Notice: Pollution Control Consent Judgments: Donald Lee Prow, Et Al.

You might also like

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 1

13432 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No.

50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2006 / Notices

of Tullahoma, and Coffee County the Defendants for violating the Clean Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted to
Tennessee (the ‘‘Defendants’’) are Water Act by discharging pollutants EPA by the State of Arizona pursuant to
paying $225,000 collectively. This without a permit, and in violation of a Section 110 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7410.
settlement is based on the Defendants’ permit, into waters of the United States. The proposed Consent Decree
ability to pay. The proposed Consent Decree resolves
The Department of Justice will provides for the payment of $190,000 in
these allegations by requiring the
receive, for a period of thirty (30) days civil penalties. The Consent Decree also
Defendants to restore the impacted
from the date of this publication, areas, perform mitigation and pay a civil includes measures designed to abate
comments relating to the proposed penalty. fugitive dust emissions which include
settlement agreement. Comments should The Department of Justice will accept installation of trackout control devices
be addressed to the Assistant Attorney written comments relating to this at its work sites; employing a dust
General, Environment and Natural proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30) control monitor at sites with 50 acres or
Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. days from the date of publication of this more of surface; and requiring dust
Department of Justice, Washington, DC Notice. Please address comments to control training for employees and
20044–7611, and should refer to United Joshau M. Levin, Senior Attorney, U.S. certain employees of sub-contractors
States v. Coffee County, et al. DOJ Ref. Department of Justice, Environmental whose job responsibilities involve dust
#90–11–2–08477. and Natural Resources Division, generating operations.
During the public comment period, Environmental Defense Section, P.O. The Department of Justice will receive
the proposed settlement agreement may Box 23986, Washington, DC 20026–
be examined on the following for a period of thirty (30) days from the
3986, and refer to United States v. Don
Department of Justice Web site: http:// date of the publication comments
Prow, et al., DJ #90–5–1–1–16552.
www.usdoj.gov/enrd/open.html. A copy The proposed Consent Decree may be relating to the Consent Decree.
of the proposed settlement agreement examined at the Clerk’s Office, United Comments should be addressed to the
may also be obtained by mail from the States District Court for the District of Assistant Attorney General,
Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, Minnesota, at either of two addresses: Environment and Natural Resources
U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, 202 U.S. Courthouse, 300 South Fourth Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S.
DC 20044–7611, or by faxing or e- Street, Minneapolis, MN 55415, or 180 Department of Justice, Washington, DC
mailing a request to Tonia Fleetwood, E. Fifth Street, St. Paul, MN 55101. In 20044–7611, and should refer to United
tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov, Fax No. additional, the proposed Consent Decree States v. Edward Kraemer & Sons, Inc.,
(202) 514–0097, phone confirmation may be viewed at http://www.usdoj.gov/ D.J. Ref. 90–5–2–1–08544.
number (202) 514–1547. In requesting a enrd/open.html. The Consent Decree may be examined
copy from the Consent Decree Library, Dated: March 3, 2006. at the Office of the United States
please enclose a check in the amount of Attorney for the District of Arizona,
Scott A. Schachter,
$0.75 (25 cents per page reproduction
Assistant Chief, Environmental Defense Two Renaissance Square, 40 N. Central
cost) payable to the U.S. Treasury, to
Section, Environment and Natural Resources Avenue, Suite 1200, Phoenix, Arizona
obtain a copy of the Consent Decree. Division. 85004–4408, and at U.S. Environmental
Ellen M. Mahan, [FR Doc. 06–2509 Filed 3–14–06; 8:45 am] Protection Agency, Region 9, Office of
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental BILLING CODE 4410–15–M Regional Counsel, 75 Hawthorne Street,
Enforcement Section, Environment and San Francisco, California 94105. During
Natural Resources Division. the public comment period, the Consent
[FR Doc. 06–2511 Filed 3–14–06; 8:45 am] DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Decree may also be examined on the
BILLING CODE 4410–15–M
Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree following Department of Justice Web
Under the Clean Air Act site: http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/
open.html. A copy of the Consent
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Pursuant to 28 CFR 50.7, notice is Decree may also be obtained by mail
hereby given that on February 14, 2006, from the Consent Decree Library, P.O.
Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent
a proposed consent decree in United Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice,
Decree
States v. Edward Kraemer & Sons, Inc., Washington, DC 20044–7611, or by
In accordance with Departmental Civil No. CIV–06–0480–PHX–NWV, was faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia
Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby lodged with the United States District Fleetwood (tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov),
given that a proposed Consent Decree in Court for the District of Arizona.
This Consent Decree will address fax number (202) 514–0097, phone
United States v. Donald Lee Prow, et al.,
claims asserted by the United States in confirmation number (202) 514–1547. In
Civil Action No. 05–1452–RHK (D.
Minn.), was lodged with the United a complaint filed contemporaneously requesting a copy from the Consent
States District Court for the District of with the Consent Decree against Edward Decree Library, please enclose a check
Minnesota on March 2, 2006. Kraemer & Sons, Inc. (Kraemer) for civil in the amount of $4.75 (.25 cents per
This proposed Consent Decree penalties and injunctive relief under page reproduction cost) payable to the
concerns a complaint filed by the Section 113(b) of the Clean Air Act (the U.S. Treasury.
United States against Donald Lee Prow, Act), 42 U.S.C. 7413(b), for failure to Ellen M. Mahan,
individually and d/b/a/ Rochester install suitable trackout control devices,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental
Topsoil, Inc.; Donald Bryce Prow, failure to immediately clean up trackout
Enforcement Section, Environment and
individually and d/b/a/ Rochester and failure to comply with their dust Natural Resources Division.
Topsoil, Inc.; and Rochester Topsoil, control plan in violation of Rule 2
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES

[FR Doc. 06–2510 Filed 3–14–06; 8:45 am]


Inc., pursuant to section 309(b), 309(d), Regulation 1, and Rule 310 of
and 404 of the Clean Water Act Regulation 3 of the Maricopa County Air BILLING CODE 4410–15–M

(‘‘CWA’’), 33 U.S.C. 1319(b), 1319(d) Quality Department (MCAQD) which


and 1344, to obtain injunctive relief are part of the federally approved and
from and impose civil penalties against federally enforceable State

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:27 Mar 14, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15MRN1.SGM 15MRN1

You might also like