Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 24885-24886 [2016-09864]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2016 / Notices
complaint’’ to inquire into other matters
that the United States did not pursue.
Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1459–60. As this
Court recently confirmed in SBC
Communications, courts ‘‘cannot look
beyond the complaint in making the
public interest determination unless the
complaint is drafted so narrowly as to
make a mockery of judicial power.’’ SBC
Commc’ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 15.
In its 2004 amendments, Congress
made clear its intent to preserve the
practical benefits of utilizing consent
decrees in antitrust enforcement, adding
the unambiguous instruction that
‘‘[n]othing in this section shall be
construed to require the court to
conduct an evidentiary hearing or to
require the court to permit anyone to
intervene.’’ 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(2); see also
U.S. Airways, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 76
(indicating that a court is not required
to hold an evidentiary hearing or to
permit intervenors as part of its review
under the Tunney Act). The language
wrote into the statute what Congress
intended when it enacted the Tunney
Act in 1974, as Senator Tunney
explained: ‘‘[t]he court is nowhere
compelled to go to trial or to engage in
extended proceedings which might have
the effect of vitiating the benefits of
prompt and less costly settlement
through the consent decree process.’’
119 Cong. Rec. 24,598 (1973) (statement
of Sen. Tunney). Rather, the procedure
for the public interest determination is
left to the discretion of the court, with
the recognition that the court’s ‘‘scope
of review remains sharply proscribed by
precedent and the nature of Tunney Act
proceedings.’’ SBC Commc’ns, 489 F.
Supp. 2d at 11.5 A court can make its
public interest determination based on
the competitive impact statement and
response to public comments alone.
U.S. Airways, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 76.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
VIII. DETERMINATIVE DOCUMENTS
There are no determinative materials
or documents within the meaning of the
APPA that were considered by the
5 See United States v. Enova Corp., 107 F. Supp.
2d 10, 17 (D.D.C. 2000) (noting that the ‘‘Tunney
Act expressly allows the court to make its public
interest determination on the basis of the
competitive impact statement and response to
comments alone’’); United States v. Mid-Am.
Dairymen, Inc., No. 73–CV–681–W–1, 1977–1 Trade
Cas. (CCH) ¶ 61,508, at 71,980, *22 (W.D. Mo. 1977)
(‘‘Absent a showing of corrupt failure of the
government to discharge its duty, the Court, in
making its public interest finding, should . . .
carefully consider the explanations of the
government in the competitive impact statement
and its responses to comments in order to
determine whether those explanations are
reasonable under the circumstances.’’); S. Rep. No.
93–298, at 6 (1973) (‘‘Where the public interest can
be meaningfully evaluated simply on the basis of
briefs and oral arguments, that is the approach that
should be utilized.’’).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Apr 26, 2016
Jkt 238001
United States in formulating the
proposed Final Judgment.
Date: April 20, 2016
Respectfully Submitted,
llllllllllllllllll
l
Kenneth A. Libby
Special Attorney
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA c/o
Department of Justice Washington, D.C.
20530, Plaintiff, v. LEN BLAVATNIK c/o
Access Industries, 28 Kensington Church
Street, 4th Floor, London, United Kingdom
W8 4EP, Defendant.
CASE NO.: 1:15–cv–01631
JUDGE: Randolph D. Moss
FILED: 10/06/2015
FINAL JUDGMENT
Plaintiff, the United States of
America, having commenced this action
by filing its Complaint herein for
violation of Section 7A of the Clayton
Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a, commonly known as
the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust
Improvements Act of 1976, and Plaintiff
and Defendant Len Blavatnik, by their
respective attorneys, having consented
to the entry of this Final Judgment
without trial or adjudication of any
issue of fact or law herein, and without
this Final Judgment constituting any
evidence against or an admission by the
Defendant with respect to any such
issue:
Now, therefore, before the taking of
any testimony and without trial or
adjudication of any issue of fact or law
herein, and upon the consent of the
parties hereto, it is hereby Ordered,
Adjudged, and Decreed as follows:
I.
The Court has jurisdiction of the
subject matter of this action and of the
Plaintiff and the Defendant. The
Complaint states a claim upon which
relief can be granted against the
Defendant under Section 7A of the
Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a.
II.
Judgment is hereby entered in this
matter in favor of Plaintiff United States
of America and against Defendant, and,
pursuant to Section 7A(g)(1) of the
Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a(g)(1), the
Debt Collection Improvement Act of
1996, Pub. L. 104–134 § 31001(s)
(amending the Federal Civil Penalties
Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 28
U.S.C. 2461), Federal Trade Commission
Rule 1.98, 16 CFR 1.98, 61 FR 54549
(Oct. 21, 1996), and 74 FR 857 (Jan. 9,
2009), Defendant Len Blavatnik is
hereby ordered to pay a civil penalty in
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
24885
the amount of six hundred fifty six
thousand dollars ($656,000). Payment of
the civil penalty ordered hereby shall be
made by wire transfer of funds or
cashier’s check. If the payment is made
by wire transfer, Defendant shall contact
Janie Ingalls of the Antitrust Division’s
Antitrust Documents Group at (202)
514–2481 for instructions before making
the transfer. If the payment is made by
cashier’s check, the check shall be made
payable to the United States Department
of Justice and delivered to:
Janie Ingalls
United States Department of Justice
Antitrust Division, Antitrust Documents
Group
450 5th Street NW., Suite 1024
Washington, DC 20530
Defendant shall pay the full amount
of the civil penalty within thirty (30)
days of entry of this Final Judgment. In
the event of a default or delay in
payment, interest at the rate of eighteen
(18) percent per annum shall accrue
thereon from the date of the default or
delay to the date of payment.
III.
Each party shall bear its own costs of
this action.
IV.
Entry of this Final Judgment is in the
public interest.
Dated: lllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllll
l
United States District Judge
[FR Doc. 2016–09782 Filed 4–26–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Notice of Lodging of Proposed
Consent Decree Under the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act and the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act
On April 20, 2016, the Department of
Justice and the State of California on
behalf of the California Department of
Toxic Substances Control and Toxic
Substances Control Account (‘‘DTSC’’)
filed a complaint and lodged a proposed
Consent Decree with the United States
District Court for the Central District of
California pertaining to environmental
contamination at Operable Unit 2
(‘‘OU2’’) of the Omega Chemical
Corporation Superfund Site (‘‘Site’’) in
Los Angeles County, California. The
complaint and proposed Consent Decree
were filed contemporaneously in the
matter of United States of America and
State of California on behalf of the
Department of Toxic Substances Control
E:\FR\FM\27APN1.SGM
27APN1
24886
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2016 / Notices
and Toxic Substances Control Account
v. Abex Aerospace et al., Civil Action
No. 2:16–cv–02696 (C.D. Cal.).
The proposed Consent Decree
resolves certain claims under Sections
106 and 107 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, 42
U.S.C. 9606, 9607 and Section 7003 of
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6973, as well as
related state law claims, in connection
with environmental contamination at
OU2. The Consent Decree requires the
settling defendants, which include as
Settling Work Defendants the members
of the Omega PRP Organized Group
(‘‘OPOG’’) and McKesson Corporation,
and also include various Settling Cash
Defendants, to perform work at OU2 and
to make a payment of $8 million toward
the United States’ unreimbursed OU2
past costs, and a payment of $70,000
towards DTSC’s unreimbursed OU2 past
costs. The proposed Consent Decree also
requires the settling defendants to pay
the United States’ and DTSC’s future
response costs for overseeing the work
the settling defendants will be
performing at OU2.
The publication of this notice opens
a period for public comment on the
Consent Decree. Comments should be
addressed to the Assistant Attorney
General, Environment and Natural
Resources Division, and should refer to
United States of America and State of
California on behalf of the Department
of Toxic Substances Control and Toxic
Substances Control Account v. Abex
Aerospace et al., D.J. Ref. No. 90–11–3–
06529/10. A hearing will be held on the
proposed settlement if requested in
writing within the public comment
period. All comments must be
submitted no later than thirty (30) days
after the publication date of this notice.
Comments may be submitted either by
email or by mail:
To submit
comments:
Send them to:
By email .......
pubcommentees.enrd@usdoj.gov.
Assistant Attorney General,
U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O.
Box 7611, Washington, DC
20044–7611.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
By mail .........
During the public comment period,
the Consent Decree may be examined
and downloaded at this Justice
Department Web site: https://
www.usdoj.gov/enrd/consent-decrees.
We will provide a paper copy of the
Consent Decree upon written request
and payment of reproduction costs.
Please mail your request and payment
to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ—
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Apr 26, 2016
Jkt 238001
ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC
20044–7611.
Please enclose a check or money order
for $86.50 (25 cents per page
reproduction cost) for the Consent
Decree, payable to the United States
Treasury. For a paper copy without the
exhibits and signature pages, the cost is
$22.75.
Henry S. Friedman,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental
Enforcement Section, Environment and
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 2016–09864 Filed 4–26–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of Justice Programs
[OJP (OJJDP) Docket No. 1710]
Webinar Meeting of the Federal
Advisory Committee on Juvenile
Justice
Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, Justice.
ACTION: Notice of webinar meeting.
AGENCY:
The Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) has
scheduled a webinar meeting of the
Federal Advisory Committee on
Juvenile Justice (FACJJ).
DATES: The webinar meeting will take
place online on Wednesday May 18,
2016 at 2:00 p.m. EDT.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff
Slowikowski, Designated Federal
Official, OJJDP, Jeff.Slowikowski@
usdoj.gov, or (202) 616–3646. [This is
not a toll-free number.]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FACJJ,
established pursuant to Section 3(2)A of
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. App.2), will meet to carry out its
advisory functions under Section
223(f)(2)(C–E) of the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002.
The FACJJ is composed of
representatives from the states and
territories. FACJJ member duties
include: Reviewing Federal policies
regarding juvenile justice and
delinquency prevention; advising the
OJJDP Administrator with respect to
particular functions and aspects of
OJJDP; and advising the President and
Congress with regard to State
perspectives on the operation of OJJDP
and Federal legislation pertaining to
juvenile justice and delinquency
prevention. More information on the
FACJJ may be found at www.facjj.org.
Meeting Agenda: The proposed
agenda includes: (a) Opening
Introductions, and Webinar Logistics;
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(b) Remarks of Robert L. Listenbee,
Administrator, OJJDP; (c) FACJJ
Subcommittee Reports (Legislation;
Expungement/Sealing of Juvenile Court
Records; Research/Publications)); (d)
FACJJ Administrative Business; and (e)
Summary, Next Steps, and Meeting
Adjournment.
To participate in or view the webinar
meeting, FACJJ members and the public
must pre-register online. Members and
interested persons must link to the
webinar registration portal through
www.facjj.org, no later than Monday,
May 16, 2016. Upon registration,
information will be sent to you at the
email address you provide to enable you
to connect to the webinar. Should
problems arise with webinar
registration, please call Callie Long
Murray at 571–308–6617. [This is not a
toll-free telephone number.] Note:
Members of the public will be able to
listen to and view the webinar as
observers, but will not be able to
participate actively in the webinar.
An on-site room is available for
members of the public interested in
viewing the webinar in person. If
members of the public wish to view the
webinar in person, they must notify
Melissa Kanaya by email message at
mkanaya@aeioonline.com no later than
Friday, May 13, 2016.
FACJJ members will not be physically
present in Washington, DC for the
webinar. They will participate in the
webinar from their respective home
jurisdictions.
Written Comments: Interested parties
may submit written comments by email
message in advance of the webinar to
Jeff Slowikowski, Designated Federal
Official, at Jeff.Slowikowski@usdoj.gov,
no later than Monday, May 16, 2016. In
the alternative, interested parties may
fax comments to 202–307–2819 and
contact Yasmeen Hines at 202–598–
9785 to ensure that they are received.
[These are not toll-free numbers.]
Robert L. Listenbee,
Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2016–09756 Filed 4–26–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–18–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of Justice Programs
[OJP (OJJDP) Docket No. 1707]
Meeting of the Coordinating Council
on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention
Coordinating Council on
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, Justice.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\27APN1.SGM
27APN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 27, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24885-24886]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09864]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
On April 20, 2016, the Department of Justice and the State of
California on behalf of the California Department of Toxic Substances
Control and Toxic Substances Control Account (``DTSC'') filed a
complaint and lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States
District Court for the Central District of California pertaining to
environmental contamination at Operable Unit 2 (``OU2'') of the Omega
Chemical Corporation Superfund Site (``Site'') in Los Angeles County,
California. The complaint and proposed Consent Decree were filed
contemporaneously in the matter of United States of America and State
of California on behalf of the Department of Toxic Substances Control
[[Page 24886]]
and Toxic Substances Control Account v. Abex Aerospace et al., Civil
Action No. 2:16-cv-02696 (C.D. Cal.).
The proposed Consent Decree resolves certain claims under Sections
106 and 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9606, 9607 and Section 7003 of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6973, as well as
related state law claims, in connection with environmental
contamination at OU2. The Consent Decree requires the settling
defendants, which include as Settling Work Defendants the members of
the Omega PRP Organized Group (``OPOG'') and McKesson Corporation, and
also include various Settling Cash Defendants, to perform work at OU2
and to make a payment of $8 million toward the United States'
unreimbursed OU2 past costs, and a payment of $70,000 towards DTSC's
unreimbursed OU2 past costs. The proposed Consent Decree also requires
the settling defendants to pay the United States' and DTSC's future
response costs for overseeing the work the settling defendants will be
performing at OU2.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on
the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant
Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and
should refer to United States of America and State of California on
behalf of the Department of Toxic Substances Control and Toxic
Substances Control Account v. Abex Aerospace et al., D.J. Ref. No. 90-
11-3-06529/10. A hearing will be held on the proposed settlement if
requested in writing within the public comment period. All comments
must be submitted no later than thirty (30) days after the publication
date of this notice. Comments may be submitted either by email or by
mail:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To submit comments: Send them to:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By email............................ pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov.
By mail............................. Assistant Attorney General, U.S.
DOJ--ENRD, P.O. Box 7611,
Washington, DC 20044-7611.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be
examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site: https://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/consent-decrees. We will provide a paper copy of the
Consent Decree upon written request and payment of reproduction costs.
Please mail your request and payment to: Consent Decree Library, U.S.
DOJ--ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.
Please enclose a check or money order for $86.50 (25 cents per page
reproduction cost) for the Consent Decree, payable to the United States
Treasury. For a paper copy without the exhibits and signature pages,
the cost is $22.75.
Henry S. Friedman,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment
and Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 2016-09864 Filed 4-26-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-P