34682 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2001 / Notices

called into question the need for this

survey. As a result, Board staff feels that

estimates of BAs derived from the Call

Report can be used in calculating shortand intermediate-term business credit.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, June 25, 2001.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 01–16377 Filed 6–28–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–P

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

[File No. 001 0112]

LaFarge S.A., et al.; Analysis To Aid

Public Comment

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Proposed consent agreement.

SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this

matter settles alleged violations of

federal law prohibiting unfair or

deceptive acts or practices or unfair

methods of competition. The attached

Analysis to Aid Public Comment

describes both the allegations in the

complaint that accompanies the consent

agreement and the terms of the consent

order—embodies in the consent

agreement— that would settle these

allegations.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 18, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary,

Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,

Washington, DC 20580.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard Liebeskind, FTC/S–3105, 600

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,

DC 20580. (202) 326–2441.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade

Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C.

46 and section 2.34 of the Commission’s

Rules of Practice (16 CFR 2.34), notice

is hereby given that the above-captioned

consent agreement containing a consent

order to cease and desist, having been

filed with and accepted by the

Commission, has been placed on the

public record for a period of thirty (30)

days. The following Analysis to Aid

Public Comment describes the terms of

the consent agreement, and the

allegations in the complaint. An

electronic copy of the full text of the

consent agreement package can be

obtained from the FTC Home Page (for

June 18, 2001), on the World Wide Web,

at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2001/06/

index.htm. A paper copy can be

obtained from the FTC Public Reference

Room, Room H–130, 600 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580,

either in person or by calling (202) 326–

3627.

Public comment is invited. Comments

should be directed to: FTC/Office of the

Secretary, Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania.

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20580. Two

paper copies of each comment should

be filed, and should be accompanied, if

possible, by a 31⁄2 inch diskette

containing an electronic copy of the

comment. Such comments or views will

be considered by the Commission and

will be available for inspection and

copying at its principal office in

accordance with Section 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of

the Commission’s Rules of Practice (16

CFR 4.9(b)(6)(ii)).

Analysis of the Complaint and

Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public

Comment

I. Introduction

The Federal Trade Commission has

accepted for public comment a Decision

and Order (‘‘Proposed Order’’), pursuant

to an Agreement Containing Consent

Orders (‘‘Consent Agreement’’), against

Lafarge S.A. and Blue Circle Industries

PLC (collectively ‘‘Respondents’’). The

Proposed Order is intended to resolve

anticompetitive effects in the cement

and lime markets stemming from the

proposed acquisition by Lafarge of Blue

Circle (the ‘‘Acquisition’’). As described

below, the Proposed Order seeks to

remedy anticompetitive effects of the

Acquisition in cement and lime by

requiring Respondents to divest certain

assets relating to cement to Glens Falls

Lehigh Cement Company; to divest

certain other assets relating to cement to

an acquirer approved by the

Commission; and to divest certain assets

relating to an acquirer approved by the

Commission. The Commission has also

issued an order to Hold Separate and

Maintain Assets (‘‘Hold Separate

Order’’) that, except with respect to the

assets to be divested to Glens Falls,

requires Respondents to preserve the

businesses they are required to divest as

viable, competitive, and ongoing

operations until the divestitures are

achieved.

The Proposed Order, if finally issued

by the Commission, would settle

charges that the Acquisition may have

substantially lessened competition in

the markets for cement and lime. The

Commission has reason to believe that

the Acquisition would violate Section 7

of the Clayton Act and Section 5 of the

Federal Trade Commission Act. The

proposed complaint (‘‘Complaint’’),

described below, relates to the basis for

this belief.

II. The Merging Parties and the

Acquisition

Lafarge is a French corporation with

global operations in the manufacture

and sale of cement and other building

materials. Based on 2000 production

capacity, Lafarge is one of the top three

cement manufacturers in North

America. Lafarge also has an ownership

interest in a joint venture with

Carmeuse North America Group B.V.

that manufactures and sells lime.

Blue Circle is an English corporation

with global operations in the

manufacture and sale of cement and

other building materials. Based on 2000

production capacity, Blue Circle is one

of the top five cement manufacturers in

North America. Blue Circle also

participates in a joint venture with

Chemical Lime Company that

manufactures and sells lime (the ‘‘Lime

JV’’).

On January 8, 2001, Lafarge and Blue

Circle entered into an agreement in

which Lafarge will pay Blue Circle

shareholders approximately $3.8 billion

in cash for the approximately 75% of

Blue Circle’s outstanding voting stock

that Lafarge does not already own.

III. The Proposed Complaint

According to the Complaint, the

Acquisition will have anticompetitive

effects in two relevant product markets:

cement and lime. Cement is a

construction raw material that users mix

with water and aggregates to form

concrete. Cement is made by combining

calcium (normally from limestone),

silicon, aluminum, iron and other raw

materials. Cement manufacturers

quarry, crush and grind these raw

materials, burn them in kilns at high

temperatures and then grind the

resulting pellets with gypsum into a fine

powder. Lime is used in a variety of

applications including, in the steel

industry, as a flux to remove impurities.

Lime is made by quarrying, crushing,

and grinding limestone and then

burning it in kilns at high temperatures.

The Complaint also alleges three

relevant geographic markets in which to

analyze the effects of the Acquisition:

(1) The market for cement in the region

consisting of the province of Ontario,

Canada, all of Michigan and the coastal

markets around Lake Superior, Lake

Michigan, Lake Huron, Lake Erie and

Lake Ontario, including Green Bay and

Milwaukee, WI, Chicago, IL, Cleveland,

OH and Buffalo, NY (the ‘‘Great Lakes

Region’’); (2) the market for cement in

the region within an approximately 70-

mile radius of Syracuse, NY, including

the metropolitan areas of Syracuse,

Utica, Rome, Elmira and Binghamton,

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2001 / Notices 34683

NY (the ‘‘Syracuse Region’’); and (3) the

market for lime in the States of

Alabama, Georgia and Florida (the

‘‘Southeast Region’’).

The Complaint alleges that the

markets for cement in the Great Lakes

Region and the Syracuse Region and the

market for lime in the Southeast Region

are highly concentrated, and the

Acquisition, if consummated, would

substantially increase that

concentration. In the Great Lakes,

Lafarge and Blue Circle have a

combined share of 47% of the market,

and if the Acquisition proceeds, the top

four firms would control 91% of the

market. In the Syracuse Region, Lafarge

and Blue Circle have a combined market

share of 68%, and if the Acquisition

proceeds, two firms would control

100% of the cement market in the

Syracuse Region. In the Southeast

Region, if the Acquisition proceeds and

the Lime JV remains in place, Chemical

Lime, Blue Circle/Lafarge and

Carmeuse, through their joint ventures

with each other, would link together

85% of the lime market and provide the

three firms with incentives to reduce

rivalry in the market.

The Complaint further alleges that the

Acquisition likely would eliminate

direct competition between

Respondents, increase the likelihood of

coordinated interaction among the

remaining firms, and result in increased

prices for cement and lime. The

Complaint also alleges that entry into

the relevant markets would not be

timely, likely or sufficient to deter or

counteract the adverse competitive

effects arising from the Acquisition.

IV. Terms of the Proposed Order

The Proposed Order is designed to

remedy the anticompetitive effects of

the Acquisition through three

divestitures. First, Lafarge must divest

Blue Circle’s cement business in the

Great Lakes Region within 180 days of

the consummation of the Acquisition to

a Commission-approved buyer. Second,

Lafarge must divest Blue Circle’s cement

terminal that serves the Syracuse Region

to Glen Falls no later than 20 business

days after the closing of the Acquisition.

Third, Blue Circle must regain 100%

ownership of the Lime JV from

Chemical Lime, and then Lafarge must

divest Blue Circle’s lime business in the

Southeast Region within 180 days of the

consummation of the Acquisition to a

Commission-approved buyer. Lafarge

cannot consummate the Acquisition

until the Lime JV is unwound. If

Respondents do not complete the

divestitures within the time specified in

the Proposed Order, procedures for the

appointment of a trustee to sell the

assets have been agreed to and will be

triggered.

The Commission has also issued the

Hold Separate Order. The purpose of the

Hold Separate Order is to prevent

interim harm to competition and to

preserve the assets to be divested as

viable and competitive businesses. The

Hold Separate Order requires

Respondents to hold Blue Circle’s

cement business in the Great Lakes

Region and Blue Circle’s lime business

in the Southeast Region separate from

the rest of their business operations

until Lafarge has divested these assets to

a Commission-approved buyer. The

Hold Separate Order requires

Respondents to preserve and maintain

the marketability, viability and

competitiveness of the relevant

businesses. Respondents have agreed to

the appointment of trustees to monitor

their compliance with the terms of the

Hold Separate Order.

V. Opportunity for Public Comment

The Proposed Order has been placed

on the public record for 30 days for

receipt of comments from interested

persons. Comments received during this

period will become part of the public

record. After 30 days, the Commission

will again review the Consent

Agreement and the comments received

and will decide whether to make the

Proposed Order final. By accepting the

Consent Agreement subject to final

approval, the Commission anticipates

that the competitive problems alleged in

the Complaint will be resolved.

The Commission invites public

comment to aid the Commission in

determining whether it should make

final the Proposed Order contained in

the Consent Agreement. The

Commission does not intend this

analysis to constitute an official

interpretation of the Proposed Order,

nor does this analysis modify in any

way the terms of the Proposed Order.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–16399 Filed 6–28–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

GENERAL SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION

[OMB Control No. 3090–0093]

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request Entitled

Transportation Discrepancy Report,

Standard Form 361

AGENCY: General Services

Administration (GSA).

ACTION: Notice of a request for an

extension to an existing OMB clearance.

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. chapter 35), the General Services

Administration (GSA) has submitted to

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) a request to review and approve

an extension of a previously approved

information collection requirement

concerning Transportation Discrepancy

Report, Standard Form 361.

DATES: Comments may be submitted on

or before August 28, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard J. Johnson, Jr., National

Customer Service Center, Federal

Supply Service, GSA (816) 926–2932.

ADDRESSES: Comments regarding this

burden estimate or any other aspect of

this collection of information, including

suggestions for reducing this burden,

should be submitted to: Edward

Springer, GSA Desk Officer, OMB,

Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC

20503, and a copy to Stephanie Morris,

General Services Administration (MVP),

1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035,

Washington, DC 20405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Purpose

The General Services Administration

is requesting the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) to review and

approve information collection, 3090–

0093, concerning Transportation

Discrepancy Report, Standard Form 361.

This form is prepared by Government

shippers or receivers to document loss,

damage, or other discrepancy resulting

from the movement of freight by

commercial transportation companies.

B. Annual Reporting Burden

Respondents: 1,434.

Annual Responses: 1,434.

Average Hours Per Response: 1.

Burden Hours: 1.434.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals

A copy of this proposal may be

obtained from the General Services

Administration, Acquisition Policy

Division (MVP), 1800 F Street, NW.,

Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, or

by telephoning (202) 501–4744, or by

faxing your request to (202) 501–4067.

Please cite OMB Control No. 3090–0093

Transportation Discrepancy Report,

Standard Form 361, in all

correspondence.

David A. Drabkin,

Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of

Acquisition Policy.

[FR Doc. 01–16331 Filed 6–28–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–61–U