of Labor Statistics

Business Research Advisory Council;

Notice of Meetings and Agenda

The regular Spring meetings of the

Business Research Advisory Council

and its Committees will be held on

March 29 and 30, 1995. All of the

meetings will be held in the Conference

Center of the Postal Square Building, 2

Massachusetts Avenue, NE.,

Washington, DC.

The Business Research Advisory

Council and its committees advise the

Bureau of Labor Statistics with respect

to technical matters associated with the

Bureau’s programs. Membership

consists of technical officers from

American business and industry.

The schedule and agenda for the

meetings are as follows:

Wednesday, March 29, 1995

10:00–11:30 a.m.—Committee on Price

Indexes

1. Current CPI issues and plans

2. Other business

1:30–3:00 p.m.—Committee on

Productivity and Foreign Labor

1. Proposed change in name of the

committee

2. Review of recent developments in

the Office of Productivity and

Technology

3. New index number method for

industry labor productivity data

4. New index number method for

major sector labor productivity data

5. Chartbook on international labor

statistics comparisons

3:30–5:00 p.m.—Committee on

Employment Projections

1. Defense expenditures

2. Plans for further research on college

graduates

3. Analysis of the implications of

employment changes for the

characteristics of jobs: the good

jobs/bad jobs issue

Thursday, March 30, 1995

8:30–10:00 a.m.—Committee on

Employment and Unemployment

Statistics

1. The National Wage Record

Database

2. America’s Labor Market

Information System (ALMIS)

3. Restart of the Mass Layoff Statistics

(MLS) program

4. Plans for establishing a longitudinal

database of ES–202 program

establishments

5. American Statistical Association’s

recommendations for the

improvement of the CES and ES–

202 programs

6. Duration of unemployment

7. Elect Vice chairperson

10:30–12:00 p.m.—Council Meeting

1. Chairperson’s opening remarks

2. Commissioner Abraham’s address

and discussion

3. Business session

4. Chairperson’s closing remarks

1:30–3:30 p.m.—Committee on

Compensation and Working

Conditions

1. An initiative to redesign

compensation statistics

2. Current and future changes to the

Occupational Compensation Survey

Program (OCSP) job list

3. The recent Employee Benefits

Survey bulletin: a general overview

4. Surveys of Employer-Provided

Training: an update

The meetings are open to the public.

persons with disabilities wishing to

attend should contact Constance B.

DiCesare, Liaison, Business Research

Advisory Council, at (202) 606–5887, for

appropriate accommodations.

Signed at Washington, DC the 3rd day of

March 1995.

Katharine G. Abraham,

Commissioner.

[FR Doc. 95–5917 Filed 3–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–24–M

Employment Standards Administration

Wage and Hour Division

Minimum Wages for Federal and

Federally Assisted Construction;

General Wage Determination Decisions

General wage determination decisions

of the Secretary of Labor are issued in

accordance with applicable law and are

based on the information obtained by

the Department of Labor from its study

of local wage conditions and data made

available from other sources. They

specify the basic hourly wage rates and

fringe benefits which are determined to

be prevailing for the described classes of

laborers and mechanics employed on

construction projects of a similar

character and in the localities specified

therein.

The determinations in these decisions

of prevailing rates and fringe benefits

have been made in accordance with 29

CFR Part 1, by authority of the Secretary

of Labor pursuant to the provisions of

the Davis-Bacon Act of March 3, 1931,

as amended (46 Stat. 1494, as amended,

40 U.S.C. 276a) and of other Federal

statutes referred to in 29 CFR Part 1,

Appendix, as well as such additional

statutes as may from time to time be

enacted containing provisions for the

payment of wages determined to be

prevailing by the Secretary of Labor in

accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act.

The prevailing rates and fringe benefits

determined in these decisions shall, in

accordance with the provisions of the

foregoing statutes, constitute the

minimum wages payable on Federal and

federally assisted construction projects

to laborers and mechanics of the

specific classes engaged on contract

work of the character and in the

localities described therein.

Good cause is hereby found for not

utilizing notice and public comment

procedure thereon prior to the issuance

of these determinations as prescribed in

5 U.S.C. 553 and not providing for delay

in the effective date as prescribed in that

section, because the necessity to issue

current construction industry wage

determinations frequently and in large

volume causes procedures to be

impractical and contrary to the public

interest.

General wage determinations, and

modifications and supersede as

decisions thereto, contain no expiration

dates and are effective from their date of

notice in the Federal Register, or on the

date written notice is received by the

agency, whichever is earlier. These

decisions are to be used in accordance

with the provisions of 29 CFR Parts 1

and 5. Accordingly, the applicable

decision, together with any

modifications issued, must be made a

part of every contract for performance of

the described work within the

geographic area indicated as required by

an applicable Federal prevailing wage

law and 29 CFR Part 5. The wage rates

and fringe benefits, notice of which is

published herein, and which are

contained in the Government Printing

Office (GPO) document entitled

‘‘General Wage Determinations Issued

Under the Davis-Bacon and Related

Acts,’’ shall be the minimum paid by

contractors and subcontractors to

laborers and mechanics.

Any person, organization, or

governmental agency having an interest