13376 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Notices 

1A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any 

individual Commissioner’s statements will be 

available from the Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s website. 

2The Commission has found the response 

submitted on behalf of NobelClad to be individually 

adequate. Comments from other interested parties 

will not be accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)). 

1Based on the Government’s submissions in its 

RFAA dated August 29, 2023, the Agency finds that 

service of the OSC/ISO on Registrant was adequate 

and rendered on July 11, 2023. Specifically, on 

August 23, 2023, the Government filed a Notice of 

Service and Motion to Dismiss Request for Hearing 

as Untimely and to Terminate Proceedings, which 

included as an attachment the Declaration of a DEA 

Diversion Investigator asserting that on July 11, 

2023, Registrant was personally served with the 

OSC/ISO at his registered address. RFAAX 2, at 1, 

3, 13. 

DATES: February 5, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alexis Yim (202–708–1446), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (https://

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this proceeding may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at https://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On February 5, 2024, 

the Commission determined that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (88 

FR 75026, November 1, 2023) of the 

subject five-year review was adequate 

and that the respondent interested party 

group response was inadequate. The 

Commission did not find any other 

circumstances that would warrant 

conducting a full review.1 Accordingly, 

the Commission determined that it 

would conduct an expedited review 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act 

(19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(3)). 

For further information concerning 

the conduct of this review and rules of 

general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B 

(19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207). 

Staff report.—A staff report 

containing information concerning the 

subject matter of the review has been 

placed in the nonpublic record, and will 

be made available to persons on the 

Administrative Protective Order service 

list for this review on March 11, 2024. 

A public version will be issued 

thereafter, pursuant to § 207.62(d)(4) of 

the Commission’s rules. 

Written submissions.—As provided in 

§ 207.62(d) of the Commission’s rules, 

interested parties that are parties to the 

review and that have provided 

individually adequate responses to the 

notice of institution,2 and any party 

other than an interested party to the 

review may file written comments with 

the Secretary on what determination the 

Commission should reach in the review. 

Comments are due on or before 5:15 

p.m. on March 14, 2024 and may not 

contain new factual information. Any 

person that is neither a party to the fiveyear review nor an interested party may 

submit a brief written statement (which 

shall not contain any new factual 

information) pertinent to the review by 

March 14, 2024. However, should the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) 

extend the time limit for its completion 

of the final results of its review, the 

deadline for comments (which may not 

contain new factual information) on 

Commerce’s final results is three 

business days after the issuance of 

Commerce’s results. If comments 

contain business proprietary 

information (BPI), they must conform 

with the requirements of §§ 201.6, 

207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s 

rules. The Commission’s Handbook on 

Filing Procedures, available on the 

Commission’s website at https://

www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_

on_filing_procedures.pdf, elaborates 

upon the Commission’s procedures with 

respect to filings. 

In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 

207.3 of the rules, each document filed 

by a party to the review must be served 

on all other parties to the review (as 

identified by either the public or BPI 

service list), and a certificate of service 

must be timely filed. The Secretary will 

not accept a document for filing without 

a certificate of service. 

Determination.—The Commission has 

determined this review is 

extraordinarily complicated and 

therefore has determined to exercise its 

authority to extend the review period by 

up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)(B). 

Authority: This review is being 

conducted under authority of title VII of 

the Act; this notice is published 

pursuant to § 207.62 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: February 15, 2024. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2024–03546 Filed 2–21–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Henry Manning Pickett, M.D.; Default 

Decision and Order 

On July 10, 2023, the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA or 

Government) issued an Order to Show 

Cause and Immediate Suspension of 

Registration (OSC/ISO) to Henry 

Manning Pickett, M.D., (Respondent) of 

Lakewood, Colorado. Request for Final 

Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit 

(RFAAX) 1, at 1. The OSC/ISO informed 

Respondent of the immediate 

suspension of his DEA Certificate of 

Registration, Control No. AP1388948, 

pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(d), alleging 

that Respondent’s continued registration 

constitutes ‘‘ ‘an imminent danger to the 

public health or safety.’ ’’ Id. (quoting 21 

U.S.C. 824(d)). The OSC/ISO also 

proposed the revocation of 

Respondent’s registration, alleging that 

Respondent’s continued registration is 

inconsistent with the public interest. Id. 

(citing 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), 824(a)(4)). 

The OSC/ISO notified Respondent of 

his right to file with DEA a written 

request for hearing within 30 days after 

the date of receipt of the OSC/ISO; the 

OSC/ISO also notified Respondent that 

if he failed to file such a request, he 

would be deemed to have waived his 

right to a hearing and be in default. Id. 

at 8–9 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). Here, 

Respondent filed an untimely request 

for hearing on August 17, 2023,1 and 

within his request for hearing, failed to 

answer the allegations contained in the 

OSC/ISO as required by 21 CFR 

1301.43. See RFAAX 3. On August 17, 

2023, Chief Administrative Law Judge 

John J. Mulrooney, II, (the Chief ALJ) 

issued an Order requiring Respondent 

to, among other things, answer the 

allegations by August 23, 2023. See 

RFAAX 4. Respondent failed to file 

answers to the allegations or to 

otherwise respond to the order. 

Ultimately, the Chief ALJ determined 

that Respondent was in default, and on 

August 28, 2023, issued an Order 

Terminating Proceedings. See RFAAX 5. 

‘‘A default, unless excused, shall be 

deemed to constitute a waiver of the 

registrant’s/applicant’s right to a hearing 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Notices 13377 

and an admission of the factual 

allegations of the [OSC].’’ 21 CFR 

1301.43(e). 

Further, ‘‘[i]n the event that a 

registrant . . . is deemed to be in 

default . . . DEA may then file a request 

for final agency action with the 

Administrator, along with a record to 

support its request. In such 

circumstances, the Administrator may 

enter a default final order pursuant to 

[21 CFR] § 1316.67.’’ Id. § 1301.43(f)(1). 

Here, the Government has requested 

final agency action based on 

Respondent’s default pursuant to 21 

CFR 1301.43(c), (f). See also id. 

§ 1316.67. 

I. Findings of Fact 

The Agency finds that, in light of 

Respondent’s default, the factual 

allegations in the OSC/ISO are admitted. 

Colorado Standard of Care 

Respondent is deemed to have 

admitted that the applicable standard of 

care for the practice of medicine in 

Colorado indicates that prior to 

prescribing opioid medication, a 

physician must, among other things: (1) 

establish a bona fide provider-patient 

relationship; (2) establish a diagnosis 

and legitimate medical purpose through 

performing a history, physical exam, 

laboratory imaging, and other studies; 

(3) assess the risk of opioid therapy, 

including identifying patient and family 

history and medication history through 

review of Prescription Drug Monitoring 

Program (PDMP) data; (4) assess the 

patient’s pain for its nature, intensity, 

type, frequency, duration, and impact 

on function; (5) assess the patient’s 

functional ability during treatment and 

prior to change in medications; (6) 

consider referrals to other providers for 

mental health assessments if necessary; 

and (7) review the PDMP patient profile. 

RFAAX 1, at 2. Further, Respondent 

admits that the applicable standard of 

care provides that clinicians should 

continue opioid therapy only if there is 

a clinically meaningful improvement in 

pain and function that outweighs the 

risk to patient safety and should 

practice particular caution when coprescribing opioid pain medication with 

benzodiazepines or muscle relaxants 

and/or sedative hypnotics. Id. at 2–3. 

Patient N.B. 

According to the OSC/ISO, between 

June 2021 and October 2022, 

Respondent issued prescriptions for 

controlled substances to Patient N.B. on 

an approximately monthly basis; these 

prescriptions included prescriptions for 

fentanyl 50 mg (a schedule II opioid), 

zolpidem tartrate 10 mg (a schedule IV 

sedative), oxycodone/acetaminophen 

10/325 mg (a schedule II opioid), 

alprazolam 2 mg (a schedule IV 

benzodiazepine), and tramadol 50 mg (a 

schedule V opioid). RFAAX 1, at 3. 

Respondent has admitted that he issued 

these prescriptions without conducting 

an appropriate evaluation, without 

appropriately establishing a medical 

justification, without proper medical 

records, and without conducting proper 

ongoing monitoring of the patient. Id. 

Respondent has also admitted that he 

did not issue the above-referenced 

controlled substance prescriptions for a 

legitimate medical purpose in the usual 

course of professional practice. Id. at 4. 

Patient K.C. 

According to the OSC/ISO, between 

June 2021 and February 2023, 

Respondent issued prescriptions for 

controlled substances to Patient K.C. on 

an approximately monthly basis; these 

prescriptions included prescriptions for 

oxycodone 30 mg (a schedule II opioid), 

carisoprodol 350 mg (a schedule IV 

muscle relaxant) and pregabalin 300 mg 

(a schedule V anti-convulsant). Id. at 4. 

Respondent has admitted that he issued 

these prescriptions without conducting 

an appropriate evaluation, without 

appropriately establishing a medical 

justification, without proper medical 

records, and without conducting proper 

ongoing monitoring of the patient. Id. 

Respondent has also admitted that he 

did not issue the above-referenced 

controlled substance prescriptions for a 

legitimate medical purpose in the usual 

course of professional practice. Id. 

Patient B.M. 

According to the OSC/ISO, between 

June 2021 and March 2023, Respondent 

issued prescriptions for controlled 

substances to Patient B.M. on an 

approximately monthly basis; these 

prescriptions included prescriptions for 

oxycodone 10 mg, alprazolam 2 mg, 

oxycodone/acetaminophen 10/325 mg, 

OxyContin 30 mg (a brand name drug 

containing an extended release 

formulation of oxycodone), and 

carisoprodol 350 mg. Id. at 5. 

Respondent has admitted that he issued 

these prescriptions without conducting 

an appropriate evaluation, without 

appropriately establishing a medical 

justification, without proper medical 

records, and without conducting proper 

ongoing monitoring of the patient. Id. 

Respondent has also admitted that he 

did not issue the above-referenced 

controlled substance prescriptions for a 

legitimate medical purpose in the usual 

course of professional practice. Id. 

Patient R.M. 

According to the OSC/ISO, between 

June 2021 and February 2023, 

Respondent issued prescriptions for 

controlled substances to Patient R.M. on 

an approximately monthly basis; these 

prescriptions included prescriptions for 

oxycodone 10 mg and 20 mg, zolpidem 

tartrate 10 mg, and lorazepam 0.5 mg (a 

schedule IV benzodiazepine). Id. 

Respondent has admitted that he issued 

these prescriptions without conducting 

an appropriate evaluation, without 

appropriately establishing a medical 

justification, without proper medical 

records, and without conducting proper 

ongoing monitoring of the patient. Id. 

Respondent has also admitted that he 

did not issue the above-referenced 

controlled substance prescriptions for a 

legitimate medical purpose in the usual 

course of professional practice. Id. at 6. 

Patient S.S. 

According to the OSC/ISO, between 

June 2021 and February 2023, 

Respondent issued prescriptions for 

controlled substances to Patient S.S. on 

an approximately monthly basis; these 

prescriptions included prescriptions for 

oxycodone 10 mg and 20 mg, 

alprazolam 0.5 mg and 1 mg, lorazepam 

0.5 mg, and OxyContin 60 mg. Id. at 6. 

Respondent has admitted that he issued 

these prescriptions without conducting 

an appropriate evaluation, without 

appropriately establishing a medical 

justification, without proper medical 

records, and without conducting proper 

ongoing monitoring of the patient. Id. 

Respondent has also admitted that he 

did not issue the above-referenced 

controlled substance prescriptions for a 

legitimate medical purpose in the usual 

course of professional practice. Id. 

Patient P.M. 

According to the OSC/ISO, between 

June 2021 and March 2023, Respondent 

issued prescriptions for controlled 

substances to Patient P.M. on an 

approximately monthly basis; these 

prescriptions included prescriptions for 

oxycodone 30 mg, hydromorphone 4 mg 

and 8 mg (a schedule II opioid), 

alprazolam 2 mg, and testosterone 200 

mg/ml (a schedule III steroid). Id. at 6– 

7. Respondent has admitted that he 

issued these prescriptions without 

conducting an appropriate evaluation, 

without appropriately establishing a 

medical justification, without proper 

medical records, and without 

conducting proper ongoing monitoring 

of the patient. Id. at 7. Respondent has 

also admitted that he did not issue the 

above-referenced controlled substance 

prescriptions for a legitimate medical 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
13378 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Notices 

2As to Factor A, the record contains no evidence 

of a recommendation from any state licensing board 

or professional disciplinary authority. 21 U.S.C. 

823(g)(1)(A). Nonetheless, an absence of such 

evidence ‘‘does not weigh for or against a 

determination as to whether continuation of the 

[registrant’s] DEA certification is consistent with 

the public interest.’’ Roni Dreszer, M.D.,76 FR 

19434, 19444 (2011). As to Factor C, there is no 

evidence in the record that Registrant has been 

convicted of an offense under either federal or state 

law ‘‘relating to the manufacture, distribution, or 

dispensing of controlled substances.’’ 21 U.S.C. 

823(g)(1)(C). However, as Agency cases have noted, 

there are a number of reasons why a person who 

has engaged in criminal misconduct may never 

have been convicted of an offense under this factor. 

Dewey C. MacKay, M.D., 75 FR 49956, 49973 (2010). 

Agency cases have therefore found that ‘‘the 

absence of such a conviction is of considerably less 

consequence in the public interest inquiry’’ and is 

therefore not dispositive. Id. Finally, as to Factor E, 

the Government’s evidence fits squarely within the 

parameters of Factors B and D and does not raise 

‘‘other conduct which may threaten the public 

health and safety.’’ 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(E). 

Accordingly, Factor E does not weigh for or against 

Registrant. 

purpose in the usual course of 

professional practice. Id. 

Patient D.J. 

According to the OSC/ISO, between 

June 2021 and December 2022, 

Respondent issued prescriptions for 

controlled substances to Patient D.J. on 

an approximately monthly basis; these 

prescriptions included prescriptions for 

oxycodone 30 mg and lorazepam 2 mg. 

Id. Respondent has admitted that he 

issued these prescriptions without 

conducting an appropriate evaluation, 

without appropriately establishing a 

medical justification, without proper 

medical records, and without 

conducting proper ongoing monitoring 

of the patient. Id. Respondent has also 

admitted that he did not issue the 

above-referenced controlled substance 

prescriptions for a legitimate medical 

purpose in the usual course of 

professional practice. Id. at 8. 

II. Discussion 

A. The Five Public Interest Factors 

Under the Controlled Substances Act 

(CSA), ‘‘[a] registration . . . to . . . 

dispense a controlled substance . . . 

may be suspended or revoked by the 

Attorney General upon a finding that 

the registrant . . . has committed such 

acts as would render his registration 

under section 823 of this title 

inconsistent with the public interest as 

determined under such section.’’ 21 

U.S.C. 824(a). In making the public 

interest determination, the CSA requires 

consideration of the following factors: 

(A) The recommendation of the 

appropriate State licensing board or 

professional disciplinary authority. 

(B) The [registrant]’s experience in 

dispensing, or conducting research with 

respect to controlled substances. 

(C) The [registrant]’s conviction record 

under Federal or State laws relating to the 

manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of 

controlled substances. 

(D) Compliance with applicable State, 

Federal, or local laws relating to controlled 

substances. 

(E) Such other conduct which may threaten 

the public health and safety. 

21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1). 

The Agency considers these public 

interest factors in the disjunctive. Robert 

A. Leslie, M.D., 68 FR 15227, 15230 

(2003). Each factor is weighed on a caseby-case basis. Morall v. Drug Enf’t 

Admin., 412 F.3d 165, 173–74 (D.C. Cir. 

2005). Any one factor, or combination of 

factors, may be decisive. David H. Gillis, 

M.D., 58 FR 37507, 37508 (1993). 

While the Agency has considered all 

of the public interest factors in 21 U.S.C. 

823(g)(1),2 the Government’s evidence 

in support of its prima facie case for 

revocation of Respondent’s registration 

is confined to Factors B and D. See 

RFAAX 1, at 2–8. Moreover, the 

Government has the burden of proof in 

this proceeding. 21 CFR 1301.44. 

Here, the Agency finds that the 

Government’s evidence satisfies its 

prima facie burden of showing that 

Respondent’s continued registration 

would be ‘‘inconsistent with the public 

interest.’’ 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4). 

B. Factors B and D 

Evidence is considered under Public 

Interest Factors B and D when it reflects 

compliance (or non-compliance) with 

laws related to controlled substances 

and experience dispensing controlled 

substances. See Sualeh Ashraf, M.D., 88 

FR 1095, 1097 (2023); Kareem Hubbard, 

M.D., 87 FR 21156, 21162 (2022). In the 

current matter, the Government has 

alleged that Respondent violated both 

federal and state law regulating 

controlled substances. RFAAX 1, at 2– 

8. Specifically, federal law states that 

‘‘[a] prescription for a controlled 

substance to be effective must be issued 

for a legitimate medical purpose by an 

individual practitioner acting in the 

usual course of his professional 

practice.’’ 21 CFR 1306.04(a). Further, 

Colorado state law defines 

‘‘unprofessional conduct’’ as 

‘‘[a]dministering, dispensing, or 

prescribing any habit-forming drug or 

any controlled substance . . . other than 

in the course of legitimate professional 

practice,’’ as well as ‘‘[a]ny act or 

omission that fails to meet generally 

accepted standards of medical practice.’’ 

Colo. Rev. Stat. section 12–240– 

121(1)(c), (j). 

Here, Respondent has admitted that 

he repeatedly issued prescriptions for 

controlled substances without 

conducting appropriate evaluations, 

without appropriately establishing 

medical justifications, without taking 

and keeping proper medical records, 

and without conducting proper ongoing 

monitoring of his patients. Respondent 

further admitted that none of the abovereferenced controlled substance 

prescriptions were issued for a 

legitimate medical purpose or in the 

usual course of professional practice. As 

such, the Agency finds that Respondent 

repeatedly violated 21 CFR 1306.04(a) 

and Colorado Revised Statutes section 

12–240–121(1)(c). 

Accordingly, the Agency finds that 

Factors B and D weigh in favor of 

revocation of Respondent’s registration 

and thus finds Respondent’s continued 

registration to be inconsistent with the 

public interest in balancing the factors 

of 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1). The Agency 

further finds that Respondent failed to 

provide any evidence to rebut the 

Government’s prima facie case. 

III. Sanction 

Where, as here, the Government has 

established grounds to revoke 

Respondent’s registration, the burden 

shifts to Respondent to show why he 

can be entrusted with the responsibility 

carried by a registration. Garret Howard 

Smith, M.D., 83 FR 18882, 18910 (2018). 

When a respondent has committed acts 

inconsistent with the public interest, he 

must both accept responsibility and 

demonstrate that he has undertaken 

corrective measures. Holiday CVS, 

L.L.C., dba CVS Pharmacy Nos. 219 and 

5195, 77 FR 62316, 62339 (2012) 

(internal quotations omitted). Trust is 

necessarily a fact-dependent 

determination based on individual 

circumstances; therefore, the Agency 

looks at factors such as the acceptance 

of responsibility, the credibility of that 

acceptance as it relates to the 

probability of repeat violations or 

behavior, the nature of the misconduct 

that forms the basis for sanction, and the 

Agency’s interest in deterring similar 

acts. See, e.g., Robert Wayne Locklear, 

M.D., 86 FR 33738, 33746 (2021). 

Here, although Respondent initially 

requested a hearing, he repeatedly failed 

to answer the allegations contained in 

the OSC/ISO, failed to file any other 

responses as directed by the Chief ALJ, 

and did not otherwise avail himself of 

the opportunity to refute the 

Government’s case. As such, 

Respondent has made no 

representations as to his future 

compliance with the CSA nor made any 

demonstration that he can be entrusted 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Notices 13379 

with registration. Moreover, the 

evidence presented by the Government 

shows that Respondent violated the 

CSA, further indicating that Respondent 

cannot be entrusted. 

Accordingly, the Agency will order 

the revocation of Respondent’s 

registration. 

Order 

Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the 

authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 

824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate 

of Registration No. AP1388948 issued to 

Henry Manning Pickett, M.D. Further, 

pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the 

authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 

823(g)(1), I hereby deny any pending 

applications of Henry Manning Pickett, 

M.D., to renew or modify this 

registration, as well as any other 

pending application of Henry Manning 

Pickett, M.D., for additional registration 

in Colorado. This Order is effective 

March 25, 2024. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Drug 

Enforcement Administration was signed 

on February 14, 2024, by Administrator 

Anne Milgram. That document with the 

original signature and date is 

maintained by DEA. For administrative 

purposes only, and in compliance with 

requirements of the Office of the Federal 

Register, the undersigned DEA Federal 

Register Liaison Officer has been 

authorized to sign and submit the 

document in electronic format for 

publication, as an official document of 

DEA. This administrative process in no 

way alters the legal effect of this 

document upon publication in the 

Federal Register. 

Heather Achbach, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, Drug 

Enforcement Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2024–03548 Filed 2–21–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Proposed 

Consent Decree Under the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act 

On February 13, 2024, the Department 

of Justice lodged a proposed Consent 

Decree with the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of 

Indiana in the case entitled United 

States v. Navistar, Inc. et al., Civil 

Action No. 1:24–cv–00285. 

In this action the United States is 

seeking reimbursement of response 

costs and future costs incurred from 

Defendants Arconic Corporation, 

Navistar, Inc., and Ford Motor Company 

for alleged violations of the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. Under the 

proposed Consent Decree, the 

Defendants are required to reimburse 

the United States for costs incurred for 

response activities undertaken in 

response to the release and threatened 

release of hazardous substances at or 

from the A.A. Oil Site, a former waste 

oil collection, storage, and transfer 

facility located in Indianapolis, Indiana. 

The proposed Consent Decree also seeks 

a declaratory judgment that the 

Defendants are liable for future response 

costs that the United States may incur 

in connection with response actions that 

may be performed at the A.A. Oil Site. 

The publication of this notice opens 

a period for public comment on the 

proposed Consent Decree. Comments 

should be addressed to the Assistant 

Attorney General, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division, and should 

refer to United States v. Navistar, Inc. et 

al., D.J. Ref. No. 90–11–3–12580. 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. 

Any comments submitted in writing 

may be filed by the United States in 

whole or in part on the public court 

docket without notice to the commenter. 

During the public comment period, 

the proposed Consent Decree may be 

examined and downloaded at this 

Justice Department website: http://

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

If you require assistance accessing the 

proposed Consent Decree, you may 

request assistance by email or by mail 

to the addresses provided above for 

submitting comments. 

Patricia McKenna, 

Deputy Section Chief, Environmental 

Enforcement Section, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division. 

[FR Doc. 2024–03564 Filed 2–21–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Submission for OMB 

Review; Comment Request; Delinquent 

Filer Voluntary Compliance Program 

ACTION: Notice of availability; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor 

(DOL) is submitting this Employee 

Benefits Security Administration 

(EBSA)-sponsored 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 

(PRA). Public comments on the ICR are 

invited. 

DATES: The OMB will consider all 

written comments that the agency 

receives on or before March 25, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

PRAMain. Find this particular 

information collection by selecting 

‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open 

for Public Comments’’ or by using the 

search function. 

Comments are invited on: (1) whether 

the collection of information is 

necessary for the proper performance of 

the functions of the Department, 

including whether the information will 

have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of 

the agency’s estimates of the burden and 

cost of the collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; (3) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility and 

clarity of the information collection; and 

(4) ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Howell by telephone at 202– 

693–6782, or by email at DOL_PRA_

PUBLIC@dol.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 

title I of ERISA, the administrator of 

each welfare plan and each pension 

plan, unless otherwise exempt, is 

required to file an annual report with 

the Secretary containing the information 

set forth in section 103 of ERISA. The 

statutory annual reporting requirements 

under titles I and IV of ERISA, as well 

as the Internal Revenue Code (the Code), 

are satisfied generally by filing the 

appropriate annual return/report (the 

Form 5500). 

On April 27, 1995, the Department 

implemented the Delinquent Filer 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1