Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request, 22142-22143 [2014-09016]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
22142
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Notices
able simply to take the parties’ word that the
efficiencies they have identified will actually
materialize. Ultimately, we evaluate evidence
related to efficiencies under the same
standard we apply to any other evidence of
competitive effects.15
The lack of guidance in analyzing and
crediting efficiencies has led to
significant uncertainty as to what
standard the Agency applies in practice
to efficiency claims and led to
inconsistent applications of Section 10
of the Merger Guidelines, even among
agency staff.16 In my view, standard
microeconomic analysis should guide
how we interpret Section 10 of the 2010
Merger Guidelines, as it does the rest of
the antitrust law. To the extent the
Merger Guidelines are interpreted or
applied to impose asymmetric burdens
upon the agencies and parties to
establish anticompetitive effects and
efficiencies, respectively, such
interpretations do not make economic
sense and are inconsistent with a merger
policy designed to promote consumer
welfare.17 Application of a more
symmetric standard is unlikely to allow,
as the Commission alludes to, the
efficiencies defense to ‘‘swallow the
whole of Section 7 of the Clayton Act.’’
A cursory read of the cases is sufficient
to put to rest any concerns that the
efficiencies defense is a mortal threat to
agency activity under the Clayton Act.
The much more pressing concern at
present is whether application of
asymmetric burdens of proof in merger
review will swallow the efficiencies
defense.
III. Conclusion
There are many open and important
questions with respect to the treatment
of efficiencies at the Agencies. While
the Agencies’ analytical framework
applied to diagnosing potential
anticompetitive effects got an important
update with the 2010 Merger
Guidelines, there remains significant
room for improvement with respect to
the aligning agency analysis of
efficiencies with standard principles of
economic analysis. Primary among these
important questions is whether the
burden of proof required to establish
cognizable efficiencies should be
symmetrical to the burden the Agencies
must overcome to establish
anticompetitive effects. In my view,
issues such as out-of-market efficiencies
and the treatment of fixed costs also
warrant further consideration.18
For the reasons set forth in this
statement, I conclude that the harms
from the transaction are small at best
and, applying a symmetric standard to
assessing the expected benefits and
harms of a merger, the expected
cognizable efficiencies are substantially
greater than the expected harms.
Accordingly, I believe the merger as
proposed would have benefitted
consumers. As such, I cannot join my
colleagues in supporting today’s consent
order because I do not have reason to
believe the transaction violates Section
7 of the Clayton Act nor that a consent
ordering divestiture is in the public
interest.
[FR Doc. 2014–08951 Filed 4–18–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and
Families
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request
Title: State Plan Child Support
Collection.
OMB No.: 0970–0017.
Description: The Office of Child
Support Enforcement has approved a
IV–D state plan for each state. Federal
regulations require states to amend their
state plans only when necessary to
reflect new or revised federal statutes or
regulations or material change in any
state law, organization, policy, or IV–D
agency operations. The requirement for
submission of a state plan and plan
amendments for the Child Support
Enforcement program is found in
sections 452, 454, and 466 of the Social
Security Act.
Respondents: State IV–D Agencies.
ANNUAL BURDEN ESTIMATES
Number of
respondents
Instrument
State Plan ........................................................................................................
OCSE–21–U4 ..................................................................................................
Number of
responses per
respondent
54
54
4
4
Average
burden hours
per response
0.50
0.25
Total burden
hours
108
54
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 162.
Additional Information: Copies of the
proposed collection may be obtained by
writing to the Administration for
Children and Families, Office of
Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370
L’Enfant Promenade SW., Washington,
DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance
Officer. All requests should be
identified by the title of the information
collection. Email address:
infocollection@acf.hhs.gov.
OMB Comment: OMB is required to
make a decision concerning the
collection of information between 30
and 60 days after publication of this
15 Statement of Kenneth Heyer on Behalf of the
United States Department of Justice, Antitrust
Modernization Commission Hearings on the
Treatment of Efficiencies in Merger Enforcement
(Nov. 17, 2005), available at https://
govinfo.library.unt.edu/amc/commission_hearings/
pdf/Statement-Heyer.pdf.
16 In a recent study examining agency analysis of
efficiencies claims, an FTC economist and attorney
found significant disparities. Malcolm B. Coate &
Andrew J. Heimert, Merger Efficiencies at the
Federal Trade Commission: 1997–2007 (2009),
available at https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/reports/merger-efficiencies-federaltrade-commission-1997%E2%80%932007/
0902mergerefficiencies.pdf. Coate and Heimert find
that ‘‘BE staff endorsed 27 percent of the claims
considered, while BC accepted significantly fewer
(8.48 percent) of the claims considered during the
studied period.’’ The disparity also applies to
rejection of efficiencies claims. The Bureau of
Economics rejected 11.9 percent of the claims,
while the Bureau of Competition rejected a
significantly higher 31.9 percent of claims. Id. at 26.
17 For example, Professor Crane explains that ‘‘[i]f
the government and merging parties were held to
the same standard of proof—preponderance of the
evidence, for example—then, conceptually, harms
and efficiencies would be given equal weight
despite the different allocations of burdens of
proof.’’ In addition, ‘‘[i]f probabilities of harm are
easier to demonstrate on an individualized basis
than probabilities of efficiencies, even though in the
aggregate both harms and efficiencies are similarly
likely in the relevant categories of cases, then
merger policy will display a bias in favor of theories
of harm even if it adopts an explicit symmetry
principle.’’ Crane, supra note 11, at 387–88.
18 See, e.g., Jan M. Rybnicek & Joshua D. Wright,
Outside In or Inside Out?: Counting Merger
Efficiencies Inside and Out of the Relevant Market,
in 2 William E. Kovacic: An Antitrust Tribute—
Liber Amicorum (2014) (forthcoming), available at
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
papers.cfm?abstract_id=2411270; Judd E. Stone &
Joshua D. Wright, The Sound of One Hand
Clapping: The 2010 Merger Guidelines and the
Challenge of Judicial Adoption, 39 Rev. Indus. Org.
145 (2011).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:19 Apr 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\21APN1.SGM
21APN1
22143
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Notices
document in the Federal Register.
Therefore, a comment is best assured of
having its full effect if OMB receives it
within 30 days of publication. Written
comments and recommendations for the
proposed information collection should
be sent directly to the following: Office
of Management and Budget, Paperwork
Reduction Project, Fax: 202–395–7285,
Email:
OIRA_SUBMISSION@OMB.EOP.GOV,
Attn: Desk Officer for the
Administration for Children and
Families.
Robert Sargis,
Reports Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014–09016 Filed 4–18–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and
Families
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request
Title: Child and Family Services Plan
(CFSP), Annual Progress and Services
Review (APSR), and Annual Budget
Expenses Request and Estimated
Expenditures (CFS–101).
OMB No.: 0970–0426.
Description: Under title IV–B,
subparts 1 and 2, of the Social Security
Act (the Act), States, Territories, and
Tribes are required to submit a Child
and Family Services Plan (CFSP). The
CFSP lays the groundwork for a system
of coordinated, integrated, and
culturally relevant family services for
the subsequent five years (45 CFR
1357.15(a)(1)). The CFSP outlines
initiatives and activities the State, Tribe
or territory will carry out in
administering programs and services to
promote the safety, permanency, and
well-being of children and families. By
June 30 of each year, States, Territories,
and Tribes are also required to submit
an Annual Progress and Services Report
(APSR) and a financial report called the
CFS–101. The APSR is a Yearly report
that discusses progress made by a State,
Territory or Tribe in accomplishing the
goals and objectives cited in its CFSP
(45 CFR 1357.16(a)). The APSR contains
new and updated information about
service needs and organizational
capacities throughout the five-year plan
period. The CFS–101 has three parts.
Part I is an annual budget request for the
upcoming fiscal year. Part II includes a
summary of planned expenditures by
program area for the upcoming fiscal
year, the estimated number of
individuals or families to be served, and
the geographical service area. Part III
includes actual expenditures by
program area, numbers of families and
individuals served by program area, and
the geographic areas served for the last
complete fiscal year.
The Child and Family Services
Improvement Act of 2006 amended Title
IV–B, subparts 1 and 2, adding a
number of requirements that affect
reporting through the APSR and the
CFS–101. Of particular note, the law
added a provision requiring States
(including Puerto Rico and the District
of Columbia) to report data on
caseworker visits (section 424(e) of the
Act). States must provide annual data
on 1) the percentage of children in foster
care under the responsibility of the State
who were visited on a monthly basis by
the caseworker handling the case of the
child; and 2) the percentage of the visits
that occurred in the residence of the
child. In addition, by June 30, 2008,
States must set target percentages and
establish strategies to meet the goal that;
by October 1, 2011; at least 90 percent
of the children in foster care are visited
by their caseworkers on a monthly basis
and that the majority of these visits
occur in the residence of the child
(section 424(e)(2)(A) of the Act).
Respondents: States, Territories, and
Tribes must complete the CFSP, APSR,
and CFS–101. Tribes and territories are
exempted from the monthly caseworker
visits reporting requirement of the
APSR. There are approximately 180
Tribal entities that are eligible for IV–B
funding. There are 52 States (including
Puerto Rico and the District of
Columbia) that must complete the CFSP,
APSR, and CFS–101. There are a total of
232 possible respondents.
ANNUAL BURDEN ESTIMATES
Number of
respondents
Instrument
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
APSR ...............................................................................................................
CFSP ...............................................................................................................
CFS–101, Parts I, II, and III ............................................................................
Caseworker Visits ............................................................................................
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 29,527 hours.
Additional Information: Copies of the
proposed collection may be obtained by
writing to the Administration for
Children and Families, Office of
Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370
L’Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington,
DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance
Officer. All requests should be
identified by the title of the information
collection. Email address:
infocollection@acf.hhs.gov.
OMB Comment: OMB is required to
make a decision concerning the
collection of information between 30
and 60 days after publication of this
document in the Federal Register.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:19 Apr 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
Number of
responses per
respondent
232
232
232
52
Average
burden hours
per response
1
1
1
1
Total burden
hours
76.58
120.25
4.38
99.33
17,766.56
5,579.60
1,016.16
5,165.16
Therefore, a comment is best assured of
having its full effect if OMB receives it
within 30 days of publication. Written
comments and recommendations for the
proposed information collection should
be sent directly to the following: Office
of Management and Budget, Paperwork
Reduction Project, Fax: 202–395–7285,
Email: OIRA_SUBMISSION@
OMB.EOP.GOV, Attn: Desk Officer for
the Administration for Children and
Families.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Robert Sargis,
Reports Clearance Officer.
ACTION:
[FR Doc. 2014–08959 Filed 4–18–14; 8:45 am]
SUMMARY:
BILLING CODE 4184–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. FDA–2014–N–0373]
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Risk and Benefit
Perception Scale Development
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the
E:\FR\FM\21APN1.SGM
21APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 76 (Monday, April 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22142-22143]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09016]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and Families
Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request
Title: State Plan Child Support Collection.
OMB No.: 0970-0017.
Description: The Office of Child Support Enforcement has approved a
IV-D state plan for each state. Federal regulations require states to
amend their state plans only when necessary to reflect new or revised
federal statutes or regulations or material change in any state law,
organization, policy, or IV-D agency operations. The requirement for
submission of a state plan and plan amendments for the Child Support
Enforcement program is found in sections 452, 454, and 466 of the
Social Security Act.
Respondents: State IV-D Agencies.
Annual Burden Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Average
Instrument Number of responses per burden hours Total burden
respondents respondent per response hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Plan...................................... 54 4 0.50 108
OCSE-21-U4...................................... 54 4 0.25 54
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 162.
Additional Information: Copies of the proposed collection may be
obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families,
Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade
SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. All
requests should be identified by the title of the information
collection. Email address: infocollection@acf.hhs.gov.
OMB Comment: OMB is required to make a decision concerning the
collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of
this
[[Page 22143]]
document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment is best assured
of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of
publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office
of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Fax: 202-395-
7285, Email: OIRA_SUBMISSION@OMB.EOP.GOV, Attn: Desk Officer for the
Administration for Children and Families.
Robert Sargis,
Reports Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-09016 Filed 4-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
