29768 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 12, 1996 / Notices

the defendants’ records and personnel

in order to determine defendants’

compliance with the judgment.

D. Scope of the Proposed Judgment

(1) Persons Bound by the Decree

The proposed judgment expressly

provides in Section III that its

provisions apply to each of the

defendants and each of their officers,

directors, agents and employees,

subsidiaries, successors and assigns and

to all other persons who receive actual

notice of the terms of judgment.

In addition, Section III of the

judgment prohibits each of the

defendants from selling or transferring

all or substantially all of its stock or

assets used in its tampico fiber business

unless the acquiring party files with the

Court its consent to be bound by the

provisions of the judgment.

(2) Duration of the Judgment

Section IX provides that the judgment

will expire on the tenth anniversary of

its entry.

Effect of the Proposed Judgment on

Competition

The prohibition terms of Section IV of

the judgment are designed to ensure that

each defendant will act independently

in determining the prices, and terms

and conditions at which it will sell or

offer to sell tampico fiber, and that there

will be no conspirational restraints

(horizontal or vertical) in the tampico

fiber market. The affirmative obligations

of Sections VI and VII are designed to

insure that each corporate defendant’s

employees are aware of their obligations

under the decree in order to avoid a

repetition of behavior that occurred in

the tampico fiber industry during the

conspiracy period. Compliance with the

proposed judgment will prevent price

collusion, allocation of sales, markets

and customers, concerted activities in

restricting new entrants and customers,

and resale price restraints by each of the

defendants with each other and with

other tampico fiber processors and/or

distributors.

IV

Remedies Available to Potential Private

Plaintiffs

After entry of the proposed final

judgment, any potential private plaintiff

who might have been damaged by the

alleged violation will retain the same

right to sue for monetary damages and

any other legal and equitable remedies

which he/she may have had if the

proposed judgment had not been

entered. The proposed judgment may

not be used, however, as prima facie

evidence in private litigation, pursuant

to Section 5(a) of the Clayton Act, as

amended, 15 U.S.C. § 16(a).

V

Procedures Available for Modification of

the Proposed Consent Judgment

The proposed final judgment is

subject to a stipulation between the

government and the defendants which

provides that the government may

withdraw its consent to the proposed

judgment any time before the Court has

found that entry of the proposed

judgment is in the public interest. By its

terms, the proposed judgment provides

for the Court’s retention of jurisdiction

of this action in order to permit any of

the parties to apply to the Court for such

orders as may be necessary or

appropriate for the modification of the

final judgment.

As provided by the APPA (15 U.S.C.

§ 16), any person wishing to comment

upon the proposed judgment may, for a

sixty-day (60) period subsequent to the

publishing of this document in the

Federal Register, submit written

comments to the United States

Department of Justice, Antitrust

Division, Attention: Robert E. Connolly,

Chief, Middle Atlantic Office, Suite 650

West, 7th and Walnut Streets,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106. Such

comments and the government’s

response to them will be filed with the

Court and published in the Federal

Register. The government will evaluate

all such comments to determine

whether there is any reason for

withdrawal of its consent to the

proposed judgment.

VI

Alternative to the Proposed Final

Judgment

The alternative to the proposed final

judgment considered by the Antitrust

Division was a full trial of the issues on

the merits and relief. The Division

considers the substantive language of

the proposed judgment to be of

sufficient scope and effectiveness to

make litigation on the issues

unnecessary, as the judgment provides

appropriate relief against the violations

alleged in the complaint.

VII

Determinative Materials and Documents

No materials or documents were

considered determinative by the United

States in formulating the proposed Final

Judgment. Therefore, none are being

filed pursuant to the APPA, 15 U.S.C.

§ 16(b).

Dated: May 31, 1996.

Anne K. Bingaman,

Assistant Attorney General.

Joel I. Klein,

Deputy Assistant Attorney General.

Rebecca P. Dick,

Deputy Director of Operations.

Robert E. Connolly,

Chief, Middle Atlantic Office.

Respectfully submitted,

Edward S. Panek.

Michelle A. Pionkowski.

Roger L. Currier.

Joseph Muoio,

Attorneys, Antitrust Division, U.S.

Department of Justice, Middle Atlantic Office,

The Curtis Center, Suite 650W, 7th & Walnut

Streets, Philadelphia, PA 19106, Tel.: (215)

597–7401.

[FR Doc. 96–14473 Filed 6–11–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

Notice Pursuant to the National

Cooperative Research and Production

Act of 1993, Center for Emissions

Control, Inc.

Notice is hereby given that, on May 8,

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’’), the Center for

Emissions Control, Inc. (‘‘CEC’’) filed

written notification simultaneously with

the Attorney General and the Federal

Trade Commission disclosing changes

in its membership. The notification was

filed for the purpose of extending the

Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of

antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages

under specified circumstances.

Specifically, CEC advised that Diversey

Corporation, Cincinnati, OH; Edjetech

Services, Inc., Wellington, OH; Grace

Container Products, Lexington, MA;

Midbrook Products, Inc., Jackson, MI;

Precision Machined Products

Association, Brecksville, OH; and REM

Sales, Inc., East Granby, CT, have

become members. Additionally, Acurex,

Inc.; Air Canada; AT&T Corporation;

Bethlehem Steel Corporation; BristolMeyers Squibb Company; Brulin &

Company, Inc.; Camco International,

Inc.; Chattanooga Group, Inc.; Connor

Formed Metal Products Inc.; Delta

Omega Technologies, Inc.; Detrex

Corporation; Dunlee, Inc.; Environsolv,

Inc.; Exxon Chemical Canada, Inc.;

Foamex Products, Inc.; Glidco Organics

Corporation; Hahn and Kolb, Inc.; HCC

Industries/Hermetic Seal Corporation;

Kelsey-Hayes Corporation; Mill Creek

Company, Inc.; Oakite Products, Inc.;

Occidental Chemical Corporation; Ques

Industries, Inc.; Ranco, Inc.; Safety

Kleen Equipment System, Inc.; Shell
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 12, 1996 / Notices 29769

Chemical Company, Inc.; Swenson

Company, Inc., Syntex Corporation;

Teledyne Relays, Inc.; The Upjohn

Corporation; Thomson Industries Inc;

and UOP, Inc. are no longer members.

On May 13, 1991, the CEC filed its

original notification pursuant to Section

6(a) of the Act. The Department

published a notice in the Federal

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the

Act on May 13, 1991 (56 FR 24843). The

last notification was filed on April 14,

1993. The Department published a

notice in the Federal Register on June

22, 1993 (58 FR 33952).

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 96–14791 Filed 6–11–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

Notice Pursuant to the National

Cooperative Research and Production

Act of 1993—Enterprise Computer

Telephony Forum

Notice is hereby given that, on April

17, 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’’), the Enterprise

Computer Telephony Forum [ECTF]

filed written notification simultaneously

with the Attorney General and the

Federal Trade Commission disclosing

changes in its membership. The

notification was filed for the purpose of

extending the Act’s provisions limiting

the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to

actual damages under specified

circumstances. Specifically, Amtelco,

McFarland, WI; Sun MicroSystems,

Mountain View, CA; and Trident

Corporation, Fairfax, VA have become

Principal Members. Analogic

Corporation, Peabody, MA has changed

from a Principal Member to an Auditing

Member. The following parties have

become Auditing Members: Applied

Language Technologies, Cambridge,

MA; Ascom Telecom, Ltd., Cardiff,

UNITED KINGDOM; Bosch Telecom

GMBH, Frankfort, GERMANY;

Cognitronics Corporation, Danbury, CT;

Industry Technology Research Institute,

Hsin-chu, TAIWAN; Itec Telecom,

Danbury, CT; Oki Electronic Industry

Co., Ltd., Warabi-shi, JAPAN;

Pagesmart, Dallas, TX; and Silicon

Automation Systems, Ltd., Bangalore,

INDIA. Samsung Electronics and

Teloquent Communications Corporation

are no longer Auditing Members.

No other changes have been made in

the membership, nature or objectives of

ECTF. Membership remains open, and

ECTF intends to file additional written

notifications disclosing all changes in

membership.

On February 20, 1996, ECTF 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 13, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg.

22074).

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 96–14792 Filed 6–11–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

Notice Pursuant to the National

Cooperative Research and Production

Act of 1993—Hybrid Propulsion

System Research Collaboration

Agreement

Notice is hereby given that, on May

13, 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’’), Hybrid

Propulsion System Research

Collaboration Agreement 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

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

the parties are: General Motors

Corporation, Detroit, MI; Chrysler

Corporation, Highland Park, MI; and

Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, MI.

The objective of the venture is to

accelerate the development of Hybrid

Propulsion System (HPS) research, to

minimize inefficient duplication of

effort and expense, to maximize

leverage of corporate and government

resources, and to improve general

scientific knowledge. The results will

support the Partnership for a New

Generation of Vehicles and potentially

make the Parties more competitive in

world markets. To meet these objectives,

the Parties will combine their

government-funded HPS research

initiatives, collect, exchange and

analyze research information, interact

with government, auto industry and

other entities interested in this area and

perform other acts allowed by the

National Cooperative Research and

Production Act that would advance

these goals.

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 96–14793 Filed 6–11–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

Notice Pursuant to the National

Cooperative Research and Production

Act of 1993—Inter Company

Collaboration for Aids Drug

Development

Notice is hereby given that, on May

24, 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’’), Inter

Company Collaboration for Aids Drug

Development (The Collaboration) filed

written notifications simultaneously

with the Attorney General and the

Federal Trade Commission reflecting

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. The changes

are that Triangle Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,

of Durham, North Carolina and Agouron

Pharmaceuticals, Inc., of La Jolla,

California, have become members of the

Collaboration.

No other changes have been made in

either the membership or planned

activities of the Collaboration.

Membership in the Collaboration

remains open, and the Collaboration

intends to file additional written

notifications disclosing all changes in

membership.

On My 27, 1993, the Collaboration

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 6, 1993 (58 FR

36223).

The last notification was filed with

the Department on May 18, 1995. A

notice was published in the Federal

Register on February 23, 1996 (61 FR

7019).

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 96–14795 Filed 6–11–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

Notice Pursuant to the National

Cooperative Research and Production

Act of 1993 Low Cost Flip Chip

Consortium

Notice is hereby given that, on May

20, 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 Low Cost

Flip Chip Consortium 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