suspend normal agency procedures and institute expedited administrative proceedings to determine whether the regulations have been violated. He should simultaneously refer the matter to the Department of Justice for consideration of possible court enforcement, including interim injunctive relief. Deferral of action on an application is appropriate, in accordance with these guidelines, for a reasonable period of time, provided such action is consistent with achievement of the objectives of the statute authorizing the financial assistance in connection with the action taken. As in other cases, where noncompliance is found in the hearing proceeding, and if administrative alternatives are ineffective or inappropriate and court enforcement is not feasible, section 602 procedures may be completed and assistance finally refused.

State

III. PROCEDURES IN CASES OF SUBGRANTEES In situations in which applications for Federal assistance are approved by some agency other than the Federal granting agency, the same rules and procedures would apply. Thus, the Federal Agency should instruct the approving agency-typically a agency to defer approval or refuse to grant funds, in individual cases in which such action would be taken by the original granting agency itself under the above procedures. Provision should be made for appropriate notice of such action to the Federal agency which retains responsibility for compliance with section 602 procedures.

IV. EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES

The Attorney General should be consulted in individual cases in which the head of an agency believes that the objectives of title VI will be best achieved by proceeding other than as provided in these guidelines.

V. COORDINATION

While primary responsibility for enforcement of title VI rests directly with the head of each agency, in order to assure coordination of title VI enforcement and consistency among agencies, the Department of Justice should be notified in advance of applications on which action is to be deferred, hearings to be scheduled, and refusals and terminations of assistance or other enforcement actions or procedures to be undertaken. The Department also should be kept advised of the progress and results of hearings and other enforcement actions.

[31 FR 5292, Apr. 2, 1966]

§ 50.5 Notification of Consular Officers upon the arrest of foreign nationals.

(a) This statement is designed to establish a uniform procedure for consular notification where nationals of

foreign countries are arrested by officers of this Department on charges of criminal violations. It conforms to practice under international law and in particular implements obligations undertaken by the United States pursuant to treaties with respect to the arrest and detention of foreign nationals. Some of the treaties obligate the United States to notify the consular officer only upon the demand or request of the arrested foreign national. On the other hand, some of the treaties require notifying the consul of the arrest of a foreign national whether or not the arrested person requests such notification.

(1) In every case in which a foreign national is arrested the arresting officer shall inform the foreign national that his consul will be advised of his arrest unless he does not wish such notification to be given. If the foreign national does not wish to have his consul notified, the arresting officer shall also inform him that in the event there is a treaty in force between the United States and his country which requires such notification, his consul must be notified regardless of his wishes and, if such is the case, he will be advised of such notification by the U.S. Attorney.

(2) In all cases (including those where the foreign national has stated that he does not wish his consul to be notified) the local office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the local Marshal's office, as the case may be, shall inform the nearest U.S. Attorney of the arrest and of the arrested person's wishes regarding consular notification.

(3) The U.S. Attorney shall then notify the appropriate consul except where he has been informed that the foreign national does not desire such notification to be made. However, if there is a treaty provision in effect which requires notification of consul, without reference to a demand or request of the arrested national, the consul shall be notified even if the arrested person has asked that he not be notified. In such case, the U.S. Attorney shall advise the foreign national that his consul has been notified and inform him that notification was necessary because of the treaty obligation.

(b) The procedure prescribed by this statement shall not apply to cases involving arrests made by the Immigration and Naturalization Service in administrative expulsion or exclusion proceedings, since that Service has heretofore established procedures for the direct notification of the appropriate consular officer upon such arrest. With respect to arrests made by the Service for violations of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws, the U.S. Marshal, upon delivery of the foreign national into his custody, shall be responsible for informing the U.S. Attorney of the arrest in accordance with numbered paragraph 2 of this statement.

[Order No. 375-67, 32 FR 1040, Jan. 28, 1967]

§ 50.6 Antitrust Division business review procedure.

Although the Department of Justice is not authorized to give advisory opinions to private parties, for several decades the Antitrust Division has been willing in certain circumstances to review proposed business conduct and state its enforcement intentions. This originated with a "railroad release" procedure under which the Division would forego the initiation of criminal antitrust proceedings. The procedure was subsequently expanded to encompass a "merger clearance" procedure under which the Division would state its present enforcement intention with respect to a merger or acquisition; and the Department issued a written statement entitled "Business Review Procedure." That statement has been revised several times.

1. A request for a business review letter must be submitted in writing to the Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530.

2. The Division will consider only requests with respect to proposed business conduct, which may involve either domestic or foreign commerce.

3. The Division may, in its discretion, refuse to consider a request.

4. A business review letter shall have no application to any party which does not join in the request therefor.

5. The requesting parties are under an affirmative obligation to make full and true disclosure with respect to the business conduct for which review is requested. Each re

quest must be accompanied by all relevant data including background information, complete copies of all operative documents and detailed statements of all collateral oral understandings, if any. All parties requesting the review letter must provide the Division with whatever additional information or documents the Division may thereafter request in order to review the matter. Such additional information, if furnished orally, shall be promptly confirmed in writing. In connection with any request for review the Division will also conduct whatever independent investigation it believes is appropriate.

6. No oral clearance, release or other statement purporting to bind the enforcement discretion of the Division may be given. The requesting party may rely upon only a written business review letter signed by the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division or his delegate.

7. (a) If the business conduct for which review is requested is subject to approval by a regulatory agency, a review request may be considered before agency approval has been obtained only where it appears that exceptional and unnecessary burdens might otherwise be imposed on the party or parties requesting review, or where the agency specifically requests that a party or parties request review. However, any business review letter issued in these as in any other circumstances will state only the Department's present enforcement intentions under the antitrust laws. It shall in no way be taken to indicate the Department's views on the legal or factual issues that may be raised before the regulatory agency, or in an appeal from the regulatory agency's decision. In particular, the issuance of such a letter is not to be represented to mean that the Division believes that there are no anticompetitive consequences warranting agency consideration.

(b) The submission of a request for a business review, or its pendency, shall in no way alter any responsibility of any party to comply with the Premerger Notification provisions of the Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, 15 U.S.C. 18A, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, 16 CFR, part 801.

8. After review of a request submitted hereunder the Division may: state its present enforcement intention with respect to the proposed business conduct; decline to pass on the request; or take such other position or action as it considers appropriate.

9. A business review letter states only the enforcement intention of the Division as of the date of the letter, and the Division remains completely free to bring whatever action or proceeding it subsequently comes to believe is required by the public interest. As to a stated present intention not to bring an action, however, the Division has never exercised its right to bring a criminal action

where there has been full and true disclosure at the time of presenting the request.

10. (a) Simultaneously upon notifying the requesting party of and Division action described in paragraph 8, the business review request, and the Division's letter in response shall be indexed and placed in a file available to the public upon request.

(b) On that date or within thirty days after the date upon which the Division takes any action as described in paragraph 8, the information supplied to support the business review request and any other information supplied by the requesting party in connection with the transaction that is the subject of the business review request, shall be indexed and placed in a file with the request and the Division's letter, available to the public upon request. This file shall remain open for one year, after which time it shall be closed and the documents either returned to the requesting party or otherwise disposed of, at the discretion of the Antitrust Division.

(c) Prior to the time the information described in subparagraphs (a) and (b) is indexed and made publicly available in accordance with the terms of that subparagraph, the requesting party may ask the Division to delay making public some or all of such information. However the requesting party must: (1) Specify precisely the documents or parts thereof that he asks not be made public; (2) state the minimum period of time during which nondisclosure is considered necessary; and (3) justify the request for nondisclosure, both as to content and time, by showing good cause therefor, including a showing that disclosure would have a detrimental effect upon the requesting party's operations or relationships with actual or potential customers, employees, suppliers (including suppliers of credit), stockholders, or competitors. The Department of Justice, in its discretion, shall make the final determination as to whether good cause for nondisclosure has been shown.

(d) Nothing contained in subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) shall limit the Division's right, in its discretion, to issue a press release describing generally the identity of the requesting party or parties and the nature of action taken by the Division upon the request.

(e) This paragraph reflects a policy determination by the Justice Department and is subject to any limitations on public disclosure arising from statutory restrictions, Executive Order, or the national interest.

11. Any requesting party may withdraw a request for review at any time. The Division remains free, however, to submit such comments to such requesting party as it deems appropriate. Failure to take action after receipt of documents or information whether submitted pursuant to this procedure or otherwise, does not in any way limit or stop the Division from taking such action at such

time thereafter as it deems appropriate. The Division reserves the right to retain documents submitted to it under this procedure or otherwise and to use them for all governmental purposes.

[42 FR 11831, Mar. 1, 1977]

§ 50.7 Consent judgments in actions to enjoin discharges of pollutants.

(a) It is hereby established as the policy of the Department of Justice to consent to a proposed judgment in an action to enjoin discharges of pollutants into the environment only after or on condition that an opportunity is afforded persons (natural or corporate) who are not named as parties to the action to comment on the proposed judgment prior to its entry by the court.

(b) To effectuate this policy, each proposed judgment which is within the scope of paragraph (a) of this section shall be lodged with the court as early as feasible but at least 30 days before the judgment is entered by the court. Prior to entry of the judgment, or some earlier specified date, the Department of Justice will receive and consider, and file with the court, any written comments, views or allegations relating to the proposed judgment. The Department shall reserve the right (1) to withdraw or withhold its consent to the proposed judgment if the comments, views and allegations concerning the judgment disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the proposed judgment is inappropriate, improper or inadequate and (2) to oppose an attempt by any person to intervene in the action.

(c) The Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Land and Natural Resources Division may establish procedures for implementing this policy. Where it is clear that the public interest in the policy hereby established is not compromised, the Assistant Attorney General may permit an exception to this policy in a specific case where extraordinary circumstances require a period shorter than 30 days or a procedure other than stated herein.

[Order No. 529-73, 38 FR 19029, July 17, 1973]

Because of the vital public interest in open judicial proceedings, the Government has a general overriding affirmative duty to oppose their closure. There is, moreover, a strong presumption against closing proceedings or portions thereof, and the Department of Justice foresees very few cases in which closure would be warranted. The Government should take a position on any motion to close a judicial proceeding, and should ordinarily oppose closure; it should move for or consent to closed proceedings only when closure is plainly essential to the interests of justice. In furtherance of the Department's concern for the right of the public to attend judicial proceedings and the Department's obligation to the fair administration of justice, the following guidelines shall be adhered to by all attorneys for the United States.

(a) These guidelines apply to all federal trials, pre- and post-trial evidentiary proceedings, arraignments,

bond hearings, plea proceedings, sentencing proceedings, or portions thereof, except as indicated in paragraph (e) of this section.

(b) A Government attorney has a compelling duty to protect the societal interest in open proceedings.

(c) A Government attorney shall not move for or consent to closure of a proceeding covered by these guidelines unless:

(1) No reasonable alternative exists for protecting the interests at stake; (2) Closure is clearly likely to prevent the harm sought to be avoided;

(3) The degree of closure is minimized to the greatest extent possible;

(4) The public is given adequate notice of the proposed closure; and, in addition, the motion for closure is made on the record, except where the disclosure of the details of the motion papers would clearly defeat the reason for closure specified under paragraph (c)(6) of this section;

(5) Transcripts of the closed proceedings will be unsealed as soon as the interests requiring closure no longer obtain; and

(6) Failure to close the proceedings will produce;

(i) A substantial likelihood of denial of the right of any person to a fair trial; or

(ii) A substantial likelihood of imminent danger to the safety of parties, witnesses, or other persons; or

(iii) A substantial likelihood that ongoing investigations will be seriously jeopardized.

(d) A government attorney shall not move for or consent to the closure of any proceeding, civil or criminal, except with the express authorization of:

(1) The Deputy Attorney General, or, (2) The Associate Attorney General, if the Division seeking authorization is under the supervision of the Associate Attorney General.

(e) These guidelines do not apply to: (1) The closure of part of a judicial proceeding where necessary to protect national security information or classified documents; or

(2) In camera inspection, consideration or sealing of documents, including documents provided to the Government under a promise of confidentiality, where permitted by statute, rule of evidence or privilege; or

(3) Grand jury proceedings or proceedings ancillary thereto; or

(4) Conferences traditionally held at the bench or in chambers during the course of an open proceeding; or

pro

(5) The closure of judicial ceedings pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3509 (d) and (e) for the protection of child victims or child witnesses.

(f) Because of the vital public interest in open judicial proceedings, the records of any proceeding closed pursuant to this section, and still sealed 60 days after termination of the proceeding, shall be reviewed to determine if the reasons for closure are still applicable. If they are not, an appropriate motion will be made to have the records unsealed. If the reasons for closure are still applicable after 60 days, this review is to be repeated every 60 days until such time as the records are unsealed. Compliance with this section will be monitored by the Criminal Division.

(g) The principles set forth in this section are intended to provide guidance to attorneys for the Government

and are not intended to create or recognize any legally enforceable right in any person.

[Order No. 914-80, 45 FR 69214, Oct. 20, 1980, as amended by Order No. 1031-83, 48 FR 49509, Oct. 26, 1983; Order No. 1115-85, 50 FR 51677, Dec. 19, 1985; Order No. 1507-91, 56 FR 32327, July 16, 1991]

$50.10 Policy with regard to

the

issuance of subpoenas to members of the news media, subpoenas for telephone toll records of members of the news media, and the interrogation, indictment, or arrest of, members of the news media.

Because freedom of the press can be no broader than the freedom of reporters to investigate and report the news, the prosecutorial power of the government should not be used in such a way that it impairs a reporter's responsibility to cover as broadly as possible controversial public issues. This policy statement is thus intended to provide protection for the news media from forms of compulsory process, whether civil or criminal, which might impair the news gathering function. In balancing the concern that the Department of Justice has for the work of the news media and the Department's obligation to the fair administration of justice, the following guidelines shall be adhered to by all members of the Department in all cases:

(a) In determining whether to request issuance of a subpoena to a member of the news media, or for telephone toll records of any member of the news media, the approach in every case must be to strike the proper balance between the public's interest in the free dissemination of ideas and information and the public's interest in effective law enforcement and the fair administration of justice.

(b) All reasonable attempts should be made to obtain information from alternative sources before considering issuing a subpoena to a member of the news media, and similarly all reasonable alternative investigative steps should be taken before considering issuing a subpoena for telephone toll records of any member of the news media.

(c) Negotiations with the media shall be pursued in all cases in which a subpoena to a member of the news media

is contemplated. These negotiations should attempt to accommodate the interests of the trial or grand jury with the interests of the media. Where the nature of the investigation permits, the government should make clear what its needs are in a particular case as well as its willingness to respond to particular problems of the media.

(d) Negotiations with the affected member of the news media shall be pursued in all cases in which a subpoena for the telephone toll records of any member of the news media is contemplated where the responsible Assistant Attorney General determines that such negotiations would not pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation in connection with which the records are sought. Such determination shall be reviewed by the Attorney General when considering a subpoena authorized under paragraph (e) of this section.

(e) No subpoena may be issued to any member of the news media or for the telephone toll records of any member of the news media without the express authorization of the Attorney General: Provided, That, if a member of the news media with whom negotiations are conducted under paragraph (c) of this section expressly agrees to provide the material sought, and if that material has already been published or broadcast, the United States Attorney or the responsible Assistant Attorney General, after having been personally satisfied that the requirements of this section have been met, may authorize issuance of the subpoena and shall thereafter submit to the Office of Public Affairs a report detailing the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the subpoena.

(f) In requesting the Attorney General's authorization for a subpoena to a member of the news media, the following principles will apply:

(1) In criminal cases, there should be reasonable grounds to believe, based on information obtained from nonmedia sources, that a crime has occurred, and