37072 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 136 / Monday, July 16, 2001 / Notices

2United States v. Bechtel, 648 F.2d at 666

(emphasis added) (internal citations omitted). 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, 151 (D.D.C. 1982), aff’d sub nom.

Maryland v. United States, 460 U.S. 1001 (1983)

(quoting Gillette, 406 F. Supp. at 716, other

citations omitted); United States v. Alcan

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

1985).

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

A proposed consent decree is an

agreement between the parties that is

reached after exhaustive negotiations

and discussions. Parties do not hastily

and thoughtlessly stipulate to a decree

because, in doing so, they

waive their right to litigate the issues

involved in the case and thus save

themselves the time, expense, and inevitable

risk of litigation. Naturally, the agreement

reached normally embodies a compromise; in

exchange for the saving of cost and the

elimination of risk, the parties each give up

something they might have won had they

proceeded with the litigation.

United States v. Armour & Co., 402 U.S.

673, 681 (1971).

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

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: June 27, 2001.

Respectfully submitted,

James D. Villa,

(D.C. Bar #417471),

Ahmed E. Taha,

Jacqueline S. Kelley,

Laura A. Brill,

Trial Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice,

Antitrust Division, Civil Task Force, 325

Seventh Street, NW., Suite 300,

Washington, DC 20530, Telephone: (202)

514–8361, Facsimile: (202) 307–9952.

[FR Doc. 01–17480 Filed 7–13–01; 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—RXHUB LLC

Notice is hereby given that, on May

14, 2001, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the

National Cooperative Research and

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

et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), RxHub LLC has filed

written notifications simultaneously

with the Attorney General and the

Federal Trade Commission disclosing

(1) the identities of the parties and (2)

the nature and objectives of the venture.

The notifications were filed for the

purpose of invoking the Act’s provisions

limiting the recovery of antitrust

plaintiffs to actual damages under

specified circumstances.

Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act,

the identities of the parties are

AdvancePCS, Dallas, TX; Express

Scripts, Inc., Maryland Heights, MO;

and Merck-Medco Managed Care, L.L.C.,

Franklin Lakes, NJ.

The nature and objectives of the

venture are the development and

operation of an electronic prescription

and information routing service for the

purpose of facilitating error-free

prescription benefit communications.

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 01–15671 Filed 7–13–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–369, 370, 413, and 414]

Duke Energy Corporation, McGuire,

Units 1 and 2, and Catawba, Units 1

and 2; Notice of Receipt of Application

for Renewal of Facility Operating

License Nos. NPF–9, NPF–17, NPF–35,

and NPF–52 for an Additional 20-Year

Period

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission has received applications

from Duke Energy Corporation, dated

June 13, 2001, filed pursuant to section

103 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,

as amended, and 10 CFR part 54 for

renewal of Operating License Nos. NPF–

9, NPF–17, NPF–35, and NPF–52, which

authorize the applicant to operate

McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2,

and Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1

and 2, respectively. The McGuire

nuclear facility is located 17miles northnorthwest of Charlotte, NC, in

Mecklenburg County. The current

operating licenses for McGuire, Units 1

and 2, expire on June 12, 2021, and

March 3, 2023, respectively. The

Catawba nuclear facility is located 18

miles southwest of Charlotte, NC, in

York County. The operating licenses for

Catawba, Units 1 and 2, expire on

December 6, 2024, and February 24,

2026, respectively. All four Duke Energy

Corporation nuclear units are four-loop

pressurized-water reactors designed by

Westinghouse. The acceptability of the

tendered applications for docketing and

other matters, including an opportunity

to request a hearing will be the subject

of a subsequent Federal Register notice.

Copies of the applications are

available electronically for public

inspection at the Commission’s Public

Document Room, located at One White

Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first

floor), Rockville, Maryland, or from the

Publicly Available Records (PARS)

component of the NRC’s Agencywide

Documents Access and Management

System (ADAMS). The ADAMSPublic

Electronic Reading Room is accessible

from the NRC Web site at 

http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/

index.html. In addition, the applications

are available on the NRC web page at

http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/REACTOR/LR/

index.html. If you do not have access to

ADAMS or if there are problems in

accessing the documents located in

ADAMS, contact the NRC Public

Document Room (PDR) Reference staff

at 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737 or

by email to pdr@nrc.gov.

The staff has verified that copies of

the license renewal applications for the

McGuire and Catawba nuclear stations

have been provided to the J. Murrey

Atkins Library in Charlotte, North

Carolina, and to the York County

Library System in South Carolina.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, the 10th day

of July 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Christopher I. Grimes,

Chief, License Renewal and Standardization

Branch, Division of Regulatory Improvement

Programs, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–17697 Filed 7–13–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P