18782 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Notices 

1The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 

CFR 207.2(f)). 

2Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson determines 

that revocation of the antidumping duty orders 

covering frozen warmwater shrimp from Brazil, 

China, India, Thailand, and Vietnam would not be 

likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of 

material injury to an industry in the United States 

within a reasonably foreseeable time. 

Register. A separate service list will be 

maintained by the Secretary for those 

parties authorized to receive BPI under 

the APO. 

Conference.—The Commission’s 

Director of Investigations has scheduled 

a conference in connection with these 

investigations for 8:45 a.m. on April 20, 

at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC. Requests to appear at 

the conference should be filed in 

writing with the Secretary to the 

Commission on or before April 18, 2011. 

Parties in support of the imposition of 

antidumping and countervailing duties 

in these investigations and parties in 

opposition to the imposition of such 

duties will each be collectively 

allocated one hour within which to 

make an oral presentation at the 

conference. A nonparty who has 

testimony that may aid the 

Commission’s deliberations may request 

permission to present a short statement 

at the conference. 

Written submissions.—As provided in 

sections 201.8 and 207.15 of the 

Commission’s rules, any person may 

submit to the Commission on or before 

April 25, 2011, a written brief 

containing information and arguments 

pertinent to the subject matter of the 

investigations. Parties may file written 

testimony in connection with their 

presentation at the conference no later 

than three days before the conference. If 

briefs or written testimony contain BPI, 

they must conform with the 

requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, 

and 207.7 of the Commission’s rules. 

The Commission’s rules do not 

authorize filing of submissions with the 

Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means, except to the extent permitted by 

section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, 

as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 

2002). Even where electronic filing of a 

document is permitted, certain 

documents must also be filed in paper 

form, as specified in II (C) of the 

Commission’s Handbook on Electronic 

Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 

(November 8, 2002). 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the rules, each document 

filed by a party to the investigations 

must be served on all other parties to 

the investigations (as identified by 

either the public or BPI service list), and 

a certificate of service must be timely 

filed. The Secretary will not accept a 

document for filing without a certificate 

of service. 

Authority: These investigations are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.12 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: March 31, 2011. 

James R. Holbein, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7997 Filed 4–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–1063, 1064, 

1066–1068 (Review)] 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From 

Brazil, China, India, Thailand, and 

Vietnam 

Determinations 

On the basis of the record 1 developed 

in the subject five-year reviews, the 

United States International Trade 

Commission (Commission) determines, 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), that 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders on frozen warmwater shrimp 

from Brazil, China, India, Thailand, and 

Vietnam would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury to an industry in the United 

States within a reasonably foreseeable 

time.2

Background 

The Commission instituted these 

reviews on January 4, 2010 (75 FR 1078, 

January 8, 2010) and determined on 

April 9, 2010 that it would conduct full 

reviews (75 FR 22424, April 28, 2010). 

Notice of the scheduling of the 

Commission’s reviews and of a public 

hearing to be held in connection 

therewith was given by posting copies 

of the notice in the Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, Washington, DC, and by 

publishing the notice in the Federal 

Register on August 11, 2010 (75 FR 

48724). The hearing was held in 

Washington, DC, on February 1, 2011, 

and all persons who requested the 

opportunity were permitted to appear in 

person or by counsel. 

The Commission transmitted its 

determinations in these reviews to the 

Secretary of Commerce on March 30, 

2011. The views of the Commission are 

contained in USITC Publication 4221 

(March 2011), entitled Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp From Brazil, China, 

India, Thailand, and Vietnam: 

Investigation Nos. 1063, 1064, 1066– 

1068 (Review). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: March 30, 2011. 

James R. Holbein, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7996 Filed 4–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree 

Under the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation and Liability Act 

Notice is hereby given that on March 

18, 2011, a proposed Consent Decree in 

United States v. Exxon Mobil 

Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 4:11–cv– 

01037 (S.D. Tex.), was lodged with the 

United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Texas. The Consent 

Decree resolves the United States’ 

claims for response costs against a 

number of defendants, pursuant to 

Section 107(a)(3) of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

(‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 9607(a)(3). The 

complaint filed simultaneously with the 

lodging of the Consent Decree names as 

defendants Exxon Mobil Corporation, 

Ashland, Inc., Eurecat U.S. 

Incorporated, Akzo Nobel, Inc., Flint 

Hills Resources, LP, Irving Oil Limited, 

ConocoPhillips Company, Texaco, Inc., 

and Chevron U.S.A., Inc. The claims 

against the defendants relate to response 

costs incurred by the United States in 

connection with response activities 

taken with respect to the Many 

Diversified Interests Site, at Operable 

Unit 1 (‘‘OU–1’’), located in Houston, 

Texas. Specifically, the United States’ 

complaint alleges that the defendants 

sent spent catalyst that contained 

hazardous substances, including, but 

not limited to nickel and molybdenum, 

to OU–1 for disposal or treatment. 

Under the Consent Decree, the 

defendants will pay the United States 

$1,750,000 in reimbursement of a 

portion of the response costs incurred 

by the United States in connection with 

OU–1. 

The Department of Justice will receive 

for a period of thirty (30) days from the 

date of this publication comments 

relating to the Consent Decree. 

Comments should be addressed to the 

Assistant Attorney General, 

Environment and Natural Resources 

Division, and either e-mailed to 

pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov, or 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Notices 18783 

1 ‘‘Northeastern Illinois’’ is defined as the 

following counties in the State of Illinois: Cook 

County, DeKalb County, DuPage County, Grundy 

County, Kane County, Kendall County, Lake 

County, McHenry County, and Will County. 

mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

20044–7611, and should refer to United 

States v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et 

al., DOJ Reference No. 90–11–3–09228. 

The Consent Decree may be examined 

at the U.S. EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 

75202. During the public comment 

period, the Consent Decree may also be 

examined on the following Department 

of Justice Web site: http:// 

www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_ 

Decrees.html. A copy of the Consent 

Decree may also be obtained by mail 

from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. 

Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC 20044–7611, or by 

faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia 

Fleetwood (tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov), 

fax no. (202) 514–0097, phone 

confirmation number (202) 514–1547. In 

requesting a copy of the Consent Decree 

from the Consent Decree Library, please 

enclose a check in the amount of $7.25 

(25 cents per page production costs), 

payable to the U.S. Treasury or, if 

requesting by e-mail or fax, forward a 

check in that amount to the Consent 

Decree Library at the stated address. 

Thomas A. Mariani, Jr., 

Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement 

Section, Environment and Natural Resources 

Division. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7977 Filed 4–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

United States et al. v. Dean Foods 

Company; Proposed Final Judgment, 

Stipulation and Competitive Impact 

Statement 

Notice is hereby given pursuant to the 

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 

15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h), that a proposed 

Final Judgment, Stipulation and 

Competitive Impact Statement have 

been filed with the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of 

Wisconsin in United States of America, 

et al. v. Dean Foods Company, Civil 

Action No. 2:10–cv–00059 (JPS). On 

January 22, 2010, the United States and 

its co-plaintiffs filed a Complaint 

alleging that Dean Foods Company’s 

acquisition of the Consumer Products 

Division of Foremost Farms USA would 

likely violate Section 7 of the Clayton 

Act, 15 U.S.C. 18. The proposed Final 

Judgment requires Dean Foods 

Company to divest its Waukesha, 

Wisconsin fluid milk plant, along with 

certain tangible and intangible assets. 

Copies of the Complaint, proposed 

Final Judgment and Competitive Impact 

Statement are available for inspection at 

the Department of Justice, Antitrust 

Division, Antitrust Documents Group, 

450 Fifth Street, NW., Suite 1010, 

Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: 202– 

514–2481), on the Department of 

Justice’s Web site at http:// 

www.usdoj.gov/atr, and at the Office of 

the Clerk of the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of 

Wisconsin. 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. 

Public comment is invited within 60 

days of the date of this notice. Such 

comments, and responses thereto, will 

be published in the Federal Register 

and filed with the Court. Comments 

should be directed to Joshua H. Soven, 

Chief, Litigation I, Antitrust Division, 

Department of Justice, Washington DC, 

20530. 

Patricia A. Brink, 

Director of Civil Enforcement. 

In the United States District Court for 

the Eastern District of Wisconsin 

Milwaukee Division 

United States of America, State of 

Wisconsin, State of Illinois, and State of 

Michigan, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Dean Foods Company, 

Defendant. 

10–C–0059 FILED: January 22, 2010; 

1:40PM 

Complaint 

The United States of America, acting 

under the direction of the Attorney 

General of the United States, and the 

States of Wisconsin, Illinois, and 

Michigan, by and through their 

respective Attorneys General (‘‘Plaintiff 

States’’), bring this civil action for 

equitable relief against Defendant Dean 

Foods Company (‘‘Dean’’) for violating 

Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 

18. The United States and the Plaintiff 

States allege as follows: 

I. Introduction 

1. This lawsuit challenges Dean’s 

acquisition of the Consumer Products 

Division of Foremost Farms USA, 

consummated April 1, 2009 (the 

‘‘Acquisition’’). Foremost Farms USA 

(‘‘Foremost’’) is a dairy cooperative 

owned by approximately 2,300 dairy 

farms located in seven states, including 

Wisconsin. Through the Acquisition, 

Dean acquired two dairy processing 

plants owned by Foremost, located in 

Waukesha and DePere, Wisconsin. 

Dean’s acquisition of these plants 

violates Section 7 of the Clayton Act 

because ‘‘the effect of such acquisition 

may be substantially to lessen 

competition.’’ 15 U.S.C. 18. 

2. The Acquisition adversely affects 

two types of markets. The first are the 

markets for the sale of school milk to 

individual school districts located 

throughout the State of Wisconsin and 

the Upper Peninsula of Michigan (the 

‘‘UP’’). The second is the market for the 

sale of fluid milk to purchasers located 

in Wisconsin, the UP, and northeastern 

Illinois.1

3. The Acquisition eliminates one of 

Dean’s most aggressive competitors—a 

competitor that engaged in pricing that 

Dean considered ‘‘dangerous’’ and 

‘‘irrational.’’ In recent years, Dean and 

Foremost have been the first and fourth 

largest sellers of school milk and fluid 

milk in Wisconsin, the UP, and 

northeastern Illinois. With the 

Acquisition, Dean will account for more 

than 57 percent of fluid milk sales in the 

region. In the most recent school year, 

Dean and the two plants it acquired sold 

more than 50 percent of the school milk 

purchased in Wisconsin and the UP. 

4. Numerous school districts have 

benefitted from vigorous competition 

between Dean and Foremost. Dean and 

Foremost have frequently been the two 

lowest bidders for school milk contracts 

at numerous school districts in 

Wisconsin and the UP and, in some 

school districts, have been the only two 

bidders for those contracts. 

5. Grocery stores, convenience stores, 

and other purchasers have also 

benefitted from vigorous competition 

between Dean and Foremost for fluid 

milk contracts. Dean and Foremost have 

been the only two bidders for some 

contracts and two of only three bidders 

for other contracts. The aggressive 

competition between them has lowered 

purchasers’ costs. For example, in 2006, 

a retailer with hundreds of stores in 

northeastern Illinois held an auction for 

its fluid milk business in which the 

competition between Dean and 

Foremost saved the retailer 

approximately $1.5 million. 

6. The Acquisition’s elimination of 

head-to-head competition between Dean 

and Foremost will hurt school milk and 

fluid milk purchasers. The loss of this 

head-to-head competition leads directly 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES