Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Water Act, 86965-86966 [2020-28923]

Download as PDF khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 251 / Thursday, December 31, 2020 / Notices 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 ‘‘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); see also United States v. Deutsche Telekom AG, No. 19–2232 (TJK), 2020 WL 1873555, at *7 (D.D.C. Apr. 14, 2020). 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. 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:28 Dec 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 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 (‘‘[T]he ‘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. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 86965 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 17). 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 23, 2020. Respectfully submitted, Catherine R. Reilly, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Healthcare and Consumer Products Section, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Suite 4100, Washington, DC 20530, catherine.reilly@usdoj.gov. [FR Doc. 2020–28905 Filed 12–30–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–11–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Water Act On December 23, 2020, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois in the lawsuit entitled United States and Illinois v. Peoria City of Illinois and the Greater Peoria Sanitary and Sewage Disposal District, Civil Action No. 20–1444. The United States and State of Illinois filed this lawsuit under the Clean Water Act. The complaint seeks civil penalties and injunctive relief for violations of the Act and related permits addressing the sewer system that serves the City of Peoria and is operated by the Defendants. Among other things, the consent decree requires Peoria to significantly reduce sewage overflows from the system by performing a series of improvement projects over 18 years that meet final criteria and satisfy interim milestones. The Greater Peoria Sanitary and Sewage Disposal District (‘‘GPSD’’) is required to perform additional system improvements that E:\FR\FM\31DEN1.SGM 31DEN1 86966 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 251 / Thursday, December 31, 2020 / Notices will result in reduced sewage overflows. In addition, Peoria will pay a penalty of $75,000 to the United States, $25,000 to the State, and perform a $200,000 Stateonly supplemental environmental project. The District will pay a $150,000 penalty, split evenly between the United States and the State. 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 and Illinois v. Peoria City of Illinois and the Greater Peoria Sanitary and Sewage Disposal District, D.J. Ref. No. 90–5–1–1–08724. 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. 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 $29 (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 $22.25. Henry S. Friedman, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES [FR Doc. 2020–28923 Filed 12–30–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–15–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:28 Dec 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; American Time Use Survey Notice of availability; request for comments. ACTION: The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited. DATES: The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before February 1, 2021. ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting ‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open for Public Comments’’ or by using the search function. Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) if the information will be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) the accuracy of the agency’s estimates of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (4) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (5) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony May by telephone at 202–693– 4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at DOL_PRA_PUBLIC@dol.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The American Time Use Survey (ATUS) is the Nation’s first federally administered, continuous survey on time use in the United States. It measures, for example, time spent with children, working, sleeping, or doing leisure activities. In the United States, several existing Federal surveys collect income and wage data for individuals and families, and analysts often use such measures of material prosperity as proxies for SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 quality of life. Time-use data substantially augment these quality-oflife measures. The data also can be used in conjunction with wage data to evaluate the contribution of non-market work to national economies. This enables comparisons of production between nations that have different mixes of market and non-market activities. The ATUS is used to develop nationally representative estimates of how people spend their time. This is accomplished by collecting a time diary about the activities survey respondents did over a 24-hour period ‘‘yesterday,’’ from 4 a.m. on the day before the interview until 4 a.m. on the day of the interview. In the one-time interview, respondents also report who was with them during the activities, where they were, how long each activity lasted, and if they were paid. All of this information has numerous practical applications for sociologists, economists, educators, government policymakers, businesspersons, health researchers, and others. The Well-being Module, a supplement to the ATUS, provides an additional dimension to data on time use by providing information about how Americans experience their time. Specifically, the Module collects information about how happy, tired, sad, and stressed individuals were yesterday, and the degree to which they felt pain, for three activities randomly selected from the time diary. The Wellbeing Module also collects data on whether people were interacting with anyone while doing the selected activities and how meaningful the activities were to them. Some general health questions, a question about overall life satisfaction, and a question about respondents’ overall affective experience yesterday also are asked. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on May 5, 2020 (85 FR 26716). This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. DOL seeks PRA authorization to reinstate this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOL notes E:\FR\FM\31DEN1.SGM 31DEN1

Agencies

Department of Justice

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 251 (Thursday, December 31, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 86965-86966]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28923]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean 
Water Act

    On December 23, 2020, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed 
Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Central 
District of Illinois in the lawsuit entitled United States and Illinois 
v. Peoria City of Illinois and the Greater Peoria Sanitary and Sewage 
Disposal District, Civil Action No. 20-1444.
    The United States and State of Illinois filed this lawsuit under 
the Clean Water Act. The complaint seeks civil penalties and injunctive 
relief for violations of the Act and related permits addressing the 
sewer system that serves the City of Peoria and is operated by the 
Defendants. Among other things, the consent decree requires Peoria to 
significantly reduce sewage overflows from the system by performing a 
series of improvement projects over 18 years that meet final criteria 
and satisfy interim milestones. The Greater Peoria Sanitary and Sewage 
Disposal District (``GPSD'') is required to perform additional system 
improvements that

[[Page 86966]]

will result in reduced sewage overflows. In addition, Peoria will pay a 
penalty of $75,000 to the United States, $25,000 to the State, and 
perform a $200,000 State-only supplemental environmental project. The 
District will pay a $150,000 penalty, split evenly between the United 
States and the State.
    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 and Illinois v. Peoria City of Illinois 
and the Greater Peoria Sanitary and Sewage Disposal District, D.J. Ref. 
No. 90-5-1-1-08724. 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 $29 (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 $22.25.

Henry S. Friedman,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment 
and Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 2020-28923 Filed 12-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-P

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