Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 68 / Monday, April 10, 1995 / Notices 18143

by a party or by the Commission in its independent

investigation) cannot be made before the

exemption’s effective date. See Exemption of Outof-Service Rail Lines, 5 I.C.C.2d 377 (1989). Any

request for stay should be filed as soon as possible

so that the Commission may take appropriate action

before the exemption’s effective date.

2See Exempt. of Rail Abandonment—Offers of

Finan. Assist., 4 I.C.C.2d 164 (1987).

3The Commission will accept a late-filed trail use

request so long as the abandonment has not been

consummated and the abandoning railroad is

willing to negotiate an agreement.

formal expressions of intent to file an

OFA under 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2),2 and

trail use/rail banking statements under

49 CFR 1152.29 must be filed by April

20, 1995.3 Petitions to reopen or

requests for public use conditions under

49 CFR 1152.28 must be filed by May

1, 1995, with: Office of the Secretary,

Case Control Branch, Interstate

Commerce Commission, Washington,

DC 20423–191.

A copy of any petition filed with the

Commission should be sent to

applicant’s representative: James R.

Paschall, Norfolk Southern Corporation,

Three Commercial Place, Norfolk, VA

23510.

If the notice of exemption contains

false or misleading information, the

exemption is void ab initio.

NS has filed an environmental report

which addresses the abandonment’s

effects, if any, on the environment and

historic resources. The Section of

Environmental Analysis (SEA) will

issue an environmental assessment (EA)

by April 14, 1995. Interested persons

may obtain a copy of the EA by writing

to SEA (Room 3219, Interstate

Commerce Commission, Washington,

DC 20423) or by calling Elaine Kaiser,

Chief of SEA, at (202) 927–248.

Comments on environmental and

historic preservation matters must be

filed within 15 days after the EA

becomes available to the public.

Environmental, historic preservation,

public use, or other trail use/rail

banking conditions will be imposed,

where appropriate, in a subsequent

decision.

Decided: April 4, 1995.

By the Commission, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–8711 Filed 4–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7035–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. 94–82]

Earl N. Caldwell, M.D.; Revocation of

Registration

On August 31, 1994, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA), issued an Order

to Show Cause to Earl N. Caldwell, M.D.

of Highland Park, Illinois (Respondent),

proposing to revoke his DEA Certificate

of Registration, BC0950104, and deny

any pending applications for

registration as a practitioner. The

statutory basis for the Order to Show

Cause was that Respondent’s continued

registration would be inconsistent with

the public interest pursuant to 21 U.S.C.

823(f), and that Respondent was no

longer authorized to handle controlled

substances in the State of Illinois. 21

U.S.C. 824 (a)(3) and (a)(4).

Respondent, through counsel,

requested a hearing on the issues raised

in the Order to Show Cause and the

matter was docketed before

Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen

Bittner. Following prehearing

procedures, the Government filed a

motion for summary disposition on

October 11, 1994, alleging that

Respondent no longer held state

authorization to handle controlled

substances on the ground that the

Illinois Department of Professional

Responsibility, Medical Disciplinary

Board, had placed Respondent’s

medical license on probation for five

years and suspended his authority to

handle controlled substances for the

duration of that probationary term.

Respondent filed an opposition to the

Government’s motion for summary

disposition on October 31, 1994, arguing

that the Illinois Board’s decision had

been rendered in error and, therefore,

was not final pending administrative

review.

On November 2, 1994, the

administrative law judge entered her

opinion and recommended a decision

granting the Government’s motion for

summary disposition and

recommending that the Respondent’s

DEA Certificate of Registration be

revoked. No exceptions were filed by

either party.

On December 2, 1994, the

administrative law judge transmitted the

record to the Deputy Administrator.

After a careful consideration of the

record in its entirety, the Deputy

Administrator enters his final order in

this matter pursuant to 21 CFR 1316.67,

based on findings of fact and

conclusions of law as set forth herein.

Effective May 13, 1992, the Illinois

Department of Professional

Responsibility, Medical Disciplinary

Board, suspended Respondent’s license

to practice medicine for five years and

suspended his authority to handle

controlled substances for the duration of

that period. Respondent does not deny

that his state license has been placed on

probation for five years. As a result,

Respondent is no longer authorized to

dispense controlled substances in the

State of Illinois.

The DEA has consistently held that it

does not have statutory authority under

the Controlled Substances Act to

register a practitioner unless that

practitioner is authorized to dispense

controlled substances by the state in

which he proposes to practice. See

Lawrence R. Alexander, M.D., 57 FR

22256 (1992); Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR

11919 (1988); Robert F. Witek, D.D.S., 52

FR 4770 (1987).

In a case where a practitioner is no

longer authorized to handle controlled

substances in the state in which he

proposes to practice, a motion for

summary disposition is properly

entertained. It is well settled that where

no question of fact exists, or where the

material facts are agreed, a plenary

administrative proceeding is not

required. Phillip E. Kirk, M.D., 48 FR

32887 (1983), aff’d sub nom Kirk v.

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

The Deputy Administrator adopts the

Opinion and Recommended Decision of

the Administrative Law Judge in its

entirety. 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 DEA Certificate of

Registration, BC0950104, previously

issued to Earl N. Caldwell, M.D., be, and

it hereby is, revoked, and any pending

applications for such registration be,

and hereby are, denied. This order is

effective May 10, 1995.

Dated: April 3, 1995.

Stephen H. Greene,

Deputy Administrator.

FR. Doc. 95–8650 Filed 4–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

[Docket No. 94–76]

Rosalind A. Cropper, Inc.; Denial of

Application

On August 31, 1994, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA), issued an Order
18144 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 68 / Monday, April 10, 1995 / Notices

to Show Cause to Rosalind A. Cropper,

M.D. and Rosalind A. Cropper, Inc., of

New Orleans, Louisiana, proposing to

revoke her DEA Certificate of

Registration, BC0747381, as a

practitioner, deny any pending

application for registration as a

practitioner and deny the application of

Rosalind A. Cropper, Inc. (Respondent)

for DEA registration as a Narcotic

Treatment Program (NTP). The statutory

basis for the Order to Show Cause was

that Dr. Cropper’s continued registration

as a practitioner and Respondent’s

registration as an NTP would be

inconsistent with the public interest as

that term is used in 21 U.S.C. 823(f).

Respondent, through counsel,

requested a hearing on the issues raised

in the Order to Show Cause, and the

matter was docketed before

Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen

Bittner. On December 16, 1994, the

Government filed a motion for summary

disposition alleging that the State of

Louisiana had denied Respondent’s

application to operate an NTP within

that State, and, that Respondent lacked

authority from the Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) to operate an

NTP. The Government’s motion was

supported by a letter from an FDA

official informing Respondent that

because the State of Louisiana had

denied its application to establish an

NTP, the FDA was unable to approve its

application. Respondents did not file a

response to the Government’s motion

and did not deny that FDA and the State

of Louisiana has denied its applications.

On January 18, 1995, Judge Bittner

issued her Opinion and Recommended

Decision of the Administrative Law

Judge and Order Severing Proceedings

recommending that Respondent’s

application for DEA Certificate of

Registration as an NTP be denied. Judge

Bittner also ordered that the proceeding

involving the proposed revocation of

Respondent’s registration as a

practitioner be severed from Docket 94–

76, be redocketed, and that the parties

continue with prehearing procedures

regarding that matter. No exceptions to

Judge Bittner’s opinion were filed by

either party.

On February 21, 1995, the

administrative law judge transmitted the

record to the Deputy Administrator.

After a careful consideration of the

record in its entirety, the Deputy

Administrator enters his final order in

this matter, pursuant to 21 CFR 1316.67,

based on findings of fact and

conclusions of law as set forth herein.

By letter dated December 16, 1994,

Respondent was advised that the FDA

was unable to approve her application

to the FDA to operate an NTP because

the State of Louisiana had denied her

application to establish an NTP. Judge

Bittner held that DEA does not have

statutory authority under the Controlled

Substances Act to register an NTP

unless that entity is authorized by the

FDA to dispense controlled substances.

21 U.S.C. 823(g). In a proceeding to

obtain registration as an NTP, if the

applicant does not possess the requisite

FDA authorization to operate an NTP, a

motion for summary disposition is

properly entertained for it is well settled

that where no question of fact exists, or

where the material facts are agreed, a

plenary administrative proceeding is not

required. Phillip E. Kirk, M.D., 48 FR

32887 (1983), aff’d sub nom, Kirk v.

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

Accordingly, the Deputy

Administrator adopts the Opinion and

Recommended Decision of the

Administrative Law Judge in its

entirety. Based on the foregoing, 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

Respondent’s application for DEA

Certificate of Registration as an NTP be,

and it hereby is, denied. This order is

effective May 10, 1995.

Dated: April 3, 1995.

Stephen H. Greene,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–8651 Filed 4–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W–29,352]

Hasbro, Inc. a/k/a Tonka Corporation El

Paso Operations; El Paso, TX;

Amended Certification Regarding

Eligibility To Apply for Worker

Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of the

Trade Act of 1974 (19 USC 2273) the

Department of Labor issued a

Certification of Eligibility to Apply for

Work Adjustment Assistance applicable

to all workers of the subject firm.

The certification notice was issued on

March 16, 1994 published in the

Federal Register on March 30, 1994 (59

FR 14876).

At the request of the State Agency, the

Department reviewed the certification

for workers of the subject firm. New

findings show that some of the workers

had their unemployment insurance

taxes paid under Tonka Corporation, a

division of Hasbro, Inc.

Accordingly, the Department is

amending the certification to properly

reflect this matter.

The amended notice applicable to

TA–W–29,352 is hereby issued as

follows:

‘‘All workers of workers and former

workers at Hasbro, Inc., also known as

(a/k/a) Tonka Corporation, El Paso

Operations, El Paso, Texas who became

totally or partially separated from

employment on or after December 14,

1992 are eligible to apply for adjustment

assistance under Section 223 of the

Trade Act of 1974.’’

Signed at Washington, D.C., this 30th day

of March 1995.

Victor J. Trunzo,

Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment

Services, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 95–8723 Filed 4–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

[TA–W–30,505]

Cushman Industries, Inc.; Hartford, CT;

Notice of Revised Determination on

Reconsideration

On March 7, 1995, the Department

issued an Affirmative Determination

Regarding Application for

Reconsideration for workers and former

workers of the subject firm. The notice

was published in the Federal Register

on March 17, 1995 (60 FR 14452).

The findings show that the Hartford,

Connecticut plant closed in December,

1994 when all production workers were

laid off and production ceased.

New findings on reconsideration

show that the company had increased

imports of chucks in the relevant

period.

Conclusion

After careful consideration of the new

facts obtained on reconsideration, it is

concluded that the workers at Cushman

Industries, Hartford, Connecticut were

adversely affected by increased imports

of articles like or directly competitive

with the chucks produced at Cushman

Industries in Hartford, Connecticut. In

accordance with the provisions of the

Act, I make the following revised

determination for workers of Cushman

Industries, Hartford, Connecticut.

‘‘All workers of Cushman Industries

in Hartford, Connecticut who became

totally or partially separated from

employment on or after November 2,

1993 are eligible to apply for adjustment

assistance under Section 223 of the

Trade Act of 1974.’’