22074 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 1995 / Notices

Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance

Prevention and Control Act of 1990.

Comments received will be considered

in preparing the final Brown Tree Snake

Control Plan, which will become the

basis for a cooperative and integrated

Brown Tree Snake Control Program with

the involvement of Federal, State, and

Territorial, and local resource agencies.

DATES: Comments on the Draft Brown

Tree Snake Control Plan should be

received by June 19, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written responses and

requests for copies of the document

should be mailed to Robert P. Smith,

Chair, Brown Tree Snake Control

Committee, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Box 50167, Honolulu, HI

96850.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert P. Smith, Chair, Brown Tree

Snake Control Committee, at (808) 541–

2749.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A native

of Indonesia, New Guinea, the Solomon

Islands, and Australia, the brown tree

snake (Boiga irregularis) has caused or

been a major factor in a modern

extinction episode beyond its native

range that is unprecedented in its scope:

the extirpation of most of Guam’s native

terrestrial vertebrates, including fruit

bats, lizards, and virtually all of the

island’s forest birds. In addition, brown

tree snakes in Guam have caused more

than a thousand power outages,

damaged agricultural interests by

preying on poultry, killed many pets,

and envenomated numerous children.

Several governmental agencies and

private entities have been working to

prevent similar ecological disasters on

other Pacific islands, since the threat of

the brown tree snake’s dispersal to other

islands and continents is significant.

The brown tree snake is a major threat

to the biodiversity of the Pacific region

and other areas at risk. High densities of

snakes occur in many urban areas on

Guam where cargo is loaded for

transport by air and sea to other Pacific

islands, and dispersal has been

documented by snakes discovered on

islands in Hawaii and the

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana

Islands, and even in the continental

United States.

In recognition of this threat, the

United States Congress included a

section in the Nonindigenous Aquatic

Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of

1990 that authorizes a cooperative

program to control the brown tree snake

outside of its historic range.

Representatives of the Departments of

Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, and

the Interior; the Commonwealth of the

Northern Mariana Islands; the Territory

of Guam; and the State of Hawaii

formed the Brown Tree Snake Control

Committee on May 1993 to develop an

integrated pest management approach

that would:

• Reduce existing brown tree snake

population on Guam;

• Prevent the spread of brown tree

snakes to other Pacific islands and

mainland areas;

• Eradicate or contain new

populations as soon as detected;

• Protect endangered species and

other wildlife from brown tree snake

predation;

• Assist organizations and

individuals on Guam to manage and

control brown tree snake infestations,

and especially to reduce disruptions of

electrical supplies and human-snake

encounters resulting in emotional

trauma and bites;

• Develop adequate information on

the brown tree snake’s biology, dispersal

dynamics, and control to support

Federal, State, Territorial, and

Commonwealth needs; and

• Develop more effective and

environmentally sound control

strategies and methods.

To meet these objectives, the Brown

Tree Snake Control Committee has

developed a draft plan reviewing the

biology of the brown tree snake, its

population development and status on

various Pacific islands, its current and

potential impacts on the environment

and the economy, and past and present

brown tree snake control activities. The

draft plan also outlines specific tasks

that need to be accomplished and

funding needed for operational and

research activities.

Dated: April 28, 1995.

Gary Edwards,

Co-Chair, Aquatic Nuisance Species Task

Force, Assistant Director—Fisheries.

[FR Doc. 95–11021 Filed 5–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M

National Park Service

Concession Contract Negotiations for

Continued Operation of Air

Transportation Services; Isle Royale

National Park, MI

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Public notice.

SUMMARY: Public notice is hereby given

that the National Park Service proposes

to award a concession permit

authorizing continued operation of air

transportation services to and from Isle

Royale National Park for the public at

Isle Royale National Park, Michigan, for

a period of approximately five (5) years

from date of execution through

December 31, 2000.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 3, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties should

contact the Superintendent, Isle Royale

National Park, 800 East Lakeshore Drive,

Houghton, Michigan 49931 to obtain a

copy of the prospectus describing the

requirements of the proposed permit.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

permit renewal has been determined to

be categorically excluded from the

procedural provisions of the National

Environmental Policy Act and no

environmental document will be

prepared. The existing concessioner has

performed its obligations to the

satisfaction of the Secretary under an

existing permit which expired by

limitation of time on December 31,

1994, and therefore pursuant to the

provisions of section 5 of the Act of

October 9, 1965 (79 Stat. 969; 16 U.S.C.

20), is entitled to be given preference in

the negotiation of a new proposed

permit providing that the existing

concessioner submits a responsive offer

(a timely offer which meets the terms

and conditions of the Prospectus). This

means that the permit will be awarded

to the party submitting the best offer,

provided that if the best offer was not

submitted by the existing concessioner,

then the existing concessioner will be

afforded the opportunity to match the

best offer. If the existing concessioner

agrees to match the best offer, then the

permit will be awarded to the existing

concessioner.

If the existing concessioner does not

submit a responsive offer, the right of

preference in renewal shall be

considered to have been waived, and

the permit will then be awarded to the

party that has submitted the best

responsive offer.

The Secretary will consider and

evaluate all proposals received as a

result of this notice. Any proposal,

including that of the existing

concessioner, must be received by the

Superintendent not later than the

sixtieth (60th) day following publication

of this notice to be considered and

evaluated.

Dated: April 4, 1995.

William W. Schenk,

Regional Director, Midwest Region.

[FR Doc. 95–11059 Filed 5–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–M

Grand Canyon National Park, AZ

Environmental Impact Statement

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: General Management Plan/

Environmental Impact Statement; Grand
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