5894 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Notices

to believe that the transition provisions will

be sufficient to protect any new competitor

that does emerge.

Far from being a reassurance, the CIS is a

warning. The Antitrust Division should

oppose the merger or force a broader

divestiture, and preserve competition.

Thank you very much for your

consideration of our views.

Sincerely,

Jonathan W. Cuneo, The Cuneo Law Group,

P.C., 317 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E.,

Suite 300, Washington, DC 20002

Attorneys for The Paper, Allied-Industrial

Chemical and Energy Workers

International Union

cc: George M. Chester, Esquire, Covington &

Burling, 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue,

Washington, DC 20004

William R. Norfolk, Esquire, Sullivan &

Cromwell, 125 Broad Street, New York, NY

10004.

U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division

January 14, 2000.

Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esquire

The Cuneo Law Group, P.C.

Re: Comment on proposed Final Judgment in

United States v. Imetal, et al., Civil No. 99

1018 (D.D.C., filed April 26, 1999)

Dear Mr. Cuneo:

This letter responds to your August 10,

1999 letter commenting on the proposed

Final Judgment in U.S. v. Imetal, et al., Civil

No. 99–1018 (D.D.C., filed April 26, 1999),

which is currently pending in federal district

court in the District of Columbia. The

Complaint in the case charged that Imetal’s

acquisition of English China Clays (‘‘ECC’’)

would substantially lessen competition in a

number of relevant markets, including in the

manufacture and sale of paper-grade ground

calcium carbonate (‘‘GCC’’) in the

southeastern United States. The proposed

Final Judgment would settle the case by

requiring divestitures in all the relevant

markets alleged. With respect to paper-grade

GCC, the proposed Final Judgment requires

that Imetal divest its interest in the limited

partnership through which it participates in

that market, and also divest substantial

reserves for the use of that entity.

In your letter, you expressed concern that

the proposed Final Judgment did not go far

enough to eliminate the effects of Imetal’s

acquisition of ECC in the market for papergrade GCC in the southeastern United States.

Specifically, you characterize the mandated

divestiture as requiring Imetal to ‘‘spin off

certain assets in the hope that another firm

will have sufficient economic incentives to

enter the market,’’ and resulting in ‘‘the

replacement of two existing competitors with

a single more powerful competitor—and a

competitor to be created.’’

I disagree with your characterization of the

market structure that would result from the

proposed Final Judgment, and thus with the

fundamental premise of your comments.

Before Imetal announced its plans to acquire

ECC, there were two competitors in the

manufacture and sale of paper-grade GCC in

the southeastern United States: ECC and

Alabama Carbonates. After Imetal’s

acquisition of ECC, there are still the same

two viable competitors in this market. The

competitive issue arose because Imetal had a

50% interest in ECC’s only competitor,

Alabama Carbonates. The proposed Final

Judgment, by requiring Imetal to divest its

interest in Alabama Carbonates, ensure that

the two competitors that existed before the

acquisition will continue to exist as

competitors after the acquisition. Alabama

Carbonates does not need to ‘‘enter the

market’’, it is already in the market. The

remedy provided for in the proposed Final

Judgment means that Imetal’s acquisition of

ECC results in no change in the number of

firms selling paper-grade GCC in the

southeastern United States, no change in

concentration, and no change in the HHI for

that market.

As you are aware, Alabama Carbonates has

historically competed in this market by

contracting for its raw materials. Since its

inception, it has purchased the feedstock for

its wet-processing operations from its joint

venturer, Georgia Marble (Imetal). With

Imetal’s acquisition of ECC, however, if

Alabama Carbonates were to continue this

arrangement, it would be dependent on its

only competitor for its source of supply. The

proposed Final Judgment requires Imetal to

continue to provide feedstock for the

Alabama Carbonates operation, if requested,

for up to three years, to permit Alabama

Carbonates a reasonable amount of time in

which to become independent of Imetal. In

addition, recognizing that the company might

well decide that the optimum way to achieve

that independence is through vertical

integration, and that a lack of adequate

reserves would be a substantial barrier to

such integration, the proposed Final

Judgment also requires that Imetal divest

substantial reserves of GCC for use by

Alabama Carbonates.

Specifically, the proposed Final Judgment

requires that Imetal divest sufficient reserves

so that Alabama Carbonates will have enough

feedstock to make 500,000 tons a year of GCC

for thirty years. The United States specified

this quantity of reserves in the proposed

Final Judgment because we concluded, based

on our investigation, that 500,000 tons was

an efficient scale for a dry processing plant,

and that a business would need to be assured

a 30-year supply of reserves in order to

justify the investment required to build a dry

processing plant. This provision is not

intended to limit Alabama Carbonates to

competing at its current capacity—rather, it

provides the reserves for the company to

operate efficiently far into the future.

Moreover, there is nothing in the decree that

limits in any way the company’s ability to

expand its operations, including seeking

additional reserves.

The United States strongly believes that the

divestitures in the proposed Final Judgment

relating to paper-grade GCC and other

injunctive relief will alleviate the

competitive concerns alleged in the

Complaint. The divestiture of Imetal’s

interest in the Alabama Carbonates joint

venture and the reserves needed to build a

viable dry processing plant ensures that there

will be no reduction in the pre-acquisition

competition. The two competitors that

existed before the acquisition will continue

to exist. The requirement that Imetal divest

reserves eliminates what could have been a

substantial barrier to Alabama Carbonates’

continuing to compete without being

dependent on Imetal for feedstock for its

operations. And finally, the transition

agreement assures that Alabama Carbonates

will be able to continue as a competitor in

the short term while it takes the steps

necessary to eliminate its historical

dependence on Imetal. The term of that

transition agreement was set based on the

United States’ conclusion, from its

investigation, that three years would be

sufficient for the joint venture to make the

transition to independence. The proposed

Final Judgment does provide a mechanism

for extending that term, however, if this

assumption proves incorrect. In addition, the

requirement that the terms of the transition

agreement be substantially similar to the

supply agreement that existed before the

acquisition, and subject to approval by the

United States, should provide sufficient

protection against the kinds of conduct that

you have expressed concern about.

Thank you for bringing your concerns to

our attention. I trust you appreciate that we

have given them due consideration, and hope

this response will help alleviate them.

Pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and

Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. § 16(d), a copy of

your comment and this response will be

published in the Federal Register and filed

with the Court.

Sincerely yours,

J. Robert Kramer II, Chief, Litigation II

Section

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that I caused a copy of the

foregoing United States’ Response to

Comment Filed by the Paper, AlliedIndustrial, Chemical and Energy Workers

International Union (‘‘PACE’’) to be served by

first class mail, postage prepaid, this 14th

day of January, 2000, on:

George M. Chester, Jr., Esquire, Covington &

Burling, 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20004–7566, Counsel for

All Defendants

Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esquire, The Cuneo Law

Group, P.C., 317 Massachusetts Avenue,

N.E., Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20002,

Counsel for PACE

Patricia G. Chick, D.C. Bar #266403, Trial

Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice,

Antitrust Division, 1401 H Street, N.W.,

Suite 3000, Washington, D.C. 20530, (202)

307–0946.

[FR Doc. 00–2703 Filed 2–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of the Secretary

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

January 28, 2000.

The Department of Labor (DOL) has

submitted the following public

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Notices 5895

information collection requests (ICRs) to

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for review and approval in

accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13,

44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). A copy of each

individual ICR, with applicable

supporting documentation, may be

obtained by calling the Department of

Labor. To obtain documentation for

BLS, ETA, PWBA, and OASAM contact

Karin Kurz ((202) 219–5096 ext. 159 or

by E-mail to Kurz-Karin@dol.gov). To

obtain documentation for ESA, MSHA,

OSHA, and VETS contact Darrin King

((202) 219–5096 ext. 151 or by E-Mail to

King-Darrin@dol.gov).

Comments should be sent to Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Attn: OMB Desk Officer for BLS, DM,

ESA, ETA, MSHA, OSHA, PWBA, or

VETS, Office of Management and

Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC

20503 ((202) 395–7316), within 30 days

from the date of this publication in the

Federal Register.

The OMB is particularly interested in

comments which:

• Evaluate whether the proposed

collection of information is necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of the agency, including

whether the information will have

practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

proposed collection of information,

including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions used;

• Enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and

• Minimize the burden of the

collection of information on those who

are to respond, including through the

use of appropriate automated,

electronic, mechanical, or other

technological collection techniques or

other forms of information technology,

e.g., permitting electronic submission of

responses.

Agency: Occupational Safety and

Health Administration (OSHA); Labor.

Title: The 13 Carcinogens Standard.

OMB Number: 1218–0085.

Frequency: On occasion.

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit; Federal Government; State, Local

or Tribal Government.

Number of Respondents: 97.

Estimated Time Per respondent: Time

per response ranges from approximately

5 minutes (for employers to maintain

records) to 5 hours (for employers to

develop emergency/incident reports).

Total Burden Hours: 2,798.

Total Annualized capital/startup

costs: $0.

Total annual costs (operating/

maintaining systems or purchasing

services): $86,226.

Description: The 13 Carcinogens

Standard requires employers to develop

signs and labels to warn employees

about the hazards associated with the 13

carcinogens. Also, employers must

notify OSHA Area Directors of new

regulated areas, changes to regulated

areas, and incidents that occur in

regulated areas. Employers must

establish and implement a medical

surveillance program for employees

assigned to enter regulated areas. This

program must inform employees of their

medical examination results and

provide them with access to their

medical records. In addition, employers

must retain employee medical records

for specified time periods and provide

these records to the National Institute

for Occupational Safety and Health

under certain circumstances.

Ira L. Mills,

Departmental Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 00–2644 Filed 2–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–26–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of the Secretary

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

January 28, 2000.

The Department of Labor (DOL) has

submitted the following public

information collection requests (ICRs) to

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for review and approval in

accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13,

44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). A copy of each

individual ICR, with applicable

supporting documentation, may be

obtained by calling the Department of

Labor. To obtain documentation for

BLS, ETA, PWBA, and OASAM contact

Karin Kurz ((202) 219–5096 ext. 159 or

by E-mail to Kurz-Karin@dol.gov). To

obtain documentation for ESA, MSHA,

OSHA, and VETS contact Darrin King

((202) 219–5096 ext. 151 or by E-Mail to

King-Darrin@dol.gov).

Comments should be sent to Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Attn: OMB Desk Officer for BLS, DM,

ESA, ETA, MSHA, OSHA, PWBA, or

VETS, Office of Management and

Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC

20503 ((202) 395–7316), within 30 days

from the date of this publication in the

Federal Register.

The OMB is particularly interested in

comments which:

• Evaluate whether the proposed

collection of information is necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of the agency, including

whether the information will have

practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

proposed collection of information,

including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions used;

• Enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and

• Minimize the burden of the

collection of information on those who

are to respond, including through the

use of appropriate automated,

electronic, mechanical, or other

technological collection techniques or

other forms of information technology,

e.g., permitting electronic submission of

responses.

Type of Review: New.

Agency: Employment and Training

Administration.

Title: Revising Quarterly Contribution

and Wage Reports to Accommodate

Expanded Name Fields and Additional

Labor Market Information.

OMB Number: 1205–0New.

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal

Government.

Frequency: One-time.

Number of Respondents: 53.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 100

Hours.

Total Burden Hours: 5,300.

Total Annualized capital/startup

costs: $0.

Total annual costs (operating/

maintaining systems or purchasing

services): $0.

Description: The information

collected with this survey is necessary

to assess the burden employers and

SESAs would experience if the quarterly

contribution and wage reports filed by

employers and processed by SESAs

were revised to accommodate full

names and additional labor market

information (LMI). The full name fields

are necessary to enhance the efficiency

of the National Directory of New Hires

database in locating the employment of

individuals who are not meeting their

parental responsibilities. The additional

LMI data are needed to improve the

ability to accurately assess the value of

various Workforce Investment Act

vocational training programs and to

enrich the pool of LMI data available.

Type of Review: Reinstatement, with

change, of a previously approved

collection for which approval has

expired.

Agency: Employment and Training

Administration.