Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 85 / Thursday, May 3, 2007 / Notices 24601 

de minimis parties and shall pay a total 

of approximately $8 million toward 

financing the work at the Site. The 

Consent Decree also resolves the claims 

against the five agencies of the United 

States: the Department of the Air Force, 

the Department of the Army, the 

Department of the Navy, the Federal 

Aviation Administration, and the 

United States Postal Service (‘‘Settling 

Federal Agencies’’). Pursuant to the 

Consent Decree, the Settling Federal 

Agencies shall pay approximately $14 

million toward financing the work at 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, 

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 v. ExxonMobil Corporation, et al., 

Civil Action No. 1:07–cv–00060–PB, D.J. 

Ref. 90–11–3–07039/11. 

The proposed Consent Decree may be 

examined at the Office of the United 

States Attorney, District of New 

Hampshire, 53 Pleasant Street, Concord, 

New Hampshire 03301, and at the 

United States Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region I, 1 Congress Street, 

Suite 1100, Boston, Massachusetts 

02114–2023. During the public 

comment period, the proposed Consent 

Decree may also be examined on the 

following Department of Justice Web 

site, http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ 

Consent—Decrees.html. A copy of the 

proposed 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 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. If requesting a 

copy by mail from the Consent Decree 

Library, please enclose a check in the 

amount of $184.75 ($0.25 per page 

reproduction cost) payable to the United 

States Treasury or, if requesting by email or fax, forward a check in that 

amount to the consent Decree Library at 

the stated address. if requesting a copy 

exclusive of exhibits and/or defendants’ 

signatures, please enclose a check in the 

amount of $32.75 ($0.25 per page 

reproduction cost) payable to the United 

States Treasury. 

Maureen Katz, 

Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement 

Section, Environment and Natural Resources 

Division. 

[FR Doc. 07–2163 Filed 5–2–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–M 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree 

Under the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

In accordance with Seciton 113(g) of 

the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), and 28 CFR 

50.7, notice is hereby given that on 

April 26, 2007, the proposed Consent 

Decree in United States v. Rhodia Inc., 

Civil Action No. 2:07CV134 WL, was 

lodged with the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of 

Indiana. 

In this action, the United States 

asserts claims against Rhodia Inc. 

(Rhodia) under Sections 42 U.S.C. 

7475–7477 and 7503, and 42 U.S.C. 

7411 of the Clean Air Act (the Act) 

relating to violations of the New Source 

Review permitting and control 

technology requirements, as well as the 

New Source Performance Standards at 

six Rhodia sulfuric acid plans in 

Hammond, Indiana; Baytown and 

Houston, Texas; Martinez and 

Dominguez, California; and Baton 

Rouge, Louisiana. 

The Consent Decree requires Rhodia 

to pay a civil penalty of $2,000,000 of 

which $1,000,000 will be paid to the 

United States and the rest will be 

divided amongst the City of Hammond, 

Indiana; the State of Indiana; the State 

of Louisiana; and the Bay Area Air 

Quality Management District of 

California. The Consent Decree further 

requires Rhodia to meet certain 

emission limits for sulfur dioxide and 

acid mist, and to comply with the NSPS, 

Subpart H requirements, including 

performance testing and monitoring. 

For a period of thirty (30) days from 

the date of this publication, the 

Department of Justice will receive 

comments relating to the proposed 

Consent Decree. Comments should be 

addressed to the Assistant Attorney 

General, Environment and National 

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 v. Rhodia Inc., D.J. Ref. 90–5–2– 

1–08500. 

The proposed Consent Decree may be 

examined at the Office of the United 

States Attorney, 5400 Federal Plaza, 

Suite 1500, Hammond, IN 46230, and at 

U.S. EPA Region V, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., 

Chicago, IL 60604. During the public 

comment period, the Consent Decree 

may also be examined on the following 

Department of Justice Web site, http:// 

www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent— 

Decrees.html. A copy of the proposed 

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 or 

by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia 

Fleetwood (tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov), 

fax no. (202) 514–0097, phone 

confirmation no. (202) 514–1547. In 

requesting a copy from the Consent 

Decree Library, please enclose a check 

in the amount of $29.00 (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. 

William D. Brighton, 

Assistant Section Chief, Environmental 

Enforcement Section, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division. 

[FR Doc. 07–2162 Filed 5–2–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–M 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree 

Under the Clean Air Act 

Notice is hereby given that on April 

19, 2007, a proposed Consent Decree in 

United States v. Shan Industries, LLC, 

Civil Action No. 2:07–1839 (JLL) was 

lodged with the United States District 

Court for the District of New Jersey. 

In this action the United States sought 

civil penalties and injunctive relief 

relating to alleged violations of the 

Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq., 

and the National Emissions Standards 

for Chromium Emissions from Hard and 

Decorative Chromium Electroplating 

and Chromium Anodizing Tanks, 40 

CFR Part 63, Subpart N, and the 

National Emissions Standards for 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning, 40 CFR 

Part 63, Subpart T, arising out of Shan 

Industries, LLC’s ownership and 

operation of its Accurate Forming 

facility, located in Hamburg, New 

Jersey. Shan uses tricholoroethylene and 

hexavalent chromium to degrease and 

electroplate ‘‘deep drawn’’ metal parts 

used in such products as writing 

implements and automotive fuel filters. 

The Consent Decree resolves the claims 

alleged in the Complaint that Shan 

violated the Act and the pertinent 

regulations in its operations, and failed 

to comply with certain design, testing, 

operating, monitoring and reporting 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

24602 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 85 / Thursday, May 3, 2007 / Notices 

1 The ALJ’s Decision will be cited as ‘‘ALJ.’’ 

2 The FDA is, however, currently proposing to 

remove combination ephedrine-guaifenesin 

products from its over-the-counter (OTC) drug 

monograph and to delare them not safe and 

effective for OTC use. See 70 FR 40232 (2005). 

requirements. Shan has demonstrated 

that it has brought the facility into 

compliance. The Consent Decree 

requires Shan to pay, based on its 

limited financial ability, a civil penalty 

of $101,000 in three annual 

installments, and provides that Shan 

will comply with reporting 

requirements set forth in the Consent 

Decree. 

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 

Assistant Attorney General, 

Environment and Natural Resources 

Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

20044–7611, and should refer to United 

States v. Shan Industries, LLC, D.J. Ref. 

90–5–2–1–08362/1. Such comments 

may also be sent by e-mail to 

pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov. 

The Consent Decree may be examined 

at the Office of the United States 

Attorney, District of New Jersey, 970 

Broad Street, 7th Floor, Newark, NJ 

07102, and at U.S. EPA Region 2, 290 

Broadway, New York, NY 10007–1866. 

During the public comments period, the 

Consent Decree may also be examined 

on the following Department of Justice 

Web site: http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ 

Consent—Decrees.html. 

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 or by faxing or emailing 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 enclose a check in the amount of 

$6.50 (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 Chief, Environmental Enforcement 

Section, Environment and Natural Resources 

Division. 

[FR Doc. 07–2161 Filed 5–2–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–M 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 05–3] 

John J. Fotinopoulos; Revocation of 

Registration 

On October 7, 2004, the Deputy 

Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Diversion Control, Enforcement 

Administration, issued an Order to 

Show Cause to John J. Fotinopoulos 

(Respondent) of Gainesville, Florida. 

The Show Cause Order proposed the 

revocation of Respondent’s DEA 

Certificate of Registration, 002964JTY, 

as a distributor of listed chemicals, on 

the ground that his continued 

registration would be inconsistent with 

the public interest. See 21 U.S.C. 

824(a)(4) & 823(h). The Show Cause 

Order also proposed the denial of 

Respondent’s pending applications for 

modification and renewal of his 

registration. 

The Show Cause Order alleged that 

Respondent distributed listed chemicals 

to the non-traditional market. More 

specifically, the Show Cause Order 

alleged that in July 2003, Respondent 

moved his business from SW 47th St., 

Gainesville, Florida, to a trailer park 

located at SW Archer Road, Gainesville, 

Florida, but failed to request a 

modification of his registered location 

as required by DEA regulations until 

January 15, 2004. Show Cause Order at 

2–3. The Show Cause Order further 

alleged that from July 2003 through 

January 2004, Respondent violated 

federal law by distributing listed 

chemicals from his new location which 

was not registered. Id. at 3. 

The Show Cause Order also alleged 

that in 2001, a DEA investigator had 

inspected Respondent and found his 

recordkeeping and customer 

identification practices to be 

inadequate. Id. The Show Cause Order 

further alleged that during a May 2004 

inspection, DEA investigators had again 

determined that Respondent’s 

recordkeeping was inadequate, that he 

was unable to identify whether certain 

products were regulated because they 

contained listed chemicals, and that he 

was unfamiliar with the regulations 

pertaining to thresholds and regulated 

transactions. Id. Relatedly, the Show 

Cause Order alleged that Respondent 

told investigators that he kept 

information pertaining to his customers 

in his head. Id. Finally, the Show Cause 

Order alleged that Respondent’s security 

arrangements were inadequate. See id. 

Respondent, through his counsel, 

timely requested a hearing. The matter 

was assigned to Administrative Law 

Judge (ALJ) Gail Randall, who 

conducted a hearing in Gainesville, 

Florida, on April 19 and 20, 2005. At 

the hearing, both parties introduced 

documentary evidence and called 

witnesses to testify; both parties also 

submitted post-hearing briefs. 

On October 11, 2006, the ALJ issued 

her decision.1 In her decision, the ALJ 

found that four of the five statutory 

factors, see 21 U.S.C. 823(h), supported 

the revocation of Respondent’s 

registration and the denial of his 

pending applications for renewal and 

modification of the registration. ALJ at 

41. Neither party filed exceptions. 

Having reviewed the record as a 

whole, I hereby issue this decision and 

final order. I adopt the ALJ’s findings of 

fact and conclusions of law except as 

expressly noted herein. I further adopt 

the ALJ’s recommendation that 

Respondent’s registration should be 

revoked and his pending applications 

for renewal and modification should be 

denied and make the following findings. 

Findings of Fact 

Respondent distributes assorted 

products including maps, cigarette 

lighters, rolling papers, prophylactics, 

batteries, and over-the-counter drug 

products to convenience stores, gas 

stations and liquor stores in northern 

Florida and southern Georgia. Gov. Ex. 

27. Respondent is the holder of DEA 

Certificate Registration, No. 002964JTY, 

which authorizes him to distribute list 

I chemical products. ALJ at 3. Since 

1998, Respondent has held a registration 

at his former residence which was 

located at 4000 SW 47th Street, 

Gainesville, Florida. Id. In early July 

2003, Respondent moved from this 

address to a mobile home park located 

at 7117 SW Archer Road, Gainesville, 

Florida. Tr. 286. 

On November 10, 2003, Respondent 

filed an application to renew his 

registration and paid the fee. Gov. Ex. 3; 

Tr. 289. On the application, Respondent 

sought to distribute pseudoephedrine 

and ephedrine from his new address. 

Gov. Ex. 3, at 2. 

As explained in numerous DEA final 

orders, both pseudoephedrine and 

ephedrine currently have therapeutic 

uses. See, e.g., Tri-County Bait 

Distributors, 71 FR 52160, 52161 

(2006).2 Both chemicals are, however, 

regulated under the Controlled 

Substances Act because they are 

precursor chemicals which are easily 

extracted from non-prescription 

products and used in the illicit 

manufacture of methamphetamine, a 

Schedule II controlled substance. See 21 

U.S.C. 802(34); 21 CFR 1308.12(d). 

Methamphetamine is a powerful and 

highly addictive central nervous system 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB