44146 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 1997 / Notices

1 119 Cong. Rec. 24598 (1973). See, United States

v. Gillette Co., 406 F. Supp. 713, 715 (D.Mass.1975).

A ‘‘public interest’’ determination can be made

properly on the basis of the Competitive Impact

Statement and Response to Comments filed

pursuant to the APPA. Although the APPA

authorizes the use of additional procedures, 15

U.S.C. § 16(f), those procedures are discretionary. A

court need not invoke any of them unless it believes

that the comments have raised significant issues

and that further proceedings would aid the court in

resolving those issues. See, H.R. 93–1463, 93rd

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

Cong. & Ad. News 6535, 6538.

2United States v. Bechtel, 648 F.2d at 666

(citations omitted) (emphasis added); see United

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

v. National Broadcasting Co., 449 F. Supp. 1127,

1143 (C.D. Cal. 1978); United States v. Gillette Co.,

406 F. Supp. at 716. See also United States v.

American Cyanamid Co., 719 F.2d at 565.

3United States v. American Tel. and Tel. Co., 552

F. Supp. 131, 150 (D.D.C. 1982), aff’d sub nom.

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

quoting United States v. Gillette Co., supra, 406 F.

Supp. at 716; United States v. Alcan Aluminum,

Ltd., 605 F. Supp. 619, 622 (W.D. Ky 1985).

decree is sufficiently clear, whether

enforcement mechanisms are sufficient,

and whether the decree may positively

harm third parties. See United States v.

Microsoft, 56 F.3d 1448 (D.C. Cir. 1995).

In conducting this inquiry, ‘‘the Court

is nowhere compelled to go to trial or

to enage in extended proceedings which

might have the effect of vitiating the

benefits of prompt and less costly

settlement through the consent decree

process.’’ 1 Rather,

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.

United States v. Mid-America

Dairymen, Inc., 1977–1 Trade Cas.

¶ 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) quoting United States v.

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

Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1083 (1981);

see also, Microsoft, 56 F.3d 1448 (D.C.

Cir.1995). 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.2

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.’

(citation omitted).’’ 3

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.

Respectfully submitted,

For Plaintiff United States of America:

J. Robert Kramer II,

PA Bar #23963.

Willie L. Hudgins,

DC Bar #37127.

Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice,

Antitrust Division

David R. Bickel,

DC Bar #393409.

Michael K. Hammaker,

DC Bar #233684.

Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice,

Antitrust Division, 1401 H St., N.W., Suite

3000, Washington, D.C. 20530, 202–307–

0924, 202–307–6283 (Facsimile)

Paul E. Coggins,

United States Attorney.

for

Marc. W. Barta,

TX Bar #01838200, Assistant U.S. Attorney,

Northern District of Texas, 801 Cherry Street,

Ste. 1700, Fort Worth, TX 76102–6897, 817–

978–3291, 817–978–6351 (Facsimile).

Dated: July 29, 1997.

Certification of Service

I hereby certify that a copy of the

foregoing has been served upon the

attorneys for USA Waste Service, Inc.,

the attorneys for Allied Waste

Industries, Inc, and the Office of the

Attorney General of the State of Texas,

by placing a copy in the U.S. Mail,

directed to each of the above-named

parties at the addresses give below, this

29th day of July, 1997.

USA Waste Services, Inc., c/o James R.

Weiss, Preston, Gates, Suite 500, 1735

New York Ave., NW., Washington, DC

20006

USA Waste Services, Inc., c/o James D.

McCarthy, Hughes & Luce, 1717 Main

Street, Suite 2800, Dallas, TX 75201

Allied Waste Industries, Inc., c/o Tom

D. Smith, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue,

Metropolitan Square, 1450 G Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20005–2088

Allied Waste Industries, Inc., c/o

Thomas R. Jackson, Jones, Day, Reavis

& Pogue, 2300 Trammel Crow Center,

2001 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202–

2598

State of Texas: Amy Krasner, Assistant

Attorney General, Antitrust Section,

Office of the Attorney General of

Texas, P.O. Box 12548, Austin, TX

78711–2548

David R. Bickel,

Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice,

Antitrust Division, 1401 H Street, N.W., Suite

3000, Washington, D.C. 20530, (202) 307–

0924, (202) 307–6283 (Facsimile).

[FR Doc. 97–21855 Filed 8–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Immigration and Naturalization Service

[INS No. 1851–97]

Change in Production of the Form I–

551, Alien Registration Receipt Card

AGENCY: Immigration and Naturalization

Service, Justice.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In September 1997, the

Immigration and Naturalization Service

(INS or Service) will produce the Form

I–551, Alien Registration Receipt Card

(ARC) using an Integrated Card

Production System (ICPS). At that time,

the Service will transfer production of

the ARC from the Immigration Card

Facility (ICF) to the ICPS located at INS

service centers. These changes will

increase efficiency in producing the

ARCs, allow the Service to be more

responsive to inquires from applicants,

their representatives, and benefitgranting agencies, and will enhance the

Service’s ability to produce a more

secure ARC.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 1, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Geoff Verderosa, Immigration and

Naturalization Service, Benefits

Division, Residence and Status Services,

425 I Street, NW., Room 3214,

Washington, DC 20536, Telephone 202–

514–3156.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 1997 / Notices 44147

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

What Will Happen on September 1,

1997?

On September 1, 1997, the Service

will begin using the Integrated Card

Production System (ICPS) at the INS

service centers to produce the new

Permanent Resident Card, known as the

Alien Registration Receipt Card (ARC).

The Service will stop producing the

ARCs at the Immigration Card Facility

on September 30, 1997.

What Are the Benefits of Using ICPS

Technology at the INS Service Centers?

Using ICPS technology at the INS

service centers will allow the Service to:

(1) Mass produce the ARCs at a faster

rate;

(2) Produce a more secure credit card

type identity card by using the latest

security features available (i.e.,

biometrics);

(3) Eliminate the extra step of sending

the Application for Alien Registration

Receipt Card, Form I–90, from each of

the service centers to the Immigration

Card Facility;

(4) Reduce the possibility of all of the

ICPS machines being disabled at the

same time; and

(5) Enhance its ability to be more

responsive to inquiries from applicants,

their representatives, and benefitgranting agencies.

Will the ARC Produced by the ICPS

Look Different Than the Current ARC

and, if so, Will Employers and Public

Agencies be Informed of This Change?

The ARC will have a different

appearance than the current ARC. INS

will inform employers and public

agencies of the change by initiating a

public information campaign in August

1997.

Will There Be a Change in the Filing

Procedures to Apply for a New ARC?

No. You should continue to follow the

instructions on the Form I–90,

Application to replace Alien

Registration Receipt Card, when filing

for renewal or replacement of an ARC.

Will My Current ARC Remain Valid?

Yes. New ARCs will be issued using

ICPS technology, but the validity of

current Form I–551 ARCs is unaffected

by this change. They will remain valid

until the expiration date on the card.

How Will My ARC be Delivered?

The cards will continue to be mailed

and delivered by the U.S. Postal Service.

Dated: August 11, 1997.

Doris Meissner,

Commissioner, Immigration and

Naturalization Service.

[FR Doc. 97–21901 Filed 8–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–10–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of the Secretary

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

August 14, 1997.

The Department of Labor (DOL) has

submitted the following public

information collection request (ICR) to

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for review and approval in

accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13,

44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). A copy of this

ICR, with applicable supporting

documentation, may be obtained by

calling the Department of Labor,

Departmental Clearance Officer, Theresa

M. O’Malley ((202) 219–5096 ext. 143)

or by E-Mail to OMalleyTheresa@dol.gov. Individuals who use a

telecommunications device for the deaf

(TTY/TDD) may call (202) 219–4720

between 1:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern

time, Monday–Friday.

Comments should be sent to Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Attn: OMB Desk Officer for Employment

and Training Administration, Office of

Management and Budget, Room 10235,

Washington, DC 20503 ((202) 395–

7316), within 30 days from the date of

this publication in this Federal Register.

The OMB is particularly interested in

comments which:

• evaluate whether the proposed

collection of information is necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of the agency, including

whether the information will have

practical utility;

• evaluate the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

proposed collection of information,

including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions used;

• enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and

• minimize the burden of the

collection of information on those who

are to respond, including through the

use of appropriate automated,

electronic, mechanical, or other

technological collection techniques or

other forms of information technology,

e.g., permitting electronic submission of

responses.

Agency: Employment and Training

Administration.

Title: Overpayment Detection/

Recovery Activities.

OMB Number: 1205–0173 (extension).

Frequency: Quarterly.

Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal

Government.

Number of Respondents: 53.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 10

hours.

Total Burden Hours: 2,120.

Total Annualized capital/startup

costs: 0.

Total annual costs (operating/

maintaining systems or purchasing

services) 0.

Description: The Secretary of Labor

has interpreted applicable sections of

Federal law to require States to have

reasonable provisions in their State

unemployment insurance laws that

concern the prevention, detection and

recovery of benefit overpayments

caused by willful misrepresentation of

errors by claimants or others. This

report provides an accounting of the

types and amounts of such

overpayments and serves as a useful

management tool for monitoring overall

unemployment insurance program

integrity.

Theresa M. O’Malley,

Departmental Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 97–21912 Filed 8–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–02–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

Notice of Release of Transitional

O*NET Products

AGENCY: Employment and Training

Administration, Labor.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of

Labor, Employment and Training

Administration (DOL/ETA) announces

the release of preliminary O*NET

(Occupational Information Network)

products in progressive stages. By doing

so, DOL/ETA plans to accelerate the

development of O*NET through new

phases of applied research, as well as

respond to the broad public anticipation

of O*NET availability.

There are four O*NET product

packages that DOL/ETA will release

during progressive stages of O*NET

development. The incremental

availability of O*NET products will

offer varying degrees of opportunities to

become familiar with the structure,

content and potential usefulness of

O*NET. It will also give DOL/ETA the

lead time needed to coordinate the