45252 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 168 / Tuesday, September 1, 2009 / Notices 

6See 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’’); 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.’’); 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.’’). 

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 

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.’’ 489 

F. Supp. 2d at 15. 

In its 2004 amendments, Congress made 

clear its intent to preserve the 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 11.6

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. 

Dated: August 20, 2009. 

Respectfully submitted, 

By: lll/s/lll 

Lowell R. Stern, Attorney for Plaintiff. 

Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that on the 20th day 

of August, 2009, I will electronically file 

the foregoing with the Clerk of Court 

using the CM/ECF system, which will 

then send a notification of such filing 

(NEF) to the following: 

Brett J. Williamson, 

Darin J. Glasser, 

O’Melveny & Myers LLP, 610 Newport 

Center Drive, 17th Floor, Newport 

Beach, CA 92660–6429. 

Michael E. Antalics, 

Benjamin G. Bradshaw, 

O’Melveny & Myers LLP, 1625 Eye 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006. 

lll/s/lll 

Lowell R. Stern, 

Attorney for Plaintiff. 

[FR Doc. E9–21051 Filed 8–31–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–11–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Office of the Secretary 

Job Corps: Preliminary Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) for the 

Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Project located 

at Westover Job Corp Center, 103 

Johnson Drive, Chicopee, MA 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, 

Department of Labor. 

Recovery: This project will be wholly 

funded under the American Recovery 

and Reconstruction Act of 2009. 

ACTION: Preliminary Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) for Solar PV 

Panel Installation to be located at the 

Westover Job Corp Center, 103 Johnson 

Drive, Chicopee, Massachusetts. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Council on 

Environmental Quality Regulations (40 

CFR part 1500–08) implementing 

procedural provisions of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the 

Department of Labor, Office of the 

Secretary (OSEC) in accordance with 29 

CFR 11.11(d), gives notice that an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) has 

been prepared for a proposed Solar PV 

Project to be located at the Westover Job 

Corp Center, 103 Johnson Drive, 

Chicopee, Massachusetts, and that the 

proposed plan for the construction of 

solar PV panels at the Westover Job 

Corps Center will have no significant 

environmental impact. This Preliminary 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) will be made available for 

public review and comment for a period 

of 30 days. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted by 

October 1, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Any comment(s) are to be 

submitted to William A. Dakshaw, P.E., 

Division of Facilities and Asset 

Management, Department of Labor, 200 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N– 

4460, Washington, DC 20210, (202) 693– 

2867 (this is not a toll-free number). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Copies of the EA are available to 

interested parties by contacting William 

A. Dakshaw, P.E., Division of Facilities 

and Asset Management, Department of 

Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Room N–4460, Washington, DC 20210, 

(202) 693–2867 (this is not a toll-free 

number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This EA 

summary addresses the proposed 

construction of approximately 1.5 acres 

of stationary solar photovoltaic (PV) 

panels to create a 150 to 200 kilowatt 

system connected to the closest 

electrical terminal at the Westover Job 

Corps Center. The solar panels will 

produce clean energy for the Westover 

Job Corps Center, demonstrate 

renewable energy capabilities to Job 

Corps Students and help the program 

meet Federal requirements in Executive 

Order 13423 for renewable energy 

production. This project is not expected 

to have a negative impact on population 

demographics, the surrounding area, 

environmental quality, or natural 

systems and heritage. 

Based on the information gathered 

during the preparation of the EA, the 

construction of the Solar PV Project at 

Westover Job Corp Center, 103 Johnson 

Drive, Chicopee, Massachusetts will not 

create any significant adverse impacts 

on the environment. 

Dated: August 25, 2009. 

Lynn Intrepidi, 

Interim National Director of Job Corps. 

[FR Doc. E9–20969 Filed 8–31–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–23–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Office of the Secretary 

Job Corps: Preliminary Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) for the 

Edison Job Corps Center Solar PV 

Project located at the Edison Job 

Corps Center 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, 

Department of Labor. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES