Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 10, 1997 / Notices 47689

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).

acquisition from having anticompetitive

effects in this market. The divestiture

will restore the market to the structure

that existed prior to the acquisition, and

will preserve the existence of

independent competitors in this area.

VII

Standard of Review Under the APPA for

Proposed Final Judgment

The APPA requires that proposed

consent judgments in antitrust cases

brought by the United States be subject

to a sixty-day comment period, after

which the court shall determine

whether entry of the proposed Final

Judgment ‘‘is in the public interest.’’ In

making that determination, the court

may consider—

(1) The competitive impact of such

judgment, including termination of alleged

violations, provisions for enforcement and

modification, duration or relief sought,

anticipated effects of alternative remedies

actually considered, and any other

considerations bearing upon the adequacy of

such judgment;

(2) The impact of entry of such judgment

upon the public generally and individuals

alleging specific injury from the violations

set forth in the complaint including

consideration of the public benefit, if any, to

be derived from a determination of the issues

at trial.

15 U.S.C. 16(e) (emphasis added). As

the Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit recently held, the

APPA permits a court to consider,

among other things, the relationship

between the remedy secured and the

specific allegations set forth in the

government’s complaint, whether the

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 engage 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.’

(citations 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.

For Plaintiff United States of America:

lllllllllllllllllllll

Frederick H. Parmenter

lllllllllllllllllllll

Arthur A. Feiveson

lllllllllllllllllllll

Stephen F. Sonnett

lllllllllllllllllllll

Viqar M. Shariff

Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice,

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

Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 307–0620.

Certification of Service

I hereby certify that a copy of the

foregoing has been served upon USA

Waste Services, Inc., United Waste

Systems, Inc., and the Office of the

Attorney General of the Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania, by placing a copy of

this Competitive Impact Statement in

the U.S. mail, directed to each of the

above-named parties at the addresses

given below, this lll day of August,

1997.

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

Weiss, Preston, Gates, Ellis &

Rouvelas Meeds, Suite 500, 1735 New

York Ave., NW, Washington, D.C.

20006–5209

United Waste Systems, Inc.: c/o Ilene

Knable Gotts, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen

& Katz, 51 West 52d Street, New York,

NY 10019–6150

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: James

A. Donahue, III, Chief Deputy

Attorney General, Antitrust Section,

14th Floor, Strawberry Square,

Harrisburg, PA 17120

lllllllllllllllllllll

Fredrick H. Parmenter,

Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice,

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

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

0620.

[FR Doc. 97–23869 Filed 9–9–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

Notice Pursuant to the National

Cooperative Research and Production

Act of 1993—Advanced Lead-Acid

Battery Consortium

Notice is hereby given that, on July

24, 1997, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the

National Cooperative Research and

Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301

et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), the Advanced LeadAcid Battery Consortium (‘‘ALABC’’), a

program of International Lead Zinc

Research Organization, Inc., filed

written notification simultaneously with
47690 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 10, 1997 / Notices

the Attorney General and the Federal

Trade Commission disclosing changes

in its membership. The notification was

filed for the purpose of extending the

Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of

antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages

under specified circumstances.

Specifically, Southern California

Edison, Rosemead, CA and Johnson

Controls, Milwaukee, WI have made

commitments to the Consortium.

No other changes have been made in

either the membership or planned

activity of the Consortium. Membership

in the Consortium remains open and

ALABC intends to file additional

written notification disclosing any

future changes in membership.

On June 15, 1992, the ALABC 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 July 29, 1992 (57 FR 33522). The

last notification was filed with the

Department on April 28, 1997. A notice

was published in the Federal Register

pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on

May 22, 1997 (62 FR 28065).

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 97–23870 Filed 9–9–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

Notice Pursuant to the National

Cooperative Research and Production

Act of 1993—The Asymmetrical Digital

Subscriber Line Forum

Notice is hereby given that, on May

15, 1997, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the

National Cooperative Research and

Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301

et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), The Asymmetrical

Digital Subscriber Line Forum (‘‘ADSL’’)

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, the following companies

have joined ADSL: ELSA GmbH,

Aachen, Germany; EPL Ltd., Bradford

on Avon, Wiltshire, England; Hayes

Microcomputer Products, Inc., Atlanta,

GA; Microsoft Corporation, Redmond,

WA; Mitsubishi Electric Information

Technology America, Somerset, NJ;

Redback Networks, Inc., San Jose, CA:

SGS Thomson Microelectronics, St.

Genispouilly, France; ATM Ltd., Santa

Clara, CA; Efficient Networks, Dallas,

TX; Netspeed, Inc., Dallas, TX; Nortel,

Harlow, Essex, United Kingdom;

NYNEX S&T, Boston, MA; and Siemens

Stromberg-Carlson, Lake Mary, FL.

Copper Mountain has changed its

name to Copper Mountain Network; and

GTE Telephone Operations has changed

its name to GTE Corporation.

CSELT; DTI; Harris Semiconductor;

Independent Editions; NET; SAT; Telia;

Telstra; and Vertel have cancelled their

membership in ADSL.

No other changes have been made in

the membership, nature or objectives of

ADSL. Membership remains open, and

ADSL intends to file additional written

notifications disclosing all changes in

membership.

On May 15, 1995, ADSL 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 July 25, 1995 (60 Fed. Reg.

38058).

The last notification was filed with

the Department on November 5, 1996. A

notice was published in the Federal

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the

Act on April 3, 1997 (62 FR 15938).

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 97–23874 Filed 9–9–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

Notice Pursuant to the National

Cooperative Research and Production

Act of 1993—Corporation for National

Research Initiatives—Cross Industry

Working Team Project

Notice is hereby given that, on June 9,

1997, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the

National Cooperative Research and

Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301

et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), the Corporation for

National Research Initiatives (‘‘CNRI’’)

has filed written notifications

simultaneously with the Attorney

General and the Federal Trade

Commission disclosing changes in the

membership of the Cross Industry

Working Team Project (‘‘XIWT’’). 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,

the following additional party has

become a Primary Member of XIWT:

Alcatel Telecom, Richardson, TX. The

following additional parties have

become Associate Members of XIWT:

EarthLink Network, Inc., Pasadena, CA;

and Science Applications International

Corporation, Vienna, VA. The following

Associate Members have discontinued

membership in XIWT: Bay Networks;

DynCorp; and Xerox Corporation.

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 CNRI intends

to file additional written notifications

disclosing all changes in membership.

On September 28, 1993, CNRI 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 December 17, 1993 (56 FR

66022). The last notification was filed

with the Department on October 29,

1996. A notice was published in the

Federal Register pursuant to Section

6(b) of the Act on May 14, 1997 (62 FR

26569).

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 97–23872 Filed 9–9–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

Notice Pursuant to the National

Cooperative Research and Production

Act of 1993—Gas Utilization Research

Forum

Notice is hereby given that, on June

24, 1997, pursaunt to Section 6(a) of the

National Cooperative Research and

Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301

et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), Gas Utilization

Research Forum (‘‘GURG’’) 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 damage under

specified circumstances. Specifically,

Statoil, Stavanger, NORWAY, has

become a new member of GURF.

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 GURF

intends to file additional written

notification disclosing all changes in

membership. Information regarding

membership in GURF may be obtained

from the Secretary, Dennis Winegar,

Manager, Technical Services & Project