Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 25, 2000 / Notices 24225

and Section 122 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.

9622, notice is hereby given that on

April 11, 2000, a proposed Consent

Decree in United States v. SC Holding,

et al., Civ. Action No. 1:00CV150, was

lodged with the United States District

Court for the Northern District of

Indiana. This Consent Decree represents

a settlement of claims of the United

States and the State of Indiana, on

behalf of federal and State natural

resource trustees, under Section 107(a)

of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), against

SC Holdings and eight-six (86) other

potentially responsible parties for

natural resource damages resulting from

the release of hazardous substances at or

from the Fort Wayne Reduction

Superfund Site located in Fort Wayne,

Allen County, Indiana. Under this

Consent Decree, the Settling Defendants,

which include two site owners and

seventeen generators of hazardous

substances, will implement a restoration

plan under which they will, among

other things, acquire approximately 75

acres of land adjacent to the Maumee

River (‘‘Property’’), reforest and restore

approximately 45 acres of the Property,

place a deed restriction (in the form of

a conservation easement) on the

Property and convey the Property to the

Indiana Department of Natural

Resources. The Settling Defendants will

reimburse the federal natural resource

trustee, the United States Department of

Interior, through the United States Fish

and Wildlife Service, $90,000 in

estimated natural resource damage

assessment costs and $8,000 in

estimated project oversight costs. The

Settling Defendants will also reimburse

the State natural resource damage

trustee, the State of Indiana, through the

Indiana Department of Environmental

Management and the Indiana

Department of Natural Resources,

$2,000 and $1,500 respectively, for their

natural resource damage assessment

costs and estimated project oversight

costs. Finally, sixty-eight (68) parties

who contributed small amounts of

hazardous substances to the Site and

who previously settled their natural

resource damage liability with the

Settling Defendants will receive a

covenant not to sue from the United

States and the State of Indiana for

natural resource damages resulting from

releases of hazardous substances at or

from the Site.

The Department of Justice will receive

for a period of thirty (30) days from the

date of this publication comments

relating to the proposed Consent Decree.

Comments should be addressed to the

Assistant Attorney General of the

Environment and Natural Resources

Division, Department of Justice, 950

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20530, and should refer to United

States v. SC Holdings et al., Civ. Action

No. 1:00CV150, D.J. Ref. Nos. 90–11–3–

1687/2, 90–11–6–05585.

The Consent Decree may be examined

at the Office of the United States

Attorney, 3128 Federal Building, 1300

South Harrison Street, Fort Wayne,

Indiana 46802, and at the United States

Fish and Wildlife Service, 620 South

Walker Street, Bloomington, Indiana

47403. A copy of the Consent Decree

may also be obtained by mail from the

Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611,

U.S. Department of Justice, Washington,

DC 20044–7611. In requesting a copy of

the Consent Decree, please enclose a

check in amount of $22.50 (90 pages at

25 cents per page reproduction cost)

payable to the Consent Decree Library.

Joel M. Gross,

Chief, Environmental Enforcenent Section,

Environment & Natural Resources Division.

[FR Doc. 00–10230 Filed 4–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–15–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree

Under the Clean Air Act,

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act, Emergency Planning and

Community Right-To-Know Act, and

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

In accordance with Departmental

policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby

given that a proposed consent decree in

the case of United States v. BHP

Petroleum Americas Refining, Inc., now

known as Tesoro Hawaii Corporation,

Civil Action No. 00–00264 DAE (D.

Hawaii), was lodged with the United

States District Court for the District of

Hawaii on April 10, 2000.

The proposed consent decree resolves

claims that the United States asserted

against Tesoro Hawaii Corporation

(Tesoro) in a civil complaint filed

concurrently with the lodging of the

consent decree. The complaint alleges

that Tesoro failed to comply with New

Source Performance Standards under

the Clean Air Act, including

requirements to: provide notice of

startup; maintain facilities consistent

with good air quality practice; meet

limits on hydrogen sulfide in fuel gas;

comply with a leak detection and repair

program for equipment in volatile

organic compound service; and comply

with work practice standards for the

refinery’s wastewater system. In

addition, the complaint alleges that

Tesoro failed to comply with National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants under the Clean Air Act,

including requirements to provide

notice of construction startup and to

comply with a leak detection and repair

program for benzene sources. The

complaint also alleges that Tesoro failed

on several days to properly notify the

National Response Center, the State

Emergency Response Commission, and

the Local Emergency Planning

Committee of the releases of hazardous

substances from the refinery as required

by section 103 of the Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act and

section 304 of the Emergency Planning

and Community Right-to-Know Act.

Finally, the complaint alleges that

Tesoro failed to prepare and implement

a Spill Prevention Control and

Countermeasure Plan and failed to

revise and implement a Facility

Response Plan, as required by

regulations issued pursuant to section

311 of the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act.

The proposed consent decree requires

defendant to pay a civil penalty of

$681,780. In addition, defendant is

required to modify the air blower and

burner systems at the refinery’s sulfur

recovery units to avoid unplanned

shutdowns of the units, which leads to

excess sulfur dioxide air emissions from

the refinery. In addition, Tesoro is

required to add capacity to its

containment areas and to place new

coatings on its berms and containment

floors to contain spilled oil and to

prevent an oil spill to waters of the

United States. Tesoro also agreed to

undertake a supplemental

environmental project to provide

equipment worth $50,000 to the City

and County of Honolulu for

management of inventory data and

emergency planning.

The Department of Justice will accept

comments relating to this consent

decree for a period of thirty (30) days

from the date of this publication.

Address your comments to the Assistant

Attorney General for the Environment

and Natural Resources Division,

Department of Justice, Washington, DC

20530, and send a copy to the

Environmental Enforcement Section,

Attn: Robert Mullaney, U.S. Department

of Justice, 301 Howard Street, Suite 870,

San Francisco, CA 94105. Your

comments should refer to United States

v. BHP Petroleum Americas Refining,

Inc., now known as Tesoro Hawaii

Corporation, Civil Action No. 00–00264

DAE (D. Hawaii), and DOJ No. 90–5–2–

1–2124.

You may examine the proposed

consent decree at the office of the

24226 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 25, 2000 / Notices

United States Attorney, District of

Hawaii, Room 6100, PJKK Federal

Building, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard,

Honolulu, Hawaii 96850. You may also

obtain a copy of the consent decree by

mail from the Consent Decree Library,

P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044.

Your request for a copy of the consent

decree should refer to United States v.

BHP Petroleum Americas Refining, Inc.,

now known as Tesoro Hawaii

Corporation, Civil Action No. 00–00264

DAE (D. Hawaii), and DOJ No. 90–5–2–

1–2124, and must include a check for

$14.00 (25 cents per page reproduction

cost) payable to the ‘‘Consent Decree

Library.’’

Joel Gross,

Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section,

Environment and Natural Resources Division.

[FR Doc. 00–10229 Filed 4–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–15–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

[Civil Action No. 95–1221 (CRR)]

United States District Court for the

District of Columbia, United States of

America, Plaintiff, vs. American Bar

Association, Defendant

Take notice that The United States of

America and the American Bar

Association (‘‘ABA’’) have filed a joint

motion for an order modifying the final

judgment entered by the United States

District Court for the District of

Columbia on June 25, 1996 (‘‘Final

Judgment’’). The parties have agreed to

modify the Final Judgment to reflect

changes in the law school accreditation

process necessitated by regulations

promulgated by the Department of

Education (‘‘DOE’’) pursuant to the

Higher Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1099(b)

(1998). Prior to the entry of the order

modifying the Final Judgment, the Court

and the parties will consider public

comments. Any such comments on the

proposed modification described in this

Notice must be filed within 60 days

following the date of this Notice. The

Complaint, Final Judgment and

proposed modification are further

described below.

The Complaint, filed on June 27,

1995, alleged that the ABA had violated

Section 1 of the Sherman Act in its law

school accreditation activities. The

Complaint alleged that the ABA had

restrained competition among

professional personnel at ABAapproved law schools by fixing their

salaries and other compensation levels

and working conditions, and by limiting

competition from non-ABA-Approved

schools. The ABA and United States

agreed to a settlement, and on June 25,

1996, the Court entered the Final

Judgment, enjoining the ABA from

fixing compensation and from enforcing

a boycott of non-ABA approved schools.

Moreover, because the Complaint

alleged that the ABA had allowed the

accreditation process to be misused by

law school personnel with a direct

economic interest in its outcome, the

Final Judgment ordered the BA to take

a number of steps to limit the influence

of law school personnel in the

accreditation process, including having

the ABA’s House of Delegates review

and approve certain aspects of the

accreditation process.

After the Final Judgment was entered,

DOE determined that allowing the

House of Delegates to act as the final

decision-maker for accreditation

activities did not conform to provisions

of the Higher Education Act and DOE

regulations. Consequently, the ABA, in

order to retain its status as a DOErecognized accreditation agency, has

modified the House’s role, and the

parties to the Final Judgment have

agreed that the Court should make

appropriate modifications to the Final

Judgment so that it conforms to the DOE

requirements.

Under the joint proposal, Sections

IV(A) and VIII(D) of the Final Judgment

will be modified and a new Section

IV(M) will be added. As modified, the

Judgment will be consistent with DOE’s

rules which prevent the House of

Delegates from being the final decisionmaker in establishing the standards,

interpretations, and rules used to

evaluate law schools or in determining

whether a school receives or maintains

its accreditation. Consistent with DOE

requirements, the House of Delegates

will maintain a role in reviewing

standards, interpretations, and rules and

in reviewing accreditation decisions and

can remand such actions to the Council

of the ABA’s Section on Legal Education

and Admissions to the Bar, the DOErecognized accrediting agency.

The United States has filed with the

Court a memorandum setting forth its

position with respect to modifying the

Final Judgment. Copies of the

Complaint, the Final Judgment, the

Modification to the Final Judgment, the

Stipulation containing the parties’

tentative consent, the Joint Motion, the

United States’ memorandum and all

other papers filed in connection with

this motion are available for inspection

at the Office of the Clerk of the United

States District Court for the District of

Columbia, 333 Constitution Avenue,

NW, Washington, DC 20001, and at

Suite 215, Antitrust Division,

Department of Justice, 325 Seventh

Street, NW, Washington, DC 20530,

(Telephone: (202) 514–2481).

Interested persons may submit

comments regarding this matter within

sixty (60) days of the date of this notice.

Such comments, and responses thereto,

will be filed with the Court. Comments

should be directed to Nancy M.

Goodman, Chief, Computers and

Finance Section, Room 9500, 600 E

Street, NW, Antitrust Division,

Department of Justice, Washington, DC

20530, (telephone: (202) 307–6122)

M.J. Moltenbrey,

Director of Civil Non-Merger Enforcement.

[FR Doc. 00–10231 Filed 4–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

Importation of Controlled Substances;

Notice of Application

Pursuant to Section 1008 of the

Controlled Substances Import and

Export Act (21 U.S.C. 958(i)), the

Attorney General shall, prior to issuing

a registration under this Section to a

bulk manufacturer of a controlled

substance in Schedule I or II and prior

to issuing a regulation under Section

1002(a) authorizing the importation of

such a substance, provide

manufacturers holding registrations for

the bulk manufacture of the substance

an opportunity for a hearing.

Therefore, in accordance with Section

1301.34 of Title 21, Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR), notice is hereby

given that on January 31, 2000,

Mallinckrodt, Inc., Mallinckrodt &

Second Streets, St. Louis, Missouri

63147, made application by renewal to

the Drug Enforcement Administration to

be registered as an importer of the basic

classes of controlled substances listed

below:

Drug Schedule

Phenylacetone (8501) .............. II

Coca Leaves (9040) ................. II

Opium, raw (9600) .................... II

Opium poppy (9650) ................. II

Poppy Straw Concentrate

(9670) .................................... II

The firm plans to import the listed

controlled substances to bulk

manufacture controlled substances.

Any manufacturer holding, or

applying for, registration as a bulk

manufacturer of these basic classes of

controlled substances may file written

comments on or objections to the