Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2000 / Notices 3977

requesting a copy, please refer to the

reference case and DOJ Reference

Number and enclose a check in the

amount of $3.50 for the document (14

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. 00–1679 Filed 1–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–15–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

Motion to Modify Final Judgment and

Memorandum in Support of Motion to

Modify; United States v. Baroid Corp.,

et al.

Notice is hereby given that Smith

International, Inc. (‘‘Smith’’) has filed

with the United States District Court for

the District of Columbia a motion to

modify the judgment in United States v.

Baroid Corporation, et al., Civil Action

No. 93–2621. The Department has

consented to modification of the

Judgment but has reserved the right to

withdraw its consent if it determines

that, based upon comments filed or

other information, consent to the

modification is not in the public

interest.

This case was filed on December 23,

1993, and alleged that the merger of

Dresser Industries, Inc. (‘‘Dresser’’) and

Baroid Corporation (‘‘Baroid’’) might

substantially lessen competition in the

United States in the manufacture and

sale of two oil field service products,

including drilling fluids, in violation of

Section 7 of the Clayton Act. The Final

Judgment was entered on April 12, 1994

and modified on September 19, 1996.

Under the Final Judgment, Dresser

was required to divest either its 64

percent partnership interest in M–I

Drilling Fluids Company or Baroid’s

wholly owned subsidiary, Baroid

Drilling Fluids, Inc. Pursuant to the

judgment, Dresser divested its

partnership interest in M–I to Smith.

Paragraph IV.F. of the Final Judgment

states that the purchaser of the divested

drilling fluids business may not

combine that business with any one of

three named companies. One of those

companies is Schlumberger Ltd.

(‘‘Schlumberger’’). In July 1999, Smith

formed a drilling fluids joint venture

with Schlumberger, and the United

States petitioned the United States

District Court for the District of

Columbia to find Smith and

Schlumberger in civil and criminal

contempt for violating the Final

Judgment by forming the joint venture.

In December 1999, the District Court

found Smith and Schlumberger guilty of

criminal contempt and imposed a

$750,000 fine against each company.

Smith and Schlumberger settled the

civil contempt case, agreeing to disgorge

a total of $13.1 million in joint venture

profits.

Smith’s motion proposes modifying

the Final Judgment to remove

Schlumberger from Paragraph IV.F. The

United States has consented, subject to

the comment period, to the modification

as being in the public interest because

of Schlumberger’s failure to achieve

more than 2 percent of the U.S. drilling

fluid market in the six years since the

Final Judgment was filed.

Copies of the Complaint and

Judgment, the pleadings related to the

1996 modification, Smith’s motion and

supporting memorandum, and the

United States’ consent are available for

inspection in Room 215, Antitrust

Division, U.S. Department of Justice,

325 7th St., NW., Washington, DC 20530

and at the Office of the Clerk of the

United States District Court for the

District of Columbia, Third Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20001. Copies of any of these

materials may be obtained upon request

and payment of a copying fee.

Comments to the Department of

Justice and to the Court regarding the

proposed modification of the Final

Judgment are invited from members of

the public. They should be addressed to

Roger W. Fones, Chief, Transportation,

Energy and Agriculture Section,

Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of

Justice, Suite 500, 325 7th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20530 (202–307–6351.)

Such comments must be received

within 30 days.

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations & Merger Enforcement,

Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 00–1680 Filed 1–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration

[Docket No. ICR–1218–0104(2000)]

Inorganic Arsenic; Extension of the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) Approval of Information

Collection (Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA); Labor.

ACTION: Notice of an opportunity for

public comment.

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits comments

concerning the proposed reduction in,

and extension of, the information

collection requirements contained in the

Inorganic arsenic standard (29 CFR

1910.1018).

REQUEST FOR COMMENT: The Agency is

particularly interested in comments on

the following issues:

• Whether the information collection

requirements are necessary for the

proper performance of the Agency’s

functions, including whether the

information is useful;

• The accuracy of the Agency’s

estimate of the burden (time and costs)

of the information collection

requirements, including the validity of

the methodology and assumptions used;

• The quality, utility, and clarity of

the information collected; and

• Ways to minimize the burden on

employers who must comply; for

example, by using automated,

electronic, mechanical, and other

technological information collection

and transmission techniques.

DATES: Submit written comments on or

before March 27, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments

to the Docket Office, Docket No. ICR–

1218–0104(2000), Occupational Safety

and Health Administration, U.S.

Department of Labor, Room N–2625,

200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202)

693–2350. Commenters may transmit

written comments of 10 pages or less in

length by facsimile to (202) 693–1648.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nancy Dorris, Directorate of Policy,

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration, U.S. Department of

Labor, Room N–3641, 200 Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20210;

telephone: (202) 693–2444. A copy of

the Agency’s Information Collection

Request (ICR) supporting the need for

the information collection requirements

in the Inorganic arsenic standard is

available for inspection and copying in

the Docket Office, or you may request a

mailed copy by telephoning Nancy

Dorris or Todd R. Owen at (202) 693–

2444. For electronic copies of the ICR on

the Inorganic arsenic standard, contact

OSHA on the Internet at http://

www.osha-slc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Department of Labor, as part of its

continuing effort to reduce paperwork

and respondent burden, conducts a

preclearance consultation program to