81 FR 68061 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under The Clean Water Act

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 191 (October 3, 2016)

Page Range		68061-68062
FR Document		2016-23738

Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 191 (Monday, October 3, 2016)

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 191 (Monday, October 3, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68061-68062]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23738]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


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

    On September 27, 2016, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed 
Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Southern 
District of Texas in the lawsuit entitled United States v. Kirby Inland 
Marine, L.P., Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-269.
    The Complaint in this Clean Water Act case was filed against Kirby 
Inland Marine concurrently with the lodging of the proposed Consent 
Decree. The Complaint alleges that Kirby is civilly liable for 
violation of Section 311 of the Clean Water Act (``CWA''), 33 U.S.C. 
1321. The Complaint seeks civil penalties and injunctive relief for the 
discharge of harmful quantities of marine fuel oil into navigable 
waters of the United States from one of Kirby's oil barges operating in 
the Houston Ship Channel.
    The Complaint alleges that the spill occurred on March 22, 2014, 
when a Kirby tow boat, the Miss Susan, was pushing two 300-foot oil 
barges in the ``Texas City Y'' area of the Houston Ship Channel in fog 
conditions. Despite detecting the nearby presence of a 585-foot bulk 
cargo ship, the Summer Wind, traveling up the Houston Ship Channel, 
Kirby's tow boat and barges tried to cross the Channel in front of the 
cargo ship. As a result, Kirby's lead oil barge was struck by the cargo 
ship and approximately 4,000 barrels of heavy marine fuel oil spilled 
out of the barge into the waterway. From there, oil flowed out of the 
channel and spread down the Texas coastline. A full assessment of the 
injuries caused by the spill to marine and terrestrial natural 
resources is ongoing and will be addressed separately.
    Under the proposed Consent Decree, Kirby will pay a civil penalty 
of $4,900,000.00 for the alleged violation. In addition to payment of 
the penalty, the Consent Decree requires Kirby to perform corrective 
measures across its entire fleet of vessels, including providing new 
and enhanced navigational equipment and training and implementing 
improved operational practices. Kirby also agrees to waive any limits 
on its liability under the Oil Pollution Act related to the oil spill 
incident at issue in this case.
    The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on 
the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the 
Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, 
and should refer to United States v. Kirby Inland Marine, L.P., D.J. 
Ref. No. 90-5-1-1-11096. 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:

[[Page 68062]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
         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 proposed Consent Decree may 
be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site: https://www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees. We will provide a paper copy of 
the proposed 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 $6.25 (25 cents per page 
reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.

Thomas P. Carroll,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment 
and Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 2016-23738 Filed 9-30-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4410-15-P

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 191 / Monday, October 3, 2016 / Notices 68061

2016 FEDERAL REGISTER—Continued
Name Position title

CLARKE, RUSSELL SCOTT .......... CHIEF, CIVIL TRIAL SECTION, CENTRAL REGION.
JOHNSON, CORY .......................... SENIOR TRIAL ATTORNEY.
KEARNS, MICHAEL J .................... CHIEF, CIVIL TRIAL SECTION, SOUTHERN REGION.
LARSON, KARI ............................... SENIOR TRIAL ATTORNEY.
LINDQUIST III, JOHN A ................. SENIOR TRIAL ATTORNEY.
MELAND, DEBORAH ..................... CHIEF, CIVIL TRIAL SECTION EASTERN REGION.
REID, ANN C .................................. CHIEF, OFFICE OF REVIEW.
MULLARKEY, DANIEL P ................ CHIEF, CIVIL TRIAL SECTION, NORTHERN REGION.
PAGUNI, ROSEMARY E ................ CHIEF, CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT SECTION, NORTHERN REGION.
ROTHENBERG, GILBERT S .......... CHIEF, APPELLATE SECTION.
CLARK, THOMAS J ........................ DEPUTY CHIEF, APPELLATE SECTION.
SALAD, BRUCE M ......................... CHIEF, CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT SECTION, SOUTHERN REGION.
SAWYER, THOMAS ....................... SENIOR TRIAL ATTORNEY.
SERGI, JOSEPH A ......................... SENIOR TRIAL ATTORNEY.
SHATZ, EILEEN M ......................... SPECIAL LITIGATION COUNSEL.
SMITH, COREY J ........................... SENIOR TRIAL ATTORNEY.
STEHLIK, NOREENE C ................. SENIOR TRIAL ATTORNEY.
SULLIVAN, JOHN ........................... SENIOR TRIAL ATTORNEY.
WEAVER, JAMES E ....................... SENIOR TRIAL ATTORNEY.
WARD, RICHARD ........................... CHIEF, CIVIL TRIAL SECTION WESTERN REGION.

U.S. Marshals Service—USMS

HARLOW, DAVID ........................... DEPUTY DIRECTOR.
AUERBACH, GERALD ................... GENERAL COUNSEL.
BROWN, SHANNON B ................... ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, JPATS.
MOHAN, KATHERINE T ................. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, HUMAN RESOURCES.
SGROI, THOMAS J ........................ ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, MANAGEMENT SUPPORT.
DRISCOLL, DERRICK .................... ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, INVESTIGATIVE OPERATIONS.
MATHIAS, KARL ............................. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.
BOLEN, JOHN O’DONALD ............ SSISTANT DIRECTOR, JUDICIAL SECURITY.
EDWARDS, SOPHIA ...................... DIRECTOR, BUSINESS STRATEGY AND NTEGRATION.
PROUT, MICHAEL ......................... ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, WITNESS SECURITY.
MUSEL, DAVID F ........................... ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATION.
SNELSON, WILLIAM D .................. ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, OPERATIONS.
VIRTUE, TIMOTHY ......................... ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ASSET FORFEITURE.
DESOUSA, NEIL K ......................... ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, TACTICAL OPERATIONS.
O’BRIEN-ROGAN, CAROLE .......... PROCUREMENT EXECUTIVE, FINANCIAL SERVICES.
O’BRIEN, HOLLEY ......................... CHIEF, FINANCIAL OFFICER, FINANCIAL SERVICES.

[FR Doc. 2016–23780 Filed 9–30–16; 8:45 am] the United States from one of Kirby’s oil $4,900,000.00 for the alleged violation.
BILLING CODE 4410–CH–P barges operating in the Houston Ship In addition to payment of the penalty,
Channel. the Consent Decree requires Kirby to
The Complaint alleges that the spill perform corrective measures across its
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE occurred on March 22, 2014, when a entire fleet of vessels, including
Kirby tow boat, the Miss Susan, was providing new and enhanced
Notice of Lodging of Proposed pushing two 300-foot oil barges in the
Consent Decree Under The Clean navigational equipment and training
‘‘Texas City Y’’ area of the Houston Ship and implementing improved operational
Water Act Channel in fog conditions. Despite practices. Kirby also agrees to waive any
On September 27, 2016, the detecting the nearby presence of a 585- limits on its liability under the Oil
Department of Justice lodged a proposed foot bulk cargo ship, the Summer Wind, Pollution Act related to the oil spill
Consent Decree with the United States traveling up the Houston Ship Channel, incident at issue in this case.
District Court for the Southern District Kirby’s tow boat and barges tried to
of Texas in the lawsuit entitled United cross the Channel in front of the cargo The publication of this notice opens
States v. Kirby Inland Marine, L.P., Civil ship. As a result, Kirby’s lead oil barge a period for public comment on the
Action No. 3:16–cv–269. was struck by the cargo ship and proposed Consent Decree. Comments
The Complaint in this Clean Water approximately 4,000 barrels of heavy should be addressed to the Assistant
Act case was filed against Kirby Inland marine fuel oil spilled out of the barge Attorney General, Environment and
Marine concurrently with the lodging of into the waterway. From there, oil Natural Resources Division, and should
the proposed Consent Decree. The flowed out of the channel and spread refer to United States v. Kirby Inland
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES

Complaint alleges that Kirby is civilly down the Texas coastline. A full Marine, L.P., D.J. Ref. No. 90–5–1–1–
liable for violation of Section 311 of the assessment of the injuries caused by the 11096. All comments must be submitted
Clean Water Act (‘‘CWA’’), 33 U.S.C. spill to marine and terrestrial natural no later than thirty (30) days after the
1321. The Complaint seeks civil resources is ongoing and will be publication date of this notice.
penalties and injunctive relief for the addressed separately. Comments may be submitted either by
discharge of harmful quantities of Under the proposed Consent Decree, email or by mail:
marine fuel oil into navigable waters of Kirby will pay a civil penalty of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:56 Sep 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03OCN1.SGM 03OCN1

68062 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 191 / Monday, October 3, 2016 / Notices

To submit establishing more than isolated industry. Based on the findings of the
Send them to:
comments: incidents of forced or indentured child survey, the CEPC stated that while there
labor in the production of carpets in are cases of child labor, there is no
By email ....... pubcomment-ees.enrd@ India. With this final determination, the evidence of forced child labor in the
usdoj.gov. current EO List remains in place. The production or manufacture of this good.
By mail ......... Assistant Attorney General,
list identifies products, by country of However, the CEPC survey methodology
U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O.
Box 7611, Washington, DC origin, which the Departments have a had sampling and questionnaire design
20044–7611. reasonable basis to believe might have limitations that affected its ability to
been mined, produced, or manufactured capture forced labor or collect data on
During the public comment period, by forced or indentured child labor. a representative sample of the carpet
the proposed Consent Decree may be Under a final rule by the Federal industry.
examined and downloaded at this Acquisition Regulatory Council, The two other comments received did
Justice Department Web site: https:// published January 18, 2001, which also not provide enough specificity on the
www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees. implements Executive Order No. 13126, conditions or prevalence of children’s
We will provide a paper copy of the federal contractors who supply products work in order to be able to make a final
proposed Consent Decree upon written on the EO List are required to certify, determination that forced or indentured
request and payment of reproduction among other things, that they have made child labor in India’s carpet industry is
costs. Please mail your request and a good faith effort to determine whether occurring in more than isolated
payment to: Consent Decree Library, forced or indentured child labor was incidents. GoodWeave submitted a
U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, used to produce those products and comment in support of including
that, on the basis of those efforts, the carpets produced in India on the EO
Washington, DC 20044–7611.
contractor is unaware of any such use of List, along with two newspaper articles
Please enclose a check or money order
child labor. See 66 FR 5346, 5347; 48 reporting two rescue operations during
for $6.25 (25 cents per page
CFR 22.1502(c). which children were removed from
reproduction cost) payable to the United
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: carpet production facilities where they
States Treasury.
were forced to work. However,
Thomas P. Carroll, I. Initial Determination GoodWeave’s submission did not
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental On December 2, 2014, the discuss the prevalence of forced child
Enforcement Section, Environment and Departments published a Notice of labor in carpet production; rather, it
Natural Resources Division. Initial Determination in the Federal only discussed the prevalence of child
[FR Doc. 2016–23738 Filed 9–30–16; 8:45 am] Register proposing to add carpets from labor within the industry. While the
BILLING CODE 4410–15–P India to the List of Products Requiring newspaper articles do discuss forced
Federal Contractor Certification as to child labor, they do not demonstrate
Forced or Indentured Child Labor (EO that forced child labor is prevalent in
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR List). 79 FR 71448. The Departments the industry.
issued the initial determination because Siddharth Kara, a Harvard University
Office of the Secretary of Labor they had a reasonable basis to believe researcher and faculty member, also
that there was forced or indentured submitted a public comment in support
Notice of Final Determination child labor in the production of carpets of adding Indian carpets to the EO List.
Regarding the Proposed Revision of from India in more than isolated Kara cited the findings of his research
the List of Products Requiring Federal incidents. This initial determination can study, which was one of the sources
Contractor Certification as to Forced be accessed on the Internet at https:// cited by the Departments in making
or Indentured Child Labor Pursuant to federalregister.gov/a/2014-27624. their initial determination. Even though
Executive Order 13126 Kara’s submission stated that his
II. Public Comment Period research found a significant prevalence
AGENCY: Bureau of International Labor When the initial determination was of forced labor and child labor in India’s
Affairs issued, the public was invited to submit carpet industry, neither the comment
ACTION: Notice of final determination. comments until January 30, 2015 on nor the study itself specifically
whether carpets from India should be addresses the prevalence of forced child
SUMMARY: This notice announces a final added to the EO List, as well as any labor in the industry. While Kara
determination that carpets from India other issues related to the fair and clarified in a separate correspondence
will not be added to the List of Products effective implementation of Executive that all children categorized as engaged
Requiring Federal Contractor Order No. 13126. During the public in child labor were in fact engaged in
Certification as to Forced or Indentured comment period, three comments were forced labor as defined by international
Child Labor (EO List) required by submitted. Those comments are standards, the Departments were not
Executive Order No. 13126 available for public viewing at http:// able to determine whether child labor
(‘‘Prohibition of Acquisition of Products www.regulations.gov (reference Docket victims discussed in Kara’s research
Produced by Forced or Indentured Child ID No. DOL–2014–0004). study were exposed to specific
Labor’’). The Departments of Labor, During this comment period, the indicators of forced labor, as defined by
State, and Homeland Security comments received called into question international standards.
(collectively, the Departments) proposed whether all the criteria required for
adding carpets from India to the EO List adding a good to the EO List had been III. Gathering, Receipt, and Analysis of
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES

in a Notice of Initial Determination in met. One of the three comments was Additional Information
the Federal Register on December 2, from the Carpet Export Promotion In light of the inconsistency in the
2014. 79 FR 71448. After a thorough Council (CEPC), which opposed the information received during the initial
review of the information available and addition of carpets from India to the EO public comment period, the
comments received, the Departments List. The CEPC’s submission included a Departments gathered and received
have determined that there is not survey it had commissioned in 2104 on twenty additional comments on forced
sufficient evidence at this time labor practices in the Indian carpet child labor in India’s carpet industry.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:56 Sep 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03OCN1.SGM 03OCN1

Document Created: 2018-02-13 14:11:39
Document Modified: 2018-02-13 14:11:39

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 68061