Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 19, 2000 / Notices 21027

7 119 Cong. Rec. 24598 (1973). See United States

v. Gillette Co., 406 F. Supp. 713, 715 (D. Mass.

1975). A ‘‘public interest’’ determination can be

made properly on the basis of the Competitive

Impact Statement and Response to Comments filed

pursuant to the APPA. Although the APPA

authorizes the use of additional procedures, 15

U.S.C. § 16(f), those procedures are discretionary. A

court need not invoke any of them unless it believes

that the comments have raised significant issues

and that further proceedings would aid the court in

resolving those issues. See H.R. 93–1463, 93rd

Cong. 2d Sess. 8–9, reprinted in (1974) U.S.C.C.

A.N. 6535, 6538.

8United States v. Bechtel Corp., 648 F.2d at 666

(citations omitted) (emphasis added); see United

States v. BNS, Inc., 858 F.2d at 463; United States

v. National Broadcasting Co., 449 F. Supp. 1127,

1143 (C.D. Cal. 1978); United States v. Gillette Co.,

406 F. Supp. at 716. See also United States v.

American Cyanamid Co., 719 F.2d 558, 565 (2d Cir.

1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1101 (1984).

9United States v. American Tel. and Tel. Co., 552

F. Supp. 131, 150 (D.D.C. 1982), aff’d sub nom.

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

quoting United States v. Gillette Co., supra, 406 F.

Supp. at 716; United States v. Alcan Aluminum,

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

settlement through the consent decree

process.’’ 7 Rather,

absent a showing of corrupt failure of

the government to discharge its duty,

the Court, in making its public interest

finding, should * * * carefully consider

the explanations of the government in

the competitive impact statement and

its responses to comments in order to

determine whether those explanations

are reasonable under the circumstances.

United States v. Mid-America

Dairymen, Inc., 1977–1 Trade Cas.

(CCH) ¶ 61,508, at 71,980 (W.D.Mo.

1977).

Accordingly, with respect to the

adequacy of the relief secured by the

decree, a court may not ‘‘engage in an

unrestricted evaluation of what relief

would best serve the public’’ United

States v. BNS, Inc., 858 F.2d 456, 462

(9th Cir. 1988), quoting United States v.

Bechtel Corp., 648 F.2d 660, 666 (9th

Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1083 (1981);

see also Microsoft, 56 F.3d 1448 (D.C.

Cir. 1995). Precedent requires that the

balancing of competing social and

political interests affected by a proposed

antitrust consent decree must be left, in

the first instance, to the discretion of the

Attorney General. The court’s role in

protecting the public interest is one of

insuring that the government has not

breached its duty to the public in

consenting to the decree. The court is

required to 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.8

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’

(citations omitted).’’ 9

Moreover, the court’s role under the

Tunney Act is limited to reviewing the

remedy in relationship to the violations

that the United States has alleged in its

complaint, and does not authorize the

Court to ‘‘construct [its] own

hypothetical case and then evaluate the

decree against that case,’’ Microsoft, 56

F.3d at 1459. Since ‘‘[t]he court’s

authority to review the decree depends

entirely on the government’s exercising

its prosecutorial discretion by bringing

a case in the first place,’’ it follows that

the court ‘‘is only authorized to review

the decree itself,’’ and not to ‘‘effectively

redraft the complaint’’ to inquire into

other matters that the United States

might have but did not pursue. Id.

VIII. Determinative Documents

There is a single determinative

document within the meaning of the

APPA that was considered by the

United States in formulating the

proposed Final Judgment. That

document, a letter dated March 17, 2000

from Kim Murphy, an attorney at

Interstate Brands Corporation (‘‘IBC’’),

to David Groce, General Counsel of

Earthgrains, is attached to the Final

Judgment as Appendix A. (A copy of

this letter is reproduced in the attached

Appendix). Although defendants

proposed licensing the Taystee label as

a step toward alleviating the

competitive harm, Metz’s license rights

to that label were subject to the approval

of the original licensee, IBC. Defendants

subsequently secured assurances from

IBC that it would permit the Taystee

label to be licensed to an acquirer

acceptable to the United States under

the terms of the Final Judgment.

Divestiture of the Taystee label became

acceptable to the United States only

after it had received that written

assurance.

Dated: April 7, 2000.

Respectfully submitted,

Anthony E. Harris, Illinois Bar #1133713.

U.S. Department of Justice, 1401 H Street,

NW, Suite 3000, Washington, DC 20530, (202)

307–6583.

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on April 7, 2000,

I caused a copy of the foregoing

Competitive Impact Statement to be

served by causing the pleading to be

mailed first-class, postage prepaid, to a

duly authorized legal representative of

each of the defendants, as follows:

The Earthgrains Company

Roxann E. Henry, Esquire, Howrey

Simon Arnold & White, 1299

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20004

Specialty Foods Corporation and Metz

Holdings, Inc.

David E. Schreibman, Esquire, Vice

President, Secretary and General

Counsel, Specialty Foods Corporation,

520 Lake Cook Road, Deerfield, IL

60015.

Anthony E. Harris, (IL Bar #1133713).

[FR Doc. 00–9747 Filed 4–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

Joint Motion To Modify Final Judgment

and United States’ Memorandum in

Support of Motion To Modify; United

States v. Baroid Corp., et al.

Notice is hereby given that the United

States and Diamond Products

International (‘‘DPI’’) have filed a joint

motion to modify the final judgment

filed in a civil antitrust case, United

States v. Baroid Corpation., et al. Civil

Action No. 93–2621, in the United

States District Court for the District of

Columbia. The Department has

consented to modification of the

Judgment but has reserved the right to

withdraw its consent if it determines

that, based upon comments filed or

other information received, consent to

the modification is not in the public

interest.

This case was filed on December 23,

1993, and alleged that the merger of

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

Baroid Corporation (‘‘Baroid’’) might

substantially lessen competition in the

United States in the manufacture and

sale of two oil field service products,

diamond drill bits and drilling fluids, in

violation of section 7 of the Clayton Act.

The Final Judgment was entered on

April 12, 1994.

21028 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 19, 2000 / Notices

Under the Final Judgment, Dresser

was required to divest Baroid’s diamond

bit business, which included all Baroid

assets used in the United States to

research, develop, test, manufacture,

service, or market its diamond drill bits.

Pursuant to the judgment, Dresser sold

that business to a company then called

International Superior Products, Inc.,

and now known as Diamond Products

International (‘‘DPI’’).

Paragraph V.F. of the Final Judgment

states that the purchaser of the divested

diamond drill bit business may not sell

that business to, or combine that

business with the diamond bit business

of, any of four named companies:

Dresser (now part of Halliburton

Company), Camco, Inc. (Now part of

Schlumberger Ltd.), Baker Hughes, Inc.,

or Smith International, Inc, or any of

their subsidiaries or affiliates. The joint

motion proposes modifying the Final

Judgment to eliminate the absolute

prohibition or transactions involving

Camco, Baker Hughes, or Smith and

instead require DPI to give notice to the

Department of any such proposed

transactions. The Final Judgment would

continue to bar DIP from selling its

diamond drill bit business to, or

combining that business with the

diamond drill bit operations, of Dresser,

the firm required by the Final Judgment

to divest the diamond bit business in

the final instance.

Copies of the Complaint and

Judgment, the joint motion, and the

United States’ supporting memorandum

are available for inspection in Room

215, Antitrust Division, U.S.

Department of Justice, 325 7th St., NW,

Washington, DC 20530 and at the Office

of the Clerk of the United States District

Court for the District of Columbia, Third

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20001. Copies of any of

these materials may be obtained upon

request and payment of a copying fee.

Comments to the Department of

Justice and to the Court regarding the

proposed modification of the Final

Judgment are invited from members of

the public. They should be addressed to

Roger W. Fones, Chief, Transportation,

Energy and Agriculture Section,

Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of

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

Washington, DC 20530 (202–307–6351).

Such comments must be received

within 50 days.

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations & Merger Enforcement,

Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 00–9746 Filed 4–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration

Training Grant Program ‘‘ InternetBased OSHA Expert Compliance

Assistance System

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice of availability of funds

and request for grant applications.

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and

Health Administration (OSHA) awards

funds to nonprofit organizations to

conduct safety and health training and

education. This notice announces grant

availability for training employers in an

internet-based OSHA expert compliance

assistance system. The notice describes

the scope of the grant program and

provides information about how to get

detailed grant application instructions.

Applications should not be submitted

without the applicant first obtaining the

detailed grant application instructions

mentioned later in the notice.

Section 21(c) of the Occupational

Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C.

670) authorizes this program.

DATES: Applications must be received

by June 9, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit grant applications to

the Office of Science and Technology

Assessment, Directorate of Technical

Support, OSHA, 200 Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20210.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Roy F. Gurnham, Director, Office of

Science and Technology Assessment,

Directorate of Technical Support,

OSHA, (202) 693–2024, e-mail

roy.gurnham@osha.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

What Is the Purpose of the Grant

Program?

OSHA’s strategic plan contains goals

to improve workplace safety and health

for all workers, change the workplace

culture to increase employer and worker

awareness of, commitment to, and

involvement in safety and health, and to

secure public confidence through

excellence in the development and

delivery of OSHA’s programs and

services. OSHA’s intent is to reduce the

number of worker injuries, illnesses and

fatalities by focusing nationwide

attention and Agency resources on the

most prevalent types of workplace

injuries and illnesses, the most

hazardous industries and the most

hazardous workplaces. This grant is one

of the mechanisms OSHA is using to

achieve its strategic goals.

This grant provides funds to train

employers to recognize, avoid, and

prevent safety and health hazards in

their workplaces.

The program emphasizes three areas.

• Educating employers in small

businesses. A small business has 250 or

fewer workers.

• Training employers in new OSHA

standards.

• Training employers in high risk

activities or hazards identified by

OSHA.

Grantees are expected to develop

Internet expert software, training and/or

educational programs that address

compliance assistance and Material

Safety Data Sheet assistance as

described below, and conduct the

training. Grantees will also be expected

to follow-up with people who have been

trained by their program to find out

what, if any, changes were made to

reduce hazards in their workplaces as a

result of the training.

What Are the Training Topics for This

Grant?

The purpose of this notice is to

announce that funds are available for a

grant to train employers in an Internetbased OSHA expert compliance

assistance system. Each grant

application must address the following:

• Use of an Internet-based diagnostic

(‘‘expert’’) software system that, using a

down loadable, on-line interview

process, will give the user a compliance

profile for each facility covered by the

interview as well as a comprehensive

‘‘to-do’’ list to help the user manage

compliance. The information must be

customized for each facility and must be

kept current over the Internet;

• The system must be capable of

automatically downloading, indexing,

viewing, and printing Material Safety

Data Sheets (MSDS) files. Once tagged,

MSDSs would be monitored and user

files would be automatically updated

via the Internet;

• Use of training materials for the

purpose of training employers how to

use the system.

Who Is Eligible To Apply for a Grant?

Any non-profit educational

foundation is eligible to apply.

Applicants will be required to submit

evidence of nonprofit status, preferably

from the IRS.

What Can Grant Funds Be Spent On?

Grant funds can be spent on the

following:

• Conducting training.

• Conducting other activities that

reach and inform workers and

employers about occupational safety