Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 1996 / Notices 2839

comments during the morning session,

Saturday, February 17. Members of the

public may submit written statements to

the Commission at the address listed

above, or at the meeting. If you wish to

make a 5 minute oral presentation,

please call the Commission office at

(303) 236–6211 prior to February 9.

Members of the public making oral

presentations should submit a written

copy of their remarks at the meeting.

Seating and oral presentations at the

meeting will be limited and therefore on

a first come basis.

Dated: January 23, 1996.

David Cottingham,

Counselor to the Assistant Secretary for Water

and Science, Designated Federal Official.

[FR Doc. 96–1445 Filed 1–26–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–94–M

Bureau of Land Management

[NV–030–96–1990–02]

Availability for Talapoosa Mining Inc.’s

Talapoosa Mine Project Draft

Environmental Impact Statement and

Notice of Comment Period and Public

Meeting

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,

Department of the Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability for the

draft environmental impact statement

(EIS), for Talapoosa Mining Inc.’s

Talapoosa Mine Project, Lyon County,

Nevada; and notice of comment period

and public meetings.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(C)

of the National Environmental Policy

Act, 40 CFR 1500–1508, and 43 CFR

3809, notice is given that the Bureau of

Land Management (BLM) has prepared,

with the assistance of a third-party

consultant, a Draft EIS on the proposed

Talapoosa Mine Project, and has made

copies available for public and agency

review.

DATES: Written comments on the Draft

EIS must be submitted or postmarked to

the BLM no later than April 2, 1996.

Oral and/or written comments may also

be presented at a public open-house

meeting, to be held:

February 13, 1996

4:00–7:00 p.m.

McAtee Building, 2495 Ft. Churchill Rd.,

Silver Springs, NV.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the

Draft EIS should be addressed to:

Bureau of Land Management, Carson

City District Office, 1535 Hot Springs

Rd., Carson City, Nevada 89706, Attn.:

Ron Moore, Talapoosa Mine EIS Project

Manager. A limited number of copies of

the Draft EIS may be obtained at the

same address. In addition, the Draft EIS

and supporting documentation are

available for review at the following

locations: BLM, Carson City District

Office, Carson City, Nevada; BLM,

Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada;

University of Nevada, Library, Reno,

Nevada and the Silver Springs Library,

Silver Springs, Nevada.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron

Moore, Talapoosa Mine EIS Project

Manager, Bureau of Land Management,

1535 Hot Springs Rd., Carson City,

Nevada 89706, (702) 885–6155.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Talapoosa

Mining Inc. has submitted a Plan of

Operations for the construction,

operation, and reclamation of a gold/

silver heap leach mining operation at

the historic Talapoosa mine site, north

of Silver Springs, Nevada. The operation

would include a new open pit mine,

leaching facilities, haul and access

roads, and utility corridors. Operations

are expected to last from seven to ten

years. The operations would be

primarily on public lands administered

by the Bureau of Land Management,

Carson City District Office, Lahontan

Resource Area, with a portion on private

lands controlled by Talapoosa Mining

Inc. The project area would encompass

2,673 acres, with 2,340 acres of public

land administered by the BLM, and 333

acres of private land. Approximately

596 acres of surface disturbance would

result from the construction and

operation of the proposed mine.

This Draft EIS analyzes the

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed mine and ancillary

facilities, and the no action alternative.

In addition, the Draft EIS focuses on the

issues of water quality and quantity,

social and economic values, noise and

visual quality that were identified

through public scoping.

A copy of the Draft EIS has been sent

to all individuals, agencies, and groups

who have expressed interest in the

project or as mandated by regulation or

policy. A limited number of copies are

available upon request from the BLM at

the address listed above.

Public participation has occurred

during the EIS process. A Notice of

Intent was filed in the Federal Register

in March 1995, and an open scoping

period was held for 30 days. Two public

scoping meetings to solicit comments

and ideas were held in April 1995. All

comments presented to the BLM

throughout the EIS process have been

considered.

To assist the BLM in identifying and

considering issues and concerns on the

proposed action and alternatives,

comments on the Draft EIS should be as

specific as possible. It is also helpful if

comments refer to specific pages or

chapters in the document. Comments

may address the adequacy of the Draft

EIS and/or the merits of the alternatives

formulated and discussed in the

document. Reviewers may wish to refer

to the Council on Environmental

Quality Regulations for Implementing

the Procedural Provisions of the

National Environmental Policy Act at 40

CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

After the comment period ends on the

Draft EIS, comments will be analyzed

and considered by the BLM in preparing

the Final EIS.

Dated: January 23, 1996.

John O. Singlaub,

District Manager, Carson City District Office.

[FR Doc. 96–1514 Filed 1–26–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–HC–P

Fish and Wildlife Service

Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative

Management Act; Meeting

AGENCY: Department of the Interior, Fish

and Wildlife Service.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service and the National Marine

Fisheries Service (NMFS) will hold a

joint meeting to discuss coordination of

activities that support Atlantic States

Marine Fisheries Commission coastal

fisheries management plans under the

Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative

Management Act and the Atlantic

Striped Bass Conservation Act.

DATES: The meeting will be held on

February 14, 1996, at 10:00 a.m. to 3:00

p.m. and is open to the public.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at

NMFS Headquarters, Silver Spring

Metro Center, Building III, Room 3404,

1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring,

MD 20910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brian Lubinski, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room

840, Arlington, VA 22203, (703) 358–

1718.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

meeting is being held pursuant to Public

Law 103–206 and Public Law 102–103.

Minutes of the meetings will be

maintained by the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Room 840, 4401 North

Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22203

and the National Marine Fisheries

Service, F/CM, Metro Center, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD

20910, and will be available for public

inspection during regular business
2840 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 1996 / Notices

hours, Monday through Friday within

30 days following the meeting.

Dated: January 19, 1996.

Gary Edwards,

Assistant Director—Fisheries; Co-Chair,

Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative

Management Act Coordination Committee.

[FR Doc. 96–1126 Filed 1–26–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

Earl A. Humphreys, M.D.; Revocation

of Registration

On April 12, 1995, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA), issued an Order

to Show Cause to Earl A. Humphreys,

M.D., (Respondent) of Pittsburgh,

Pennsylvania, notifying him of an

opportunity to show cause as to why

DEA should not revoke his DEA

Certificate of Registration, AH1675252,

under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4), and deny any

pending application under 21 U.S.C.

823(f), as being inconsistent with the

public interest. Specifically, the Order

to Show Cause alleged that ‘‘from the

early 1980s to mid-1993, [the

Respondent] prescribed controlled

substances to at least four individuals

without a legitimate medical need and

with knowledge that these individuals

were not the ultimate recipients of the

controlled substances.’’

On May 1, 1995, the Respondent,

through counsel, filed a reply to the

show cause order (Reply), waiving his

hearing right and providing a factual

response to the allegations in the show

cause order. Accordingly, the Deputy

Administrator now enters his final order

in this matter pursuant to 21 C.F.R.

1301.54(e), 1301.57, without a hearing

and based on the investigative file and

the written Reply submitted by the

Respondent.

The Deputy Administrator finds that

the Respondent is licensed to practice

medicine and surgery in the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,

specializing in gastroenterology and

internal medicine. He is registered as a

practitioner with the DEA, AH1675252,

to handle Schedules II through V

controlled substances. In his Reply, the

Respondent wrote that he had been in

practice for thirty-five years, and ‘‘I have

not had a mark against my record.’’

The Respondent was the personal

physician and friend of Justice Rolf

Larsen of the Pennsylvania Supreme

Court. Justice Larsen was charged with

27 state felony counts for obtaining

controlled substances by fraud, deceit,

and subterfuge. At a pre-trial hearing,

the Respondent had testified that

beginning in 1981 and continuing until

1993, he had issued prescriptions for

Schedule IV controlled substances

intended for Justice Larsen’s use, but he

had issued the prescriptions in the

name of third-parties. Specifically,

during this time he wrote approximately

34 prescriptions for Valium, diazepam,

Ativan, and Serax in the names of two

of Justice Larsen’s secretaries and one

law clerk. The Respondent had never

met these individuals, and they were

not his patients. The three named

individuals testified at the pre-trial

hearing that in each instance they had

picked up the filled prescription at a

local pharmacy, had delivered the

medication to Justice Larsen, and in no

case had they taken the prescribed

medications themselves. The

Respondent was not paid for issuing

these prescriptions.

During this time, Justice Larsen was

being treated by either a psychologist or

a psychiatrist, but the Respondent was

his family physician. The Respondent

testified that he examined Justice Larsen

about every six months, but not

necessarily prior to issuing each of the

prescriptions. Rather, Justice Larsen

would telephone the Respondent and

tell him what substances he wanted and

in whose name to issue the prescription.

The Respondent would then comply

with his patient’s request. The

Respondent also testified that he was

aware of Justice Larsen’s diagnosed

condition, to include clinical depression

and anxiety, and that it was the

Respondent’s belief that every

medication he prescribed for Justice

Larsen was for a legitimate medical

purpose. The Respondent testified that

he had prescribed the substances in

legitimate medical dosage amounts and

at appropriate time intervals. He stated

that he prescribed these controlled

substances in this manner in order to

preserve his patient’s privacy, for ‘‘[t]he

public doesn’t have to know what

medications he’s taking. That’s my job

to provide privacy for him.’’ However,

the Respondent was not aware of any

prescriptions issued to Justice Larsen by

his treating psychiatrist or psychologist,

and he had not coordinated his

prescribing with any of his patient’s

other care providers.

In the Reply, the Respondent’s

attorney wrote that ‘‘[t]he facts

developed during [Justice Larsen’s] trial

showed that for a period of many years

a local newspaper * * * had carried

stories relating not just to Justice

Larsen’s judicial conduct, but to his

family and personal matters * * * So

that, it was not simply the normal need

for privacy that all psychiatric patients

have, but the enlarged need caused by

the political nature of these facts.

Testimony at trial showed that

psychiatric patients suffer a stigma in

society, and that public figures bear [an]

even greater burden.’’ The Respondent

also wrote that during the trial, Justice

Larsen’s psychiatrist and neurologist

had testifed that ‘‘they probably would

have done the same thing * * * [that]

it is common practice, especially in

psychiatric patients, to do this. There

have been dire consequences where this

privacy has been broken.’’ However, the

trial transcript from Justice Larsen’s trial

was not a part of the investigative

record, and the Respondent did not

attach a copy of the referenced sections

to his Reply.

On September 14, 1995, the

Pennsylvania Bureau of Professional

and Occupational Affairs (Bureau) filed

formal disciplinary charges and a show

cause order against the Respondent. The

Bureau’s charges focused upon the

Respondent’s prescribing practices to

Justice Larsen between March 1981 and

March 1993, noting that he had

prescribed controlled substances to four

named individuals who were not his

patients and had not received treatment

from him. Further, the Bureau alleged

that the Respondent had failed to

conduct physical examinations and reevaluations concurrent with the issuing

of prescriptions to Justice Larsen, and

that the records the Respondent

maintained pertaining to Justice Larsen

were incomplete and inaccurate. The

order also asserts that the Respondent’s

actions were ‘‘unprofessional’’ and

departed from or failed to conform to

‘‘an ethical or quality standard of the

profession.’’ The order also states that if

found, these violations of Pennsylvania

law and regulations would result in

civil penalties to include fines and the

revocation of his medical license.

However, the results of this proposed

State action are not reflected in the

investigative file or in the Respondent’s

Reply.

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and

824(a)(4), the Deputy Administrator may

revoke the Respondent’s DEA Certificate

of Registration and deny any pending

applications, if he determines that the

continued registration would be

inconsistent with the public interest.

Section 823(f) requires that the

following factors be 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.