Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 101 / Thursday, May 23, 1996 / Notices 25891

fourth-party defendants proposed for

addition to the Consent Decree.

A Consent Decree was lodged with

the United States District Court for the

Middle District of Pennsylvania for

public comment on April 5, 1996. 61 FR

18411 (April 25, 1996). The proposed

Decree, entered into under Section

122(g) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9622(g),

resolves the liability of parties

determined by EPA to be ‘‘de

micromis’’, which for purposes of this

Site means that they contributed less

than 1800 cubic yards of municipal

solid waste, and within such amount,

less than 55 gallons or 100 pound of

materials contain hazardous substances.

With the April 5th lodging, the United

States solicited pubic comment upon

the proposed Decree’s resolution of 95

third and fourth-party Defendants’

liability for response costs incurred and

to be incurred at the Site. The

defendants will pay $1 each. With

today’s notice, the United States seeks

comment on its addition of 73 more

parties to this Decree.

The Department of Justice will accept

written comments relating to the

proposed addition of parties to the

Consent Decree for thirty (30) days from

the date of publication of this notice.

Please address comments to the

Assistant Attorney General,

Environment and Natural Resources

Division, Department of Justice, P.O.

Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station,

Washington, D.C. 20044 and refer to

UnitedStates v. Keystone Sanitation

Company, Inc. et al., DOJ No. 90–11–2–

656A.

Copies of the proposed Consent

Decree may be examined at the Office of

the United States Attorney, Middle

District of Pennsylvania, Federal

Building and Courthouse, 228 Walnut

Street, Room 217, Harrisburg,

Pennsylvania, 17108; Region III Office

of the Environmental Protection

Agency, 841 Chestnut Building,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107; and

at the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G

Street, N.W., 4th Floor, Washington,

D.C. 20005 (202) 624–0892. A copy of

the proposed Decree may be obtained in

person or by mail from the Consent

Decree Library, 1120 G Street, N.W., 4th

Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005. When

requesting a coy of the proposed

Consent Decree, please enclose a check

in the amount of $1.75 (twenty-five

cents per page reproduction costs)

payable to the ‘‘Consent Decree

Library.’’

In addition, copies of the Decree, as

well as the record supporting EPA’s

eligibility determinations regarding the

present 73 defendants proposed for

addition to the Decree, as well as for the

first 95 settlors, are available at the

following record repositories

established by EPA near the Site

pursuant to Section 117(d) of CERCLA,

42 U.S.C. 9617(d):

U.S. EPA, Region III (address above),

Contact: Anna Butch, 215–597–3037

Hanover Public Library, 301 Carlisle St.

Hanover PA 17331, Contract: Priscilla

McFarrin, 717–632–5183

St. Mary’s Church of Christ, 1441 East

Mayberry Road Westminster MD

21157, Contact: Jeanne Bechtel, 301–

346–7977

The Decree and record are also

available at Filias & McLucas, 4309

Linglestown Road, Harrisburg, PA

17112, the repository created to house

documents produced during discovery

in the present litigation. Persons

wishing to view documents at Filias &

McLucas should call 717–845–6418 to

arrange an appointment.

Joel M. Gross,

Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section,

Environment and Natural Resources Division,

U.S. Department of Justice.

[FR Doc. 96–12981 Filed 5–22–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

Antitrust Division

Notice Pursuant to the National

Cooperative Research and Production

Act of 1993 Fastcast Consortium

Notice is hereby given that, on April

15, 1996, pursuant to § 6(a) of the

National Cooperative Research and

Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301

et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), the Fastcast

Consortium (‘‘Fastcast’’) has filed

written notifications simultaneously

with the Attorney General and the

Federal Trade Commission disclosing

(1) the identities of the parties and (2)

the nature and objectives of the venture.

The notifications were filed for the

purpose of invoking the Act’s provisions

limiting the recovery of antitrust

plaintiffs to actual damages under

specified circumstances. Pursuant to

§ 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the

parties are: Accelerated Technologies,

Inc., Austin, TX; Compression

Engineering, Indianapolis, IN; DTM

Corporation, Austin, TX; The Goodyear

Tire & Rubber Company, Akron, OH;

Komtek, Worcester, MA; Kovatch

Castings, Inc., Uniontown, OH; Laser

Fare Advanced Technology Group,

Narragansett, RI; Laserform, Inc.,

Auburn Hills, MS; Manufacturing

Sciences Corporation, Oak Ridge, TN;

Osteonics Corporation, Allendale, NJ;

Plynetics Corporation, San Leandro, CA;

Solidform, Inc., Fort Worth, TX;

TexCast, Inc., Inc., Houston, TX; 3D

Systems Corporation, Valencia CA;

Truecast Precision Castings, Inc.,

Louisville, KY; and Walworth

Foundaries, Inc., Darien, WI.

Fastcast’s area of planned activity is

research and development for the

purpose of advancing the state of the art

of investment casting in the United

States.

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 96–12982 Filed 5–22–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

[Civil Action No. 95–1804 (HHG), D.D.C.]

United States v. National Automobile

Dealers Association; Public Comments

and Response on Proposed Final

Judgment

Pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures

and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16 (b)–(h),

the United States publishes below the

comments received on the proposed

Final Judgment in United States v.

National Automobile Dealers

Association, Civil Action 95–1804

(HHG), United States District Court for

the District of Columbia, together with

the response of the United States to the

comments.

Copies of the response and the public

comments are available on request for

inspection and copying in Room 200 of

the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust

Division, 325 7th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20530, and for

inspection at the Office of the Clerk of

the United States District Court for the

District of Columbia, United States

Courthouse, Third Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20001.

Rebecca P. Dick,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust

Division.

In the United States District Court for

the District of Columbia

United States of America, Plaintiff, v.

National Automobile Dealers Association,

Defendant.

[Civil Action No. 95–1804 (HHG)]

United States’ Response to Public

Comments

Pursuant to Section 2(d) of the

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act,

15 U.S.C. 16(d) (the ‘‘APPA’’ or

‘‘Tunney Act’’), the United States

responds to public comments on the

proposed Final Judgment submitted for

entry in this civil antitrust proceeding.

This action began on September 20,

1995, when the United States filed a

Complaint charging that the National

Automobile Dealers Association
25892 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 101 / Thursday, May 23, 1996 / Notices

(‘‘NADA’’) had entered into agreements

intended to lessen competition in the

retail automobile industry in violation

of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15

U.S.C. 1. The first count of the

Complaint alleges that the NADA agreed

to orchestrate a group boycott of

automobile manufacturers to coerce the

manufacturers to decrease the discounts

offered to large volume buyers and to

eliminate consumer rebates.

The second count of the Complaint

alleges that the NADA agreed to urge its

dealer members to maintain new vehicle

inventories at levels equal to 15–30

days’ supply. The third count of the

Complaint alleges that the NADA

solicited and obtained agreements from

member dealers not to engage in

advertising that revealed the dealers’

invoice cost, or cost of buying the

vehicle from the manufacturer. Finally,

the fourth count of the Complaint

alleges that the NADA agreed to urge its

members not to do business with

automobile brokers.

The Complaint seeks injunctive relief

that would prevent the NADA from

continuing or renewing the alleged

practices and agreements, or engaging in

other practices or agreements that

would have a similar purpose or effect.

Simultaneous with the filing of the

Complaint, the United States filed a

proposed Final Judgment, a Competitive

Impact Statement (‘‘CIS’’), and a

stipulation signed by the NADA for

entry of the decree. The proposed Final

Judgment contains a general prohibition

against any agreements by the NADA

with dealers to fix, stabilize or maintain

prices at which motor vehicles may be

sold or offered in the United States to

any consumer. The proposed Final

Judgment also prohibits the NADA from

urging, encouraging, advocating or

suggesting that dealers adopt specific

prices, specific margins, specific

discounts or specific policies relating to

the advertising of prices or dealer costs

of motor vehicles. Similarly, the decree

prohibits the NADA from discouraging

dealers from adopting specific pricing

systems or specific policies relating to

the advertising of prices or dealer cost

of motor vehicles. The proposed decree

further prohibits the NADA from urging

dealers to reduce their business with

particular types of persons or to do

business with particular persons only

on specific terms. It will also prohibit

the NADA from terminating the

membership of any dealer for reasons

relating to that dealer’s pricing or

advertising of prices or dealer costs.

As required by the Antitrust

Procedures and Penalties Act, the

NADA filed with this Court on October

11, 1995 a description of written and

oral communications on their behalf

pursuant to the reporting requirements

of Section 16(g) of the APPA. A

summary of the terms of the proposed

Final Judgment and CIS, and directions

for the submission of written comments

relating to the proposed decree, were

published in the Washington Post for

eight days over a period beginning

September 30, 1995. The proposed Final

Judgment and CIS were published in the

Federal Register on October 2, 1995. 60

Fed. Reg. 51,491.

The 60-day period for public

comments commenced October 2, 1995

and expired on December 5, 1995. The

United States received one comment on

the proposed Final Judgment, a letter

from Mr. Harold E. Kohn, Esquire,

representing Potamkin Auto Center, Ltd.

As required by 15 U.S.C. 16(b), this

comment is being filed with this

response. (Exhibit A). The United States

sent Mr. Kohn a letter individually

responding to his inquiry. That

correspondence is also being filed with

this response. (Exhibit B).

In his comment, Mr. Kohn proposed

that the notification that the NADA is

required to provide its members include

an additional statement that group

activities by competitors designed to

restrict price competition are illegal,

even when those activities are not

sanctioned by the trade association. He

also raised concerns about a policy

recently adopted by an automobile

manufacturer prohibiting its dealers

from selling automobiles to third-party

resellers. Finally, Mr. Kohn requested

an opportunity to be heard before this

Court before the final decree is entered.

The Department has carefully

considered Mr. Kohn’s comment.

Nothing in this comment has altered the

United States’ conclusion that the

proposed Final Judgment is in the

public interest. The decree is fully

adequate to prevent continuation or

recurrence of the violations on the part

of the NADA that were alleged in the

complaint. Because the complaint does

not address the activities of dealers

acting independently of the NADA and

they are not defendants, it would be

inappropriate to impose on them the

additional notification provisions

suggested by Mr. Kohn. Mr. Kohn’s

concerns regarding conduct by an

automobile manufacturer and its dealers

also involve entities that are not parties

to this case and activities beyond the

scope of the conduct alleged in the

complaint. The main issue before the

Court in this Tunney Act proceeding is

whether the remedies provided in the

proposed Final Judgment are ‘‘so

inconsonant with the allegations

charged as to fall outside of the ‘reaches

of the public interest.’ ’’ United States v.

Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 1448, 1461

(D.C. Cir. 1995). Nothing submitted by

Mr. Kohn suggests that the proposed

Final Judgment does not satisfy this

standard. Accordingly, the Department

urges the Court to enter the proposed

Final Judgment without further

proceedings.

Dated: May 8, 1996.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert J. Zastrow,

Assistant Chief, Civil Task Force, Antitrust

Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 325 7th

Street, N.W., Room 300, Washington, D.C.

20530.

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that I cause a copy of

the foregoing to be mailed, first class,

postage prepaid, this 8th day of May,

1996, to:

Glenn A. Mitchell, Esq., Stein, Mitchell

& Mezines, 1100 Connecticut Avenue,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036

Arthur Herold, Webster, Chamberlin &

Bean, 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006

Robert J. Zastrow.

December 1, 1995.

Mary Jean Moltenbrey, Chief, Civil Task

Force II, U.S. Department of Justice,

Antitrust Division, 325 7th Street, N.W.,

Room 300, Washington, D.C. 20004

Re: United States of America v. National

Automobile Dealers Association, Civil Action

No. 1:95CV01804

Dear Ms. Moltenbrey: Potamkin Auto

Center, Ltd. submits this Comment to address

the Proposed Final Judgment (‘‘PFJ’’)

between the United States of America (the

‘‘Government’’) and the National Automobile

Dealers Association (‘‘NADA’’) in the abovereference civil action. This Comment focuses

upon provisions of the PFJ directed toward

eliminating the practice of boycotting of

automobile brokers by dealers, or by

manufacturers at dealers’ urging.

Potamkin Auto Center, Ltd. (‘‘Potamkin’’)

owns and operates auto centers in Westbury,

Brooklyn, Manhattan and Nanuet, New York.

The auto centers compete with franchised

dealerships for sales and leases of new

automobiles by purchasing multiple brands

of new automobiles from franchised dealers

at discounted prices and then selling directly

to the public at highly competitive prices. As

such, Potamkin may be considered an

‘‘automobile broker’’ as that term is used in

the Complaint and Competitive Impact

Statement filed with the PFJ in this case.

EXHIBIT A—Civil Action No. 95–1804

The NADA’s published encouragement to

its dealer-members to ‘‘[r]efuse to do business

with brokers or buying services’’ was

intended to eliminate price competition by

automobile brokers. Potamkin therefore

supports the provisions of the PFJ that enjoin

the NADA from advocating that dealers

‘‘refuse to do business with particular

persons or types of persons.’’ PFJ at ¶ IV.D.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 101 / Thursday, May 23, 1996 / Notices 25893

Potamkin believes that the NADA’s

advocacy of group boycott activity has had

and continues to have substantial anticompetitive effects on the market for sales

and leasing of new automobiles, resulting in

higher prices for consumers.

For example, on November 1, 1995,

American Honda Motors Co., Inc., having

‘‘been made aware that some Authorized

Honda Dealers are transferring Honda

vehicles to intermediaries which retail or

lease the vehicles,’’ implemented a policy

that prohibits all Honda dealers in the United

States from transferring new automobiles to

certain third party resellers or leasing

companies who operate showrooms for and/

or advertise the sale or leases of new Honda

automobiles. A copy of Honda’s July 24, 1995

announcement and policy statement is

attached hereto as ‘‘Exhibit A.’’ Potamkin

believes that this policy represents Honda’s

joinder in the dealers’ agreement to eliminate

price competition from automobile brokers.

As the Government states in the

Competitive Impact Statement: An agreement

by a trade association or its members not to

do business with other competitors or

customers for purposes of restricting price

competition is a per se violation of the

Sherman Act.

Competitive Impact Statement at 7

Potamkin urges that this statement (or a

similarly worded statement) should be

included in the written notification that

NADA must publish and send to its dealermembers. These dealer-members should be

informed clearly that group activities by

competitors designed to restrict price

competition are illegal, whether or not such

group activities are officially sanctioned by

the trade association.

Potamkin respectfully requests an

opportunity to appear before the Court and

be heard on this issue, and to present

additional evidence of concerted anticompetitive activities by automobile dealers

and manufacturers.

Potamkin also requests that the Antitrust

Division expand its investigation to include

practices such as those in which Honda has

engaged.

Respectfully submitted,

Harold E. Kohn,

KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C., 1101 Market

Street, Suite 2400, Philadelphia, PA 19107–

2924, (215) 238–1700.

Attorneys for Potamkin Auto Center, Ltd.

Via Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested

To: All Honda Automobile Dealers

Date: July 24, 1986

Subject: AHM’S Wholesaling Policy

Enclosed is a copy of the Wholesaling

Policy (the ‘‘Policy’’). Beginning November 1,

1995, the Honda Division of American Honda

Motor Co., Inc., (‘‘AHM’’) will enforce the

Policy in order to ensure that each Honda

dealer complies with AHM’s Honda

Automobile Dealer Sales and Service

Agreement (the ‘‘Dealer Agreement’’).

Although advance notification is hereby

provided AHM’s position is that applicable

law does not require any advance notice

prior to the adoption, implementation and

enforcement of the Policy.

While AHM’s position is that the Policy is

not a modification of your Dealer Agreement

and that AHM is not required to file the

Policy with State agencies, we have, in an

abundance of caution and to the extent such

filing may be deemed to be required, also

filed a copy of the Policy with any

appropriate State agencies. If the Policy is

deemed to be a modification to your Dealer

Agreement, you may believe you have certain

rights, under applicable state law to contest

the Policy. To the extent required, you are

hereby notified of the existence of such

potential rights.

All questions pertaining to this letter and

the Policy should be addressed to AHM’s

Wholesale Policy Administrator which

position is currently held by Richard

Szamborski, Assistant Vice President Market

Operations, Honda Division.

Please acknowledge receipt of this letter

and the Policy of signing and dating the

attached Dealer Acknowledgment and

returning the Dealer Acknowledgment to

your Zone Sales Office within ten days of the

date of this letter.

Very truly yours,

Richard Coiliver,

Senior Vice President, Auto Sales.

Attachments

To: All Honda Automobile Dealers in the

United States.

Date: July 24, 1996.

Subject: AHM’s Wholesaling Policy.

The Honda Division of American Honda

Motor Co., Inc. (‘‘AHM’’) has been made

aware that some Authorized Honda Dealers

are transferring Honda vehicles to

intermediaries which retail or lease the

vehicles. AHM believes that such

wholesaling is inconsistent with AHM’s

Automobile Dealer Sales and Service

Agreement (the ‘‘Dealer Agreement’’), which

limits Authorized Honda Dealers to retail

sales and retail leases from the Authorized

Honda Dealers’ premises and prohibits the

creation of additional dealership locations.

AHM also believes that transfers to

intermediaries are detrimental to the best

interests of AHM’s success in the market,

impair the ability of AHM to provide the

highest level of customer satisfaction, create

situations that tarnish the reputation of

Honda and Honda’s Authorized Dealers for

quality automobiles and service and lead to

lost sales.

Accordingly, Honda adopts the following

policy with respect to transfers of Honda

Automobiles by Authorized Honda Dealers to

intermediaries.

1. Definitions

1.1 As used herein, ‘‘Wholesaling’’ and

‘‘Wholesale Sales’’ shall mean the sale or

lease and delivery of new Honda

Automobiles to persons other than (1) the

ultimate end user of such vehicles, or (2)

leasing companies that do not operate

unauthorized dealerships (as described more

fully below), or (3) another Authorized

Honda Dealer (Transfers of Honda

Automobiles between and among Authorized

Honda Dealers are permitted as long as AHM

is timely notified of each transfer and such

transfer is consistent with both Authorized

Honda Dealers’ obligations to provide

appropriate market representation and

accurate reporting to AHM. For allocation

purposes any such transfer will be attributed

to the Authorized Honda Dealer who makes

the sale or leases to the ultimate end user).

By way of example, Wholesaling shall

include:

(a) Transfer to third-party resellers who sell

or lease that new Honda Automobiles to end

user as new vehicles.

(b) Trnasfers to third-party leasing

companies that operate (1) showrooms and/

or (2) otherwise engage in sales lease or

service activities typically done by

Authorized Honda Dealers.

Included in this classification would be, by

way of example, third-party leasing

companies that display new Honda

Automobiles on their premises or hold new

Honda Automobiles in stock, advertise for

sale or lease new Honda Automobiles from

their premises, or accessorize new Honda

Automobiles for sale or lease to end users.

(c) By way of example, Wholesaling does

NOT include (1) Transfers to third-parties

who are and users and are NOT resellers or

lessons of new vehicles, (2) Transfer of used

vehicles to any party for any purpose, (3)

Transfers to leasing companies that do NOT

operate showrooms or otherwise engage in

sales, advertising and/or service activities

typically done by Authorized Honda Dealers.

The sole function of such leasing companies

is to lease cars to end users who do not wish

to lease directly from an Authorized Honda

Dealer. Such companies do NOT display new

Honda Automobiles on their premises, do

NOT hold new Honda Automobiles in stock,

do NOT advertise for sale or lease new

Honda Automobiles from their premise and

do NOT accessorize new Honda

Automobiles. Instead, such leasing

companies are approached by an end user

seeking to lease a specific, full-equipped new

Honda Automobile, acquire such a new

Honda Automobile from an Authorized

Honda Dealer and lease said new Honda

Automobile to such end user, and/or (4)

Transfers of title to financial institutions in

cases in which delivery of the Honda

Automobile is made by the Authorized

Honda Dealer directly to the ultimate end

user and the transfer of title to the financial

institution is scary for the purpose of

financing sale or lease of the Honda

Automobile.

1.2 As used Herein, ‘‘Honda

Automobiles’’ is used as defined in Sections

12 B of the Dealer Agreement.

1.3 As used Herein, ‘‘Policy’’ refers to the

Wholesaling Policy.

2. Restriction on Wholesaling

Effective November 1, 1995, AHM will

strictly enforce the Dealer Agreement and

require that Authorized Honda Dealers not

engage in Wholesaling of Honda

Automobiles.

3. Enforcement of Wholesaling Policy

3.1 Submission of Reports.

Pursuant to Section 7.3 of the Dealer

Agreement, the Authorized Honda Dealer

shall submit to AHM reports on a daily basis,

which include the following information:
25894 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 101 / Thursday, May 23, 1996 / Notices

(a) The Vehicle Identification Number of

each Honda Automobile transferred, sold or

leased by the Authorized Honda Dealer.

(b) The name and address of the person

(whether an individual or business) who has

purchased or leased each such Honda

Automobile (by Vehicle Identification

Number) in accordance with AHM’s

reporting requirements in place at the time of

the sale or lease.

(c) The calendar date of delivery to the

transfers, purchaser or leaser of each such

Honda Automobile, and

(d) Upon reasonable notice to the

Authorized Honda Dealer such additional

information may be required by AHM.

Refusal by the Authorized Honda Dealer to

submit such reports constitutes breach of the

Dealer Agreement. In case of such refusal,

addition to the remedy set forth herein, AHM

reserves the right to exercise all remedies

permitted by Honda Dealer Agreement for a

material breach thereof.

3.2 Audit of Authorized Honda Dealers.

Pursuant to Section 7.4 of the Dealer

Agreement, AHM will conduct periodic

audits of its Authorized Honda Dealers to

verify the accuracy of reports submitted

AHM pursuant to Section 3.1 hereof. Audits

will be initiated on either of the following

basis:

(a) AHM, in its sole discretion may

conduct random audits of Authorized Honda

Dealer, no more frequently than once every

month,

(b) If AHM receives information from

which it reasonably believes that an

Authorized Honda Dealer is engaged in

Wholesaling. AHM will audit the Authorized

Honda Dealer’s records to determine whether

such information is correct.

Refusal by an Authorized Honda Dealer to

permit AHM to conduct the audits described

herein constitutes a breach of the Dealer

Agreement. In case of such refusal, in

addition to the remedies set forth herein,

AHM reserves the right to exercise all

remedies permitted by the Dealer Agreement

for a material breach thereof.

3.3 Preliminary Finding of a Wholesaling

Violation.

AHM shall issue to the Authorized Honda

Dealer a preliminary finding of a violation of

this Policy when one or more of the

following events occurs:

(a) The Authorized Honda Dealer makes

either an oral or written refusal to submit the

reports described in Section 3.1 hereof,

(b) After written request from AHM, the

Authorized Honda Dealer neglects to submit

the reports described in Section 3.1 hereof.

(c) The Authorized Honda Dealer refuses to

submit to the audit describe in Section 3.2

thereof.

(d) Upon audit by AHM pursuant to

Section 3.2 hereof, it is determined that

reports submitted by the Authorized Honda

Dealer to AHM are substantially inaccurate in

that the Authorized Honda Dealer has

inaccurately identified (by Vehicle

Identification Number) the person (whether

an individual or business) who has

purchased or leased one or more Honda

Automobiles from said Authorized Honda

Dealer.

(e) Upon audit by AHM pursuant to

Section 3.2 hereof, AHM has reason to

believe that the Authorized Dealer has

engaged in Wholesaling, or

(f) Upon other reliable evidence (which

evidence will be described to the Authorized

Honda Dealer, AHM has reason to believe

that the Authorized Honda Dealer has

engaged in Wholesaling.

AHM will notify the Authorized Honda

Dealer in writing of any preliminary finding

of a Wholesaling violation. Such notice will

include a brief description of the basis for the

preliminary finding.

3.4 The Authorized Honda Dealer

Response to Preliminary Finding Final

Finding.

The Authorized Honda Dealer will have

fourteen (14) days from notification of any

such preliminary finding to contest AHM’s

finding in writing by submission of sales data

and/or other information that disproves said

finding. Should the Authorized Honda Dealer

fail to contest such finding within (14) days

or should, AHM find that the Authorized

Honda Dealers submission does not disprove

such finding, then AHM will issue a final

finding detailing the Authorized Honda

Dealer’s violation of this Policy.

4. AHM’s Remedies in the Event of a

Violation

In the event of a final finding by AHM that

the Authorized Honda Dealer has violated

the Policy.

4.1 For purposes of allocating vehicles,

AHM will adjust the Authorized Honda

Dealer’s sales history to exclude retail sales

credit earned on transfers found to violate the

Policy.

4.2 AHM will charge-back all incentives

paid by AHM related to translate of Honda

Automobiles to violate the Policy; and

4.3 AHM will reduce marketing

allowances available to the Automobile

Honda Dealer pursuant to the current AHM

marketing programs and proportionate to the

number of Honda Automobiles which have

been found to violate the Policy and/or

charge-back all Dealer Marketing Allowance

amounts (or similar payments) paid by AHM

related to transfer of such Honda

Automobiles.

4.4 Should AHM issue a second final

finding of a violation of the Policy, then, in

addition to the steps state above, AHM will,

(a) Not consider that Authorized Honda

Dealer eligible for additional Honda

Automobiles in excess of the standard

allocation for one (1) year thereafter; and

(b) Not consider that Authorized Honda

Dealer for any additional AHM dealership

location(s) for five (5) years thereafter.

In the event that AHM issues more than

two final findings of violations of the Policy

against an Authorized Honda Dealer, then the

remedies so forth in (a) and (b) of this

subparagraph shall be made permanent.

4.5 Notwithstanding the above, AHM

consider any Wholesaling to be inconsistent

with the Dealer Agreement and AHM

reserves its rights to take appropriate action

to prevent such Wholesaling. Moreover,

AHM will hold the Authorized Honda Dealer

liable for any expenses or losses that AHM

may incur as a result of any Wholesaling by

that Authorized Honda Dealer, including,

without limitation, expenses or losses

resulting from (a) AHM’s inability to notify

customers of product recalls or other service

information and product liability claims

resulting therefrom and (b) consumer claims

including claims in connection with

intermediaries installing non-Honda

equipment, providing inadequate service, or

making misrepresentations.

May 8, 1996.

Harold E. Kohn, Esquire, Kohn, Swift & Graf,

P.C., 1101 Market Street, Suite 2400,

Philadelphia, PA 19107–2924

Dear Mr. Kohn: This responds to your

letter of December 1, 1995, on behalf of your

client, Potamkin Auto Center, Ltd.

(‘‘Potamkin’’), concerning the proposed

consent decree between the Department of

Justice and the National Automobile Dealers

Association (‘‘NADA’’). The proposed decree

settles a civil antitrust suit in which the

Department alleged that the NADA, through

its officers and directors, conspired to lessen

competition in the retail automobile

industry.

Your letter addresses the notification that

NADA must publish and send to its members

to inform them of the decree’s requirements.

You ask that it include an additional

statement that group activities by competitors

designed to restrict price competition are

illegal, whether or not such group activities

are officially sanctioned by the trade

association.

We have carefully considered your

comment and have determined that the

decree, along with its notification provisions,

is fully adequate to prevent continuation or

recurrence of the violations alleged in the

complaint. The complaint alleged that the

NADA engaged in conduct intended to limit

price competition in the retail automobile

sales industry. Accordingly, the prohibitions

of the decree apply to the NADA, its officers,

directors, employees and other persons

acting on its behalf. Because the decree does

not apply to the activities of dealers acting

independently of the NADA, we have

concluded that additional provisions

directed at such actions would not be

appropriate.

Your letter also raises concerns about a

recent policy implemented by American

Honda Motors Co., Inc. (‘‘Honda’’) that

prohibits all Honda dealers in the United

States from transferring new automobiles to

certain third party resellers, a group that

would include Potamkin. You ask that the

Antitrust Division expand its investigation to

include these and other related practices.

Your letter states that Honda’s policy

represents Honda’s joinder in a dealers’

agreement to eliminate price competition

from automobile brokers. Based on the

evidence available at the time the complaint

was filed, the Department did not initiate a

suit against any automobile manufacturer,

and did not allege that any automobile

manufacturer had entered into agreements

with the NADA or automobile dealers. You

do not provide evidence that the dealers had

such an agreement or that Honda’s action

was part of such a conspiracy. Moreover,

unilateral action on Honda’s part, unless it

constitutes monopolization or attempted

monopolization, is not prohibited by the

antitrust laws. If you have additional
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 101 / Thursday, May 23, 1996 / Notices 25895

information about Honda or other

manufacturers, the Department would of

course consider it.

Finally, you request the opportunity to

appear before the Court to be heard regarding

the decree’s notification provisions and to

present additional evidence of concerted

activities by automobile dealers and

manufacturers. Under Section 2 of the

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (the

‘‘Tunney Act’’), 15 U.S.C. § 16(b), which

governs proposed final judgments such as

this one, the Court may hold a hearing in

order to make its determination as to whether

the proposed decree is in the public interest,

but is not required to do so. As discussed

above, we believe that the decree fully

redresses the violations alleged in the

complaint and that the addition you propose

to the decree’s notification provisions would

apply to activities not covered by that decree.

Moreover, a Tunney Act hearing is an

inappropriate forum to consider evidence of

alleged concerted conduct that is not

addressed in the complaint. See U.S. v.

Microsoft, 56 F.3d 1448 (D.C. Cir 1995). If

you are aware of any such evidence, we

encourage you to bring it to our attention.

While we do not believe the hearing you

request is appropriate, we will provide a

copy of your letter, along with this response,

to the Court when we file our response to

public comments.

I hope this letter responds to your

concerns. Thank you for your interest in this

matter and in the enforcement of the antitrust

laws.

Sincerely yours,

Mary Jean Moltenbrey,

Chief, Civil Task Force.

[FR Doc. 96–12775 Filed 5–22–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

Drug Enforcement Administration

Manufacturer of Controlled

Substances; Notice of Registration

By Notice dated February 2, 1996, and

published in the Federal Register on

February 13, 1996, (61 FR 5570), Ansys

Inc., 2 Goodyear, Irvine, California

92718, made application to the Drug

Enforcement Administration (DEA) to

be registered as a bulk manufacturer of

the basic classes of controlled

substances listed below:

Drug Schedule

Cathinone (1235) ......................... I

Methcathinone (1237) .................. I

Heroin (9200) ............................... I

Phencyclidine (7471) .................... II

1-Piperidinocyclohexanecarbonitrile (8603).II

Levorphanol (9220) ...................... II

No comments or objections have been

received. DEA has considered the

factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and

determined that the registration of

Ansys Inc. to manufacture the listed

controlled substances is consistent with

the public interest at this time.

Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823

and 28 CFR §§ 0.100 and 0.104, the

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office

of Diversion Control, hereby orders that

the application submitted by the above

firm for registration as a bulk

manufacturer of the basic classes of

controlled substances listed above is

granted.

Dated: May 16, 1996.

Gene R. Haislip,

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–12971 Filed 5–22–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

Importer of Controlled Substances;

Notice of Registration

By Notice dated March 27, 1996, and

published in the Federal Register on

April 4, 1996, (61 FR 15119), Lonza

Riverside, 900 River Road,

Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428,

made application to the Drug

Enforcement Administration (DEA) to

be registered as an importer of

phenylacetone (8501), a basic class of

controlled substance listed in Schedule

II.

No comments or objections have been

received. DEA has considered the

factors in Title 21, United States Code,

Section 823(a) and determined that the

registration of Lonza Riverside to import

phenylacetone is consistent with the

public interest and with United States

obligations under international treaties,

conventions, or protocols in effect on

May 1, 1971, at this time. Therefore,

pursuant to Section 1008(a) of the

Controlled Substances Import and

Export Act and in accordance with Title

21, Code of Federal Regulations, Section

1311.42, the above firm is granted

registration as an importer of the basic

class of controlled substance listed

above.

Dated: May 16, 1996.

Gene R. Haislip,

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–12972 Filed 5–22–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

[DEA No. 150P]

Controlled Substances: Notice of

Proposed 1996 Aggregate Production

Quotas

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement

Administration, Justice.

ACTION: Notice of proposed revised

aggregate production quotas for 1996.

SUMMARY: This notice proposes revised

1996 aggregate production quotas for

controlled substances in Schedules I

and II, as required under the Controlled

Substances Act of 1970.

DATES: Comments or objections should

be received on or before June 24, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Send comments or

objections to the Administrator, Drug

Enforcement Administration,

Washington, D.C. 20537, Attn: DEA

Federal Register Representative/CCR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Howard McClain, Jr., Chief, Drug &

Chemical Evaluation Section, Drug

Enforcement Administration,

Washington, D.C. 20537, Telephone:

(202) 307–7183.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

306 of the Controlled Substances Act

(CSA) (21 U.S.C. 826) requires that the

Attorney General establish aggregate

production quotas for all controlled

substances listed in Schedules I and II.

This responsibility has been delegated

to the Administrator of the DEA

pursuant to § 0.100 of Title 28 of the

Code of Federal Regulations. The

Administrator, in turn, has redelegated

this function to the Deputy

Administrator of the DEA by section

0.104 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal

Regulations.

On November 21, 1995, a notice of the

1996 established aggregate production

quotas was published in the Federal

Register (60 FR 57808). The notice

stipulated that the Deputy

Administrator of the DEA would adjust

the quotas in early 1996 as provided for

in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations,

Section 1303.23(c). Subsequently, the

DEA revised 1996 aggregate production

quotas for amobarbital, heroin and

hydromorphone as published in the

Federal Register (61 FR 19090 and 61

FR 14336). Those revised figures are

included with the proposed 1996

revised aggregate production quotas

below. These proposed aggregate

production quotas represent those

amounts of controlled substances that

may be produced in the United States in

1996 and do not include amounts which

may be imported for use in industrial

processes.

The proposed revisions are based on

a review of 1995 year-end inventories,

1995 disposition data submitted by

quota applicants, estimates of the

medical needs of the United States

submitted to the DEA by the Food and

Drug Administration and other

information available to the DEA.