Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

39338 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No.

129 / Thursday, July 7, 2005 / Notices

the Attorney General’’ (citations demonstrate that the proposed Final The last notification was filed with
omitted)). Judgment serves the public interest. the Department on June 15, 2004. A
Moreover, the United States is Accordingly, after the publication of notice was published in the Federal
entitled to ‘‘due respect’’ concerning its this Response in the Federal Register Register pursuant to section 69(b) of the
‘‘prediction as to the effect of proposed pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 16(b) and (d), the Act on July 14, 2004 (69 FR 42212).
remedies, its perception of the market United States will move this Court to
structure, and its view of the nature of enter the Final Judgment. Dorothy B. Fountain,
the case.’’ Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., Respectfully submitted, Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust
272 F. Supp. 2d at 6 (citing Microsoft, Division.
56 F.3d at 1461). C. Alexander Hewes, Tracey D. [FR Doc. 05–13353 Filed 7–6–05; 8:45 am]
Chambers, David McDowell,
III. Summary of Public Comment BILLING CODE 4410–11–M
Trial Attorneys, United States
Although it is unclear whether the Department of Justice, Antitrust
author intended it as a comment in this Division, Transportation, Energy & DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
proceeding, the United States received Agriculture Section, 325 7th Street,
one anonymous letter related to this NW., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20530, Antitrust Division
case during the relevant 30-day time Telephone: (202) 305–8519, Facsimile:
period. The letter made a number of (202) 616–2441. Notice Pursuant to the National
allegations about the conduct of Laura Heiser, Anne Spiegelman, Cooperative Research and Production
Defendant EMMC and various Act of 1993—Mobile Enterprise
unidentified mushroom grower/packers. Trial Attorneys, Antitrust Division,
Alliance, Inc.
These allegations are not comments on Philadelphia Field Office.
the proposed Final Judgment and [FR Doc. 05–13354 Filed 7–6–05; 8:45 am] Notice is hereby given that, on June
therefore are not relevant here. In any BILLING CODE 4410–11–M 13, 2005, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the
event, the United States investigated National Cooperative Research and
each of these or similar allegations and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
concluded that they were DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), Mobile Enterprise
unsubstantiated or did not constitute Alliance, Inc. has filed written
violations of the Federal antitrust laws. Antitrust Division
notifications simultaneously with the
The letter also commented on the
Notice Pursuant to the National Attorney General and the Federal Trade
relief contained in the proposed Final
Cooperative Research and Production Commission disclosing changes in its
Judgment, claiming that the EMMC had
sold or removed specialized equipment Act of 1993—Microcontaminant membership. The notifications were
from the farms, and questioned the Reduction Venture filed for the purpose of extending the
value of removing the deed restrictions Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of
Notice is hereby given that, on June 8, antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages
the EMMC had placed on the properties. 2005, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the under specified circumstances.
IV. The Response of the United States National Cooperative Research and Specifically, Appear Networks,
to the Comment Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 Stockholm, Sweden has been added as
In filing this case, the United States et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), Microcontaminant
a party to this venture.
was concerned that the EMMC had Reduction Venture (‘‘MRV’’) has filed
written notifications simultaneously No other changes have been made in
collectively removed 8 percent of the either the membership or planned
mushroom production capacity in the with the Attorney General and the
Federal Trade Commission disclosing activity of the group research project.
East region of the United States. This
changes in its project status. The Membership in this group research
was done primarily by placing deed
notifications were filed for the purpose project remains open, and Mobile
restriction on former farms, restrictions
that erected an absolute barrier to new of extending the Act’s provisions Enterprise Alliance, Inc. intends to file
entry on these farms. By removing these limiting the recovery of antitrust additional written notification
restrictions, the proposed Final plaintiffs to actual damages under disclosing all changes in membership.
Judgment assures that new entry can specified circumstances. The change in On June 24, 2004, Mobile Enterprise
occur wherever economically justified. its project status is: The parties to MRV, Alliance, Inc. filed its original
There are a number of factors in KMG–Bernuth, Inc., Houston, TX and
notification pursuant to section 6(a) of
addition to the presence of specialized Vulcan Materials Company,
the Act. The Department of Justice
equipment that make a farm attractive to Birmingham, AL, have extended the
published a notice in the Federal
potential mushroom entrants, including term of the venture from four to five
years. Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the
suitable buildings, an available trained Act on July 23, 2004 (69 FR 44062).
labor force in the area, and existing No other changes have been made in
zoning approvals. Specialized either the membership or planned The last notification was filed with
equipment, though potentially valuable, activity of the group research project. the Department on March 17, 2005. A
is not unique and can be replaced. Membership in this group research notice was published in the Federal
Accordingly, the United States project remains open, and MRV intends Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the
determined that the crucial element of to file additional written notification Act on April 1, 2005 (70 FR 16944).
relief was the removal of the deed disclosing all changes in membership.
Dorothy B. Fountain,
restrictions. The proposed final On June 13, 2001, MRV filed its
original notification pursuant to Section Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust
Judgment accomplishes this.
69(a) of the Act. The Department of Division.
V. Conclusion Justice published a notice in the Federal [FR Doc. 05–13351 Filed 7–6–05; 8:45 am]
The Competitive Impact Statement Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the BILLING CODE 4410–11–M
and this Response to Comments Act on July 19, 2001 (66 FR 37709).

VerDate jul<14>2003 19:31 Jul 06, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM 07JYN1