Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 1998 / Notices 39893

interest from February 26, 1998, and

stipulated penalties for failure to

comply with the CAA, RCRA, and the

Decree.

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 of the Environment and Natural

Resources Division, United States

Department of Justice, Washington, DC

20530, and should refer to United States

v. Refined Metals Corporation, Civil

Action No. IP 90–2077–C (S.D. Ind.) and

DOJ Reference No. 90–11–2–469.

The proposed consent decree may be

examined at: (1) the office of the United

States Attorney for the Southern District

of Indiana, U.S. Courthouse 5th Floor,

46 East Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indian

46204, 317–226–6333; (2) the United

States Environmental Protection Agency

(Region 5), 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604–3590; and (3)

the U.S. Department of Justice,

Environment and Natural Resources

Division Consent Decree Library, 1120 G

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

2005–202–624–0892. In requesting a

copy, please refer to the referenced case

and enclose a check in the amount of

$70.00 (pages at 25 cents per page

reproduction costs), made payable to the

Consent Decree Library.

Joel M. Gross,

Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section,

Environment and Natural Resources Division.

[FR Doc. 98–19737 Filed 7–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–15–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree

Notice is hereby given that on July 13,

1998 a proposed Consent Decree in

Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper

Fund, Inc., The Chattahoochee

Riverkeeper, Inc., and W. Robert

Hancock, Jr. v. The City of Atlanta,

Georgia, Civil Action No. 1:95–CV–

2550–TWT and United States of

America and State of Georgia v. City of

Atlanta, Civil Action 1:98–CV–1956–

TWT (CONSOLIDATED) was lodged

with the United States District Court for

the Northern District of Georgia. This

Consent Decree represents a settlement

of claims against the City of Atlanta,

Georgia under Section 309 (b) and (d) of

the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1319 (b)

and (d).

Under this settlement between the

Citizen Plaintiffs, United States, the

State and the City, the City will be

required to undertake extensive

rehabilitation to its Combined Sewer

Overflow systems (CSOs). The consent

decree also provides for the recovery of

a civil penalty of $2,500,000 to be paid

by the City. The penalty shall be paid

as follows: within thirty (60)??? days

after the consent decree is entered by

the Court, the City shall pay $500,000 to

the United States, and $500,000 to the

State of Georgia, on or before the one

year anniversary of the Date of Entry,

the City shall pay $750,000 to the

United States and $750,000 to the State

of Georgia. In addition, the consent

decree requires the City to undertake the

implementation of a Supplemental

Environmental Project (‘‘SEP’’). The SEP

involves the acquisition of riparian

properties or ‘‘greenways’’ for the

purpose of reducing or eliminating nonpoint source pollution into the

Chattahoochee and South Rivers and or

their tributaries. The City shall also be

required to undertake a cleanup of the

Combined Sewer Overflow stream beds.

A secondary benefit of the SEP shall be

to protect, restore, and enhance aquatic

and stream corridor habitats of the river

systems.

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 of the

Environment and Natural Resources

Division, Department of Justice,

Washington, D.C. 20530, and should

refer to United States of America and

State of Georgia v. City of Atlanta,

Georgia, Civil Action No. 1:98–CV–

1956–TWT (CONSOLIDATED), D.J. Ref.

90–5–1–1–4430.

The proposed consent decree may be

examined at the Office of the United

States Attorney, Northern District of

Georgia, 1800 United States Courthouse,

75 Spring Street, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia

30335 and at Region 4, Office of the

Environmental Protection Agency,

Water Programs Enforcement Branch,

Water Management Division, Atlanta

Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street S.W.,

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–3104, and at the

Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street,

N.W., 4th Floor, Washington, D.C.

20005, (202) 624–0892. A copy of the

proposed consent decree may be

obtained in person or by mail from the

Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street,

N.W., 4th Floor, Washington, D.C. In

requesting a copy, please enclose a

check in the amount of $29.25 (25 cents

per page reproduction cost) payable to

the Consent Decree Library.

Joel Gross,

Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section,

Environment and Natural Resources Division.

[FR Doc. 98–19735 Filed 7–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–15–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of a Consent Decree

Under the Clean Air Act

Notice is hereby given that on June

12, 1998, a proposed Consent Decree in

United States v. Wells Cargo, Inc., Civil

Action No. CV–S–98–00901–LDG (RLH)

was lodged with the United States

District Court for the District of Nevada.

In this action the United States sought

injunctive relief and the assessment of

civil penalties against Wells Cargo, Inc.,

located in Las Vegas, Nevada. The

United States alleges that Wells Cargo,

Inc. operated its nonmetallic mineral

processing plant and hot mix asphalt

facility in violation of Sections 110 and

111 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7410

and 7411. Specifically, the United States

alleges that Wells Cargo, Inc., in

violation of applicable New Source

Performance Standards, failed to make

required notification to the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

regarding the construction

commencement date, the start-up date,

and the opacity observation date for

new equipment installed in December,

1994. The United States also alleges that

Wells Cargo failed to perform timely

opacity observations after the

installation and start-up of new

equipment. The United States further

alleges that Wells Cargo operated its

asphalt facility in violation of the

emission limit for visible air

contaminants as set forth in the Nevada

state implementation plan. The Consent

Decree entered provides for a civil

penalty to be paid by the defendant of

$61,000 and the installation and

operation of a smoke recovery system to

be placed over the hot mix asphalt

storage silos.

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 of the

Environment and Natural Resources

Division, Department of Justice,

Washington, D.C. 20530, and should

refer to United States v. Wells Cargo,

Inc., D.J. Ref. 90–5–2–1–2127.

The Consent Decree may be examined

at the Office of the United States

Attorney, 701 E. Bridger Avenue, Suite
39894 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 1998 / Notices

800, Las Vegas, Nevada, at U.S. EPA

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA, and at the Consent

Decree Library, 1120 G Street, N.W., 4th

Floor, Washington, D.C. 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, N.W., 4th Floor, Washington,

D.C. 20005. In requesting a copy, please

enclose a check in the amount of $6.75

(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. 98–19734 Filed 7–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–15–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

Proposed Final Judgment and

Competitive Impact Statement; United

States v. General Electric Company

and InnoServ Technologies, Inc.

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 District of

Columbia in United States v. General

Electric Company and InnoServ

Technologies, Inc., No.

1:98CV01744RCL (D.D.C., filed July 14,

1998). On July 14, 1998, the United

States filed a Complaint alleging that the

proposed acquisition of InnoServ by

General Electric would violate Section 7

of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18. The

proposed Final Judgment, filed the same

time as the Complaint, permits General

Electric to acquire InnoServ but requires

that General Electric divest InnoServ’s

PREVU diagnostic software used in the

maintenance and repair of diagnostic

imaging machines (e.g., CT scanners,

MRIs, x-ray machines). Copies of the

Complaint, proposed Final Judgment,

and Competitive Impact Statement are

available for inspection at the

Department of Justice in Washington,

D.C., in Room 215, 325 Seventh Street,

N.W., and at the Office of the Clerk of

the United States District Court for the

District of Columbia, 333 Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

Public comment is invited within 60

days 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

Mary Jean Moltenbrey, Chief, Civil Task

Force, Antitrust Division, Department of

Justice, Suite 300, 325 7th Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20530 (telephone:

202/616–5935).

Constance Robinson,

Director of Operations and Merger

Enforcement, Antitrust Division.

Stipulation and Order

The undersigned parties, by their

respective attorneys, stipulate that:

1. The Court has jurisdiction over the

subject matter of this action and over

each of the parties, and venue of this

action is proper in the District of

Columbia.

2. The Court may enter and file a

Final Judgment in the form hereto

attached upon the motion of any party

or upon the Court’s own motion at any

time after compliance with the Antitrust

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

16(b)–(h)), and without further notice to

any party or other proceedings,

provided that the United States has not

withdrawn its consent, which it may do

at any time before the entry of the

proposed Final Judgment by serving

notice on defendants and by filing that

notice with the Court.

3. The defendants agree to comply

with the proposed Final Judgment

pending its approval by the Court, and

shall, from the date of signing this

Stipulation, comply with all the terms

and provisions of the proposed Final

Judgment as though it were in full force

and effect as an order of the Court,

provided, however, that defendants

shall not be bound by the terms and

provisions of the proposed Final

Judgment unless and until the closing of

any transaction in which General

Electric Company directly or indirectly

acquires all or any part of the assets or

stock of InnoServ Technologies, Inc.

4. If the United States withdraws its

consent, or the court does not enter the

proposed Final Judgment pursuant to

the terms of the Stipulation, the time for

all appeals of any Court ruling declining

entry of the Final Judgment has expired,

and the Court has not otherwise ordered

continued compliance with the Final

Judgment, then the parties are released

from all further obligations under this

Stipulation, and the making of this

Stipulation shall be without prejudice to

any party in this or any other

proceeding.

5. The parties request that the Court

acknowledge the terms of this

Stipulation by entering the Order in this

Stipulation and Order.

Dated: July 14, 1998.

Respectfully submitted,

FOR PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES OF

AMERICA:

Joel I. Klein,

Assistant Attorney General.

John M. Nannes,

Deputy Assistant Attorney General.

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations and Merger

Enforcement.

Mary Jean Moltenbrey,

Chief, Civil Task Force.

Susan L. Edelheit,

Assistant Chief, Civil Task Force.

Jon B. Jacobs, Fred E. Haynes, Joan H. Hogan,

Peter J. Mucchetti,

Attorneys for the United States.

Bernard M. Hollander,

Senior Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division,

United States Department of Justice, 325

Seventh Street, NW., Suite 300, Washington,

DC 20530, (202) 514–5012.

For Defendant General Electric Company:

Richard L. Rosen,

Arnold & Porter, 555 Twelfth Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20004, (202) 942–5499.

For Defendant Innoserv Technologies, Inc.:

Malcolm R. Pfunder,

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, 1050

Connecticut Avenue, NW., Washington, DC

20036, (202) 955–8227.

So ordered on this ll day of

llllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

United States District Judge.

Final Judgment

Plaintiff, United States of America,

filed its Complaint on July 14, 1998.

Plaintiff and defendants, General

Electric Company (‘‘GE’’) and InnoServ

Technologies, Inc. (‘‘InnoServ’’), by

their attorneys, have consented to the

entry of this Final Judgment without

trial or adjudication of any issue of fact

or law. This Final Judgment shall not be

evidence or admission by any party

with respect to any issue of fact or law.

Defendants have agreed to be bound by

the provisions of this Final Judgment

pending its approval by the Court.

The essence of this Final Judgment is

the prompt and certain divestiture

through sale or licensing of certain

rights or assets by the defendants to

establish a viable competitor in the sale

of service for certain models of GE

diagnostic imaging equipment, in the

sale of comprehensive assetmanagement or multi-vendor services,

or in the licensing of advanced

diagnostic software for use in any such

service. Defendants have represented to

the United States that the sale required

below can and will be accomplished

and that defendants will later raise no

claims of hardship or difficulty as

grounds for asking the Court to modify