Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 1338-1339 [2020-00226]

Download as PDF jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 1338 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 7 / Friday, January 10, 2020 / Notices ‘‘broad discretion to settle with the defendant within the reaches of the public interest.’’ United States v. Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 1448, 1461 (D.C. Cir. 1995); United States v. U.S. Airways Grp., Inc., 38 F. Supp. 3d 69, 75 (D.D.C. 2014) (explaining that the ‘‘court’s inquiry is limited’’ in Tunney Act settlements); United States v. InBev N.V./S.A., No. 08–1965 (JR), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84787, at *3 (D.D.C. Aug. 11, 2009) (noting that a court’s review of a consent judgment is limited and only inquires ‘‘into whether the government’s determination that the proposed remedies will cure the antitrust violations alleged in the complaint was reasonable, and whether the mechanism to enforce the final judgment are clear and manageable’’). As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held, under the APPA a court considers, among other things, the relationship between the remedy secured and the specific allegations in the government’s complaint, whether the proposed Final Judgment is sufficiently clear, whether its enforcement mechanisms are sufficient, and whether it may positively harm third parties. See Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1458–62. With respect to the adequacy of the relief secured by the proposed Final Judgment, a court may ‘‘not to make de novo determination of facts and issues.’’ United States v. W. Elec. Co., 993 F.2d 1572, 1577 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (quotation marks omitted); see also Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1460–62; United States v. Alcoa, Inc., 152 F. Supp. 2d 37, 40 (D.D.C. 2001); United States v. Enova Corp., 107 F. Supp. 2d 10, 16 (D.D.C. 2000); InBev, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84787, at *3. Instead, ‘‘[t]he balancing of competing social and political interests affected by a proposed antitrust consent decree must be left, in the first instance, to the discretion of the Attorney General.’’ W. Elec. Co., 993 F.2d at 1577 (quotation marks omitted). ‘‘The court should bear in mind the flexibility of the public interest inquiry: the court’s function is not to determine whether the resulting array of rights and liabilities is one that will best serve society, but only to confirm that the resulting settlement is within the reaches of the public interest.’’ Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1460 (quotation marks omitted). More demanding requirements would ‘‘have enormous practical consequences for the government’s ability to negotiate future settlements,’’ contrary to congressional intent. Id. at 1456. ‘‘The Tunney Act was not intended to create a disincentive to the use of the consent decree.’’ Id. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:39 Jan 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 The United States’ predictions about the efficacy of the remedy are to be afforded deference by the Court. See, e.g., Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 (recognizing courts should give ‘‘due respect to the Justice Department’s . . . view of the nature of its case’’); United States v. Iron Mountain, Inc., 217 F. Supp. 3d 146, 152–53 (D.D.C. 2016) (‘‘In evaluating objections to settlement agreements under the Tunney Act, a court must be mindful that [t]he government need not prove that the settlements will perfectly remedy the alleged antitrust harms[;] it need only provide a factual basis for concluding that the settlements are reasonably adequate remedies for the alleged harms.’’) (internal citations omitted); United States v. Republic Servs., Inc., 723 F. Supp. 2d 157, 160 (D.D.C. 2010) (noting ‘‘the deferential review to which the government’s proposed remedy is accorded’’); United States v. ArcherDaniels-Midland Co., 272 F. Supp. 2d 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2003) (‘‘A district court must accord due respect to the government’s prediction as to the effect of proposed remedies, its perception of the market structure, and its view of the nature of the case’’). The ultimate question is whether ‘‘the remedies [obtained by the Final Judgment are] so inconsonant with the allegations charged as to fall outside of the ‘reaches of the public interest.’ ’’ Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 (quoting W. Elec. Co., 900 F.2d at 309). Moreover, the Court’s role under the APPA is limited to reviewing the remedy in relationship to the violations that the United States has alleged in its complaint, and does not authorize the Court to ‘‘construct [its] own hypothetical case and then evaluate the decree against that case.’’ Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1459; see also U.S. Airways, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 75 (noting that the court must simply determine whether there is a factual foundation for the government’s decisions such that its conclusions regarding the proposed settlements are reasonable); InBev, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84787, at *20 (‘‘the ‘public interest’ is not to be measured by comparing the violations alleged in the complaint against those the court believes could have, or even should have, been alleged’’). Because the ‘‘court’s authority to review the decree depends entirely on the government’s exercising its prosecutorial discretion by bringing a case in the first place,’’ it follows that ‘‘the court is only authorized to review the decree itself,’’ and not to ‘‘effectively redraft the complaint’’ to inquire into other matters that the United States did not pursue. Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1459–60. PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 In its 2004 amendments to the APPA, Congress made clear its intent to preserve the practical benefits of using consent judgments proposed by the United States in antitrust enforcement, Public Law 108–237 § 221, and added 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). This language explicitly wrote into the statute what Congress intended when it first 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). ‘‘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 (citing Enova Corp., 107 F. Supp. 2d at 1 VIII. Determinative Documents There are no determinative materials or documents within the meaning of the APPA that were considered by the United States in formulating the proposed Final Judgment. Dated: December 20, 2019 Respectfully submitted, lllllllllllllllllll Ryan Struve, United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Technology and Financial Services Section, 450 Fifth Street NW, Suite 7100, Washington, DC 20530, Telephone: (202) 514–4890, Email: ryan.struve@usdoj.gov. [FR Doc. 2020–00213 Filed 1–9–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–11–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act On January 3, 2020, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in the lawsuit entitled United States v. Fisher Scientific Company, L.L.C. and E:\FR\FM\10JAN1.SGM 10JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 7 / Friday, January 10, 2020 / Notices Sandvik, Inc. Civil Action No. 2:20–cv– 135. The United States filed this lawsuit under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). The United States’ complaint names Fisher Scientific Company, L.L.C. and Sandvik, Inc. as defendants. The complaint requests recovery of costs that the United States incurred and will incur responding to releases of hazardous substances at the Fair Law Well Field Superfund Site in Fair Lawn, New Jersey. The complaint also seeks injunctive relief. Both defendants signed the consent decree. They will perform the remedial action that EPA selected for the site and pay any response costs above the amount that the United States recovered from Eastman Kodak Company in a 2014 bankruptcy settlement. In return, the United States agrees not to sue the defendants under sections 106 and 107 of CERCLA with respect to the site. 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 v. Fisher Scientific Company, L.L.C. and Sandvik, Inc. D.J. Ref. No. 90–11–3–12072. 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. Assistant Attorney General, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044–7611. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES By mail ......... During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website: https:// www.justice.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 $88.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper copy VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:39 Jan 09, 2020 Jkt 250001 without the exhibits and signature pages, the cost is $9.50. Henry Friedman, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division. [FR Doc. 2020–00226 Filed 1–9–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 1339 Accommodations: A CART streamtext link has been arranged for this meeting. The web link to access CART on Monday, January 27, 2020 is: https:// www.streamtext.net/player?event=NCDTELECONFERENCE Dated: January 8, 2020. Sharon M. Lisa Grubb, Executive Director and CEO. [FR Doc. 2020–00340 Filed 1–8–20; 4:15 pm] NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY BILLING CODE 8421–02–P Sunshine Act Meetings The Members of the National Council on Disability (NCD) will meet by phone Monday, January 27, 2020, 10:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m., ET. Interested parties may join the meeting in listen-only capacity. Call-In Number: 800–353–6461; Passcode: 1568366, Host Name: Neil Romano. MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Council conduct a business meeting, to include approving the budget for fiscal year 2020 and vote on policy priorities for the fiscal year. Following agency updates, Mary Lamielle, Executive Director National Center for Environmental Health Strategies, Inc. is invited to provide a presentation on environmental intolerances to protect the public health and improve the lives of people injured or disabled by chemical and environmental exposures. Agenda: The times provided below are approximations for when each agenda item is anticipated to be discussed (all times Eastern): TIME AND DATES: Monday, January 27, 2020 10:00 a.m.–10:10 a.m. Welcome and call to order Roll call Call for vote on acceptance of agenda Call for vote of August 2019 Council Meeting minutes 10:10 a.m.–11:10 a.m. Chairman’s report Executive report Financial report and call for vote on fiscal year 2020 budget Policy report and call for vote on fiscal year 2020 policy priorities Legislative affairs report 11:10 a.m.–11:40 a.m. Presentation on environmental intolerances to protect the public health and improve the lives of people injured or disabled by chemical and environmental exposures 11:40 a.m.–12:00 p.m. Unfinished and new business 12:00 p.m. Adjourn CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Anne Sommers, NCD, 1331 F Street NW, Suite 850, Washington, DC 20004; 202–272–2004 (V), 202–272–2022 (Fax). PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Panel Advisory Committee Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities; National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities. ACTION: Notice of Meeting. AGENCY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given that the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities will hold a meeting of the Arts and Artifacts Domestic Indemnity Panel. DATES: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, February 18, 2020, from 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held by teleconference originating at the National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Voyatzis, Committee Management Officer, 400 7th Street SW, Room 4060, Washington, DC 20506, (202) 606–8322; evoyatzis@neh.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the meeting is for panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendation on applications for Certificates of Indemnity submitted to the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities, for exhibitions beginning on or after April 1, 2020. Because the meeting will consider proprietary financial and commercial data provided in confidence by indemnity applicants, and material that is likely to disclose trade secrets or other privileged or confidential information, and because it is important to keep the values of objects to be indemnified and the methods of transportation and security measures confidential, I have determined that that the meeting will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(4) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code. I have made this SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\10JAN1.SGM 10JAN1

Agencies

Department of Justice

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 7 (Friday, January 10, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1338-1339]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00226]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

    On January 3, 2020, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed 
Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the District 
of New Jersey in the lawsuit entitled United States v. Fisher 
Scientific Company, L.L.C. and

[[Page 1339]]

Sandvik, Inc. Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-135.
    The United States filed this lawsuit under the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). The 
United States' complaint names Fisher Scientific Company, L.L.C. and 
Sandvik, Inc. as defendants. The complaint requests recovery of costs 
that the United States incurred and will incur responding to releases 
of hazardous substances at the Fair Law Well Field Superfund Site in 
Fair Lawn, New Jersey. The complaint also seeks injunctive relief. Both 
defendants signed the consent decree. They will perform the remedial 
action that EPA selected for the site and pay any response costs above 
the amount that the United States recovered from Eastman Kodak Company 
in a 2014 bankruptcy settlement. In return, the United States agrees 
not to sue the defendants under sections 106 and 107 of CERCLA with 
respect to the site. 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 v. Fisher Scientific 
Company, L.L.C. and Sandvik, Inc. D.J. Ref. No. 90-11-3-12072. 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............................  [email protected].
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 website: https://www.justice.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 $88.50 (25 cents per page 
reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper 
copy without the exhibits and signature pages, the cost is $9.50.

Henry Friedman,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment 
and Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 2020-00226 Filed 1-9-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4410-15-P

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