1216 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2019 / Notices could have, or even should have, been U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: 202– alleged’’). Because the ‘‘court’s authority to Division, Media, Entertainment, and 305–8376). review the decree depends entirely on the Professional Services Section, 450 Fifth government’s exercising its prosecutorial Street NW, Suite 4000, Washington, DC Patricia A. Brink, discretion by bringing a case in the first 20530, Phone: 202–598–2698, Facsimile: Director of Civil Enforcement. place,’’ it follows that ‘‘the court is only 202–514–7308, Email:
[email protected]. United States District Court authorized to review the decree itself,’’ and * Attorney of Record not to ‘‘effectively redraft the complaint’’ to for the District of Columbia inquire into other matters that the United [FR Doc. 2019–00555 Filed 1–31–19; 8:45 am] United States of America, 450 Fifth Street States did not pursue. Microsoft, 56 F.3d at BILLING CODE 4410–11–P NW, Washington, DC 20530. Plaintiff, v. 1459–60. GRAY TELEVISION, INC. 4370 Peachtree In its 2004 amendments,5 Congress made Road NE Atlanta, Georgia 30319; and clear its intent to preserve the practical DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE RAYCOM MEDIA, INC. RSA Tower 20th benefits of utilizing consent decrees in Floor 201 Monroe Street Montgomery, antitrust enforcement, adding the Antitrust Division Alabama 36104 Defendants. unambiguous instruction that ‘‘[n]othing in Case No. 1:18–cv–2951 this section shall be construed to require the United States v. Gray Television, Inc., Judge Christopher R. Cooper court to conduct an evidentiary hearing or to et al.; Proposed Final Judgment and require the court to permit anyone to Competitive Impact Statement COMPLAINT intervene.’’ 15 U.S.C.