19084 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 14, 1995 / Notices

Three Commercial Place, Norfolk, VA

23510.

If the notice of exemption contains

false or misleading information, use of

the exemption is void ab initio.

NS has filed an environmental report

which addresses the abandonment’s

effects, if any, on the environment or

historic resources. The Section of

Environmental Analysis (SEA) will

issue an environmental assessment (EA)

by April 18, 1995. Interested persons

may obtain a copy of the EA from SEA

by writing to it at (Room 3219, Interstate

Commerce Commission, Washington,

DC 20423) or by calling Elaine Kaiser,

Chief, SEA at (202) 927–6248.

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 trail use/rail banking

conditions will be imposed, where

appropriate, in a subsequent decision.

Decided: April 6, 1995.

By the Commission, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–9226 Filed 4–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7035–01–P

Release of Waybill Data

The Commission has received a

request from Sidley & Austin counsel

for Canadian Pacific Rail System (CPRS)

for permission to use certain data from

the 1993 and 1994 I.C.C. Waybill

Samples. A copy of the request

(WB471—4/05/95) may be obtained

from the I.C.C. Office of Economic and

Environmental Analysis.

The waybill sample contains

confidential railroad and shipper data;

therefore, if any parties object to this

request, they should file their objections

with the Director of the Commission’s

Office of Economic and Environmental

Analysis within 14 calendar days of the

date of this notice. The rules for release

of waybill data are codified at 49 CFR

1244.8.

Contact: James A. Nash, (202) 927–

6196.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–9227 Filed 4–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7035–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

Scott R. Barrett, Jr., M.D.; Revocation

of Registration

On February 7, 1994, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA), issued an Order

to Show Cause to Scott R. Barrett, Jr.,

M.D., of Ballwin, Missouri. The Order to

Show Cause sought to revoke Dr.

Barrett’s DEA Certificate of Registration,

AB7432571, and to deny any pending

applications for renewal of such

registration.

The Order to Show Cause was first

sent by registered mail to Dr. Barrett at

his registered location, 13975

Manchester Road, Suite 4, Ballwin,

Missouri. The Order to Show Cause was

returned to DEA unclaimed with a

notation on the envelope indicating that

the forwarding order had expired. When

DEA investigators visited Dr. Barrett’s

registered location, they found that the

office was closed and had been boarded

up. The Order to Show Cause was then

sent registered mail to Dr. Barrett’s

home address of 591 Sunbridge Drive in

Chesterfield, Missouri. Postal

authorities were unsuccessful delivering

the Order to Show Cause to the

Sunbridge Drive address and therefore

attempted to deliver the Order to Dr.

Barrett at a third address of 1030

Meadowbrook in St. Charles, Missouri.

The Order to Show Cause was returned

unclaimed to DEA on June 9, 1994.

DEA has attempted to deliver the

Order to Show Cause to Dr. Barrett at

three different addresses. Despite the

efforts of Postal authorities, each

attempt has been unsuccessful. Dr.

Barrett is therefore deemed to have

waived his opportunity for a hearing.

The Deputy Administrator now enters

his final order in this matter without a

hearing and based on the investigative

file. See 21 CFR 1301.54(d) and 1301.57.

The Deputy Administrator finds that

in May 1989, the Missouri Bureau of

Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD)

inspected Dr. Barrett’s clinic, located in

Springfield, Missouri, for compliance

with state controlled substance laws and

regulations. Investigators found

presigned prescription pads belonging

to Dr. Barrett which were apparently to

be used for providing patients with

controlled substances when Dr. Barrett

was out of the office. Investigators also

found that Dr. Barrett maintained

controlled substances on the clinic

premises. The Deputy Administrator

notes that Dr. Barrett’s Springfield clinic

was not a registered location under the

Controlled Substances Act and that Dr.

Barrett was therefore not permitted to

maintain controlled substances at that

location.

Based on the May 1989 inspection,

BNDD issued an Order to Show Cause

to Dr. Barrett alleging that he was in

violation of state regulations requiring

all registrants to provide effective

controls against theft of controlled

substances. Dr. Barrett and BNDD

subsequently entered into a

Memorandum of Understanding which

stipulated that he would surrender his

state controlled substance registration

for thirty days, at which time he could

reapply. The agreement also imposed

other restrictions on Dr. Barrett’s state

controlled substance registration.

Despite persistent requests from

BNDD, Dr. Barrett never executed the

necessary surrender forms. However, by

letter dated January 2, 1992, BNDD

advised Dr. Barrett’s counsel that since

Dr. Barrett had ceased practicing at both

his offices, his state controlled

substance registrations had

automatically terminated. BNDD

informed Dr. Barrett’s attorney that Dr.

Barrett was no longer authorized by the

State of Missouri to possess, prescribe,

administer or dispense controlled

substances but that he could reapply for

registration.

The Deputy Administrator further

finds that Dr. Barrett’s state medical

license was revoked on August 6, 1992,

by the Missouri State Board for the

Healing Arts (Board). The Board

concluded that Dr. Barrett was

repeatedly negligent in his treatment of

patients. The Board further found that

Dr. Barrett had violated state controlled

substance laws by signing blank

prescriptions.

It is well established that the DEA

cannot register a practitioner who is not

duly authorized to handle controlled

substances in the state in which he does

business. See 21 U.S.C. 823(f). DEA has

consistently held that practitioners who

lack state authorization to handle

controlled substances cannot be

registered with the Drug Enforcement

Administration. See Ramon Pla, M.D.,

51 FR 41168 (1986); George S. Heath,

M.D., 51 FR 26610 (1986); Dale D.

Shahan, D.D.S., 51 FR 23481 (1986).

Consequently, the Deputy

Administrator concludes that since Dr.

Barrett is no longer authorized to handle

controlled substances by the State of

Missouri, Dr. Barrett’s DEA Certificate of

Registration should be revoked.

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,
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 14, 1995 / Notices 19085

hereby orders that DEA Certificate of

Registration AB7432571, issued to Scott

R. Barrett, Jr., M.D., be, and it hereby is,

revoked, and that any pending

applications for registration be, and they

hereby are, denied. This order is

effective May 15, 1995.

Dated: April 10, 1995.

Stephen H. Greene,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–9185 Filed 4–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

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

specified 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 determination

decisions, and modifications and

supersedeas 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

in the rates determined as prevailing is

encouraged to submit wage rate and

fringe benefit information for

consideration by the Department.

Further information and selfexplanatory forms for the purpose of

submitting this data may be obtained by

writing to the U.S. Department of Labor,

Employment Standards Administration,

Wage and Hour Division, Division of

Wage Determinations, 200 Constitution

Avenue, NW., Room S–3014,

Washington, DC 20210.

Modification to General Wage

Determination Decisions

The number of decisions listed in the

Government Printing Office document

entitled ‘‘General Wage Determinations

Issued Under the Davis-Bacon and

Related Acts’’ being modified are listed

by Volume and State. Dates of

publication in the Federal Register are

in parentheses following the decisions

being modified.

Volume I

Massachusetts

MA950001(Feb. 10, 1995)

MA950002(Feb. 10, 1995)

New York

NY950060(Feb. 10, 1995)

NY950077(Feb. 17, 1995)

Volume II

Virginia

VA950049(Feb. 10, 1995)

Volume III

Georgia

GA950039(Feb. 10, 1995)

Kentucky

KY950025(Feb. 10, 1995)

KY950026(Feb. 10, 1995)

KY950027(Feb. 10, 1995)

KY950028(Feb. 10, 1995)

KY950029(Feb. 10, 1995)

KY950035(Feb. 10, 1995)

KY950044(Feb. 10, 1995)

Tennessee

TN950001(Feb. 10, 1995)

TN950002(Feb. 10, 1995)

TN950005(Feb. 10, 1995)

TN950020(Feb. 10, 1995)

TN950034(Feb. 10, 1995)

TN950040(Feb. 10, 1995)

TN950041(Feb. 10, 1995)

TN950042(Feb. 10, 1995)

TN950043(Feb. 10, 1995)

TN950062(Feb. 10, 1995)

Volume IV

Indiana

IN950001(Feb. 10, 1995)

IN950006(Feb. 10, 1995)

Ohio

OH950001(Feb. 10, 1995)

OH950002(Feb. 10, 1995)

OH950003(Feb. 10, 1995)

OH950027(Feb. 10, 1995)

OH950028(Feb. 10, 1995)

OH950029(Feb. 10, 1995)

OH950034(Feb. 10, 1995)

Volume V

Kansas

KS950006(Feb. 10, 1995)

Missouri

MO950064(Feb. 10, 1995)

MO950069(Feb. 10, 1995)

MO950074(Feb. 10, 1995)

Nebraska

NE950007(Feb. 10, 1995)

NE950013(Feb. 10, 1995)

NE950021(Feb. 10, 1995)

NE950045(Feb. 10, 1995)

New Mexico

NM 950001(Feb. 10, 1995).

Volume VI

California

CA950002(Feb. 10, 1995)

CA950028(Feb. 10, 1995)

Idaho

ID950001(Feb. 10, 1995)

South Dakota

SD950002(Feb. 10, 1995)

SD950024(Feb. 10, 1995)

Wyoming

WY950001(Feb. 10, 1995)

WY950002(Feb. 10, 1995)

WY950003(Feb. 10, 1995)

WY950005(Feb. 10, 1995)

WY950006(Feb. 10, 1995)

WY950007(Feb. 10, 1995)

General Wage Determination

Publication

General wage determinations issued

under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts,

including those noted above, may be

found in the Government Printing Office

(GPO) document entitled ‘‘General Wage