Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 12, 1996 / Notices 29763

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree

Pursuant to the Comprehensive

Environmental Response

Compensation and Recovery Liability

Act

In accordance with Departmental

policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby

given that a proposed partial consent

decree in United States v. The Glidden

Company, et al., Civil Action No. 5:95

CV 1009, was lodged on May 31, 1996

with the United States District Court for

the Northern District of Ohio. This

proposed consent decree would resolve

the United States’ claims against The

Glidden Company, one of two

defendants in this case, for

unreimbursed past costs incurred at the

Bohaty Drum Site in Medina County,

Ohio, pursuant Section 107 of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability

Act, 42 U.S.C. 9607, in return for a

payment of $60,000.

The Department of Justice will

receive, for a period of thirty (30) days

from the date of this publication,

comments relating to the proposed

consent decree. Comments should be

addressed to the Assistant Attorney

General for the Environment and

Natural Resources Division, Department

of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, and

should refer to United States v. The

Glidden Company, et al., Civil Action

No. 5:95 CV 1009, and the Department

of Justice Reference No. 90–11–2–1108.

The proposed consent decree may be

examined at the Office of the United

States Attorney, Northern District of

Ohio, 1800 Bank One Center, 600

Superior Avenue, East, Cleveland, Ohio,

44114–2600; the Region 5 Office of the

Environmental Protection Agency, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois, 60604–3590; 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

consent 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. In

requesting a copy, please refer to the

referenced case and enclose a check in

the amount of $4.25 (25 cents per page

reproduction costs), payable to the

Consent Decree Library.

Bruce S. Gelber,

Deputy Chief, Environmental Enforcement

Section, Environment and Natural Resources

Division.

[FR Doc. 96–14789 Filed 6–11–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree

Pursuant to the Clean Water Act

In accordance with Departmental

Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby

given that a consent decree in United

States of America v. Rueth Builders,

Inc., Civ. No. 2:96–CV–66 (N.D. Ind.),

was lodged with the United States

District Court for the Northern District

of Indiana on March 8, 1996. The

proposed decree concerns alleged

violations of the Clean Water Act, 33

U.S.C. 1311, as a result of the discharge

of dredged and fill materials onto

approximately 0.40 acres of wetlands by

Rueth Buildings, Inc., in Dyer, Lake

County, Indiana.

The Consent Decree provides for the

payment of a $10,000.00 civil penalty to

the United States and permanently

enjoins Rueth Builders, Inc. from taking

any actions, or causing others to take

any actions, which result in the

discharge of dredged or fill material into

waters of the United States, as defined

by the Clean Water Act and regulations

promulgated thereunder, except as in

compliance with an individual permit

issued pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1344(a), or

with any applicable general permit

issued by the United States Army Corps

of Engineers.

The Department of Justice will receive

written comments relating to the

consent decree for a period of thirty (30)

days from the date of this notice.

Comments should be addressed to the

Assistant Attorney General,

Environment and Natural Resources

Division, United States Department of

Justice, Attention: Steven E. Rusak, Trial

Attorney, Environmental Defense

Section, P.O. Box 23986, Washington,

D.C. 20026–3986, and should refer to

United States of America v. Rueth

Builders, Inc., DJ Reference No. 90–5–1–

6–556.

The proposed consent decree may be

examined at the Offices of the United

States Attorney for the Northern District

of Indiana, 507 State Street, Fourth

Floor, Hammond, Indiana 46320; the

office of Greg Carlson, Wetlands

Enforcement Officer, Wetlands Division,

Wetlands and Watershed Section,

Wetlands Regulatory Unit, Region V of

the United States Environmental

Protection Agency, 77 W. Jackson

Boulevard, 16th Floor, Chicago, Illinois,

60604, (312) 886–0124, and at the

Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street,

N.W., 4th Floor, Washington, D.C.

20005. In requesting a copy, please

enclose a check in the amount of $2.75

for a copy of the consent decree with

attachments.

Letitia J. Grishaw,

Chief, Environmental Defense Section,

Environment and Natural Resources Division,

United States Department of Justice.

[FR Doc. 96–14796 Filed 6–11–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

Antitrust Division

United States v. A&L Mayer

Associates, Inc., et al. No. 96–CV–40–

44 (E.D. Pa., Filed May 30, 1996);

Proposed Final Judgment and

Competitive Impact Statement

Notice is hereby given pursuant to the

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act,

15 U.S.C. 16 (b)–(h), that a proposed

Final Consent Judgment, Stipulation

and Competitive Impact Statement have

been filed with the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of

Pennsylvania in the above-captioned

case.

On May 30, 1996, the United States

filed a civil antitrust Complaint to

prevent and restrain A&L Mayer

Associates, Inc., A&L Mayer, Inc. and

Fibras Saltillo, S.A. de C.V., from

conspiring to fix prices and allocate the

sales volume of tampico fiber imported

and sold in the United States in

violation of Section 1 of the Sherman

Act (15 U.S.C. 1). Tampico fiber is a

vegetable fiber grown in Mexico and

used as a filler in industrial and

consumer brushes.

The complaint alleges that the

defendants agreed with unnamed coconspirators to: (1) Fix the prices of

tampico fiber imported into the United

States; (2) fix the resale prices charged

by their United States distributors; and

(3) allocate tampico fiber sales between

their distributors.

The proposed Final Judgment would

prohibit the defendants from entering

into any agreement or understanding

with any other processor of tampico

fiber or any of such processor’s

distributors for:

(1) Raising, fixing, or maintaining the

price or other terms or conditions for

the sale or supply of tampico fiber;

(2) Allocating sales volume,

geographic markets or customers for

tampico fiber;

(3) Taking concerted action to

discourage or eliminate new entrants

into the tampico fiber market; and

(4) Taking concerted action to restrict

or eliminate the supply of tampico fiber

to any customer.

The proposed Final Judgment would

also prohibit the defendants from

adhering to or adopting any resale
29764 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 12, 1996 / Notices

pricing policy and from terminating or

threatening to terminate any distributor

for that distributor’s pricing.

Public comment is invited within the

statutory sixty (60) day period. Such

comments will be published in the

Federal Register and filed with the

Court. Comments should be addressed

to Robert E. Connolly, Chief, Middle

Atlantic Office, U.S. Department of

Justice, Antitrust Division, The Curtis

Center, 6th and Walnut Streets, Suite

650 West, Philadelphia, PA 19106

(telephone number 215–597–7405).

Rebecca P. Dick,

Deputy Director of Operations.

In the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

United States of America, Plaintiff, v. A&L

Mayer Associates, Inc.; A&L Mayer, Inc.; and

Fibras Saltillo, S.A. DE C.V.; Defendants.

Civil Action No. 96–CV–4044, Judge Jay C.

Waldman.

Stipulation

It is stipulated by and between the

undersigned parties, by their respective

attorneys, that:

(1) The parties consent that a final

judgment in the form hereto attached

may be filed and entered by the Court

at any time after the expiration of the

sixty (60) day period for public

comment provided by the Antitrust

Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C.

§ 16 (b)–(h), without further notice to

any party or other proceedings, either

upon the motion of any party or upon

the Court’s own motion, provided that

plaintiff has not withdrawn its consent

as provided herein;

(2) The plaintiff may withdraw its

consent hereto at any time within said

period of sixty (60) days by serving

notice thereof upon the other party

hereto and filing said notice with the

Court;

(3) In the event the plaintiff

withdraws its consent hereto, this

stipulation shall be of no effect

whatever in this or any other proceeding

and the making of this stipulation shall

not in any manner prejudice any

consenting party to any subsequent

proceedings.

Dated: May 31, 1996.

For the Plaintiff:

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.

For the Defendants:

A&L Mayer Associates, Inc.

A&L Mayer, Inc.

Fibras Saltillo, S.A. DE C.V.

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.

In the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

United States of America, Plaintiff, v. A&L

Mayer Associates, Inc.; and Fibras Saltillo,

S.A. DE C.V., Defendants. Civil Action No.

96–CV–4044, Judge Jay C. Waldman.

Final Judgment

Plaintiff, the United States of

America, filed its complaint on May 31,

1996. Plaintiff and defendants, by their

respective attorneys, have consented to

the entry of this final judgment without

trial or adjudication of any issue of fact

or law. This Final Judgment shall not be

evidence against or an admission by any

party to any issue of fact or law.

Defendants have agreed to be bound by

the provisions of this Final Judgment

pending its approval by the Court.

THEREFORE, before the taking of any

testimony and without trial or

adjudication of any such issue of fact or

law herein, and upon consent of the

parties, it is hereby ORDERED,

ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as follows:

I

Jurisdiction

This Court has jurisdiction of the

subject matter of this action and of each

of the parties consenting hereto. The

complaint states a claim upon which

relief may be granted against defendants

under Section 1, of the Sherman Act, 15

U.S.C. § 1.

II

Definitions

As used in this final judgment:

A. ‘‘Agreement’’ means any contract,

agreement or understanding, whether

oral or written, or any term or provision

thereof.

B. ‘‘Person’’ means any individual,

corporation, partnership, company, sole

proprietorship, firm or other legal

entity.

C. ‘‘Tampico fiber’’ is a natural

vegetable fiber produced by the

lechuguilla plant and grown in the

deserts of northern Mexico. It is

harvested by individual farmers,

processed, finished and exported to the

United States and worldwide where it is

used as brush filling material for

industrial and consumer brushes. It is

available in natural white, bleached

white, black, gray and a wide variety of

mixtures.

D. ‘‘Resale price’’ means any price,

price floor, price ceiling, price range, or

any mark-up, formula or margin of

profit relating to tampico fiber sold by

distributors.

III

Applicability

A. This final judgment applies to each

of the defendants and to their officers,

directors, agents, employees,

subsidiaries, successors and assigns,

and to all other persons in active

concert or participation with any of

them who shall have received actual

notice of this final judgment by personal

service or otherwise.

B. Each defendant shall require, as a

condition of any sale or other

disposition of all, or substantially all, of

its stock or assets used in the

manufacture and/or sale of tampico

fiber, that the acquiring party/parties

agree to be bound by the provisions of

this final judgment, and that such

agreement be filed with the Court.

IV

Prohibited Conduct

As to tampico fiber imported into or

sold in the United States, each

defendant is enjoined and restrained

from:

A. directly or indirectly entering into,

adhering to, maintaining, furthering,

enforcing or claiming any rights under

any contract, agreement, arrangement,

understanding, plan, program,

combination or conspiracy with any

other processor of tampico fiber or any

of such processor’s distributors for:

(1) raising, fixing, or maintaining the

prices or other terms or conditions for

the sale or supply of tampico fiber;

(2) allocating sales volumes,

geographic markets or customers for

tampico fiber;

(3) taking concerted action to

discourage or eliminate new entrants

into the tampico fiber market; and
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 12, 1996 / Notices 29765

(4) taking concerted action to restrict

or eliminate the supply of tampico fiber

to any customer;

B. directly or indirectly entering into,

adhering to, maintaining, furthering,

enforcing or claiming any right under

any contract, agreement, understanding,

plan or program with any distributor to

fix or maintain the prices at which

tampico fiber sold by defendants may be

resold or offered for sale by any

distributor;

C. directly or indirectly adopting,

promulgating, suggesting, announcing

or establishing any resale pricing policy

for tampico fiber;

D. threatening any distributor with

termination or terminating any

distributor on the basis of that

distributor’s pricing; or discussing with

any present or potential distributor any

decision regarding termination of any

other distributor for any reason directly

or indirectly related to the latter

distributor’s resale pricing; provided,

however, that nothing herein shall

prohibit any defendant from terminating

a distributor for any reason other than

the distributor’s resale pricing; and

E. participating or engaging directly or

indirectly through any trade association,

organization or other group in any

activity which is prohibited in IV (A)–

(D) above.

V

Permitted Communication

Other than Section IV(A) of this Final

Judgment, nothing contained in this

final judgment shall prohibit a

defendant from negotiating, arranging or

communicating with another processor

of tampico fiber, or any of such

processor’s distributors or with any

agent, broker or representative of such

processor or distributor solely in

connection with bona fide proposed or

actual purchases of tampico fiber from,

or sale of tampico fiber to, that

processor or distributor.

VI

Compliance Program

Each defendant shall establish within

thirty (30) days of entry of this final

judgment and shall thereafter for so long

as it or its employees are engaged in the

manufacture or sale of tampico fiber,

maintain a program to insure

compliance with this final judgment,

which program shall include at a

minimum the following:

A. designating an Antitrust

Compliance Officer responsible, on a

continuing basis, for achieving

compliance with this final judgment

and promptly reporting to the

Department of Justice any violation of

the final judgment;

B. within sixty (60) days after the date

of entry of this final judgment,

furnishing a copy thereof to each of its

own, its subsidiaries’, and its affiliates’

(1) officers, (2) directors, and (3)

employees or managing agents who are

engaged in, or have responsibility for or

authority over, the pricing of tampico

fiber; and advising and informing each

such person that his or her violation of

this final judgment could result in a

conviction for contempt of court and

imprisonment and/or fine;

C. within seventy five (75) days after

the date of entry of this final judgment,

certifying to the plaintiff whether it has

designated an Antitrust Compliance

Officer and has distributed the final

judgment in accordance with Sections

VI (A) and (B) above;

D. within thirty (30) days after each

such person becomes an officer,

director, employee or agent of the kind

described in Section VI (B), furnishing

to him or her a copy of this final

judgment together with the advice

specified in Section VI (B);

E. annually distributing the final

judgment to each person described in

Sections VI (B) and (D);

F. annually briefing each person

described in Sections VI (B) and (D) as

to defendants’s policy regarding

compliance with the Sherman Act and

with this final judgment, including the

advice that such defendant will make

legal advice available to such persons

regarding any compliance questions or

problems;

G. annually obtaining (and

maintaining) from each person

described in Sections VI (B) and (D) a

certification that he or she:

(1) has read, understands and agrees

to abide by the terms of this final

judgment;

(2) has been advised of and

understands the company’s policy with

respect to compliance with the Sherman

Act and the final judgment;

(3) has been advised and understands

that his or her non-compliance with the

final judgment may result in conviction

for criminal contempt of court and

imprisonment and/or fine; and

(4) is not aware of any violation of the

final judgment that has not been

reported to the Antitrust Compliance

Officer; and

H. on or about each anniversary date

of the entry of the final judgment,

submitting to the plaintiff an annual

declaration as to the fact and manner of

its compliance with this final judgment.

VII

Inspection and Compliance

For the purpose of determining or

securing compliance with this final

judgment and subject to any legally

recognized privilege, from time to time:

A. duly authorized representatives of

the Department of Justice shall, upon

written request of the Attorney General

or of the Assistant Attorney General in

charge of the Antitrust Division, and on

reasonable notice to a defendant made

to its principal office, be permitted:

(1) access, during office hours of such

defendant, to inspect and copy all

books, ledgers, accounts,

correspondence, memoranda and other

records and documents in the

possession or under the control of such

defendant, which may have counsel

present, relating to any matters

contained in this final judgment; and

(2) subject to the reasonable

convenience of such defendant and

without restraint or interference from it,

to interview officers, employees and

agents of such defendant, who may have

counsel present, regarding any such

matters;

B. upon the written request of the

Attorney General or of the Assistant

Attorney General in charge of the

Antitrust Division made to a defendant’s

principal office, such defendant shall

submit such written reports, under oath

if requested, with respect to any of the

matters contained in this final

judgment, as may be requested;

C. no information or documents

obtained by the means provided in this

Section VII of the final judgment shall

be divulged by any representative of the

Department of Justice to any person

other than a duly authorized

representative of the Executive Branch

of the United States, except in the

course of legal proceedings to which the

United States is a party, or for the

purpose of securing compliance with

this final judgment, or as otherwise

required by law;

D. if at the time information or

documents are furnished by a defendant

to plaintiff, such defendant represents

and identifies in writing the material in

any such information or documents to

which a claim of protection may be

asserted under Rule 26(c)(7) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and

such defendant marks each pertinent

page of such material, ‘‘Subject to claim

of protection under Rule 26(c)(7) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,’’ then

ten (10) days notice shall be given by

plaintiff to such defendant prior to

divulging such material in any legal

processing (other than a grand jury
29766 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 12, 1996 / Notices

proceeding) to which such defendant is

not a party; and

E. nothing set forth in this final

judgment shall prevent the Antitrust

Division from utilizing other

investigative alternatives, such as Civil

Investigative Demand process provided

by 15 U.S.C. §§ 1311–1314 or a federal

grand jury, to determine if the defendant

has complied with this final judgment.

VIII

Retention of Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction is retained by this Court

for the purpose of enabling any of the

parties to this final judgment to apply to

this Court at any time for such further

orders or directions as may be necessary

or appropriate for the construction or

carrying out of this final judgment, for

the modification of any of the

provisions hereof, for the enforcement

of compliance herewith, and for the

punishment of violations hereof.

IX

Ten-Year Expiration

This final judgment will expire on the

tenth anniversary of its date of entry.

X

Public Interest

Entry of this final judgment is in the

public interest.

Dated: llllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

In the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

United States of America, Plaintiff, v. A&L

Mayer Associates, Inc.; A&L Mayer, Inc.; and

Fibras Saltillo, S.A. DE C.V., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 96–CV–4044, Judge Jay C.

Waldman.

Competitive Impact Statement

Pursuant to Section 2 of the Antitrust

Procedures and Penalties Act (‘‘APPA’’),

15 U.S.C. § 16(b), the United States files

this Competitive Impact Statement

relating to the proposed final judgment

as to United States v. A&L Mayer

Associates, Inc., et al., submitted for

entry in this civil antitrust proceeding.

I

Nature and Purpose of the Proceedings

On llll, the United States filed a

civil antitrust complaint alleging that

under Section 4 of the Sherman Act, as

amended, 15 U.S.C. § 4, the abovenamed defendants combined and

conspired with others from at least as

early as January 1990 to April 1995, to

lessen and eliminate competition in the

sale of tampico fiber in the United

States, in violation of Section 1 of the

Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. A

companion criminal information against

A&L Mayer Associates, Inc. was filed on

llll. The civil complaint alleges

that as part of the conspiracy, the

defendants and co-conspirators among

other things:

(a) fixed the prices at which tampico

fiber was imported into the United

States;

(b) fixed the resale prices for tampico

fiber charged by their exclusive United

States distributors; and

(c) allocated sales between such

distributors.

The complaint seeks a judgment by

the Court declaring that the defendants

engaged in unlawful combinations and

conspiracies in restraint of trade in

violation of the Sherman Act. It also

seeks an order by the Court to enjoin

and restrain the defendants from any

such activities or other activities having

a similar purpose or effect in the future.

The United States and defendants

have stipulated that the proposed final

judgment may be entered after

compliance with the APPA, unless the

United States withdraws its consent.

The Court’s entry of the proposed

final judgment will terminate this civil

action against these defendants, except

that the Court will retain jurisdiction

over the matter for possible further

proceedings to construe, modify or

enforce the judgment, or to punish

violations of any of its provisions.

II

Description of the Practices Giving Rise

to the Alleged Violations of the Antitrust

Laws

As defined in the complaint, tampico

fiber is a natural vegetable fiber

produced by the lechuguilla plant and

grown in the deserts of northern

Mexico. It is harvested by individual

farmers, processed, finished and

exported worldwide, where it is used as

brush filling material for industrial and

consumer brushes. It is available in

natural white, bleached white, black,

gray and a wide variety of mixtures.

The complaint further alleges that the

defendant corporations accounted for

aggregate United States sales of tampico

of approximately $10 million during the

period January of 1990 through April of

1995. During the period of time covered

by the complaint the defendants sold

and shipped substantial quantities of

tampico fiber in a continuous and

uninterrupted flow of interstate

commerce from the processing facility

of Fibras Saltillo, S.A. de C.V. in Mexico

through A&L Mayer Associates, Inc.,

with offices in New York, to their

exclusive United States distributor and

the distributor’s customers throughout

the United States, including those

located in the Eastern District of

Pennsylvania. Similarly, the complaint

alleges that non-defendant coconspirators sold and shipped

additional substantial quantities of

tampico fiber in a continuous and

uninterrupted flow of interstate

commerce from another processing

facility in Mexico through their

exclusive United States distributor to

customers through the United States,

including those located in the Eastern

District of Pennsylvania.

The complaint alleges that the

defendants engaged in three forms of

concerted action and states three causes

of action: (1) an agreement to fix import

prices, (2) an agreement to fix resale

prices, and (3) an agreement to allocate

sales. Essentially, the complaint alleges

that defendants and their coconspirators fixed the prices at which

tampico fiber was sold to their two

exclusive United States distributors,

agreed on resale prices with those two

distributors and agreed to a percentage

allocation of sales volume between

those distributors.

The defendants and their coconspirators went far beyond suggesting

resale prices for their distributors.

Resale price sheets were provided to the

two United States distributors by the

defendants and co-conspirators. As a

condition of becoming and remaining a

United States distributor of tampico,

one of these distributors agreed by

written contract with one of the

defendants to sell at the prices listed on

the price sheet. From at least January

1990 on, both of the two exclusive

United States’ distributors of tampico

had identical price sheets supplied by

the defendants and co-conspirators, and

the majority of sales were made by those

distributors at these list prices or other

agreed upon prices.

The use of resale price maintenance

by the defendants and co-conspirators

was designed to and had the effect of

monitoring and enforcing the horizontal

price-fixing and sales volume allocation

agreements between the defendants and

co-conspirators. The defendants’

conduct had the effect of lessening or

eliminating competition between the

two United States distributors of

tampico in order to maintain prices at

artificially high and non-competitive

levels.

In furtherance of the conspiracy, the

defendants and their co-conspirators,

among other things, periodically met,

discussed and agreed to new import and

resale prices for tampico fiber, and met,

discussed and compared the annual
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 12, 1996 / Notices 29767

sales volumes of their United States

distributors to ensure they were at or

about the percentages the defendants

and co-conspirators had agreed upon for

each.

III

Explanation of the Proposed Final

Judgment

The United States and the defendants

have stipulated that a final judgment, in

the form filed with the Court, may be

entered by the Court at any time after

compliance with the APPA, 15 U.S.C.

§ 16 (b)–(h). The proposed final

judgment provides that the entry of the

final judgment does not constitute any

evidence against or an admission by any

party with respect to any issue of fact

or law. Under the provisions of Section

2(e) of the APPA, entry of the proposed

final judgment is conditioned upon the

Court finding that its entry will be in the

public interest.

The United States has filed a criminal

information charging A&L Mayer

Associates, Inc. and unnamed coconspirators with a conspiracy to fix the

prices and allocate sales of tampico fiber

imported into and sold in the United

States, in violation of the Sherman Act

(15 U.S.C. § 1).

The United States does not routinely

file both civil and criminal cases

involving the same underlying conduct.

It is appropriate to do so in this case,

however, because of the extent of the

control of the market by a small number

of companies conspiring to eliminate

price competition in the sale of tampico

fiber in the United States through a

comprehensive scheme of fixing the

price of imported tampico, allocating

sales volumes between their exclusive

distributors, and dictating the prices at

which those distributors resold tampico

fiber within the United States.

The proposed final judgment contains

two principal forms of relief. First, the

defendants are enjoined from repeating

the behavior which characterized the

tampico fiber conspiracy and from

certain other conduct that could have

similar anticompetitive effects. Second,

the proposed final judgment places

affirmative burdens on the defendants to

pursue a compliance program directed

toward avoiding a repetition of the

tampico fiber conspiracy.

A. Prohibited Conduct

Section IV of the proposed final

judgment broadly enjoins each

defendant from conspiring to fix prices,

allocate sales, discourage new entrants,

or otherwise restrict or eliminate the

supply of tampico fiber sold to any

customer in the United States, (IV (A));

from engaging in any conduct to set or

control the resale prices of any

distributor to their customers (IV (B), (C)

and (D)); and from joining any group

whose aims or activities are prohibited

by Sections IV (A)–(D) of the final

judgment (IV (E)). Specifically, as

regards tampico fiber sold in the United

States, Sections IV (A)–(E) of the

proposed final judgment provide as

follows.

Section IV(A) of the proposed final

judgment enjoins the defendants from

directly or indirectly agreeing with any

other processor of tampico fiber or such

processor’s distributors to (1) Raise, fix,

or maintain the prices or other terms or

conditions for the sale or supply of

tampico fiber; (2) allocate sales volumes,

geographic markets or customers for

tampico; (3) discourage or eliminate

new entrants in the tampico fiber

market; and (4) restrict or eliminate the

supply of tampico fiber to any customer.

Section IV(B) of the proposed final

judgment enjoins the defendants from

directly or indirectly entering into,

adhering to, maintaining, furthering,

enforcing or claiming any right under

any contract, agreement, understanding,

plan or program with any distributor to

fix or maintain the prices at which

tampico fiber sold by defendants may be

resold or offered for sale by an

distributor.

Section IV(C) of the proposed final

judgment enjoins the defendants from

directly or indirectly adopting,

promulgating, suggesting, announcing

or establishing any resale pricing policy

for tampico fiber.

Section IV(D) of the proposed final

judgment enjoins the defendants from

threatening any distributor with

termination or terminating any

distributor for that distributor’s pricing;

or discussing with any present or

potential distributor any decision

regarding termination of any other

distributor for any reason directly or

indirectly related to the latter

distributor’s resale pricing; provided,

however, that nothing herein shall

prohibit any defendant from terminating

a distributor for any reasons other than

the distributor’s pricing.

Section IV (E) of the proposed final

judgment enjoins the defendants from

participating or engaging, directly or

indirectly through any trade association,

organization or other group, in any

activity which is prohibited in Sections

IV (A)–(D) of the proposed final

judgment.

B. Permitted Communications

The only exception to the board

prohibitions of Section IV of the

proposed final judgment is contained in

Section V and concerns any necessary

negotiations, arrangements or

communications with another processor

or such processor’s distributors or any

agent, broker or representative of such

processor or distributor in connection

with bona fide proposed or actual

purchases of tampico fiber from or sales

of tampico fiber to that processor or

distributor.

C. Defendants’ Affirmative Obligations

Section VI requires that within thirty

(30) days of entry of the final judgment,

the defendants adopt or pursue an

affirmative compliance program

directed toward ensuring that their

employees comply with the antitrust

laws. More specifically, the program

must include the designation of an

Antitrust Compliance Officer

responsible for compliance with the

final judgment and reporting any

violations of its terms. It further requires

that each defendant furnish a copy of

the final judgment to each of its officers

and directors and each of its employees

who is engaged in or has responsibility

for or authority over pricing of tampico

fiber within sixty (60) days of the date

of entry, and to certify that it has

distributed those copies and designated

an Antitrust Compliance officer within

seventy-five (75) days. Copies of the

final judgment also must be distributed

to anyone who becomes such an officer,

director or employee within thirty (30)

days of holding that position and to all

such individuals annually.

Furthermore , Section VI require each

defendant to brief each officer, director

and employee engaged in or having

responsibility over pricing of tampico

fiber as to the defendant’s policy

regarding compliance with the Sherman

Act and with the final judgment,

including the advice that his or her

violation of the final judgment could

result in a conviction for contempt of

court and imprisonment and/or fine and

that the defendant will make legal

advice available to such persons

regarding compliance questions or

problems. The defendants annually

must obtain (and maintain)

certifications from each such person

that the aforementioned briefing, advice

and a copy of the final judgment were

received and understood and that he or

she is not aware of any violation of the

final judgment that has not been

reported to the Antitrust Compliance

Officer. Finally,each defendant must

submit to the plaintiff an annual

declaration as to the fact and manner of

its compliance with the final judgment.

Under Section VII of the final

judgment, the Justice Department will

have access, upon reasonable notice, to
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