60278 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 1997 / Notices

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

(internal 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 558, 565 (2d Cir.

1983).

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).

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 determining 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, (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

[T]he 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 in 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:

Dated: October 22, 1997.

J. Robert Kramer II,

Chief, Litigation II Section, PA Bar #23963.

Willie L. Hudgins,

Assistant Chief, Litigation II Section, DC Bar

#37127.

and

Janet Adams Nash,

Kevin C. Quin,

Stacy Nelson,

Laura M. Scott,

Nancy Olson,

Tara M. Higgins,

Charles R. Schwidde,

Robert W. Wilder,

Melanie Sabo,

Trial Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice,

Antitrust Division, 1401 H St., NW., Suite

3000, Washington, DC 20530, 202–307–0924,

202–307–6283 (Facsimile).

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify under penalty of

perjury that on this 22nd day of

October, 1997, I caused copies of the

foregoing competitive impact statement

to be served via hand-delivery upon the

following:

Counsel for Raytheon Company.

Robert D. Paul, Esq.,

Michael S. Shuster, Esq.,

White & Case, 601 13th St., NW., Washington,

DC 20005–3807.

Counsel for HE Holdings, Inc., and General

Motors Corp.

Robert C. Odle, Esq.,

Peter D. Standish, Esq.,

Douglas A. Nave, Esq.,

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, 767 Fifth Ave.,

New York, NY 10153–0119.

Willie L. Hudgins, Esq.,

Assistant Chief, Litigation II Section, U.S.

Department of Justice, Antitrust Division,

1401 H Street, NW., Suite 3000, Washington,

DC 20530, (202) 307–0924.

[FR Doc. 97–29474 Filed 11–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Bureau of International Labor Affairs;

U.S. National Administrative Office;

National Advisory Committee for the

North American Agreement on Labor

Cooperation; Notice of Meeting Open

to the Public

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Labor.

ACTION: Notice meeting.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal

Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 94–

463), the U.S. National Administrative

Office (NAO) gives notice of a meeting

of the National Advisory Committee for

the North American Agreement on

Labor Cooperation (NAALC), which was

established by the Secretary of Labor.

The Committee was established to

provide advice to the U.S. Department

of Labor on matters pertaining to the

implementation and further elaboration

of the NAALC, the labor side accord to

the North American Free Trade

Agreement (NAFTA). The Committee is

authorized under Article 17 of the

NAALC.

The Committee consists of 12

independent representatives drawn

from among labor organizations,

business and industry, and educational

institutions.

DATES: The Committee will meet on

December 5, 1997 from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00

p.m.

ADDRESSES: University of Maryland,

School of Law, 519 West Fayette St.,

Room 200, Baltimore, Maryland. The

meeting is open to the public on a firstcome, first served basis.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Irasema Garza, designated Federal

Officer, U.S. NAO, U.S. Bureau of

International Labor Affairs, U.S.

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Room C–4327,

Washington, D.C. 20210. Telephone

202–501–6653 (this is not a toll free

number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Please

refer to the notice published in the

Federal Register on December 15, 1994

(59 FR 64713) for supplementary

information.

Signed at Washington, D.C. on November

3, 1997.

Irasema T. Garza,

Secretary, U.S. National Administrative

Office.

[FR Doc. 97–29486 Filed 11–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–28–M