Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 1995 / Notices 22075

Canyon National Park, Arizona;

Extension of Time.

The National Park Service announced

the availability for public review of the

Draft General Management Plan/

Environmental Impact Statement for

Grand Canyon National Park on March

13, 1995 (60 Federal Register 13450). At

that time a public review period was

announced and scheduled to end no

later than April 24, 1995. This notice

extends the comment period to May 11,

1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to

Planning Team Leader, Grand Canyon

General Management Plan, National

Park Service, Denver Service CenterTWE, P.O. Box 25287, Denver, CO

80225–0287.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Larry Norris at the above address or

telephone (303) 969–2210.

Dated: April 26, 1995.

Denis P. Galvin,

Associate Director, Planning and

Development.

[FR Doc. 95–10932 Filed 5–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Correction to Notice of Lodging a Final

Judgment by Consent Pursuant to the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response Compensation and Liability

Act (CERCLA)

Notice of the lodging of a proposed

consent decree in United States versus

Edward Azrael, et al., Civ. A. No. WN–

89–2898, was published at 60 Fed. Reg.

19772 on April 20, 1995. The decree

was lodged on April 10, 1995, with the

United States District Court for the

District of Maryland. The complaint in

the action seeks recovery of costs and

injunctive relief under Sections 106 and

107(a) of the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation

and Liability Act (‘‘CERCLA’’), as

amended by the Superfund

Amendments and Reauthorization Act

of 1986, Pub. L. 99–499, 42 U.S.C. 9606,

9607(a).

The Azrael case involves the Kane

and Lombard Superfund Site located in

Baltimore, Maryland. Under the

proposed consent decree, Edward

Azrael, Harriet Azrael and the Estate of

Cele Landay (the ‘‘Settlors’’) will pay

$325,000.00 to the United States and

$175,000.00 to the State of Maryland

toward reimbursement of past and

future costs incurred by the United

States and the State of Maryland in

performing certain response actions at

the Kane and Lombard Superfund Site.

The notice of lodging published April

20, 1995, had mistakenly stated that the

Settlors were to pay $375,000.00 to the

United States.

The Department of Justice will receive

comments relating to the proposed

consent decree for a period of thirty

days from April 20, 1995, the date of

Notice of Lodging was originally

published. Comments should be

addressed to the Assistant Attorney

General of the Environment and Natural

Resources Division, Department of

Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Ben Franklin

Station, Washington, D.C. 20044, and

should refer to United States versus

Edward Azrael, et al., DOJ Reference

No. 90–11–2–299.

The proposed consent decree may be

examined at the Office of the United

States Attorney for the District of

Maryland, U.S. Courthouse, Eighth

Floor, 101 W. Lombard Street,

Baltimore, Md. 21201; Region III Office

of the Environmental Protection

Agency, 841 Chestnut Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and at the

Consent Decree Library, 1120 ‘‘G’’ Street

NW., 4th Floor, Washington, D.C.

20005, (202) 624–0892. A copy of the

proposed decree may be obtained in

person or by mail from the Consent

Decree Library at the address listed

above. In requesting a copy, please refer

to the referenced case and number, and

enclose a check in the amount of $6.75

(25 cents per page reproduction costs),

payable to the Consent Decree Library.

Joel M. Gross,

Acting Section Chief, Environmental

Enforcement Section, Environmental and

Natural Resources Division.

[FR Doc. 95–11003 Filed 5–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

Notice of Lodging of Amendment

Consent Decree Pursuant to the Safe

Drinking Water Act

In accordance with Departmental

policy and 28 C.F.R. 50.7, notice is

hereby given that on April 24, 1995, a

proposed Amendment To Consent

Decree For Injunction Relief in United

States v. Silver Bow Water Inc., et al.,

Civil Action No. 94CV026, was lodged

with the United States District Court for

the District of Montana.

The proposed amendment modified a

consent decree entered on May 15, 1992

which resolved claims by the United

States and State of Montana against

Silver Bow Water, Inc. and the CityCounty of Butte-Silver Bow under

Sections 1414 and 1431 of the Safe

Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300g–3

and 300i. The consent decree required

inter alia, the construction of two

drinking water filtration plants. The

scheduled date for completion, startup

and compliance of the two plants with

the Safe Drinking Water Act was

December 31, 1994 under the decree.

The proposed amendment modifies the

compliance schedule for the Moulton

water treatment plant to allow for

construction of custom filtration

technology with a final compliance date

on June 1, 1995. The compliance

schedule for the Big Hole water

treatment plant is unaffected by the

proposed amendment.

The Department of Justice will

receive, for a period of thirty (30) days

from the date of this publication,

comments relating to the proposed

amendment to consent decree.

Comments should be addressed to the

Assistant Attorney General of the

Environment and Natural Resources

Division, Department of Justice, P.O.

Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station,

Washington, D.C. 20044, and should

refer to United States v. Silver Bow

Water, Inc. et al., DOJ Ref. #90–5–1–1–

3751A.

The proposed consent decree

amendment may be examined at the

Office of the United States

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region VIII, Montana Office, 301 S.

Park, Helena, Montana 59626 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 decree amendment 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 refer

to the referenced case and number, and

enclose a check in the amount of $2.50

(25 cents per page reproduction costs),

payable to the Consent Decree Library.

Joel Gross,

Acting Chief, Environmental Enforcement

Section, Environment and Natural Resources

Division.

[FR Doc. 95–11004 Filed 5–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. 93–62]

Leonard Merkow, M.D.; Denial of

Application

On June 10, 1993, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator (then Director),

Office of Diversion Control, Drug

Enforcement Administration (DEA),

issued an Order to Show Cause to

Leonard Merkow, M.D. (Respondent).

The Order to Show Cause sought to

deny Respondent’s application for a
22076 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 1995 / Notices

DEA Certificate of Registration. The

Order to Show cause alleged that

Respondent’s registration would be

inconsistent with the public interest as

that term is used in 21 U.S.C. 823(f).

The Order to Show Cause was

received by Respondent. Respondent,

through counsel, timely filed a request

for a hearing on the issues raised in the

Order to Show Cause and the matter

was docketed before Administrative

Law Judge Mary Ellen Bittner. Judge

Bittner ordered the parties to file

prehearing statements. After the

Government filed its prehearing

statement, Respondent requested and

obtained an extension of time to file his

prehearing statement on or before

February 10, 1994. On February 28,

1994, Judge Bittner issued an order

terminating the proceedings based upon

the fact that Respondent had not filed a

prehearing statement nor any other

pleading. The order also found that

Respondent waived his right to a

hearing pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.54(a)

and 1301.54(d). Accordingly, the

Deputy Administrator now enters his

final order in this matter without a

hearing and based on the investigative

file. 21 CFR 1301.57.

In 1986, Respondent prescribed

various narcotic and benzodiazepine

controlled substances to an individual

whom Respondent knew was drug

addicted. Respondent also prescribed

Tylenol with codeine, a Schedule III

controlled substance, and Doriden, then

a Schedule III controlled substance and

now a Schedule II substance, to this

individual. This combination, known by

its street name of ‘‘fours and dors’’, is

commonly abused by many drug addicts

and Respondent was aware of such fact

at the time he prescribed these

substances to this individual.

In October 1987, this individual

acting in an undercover capacity made

thirteen undercover visits to

Respondent’s office. The transcripts of

these undercover visits revealed that

Respondent was well aware that the

combination of Tylenol with codeine

and Doriden was used by drug abusers

and that he was not prescribing these

substances to this individual for any

legitimate reason. In addition, from

October 1987 to December 1987,

Respondent’s receptionist gave this

individual over 300 dosage units of

Valium, a Schedule IV controlled

substance, and 144 dosage units of

Doriden for no legitimate medical

purpose. Although Respondent claimed

he was unaware of this activity, he was

responsible for this employee’s actions

and ultimately accountable for the

controlled substances that were

dispensed from his office.

Respondent ordered about 200,000

dosage units of controlled substances in

a nine month period in 1987. These

controlled substances were stored at his

residence, and then transferred to

Respondent’s two offices; one of these

offices was never a registered location

and Respondent let the other office’s

registration lapse in January 1987.

In February of 1986, Respondent was

convicted in the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania of 47 counts of submitting

false or fraudulent Medicaid claims.

Respondent was sentenced to three

years probation and to pay a fine and

restitution. The Pennsylvania Bureau of

Occupational and Professional Affairs

suspended Respondent’s medical

license in March 1988, but reinstated

the license about a month later.

On March 23, 1988, Respondent was

notified that his prior DEA registration

was immediately suspended and that he

should notify DEA of any controlled

substance deliveries that he might

receive subsequent to that date. In fact

Respondent did order over 19,000

dosage units of controlled substances on

March 23, 1988, and he received this

shipment on March 28, 1988. He never

notified DEA of this receipt of

controlled substances. The controlled

substances were discovered in the

garage at the residence of Respondent’s

attorney pursuant to a search warrant

which was served on April 13, 1988.

Based upon these events, Respondent’s

prior DEA registration, AM5075305, was

revoked on March 27, 1989. 54 FR

13254 (1989).

In evaluating whether Respondent’s

registration by the Drug Enforcement

Administration would be inconsistent

with the public interest, the Deputy

Administrator considers the factors

enumerated in 21 U.S.C. 823(f). They

are as follows:

(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.

In determining whether a registration

would be inconsistent with the public

interest, the Deputy Administrator is not

required to make findings with respect

to each of the factors listed above.

Instead, he has the discretion to give

each factor the weight he deems

appropriate, depending upon the facts

and circumstances of each case. See

David E. Trawick, D.D.S., Docket No.

88–69, 53 FR 5326 (1988).

Regarding factor two, Respondent’s

experience in dispensing controlled

substances is poor based upon his

prescribing the combination of Tylenol

with codeine and Doriden to an

individual, especially when Respondent

was aware that this combination was

subject to abuse. This factor is also

supported by the fact that Respondent’s

employee dispensed numerous

controlled substances to this individual

in addition to the controlled substances

that he received from Respondent’s

illegitimate prescriptions.

With respect to factor four,

Respondent failed to comply with

applicable Federal law by dispensing

controlled substances from an

unregistered location. 21 U.S.C. 822(e).

Respondent also did not maintain

records of the controlled substances

dispensed from his office by his

employee. 21 U.S.C. 827(a). Finally,

Respondent received controlled

substances after he was notified that his

DEA registration was suspended. 21

U.S.C. 843(a)(2). This violation is

particularly egregious because

Respondent ignored instructions to

inform DEA of any controlled substance

shipments received after the suspension

of his DEA registration. Factor five is

applicable based upon Respondent’s

Medicaid fraud convictions.

No evidence of explanation or

mitigating circumstances has been

offered by Respondent. Therefore, the

Deputy Administrator concludes that

Respondent’s application for a DEA

Certificate of Registration must be

denied.

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,

hereby orders that the application for a

DEA Certificate of Registration,

submitted by Leonard Merkow, M.D.,

be, and it is hereby denied. This order

is effective May 4, 1995.

Dated: April 28, 1995.

Stephen H. Greene,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–10928 Filed 5–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

[Docket No. 93–56]

Michael G. Sargent, M.D.; Revocation

of Registration

On June 2, 1993, the Deputy Assistant

Administrator (then Director), Office of