35954 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 126 /Wednesday, July 1, 1998 / Notices

1 119 Cong. Rec. 24598 (1973), See also 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. Bethtel, 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); Gillette, 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. & 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 Gillette, 406 F. Supp, at 716; United States

v. Alcan Aluminum, Ltd., 605 F. Supp, 619, 622

(W.D. Ky. 1985).

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 consideration

bearing upon the adequacy of such

judgment;

(2) the impact of entry of such

judgment upon the public generally and

individuals alleging specific inquiry

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 on 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 response 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 F2d 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

[t]he balancing of competing social and

political interest 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 certainly 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 its 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:

Date: June 18, 1998.

Respectfully submitted,

Nina B. Hale,

Washington Bar # 18776,

Andrew K. Rosa,

Hawaii Bar # 6366,

Michele Cano,

Jade Alice Eaton.

Trial Attorneys,

U.S. Department of Justice,

Antitrust Division,

325 Seventh Street, NW,

Suite 500,

Washington, DC 20004,

202–307–0892,

202–307–2441 (Facsimile).

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that I have caused a

copy of the foregoing Competitive

Impact Statement to be served on

counsel for defendants in this matter in

the manner and on the date set forth

below:

By the first class mail, postage

prepaid:

D. Stuart Meiklejohn,

Sullivan & Cromwell,

125 Broad Street, 28th Floor,

New York, NY 10004.

David I. Gelfand, Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen &

Hamilton,

2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20006.

Dated: June 18, 1998.

Andrew K. Rosa,

Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice,

325 Seventh Street, NW, Suite 500,

Washington, D.C. 20530, (202) 307–0886,

(202) 616–2441 (Fax).

[FR Doc. 98–17504 Filed 6–30–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

Agency Information Collection

Activities: Extension of Existing

Collection; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice of information collection

under review; Application for

Individual Manufacturing Quota for

Basic Class of Controlled Substance;

Extension of a Currently Approved

Collection.

Office of Management and Budget

approval is being sought for the

information collection listed below.

This proposed information collection

was previously published in the Federal

Register on April 7, 1998 in volume 63,

page 17017, allowed for a 60-day

comment period.

The purpose of this notice is to allow

an additional 30 days for public
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 126 /Wednesday, July 1, 1998 / Notices 35955

comment until July 31, 1998. This

process is conducted in accordance with

5 CFR 1320.10.

Written comments and/or suggestions

regarding the item(s) contained in this

notice, especially regarding the

estimated public burden and associated

response time, should be directed to the

Office of Management and Budget,

Office of Regulatory Affairs, Attention:

Department of Justice Desk Office,

Washington, DC 20530. Additionally,

comments may be submitted to OMB via

facsimile to (202) 395–7285. Comments

may also be submitted to the

Department of Justice (DOJ), Justice

Management Division, Information

Management and Security Staff,

Attention: Department of Clearance

Officer, Suite 850, 1001 G Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20530. Additionally,

comments may be submitted to DOJ via

facsimile to (202) 514–1590.

Written comments and suggestions

from the public and affected agencies

concerning the proposed collection of

information should address one or more

of the following four points:

1. 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.

2. Evaluate the accuracy of the

agencies estimate of the burden of the

proposed collection of information,

including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions used;

3. Enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and

4. 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.

Overview of the information

collection:

1. Type of Information Collection:

Extension of currently approved

collection.

2. Title of the Form/Collection:

Application for Individual

Manufacturing Quota for a Basic Class

of Controlled Substance.

3. Agency form number: DEA Form

189, if any, and the applicable

component of the Department of Justice

sponsoring the collection: Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration, Department of Justice.

4. Affected public who will be asked

or required to respond, as well as a brief

abstract: Primary: Business or other forprofit.

Title 21, Section 1303.22 of the Code

of Federal Regulations requires that any

person who is registered to manufacture

any basic class of controlled substance

listed in Schedule I or II and who

desires to manufacture a quantity of

such class shall apply on DEA Form 189

for a manufacturing quota for such

quantity of such class.

5. An estimate of the total estimated

number of respondents and the amount

of time estimated for an average

respondent to respond: 27 respondents

at approximately 10 responses per year

at .5 hour per response.

6. An estimate of the total public

burden (in hours) associated with the

collection: 135 annual burden hours.

If additional information is required

contact: Mr. Robert B. Briggs, Clearance

Officer, United States Department of

Justice, Information Management and

Security Staff, Justice Management

Division, Suite 850, Washington Center,

1001 G Street NW., Washington, DC

20530.

Dated: June 24, 1998.

Robert B. Briggs,

Department Clearance Officer, United States

Department of Justice.

[FR Doc. 98–17397 Filed 6–30–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of the Secretary

Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA),

Title IV–D, Demonstration Program:

Women in Apprenticeship and

Nontraditional Occupations

AGENCY: Women’s Bureau, Department

of Labor.

ACTION: Notice of Availability of Funds

and Solicitation for Grant Applications

(SGA 98–04).

SUMMARY: All information required to

submit a proposal is contained in this

announcement. Applicants for grant

funds should read this notice in its

entirety and respond as directed. Grant

proposals that are not completed as

directed will be judged nonresponsive

and will not be evaluated.

The Women’s Bureau (WB), U.S.

Department of Labor (DOL) announces

the fifth (5) year of the Solicitation for

Grant Applications (SGAs) first

authorized by the Women in

Apprenticeship and Nontraditional

Occupations (WANTO) Act under its

grant provision to Community-Based

Organizations (CBOs) to deliver

Technical Assistance (TA) to private

sector Employers and Labor Unions (E/

LUs) to prepare them to increase the

recruiting, training, promotion, and

retention of women in apprenticeship

and nontraditional occupations (A/

NTOs) in their workplaces. WANTO is

a competitive grant program funded

through the Job Training Partnership

Act (JTPA) Title IV-D. While the

Women’s Bureau has responsibility for

implementing the competitive grant

process, the WANTO Act is jointly

administered by the Department of

Labor’s Bureau of Apprenticeship and

Training (BAT)/Employment and

Training Administration (ETA) and the

Women’s Bureau (WB).

The Department expects to make up

to eight (8) WANTO awards to

experienced, private nonprofit CBOs

from the funds allocated for FY 1998.

With the fifth year of WANTO grants,

the Department will give priority

consideration to proposals for technical

assistance that leverage WANTO funds

in Federally designated Empowerment

Zones (EZ) and Enterprise Communities

(EC) in both rural and urban areas. (See

Appendix A for a listing of Urban EZ/

EC cities and Appendix B for a listing

of Rural EZ/EC areas and contacts.) The

Department expects WANTO funded

CBOs to assist employers and labor

unions to make commitments to

increase the participation of EZ/EC area

women who are returning to work after

welfare and related long-term work

disruptions. The DOL is particularly

concerned with obtaining the

commitment of employers and labor

unions who have jobs/careers in

information technology, manufacturing,

and apprenticeship in skilled

construction building trades. Employers

and labor unions will be encouraged to

assist returning women to enter and

remain in apprenticeship training and

other nontraditional employment in

these industries by (1) providing them

with information on the realities of

work and the company’s promotion and

employee development practices, (2)

creating a firm-specific individual

development plan, (3) providing for

firm-specific skill/job development to

promote job advancement, and (4)

providing for support services utilizing

both firm and community resource

networks. CBOs should note well that

WANTO training is for employer or

labor union firm/company-specific

(demand) and is not to increase the

general store (supply) of trained workers

in apprenticeship and nontraditional

occupations. Finally, each proposal

MUST include a specific defined

internal program evaluation design.

In this time of economic prosperity

and skill shortage, it is clear that CBOs’