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.’’
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 68 / Monday, April 10, 1995 / Notices 18145

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. 95–8722 Filed 4–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

[TA–W–30, 360 etc.]

BASF Corp., Lowland, TN; Amended

Certification Regarding Eligibility to

Apply for Worker Adjustment

Assistance

In the matter of: TA–W–30,360 Nylon

Hosiery Department, TA–W–30,360A

Polyester Filament Department, and TA–W–

30,360B Nylon Staple Fibers Department.

In accordance with Section 223 of the

Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the

Department of Labor issued a

Certification of Eligibility to Apply for

Worker Adjustment Assistance on

December 7, 1994, applicable to all

workers of the Nylon Hosiery

Department. The Notice was published

in the Federal Register on January 3,

1995 (60 FR 148).

A Federal Register Correction was

issued on February 10, 1995 revising the

date of the petition to August 1, 1994.

The correction was published in the

Federal Register on February 17, 1995

(60 FR 9407). The certification was

subsequently amended on February 10,

1995 to include the Polyester Filament

Department. The amended notice was

published in the Federal Register on

February 17, 1995 (60 FR 9407).

At the request of the company, the

Department again reviewed the

certification for workers of the subject

firm. New findings show that the Nylon

Staple Fibers business was part of the

Fiber Products Division and worker

separations and declines in sales and

production have occurred in the

relevant periods. Accordingly, the

Department is amending the

certification to include all workers at

the Lowland, Tennessee plant.

The amended notice applicable to

TA–W–30,360 is hereby issued as

follows:

All workers of BASF Corporation,

Lowland, Tennessee who became totally or

partially separated from employment on or

after August 1, 1993 are eligible to apply for

adjustment assistance under Section 223 of

the Trade Act of 1974.

Signed in Washington, DC., this 29th day

of March, 1995.

Victor J. Trunzo,

Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment

Services, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 95–8725 Filed 4–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

[TA–W–30,864]

Bridgestone/Firestone, Incorporated,

Decatur, Illinois; Notice of Termination

of Investigation

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade

Act of 1974, an investigation was

initiated on March 6, 1995 in response

to a worker petition which was filed on

March 6, 1995 on behalf of workers at

Bridgestone/Firestone, Incorporated,

Decatur, Illinois.

The petitioning group of workers is

subject to an ongoing investigation for

which a determination has not yet been

issued (TA–W–30,787). Consequently,

further investigation in this case would

serve no purpose, and the investigation

has been terminated.

Signed in Washington, D.C. this 29th day

of March, 1995.

Victor J. Trunzo,

Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment

Services, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 95–8274 Filed 4–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

Notice of Determinations Regarding

Eligibility To Apply for Worker

Adjustment Assistance and NAFTA

Transitional Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of the

Trade Act of 1974, as amended, the

Department of Labor herein presents

summaries of determinations regarding

eligibility to apply for trade adjustment

assistance for workers (TA–W) issued

during the period of March 1995.

In order for an affirmative

determination to be made and a

certification of eligibility to apply for

worker adjustment assistance to be

issued, each of the group eligibility

requirements of Section 222 of the Act

must be met.

(1) that a significant number or

proportion of the workers in the

workers’ firm, or an appropriate

subdivision thereof, have become totally

or partially separated,

(2) that sales or production, or both,

of the firm or subdivision have

decreased absolutely, and

(3) that increases of imports of articles

like or directly competitive with articles

produced by the firm or appropriate

subdivision have contributed

importantly to the separations, or threat

thereof, and to the absolute decline in

sales or production.

Negative Determinations for Worker

Adjustment Assistance

In each of the following cases the

investigation revealed that criterion (3)

has not been met. A survey of customers

indicated that increased imports did not

contribute importantly to worker

separations at the firm.

TA–W–30,744; Gioia Macaroni/Borden,

Inc., Buffalo, NY

TA–W–30,762; Hecla Mining Co., Inc.,

Republic Unit, Republic, WA

TA–W–30,814; Eagle Coach Corp.,

Brownsville, TX

TA–W–30,723; R. Neumann & Co.,

Hoboken, NJ

TA–W–30,754; UDT Sensors, Inc., El

Paso, TX

TA–W–30,812; Anderson & Middleton,

Grays Harbor Veneer Div. Hoquiam,

WA

In the following cases, the

investigation revealed that the criteria

for eligibility have not been met for the

reasons specified.

TA–W–30,708; U.S. Dept. of Agriculture,

Food Safety Inspection Service,

Import Inspection Div., New

Orleans, LA

The workers’ firm does not produce

an article as required for certification

under Section 222 of the Trade Act of

1974.

TA–W–30,772; Anne Klein & Co., New

York, NY

The workers’ firm does not produce

an article as required for certification

under Section 222 of the Trade Act of

1974.

TA–W–30,793; Phillips Petroleum Co.,

Odessa, TX

The workers’ firm does not produce

an article as required for certification

under Section 222 of the Trade Act of

1974.

TA–W–30,759; Touch of Elegance, Inc.,

Holland, MI

The subject firm experienced no sales

during the 1994 including the earliest

possible date of certification coverage

under the Trade Act of 1974.

TA–W–30,724; Boise Cascade Corp.,

Timber & Wood Products Div. Plant

No. 2, Council, ID

Increased imports did not contribute

importantly to worker separations at the

firm.

TA–W–30,749; Bristol Myers Squibb,

North Brunswick, NJ

The investigation revealed that

criteria (2) has not been met. Sales or