81 FR 36346 - United States of America v. BBA Aviation plc, et al.; Public Comment and Response on Proposed Final Judgment

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 108 (June 6, 2016)

Page Range		36346-36350
FR Document		2016-13185
Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 108 (Monday, June 6, 2016)
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 108 (Monday, June 6, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36346-36350]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13185]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


United States of America v. BBA Aviation plc, et al.; Public 
Comment and Response on Proposed Final Judgment

    Pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 
16(b)-(h), the United States hereby publishes below the comment 
received on the proposed Final Judgment in United States of America v. 
BBA Aviation plc, et al., Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-00174, together with 
the Response of the United States to Public Comment.
    Copies of the comment and the United States' Response are available 
for inspection on the Antitrust Division's Web site at http://www.justice.gov/atr, and at the Office of the Clerk of the United 
States District Court for the District of Columbia. 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.

Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

    United States Of America, Plaintiff, v. BBA Aviation PLC, 
Landmark U.S. Corp LLC, and LM U.S. Member LLC, Defendants.

Case: 1:16-cv-00174
Judge: Amy Berman Jackson

RESPONSE OF PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES TO PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED 
FINAL JUDGMENT

    Pursuant to Sections 2(b)-(h) of the Antitrust Procedures and 
Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h) (``APPA'' or ``Tunney Act''), 
Plaintiff, the United States of America (``United States'') hereby 
files the single public comment received concerning the proposed Final 
Judgment in this case and the United States's response to the comment. 
After careful consideration of the submitted comment, the United States 
continues to believe that the proposed Final Judgment (``PFJ'') 
provides an effective and appropriate remedy for the antitrust 
violations alleged in the Complaint. The United States will move the 
Court for entry of the proposed Final Judgment after the public comment 
and this Response have been published in the

[[Page 36347]]

Federal Register pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 16(d).

I. BACKGROUND

    On February 3, 2016, the United States filed a civil antitrust 
Complaint alleging that the proposed acquisition by Defendant BBA 
Aviation plc (``Signature'') of Defendants Landmark U.S. Corp LLC and 
LM U.S. Member LLC (``Landmark''), announced on September 23, 2015, 
would be likely to substantially lessen competition in the provision of 
full-service fixed-based operator (``FBO'') services at six airports in 
the United States, in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 
U.S.C. 18. The Complaint further alleged that, as a result of the 
acquisition as originally proposed, prices for these services in the 
United States would likely have increased and customers would have 
received services of lower quality.
    At the same time the Complaint was filed, the United States also 
filed a Hold Separate Stipulation and Order (``Hold Separate Order''); 
a Proposed Final Judgment (``PFJ''); and a Competitive Impact Statement 
(``CIS'') that explains how the PFJ is designed to remedy the likely 
anticompetitive effects of the proposed acquisition. As required by the 
Tunney Act, the United States published the PFJ and CIS in the Federal 
Register on February 10, 2016. In addition, the United States ensured 
that a summary of the terms of the PFJ and CIS, together with 
directions for the submission of the written comments, were published 
in The Washington Post on seven different days during the period of 
February 6, 2016 to February 12, 2016. See 15 U.S.C. 16)(c). The 60-day 
waiting period for public comments ended on April 12, 2016. Following 
expiration of that period, the United States received one comment, 
which is described below and attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

II. STANDARD OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

    The Tunney Act requires that proposed consent judgments in 
antitrust cases brought by the United States be subject to a 60-day 
public comment period, after which the court shall determine whether 
entry of the proposed Final Judgment ``is in the public interest.'' 15 
U.S.C. 16(e)(1). In making that determination, the court, in accordance 
with the statute as amended in 2004, is required to consider:

    (A) the competitive impact of such judgment, including 
termination of alleged violations, provisions for enforcement and 
modification, duration of relief sought, anticipated effects of 
alternative remedies actually considered, whether its terms are 
ambiguous, and any other competitive considerations bearing upon the 
adequacy of such judgment that the court deems necessary to a 
determination of whether the consent judgment is in the public 
interest; and
    (B) the impact of entry of such judgment upon competition in the 
relevant market or markets, upon the public generally and 
individuals alleging specific injury from the violations set forth 
in the complaint including consideration of the public benefit, if 
any, to be derived from a determination of the issues at trial.

15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1). In considering these statutory factors, the court's 
inquiry is necessarily a limited one as the government is entitled to 
``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); see also United States v. SBC Commc'ns, Inc., 
489 F. Supp. 2d 1, 10-11 (D.D.C. 2007) (assessing public interest 
standard under the Tunney Act); United States v. InBev N.V./S.A., No. 
08-cv-1965 (JR), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84787, at *3 (D.D.C. Aug. 11, 
2009) (discussing nature of review of consent judgment under the Tunney 
Act; inquiry is limited to ``whether the government's determination 
that the proposed remedies will cure the antitrust violations alleged 
in the complaint was reasonable, and whether the mechanisms to enforce 
the final judgment are clear and manageable'').
    Under the APPA, a court considers, among other things, the 
relationship between the remedy secured and the specific allegations 
set forth in the Complaint, whether the decree is sufficiently clear, 
whether the enforcement mechanisms are sufficient, and whether the 
decree may positively harm third parties. See Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 
1458-62. With respect to the adequacy of the relief secured by the 
decree, a court may not ``engage in an unrestricted evaluation of what 
relief would best serve the public.'' United States v. BNS, Inc., 858 
F.2d 456, 462 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing United States v. Bechtel Corp., 
648 F.2d 660, 666 (9th Cir. 1981)). Instead, courts have held that:

[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. The court's 
role in protecting the public interest is one of insuring that the 
government has not breached its duty to the public in consenting to 
the decree. The court is required to determine not whether a 
particular decree is the one that will best serve society, but 
whether the settlement in ``within the reaches of the public 
interest.'' More elaborate requirements might undermine the 
effectiveness of antitrust enforcement by consent decree.

Bechtel, 648 F.2d at 666 (emphasis added) (citations omitted).
    In determining whether a proposed settlement is in the public 
interest, ``the court `must accord deference to the government's 
predictions about the efficacy of its remedies.''' United States v. 
U.S. Airways Grp., Inc., 38 F. Supp. 3d 69, 76 (D.D.C. 2014) (quoting 
SBC Commc'ns, 489 F. Supp. at 17). See also Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 
(noting that the government is entitled to deference as to its 
``predictions as to the effect of the proposed remedies''); United 
States v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 272 F. Supp. 2d 1, 6 (D.D.C. 
2003) (noting that the court should grant due respect to the United 
States' ``prediction as to the effect of the proposed remedies, its 
perception of the market structure, and its views of the nature of the 
case''); United States v.  Morgan Stanley, 881 F. Supp. 2d 563, 567-68 
(S.D.N.Y. 2012) (explaining that the government is entitled to 
deference in choice of remedies).
    Courts ``may not require that the remedies perfectly match the 
alleged violations.'' SBC Commc'ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 17. Rather, the 
ultimate question is whether ``the remedies [obtained in the decree 
are] so inconsonant with the allegations charged as to fall outside of 
the `reaches of the public interest.''' Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461. 
Accordingly, the United States ``need only provide a factual basis for 
concluding that the settlements are reasonably adequate remedies for 
the alleged harms.'' SBC Commc'ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 17; see also 
United States v. Apple, Inc. 889 F. Supp. 2d 623, 631 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). 
And, a ``proposed decree must be approved even if it falls short of the 
remedy the court would impose on its own, as long as it falls within 
the range of acceptability or is within the reaches of the public 
interest.'' United States v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 552 F. Supp. 131, 151 
(D.D.C. 1982) (citations and internal quotations omitted); see also 
United States v. Alcan Aluminum Ltd., 605 F. Supp. 619, 622 (W.D. Ky. 
1985) (approving the consent decree even though the court would have 
imposed a greater remedy).
    In its 2004 amendments to the Tunney Act,\1\ Congress made clear 
its

[[Page 36348]]

intent to preserve the practical benefits of using 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). 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 the Tunney Act proceedings.'' 
SBC Commc'ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 11; see also United States v. Enova 
Corp., 107 F. Supp. 2d 10, 17 (D.D.C. 2000) (``[T]he Tunney Act 
expressly allows the court to make its public interest determination on 
the basis of the competitive impact statement and response to public 
comments alone.''); US Airways, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 76 (same).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 2004 amendments substituted ``shall'' for ``may'' in 
directing relevant factors for courts to consider and amended the 
list of factors to focus on competitive considerations and to 
address potentially ambiguous judgment terms. Compare 15 U.S.C. 
16(e) (2004), with 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1) (2006); see also SBC Commc'ns, 
489 F. Supp. 2d at 11 (concluding that the 2004 amendments 
``effected minimal changes'' to Tunney Act review).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENT AND THE UNITED STATES'S RESPONSE

    The United States received one public comment from the City of 
Dallas (``Dallas''). Though the comment was submitted after the 
deadline for comments had passed, the United States has nevertheless 
issued a full response. Dallas submitted the comment to express concern 
about the possible anticompetitive effects of Signature's acquisition 
of Landmark at Love Field Airport (``Love Field''), which Dallas 
operates. Combined, Signature and Landmark have 54 percent of the FBO 
market and lease nearly 70 percent of the FBO facilities at Love Field. 
Dallas submitted the comment to provide additional information about 
the situation at Love Field and highlight what Dallas believes to be 
competitive concerns the PFJ does not address. In particular, Dallas is 
concerned that the PFJ would not require Signature to report future FBO 
acquisitions at Love Field to the United States. Dallas does not, 
however, argue in favor of a divesture of FBO assets at Love Field.
    The United States appreciates Dallas's advocacy efforts on behalf 
of competition at Love Field. The United States carefully considered 
the effects of the acquisition at Love Field and chose not to take 
enforcement action against such acquisition. Over the course of a five-
month investigation, the United States reviewed party and third-party 
documents, conducted economic data analysis, and talked with dozens of 
industry participants including the Aviation Director for the City of 
Dallas. As a result of this investigation, the United States did not 
allege a violation of the Clayton Act resulting from the acquisition of 
Love Field in its Complaint. Therefore, the comment submitted by Dallas 
is not a comment addressing the question before the Court, which is 
whether the proposed remedy will cure the antitrust violations alleged 
in the Complaint. Should any future acquisitions by Signature at Love 
Field raise a possibility of competitive harm, Dallas or any other 
affected party may raise those concerns with the United States to be 
evaluated at such future date.

IV. CONCLUSION

    After reviewing the public comment, the United States continues to 
believe that the PFJ, as drafted, provides an effective and appropriate 
remedy for the antitrust violations alleged in the Complaint, and is 
therefore in the public interest. The United States will move this 
Court to enter the PFJ soon after the comment and this response are 
published in the Federal Register.

Dated: May 27, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Patricia L. Sindel--------------------------------------------------
Patricia L. Sindel, (D.C. Bar #997505),

Trial Attorney, Networks & Technology Enforcement Section, U.S. 
Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 450 Fifth Street NW., 
Suite 7100, Washington, DC 20530, Telephone: (202) 598-8300, 
Facsimile: (202) 616-8544, Email: [email protected].

KAPLAN KIRSCH ROCKWELL

April 20, 2016

James J. Tierney, Chief
Networks & Technology Enforcement Section
United States Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
450 Fifth Street NW., Suite 7100
Washington, DC 20530

Re: BBA Aviation, PLC and Landmark U.S. Corp LLC
 Case No. 1:16-cv-00174

Dear Mr. Tierney:

    As counsel to the City of Dallas (``City''), Kaplan Kirsch & 
Rockwell LLP (``Firm'') submits these comments in the matter of 
United States v. BBA Aviation, et al., case no. 1:16-cv-00174, 
concerning the merger of BBA Aviation (parent corporation to 
Signature Flight Support Corporation (``Signature'')), and Landmark 
U.S. Corp LLC (``Landmark''). The Firm and the City recognize that 
the deadline for comments on this matter has passed, but 
respectfully request that the Department of Justice accept these 
comments despite their tardiness.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See81 Fed. Reg. 7144 (Feb. 10, 2016) (setting 60-day comment 
period).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The City owns and operates Dallas Love Field Airport (``Love 
Field''). The City is concerned about the possible anticompetitive 
effects of the merger between Landmark and Signature at Love Field, 
where both Landmark and Signature currently operate.
    Presently, there are six (6) fixed base operator (``FBO'') 
locations at Love Field, operated by five different FBO entities. 
Landmark operates one (1) of the FBO locations, and Signature 
operates two (2) of the locations.\2\ In 2015, Signature's two (2) 
locations combined sold 40 percent of the total aviation fuel \3\ at 
Love Field (by FBOs), and Landmark's single location sold 14 percent 
of the total aviation fuel. This, after the proposed merger, would 
result in 54 percent of the fuel at Love Field being provided by the 
``new'' Signature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Signature operates both Signature Flight Support (also known 
as Signature North) and Dalfort Fueling.
    \3\ 100LL and Jet-A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The remaining three (3) FBOs sold 46 percent of the fuel, with 
two smaller locations selling approximately 9 percent each, and one 
larger entity selling 28 percent. In addition to conducting a 
majority of the fuel sales, Landmark and Signature together lease 
nearly 70 percent of the total hangar, general aviation terminal 
facilities, and office space at Love Field. A chart with a breakdown 
of the data used to calculate these percentages is enclosed with 
this letter as Attachment A.
    Under the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission's 
Horizontal Merger Guidelines, markets with an initial score over 
2500 on the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (``HHI'') are considered 
``highly concentrated.'' \4\ When a prospective merger in a highly 
concentrated market would result in an HHI increase of 200 or more, 
the transaction ``will be presumed to be likely to enhance market 
power.'' \5\ Such increases in HHI are considered indicators of 
transactions ``for which it is particularly important to examine 
whether other competitive factors confirm, reinforce, or counteract 
the potentially harmful effects of increased concentration.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Horizontal Merger Guidelines Sec.  5.3.
    \5\ Id.
    \6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At Love Field, the fuel flowage data suggests that the existing 
market is already highly concentrated, and that a merger of 
Signature and Landmark would increase the HHI by well over 200 
points.\7\ Despite this potential effect, there are no indications 
that the Department of Justice examined any of the competitive 
effects of the merger at Love Field. In fact, it appears that the 
Department of Justice failed to consider the impact on Love Field 
whatsoever, or, alternatively, failed to adequately explain why it 
chose to ignore those impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The City recognizes that HHI is typically calculated using 
revenue data, but such information is proprietary and unavailable to 
the City.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These facts and the Department's own guidelines demonstrate the 
need to carefully scrutinize the merger's potential effects at Love 
Field. Yet, the materials published by the Department of Justice in 
the Federal Register and filed with the United States District Court 
for the District of Columbia make no reference to operations at Love 
Field.

[[Page 36349]]

    The proposed consent decree requires Signature and Landmark to 
divest their assets from six airports where both currently operate, 
but there is not even an acknowledgement that both firms operate 
FBOs at Love Field.\8\ While the City does not necessarily advocate 
for a divestiture of Signature or Landmark's assets at Love Field, 
the lack of discussion or findings on the issue is troubling, 
especially when such an absence is inconsistent with the 
Department's own guidance on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The City also notes that there is no discussion of San 
Antonio International Airport or Teterboro Airport, the two other 
U.S. airports where both Signature and Landmark presently operate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed consent decree not only imposes no constraints on 
Signature-Landmark operations at Love Field, but would effectively 
allow Signature-Landmark to acquire another FBO at Love Field. The 
proposal allows such an acquisition at ``an airport where [the 
merged entity] is already providing FBO Services in the United 
States unless (1) the assumption or acquisition is valued at less 
than $20 million dollars, or (2) at least two Full-Service FBOs not 
involved in the transaction provide FBO Services at the airport 
where the assumption or acquisition will take place.'' \9\ This 
provision will be insufficient to protect the competitive 
environment at Love Field \10\ because BBA could acquire the 
remaining FBOs without Department of Justice scrutiny or permission. 
The new Signature-Landmark entity could acquire the next-largest FBO 
at Love Field because of the exception allowing such acquisition 
when there are two other FBOs at the airport, and could then acquire 
the other entities if they are valued below $20 million.\11\ By 
failing to address this potential issue now, the Department of 
Justice leaves open the possibility that BBA could later acquire an 
exclusive right at Love Field.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 81 FR at 7155 (emphasis added).
    \10\ The City is also concerned that even greater concentration 
of FBO business at Love Field may result in violations of the 
Federal Aviation Administration Grant Assurances, which specifically 
prohibit the granting of ``exclusive rights'' to aeronautical 
service providers. See FAA Order 5.190.6B, ]8.1. The City has an 
affirmative obligation to ensure that an exclusive right is not 
created at Love Field.
    \11\ The City presently has no information about the value of 
any of the other FBOs at Love Field, but all are small entities that 
operate only at Love Field.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The City urges the Department of Justice to include more 
specific protections for Love Field and other airports that are not 
proposed for divestiture, but where the market power of the merged 
entity could pose a serious threat of further market concentration. 
Specifically, the City suggests including provisions that would 
serve to prevent the future purchase of FBOs at any airport where 
Signature and Landmark both operated prior to the merger, regardless 
of the value of the transaction or presence of additional FBOs. As 
explained above, the current provision in the proposed consent 
decree is too narrow to adequately protect Love Field. A broader 
provision would better protect Love Field and other airports from 
potential anticompetitive environments.
    Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. If you 
have any questions about any of the comments in this letter, please 
do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

/s/--------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter J. Kirsch by Nicholas M. Clabbers,

On behalf of: City of Dallas, Department of Aviation, 8008 Herb 
Kelleher Way, LB16, Dallas, Texas 75235.

                                                  Attachment A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               FBO fuel sales at Dallas Love Field  (2015 totals)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               FBO                                100 LL  (gals)   Jet A  (gals)       Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature Flight Support........................................           9,992       4,126,136       4,136,128
Signature Dalfort...............................................           8,335       3,935,851       3,944,186
Landmark Aviation...............................................          37,380       2,881,685       2,919,065
Total Signature + Landmark......................................          55,707      10,943,672      10,999,379
All Other FBOs..................................................         101,600       9,238,107       9,339,707
S+L Market Share Post-Merger \1\................................           35.4%           54.2%             54%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                            FBO Facility Leaseholds at Dallas Love Field (as of 2015)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Terminal and  offices
                  FBO                          Hangars  (sqft)                  (sqft)                 Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature Flight Support...............  220,500....................  97,688....................         318,188
Signature Dalfort......................  400,703....................  14,212....................         414,915
Landmark Aviation......................  106,890....................  79,848....................         186,738
Total Signature + Landmark.............  728,093....................  191,748...................         919,841
All Other FBOs \2\.....................  N/A........................  N/A.......................         432,108
S + L Percentages Post-Merger..........  Unknown....................  Unknown...................             68%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The calculations of approximate market share are based solely on the fuel quantities sold, as the City does
  not have access to proprietary revenue data.
\2\ The data available for the other FBOs does not delineate between hangar and office space.


[[Page 36350]]

[FR Doc. 2016-13185 Filed 6-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
36346 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 108 / Monday, June 6, 2016 / Notices

Heights Citrus ID’s 315 acre-foot annual 2016. The parties have requested a 5- Dated: April 14, 2016.
CAP water entitlement. Contract year contract that will begin when the Roseann Gonzales,
executed on March 14, 2016. existing contract expires. The new Director, Policy and Administration.
20. Mohave County Water Authority, contract will be for up to 2,000 acre-feet [FR Doc. 2016–13237 Filed 6–3–16; 8:45 am]
BCP, Arizona: Amend Exhibit D to the of water with up to 200 acre-feet BILLING CODE 4332–90–P
Authority’s Colorado River water available for M&I uses.
delivery contract to update the list of Modified contract action:
subcontractors with the Authority. 14. South Cache Water Users DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Contract executed on February 29, 2016. Association, Hyrum Project, Utah: The
UPPER COLORADO REGION: Bureau Association desires to pipe Antitrust Division
of Reclamation, 125 South State Street, approximately 2,100 linear feel of the
Room 8100, Salt Lake City, Utah 84138– Hyrum-Mendota Canal to combat United States of America v. BBA
1102, telephone 801–524–3864. seepage issues below Hyrum Dam. A Aviation plc, et al.; Public Comment
New contract actions: supplemental O&M agreement is and Response on Proposed Final
26. Ephraim Irrigation Company, necessary for Reclamation to provide Judgment
Sanpete Project, Utah: The Company consent to the modification of the
proposes to enclose the Ephraim Tunnel Pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures
Federal facilities.
with a 54-inch pipe. A supplemental and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h),
Completed contract actions:
O&M agreement will be necessary to 5. Uintah Water Conservancy District; the United States hereby publishes
obtain the authorization to modify Vernal Unit, CUP; Utah: Proposed below the comment received on the
Federal facilities. carriage contract to both store up to proposed Final Judgment in United
27. Eden Valley Irrigation and 35,000 acre-feet of nonproject water in States of America v. BBA Aviation plc,
Drainage District, Eden Project, Steinaker Reservoir and carry et al., Civil Action No. 1:16–cv–00174,
Wyoming: The District proposes to raise nonproject water in the Steinaker together with the Response of the
the level of Big Sandy Dam to shore up Service and Feeder Canals. Contract United States to Public Comment.
its water rights. A supplemental O&M Copies of the comment and the
executed on February 12, 2016.
agreement will be necessary to obtain 21. Southern Ute Indian Tribe, United States’ Response are available for
the authorization to modify Federal Animas-La Plata Project, Colorado: inspection on the Antitrust Division’s
facilities. Requested a water delivery contract for Web site at http://www.justice.gov/atr,
28. Uintah Water Conservancy 33,519 acre-feet of M&I water; contract and at the Office of the Clerk of the
District, Central Utah Project—Vernal terms to be consistent with the Colorado United States District Court for the
Unit, Utah: Due to sloughing on the face Ute Settlement Act Amendments of District of Columbia. Copies of these
of Steinaker Dam north of Vernal, Utah, 2000 (Title III of Pub. L. 106–554). materials may be obtained from the
a SOD fix authorized under the SOD Act Contract executed on January 14, 2016. Antitrust Division upon request and
of 1978 may be necessary to perform the GREAT PLAINS REGION: Bureau of payment of the copying fee set by
various functions necessary to bring Reclamation, P.O. Box 36900, Federal Department of Justice regulations.
Steinaker Reservoir back to full Building, 2021 4th Avenue North, Patricia A. Brink,
capacity. This will require a repayment Billings, Montana 59101, telephone Director of Civil Enforcement.
contract with the United States. 406–247–7752.
29. Navajo-Gallup Water Supply New contract actions: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Project: Pursuant to legislation and 39. South Chester County Water FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Section 10602(h) of Pub. L. 111–11, District; Lower Marias Unit, P–SMBP; United States Of America, Plaintiff, v. BBA
project facilities may be used to treat Montana: Consideration to renew of Aviation PLC, Landmark U.S. Corp LLC, and
and convey nonproject water. Before long-term M&I water service contract LM U.S. Member LLC, Defendants.
delivery of project water from the San No. 14–06–600–2022A. Case: 1:16–cv–00174
Juan River, a need will exist for 40. Nathan D. and Kindra Young; Judge: Amy Berman Jackson
nonproject water to be delivered to the Canyon Ferry Unit, P–SMBP; Montana: RESPONSE OF PLAINTIFF UNITED
Navajo Nation. A carriage contract has Consideration to renew short-term M&I STATES TO PUBLIC COMMENT ON
been drafted and is currently under water service contract No. 129E670093. THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT
internal review (Reclamation) then will 41. Central Oklahoma Master
be negotiated with the Navajo Nation in Conservancy District, Norman Project, Pursuant to Sections 2(b)–(h) of the
a public setting. Oklahoma: Consideration of a contract Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act,
30. Jicarilla Apache Nation, Navajo for a supply of water made possible 15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h) (‘‘APPA’’ or
Project, New Mexico: Water service when infrequent and otherwise ‘‘Tunney Act’’), Plaintiff, the United
agreement between the Jicarilla Apache unmanageable flood flows of short States of America (‘‘United States’’)
Nation and the San Juan Basin Water duration create a temporary supply of hereby files the single public comment
Haulers Association for delivery of 200 water. received concerning the proposed Final
acre-feet of M&I water from the Modified contract action: Judgment in this case and the United
Jicarilla’s settlement water from the 22. Helena Valley ID; Helena Valley States’s response to the comment. After
Navajo Reservoir Supply. This Unit, P–SMBP; Montana: Consideration careful consideration of the submitted
agreement will have a term of 5 years of a contract to allow for delivery of up comment, the United States continues to
(2016–2020) and will replace the to 500 acre-feet of water for M&I believe that the proposed Final
sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

expired previous agreement which was purposes. Judgment (‘‘PFJ’’) provides an effective
in place for 10 years. Completed contract action: and appropriate remedy for the antitrust
31. North Fork Water Conservancy 29. Larry TenBensel; Frenchman violations alleged in the Complaint. The
District and Ragged Mountain Water Cambridge, P–SMBP; Nebraska: United States will move the Court for
Users Association, Paonia Project, Consideration of a long-term Warren Act entry of the proposed Final Judgment
Colorado. An existing contract for 2,000 contract. Contract executed on March after the public comment and this
acre-feet will expire on December 31, 15, 2016. Response have been published in the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 03, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM 06JNN1
36348 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 108 / Monday, June 6, 2016 / Notices

intent to preserve the practical benefits Aviation Director for the City of Dallas. effects of the merger between Landmark and
of using consent decrees in antitrust As a result of this investigation, the Signature at Love Field, where both
enforcement, adding the unambiguous United States did not allege a violation Landmark and Signature currently operate.
Presently, there are six (6) fixed base
instruction that ‘‘[n]othing in this of the Clayton Act resulting from the operator (‘‘FBO’’) locations at Love Field,
section shall be construed to require the acquisition of Love Field in its operated by five different FBO entities.
court to conduct an evidentiary hearing Complaint. Therefore, the comment Landmark operates one (1) of the FBO
or to require the court to permit anyone submitted by Dallas is not a comment locations, and Signature operates two (2) of
to intervene.’’ 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(2). The addressing the question before the the locations.2 In 2015, Signature’s two (2)
procedure for the public interest Court, which is whether the proposed locations combined sold 40 percent of the
determination is left to the discretion of remedy will cure the antitrust violations total aviation fuel 3 at Love Field (by FBOs),
the court, with the recognition that the and Landmark’s single location sold 14
alleged in the Complaint. Should any
percent of the total aviation fuel. This, after
court’s ‘‘scope of review remains future acquisitions by Signature at Love the proposed merger, would result in 54
sharply proscribed by precedent and the Field raise a possibility of competitive percent of the fuel at Love Field being
nature of the Tunney Act proceedings.’’ harm, Dallas or any other affected party provided by the ‘‘new’’ Signature.
SBC Commc’ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 11; may raise those concerns with the The remaining three (3) FBOs sold 46
see also United States v. Enova Corp., United States to be evaluated at such percent of the fuel, with two smaller
107 F. Supp. 2d 10, 17 (D.D.C. 2000) future date. locations selling approximately 9 percent
(‘‘[T]he Tunney Act expressly allows the each, and one larger entity selling 28 percent.
court to make its public interest IV. CONCLUSION In addition to conducting a majority of the
fuel sales, Landmark and Signature together
determination on the basis of the After reviewing the public comment, lease nearly 70 percent of the total hangar,
competitive impact statement and the United States continues to believe general aviation terminal facilities, and office
response to public comments alone.’’); that the PFJ, as drafted, provides an space at Love Field. A chart with a
US Airways, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 76 effective and appropriate remedy for the breakdown of the data used to calculate these
(same). antitrust violations alleged in the percentages is enclosed with this letter as
Complaint, and is therefore in the Attachment A.
III. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENT Under the Department of Justice and
AND THE UNITED STATES’S public interest. The United States will
move this Court to enter the PFJ soon Federal Trade Commission’s Horizontal
RESPONSE Merger Guidelines, markets with an initial
after the comment and this response are score over 2500 on the Herfindahl-Hirschman
The United States received one public published in the Federal Register.
comment from the City of Dallas Index (‘‘HHI’’) are considered ‘‘highly
Dated: May 27, 2016 concentrated.’’ 4 When a prospective merger
(‘‘Dallas’’). Though the comment was in a highly concentrated market would result
submitted after the deadline for Respectfully submitted,
in an HHI increase of 200 or more, the
comments had passed, the United States /s/Patricia L. Sindel lllllllllll transaction ‘‘will be presumed to be likely to
has nevertheless issued a full response. Patricia L. Sindel, (D.C. Bar #997505), enhance market power.’’ 5 Such increases in
Dallas submitted the comment to Trial Attorney, Networks & Technology HHI are considered indicators of transactions
express concern about the possible Enforcement Section, U.S. Department of ‘‘for which it is particularly important to
anticompetitive effects of Signature’s Justice, Antitrust Division, 450 Fifth Street examine whether other competitive factors
NW., Suite 7100, Washington, DC 20530, confirm, reinforce, or counteract the
acquisition of Landmark at Love Field
Telephone: (202) 598–8300, Facsimile: (202) potentially harmful effects of increased
Airport (‘‘Love Field’’), which Dallas 616–8544, Email: patricia.sindel@usdoj.gov. concentration.’’ 6
operates. Combined, Signature and At Love Field, the fuel flowage data
KAPLAN KIRSCH ROCKWELL
Landmark have 54 percent of the FBO suggests that the existing market is already
market and lease nearly 70 percent of April 20, 2016 highly concentrated, and that a merger of
the FBO facilities at Love Field. Dallas James J. Tierney, Chief Signature and Landmark would increase the
submitted the comment to provide Networks & Technology Enforcement Section HHI by well over 200 points.7 Despite this
additional information about the United States Department of Justice potential effect, there are no indications that
Antitrust Division the Department of Justice examined any of
situation at Love Field and highlight
450 Fifth Street NW., Suite 7100 the competitive effects of the merger at Love
what Dallas believes to be competitive Washington, DC 20530 Field. In fact, it appears that the Department
concerns the PFJ does not address. In of Justice failed to consider the impact on
Re: BBA Aviation, PLC and Landmark U.S.
particular, Dallas is concerned that the Corp LLC Love Field whatsoever, or, alternatively,
PFJ would not require Signature to Case No. 1:16-cv-00174 failed to adequately explain why it chose to
report future FBO acquisitions at Love Dear Mr. Tierney: ignore those impacts.
Field to the United States. Dallas does These facts and the Department’s own
As counsel to the City of Dallas (‘‘City’’), guidelines demonstrate the need to carefully
not, however, argue in favor of a Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP (‘‘Firm’’)
divesture of FBO assets at Love Field. scrutinize the merger’s potential effects at
submits these comments in the matter of Love Field. Yet, the materials published by
The United States appreciates Dallas’s United States v. BBA Aviation, et al., case no. the Department of Justice in the Federal
advocacy efforts on behalf of 1:16-cv-00174, concerning the merger of BBA Register and filed with the United States
competition at Love Field. The United Aviation (parent corporation to Signature District Court for the District of Columbia
States carefully considered the effects of Flight Support Corporation (‘‘Signature’’)), make no reference to operations at Love
the acquisition at Love Field and chose and Landmark U.S. Corp LLC (‘‘Landmark’’). Field.
not to take enforcement action against The Firm and the City recognize that the
such acquisition. Over the course of a deadline for comments on this matter has 2 Signature operates both Signature Flight
passed, but respectfully request that the
sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

five-month investigation, the United Support (also known as Signature North) and
Department of Justice accept these comments Dalfort Fueling.
States reviewed party and third-party despite their tardiness.1 3 100LL and Jet-A.
documents, conducted economic data The City owns and operates Dallas Love 4 Horizontal Merger Guidelines § 5.3.
analysis, and talked with dozens of Field Airport (‘‘Love Field’’). The City is 5 Id.
industry participants including the concerned about the possible anticompetitive 6 Id.
7 The City recognizes that HHI is typically

(concluding that the 2004 amendments ‘‘effected 1 See81
Fed. Reg. 7144 (Feb. 10, 2016) (setting 60- calculated using revenue data, but such information
minimal changes’’ to Tunney Act review). day comment period). is proprietary and unavailable to the City.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 03, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM 06JNN1
36350 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 108 / Monday, June 6, 2016 / Notices

[FR Doc. 2016–13185 Filed 6–3–16; 8:45 am] without the exhibits and signature SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 5,
BILLING CODE 4410–11–P pages, the cost is $16.50. 2016, the Department requested
comments on its proposal to modify an
Randall M. Stone,
existing FBI system of records notice
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Acting Assistant Section Chief, titled, ‘‘Fingerprint Identification
Environmental Enforcement Section,
Environment and Natural Resources Division.
Records System (FIRS),’’ JUSTICE/FBI–
Notice of Lodging of Proposed 009, and its proposal to amend the
Consent Decree Under the [FR Doc. 2016–13188 Filed 6–3–16; 8:45 am]
Department’s Privacy Act regulations by
Comprehensive Environmental BILLING CODE 4410–15–P
establishing an exemption for records in
Response, Compensation, and Liability this system of records from certain
Act provisions of the Privacy Act pursuant
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and (k).
On May 27, 2016, the Department of
Justice (‘‘DOJ’’) lodged a proposed [CPCLO Order No. 004–2016] Both the notice of a modified system
Consent Decree with the United States of records notice and notice of proposed
District Court for the Northern District Privacy Act of 1974; Systems of rulemaking for this system of records
of Illinois in the lawsuit entitled United Records; Extension of Comment originally provided that comments must
States v. Pilkington North America, Inc., Period be received by June 6, 2016. The
Civil Action No. 16–5654. AGENCY: Federal Bureau of Department has received requests to
Investigation, United States Department extend these comment periods. The
The United States filed this lawsuit
of Justice. Department believes that extending the
under the Comprehensive
comment periods would be appropriate
Environmental Response, ACTION: Notice of a modified system of in order to provide the public additional
Compensation, and Liability Act records notice; extension of comment time to consider and comment on the
(‘‘CERCLA’’). The Complaint seeks period. proposals addressed in these notices.
reimbursement of response costs and
SUMMARY: The Department of Justice Therefore, the Department is extending
injunctive relief under CERCLA for
(Department or DOJ), Federal Bureau of both public comment periods for 30
hazardous substance contamination at
Investigation (FBI), is extending the days, until July 6, 2016. Elsewhere in
the Ottawa Township Flat Glass Site
comment period for its proposal to the Federal Register, the Department is
(‘‘Site’’).
modify an existing FBI system of extending the comment period for the
The publication of this notice opens accompanying notice of proposed
a period for public comment on the records notice titled, ‘‘Fingerprint
Identification Records System (FIRS),’’ rulemaking.
proposed Consent Decree. Comments
should be addressed to the Assistant JUSTICE/FBI–009, which would be Dated: June 1, 2016.
Attorney General, Environment and retitled, ‘‘The Next Generation Erika Brown Lee,
Natural Resources Division, and should Identification (NGI) System,’’ JUSTICE/ Chief Privacy and Civil Liberties Officer, U.S.
refer to United States v. Pilkington FBI–009, published in the Federal Department of Justice.
North America, Inc., D.J. Ref. No. 90– Register on May 5, 2016 (81 FR 27284). [FR Doc. 2016–13353 Filed 6–3–16; 8:45 am]
11–3–11237. All comments must be The original comment period is BILLING CODE 4410–02–P
submitted no later than thirty (30) days scheduled to expire on June 6, 2016.
after the publication date of this Notice. The Department is now extending the
Comments may be submitted either by time period for public comments by 30
email or by mail: days. The updated comment period is DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
scheduled to expire on July 6, 2016.
To submit This action will allow interested Comment Request for Information
Send them to: Collection for the Evaluation of the
comments: persons additional time to analyze the
proposal and prepare their comments. Disability Employment Initiative Round
By email ....... pubcomment-ees.enrd@ 5 and Future Rounds; Correction
DATES: Comments on the notice
usdoj.gov.
By mail ......... Assistant Attorney General, published May 5, 2016 (81 FR 27284)
must be submitted on or before July 6, AGENCY:Office of Disability
U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Employment Policy, Department of
Box 7611, Washington, DC 2016.
Labor.
20044–7611. ADDRESSES: Submit comments to the
Department of Justice, ATTN: Privacy ACTION: Notice; correction.
During the public comment period, Analyst, Office of Privacy and Civil
the proposed Consent Decree may be Liberties, Department of Justice, SUMMARY: The Department of Labor,
examined and downloaded at the National Place Building, 1331 published a document in the Federal
following DOJ Web site: https:// Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1000, Register of January 12, 2016, concerning
www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees. Washington, DC 20530, or by facsimile a request for comments for information
We will provide a paper copy of the at 202–307–0693. To ensure proper collection for the evaluation of the
proposed Consent Decree upon written handling, please reference either this Disability Employment Initiative round
request and payment of reproduction CPCLO Order No., or the CPCLO Order 5 and future rounds. The document
costs. Please mail your request and No. from the notice of modified system contained a comment period of 30 days
sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

payment to: Consent Decree Library, of records notice (CPCLO Order No. instead of the required 60 days. This
U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, 002–2016) on your correspondence. correction notice reopens the comment
Washington, DC 20044–7611. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
period for an additional 30 days.
Please enclose a check or money order Roxane M. Panarella, Criminal Justice FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
for $94.75 (25 cents per page Information Services Division (CJIS), Cherise Hunter by telephone at 202–
reproduction cost) payable to the United Privacy Attorney, 1000 Custer Hollow 693–4931 (this is not a toll-free number)
States Treasury. For a paper copy Road, Clarksburg WV 26306. or by email at hunter.cherise@dol.gov.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 03, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM 06JNN1
Document Created: 2016-06-04 00:16:59
Document Modified: 2016-06-04 00:16:59
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 36346
81 FR 36346 - United States of America v. BBA Aviation plc, et al.; Public Comment and Response on Proposed Final Judgment

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICEAntitrust Division

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 108 (June 6, 2016)

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division
