Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 54076-54077 [E9-25216]

Download as PDF 54076 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Notices jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES that a firm was injured by such a breach of the APO. Case 7: The Commission found that an attorney breached an APO by failing to redact from the public version of his firm’s final comments the name of a subscription service and information obtained from the subscription service under the Commission’s APO. The Commission has consistently treated this type of information as BPI and the information had clearly been marked as BPI. A paralegal and a legal secretary who were involved in the matter were found not liable for the breach because they acted under the direction of the attorney. The Commission viewed as mitigating factors that the attorney had not been found liable for a breach within the previous two years, the time period the Commission usually considers for the purpose of sanctions, no non-signatory read the BPI, and prompt action was taken to remedy the breach once the attorney was notified of the breach. The Commission also considered two aggravating circumstances. First, the Commission staff, not the attorney, discovered the breach. Second, the breach was not inadvertent, but rather, the attorney substituted his own judgment for the Commission’s in treating the BPI in question as public information despite clear markings to the contrary. The Commission issued a private letter of reprimand to the breaching attorney. Rules Violation Investigations Case 1: The Commission found that two attorneys had violated Commission rule 207.3(b), 19 CFR 207.3(b), in a fiveyear review, when they served a brief, which was public because no BPI was used, by first class mail instead of by hand or overnight mail as required by the rules. The certificate of service, which stated that the brief would be sent by first class mail, was signed by the lead attorney after he had been reassured by the second attorney that, in the past, the firm had served public documents in Commission investigations by first class mail. The use of first class service resulted in a one day delay in receipt of the document. The Commission decided to issue a warning letter to the lead attorney who had signed the certificate of service, in view of the fact that he had no violations in the past two years, the violation was unintentional, and the firm took measures to make sure that this kind of violation would not occur again. The Commission issued to the second attorney a private letter of reprimand VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:33 Oct 20, 2009 Jkt 220001 with two restrictions on his practice before the Commission. For a period of 18 months he was not permitted to serve as the final decisionmaker in any matter relating to proceedings before the Commission and all Commission submissions prepared by the attorney must be reviewed by another attorney before filing with the Commission. In determining to sanction the attorney in this manner, the Commission considered the mitigating circumstances that the breach was unintentional and the fact that other parties were not unduly prejudiced as a result of the improper service. The Commission also considered the aggravating circumstance that he had received two previous sanctions, the most recent of which included a restriction on his practice, for breaches of the APO in other Commission investigations within two years of the violation of the service rule. The Commission did take into account that the first of the underlying APO breaches had occurred more than four years prior to the issuance of the sanction in this rules violation proceeding. There was one rules violation investigation in which no violation was found: Case 1: The Commission determined that sanctions were unwarranted but cautioned three attorneys to ensure that their guidance to employees and clients in the future respects the Commission’s need for accurate questionnaire responses to maintain the integrity of Commission investigations. A rules violation investigation had been conducted pursuant to Commission rule 201.15(a), 19 CFR 201.15(a), when comments on their client’s completed questionnaire made it appear that the three attorneys had advised their clients to answer a question in a potentially misleading manner. In response to the letter of inquiry, the attorneys explained that the comments were inadvertently left on the questionnaire and were never transmitted to the client. They were, instead, intended for staff at the law firm to encourage them to seek more accurate information from the client. The firm’s staff to whom the comments were sent recognized them as encouragement to obtain additional accurate information from the client and, in response to the comments, initiated follow-up contacts with the client to obtain additional, accurate information. This was confirmed by e-mail communications between the attorneys and the staff demonstrating a recognition of the need for accurate reporting. Issued: October 15, 2009. PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 By order of the Commission. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E9–25243 Filed 10–20–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Consistent with Section 122 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 9622(d), and 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on October 9, 2009, the United States lodged a Consent Decree with the City of South Lake Tahoe, California (‘‘the City’’) in United States of America v. El Dorado County, California, et al., Civil No. S– 01–1520 MCE GGH (E.D. Cal.), with respect to the Meyers Landfill Site, located in Meyers, El Dorado County, California (the ‘‘Site’’). On August 3, 2001, Plaintiff United States of America (‘‘United States’’), on behalf of the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (‘‘Forest Service’’), filed a complaint in this matter pursuant to Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 9607, against Defendants, El Dorado County, California (the ‘‘County’’) and the City. The complaint filed by the United States seeks recovery of environmental response costs incurred by the Forest Service related to the release or threatened release and/or disposal of hazardous substances at or from the Meyers Landfill Site, a former municipal waste disposal facility located on National Forest Service System lands administered by the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit of the Forest Service, with accrued interest, and a declaration of the County’s and the City’s liability for future response costs incurred by the United States related to the Site. The City filed counterclaims against the United States pursuant to CERCLA. The proposed Consent Decree resolves the United States’ CERCLA claims against the City and the City’s CERCLA claims against the United States. Under the proposed Consent Decree the City will pay $1.6 million, a portion of which will be deposited into a Forest Service Special account to fund future response actions at the Site and a portion of which will go to the Forest Service to fund response actions related E:\FR\FM\21OCN1.SGM 21OCN1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Notices to groundwater at the Site, including a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study and the selection of a remedy for contaminated groundwater at the Site. In exchange for the City’s payment, the City will receive from the United States a covenant not to sue or to take administrative action pursuant to Sections 106 or 107 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606 and 9607, as amended, for the performance of response actions at the Site and the United States’ past and future response costs at the Site. In addition, the City will dismiss its CERCLA claims against the Forest Service. The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Acting Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either e-mailed to pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov or mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044–7611, and should refer to United States of America v. El Dorado County, California, et al., Civil No. S–01–1520 MCE GGH (E.D. Cal.) (DOJ Ref. No. 90– 11–3–06554)(Consent Decree with City). The Consent Decree with the City may be examined at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of General Counsel, 33 New Montgomery Street, 17th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94150 (contact Rose Miksovsky, (415) 744–3158). During the public comment period, the Consent Decree with the District may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site, https:// www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the Consent Decree with the City may also be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044–7611 or by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia Fleetwood (tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov), fax no. (202) 514–0097, phone confirmation number (202) 514–1547. In requesting a copy from the Consent Decree Library, please refer to United States of America v. El Dorado County, California, et al., Civil No. S–01–1520 MCE GGH (E.D. Cal.) (DOJ Ref. No. 90–11–3–06554) (Consent Decree with City), and enclose a check in the amount of $35.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the U.S. Treasury or, if by e-mail or fax, forward a check in that VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:33 Oct 20, 2009 Jkt 220001 amount to the Consent Decree Library at the stated address. Maureen Katz, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division. [FR Doc. E9–25216 Filed 10–20–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–15–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA–317F] Controlled Substances: Final Revised Aggregate Production Quotas for 2009 AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Justice. ACTION: Notice of final aggregate production quotas for 2009. SUMMARY: This notice establishes final 2009 aggregate production quotas for controlled substances in schedules I and II of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The DEA has taken into consideration comments received in response to a notice of the proposed revised aggregate production quotas for 2009 published July 23, 2009 (74 FR 36511). DATES: Effective Date: October 21, 2009. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine A. Sannerud, Ph.D, Chief, Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section, Drug Enforcement Administration, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152, Telephone: (202) 307–7183. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 306 of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 826) requires that the Attorney General establish aggregate production quotas for each basic class of controlled substance listed in schedules I and II. This responsibility has been delegated to the Administrator of the DEA by 28 CFR 0.100. The Administrator, in turn, has redelegated this function to the Deputy Administrator, pursuant 28 CFR 0.104. The 2009 aggregate production quotas represent those quantities of controlled substances in schedules I and II that may be produced in the United States in 2009 to provide adequate supplies of each substance for: The estimated medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States; lawful export requirements; and the establishment and maintenance of reserve stocks (21 U.S.C. 826(a) and 21 CFR 1303.11). These quotas do not include imports of controlled substances. On July 23, 2009, a notice of the proposed revised 2009 aggregate production quotas for certain controlled PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 54077 substances in schedules I and II was published in the Federal Register (74 FR 36511). All interested persons were invited to comment on or object to these proposed aggregate production quotas on or before August 24, 2009. Seven companies commented on a total of 18 schedules I and II controlled substances within the published comment period. Seven companies proposed that the aggregate production quotas for amphetamine (for sale), codeine (for conversion), dihydromorphine, fentanyl, hydrocodone (for sale), hydromorphone, lisdexamfetamine, methadone, methadone intermediate, methamphetamine (for sale), methylphenidate, nabilone, opium (tincture), oxycodone (for sale), oxycodone (for conversion), oxymorphone (for sale), phenylacetone, and thebaine were insufficient to provide for the estimated medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States, for export requirements and for the establishment and maintenance of reserve stocks. DEA has taken into consideration the above comments along with the relevant 2008 year-end inventories, initial 2009 manufacturing quotas, 2009 export requirements, actual and projected 2009 sales, research, product development requirements, and additional applications received. Based on this information, the DEA has adjusted the final 2009 aggregate production quotas for amphetamine (for conversion), dihydromorphine, hydrocodone (for sale), hydromorphone, lisdexamfetamine, morphine (for sale), opium (tincture), oxycodone (for sale), oxycodone (for conversion), oxymorphone (for sale), and phenylacetone to meet the legitimate needs of the United States. Regarding amphetamine (for sale), codeine (for conversion), fentanyl, methadone, methadone intermediate, methamphetamine (for sale), methylphenidate, nabilone, and thebaine, the DEA has determined that the proposed revised 2009 aggregate production quotas are sufficient to meet the current 2009 estimated medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States and to provide for adequate inventories. Therefore, under the authority vested in the Attorney General by Section 306 of the CSA (21 U.S.C. § 826), and delegated to the Administrator of the DEA by 28 CFR 0.100, and redelegated to the Deputy Administrator, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.104, the Deputy Administrator hereby orders that the 2009 final aggregate production quotas for the following controlled substances, E:\FR\FM\21OCN1.SGM 21OCN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54076-54077]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-25216]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

    Consistent with Section 122 of the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended 
(``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. 9622(d), and 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby 
given that on October 9, 2009, the United States lodged a Consent 
Decree with the City of South Lake Tahoe, California (``the City'') in 
United States of America v. El Dorado County, California, et al., Civil 
No. S-01-1520 MCE GGH (E.D. Cal.), with respect to the Meyers Landfill 
Site, located in Meyers, El Dorado County, California (the ``Site'').
    On August 3, 2001, Plaintiff United States of America (``United 
States''), on behalf of the United States Department of Agriculture, 
Forest Service (``Forest Service''), filed a complaint in this matter 
pursuant to Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act (``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. 9607, against 
Defendants, El Dorado County, California (the ``County'') and the City. 
The complaint filed by the United States seeks recovery of 
environmental response costs incurred by the Forest Service related to 
the release or threatened release and/or disposal of hazardous 
substances at or from the Meyers Landfill Site, a former municipal 
waste disposal facility located on National Forest Service System lands 
administered by the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit of the Forest 
Service, with accrued interest, and a declaration of the County's and 
the City's liability for future response costs incurred by the United 
States related to the Site. The City filed counterclaims against the 
United States pursuant to CERCLA. The proposed Consent Decree resolves 
the United States' CERCLA claims against the City and the City's CERCLA 
claims against the United States.
    Under the proposed Consent Decree the City will pay $1.6 million, a 
portion of which will be deposited into a Forest Service Special 
account to fund future response actions at the Site and a portion of 
which will go to the Forest Service to fund response actions related

[[Page 54077]]

to groundwater at the Site, including a Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study and the selection of a remedy for contaminated 
groundwater at the Site. In exchange for the City's payment, the City 
will receive from the United States a covenant not to sue or to take 
administrative action pursuant to Sections 106 or 107 of CERCLA, 42 
U.S.C. 9606 and 9607, as amended, for the performance of response 
actions at the Site and the United States' past and future response 
costs at the Site. In addition, the City will dismiss its CERCLA claims 
against the Forest Service. The Department of Justice will receive for 
a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments 
relating to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the 
Acting Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources 
Division, and either e-mailed to pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov or 
mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 
20044-7611, and should refer to United States of America v. El Dorado 
County, California, et al., Civil No. S-01-1520 MCE GGH (E.D. Cal.) 
(DOJ Ref. No. 90-11-3-06554)(Consent Decree with City).
    The Consent Decree with the City may be examined at U.S. Department 
of Agriculture, Office of General Counsel, 33 New Montgomery Street, 
17th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94150 (contact Rose Miksovsky, (415) 744-
3158). During the public comment period, the Consent Decree with the 
District may also be examined on the following Department of Justice 
Web site, https://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of 
the Consent Decree with the City may also be obtained by mail from the 
Consent Decree Library, U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7611, 
Washington, DC 20044-7611 or by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia 
Fleetwood (tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov), fax no. (202) 514-0097, phone 
confirmation number (202) 514-1547. In requesting a copy from the 
Consent Decree Library, please refer to United States of America v. El 
Dorado County, California, et al., Civil No. S-01-1520 MCE GGH (E.D. 
Cal.) (DOJ Ref. No. 90-11-3-06554) (Consent Decree with City), and 
enclose a check in the amount of $35.75 (25 cents per page reproduction 
cost) payable to the U.S. Treasury or, if by e-mail or fax, forward a 
check in that amount to the Consent Decree Library at the stated 
address.

Maureen Katz,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment 
and Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. E9-25216 Filed 10-20-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.