66774 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 7, 2000 / Notices

2Bechtel Corp., 648 F.2d at 666 (citations omitted

and emphasis added); see BNS, Inc., 858 F.2d at

463; United States v. National Broad Co., 449 F.

Supp. 1127, 1143 (C.D. Cal. 1978); s v. Gillette Co.,

406 F. Supp. at 716; see also United States v.

American Cyanamid Co., 719 F.2d 558, 565 (2d Cir.

1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1101 (1984).

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

F.Supp. 131, 150 (D.D.C. 1982) (citations omitted)

quoting Gillette Co., 406 F. Supp. at 716; United

States v. Alcan Aluminum, Ltd., 605 F.Supp. 619,

622 (W.D. Ky. 1985).

(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’ ’’ 3

Moreover, the Court’s role under the

Tunney Act is limited to reviewing the

remedy in relation 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. Because ‘‘[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. at

1459–60.

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: October 23, 2000.

Respectfully submitted.

Arthur A. Feiveson,

IL Bar #3125793, U.S. Department of Justice,

Antitrust Division, Litigation II Section, 1401

H Street, NW, Suite 3000, Washington, DC

20530, (202) 307–0901.

[Civil No. 00 2311]

Filed: 9/27/00.

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that copies of the

Competitive Impact Statement have

been served upon Republic Services,

Inc. and Allied Waste Industries, Inc. by

U.S. mail, postage prepaid, to the

attorneys listed below, this 23rd day of

October, 2000.

Counsel for Defendant Allied Waste

Industries, Inc., Tom D. Smith, Jones,

Day, Reavis & Pogue, 51 Louisiana

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20001–

2113.

Counsel for Defendant Republic

Services, Inc., Paul B. Hewitt, Akin.

Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, 1333 New

Hampshire Avenue, NW, Suite 400,

Washington, DC 20036.

Arthur A. Feiveson,

IL Bar #3125793, U.S. Department of Justice,

Antitrust Division, Suite 3000, 1401 H Street,

NW, Washington, DC 20530, (202) 307–0901.

[FR Doc. 00–28541 Filed 11–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Meeting of the CJIS Advisory Policy

Board

AGENCY: Federal Bureau of Investigation

(FBI), DOJ.

ACTION: Meeting notice.

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is

to announce the meeting of the Criminal

Justice Information Services (CJIS)

Advisory Policy Board. The CJIS

Advisory Policy Board is responsible for

reviewing policy issues, uniform crime

reports, and appropriate technical and

operational issues related to the

programs administered by the FBI CJIS

Division and thereafter, make

appropriate recommendations to the FBI

Director. The topics to be discussed will

include CJIS System Enhancement

Strategy Group (SESG)

recommendations for prioritization of

system enhancements, Data systems for

policing in the 21st century, Secondary

Dissemination of National Crime

Information Center (NCIC) Wanted

Person File Data and Name-based

criminal history records. Discussion

will also include the status on the CJIS

Development and Enhancement Strategy

Team (C-Dest), Integrated Automated

Fingerprint Identification System

(IAFIS) latent fingerprint connectivity,

the National Crime Prevention and

Privacy Compact, and other issues

related to the IAFIS, NCIC, Law

Enforcement Online, National Instant

Criminal Background Check System

(NICS), and Uniform Crime Reporting

Programs.

The meeting will be open to the

public on a first-come, first-seated basis.

Any member of the public wishing to

file a written statement concerning the

FBI’s CJIS Division programs or wishing

to address this session should notify the

Designated Federal Employee, Mr. Roy

Weise, Unit Chief, Programs

Development Section (304) 625–2730, at

least 24 hours prior to the start of the

session.

The notification should contain the

requestor’s name, corporate designation,

and consumer affiliation or government

designation along with a short statement

describing the topic to be addressed and

the time needed for the presentation. A

requestor will ordinarily be allowed not

more than 15 minutes to present a topic.

DATES AND TIMES: The Advisory Policy

Board will meet in open session from 9

a.m. until 5 p.m. on December 12–13,

2000.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place

at the Tampa Convention Center, 333

South Franklin Street, Tampa, Florida,

telephone (813) 274–8422.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Inquiries may be addressed to Ms. Lori

A. Kemp, Management Analyst,

Advisory Groups Management Unit,

Programs Development Section, FBI

CJIS Division, Module C3, 1000 Custer

Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia

26306–0149, telephone (304) 625–2619,

facsimile (304) 625–5090.

Dated: October 27, 2000.

Thomas E. Bush, III,

Section Chief, Programs Development

Section, Criminal Justice Information Services

Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation.

[FR Doc. 00–28455 Filed 11–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–02–M