Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 27430-27431 [2013-11107]

Download as PDF mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 27430 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 91 / Friday, May 10, 2013 / Notices Geological and Geophysical Exploration for Mineral Resources on the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf: Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment (see http://www.boem.gov/ Oil-and-Gas-Energy-Program/GOMR/ 2004–054.aspx). Cooperating Agency: BOEM invites other Federal agencies and State, Tribal, and local governments to consider becoming cooperating agencies in the preparation of the PEIS. We invite qualified government entities to inquire about cooperating agency status for the PEIS. Following the guidelines from the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), qualified agencies and governments are those with ‘‘jurisdiction by law’’ or ‘‘special expertise.’’ Potential cooperating agencies should consider their authority and capacity to assume the responsibilities of a cooperating agency, and note that an agency’s role in the environmental analysis neither enlarges nor diminishes the final decision making authority of any other agency involved in the NEPA process. Upon request, BOEM will provide potential cooperating agencies with a written summary of ground rules for cooperating agencies, including time schedules and critical action dates, milestones, responsibilities, scope and detail of cooperating agencies’ contributions, and the availability of pre-decisional information. BOEM anticipates this summary will form the basis for a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). Agencies should also consider the ‘‘Factors for Determining Cooperating Agency Status’’ in Attachment 1 to CEQ’s January 30, 2002, Memorandum for the Heads of Federal Agencies: Cooperating Agencies in Implementing the Procedural Requirements of the NEPA. A copy of this document is available at:http:// ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/cooperating/ cooperatingagenciesmemorandum.html and/or http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/ regs/cooperating/ cooperatingagencymemofactors.html BOEM and NMFS, as co-agencies, will not provide financial assistance to any other cooperating agencies. Even if an organization is not an official cooperating agency, opportunities exist to provide information and comments during the normal public input phases of the NEPA/PEIS process. If further information about cooperating agencies is needed, please contact Mr. Gary Goeke at (504) 736–3233. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., 43 U.S.C. 1331–1356a, 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., 40 CFR 1501.7 VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:05 May 09, 2013 Jkt 229001 Dated: May 6, 2013. Tommy P. Beaudreau, Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Dated: April 29, 2013. Tommy P. Beaudreau, Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. [FR Doc. 2013–11226 Filed 5–9–13; 8:45 am] [FR Doc. 2013–11076 Filed 5–9–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Ocean Energy Management [MMAA104000] Notice on Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sales Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior. ACTION: List of restricted joint bidders. AGENCY: Pursuant to the authority vested in the Director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management by the joint bidding provisions of 30 CFR 556.41, each entity within one of the following groups shall be restricted from bidding with any entity in any of the other following groups at Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas lease sales to be held during the bidding period May 1, 2013, through October 31, 2013. This List of Restricted Joint Bidders will cover the period May 1, 2013, through October 31, 2013, and replace the prior list published on October 23, 2012, which covered the period of November 1, 2012, through April 30, 2013. Group I. BP America Production Company BP Exploration & Production Inc. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. Group II. Chevron Corporation Chevron U.S.A. Inc. Chevron Midcontinent, L.P. Unocal Corporation Union Oil Company of California Pure Partners, L.P. Group III. Eni Petroleum Co. Inc. Eni Petroleum US LLC Eni Oil US LLC Eni Marketing Inc. Eni BB Petroleum Inc. Eni US Operating Co. Inc. Eni BB Pipeline LLC Group IV. Exxon Mobil Corporation ExxonMobil Exploration Company Group V. Petrobras America Inc. Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. Group VI. Shell Oil Company Shell Offshore Inc. SWEPI LP Shell Frontier Oil & Gas Inc. SOI Finance Inc. Shell Gulf of Mexico Inc. Group VII. Statoil ASA Statoil Gulf of Mexico LLC Statoil USA E&P Inc. Statoil Gulf Properties Inc. Group VIII. Total E&P USA, Inc. SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act On April 26, 2013, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio in the lawsuit entitled United States v. Schott Metal Products, Inc. and The Estate of Samuel Schott, Civil Action No. 5:13-cv-00950. In the Complaint filed in this action the United States alleged that Defendants failed to comply with a 2006 Administrative Order issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (‘‘EPA’’) to sample and monitor soil and groundwater at the Schott Metal Products, Inc. facility in Akron, Ohio, in violation of Section 3013(a) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (‘‘RCRA’’), 42 U.S.C. 6934(a). The proposed consent decree requires Defendants to comply with the 2006 Administrative Order by implementing a ‘‘work plan,’’ and an addendum thereto, recently approved by EPA. The proposed consent decree further requires Defendants to pay a civil penalty of $375,000, for the alleged failure to timely comply with the 2006 Administrative Order. The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to United States v. Schott Metal Products, Inc. and The Estate of Samuel Schott, D.J. Ref. No. 90–7–1–09982. 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 ............ pubcommentees.enrd@usdoj.gov. Assistant Attorney General, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, D.C. 20044– 7611. By mail ............... E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM 10MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 91 / Friday, May 10, 2013 / Notices During the public comment period, the proposed 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 proposed 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 $44.25 (with all attachments) or $9.00 (without attachments) (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. Maureen Katz, Assistant Chief Management, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division. [FR Doc. 2013–11107 Filed 5–9–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–15–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—3D PDF Consortium, Inc. Notice is hereby given that, on April 19, 2013, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), 3D PDF Consortium, Inc. (‘‘3D PDF’’) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, INTRATECH Corporation, Mapo-gu, Seoul, REPUBLIC OF KOREA, has been added as a party to this venture. In addition, Boeing Shared Services Group has changed its name to The Boeing Company, Seattle, WA. No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and 3D PDF intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership. On March 27, 2012, 3D PDF filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on April 20, 2012 (77 FR 23754). VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:05 May 09, 2013 Jkt 229001 The last notification was filed with the Department on November 8, 2012. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on December 4, 2012 (77 FR 71831). Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division. [FR Doc. 2013–11113 Filed 5–9–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–11–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. 12–1] Jose G. Zavaleta, M.D.; Decision and Order On May 10, 2012, Administrative Law Judge Gail A. Randall issued the attached Recommended Decision.1 Neither party filed exceptions to the Recommended Decision. Having reviewed the record in its entirety, I have decided to adopt the ALJ’s recommended rulings, findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended sanction, except for her discussion that the findings of a prior agency order denying a previous application filed by Respondent, see Jose Gonzalo Zavaleta, 76 FR 49506 (2011), were not entitled to res judicata effect because they were issued in a proceeding in which Respondent waived his right to a hearing. ALJ at 12– 13 (citing Robert M. Golden, 65 FR 5663 (2000)). While the ALJ was bound by the existing Agency precedent on the issue, I conclude that a re-examination of the issue is warranted and overrule Golden. However, because this has no effect on the outcome, I will adopt the ALJ’s recommended sanction and will order that Respondent’s application for a DEA Certificate of Registration as a practitioner be denied. The ALJ’s Ruling on Whether the Prior Agency Order Denying Respondent’s Application Is Entitled to Res Judicata Effect On February 23, 2009, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, DEA Office of Diversion Control, issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent which proposed the denial of the application for registration submitted by him on July 28, 2008. See Jose Gonzalo Zavaleta, 76 FR at 49506. The Show Cause Order was based on allegations that Respondent had issued multiple controlled-substance prescriptions to undercover officers (UCs) and that he 1 All citations to the Recommended Decision are to the ALJ’s slip opinion. PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 27431 lacked a legitimate medical purpose and violated federal law in doing so because he either performed a cursory medical examination or failed to perform any medical examination. Id. Respondent failed to request a hearing on the allegations. Id. On July 27, 2011, this Agency issued a Decision and Order denying the application which Respondent submitted on July 28, 2008. Id. at 49508. The Agency’s denial of Respondent’s application was based on the evidence submitted by the Government showing that two officers from the Louisiana State Police had made undercover visits to Respondent on various occasions, during which they obtained from him prescriptions for controlled substances including hydrocodone, alprazolam, and Phenergan with codeine. Id. With respect to UC1, who visited him on January 23, 2008, the evidence showed that he asked Respondent for Lortab and initially denied that he was in pain; nonetheless, Respondent issued him a prescription for Lortab after UC1 stated (falsely) that he had a sexually transmitted disease, and that Respondent did so without performing a physical examination. Id. at 49506. Likewise, with respect to UC2, the Agency found that while she initially denied being in pain, Respondent prescribed hydrocodone to her. Id. Moreover, on a subsequent visit, Respondent prescribed Phenergan, a narcotic cough syrup, even though UC2 had no symptoms of cough or congestion, as well as more hydrocodone. Id. Finally, at UC2’s third visit, Respondent prescribed hydrocodone as well as Xanax to her. Id. At no time did Respondent obtain UC2’s medical records or perform a physical examination on her. Id. Rather, Respondent coached UC2 as to what to say to justify the issuance of the prescriptions. Id. Based on these findings, the Agency concluded that Respondent had failed to establish a physician-patient relationship with the UCs and therefore lacked a legitimate medical purpose and acted outside of the usual course of professional practice when he prescribed controlled substances to them. Id. at 49508 (citing 21 U.S.C. 1306.04(a); 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1); Louisiana v. Moody, 393 So.2d 1212, 1215 (La. 1981)). During the course of the instant proceeding, the ALJ directed the parties to address ‘‘whether the doctrine of res judicata applies to the Final Order’’ and ‘‘thus bar[s] Respondent from ‘relitigat[ing] the factual findings and conclusions of law of the prior proceeding.’ ’’ ALJ at 12. (quoting Robert E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM 10MYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 91 (Friday, May 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27430-27431]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11107]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act

    On April 26, 2013, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed 
consent decree with the United States District Court for the Northern 
District of Ohio in the lawsuit entitled United States v. Schott Metal 
Products, Inc. and The Estate of Samuel Schott, Civil Action No. 5:13-
cv-00950.
    In the Complaint filed in this action the United States alleged 
that Defendants failed to comply with a 2006 Administrative Order 
issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') 
to sample and monitor soil and groundwater at the Schott Metal 
Products, Inc. facility in Akron, Ohio, in violation of Section 3013(a) 
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (``RCRA''), 42 U.S.C. 
6934(a). The proposed consent decree requires Defendants to comply with 
the 2006 Administrative Order by implementing a ``work plan,'' and an 
addendum thereto, recently approved by EPA. The proposed consent decree 
further requires Defendants to pay a civil penalty of $375,000, for the 
alleged failure to timely comply with the 2006 Administrative Order.
    The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on 
the proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the 
Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, 
and should refer to United States v. Schott Metal Products, Inc. and 
The Estate of Samuel Schott, D.J. Ref. No. 90-7-1-09982. 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, D.C.
                                             20044-7611.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 27431]]

    During the public comment period, the proposed 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 proposed 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 $44.25 (with all 
attachments) or $9.00 (without attachments) (25 cents per page 
reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.

Maureen Katz,
Assistant Chief Management, Environmental Enforcement Section, 
Environment and Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 2013-11107 Filed 5-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-P