21298 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 82 / Monday, April 30, 2007 / Notices 

mockery of judicial power.’’ SBC 

Commc’ns, at *14. 

In 2004, Congress amended the APPA 

to ensure that courts take into account 

the above-quoted list of relevant factors 

when making a public interest 

determination. Compare 15 U.S.C. 16(e) 

(2004) with 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1) (2006) 

(substituting ‘‘shall’’ for ‘‘may’’ in 

directing relevant factors for court to 

consider and amending list of factors to 

focus on competitive considerations and 

to address potentially ambiguous 

judgment terms). These amendments, 

however, did not change the 

fundamental role of courts in reviewing 

proposed settlements. To the contrary, 

Congress made clear its intent to 

preserve the practical benefits of 

utilizing consent decrees in antitrust 

enforcement, adding the unambiguous 

instruction ‘‘[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). This 

language codified the intent of the 

original 1974 statute, expressed by 

Senator Tunney in the legislative 

history: ‘‘[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: 

[a]bsent 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. 

United States v. Mid-America Dairymen, Inc., 

1977–1 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 61,508, at 71,980 

(W.D. Mo. 1977). 

This-Court recently examined the role of 

the district court in reviewing proposed final 

judgments in light of the 2004 amendments, 

confirming that the amendments ‘‘effected 

minimal changes[] and that this Court’s scope 

of review remains sharply proscribed by 

precedent and the nature of Tunney Act 

proceedings.’’ See United States v. SBC 

Commc’ns, Inc., Nos. 05–2102 and 05–2103, 

2007 WL 1020746, at *9 (D.D.C. Mar. 29, 

2007). This Court concluded that the 

amendments did not alter the articulation of 

the public interest standard in Microsoft. Id. 

at *15. 

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: April 18, 2007. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ lllllllllllllllll

C. Scott Hataway Bar No. 473942, 

U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust 

Division, Lit II Section, 1401 H Street 

NW., Washington, DC 20530 202–514–

8380. 

[FR Doc. 07–2087 Filed 4–27–07; 8:45am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Importer of Controlled Substances 

Notice of Application 

This is notice that on October 18, 

2006, Noramco Inc., 500 Swedes 

Landing Road, Wilmington, Delaware 

19801, made application by renewal to 

the Drug Enforcement Administration 

(DEA) for registration as an importer of 

the basic classes of controlled 

substances listed in schedule II: 

Drug Schedule 

Raw Opium (9600) ....................... II 

Concentrate of Poppy Straw 

(9670).

II 

The company plans to import the 

listed controlled substances to 

manufacture other controlled 

substances. 

As noted in a previous notice 

published in the Federal Register on 

September 23, 1975, (40 FR 43745), all 

applicants for registration to import a 

basic class of any controlled substances 

in schedule I or II are, and will continue 

to be, required to demonstrate to the 

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office 

of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration, that the requirements 

for such registration pursuant to 21 

U.S.C. 958(a), 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and 21 

CFR 1301.34(b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) are 

satisfied. 

Dated: April 17, 2007. 

Joseph T. Rannazzisi, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Diversion Control Drug Enforcement 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–8132 Filed 4–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Manufacturer of Controlled 

Substances Notice of Application 

Pursuant to § 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 

this is notice that on March 1, 2007, 

Organichem Corporation, 33 Riverside 

Avenue, Rensselaer, New York 12144, 

made application by letter to the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA) to 

be registered as a bulk manufacturer of 

Oxymorphone (9652), a basic class of 

controlled substance listed in schedule 

II. 

The company plans on manufacturing 

the listed controlled substance in bulk 

for sale to its customers. 

Any other such applicant and any 

person who is presently registered with 

DEA to manufacture such a substance 

may file comments or objections to the 

issuance of the proposed registration 

pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a). 

Any such written comments or 

objections being sent via regular mail 

should be addressed, in quintuplicate, 

to the Drug Enforcement 

Administration, Office of Diversion 

Control, Attention: DEA Federal 

Register Representative (ODL), 

Washington, DC 20537, or any being 

sent via express mail should be sent to 

Drug Enforcement Administration, 

Office of Diversion Control, Federal 

Register Representative (ODL), 2401 

Jefferson-Davis Highway, Alexandria, 

Virginia 22301; and must be filed no 

later than June 29, 2007. 

Dated: April 17, 2007. 

Joseph T. Rannazzisi, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Diversion Control Drug Enforcement 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–8131 Filed 4–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Importer of Controlled Substances 

Notice of Application 

This is notice that on January 26, 

2007, Stepan Company, Natural 

Products Department, 100 W. Hunter 

Avenue, Maywood, New Jersey 07607, 

made application by renewal to the 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

(DEA) for registration as an importer of 

Coca Leaves (9040), a basic class of 

controlled substance listed in schedule 

II. 

The company plans to import the 

listed controlled substance for the 

manufacture of a bulk controlled 

substance for distribution to its 

customer. 

As noted in a previous notice 

published in the Federal Register on 

September 23, 1975, (40 FR 43745), all 

applicants for registration to import a 

basic class of any controlled substances 

in schedule I or II are, and will continue 

to be, required to demonstrate to the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES