Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Petroleum Environmental Research Forum, 34764 [2020-12305]

Download as PDF khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 34764 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 110 / Monday, June 8, 2020 / Notices settlements,’’ contrary to congressional intent. Id. at 1456. ‘‘The Tunney Act was not intended to create a disincentive to the use of the consent decree.’’ Id. The United States’ predictions about the efficacy of the remedy are to be afforded deference by the Court. See, e.g., Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 (recognizing courts should give ‘‘due respect to the Justice Department’s . . . view of the nature of its case’’); United States v. Iron Mountain, Inc., 217 F. Supp. 3d 146, 152–53 (D.D.C. 2016) (‘‘In evaluating objections to settlement agreements under the Tunney Act, a court must be mindful that [t]he government need not prove that the settlements will perfectly remedy the alleged antitrust harms[;] it need only provide a factual basis for concluding that the settlements are reasonably adequate remedies for the alleged harms.’’) (internal citations omitted); United States v. Republic Servs., Inc., 723 F. Supp. 2d 157, 160 (D.D.C. 2010) (noting ‘‘the deferential review to which the government’s proposed remedy is accorded’’); United States v. ArcherDaniels-Midland Co., 272 F. Supp. 2d 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2003) (‘‘A district court must accord due respect to the government’s prediction as to the effect of proposed remedies, its perception of the market structure, and its view of the nature of the case.’’). The ultimate question is whether ‘‘the remedies [obtained by the Final Judgment are] so inconsonant with the allegations charged as to fall outside of the ‘reaches of the public interest.’ ’’ Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 (quoting W. Elec. Co., 900 F.2d at 309). 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; see also U.S. Airways, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 75 (noting that the court must simply determine whether there is a factual foundation for the government’s decisions such that its conclusions regarding the proposed settlements are reasonable); InBev, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84787, at *20 (‘‘[T]he ‘public interest’ is not to be measured by comparing the violations alleged in the complaint against those the court believes could have, or even should have, been alleged’’). 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,’’ VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 05, 2020 Jkt 250001 and not to ‘‘effectively redraft the complaint’’ to inquire into other matters that the United States did not pursue. Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1459–60. In its 2004 amendments to the APPA, Congress made clear its intent to preserve the practical benefits of using consent judgments proposed by the United States in antitrust enforcement, Public Law 108–237 § 221, and added 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); see also U.S. Airways, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 76 (indicating that a court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing or to permit intervenors as part of its review under the Tunney Act). This language explicitly wrote into the statute what Congress intended when it first 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 Sen. Tunney). ‘‘A court can make its public interest determination based on the competitive impact statement and response to public comments alone.’’ U.S. Airways, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 76 (citing Enova Corp., 107 F. Supp. 2d at 17). 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. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—Petroleum Environmental Research Forum Notice is hereby given that, on May 13, 2020, 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’’) has filed written notifications simultaneously 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, Suncor Energy Inc. and Tullow Oil Plc have withdrawn 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 intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership. On February 10, 1986, PERF 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 March 14, 1986 (51 FR 8903). The last notification was filed with the Department on February 22, 2019. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(h) of the Act on March 08, 2019 (84 FR 8545). Suzanne Morris, Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division. Dated: May 28, 2020 Respectfully submitted, lllllllllllllllllllll [FR Doc. 2020–12305 Filed 6–5–20; 8:45 am] Jay D. Owen, Assistant Chief. Defense, Industrials, and Aerospace Section, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 450 Fifth St. NW, Suite 8700, Washington, DC 205, Telephone (202) 598– 2987, Facsimile (202) 514–9033, jay.owen@ usdoj.gov. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [FR Doc. 2020–12289 Filed 6–5–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–11–P PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 BILLING CODE 4410–11–P Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—Automotive Cybersecurity Industry Consortium Notice is hereby given that, on May 29, 2020, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), Automotive Cybersecurity Industry Consortium (‘‘ACIC’’) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade E:\FR\FM\08JNN1.SGM 08JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 110 (Monday, June 8, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 34764]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12305]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Petroleum Environmental Research Forum

    Notice is hereby given that, on May 13, 2020, 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'') has filed written notifications simultaneously 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, Suncor Energy Inc. and Tullow Oil Plc have withdrawn 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 intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On February 10, 1986, PERF 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 
March 14, 1986 (51 FR 8903).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on February 22, 
2019. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(h) of the Act on March 08, 2019 (84 FR 8545).

Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2020-12305 Filed 6-5-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4410-11-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.