520 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2000 / Notices

court need not invoke any of them unless it believes

that the comments have raised significant issues

and the further proceedings would aid the court in

resolving those issues. See H.R. Rep. 93–1463, 93d

Cong. 2d Sess. 8–9 (1974), reprinted in U.S.C.C.A.N.

6535, 6538.

7Bechtel, 648 F.2d at 666 (emphasis added); see

BNS, 858 F.2d at 463; United States v. National

Broadcasting Co., 449 F. Supp. 1127, 1143 (C.D. Cal.

1978); Gillette, 406 F. Supp. at 716. See also

Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 (whether ‘‘the remedies

[obtained in the decree are] so inconsonant with the

allegations charged as to fall outside of the ‘reaches

of the public interest’ ’’).

[a]bsent a showing of corrupt failure of the

government to discharge its duty, the Court,

in making its public interest filing, 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.

United States v. Mid-America

Dairymen, Inc., 1977–1 Trade Cas.

(CCH) ¶ 61,508, at 71,980 (W.D. Mo.

1977).

Accordingly, with respect to the

adequacy of the relief secured by the

decree, a court may not ‘‘engage in an

unrestricted evaluation of what relief

would best serve the public.’’ United

States v. BNS, Inc., 858 F.2d 456, 462

(9th Cir. 1988) (citing United States v.

Bechtel Corp., 648 F.2d 660, 666 (9th

Cir. 1981): see also Microsoft, 56 F.3d at

1460–62. Precedent requires that

the balancing of competing social and

political interests affected by a proposed

antitrust consent decree must be left, in the

first instance, to the discretion of the

Attorney General. The court’s role in

protecting the public interest is one of

insuring that the government has not

breached its duty to the public in consenting

to the decree. The court is required to

determine not whether a particular decree is

the one that will best serve society, but

whether the settlement is ‘‘within the reaches

of the public interest.’’ More elaborate

requirements might undermine the

effectiveness of antitrust enforcement by

consent decree.7

The proposed Final Judgment,

therefore, should not be reviewed under

a standard of whether it is certain to

eliminate every anticompetitive effect of

a particular practice or whether it

mandates certainty of free competition

in the future. Court approval of a final

judgment requires a standard more

flexible and less strict than the standard

required for a finding of liability. ‘‘[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. American

Tel. & Tel. Co., 552 F. Supp. 131, 151

(D.D.C. 1982), aff’d sub nom., Maryland

v. United States, 460 U.S. 1001 (1983)

(quoting Gillette Co., 406 F. Supp. at

716), United States v. Alcan Aluminum

Ltd., 605 F. Supp. 619, 622 (W.D. Ky.

1985).

Moreover, the court’s role under the

Tunney Act 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. Since ‘‘[t]he 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

might have but did not pursue. Id.

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.

Consequently, the United States has not

attached any such materials to the

proposed Final Judgment.

Dated: December 22, 1999.

Respectfully submitted,

Joel I. Klein,

Assistant Attorney General.

A. Douglas Melamed,

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General.

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations and Merger

Enforcement.

Donald J. Russell,

Chief, Telecommunications Task Force.

Laury E. Bobbish,

Assistant Chief, Telecommunications Task

Force.

Hillary B. Burchuk,

D.C. Bar #366755.

Lawrence M. Frankel,

D.C. Bar #441532.

Susan Wittenberg,

D.C. Bar #453692.

Trial Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice,

Antitrust Division, Telecommunications Task

Force, 1401 H Street, N.W., Suite 8000,

Washington, DC 20530, (202) 514–5621.

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that copies of the

foregoing Plaintiff United States’

Competitive Impact Statement, were

served via U.S. Mail, first class postage

prepaid, on this 22nd day of December,

1999 upon each of the parties listed

below:

John Thorne,

Bell Atlantic Corporation, 1320 North Court

House Road, Eighth Floor, Arlington, VA

22201, Counsel for Bell Atlantic Corporation.

Steven G. Bardbury, Kirkland & Ellis, 655

Fifteenth Street, N.W., Washington, DC

20005, Counsel for GTE Corporation.

Megan Pierson,

AirTouch Communications, Inc., One

California Street, San Francisco, CA 94111,

Counsel for Vodafone AirTouch Plc.

Lawrence M. Frankel,

Counsel for Plaintiff.

[FR Doc. 00–197 Filed 1–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Immigration and Naturalization Service

[INS No. 1971–99]

Announcement of District Advisory

Council on Immigration Matters Eighth

Meeting

AGENCY: Immigration and Naturalization

Service, Justice.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: The Immigration and

Naturalization Service (Service), has

established a District Advisory Council

on Immigration Matters (DACOIM) to

provide the New York District Director

of the Service with recommendations on

ways to improve the response and

reaction to customers in the local

jurisdiction, and to develop new

partnerships with local officials and

community organizations to build and

enhance a broader understanding of

immigration policies and practices. The

purpose of this notice is to announce

the forthcoming meeting.

DATES AND TIMES: The eighth meeting of

the DACOIM is scheduled for January

27, 2000, at 1 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at

the Jacob Javitts Federal Building, 26

Federal Plaza, Room 537, New York,

New York 10278.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christian A. Rodriguez, Designated

Federal Officer, Immigration and

Naturalization Service, 26 Federal Plaza,

Room 14–100, New York, New York,

10278, telephone: (212) 264–0736.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Meetings

will be held tri-annually on the fourth

Thursday during the months of January,

May, and September 2000.

Summary of Agenda

The purpose of the meeting will be to

conduct general business, review

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2000 / Notices 521

subcommittee reports and facilitate

public participation. The DACOIM will

be chaired by Charles Troy, Assistant

District Director for Management, New

York District, Immigration and

Naturalization Service.

Public Participation

The DACOIM meeting is open to the

public, but advance notice of attendance

is requested to ensure adequate seating.

Persons planning to attend should

notify the contact person at least two (2)

days prior to the meeting. Members of

the public may submit written

statements for consideration by the

DACOIM at any time before or after the

meeting. Written statements should be

sent to Christian A. Rodriguez,

Designated Federal Officer, Immigration

and Naturalization Service, 26 Federal

Plaza, Room 14–100, New York, New

York, 10278, telephone: (202) 264–0736.

Only written statements received by 5

p.m. on January 24, 2000, will be

considered for presentation at the

meeting. Minutes of the meeting will be

available upon request.

Dated: December 29, 1999.

Doris Meissner,

Commissioner, Immigration and

Naturalization Service.

[FR Doc. 00–139 Filed 1–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–10–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

Investigations Regarding Certifications

of Eligibility To Apply for Worker

Adjustment Assistance

Petitions have been filed with the

Secretary of Labor under Section 221(a)

of the Trade Act of 1974 (‘‘the Act’’) and

are identified in the Appendix to this

notice. Upon receipt of these petitions,

the Director of the Office of Trade

Adjustment Assistance, Employment

and Training Administration, has

instituted investigations pursuant to

Section 221(a) of the Act.

The purpose of each of the

investigations is to determine whether

the workers are eligible to apply for

adjustment assistance under Title II,

Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations

will further relate, as appropriate, to the

determination of the date on which total

or partial separations began or

threatened to begin and the subdivision

of the firm involved.

The petitioners or any other persons

showing a substantial interest in the

subject matter of the investigations may

request a public hearing, provided such

request is filed in writing with the

Director, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance, at the address shown below,

not later than January 18, 2000.

Interested persons are invited to

submit written comments regarding the

subject matter of the investigations to

the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance, at the address shown below,

not later than January 18, 2000.

The petitions filed in this case are

available for inspection at the Office of

the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance, Employment and Training

Administration, U.S. Department of

Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20210.

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 20th day

of December, 1999.

Grant D. Beale,

Program Manager, Office of Trade

Adjustment Assistance.

APPENDIX—PETITIONS INSTITUTED ON 12/20/1999

TA–W Subject firm

(petitioners) Location Date ofpetition Product(s)

37,179 .................... Bunnies By The Bay (Co.) ........... Anacortes, WA .............................. 12/06/1999 Stuffed Animals.

37,180 .................... Russell Manufacturing (Co.) ......... Lebanon, VA ................................. 12/03/1999 Women’s Lingerie.

37,181 .................... Trend Manufacturing (Wkrs) ......... Parsons, KS .................................. 11/30/1999 Vinyl Wristbands.

37,182 .................... Wolverine Tube, Inc (Co.) ............ Roxboro, NC ................................. 12/01/1999 Copper Tubeing for Chillers.

37,183 .................... Lido Fashions (UNITE) ................. Paterson, NJ ................................. 11/19/1999 Ladies’ Coats.

37,184 .................... Yates Industries (IUE) .................. Bordentown, NJ ............................ 12/03/1999 Copper Foil.

37,185 .................... Performance Oilfield (Co.) ............ Kilgore, TX .................................... 12/02/1999 Exploration and Production.

37,186 .................... Avdel Cherry Textron (UE) ........... Parsippany, NJ ............................. 12/08/1999 Industrial Fasteners.

37,187 .................... Sun Apparel of Texas (UNITE) .... El Paso, TX .................................. 12/08/1999 Jackets and Jeans.

37,188 .................... Fruit of the Loom (Wkrs) .............. Barneveld, NJ ............................... 12/02/1999 Industrial Sewing Machines.

37,189 .................... B.F. Goodrich (USWA) ................. Beliot, WI ...................................... 12/08/1999 Cylinder Liners, Heads, Crankshafts.

37,190 .................... Tempset, Inc (Co.) ........................ St. Louis, MO ................................ 12/07/1999 Thermal Assemblies.

[FR Doc. 00–142 Filed 1–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

Investigations Regarding Certifications

of Eligibility To Apply for Worker

Adjustment Assistance

Petitions have been filed with the

Secretary of Labor under Section 221(a)

of the Trade Act of 1974 (‘‘the Act’’) and

are identified in the Appendix to this

notice. Upon receipt of these petitions,

the Director of the Office of Trade

Adjustment Assistance, Employment

and Training Administration, has

instituted investigations pursuant to

Section 221(a) of the Act.

The purposes of each of the

investigations is to determine whether

the workers are eligible to apply for

adjustment assistance under Title II,

Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations

will further relate, as appropriate, to the

determination of the date on which total

or partial separations began or

threatened to begin and the subdivision

of the firm involved.

The petitioners or any other persons

showing a substantial interest in the

subject matter of the investigations may

request a public hearing, provided such

request is filed in writing with the

Director, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance, at the address shown below,

not later than January 18, 2000.

Interested persons are invited to

submit written comments regarding the

subject matter of the investigations to

the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance, at the address shown below,

not later than January 18, 2000.

The petitions filed in this case are

available for inspection at the Office of

the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance, Employment and Training

Administration, U.S. Department of