106592 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Notices 

3This rule derives from the text of two provisions 

of the CSA. First, Congress defined the term 

‘‘practitioner’’ to mean ‘‘a physician . . . or other 

person licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, 

by . . . the jurisdiction in which he practices . . . , 

to distribute, dispense, . . . [or] administer . . . a 

controlled substance in the course of professional 

practice.’’ 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Second, in setting the 

requirements for obtaining a practitioner’s 

registration, Congress directed that ‘‘[t]he Attorney 

General shall register practitioners . . . if the 

applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled 

substances under the laws of the State in which he 

practices.’’ 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1). Because Congress 

has clearly mandated that a practitioner possess 

state authority in order to be deemed a practitioner 

under the CSA, DEA has held repeatedly that 

revocation of a practitioner’s registration is the 

appropriate sanction whenever he is no longer 

authorized to dispense controlled substances under 

the laws of the state in which he practices. See, e.g., 

James L. Hooper, M.D., 76 FR at 71371–72; Sheran 

Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006); 

Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51104, 51105 

(1993); Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11919, 11,920 

(1988); Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR at 

27617. 

practitioner in Tennessee, the state in 

which he is registered with DEA. 

Discussion 

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the 

Attorney General is authorized to 

suspend or revoke a registration issued 

under 21 U.S.C. 823 ‘‘upon a finding 

that the registrant . . . has had his State 

license or registration suspended . . . 

[or] revoked . . . by competent State 

authority and is no longer authorized by 

State law to engage in the . . . 

dispensing of controlled substances.’’ 

With respect to a practitioner, DEA has 

also long held that the possession of 

authority to dispense controlled 

substances under the laws of the state in 

which a practitioner engages in 

professional practice is a fundamental 

condition for obtaining and maintaining 

a practitioner’s registration. Gonzales v. 

Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 270 (2006) (‘‘The 

Attorney General can register a 

physician to dispense controlled 

substances ‘if the applicant is 

authorized to dispense . . . controlled 

substances under the laws of the State 

in which he practices.’ . . . The very 

definition of a ‘practitioner’ eligible to 

prescribe includes physicians ‘licensed, 

registered, or otherwise permitted, by 

the United States or the jurisdiction in 

which he practices’ to dispense 

controlled substances. § 802(21).’’). The 

Agency has applied these principles 

consistently. See, e.g., James L. Hooper, 

M.D., 76 FR 71371, 71372 (2011), pet. 

for rev. denied, 481 F. App’x 826 (4th 

Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh Blanton, 

M.D., 43 FR 27616, 27617 (1978).3

According to Tennessee statute, 

‘‘dispense’’ means ‘‘to deliver a 

controlled substance to an ultimate user 

or research subject by or pursuant to the 

lawful order of a practitioner, including 

the prescribing, administering, 

packaging, labeling, or compounding 

necessary to prepare the substance for 

that delivery.’’ Tenn. Code Ann. § 39– 

17–402(7) (2024). Further, a 

‘‘practitioner’’ means ‘‘a physician . . . 

or other person licensed, registered or 

otherwise permitted to distribute, 

dispense, conduct research with respect 

to or administer a controlled substance 

in the course of professional practice or 

research in [the] state.’’ Id. § 39–17– 

402(23)(A). 

Here, the undisputed evidence in the 

record is that Registrant lacks authority 

to practice as a nurse practitioner in 

Tennessee. As discussed above, an 

individual must be a licensed 

practitioner to dispense a controlled 

substance in Tennessee. Thus, because 

Registrant lacks authority to practice as 

a nurse practitioner in Tennessee and, 

therefore, is not authorized to handle 

controlled substances in Tennessee, 

Registrant is not eligible to maintain a 

DEA registration. Accordingly, the 

Agency will order that Registrant’s DEA 

registration be revoked. 

Order 

Pursuant to 28 CFR0.100(b) and the 

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

824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate 

of Registration No. MY1093424, issued 

to Jeffrey W. Young, Jr., N.P. 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 Jeffrey W. Young, Jr., 

N.P., to renew or modify this 

registration, as well as any other 

pending application of Jeffrey W. 

Young, Jr., N.P., for additional 

registration in Tennessee. This Order is 

effective January 29, 2025. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Drug 

Enforcement Administration was signed 

on December 20, 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. 2024–31329 Filed 12–27–24; 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 December 19, 2024, the 

Department of Justice lodged a proposed 

Consent Decree with the United States 

District Court for the Western District of 

Virginia in the lawsuit entitled United 

States and Commonwealth of Virginia, 

Secretary of Natural and Historic 

Resources v. FMC Corporation, Civil 

Action No. 5:24–CR–108. 

The lawsuit was initiated by a 

complaint filed by the United States and 

the Commonwealth of Virginia (the 

‘‘Trustees’’) in their capacity as the 

legally designated trustees for natural 

resources in Virginia. The complaint 

alleged, inter alia, that the Defendant 

was liable for damages for injury to, 

destruction of, or loss of natural 

resources resulting from the release of 

hazardous substances at and from the 

Avtex Fibers, Inc. Site (the ‘‘Site’’) in 

Front Royal, Virginia, pursuant to three 

statutes: the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation 

and Liability Act of 1980, the Virginia 

State Water Control Law, and the 

Virginia Waste Management Act. 

The Consent Decree resolves the 

claims of the Trustees against the 

Defendant for a total payment of 

$1,674,361. Of this amount, $1,393,219 

will be paid into the United States’ 

Natural Resource Damages Assessment 

and Restoration ‘‘(NRDAR’’) Fund 

managed by the U.S. Department of the 

Interior, which will reimburse the 

Department’s natural resource damages 

assessment activities and fund projects 

aimed at restoring the injured natural 

resources at the Site. The remaining 

$281,142 will be paid to the 

Commonwealth of Virginia for 

restoration of injured natural resources 

arising from groundwater contamination 

at the Site, and to reimburse the 

Commonwealth’s natural resource 

damages assessment costs. In addition, 

as part of the settlement the United 

States will pay $2,496,305 into the 

NRDAR Fund to support restoration 

projects. This latter amount will resolve 

the alleged liability of four settling 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Notices 106593 

federal agencies—the U.S. Department 

of Defense, the Department of 

Commerce, the General Services 

Administration, and the National 

Aeronautics and Space 

Administration—that allegedly 

contributed to the natural resource 

damages incurred at and from the Site. 

In return for these payments, the United 

States and the Commonwealth will 

confer on the Defendant and the settling 

federal agencies covenants not to sue for 

natural resource damages known or 

reasonably ascertainable as of the date 

of lodging of the Consent Decree. 

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 and 

Commonwealth of Virginia, Secretary of 

Natural and Historic Resources v. FMC 

Corporation, D.J. Ref. No. 90–11–3– 

10912. 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 proposed Consent Decree may be 

examined and downloaded at this 

Justice Department website: https://

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

us-et-al-v-fmc-corporation. 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. 

Jason A. Dunn, 

Assistant Section Chief, Environmental 

Enforcement Section, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division. 

[FR Doc. 2024–30882 Filed 12–27–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Proposed 

Consent Decree Under the Clean Air 

Act 

On December 19, 2024, the 

Department of Justice lodged a proposed 

Consent Decree with the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of 

Wisconsin in the lawsuit entitled 

United States v. The Manitowoc 

Company, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 

2:24–cv–1635. 

The United States filed a Complaint, 

on behalf of the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

against The Manitowoc Company, Inc. 

and its subsidiaries Grove U.S. L.L.C. 

and Manitowoc Crane Group Germany 

GMBH, alleging violations of sections 

203(a) and 213(d) of the Clean Air Act, 

42 U.S.C. 7522(a) and 7547(d), and 

implementing regulations, by their 

importation, introduction into 

commerce, and sale of heavy nonroad 

construction equipment containing 

diesel engines that were not certified to 

model year engine emission standards. 

The Complaint also alleges violations of 

labeling, bonding, and reporting 

requirements and seeks civil penalties 

and appropriate injunctive relief. 

Under the proposed Consent Decree, 

the Defendants will pay a civil penalty 

of $42,600,000 and will complete a 

project to mitigate harm caused by 

excess nitrogen oxide and particulate 

matter emissions from the noncompliant 

engines. 

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. The Manitowoc 

Company, Inc., et al., D.J. Ref. No. 90– 

5–2–1–12216. 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: https://

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. 

Jason A. Dunn, 

Assistant Section Chief, Environmental 

Enforcement Section, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division. 

[FR Doc. 2024–30971 Filed 12–27–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

Employment and Training 

Administration Program Year 2024 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act Section 167, National Farmworker 

Jobs Program Final State Allotments 

AGENCY: Employment and Training 

Administration, Labor. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This Notice announces final 

allotments for the National Farmworker 

Jobs Program (NFJP) Career Services and 

Training grants for Program Year (PY) 

2024, finalizing the preliminary 

planning estimates provided in a prior 

Federal Register notice. 

DATES: The PY 2024 NFJP allotments are 

effective for the grant period that began 

July 1, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Questions on this notice can 

be submitted via email to NFJP@dol.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steven Rietzke, Chief, Division of 

National Programs, Tools and Technical 

Assistance, Office of Workforce 

Investment, at 202–693–3980. (This is 

not a toll-free number). If you are deaf, 

hard of hearing, or have a speech 

disability, please dial 7–1–1 to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice is published pursuant to Section 

182(d) of the Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act, Prompt Allotment of 

Funds. 

I. Background 

The Department is announcing final 

allotments for the National Farmworker 

Jobs Program (NFJP) Career Services and 

Training (CST) grants for Program Year 

(PY) 2024. Specifically, this notice 

provides information on the amount of 

funds available during PY 2024 to state 

service areas awarded through the PY 

2024 Funding Opportunity 

Announcement (‘‘the FOA’’) for the 

NFJP CST grants (FOA–ETA–24–15). In 

distributing funds, the Employment and 

Training Administration (ETA) 

calculated allotments for CST grantees 

through an administrative formula. The 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1