Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2001 / Notices 2939

3 119 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. Rep. 93–1463, 93d

Cong. 2d Sess. 8–9 (1974), reprinted in U.S.C.C.A.N

6535, 6538.

4Bechtel, 648 F.2d at 666 (emphasis added); see

BNS, 858 F.2d at 463; United States v. National

Broadcasting Co., 449 F. Supp. 1127, 1143 (C.D.

Cal. 1978); Gillettee, 406 F. Supp. At 716. See also

Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 (whether ‘‘the remedies

[obtained in the decree are] so inconsonant with the

allegations charged as to fall outside of the ‘reaches

of the public interest’ ’’).

less costly settlement through the

consent decree process.’’ 3 Rather,

[a]bsent 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 Case.

(CCH) ¶ 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) (citing United States v.

Bechtel Corp., 648 F.2d 660, 666 (9th

Cir. 1981); see also Microsoft, 56 F.3d at

1460–62. 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.4

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.’ ’’ United States v. American

Tel. & 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); United States v. Alcan Aluminum,

Ltd., 605 F. Supp. 619, 622 (W.D. Ky.

1985).

Moreover, the court’s role under the

Tunney Act is limited to reviewing the

remedy in relationship 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. Since ‘‘[t]he court’s

authority to review the decree depends

entirely on the government’s exercising

its prosecutional 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.

VIII. Determinative Documents

There are not determinative materials

or documents within the meaning of the

APPA that were considered by the

United States in formulating the

proposed Final Judgment.

Consequently, the United State has not

attached any such materials to proposed

Final Judgment.

Dated: December 21, 2000.

Respectfully submitted,

Donald J. Russell,

Chief.

A. Douglas Melamed,

Acting Assistant Attorney General.

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations and Merger

Enforcement.

David F. Smutny (DC Bar No. 435714),

J. Parker Erkmann,

Lorenzo McRae II,

Trial Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice,

Antitrust Division.

Telecommunications Task Force, 1401 H.

Street, N.W., Suite 8000, Washington, D.C.

20530 (202) 514–5621.

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that copies of the

foregoing Competitive Impact Statement

was served, as indicated below, this 21st

day of December, 2000 upon each of the

parties listed below:

Charles F. Rule, Esq. (BY HAND),

Covington & Burling, 1201

Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20004–2401, (202)

662–5119, Counsel for WorldCom,

Inc.

Brad E. Mutschelknaus, Esq. (BY

HAND), Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP,

1200 19th Street, N.W., Suite 500,

Washington, DC 20036, (202) 955–

9600, Counsel for Intermedia

Communications, Inc.

David F. Smutny,

Counsel for Plaintiff.

[FR Doc. 01–928 Filed 1–11–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Federal Bureau of Investigation,

Justice.

Meeting of the Compact Council for the

National Crime Prevention and Privacy

Compact

AGENCY: Federal Bureau of

Investigation, Justice.

ACTION: Meeting notice.

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is

to announce a meeting of the Compact

Council created by the National Crime

Prevention and Privacy Compact Act of

1998 (Compact). Thus far, the federal

government and eight states are parties

to the Compact which governs the

exchange of criminal history records for

licensing, employment, and similar

purposes. The Compact also provides a

legal framework for the establishment of

a cooperative Federal-state system to

exchange such records.

The meeting will be a strategic

planning session to devise short and

long term goals and to define the

mission statement of the Compact

Council.

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 with the

Compact Council or wishing to address

this session of the Compact Council

should notify Ms. Cathy L. Morrison at

(304) 625–2736, at least 24 hours prior

to the start of the session. The

notification should contain the

requestor’s name and corporate

designation, consumer affiliation, or

government designation, along with a

short statement describing the topic to

be addressed, and the time needed for

the presentation. Requestors will

ordinarily be allowed not more than 15

minutes to present a topic.

DATES AND TIMES: The Compact Council

will meet in open session from 9 a.m.

until 5 p.m. on February 13, 2001.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place

at the Sheraton Uptown Albuquerque,

2600 Louisiana Boulevard, N.E.,

2940 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2001 / Notices

Albuquerque, New Mexico, telephone

(505) 881–0000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Inquiries may be addressed to Ms. Cathy

L. Morrison, Management Analyst,

Programs Development Section, CJIS

Division, FBI, 1000 Custer Hollow Road,

Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306–0147,

telephone (304) 625–2736, facsimile

(304) 625–5388.

Dated: January 4, 2001.

Thomas E. Bush, III,

Section Chief, Programs Development

Section, Federal Bureau of Investigation.

[FR Doc. 01–1071 Filed 1–11–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–02–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Parole Commission

Sunshine Act Notice; Public

Announcement

Pursuant To The Government In the

Sunshine Act (Public Law 94–409) [5

U.S.C. Section 552b].

AGENCY HOLDING MEETING: Department of

Justice, United States Parole

Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 9:30 a.m., Wednesday,

January 17, 2001.

PLACE: 5550 Friendship Blvd., Fourth

Floor, Chevy Chase, MD 20815.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

The following matters have been

placed on the agenda for the open

Parole Commission meeting:

1. Approval of minutes of previous

Commission meeting.

2. Reports from the Chairman,

Commissioners, Legal, Chief of Staff,

Case Operations, and Administrative

Sections.

3. Adoption of Rule for attorney

qualifications for District of Columbia

Code cases similar to Rule adopted for

federal cases at 28 CFR § 2.61.

4. Adoption of Final Version of the

U.S. Parole Commission Rules and

Procedures Manual.

AGENCY CONTACT: Sam Robertson, Case

Operations, United States Parole

Commission, (301) 492–5962.

Dated: January 9, 2001.

Michael A. Stover,

General Counsel, U.S. Parole Commission.

[FR Doc. 01–1160 Filed 1–10–01; 10:55 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–31–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Parole Commission

Sunshine Act Meeting, Public

Announcement

Pursuant To The Government In the

Sunshine Act (Public Law 94–409) [5

U.S.C. Section 552b].

AGENCY HOLDING MEETING: Department of

Justice, United States Parole

Commission.

DATE AND TIME: 10:30 a.m., Wednesday,

January 17, 2001.

PLACE: U.S. Parole Commission, 5550

Friendship Boulevard, 4th Floor, Chevy

Chase, Maryland 20815.

STATUS: Closed—Meeting.

MATTERS CONSIDERED:

The following matter will be

considered during the closed portion of

the Commission’s Business Meeting:

Appeals to the Commission involving

approximately one case decided by the

National Commissioners pursuant to a

reference under 28 CFR 2.27. This case

was originally heard by an examiner

panel wherein inmates of Federal

prisons have applied for parole and are

contesting revocation of parole or

mandatory release.

AGENCY CONTACT: Sam Robertson, Case

Operations, United States Parole

Commission, (301) 492–5962.

Dated January 9, 2001.

Michael A. Stover,

General Counsel, U.S. Parole Commission.

[FR Doc. 01–1161 Filed 1–10–01; 11:08 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–31–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment Standards Administration

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request

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 Standards Administration

is soliciting comments concerning the

proposed extension collection of the

following information collections: (1)

Maintenance of Receipts for Benefits

Paid by a Coal Mine Operator (CM–200);

(2) Claim for Reimbursement-Assisted

Reemployment (CA–2231); and (3)

Vehicle Mechanical Inspection Report

for Transportation Subject to

Department of Transportation

Requirements (WH–514) and Vehicle

Mechanical Inspection Report for

Transportation Subject to Department of

Labor Safety Standards (WH–514a).

Copies of the proposed information

collection requests can be obtained by

contacting the office listed below in the

addressee section of this Notice.

DATES: Written comments must be

submitted to the office listed in the

addressee section below on or before

March 13, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Ms. Patricia A. Forkel, U.S.

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution

Ave., NW., Room S–3201, Washington,

DC 20210, telephone (202) 693–0339

(this is not a toll-free number), fax (202)

693–1451.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Maintenance of Receipt for Benefits

Paid by a Coal Mine Operator (CM–200)

I. Background

The Office of Worker’s Compensation

Programs (OWCP) administers the

Federal Black Lung Benefits Act

(FBLBA). Under 20 CFR 725.531, selfinsured coal mine operators or

insurance carriers must maintain

receipts for black lung benefits

payments made for five years after the

date on which the receipt was executed.

This requirement is designated as CM–

200, Maintenance of Receipts for

Benefits Paid by A Coal Mine Operator.

There is no form or format for the

receipts; a cancelled check will satisfy

the requirement.

II. Review Focus

The Department of Labor is

particularly interested in comments

which:

• 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;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

proposed collection of information,

including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions used;