Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 19, 2010 / Notices 28063 

1 In her Decision, the Administrative Law Judge 

(ALJ) formulated the issue as ‘‘whether the 

Respondent sold quantities of listed chemical 

product which it knew, or should have known, 

exceeded quantities that could be sold by its 

customers for legitimate use.’’ ALJ at 31 (citing Gov’t 

Br. at 9). 

page reproduction cost) payable to the 

U.S. Treasury or, if by email or fax, 

forward a check in that amount to the 

Consent Decree Library at the stated 

address. 

Maureen Katz, 

Assistant Chief, Environmental, Enforcement 

Section, Environment and Natural Resources 

Division. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11947 Filed 5–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Proposed Consent Decree 

and Proposed Order on Consent Under 

The Clean Water Act 

Notice is hereby given that, on May 

12, 2010, a proposed Consent Decree in 

United States and State of New York v. 

City of Oswego, New York, Civil Action 

No. 5:10–cv–554, was lodged with the 

United States District Court for the 

Northern District of New York. 

The proposed Consent Decree will 

settle the United States’ claims on 

behalf of the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (‘‘EPA’’) for violations 

of Section 301(a) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 

1311(a), in connection with unpermitted 

discharges from the City’s west side 

sewer system and failure to comply with 

a National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (‘‘NPDES’’) permit. 

The State of New York joined the 

United States as co-plaintiff, pursuant to 

Section 309(e) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 

1319(e), and the New York State 

Environmental Conservation Law 

(‘‘ECL’’), Sections 17–0701 and 17–0803. 

The Consent Decree resolves all claims 

in the Complaint, in return for payment 

by the City of a civil penalty of $99,000, 

to be split evenly between the United 

States and the State, and performance 

by the City of corrective actions valued 

at $87 million. 

The Department of Justice will receive 

comments relating to the proposed 

Consent Decree for a period of 30 days 

from the date of this publication. 

Comments on the Consent Decree 

should be addressed to the Assistant 

Attorney General, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division, and either 

e-mailed to pubcommentees.enrd@usdoj.gov or mailed to P.O. 

Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC 20044–7611, and 

should refer to United States and State 

of New York v. City of Oswego, New 

York, Civil Action No. 5:10–cv–554 

(N.D.N.Y.), D.J. Ref. No. 90–5–1–1– 

08609. 

The proposed Consent Decree may be 

examined at the Office of the United 

States Attorney, Northern District of 

New York, 100 South Clinton Street, 

Syracuse, New York 13261, and at EPA, 

Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, 

New York 10007–1866. During the 

public comment period, the proposed 

Consent Decree may also be examined 

on the following Department of Justice 

Web site: http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ 

Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the 

proposed Consent Decree may also be 

obtained by mail from the Consent 

Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

20044–7611 or by faxing or e-mailing a 

request to Tonia Fleetwood 

(tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov), fax number 

(202) 514–0097, phone number (202) 

514–1547. If requesting a copy by mail 

from the Consent Decree Library, please 

enclose a check in the amount of $18.50 

($0.25 per page reproduction cost) 

payable to the United States Treasury 

or, if requesting by e-mail or fax, 

forward the check in that amount to the 

Consent Decree Library at the address 

stated above. If requesting a copy 

exclusive of appendices, please enclose 

a check in the amount of $16.00 ($0.25 

per page reproduction cost) payable to 

the United States Treasury. 

Maureen Katz, 

Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement 

Section, Environment and Natural Resources 

Division. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11948 Filed 5–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 06–55] 

M & N Distributors; Dismissal of 

Proceeding 

On March 16, 2006, the Deputy 

Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration, issued an Order to 

Show Cause to M & N Distributors 

(Respondent), of Springfield, Tennessee. 

The Order to Show Cause proposed the 

revocation of Respondent’s DEA 

Certificate of Registration as a 

distributor of list I chemicals on the 

ground that its continued registration ‘‘is 

inconsistent with the public interest, as 

that term is used in 21 U.S.C. 823(h).’’ 

Order to Show Cause at 1. 

More specifically, the Show Cause 

Order made three major allegations 

against Respondent. First, it alleged that 

on November 22, 2005, Agency 

Investigators performed an 

accountability audit of Respondent’s 

handling of three listed-chemical 

products and found an overage of ‘‘732 

bottles (more than five cases) of one 36- 

count combination ephedrine product.’’ 

Id. at 2. Next, the Show Cause Order 

alleged that in June 2003, Respondent 

‘‘reported a loss of a case of 144 bottles 

of ephedrine, which [Respondent] 

indicated fell out the back door of his 

truck’’ and that ‘‘this product was never 

recovered.’’ Id. 

Finally, the Show Cause Order alleged 

that between 2001 and 2005, DEA 

retained an expert ‘‘in the field of retail 

marketing and statistics’’ ‘‘to analyze 

national sales data for over-the-counter 

non-prescription drugs’’ and that based 

on his ‘‘study of hundreds of Tennessee 

retailers,’’ the expert had concluded 

‘‘that these retail stores had made 

purchases of listed chemical products 

far in excess of amounts of product that 

could be reasonably sold for legitimate 

purposes in stores of these [sic] kind in 

Tennessee.’’ Id. at 3. The Order further 

alleged that ‘‘DEA has observed that 

many smaller or non-traditional stores, 

such as * * * gas stations [ ] and some 

small markets, purchase inordinate 

amounts of these products and become 

conduits for the diversion of listed 

chemical[s] into illicit drug 

manufacturing.’’ Id. Because 

Respondent’s owner ‘‘told investigators 

that he had approximately 120 

convenience store and gas station 

customers located in Tennessee and 

Kentucky,’’ id. at 2, the Order implied, 

without ever expressly alleging, that 

Respondent sold listed chemical 

products ‘‘far in excess of amounts of 

product that could be reasonably sold 

for legitimate purposes.’’ Id. at 3.1

On April 5, 2006, Respondent’s 

owner, Charles Ramsey, requested a 

hearing on the allegations and the 

matter was placed on the docket of the 

Agency’s Administrative Law Judges 

(ALJ). ALJ Ex. 2. Thereafter, on June 5, 

2006, Counsel for Respondent entered 

his appearance, ALJ Ex. 3, and following 

pre-hearing procedures, a hearing was 

held before an ALJ in Nashville, 

Tennessee on August 23 and 24, 2006. 

At the hearing, both parties called 

witnesses to testify and introduced 

documentary evidence. After the 

hearing, both parties filed briefs 

containing their proposed findings, 

conclusions of law, and argument. 

On December 16, 2008, the ALJ issued 

her Recommended Decision. Therein, 

the ALJ concluded that the Government 

had not proved that the continuation of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES