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
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.