32858 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 25, 1996 / Notices

Agency (‘‘EPA’’) for $1,250,000 in past

response costs incurred by EPA at the

Site, pay up to $250,000 in oversight

costs, and perform the remedial design

and remedial action at the Site.

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.

Freeman, et al., DOJ Ref. Number 90–

11–2–139.

The proposed consent decree may be

examined at the Office of the United

States Attorney, 138 Delaware Avenue,

Buffalo, New York 14202; the Region II

Office of the Environmental Protection

Agency, 290 Broadway, New York, NY

10278; and 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.

In requesting a copy, please refer to the

referenced case and enclose a check in

the amount of $22 for the Consent

Decree without the attachments or

$77.50 for the Consent Decree with the

attachments (25 cents per page

reproduction costs), payable to the

Consent Decree Library.

Bruce S. Gelber,

Deputy Section Chief, Environmental

Enforcement Section, Environment and

Natural Resources Division.

[FR Doc. 96–16151 Filed 6–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

Antitrust Division

United States v. Baroid Corporation, et

al., Civil Action No. 93–2621 (D.D.C.);

Proposed Modification of Final

Judgment

Notice is hereby given that the

Department of Justice (‘‘Department’’)

and Smith International Inc. (‘‘Smith’’)

have filed with the United States

District Court for the District of

Columbia, a joint motion to modify the

judgment in United States v. Baroid

Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 93–

2621, and that the Department, in a

stipulation also filed with the Court, has

consented to modification of the

Judgment but has reserved the right to

withdraw its consent for at least seventy

(70) days after the publication of this

notice. The complaint in this case (filed

December 23, 1993) alleged that the

merger of Dresser Industries, Inc.

(‘‘Dresser’’) and Baroid Corporation

(‘‘Baroid’’) might substantially lessen

competition in the United States in the

manufacture and sale of two oil field

service products, including drilling

fluids, in violation of Section 7 of the

Clayton Act. At the time the Judgment

was entered, Dresser and Baroid were

two of the three major U.S. producers of

drilling fluids.

On April 12, 1994, a Judgment was

entered that resolved the merger’s effect

on the drilling fluids business by

requiring Dresser to divest either its 64

percent partnership interest in M–I

Drilling Fluids Company (‘‘M–I’’) or

Baroid’s wholly owned subsidiary,

Baroid Drilling Fluids Inc. Pursuant to

the divestiture requirement, Dresser

sold its partnership interest in M–I to

Smith.

Paragraph IV.F. of the Final Judgment

states that the purchaser of the divested

drilling fluids business cannot combine

that business with any one of four

named companies. One of the four

named companies is Anchor Drilling

Fluids (‘‘Anchor’’).

The joint motion to modify the final

judgment would permit M–I to acquire

Anchor subject to a divestiture

agreement set forth in the joint motion

to modify under which M–I would sell

the United States operation of Anchor

within a specified period of time. If M–

I does not complete the divestiture by

the allotted time, a trustee will be

appointed to complete the divestiture.

The divestiture agreement between

the Department and Smith specifies the

assets to be included in the divestiture

package. Those assets include the right

of the purchaser to obtain crude barite

ore from M–I for a period of five years,

with an option to extend that right for

another five years. Barite is an essential

ingredient in drilling fluids. The

divestiture assets also include the right

to use the Anchor name in the United

States and the right to manufacture and

sell Anchor brand drilling fluid

products.

The Department has filed with the

Court a memorandum setting forth the

reasons why the Government believes

the modification of the Judgment would

serve the public interest. Copies of the

Complaint and Judgment, the Joint

Motion to Modify Final Judgment and

Divestiture Agreement, the Stipulation

containing the Government’s consent,

the Department’s memorandum, and all

further papers filed with the Court in

connection with this motion will be

available for inspection at Room 215,

Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of

Justice, 325 7th St., N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20530 and at the Office of the Clerk

of the United States District Court for

the District of Columbia, Third Street

and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20001. Copies of any

of these materials may be obtained from

the Antitrust Division upon request and

payment of the copying fee set by

Department of Justice regulations.

Interested persons may submit

comments regarding the proposed

modification of the decree to the

Government. Such comments must be

received by the Antitrust Division

within sixth (60) days and will be filed

with the Court by the Government.

Comments should be addressed to Roger

W. Fones, Chief, Transportation, Energy,

and Agriculture Section, Antitrust

Division, Suite 500, 325 7th Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20530, (202–

307–6351).

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations.

[FR Doc. 96–16141 Filed 6–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

Notice Pursuant to the National

Cooperative Research and Production

Act of 1993; Semiconductor Research

Corporation

Notice is hereby given that, on June

11, 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’’), Semiconductor

Research Corporation (‘‘SCR’’) has filed

written notifications simultaneously

with the Attorney General and the

Federal Trade Commission disclosing

changes in its membership status. 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. Specifically,

SCR has added MicroUnity Systems

Engineering, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA and

SiBond L.L.C., Hopewell Junction, NY

as affiliate members. DesignAid, Inc.,

Emergent Technologies Corporation,

Integrated Silicon Systems, Inc., Process

Technology Limited, Q-Metrics, Inc.,

and SRI International have withdrawn

as members.

No other changes have been made in

either the membership or planned

activity of the group research project.

Membership in this group research

project remains open, and

Semiconductor Research Corporation

intends to file additional written

notification disclosing all changes in

membership.

On January 7, 1985, Semiconductor

Research Corporation filed its original

notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of

the Act. The Department of Justice

published a notice in the Federal