Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decrees Under the Clean Water Act, 81857-81862 [2015-32908]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 251 / Thursday, December 31, 2015 / Notices
Montauk Point. The Seashore sustains a
white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus) population that has
expanded since the late 1960s to the
extent that impacts from high densities
of deer have been, and continue to be,
a complex issue for National Park
Service (NPS) managers. As a result,
pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Seashore
prepared a Draft White-tailed Deer
Management Plan and Environmental
Impact Statement (Draft Plan/EIS) to
develop a deer management strategy
that supports preservation of the natural
and cultural landscape through
population management and the
protection of native vegetation. The
Draft Plan/EIS was prepared in
cooperation with the New York State
Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYS–DEC) and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Services (APHIS).
The NPS released the Draft Plan/EIS
for public and agency review and
comment beginning July 31, 2014 and
ending October 10, 2014. The Draft
Plan/EIS evaluated a no action
alternative (A) and three action
alternatives (B, C, and D). Each action
alternative presented a different strategy
to protect native plant communities and
cultural plantings, promote forest
regeneration, further reduce undesirable
human-deer interactions, and reduce the
deer population in the Seashore.
Alternative A would continue existing
deer management and monitoring efforts
throughout the Seashore. These actions
include continued public education/
interpretation efforts, vegetation
monitoring, and deer population and
behavior surveys.
Alternative B provides a nonlethal
deer reduction option to implement
nonsurgical reproductive control of does
when an acceptable reproductive
control agent is available that meets
NPS established criteria. Large fence
exclosures would also protect forested
areas and vegetation to allow restoration
of the maritime holly forest, other
natural vegetation and the culturally
important vegetation at the William
Floyd Estate.
Alternative C provides a lethal deer
reduction option through the use of
sharpshooting with firearms, and
possible capture and euthanasia to
reduce deer populations to the target
density and maintain that level.
Alternative D, identified as the NPS
preferred alternative, provides a
combined lethal and nonlethal deer
reduction option through the use of
sharpshooting with firearms, and
possible capture and euthanasia to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:49 Dec 30, 2015
Jkt 238001
reduce deer populations to a desirable
level. Once the target density has been
reached, use of nonsurgical
reproductive control of does may be
used to maintain that level when an
acceptable reproductive control agent is
available that meets NPS established
criteria.
Comments were accepted on the Draft
Plan/EIS during the 60-day public
comment period. After reviewing and
considering all comments received, the
NPS has prepared this Final Whitetailed Deer Management Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement (Final
Plan/EIS). The Final Plan/EIS identifies
Alternative D as the NPS preferred
alternative with no changes from the
Draft Plan/EIS and presents the likely
environmental consequences of
implementing the preferred alternative,
as well as the other alternatives
considered. The Final Plan/EIS also
discusses the comments received on the
Draft Plan/EIS and responds to
substantive comments.
Dated: August 5, 2015.
Michael A. Caldwell,
Regional Director, Northeast Region, National
Park Service.
[FR Doc. 2015–32970 Filed 12–30–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–WV–P
JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE
UNITED STATES
Hearings of the Judicial Conference
Advisory Committee on the Federal
Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure
Advisory Committee on the
Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure,
Judicial Conference of the United States.
ACTION: Notice of cancellation of public
hearing.
AGENCY:
The following public hearing
on proposed amendments to the Federal
Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure has been
canceled: Bankruptcy Rules Hearing on
January 22, 2016 in Washington, DC.
Announcements for this meeting were
previously published in 80 FR 48120, 80
FR 50324 and 80 FR 51604. The public
hearing on proposed amendments to the
Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure
scheduled for January 29, 2016, in
Pasadena, California, remains
scheduled, subject to sufficient
expressions of interest.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rebecca A. Womeldorf, Rules
Committee Secretary, Rules Committee
Support Office, Administrative Office of
the United States Courts, Washington,
DC 20544, telephone (202) 502–1820.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
81857
Dated: December 28, 2015.
Rebecca A. Womeldorf,
Rules Committee Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015–32923 Filed 12–30–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Notice of Lodging of Proposed
Consent Decrees Under the Clean
Water Act
On December 23, 2015, the
Department of Justice lodged two
proposed consent decrees with the
United States District Court for the
District of Puerto Rico in the lawsuit
entitled United States v. The
Municipality of San Juan, the Puerto
Rico Department of Natural and
Environmental Resources, the Puerto
Rico Department of Transportation and
Public Works, the Puerto Rico Highway
and Transportation Authority, and the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Civil
Action No. 3:14–cv–1476–CCC.
One proposed consent decree resolves
the United States’ claims against the
Puerto Rico Department of Natural and
Environmental Resources (‘‘DNER’’)
under the Clean Water Act (‘‘CWA’’), 33
U.S.C. 1251–1387, concerning CWA
violations at three of its storm water
pump stations located within San Juan.
The proposed consent decree requires
DNER to apply for a permit and
implement a Storm Water Management
Program, to undertake certain capital
and operation improvements to its
pump stations, and to provide financial
support for investigations and work
performed in the pump station service
areas. The proposed consent decree
resolves only the violations alleged
against DNER in the Complaint through
the date of lodging of the consent decree
and does not resolve claims against the
other Defendants. Due to financial
challenges currently facing the
Commonwealth, no civil penalties for
past violations will be recovered under
this consent decree.
The second proposed consent decree
resolves the United States’ claims
against the Puerto Rico Department of
Transportation and Public Works
(‘‘DTPW’’) and the Puerto Rico
Highways and Transportation Authority
(‘‘HTA’’) under the CWA, concerning
CWA violations throughout their storm
sewer systems located within San Juan.
The proposed consent decree provides
for injunctive relief to be implemented
in a two-stage, multi-phased approach
including the study and repair of their
MS4s, in addition to other infrastructure
and operational improvements. The
proposed consent decree resolves only
E:\FR\FM\31DEN1.SGM
31DEN1
81858
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 251 / Thursday, December 31, 2015 / Notices
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
the violations alleged against DTPW and
HTA in the Complaint through the date
of lodging of the consent decree and
does not resolve claims against the other
Defendants. Due to financial challenges
currently facing the Commonwealth, no
civil penalties for past violations will be
recovered under this consent decree.
The publication of this notice opens
a period for public comment on the
proposed consent decrees. Comments
should be addressed to the Assistant
Attorney General, Environment and
Natural Resources Division and should
refer to United States v. The
Municipality of San Juan, D.J. Ref. No.
90–5–1–1–09551. All comments must be
submitted no later than thirty (30) days
after the publication date of this notice.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:49 Dec 30, 2015
Jkt 238001
Comments may be submitted either by
email or by mail:
To submit
comments:
Send them to:
By email .......
pubcomment-ees.enrd@
usdoj.gov
Assistant Attorney General,
U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O.
Box 7611, Washington, DC
20044–7611
By mail .........
During the public comment period,
the proposed consent decrees may be
examined and downloaded at this
Justice Department Web site: https://
www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees.
We will provide a paper copy of the
proposed consent decrees upon written
request and payment of reproduction
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 $10.25 (25 cents per page
reproduction cost) for a copy of the
DTPW/HTA proposed consent decree
and $9.25 for a copy of the DNER
proposed consent decree (copies of the
appendices attached to the consent
decrees are not included in this amount)
payable to the United States Treasury.
Maureen Katz,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental
Enforcement Section, Environment and
Natural Resources Division.
BILLING CODE 4410–15–P
Appendix
E:\FR\FM\31DEN1.SGM
31DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 251 / Thursday, December 31, 2015 / Notices
81859
DEPARTAMENTO DE JUSTICIA DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS
AVISO DE RADICACION DE DOS DECRETOS POR CONSENTIMIENTO PROPUESTO
BAJOLA
LEY DE AGUA LIMPIA
El23 de diciembre de 2015, el Departamento de Justicia de los Estados Unidos radic6 dos
propuestos decretos por consentimiento ante el Tribunal de Distrito de los Estados Unidos para el
Distrito de Puerto Rico en una demanda judicial titulada Los Estados Unidos contra el Municipio de San
Juan, el Departamento de Recursos Naturales y Ambientales de Puerto Rico, el Departamento de
Transportaci6n y Obras Publicas de Puerto Rico, la Autoridad de Carreteras y Transportaci6n de Puerto
Rico, y el Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, Acci6n Civil Num. 3: 14-cv-14 76-CCC.
Uno de los decretos por consentimiento propuestos resuelve las
alegaciones de los Estados Unidos contra el Departamento de Recursos
Naturales y Ambientales de Puerto Rico ("DRNA") bajo la Ley de Agua Limpia
("CWA" por sus siglas en ingles), 33 U.S.C. 1251-1387, en relaci6n a
violaciones al CWA en tres de sus estaciones de bombeo de aguas pluviales
ubicadas dentro del municipio de San Juan. El decreto por consentimiento
propuesto le requiere al DRNA solicitar un permiso e implementar un Programa
de Manejo de Aguas Pluviales, para mejorar la operaci6n de sus estaciones de
bombas, llevar a cabo ciertas mejoras capitales y para separar parte de su
presupuesto para realizar investigaciones y mejoras en las areas de servicio
de las estaciones de bombeo. El decreto por consentimiento propuesto resuelve
solo las violaciones imputadas al DRNA en la demanda hasta la fecha de la
presentaci6n del decreto por consentimiento y no resuelve las alegaciones
contra los otros demandados. Debido a los problemas financieros que enfrenta
actualmente el Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, el Gobierno de los
Estados Unidos no le impuso sanciones civiles por las violaciones alegadas en
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:49 Dec 30, 2015
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\31DEN1.SGM
31DEN1
EN31DE15.010</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
virtud de este decreto por consentimiento.
81860
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 251 / Thursday, December 31, 2015 / Notices
El segundo de los decretos por consentimiento propuestos resuelve las
alegaciones de los Estados Unidos contra Departamento de Transportaci6n y
Obras Publicas de Puerto Rico ("DTOP") y la Autoridad de Carreteras y
Transportaci6n de Puerto Rico ("ACT") bajo el CWA, en relaci6n a violaciones
al CWA a traves de su sistemas de alcantarillado pluvial dentro del municipio
de San Juan.
El decreto de consentimiento propuesto provee medidas
cautelares para ser implementadas en dos etapas para que se lleven a cabo
estudios y reparaciones en parte de sus sistemas de drenaje pluvial separados
dentro de los limites geograficos del municipio de San Juan, ademas de otras
obras de infraestructura y mejoras operacionales. El decreto por
consentimiento propuesto resuelve solo las violaciones imputadas al DTOP y la
ACT en la demanda hasta la fecha de la presentaci6n del decreto por
consentimiento y no resuelve las alegaciones contra los otros demandados.
Debido a los problemas financieros que enfrenta actualmente el Estado Libre
Asociado de Puerto Rico, el Gobierno de los Estados Unidos no le impuso
sanciones civiles por las violaciones alegadas en virtud de este decreto por
consentimiento.
La publicaci6n de este avlso lnlcla un periodo para recibir
comentarios del publico sobre los
decretos por consentimiento
propuestos. Los comentarios deben dirigirse al Fiscal Auxiliar
General,
Division de Recursos Naturales y Medioambiente,
y deben
menclonar el caso titulado Los Estados Unidos contra el Municipio de
San Juan, D. J. Ref. Num. 90-5-1-1-09551. Todos los comentarios deben
enviarse antes de que transcurran treinta
(30)
dias de la fecha de
publicaci6n de este avlso. Los comentarios pueden enviarse por correo
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:49 Dec 30, 2015
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\31DEN1.SGM
31DEN1
EN31DE15.011</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
electr6nico o por correo regular:
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 251 / Thursday, December 31, 2015 / Notices
Para
81861
Envielos a:
env~ar
comentarios:
Por cor reo
Pubcomment-
electr6nico
ees.enrd@usdoj.gov
Por cor reo regular
Assistant Attorney
General
u.s. DOJ - ENRD
P.O. Box 7611
Washington, D.C. 200447611
Durante el periodo de comentarios publicos, los decretos por consentimiento propuestos pueden
examinarse y descargarse en la siguiente pagina web del Departamento de Justicia de los Estados Unidos:
https://www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees. Se proporcionara una copia impresa de los decretos por
consentimiento propuestos luego de recibir una petici6n por escrito y pago por los costos de
reproducci6n. Debe enviar su solicitud escrita y pago a:
Consent Decree Library
U.S. DOJ- ENRD
P.O. Box 7611
Washington, D.C. 20044-7611
Adjunte un cheque o giro postal pagadero al United States Treasury por la cantidad de $10.25 (el
costo de reproducci6n es de 25 centavos por pagina) si desea una copia del decreta por consentimiento
propuesto del DRNA y de $9.25 si desea una copia del decreta por consentimiento propuesto del
DTOP/HTA (las copias de los apendices adjuntos a los decretos por consentimiento no estan incluidos en
estas cantidades).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:49 Dec 30, 2015
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\31DEN1.SGM
31DEN1
EN31DE15.012</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Maureen Katz,
Asistente de Jefe Secci6n,
Secci6n de Cumplimiento Medioambiental,
Division de Recursos Naturales y
Medioambiente.
81862
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 251 / Thursday, December 31, 2015 / Notices
[FR Doc. 2015–32908 Filed 12–30–15; 8:45 am]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
BILLING CODE 4410–15–C
Jacqueline C. Charlesworth, General
Counsel and Associate Register of
Copyrights, by email at jcharlesworth@
loc.gov or by telephone at 202–707–
8350; or Karyn Temple Claggett,
Director of the Office of Policy and
International Affairs and Associate
Register of Copyrights, by email at kacl@
loc.gov or by telephone at 202–707–
8350.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
U.S. Copyright Office
[Docket No. 2015–7]
Section 512 Study: Notice and Request
for Public Comment
U.S. Copyright Office, Library
of Congress.
ACTION: Notice of inquiry.
AGENCY:
The United States Copyright
Office is undertaking a public study to
evaluate the impact and effectiveness of
the DMCA safe harbor provisions
contained in 17 U.S.C. 512. Among
other issues, the Office will consider the
costs and burdens of the notice-andtakedown process on large- and smallscale copyright owners, online service
providers, and the general public. The
Office will also review how successfully
section 512 addresses online
infringement and protects against
improper takedown notices. To aid in
this effort, and to provide thorough
assistance to Congress, the Office is
seeking public input on a number of key
questions.
DATES: Written comments must be
received no later than 11:59 p.m.
Eastern Time on March 21, 2016. The
Office will be announcing one or more
public meetings to discuss issues related
to this study, to take place after initial
written comments are received, by
separate notice in the future.
ADDRESSES: All comments should be
submitted electronically. Specific
instructions for the submission of
comments will be posted on the
Copyright Office Web site at https://
www.copyright.gov/policy/section512
on or before February 1, 2016. To meet
accessibility standards, all comments
must be provided in a single file not to
exceed six megabytes (MB) in one of the
following formats: Portable Document
File (PDF) format containing searchable,
accessible text (not an image); Microsoft
Word; WordPerfect; Rich Text Format
(RTF); or ASCII text file format (not a
scanned document). The form and face
of the comments must include the name
of the submitter and any organization
the submitter represents. The Office will
post all comments publicly in the form
that they are received. If electronic
submission of comments is not feasible,
please contact the Office using the
contact information below for special
instructions.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:49 Dec 30, 2015
Jkt 238001
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Congress enacted section 512 in 1998
as part of the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act (‘‘DMCA’’).1 At that time,
less than 5% of the world’s population
used the internet,2 and bulletin board
services were the popular online
platforms.3 Even then, however,
Congress recognized that ‘‘the [i]nternet
. . . made it possible for information—
including valuable American
copyrighted works—to flow around the
globe in a matter of hours,’’ and, as a
consequence, copyright law needed to
be ‘‘set . . . up to meet the promise and
the challenge of the digital world.’’ 4
In enacting section 512, Congress
created a system for copyright owners
and online entities to address online
infringement, including limitations on
liability for compliant service providers
to help foster the growth of internetbased services.5 The system reflected
Congress’ recognition that the same
innovative advances in technology that
would expand opportunities to
reproduce and disseminate content
could also facilitate exponential growth
in copyright infringement. Accordingly,
section 512 was intended by Congress to
provide strong incentives for service
providers and copyright owners to
‘‘cooperate to detect and deal with
copyright infringements that take place
in the digital networked environment,’’
as well as to offer ‘‘greater certainty to
service providers concerning their legal
1 Pub.
L. 105–304, 112 Stat. 2860 (1998).
Internet Users, Internet Live Stats (Dec. 1,
2015), https://www.internetlivestats.com/internetusers/#trend (In 1998, there were only 188 million
internet users; today, there are over 3.25 billion.).
3 See The History of Social Networking, Digital
Trends (Aug. 5, 2014), https://
www.digitaltrends.com/features/the-history-ofsocial-networking/ (providing a timeline for the
development of social networks).
4 144 Cong. Rec. S11,889 (daily ed. Oct. 8, 1998)
(statement of Sen. Orrin Hatch).
5 See H.R. Rep. No. 105–551, pt. 2, at 21 (1998)
(noting that the DMCA, including section 512 of
title 17, ‘‘balance[s] the interests of content owners,
on-line and other service providers, and
information users in a way that will foster the
continued development of electronic commerce and
the growth of the [i]nternet’’).
2 See
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
exposure for infringements that may
occur in the course of their activities.’’ 6
Congress was especially concerned
about the liability of online service
providers for infringing activities of
third parties occurring on or through
their services. To address this issue,
Congress created a set of ‘‘safe
harbors’’—i.e., limitations on copyright
infringement liability—‘‘for certain
common activities of service
providers.’’ 7 But the safe harbors are not
automatic. To qualify for protection
from infringement liability, a service
provider must fulfill certain
requirements, generally consisting of
implementing measures to
expeditiously address online copyright
infringement.
Recent research suggests that the
volume of infringing material accessed
via the internet more than doubled from
2010 to 2012, and that nearly onequarter of all internet bandwidth in
North America, Europe, and Asia is
devoted to hosting, sharing, and
acquiring infringing material.8 While
Congress clearly understood that it
would be essential to address online
infringement as the internet continued
to grow, it was likely difficult to
anticipate the online world as we now
know it—where, each day, users post
hundreds of millions of photos, videos
and other items, and service providers
receive over a million notices of alleged
infringement.
As observed by the House Judiciary
Committee’s Ranking Member in the
course of the Committee’s ongoing
multi-year review of the Copyright Act,
and consistent with the testimony of the
Register of Copyrights in that hearing,
the operation of section 512 poses
policy issues that warrant study and
analysis.9 Section 512 has also been a
focus of the U.S. Department of
Commerce in recent years, which has
noted ambiguities in the application of
6 Id.
at 49–50.
Rep. No. 105–190, at 19 (1998).
8 See David Price, Sizing the Piracy Universe 3
(2013), https://www.netnames.com/digital-piracysizing-piracy-universe (infringing bandwidth use
increased by 159% between 2010 to 2012 in North
America, Europe, and [the] Asia-Pacific, which
account for more than 95% of global bandwidth
use).
9 Register’s Perspective on Copyright Review:
Hearing Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary,
114th Cong. 6 (2015) (statement of Maria A.
Pallante, Register of Copyrights and Director, U.S.
Copyright Office) (‘‘We are . . . recommending
appropriate study of section 512 of the DMCA . . .
. [T]here are challenges now that warrant a granular
review.’’); id. at 49 (statement of Rep. John Conyers,
Jr., Ranking Member, H. Comm. on the Judiciary)
(‘‘[T]here are policy issues that warrant studies and
analysis, including section 512, section 1201, mass
digitization, and moral rights. I would like the
Copyright Office to conduct and complete reports
on those policy issues . . . .’’).
7 S.
E:\FR\FM\31DEN1.SGM
31DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 251 (Thursday, December 31, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81857-81862]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32908]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decrees Under the Clean
Water Act
On December 23, 2015, the Department of Justice lodged two proposed
consent decrees with the United States District Court for the District
of Puerto Rico in the lawsuit entitled United States v. The
Municipality of San Juan, the Puerto Rico Department of Natural and
Environmental Resources, the Puerto Rico Department of Transportation
and Public Works, the Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority,
and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-1476-CCC.
One proposed consent decree resolves the United States' claims
against the Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental
Resources (``DNER'') under the Clean Water Act (``CWA''), 33 U.S.C.
1251-1387, concerning CWA violations at three of its storm water pump
stations located within San Juan. The proposed consent decree requires
DNER to apply for a permit and implement a Storm Water Management
Program, to undertake certain capital and operation improvements to its
pump stations, and to provide financial support for investigations and
work performed in the pump station service areas. The proposed consent
decree resolves only the violations alleged against DNER in the
Complaint through the date of lodging of the consent decree and does
not resolve claims against the other Defendants. Due to financial
challenges currently facing the Commonwealth, no civil penalties for
past violations will be recovered under this consent decree.
The second proposed consent decree resolves the United States'
claims against the Puerto Rico Department of Transportation and Public
Works (``DTPW'') and the Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation
Authority (``HTA'') under the CWA, concerning CWA violations throughout
their storm sewer systems located within San Juan. The proposed consent
decree provides for injunctive relief to be implemented in a two-stage,
multi-phased approach including the study and repair of their MS4s, in
addition to other infrastructure and operational improvements. The
proposed consent decree resolves only
[[Page 81858]]
the violations alleged against DTPW and HTA in the Complaint through
the date of lodging of the consent decree and does not resolve claims
against the other Defendants. Due to financial challenges currently
facing the Commonwealth, no civil penalties for past violations will be
recovered under this consent decree.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on
the proposed consent decrees. Comments should be addressed to the
Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division
and should refer to United States v. The Municipality of San Juan, D.J.
Ref. No. 90-5-1-1-09551. 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 email............................ 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 proposed consent decrees may
be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site: https://www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees. We will provide a paper copy of
the proposed consent decrees 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 $10.25 (25 cents per page
reproduction cost) for a copy of the DTPW/HTA proposed consent decree
and $9.25 for a copy of the DNER proposed consent decree (copies of the
appendices attached to the consent decrees are not included in this
amount) payable to the United States Treasury.
Maureen Katz,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment
and Natural Resources Division.
BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
Appendix
[[Page 81859]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN31DE15.010
[[Page 81860]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN31DE15.011
[[Page 81861]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN31DE15.012
[[Page 81862]]
[FR Doc. 2015-32908 Filed 12-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-C
