Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2018 / Notices 42697 

1Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 

an agency ‘‘may take official notice of facts at any 

stage in a proceeding—even in the final decision.’’ 

U.S. Dept. of Justice, Attorney General’s Manual on 

the Administrative Procedure Act 80 (1947) (Wm. 

W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint 1979). In accordance 

with the APA and DEA’s regulations, Registrant is 

‘‘entitled on timely request to an opportunity to 

show to the contrary.’’ 5 U.S.C. 556(e); see also 21 

CFR 1316.59(e). To allow Registrant the opportunity 

to refute the facts of which I take official notice, 

Registrant may file a motion for reconsideration 

within 15 calendar days of service of this order 

which shall commence on the date this order is 

mailed. 

2As already noted, my office received the 

Government’s Second Request for Final Agency 

Action on March 29, 2018. This filing arrived in my 

office too late for me to issue a final decision and 

order before the registration would expire on April 

30, 2018. DEA regulation 21 CFR 1316.67 requires 

that I issue a final order that takes effect not less 

than 30 days from the date of publication in the 

Federal Register unless the public interest 

necessitates an earlier effective date. The record 

before me fails to include facts supporting a finding 

that ‘‘the public interest in the matter necessitates 

an earlier effective date.’’ 21 CFR 1316.67. Thus, 

even if I had submitted a final order in this case 

to the Federal Register on the same day (March 29, 

2018) that my office received the SRFAA to revoke 

Registrant’s registration, I could not have issued an 

order that would have taken effect by April 30, 2018 

because the Federal Register would not have been 

able to publish it 30 days before the registration’s 

April 30, 2018 expiration—i.e., by Saturday, March 

31, 2018. And as the Agency has previously noted, 

there is no point in issuing a ruling on a Show 

Cause Order where, as here, that ruling would 

constitute an advisory opinion subject to vacation 

on judicial review. See, e.g., Josip Pasic, M.D., 82 

FR 24146, 24147 (2017) (‘‘As the requested factual 

findings and legal conclusions would be subject to 

vacation on judicial review, there is no point in 

making them.’’). 

The Government also submitted a 

Certification of Registration History, 

which was sworn to on December 19, 

2017. GX 1, at 3. In that Certification, 

the Associate Chief of the Registration 

and Program Support Section stated that 

DEA Registration No. BR7006085 

‘‘expires on April 30, 2018.’’ Id. at 1–2. 

The Associate Chief further stated that 

‘‘Gre[g] N. Rampey, M.D., has no other 

pending or valid DEA registration(s) in 

Oklahoma.’’ Id. at 3. Pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 556(e), I take official notice of 

Registrant’s registration record with the 

Agency. See also 21 CFR 1316.59(e).1

According to that record, DEA 

Registration No. BR7006085 expired on 

April 30, 2018, and Registrant has not 

filed an application, whether timely or 

not, to renew his registration or for any 

other registration in the State of 

Oklahoma.2

DEA has long held that ‘‘ ‘if a 

registrant has not submitted a timely 

renewal application prior to the 

expiration date, then the registration 

expires and there is nothing to revoke.’ ’’ 

Donald Brooks Reece II, M.D., 77 FR 

35054, 35055 (2012) (quoting Ronald J. 

Riegel, 63 FR 67312, 67133 (1998)); see 

also Thomas E. Mitchell, 76 FR 20032, 

20033 (2011). ‘‘Moreover, in the absence 

of an application (whether timely filed 

or not), there is nothing to act upon.’’ 

Reece, 77 FR at 35055. Accordingly, 

because Registrant has allowed his 

registration to expire and has not filed 

any application for registration in 

Oklahoma, this case is now moot and 

will be dismissed. 

Order 

Pursuant to the authority vested in me 

by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 

0.100(b), I order that the Order to Show 

Cause issued to Greg N. Rampey, D.O., 

be, and it hereby is, dismissed. This 

Order is effective immediately. 

Dated: August 14, 2018. 

Uttam Dhillon, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2018–18267 Filed 8–22–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Proposed First 

Amendment of Consent Decree Under 

the Clean Air Act 

On August 15, 2018, the Department 

of Justice lodged a proposed First 

Amendment of Consent Decree (‘‘First 

Amendment’’) with the United States 

District Court for the District of Nevada 

in the lawsuit entitled United States v. 

Nevada Cement Company, Inc., Civil 

Action No. 3:17–cv–302. 

This case involves claims for alleged 

violations of the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration program of the 

Clean Air Act and related state law 

requirements against the Nevada 

Cement Company at its Fernley, 

Nevada, Portland cement facility. The 

original Consent Decree resolving the 

dispute included injunctive relief for 

installation of control technology to 

reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides 

(NOX), civil penalties, and mitigation of 

past excess NOX emissions. The 

proposed First Amendment, if approved 

by the Court, would change the 

requirements in the original Consent 

Decree from Selective Non-Catalytic 

Reduction control technology to 

Selective Catalytic Reduction control 

technology for NOx emissions, and 

would require greater reductions in 

NOX, yielding a net NOX emission 

reduction over the life of the Consent 

Decree as compared to the original 

Consent Decree. 

The publication of this notice opens 

a period for public comment on the First 

Amendment. Comments should be 

addressed to the Assistant Attorney 

General, Environment and Natural 

Resources Division, and should refer to 

United States v. Nevada Cement, Inc., 

D.J. Ref. No. 90–5–2–1–10458. 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 First Amendment may be examined 

and downloaded at this Justice 

Department website: https://

www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees. 

We will provide a paper copy of the 

First Amendment 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 $3.25 (25 cents per page 

reproduction cost) payable to the United 

States Treasury. 

Henry Friedman, 

Assistant Section Chief, Environmental 

Enforcement Section, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division. 

[FR Doc. 2018–18172 Filed 8–22–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Submission for OMB 

Review; Comment Request: H–2A 

Recordkeeping Requirement 

ACTION: Notice of availability; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor 

(DOL or Department), as part of its 

continuing effort to reduce paperwork 

and respondent burden, conducts a 

preclearance consultation program to 

provide the public and Federal agencies 

with an opportunity to comment on 

proposed and/or continuing collections 

of information in accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This 

program helps ensure that requested 

data can be provided in the desired 

format, reporting burden (time and 

financial resources) is minimized, 

collection instruments are clearly 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES