27368 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 106 / Friday, May 31, 1996 / Notices

USA); Kraft Foods, Inc. (On behalf of

Ware Chemical); the Mennen Company,

Inc.; Merck & Co., Inc.; Mine Safety

Appliances Company; Minnesota

Mining & Manufacturing Company; NL

Industries, Inc.; National Starch and

Chemical Company; Occidental

Chemical Corporation (as successor to

Diamond Shamrock Chemicals Inc.);

The Perkin-Elmer Corporation; Pfizer

Inc; Pitney Bowes, Inc.; Reichold

Chemicals, Inc.; Revlon Consumer

Products Corporation; Schenectady

International, Inc.; E.R. Squibb & Sons,

Inc.; Textron, Inc. (Patterson-Sargent);

Union Carbide Corporation; The Upjohn

Company; R.T. Vanderbilt Company,

Inc.; and Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., are

all generators of wastes containing

hazardous substances which were

disposed of at the Picillo Farm

Superfund Site in Coventry, Rhode

Island.

Under the terms of the proposed

decree, defendants will perform and/or

pay for certain remedial design/

remedial action work involving soil

source control and management of

groundwater mitigation. The work to be

undertaken and/or paid for by

defendants is valued by the United

States Environmental Protection Agency

at $15.9 million. The proposed decree

includes a covenant not to sue by the

United States under Sections 106 and

107 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 et

seq., and under Section 7003 of the

Resources Conservation and Recovery

Act (‘‘RCRA’’), 42 U.S.C. 6973.

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 for the Environment and

Natural Resources Division, Department

of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, and

should refer to United States v. Allied

Signal, Inc., et al., D.J. reference #90–

11–2–985. Commenters may request an

opportunity for a public meeting in the

affected area, in accordance with

Section 7003(d) of RCRA.

The proposed consent decree may be

examined at the Office of the United

States Attorney for the District of Rhode

Island, Westminster Square Building, 10

Dorrance Street, 10th Floor, Providence,

Rhode Island; the Region I Office of the

Environmental Protection Agency, 290

Canal Street, Boston, Massachusetts;

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. In

requesting a copy, please enclose a

check in the amount of $2.75 (25 cents

per page reproduction costs), payable to

the Consent Decree Library.

Joel M. Gross,

Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section,

Environment and Natural Resources Division.

[FR Doc. 96–13623 Filed 5–30–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

Drug Enforcement Administration

Maxicare Pharmacy, Revocation of

Registration

On November 1, 1995, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA), issued an Order

to Show Cause to Maxicare Pharmacy,

(Respondent) of Houston, Texas,

notifying it of an opportunity to show

cause as to why DA should not revoke

its DEA Certificate of Registration,

BM3971644, under U.S.C. 824(a) (2) and

(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, among other things, that (1) on

September 26, 1994, the Respondent’s

pharmacist and owner (Owner)

provided falsified controlled substance

records to DEA, allegedly documenting

receipt of controlled substances from a

local distributor, when subsequently it

was determined that an employee of the

distributor was unlawfully supplying

controlled substances to the

Respondent; (2) on January 12, 1995, the

Owner and her husband were indicated

on numerous counts of violating the

Texas Health and Safety code related to

the handling of controlled substances;

(3) on July 25, 1995, the Owner was

found guilty on nine counts of engaging

in organized criminal activity related to

theft of controlled substances by a

public servant, and she was found guilty

of fraud, theft and commercial

violations of the controlled substances

act, for which she was sentenced to ten

years imprisonment and was ordered to

pay a $3,000.00 fine; and (4) the

Owner’s husband was found guilty of

two counts of engaging in organized

criminal activity related to theft of

controlled substances, and he was

sentenced to seven years imprisonment.

The Order was mailed in the U.S.

Mail, and a signed receipt dated

November 6, 1995, was returned to

DEA. However, neither the Respondent

nor anyone purporting to represent it

has replied to the Order to Show Cause.

More than thirty days have passed since

the Order was served upon the

Respondent. Therefore, pursuant to 21

CFR 1301.54(d), the Deputy

Administrator finds that the Respondent

has waived its opportunity for a hearing

on the issues raised by the Order to

Show Cause, and, after considering the

investigative file, enters his final order

in this matter without a hearing

pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.54(e) and

1301.57.

The Deputy Administrator finds that

the Respondent was issued DEA

Certificate of Registration BM3971644

on April 22, 1994, as a retail pharmacy,

owned by the Owner and her husband

(Co-owner). A DEA investigation

revealed that, as a result of a DEA audit,

the Respondent had significant overages

of clonazepam and alprazolam, both

Schedule IV controlled substances

pursuant to 21 C.F.R. 1308.14.

Specifically, on September 20, 1994,

pursuant to a federal administrative

inspection warrant executed at the

Respondent pharmacy, a DEA Diversion

Investigator (Investigator) conducted an

audit of four different controlled

substances, to include clonazepam and

alprazolam. The Investigator and the

Owner, who was also the pharmacist-incharge, counted the existing inventory

of these substances, to include trade

names and generic equivalents, and

compared the number on hand with

documents which noted the amounts

purchased, dispensed, or loaned by the

Respondent to other pharmacies. As a

result of this audit, it was determined

that on September 20, 1994, there were

1,000 more clonazepam tablets than

could be accounted for by the

Respondent’s records, to include

purchase invoices and filled

prescriptions. Also, on that date, there

were 1,400 more alprazolam tablets than

could be accounted for by the

Respondent’s records, and a total

variance for all four substances of 3,438

tablets.

During the inspection, the Investigator

asked the Owner to provide the

Respondent pharmacy’s records for

alprazolam and clonazepam. The Owner

told the Investigator that some of her

acquisition invoices were at home, but

she agreed to deliver these documents to

the Investigator. On September 26, 1994,

the Owner delivered to the Investigator

several invoices from Abbey

Pharmaceutical which were dated

between July 1, 1994, and September 2,

1994. The Owner also told the

Investigator that a named employee

(Employee) of Abbey Pharmaceutical

had agreed to loan the Respondent

pharmacy these controlled substances

for up to one year, and at the end of that

year, the Owner was either to replace

the substances or to pay for them.

However, when the Investigator
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 106 / Friday, May 31, 1996 / Notices 27369

interviewed the Employee, he stated

that he did not know the Owner or the

Respondent pharmacy. The Investigator

also interviewed other officials of Abbey

Pharmaceuticals, who stated that the

Respondent pharmacy was not a

customer, and that Abbey

Pharmaceutical had not sold, loaned, or

shipped controlled substances to the

Respondent.

Further investigation revealed that the

Owner was involved in a scheme with

an employee of Abbey Pharmaceutical,

whereby the Owner received

clonazepam and alprazolam and blank

invoices for her to complete to create a

record justifying receipt of these

controlled substances. Further, the Coowner was also involved in a scheme

resulting in the transfer of medications

from a local hospital to his residence.

On July 25, 1995, the Owner was found

guilty of the felony offenses of engaging

in organized criminal activity related to

theft of controlled substances by a

public servant, fraud, theft, and

commercial violations of the controlled

substances act, by the 228th District

Court of Harris County, Texas. On

September 21, 1995, the Owner was

sentenced to serve ten years

confinement and to pay a $3,000.00

fine. The Co-owner was found guilty of

engaging in organized criminal activity

related to the theft of controlled

substances, and he was sentenced to

serve seven years in prison.

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

renewal of that registration, if he

determines that the continued

registration would be inconsistent with

the public interest. Further, 21 U.S.C.

824(a)(2) provides in relevant part that

a registration may be revoked upon a

finding that the registrant has been

convicted, under State law, of a felony

related to any controlled substance.

As to the Respondent’s ‘‘conviction,’’

the DEA has previously determined that

the registration of a corporate registrant

may be revoked upon a finding that a

natural person who is an owner, officer,

or key employee, or has some

responsibility for the operation of the

registrant’s controlled substances

business, has been convicted of a felony

offense relating to controlled

substances. See Robert Hozdish, d/b/a/

A.J. Meyer Pharmacy, 53 FR 13338

(1998) (revoking a pharmacy’s

registration on the basis of the

pharmacist’s and owner’s controlled

substance-related felony conviction); see

also, Taneytown Pharmacy, 51 FR 45068

(1986) and cases cited therein. Here, the

record clearly establishes that the

Owner, who also served as the

pharmacist-in-charge, and the Co-owner

of the Respondent were convicted in a

Texas court of felony offenses involving

controlled substances. Therefore, the

Deputy Administrator concludes that a

lawful basis exists for the revocation of

the Respondent’s DEA registration

under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(2).

As to the public interest in this

matter, Section 823(f) provides 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.

(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 or 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 denied. See Henry J.

Schwarz, Jr., M.D., 54 FR 16422 (1989).

In this case, factors four and five are

relevant in determining whether the

Respondent’s continued registration

would be inconsistent with the public

interest.

As to factor four, the Respondent’s

‘‘[c]ompliance with applicable State,

Federal, or local laws relating to

controlled substances,’’ the record

shows that record-keeping violations

were found during a DEA audit of the

Respondent. As for recordkeeping

requirements, pursuant to 21 U.S.C.

827(a)(3), ‘‘every registrant under this

subchapter * * * dispensing a

controlled substance or substances shall

maintain, on a current basis, a complete

and accurate record of each substance

* * * received, sold, delivered, or

otherwise disposed of by him,’’ and 21

U.S.C. 827(b) provides that, ‘‘Every

inventory or other record required

under this section (1) shall be in

accordance with, and contain such

relevant information as may be required

by, regulations of the Attorney General.’’

Applicable federal recordkeeping

regulations also exist, and 21 C.F.R.

1304.21 requires a registrant to

‘‘maintain on a current basis a complete

and accurate record of each such

substance * * * received, sold,

delivered, * * * or otherwise disposed

of by him.’’ Further, 21 C.F.R. 1304.24

requires dispensers to maintain records

for each controlled substance reflecting,

among other things, the number of

commercial containers received, and

‘‘including the date of and number of

containers in each receipt and the name,

address, and registration number of the

person from whom the containers were

received,’’ the number of units

dispensed, with detailed information

concerning the person to whom it was

dispensed, and information concerning

any other method of disposal of the

substance.

Here, as a result of a DEA audit, the

Respondent pharmacy’s controlled

substance records revealed significant

overages of clonazepam and alprazolam,

both Schedule IV controlled substances.

Also, the Owner failed to provide

accurate records or other documentary

evidence to reconcile the amounts of

controlled substances on hand with the

legitimate acquisition and disposition of

the medications as required by DEA

regulations. Such unexplained overages

were indicative of the Owner’s violation

of the regulated distribution system,

which was established to protect the

public interest by preventing diversion

of such substances. DEA has previously

found that a failure to maintain

adequate records in a threat to the

public interest and is a basis for

revoking the Respondent’s registration.

See, generally, Taneytown Pharmacy,

supra.

As to factor five, ‘‘[s]uch other

conduct which may threaten the public

health or safety,’’ the Deputy

Administrator finds it significant that,

when the Owner was questioned

concerning the audit results, she

ultimately provided false receiving

documents with the intention of

deceiving the Investigator into believing

that she had legitimately received the

controlled substances from Abbey

Pharmaceuticals. The Owner’s

willingness to falsify documents

pertaining to controlled substances and

to deceive a DEA investigator is further

evidence of the Owner’s lack of

trustworthiness in handling controlled

substances. As the owner and primary

pharmacist for the Respondent, her

conduct established such a threat to the

public interest as to justify the

revocation of the Respondent’s DEA

Certificate of Registration. Therefore, the

Deputy Administrator finds that the

public interest is best served by

revoking the Respondent’s registration

and by denying any pending renewal

application.

Accordingly, the Deputy

Administrator of the Drug Enforcement

Administration, pursuant to the
27370 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 106 / Friday, May 31, 1996 / Notices

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 DEA

Certificate of Registration BM3971644,

previously issued to Maxicare

Pharmacy, be, and it hereby is, revoked.

It is further ordered that any pending

applications for renewal of said

registration be, and hereby are, denied.

This order is effective July 1, 1996.

Dated: May 28, 1996.

Stephen H. Greene,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–13685 Filed 5–30–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment Standards Administration

Wage and Hour Division; Minimum

Wages for Federal and Federally

Assisted Construction; General Wage

Determination Decisions

General wage determination decisions

of the Secretary of Labor are issued in

accordance with applicable law and are

based on the information obtained by

the Department of Labor from its study

of local wage conditions and data made

available from other sources. They

specify the basic hourly wage rates and

fringe benefits which are determined to

be prevailing for the described classes of

laborers and mechanics employed on

construction projects of a similar

character and in the localities specified

therein.

The determinations in these decisions

of prevailing rates and fringe benefits

have been made in accordance with 29

CFR Part 1, by authority of the Secretary

of Labor pursuant to the provisions of

the Davis-Bacon Act of March 3, 1931,

as amended (46 Stat. 1494, as amended,

40 U.S.C. 276a) and of other Federal

statutes referred to in 29 CFR Part 1,

Appendix, as well as such additional

statutes as may form time to time be

enacted containing provisions for the

payment of wages determined to be

prevailing by the Secretary of Labor in

accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act.

The prevailing rates and fringe benefits

determined in these decisions shall, in

accordance with the provisions of the

foregoing statutes, constitute the

minimum wages payable on Federal and

federally assisted construction projects

to laborers and mechanics of the

specified classes engaged on contract

work of the character and in the

localities described therein.

Good cause is hereby found for not

utilizing notice and public comment

procedure thereon prior to the issuance

of these determinations as prescribed in

5 U.S.C. 553 and not providing for delay

in the effective date as prescribed in that

section, because the necessity to issue

current construction industry wage

determinations frequently and in large

volume causes procedures to be

impractical and contrary to the public

interest.

General wage determination

decisions, and modifications and

supersedeas decisions thereto, contain

no expiration dates and are effective

from their date of notice in the Federal

Register, or on the date written notice

is received by the agency, whichever is

earlier. These decisions are to be used

in accordance with the provisions of 29

CFR Parts 1 and 5. Accordingly, the

applicable decision, together with any

modifications issued, must be made a

part of every contract for performance of

the described work within the

geographic area indicated as required by

an applicable Federal prevailing wage

law and 29 CFR Part 5. The wage rates

and fringe benefits, notice of which is

published herein, and which are

contained in the Government Printing

Office (GPO) document entitled

‘‘General Wage Determinations Issued

The Davis-Bacon And Related Acts,’’

shall be the minimum paid by

contractors and subcontractors to

laborers and mechanics.

Any person, organization, or

governmental agency having an interest

in the rates determined as prevailing is

encouraged to submit wage rate and

fringe benefit information for

consideration by the Department.

Further information and selfexplanatory forms for the purpose of

submitting this data may be obtained by

writing to the U.S. Department of Labor,

Employment Standards Administration,

Wage and Hour Division, Division of

Wage Determination, 200 Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Room S–3014,

Washington, D.C. 20210.

New General Wage Determination

Decisions

The number of the decisions added to

the Government Printing Office

document entitled ‘‘General Wage

Determination Issued Under the DavisBacon and related Acts’’ are listed by

Volume and State:

Volume V

Oklahoma

OK960046 (May 31, 1996)

Modifications to General Wage

Determination Decisions

The number of decisions listed in the

Government Printing Office document

entitled ‘‘General Wage Determinations

Issued Under the Davis-Bacon and

Related Acts’’ being modified are listed

by Volume and State. Dates of

publication in the Federal Register are

in parentheses following the decisions

being modified.

Volume I

Rhode Island

RI960001 (March 15, 1996)

Volume II

Pennsylvania

PA960008 (March 15, 1996)

PA960009 (March 15, 1996)

PA960010 (March 15, 1996)

PA960014 (March 15, 1996)

PA960021 (March 15, 1996)

PA960024 (March 15, 1996)

PA960029 (March 15, 1996)

PA960040 (March 15, 1996)

PA960060 (March 15, 1996)

Volume III

Florida

FL960017 (March 15, 1996)

Tennessee

TN960005 (March 15, 1996)

TN960058 (March 15, 1996)

Volume IV

Indiana

IN960017 (March 15, 1996)

Volume V

Oklahoma

OK960014 (March 15, 1996)

Texas

TX960015 (March 15, 1996)

Volume VI

California

CA960006 (March 15, 1996)

CA960039 (March 15, 1996)

CA960047 (March 15, 1996)

CA960088 (April 12, 1996)

Colorado

CO960001 (March 15, 1996)

CO960006 (March 15, 1996)

CO960007 (March 15, 1996)

CO960008 (March 15, 1996)

CO960009 (March 15, 1996)

CO960010 (March 15, 1996)

General wage Determination

Publication

General Wage determinations issued

under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts,

including those noted above, may be

found in the Government Printing Office

(GPO) document entitled ‘‘General Wage

Determinations Issued Under The DavisBacon and Related Acts’’. This

publication is available at each of the 50

Regional Government Depository

Libraries and many of the 1,400

Government Depository Libraries across

the county.

The general wage determinations

issued under the Davis-Bacon and

related Acts are available electronically

by subscription to the FedWorld

Bulletin Board System of the National

Technical Information Service (NTIS) of