U.S.A.'s interesting latest

Publications.USA.gov is Being Discontinued

After six years of serving the American public and consumers, the Publications.USA.gov website will be discontinued in December. After December, you’ll still be able to order the Consumer Action Handbook, Guía del Consumidor, and our popular government posters from USA.gov, your official guide to government information and services. You’ll be able to order other government publications from Pueblo.GPO.gov. In the meantime, you can browse the USA.gov site and find hundreds of articles about popular government services and programs. They’re all organized by topic. Learn more about how USA.gov can help you find what you need from the government. FTC Requires Retail Fuel Station and Convenience Store Operator Alimentation Couche-Tard Inc. to Divest 3 Fuel Stations in Alabama as a Condition of Acquiring Jet-Pep, Inc. Retail fuel station and convenience store operator Alimentation Couche-Tard Inc. has agreed to divest three fuel stations in Alabama to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that ACT’s proposed acquisition of Jet-Pep, Inc. would violate federal antitrust law. The FTC’s settlement with ACT preserves competition in Brewton, Monroeville, and Valley, Alabama by requiring the company to divest a retail fuel station in each of those locales. Without the divestitures, the FTC alleged, the acquisition would likely substantially lessen competition and lead to higher prices in these local markets. Under the terms of the acquisition, ACT will acquire ownership or operation of 120 Jet-Pep fuel outlets with convenience stores – 18 via Circle K, a wholly-owned subsidiary of ACT, and 102 via CrossAmerica Partners LP, over which Circle K has operational control and management. ACT agreed to another package of divestitures earlier this year to settle FTC charges in connection with a different merger. Retail fuel markets are frequently small and highly localized. The complaint alleges that without a remedy, ACT’s acquisition of Jet-Pep Inc. would reduce the number of independent market participants in each of these three local markets to three or fewer. According to the complaint, the acquisition would increase both the likelihood of successful coordination among the remaining firms and the likelihood that ACT will unilaterally exercise market power. Under the terms of the consent agreement, ACT is required to identify a buyer or buyers that are acceptable to the Commission within 120 days after the transaction closes, and to divest the three retail fuel stations. The agreement also requires ACT to maintain the economic viability, marketability, and competitiveness of each station until the divestiture is complete. Further details about the consent agreement, which includes an asset maintenance order and allows the Commission to appoint a monitor, are set forth in the analysis to aid public comment for this matter. The Commission vote to issue the complaint and accept the proposed consent order for public comment was 2-0. The FTC will publish the consent agreement package in the Federal Register shortly. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days, beginning today and continuing through Dec. 22, 2017, after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final. Comments can be filed electronically or in paper form by following the instructions in the “Supplementary Information” section of the Federal Register notice. NOTE: The Commission issues an administrative complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $40,654. The Federal Trade Commission works to promote competition, and protect and educate consumers. You can learn more about how competition benefits consumers or file an antitrust complaint. Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, read our blogs and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources. FTC Halts the Deceptive Practices of Academic Journal Publishers Operation made false claims and hid publishing fees, agency alleges A federal court has granted a preliminary injunction requested by the Federal Trade Commission, temporarily halting the deceptive practices of academic journal publishers charged by the agency with making false claims about their journals and academic conferences, and hiding their publishing fees, which were up to several thousand dollars. The preliminary injunction against OMICS Group Inc., iMedPub LLC, Conference Series LLC, and their CEO, director, and owner, Srinubabu Gedela stems from a complaint the FTC filed last year that names Gedela and his three companies as defendants. The defendants operate several websites, including OMICSonline.org, iMedPub.com, and Conferenceseries.com.  They advertise hundreds of online academic journals and international conferences for scientists and medical professionals.  According to the complaint, the defendants deceptively claim that their journals provide authors with rigorous peer review and have editorial boards made up of prominent academics when in fact, many articles are published with little to no peer review and many individuals represented to be editors have not agreed to be affiliated with the journals. The FTC’s complaint alleges that the defendants do not tell authors submitting papers for publication that, after their online journals accept an article, the defendants charge the authors significant publishing fees and often do not allow authors to withdraw their articles from submission, making their research ineligible for publication in other journals. The FTC also alleges that, to promote their scientific conferences, the defendants deceptively use the names of prominent researchers as conference presenters, when in fact many of those researchers had not agreed to participate in the events. The FTC’s complaint charges the defendants with multiple violations of the FTC Act’s prohibition on deceptive acts or practices. The preliminary injunction entered by a federal district court in the District of Nevada prohibits the defendants from making misrepresentations regarding their academic journals and conferences, including that specific persons are editors of their journals or have agreed to participate in their conferences.  It also prohibits the defendants from falsely representing that their journals engage in peer review, that their journals are included in any academic journal indexing service, or any measurement of the extent to which their journals are cited.  It also requires that the defendants clearly and conspicuously disclose all costs associated with submitting or publishing articles in their journals.