Notice of Lodging of First Addendum to Consent Decree Under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act, the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Clean Air Act, 53942 [2011-22121]

Download as PDF 53942 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Notice of Lodging of First Addendum to Consent Decree Under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act, the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Clean Air Act Under 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on August 25, 2011, a proposed First Addendum to Consent Decree in United States, et, al. v. ` INVISTA, S.a r.l, Civil Action Number 1:2009-cv-00244, was lodged with the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The Consent Decree in this matter was entered on July 28, 2009. The Consent Decree resolves claims against INVISTA ` S.a r.l. (‘‘INVISTA’’) brought by the United States on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (‘‘EPA’’) under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), 42 U.S.C. 11001 to 11050; the Clean Water Act (CWA), 42 U.S.C. 1251 to 1387; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6901 to 6992k; the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136 to 136y; Section 103(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601 to 9675; the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 42 U.S.C. 300f to 300j–26; and the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7401 to 7671q (hereinafter ‘‘Environmental Requirements’’). The Consent Decree also resolves the claims against INVISTA brought by the State of Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, the State of South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, and the Chattanooga-Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Board. The First Addendum to Consent Decree modifies deadlines for benzene waste NESHAP program enhancements at two INVISTA facilities in Orange and Victoria, Texas. The First Addendum extends the time for INVISTA to elect between two options for further benzene emission reductions and extends the time to implement the selected option. INVISTA will continue to comply with the benzene NESHAP throughout this period. The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of 30 days from the date of this publication, comments VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:31 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 relating to the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General for the 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 et al. v. INVISTA, S.a.r.l, DOJ Ref. No. 90–5–2–1–08892. The proposed First Addendum to Consent Decree may be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site, https://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the proposed Consent Decree may be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044–7611 or by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia Fleetwood (tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov), fax number (202) 514–0097, phone confirmation number (202) 514–1547. In requesting a copy of the Consent Decree from the Consent Decree Library, please enclose a check in the amount of $2.00 (.25 cents per page reproduction costs), payable to the U.S. Treasury. Robert D. Brook, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division. [FR Doc. 2011–22121 Filed 8–29–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–15–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. 09–33] Richard A. Herbert, M.D.; Decision and Order On June 15, 2010, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mary Ellen Bittner issued the attached recommended decision. Thereafter, Respondent filed Exceptions to the ALJ’s decision. Having reviewed the entire record including Respondent’s Exceptions, I have decided to adopt the ALJ’s rulings, findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended Order except as expressly set forth below.1 In his Exceptions, Respondent raises several issues. First, Respondent argues that he ‘‘was irreparably harmed’’ because he was forced to represent himself ‘‘pro se’’ after the ALJ granted his previous attorney’s motion to 1 Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2), the ALJ’s recommended decision has been edited to eliminate the names of various persons who were either witnesses or were referred to in the proceeding. All citations to the ALJ’s decision are to the slip opinion attached to this Decision and Order. PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 withdraw but did not grant his motion for a continuance of the hearing to allow him to obtain new counsel.2 Exc. at 6– 7. Respondent argues that his previous attorney had requested that he ‘‘be given leave of 21 days to obtain new counsel,’’ and that ‘‘[t]he ALJ mistakenly assumed that the attorney and Respondent were not asking for a delay of the hearing’’ and did not grant a continuance in her October 13, 2009 order. Id. at 7. Respondent further asserts that the ALJ ‘‘unfairly denied a continuance’’ and that he ‘‘must be given a fair hearing with representation for a proper outcome in this matter.’’ Id. at 10. The record establishes that on October 9, 2009, Respondent’s prior counsel filed a motion for leave to withdraw; in his motion, Respondent’s prior counsel ‘‘further requested that Respondent be given leave of twenty-one (21) days to secure new counsel.’’ ALJ Ex. 5. On October 13, 2009, the ALJ granted the motion to withdraw. Id. However, the ALJ found ‘‘it unnecessary to provide leave of twenty-one (21) days for Respondent to secure new counsel * * * as Respondent is free to retain counsel at any time.’’ Id. The ALJ further ordered that ‘‘the hearing in this matter, scheduled to begin on November 3, 2009, shall proceed as scheduled.’’ Id. A copy of this ruling was served on Respondent by Federal Express. Id. In addition, the following day, the ALJ’s law clerk wrote Respondent noting that it appeared that he was no longer represented by counsel and calling his attention to his ‘‘right to be represented by an attorney’’; the letter also included verbatim the language of 21 CFR 1316.50, which addresses a party’s right to representation. ALJ Ex. 6. The letter further advised Respondent that he could contact the ALJ’s law clerk if he had any questions. Id. At the hearing, Respondent argued that his prior counsel had sought a continuance of twenty-one days. Tr. 11. However, the ALJ noted that Respondent’s prior attorney ‘‘did not ask for a postponement of the hearing’’ and that he had simply requested that Respondent ‘‘be given leave of 21 days to secure new counsel.’’ Id. at 12–13. Respondent replied that his prior lawyer’s intent was ‘‘to get [him] time’’ because ‘‘we have blocked out four days’’ for the hearing, and no ‘‘major league attorney is going to have four days [open] on his calendar,’’ having been notified approximately three weeks before the hearing date. Id. at 13. The ALJ responded that she did not 2 Respondent does not, however, contend that the ALJ erred in granting the motion to withdraw. See Resp. Exc. at 6–10. E:\FR\FM\30AUN1.SGM 30AUN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 168 (Tuesday, August 30, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 53942]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22121]



[[Page 53942]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of First Addendum to Consent Decree Under the 
Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act, the Clean Water 
Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Federal 
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, the Safe 
Drinking Water Act, and the Clean Air Act

    Under 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on August 25, 2011, 
a proposed First Addendum to Consent Decree in United States, et, al. 
v. INVISTA, S.[agrave] r.l, Civil Action Number 1:2009-cv-00244, was 
lodged with the United States District Court for the District of 
Delaware.
    The Consent Decree in this matter was entered on July 28, 2009. The 
Consent Decree resolves claims against INVISTA S.[agrave] r.l. 
(``INVISTA'') brought by the United States on behalf of the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') under the Emergency Planning 
and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), 42 U.S.C. 11001 to 11050; the 
Clean Water Act (CWA), 42 U.S.C. 1251 to 1387; the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6901 to 6992k; the 
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 
136 to 136y; Section 103(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601 to 
9675; the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 42 U.S.C. 300f to 300j-26; 
and the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7401 to 7671q (hereinafter 
``Environmental Requirements''). The Consent Decree also resolves the 
claims against INVISTA brought by the State of Delaware Department of 
Natural Resources and Environmental Control, the State of South 
Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, and the 
Chattanooga-Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Board.
    The First Addendum to Consent Decree modifies deadlines for benzene 
waste NESHAP program enhancements at two INVISTA facilities in Orange 
and Victoria, Texas. The First Addendum extends the time for INVISTA to 
elect between two options for further benzene emission reductions and 
extends the time to implement the selected option. INVISTA will 
continue to comply with the benzene NESHAP throughout this period.
    The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of 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, 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 et al. v. INVISTA, S.a.r.l, DOJ Ref. No. 90-5-2-1-
08892.
    The proposed First Addendum to Consent Decree may be examined on 
the following Department of Justice Web site, https://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the proposed Consent Decree may 
be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, 
U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611 or by faxing or 
e-mailing a request to Tonia Fleetwood (tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov), fax 
number (202) 514-0097, phone confirmation number (202) 514-1547. In 
requesting a copy of the Consent Decree from the Consent Decree 
Library, please enclose a check in the amount of $2.00 (.25 cents per 
page reproduction costs), payable to the U.S. Treasury.

Robert D. Brook,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment 
and Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 2011-22121 Filed 8-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.