67092 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 23, 1997 / Notices

• Crissy Field projects design briefing

• updates on Army environmental

remediation at the Presidio

• updates on Presidio transportation

planning

• report on National Historic Landmark

designation for the Golden Gate

Bridge

• reports on work of the Golden Gate

National Parks Association

• reports on programs and projects of

GGNRA ‘‘Park Partners’’

• updates on issues concerning

management and planning at Point

Reyes NS

These meetings will also contain

Superintendent’s and Presidio General

Manager’s Reports.

Specific final agendas for these

meetings will be made available to the

public at least 15 days prior to each

meeting and can be received by

contacting the Office of the Staff

Assistant, Golden Gate National

Recreation Area, Building 201, Fort

Mason, San Francisco, California 94123

or by calling (415) 561–4633.

These meetings are open to the

public. They will be recorded for

documentation and transcribed for

dissemination. Minutes of the meetings

will be available to the public after

approval of the full Advisory

Commission. A transcript will be

available three weeks after each

meeting. For copies of the minutes

contact the Office of the Staff Assistant,

Golden Gate National Recreation Area,

Building 201, Fort Mason, San

Francisco, California 94123.

Dated: December 15, 1997.

Brian O’Neill,

General Superintendent, Golden Gate

National Recreation Area.

[FR Doc. 97–33428 Filed 12–22–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

National Wildlife and Scenic River

System: Ohio; Big and Little Darby

Creeks

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Approval.

SUMMARY: The Secretary of the Interior

hereby announces approval of an

application by the Governor of Ohio to

include additional segments of the Big

and Little Darby Creeks, Ohio, as state

administered components of the

National Wild and Scenic Rivers

System.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Angie Tornes, Rivers, Trails and

Conservation Assistance Program,

National Park Service, Midwest

Regional Office, 310 West Wisconsin

Street, Suite 100E, Milwaukee,

Wisconsin 53202; or telephone 414–

297–3605.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to the authority granted the Secretary of

the Interior by section 2 of the Wild and

Scenic Rivers Act (Pub. L. 90–542, as

amended; 16 U.S.C. 1273, et seq.) and

upon proper application of the Governor

of the State of Ohio, an additional 3.4

miles of the Big and Little Darby Creeks

are hereby designated and are added to

the existing segments of the Big and

Little Darby Creeks, a state-administered

component of the National Wild and

Scenic Rivers System.

On March 25, 1996, the Governor of

Ohio petitioned the Secretary of the

Interior to add an additional 3.4 miles

to the 85.9 miles of the Big and Little

Darby Creeks, designated as components

of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers

System March 10, 1996. The evaluation

report for that designation, prepared by

the National Park Service in September

1993, states that the additional segments

now under consideration were eligible

and would be suitable for national wild

and scenic river designation once they

were added to the State Scenic River

System. The evaluation also concluded

that these segments of the Big and Little

Darby Creeks meet the criteria for scenic

classification under the Act.

These additional segments were

added to the Ohio Scenic River System

October 3, 1994. Public comment

regarding national designation of the

additional segments was solicited in

Ohio and the required 90-day review for

Federal Agencies was provided. Public

and Federal Agency comments support

national designation of the additional

Big and Little Darby Creek segments.

The State of Ohio has fulfilled the

requirements of the Act by including

these additional segments in the Ohio

Scenic River System. The State’s

program to permanently protect the

river is adequate. Current State and

local management of the river is

proceeding according to the Big and

Little Darby Creek Plan and

Environmental Assessment submitted

with the original application.

As a result, the Secretary has

determined that the additional 3.4 miles

of the Big and Little Darby Creeks

should be added to the existing

designation of Big and Little Darby

Creeks as a state-administered

component of the National Wild and

Scenic Rivers System, as provided for in

section 2(a)(ii) of the Wild and Scenic

Rivers Act.

Accordingly, the following additional

river segments are classified as scenic

pursuant to section 2(b) of the Act to be

administered by State and local

government:

Big Darby Creek: Scenic—From its

confluence with Little Darby Creek (RM

34.1) upstream to the northern boundary

of Battelle-Darby Creek Metro Park (RM

35.9) (1.8 miles).

Big Darby Creek: Scenic—From the

U.S. Route 40 bridge (RM 38.9)

upstream to the Conrail Railroad trestle

crossing (RM 39.7) (0.8 miles).

Little Darby Creek: Scenic—From it

confluence with Big Darby Creek (RM

0.0) to a point eight-tenths of a mile

upstream (RM 0.8) (0.8 miles).

This action is taken following public

involvement and consultation with the

Departments of Agriculture, Army,

Energy, and Transportation, the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, and the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

as required by section 4(c) of the Wild

and Scenic Rivers Act. All comments

received have been supportive.

Notice is hereby given that effective

upon this date, the above-described

additional river segments are approved

for inclusion in the National Wild and

Scenic Rivers System to be administered

by the State of Ohio.

Dated: December 8, 1997.

William W. Schenk,

Regional Director, Midwest Region.

[FR Doc. 97–33427 Filed 12–22–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. 97–11]

Ronald D. Springel, M.D., Grant of

Restricted Registration

On January 28, 1997, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA), issued an Order

to Show Cause to Ronald D. Springel,

M.D., (Respondent) of Spokane,

Washington, notifying him of an

opportunity to show cause as to why

DEA should not deny his application for

registration as a practitioner under 21

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

registration would be inconsistent with

the public interest.

By letter dated February 24, 1997,

Respondent, through counsel, timely

filed a request for a hearing, and

following prehearing procedures, a

hearing was held in Seattle, Washington

on July 15 and 16, 1997, before

Administrative Law Judge Gail A.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 23, 1997 / Notices 67093

Randall. At the hearing, both parties

called witnesses to testify and

introduced documentary evidence. After

the hearing, both sides submitted

proposed fundings of fact, conclusions

of law and argument. On October 6,

1997, Judge Randall issued her Opinion

and Recommended Ruling,

recommending that Respondent be

granted a DEA Certificate of Registration

subject to several restrictions that would

remain in effect for three years from the

effective date of the final order. On

October 28, 1997, Respondent’s counsel

filed exceptions to the Administrative

Law Judge’s Opinion and

Recommended Ruling, and on

November 6, 1997, Judge Randall

transmitted the record of these

proceedings to the Acting Deputy

Administrator.

The Acting Deputy Administrator has

considered the record in its entirety,

and pursuant to 21 CFR 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, except as

specifically noted below, the Opinion

and Recommended Ruling 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 graduated from

medical school in 1978, and is currently

licensed to practice medicine in the

State of Washington. In 1981 or 1982,

while practicing in Pennsylvania,

Respondent became addicted to drugs.

Respondent obtained controlled

substances for his own use, by having

prescriptions filled that he had issued in

names of other than his own. On August

17, 1983, Respondent entered a plea of

nolo contendere in the Lehigh County

Court, to three misdemeanor counts of

possession of a controlled substance and

three felony counts of prescribing a

controlled substance outside the course

of his medical practice in violation of

the laws of the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania. Respondent was placed

on probation without verdict and was

ordered to surrender his DEA Certificate

of Registration. Consequently,

Respondent surrendered his previous

DEA Certificate of Registration on

August 26, 1983.

On July 25, 1984, Respondent was

convicted in the United States District

Court for the District of Alaska,

following his plea of guilty to two

felony counts of attempting to

knowingly acquire possession of a

controlled substance by fraud in

violation of 21 U.S.C. 843 and 846, and

three counts of acquiring possession of

a controlled substance by fraud in

violation of 21 U.S.C. 843. The court

sentenced Respondent to two years

imprisonment with all but 75 days

suspended, and then placed Respondent

on probation for five years.

On August 31, 1984, Respondent was

convicted in the Superior Court for the

State of Alaska of four felony counts

related to the unlawful handling of

controlled substances and one

misdemeanor count of making an

unsworn falsification of an application

for a temporary permit to practice

medicine in Alaska. Respondent was

sentenced to five years probation.

Thereafter, on September 5, 1984,

Respondent’s application for a medical

license was denied by the Alaska State

Medical Board.

In 1984, Respondent underwent

approximately 42 days of inpatient

treatment for chemical dependency.

Respondent then moved to the State of

Washington, and in 1987, he suffered a

relapse of his drug addiction, using

drugs including heroin. During his

relapse, Respondent was employed at a

narcotic treatment program, where he

unlawfully acquired approximately 35

milliliters of methadone, a Schedule II

controlled substance. As a result, on

August 26, 1988, Respondent was

convicted in the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of

Washington of one count of unlawful

acquisition of a controlled substance in

violation of 21 U.S.C. 843(a)(3), and was

sentenced to one year imprisonment to

be followed by two years of supervised

release. In light of this conviction, on

August 28, 1988, Respondent’s

probation based upon his conviction in

the United States District Court for the

District of Alaska was revoked and he

was sentenced to three years

imprisonment.

As a result of his relapse

Respondent’s license to practice

medicine in the State of Washington

was summarily suspended on March 4,

1988, by the Washington Board of

Medical examiners (Washington Board).

Thereafter, on August 1, 1988, the

Washington Board revoked

Respondent’s Washington medical

license and ordered that Respondent not

petition for reinstatement of his license

any earlier than 36 months from the

effective date of the summary

suspension order; that he successfully

complete an inpatient treatment

program; and that he remain drug and

alcohol free for at least 12 months prior

to his reinstatement. In addition, on

September 27, 1988, Respondent’s

license to practice medicine in the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was

automatically suspended by the State

Board of Medical Examiners due to his

drug related convictions.

Respondent went to two different

treatment facilities, entering the second

facility on March 17, 1988. He has

remained drug-free and in recovery

since that date. Respondent testified at

the hearing in this matter that he has

developed a strong support system, and

that he continues to regularly attend 12-

step self-help group meetings. In

addition, Respondent completed a five

year contract with the Washington

Physicians Health Program (WPHP) in

1994, which consisted of five elements:

total abstinence from alcohol and any

other addicting chemical; attendance at

Alcoholics Anonymous and/or

Narcotics Anonymous meetings;

behavioral monitoring; chemical

monitoring; and work site monitoring

for the first five years under contract.

After successfully completing his

contract, Respondent has remained in

the program on a voluntary basis, and

was asked by the WPHP board to serve

on the advisory committee, representing

the rest of the participants in the

program before the board.

In December of 1989, Respondent

started a business which provided

services to employers and employees to

facilitate, among other things,

compliance with drug-free workplace

regulations. Over the years, this

business endeavor has grown into six

related enterprises which offer various

services, to include employee assistance

programs, occupational health services,

drug-screen collection services,

qualified medical review officers’

services, and educational services to

train employees and supervisors about

the drug-free workplace regulatory

requirements. The companies currently

have approximately 2,000 clients in the

Western United States, including the

State of Washington.

On April 18, 1991, the Washington

Board reinstated Respondent’s license to

practice medicine in the State of

Washington with restrictions, including

that he shall not obtain a DEA

registration to handle controlled

substances. On November 4, 1994,

Respondent was granted an unrestricted

license in the State of Washington,

following the Washington Board’s

finding that Respondent ‘‘is not a risk to

the public in his practice as a

physician. . . .’’

At the hearing in this matter,

numerous professional and/or personal

associates and clients of Respondent

either testified or submitted affidavits

attesting to the high quality of services

performed by Respondent and his

companies; to Respondent’s
67094 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 23, 1997 / Notices

distinguished reputation and character;

and to their belief that the registration

of Respondent to handle controlled

substances poses no risk to the public or

his patients. The Director of the WPHP

testified that the chance of Respondent

suffering another relapse is ‘‘quite

unlikely’’ given that he had been drugfree and in recovery for over nine years

at the time of the hearing.

Respondent testified that he is now

seeking a DEA registration because he

cannot fully perform the occupational

health aspect of his businesses without

being able to prescribe controlled

substances. In addition, he wants to

volunteer as the back-up physician at a

local narcotic treatment program, and

would need to be able to handle

controlled substances to effectively

perform his duties. Finally, he believes

that being granted a DEA Certificate of

Registration would make him a

complete physician and would

recognize the fact that he is a ‘‘repaired’’

physician.

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f), the

Deputy Administrator may deny an

application for a DEA Certificate of

Registration if he determines that such

registration would be inconsistent with

the public interest. In determining the

public interest, the following factors are

considered:

(1) The recommendation of the

appropriate State licensing board or

professional disciplinary authority.

(2) The applicant’s experience in

dispensing, or conducting research with

respect to controlled substances.

(3) The applicant’s conviction record

under Federal or State laws relating to

the manufacture, distribution, or

dispensing of controlled substances.

(4) Compliance with applicable State,

Federal, or local laws relating to

controlled substances.

(5) Such other conduct which may

threaten the public health and safety.

These factors are to be considered in

the disjunctive; the Deputy

Administrator may rely on any one or a

combination of factors and may give

each factor the weight he deems

appropriate in determining whether a

registration should be revoked or an

application for registration be denied.

See Henry J. Schwarz, Jr., M.D., Docket

No. 88–42, 54 FR 16,422 (1989).

Regarding factor one, it is undisputed

that Respondent’s application for a

license to practice medicine in Alaska

was denied in 1984, and his medical

license in Pennsylvania was suspended

in 1988. It is also undisputed that while

Respondent’s license to practice

medicine in the State of Washington

was revoked in 1988, and then

reinstated subject to restrictions in 1991,

Respondent has possessed an

unrestricted medical license in that state

since 1994.

Factors two and four, Respondent’s

experience in dispensing controlled

substances and his compliance with

applicable laws relating to controlled

substances, are relevant in this

proceeding. Respondent became

addicted to drugs in the early 1980’s.

Respondent repeatedly violated both

state and Federal laws by fraudulently

obtaining controlled substances for his

own use. In the early 1980’s, he

prescribed controlled substances using

his previous DEA registration to acquire

the drugs. While Respondent did

receive extensive treatment in 1984 for

his admitted chemical dependency, he

suffered a relapse in 1987, abusing

various drugs including heroin. In late

1987, Respondent unlawfully acquired

methadone from a narcotic treatment

program where he was working.

Therefore, as Judge Randall concluded,

‘‘the Government has proven by a

preponderance of the evidence that in

the 1980’s, the Respondent unlawfully

acquired, prescribed, and possessed

controlled substances, as well as

unlawfully consumed them.’’ The

Acting Deputy Administrator notes that

there is no evidence in the record that

Respondent ever unlawfully prescribed

and/or dispensed controlled substances

for anyone other than himself.

As to factor three, it is undisputed

that Respondent has been convicted on

several occasions of controlled

substances related offenses. In August

1983, he pled nolo contendere in the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to three

misdemeanor counts of illegal

possession of a controlled substance,

and to three felony counts of prescribing

controlled substances outside the course

of medical practice. In July 1984,

Respondent was convicted in the United

States Court for the District of Alaska of

five felony counts of obtaining a

controlled substance by fraud, and in

August 1984, Respondent was convicted

in an Alaska state court of four felony

counts relating to the unlawful handling

of controlled substances and one

misdemeanor count relating to the

falsification of an application for a

license to practice medicine in Alaska.

Further, in August 1988, Respondent

was convicted in the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of

Washington of one count of the

unlawful acquisition of a controlled

substance. As a result of these

convictions, Respondent was

incarcerated for a period of time.

Finally, regarding factor five,

Respondent has admitted to a long

history of substance abuse in the 1980’s.

He abused his privilege as a DEA

registrant to obtain the drugs, he stole

methadone from his employer, and he

abused heroin. Clearly, this conduct

posed a threat to the public safety.

The Acting Deputy Administrator

concludes that based upon the

foregoing, the Government has

established a prima facie case for the

denial of Respondent’s application for a

DEA Certificate of Registration.

However, all of Respondent’s unlawful

conduct and his convictions stemmed

from his drug addiction. Respondent

testified that he has been drug-free since

March 1988, and there is no evidence in

the record of the contrary. In fact, the

evidence presented by Respondent

shows a strong commitment to

continued recovery. Respondent

continues to voluntarily participate in

the WPHP, and the Director of the

program testified that after over nine

years of being drug-free, it is unlikely

that Respondent will suffer a relapse of

his drug abuse. Like Judge Randall, the

Acting Deputy Administrator also finds

it noteworthy that Respondent’s

business enterprises are centered

around the detection and preventing of

drug abuse in the workplace. Finally,

the Acting Deputy Administrator finds

significant the witness testimony and

affidavits, offered on behalf of

Respondent, attesting to his personal

and professional integrity, and to his

continued commitment to sobriety.

The Administrative Law Judge

recommended granting Respondent’s

application for a DEA Certificate of

Registration, but also found persuasive

the Government’s argument that ‘‘these

multiple offenses are significant

[enough] to warrant an extremely close

look at any future registration for

Respondent.’’ Therefore, Judge Randall

recommended that the following

conditions and restrictions be placed

upon Respondent’s registration:

‘‘1. That the Respondent maintain a

log of all controlled substance

prescriptions he issues. At a minimum,

the log should indicate the date that the

prescription was written, the name of

the patient for whom it was written, and

the name and dosage of the controlled

substance(s) prescribed. The

Respondent should maintain this log for

a period of three years from the effective

date of the final order. Upon request by

the Special Agent in Charge of the DEA

Field office in Seattle, or his designee,

the Respondent shall submit or

otherwise make reasonably available his

prescription log for inspection.

2. For three years after the effective

date of the final order, the Respondent

should continue his association with the

WPHP, and, if for any reason the WPHP
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 23, 1997 / Notices 67095

no longer requires random urine

screens, the Respondent shall continue

these monthly screens at his own

expense. The Respondent shall provide

copies of the reports of the results of the

screens upon reasonable request by DEA

personnel.

3. For three years after the effective

date of the final order, regardless of the

applicable Washington state law, the

Respondent may not prescribe or

dispense controlled substances to

himself or to any members of his family.

The only exception to this limitation is

that the Respondent may possess and

consume controlled substances which

are medically necessary for his own use,

and which he has obtained lawfully

from another duly authorized

physician.’’

The Acting Deputy Administrator

agrees with the Administrative Law

Judge that Respondent should be issued

a DEA Certificate of Registration, but

that some restrictions on his registration

are warranted in light of his past

substance abuse, and his use of his

previous DEA registration to

fraudulently obtain controlled

substances.

In his exceptions to Judge Randall’s

recommended ruling, Respondent

contends that the proposed language of

the second condition to be imposed on

Respondent’s registration, if granted, is

ambiguous, since it requires that

Respondent ‘‘continue these monthly

screens’’ and he is not currently

undergoing ‘‘monthly’’ urine screens.

Respondent argues that he is currently

participating in Phase III of the WPHP,

which provides for random toxicology

testing, but does not provide for

monthly testing. Consequently,

Respondent purposes that the restriction

be rewritten to require that he continue

his participation in Phase III of the

WPHP, which includes random urine

screens, for three years after the

effective date of the final order. The

Acting Deputy Administrator agrees

with Respondent since the record does

not indicate that Respondent is

currently required to undergo monthly

urine screens.

Therefore, the Acting Deputy

Administrator concludes that

Respondent should be granted a DEA

Certificate of Registration subject to the

conditions as recommended by Judge

Randall with slight modifications.

Respondent’s registration shall be

subject to the following conditions for

three years from the date of issuance of

the registration:

(1) Respondent shall maintain a log of

all controlled substances that he

prescribes. At a minimum, the log shall

include the name of the patient, the date

that the controlled substance was

prescribed, and the name, dosage and

quantity of the controlled substance

prescribed. Upon request by the Special

Agent in Charge of the Seattle DEA

office, or his designee, Respondent shall

submit or otherwise make available this

prescription log for inspection.

(2) Respondent shall continue his

participation in Phase III of the

Washington Physicians Health Program,

including such random urine screens,

meetings, and other requirements as

mandated by the program. Respondent

shall immediately notify the Special

Agent in Charge of the Seattle DEA

office, or his designee, of any urine

screens found to be positive for the

presence of controlled substances.

(3) Respondent shall not prescribe or

dispense any controlled substances to

himself or to any members of his family,

and shall only administer to himself

those controlled substances legitimately

dispensed or prescribed to him by

another duly authorized practitioner.

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 the application

for a DEA Certificate of Registration

submitted by Ronald D. Springel, M.D.,

be, and it hereby is granted, subject to

the above described restrictions. This

order is effective January 22, 1998.

Dated: December 15, 1997.

James S. Milford,

Acting Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–33363 Filed 12–22–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Bureau of Labor Statistics

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as

part of its continuing effort to reduce

paperwork and respondent burden,

conducts a pre-clearance consultation

program to provide the general public

and Federal agencies with an

opportunity to comment on proposed

and/or continuing collections of

information in accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This

program helps to ensure that requested

data can be provided in the desired

format, reporting burden (time and

financial resources) is minimized,

collection instruments are clearly

understood, and the impact of collection

requirements on respondents can be

properly assessed. Currently, the Bureau

of Labor Statistics (BLS) is soliciting

comments concerning the proposed

revision of the ‘‘International Price

Program—U.S. Import Price Indexes.’’

A copy of the proposed information

collection request (ICR) can be obtained

by contacting the individual listed

below in the addressee section of this

notice.

DATES: Written comments must be

submitted to the office listed in the

addressee section below on or before

February 23, 1998.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics is

particularly interested in comments

which:

• Evaluate whether the proposed

collection of information is necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of the agency, including

whether the information will have

practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

proposed collection of information,

including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions used;

• Enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and

• Minimize the burden of the

collection of information on those who

are to respond, including through the

use of appropriate automated,

electronic, mechanical, or other

technological collection techniques or

other forms of information technology,

e.g., permitting electronic submissions

of responses.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Karin G.

Kurz, BLS Clearance Officer, Division of

Management Systems, Bureau of Labor

Statistics, Room 3255, 2 Massachusetts

Avenue, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20212.

Ms. Kurz can be reached on 202–606–

7268 (this is not a toll free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The U.S. Import Price Indexes,

produced continuously by the Bureau of

Labor Statistics’ International Price

Program (IPP) since 1971, measure price

change over time for all categories of

imported products, as well as many

services. The Office of Management and

Budget has listed the Import Price

Indexes as a major economic indicator

since 1982.

The indexes are widely used in both

the public and private sectors. The

primary public sector use is deflation of

the U.S. Trade statistics and the Gross

Domestic Product; the indexes also are

used in formulating U.S. trade policy