Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 146 /Thursday, July 30, 1998 / Notices 40741

VII.

Standard of Review Under the APPA

for the Proposed Final Judgment

The APPA requires that proposed

consent judgments in antitrust cases

brought by the government be subject to

a sixty-day comment period, after which

the Court determines whether entry of

the proposed Final Judgment ‘‘is in the

public interest.’’ In making this

determination, the Court may consider:

(1) the competitive impact of the 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 the judgment;

(2) the impact of entry of the judgment upon

the public generally and upon 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).

The Court of Appeals for the D.C.

Circuit has held that 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,

1461–62 (D.C. Cir. 1995). In conducting

this inquiry, ‘‘[t]he Court is no where

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.’’

119 Cong. Rec. 24598 (1973); See United

States v. Gillette Co., 406 F. Sup. 713,

715 (D. Mass. 1975.) A ‘‘public interest’’

determination can be made properly on

the basis of the competitive impact

statement and the government’s

response to the 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. Rep.

93–1463, 93rd Cong. 2d Sess. 8–9

(1974), reprinted in U.S.C.C.A.N. 6535,

6538.

The Court of Appeals for this Circuit

has held that a district court judge, in

making the public interest

determination, should not engage ‘‘in an

unrestricted evaluation of what relief

would best serve the public.’’ Rather

[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. See United States v.

National Broadcasting Co., 449 F. Supp.

1127 (C.D. Cal. 1978). 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.’’ Id. At 1143 (quoting

United States v. Gillette Co., 406

F.Supp. 713, 716 (D. Mass. 1975)). More

elaborate requirements might

undermine the effectiveness of antitrust

enforcement by consent decree.

United States v. Bechtel Corporation,

648 F.2d 660, 666 (9th Cir. 1981).

The proposed Final Judgment,

therefore, should not be reviewed under

a standard of whether it is certain to

eliminate every anticompetitve effect of

a particular practice. 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.’ ’’ United States v.

American Tel. and Tel. Co., 552 F.

Supp. 131, 151 (D.D.C. 1982), aff’d. sub.

nom. Maryland v. United States, 460

U.S. 1001 (1983), (quoting Gillette Co.,

406 F. Supp. at 716 (citations omitted));

United States v. Alcan Aluminum, Ltd.,

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

VIII.

Determinative Materials and

Documents

The APPA requires that the

government file with the Court any

documents that the government

considers to have been determinative in

formulating the proposed Final

Judgment. 15 U.S.C. 16(b); see

Massachusetts School of Law v. United

States, 118 F.3d 776, 784–85 (D.C. Cir.

1997). The government considered no

materials or documents determinative in

formulating the proposed Final

Judgment. It therefore files no such

documents.

Date: July 13, 1998.

Antitrust Division, Department of Justice.

Fred E. Haynes

John R. Read

Jon B. Jacobs

Joan H. Hogan

Peter J. Mucchetti,

Civil Task Force, 325 Seventh Street, N.W.,

Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20530, (202) 514–

0230.

[FR Doc. 98–20394 Filed 7–29–98; 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; Consortium for Integrated

Intelligent Manufacturing, Planning

and Execution

Notice is hereby given that, on

February 3, 1998, pursuant to Section

6(a) of the National Cooperative

Research and Production Act of 1993,

15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’),

Consortium for Integrated Intelligent

Manufacturing, Planning and Execution

(CIIMPLEX) has filed written

notifications simultaneously with the

Attorney General and the Federal Trade

Commission disclosing changes in its

membership status. 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 Haley Enterprise, Inc.,

Sewickley, PA; IndX Software Inc.,

Laguana Nigual, CA; Scandura, Narbeth,

PA; and Vitria Technology, Inc., Palo

Alto, CA have been added as parties to

this venture.

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 Consortium

for Integrated Intelligent Manufacturing,

Planning and Execution (CIIMPLEX)

intends to file additional written

notification disclosing all changes in

membership.

On April 24, 1996, Consortium for

Integrated Intelligent Manufacturing,

Planning and Execution (CIIMPLEX)

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 May 15, 1996 (61 FR

24514).

The last notification was filed with

the Department on May 13, 1997. A

notice was published in the Federal
40742 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 146 /Thursday, July 30, 1998 / Notices

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the

Act on June 13, 1997 (62 FR 32370).

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 98–20397 Filed 7–29–98; 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; OBI Consortium, Inc.

Notice is hereby given that, on March

3, 1998, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the

National Cooperative Research and

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

et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), OBI Consortium, Inc.

has filed written notifications

simultaneously with the Attorney

General and the Federal Trade

Commission disclosing changes in its

membership status. 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, 3M, St. Paul, MN; AllData

Corporation, Elk Grove, CA; Amvet Inc.,

Lexington, KY; Commerce One, Walnut

Creek, CA; Commonwealth of

Massachusetts, Boston, MA; Connect

Inc., Mountain View, CA; Dell

Computer Corporation, Round Rock,

TX; Dun & Bradstreet, Parsippany, NJ;

EPIC Systems Inc., Phoenix, AZ;

Harbinger Corporation, Atlanta, GA;

InterWorld Corporation, New York, NY;

Mastercard International, Purchase, NY;

PartNet, Salt Lake City, UT; Software

Spectrum, Garland, TX; Vallen

Corporation, Houston, TX; and W.H.

Brady, Milwaukee, WI have been added

as parties to this venture.

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 OBI

Consortium, Inc. intends to file

additional written notification

disclosing all changes in membership.

On September 10, 1997, OBI

Consortium, Inc. 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 November 10, 1997 (62 FR

60531).

The last notification was filed with

the Department on December 9, 1997. A

notice was published in the Federal

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the

Act on April 14, 1998 (63 FR 18335).

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 98–20399 Filed 7–29–98; 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; VSI Alliance

Notice is hereby given that, on

February 27, 1998, pursuant to Section

6(a) of the National Cooperative

Research and Production Act of 1993,

15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), VSI

Alliance has filed written notifications

simultaneously with the Attorney

General and the Federal Trade

Commission disclosing changes in its

membership status. 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, Advanced Bytes & Rights,

Ltd., London, UNITED KINGDOM; ASIC

Alliance Corporation, Burlington, MA;

BOPS, Inc., Chapel Hill, NC; Canadian

Microelectronics Corporation, Kingston,

Ontario, CANADA; Chip & Chip, Inc.,

Santa Clara, CA; ChipLogic, Inc.,

Sunnyvale, CA; Cimaron

Communications, Lawrence, MA;

Credence Systems Corporation,

Fremont, CA; Denso Corporation,

Nukata-gun, Aichi Prefecture, JAPAN;

Design & Reuse, Grenoble, FRANCE;

Eigen Tek, Inc., Cherry Hill, NJ;

Electronic Tools Company, Sonoma,

CA; Fraunhofer Institute IMS, Dresden,

GERMANY; Macronix International Co.,

Ltd. Hsinchu, Taiwan, R.O.C.;

Microelectronics Research Institute

PROGRESS, Moscow, RUSSIA; Pivotal

Technologies, Pasadena, CA; Power X

Limited, Sale, Cheshire, UNITED

KINGDOM; Real 3D, Orlando, FL;

SpaSE BV, Nijmegen, THE

NETHERLANDS; Syntest Technologies,

Inc., Sunnyvale, CA; Tundra

Semiconductor Corporation, Kanata,

Ontario, CANADA; and Virage Logic

Corporation, Milpitas, CA have been

added as parties to this venture. Also,

Compass Design Automation, San Jose,

CA; GEC Plessey, Plymouth, Devon,

UNITED KINGDOM; and Tower

Semiconductor Ltd., San Jose, CA have

been dropped as parties to this venture.

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 VSI Alliance

intends to file additional written

notification disclosing all changes in

membership.

On November 27, 1996, VSI Alliance

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 March 4, 1997 (62 FR

9812).

The last notification was filed with

the Department on November 19, 1997.

A notice was published in the Federal

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the

Act on April 14, 1998 (63 FR 18226).

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 98–20398 Filed 7–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

Submitted for Public Comment;

Employment Services Report System

AGENCY: Employment and Training

Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as

part of its continuing effort to reduce

paperwork and respondent burden

conducts a preclearance consultation

program to provide the general public

and Federal agencies with an

opportunity to comment on proposed

and/or continuing collections of

information in accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(C)(2)(A)]. This

program helps to ensure that requested

data can be provided in the desired

format, reporting burden (time and

financial resources) is minimized,

collection instruments are clearly

understood, and the impact of collection

requirements on respondents can be

properly assessed.

Currently, the Employment and

Training Administration (ETA) is

soliciting comments concerning the

proposed ten month extension of the

Employment Service Program Reporting

System from the current end date of

August 31, 1999 to a new end date of

June 30, 2000.

A copy of the previously approved

information collection request (ICR) can

be obtained by contacting the office

listed below in the ADDRESSES section of

this notice.

DATES: Written comments must be

submitted to the office listed in the