Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 18782-18783 [2011-7977]
Download as PDF
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
18782
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Notices
Register. A separate service list will be
maintained by the Secretary for those
parties authorized to receive BPI under
the APO.
Conference.—The Commission’s
Director of Investigations has scheduled
a conference in connection with these
investigations for 8:45 a.m. on April 20,
at the U.S. International Trade
Commission Building, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC. Requests to appear at
the conference should be filed in
writing with the Secretary to the
Commission on or before April 18, 2011.
Parties in support of the imposition of
antidumping and countervailing duties
in these investigations and parties in
opposition to the imposition of such
duties will each be collectively
allocated one hour within which to
make an oral presentation at the
conference. A nonparty who has
testimony that may aid the
Commission’s deliberations may request
permission to present a short statement
at the conference.
Written submissions.—As provided in
sections 201.8 and 207.15 of the
Commission’s rules, any person may
submit to the Commission on or before
April 25, 2011, a written brief
containing information and arguments
pertinent to the subject matter of the
investigations. Parties may file written
testimony in connection with their
presentation at the conference no later
than three days before the conference. If
briefs or written testimony contain BPI,
they must conform with the
requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3,
and 207.7 of the Commission’s rules.
The Commission’s rules do not
authorize filing of submissions with the
Secretary by facsimile or electronic
means, except to the extent permitted by
section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules,
as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8,
2002). Even where electronic filing of a
document is permitted, certain
documents must also be filed in paper
form, as specified in II (C) of the
Commission’s Handbook on Electronic
Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173
(November 8, 2002).
In accordance with sections 201.16(c)
and 207.3 of the rules, each document
filed by a party to the investigations
must be served on all other parties to
the investigations (as identified by
either the public or BPI service list), and
a certificate of service must be timely
filed. The Secretary will not accept a
document for filing without a certificate
of service.
Authority: These investigations are being
conducted under authority of title VII of the
Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published
pursuant to section 207.12 of the
Commission’s rules.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 Apr 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
By order of the Commission.
Issued: March 31, 2011.
James R. Holbein,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
Warmwater Shrimp From Brazil, China,
India, Thailand, and Vietnam:
Investigation Nos. 1063, 1064, 1066–
1068 (Review).
[FR Doc. 2011–7997 Filed 4–4–11; 8:45 am]
By order of the Commission.
Issued: March 30, 2011.
James R. Holbein,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[FR Doc. 2011–7996 Filed 4–4–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–1063, 1064,
1066–1068 (Review)]
Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From
Brazil, China, India, Thailand, and
Vietnam
Determinations
On the basis of the record 1 developed
in the subject five-year reviews, the
United States International Trade
Commission (Commission) determines,
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), that
revocation of the antidumping duty
orders on frozen warmwater shrimp
from Brazil, China, India, Thailand, and
Vietnam would be likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of material
injury to an industry in the United
States within a reasonably foreseeable
time.2
Background
The Commission instituted these
reviews on January 4, 2010 (75 FR 1078,
January 8, 2010) and determined on
April 9, 2010 that it would conduct full
reviews (75 FR 22424, April 28, 2010).
Notice of the scheduling of the
Commission’s reviews and of a public
hearing to be held in connection
therewith was given by posting copies
of the notice in the Office of the
Secretary, U.S. International Trade
Commission, Washington, DC, and by
publishing the notice in the Federal
Register on August 11, 2010 (75 FR
48724). The hearing was held in
Washington, DC, on February 1, 2011,
and all persons who requested the
opportunity were permitted to appear in
person or by counsel.
The Commission transmitted its
determinations in these reviews to the
Secretary of Commerce on March 30,
2011. The views of the Commission are
contained in USITC Publication 4221
(March 2011), entitled Frozen
1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19
CFR 207.2(f)).
2 Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson determines
that revocation of the antidumping duty orders
covering frozen warmwater shrimp from Brazil,
China, India, Thailand, and Vietnam would not be
likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of
material injury to an industry in the United States
within a reasonably foreseeable time.
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree
Under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act
Notice is hereby given that on March
18, 2011, a proposed Consent Decree in
United States v. Exxon Mobil
Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 4:11–cv–
01037 (S.D. Tex.), was lodged with the
United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas. The Consent
Decree resolves the United States’
claims for response costs against a
number of defendants, pursuant to
Section 107(a)(3) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 9607(a)(3). The
complaint filed simultaneously with the
lodging of the Consent Decree names as
defendants Exxon Mobil Corporation,
Ashland, Inc., Eurecat U.S.
Incorporated, Akzo Nobel, Inc., Flint
Hills Resources, LP, Irving Oil Limited,
ConocoPhillips Company, Texaco, Inc.,
and Chevron U.S.A., Inc. The claims
against the defendants relate to response
costs incurred by the United States in
connection with response activities
taken with respect to the Many
Diversified Interests Site, at Operable
Unit 1 (‘‘OU–1’’), located in Houston,
Texas. Specifically, the United States’
complaint alleges that the defendants
sent spent catalyst that contained
hazardous substances, including, but
not limited to nickel and molybdenum,
to OU–1 for disposal or treatment.
Under the Consent Decree, the
defendants will pay the United States
$1,750,000 in reimbursement of a
portion of the response costs incurred
by the United States in connection with
OU–1.
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
E:\FR\FM\05APN1.SGM
05APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Notices
mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S.
Department of Justice, Washington, DC
20044–7611, and should refer to United
States v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et
al., DOJ Reference No. 90–11–3–09228.
The Consent Decree may be examined
at the U.S. EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas
75202. During the public comment
period, the Consent Decree may also be
examined on the following Department
of Justice Web site: https://
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 of the Consent Decree
from the Consent Decree Library, please
enclose a check in the amount of $7.25
(25 cents per page production costs),
payable to the U.S. Treasury or, if
requesting by e-mail or fax, forward a
check in that amount to the Consent
Decree Library at the stated address.
Thomas A. Mariani, Jr.,
Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement
Section, Environment and Natural Resources
Division.
[FR Doc. 2011–7977 Filed 4–4–11; 8:45 am]
Copies of the Complaint, proposed
Final Judgment and Competitive Impact
Statement are available for inspection at
the Department of Justice, Antitrust
Division, Antitrust Documents Group,
450 Fifth Street, NW., Suite 1010,
Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: 202–
514–2481), on the Department of
Justice’s Web site at https://
www.usdoj.gov/atr, and at the Office of
the Clerk of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin. Copies of these materials
may be obtained from the Antitrust
Division upon request and payment of
the copying fee set by Department of
Justice regulations.
Public comment is invited within 60
days of the date of this notice. Such
comments, and responses thereto, will
be published in the Federal Register
and filed with the Court. Comments
should be directed to Joshua H. Soven,
Chief, Litigation I, Antitrust Division,
Department of Justice, Washington DC,
20530.
Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement.
In the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin
Milwaukee Division
United States of America, State of
Wisconsin, State of Illinois, and State of
Michigan,
BILLING CODE 4410–15–P
Plaintiffs,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Dean Foods Company,
Antitrust Division
Defendant.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
United States et al. v. Dean Foods
Company; Proposed Final Judgment,
Stipulation and Competitive Impact
Statement
Notice is hereby given pursuant to the
Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act,
15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h), that a proposed
Final Judgment, Stipulation and
Competitive Impact Statement have
been filed with the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin in United States of America,
et al. v. Dean Foods Company, Civil
Action No. 2:10–cv–00059 (JPS). On
January 22, 2010, the United States and
its co-plaintiffs filed a Complaint
alleging that Dean Foods Company’s
acquisition of the Consumer Products
Division of Foremost Farms USA would
likely violate Section 7 of the Clayton
Act, 15 U.S.C. 18. The proposed Final
Judgment requires Dean Foods
Company to divest its Waukesha,
Wisconsin fluid milk plant, along with
certain tangible and intangible assets.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:30 Apr 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
10–C–0059 FILED: January 22, 2010;
1:40PM
Complaint
The United States of America, acting
under the direction of the Attorney
General of the United States, and the
States of Wisconsin, Illinois, and
Michigan, by and through their
respective Attorneys General (‘‘Plaintiff
States’’), bring this civil action for
equitable relief against Defendant Dean
Foods Company (‘‘Dean’’) for violating
Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.
18. The United States and the Plaintiff
States allege as follows:
I. Introduction
1. This lawsuit challenges Dean’s
acquisition of the Consumer Products
Division of Foremost Farms USA,
consummated April 1, 2009 (the
‘‘Acquisition’’). Foremost Farms USA
(‘‘Foremost’’) is a dairy cooperative
owned by approximately 2,300 dairy
farms located in seven states, including
Wisconsin. Through the Acquisition,
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
18783
Dean acquired two dairy processing
plants owned by Foremost, located in
Waukesha and DePere, Wisconsin.
Dean’s acquisition of these plants
violates Section 7 of the Clayton Act
because ‘‘the effect of such acquisition
may be substantially to lessen
competition.’’ 15 U.S.C. 18.
2. The Acquisition adversely affects
two types of markets. The first are the
markets for the sale of school milk to
individual school districts located
throughout the State of Wisconsin and
the Upper Peninsula of Michigan (the
‘‘UP’’). The second is the market for the
sale of fluid milk to purchasers located
in Wisconsin, the UP, and northeastern
Illinois.1
3. The Acquisition eliminates one of
Dean’s most aggressive competitors—a
competitor that engaged in pricing that
Dean considered ‘‘dangerous’’ and
‘‘irrational.’’ In recent years, Dean and
Foremost have been the first and fourth
largest sellers of school milk and fluid
milk in Wisconsin, the UP, and
northeastern Illinois. With the
Acquisition, Dean will account for more
than 57 percent of fluid milk sales in the
region. In the most recent school year,
Dean and the two plants it acquired sold
more than 50 percent of the school milk
purchased in Wisconsin and the UP.
4. Numerous school districts have
benefitted from vigorous competition
between Dean and Foremost. Dean and
Foremost have frequently been the two
lowest bidders for school milk contracts
at numerous school districts in
Wisconsin and the UP and, in some
school districts, have been the only two
bidders for those contracts.
5. Grocery stores, convenience stores,
and other purchasers have also
benefitted from vigorous competition
between Dean and Foremost for fluid
milk contracts. Dean and Foremost have
been the only two bidders for some
contracts and two of only three bidders
for other contracts. The aggressive
competition between them has lowered
purchasers’ costs. For example, in 2006,
a retailer with hundreds of stores in
northeastern Illinois held an auction for
its fluid milk business in which the
competition between Dean and
Foremost saved the retailer
approximately $1.5 million.
6. The Acquisition’s elimination of
head-to-head competition between Dean
and Foremost will hurt school milk and
fluid milk purchasers. The loss of this
head-to-head competition leads directly
1 ‘‘Northeastern Illinois’’ is defined as the
following counties in the State of Illinois: Cook
County, DeKalb County, DuPage County, Grundy
County, Kane County, Kendall County, Lake
County, McHenry County, and Will County.
E:\FR\FM\05APN1.SGM
05APN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 5, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18782-18783]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7977]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
Notice is hereby given that on March 18, 2011, a proposed Consent
Decree in United States v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., C.A. No.
4:11-cv-01037 (S.D. Tex.), was lodged with the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas. The Consent Decree resolves
the United States' claims for response costs against a number of
defendants, pursuant to Section 107(a)(3) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (``CERCLA''),
42 U.S.C. 9607(a)(3). The complaint filed simultaneously with the
lodging of the Consent Decree names as defendants Exxon Mobil
Corporation, Ashland, Inc., Eurecat U.S. Incorporated, Akzo Nobel,
Inc., Flint Hills Resources, LP, Irving Oil Limited, ConocoPhillips
Company, Texaco, Inc., and Chevron U.S.A., Inc. The claims against the
defendants relate to response costs incurred by the United States in
connection with response activities taken with respect to the Many
Diversified Interests Site, at Operable Unit 1 (``OU-1''), located in
Houston, Texas. Specifically, the United States' complaint alleges that
the defendants sent spent catalyst that contained hazardous substances,
including, but not limited to nickel and molybdenum, to OU-1 for
disposal or treatment. Under the Consent Decree, the defendants will
pay the United States $1,750,000 in reimbursement of a portion of the
response costs incurred by the United States in connection with OU-1.
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
[[Page 18783]]
mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC
20044-7611, and should refer to United States v. Exxon Mobil
Corporation, et al., DOJ Reference No. 90-11-3-09228.
The Consent Decree may be examined at the U.S. EPA Region 6, 1445
Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202. During the public comment
period, the Consent Decree may also be examined on the following
Department of Justice Web site: https://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 of the
Consent Decree from the Consent Decree Library, please enclose a check
in the amount of $7.25 (25 cents per page production costs), payable to
the U.S. Treasury or, if requesting by e-mail or fax, forward a check
in that amount to the Consent Decree Library at the stated address.
Thomas A. Mariani, Jr.,
Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 2011-7977 Filed 4-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-P