Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Petroleum Environmental Research Forum Project No. 2004-06, 72388 [07-6122]

Download as PDF sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES 72388 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 244 / Thursday, December 20, 2007 / Notices require that the remedies perfectly match the alleged violations.’’ SBC Commc’ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 17; see also Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 (noting the need for courts to be ‘‘deferential to the government’s predictions as to the effect of the proposed remedies’’); United States v. Archer-DanielsMidland Co., 272 F. Supp. 2d 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2003) (noting that the court should grant due respect to the United States’ prediction as to the effect of proposed remedies, its perception of the market structure, and its views of the nature of the case). Courts have greater flexibility in approving proposed consent decrees than in crafting their own decrees following a finding of liability in a litigated matter. ‘‘[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.’ ’’ United States v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 552 F. Supp. 131, 151 (D.D.C. 1982) (citations omitted) (quoting United States v. Gillette Co., 406 F. Supp. 713, 716 (D. Mass. 1975)), aff’d sub nom. Maryland v. United States, 460 U.S. 1001 (1983); see also United States v. Alcan Aluminum Ltd., 605 F. Supp. 619, 622 (W.D. Ky. 1985) (approving the consent decree even though the court would have imposed a greater remedy). To meet this standard, the United States ‘‘need only provide a factual basis for concluding that the settlements are reasonably adequate remedies for the alleged harms.’’ SBC Commc’ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 17. Moreover, the court’s role under the APPA is limited to reviewing the remedy in relationship to the violations that the United States has alleged in its Complaint, and does not authorize the court to ‘‘construct [its] own hypothetical case and then evaluate the decree against that case.’’ Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1459. Because the ‘‘court’s authority to review the decree depends entirely on the government’s exercising its prosecutorial discretion by bringing a case in the first place,’’ it follows that ‘‘the court is only authorized to review the decree itself,’’ and not to ‘‘effectively redraft the complaint’’ to inquire into other matters that the United States did not pursue. Id. at 1459–60. As this Court recently confirmed in SBC Communications, courts ‘‘cannot look beyond the complaint in making the public interest determination unless the complaint is drafted so narrowly as to make a mockery of judicial power.’’ SBC Commc’ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 15. In its 2004 amendments, Congress made clear its intent to preserve the VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:08 Dec 19, 2007 Jkt 214001 practical benefits of utilizing consent decrees in antitrust enforcement, adding the unambiguous instruction that ‘‘[n]othing in this section shall be construed to require the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing or to require the court to permit anyone to intervene.’’ 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(2). The language wrote into the statute what Congress intended when it enacted the Tunney Act in 1974, as Senator Tunney explained: ‘‘[t]he court is nowhere compelled to go to trial or to engage in extended proceedings which might have the effect of vitiating the benefits of prompt and less costly settlement through the consent decree process.’’ 119 Cong. Rec. 24,598 (1973) (statement of Senator Tunney). Rather, the procedure for the public interest determination is left to the discretion of the court, with the recognition that the court’s ‘‘scope of review remains sharply proscribed by precedent and the nature of Tunney Act proceedings.’’ SBC Commc’ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 11.3 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE City Center Building 1401 H Street, NW., Suite 8000 Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514–5621 Facsimile: (202) 514–6381 Patricia A. Brink, Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division. [FR Doc. 07–6122 Filed 12–19–07; 8:45 am] Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—Petroleum Environmental Research Forum Project No. 2004–06 Notice is hereby given that, on September 4, 2007, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301, et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), Petroleum Environmental Research Forum (‘‘PERF’’) Project No. 2004–06 has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company, Fairfax, VA; and Shell Global Solutions (US) Inc., VIII. Determinative Documents Houston, TX have been added as parties to this venture. There are no determinative materials No other changes have been made in or documents within the meaning of the either the membership or planned APPA that were considered by plaintiff activity of the group research project. United States in formulating the Membership in this group research proposed Final Judgment. project remains open, and PERF Project Dated: December 6, 2007 No. 2004–06 intends to file additional Respectfully submitted, written notifications disclosing all /s/ lllllllllllllllllll change in membership. On March 15, 2007, PERF Project No. Alvin H. Chu 2004–06 filed its original notification Michael Hirrel (DC Bar No. 940353) Brent Marshall pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Peter Gray Department of Justice published a notice Attorneys, Telecommunications & Media in the Federal Register pursuant to Enforcement Section Antitrust Division Section 6(b) of the Act on November 7, 2007 (72 FR 62867). U.S. Department of Justice BILLING CODE 4410–11–M [FR Doc. 07–6125 Filed 12–19–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–11–M DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 3 See United States v. Enova Corp., 107 F. Supp. 2d 10, 17 (D.D.C. 2000) (noting that the ‘‘Tunney Act expressly allows the court to make its public interest determination on the basis of the competitive impact statement and response to comments alone’’); S. Rep. No. 93–298, 93d Cong., 1st Sess., at 6 (1973) (‘‘Where the public interest can be meaningfully evaluated simply on the basis of briefs and oral arguments, that is the approach that should be utilized.’’); United States v. Mid-Am. Dairymen, Inc., 1977–1 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 61,508, at 71,980 (W.D. Mo. 1977) (‘‘Absent a showing of corrupt failure of the government to discharge its duty, the Court, in making its public interest finding, should * * * carefully consider the explanations of the government in the competitive impact statement and its responses to comments in order to determine whether those explanations are reasonable under the circumstances.’’). Antitrust Division PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. Notice is hereby given that, on October 29, 2007, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’, PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM 20DEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 244 (Thursday, December 20, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 72388]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-6122]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Petroleum Environmental Research Forum Project 
No. 2004-06

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 4, 2007, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301, et seq. (``the Act''), Petroleum Environmental 
Research Forum (``PERF'') Project No. 2004-06 has filed written 
notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal 
Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The 
notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, ExxonMobil 
Research and Engineering Company, Fairfax, VA; and Shell Global 
Solutions (US) Inc., Houston, TX have been added as parties to this 
venture.
    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 PERF Project No. 2004-06 intends to 
file additional written notifications disclosing all change in 
membership.
    On March 15, 2007, PERF Project No. 2004-06 filed its original 
notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of 
Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 
6(b) of the Act on November 7, 2007 (72 FR 62867).

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 07-6122 Filed 12-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M