Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 29 / Monday, February 12, 2001 / Notices 9851

Trans# Acquiring Acquired Entities

20011225 ..... Tyco International Ltd .............................. Pactiv Corporation ................................... Pactiv Corporation.

20011230 ..... George Abi Zeid ...................................... AT&T Corp. .............................................. AT&T Corp.

20011231 ..... Inter-Tel, Incorporated ............................. Convergent Communications, Inc. .......... Convergent Communications Services,

Inc.

20011232 ..... Eni SpA .................................................... LASMO pic ............................................... LASMO pic

20011235 ..... SHC Investment Partnership ................... Donald R. Danner .................................... Leland-Powell Fastners, Inc.

20011236 ..... SHC Investment Partnership ................... Joseph R. Exum ...................................... Leland-Powell Fastners, Inc.

20011242 ..... Steven B. Klinsky ..................................... Ron and Beverly Bailey ........................... Strayer Education, Inc.

20011245 ..... M. Francois Pinault .................................. Eugene M. Winner ................................... Electric Supply Company of Asheville,

Inc.

20011246 ..... Virginia Wadsworth Wirtz Trust ............... U.S. Bancorp ........................................... U.S. Bancorp.

20011247 ..... GTCR Fund VII, L.P ................................ SBC Communications Inc ........................ SecurityLink from Ameritech, Inc.

20011248 ..... J.R. Shaw ................................................ Randall L. Moffat ..................................... Moffat Communications Limited.

20011253 ..... Bernard Arnault ........................................ Donna Karan and Stephan Weiss ........... Gabrielle Studio, Inc.

20011263 ..... Frank Lyon, Jr. Trust ............................... U.S. Bancorp ........................................... U.S. Bancorp.

TRANSACTIONS GRANTED EARLY TERMINATION—01/18/2001

20011176 ..... Baxter International Inc ............................ Sera-Tec Biologicals Limited Partnership Sera-Tec Biologicals Limited Partnership.

20011187 ..... Asyst Technologies, Inc ........................... Glenn A. Roberson, Jr ............................. Semifab, Inc.

20011228 ..... CarrAmerica Realty Corporation ............. FrontLine Capital Group .......................... HQ Global Holdings, Inc.

20011237 ..... Centennial Communications Corp. .......... Hector R. Gonzalez ................................. TPC Communications PR, Inc.

20011251 ..... Emulex Corporation ................................. GigaNet, Inc. ............................................ GigaNet, Inc.

TRANSACTIONS GRANTED EARLY TERMINATION—01/19/2001

20011135 ..... Ralcorp Holdings, Inc .............................. T&C Holdings Corporation ....................... T&C Holdings Corporation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sandra M. Peay or Parcellena P.

Fielding, Contact Representatives,

Federal Trade Commission, Premerger

Notification Office, Bureau of

Competition, Room 303, Washington,

DC 20580, (202) 326–3100.

By Director of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–3495 Filed 2–9–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

[File No. 991 0301]

The Dow Chemical Company, et al.;

Analysis To Aid Public Comment

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Proposed consent agreement.

SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this

matter settles alleged violations of

federal law prohibiting unfair or

deceptive acts or practices or unfair

methods of competition. The attached

Analysis to Aid Public Comment

describes both the allegations in the

complaint that accompanies the consent

agreement and the terms of the consent

order—embodied in the consent

agreement—that would settle these

allegations.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before March 7, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary,

Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,

Washington, DC 20580.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rhett Krulla, FTC/S–3105, 600

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,

DC 20580. (202) 326–2608.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade

Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C.

46 and § 2.34 of the Commission’s Rules

of Practice (16 CFR 2.34), notice is

hereby given that the above-captioned

consent agreement containing a consent

order to cease and desist, having been

filed with and accepted by the

Commission, has been placed on the

public record for a period of thirty (30)

days. The following Analysis to Aid

Public Comment describes the terms of

the consent agreement, and the

allegations in the complaint. An

electronic copy of the full text of the

consent agreement package can be

obtained from the FTC Home Page (for

February 5, 2001), on the World Wide

Web, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2001/02/

index.htm. A paper copy can be

obtained from the FTC Public Reference

Room, H–130, 600 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580,

either in person or by calling (202) 326–

3627.

Public comment is invited. Comments

should be directed to: FTC/Office of the

Secretary, Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20580. Two

paper copies of each comment should

be filed, and should be accompanied, if

possible, by a 31⁄2 inch diskette

containing an electronic copy of the

comment. Such comments or views will

be considered by the Commission and

will be available for inspection and

copying at its principal office in

accordance with section 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of

the Commission’s Rules of Practice (16

CFR 4.9(b)(6)(ii)).

Analysis of the Complaint and

Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public

Comment

I. Introduction

The Federal Trade Commission

(‘‘Commission’’) has accepted for public

comment a Decision and Order

(‘‘Order’’), pursuant to an Agreement

Containing Consent Orders (‘‘Consent

Agreement’’), against The Dow

Chemical Company (‘‘Dow’’) and Union

Carbide Corporation (‘‘Carbide’’)

(collectively ‘‘Respondents’’). The Order

is intended to resolve anticompetitive

effects stemming from the proposed

merger of Dow and Carbide (the

‘‘Merger’’). As described below, the

Order seeks to remedy anticompetitive

effects of the merger in polyethylene,

ethyleneamines, ethanolamines and

methyldiethanolamine (‘‘MDEA’’). The

Order remedies those anticompetitive

effects by requiring Respondents to

divest and license certain intellectual

property and other assets relating to

polyethylene to BP Amoco plc (‘‘BP’’);

to divest Dow’s worldwide businesses

in ethyleneamines to Huntsman

International LLC (‘‘Huntsman’’); and to

divest Dow’s worldwide ethanolamines

9852 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 29 / Monday, February 12, 2001 / Notices

1 In a differentiated product market, the merger of

firms whose products are closer substitutes is more

likely to result in a significant lessening of

competition, because sales that (pre-merger) one of

the merging parties would have lost to the other, in

the event of a price increase, would now be retained

by the merged firm. U.S. Dep’t of Justice & Federal

Trade Comm’n, Horizontal Merger Guidelines

§ 2.21; FTC v. Swedish Match, slip op. 33–34

(D.D.C. Dec. 14, 2000) (Civ. No. 00–1501 TFH)

business and its MDEA business in the

United States and Canada to Ineos

Group plc (‘‘Ineos’’). The Commission

has also issued an Order to Maintain

Assets that requires Respondents to

preserve the businesses they are

required to divest as a viable,

competitive, and ongoing operation

until the divestiture is achieved.

The Order, if finally issued by the

Commission, would settle charges that

the Merger may have substantially

lessened competitive in the markets for

polyethylene and Polyethylene

technology, ethyleneamines,

ethanolamines and MDEA. The

Commission has reason to believe that

the Merger would violate Section 7 of

the Clayton Act and Section 5 of the

Federal Trade Commission Act. The

proposed complaint, described below,

relates the basis for this belief.

II. Description of the Parties and the

Proposed Merger

Dow, headquartered in Midland,

Michigan, is a large, worldwide

chemical company, with particular

strength in polyethylene, the world’s

most widely used plastic, and in key

technologies relating to the manufacture

of polyethylene. Carbide, headquartered

in Danbury, Connecticut, is also a large,

worldwide chemical company, and a

leading developer and licensor of

polyethylene process technology.

Pursuant to a merger agreement dated

August 8, 1999, Dow and Carbide

propose to merge in a transaction

pursuant to which Carbide shareholders

would exchange their shares for shares

of Dow.

III. The Proposed Complaint

According to the Commission’s

proposed complaint, the merger would

substantially reduce competition in four

lines of commerce: linear low density

polyethylene (‘‘LLDPE’’) in the United

States and Canada, and related

technology (both metallocene catalysts

and reactor processes) worldwide; the

worldwide market for metallocene

catalysts for use in producing LLDPE;

the worldwide market for LLDPE reactor

process technology; the worldwide

market for ethyleneamines; the

worldwide market for ethanolamines;

and the market for branded MDEA in

the United States and Canada.

A. Count One: Polyethylene

The proposed complaint alleges that

the merger would substantially reduce

competition in polyethylene. Three

interrelated polyethylene markets are

affected by the merger: (1) LLDPE in the

United States and Canada; (2)

metallocene catalysts for LLDPE

production worldwide; and (3) LLDPE

reactor process technology worldwide.

As alleged in the proposed complaint

and described below, the reduction or

elimination of competition in

metallocene catalyst technology,

resulting from the merger, in turn

reduces competition in LLDPE itself and

in LLDPE reactor process technology.

The reduction in competition in LLDPE

process technology in turn further

reduces competition in LLDPE.

Polyethylene is the world’s most

widely used plastic, and LLDPE is the

fastest growing type of polyethylene.

LLDPE is particularly well suited for

applications that require both flexibility

and strength. One of the most significant

uses of LLDPE is in making trash bags,

and LLDPE is used to make bags out of

plastic films that are strong, thin and

puncture resistant. Dow and Carbide are

leading producers of LLDPE in the

United States and Canada, and

throughout the world.

The proposed complaint alleges that

LLDPE is a differentiated product, and

that Dow and Carbide are among the

LLDPE producers that have succeeded

in developing specialty, high

performance polymers demanded by

significant users of LLDPE (notably

makers of branded trash bags and cast

stretch film).1 Dow has historically led

the industry in production and sale of

premium LLDPE polymers tailored to

deliver performance characteristics

demanded by many LLDPE users, and

has been able to sell premium LLDPE at

premium prices.

Polyethylene is made in

polymerization reactions in the

presence of a catalyst. Both the reactor

technology and the catalyst technology

are patented, and both Dow and Carbide

are leading developers of reactor

technology. Carbide’s reactor

technology, called ‘‘Unipol,’’ is the

world’s most widely licensed

polyethylene process technology. The

other significant licensed LLDPE

technology is ‘‘Innovene,’’ owned by BP.

Both Unipol and Innovene make

polyethylene in a process in which

ethylene is in a gaseous form during

polymerization (‘‘gas phase’’). Dow’s

reactor technology, which Dow does not

license, polymerizes ethylene in

solution. The large majority of LLDPE

reactor capacity is gas phase rather than

solution.

Dow and Exxon Mobil Corp.

(‘‘Exxon’’) have succeeded in

developing and commercializing

‘‘metallocene’’ catalysts, which

represent a significant advance over

conventional LLDPE catalysts. The

proposed complaint alleges that, if

metallocene catalysts were generally

available to LLDPE producers, those

producers likely would be able to erode

Dow’s position as the world’s leading

producer of premium LLDPE polymers.

Both Dow and Exxon entered into

joint ventures with the leading gas

technology firms (BP and Carbide,

respectively) to develop and

commercialize metallocene catalysts for

use in gas reactors. Both the Dow/BP

joint development program and the

Exxon/Carbide joint venture, Univation

Technologies LLC (‘‘Univation’’),

succeeded in adapting metallocene

catalysts for use in gas reactors; both

sought to license that technology to

other gas-process LLDPE producers; and

both indeed sold licenses to metallocene

catalysts for gas reactors.

In 1999, however, Dow entered into

an agreement to merge with Carbide,

which would result in Dow becoming a

partner with Exxon in Univation. As

alleged in the proposed complaint, at or

about the time Dow entered into the

merger agreement with Carbide, Dow

determined that it would not continue

its joint development program with BP,

and that it would not license its

metallocene catalyst to BP (with rights

to sublicense), thereby effectively

terminating any ability by BP to license

metallocene catalysts in competition

with Univation (in which Dow would,

as a result of the merger, succeed to

Carbide’s interest).

The proposed complaint alleges that

each of the polyethylene markets would

be highly concentrated as a result of the

merger. The proposed complaint further

alleges that Dow and Carbide are direct

and significant actual competitors in the

market for LLDPE in the United States

and Canada; that Dow and Carbide

(through Univation) are direct and

significant actual competitors in the

market for metallocene catalyst

technology worldwide; and that Dow

and Carbide are actual and potential

competitors in the market for LLDPE

process technology worldwide. The

proposed complaint further alleges that,

as part of its course of dealing in

connection with the merger, Dow’s

actions terminating the Dow/BP joint

development program and refusing to

license metallocene catalysts to BP

significantly reduced competition in

LLDPE process technology by impairing

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 29 / Monday, February 12, 2001 / Notices 9853

2The Commission can, under Section 5 of the

FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45, infer that facially

independent actions or agreements nonetheless

constitute intertwined events that should be

considered together for the purpose of evaluating

whether their effect constitutes a violation of the

Act. SKF Industries, Inc., 94 F.T.C. 6, 95 (1979). The

proposed complaint alleges that Dow’s decision to

enter into the merger agreement with Carbide, and

its decisions (1) to allow the Dow/BP joint

development agreement to expire by its terms and

(2) not to license its metallocene technology to BP,

are sufficiently related to consider together in

examining the effects of the merger.

BP’s ability to compete in that market.2

The proposed complaint also alleges

that entry into the relevant markets

would not be timely, likely, or sufficient

to deter or offset adverse effects of the

acquisition on competition.

The proposed complaint alleges that

Respondents’ merger would eliminate

actual or potential, direct, and

substantial competition between

Respondents in the relevant markets.

Elimination of this competition would

likely result in increased prices for

LLDPE polymers, metallocene

technology licenses and LLDPE process

technology licenses; and lessened

innovation in each of these markets.

Specifically, by eliminating BP as an

alternative source of metallocene

catalysts for Dow’s competitors (the

majority of which use gas phase LLDPE

reactor technology), and by acquiring

Carbide’s interest in Univation, Dow

would be in a position to impede the

development, licensing and use of

metallocene catalysts and thereby

benefit Dow’s own polyethylene

business. The merger (and the related

termination of the BP/Dow joint

development agreement) would also

lessen BP’s ability to compete with

Univation in polyethylene process

technology, and thereby further impair

competition in polyethylene.

B. Count Two: Ethyleneamines

Ethyleneamines are a family of

chemicals containing at least one

ethylene and one amine molecule and

are used in a broad variety of

applications, including lubricating oil

additives, chelating agents, wet-strength

resins, epoxy curing agents, surfactants,

personal care products, pulp and paper

products, and fungicides. Dow and

Carbide are the only producers of

ethyleneamines in the United States and

Canada, and together sold

approximately $170 million worth of

ethyleneamines in 1999. There are no

cost-effective substitutes for

ehtyleneamines in the end-uses for

which they are used.

Dow and Carbide compete in the

United States and Canada in the

production and sale of ethyleneamines,

and also compete outside the United

States and Canada. The proposed

complaint alleges that the United States

and Canada constitute a properly

defined geographic market, and that the

world also constitutes a properly

defined geographic market. Whether the

market is defined as the United States

and Canada (in which Dow and Carbide

are the only producers) or the world (in

which the market is highly

concentrated, and Dow and Carbide

combined would have more than 50%

of worldwide capacity), the merger

would result in a highly concentrated

market, and concentration would

increase substantially. The proposed

complaint alleges that entry would not

be timely, likely or sufficient to

constrain an anticompetitive price

increase or reduction in output.

C. Count Three: Ethanolamines

Ethanolamines are a family of

chemicals, comprising

monoethanolamine (‘‘MEA’’),

deithanolamine (‘‘DEA’’), and

triethanolamine (‘‘TEA’’), made by

reacting ethylene oxide and ammonia.

Ethanolamines are used in a broad

variety of applications, including the

production of ethyleneamines, and in

surfactants, personal care products,

herbicides, oil and gas refining

applications, pharmaceuticals and fabric

softeners. The proposed complaint

alleges that there are no cost-effective

substitutes for ethanolamines in the

end-uses for which they are used, and

that the proper geographic market to

analyze the effect of the merger on the

sale of ethanolamines is the United

States and Canada.

Carbide and Dow are the largest and

third largest producers, respectively, of

ethanolamines in the United States and

Canada. As a result of the merger,

proposed Respondents would have

more than 60% of sales in the relevant

market, and two firms would have more

than 90%. The proposed complaint

alleges that entry would be unlikely to

remedy the likely anticompetitive

effects of the merger.

D. Count Four: MDEA-Based Gas

Treating Products

Methyldiethanolamine (‘‘MDEA’’) is a

powerful solvent used in gas treating to

remove unwanted compounds from gas

streams. MDEA is used in oil refineries,

natural gas plants, ammonia plants and

other facilities that handle hydrocarbon

gases. While some MDEA is sold alone,

a substantial portion of the MDEA sold

in the United States and Canada is sold

blended with additives and other

chemicals, including ethanolamines,

and is sold on a branded basis. Branded

MDEA is often sold bundled with

engineering services relating to gas

treating.

The proposed complaint alleges that

MDEA-based gas treating products

constitute a relevant product market and

that the United States and Canada

constitute a relevant geographic market.

As alleged in the proposed complaint,

because of the high cost associated with

failure of gas treating products,

customers that purchase MDEA-based

gas treating products would be unlikely

to substitute commodity MDEA in the

event of a small but significant,

nontransitory price increase of MDEAbased gas treating products. Dow and

Carbide are the two largest sellers of

MDEA-based gas treating products. As a

result of the merger, Respondents would

have approximately 60% of the relevant

market, and three firms would have

approximately 90% of that market. The

proposed complaint alleges that entry is

unlikely to counteract the competition

lost by the merger.

IV. Terms of the Agreement Containing

Consent Order

The proposed Order is designed to

remedy the anticompetitive effects of

the merger in the markets alleged in the

proposed complaint, as described

below.

A. Polyethylene

The proposed Order would remedy

the anticompetitive effects of the merger

by (1) allowing BP to develop and

license metallocene catalysts to the

majority of LLDPE producers

worldwide, i.e., those that make LLDPE

in gas phase reactors, without being

subject to patent claims by Dow,

Univation or Exxon; and (2) enabling

Exxon to develop and license

metallocene catalysts and Unipol

reactor process technology

independently of Dow, should Dow’s

participation in Univation frustrate

Exxon’s interest in developing and

licensing that technology.

Section VI of the proposed Order

would enable BP to develop and license

metallocene catalysts by (1) divesting to

BP Dow’s interest in the intellectual

property developed jointly by Dow and

BP, to which BP’s rights were uncertain

as a result of Dow’s decision to

terminate the joint development effort

without resolving the ownership of

those rights; (2) divesting Dow’s

remaining intellectual property (and

related assets) specific to the gas phase

process; (3) licensing Dow’s metallocene

catalyst technology to BP, with the right

to sublicense that technology; and (4)

licensing to BP, with rights to

sublicense, Exxon patents controlled by

9854 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 29 / Monday, February 12, 2001 / Notices

3That Divestiture and License Agreement is

confidential and is not being placed on the public

record. However, that Agreement may not

contradict the terms of the proposed Order.

Univation that otherwise would expose

BP’s efforts to develop, commercialize

and license metallocene catalysts to

infringement suit brought by Exxon or

Univation. The divestiture and license

would be made pursuant to a

Divestiture and License Agreement

executed by Dow and BP, which

agreement is incorporated in and made

part of the proposed Order.3

The purpose of the divestiture and

license of intellectual property and

related assets to BP is to enable BP to

compete with Univation in developing,

commercializing and licensing

metallocene technology, remedying the

anticompetitive effect in the market for

metallocene catalyst technology.

Moreover, by allowing BP to offer

metallocene catalysts in connection

with licenses of its Innovene gas phase

reactor technology, the proposed Order

is intended to preserve the viability of

that technology as an alternative to

Carbide’s Unipol technology (which,

through Univation, can offer

metallocene technology). By preserving

competition in both metallocene

catalyst technology and LLDPE reactor

process technology, the proposed order

would allow BP licenses (or future

licensees) in the United States and

Canada to obtain metallocene catalysts

from a source not controlled by Dow,

thereby preserving metallocenes as a

threat to Dow’s premium polymer

business, and providing a reactor

process technology solution (including

metallocenes) independent of

Respondents.

Section VII of the proposed Order

enables Exxon to retain rights, including

the right to sublicense, in all Univation

technology and in Carbide’s Unipol

process should the Univation venture be

dissolved or should Dow come to

control the Univation venture. The grant

of this right to Exxon provides

additional remedy to the

anticompetitive effects alleged in the

proposed complaint by allowing Exxon

to develop and license the Unipol

process independently of Dow, should

Dow seek to impede Univation’s

licensing business for the benefit of

Dow’s polyethylene business.

B. Ethyleneamines

The provisions of Section II of the

proposed Order would remedy the

anticompetitive effects in the markets

for ethyleneamines, as alleged in Count

Two of the proposed complaint, by

requiring proposed Respondents to

divest Dow’s global ethyleneamines

business to Huntsman, a worldwide

producer of chemicals and plastics,

including ethylene derivatives.

Huntsman does not today produce

ethyleneamines.

If the Commission, at the time that it

makes the proposed Order final, notifies

Respondents that it does not approve of

the proposed divestiture to Huntsman,

or the manner of the divestiture, the

proposed Order provides that

Respondents would rescind the sale to

Huntsman and divest Dow’s global

ethyleneamines business within six

months to an acquirer approved by the

Commission and in a manner approved

by the Commission. If Respondents did

not complete the divestiture in that

period, a trustee would be appointed

who, upon Commission approval,

would have the authority to divest

Dow’s global ethyleneamines business

to a Commission-approved acquirer.

C. Ethanolamines

The provisions of Section III of the

proposed Order would remedy the

anticompetitive effects in the markets

for ethanolamines, as alleged in Count

Three of the proposed complaint, by

requiring proposed Respondents to

divest Dow’s global ethanolamines

business to Ineos, a producer of

ethylene derivatives and other

chemicals which does not today

produce ethanolamines.

If the Commission, at the time that it

makes the proposed Order final, notifes

Respondents that it does not approve of

the proposed divestiture to Ineos, or the

manner of the divestiture, the proposed

Order provides that Respondents would

rescind the sale to Ineos and divest

Dow’s global ethanolamines business

within six months to an acquirer

approved by the Commission and in a

manner approved by the Commission. If

Respondents did not complete the

divestiture in that period, a trustee

would be appointed who, upon

Commission approval, would have the

authority to divest Dow’s global

ethanolamines business to a

Commission-approved acquirer.

D. MDEA-Based Gas Treating Products

The provisions of Section IV of the

proposed Order would remedy the

anticompetitive effects in the markets

for MDEA-based gas treating products,

as alleged in Count Four of the proposed

complaint, by requiring proposed

Respondents to divest Dow’s ‘‘Gas

Spec’’ MDEA business to Ineos.

If the Commission, at the time that it

makes the proposed Order final, notifies

Respondents that it does not approve of

the proposed divestiture to Ineos, or the

manner of the divestiture, the proposed

Order provides that Respondents would

rescind the sale to Ineos and divest

Dow’s Gas Spec MDEA business within

six months to an acquirer approved by

the Commission and in a manner

approved by the Commission. If

Respondents did not complete the

divestiture in that period, a trustee

would be appointed who, upon

Commission approval, would have the

authority to divest Dow’s Gas Spec

MDEA business to a Commissionapproved acquirer.

E. Other Provisions of the Proposed

Order

The proposed Order requires

Respondents to provide the Commission

with an initial report setting forth in

detail the manner in which Respondents

will comply with the provisions relating

to the divestiture of assets. The

proposed Order further requires

Respondents to provide the Commission

with a report of compliance with the

Order within thirty (30) days following

the date the Order becomes final and

every thirty (30) days thereafter until

they have complied with the terms of

the Order.

F. The Order To Maintain Assets

Respondents have also agreed to the

entry of an Order to Maintain Assets,

which has been entered by the

Commission and is effective

immediately. The Order to Maintain

Assets requires Respondents to preserve

the ethyleneamine, ethanolamine and

MDEA businesses that they are required

to divest as viable and competitive

businesses and conduct the businesses

in the ordinary course of business until

those businesses are divested to the

Commission-approved acquirer. The

Order to Maintain Assets also requires

Respondents to preserve and maintain

the polyethylene assets to be divested

and licensed to BP.

V. Opportunity for Public Comment

The proposed Order has been placed

on the public record for thirty (30) days

for receipt of comments by interested

persons. Comments received during this

period will become part of the public

record. After thirty days, the

Commission will again review the

proposed Order and the comments

received and will decide whether it

should withdraw from the proposed

Order or make it final. By accepting the

proposed Order subject to final

approval, the Commission anticipates

that the competitive problems alleged in

the proposed complaint will be

resolved. The purpose of this analysis is

to invite public comment on the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 29 / Monday, February 12, 2001 / Notices 9855

proposed Order, including the proposed

divestiture, to aid the Commission in its

determination of whether to make the

proposed Order final. This analysis is

not intended to constitute an official

interpretation of the proposed Order,

nor is it intended to modify the terms

of the proposed Order in any way.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–3494 Filed 2–9–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

[File No. 002 3237]

Jore Corporation; Analysis To Aid

Public Comment

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Proposed consent agreement.

SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this

matter settles alleged violations of

federal law prohibiting unfair or

deceptive acts or practices or unfair

methods of competition. The attached

Analysis to Aid Public Comment

describes both the allegations in the

complaint that accompanies the consent

agreement and the terms of the consent

order—embodied in the consent

agreement—that would settle these

allegations.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before March 8, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary,

Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,

Washington, DC 20580.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Laura Koss or Walter Gross, FTC/S–

4302, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,

Washington, DC 20580. (202) 326–2890

or 326–3319.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade

Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C.

46 and § 2.34 of the Commission’s Rules

of Practice (16 CFR 2.34), notice is

hereby given that the above-captioned

consent agreement containing a consent

order to cease and desist, having been

filed with and accepted by the

Commission, has been placed on the

public record for a period of thirty (30)

days. The following Analysis to Aid

Public Comment describes the terms of

the consent agreement, and the

allegations in the complaint. An

electronic copy of the full text of the

consent agreement package can be

obtained from the FTC Home Page (for

February 6, 2001), on the World Wide

Web, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2001/02/

index.htm. A paper copy can be

obtained from the FTC Public Reference

Room, Room H–130, 600 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580,

either in person or by calling (202) 326–

3627.

Public comment is invited. Comments

should be directed to: FTC/Office of the

Secretary, Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20580. Two

paper copies of each comment should

be filed, and should be accompanied, if

possible, by a 31⁄2 inch diskette

containing an electronic copy of the

comment. Such comments or views will

be considered by the Commission and

will be available for inspection and

copying at its principal office in

accordance with section 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of

the Commission’s Rules of Practice (16

CFR 4.9(b)(6)(ii)).

Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To

Aid Public Comment

The Federal Trade Commission has

accepted an agreement, subject to final

approval, to a proposed consent order

from respondent Jore Corporation.

The proposed consent order has been

placed on the public record for thirty

(30) days for reception of comments by

interested persons. Comments received

during this period will become part of

the public record. After thirty (30) days,

the Commission will again review the

agreement and the comments received

and will decide whether it should

withdraw from the agreement and take

other appropriate action or make final

the agreement’s proposed order.

This matter concerns U.S. origin

claims contained on packaging for

certain Jore Corporation products,

including power tool accessories. The

Commission’s complaint charges that

respondents misrepresented on this

packaging that the products were all or

virtually all made in the United States.

In truth and in fact, these products were

actually made with significant foreign

content and/or processing.

The proposed consent order contains

a provision that is designed to remedy

the charges and to prevent the

respondent from engaging in similar

acts and practices in the future. Part I of

the proposed order prohibits Jore

Corporation from misrepresenting the

extent to which any product is made in

the United States. The proposed order

would allow Jore Corporation to

represent that such products are made

in the United States as long as all, or

virtually all, of the components of the

products are of U.S. origin, and all, or

virtually all, of the labor in

manufacturing them is performed in the

United States.

Part II of the proposed order requires

respondent to maintain materials relied

upon in disseminating any

representation covered by the order.

Part III of the proposed order requires

Jore Corporation to distribute copies of

the order to certain company officials

and employees. Part IV of the proposed

order requires Jore Corporation to notify

the Commission of any change in the

corporation that may affect compliance

obligations under the order. Part V of

the proposed order requires Jore

Corporation to file one or more

compliance reports. Part VI of the

proposed order is a provision whereby

the order, absent certain circumstances,

terminates twenty years from the date of

issuance.

The purpose of this analysis is to

facilitate public comment on the

proposed consent order. It is not

intended to constitute an official

interpretation of the agreement and

proposed order or to modify in any way

their terms.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–3493 Filed 2–9–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention and Agency for Toxic

Substance and Disease Registry

Meeting; Correction

The Office of the Director of the

Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC) and Agency for Toxic

Substance and Disease Registry

(ATSDR) announces the following

correction.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

SUMMARY: In accordance with

Departmental policy on consultation

with(AI/AN) Governments and

Organizations, CDC/ATSDR will host

this meeting to give AI/AN people an

opportunity to present their public

health program needs and priorities.

The timing of this meeting will allow

CDC and ATSDR to consider these

needs and priorities in developing the

FY 2002 budget request.

Correction

In the Federal Register of January 31,

2001, (Volume 66, Number 21) [Notices]

Page 8404—‘‘Contact Person for More

Information’’ email: Sgerger@cdc.gov—

should read agerber@cdc.gov.