Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request, 74366-74367 [E5-7383]

Download as PDF 74366 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 240 / Thursday, December 15, 2005 / Notices including consideration of the public benefit, if any, to be derived from a determination of the issues at trial. 648 F.2d 660, 666 (9th Cir. 1981)); see also Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1460–62. Courts have held that: 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1)(A) & (B). As the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit had held, the APPA permits a court to consider, among other things, the relationship between the remedy secured and the specific allegations set forth in the government’s complaint, whether the consent judgment is sufficiently clear, whether enforcement mechanisms are sufficient, and whether the consent judgment may positively harm third parties. See United States v. Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 1448, 1458–62 (D.C. Cir. 1995). ‘‘Nothing 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). Thus, in conducting this inquiry, ‘‘[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).1 Rather: [t]he balancing of competing social and political interests affected by a proposed antitrust consent decree must be left, in the first instance, to the discretion of the 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. [a]bsent a showing of corrupt failure of the government to discharge its duty, the Court, in making its public 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. United States v. Mid-America Dairymen, Inc., 1977–1 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 61,508, at 71,980 (W.D. Mo. 1977). Accordingly, with respect to the adequacy of the relief secured by the proposed Final Judgment, a court may not ‘‘engage in an unrestricted evaluation of what relief would best serve the public.’’ United States v. BNS Inc., 858 F.2d 456, 462 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing United States v. Bechtel Corp., 1 See United States v. Gillette Co., 406 F. Supp. 713, 716 (D. Mass. 1975) (recognizing it was not the court’s duty to settle; rather, the court must only answer ‘‘whether the settlement achieved [was] within the reaches of the public interest’’). A ‘‘public interest’’ determination can be made properly on the basis of the Competitive Impact Statement and Response to Comments filed by the Department of Justice pursuant to the APPA. Although the APPA authorizes the use of additional procedures, 15 U.S.C. 16(f), those procedures are discretionary. A court need not invoke any of them unless it believes that the comments have raised significant issues and that further proceedings would aid the court in resolving those issues. See H.R. Rep. No. 93–1463, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 8–9 (1974), reprinted in 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6535, 6538– 39. VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:24 Dec 14, 2005 Jkt 208001 Bechtel, 648 F.2d at 666 (emphasis added) (citations omitted).2 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.’’’ United States v. AT&T Corp., 552 F. Supp. 131, 151 (D.D.C. 1982) (citations omitted) (quoting Gillette, 406 F. Supp. at 716), aff’d sub nom. Maryland 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 judgment even though the court would have imposed a greater remedy). 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. 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 2 Cf. BNS, 858 F.2d at 464 (holding that the court’s ‘‘ultimate authority under the [APPA] is limited to approving to disapproving the consent decree’’); Gillette, 406 F. Supp. at 716 (noting that, in this way, the court is constrained to ‘‘look at the overall picture not hypercritically, nor with a microscope, but with an artist’s reducing glass’’); see generally Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 (discussing whether ‘‘the remedies [obtained in the decree are] so inconsonant with the allegations charged as to fall outside of the ‘reaches of the public interest’’’). PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 the decree itself,’’ and not to ‘‘effectively redraft the complaint’’ to inquire into other matters that the United States did not pursue. Id. at 1459–60. 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: November 16, 2005. Respectfully submitted, /s/ lllllllllllllllllll Laury E. Bobbish, Assistant Chief. /s/ lllllllllllllllllll Lawrence M. Frankel (D.C. Bar No. 441532) Claude F. Scott, Jr. (D.C. Bar No. 414906) Mary N. Strimel (D.C. Bar No. 455303) Matthew C. Hammond Lauren J. Fishbein (D.C. Bar No. 451889) Conrad J. Smucker (D.C. Bar No. 434590) Jeremiah M. Luongo Jared A. Hughes David T. Blonder William Lindsey Wilson William B. Michael Trial Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Telecommunications and Media Enforcement Section, 1401 H Street, NW., Suite 8000, Washington, DC 20530. Telephone: (202) 514–5621. Facsimile: (202) 514–6381. [FR Doc. 05–23815 Filed 12–14–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–11–M DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request December 8, 2005. The Department of Labor (DOL) has submitted the following public information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting Darrin King on 202–693– 4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or e-mail: king.darrin@dol.gov. Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, 202–395–7316 (this is not a toll-free number), within 30 days from the date of this publication in the Federal Register. The OMB is particularly interested in comments which: E:\FR\FM\15DEN1.SGM 15DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 240 / Thursday, December 15, 2005 / Notices • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Agency: Bureau of Labor Statistics. Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection. Title: Cognitive and Psychological Research. OMB Number: 1220–0141. Type of Response: Reporting. Affected Public: Individuals or households. Frequency: On occasion. Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,200. Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 1,200. Average Response Time: 60 minutes Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 1,200. Total Annualized capital/startup costs: $0. Total Annual Costs (operating/ maintaining systems or purchasing services): $0. Description: The proposed laboratory research will be conducted from Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 through FY 2008 to enhance data quality in the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ surveys. Improvements will be made by examining psychological and cognitive aspects of BLS’s data collection procedures, including questionnaire design, interviewing procedures, collection modalities, and administrative technology. Darrin A. King, Acting Departmental Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E5–7383 Filed 12–14–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–24–P VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:24 Dec 14, 2005 Jkt 208001 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Notice of Determinations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, (19 U.S.C. 2273), the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers (TA–W) number and alternative trade adjustment assistance (ATAA) by (TA–W) number issued during the periods of November 2005. In order for an affirmative determination to be made and a certification of eligibility to apply for directly-impacted (primary) worker adjustment assistance to be issued, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(a) of the Act must be met. I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following must be satisfied: A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers’ firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; B. The sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely; and C. increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have contributed importantly to such workers’ separation or threat of separation and to the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or II. Section (a)(2)(B) both of the following must be satisfied: A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers’ firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; B. There has been a shift in production by such workers’ firm or subdivision to a foreign county of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or subdivision; and C. One of the following must be satisfied: 1. The country to which the workers’ firm has shifted production of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with the United States; 2. The country to which the workers’ firm has shifted production of the articles to a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 74367 African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; or 3. There has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of articles that are like or directly competitive with articles which are or were produced by such firm or subdivision. Also, in order for an affirmative determination to be made and a certification of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance as an adversely affected secondary group to be issued, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act must be met. (1) Significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers’ firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; (2) The workers’ firm (or subdivision) is a supplier or downstream producer to a firm (or subdivision) that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance benefits and such supply or production is related to the article that was the basis for such certification; and (3) Either— (A) The workers’ firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied for the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers’ firm; or (B) A loss or business by the workers’ firm with the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers’ separation or threat of separation. Affirmative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance The following certifications have been issued; the date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination. The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of (a) (2) (A) (increased imports) of Section 222 have been met. TA–W–57,896; Cranford Woodcarving, Inc., A Subsidiary of McCrorie Group, Plants 1, 4 and 7, On-Site Leased Workers of Express, Hickory, NC, September 2, 2004. TA–W–58,104; Tecstar, dba MGS Mfg. Group (The), On-Site Leased Workers, Germantown, WI, September 10, 2004. TA–W–58,120; Bangor Mills, Inc., Stroudsburg, PA, October 7, 2004. TA–W–58,121; Computernet, Inc., aka Computernet Resource Group, On- E:\FR\FM\15DEN1.SGM 15DEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 240 (Thursday, December 15, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74366-74367]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-7383]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of the Secretary


Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request

December 8, 2005.
    The Department of Labor (DOL) has submitted the following public 
information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of 
this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by 
contacting Darrin King on 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) 
or e-mail: king.darrin@dol.gov.
    Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Bureau of Labor Statistics 
(BLS), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 
20503, 202-395-7316 (this is not a toll-free number), within 30 days 
from the date of this publication in the Federal Register.
    The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:

[[Page 74367]]

     Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is 
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, 
including whether the information will have practical utility;
     Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the 
burden of the proposed collection of information, including the 
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected; and
     Minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate 
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting 
electronic submission of responses.
    Agency: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Cognitive and Psychological Research.
    OMB Number: 1220-0141.
    Type of Response: Reporting.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,200.
    Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 1,200.
    Average Response Time: 60 minutes
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 1,200.
    Total Annualized capital/startup costs: $0.
    Total Annual Costs (operating/maintaining systems or purchasing 
services): $0.
    Description: The proposed laboratory research will be conducted 
from Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 through FY 2008 to enhance data quality in 
the Bureau of Labor Statistics' surveys. Improvements will be made by 
examining psychological and cognitive aspects of BLS's data collection 
procedures, including questionnaire design, interviewing procedures, 
collection modalities, and administrative technology.

Darrin A. King,
Acting Departmental Clearance Officer.
 [FR Doc. E5-7383 Filed 12-14-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-24-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.