54850 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 204 / Friday, October 23, 2009 / Notices 

Note #2—The O&M rate for the Fort Yuma Irrigation Project has two components. The first component is the O&M rate established by the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the owner and operator of the Project. The BOR rate for 2010 is yet to be determined. The second component is for 

the O&M rate established by BIA to cover administrative costs including billing and collections for the Project. The 2010 BIA rate remains unchanged at $7.00/acre. The rates shown include the 2009 Reclamation rate and the 2010 BIA rate. 

Note #3—The 2010 and 2011 rates were established by final notice published in the Federal Register on April 22, 2009 (Vol. 74, No. 76, 

page 18398). 1To be determined. 

Consultation and Coordination With 

Tribal Governments (Executive Order 

13175) 

To fulfill its consultation 

responsibility to tribes and tribal 

organizations, BIA communicates, 

coordinates, and consults on a 

continuing basis with these entities on 

issues of water delivery, water 

availability, and costs of administration, 

operation, maintenance, and 

rehabilitation of projects that concern 

them. This is accomplished at the 

individual irrigation project by Project, 

Agency, and Regional representatives, 

as appropriate, in accordance with local 

protocol and procedures. This notice is 

one component of our overall 

coordination and consultation process 

to provide notice to, and request 

comments from, these entities when we 

adjust irrigation assessment rates. 

Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (Executive Order 

13211) 

The rate adjustments will have no 

adverse effects on energy supply, 

distribution, or use (including a 

shortfall in supply, price increases, and 

increase use of foreign supplies) should 

the proposed rate adjustments be 

implemented. This is a notice for rate 

adjustments at BIA-owned and operated 

irrigation projects, except for the Fort 

Yuma Irrigation Project. The Fort Yuma 

Irrigation Project is owned and operated 

by the Bureau of Reclamation with a 

portion serving the Fort Yuma 

Reservation. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Order 12866) 

These rate adjustments are not a 

significant regulatory action and do not 

need to be reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

These rate adjustments are not a rule 

for the purposes of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act because they establish ‘‘a 

rule of particular applicability relating 

to rates.’’ 5 U.S.C. 601(2). 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

These rate adjustments do not impose 

an unfunded mandate on State, local, or 

tribal governments in the aggregate, or 

on the private sector, of more than $130 

million per year. The rate adjustments 

do not have a significant or unique 

effect on State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. 

Therefore, the Department is not 

required to prepare a statement 

containing the information required by 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Takings (Executive Order 12630) 

The Department has determined that 

these rate adjustments do not have 

significant ‘‘takings’’ implications. The 

rate adjustments do not deprive the 

public, State, or local governments of 

rights or property. 

Federalism (Executive Order 13132) 

The Department has determined that 

these rate adjustments do not have 

significant Federalism effects because 

they will not affect the States, the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among various levels of 

government. 

Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 

12988) 

In issuing this rule, the Department 

has taken the necessary steps to 

eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, 

minimize potential litigation, and 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct, as required by section 

3 of Executive Order 12988. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

These rate adjustments do not affect 

the collections of information which 

have been approved by the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995. The OMB Control Number is 

1076–0141 and expired August 31, 

2009; a request for renewal is pending 

with OMB. See 74 FR 44867 for more 

information on the renewal. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The Department has determined that 

these rate adjustments do not constitute 

a major Federal action significantly 

affecting the quality of the human 

environment and that no detailed 

statement is required under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321–4370(d)). 

Information Quality Act 

In developing this notice, we did not 

conduct or use a study, experiment, or 

survey requiring peer review under the 

Information Quality Act (Pub. L. 106– 

554). 

Dated: October 7, 2009. 

Larry Echo Hawk, 

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. 

[FR Doc. E9–25540 Filed 10–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–W7–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree 

Under the Clean Air Act 

Notice is hereby given that on October 

19, 2009, a proposed Consent Decree in 

United States v. BASF Corporation, 

Civil Action No. 1:09 CV 0914, was 

lodged with the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Texas. 

In this action, the United States 

sought injunctive relief and civil 

penalties for violations of the industrial 

refrigerant repair, record-keeping, and 

reporting regulations at 40 CFR 82.156 

(Recycling and Emission Reduction) 

promulgated by the Environmental 

Protection Agency (‘‘EPA’’) under 

Subchapter VI of the Clean Air Act 

(Stratospheric Ozone Protection), 42 

U.S.C. 7671–7671q, at five of BASF’s 

facilities in the United States. The five 

facilities are located in Livonia, 

Michigan; South Brunswick and 

Washington, New Jersey; Greenville, 

Ohio; and Beaumont, Texas. In the 

proposed Consent Decree, BASF agrees 

to (1) retrofit or retire three of its 

industrial process refrigeration units at 

its Beaumont, Texas facility and (2) pay 

a $384,200 penalty to the United States. 

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 

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 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 204 / Friday, October 23, 2009 / Notices 54851 

1 It appears that Respondent filed the form for a 

renewal application and not the form for a new 

application. 

States v. BASF Corporation, D.J. Ref. 

90–5–2–1–08255. 

The Consent Decree may be examined 

at the Office of the United States 

Attorney, 350 Magnolia Avenue, 

Beaumont, TX 77701, and at U.S. EPA 

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas TX 

75202. During the public comment 

period, the Consent Decree may also be 

examined on the following Department 

of Justice Web site, to http:// 

www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ 

Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the 

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 no. (202) 514–0097, phone 

confirmation number (202) 514–1547. In 

requesting a copy from the Consent 

Decree Library, please enclose a check 

in the amount of $9.25 (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 Chief, Environmental Enforcement 

Section, Environment and Natural Resources 

Division. 

[FR Doc. E9–25494 Filed 10–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 07–6] 

Samuel H. Albert, M.D.; Dismissal of 

Proceeding 

On October 25, 2006, the Deputy 

Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Diversion Control, issued an Order to 

Show Cause to Samuel H. Albert, M.D. 

(Respondent), of Fountain Valley, 

California. ALJ Ex. 1, at 1. The Show 

Cause Order proposed the denial of 

Respondent’s ‘‘pending application for a 

DEA Certificate of Registration’’ as a 

practitioner on the grounds that on this 

application, which he submitted on 

March 24, 2006, as well as on multiple 

previous applications for renewal of his 

previous registration, Respondent had 

materially falsified his applications by 

failing to indicate that the Medical 

Board of California had imposed 

disciplinary sanctions on his state 

medical license, which included a 

revocation which was stayed, a thirtyday suspension, and the imposition of 

probationary terms. Id. at 1–2 (citing 21 

U.S.C. 824(a)(1)). The Show Cause 

Order further alleged that Respondent’s 

previous registration had expired on 

June 5, 2005, and that thereafter, 

Respondent had issued approximately 

200 controlled substance prescriptions 

without being registered. Id. at 1–2. 

(citing 21 U.S.C. 822(a)(2), 841(a)(1), 

843(a)(2)). 

Respondent requested a hearing on 

the allegations and the matter was 

assigned to an Administrative Law 

Judge (ALJ), who conducted a hearing in 

Los Angeles, California. ALJ Dec. at 3. 

At the hearing, both parties elicited 

testimonial evidence and introduced 

documentary evidence. Id. at 3. 

Following the hearing, both parties filed 

briefs containing their proposed 

findings of fact, conclusion of law, and 

argument. 

Thereafter, the ALJ issued her 

recommended decision. Neither party 

filed exceptions. The record was then 

forwarded to me for final agency action. 

Upon reviewing the record, I noted 

that on May 16, 2006, more than five 

months prior to the issuance of the 

Order to Show Cause, Respondent 

submitted a letter to a DEA Field Office 

in which he requested to withdraw his 

application to renew his registration. 

See RX C. Under an Agency regulation, 

‘‘[a]n application may be amended or 

withdrawn without permission of the 

Administrator at any time before the 

date on which the applicant receives an 

order to show cause.’’ 21 CFR 1301.16(a) 

(emphasis added). Because this 

regulation plainly did not require that 

Respondent obtain permission from the 

Agency for the withdrawal of his 

application to be effective and it thus 

appeared that Respondent did not have 

an application currently pending before 

the Agency, I ordered the parties to 

address whether this proceeding is ripe 

for adjudication. 

Thereafter, only the Government filed 

a brief. Having considered the 

Government’s arguments, I conclude 

that there is no application currently 

pending before the Agency and that this 

case is not ripe for adjudication. 

Accordingly, the Order to Show Cause 

must be dismissed. 

Findings 

Prior to its expiration on June 30, 

2005, Respondent held DEA Certificate 

of Registration, AA0017473, which 

authorized him to dispense controlled 

substances in schedules II through V as 

a practitioner. GX 7. Respondent did not 

file a renewal application prior to the 

expiration of his registration. Rather, on 

or about March 24, 2006, Respondent 

filed an application. GX 6. The actual 

application form is not, however, part of 

the record.1

On May 16, 2006, apparently after a 

conversation with a DEA Diversion 

Investigator (DI) regarding the 

application, Respondent submitted a 

letter to the DI. RX C. The letter’s 

opening paragraph stated: ‘‘The purpose 

of this letter is to request withdrawal of 

my recent attempt to obtain an 

extension and renewal of [my] DEA 

certificate.’’ Id. at 1. Later in the letter, 

Respondent further wrote: ‘‘I request 

that you permit me to withdraw the 

current application for renewal, so that 

I may in the future submit [a] new 

application for a different DEA 

certificate number.’’ Id. at 2. 

On October 25, 2006, the Deputy 

Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Diversion Control, issued an Order to 

Show Cause which proposed the denial 

of Respondent’s ‘‘pending application.’’ 

ALJ Ex. 1. On some date not later than 

November 22, 2006, Respondent 

received the Order to Show Cause. ALJ 

Ex. 2. 

Discussion 

Under a DEA regulation, ‘‘[a]n 

application may be amended or 

withdrawn without permission of the 

Administrator at any time before the 

date on which the applicant receives an 

order to show cause pursuant to 

§ 1301.37.’’ 21 CFR 1301.16(a) 

(emphasis added). The same regulation 

further provides that ‘‘[a]n application 

may be amended or withdrawn with 

permission of the Administrator at any 

time where good cause is shown by the 

applicant or where the amendment or 

withdrawal is in the public interest.’’ Id. 

As the regulation makes plain, an 

applicant’s receipt of an Order to Show 

Cause is the operative event in 

determining whether he must obtain the 

Agency’s permission to withdraw his 

application. When an applicant seeks to 

withdraw an application prior to his 

receipt of the Order to Show Cause, he 

is entitled to do so as a matter of right. 

Respondent’s May 2006 letter 

provides a clear and manifest 

expression of his intent to withdraw his 

application. Indeed, it is hard to 

imagine how Respondent could have 

made his intent to withdraw any clearer. 

See RX C, at 1 (‘‘The purpose of this 

letter is to request withdrawal’’); id. at 

2 (‘‘I request that you permit me to 

withdraw the current application for 

renewal’’). Moreover, because at the 

time he requested to withdraw, 

Respondent had not been served with 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES