83 FR 19836 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Node.js Foundation
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 87 (May 4, 2018)
Antitrust Division
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 87 (May 4, 2018)
| Page Range | 19836-19837 | |
| FR Document | 2018-09460 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 87 (Friday, May 4, 2018)] [Notices] [Pages 19836-19837] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-09460] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993--Node.js Foundation Notice is hereby given that, on April 6, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Node.js Foundation (``Node.js Foundation'') 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 Specifically, Cars.com, Chicago, IL, has withdrawn as a party to this venture.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 Node.js Foundation intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership. On August 17, 2015, Node.js Foundation 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 September 28, 2015 (80 FR 58297). The last notification was filed with the Department on January 25, 2018. A notice was published in the Federal [[Page 19837]] Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on March 12, 2018 (83 FR 10753). Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division. [FR Doc. 2018-09460 Filed 5-3-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
![19836 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2018 / Notices
complaint is drafted so narrowly as to FOR PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES OF No other changes have been made in
make a mockery of judicial power.’’ SBC AMERICA either the membership or planned
Commc’ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 15. Kerrie J. Freeborn* (D.C. Bar #503143) activity of the group research project.
In its 2004 amendments, Congress United States Department of Justice Membership in this group research
made clear its intent to preserve the Antitrust Division project remains open, and ODPi intends
practical benefits of utilizing consent Defense, Industrials, and Aerospace to file additional written notifications
decrees in antitrust enforcement, adding Section disclosing all changes in membership.
the unambiguous instruction that 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Suite 8700 On November 23, 2015, ODPi filed its
‘‘[n]othing in this section shall be Washington, D.C. 20530 original notification pursuant to Section
Tel: (202) 598–2300 6(a) of the Act. The Department of
construed to require the court to Fax: (202) 514–9033
conduct an evidentiary hearing or to Email: kerrie.freeborn@usdoj.gov Justice published a notice in the Federal
require the court to permit anyone to *Attorney of Record Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the
intervene.’’ 15 U.S.C. § 16(e)(2); see also [FR Doc. 2018–09458 Filed 5–3–18; 8:45 am] Act on December 23, 2015 (80 FR
U.S. Airways, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 75 BILLING CODE 4410–11–P
79930).
(indicating that a court is not required The last notification was filed with
to hold an evidentiary hearing or to the Department on March 7, 2017. A
permit intervenors as part of its review DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE notice was published in the Federal
under the Tunney Act). The language Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the
wrote into the statute what Congress Antitrust Division Act on March 27, 2017 (82 FR 15239).
intended when it enacted the Tunney
Notice Pursuant to the National Patricia A. Brink,
Act in 1974, as Senator Tunney
explained: ‘‘[t]he court is nowhere Cooperative Research and Production Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust
Act of 1993—ODPi, Inc. Division.
compelled to go to trial or to engage in
[FR Doc. 2018–09459 Filed 5–3–18; 8:45 am]
extended proceedings which might have Notice is hereby given that, on April
the effect of vitiating the benefits of BILLING CODE 4410–11–P
6, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the
prompt and less costly settlement National Cooperative Research and
through the consent decree process.’’ Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
119 Cong. Rec. 24,598 (1973) (statement et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), ODPi, Inc. (‘‘ODPi’’)
of Sen. Tunney). Rather, the procedure has filed written notifications Antitrust Division
for the public interest determination is simultaneously with the Attorney
left to the discretion of the court, with General and the Federal Trade Notice Pursuant to the National
the recognition that the court’s ‘‘scope Commission disclosing changes in its Cooperative Research and Production
of review remains sharply proscribed by membership. The notifications were Act of 1993—Node.js Foundation
precedent and the nature of Tunney Act filed for the purpose of extending the
proceedings.’’ SBC Commc’ns, 489 F. Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of Notice is hereby given that, on April
Supp. 2d at 11.3 A court can make its antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages 6, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the
public interest determination based on under specified circumstances. National Cooperative Research and
the competitive impact statement and Specifically, Attunity, Burlington, MA; Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
response to public comments alone. ING, Amsterdam, NETHERLANDS; and et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), Node.js Foundation
U.S. Airways, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 75. SAP SE, Walldorf, GERMANY, have (‘‘Node.js Foundation’’) has filed written
been added as parties to this venture. notifications simultaneously with the
VIII. DETERMINATIVE Attorney General and the Federal Trade
DOCUMENTS Also, Pivotal Software, Inc., Palo Alto,
CA; Altiscale, Inc., Palo Alto, CA; Squid Commission disclosing changes in its
There are no determinative materials Solutions, Inc., San Francisco, CA; membership. The notifications were
or documents within the meaning of the TOSHIBA Corporation/Industrial ICT filed for the purpose of extending the
APPA that were considered by the Solutions Company, Kanagawa, JAPAN; Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of
United States in formulating the Z Data Inc., Newark, DE; Zettaset, Inc., antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages
proposed Final Judgment. Mountain View, CA; SAS Institute Inc., under specified circumstances.
Cary, NC; Capgemini Service SAS, Paris, Specifically, Cars.com, Chicago, IL, has
Dated: April 25, 2018 withdrawn as a party to this venture.
FRANCE; NEC Corporation, Tokyo,
Respectfully submitted, JAPAN; Philippine Long Distance No other changes have been made in
Telephone Company, Makati City, either the membership or planned
3 See United States v. Enova Corp., 107 F. Supp.
PHILIPPINES; Cask Data, Inc., Palo Alto, activity of the group research project.
2d 10, 17 (D.D.C. 2000) (noting that the ‘‘Tunney Membership in this group research
Act expressly allows the court to make its public CA; Splunk Inc., San Francisco, CA;
interest determination on the basis of the Xavient Information System, Herndon, project remains open, and Node.js
competitive impact statement and response to VA; DriveScale, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA; Foundation intends to file additional
comments alone’’); United States v. Mid-Am. Redoop, Beijing, PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC written notifications disclosing all
Dairymen, Inc., No. 73–CV–681–W–1, 1977–1 Trade changes in membership.
Cas. (CCH) ¶ 61,508, at 71,980, *22 (W.D. Mo. 1977) OF CHINA; China Mobile
(‘‘Absent a showing of corrupt failure of the Communication Company Ltd., Beijing, On August 17, 2015, Node.js
government to discharge its duty, the Court, in PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; High Foundation filed its original notification
making its public interest finding, should . . . Octane SPRL, Bierges, BELGIUM; and pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES
carefully consider the explanations of the Department of Justice published a notice
government in the competitive impact statement Innovyt LLC, Edison, NJ, have
and its responses to comments in order to withdrawn as parties to this venture. in the Federal Register pursuant to
determine whether those explanations are In addition, Beijing AsiaInfo Smart Section 6(b) of the Act on September 28,
reasonable under the circumstances.’’); S. Rep. No. Big Data Co, Ltd. has changed its name 2015 (80 FR 58297).
93–298, at 6 (1973) (‘‘Where the public interest can
be meaningfully evaluated simply on the basis of
to AsiaInfo Technologies (H.K.) Limited, The last notification was filed with
briefs and oral arguments, that is the approach that Beijing, PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF the Department on January 25, 2018. A
should be utilized.’’). CHINA. notice was published in the Federal
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:16 May 03, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00157 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM 04MYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_19923/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2018 / Notices 19837
Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the termination date. In 1979, the Division encouraged to supply any additional
Act on March 12, 2018 (83 FR 10753). adopted the general practice of information they may have regarding
including sunset provisions that the efficacy of judgments the Division
Patricia A. Brink,
automatically terminate judgments, proposes to terminate. Absent public
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust usually 10 years from entry. However, comments or other factors that lead the
Division.
nearly 1300 judgments entered before Division to revise its determination that
[FR Doc. 2018–09460 Filed 5–3–18; 8:45 am] the Division put the practice into full termination of a judgment is
BILLING CODE 4410–11–P effect remain on the books of the appropriate, it will proceed as directed
Division, and nearly all of them likely by the court. In many cases, this will
remain open on the dockets of courts entail filing a motion to terminate.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE around the country. The vast majority of When feasible and when allowed by
Antitrust Division these outstanding legacy judgments no local rules, the Division will seek to
longer protect competition because of terminate judgments in ‘‘batches.’’ That
Department of Justice’s Initiative to changes in industry conditions, changes is, rather than file a motion for each
Seek Termination of Legacy Antitrust in economics, changes in law, or for judgment it seeks to terminate, the
Judgments other reasons. The Division has Division would make a single filing
announced a new initiative that will seeking to terminate a group of
AGENCY: Antitrust Division, Department seek to identify and expedite the judgments in the same court. In this
of Justice. termination of such legacy judgments. way, the Division hopes to expedite
ACTION: Notice of initiative. Division review of legacy judgments. termination and ease the burden on the
Under the new initiative, announced courts of reviewing multiple motions.
SUMMARY: This notice describes the April 25, 2018, the Division will review Existing process for modification of
Department of Justice’s new initiative its legacy judgments to identify those judgments unaffected. The new
for seeking unilaterally to terminate that no longer protect competition. The initiative does not replace the Antitrust
‘‘legacy’’ antitrust judgments. Legacy Division has assigned each legacy Division’s existing process for
antitrust judgments are those judgments judgment to a Division attorney. Using consenting to a defendant’s request to
that do not include an express court papers, information available in modify or terminate an existing antitrust
termination date and that a court has Division files, and public information, judgment. Defendants still may seek the
not terminated by an order. The vast attorneys will review each judgment to Division’s consent to terminate or
majority of these judgments were determine whether changes in industry modify any judgment as described in
entered before 1979, when the Division conditions, changes in economics, the Antitrust Division Manual (see
adopted the general practice of using changes in the law, or other factors have Section III.H.5, https://www.justice.gov/
sunset provisions to terminate a rendered the judgment outdated and atr/file/761141/download).
judgment automatically, usually 10 appropriate for termination. Examples Mailing list for updates. Members of
years after entry of the judgment. Nearly of legacy judgments for which the public interested in receiving notice
1300 legacy judgments remain open on termination may be appropriate include of updates to the public website,
the books of the Antitrust Division, and judgments whose terms have been including posting of judgments that the
nearly all of them likely remain open on completely satisfied, judgments Division believes should be terminated,
the dockets of courts around the governing defendants who are deceased may subscribe to email updates at
country. Many of these legacy or no longer in existence, and judgments
https://public.govdelivery.com/
judgments do not serve their original governing products that no longer are
accounts/USDOJ/subscriber/new.
purpose of protecting competition. To produced.
eliminate the burden on defendants, New termination process for legacy Dated: April 30, 2018.
courts, and the Division of complying judgments. Once the Division identifies Dorothy B. Fountain,
with, overseeing, and enforcing judgments appropriate for termination, Chief Legal Advisor.
outdated judgments, the Division has it will list those judgments on a website [FR Doc. 2018–09461 Filed 5–3–18; 8:45 am]
announced an initiative whereby it established for purposes of informing BILLING CODE 4410–11–P
unilaterally will seek to terminate the public of the progress of the
legacy judgments, as appropriate. The initiative: www.justice.gov/atr/
initiative provides for public notice and JudgmentTermination. The Division
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
comment before the Division seeks to will invite the public to submit
terminate a judgment. The Division has comments within 30 days of listing on Agency Information Collection
established a website to keep the public the website regarding the Division’s Activities; Submission for OMB
apprised of this initiative and its efforts assessment that termination is Review; Comment Request; Employee
to terminate outdated judgments: appropriate. This website will identify Retirement Income Security Act
www.justice.gov/atr/ the name of the case, the court that Regulation
JudgmentTermination. entered the judgment, the date the court
entered the judgment, and the date by ACTION:Notice of availability; request
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: which comments are due to the for comments.
Dorothy B. Fountain, Office of the Chief Division; the website also will link to
Legal Advisor, Antitrust Division, U.S. the text of the judgment. The Division SUMMARY: The Department of Labor
Department of Justice, at (202) 514– will consult with the relevant court to (DOL) is submitting the Employee
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES
3543, ChiefLegalAdvisor@usdoj.gov. determine the most appropriate means Benefits Security Administration
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: From the of termination. (EBSA) sponsored information
early days of the Sherman Act until the The Division has established an email collection request (ICR) titled,
late 1970s, the Antitrust Division of the address through which the public may ‘‘Employee Retirement Income Security
Department of Justice often entered into submit comments: Act Section 408(b)(2) Regulation,’’ to the
judgments to settle violations of the JudgmentTerminationComments@ Office of Management and Budget
antitrust laws that included no express usdoj.gov. Members of the public are (OMB) for review and approval for
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:16 May 03, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00158 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM 04MYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_19923/page/2.svg)
Document Created: 2018-11-02 09:52:27
Document Modified: 2018-11-02 09:52:27
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 19836 |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR