Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 26 / Friday, February 7, 1997 / Notices 5841

alternatives considered, mitigating

measures adopted to avoid or minimize

environmental impacts, and the

reasoning behind the decisions reached.

The Record of Decision is available

either through the Superintendent,

Niobrara/Missouri National Scenic

Riverways, P.O. Box 591, O’Neill,

Nebraska 68763–0591, (telephone 402–

336–3970); or the National Park Service,

Midwest Field Area (PL), 1709 Jackson

Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68102,

(telephone 402–221–3082).

Dated: January 23, 1997.

David N. Given,

Acting Field Director, Midwest Field Area.

[FR Doc. 97–3021 Filed 2–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–P

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

Water Protection

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: The Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) of

the United States Department of the

Interior is making available on the

Internet a draft resource document that

describes OSM’s role in water

protection. The document provides an

overview of two permitting

requirements from the Surface Mining

Control and Reclamation Act of 1977

(SMCRA): the applicant’s determination

of probable hydrologic consequences

(PHC), and the regulatory authority’s

cumulative hydrologic impact

assessment (CHIA). The web page

contains electronic links to sources of

hydrologic data that may be useful in

making PHC and CHIA determinations.

DATES: OSM is requesting comments on

the document until May 15, 1997.

ADDRESS: Electronic or written

comments: The resource document can

be viewed at the following URL address:

http://www.osmre.gov. The document

contains prompts at several locations for

reader response. Readers may also

submit electronic comments to:

dgrowitz@osmre.gov or mail written

comments to the Administrative Record

(MS 210), Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement, 1951

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20240.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Douglas Growitz, Office of Surface

Mining Reclamation and Enforcement,

1951 Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20240; Telephone:

(202) 208–2634; E-mail address:

dgrowitz@osmre.gov. Additional

information concerning OSM, this

resource document, and related

documents may be found on OSM’s

home page at http://www.osmre.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OSM is

making available on its Internet home

page a resource document to aid in

protecting water and the hydrologic

balance under SMCRA’s permitting

process. The Internet offers an

opportunity for electronic presentation

of information and dialog to a wide

audience.

The OSM resource document is titled

‘‘Managing Hydrologic Information, A

Resource for Development of Probable

Hydrologic Consequences (PHC) and

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact

Assessments (CHIA).’’ A PHC is

prepared by the coal operator seeking a

permit to mine. The CHIA is prepared

by the regulatory authority as part of the

analysis is to approve or deny a permit

application.

The document does not establish a

regulatory standard and would not be

binding on OSM or State regulatory

authorities. The purpose of the

document is to: (1) outline the

hydrologic and related geologic

requirements of SMCRA, (2) describe

approaches for responding to these

requirements, and (3) identify resources

that may be helpful to industry and

regulatory authorities in the permitting

process. Some of the available resources

described in the document, such as

selected hydrologic data bases

maintained by the U.S. Geological

Survey, are directly accessible

electronically through the document.

OSM would like to receive feedback

from a wide audience and welcomes

constructive comments aimed at making

the document a more understandable,

useful, and complete resource.

Dated: February 4, 1997.

Arthur W. Abbs,

Acting Assistant Director, Program Support.

[FR Doc. 97–3104 Filed 2–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

Charles Addo-Yobo, M.D. Revocation

of Registration

On May 24, 1995, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA), issued an Order

to Show Cause to Charles Addo-Yobo,

M.D., of Farmingdale, New York,

proposing the revocation of his DEA

Certificate of Registration AA2601981

pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) and

(a)(5), and denial of any pending

applications for renewal of such

registration as a practitioner pursuant to

21 U.S.C. 823(f), for reason that he is not

currently authorized to handle

controlled substances in the State of

New York and he was mandatorily

excluded for five years from

participation in Medicare/Medicaid

programs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1320a–

7(a). The order also advised that should

no request for a hearing be filed within

30 days, his hearing right would be

deemed waived.

The Order to Show Cause was sent to

Dr. Addo-Yobo by registered mail to his

DEA registered address. Three attempts

were made by the U.S. Post Office to

deliver the Order to Show Cause with

no success and the order was eventually

returned to DEA unclaimed. DEA

investigators went to Dr. Addo-Yobo’s

registered address and were told that he

no longer lived there and his

whereabouts were unknown. A check

with the U.S. Post Office and the State

Board for Professional Medical Conduct

for the State of New York revealed that

Dr. Addo-Yobo left no forwarding

address.

The Acting Deputy Administrator

finds that DEA has made numerous

attempts to locate Dr. Addo-Yobo and

has determined that his whereabouts are

unknown. It is quite evident that Dr.

Addo-Yobo is no longer practicing

medicine at the address listed on his

DEA Certificate of Registration. The

Acting Deputy Administrator concludes

that considerable effort has been made

to serve Dr. Addo-Yobo with the Order

to Show Cause without success. Dr.

Addo-Yobo is therefore deemed to have

waived his opportunity for a hearing.

The Acting Deputy Administrator now

enters his final order in this matter

without a hearing and based on the

investigative file. 21 C.F.R. 1301.54 and

1301.57.

The Acting Deputy Administrator

finds that by Order dated December 22,

1994, the State Board for Professional

Medical Conduct for the State of New

York (Board) revoked Dr. Addo-Yobo’s

license to practice medicine in the State

of New York. The Board found that Dr.

Addo-Yobo and others ‘‘participated in

a scheme to operate medical clinics for

the purpose of obtaining payments

directly and indirectly from the

Medicaid system by submitting bills,

and causing others to submit bills, to the

New York Department of Social Service

for medical services, drugs,

prescriptions, and laboratory tests

which he knew to be, and were in fact,

medically unnecessary.’’ As a result, Dr.
5842 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 26 / Friday, February 7, 1997 / Notices

Addo-Yobo was convicted in the United

States District Court for the Southern

District of New York on one count of

mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341

and one count of conspiracy to commit

Medicaid and mail fraud in violation of

18 U.S.C. 371.

By letter dated June 27, 1994, the

United States Department of Health and

Human Services notified Dr. Addo-Yobo

that he was being excluded, pursuant to

42 U.S.C. 1320a–7(a), from participation

in Medicare, Medicaid, Maternal and

Child Health Services Block Grant and

Block Grants to States for Social

Services programs for a period of five

years.

The Acting Deputy Administrator

concludes that in light of the revocation

of Dr. Addo-Yobo’s state medical

license, he is not currently authorized to

handle controlled substances in the

State of New York. The DEA does not

have statutory authority under the

Controlled Substances Act to issue or

maintain a registration if the applicant

or registrant is without state authority to

handle controlled substances in the

state in which he conducts his business,

21 U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f), and 824(a)(3).

This prerequisite has been consistently

upheld. See Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58

Fed. Reg. 51,104 (1993); James H.

Nickens, M.D., 57 Fed. Reg. 59,847

(1992); Roy E. Hardman, M.D., 57 Fed.

Reg. 49,195 (1992). Here, it is clear that

Dr. Addo-Yobo is not currently

authorized to handle controlled

substances in the State of New York.

Therefore, Dr. Addo-Yobo is not

currently entitled to a DEA registration.

Because Dr. Addo-Yobo is not entitled

to a DEA registration due to his lack of

state authorization to handle controlled

substances, the Acting Deputy

Administrator concludes that it is

unnecessary to address whether Dr.

Addo-Yobo’s DEA registration should be

revoked based upon his exclusion from

participating in Medicare/Medicaid

programs.

Accordingly, the Acting Deputy

Administrator of the Drug Enforcement

Administration pursuant to the

authority vested in him by 21 U.S.C. 823

and 824 and 28 C.F.R. 0.100(b) and

0.104, hereby orders that DEA

Certificate of Registration, AA2601981,

previously issued to Charles AddoYobo, M.D., be, and it hereby is,

revoked. The Acting Deputy

Administrator further orders that any

pending applications for renewal of

such registration be, and they hereby

are, denied. This order is effective

March 10, 1997.

Dated: January 31, 1997.

James S. Milford,

Acting Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–3049 Filed 2–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

[Docket No. 95–16]

Mark J. Berger, D.P.M.; Continuation of

Registration With Restrictions

On December 23, 1994, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA), issued an Order

to Show Cause to Mark J. Berger, D.P.M.

(Respondent) of Riverwoods, Illinois,

notifying him of an opportunity to show

cause as to why DEA should not revoke

his DEA Certificate of Registration,

BB2461604, and deny any pending

applications for renewal of such

registration as a practitioner under 21

U.S.C. 823(f), for reason that his

continued registration would be

inconsistent with the public interest

pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4).

By letter dated January 17, 1995, the

Respondent, acting pro se, filed a timely

request for a hearing, and following

prehearing procedures, a hearing was

held in Chicago, Illinois on April 12,

1995, before Administrative Law Judge

Mary Ellen Bittner. At the hearing, the

Government called witnesses and

introduced documentary evidence and

Respondent testified in his own behalf.

After the hearing, the Government

submitted proposed findings of fact,

conclusions of law and argument, and

Respondent submitted a post hearing

brief. On April 11, 1996, Judge Bittner

issued her Opinion and Recommended

Ruling, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of

Law and Decision, recommending that

Respondent’s DEA registration not be

revoked, but be restricted in that

Respondent shall not prescribe,

administer or otherwise dispense any

controlled substances for any member of

his family or himself, and shall handle

controlled substances only in treating

podiatric patients and not for any

purpose outside the usual practice of

podiatry. Neither party filed exceptions

to Judge Bittner’s Opinion and

Recommended Ruling, and on May 14,

1996, the record of these proceedings

was transmitted to the Deputy

Administrator.

The Acting Deputy Administrator has

considered the record in its entirety,

and pursuant to 21 C.F.R. 1316.67,

hereby issues his final order based upon

findings of fact and conclusions of law

as hereinafter set forth. The Acting

Deputy Administrator adopts, in its

entirety, the Opinion and

Recommended Ruling, Findings of Fact,

Conclusions of Law and Decision of the

Administrative Law Judge. His adoption

is in no manner diminished by any

recitation of facts, issues and

conclusions herein, or of any failure to

mention a matter of fact or law.

The Acting Deputy Administrator

finds that Respondent is a podiatrist

initially licensed to practice in the State

of Illinois in the early 1980’s. However,

as of at least March 1984, Respondent

had never been licensed to handle

controlled substances in the State of

Illinois.

In March 1984, the Illinois

Department of Registration and

Education (now known as the

Department of Professional Regulation

and hereinafter referred to as DPR)

received information from DEA that

Respondent had recently ordered 500

Quaalude tablets (the brand name for

methaqualone) after methaqualone had

been rescheduled in Illinois from

Schedule II to Schedule I. As a result of

this information, a DPR investigator and

a local police officer went to

Respondent’s office on March 8, 1984,

intending to conduct an administrative

search and take possession of the

Quaalude tablets. Respondent

acknowledged ordering the Quaalude,

but stated that he kept the tablets at his

home due to recent break-ins or

attempted break-ins. Respondent was

told that his possession of Quaalude

was illegal and he agreed to relinquish

the drugs after seeing his last patient of

the day. Subsequently, Respondent

admitted that he had self-administered

1,000 to 1,500 Quaalude tablets over a

period of approximately a year and a

half to relieve pain caused by an injury.

Respondent then consented to a

search of his office, which revealed an

empty bottle labeled 100 Quaalude, an

open bottle of Empirin with codeine (a

Schedule III controlled substance) with

79 tablets missing, and an open bottle of

diazepam (a Schedule IV controlled

substance) with 22 tablets missing.

Respondent advised the officers that he

had no records for the dispensation of

these controlled substance.

After being taken into investigative

custody, Respondent consented to the

search of his home. This search revealed

two empty 100-tablet bottles and one

empty 500-tablet bottle of Quaalude,

two full 100-tablet bottles of Quaalude,

seven Empirin with codeine tablets,

plant material suspected to be cannabis,

and drug paraphernalia.

A review of DEA order forms revealed

that during the period November 11,

1982 through January 23, 1984,

Respondent ordered the following

controlled substances: 2,500 dosage