Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Notices 61651 

States Program created by Public Law 

110–246, which amended the Act. 

Public Disclosure 

Before including your address, phone 

number, email address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, please be advised that your 

entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at anytime. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Dated: September 19, 2014. 

Brent Rhees, 

Acting Regional Director, Upper Colorado 

Region. 

[FR Doc. 2014–23595 Filed 10–10–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4332–90–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Proposed 

Consent Decree Under the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act 

On October 7, 2014, the Department 

of Justice lodged a proposed consent 

decree with the United States District 

Court for the District of Massachusetts 

in United States v. Boston and Maine 

Corporation and Massachusetts Bay 

Transportation Authority, Civil Action 

No. 1:14–cv–13804. 

The proposed consent decree would 

resolve the claims of the United States 

for injunctive relief and recovery of 

response costs against the defendants 

under section 106 and 107(a) of the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (‘‘CERCLA’’) relating to Operable 

Unit 4 of the Iron Horse Park Superfund 

Site in North Billerica, Massachusetts. 

The consent decree requires the 

defendants to pay $1,560,570 to the 

United States. The consent decree also 

requires the defendants to perform the 

remedial action described in the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

Record of Decision for Operable Unit 4, 

dated July 25, 2011, and further 

described in EPA’s Explanation of 

Significant Differences, dated July 22, 

2014. In return, the United States agrees 

to resolve the defendants’ liability under 

Sections 106 and 107(a) of CERCLA for 

defined matters related to Operable 

Unit 4. 

The publication of this notice opens 

a period for public comment on the 

consent decree. Comments should be 

addressed to the Assistant Attorney 

General, Environment and Natural 

Resources Division, and should refer to 

United States v. Boston and Maine 

Corporation and Massachusetts Bay 

Transportation Authority, D.J. Ref. No. 

90–11–3–90/4. All comments must be 

submitted no later than thirty (30) days 

after the publication date of this notice. 

Comments may be submitted either by 

email or by mail: 

To submit 

comments: Send them to: 

By e-mail ..... pubcomment-ees.enrd@

usdoj.gov. 

By mail ........ Assistant Attorney General, 

U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 

7611, Washington, DC 

20044–7611. 

During the public comment period, 

the consent decree may be examined 

and downloaded at this Justice 

Department Web site: http://www.usdoj.

gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html. We 

will provide a paper copy of the consent 

decree upon written request and 

payment of reproduction costs. Please 

mail your request and payment to: 

Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ— 

ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 

20044–7611. 

Please enclose a check or money order 

for $98.25 (25 cents per page 

reproduction cost) payable to the United 

States Treasury. For a copy without the 

exhibits, the cost is $13.75. 

Maureen Katz, 

Assistant Section Chief, Environmental 

Enforcement Section, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24306 Filed 10–10–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 14–3] 

Fiaz Afzal, M.D.; Decision And Order 

On November 4, 2013, the Deputy 

Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration, issued an Order to 

Show Cause to Fiaz Afzal, M.D. 

(Respondent), of Kenner, Louisiana. ALJ 

Ex. 1. The Show Cause Order proposed 

the revocation of Respondent’s DEA 

Certificate of Registration BA5142308, 

which authorizes him to dispense 

controlled substances as a practitioner, 

as well as the denial of any pending 

application to renew or modify the 

registration, on the ground that his 

‘‘registration is inconsistent with the 

public interest.’’ Id. at 1 (citing 21 

U.S.C. 823(f) & 824(a)(4)). 

As the basis for the proceeding, the 

Show Cause Order specifically alleged 

that ‘‘[f]rom in or about 2006 through in 

or about March of 2012, [Respondent] 

issued prescriptions for controlled 

substances to fifteen patients outside the 

usual course of professional practice 

and for other than a legitimate medical 

purpose in violation of 21 CFR 

1306.04(a).’’ Id. The Order also alleged 

that the prescriptions Respondent 

‘‘issued to these patients also violated 

Louisiana . . . law pertaining to 

controlled substances.’’ Id. at 1–2 (citing 

La. Rev. Sta. § 37:1285A(6) & (14); La. 

Rev. Stat. § 46:6921). 

The Show Cause Order further alleged 

that a medical expert had reviewed the 

medical records of the fifteen patients 

and found that Respondent ‘‘did not 

take a sufficient, or, in some cases, any 

objective medical history about the 

patient, that there was often a lack of 

diagnosis to support the continu[ed] 

prescribing of controlled substances, 

and that there was often no individual 

treatment plan.’’ Id. at 2. The Order also 

alleged that the expert had found that 

Respondent ‘‘failed to commence 

treatment with alternative treatments 

. . . rather than commenc[e] 

immediately with controlled substance 

prescriptions.’’ Id. 

On November 14, 2013, Respondent 

requested a hearing on the allegations. 

ALJ Ex. 2. The matter was placed on the 

docket of the Office of Administrative 

Law Judges, and assigned to ALJ 

Christopher McNeil, who conducted an 

evidentiary hearing on February 25, 

2014 in New Orleans, Louisiana. 

At the hearing, the Government 

submitted various exhibits including 

patient files for the record; it also 

presented the testimony of an expert. 

Respondent submitted no exhibits and 

presented no testimony. Both parties 

submitted post-hearing briefs. 

Thereafter, the ALJ issued his 

Recommended Decision (R.D.). Therein, 

the ALJ found, inter alia, that the 

Government had proved that 

Respondent had issued controlledsubstance prescriptions to fifteen 

patients ‘‘in a manner that was not in 

the ordinary course of professional 

medical practice and was not based 

upon a legitimate medical justification.’’ 

R.D. at 66–67. Based on this finding, the 

ALJ further concluded that the 

Government had demonstrated ‘‘that 

Respondent’s continued . . . 

registration would be inconsistent with 

the public interest.’’ Id. at 67. The ALJ 

further found that Respondent ‘‘ha[d] 

not provided substantial evidence that 

he has acknowledged any 

noncompliance with controlled 

substance laws, nor that he has 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES