35946 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 126 /Wednesday, July 1, 1998 / Notices

In requesting a copy, please enclose a

check in the amount of $7.00 (25 cents

per page reproduction cost) payable to

the Consent Decree Library.

Joel M. Gross,

Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section,

Environment and Natural Resources Division.

[FR Doc. 98–17499 Filed 6–30–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–15–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree

Pursuant to the Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act

In accordance with Departmental

policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby

given that a consent decree in United

States v. Reynolds, Civ. A. No 96–0014–

C, was lodged on June 12, 1998 with the

United States District Court for the

Western District of Virginia. The

consent decree resolves the claims of

the United States under Section 106(b),

107(a), and 107(c) of the Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act, as

amended (‘‘CERCLA’’), for

reimbursement of response costs

incurred at the Singleton Drum Site in

Castleton, Rappahannock County,

Virginia, as well as civil penalties for

failure to comply with a Unilateral

Administrative Order issued by EPA.

The consent decree obligates Settling

Defendants to pay $277,500 in

reimbursement of response costs

incurred by EPA in responding to

contamination at the Site, and civil

penalties. Of this amount,

approximately $144,000 will be paid in

full reimbursement of EPA’s response

costs at the Site.

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 for the Environment and

Natural Resources Division, Department

of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, and

should refer to United States v.

Reynolds, DOJ Ref. ι90–11–2–1072.

The consent decree may be examined

at the office of the United States

Attorney, 616 Chestnut Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106; the

Region III Office of the Environmental

Protection Agency, 841 Chestnut Street,

Philadelphia, PA; and at the Consent

Decree Library, 1120 G Street, NW 4th

Floor, Washington, DC 20005 (202) 624–

0892. A copy of the consent decree may

be obtained in person or by mail from

the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G

Street, NW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC

20005. In requesting a copy please refer

to the referenced case and enclose a

check in the amount of $4.75 (25 cents

per page reproduction cost), payable to

the Consent Decree library.

Joel M. Gross,

Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section,

Environmental & Natural Resources Division.

[FR Doc. 98–17500 Filed 6–30–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4110–15–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

[Civil Action No. 98–1497]

Proposed Final Judgment and

Competitive Impact Statement; United

States v. Aluminum Company of

America, et al.

Notice is hereby given pursuant to the

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act,

15 U.S.C. section 16(b)-(h), that a

proposed Final Judgment, Hold Separate

Stipulation and Order, Stipulation and

Order, and Competitive Impact

Statement have been filed with the

United States District Court for the

District of Columbia in United States v.

Aluminum of America, et. al., Civil No.

1:98CV01497. The proposed Final

Judgment is subject to approval by the

Court after the expiration of the

statutory 60-day public comment period

and compliance with the Antitrust

Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C.

section 16(b)-(h).

On June 15, 1998, the United States

filed a Complaint seeking to enjoin a

transaction in which Aluminum

Company of America (‘‘Alcoa’’) would

acquire Alumax, Inc. (‘‘Alumax’’). Alcoa

and Alumax are the two largest of three

producers of aluminum cast plate (‘‘cast

plate’’) in the world. Cast plate is used

for applications that require precise

dimensions and flatness, such as jigs,

fixtures, and numerous tooling, mold,

machinery, and equipment applications.

Alcoa’s proposed acquisition of Alumax

would have combined under single

ownership almost 90% of the cast plate

manufacturing business in the world.

The Complaint alleged that the

proposed acquisition would

substantially lessen competition in the

manufacture and sale of cast plate

worldwide in violation of Section 7 of

the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. section 18.

The proposal Final Judgment, filed at

the same time as the Complaint, orders

Alcoa to sell its cast plate division to a

purchaser who has the capability to

compete effectively in the manufacture

and sale of cast plate. The proposed

Final Judgment also requires Alcoa to

abide by the Hold Separate Stipulation

and Order, which requires Alcoa to

ensure that, until the divestiture

mandated by the Final Judgment has

been accomplished, Alcoa’s cast plate

division will be held separate and apart

from, and operated independently of,

any of Alcoa’s other assets and

businesses. A Competitive Impact

Statement filed by the United States

describes the Complaint, the proposed

Final Judgment, and remedies to private

litigants.

Public comment is invited within the

statutory 60-day comment period. Such

comments, and responses thereto, will

be published in the Federal Register

and filed with the Court. Written

comments should be directed to Roger

W. Fones, Chief, Transportation, Energy,

and Agriculture Section, Antitrust

Division, 325 Seventh Street, NW., Suite

500, Washington, DC 20530 (telephone:

(202) 307–6351).

Copies of the Complaint, Hold

Separate Stipulation and Order,

Stipulation and Order, proposed Final

Judgment, and Competitive Impact

Statement are available for inspection in

Room 215 of the U.S. Department of

Justice, Antitrust Division, 325 Seventh

Street, NW, Washington, DC 20530

(telephone: (202) 514–2481) and at the

office of the Clerk of the United States

District Court for the District of

Columbia, 333 Constitution Avenue,

NW, Washington, DC 20001. Copies of

any of these materials may be obtained

upon request and payment of a copying

fee.

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations & Merger Enforcement,

Antitrust Division.

Stipulation and Order

It is hereby Stipulated by and between

the undersigned parties, by their

respective attorneys, as follows:

1. The Court has jurisdiction over the

subject matter of this action and over

each of the parties hereto, and venue of

this action is proper in the United States

District Court for the District of

Columbia.

2. The parties stipulate that a Final

Judgment in the form hereto attached

may be filed and entered by the Court,

upon the motion of any party or upon

the Court’s own motion, at any time

after compliance with the requirements

of the Antitrust Procedure and Penalties

Act (15 U.S.C. 16), and without further

notice to any party or other proceedings,

provided that plaintiff has not

withdrawn its consent, which it may do

at any time before the entry of the

proposed Final Judgment by serving

notice thereof on defendants and by

filing that notice with the Court.