81 FR 24885 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 81 (April 27, 2016)

Page Range		24885-24886
FR Document		2016-09864

Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 81 (Wednesday, April 27, 2016)

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 27, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24885-24886]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[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............................  [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 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

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2016 / Notices 24885

complaint’’ to inquire into other matters United States in formulating the the amount of six hundred fifty six
that the United States did not pursue. proposed Final Judgment. thousand dollars ($656,000). Payment of
Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1459–60. As this Date: April 20, 2016 the civil penalty ordered hereby shall be
Court recently confirmed in SBC Respectfully Submitted, made by wire transfer of funds or
Communications, courts ‘‘cannot look cashier’s check. If the payment is made
beyond the complaint in making the lllllllllllllllllll
by wire transfer, Defendant shall contact
Kenneth A. Libby
public interest determination unless the Janie Ingalls of the Antitrust Division’s
Special Attorney
complaint is drafted so narrowly as to Antitrust Documents Group at (202)
make a mockery of judicial power.’’ SBC IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT 514–2481 for instructions before making
Commc’ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 15. COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF the transfer. If the payment is made by
In its 2004 amendments, Congress COLUMBIA cashier’s check, the check shall be made
made clear its intent to preserve the payable to the United States Department
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA c/o
practical benefits of utilizing consent Department of Justice Washington, D.C. of Justice and delivered to:
decrees in antitrust enforcement, adding 20530, Plaintiff, v. LEN BLAVATNIK c/o Janie Ingalls
the unambiguous instruction that Access Industries, 28 Kensington Church United States Department of Justice
‘‘[n]othing in this section shall be Street, 4th Floor, London, United Kingdom Antitrust Division, Antitrust Documents
construed to require the court to W8 4EP, Defendant. Group
conduct an evidentiary hearing or to CASE NO.: 1:15–cv–01631 450 5th Street NW., Suite 1024
require the court to permit anyone to JUDGE: Randolph D. Moss Washington, DC 20530
intervene.’’ 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(2); see also FILED: 10/06/2015 Defendant shall pay the full amount
U.S. Airways, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 76 of the civil penalty within thirty (30)
FINAL JUDGMENT
(indicating that a court is not required days of entry of this Final Judgment. In
to hold an evidentiary hearing or to Plaintiff, the United States of
the event of a default or delay in
permit intervenors as part of its review America, having commenced this action
payment, interest at the rate of eighteen
under the Tunney Act). The language by filing its Complaint herein for
(18) percent per annum shall accrue
wrote into the statute what Congress violation of Section 7A of the Clayton
thereon from the date of the default or
intended when it enacted the Tunney Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a, commonly known as
delay to the date of payment.
Act in 1974, as Senator Tunney the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust
explained: ‘‘[t]he court is nowhere Improvements Act of 1976, and Plaintiff III.
compelled to go to trial or to engage in and Defendant Len Blavatnik, by their Each party shall bear its own costs of
extended proceedings which might have respective attorneys, having consented this action.
the effect of vitiating the benefits of to the entry of this Final Judgment
prompt and less costly settlement without trial or adjudication of any IV.
through the consent decree process.’’ issue of fact or law herein, and without Entry of this Final Judgment is in the
119 Cong. Rec. 24,598 (1973) (statement this Final Judgment constituting any public interest.
of Sen. Tunney). Rather, the procedure evidence against or an admission by the Dated: lllllllllllllll
for the public interest determination is Defendant with respect to any such lllllllllllllllllll
left to the discretion of the court, with issue: United States District Judge
the recognition that the court’s ‘‘scope Now, therefore, before the taking of [FR Doc. 2016–09782 Filed 4–26–16; 8:45 am]
of review remains sharply proscribed by any testimony and without trial or
BILLING CODE P
precedent and the nature of Tunney Act adjudication of any issue of fact or law
proceedings.’’ SBC Commc’ns, 489 F. herein, and upon the consent of the
Supp. 2d at 11.5 A court can make its parties hereto, it is hereby Ordered, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
public interest determination based on Adjudged, and Decreed as follows:
the competitive impact statement and Notice of Lodging of Proposed
I.
response to public comments alone. Consent Decree Under the
U.S. Airways, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 76. The Court has jurisdiction of the Comprehensive Environmental
subject matter of this action and of the Response, Compensation, and Liability
VIII. DETERMINATIVE DOCUMENTS Plaintiff and the Defendant. The Act and the Resource Conservation
There are no determinative materials Complaint states a claim upon which and Recovery Act
or documents within the meaning of the relief can be granted against the
APPA that were considered by the Defendant under Section 7A of the On April 20, 2016, the Department of
Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a. Justice and the State of California on
5 See United States v. Enova Corp., 107 F. Supp. behalf of the California Department of
2d 10, 17 (D.D.C. 2000) (noting that the ‘‘Tunney II. Toxic Substances Control and Toxic
Act expressly allows the court to make its public
interest determination on the basis of the
Judgment is hereby entered in this Substances Control Account (‘‘DTSC’’)
competitive impact statement and response to matter in favor of Plaintiff United States filed a complaint and lodged a proposed
comments alone’’); United States v. Mid-Am. of America and against Defendant, and, Consent Decree with the United States
Dairymen, Inc., No. 73–CV–681–W–1, 1977–1 Trade pursuant to Section 7A(g)(1) of the District Court for the Central District of
Cas. (CCH) ¶ 61,508, at 71,980, *22 (W.D. Mo. 1977)
(‘‘Absent a showing of corrupt failure of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a(g)(1), the California pertaining to environmental
Debt Collection Improvement Act of contamination at Operable Unit 2
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

government to discharge its duty, the Court, in
making its public interest finding, should . . . 1996, Pub. L. 104–134 § 31001(s) (‘‘OU2’’) of the Omega Chemical
carefully consider the explanations of the (amending the Federal Civil Penalties Corporation Superfund Site (‘‘Site’’) in
government in the competitive impact statement
and its responses to comments in order to Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 Los Angeles County, California. The
determine whether those explanations are U.S.C. 2461), Federal Trade Commission complaint and proposed Consent Decree
reasonable under the circumstances.’’); S. Rep. No. Rule 1.98, 16 CFR 1.98, 61 FR 54549 were filed contemporaneously in the
93–298, at 6 (1973) (‘‘Where the public interest can
be meaningfully evaluated simply on the basis of
(Oct. 21, 1996), and 74 FR 857 (Jan. 9, matter of United States of America and
briefs and oral arguments, that is the approach that 2009), Defendant Len Blavatnik is State of California on behalf of the
should be utilized.’’). hereby ordered to pay a civil penalty in Department of Toxic Substances Control

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:29 Apr 26, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27APN1.SGM 27APN1

Document Created: 2018-02-07 13:55:27
Document Modified: 2018-02-07 13:55:27

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Notices
FR Citation		81 FR 24885