Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Notices 31477 

3See United States v. Enova Corp., 107 F. Supp. 

2d 10, 17 (D. DC 2000) (noting that the ‘‘Tunney Act 

expressly allows the court to make its public 

interest determination on the basis of the 

competitive impact statement and response to 

comments alone’’); United States v. Mid-Am. 

Dairymen, Inc., 1977–1 Trade Cas. (CCH) & 61,508, 

at 71,980 (W.D. Mo. 1977) (‘‘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 responses to comments in 

order to determine whether those explanations are 

reasonable under the circumstances.’’); S. Rep. No. 

93–298, 93d Cong., 1st Sess., at 6 (1973) (‘‘Where 

the public interest can be meaningfully evaluated 

simply on the basis of briefs and oral arguments, 

that is the approach that should be utilized.’’) 

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

see also United States v. Alcan 

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

(W.D. Ky. 1985) (approving the consent 

decree even though the court would 

have imposed a greater remedy). To 

meet this standard, the United States 

‘‘need only provide a factual basis for 

concluding that the settlements are 

reasonably adequate remedies for the 

alleged harms.’’ SBC Commc’ns, 489 F. 

Supp. 2d at 17. 

Moreover, the court’s role under the 

APPA 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; see also InBev, 2009 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 84787, at *20 (‘‘the ‘public 

interest’ is not to be measured by 

comparing the violations alleged in the 

complaint against those the court 

believes could have, or even should 

have, been alleged’’). Because the 

‘‘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 did not pursue. 

Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1459–60. As this 

Court recently confirmed in SBC 

Communications, courts ‘‘cannot look 

beyond the complaint in making the 

public interest determination unless the 

complaint is drafted so narrowly as to 

make a mockery of judicial power.’’ SBC 

Commc’ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 15. 

In its 2004 amendments, Congress 

made clear its intent to preserve the 

practical benefits of utilizing consent 

decrees in antitrust enforcement, adding 

the unambiguous instruction that 

‘‘[n]othing in this section shall be 

construed to require the court to 

conduct an evidentiary hearing or to 

require the court to permit anyone to 

intervene.’’ 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(2). The 

language wrote into the statute what 

Congress intended when it enacted the 

Tunney Act in 1974, as Senator Tunney 

explained: ‘‘[t]he court is nowhere 

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. 24,598 (1973) (statement 

of Senator Tunney). Rather, the 

procedure for the public interest 

determination is left to the discretion of 

the court, with the recognition that the 

court’s ‘‘scope of review remains sharply 

proscribed by precedent and the nature 

of Tunney Act proceedings.’’ SBC 

Commc’ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 11.3

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. 

Dated: May 21, 2010. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ lllllllllllllllllll

Gregg I. Malawer (DC Bar No. 481685), 

Nina Hale, 

Bennett Matelson (DC Bar No. 454551), 

Creighton J. Macy, 

U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division 

450 5th Street, NW., Suite 4000, 

Washington, DC 20530, Telephone: (202) 

616–5943, Fax: (202) 514–7308, E-mail: 

gregg.malawer@usdoj.gov, Attorneys for 

Plaintiff the United States 

[FR Doc. 2010–13394 Filed 6–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–11–P 

NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT 

CORPORATION 

Neighborworks America; Regular 

Board of Directors Sunshine Act 

Meeting 

TIME AND DATE: 1 p.m., Tuesday, June 1, 

2010. 

PLACE: 1325 G Street, NW., Suite 800, 

Boardroom Washington, DC 20005. 

STATUS: Open. 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Erica Hall, Assistant Corporate Secretary 

(202) 220–2376; ehall@nw.org. 

Agenda 

I. Call To Order. 

II. Approval of the Minutes. 

III. Approval of the Minutes. 

IV. Summary Report of the Audit Committee. 

V. Summary Report of the Finance, Budget 

and Program Committee. 

VI. Summary of the NHSA Special Board 

Committee Meeting. 

VII. Summary of the NHSA Special Board of 

Directors Meeting. 

VIII. Summary Report of the Corporate 

Administration Committee. 

IX. Board Appointments. 

X. Code of Conduct. 

XI. Investment Policy. 

XII. Strategic Planning Process Timeline. 

XIII. Financial Report. 

XIV. Corporate Scorecard. 

XV. NHSA Update. 

XVI. Chief Executive Officer’s Quarterly 

Management Report. 

XVII. Adjournment 

Erica Hall, 

Assistant Corporate Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12974 Filed 6–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7570–02–M 

NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT 

CORPORATION 

NHSA Special Board of Directors 

Meeting; Sunshine Act 

TIME AND DATE: 12:30 p.m., Tuesday, 

May 11, 2010. 

PLACE: 1325 G Street, NW., Suite 800, 

Boardroom, Washington, DC 20005. 

STATUS: Open. 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Erica Hall, Assistant Corporate 

Secretary, (202) 220–2376; 

ehall@nw.org. 

AGENDA: 

I. Call to Order. 

II. Discussion and Recommendation 

For Interim Funding. 

III. Adjournment. 

Erica Hall, 

Assistant Corporate Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12975 Filed 6–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7570–02–M 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 52–011; NRC–2008–0252] 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

et al; Notice of Consideration of 

Issuance of Amendment to Early Site 

Permit, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for a Hearing 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of license amendment 

request, opportunity to comment, and 

opportunity to request a hearing. 

DATES: Submit comments by July 6, 

2010. Requests for a hearing or leave to 

intervene must be filed by August 2, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Chandu Patel, Project Manager, AP1000 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES