41414 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 148 / Friday, August 1, 1997 / Notices

Bureau of Land Management, 1387

South Vinnell Way, Boise, ID 83709;

telephone: (203) 373–3816, before

September 2, 1997. Repatriation of the

human remains and associated funerary

objects to the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of

the Duck Valley Reservation, ShoshoneBannock Tribes of the Fort Hall

Reservation, and the Northwestern Band

of Shoshoni Indians of Utah may begin

after that date if no additional claimants

come forward.

Dated: July 23, 1997.

Francis P. McManamon,

Departmental Consulting Archeologist,

Manager, Archeology and Ethnography

Program.

[FR Doc. 97–20322 Filed 7-31-97 ; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–F

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

Notice of Inventory Completion for

Native American Human Remains from

Idaho in the Control of the Idaho State

Office, Bureau of Land Management,

Boise, ID

AGENCY: National Park Service

ACTION: Notice

Notice is hereby given in accordance

with provisions of the Native American

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

(NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003 (d), of the

completion of an inventory of human

remains from Idaho in the control of

Idaho State Office, Bureau of Land

Management, Boise, ID.

A detailed assessment of the human

remains was made by Bureau of Land

Management professional staff in

consultation with representatives of the

Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck

Valley Reservation and the ShoshoneBannock Tribes of the Fort Hall

Reservation.

In 1963, human remains representing

one individual were recovered Site

10BT 46 by Earl H. Swanson, Jr. during

legally authorized excavations on BLM

public lands in Butte County, ID. No

known individuals were identified. No

associated funerary objects are present.

This individual has been determined

to be Native American based on facial

morphology. Radiocarbon dates from

fireplaces in the same layer of this site

yield an approximate date of 1570 AD.

Historic, archeological, and

ethnographic evidence indicates

Northern Shoshone, Northern Paiute,

and Bannock peoples have occupied

this area of southern Idaho since

precontact times based on continuities

of technology and material culture.

In 1985, human remains representing

one individual were removed from site

10EL 1116 by the Elmore County

Coroner and the Elmore County Sheriff’s

Office. No known individual was

identified. No associated funerary

objects are present, although historic

glass beads were present on the surface

of this burial, none are presently in

collections.

This individual has been determined

to be Native American based on the

noted presence of historic glass beads at

the burial site. Historic and

ethnographic evidence indicates only

Paiute and Shoshone tribes have

occupied this area in historic times, and

no non-Paiute/Shoshone precontact

cultures have been identified within

this area of southwestern Idaho.

Based on the above mentioned

information, officials of the Bureau of

Land Management have determined

that, pursuant to 43 CFR 10.2 (d)(1), the

human remains listed above represent

the physical remains of two individuals

of Native American ancestry. Officials of

the Bureau of Land Management have

also determined that, pursuant to 25

U.S.C. 3001 (2), there is a relationship

of shared group identity which can be

reasonably traced between these Native

American human remains and the

Northwest Band of Shoshoni, ShoshonePaiute Tribes of the Duck Valley

Reservation, and the Shoshone-Bannock

Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation.

This notice has been sent to officials

of the Northwest Band of Shoshoni,

Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck

Valley Reservation, and the ShoshoneBannock Tribes of the Fort Hall

Reservation. Representatives of any

other Indian tribe that believes itself to

be culturally affiliated with these

human remains and associated funerary

objects should contact Daniel J.

Hutchinson, State Office Archeologist,

Idaho State Office, Bureau of Land

Management, 1387 South Vinnell Way,

Boise, ID 83709; telephone: (203) 373–

3816, before September 2, 1997.

Repatriation of the human remains to

the Northwest Band of Shoshoni,

Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck

Valley Reservation, and the ShoshoneBannock Tribes of the Fort Hall

Reservation may begin after that date if

no additional claimants come forward.

Dated: July 25, 1997.

Francis P. McManamon,

Departmental Consulting Archeologist,

Manager, Archeology and Ethnography

Program.

[FR Doc. 97–20323 Filed 7-31-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–F

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

United States v. AIG Trading Corp.; BP

Exploration & Oil, Inc.; and Cargill

International, S.A., Civil No. 97CIV5260,

(S.D.N.Y., Filed July 18, 1997)

Notice is hereby given pursuant to the

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act,

15 U.S.C. 16 (b)–(h), that a Stipulation

and Order (‘‘proposed Order’’) and

Competitive Impact Statement have

been filed with the United States

District Court for the Southern District

of New York in the above-captioned

case.

On July 18, 1997, the United States

filed a complaint to enjoin and restrain

the defendants from violating Section 1

of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, as

amended. The complaint alleges that the

defendants and others conspired to

exchange current and prospective

brokerage commission information with

the purpose and effect of lowering

brokerage commissions paid to brokers

in the United States for arranging

certain types of transactions, namely the

purchase and sale of Brent spread

contracts and contracts for differences

(‘‘CFDs’’), involving Brent blend crude

oil, a crude oil produced in the North

Sea. Specifically, the complaint alleges

that, in furtherance of this conspiracy,

the defendants and others

communicated with each other

concerning current and prospective

brokerage commission information on

Brent spread contracts and CFDs and

reduced such commissions. As a result

of the conspiracy, the brokerage

commissions paid to brokers on the

purchase and sale of Brent spread

contracts and CFDs were reduced.

If entered by the Court, the proposed

Order will prohibit each defendant from

agreeing with any other trader,

unrelated to such defendant, to (1) fix,

lower, raise, stabilize or maintain any

brokerage commission for Brent spread

contracts and CFDs or (2) exchange any

information for that purpose. The

proposed Order will also prohibit each

defendant from requesting or advising

any other trader, unrelated to such

defendant, to lower, raise or change any

brokerage commission for Brent spread

contracts and CFDs.

If entered, the proposed Order will

require each defendant firm to designate

an antitrust compliance officer to

instruct traders and company officials

about the requirements of the proposed

Order.

Public comment is invited within the

statutory 60-day period. Such comments

will be published in the Federal
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 148 / Friday, August 1, 1997 / Notices 41415

Register and filed with the Court.

Comments should be addressed to

Ralph T. Giordano, Chief, New York

Office, U.S. Department of Justice,

Antitrust Division, 26 Federal Plaza,

Room 3630, New York, New York 10278

(telephone: (212) 264–0390).

Rebecca P. Dick,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust

Division.

United States District Court for the

Southern District of New York

United States of America, Plaintiff, v. AIG

Trading Corporation; BP Exploration & Oil

Inc.; and Cargill International, S.A.

Defendants.

Stipulation and Order

Whereas, plaintiff, United States of

America, having filed its complaint on

July 18, 1997, and plaintiff and AIG

Trading Corporation, BP Exploration &

Oil, Inc. and Cargill International, S.A.

(‘‘defendants’’), by their respective

attorneys, having agreed to the entry of

this stipulation and order without trial

or adjudication of any issue of fact or

law herein and without this stipulation

and order constituting any evidence

against or an admission by any party

with respect to any such issue;

Now, Therefore, before the taking of

any testimony and without trial or

adjudication of any issue of fact or law

herein,

Plaintiff and defendants hereby agree

as follows:

I Jurisdiction and Venue

This Court has jurisdiction over the

subject matter of this action and over

each of the parties consenting hereto.

Venue is proper in the Southern District

of New York.

II Definitions

As used in this stipulation and order:

A. Brent contract means a commercial

transaction (i) calling for the delivery

FOB at Sullom Voe, United Kingdom, of

Brent blend crude oil, a crude oil

produced in the North Sea, in cargo lots

of 500,000 barrels (plus or minus a 5%

operational tolerance at the buyer’s

option) on an unspecified day in a given

month forward; (ii) where the seller is

obligated to give notice, by 1700 hours

London time, not less than fifteen (15)

days prior to the first loading day, of a

three day loading range within which

the buyer must take delivery; (iii) at a

price fixed at the time of that contract;

(iv) with payment within thirty (30)

days of the bill of lading date; and (v)

the contract is governed by English law,

with jurisdiction over disputes in the

English courts, or should any of these

terms be changed or amended, any

successor contract for a future purchase

of Brent blend crude oil.

B. Brent spread contract means a

commercial transaction in which there

is simultaneous: (i) Purchase of a Brent

contract for a given month forward; and

(ii) sale of a Brent contract for a different

month forward.

C. CFD means a commercial

transaction involving the purchase of an

instrument (a ‘‘Contract for

Differences’’) the price of which is

determined by the difference between:

(i) The published price of a cargo of

Brent blend crude oil already loaded or

available to be loaded on a specified day

(‘‘dated Brent’’) and, (ii) the published

price of a cargo of Brent blend crude oil

available to be loaded on an unspecified

day of the first month forward. The

‘‘published prices’’ referred to are those

reported presently in Platt’s Oilgram

Price Report.

D. Broker means any person, other

than a trader, who is regularly engaged

in the business of providing, for

remuneration, the service of locating

buyers for prospective sellers, or sellers

for prospective buyers, of Brent spread

contracts or CFDs.

E. Brokerage commission means the

amount of remuneration paid to a broker

for arranging the purchase and sale of

Brent spread contracts or CFDs by other

persons.

F. Person means any individual,

corporation, partnership, company, sole

proprietorship, firm or other legal

entity.

G. Trader means any person who, in

the ordinary course of its business,

purchases or sells Brent spread

contracts or CFDs.

H. Any means one or more.

I. Or means and/or.

III Applicability

This stipulation and order applies to

each defendant; to each of its executive

officers, directors, successors and

assigns, during the respective periods

that they serve as such; and to any

agents and employees assigned to

purchase or sell any Brent spread

contracts or CFDs or assigned to

supervise the purchases and sale of such

contracts.

IV Prohibited Conduct

Each defendant shall not, directly or

indirectly:

(A) Agree with any other trader

unrelated to such defendant to (1) fix,

lower, raise, stabilize or maintain any

brokerage commission for Brent spread

contracts and CFDs or (2) exchange any

information for that purpose; and

(B) Request or advise any other trader

unrelated to such defendant to lower,

raise or change any brokerage

commission for Brent spread contracts

and CFDs to be paid by it.

V Limiting Conditions

A. Notwithstanding the provisions of

Section IV, any defendant shall be

entitled to:

(1) Engage in any communication or

other contract with any trader when

such action is taken: (a) To propose,

negotiate, agree to, modify, execute or

cancel a purchase of sale of a Brent

spread contract and CFD with such

trader as counter party or co-venturer; or

(b) to allocate between the defendant

and such trader responsibility for

payment or negotiation of brokerage

commissions relating to such purchase

or sale.

(2) Engage in any communication or

other contact with a broker when such

action is taken: (a) To propose,

negotiate, agree to, modify, execute or

cancel a purchase or a sale of a Brent

spread contract(s) or CFD(s) concerning

which such broker may or will receive

a brokerage commission; or (b) propose,

negotiate, agree to, or modify a

brokerage commission or commissions.

(3) Engage in any activity concerning

the payment of a brokerage commission

that is required or authorized by the

constitution, bylaws, rules, regulations,

resolutions or laws governing any

market, whether now existing or

hereafter established, which is or may

become subject to the jurisdiction of

either: (a) The Commodity Futures

Trading Commission; or (b) any

government agency or self regulatory

organization whose responsibilities,

pursuant to the laws of the United

States of America, include authority

with respect to the purchase and sale of

Brent contracts, Brent spread contracts,

or CFDs.

(4) Engage in any activity concerning

the payment of a brokerage commission

to any broker located in a foreign

country that is required or authorized by

the constitution, bylaws, rules,

regulations, resolutions or laws

governing any market, whether now

existing or heretofore established,

subject to the jurisdiction of either: (a)

The International Petroleum Exchange

or (b) any government agency or self

regulatory organization whose

responsibilities, pursuant to the laws of

any foreign country, include authority

with respect to the purchase or sale of

Brent contracts, Brent spread contracts,

or CFDs.

(5) Engage in any activity concerning

the payment of a brokerage commission

to any broker located in the United

States that is required or authorized by

the constitution, bylaws, rules,
41416 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 148 / Friday, August 1, 1997 / Notices

regulations or laws governing any

market, whether now or hereafter

established, subject to the jurisdiction of

either (a) the International Petroleum

Exchange or (b) any government agency

or self-regulatory organization whose

responsibilities pursuant to the laws of

any foreign country include authority

with respect to the purchase or sale of

Brent contracts, Brent spread contracts

or CFDs, provided that, if the activity is

otherwise prohibited by Section IV, the

plaintiff has not objected to such

proposed activity within sixty (60) days

following written notice to the New

York Office of the Antitrust Division of

the United States Department of Justice

by a defendant of an intention to engage

in such activity.

B. Nothing in this stipulation and

order shall prohibit defendants from

engaging in any activity lawful under

the Foreign Trade Antitrust

Improvements Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6a.

C. No finding of any violation of this

stipulation and order may be made

based solely on parallel conduct.

VI Compliance Program

In order to ensure compliance with

the provisions of Section IV of the

stipulation and order:

(A) Each defendant shall maintain an

antitrust compliance program which

shall include designating, within sixty

(60) days of entry of this stipulation and

order, an Antitrust Compliance Officer

with responsibility for implementing

the antitrust compliance program and

achieving full compliance with this

stipulation and order. The Antitrust

Compliance Officer shall, on a

continuing basis, supervise the review

of the current and proposed activities of

his or her defendant company to ensure

that it complies with this stipulation

and order.

(B) The Antitrust Compliance Officer

shall, on a continuing basis, be

responsible for the following:

(1) Distributing, within thirty (30)

days from the effective date hereof, a

copy of this stipulation and order to

each of the officers and employees of

the defendant whose duties or

responsibilities include determining,

changing, proposing, approving,

disapproving or implementing any

brokerage commission.

(2) Distributing in a timely manner a

copy of this stipulation and order to any

officer or employee who succeeds to a

position described in Section VI(B)(1).

(3) Briefing annually those persons

who shall then have the duties

identified in Section VI(B)(1) or (2) on

the meaning and requirements of this

stipulation and order and of the

antitrust laws, and advising them that

the defendant’s legal advisors are

available to confer with them regarding

compliance with both the stipulation

and order and the antitrust laws.

(4) Obtaining from each person who

shall then have the duties identified in

Section VI (1) or (2), an annual written

certification that he or she: (i) Has read,

understands, and agrees to abide by the

terms of this stipulation and order; (ii)

is not aware of any violation of this

stipulation and order that has not been

reported to the Antitrust Compliance

Officer; and (iii) has been advised and

understands that his or her failure to

comply with this stipulation and order

may result in an enforcement action for

civil or criminal contempt of court

against the defendant or any other

person who violates this stipulation and

order.

(5) Maintaining (i) a record of all

certifications received pursuant to

Section VI(B)(4); (ii) a file of all

documents in existence at the

commencement of and related to any

investigation by the Antitrust

Compliance Officer of any alleged

violation of this stipulation and order;

and (iii) a record of all non-privileged

communications generated after the

commencement of any such

investigation and related to any such

alleged violation, which shall identify

the date and place of the

communication, the persons involved,

the subject matter of the

communication, and the results of any

related investigation.

(C) If a defendant’s Antitrust

Compliance Officer learns of any

violations of any of the terms and

conditions contained in this stipulation

and order that defendant shall

immediately take appropriate action to

terminate or modify the activity so as to

comply with this stipulation and order.

VII Certification

A. Within seventy-five (75) days after

the entry of this stipulation and order,

each defendant shall certify to the

plaintiff whether it has designated an

Antitrust Compliance Officer and has

distributed the stipulation and order in

accordance with Section VI(B) above.

B. For five (5) years after the entry of

this stipulation and order, on or before

its anniversary date, each defendant

shall file with the plaintiff an annual

statement as to the fact and manner of

its compliance with the provisions of

Section VI.

VIII Plaintiff Access

A. For the sole purpose of

determining or securing compliance

with this stipulation and order, and

subject to any legally recognized

privilege or work product protection,

from time to time duly authorized

representatives of the Department of

Justice shall, upon written request of the

Attorney General or of the Assistant

Attorney General in charge of the

Antitrust Division, and on reasonable

notice to any defendant at its principal

office, be permitted:

(1) Access during office hours of such

defendant, which may have counsel

present, to inspect and copy (or to

require the defendants to produce

copies of) all records, documents, and

tape recordings in the possession or

under the control of such defendant,

and which relate to compliance with

this stipulation and order; and

(2) Subject to the reasonable

convenience of such defendant and

without restraint or interference from

the defendant, to interview officers,

employees, or agents of such defendant,

each of whom may have counsel

present, regarding compliance with this

stipulation and order.

B. Upon the written request of the

Attorney General or the Assistant

Attorney General in charge of the

Antitrust Division made to any

defendant, such defendant shall prepare

and submit such written reports, under

oath if requested, relating to defendant’s

compliance with this stipulation and

order as may be requested.

C. No information, tape recordings, or

documents obtained by the means

provided in Sections VI, VII, and VIII

shall be divulged by plaintiff to any

person other than a duly authorized

representative of the Executive Branch

of the United States, except in the

course of legal proceedings to which the

United States is a party, or for the

purpose of securing compliance with

this stipulation and order, or as

otherwise required by law.

D. If at the time information, tape

recordings, or documents are furnished

by any defendant to plaintiff, such

defendant represents and identifies in

writing the material in any such

information or documents to which a

claim of protection may be asserted

under Rule 26(c)(7) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure and said defendant

marks each page of such material,

‘‘Subject to Claims of Protection under

Rule 26(c)(7) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure,’’ then plaintiff shall

give ten (10) business days notice to

such defendant at its Office of General

Counsel prior to divulging such material

in any legal proceeding (other than a

grand jury proceeding) to which that

defendant is not a party.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 148 / Friday, August 1, 1997 / Notices 41417

IX Rescission by Plaintiff

The parties agree that the Court may

enter this stipulation and order, upon

motion of any party or upon the Court’s

own motion, at any time after

compliance with the requirements of the

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act,

15 U.S.C. § 16, and without further

notice to any party or other proceedings,

provided that the plaintiff has not

notified the parties and the Court that it

wishes to rescind its agreement to entry

of the stipulation and order. Plaintiff

may rescind its agreement to entry of

the stipulation and order at any time

before entry of the stipulation and order

by the Court by serving notice thereof

on the defendants and by filing that

notice with the Court. In the event

plaintiff rescinds its agreement to entry

of the stipulation and order, the

stipulation and order shall be of no

effect whatever, and the agreement

among the parties shall be without

prejudice to any party in this or any

other proceeding.

X Jurisdiction Retained

Jurisdiction shall be retained by the

Court to enable any of the parties to this

stipulation and order to apply at any

time for such further orders and

directions as may be necessary or

appropriate for the construction or

implementation of this stipulation and

order, for the enforcement or

modification of any of its provisions, or

for punishment by contempt.

XI Expiration of Stipulation and Order

This stipulation and order shall

expire ten (10) years from its date of

entry by the Court.

For Plaintiff United States of America:

Joel I. Klein (JK–3481),

Acting Assistant Attorney General.

A. Douglas Melamed (AM–4601),

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General.

Rebecca P. Dick (RD–5481),

Deputy Director of Operations.

Ralph T. Giordano (RG–0114),

Chief, New York Office.

Philip F. Cody (PC–3521)

John J. Greene (JG–8281)

Edward Friedman (EF–0245)

John W. McReynolds (JM–0441)

Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice,

Antitrust Division, 26 Federal Plaza, Room

3630, New York, New York 10278, (212) 264–

0390.

For Defendants.

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison,

Daniel J. Beller (DB–7312),

1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York,

New York 10019–6064, Tel: (212) 373–3000.

Attorneys for AIG Trading Corporation,

Sullivan & Cromwell,

Garrard R. Beeney (GB–1345),

125 Broad Street, New York, New York 10004–

2498, Tel: (212) 558–4000,

Attorneys for BP Exploration & Oil Inc.

Howrey & Simon

Margaret H. Fitzsimmons (MF–3327)

1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20004, Tel: (202) 783–0800,

Attorneys for Cargill International, S.A.

Order of the Court

The Court having reviewed the

Complaint and other filings by the

United States, having found that this

Court has jurisdiction over the parties to

this stipulation and order, having heard

and considered the respective positions

of the United States and the defendants

[at a hearing on lllll] and having

concluded that entry of this stipulation

and order is in the public interest, it is

hereby Ordered:

That the parties comply with the

terms of this stipulation and order;

That the Complaint of the United

States is dismissed with prejudice;

That the Court retains jurisdiction to

enable any of the parties to this

stipulation and order to apply to the

Court at any time for such further orders

and directions as may be necessary or

appropriate for the construction or

implementation of this stipulation and

order, for the enforcement or

modification of any of its provisions, or

for punishment by contempt.

So ordered this lll day of lllll,

1997.

lllllllllllllllllllll

United States District Court Judge.

United States District Court for the

Southern District of New York

United States of America, Plaintiff, v. AIG

Trading Corporation; BP Exploration & Oil

Inc.; and Cargill International, S.A.

Defendants.

Competitive Impact Statement

The United States of America,

pursuant to Section 2 of the Antitrust

Procedures and Penalties Act (APPA),

15 U.S.C. § 16(b), submits this

Competitive Impact Statement in

connection with the proposed

Stipulation and Order submitted for

entry with the consent of defendants in

this civil antitrust proceeding.

I Nature and Purpose of the

Proceedings

On July 18, 1997 the United States

filed a civil antitrust complaint under

Section 4 of the Sherman Act, as

amended, 15 U.S.C. § 4, alleging that the

defendants engaged in a combination

and conspiracy, in violation of Section

1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, to

exchange current and prospective

brokerage commission information with

the purpose and effect of lowering

commissions paid to brokers located in

the United States for arranging certain

types of transactions, namely the

purchase and sale of Brent spread

contracts and contracts for differences

(CFDs), involving Brent blend crude oil,

a crude oil produced in the North Sea.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that,

in furtherance of this conspiracy, the

defendants and others:

(a) Communicated with each other

regarding current and prospective

brokerage commissions; and

(b) Reduced brokerage commissions.

On July 18, 1997, the United States

and the defendants also filed a proposed

Stipulation and Order (‘‘proposed

Order’’) to resolve the allegations in the

complaint. The proposed Order will

prevent each of the defendants from

agreeing with other traders to (1) fix,

lower, raise, stabilize or maintain any

commission to be paid to a broker for

arranging the purchase and sale of Brent

time spreads or CFDs or (2) exchange

any information for that purpose, and

from requesting or urging any other

trader to lower, raise or change any such

commission to be paid by it.

The United States and the defendants

have agreed that the Court may enter the

proposed Order after compliance with

the APPA, unless the United States

withdraws its consent (Section IX of the

proposed Order). The proposed Order

provides (as is standard in the

Department’s settlements) that it shall

not constitute evidence against or an
41418 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 148 / Friday, August 1, 1997 / Notices

admission by any party with respect to

any issue of fact or law.

Entry of the proposed Order will

terminate this civil action as to the

defendants, except that the Court will

retain jurisdiction for further

proceedings that may be required to

enforce or modify the order entered, or

to punish violations of any of its

provisions by contempt.

II Description of Practices Giving Rise

to the Alleged Violation of the Antitrust

Laws

Each of the defendants acted as a

trader of Brent spread contracts and

CFDs. Traders, including the

defendants, regularly employed the

services of brokers in connection with

the purchase and sale of Brent spread

contracts and CFDs. The brokerage

commission paid by traders to brokers

in connection with such purchases and

sales is usually expressed in terms of an

amount per barrel purchased and sold.

In connection with Brent spread

contracts and CFDs, a broker was

usually paid a full brokerage

commission by each party to the

transaction.

Beginning at least as early as July

1992, representatives of the defendants

agreed with one another and other

traders during various telephone

conversations and in person in Europe

and the United States to exchange

current and prospective brokerage

commission information on

commissions paid to brokers, including

brokers located in the United States, for

arranging the purchase and sale of Brent

spreads and CFDs. The purpose of these

exchanges was to facilitate a reduction

in the amount of commissions paid, and

as a direct result of this agreement,

defendants and other traders were able

to reduce such commissions in July and

August 1992.

III Explanation of the Proposed

Stipulation and Order

Format. The settlement of this civil

action is in the form of a Stipulation and

Order rather than a Final Judgment to

ameliorate the likelihood that the

settlement of this action will trigger (1)

the institution of regulatory proceedings

involving or (2) the imposition of

regulatory sanctions against defendant

AIG Trading Corporation (AIG Trading),

its corporate parent and subsidiaries of

the corporate parent in connection with

various regulated businesses unrelated

to the subject matter of this action.

Defendant AIG Trading is a subsidiary

of AIG Trading Group Inc. (Trading

Group) which is a subsidiary of

American International Group, Inc.

(AIG). AIG and it subsidiaries comprise

a large, diversified financial service

organization operating in 130 countries

and jurisdictions. They are engaged in

the businesses of insurance, money

management, financial risk

management, mutual fund advisory

services and operation, and trading in

the foreign exchange, interest rate,

precious and base metals and crude oil

and natural gas markets. In 1994, AIG

and its consolidated subsidiaries

generated revenues of over $22 billion.

Because of their involvement in the

highly regulated insurance and

investment businesses, AIG and its

subsidiaries are subject to supervision

and review by the state departments of

insurance in all fifty states, more than

one hundred foreign insurance and bank

regulatory agencies, the Securities and

Exchange Commission (SEC) and

securities regulators in the United States

and various foreign countries as well as

by various self regulatory organizations,

which typically regulate both

membership and the conduct of its

members and their affiliates.

During the period covered by the

Complaint in this action, energy trading

represented about seven percent of

Trading Group’s profit and the purchase

and sale of Brent spread contracts and

CFDs, the subject matter of the

Complaint, represented only a very

small part of all energy-related revenues

and profits. In the case of the parent

corporation, AIG, the purchase and sale

of Brent spread contracts and CFDs by

defendant AIG Trading generated only a

minuscule portion of total AIG

revenues.

The entry of a Final Judgment against

defendant AIG Trading in this case

could, and in some instances would,

trigger further inquiry and investigation

by a host of regulatory entities, both in

the United States and abroad, to

determine whether AIG and its

subsidiaries will be permitted to

continue to engage in various regulated

businesses as they have done in the

past, or whether sanctions are

appropriate.

The triggering of such regulatory

inquiries and investigations and the

imposition of any such sanctions in

connection with their businesses

unrelated to the purchase and sale of

Brent spread contracts and CFDs, would

be burdensome to AIG and its

subsidiaries. In light of the limited

scope of the violation, this result is

unwarranted.

In view of the practices of various

regulatory authorities and the

provisions of certain applicable

regulatory laws and rules, it is believed

that settlement of this action in the form

of a stipulation and order will likely

expose AIG and its subsidiaries to fewer

regulatory inquiries, investigations and

possible sanctions in connection with

businesses unrelated to the subject

matter of this action than would entry

of a Final Judgment containing identical

relief. Accordingly, the proposed Order

in settlement of this action is in the

form of a stipulation and order.

Section X of the proposed Order

provides that its violation may be

punished by contempt.

Prohibited Conduct. The proposed

Order will deter the recurrence of

conduct that violates Section 1 of the

Sherman Act. Specifically, Section IV of

the proposed Order bars each of the

defendants, unless otherwise

specifically permitted, in connection

with the purchase and sale of Brent

spread contracts or CFDs, from:

(A) Agreeing with any other trader to

(1) fix, lower, raise, stabilize or maintain

any brokerage commission or (2)

exchange any information for that

purpose; and

(B) Requesting or urging any other

trader to lower, raise or change any

brokerage commission to be paid by it.

Section V of the proposed Order

contains certain limiting provisions that

clarify the scope of the prohibitions in

Section IV. Section V identifies specific

activities that are not barred by the

proposed Order. Specifically, Section V

(A) provides that each of the defendants

may (1) engage in contacts with any

trader to (a) propose, negotiate or cancel

a purchase or sale of a Brent spread

contract or CFD with such trader as a

counter party or co-venturer or (b) to

allocate between themselves the

responsibility for payment or

negotiation of brokerage commissions

relating to such a purchase or sale; (2)

engage in contracts with a broker in

connection with the purchase or sale of

a Brent spread contact or CFD; (3)

engage in brokerage commission activity

required or authorized by any markets

subject to the jurisdiction of either the

Commodity Futures Trading

Commission or any governmental or self

regulatory organization whose

responsibilities under United States law

includes authority over the purchase

and sale of Brent contracts, Brent spread

contracts or CFDs; or (4) engage in

activity concerning the payment of

brokerage commissions to any broker

located in a foreign country that is

required or authorized by any market

subject to the jurisdiction of either the

International Petroleum Exchange or

any governmental or self regulatory

organization whose responsibilities

under foreign law include authority

over the purchase or sale of Brent

contracts, Brent spread contracts or
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 148 / Friday, August 1, 1997 / Notices 41419

CFDs; and (5) engage in activity

concerning the payment of brokerage

commissions to any broker located in

the United States that is required or

authorized by either the International

Petroleum Exchange or any

governmental or self regulatory

organization whose responsibilities

under foreign law include authority

over the purchase or sale of Brent

contracts, Brent spread contracts or

CFDs, provided that, if the activity is

otherwise prohibited by Section IV of

the Stipulation and Order, the United

States has not objected within sixty (60)

days written notice by a defendant of an

intention to engage in such activity.

Section V(B) provides that nothing in

the Stipulation and Order shall prohibit

the defendants from engaging in activity

lawful under the Foreign Trade

Antitrust Improvements Act, 15 U.S.C.

§ 6a.

Section V(C) provides that no finding

of any violation of the proposed Order

may be made based solely on parallel

conduct.

Sections VI and VII require each

defendant to maintain an antitrust

compliance program to assure

compliance with the proposed Order

and with the federal antitrust laws.

Under the compliance program, an

antitrust compliance officer, to be

appointed by each defendant is required

to distribute copies of the proposed

Order to each of its officers and

employees with duties or

responsibilities that include

determining, changing, proposing,

approving disapproving or

implementing any brokerage

commission paid to a broker for

arranging the purchase or sale of Brent

spread contracts or CFDs; to brief such

personnel annually on the meaning and

requirements of both the antitrust laws

and the proposed Order; and to obtain

from such personnel certifications that

they have read and agree to abide by the

terms of the proposed Order, and that

they have been advised and understand

that a violation of the proposed Order

by them may result in their being found

in civil or criminal contempt of court.

In addition, the proposed Order

provides a method for determining and

securing the defendants’ compliance

with its terms. Section VIII provides

that, upon the request of the Department

of Justice, a defendant shall submit

written reports, under oath, relating to

the defendant’s compliance with the

proposed Order. The Department of

Justice also is permitted to inspect and

copy all books and records, and to

interview officers, employees and agents

of the defendants.

Section XI makes the proposed Order

effective for ten years from the date of

its entry.

The proposed order contains a

proposed finding that entry of the

proposed Order is in the public interest.

Under the provisions of the APPA, entry

of the proposed Order is conditional

upon a determination by the Court that

the proposed Order is in the public

interest.

The United States believes that the

proposed Order is fully adequate to

prevent the recurrence of the violation

of Section 1 of the Sherman Act alleged

in the Complaint, and that the

disposition of this proceeding without

further litigation is appropriate and in

the public interest.

IV Remedies Available to Potential

Private Litigants

Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15

U.S.C. 15, provides that any person who

has been injured as a result of conduct

prohibited by the antitrust laws may

bring suit in federal court to recover

three times the damages suffered, as

well as costs and reasonable attorneys’

fees. Entry of the proposed Order will

neither impair nor assist the bringing of

such actions. Under the provisions of

Section 5(a) of the Clayton Act, 15

U.S.C. 16(a), the proposed Order has no

prima facie effect in any subsequent

lawsuits that may be brought against the

defendants in this case.

V Procedures Available for

Modification of the Proposed Order

As provided by the APPA, any person

believing that the proposed Order

should be modified may submit written

comments to Ralph T. Giordano, Chief,

New York Office, U.S. Department of

Justice, Antitrust Division, 26 Federal

Plaza, Room 3630, New York, New York

10278, within the sixty (60) days period

provided in the Act. These comments,

and the Department’s responses will be

filed with the Court and published in

the Federal Register. All comments will

be given due consideration by the

Department, which remains free to

rescind its agreement to entry of the

proposed Order at any time prior to

actual entry by the Court. The proposed

Order provides that the Court retains

jurisdiction over this action, and the

parties may apply to the Court for any

order necessary or appropriate for

modification, interpretation, or

enforcement of the Order, or for

punishment of any violation thereof by

contempt.

VI Alternative Forms of Relief

Considered

The only alternative to the proposed

Order considered by the United States

was a full trial on the merits and on

relief. Such litigation would involve

substantial cost to the United States and

is not warranted because the proposed

Order provides appropriate relief

against the violations alleged in the

Complaint.

VII Determinative Materials and

Documents

No materials or documents of the type

described in Section 2(b) of the APPA,

15 U.S.C. 16(b), were considered by the

United States in formulating the

proposed Order. However, a letter,

dated June 20, 1997, from plaintiff’s

counsel to counsel for defendant Cargill

International, S.A. acknowledging

Cargill International’s right under

current law to seek relief from the

compliance provisions of Section VIII in

the event it believes a conflict has arisen

between any request for information or

documents under those provisions and

foreign law, was considered

determinative by Cargill International in

agreeing to the proposed Order and is

attached hereto as Exhibit A.

Dated: July 18, 1997.

Respectfully submitted,

Philip F. Cody,

John J. Greene,

Edward Friedman,

John W. McReynolds,

Attorneys, Antitrust Division, United States

Department of Justice, 26 Federal Plaza,

Room 3630, New York, New York 10278, (212)

264–0395.

July 14, 1997.

Margaret H. Fitzsimmons, Esq. Howrey &

Simon,

1299 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington,

DC 20004–2402.

Re: Cargill International, S.A.

Dear Ms. Fitzsimmons: During our

negotiations of a civil settlement in this case,

you suggested the possibility that a conflict

could arise between the plaintiff access

provisions in Section VIII of the proposed

stipulation and order, which authorizes the

Assistant Attorney General to inspect

documents or conduct interviews and to

request written reports, and the law or orders

of foreign governments, which may appear to

prohibit compliance with such provisions. Of

course, we would attempt to work with

Cargill International, S.A. to avoid any such

conflict in exercising our rights under

Section VIII. In the event we could not reach

agreement, Cargill International would be

free to seek relief from the U.S. order court

from its obligations to comply with any

Section VIII request.
41420 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 148 / Friday, August 1, 1997 / Notices

Sincerely yours,

Philip F. Cody,

Assistant Chief.

[FR Doc. 97–20209 Filed 7–31–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Immigration and Naturalization Service

[INS No. 1862–97; AG Order No. 2101–97]

RIN 1115–AE26

Extension of Designation of BosniaHercegovina Under Temporary

Protected Status Program

AGENCY: Immigration and Naturalization

Service, Justice.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice extends, until

August 10, 1998, the Attorney General’s

designation of Bosnia-Hercegovina

under the Temporary Protected Status

(TPS) program provided for in section

244 of the Immigration and Nationality

Act, as amended (Act). Accordingly,

eligible aliens who are nationals of

Bosnia-Hercegovina (or who have no

nationality and who last habitually

resided in Bosnia-Hercegovina) may reregister for TPS and extension of

employment authorization. This reregistration is limited to persons who

registered for the initial period of TPS,

which ended on August 10, 1993.

DATES: This extension of designation is

effective August 11, 1997, and will

remain in effect until August 10, 1998.

The re-registration procedures become

effective August 1, 1997, and will

remain in effect until September 2,

1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ronald Chirlin, Adjudications Officer,

Immigration and Naturalization Service,

Room 3214, 425 I Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20536, telephone (202)

514–5014.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Subsection 308(b)(7) of Pub. L. 104–208

(September 30, 1996) renumbered

section 244A of the Act as section 244.

Under this section, the Attorney General

continues to be authorized to grant TPS

to eligible aliens who are nationals of a

foreign state designated by the Attorney

General (or who have no nationality and

last habitually resided in that state). The

Attorney General may designate a state

upon finding that the state is

experiencing ongoing armed conflict,

environmental disaster, or certain other

extraordinary and temporary conditions

that prevent nationals or residents of the

country from returning in safety.

On August 10, 1992, the Attorney

General designated Bosnia-Hercegovina

for Temporary Protected Status for a

period of 12 months (57 FR 35604). The

Attorney General extended the

designation of Bosnia-Hercegovina

under the TPS program for additional

12-month periods until August 10, 1997

(61 FR 39471).

This notice extends the designation of

Bosnia-Hercegovina under the

Temporary Protected Status program for

an additional 12 months, in accordance

with subsections 244(b)(3) (A) and (C) of

the Act. This notice also describes the

procedures with which eligible aliens

who are nationals of BosniaHercegovina (or who have no

nationality and who last habitually

resided in Bosnia-Hercegovina) must

comply in order to re-register for TPS.

In addition to timely re-registrations

and late re-registrations authorized by

this notice’s extension of BosniaHercegovina’s TPS designation, late

initial registrations are possible for some

Bosnians under 8 CFR 244.2(f)(2). Such

late initial registrants must have been

‘‘continuously physically present’’ in

the United States since August 10, 1992,

must have had a valid immigrant or

non-immigrant status during the

original registration period, and must

register no later than 30 days from the

expiration of such status.

An Application for Employment

Authorization, Form I–765, must always

be filed along with the Application for

Temporary Protected Status, Form I–

821, as part of either a re-registration or

a late initial registration. The

appropriate filing fee must accompany

Form I–756 unless a properly

documented fee waiver request is

submitted to the Immigration and

Naturalization Service or unless the

applicant does not wish to obtain

employment authorization. The

Immigration and Naturalization Service

requires TPS registrants to submit Form

I–765 for data-gathering purposes,

whether or not work authorization is

desired.

Notice of Extension of Designation of

Bosnia-Hercegovina Under the

Temporary Protected Status Program

By the authority vested in me as

Attorney General under section 244 of

the Act (8 U.S.C. 1254), and pursuant to

subsections 244(b)(3)(A) and (C) of the

Act, I had consultations with the

appropriate agencies of the Government

concerning (a) the conditions in BosniaHercegovina; and (b) whether permitting

nationals of Bosnia-Hercegovina (and

aliens having no nationality who last

habitually resided in BosniaHercegovina) to remain temporarily in

the United States is contrary to the

national interest of the United States. As

a result, I determine that the conditions

for the original designation of

Temporary Protected Status for BosniaHercegovina continue to be met.

Accordingly, it is ordered as follows:

(1) The designation of BosniaHercegovina under subsection 244(b) of

the Act is extended for an additional 12-

month period from August 11, 1997, to

August 10, 1998.

(2) I estimate that there are

approximately 400 nationals of BosniaHercegovina (and aliens having no

nationality who last habitually resided

in Bosnia-Hercegovina) who have been

granted Temporary Protected Status and

who are eligible for re-registration.

(3) In order to maintain current

registration for Temporary Protected

Status, a national of Bosnia-Hercegovina

(or an alien having no nationality who

last habitually resided in BosniaHercegovina) who received a grant of

TPS during the initial period of

designation, from August 10, 1992, to

August 10, 1993, must comply with the

re-registration requirements contained

in 8 CFR 244.17, which are described in

pertinent part in paragraphs (4) and (5)

of this notice.

(4) A national of Bosnia-Hercegovina

(or an alien having no nationality who

last habitually resided in BosniaHercegovina) who previously has been

granted TPS, must re-register by filing a

new Application for Temporary

Protected Status, Form I–821, along

with an Application for Employment

Authorization, Form I–765, within the

30-day period beginning on August 1,

1997, and ending on September 2, 1997,

in order to be eligible for Temporary

Protected Status during the period from

August 11, 1997, until August 10, 1998.

Late re-registration applications will be

allowed pursuant to 8 CFR 244.17(c).

(5) There is no fee for Form I–821

filed as part of the re-registration

application. A Form I–765 must be filed

at the same time. If the alien requests

employment authorization for the

extension period, the fee prescribed in

8 CFR 103.7(b)(1), currently seventy

dollars ($70), or a properly documented

fee waiver request pursuant to 8 CFR

244.20, must accompany the Form I–

765. An alien who does not request

employment authorization must

nonetheless file Form I–765 along with

Form I–821, but in such cases no fee

will be charged.

(6) Pursuant to subsection

244(b)(3)(A) of the Act, the Attorney

General will review, at least 60 days

before August 10, 1998, the designation

of Bosnia-Hercegovina under the TPS

program to determine whether the