33774 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 126 / Friday, June 28, 1996 / Notices

2United States v. Bechtel, 648 F.2d at 666

(citations omitted) (emphasis added); see United

States v. BNS, Inc., 858 F.2d at 463; United States

v. National Broadcasting Co., 449 F. Supp. 1127,

1143 (C.D. Cal. 1978); United States v. Gillette Co.,

406 F. Supp. at 716. See also Microsoft, 56 F.3d at

1461 (whether ‘‘the remedies [obtained in the

decree are] so inconsonant with the allegations

charged as to fall outside of the ‘reaches of the

public interest.’ ’’) (citations omitted).

3United States v. American Tel. and Tel. Co., 552

F. Supp. 131, 150 (D.D.C. 1982), aff’d sub nom.

Maryland v. United States, 460 U.S. 1001 (1983),

quoting United States v. Gillette Co., supra, 406 F.

Supp. at 716; United States v. Alcan Aluminum

Ltd., 605 F. Supp. 619, 622 (W.D. Ky. 1985).

Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1083 (1981);

see also Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1460–62.

Precedent requires that

the balancing of competing social and

political interests affected by a proposed

antitrust consent decree must be left, in the

first instance, to the discretion of the

Attorney General. The court’s role in

protecting the public interest is one of

insuring that the government has not

breached its duty to the public in consenting

to the decree. The court is required to

determine not whether a particular decree is

the one that will best serve society, but

whether the settlement is ‘‘within the reaches

of the public interest.’’ More elaborate

requirements might undermine the

effectiveness of antitrust enforcement by

consent decree.2

The proposed Final Judgment,

therefore, should not be reviewed under

a standard of whether it is certain to

eliminate every anticompetitive effect of

a particular practice or whether it

mandates certainty of free competition

in the future. Court approval of a final

judgment requires a standard more

flexible and less strict than the standard

required for a finding of liability. ‘‘[A]

proposed decree must be approved even

if it falls short of the remedy the court

would impose on its own, as long as it

falls within the range of acceptability or

is ‘within the reaches of public interest.’

(citations omitted).’’ 3

VIII. Determinative Documents

There are no determinative materials

or documents within the meaning of the

APPA that were considered by the

United States in formulating the

proposed Final Judgment.

Respectfully submitted,

Burney P.C. Huber,

Attorney, D.C. Bar #181818, Dept. of Justice,

Antitrust Division, 1401 H Street, NW., Suite

4000, Washington, DC 20530, (202) 307–1858.

June 18, 1996.

[FR Doc. 96–16497 Filed 6–27–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

Notice Pursuant to the National

Cooperative Research and Production

Act of 1993—E&P Technology

Cooperative

Notice is hereby given that, on June 6,

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’’), E&P Technology

Cooperative, a non-profit joint research

and development venture, 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: BP Oil Company,

Cleveland, OH; The British Petroleum

Company plc, London EC2M 7 BA,

ENGLAND; BP Exploration Operating

Company Limited, Poole Dorset BH16

6LS, ENGLAND; BP Exploration & Oil

Inc., Cleveland, OH; Chevron

Corporation, San Francisco, CA;

Chevron Petroleum Technology

Company, Houston, TX; Mobil

Corporation, Fairfax, VA; Mobile

Technology Company, Fairfax, VA;

Texaco, Inc., White Plains, NY; and

Texaco Group Inc., White Plains, NY.

The objectives of the venture are as

follows: The members of the program

intend to support research activities that

will create or drive the creation of new

technologies to benefit their businesses.

Examples of such research include

innovations in drilling, recovery

technology and data management. They

expect the products of their research

will materially impact business

performance by lowering costs,

shortening cycle time and/or improving

recovery. In general, the members also

intend to identify innovative

approaches and attract and recruit the

best talent in a variety of disciplines to

solve the challenges of the future. It is

the intention of the members to make

the results of their projects available to

others in the industry.

Information regarding participating in

the Group may be obtained from

Richard J. Goetsch, Esq., BP Oil

Company, Terry Calvani, Esq., on behalf

of Chevron Corporation, Carter B.

Simpson, Esq., Mobil Corporation, and

Robert D. Wilson, Esq., Texaco, Inc.

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 96–16513 Filed 6–27–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

Notice Pursuant To the National

Cooperative Research and Production

Act of 1993 National Electronics

Manufacturing Initiative

Notice is hereby given that, on June 6,

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 National Electronics

Manufacturing Initiative (‘‘NEMI’’) 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:

Adept Technology, Inc., San Jose, CA;

AMP Incorporated, Harrisburg, PA;

American Electronics Association,

Washington, DC; Camelot Systems, Inc.,

Haverhill, MA; Chad Industries, Orange,

CA; Cimetrix, Inc., Provo, UT; Compaq

Computer Corporation, Houston, TX;

Delco Electronics Corporation, Kokomo,

IN; Dover Technologies International,

Binghamton, NY; DuPont Electronics,

Research Triangle Park, NC; Everett

Charles Technologies, Pomona, CA; GR

Technologies, Concord, MA; HADCO

Corporation, Salem, NH; IPC/ITRI,

Northbrook, IL; Lawrence Livermore

National Laboratory, Livermore, CA;

Lucent Technologies, Princeton, NJ;

MCNC, Research Triangle Park, NC;

Microelectronics and Computer

Technology Corporation (‘‘MCC’’),

Austin, TX; Morton Electronic

Materials, Tustin, CA; Motorola, Inc.,

Schaumburg, IL; National Institute of

Standards and Technology (‘‘NIST’’),

Gaithersburg, MD; Kulicke and Soffa

Industries, Inc., Willow Grove, PA;

MPM Corporation, Franklin, MA;

Northrop Grumman Corporation,

Baltimore, MD; Sheldahl, Inc.,

Northfield, MN; Solectron Corporation,

Milpitas, CA; and Texas Instruments

Incorporated, Temple, TX.

NEMI’s area of planned activity is to

perform research and infrastructure

development with a technical focus on

the manufacturing of electronic

information products that connect to

information networks. Three initial

thrust areas are the creation of a

technology requirements roadmap; the

setting of technical goals for materials

and equipment suppliers; and the

initiation of research, development, and

deployment projects with suppliers in

conjunction with the aforementioned

goals. The parties will collect, exchange,
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 126 / Friday, June 28, 1996 / Notices 33775

and where appropriate, license or make

public the results of the research and

development, work closely with various

governmental and private agencies and

perform future acts as allowed by the

Act that would advance the venture

objectives.

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 96–16512 Filed 6–27–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment Standards

Administration, Wage and Hour

Division

Minimum Wages for Federal and

Federally Assisted Construction;

General Wage Determination Decisions

General Wage determination

decisions of the Secretary of Labor are

issued in accordance with applicable

law and are based on the information

obtained by the Department of Labor

from its study of local wage conditions

and data made available from other

sources. They specify the basic hourly

wage rates and fringe benefits which are

determined to be prevailing for the

described classes of laborers and

mechanics employed on construction

projects of a similar character and in the

localities specified therein.

The determinations in these decisions

of prevailing rates and fringe benefits

have been made in accordance with 29

CFR Part 1, by authority of the Secretary

of Labor pursuant to the provisions of

the Davis/Bacon Act of March 3, 1931,

as amended (46 Stat. 1994, as amended,

40 U.S.C. 276a) and of other Federal

statutes referred to in 29 CFR Part 1,

Appendix, as well as such additional

statutes as may from time to time be

enacted containing provisions for the

payment of wages determined to be

prevailing by the Secretary of Labor in

accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act.

The prevailing rates and fringe benefits

determined in these decisions shall, in

accordance with the provisions of the

foregoing statutes, constitute the

minimum wages payable on Federal and

federally assisted construction projects

to laborers and mechanics of the

specified classes engaged on contract

work of the character and in the

localities described therein.

Good cause is hereby found for not

utilizing notice and public comment

procedure thereon prior to the issuance

of these determinations as prescribed in

5 U.S.C. 553 and not providing for delay

in the effective date as prescribed in that

section, because the necessity to issue

current construction industry wage

determinations frequently and in large

volume causes procedures to be

impractical and contrary to the public

interest.

General wage determination

decisions, and modifications and

supersedes decisions thereto, contain no

expiration dates and are effective from

their date of notice in the Federal

Register, or on the date written notice

is received by the agency, whichever is

earlier. These decisions are to be used

in accordance with the provisions of 29

CFR Parts 1 and 5. Accordingly, the

applicable decision, together with any

modifications issued, must be made a

part of every contract for performance of

the described work within the

geographic area indicated as required by

an applicable Federal prevailing wage

law and 29 CFR Part 5. The wage rates

and fringe benefits, notice of which is

published herein, and which are

contained in the Government Printing

Office (GPO) document entitled

‘‘General Wage Determinations Issued

Under The Davis-Bacon and Related

Acts,’’ shall be the minimum paid by

contractors and subcontractors to

laborers and mechanics.

Any person, organization, or

governmental agency having an interest

in the rates determined as prevailing is

encouraged to submit wage rate and

fringe benefit information for

consideration by the Department.

Further information and selfexplanatory forms for the purpose of

submitting this data may be obtained by

writing to the U.S. Department of Labor,

Employment Standards Administration,

Wage and Hour Division, Division of

Wage Determinations, 200 Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Room S–3014,

Washington, D.C. 20210.

New General Wage Determination

Decisions

The number of the decisions added to

the Government Printing Office

document entitled ‘‘General Wage

Determinations Issued Under the DavisBacon and Related Acts’’ are listed by

Volume and States:

Volume I

Maine

ME960043 (June 28, 1996)

Modifications to General Wage

Determination Decisions

The number of decisions listed in the

Government Printing Office document

entitled ‘‘General Wage Determinations

Issued Under the Davis-Bacon and

Related Acts’’ being modified are listed

by Volume and State. Dates of

Publication in the Federal Register are

in parentheses following the decisions

being modified.

Volume I

Maine

ME960019 (March 15, 1996)

ME960020 (March 15, 1996)

ME960021 (March 15, 1996)

ME960022 (March 15, 1996)

ME960023 (March 15, 1996)

New York

NY960046 (March 15, 1996)

Maine

Index

Volume II

Delaware

DE960001 (March 15, 1996)

DE960002 (March 15, 1996)

DE960004 (March 15, 1996)

DE960005 (March 15, 1996)

DE960008 (March 15, 1996)

DE960009 (March 15, 1996)

Voume III

Georgia

GA960085 (March 15, 1996)

Kentucky

KY960001 (March 15, 1996)

KY960003 (March 15, 1996)

KY960004 (March 15, 1996)

KY960007 (March 15, 1996)

KY960025 (March 15, 1996)

KY960027 (March 15, 1996)

KY960029 (March 15, 1996)

KY960035 (March 15, 1996)

Volume IV

None

Volume V

Iowa

IA960004 (March 15, 1996)

IA960014 (March 15, 1996)

Kansas

KS960008 (March 15, 1996)

VI

Arizona

AR960001 (March 15, 1996)

AR960002 (March 15, 1996)

AR960004 (March 15, 1996)

AR960005 (March 15, 1996)

AR960006 (March 15, 1996)

AR960010 (March 15, 1996)

AR960011 (March 15, 1996)

AR960012 (March 15, 1996)

AR960013 (March 15, 1996)

AR960014 (March 15, 1996)

AR960015 (March 15, 1996)

AR960016 (March 15, 1996)

AR960017 (March 15, 1996)

AR960018 (March 15, 1996)

General Wage Determination

Publication

General wage determinations issued

under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts,

including those noted above, may be

found in the Government Printing Office

(GPO) document entitled ‘‘General Wage

Determinations Issued Under The DavisBacon and Related Acts’’. This

publication is available at each of the 50

Regional Government Depository