44018 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Notices

Natural Resources Division, Department

of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, and

should refer to United States v. Mary

Ruth Smith, et al., DOJ Ref. #90–11–3–

549.

The United States filed a complaint in

this matter in March 1990, pursuant to

Sections 106 and 107 of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 9606 and

9607, to recover past and future

response costs incurred and to be

incurred by the United States with

respect to the Site, and injunctive relief

for the Site.

The proposed Consent Decrees may

be examined at the office of the United

States Attorney, Western District of

Kentucky, 510 West Broadway,

Louisville, KY 40202; the Office of the

United States Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forysth Street,

S.W., Atlanta, Georgia, 30303; and at the

Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street,

N.W., 4th Floor, Washington, D.C.

20005, (202) 624–0892. Copies of the

proposed Consent Decrees may be

obtained in person or by mail from the

Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street,

N.W., 4th Floor, Washington, D.C.

20005. In requesting a copy of the

Consent Decree with Ford Motor

Company, please refer to the referenced

case and enclose a check in the amount

of $190.50 (25 cents per page

reproduction costs), payable to the

Consent Decree Library for a copy of the

Consent Decree with Ford Motor

Company with its attachments or a

check in the amount of $17.75, for a

copy of that proposed Consent Decree

without its attachments. In requesting a

copy of the Consent Decree with the

nine other parties (Akzo Nobel Coatings,

Inc.; The B.F. Goodrich Company;

General Electric Company; Hoechst

Celanese Corporation; Jim Beam Brands

Company; Navistar International

Transportation Corporation; Rohm and

Haas Kentucky Incorporated; Safety

Kleen Envirosystems Company; and

Waste Management of Kentucky, LLC.),

please refer to the referenced case and

enclose a check in the amount of $9.00

(25 cents per page reproduction costs),

payable to the Consent Decree Library

for a copy of the Consent Decree with

attachments or a check in the amount of

$8.25, for a copy of that proposed

Consent Decree without its attachments.

Joel M. Gross,

Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section,

Environment and Natural Resources Division.

[FR Doc. 97–21473 Filed 8–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–15–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant

to the Comprehensive Environmental

Response Compensation and Liability

Act; the Toxic Substances Control Act;

and the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act

Notice is hereby given that on July 28,

1997 a proposed consent decree in

United States v. Southeastern

Pennsylvania Transportation Authority,

et al., Civ. A. No. 86–1094, was lodged

with the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The complaint in this action seeks

judgment under: Sections 106 and

107(a) of the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation

and Liability Act (‘‘CERCLA’’), as

amended by the Superfund

Amendments and Reauthorization Act

of 1986, Public Law 99–499, 42 U.S.C.

9606, 9607(a); Section 7 of the Toxic

Substances Control Act (‘‘TSCA’’), 15

U.S.C. 2606; and Section 7003 of the

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (‘‘RCRA’’), 42 U.S.C. 6973. This

action involves the Paoli Railroad Yard

Superfund in the City of Paoli, Chester

County, Pennsylvania.

The consent decree resolves the

claims of the United States against three

Defendants: Consolidated Rail

Corporation (‘‘Conrail’’), National

Railroad Passenger Corporation

(‘‘Amtrak’’), and Southeastern

Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

(‘‘SEPTA’’). Under the terms of this

decree Settling Defendants shall: (A)

perform the RD/RA for all Site work on

the actual rail yard portion of the Site,

(B) pay $500,000 in past costs, and, (C)

pay $850,000 for Natural Resource

Damages.

The Department of Justice will receive

comments relating to the proposed

consent decree for a period of thirty

days from the date of publication of this

notice. Comments should be addressed

to the Assistant Attorney General of the

Environment and Natural Resources

Division, Department of Justice, P.O.

Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station,

Washington, D.C. 20044, and should

refer to United States v. Southeastern

Pennsylvania Transportation Authority,

et al., DOJ Reference No. 90–11–2–152.

In accordance with Section 7003(d) of

RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6973(d), commenters

may request a public meeting in the

affected areas.

The proposed consent decree may be

examined at the Office of the United

States Attorney for the Eastern District

of Pennsylvania, 615 Chestnut St., Room

1250, Philadelphia, PA 19106; the

Region III office of the Environmental

Protection Agency, 841 Chestnut Street,

Philadelphia, PA; and at the Consent

Decree Library, 1120 ‘‘G’’ Street, N.W.,

4th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005,

(202) 624–0892. A copy of each

proposed decree may be obtained in

person or by mail from the Consent

Decree Library at the address listed

above. In requesting a copy, please refer

to the referenced case and number, and

enclose a check in the amount of $61.00

(with exhibits) (25 cents per page

reproduction costs), payable to the

Consent Decree Library.

Joel Gross,

Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section,

Environment and Natural Resources Div.

[FR Doc. 97–21743 Filed 8–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–15–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. 96–9]

Oscar I. Ordonez, M.D.; Conditional

Grant of Registration

On November 8, 1995, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA), issued an Order

to Show Cause to Oscar I. Ordonez,

M.D., (Respondent) of Winchester,

Indiana, notifying him of an opportunity

to show cause as to why DEA should

not deny pending applications for

registration as a practitioner pursuant to

21 U.S.C. 823(f), for reason that his

registration would be inconsistent with

the public interest. By letter dated

November 28, 1995, Respondent,

through counsel, timely filed a request

for a hearing, and following prehearing

procedures, a hearing was held in

Indianapolis, Indiana on June 19, 1996,

before Administrative Law Judge Mary

Ellen Bittner. At the hearing, both

parties called witnesses to testify and

introduced documentary evidence. After

the hearing, both parties submitted

proposed findings of fact, conclusions of

law and argument.

On June 17, 1997, Judge Bittner issued

her Opinion and Recommended Ruling,

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law

and Decision, recommending that the

Deputy Administrator grant

Respondent’s application upon

Respondent’s filing of a certificate or

other demonstration of completion of a

course of at least sixteen hours of formal

training in the regulation and proper

handling of controlled substances.

Neither party filed exceptions to the

Administrative Law Judge’s

recommended decision, and on July 18,