15938 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 64 / Thursday, April 3, 1997 / Notices

4Bechtel, 648 F.2d at 666 (citations omitted)

(emphasis added); see BNS, 858 F.2d at 463; United

States v. National Broadcasting Co., 449 F. Supp.

1127, 1143 (C.D. Cal. 1978); Gillette, 406 F. Supp.

at 716. See also Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 (whether

‘‘the remedies [obtained in the decree are] so

inconsonant with the allegations charged as to fall

outside of the ‘reaches of the public interest’ ’’)

(citations omitted).

5United States v. American Tel. and Tel Co., 552

F. Supp. 131, 151 (D.D.C. 1982), aff’d sub nom.

Maryland v. United States, 460 U.S. 1001 (1983),

quoting Gillette Co., 406 F. Supp. at 716 (citations

omitted); United States v. Alcan Aluminum, Ltd.,

605 F. Supp. 619, 622 (W.D. Ky. 1985).

determine not whether a particular decree is

the one that will best serve society, but

whether the settlement is ‘‘within the reaches

of the public interest.’’ More elaborate

requirements might undermine the

effectiveness of antitrust enforcement by

consent decree.4

The proposed Final Judgment,

therefore, should not be reviewed under

a standard of whether it is certain to

eliminate every anticompetitive effect of

a particular practice or whether it

mandates certainty of free competition

in the future. Court approval of a final

judgment requires a standard more

flexible and less strict than the standard

required for a finding of liability. ‘‘[A]

proposed decree must be approved even

if it falls short of the remedy the court

would impose on its own, as long as it

falls within the range of acceptability or

is ‘within the reaches of public

interest.’ ’’ 5

This is strong and effective relief that

should fully address the competitive

harm posed by the proposed

transactions.

VIII. Determinative Documents

There are no determinative materials

or documents within the meaning of the

APPA that were considered by the

plaintiff in formulating the proposed

Final Judgment.

Respectfully submitted,

Dando B. Cellini,

Merger Task Force, U.S. Department of

Justice, Antitrust Division, 1401 H Street,

N.W.; Suite 4000, Washington, D.C. 20530,

(202) 307–0829.

Dated: March 20, 1997.

Exhibit A—Definition of HHI and

Calculations for Market

‘‘HHI’’ means the HerfindahlHirschman Index, a commonly accepted

measure of market concentration. It is

calculated by squaring the market share

of each firm competing in the market

and then summing the resulting

numbers. For example, for a market

consisting of four firms with shares of

thirty, thirty, twenty and twenty

percent, the HHI is 2600 (302 + 302 + 202

+ 202 = 2600). The HHI takes into

account the relative size and

distribution of the firms in a market and

approaches zero when a market consists

of a large number of firms of relatively

equal size. The HHI increases both as

the number of firms in the market

increases and as the disparity in size

between those firms increases.

Markets in which the HHI is between

1000 and 1800 points are considered to

be moderately concentrated, and those

in which the HHI is in excess of 1800

points are considered to be

concentrated. Transactions that increase

the HHI by more than 100 points in

concentrated markets presumptively

raise antitrust concerns under the

Merger Guidelines. See Merger

Guidelines § 1.51.

Certificate of Service

I, Dando B. Cellini, hereby certify

that, on March 20, 1997, I caused the

foregoing document to be served on

defendants EZ Communications, Inc.

and Evergreen Media Corporation by

having a copy mailed, first-class,

postage prepaid, to:

Ray V. Hartwell, III,

Andrew J. Strenio, Jr.,

Hunton & Williams,

1900 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006–

1109, (202) 955–1639, Counsel for EZ

Communications, Inc.

Bruce J. Prager,

Latham & Watkins,

885 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022–

4802, (212) 906–1272, Counsel for Evergreen

Media Corporation.

Dando B. Celini.

[FR Doc. 97–8460 Filed 4–2–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M

United States v. Western Pine

Association, et al.

Notice is hereby given that defendant

Western Wood Products Association

(‘‘WWPA’’) has filed with the United

States District Court for the Central

District of California a motion to

terminate the Consent Decree in United

States v. Western Pine Ass’n, et al., Civil

Action No. 41–1389 RJ, and that the

Department of Justice (‘‘Department’’),

in a stipulation and order also filed with

the Court, has tentatively consented to

termination of the Consent Decree but

has reserved the right to withdraw its

consent pending receipt of public

comments. The complaint in this case

(filed February 6, 1941) alleged that the

Western Pine Association (‘‘WPA’’) and

its lumber company members had

curtailed output, fixed prices, and

enforced arbitrary and unreasonable

rules and policies for standardization

and distribution of western pine lumber.

On February 6, 1941, a Consent

Decree was entered against the WPA

and its members which (1) required

WPA to make its grading services

available to both members and

nonmembers alike without

discrimination and at the actual cost of

the services rendered and (2) contained

various injunctive provisions relating to

the conduct of the WPA and its

members. Specifically, the Consent

Decree enjoined the defendants from (1)

assigning to manufacturers a maximum

production figures; (2) allocating

business; (3) fixing prices, discounts or

commissions; (4) disseminating

information concerning production,

sales, or prices; (5) refusing to quote

f.o.b.; and (6) restricting the sale of

lumber to any particular class of

customers.

The Department has lodged with the

court a memorandum setting forth the

reasons why the Government believes

that termination of the Consent Decree

would serve the public interest. Copies

of WWPA’s motion papers, the

stipulation containing the Government’s

consent, the Government’s

memorandum and all further papers

filed or lodged with the court in

connection with this motion will be

available for inspection at the Legal

Procedure Unit of the Antitrust

Division, Room 215 North, Liberty

Place, Washington, D.C. 20530, and at

the Office of the Clerk of the United

States District Court for the Central

District of California 90012. Copies of

any of these materials may be obtained

from the Antitrust Division upon

request and payment of the copying fee

set by Department of Justice regulations.

Interested persons may submit

comments regarding the proposed

termination of the decree to the

Government. Such comments must be

received by the Division with sixty (60)

days and will be filled with the court by

the Government. Comments should be

addressed to Christopher S. Crook,

Acting Chief, San Francisco Office,

Antitrust Division, Department of

Justice, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box

36046, San Francisco, California 91402

(Telephone: (415) 436–6660).

Rebecca P. Dick,

Deputy Director of Operations.

[FR Doc. 97–8533 Filed 4–2–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M

Notice Pursuant to the National

Cooperative Research and Production

Act of 1993; The Asymetrical Digital

Subscriber Line Forum

Notice is hereby given that, on

November 5, 1996, pursuant to Section
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 64 / Thursday, April 3, 1997 / Notices 15939

6(a) of the National Cooperative

Research and Production Act of 1993,

15 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), The

Asymetrical Digital Subscriber Line

Forum (‘‘ADSL’’) has filed written

notifications simultaneously with the

Attorney General and the Federal Trade

Commission disclosing changes in its

membership. The notifications were

filed for the purpose of extending the

Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of

antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages

under specified circumstances.

Specifically, the following companies

have joined ADSL: 3Com, San Diego,

CA; AG Communication Systems,

Phoenix, AZ; Amati Communications,

San Jose, CA; Ariel Corporation,

Cranberry, NJ; AT&T Laboratories,

Holmedel, NJ; BellSouth, Atlanta, GA;

Cascade Communications, Westford,

MA; Cisco Systems, San Jose, CA; DTI,

London, UNITED KINGDOM; ECI

Telecom, Inc., Altamonte Springs, FL;

France Telecom, Lannion, FRANCE;

Global Village Communications,

Sunnyvale, CA; GlobeSpan

Technologies, Largo, FL; and Vertel, El

Segundo, CA.

ADC Fibermux has changed its name

to ADC Telecommunications; AT&T

Paradyne has changed its name to

Paradyne; and Ericsson Schrack has

changed its name to Ericsson Austria.

GTE Labs and Racal-Datacom have

cancelled their membership in ADSL.

No other changes have been made in

the membership, nature or objectives of

ADSL. Membership remains open, and

ADSL intends to file additional written

notifications disclosing all changes in

membership.

On May 15, 1995, ADSL filed its

original notification pursuant to Section

6(a) of the Act. The Department of

Justice published a notice in the Federal

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the

Act on July 25, 1995 (60 FR 38058).

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 97–8458 Filed 4–2–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M

Notice Pursuant to the National

Cooperative Research and Production

Act of 1993; Hart Communication

Foundation

Notice is hereby given that, on

December 18, 1996, pursuant to Section

6(a) of the National Cooperative

Research and Production Act of 1993,

15 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), Hart

Communication Foundation (‘‘HCF’’)

has filed written notifications

simultaneously with the Attorney

General and the Federal Trade

Commission disclosing changes in

membership. The notifications were

filed for the purpose of extending the

Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of

antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages

under specified circumstances.

Specifically, the identities of the new

members are: Analog Devices, Limerick,

IRELAND; Bopp & Reuther Messtechnik

GmbH, Mannheim, GERMANY; Brooks

Instrument, Hatfield, PA; Harold Beck &

Sons, Inc., Newtown, PA; Hersey

Measurement Company, Spartanburg,

SC; Institute of Automatic Control and

Robotics, Warszawa, POLAND;

Kamstrup A/S, Aabyhoj, DENMARK;

Knick Electronische MeBgerate GmbH

&, Berlin, GERMANY; MMG Automatika

Muvek Rt, Budapest, HUNGARY;

Ohmart Corporation, Cincinnati, OH;

Pondus Instruments AB, Vallingby,

SWEDEN; PR electronics A/S, Ronde,

DENMARK: Rittmeyer Ltd. Measuring

Control, Zug, SWITZERLAND; Ronan I/

O, Woodland Hills, CA; SMC

Corporation, Tsukuba-gun, Ibaraki-ken,

JAPAN; Toshiba Corporation, MinttoKu, Tokyo, JAPAN; and Valtek

International, Springville, UT.

No other changes have been made in

the membership, nature and objectives

of the consortium. Membership in HCF

remains open, and HCF intends to file

additional written notifications

disclosing all changes in membership.

On March 17, 1994, HCF filed its

original notification pursuant to Section

6(a) of the Act. The Department of

Justice published a notice in the Federal

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the

Act on May 5, 1994 (59 FR 23234). The

last notification was filed with the

Department on September 28, 1995. A

notice was published in the Federal

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the

Act on February 13, 1996 (61 FR 5569).

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 97–8455 Filed 4–2–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M

Notice Pursuant to the National

Cooperative Research and Production

Act of 1993; International

Pharmaceutical Aerosol Consortium

for Toxicology Testing of HFA–227

(IPACT–II)

Notice is hereby given that, on March

6, 1997, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the

National Cooperative Research and

Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C.

§ 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), the

International Pharmaceutical Aerosol

Consortium for Toxicology Testing of

HFA–227 (‘‘IPACT–II’’) has filed written

notifications simultaneously with the

Attorney General and the Federal Trade

Commission disclosing a change in the

name of one of its members. The

notifications were filed for the purpose

of extending the Act’s provisions

limiting the recovery of antitrust

plaintiffs to actual damages under

specified circumstances. Specifically, as

the result of a merger, Ciba-Geigy

Limited, Basel, Switzerland, an original

party to IPACT–II, is now known as

Novartis Pharma, Inc., Basel,

Switzerland.

No other changes have been made in

either the membership or planned

activity of IPACT–II. Membership in

this group research project remains

open, and IPACT–II intends to file

additional written notification

disclosing all changes in membership.

On February 21, 1991, IPACT–II filed

its original notification pursuant to

Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department

of Justice published a notice in the

Federal Register pursuant to Section

6(b) of the Act on April 2, 1991 (56 FR

13489).

The last notification was filed with

the Department on April 15, 1996. The

Department of Justice published a notice

in the Federal Register on May 14, 1996

(61 FR 24331).

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 97–8453 Filed 4–2–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M

Notice Pursuant to the National

Cooperative Research and Production

Act of 1993; International

Pharmaceutical Aerosol Consortium

for Toxicology Testing of HFA–134a

(IPACT–I)

Notice is hereby given that, on March

6, 1997, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the

National Cooperative Research and

Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C.

§ 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), the

International Pharmaceutical Aerosol

Consortium for Toxicology Testing of

HFA–134a (‘‘IPACT–I’’) has filed

written notifications simultaneously

with the Attorney General and the

Federal Trade Commission disclosing a

change in the name of one of its

members. The notifications were filed

for the purpose of extending the Act’s

provisions limiting the recovery of

antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages

under specified circumstances.

Specifically, as a result of a merger,

Ciba-Geigy Limited, Basel, Switzerland,

is now known as Novartis Pharma, Inc.,

Basel, Switzerland.

No other changes have been made in

either the membership or planned

activity of IPACT–I. Membership in this

group research project remains open,

and IPACT–I intends to file additional