21222 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 83 / Monday, May 1, 1995 / Notices

participating dentist agreements or by

any other means or methods, or by

taking any other action, directly or

indirectly, to influence or attempt to

influence any dentist to refrain from

offering discount fees to any person or

dental plan or to refrain from

participating in any dental plan. ODS is

also enjoined and restrained for a period

of five years from disclosing or in any

way directly revealing to a dentist or

dentists the maximum allowable or

acceptable fee for a dental procedure or

procedures.

The proposed Final Judgment also

provides that the plaintiff will have

access to information to enforce the

judgment.

C. Effect of the Proposed Final Judgment

on Competition

The relief required by the proposed

Final Judgment will prohibit

reinstatement of a substantial restraint

on price competition among dentists

and between ODS and other dental

plans in Oregon, by ensuring that ODS

will not adopt or enforce the limitations

on dentists’ abilities to discount created

by the MFN. The proposed Final

Judgment will also prohibit ODS from

taking any other action which might

discourage participating dentists from

discounting or participating in

competing discount plans. As a result,

dentists will be free to discount or to

join other discount plans, and discount

dental plans will no longer be prevented

by ODS’ actions from attracting and

maintaining viable panels of dentists to

serve their members.

Finally, the relief required by the

proposed Final Judgment will prohibit

ODS’ dissemination of the maximum fee

amount for particular procedures.

Without the information provided by

ODS, dentists will have to determine

independently the fees to charge for

their services.

The prohibitions in the proposed

Final Judgment will restore to dental

consumers the benefits of free and open

competition that were suppressed by

ODS’ adoption and enforcement of the

MFN. The proposed Final Judgment

prohibits ODS from reinstating the MFN

during the term of the Final Judgment.

IV. Alternatives to the Proposed Final

Judgment

The alternative to the proposed Final

Judgment is a full trial on the merits of

the case. Such a trial would involve

substantial cost to the United States and

the defendant and is not warranted

because the proposed Final Judgment

provides all the relief that is needed to

remedy the violations of the Sherman

Act alleged in the United States’

complaint.

V. Remedies Available to 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 attorney’s

fees. Entry of the proposed Final

Judgment will neither impair nor assist

in the bringing of such actions. Under

the provisions of Section 5(a) of the

Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(a), the Final

Judgment has no prima facie effect in

any subsequent lawsuits that may be

brought against the defendant in this

matter.

VI. Procedures Available for

Modification of the Proposed Final

Judgment

As provided in the Antitrust

Procedures and Penalties Act, any

person believing that the proposed

judgment should be modified may

submit written comments to Christopher

S Crook, Acting Chief, San Francisco

Office, Department of Justice, Antitrust

Division, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San

Francisco, California, 94102–3478,

within the 60-day period provided by

the Act. These comments, and the

plaintiff’s responses to them, will be

filed with the Court and published in

the Federal Register. All comments will

be given due consideration by the

Department of Justice, which remains

free, pursuant to the Stipulation, to

withdraw its consent to the proposed

Final Judgment at any time prior to its

entry if The Department should

determine that some modification of the

judgment is necessary to the public

interest. The proposed Final Judgment

provides that the Court will retain

jurisdiction over this action, and that

the parties may apply to the Court for

such orders as may be necessary or

appropriate for the modification,

interpretation, or enforcement of the

Judgment.

VII. Determinative Documents

No materials and documents of the

type described in Section 2(b) of the

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act,

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

formulating the proposed Judgment.

Consequently, none are filed herewith.

Dated: April 10, 1995.

Respectfully submitted,

Barbara J. Nelson,

Phillip R. Malone,

Carla G. Addicks,

Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice.

[FR Doc. 95–10596 Filed 4–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Bureau of Labor Statistics

Business Research Advisory Council

Committee on Occupational Safety and

Health Statistics; Cancellation of

Committee Meeting

SUMMARY: Due to the scheduling

difficulties of participants, the meeting

of the Business Research Advisory

Council Committee, on Occupational

Safety and Health Statistics has been

cancelled. The meeting had been

announced previously in the Federal

Register of April 12, 1995, 60 FR 18618.

The committee meeting was to have

taken place on Thursday, May 4, 1995,

1:00 p.m. at the Postal Square Building.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Constance B. DiCesare, Liaison for the

Business Research Advisory Council to

the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2

Massachusetts Avenue NE., Room 2850,

Washington, DC 20212 (202) 606–5887.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 25th day of

April, 1995.

Katharine G. Abraham,

Commissioner.

[FR Doc. 95–10632 Filed 4–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–24–M

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W–30,788]

Meridian Oil-Houston Region;

Houston, TX; Amended Certification

Regarding Eligibility To Apply for

Worker Adjustment Assistance

With other locations in the following

states, TA–W–30,788A Texas, TA–W–

30,788B Alabama, TA–W–30,788C

Louisiana, TA–W–30,788D Ohio, TA–W–

30,788E Oklahoma, and Meridian Oil

Corporate and Administrative Offices, TA–

W–30,788F Houston, TX, TA–W–30,788G

Fort Worth, TX.

In accordance with Section 223 of the

Trade Act of 1974 (19 USC 2273) the

Department of Labor issued a

Certification of Eligibility to Apply for

Worker Adjustment Assistance on

March 23, 1995, applicable to all

workers of the subject firm.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 83 / Monday, May 1, 1995 / Notices 21223

The Notice was published in the

Federal Register on April 10, 1995 (60

FR 18146).

At the request of the workers, the

Department reviewed the certification

for workers of the subject firm. The

investigation findings show that

workers at the corporate office of

Meridian Oil in Houston, Texas and in

Fort Worth, Texas should be covered

under the subject certification. The

Houston Region accounted for a

significant share of the business at the

corporate and administrative offices of

Meridian Oil. Accordingly, the

Department is amending the

certification to properly reflect this

matter.

The amended notice applicable to

TA–W–30,788 is hereby issued as

follows:

All workers of the Houston Region of

Meridian Oil in Houston, Texas and in other

locations in Texas, Alabama, Louisiana, Ohio

and Oklahoma and in the corporate offices of

Meridian Oil in Houston, Texas and in the

administrative office in Forth Worth, Texas

who became totally or partially separated

from employment on or after February 20,

1994 are eligible to apply for adjustment

assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act

of 1974.

Signed in Washington, D.C., this 20th day

of April, 1995.

Victor J. Trunzo,

Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment

Services, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 95–10627 Filed 4–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

[TA–W–30,648]

Seagull Mid-South, Inc. (Formerly Arkla

Exploration Company) A/K/A Seagull

Energy E & P, Inc., Shreveport, LA;

Amended Certification Regarding

Eligibility To Apply for Worker

Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of the

Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the

Department of Labor issued a

Certification of Eligibility to Apply for

Worker Adjustment Assistance

applicable to all workers of the subject

firm.

The certification notice was issued on

March 16, 1995 and was published in

the Federal Register on March 27, 1995

(60 FR 15791).

At the request of the State Agency, the

Department reviewed the certification

for workers of the subject firm. The

investigation findings show Seagull

Energy purchased ARKLA Exploration

Company on December 31, 1992 and the

workers became Seagull Energy E & P,

Inc. Accordingly, many of the workers

of the subject firm had wages reported

under Seagull Energy E & P, Inc., and

their unemployment insurance (UI)

taxes were paid under Seagull Energy E

& P, Inc.

Accordingly, the Department is

amending the certification to properly

reflect this matter.

The amended notice applicable to

TA–W–30,648 is hereby issued as

follows:

All workers of Seagull Mid South, Inc.,

(formerly ARKLA Exploration Company) also

known as Seagull Energy E & P, Inc.,

Shreveport, Louisiana who became totally or

partially separated from employment on or

after January 6, 1994 are eligible to apply for

adjustment assistance under Section 231 of

Trade Act of 1974.

Signed at Washington, D.C., this 20th day

of April, 1995.

Victor J. Trunzo,

Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment

Services, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 95–10631 Filed 4–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

Amended Certification Regarding

Eligibility To Apply for Worker

Adjustment Assistance

TA–W–29,173, Shell Oil Company,

Administration—E&P/SET a/k/a Shell

Services Company (SSO), a/k/a Shell E&P

Company (SEPC), a/k/a Shell Chemical

Company (SCC), a/k/a Shell Oil Products

Company (SOPC), headquartered in Houston,

Texas and operating at various locations in

the following States:

TA–W–29,173A Alabama

TA–W–29,173B Alaska

TA–W–29,173C California

TA–W–29,173D Connecticut

TA–W–29,173E District of Columbia

TA–W–29,173F Florida

TA–W–29,173G Georgia

TA–W–29,173H Illinois

TA–W–29,173I Indiana

TA–W–29,173J Louisiana

TA–W–29,173K Maryland

TA–W–29,173L Michigan

TA–W–29,173M Mississippi

TA–W–29,173N Missouri

TA–W–29,173O New Jersey

TA–W–29,173P New Mexico

TA–W–29,173Q New York

TA–W–29,173R Ohio

TA–W–29,173S Oklahoma

TA–W–29,173T Oregon

TA–W–29,173U Pennsylvania

TA–W–29,173V Texas (except Houston)

TA–W–29,173W Utah

TA–W–29,173X Virginia

TA–W–29,173Y Washington

TA–W–29,173Z West Virginia.

TA–W–29,177, Shell Development

Company, a/k/a Shell E&P Company (SEPC),

a/k/a Shell Chemical Company (SCC), a/k/a

Shell Oil Products Company (SOPC),

Houston, Texas.

In accordance with Section 223 of the

Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the

Department of Labor issued a

Certification of Eligibility to Apply for

Worker Adjustment Assistance on

December 23, 1993, applicable to all

workers of Shell Oil Company,

Administration—E&P/SET,

headquartered in Houston, Texas and

operating in various States, and Shell

Development Company, Houston,

Texas. The notice was published in the

Federal Register on January 11, 1994

(59 FR 1566).

Company officials report that effective

March 1, 1995, Shell Oil Company’s

Administration—E&P and Set, and Shell

Development Company are being

reincorporated with other parts of the

company as Shell Services Company,

Shell Exploration and Production

Company, Shell Chemical Company,

and Shell Oil Products Company.

The intent of the Department’s

certification is to include all workers of

Shell Oil Company who were adversely

affected by increased imports.

The amended notice applicable to

TA–W–29,173 and TA–W–29,177 is

hereby issued as follows:

All workers of Shell Oil Company

Administration—E&P/SET, a/k/a Shell

Services Company (SSO), a/k/a Shell E&P

Company (SEPC), a/k/a Shell Chemical

Company (SCC), a/k/a Shell Oil Products

Company (SOPC), and Shell Development

Company, a/k/a Shell E&P Company (SEPC),

a/k/a Shell Chemical Company (SCC), a/k/a

Shell Oil Products Company (SOPC),

respectively, as cited below, engaged in

employment related to the exploration and

production of crude oil and natural gas who

became totally or partially separated from

employment on or after December 13, 1993

are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance

under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974:

TA–W–29,173, Shell Oil Company,

Administration—E&P/SET, a/k/a Shell

Services Company (SSO), a/k/a Shell E&P

Company (SEPC), a/k/a Shell Chemical

Company (SCC), a/k/a Shell Oil Products

Company (SOPC), headquartered in Houston,

Texas and operating at various locations in

the following States:

TA–W–29,173A Alabama

TA–W–29,173B Alaska

TA–W–29,173C California

TA–W–29,173D Connecticut

TA–W–29,173E District of Columbia

TA–W–29,173F Florida

TA–W–29,173G Georgia

TA–W–29,173H Illinois

TA–W–29,173I Indiana

TA–W–29,173J Louisiana

TA–W–29,173K Maryland

TA–W–29,173L Michigan

TA–W–29,173M Mississippi

TA–W–29,173N Missouri

TA–W–29,173O New Jersey

TA–W–29,173P New Mexico

TA–W–29,173Q New York

TA–W–29,173R Ohio