12616 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 41 / Thursday, March 1, 2012 / Notices 

(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a 

trade/business association of U.S. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from the Subject Country, provide the 

following information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2011 (report quantity data 

in pounds and value data in U.S. 

dollars). If you are a trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms which 

are members of your association. 

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping duties) of U.S. imports 

and, if known, an estimate of the 

percentage of total U.S. imports of 

Subject Merchandise from the Subject 

Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) 

imports; 

(b) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from the Subject 

Country; and 

(c) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. internal consumption/company 

transfers of Subject Merchandise 

imported from the Subject Country. 

(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject Country, 

provide the following information on 

your firm’s(s’) operations on that 

product during calendar year 2011 

(report quantity data in pounds and 

value data in U.S. dollars, landed and 

duty-paid at the U.S. port but not 

including antidumping duties). 

If you are a trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms which 

are members of your association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in the Subject Country accounted for by 

your firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Subject Merchandise in the 

Subject Country (i.e., the level of 

production that your establishment(s) 

could reasonably have expected to 

attain during the year, assuming normal 

operating conditions (using equipment 

and machinery in place and ready to 

operate), normal operating levels (hours 

per week/weeks per year), time for 

downtime, maintenance, repair, and 

cleanup, and a typical or representative 

product mix); and 

(c) The quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from the Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(12) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

the Subject Country since the Order 

Date, and significant changes, if any, 

that are likely to occur within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. Supply 

conditions to consider include 

technology; production methods; 

development efforts; ability to increase 

production (including the shift of 

production facilities used for other 

products and the use, cost, or 

availability of major inputs into 

production); and factors related to the 

ability to shift supply among different 

national markets (including barriers to 

importation in foreign markets or 

changes in market demand abroad). 

Demand conditions to consider include 

end uses and applications; the existence 

and availability of substitute products; 

and the level of competition among the 

Domestic Like Product produced in the 

United States, Subject Merchandise 

produced in the Subject Country, and 

such merchandise from other countries. 

(13) (Optional) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industry; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions. 

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of Title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: February 27, 2012. 

James R. Holbein, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4979 Filed 2–29–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–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 

February 22, 2012, a proposed Partial 

Consent Decree in United States et al. v. 

Seachrome Corp. et al, Civil Action No. 

2:02–cv–4565 ABC (RCx) 

(‘‘Seachrome’’) was lodged with the 

United States District Court for the 

Central District of California. 

In Seachrome, the United States of 

America (‘‘United States’’), on behalf of 

the Administrator of the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(‘‘EPA’’), and the California Department 

of Toxic Substances Control 

(‘‘Department’’), filed a complaint 

pursuant to Section 107 of the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act of 1980, as amended (‘‘CERCLA’’), 

42 U.S.C. 9607, seeking reimbursement 

of response costs incurred or to be 

incurred for response actions taken in 

connection with the release or 

threatened release of hazardous 

substances at the South El Monte 

Operable Unit of the San Gabriel Valley 

Area 1 Superfund Site in South El 

Monte, Los Angeles County, California 

(the ‘‘South El Monte O.U.’’). 

Under the proposed Partial Consent 

Decree, two potentially responsible 

parties (‘‘PRPs’’) with respect to the 

South El Monte O.U. will pay a total of 

$1.7 million plus interest. The PRPs are 

Linderman Living Trust A and Rush 

Street Properties, LLC. The settlement 

amount is based on the parties’ ability 

to pay. In exchange for the ability to pay 

payments, the plaintiffs covenant not to 

sue the ability to pay settling defendants 

under Section 106 or 107 of CERCLA 

with respect to the South El Monte O.U. 

The Department of Justice will receive 

for a period of thirty (30) days from the 

date of this publication comments 

relating to the proposed Consent Decree. 

Comments should be addressed to the 

Assistant Attorney General, 

Environment and Natural Resources 

Division, and either emailed 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 this 

case: United States et al. v. Seachrome 

Corp. et al., Civil Action No. 2:02–cv– 

4565 (RCx), D.J. Ref. 90–11–2–09121/5. 

During the public comment period, 

the Consent Decree may be examined on 

the following Department of Justice Web 

site, http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ 

Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the 

proposed 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 emailing a 

request to ‘‘Consent Decree Copy’’ 

(EESCDCopy.ENRD@usdoj.gov), fax no. 

(202) 514–0097, phone confirmation no. 

(202) 514–5271. In requesting a copy 

from the Consent Decree Library, please 

enclose a check payable to the ‘‘U.S. 

Treasury’’ or, if by email or fax, forward 

a check in that amount to the Consent 

Decree Library at the stated address, in 

the following amount (25 cents per page 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 41 / Thursday, March 1, 2012 / Notices 12617 

reproduction cost): $7.50 for the Partial 

Consent Decree (without attachments). 

Henry S. Friedman, 

Assistant Section Chief, Environmental 

Enforcement Section, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4866 Filed 2–29–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

United States et al. v. Blue Cross and 

Blue Shield of Montana, Inc., et al.; 

Public Comments 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 comments received on the 

proposed Final Judgment in United 

States et al. v. Blue Cross and Blue 

Shield of Montana, Inc. et al., Civil 

Action No. 1:11–CV–00123–RFC, which 

were filed in the United States District 

Court for the District of Montana on 

February 21, 2012, together with the 

response of the United States to the 

comments. 

Copies of the comments and the 

response are available for inspection at 

the Department of Justice Antitrust 

Division, 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 District of 

Montana, 316 N. 26th Street, Billings, 

MT 59101. Copies of any of these 

materials may be obtained upon request 

and payment of a copying fee. 

Patricia A. Brink, 

Director of Civil Enforcement. 

In the United States District Court for 

the District of Montana; Billings 

Division 

United States of America and State of 

Montana, Plaintiffs, v. Blue Cross and 

Blue Shield of Montana, Inc., et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 1:11–cv–00123–RFC. 

Response of Plaintiff United States to 

Public Comment on the Proposed Final 

Judgment 

Pursuant to the requirements of the 

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 

15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h) (‘‘APPA’’ or 

‘‘Tunney Act’’), the United States 

hereby responds to the public comment 

received regarding the proposed Final 

Judgment in this case. The single 

comment received agrees that the 

proposed Final Judgment will provide 

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 Federal Register, pursuant to 15 

U.S.C. 16(d). 

I. Procedural History 

On November 8, 2011, the United 

States and the State of Montana filed a 

civil antitrust lawsuit challenging an 

agreement (the ‘‘Agreement’’) between 

defendant Blue Cross and Blue Shield of 

Montana, Inc. (‘‘Blue Cross’’) and 

defendants Billings Clinic; Bozeman 

Deaconess Health Services, Inc.; 

Community Medical Center, Inc.; 

Northern Montana Health Care, Inc.; 

and St. Peter’s Hospital (collectively, the 

‘‘hospital defendants’’). 

The hospital defendants are five of the 

six hospitals that own defendant New 

West Health Services, Inc. (‘‘New 

West’’), a health insurer that competes 

against Blue Cross to provide 

commercial health insurance to 

Montana consumers. In the Agreement, 

Blue Cross agreed to pay $26.3 million 

to the hospital defendants in exchange 

for their collectively agreeing to stop 

purchasing health insurance for their 

own employees from New West and 

instead buy insurance for their 

employees from Blue Cross exclusively 

for six years. Blue Cross also agreed to 

provide the hospital defendants with 

two seats on Blue Cross’s board of 

directors as long as the hospitals do not 

compete with Blue Cross in the sale of 

commercial health insurance. 

The Complaint alleged that the 

Agreement would likely cause New 

West to exit the markets for commercial 

health insurance, eliminating an 

important competitor to Blue Cross and 

ultimately leading to higher prices and 

lower-quality service for consumers. 

Consequently, the Complaint alleged 

that the Agreement unreasonably 

restrained trade in the sale of 

commercial health insurance within 

Montana in the Billings Metropolitan 

Statistical Area (‘‘MSA’’), Bozeman 

Micropolitan Statistical Area (‘‘MiSA’’), 

Helena MiSA, and Missoula MSA, in 

violation of Section 1 of the Sherman 

Act, 15 U.S.C. 1; and that the Agreement 

substantially lessened competition in 

the sale of commercial health insurance 

in those same areas, and would likely 

continue to do so, in violation of 

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

18, and the Montana Unfair Trade 

Practices Act, Mont. Code Ann. § 30– 

14–205. 

Simultaneously with the filing of the 

Complaint, the United States and the 

State of Montana filed a proposed Final 

Judgment and Stipulation signed by the 

plaintiffs and the defendants consenting 

to entry of the proposed Final Judgment 

after compliance with the requirements 

of the Tunney Act, 15 U.S.C. 16. 

Pursuant to those requirements, the 

United States also filed its Competitive 

Impact Statement (‘‘CIS’’) with the Court 

on November 8, 2011; published the 

proposed Final Judgment and CIS in the 

Federal Register on November 18, 2011, 

see 76 FR 71355; and had summaries of 

the terms of the proposed Final 

Judgment and CIS, together with 

directions for the submission of written 

comments relating to the proposed Final 

Judgment, published in The Washington 

Post on alternating days from November 

17 to November 29, 2011, and in the 

Billings Gazette on November 14, 17, 19, 

21, 23, 25, and 28. The sixty-day period 

for public comment ended on January 

28, 2011. One comment was received, as 

described below and attached hereto. 

II. The Investigation and Proposed 

Resolution 

The proposed Final Judgment is the 

culmination of an investigation by the 

Antitrust Division of the United States 

Department of Justice (‘‘Department’’) of 

the Agreement among defendants 

described above. As part of its 

investigation, the Department issued 

eight Civil Investigative Demands and 

conducted more than 30 interviews of 

health-insurance competitors, brokers, 

customers, and other individuals with 

knowledge of the health-insurance 

industry in Montana. The Department 

carefully analyzed the information 

obtained and thoroughly considered all 

of the issues presented. 

The Department found that the 

Agreement would effectively eliminate 

New West as a viable competitor in the 

sale of commercial health insurance for 

several reasons. First, news that none of 

New West’s owners would buy health 

insurance for their own employees from 

New West created a perception that 

New West was exiting the commercial 

health-insurance market, likely causing 

many existing and potential customers 

to stop purchasing (or decline to 

purchase) insurance from New West. 

Second, the Agreement would have led 

New West and its hospital owners to 

significantly reduce their support for 

and efforts to win commercial healthinsurance customers, further hindering 

its ability to compete. Furthermore, 

because the hospital defendants agreed 

to act collectively, the Agreement with 

Blue Cross ensured that New West 

would lose the support of all its owners 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES