Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 35 / Thursday, February 22, 2007 / Notices 8017 

and Lehigh Dairies up in the northeast. Most 

anyone would be a perfect partner for an easy 

and quick $17,000,000. 

After the deal was complete and DFA and 

good ole Bob took over Southern Belle, good 

ole Bob almost immediately began laying the 

groundwork to give the SEGMPA two 

wonderful options: 

1.) Become a DFA producer or 

2.) Go fly a kite. 

It was also apparent soon after Bob took 

over that he needed someone to be his yes 

man because Martin Shearer just did not fit 

the bill. The yes man suddenly appeared 

* * * why, it’s Mike Chandler right out of 

the sales department. Mike is the kind of guy 

that gives all salespeople a bad name. People 

say he would climb a tree to tell a lie. 

However, he was lacking when it came to 

speech because he couldn’t say shit with a 

mouthful. Now this is where DOJ gets a well 

deserved Pat On The Back. Much to the 

surprise of DFA and good ole Bob, DOJ filed 

a lawsuit asking DFA to divest itself of its 

ownership in Southern Belle. Good ole Bob 

had to put the brakes on his plan. After all, 

it wouldn’t look good if he sent Martin 

Shearer home and kicked the producers right 

between the legs, at least not right now. DFA 

and good ole Bob put up a good fight and 

finally finagled a judge into giving them a 

Summary Judgment. Good ole Bob must have 

known he was going to get it, as he sent 

Martin Shearer home before the Summary 

Judgment was made public and he put his 

yes man in place. When the Summary 

Judgment in favor of DFA and good ole Bob 

was made public, celebrations broke out to 

honor the victory over DOJ. After all, who is 

the DOJ that would question DFA and the 

perfect partner, good ole Bob. 

Here is another well-deserved Pat-On The 

Back for DOJ. You didn’t quit. DOJ filed an 

appeal. The judge who was tricked by DFA 

and good ole Bob had his decision 

overturned. This really made DFA and good 

ole Bob mad. But what could they do? * * * 

Give up and agree to sell it and quickly find 

someone to move it to that would finish the 

job for them. Why after going to great and 

expensive lengths to keep Prairie Farms from 

owning Southern Belle do they quickly sell 

it to them without even giving one group a 

chance to make a proposal? I know opinions 

are like assholes; every body has one. Here’s 

my opinion—Whatever Prairie Farms might 

have given will be returned to them in some 

way, probably in credits toward raw milk 

purchases, making the price tag this time 

around $00. plus keep lying Mike Chandler 

in charge to oversee DFA’s best interests of 

seeing SEGMPA die a slow but sure death. 

At last, mission accomplished for DFA. 

Please do whatever it takes to see Southern 

Belle end up in the hands of someone who 

has (zero) connection to DFA. Thanks for 

listening. 

A very concerned citizen 

P.S. Something else you may need to take 

a look at. Remember the children and 

families and taxpayers you were trying to 

protect when you made the new Dean spin 

off those plants. 

1.) The one in northern Alabama that 

needed to give Dean competition; you may 

not know but it’s gone. Dean has North 

Alabama schools all to themselves now. Poor 

children. 

2.) The one in Virginia that was supposed 

to give Dean competition in parts of Virginia; 

you may not know but it’s gone. Poor 

children. 

3.) The one in Indiana that was supposed 

to give Dean competition; you may not know 

it but it’s gone. Poor children. 

You might ought to watch the rest that 

were spun off because some of them may 

soon disappear as well. 

Thanks again for listening. 

[FR Doc. 07–709 Filed 2–21–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Importer of Controlled Substances; 

Notice of Application 

Pursuant to 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 21 U.S.C. 

§ 952(a)(2)(B) 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 21 CFR 

1301.34(a), this is notice that on 

November 27, 2005, Cambrex Charles 

City, Inc., 1205 11th Street, Charles City, 

Iowa 50616, made application by 

renewal to the Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA) to be registered as 

an importer of Phenylacetone (8501), a 

basic class of controlled substance listed 

in schedule II. 

The company plans to import 

Phenylacetone for use as a precursor in 

the manufacture of amphetamines only. 

Any bulk manufacturer who is 

presently, or is applying to be, 

registered with DEA to manufacture 

such basic class of controlled substance 

may file comments or objections to the 

issuance of the proposed registration 

and may, at the same time, file a written 

request for a hearing on such 

application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 

and in such form as prescribed by 21 

CFR 1316.47. 

Any such written comments or 

objections being sent via regular mail 

should be addressed, in quintuplicate, 

to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, 

Office of Diversion Control, Drug 

Enforcement Administration, 

Washington, DC 20537, Attention: DEA 

Federal Register Representative/ODL; or 

any being sent via express mail should 

be sent to DEA Headquarters, Attention: 

DEA Federal Register Representative/ 

ODL, 2401 Jefferson-Davis Highway, 

Alexandria, Virginia 22301; and must be 

filed no later than March 26, 2007. 

This procedure is to be conducted 

simultaneously with and independent 

of the procedures described in 21 CFR 

§ 1301.34(b), (c), (d), (e) and (f). As 

noted in a previous notice published in 

the Federal Register on September 23, 

1975, (40 FR 43745–46), all applicants 

for registration to import a basic class of 

any controlled substance listed in 

schedule I or II are, and will continue 

to be required to demonstrate to the 

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office 

of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration, that the requirements 

for such registration pursuant to 21 

U.S.C. 958(a), 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and 21 

CFR 1301.34(b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) are 

satisfied. 

Dated: February 14, 2007. 

Joseph T. Rannazzisi, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–2992 Filed 2–21–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Importer of Controlled Substances; 

Notice of Registration 

By Notice dated November 21, 2006 

and published in the Federal Register 

on December 1, 2006, (71 FR 69591), 

JFC Technologies LLC., 100 West Main 

Street, P.O. Box 669, Bound Brook, New 

Jersey 08805, made application by 

renewal to the Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA) to be registered as 

an importer of Meperidine intermediateB (9233), a basic class of controlled 

substance listed in schedule II. 

The company plans to import the 

basic class of controlled substance for 

production of controlled substances for 

distribution to its customers. 

No comments or objections have been 

received. DEA has considered the 

factors in 21 U.S.C. § 823(a) and § 952(a) 

and determined that the registration of 

JFC Technologies LLC to import the 

basic class of controlled substance is 

consistent with the public interest and 

with United States obligations under 

international treaties, conventions, or 

protocols in effect on May 1, 1971, at 

this time. DEA has investigated JFC 

Technologies LLC to ensure that the 

company’s registration is consistent 

with the public interest. The 

investigation has included inspection 

and testing of the company’s physical 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
8018 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 35 / Thursday, February 22, 2007 / Notices 

security systems, verification of the 

company’s compliance with state and 

local laws, and a review of the 

company’s background and history. 

Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 952(a) 

and § 958(a), and in accordance with 21 

CFR 1301.34, the above named company 

is granted registration as an importer of 

the basic class of controlled substance 

listed. 

Dated: February 14, 2007. 

Joseph T. Rannazzisi, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–2991 Filed 2–21–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Office of the Secretary 

Submission for OMB Review: 

Comment Request 

February 15, 2007. 

The Department of Labor (DOL) has 

submitted the following public 

information collection request (ICR) to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and approval in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 

44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of this 

ICR, with applicable supporting 

documentation, may be obtained from 

RegInfo.gov at http://www.reginfo.gov/ 

public/do/PRAMain or by contacting 

Darrin King on 202–693–4129 (this is 

not a toll-free number)/e-mail: 

king.darrin@dol.gov. 

Comments should be sent to Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Bureau 

of Labor Statistics (BLS), Office of 

Management and Budget, Room 10235, 

Washington, DC 20503, Telephone: 

202–395–7316/Fax: 202–395–6974 

(these are not toll-free numbers), within 

30 days from the date of this publication 

in the Federal Register. 

The OMB is particularly interested in 

comments which: 

• Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

• Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

• Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

• Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Agency: Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

Type of Review: Extension without 

change of a currently approved 

collection. 

Title: Multiple Worksite Report and 

the Report of Federal Employment and 

Wages. 

OMB Number: 1220–0134. 

Form Numbers: BLS–3020 and BLS–

3021. 

Type of Response: Reporting. 

Frequency: Quarterly. 

Affected Public: Business or other for 

profits; Not-for-profits institutions; and 

Federal Government. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

128,411. 

Annual Responses: 513,644. 

Total Annual Burden Hours: 190,048. 

Average Burden Time per Response: 

22 minutes. 

Total Annualized capital/startup 

costs: $0. 

Total Annual Costs (operating/ 

maintaining systems or purchasing 

services): $0. 

Description: States use the Multiple 

Worksite Report to collect employment 

and wages data by worksite from 

employers covered by State 

Unemployment Insurance which are 

engaged in multiple operations within a 

State. These data are used for sampling, 

benchmarking, and economic analysis. 

Darrin A. King, 

Acting Departmental Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. E7–2894 Filed 2–21–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–24–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Office of the Secretary 

Submission for OMB Review: 

Comment Request 

February 15, 2007. 

The Department of Labor (DOL) has 

submitted the following public 

information collection requests (ICR) to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and approval in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 

44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of each 

ICR, with applicable supporting 

documentation, may be obtained from 

RegInfo.gov at http://www.reginfo.gov/ 

public/do/PRAMain or by contacting 

Darrin King on 202–693–4129 (this is 

not a toll-free number) / e-mail: 

king.darrin@dol.gov. 

Comments should be sent to Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the 

Employee Benefits Security 

Administration (EBSA), Office of 

Management and Budget, Room 10235, 

Washington, DC 20503, Telephone: 

202–395–7316 / Fax: 202–395–6974 

(these are not toll-free numbers), within 

30 days from the date of this publication 

in the Federal Register. 

The OMB is particularly interested in 

comments which: 

• Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

• Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

• Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

• Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Agency: Employee Benefits Security 

Administration. 

Type of Review: Extension without 

change of currently approved collection. 

Title: Employee Benefit Plan Claims 

Procedure Under ERISA. 

OMB Number: 1210–0053. 

Type of Response: Third party 

disclosure. 

Affected Public: Private Sector: 

Business or other for-profits and Notfor-profit institutions. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

5,900,000. 

Estimated Number of Annual 

Responses: 320,999,996. 

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 

529,000. 

Estimated Total Annualized Capital/ 

Startup Costs: $0. 

Estimated Total Annual Costs 

(operating/maintaining systems or 

purchasing services): $423,051,994. 

Description: Section 503 of the 

Employee Retirement Income Security 

Act of 1974 and the Department’s 

regulations at 29 CFR 2560.503–1 

require employee benefit plans to 

establish procedures for resolving 

benefit claims under the plan, including 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES