Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Notices 43725 

States v. Vertellus Agriculture & 

Nutrition Specialties LLC, Civil Action 

No. 1:09–cv–1030–SEB–TAB (S.D. Ind.) 

was lodged with the United States 

District Court for the Southern District 

of Indiana. The Consent Decree 

addresses alleged violations of the Clean 

Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q, and its 

implementing regulations at a specialty 

chemical manufacturing facility in 

Indianapolis, Indiana that is owned and 

operated by Vertellus Agriculture & 

Nutrition Specialties LLC (‘‘Vertellus’’). 

The United States alleges that Vertellus 

has failed to comply with certain 

requirements governing the control of 

hazardous air pollutant emissions under 

Clean Air Act Section 112, 42 U.S.C. 

7412, and the implementing regulations 

at: (i) 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart H 

(National Emission Standards for 

Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Equipment Leaks); (ii) EPA Reference 

Method 21 at 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix 

A; and (iii) 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart 

GGG (National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Pharmaceuticals Production). The 

United States also alleges a violation of 

Clean Air Act Section 502(a), 42 U.S.C. 

7661a(a), for failure to comply with a 

requirement of Vertellus’ permit issued 

under Title V of the Act. 

The proposed Consent Decree would 

resolve the claims alleged in the United 

States’ Complaint in exchange for the 

Defendant’s commitment to implement 

appropriate injunctive relief, pay 

$450,000 civil penalty, and perform a 

$705,000 Supplemental Environmental 

Project. Among other things, the 

injunctive relief provisions of the 

Decree would require Vertellus to 

implement an enhanced leak detection 

and repair program and a program to 

operate and maintain an incinerator in 

a manner consistent with good air 

pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions. 

The Department of Justice will receive 

comments relating to the Consent 

Decree for a period of thirty (30) days 

from the date of this publication. 

Comments should be addressed to the 

Assistant Attorney General, 

Environment and Natural Resources 

Division, and mailed either 

electronically to pubcommentees.enrd@usdoj.gov or in hard copy to 

P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC 20044–7611. 

Comments should refer to United States 

v. Vertellus Agriculture & Nutrition 

Specialties LLC, Civil Action No. 1:09– 

cv–1030–SEB–TAB (S.D. Ind.) and D.J. 

Ref. No. 90–5–2–1–09022. 

The Consent Decree may be examined 

at: (1) The offices of the United States 

Attorney, 10 West Market Street, Suite 

2100, Indianapolis, Indiana; and (2) the 

offices of the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, 14th Floor, Chicago, 

Illinois. 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 Department of Justice 

Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, 

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 from the Consent 

Decree Library, please enclose a check 

in the amount of $15.75 (63 pages at 25 

cents per page reproduction cost) 

payable to the U.S. Treasury. 

Maureen M. Katz, 

Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement 

Section, Environment and Natural Resources 

Division. 

[FR Doc. E9–20602 Filed 8–26–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree 

Under the Clean Water Act 

Notice is hereby given that on August 

24, 2009, a proposed Consent Decree in 

United States v. Ameripride Services, 

Inc., Civil Action No. 3:09–cv–1333 

(WWE), was lodged with the United 

States District Court for the District of 

Connecticut. 

In this action, the United States seeks, 

inter alia, civil penalties and injunctive 

relief from Ameripride for alleged 

violations under the Clean Water Act, 

33 U.S.C. §§ 1319(b) and (d), at its 

Hartford, Connecticut laundry facility. 

The complaint in this matter alleges that 

Ameripride violated Federal 

pretreatment standards and State permit 

limitations in relation to discharges 

from the facility which contained excess 

pH, oil/grease and metals. The Consent 

Decree requires Ameripride, among 

other things, to pay a civil penalty of 

$525,000 and submit periodic reports 

relating to its future compliance with 

the Act. 

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 

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

Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

20044–7611, and should refer to United 

States v. Ameripride Services, Inc., D.J. 

Ref. 90–5–1–1–09559. 

The Consent Decree may be examined 

at the Office of the United States 

Attorney, District of Connecticut, 

Connecticut Financial Center, 157 

Church Street, Floor 23, New Haven, 

Connecticut 06510. During the public 

comment period, the Consent Decree 

may also be examined on the following 

Department of Justice Web site, to 

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 from the Consent 

Decree Library, please enclose a check 

in the amount of $7.50 (25 cents per 

page reproduction costs of Consent 

Decree and Appendices) payable to the 

U.S. Treasury or, if by e-mail or fax, 

forward a check in that amount to the 

Consent Decree Library at the stated 

address. 

Maureen Katz, 

Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement 

Section, Environment and Natural Resources 

Division. 

[FR Doc. E9–20715 Filed 8–26–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

Agriculture and Antitrust Enforcement 

Issues in Our 21st Century Economy 

AGENCIES: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture and U.S. Department of 

Justice, Antitrust Division. 

ACTION: Notice of public hearings and 

opportunity for comment. 

SUMMARY: The Antitrust Division of the 

U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the 

United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) strongly believe that a 

competitive agriculture sector is vitally 

important to producers and consumers 

alike. To this end, the DOJ and USDA, 

with the participation of State Attorneys 

General, intend to hold a series of 

public workshops to explore 

competition issues affecting the 

agricultural sector in the 21st Century 

and the appropriate role for antitrust 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

43726 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Notices 

and regulatory enforcement in that 

sector. Agricultural producers and their 

representatives have expressed concerns 

about changes in the agricultural 

marketplace, including increasing 

processor concentration in some 

commodities. There have been several 

congressional oversight hearings related 

to competition in the agricultural sector, 

as well as legislative proposals to 

restrict the activities of agricultural 

processors and intensify federal 

government scrutiny of agricultural 

mergers. 

The workshops will address the 

dynamics of competition in agriculture 

markets, including, among other issues, 

buyer power (also known as 

monopsony) and vertical integration. 

They will examine legal doctrines and 

jurisprudence and current economic 

learning, and will provide an 

opportunity for farmers, ranchers, 

consumer groups, processors, 

agribusinesses, and other interested 

parties to provide examples of 

potentially anticompetitive conduct and 

to discuss any concerns about the 

application of the antitrust laws to the 

agricultural sector. The goals of the 

workshops are to promote dialogue 

among interested parties and foster 

learning with respect to the appropriate 

legal and economic analyses of these 

issues as well as to listen to and learn 

from parties with real-world experience 

in the agricultural sector. 

To begin, the DOJ and USDA are 

soliciting public comments from 

lawyers, economists, agribusinesses, 

consumer groups, academics, 

agricultural producers, agricultural 

cooperatives, and other interested 

parties. The DOJ and USDA are 

interested in comments on the 

application of the antitrust laws to 

monopsony and vertical integration in 

the agricultural sector, including the 

scope, functionality, and limits of 

current or potential rules. The DOJ and 

USDA are also inviting input on 

additional topics that might be 

discussed at the workshops, including 

the impact of agriculture concentration 

on food costs, the effect of agricultural 

regulatory statutes or other applicable 

laws and programs on competition, 

issues relating to patent and intellectual 

property affecting agricultural marketing 

or production, and market practices 

such as price spreads, forward contracts, 

packer ownership of livestock before 

slaughter, market transparency, and 

increasing retailer concentration. 

The DOJ and USDA plan to hold the 

first workshop in early 2010. While 

some of these workshops may be held 

in Washington, DC, others will be held 

regionally. The DOJ and USDA plan to 

publish a more detailed description of 

the topics to be discussed before each 

workshop and to solicit additional 

submissions about each topic. The 

workshops will be transcribed and 

placed on the public record. Any 

written comments received also will be 

placed on the public record. 

DATES: Any interested person may 

submit written comments responsive to 

any of the topics addressed in this 

Federal Register notice. Respondents 

are encouraged to provide comments as 

soon as possible, but no later than 

December 31, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be submitted in both paper and 

electronic form to the Department of 

Justice. All comments received will be 

publicly posted. The comments should 

be submitted as follows: 

Two paper copies should be 

addressed to the Legal Policy Section, 

Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of 

Justice, 450 5th Street, NW., Suite 

11700, Washington, DC 20001. The 

Antitrust Division is requesting that the 

paper copies of each comment be sent 

by courier or overnight service, if 

possible, because U.S. postal mail at the 

Department is subject to delay due to 

heightened security precautions. The 

electronic version of each comment 

should be submitted by electronic mail 

to agriculturalworkshops@usdoj.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark B. Tobey, Special Counsel for 

State Relations and Agriculture, 

Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of 

Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20530; telephone: (202) 

532–4763; e-mail: 

agriculturalworkshops@usdoj.gov. 

Detailed agendas and schedules for the 

workshops will be made available on 

the Antitrust Division’s Web site, 

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Horizontal Merger Guidelines recognize 

monopsony power and its exercise as a 

concern in analyzing potential 

competitive effects of proposed mergers 

and acquisitions. As a general 

proposition, the analysis of competitive 

issues in monopsony cases is the mirror 

image of the more common analysis of 

competitive issues in monopoly cases. 

For example, instead of determining 

whether the merged firm would gain 

sufficient market power to raise prices 

to consumers, monopsony analysis 

focuses on whether the merged firm 

would gain sufficient market power to 

depress prices paid to its suppliers. 

Likewise, instead of determining 

whether the buyers could defeat an 

attempt by the merged firm to increase 

prices by a small but significant and 

non-transitory amount by switching to 

alternative products or alternative 

suppliers, the issue in a monopsony 

investigation is whether the sellers 

could defeat an attempt by the merged 

firm to depress prices by producing 

other products or by selling their 

products to other buyers. 

Vertical integration occurs when 

multiple stages of production, for 

example, processing, distribution, or 

marketing, are brought together in one 

firm or are linked by contracts. In many 

instances, vertical integration may be 

procompetitive, allowing firms to 

reduce their costs. However, there may 

be circumstances in which vertical 

integration raises antitrust concerns, 

usually by increasing barriers to entry, 

facilitating collusion, or circumventing 

regulation. 

Christine A. Varney, 

Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust 

Division. 

Ann Wright, 

Deputy Undersecretary for Marketing and 

Regulatory Programs, Department of 

Agriculture. 

[FR Doc. E9–20671 Filed 8–26–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2009–0376; Docket No.: 07007001; 

Certificate No. GDP–1; EA–08–280] 

In the Matter of United States 

Enrichment Corporation, Paducah 

Gaseous Enrichment Plant; 

Confirmatory Order (Effective 

Immediately) 

I 

The United States Enrichment 

Corporation (USEC), a subsidiary of 

USEC Inc., is the holder of NRC 

Certificates of Compliance (COC) No. 

GDP–1 issued by the NRC pursuant to 

10 CFR part 76 on November 26, 1996, 

and renewed on December 22, 2008. 

The COC is set to expire on December 

31, 2013. The certificate authorizes 

USEC to operate the Paducah Gaseous 

Diffusion Plant (Paducah), located near 

Paducah, Kentucky. The certificate also 

authorizes USEC to receive, and other 

NRC licensees to transfer to USEC, 

byproduct material, source material, or 

special nuclear material to the extent 

permitted under the COC. 

This Confirmatory Order is the result 

of an agreement reached during an 

alternative dispute resolution (ADR) 

mediation session conducted on July 1, 

2009. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES