Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 137 / Friday, July 17, 1998 / Notices 38669

District Court for the District of

Massachusetts.

In this action against defendant W.R.

Grace & Co.—Conn. (‘‘Grace’’), the

United States seeks reimbursement of

certain response costs and a declaratory

judgment for future response costs

regarding the W.R. Grace Superfund Site

(the ‘‘Site’’), located in Action,

Massachusetts. Grace has owned and

operated a facility at the Site since 1954.

The consent decree provides that Grace

will reimburse the United States

$1,525,000 for Past Response Costs out

of about $4.2 million (including

interest) and reimburse the United

States for all Future Oversight Costs at

the Site. Grace is performing cleanup

activities at the Site pursuant to a 1980

settlement of claims under the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act.

The Department of Justice will receive

for a period of thirty (30) days from the

date of this publication comments

relating to the proposed consent decree.

Comments should be addressed to the

Assistant Attorney General of the

Environment and Natural Resources

Division, Department of Justice,

Washington, D.C. 20530, and should

refer to United States v. W.R. Grace &

Co.—Conn., Civil Action No. 97–CV–

12583–NG, D.J. Ref. 90–11–2–1241.

The proposed consent decree may be

examined at the at the Region I Office

of the Environmental Protection

Agency, One Congress Street, Boston,

Massachusetts, 02203 (contact Gretchen

Muench, 617–565–4904) and at the

Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street,

N.W., 4th Floor, Washington, D.C.

20005, (202) 624–0892. A copy of the

proposed consent decree may be

obtained in person or by mail from the

Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street,

N.W., 4th Floor, Washington, D.C.

20005. In requesting a copy, please

enclose a check in the amount of $8.25

(25 cents per page reproduction cost)

payable to the Consent Decree Library.

Joel M. Gross,

Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section,

Environment and Natural Resources Division.

[FR Doc. 98–19123 Filed 7–16–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–15–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

Robert M. Golden, M.D.; Denial of

Application

On January 9, 1998, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA), issued an Order

to Show Cause to Robert M. Golden,

M.D., of Alpharetta, Georgia, 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 for such registration would be

inconsistent with the public interest.

The order also notified Dr. Golden that

should no request for a hearing be filed

within 30 days, his hearing right would

be deemed waived.

The DEA received a signed receipt

indicating that the order was received

on January 16, 1998. No request for a

hearing or any other reply was received

by the DEA from Dr. Golden or anyone

purporting to represent him in this

matter. Therefore, the Acting Deputy

Administrator, finding that: (1) 30 days

have passed since the receipt of the

Order to Show Cause, and (2) no request

for a hearing having been received,

concludes that Dr. Golden is deemed to

have waived his hearing right. After

considering material from the

investigative file in this matter, the

Acting Deputy Administrator now

enters order without a hearing pursuant

to 21 CFR 1301.43(d) and (e) and

1301.46.

The Acting Deputy Administrator

finds that Dr. Golden previously

possessed DEA Certificate of

Registration, AG6243125. On May 25,

1994, an Order to Show Cause was

issued proposing to revoke that

Certificate of Registration, alleging that

Dr. Golden’s continued registration

would be inconsistent with the public

interest. Following a hearing before

Administrative Law Judge Paul A.

Tenney, the then-Deputy Administrator

revoked Dr. Golden’s DEA registration

effective June 17, 1996. See Robert M.

Golden, M.D., 61 FR 24808 (May 16,

1996).

In the prior proceeding, the thenDeputy Administrator found that in

April 1987, Dr. Golden entered into a

Consent Order with the Georgia State

Board of Medical Examiners based upon

allegations of recordkeeping violations,

the prescribing or dispensing of

controlled substances while not acting

in the usual course of professional

practice, and the prescribing or ordering

of controlled substances for an

illegitimate medical purpose. In

addition, the then-Deputy Administrator

found that in 1992, a confidential

informant received prescriptions for

Xanax, a Schedule IV controlled

substance, from Dr. Golden who issued

the prescriptions using names other

than that of the informant. Also, on two

occasions in 1992, Dr. Golden issued

prescriptions for Xanax to an

undercover police officer for no

legitimate medical purpose. In his final

order the then-Deputy Administrator

found that Dr. Golden’s conduct

‘‘demonstrate[s] a cavalier behavior

regarding controlled substances’’ and

that ‘‘[Dr. Golden] did not acknowledge

any possibility of questionable conduct

in his prescribing practices.’’ The thenDeputy Administrator found that he

‘‘was provided no basis to conclude that

[Dr. Golden] would lawfully handle

controlled substances in the future,’’

and therefore revoked Dr. Golden’s

previous registration.

On June 15, 1997, Dr. Golden

submitted an application for a new DEA

registration. That application is the

subject of these proceedings. The Acting

Deputy Administrator concludes that

the then-Deputy Administrator’s May

16, 1996 decision regarding Dr. Golden

is res judicata for purposes of this

proceeding. See Stanley Alan Azen,

M.D., 61 FR 57893 (1996) (where the

findings in a previous revocation

proceeding were held to be res judicata

in a subsequent administrative

proceeding.) The then-Deputy

Administrator’s determination of the

facts relating to the previous revocation

of Dr. Golden’s DEA registration is

conclusive. Accordingly, the Acting

Deputy Administrator concludes that

the critical consideration in this

proceeding is whether the

circumstances, which existed at the

time of the prior proceeding, have

changed sufficiently to support a

conclusion that Dr. Golden’s registration

would be in the public interest.

The Acting Deputy Administrator

finds that documentation in the

investigative file reveals that since the

prior proceeding, Dr. Golden’s state

medical license was placed on

probation on April 4, 1996, for at least

four years, pursuant to a Consent Order

with the Composite State Board of

Medical Examiners for the State of

Georgia (Board). As a result of this

Consent Order, Dr. Golden is prohibited

from handling Schedule I through III

controlled substances, and other

specifically named substances. In

addition, Dr. Golden must use triplicate

prescriptions, maintain a log of his

handling of controlled substances, and

attend continuing medical education

courses.

The Acting Deputy Administrator

finds that there is a letter with

attachments from Dr. Golden dated

October 8, 1997, in the investigative file.

This documentation reveals that Dr.

Golden now practices cosmetic surgery;

that he would like to be able to

prescribe Valium and Versed, both

Schedule IV controlled substances; that

he has been in compliance with the

Board’s April 1996 Consent Order; and
38670 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 137 / Friday, July 17, 1998 / Notices

that on May 16, 1997, he completed a

course in the appropriate prescribing of

controlled substances. On his

application for registration, Dr. Golden

states that ‘‘I feel that I have become

more responsible * * *.’’ However, Dr.

Golden did not respond to the Order to

Show Cause, and therefore did not

provide the Acting Deputy

Administrator with any other evidence

for consideration.

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., 54 FR

16422 (1989).

As discussed above, Dr. Golden’s

previous registration was found to be

inconsistent with the public interest.

Since that time, Dr. Golden’s state

medical license was again placed on

probation until at least April 2000. The

Acting Deputy Administrator finds that

Dr. Golden has not presented sufficient

evidence to indicate that his registration

would now be in the public interest.

While Dr. Golden has taken a course in

the appropriate prescribing of controlled

substances, and he asserts on his

application that he has ‘‘become more

responsible,’’ the Acting Deputy

Administrator is not convinced that

Respondent has accepted responsibility

for his previous mishandling of

controlled substances. Therefore, the

Acting Deputy Administrator concludes

that Dr. Golden’s registration would be

inconsistent with the public interest.

Accordingly, the Acting Deputy

Administrator of the Drug Enforcement

Administration, pursuant to the

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

and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, hereby

orders that the application for

registration, executed by Robert M.

Golden, M.D., be, and it hereby is,

denied. This order is effective August

17, 1998.

Dated: July 10, 1998.

Donnie R. Marshall,

Acting Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98–19081 Filed 7–16–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

Fred D. Oremland, M.D., Revocation of

Registration

On January 13, 1998, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA), issued an Order

to Show Cause to Fred D. Oremland,

M.D., of California, notifying him of an

opportunity to show cause as to why

DEA should not revoke his DEA

Certificate of Registration, AO4999592,

under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), and deny 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 California. The order also

notified Dr. Oremland that should no

request for a hearing be filed within 30

days, his hearing right would be deemed

waived.

The DEA received a signed receipt

indicating that the order was received

on January 31, 1998. No request for a

hearing or any other reply was received

by the DEA from Dr. Oremland or

anyone purporting to represent him in

this matter. Therefore, the Acting

Deputy Administrator, finding that (1)

30 days have passed since the receipt of

the Order to Show Cause, and (2) no

request for a hearing having been

received, concludes that Dr. Oremland

is deemed to have waived his hearing

right. After considering material from

the investigative file in this matter, the

Acting Deputy Administrator now

enters his final order without a hearing

pursuant to 21 C.F.R. 1301.43(d) and (e)

and 1301.46.

The Acting Deputy Administrator

finds that on August 23, 1995, the

Medical Board of California (Board)

filed an Accusation against Dr.

Oremland alleging improper and

excessive treatment; improper and

excessive billing; the creation of false

medical records; repeated violations of

patient confidence; exploitation of a

patient; excessive prescribing of

dangerous drugs and controlled

substances; and violations of statutory

recordkeeping requirements. On June

25, 1996, Dr. Oremland entered into a

stipulation with the Board whereby he

agreed to surrender his physician and

surgeon’s certificate by October 1, 1996.

In addition, Dr. Oremland agreed to

waive his right to renew his state

certificate and to not seek reinstatement

or relicensure for at least three years.

This stipulation was accepted by the

Board by Order dated July 17, 1996. A

letter from the Board dated January 13,

1998, which is in the investigative file,

indicates that Dr. Oremland’s California

physician and surgeon’s certificate was

in fact surrendered.

The Acting Deputy Administrator

finds that in light of the fact that Dr.

Oremland is not currently licensed to

practice medicine in the State of

California, it is reasonable to infer that

he is not currently authorized to handle

controlled substances in that state. The

DEA does not have the 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 Romeo J. Perez, M.D., 62 FR

16, 193 (1997); Demetris A. Green, M.D.,

61 FR 60, 728 (1996); Dominick A.

Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51,104 (1993).

Here it is clear that Dr. Oremland is

not currently authorized to handle

controlled substances in the State of

California. Therefore, Dr. Oremland is

not entitled to a DEA registration in that

state.

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 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104,

hereby orders that DEA Certificate of

Registration, AO4999592, previously

issued to Fred D. Oremland, M.D., be,

and it hereby is, revoked. The Acting

Deputy Administrator further orders

that any pending applications for the

renewal of such registration, be, and

they hereby are, denied. This order is

effective August 17, 1998.

Dated: July 10, 1998.

Donnie R. Marshall,

Acting Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98–19082 Filed 7–16–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M