54076 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Notices 

that a firm was injured by such a breach 

of the APO. 

Case 7: The Commission found that 

an attorney breached an APO by failing 

to redact from the public version of his 

firm’s final comments the name of a 

subscription service and information 

obtained from the subscription service 

under the Commission’s APO. The 

Commission has consistently treated 

this type of information as BPI and the 

information had clearly been marked as 

BPI. A paralegal and a legal secretary 

who were involved in the matter were 

found not liable for the breach because 

they acted under the direction of the 

attorney. 

The Commission viewed as mitigating 

factors that the attorney had not been 

found liable for a breach within the 

previous two years, the time period the 

Commission usually considers for the 

purpose of sanctions, no non-signatory 

read the BPI, and prompt action was 

taken to remedy the breach once the 

attorney was notified of the breach. The 

Commission also considered two 

aggravating circumstances. First, the 

Commission staff, not the attorney, 

discovered the breach. Second, the 

breach was not inadvertent, but rather, 

the attorney substituted his own 

judgment for the Commission’s in 

treating the BPI in question as public 

information despite clear markings to 

the contrary. The Commission issued a 

private letter of reprimand to the 

breaching attorney. 

Rules Violation Investigations 

Case 1: The Commission found that 

two attorneys had violated Commission 

rule 207.3(b), 19 CFR 207.3(b), in a fiveyear review, when they served a brief, 

which was public because no BPI was 

used, by first class mail instead of by 

hand or overnight mail as required by 

the rules. The certificate of service, 

which stated that the brief would be 

sent by first class mail, was signed by 

the lead attorney after he had been 

reassured by the second attorney that, in 

the past, the firm had served public 

documents in Commission 

investigations by first class mail. The 

use of first class service resulted in a 

one day delay in receipt of the 

document. 

The Commission decided to issue a 

warning letter to the lead attorney who 

had signed the certificate of service, in 

view of the fact that he had no 

violations in the past two years, the 

violation was unintentional, and the 

firm took measures to make sure that 

this kind of violation would not occur 

again. 

The Commission issued to the second 

attorney a private letter of reprimand 

with two restrictions on his practice 

before the Commission. For a period of 

18 months he was not permitted to serve 

as the final decisionmaker in any matter 

relating to proceedings before the 

Commission and all Commission 

submissions prepared by the attorney 

must be reviewed by another attorney 

before filing with the Commission. In 

determining to sanction the attorney in 

this manner, the Commission 

considered the mitigating circumstances 

that the breach was unintentional and 

the fact that other parties were not 

unduly prejudiced as a result of the 

improper service. The Commission also 

considered the aggravating circumstance 

that he had received two previous 

sanctions, the most recent of which 

included a restriction on his practice, 

for breaches of the APO in other 

Commission investigations within two 

years of the violation of the service rule. 

The Commission did take into account 

that the first of the underlying APO 

breaches had occurred more than four 

years prior to the issuance of the 

sanction in this rules violation 

proceeding. 

There was one rules violation 

investigation in which no violation was 

found: 

Case 1: The Commission determined 

that sanctions were unwarranted but 

cautioned three attorneys to ensure that 

their guidance to employees and clients 

in the future respects the Commission’s 

need for accurate questionnaire 

responses to maintain the integrity of 

Commission investigations. A rules 

violation investigation had been 

conducted pursuant to Commission rule 

201.15(a), 19 CFR 201.15(a), when 

comments on their client’s completed 

questionnaire made it appear that the 

three attorneys had advised their clients 

to answer a question in a potentially 

misleading manner. In response to the 

letter of inquiry, the attorneys explained 

that the comments were inadvertently 

left on the questionnaire and were never 

transmitted to the client. They were, 

instead, intended for staff at the law 

firm to encourage them to seek more 

accurate information from the client. 

The firm’s staff to whom the comments 

were sent recognized them as 

encouragement to obtain additional 

accurate information from the client 

and, in response to the comments, 

initiated follow-up contacts with the 

client to obtain additional, accurate 

information. This was confirmed by 

e-mail communications between the 

attorneys and the staff demonstrating a 

recognition of the need for accurate 

reporting. 

Issued: October 15, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–25243 Filed 10–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree 

Under the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

Consistent with Section 122 of the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act of 1980, as amended (‘‘CERCLA’’), 

42 U.S.C. 9622(d), and 28 CFR 50.7, 

notice is hereby given that on October 

9, 2009, the United States lodged a 

Consent Decree with the City of South 

Lake Tahoe, California (‘‘the City’’) in 

United States of America v. El Dorado 

County, California, et al., Civil No. S– 

01–1520 MCE GGH (E.D. Cal.), with 

respect to the Meyers Landfill Site, 

located in Meyers, El Dorado County, 

California (the ‘‘Site’’). 

On August 3, 2001, Plaintiff United 

States of America (‘‘United States’’), on 

behalf of the United States Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service (‘‘Forest 

Service’’), filed a complaint in this 

matter pursuant to Section 107 of the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 9607, 

against Defendants, El Dorado County, 

California (the ‘‘County’’) and the City. 

The complaint filed by the United States 

seeks recovery of environmental 

response costs incurred by the Forest 

Service related to the release or 

threatened release and/or disposal of 

hazardous substances at or from the 

Meyers Landfill Site, a former 

municipal waste disposal facility 

located on National Forest Service 

System lands administered by the Lake 

Tahoe Basin Management Unit of the 

Forest Service, with accrued interest, 

and a declaration of the County’s and 

the City’s liability for future response 

costs incurred by the United States 

related to the Site. The City filed 

counterclaims against the United States 

pursuant to CERCLA. The proposed 

Consent Decree resolves the United 

States’ CERCLA claims against the City 

and the City’s CERCLA claims against 

the United States. 

Under the proposed Consent Decree 

the City will pay $1.6 million, a portion 

of which will be deposited into a Forest 

Service Special account to fund future 

response actions at the Site and a 

portion of which will go to the Forest 

Service to fund response actions related 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Notices 54077 

to groundwater at the Site, including a 

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility 

Study and the selection of a remedy for 

contaminated groundwater at the Site. 

In exchange for the City’s payment, the 

City will receive from the United States 

a covenant not to sue or to take 

administrative action pursuant to 

Sections 106 or 107 of CERCLA, 42 

U.S.C. 9606 and 9607, as amended, for 

the performance of response actions at 

the Site and the United States’ past and 

future response costs at the Site. In 

addition, the City will dismiss its 

CERCLA claims against the Forest 

Service. The Department of Justice will 

receive for a period of thirty (30) days 

from the date of this publication 

comments relating to the Consent 

Decree. Comments should be addressed 

to the Acting Assistant Attorney 

General, Environment and Natural 

Resources Division, and either e-mailed 

to pubcomment-ees.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 of America v. El Dorado County, 

California, et al., Civil No. S–01–1520 

MCE GGH (E.D. Cal.) (DOJ Ref. No. 90– 

11–3–06554)(Consent Decree with City). 

The Consent Decree with the City may 

be examined at U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Office of General Counsel, 

33 New Montgomery Street, 17th Floor, 

San Francisco, CA 94150 (contact Rose 

Miksovsky, (415) 744–3158). During the 

public comment period, the Consent 

Decree with the District may also be 

examined on the following Department 

of Justice Web site, http:// 

www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ 

Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the 

Consent Decree with the City may also 

be obtained by mail from the Consent 

Decree Library, U.S. Department of 

Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 

20044–7611 or by faxing or e-mailing a 

request to Tonia Fleetwood 

(tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov), fax no. 

(202) 514–0097, phone confirmation 

number (202) 514–1547. In requesting a 

copy from the Consent Decree Library, 

please refer to United States of America 

v. El Dorado County, California, et al., 

Civil No. S–01–1520 MCE GGH (E.D. 

Cal.) (DOJ Ref. No. 90–11–3–06554) 

(Consent Decree with City), and enclose 

a check in the amount of $35.75 (25 

cents per page reproduction cost) 

payable to the U.S. Treasury or, if by 

e-mail or fax, forward a check in that 

amount to the Consent Decree Library at 

the stated address. 

Maureen Katz, 

Assistant Section Chief, Environmental 

Enforcement Section, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division. 

[FR Doc. E9–25216 Filed 10–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. DEA–317F] 

Controlled Substances: Final Revised 

Aggregate Production Quotas for 2009 

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA), Justice. 

ACTION: Notice of final aggregate 

production quotas for 2009. 

SUMMARY: This notice establishes final 

2009 aggregate production quotas for 

controlled substances in schedules I and 

II of the Controlled Substances Act 

(CSA). The DEA has taken into 

consideration comments received in 

response to a notice of the proposed 

revised aggregate production quotas for 

2009 published July 23, 2009 (74 FR 

36511). 

DATES: Effective Date: October 21, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christine A. Sannerud, Ph.D, Chief, 

Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section, 

Drug Enforcement Administration, 8701 

Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 

22152, Telephone: (202) 307–7183. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

306 of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 826) requires 

that the Attorney General establish 

aggregate production quotas for each 

basic class of controlled substance listed 

in schedules I and II. This responsibility 

has been delegated to the Administrator 

of the DEA by 28 CFR 0.100. The 

Administrator, in turn, has redelegated 

this function to the Deputy 

Administrator, pursuant 28 CFR 0.104. 

The 2009 aggregate production quotas 

represent those quantities of controlled 

substances in schedules I and II that 

may be produced in the United States in 

2009 to provide adequate supplies of 

each substance for: The estimated 

medical, scientific, research, and 

industrial needs of the United States; 

lawful export requirements; and the 

establishment and maintenance of 

reserve stocks (21 U.S.C. 826(a) and 21 

CFR 1303.11). These quotas do not 

include imports of controlled 

substances. 

On July 23, 2009, a notice of the 

proposed revised 2009 aggregate 

production quotas for certain controlled 

substances in schedules I and II was 

published in the Federal Register (74 

FR 36511). All interested persons were 

invited to comment on or object to these 

proposed aggregate production quotas 

on or before August 24, 2009. 

Seven companies commented on a 

total of 18 schedules I and II controlled 

substances within the published 

comment period. Seven companies 

proposed that the aggregate production 

quotas for amphetamine (for sale), 

codeine (for conversion), 

dihydromorphine, fentanyl, 

hydrocodone (for sale), hydromorphone, 

lisdexamfetamine, methadone, 

methadone intermediate, 

methamphetamine (for sale), 

methylphenidate, nabilone, opium 

(tincture), oxycodone (for sale), 

oxycodone (for conversion), 

oxymorphone (for sale), phenylacetone, 

and thebaine were insufficient to 

provide for the estimated medical, 

scientific, research, and industrial needs 

of the United States, for export 

requirements and for the establishment 

and maintenance of reserve stocks. 

DEA has taken into consideration the 

above comments along with the relevant 

2008 year-end inventories, initial 2009 

manufacturing quotas, 2009 export 

requirements, actual and projected 2009 

sales, research, product development 

requirements, and additional 

applications received. Based on this 

information, the DEA has adjusted the 

final 2009 aggregate production quotas 

for amphetamine (for conversion), 

dihydromorphine, hydrocodone (for 

sale), hydromorphone, 

lisdexamfetamine, morphine (for sale), 

opium (tincture), oxycodone (for sale), 

oxycodone (for conversion), 

oxymorphone (for sale), and 

phenylacetone to meet the legitimate 

needs of the United States. 

Regarding amphetamine (for sale), 

codeine (for conversion), fentanyl, 

methadone, methadone intermediate, 

methamphetamine (for sale), 

methylphenidate, nabilone, and 

thebaine, the DEA has determined that 

the proposed revised 2009 aggregate 

production quotas are sufficient to meet 

the current 2009 estimated medical, 

scientific, research, and industrial needs 

of the United States and to provide for 

adequate inventories. 

Therefore, under the authority vested 

in the Attorney General by Section 306 

of the CSA (21 U.S.C. § 826), and 

delegated to the Administrator of the 

DEA by 28 CFR 0.100, and redelegated 

to the Deputy Administrator, pursuant 

to 28 CFR 0.104, the Deputy 

Administrator hereby orders that the 

2009 final aggregate production quotas 

for the following controlled substances, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES