Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request, 36118-36119 [E8-14352]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
36118
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 25, 2008 / Notices
market structure, and its views of the nature
of the case).
Courts have greater flexibility in approving
proposed consent decrees than in crafting
their own decrees following a finding of
liability in a litigated matter. ‘‘[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. Am. Tel.
& Tel. Co., 552 F. Supp. 131, 151 (D.D.C.
1982) (citations omitted) (quoting United
States v. Gillette Co., 406 F. Supp. 713, 716
(D. Mass. 1975)), 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 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. Because the ‘‘court’s authority to
review the decree depends entirely on the
government’s exercising its prosecutorial
(prosecutorial 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. Id. at 1459–60. As the
United States District Court for the District of
Columbia 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 ‘‘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). This language
effectuates 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 11.32
32 See United States v. Enova Corp., 107 F. Supp.
2d 10, 17 (D.D.C. 2000) (noting that the ‘‘Tunney
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:04 Jun 24, 2008
Jkt 214001
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.
Respectfully submitted,
David C. Kully,
Craig W. Conrath,
David C. Kully.
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust
Division, 450 5th Street, NW; Suite 4000,
Washington, DC 20530, Tel: (202) 307–
5779, Fax: (202) 307–9952.
Dated: June 12, 2008
Certificate of Service
I, David C. Kully, hereby certify that on
this 12th day of June 2008, I caused a copy
of the foregoing Competitive Impact
Statement to be served by ECF on counsel for
the defendant identified below.
Jack R. Bierig, Sidley Austin LLP, One South
Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60603, (312)
853–7000, jbierig@sidley.com.
David C. Kully.
[FR Doc. E8–13902 Filed 6–24–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–11–M
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Office of the Secretary
Submission for OMB Review:
Comment Request
June 20, 2008.
The Department of Labor (DOL)
hereby announces the submission of the
following public information collection
requests (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 each ICR, with applicable
supporting documentation; including
among other things a description of the
likely respondents, proposed frequency
of response, and estimated total burden
may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov
Web site at https://www.reginfo.gov/
public/do/PRAMain or by contacting
Darrin King on 202–693–4129 (this is
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.’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
not a toll-free number)/e-mail:
king.darrin@dol.gov.
Interested parties are encouraged to
send comments to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10235,
Washington, DC 20503, Telephone:
202–395–7316/Fax: 202–395–6974
(these are not toll-free numbers), E-mail:
OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov within
30 days from the date of this publication
in the Federal Register. In order to
ensure the appropriate consideration,
comments should reference the OMB
Control Number (see below).
The OMB is particularly interested in
comments which:
• 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: Occupational Safety and
Health Administration.
Type of Review: Extension without
change of a previously approved
collection.
Title of Collection: Methylene
Chloride (29 CFR 1910.1052).
OMB Control Number: 1218–0179.
Affected Public: Private Sector—
Business or other for-profits and Notfor-profit institutions.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
92,354.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 67,362.
Estimated Total Annual Costs Burden:
$16,753,110.
Description: The information
collection requirements contained in the
Methylene Chloride Standard (29 CFR
1910.1052) serve to ensure that
employees are not being harmed by
exposure to Methylene Chloride. For
additional information, see related
notice published at 73 FR 22176 on
April 24, 2008.
E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM
25JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 25, 2008 / Notices
Agency: Occupational Safety and
Health Administration.
Type of Review: Extension without
change of a previously approved
collection.
Title of Collection: Occupational
Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in
Laboratories Standard.
OMB Control Number: 1218–0131.
Affected Public: Private Sector—
Business or other for-profits and Notfor-profit institutions.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
45,616.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 281,419.
Estimated Total Annual Costs Burden:
$35,978,301.
Description: The information
collection requirements contained in the
Occupational Exposure to Hazardous
Chemical in Laboratories Standard (29
CFR 1910.1450) control employees
overexposure to hazardous laboratory
chemicals, thereby preventing serious
illnesses and death among employees
exposed to such chemicals. For
additional information see related
notice published at 73 FR 20069 on
April 14, 2008.
Darrin A. King,
Acting Departmental Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. E8–14352 Filed 6–24–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–62,864]
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Ametek, Inc., Measurement and
Calibration Technology Division,
Sellersville, PA; Notice of Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration
By application dated May 30, 2008,
petitioners requested administrative
reconsideration of the Department of
Labor’s Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Eligibility to
Apply for Worker Adjustment
Assistance, applicable to workers and
former workers of the subject firm. The
denial notice was signed on April 18,
2008 and published in the Federal
Register on May 2, 2008 (73 FR 24318).
The initial investigation resulted in a
negative determination based on the
finding that criteria I.A and II.A have
not been met. The investigation revealed
that the subject firm did not separate or
threaten to separate a significant
number or proportion of workers as
required by Section 222 of the Trade Act
of 1974.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:04 Jun 24, 2008
Jkt 214001
In the request for reconsideration, the
petitioner provided additional
information regarding employment and
layoffs at the subject firm.
The Department has carefully
reviewed the request for reconsideration
and the existing record and has
determined that the Department will
conduct further investigation.
Conclusion
After careful review of the
application, I conclude that the claim is
of sufficient weight to justify
reconsideration of the Department of
Labor’s prior decision. The application
is, therefore, granted.
Signed in Washington, DC, this 16th day of
June, 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8–14301 Filed 6–24–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
36119
process of importing the articles
produced in Mexico to the United
States.
The Department has carefully
reviewed the request for reconsideration
and the existing record and has
determined that the Department will
conduct further investigation to
determine whether there was a shift in
production from the subject facility to
Mexico and whether the subject firm
has imported like or directly
competitive products in the relevant
time period.
Conclusion
After careful review of the
application, I conclude that the claim is
of sufficient weight to justify
reconsideration of the U.S. Department
of Labor’s prior decision. The
application is, therefore, granted.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 16th day of
June, 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8–14302 Filed 6–24–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
[TA–W–63,019]
Honeywell Aerospace, Aerospace—
Defense & Space Division, Teterboro,
NJ; Notice of Affirmative Determination
Regarding Application for
Reconsideration
By application dated May 27, 2008,
United Automobile, Aerospace &
Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, Local 153 requested
administrative reconsideration of the
negative determination regarding
workers’ eligibility to apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and
Alternative Trade Adjustment
Assistance (ATAA) applicable to
workers and former workers of the
subject firm. The determination was
issued on April 16, 2008. The Notice of
determination was published in the
Federal Register on May 2, 2008 (73 FR
24318).
The initial investigation resulted in a
negative determination based on the
finding that imports of displays,
processors, flight controls, software, and
test equipment for aircrafts did not
contribute importantly to worker
separations at the subject firm and no
shift of production to a foreign source
occurred.
In the request for reconsideration, the
petitioner alleged that workers of the
subject firm were separated as a direct
result of Honeywell Aerospace opening
a facility in Mexico. The petitioner also
states that the subject firm is in the
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–60,041]
Delphi Corporation, Automotive
Holdings Group, Needmore Road/
Dayton Plant 3, Including On-Site
Leased Workers from Aerotek
Automotive, PDSI Technical Services,
Acro Service Corp., G-Tech
Professional Staffing, TAC Automotive,
Bartech, Manpower Professional
Services, Manpower Of Vandalia,
Setech, Mays Chemical And Kelly
Engineering Services, Dayton, Ohio;
Amended Certification Regarding
Eligibility to Apply for Worker
Adjustment Assistance and Alternative
Trade Adjustment Assistance
In accordance with Section 223 of the
Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and
Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26
U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the
Department of Labor issued a
Certification of Eligibility to Apply for
Worker Adjustment Assistance and
Alternative Trade Adjustment
Assistance on November 30, 2006,
applicable to workers of Delphi
Corporation, Automotive Holdings
Group, Needmore Road/Dayton Plant 3,
Dayton, Ohio. The notice was published
in the Federal Register on December 12,
2006 (71 FR 74564).
E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM
25JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 25, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36118-36119]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-14352]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Office of the Secretary
Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request
June 20, 2008.
The Department of Labor (DOL) hereby announces the submission of
the following public information collection requests (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 each ICR, with applicable supporting
documentation; including among other things a description of the likely
respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden
may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov Web site at https://
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain or by contacting Darrin King on 202-
693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number)/e-mail: king.darrin@dol.gov.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Telephone:
202-395-7316/Fax: 202-395-6974 (these are not toll-free numbers), E-
mail: OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov within 30 days from the date of this
publication in the Federal Register. In order to ensure the appropriate
consideration, comments should reference the OMB Control Number (see
below).
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
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: Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Type of Review: Extension without change of a previously approved
collection.
Title of Collection: Methylene Chloride (29 CFR 1910.1052).
OMB Control Number: 1218-0179.
Affected Public: Private Sector--Business or other for-profits and
Not-for-profit institutions.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 92,354.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 67,362.
Estimated Total Annual Costs Burden: $16,753,110.
Description: The information collection requirements contained in
the Methylene Chloride Standard (29 CFR 1910.1052) serve to ensure that
employees are not being harmed by exposure to Methylene Chloride. For
additional information, see related notice published at 73 FR 22176 on
April 24, 2008.
[[Page 36119]]
Agency: Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Type of Review: Extension without change of a previously approved
collection.
Title of Collection: Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals
in Laboratories Standard.
OMB Control Number: 1218-0131.
Affected Public: Private Sector--Business or other for-profits and
Not-for-profit institutions.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 45,616.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 281,419.
Estimated Total Annual Costs Burden: $35,978,301.
Description: The information collection requirements contained in
the Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemical in Laboratories
Standard (29 CFR 1910.1450) control employees overexposure to hazardous
laboratory chemicals, thereby preventing serious illnesses and death
among employees exposed to such chemicals. For additional information
see related notice published at 73 FR 20069 on April 14, 2008.
Darrin A. King,
Acting Departmental Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. E8-14352 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
