8048 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 14 / Thursday, January 23, 2025 / Notices 

The Agency rejects these arguments. 

First, as discussed throughout this 

Decision, the Agency may infer from 

Respondent’s failure to document that 

Respondent failed to address and 

resolve red flags, and the Agency has 

repeatedly held that it will not credit a 

registrant’s undocumented, post hoc 

justifications. Second, the Agency 

regularly revokes registrations based on 

documentation failures. For example, in 

Coconut Grove, the Agency revoked a 

pharmacy’s registration based on the 

pharmacy’s failure to document 

resolutions of red flags in ways and for 

reasons that are very similar to this case. 

The pharmacy’s expert in Coconut 

Grove argued that the pharmacy’s PIC 

had resolved the relevant red flags ‘‘over 

time in continuing conversations with 

the patients and the doctors,’’ but the 

Agency rejected these arguments, 

because the pharmacy’s only notation 

on the prescription was ‘‘verified,’’ 

which was not sufficient to resolve the 

red flag. 89 FR 50374. Based on the 

pharmacy’s failure to document the 

resolution of the red flags, the Agency 

found that the pharmacy had failed to 

address and resolve those red flags. Id. 

The Agency further concluded that the 

pharmacy’s dispensing was outside the 

usual course of professional practice 

and beneath the standard of care. Id. 

The Agency drew similar conclusions in 

Heavenly Care Pharmacy, 85 FR 53402 

(2020), also cited by Respondent. 

Respondent is correct in observing that 

the prescriptions in Heavenly Care 

raised more red flags than the 

prescriptions in this case, and that there 

was an additional ground for revocation 

in that case. However, the Government 

need not identify multiple grounds for 

revocation, and the Agency has never 

tallied a registrant’s legal violations and 

required the Government to meet a 

certain numerical threshold. 

Here, the Government proved that 

Respondent filled numerous 

prescriptions without adequately 

addressing and resolving several red 

flags, which rendered Respondent’s 

dispensing beneath the standard of care, 

outside the usual course of professional 

practice, and in violation of Federal and 

State law. The Government also proved 

that Respondent filled unlawful 

prescriptions that were written for Ms. 

Neumann by Ms. Neumann’s father. 

These violations are sufficient to revoke 

a registration. 

In sum, Respondent has not offered 

any credible evidence on the record that 

rebuts the Government’s case for 

revocation of its registration and 

Respondent has not demonstrated that it 

can be entrusted with the responsibility 

of registration. Accordingly, the Agency 

will order that Respondent’s registration 

be revoked. 

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. FN4373293 issued to 

Neumann’s Pharmacy, LLC. 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 Neumann’s Pharmacy, 

LLC, to renew or modify this 

registration, as well as any other 

pending application of Neumann’s 

Pharmacy, LLC, for additional 

registration in Louisiana. This Order is 

effective February 24, 2025. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Drug 

Enforcement Administration was signed 

on January 16, 2025, 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. 2025–01536 Filed 1–22–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Proposed First 

Amended Consent Decree Under the 

Clean Water Act 

On January 16, 2025, the Department 

of Justice lodged a proposed First 

Material Modification to the 2006 

Consent Decree with the United States 

District Court for the District of 

Connecticut in the lawsuit entitled 

United States et al. v. Metropolitan 

District of Hartford, Connecticut, Civil 

Action No. 3:06–cv–00728. 

In this action, the United States and 

the State of Connecticut sought civil 

penalties and injunctive relief for 

violations of the Clean Water Act, 33 

U.S.C. 1251 et seq., in connection with 

the Metropolitan District of Hartford, 

Connecticut’s (‘‘MDC’s’’) operation of its 

municipal wastewater treatment facility 

and sewer system. These claims were 

resolved in a Consent Decree, which 

was approved by the Court in August 

2006. Under the Consent Decree, the 

MDC is required to, among other things, 

eliminate all sanitary sewer overflow 

(‘‘SSO’’) outfalls by a date certain and 

submit and implement control projects 

and schedules to reduce inflow and 

infiltration (‘‘I/I’’), which can dilute 

sanitary sewers and in turn, decrease 

treatment efficiency. Since 2006, the 

MDC has eliminated all but three of its 

SSO outfalls and has proposed several 

I/I reduction projects and schedules. 

The proposed modification extends the 

deadline for eliminating the remaining 

SSO outfalls by about 4 years and 

incorporates a schedule for 

implementing I/I reduction projects. 

The publication of this notice opens 

a period for public comment on the 

proposed First Material Modification to 

the 2006 Consent Decree. Comments 

should be addressed to the Assistant 

Attorney General, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division, and should 

refer to United States et al. v. 

Metropolitan District of Hartford, 

Connecticut, D.J. Ref. No. 90–5–1–1– 

08404. 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 e-mail ...... pubcomment-ees.enrd@

usdoj.gov. 

By mail ......... Assistant Attorney General, 

U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. 

Box 7611, Washington, 

D.C. 20044–7611. 

During the public comment period, 

the 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. 

Eric D. Albert, 

Assistant Section Chief, Environmental 

Enforcement Section, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division. 

[FR Doc. 2025–01559 Filed 1–22–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1