Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request, 71692-71693 [E8-27936]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
71692
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 25, 2008 / Notices
In determining whether a proposed
settlement is in the public interest, a
district court ‘‘must accord deference to
the government’s predictions about the
efficacy of its remedies, and may not
require that the remedies perfectly
match the alleged violations.’’ SBC
Commc’ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 17; see
also Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 (noting
the need for courts to be ‘‘deferential to
the government’s predictions as to the
effect of the proposed remedies’’);
United States v. Archer-DanielsMidland Co., 272 F. Supp. 2d 1, 6
(D.D.C. 2003) (noting that the court
should grant due respect to the United
States’ prediction as to the effect of
proposed remedies, its perception of the
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 discretion 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 this Court
recently confirmed in SBC
inconsonant with the allegations charged as to fall
outside of the ‘‘reaches of the public interest’’).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:01 Nov 24, 2008
Jkt 217001
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
‘‘[n]othing 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). The
language wrote into the statute 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 11.4
measure of market concentration. It is
calculated by squaring the market share
of each firm competing in the market
and then summing the resulting
numbers. For example, for a market
consisting of four firms with shares of
30 percent, 30 percent, 20 percent, and
20 percent, the HHI is 2600 (302 + 302
+202 + 202 = 2600). The HHI takes into
account the relative size distribution of
the firms in a market and approaches
zero when a market consists of a large
number of small firms. The HHI
increases both as the number of firms in
the market decreases and as the
disparity in size between those firms
increases.
Markets in which the HHI is between
1000 and 1800 points are considered to
be moderately concentrated, and those
in which the HHI is in excess of 1800
points are considered to be highly
concentrated. See Horizontal Merger
Guidelines 1.51 (revised Apr. 8, 1997).
Transactions that increase the HHI by
more than 100 points in concentrated
markets presumptively raise antitrust
concerns under the guidelines issued by
the U.S. Department of Justice and
Federal Trade Commission. See id.
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.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Dated: November 14, 2008.
Mitchell H. Glende, Esq.
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division,
Litigation I Section, 1401 H Street, NW., Suite
4000, Washington, DC 20530, (202) 353–3106.
November 21, 2008.
Appendix A
Definition of Herfindahl-Hirschman
Index (‘‘HHI’’)
‘‘HHI’’ means the HerfindahlHirschman Index, a commonly accepted
4 See United States v. Enova Corp., 107 F. Supp.
2d 10, 17 (D.D.C. 2000) (noting that the ‘‘Tunney
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 00093
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
[FR Doc. E8–27970 Filed 11–24–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–11–P
Office of the Secretary
Submission for OMB Review:
Comment Request
The Department of Labor (DOL)
hereby announces the submission of 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; 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:
DOL_PRA_PUBLIC@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:
E:\FR\FM\25NON1.SGM
25NON1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 25, 2008 / Notices
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: Inorganic Arsenic
(29 CFR 1910.1018).
OMB Control Number: 1218–0104.
Affected Public: Business or other forprofits.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 3.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 385.
Estimated Total Annual Costs Burden:
$31,165.
Description: The purpose of the
Department’s Inorganic Arsenic
Standard at 29 CFR 1910.1018 and the
information collection requirements
contained therein is to provide
protection for employees from the
adverse health effects associated with
occupational exposure to inorganic
arsenic. For additional information, see
the related 60-day preclearance notice
published in the Federal Register at 73
FR 55871 on September 26, 2008. PRA
documentation prepared in association
with the preclearance notice is available
on https://www.regulations.gov under
docket number OSHA 2008–0036.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
71693
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–64,088]
[TA–W–63,924; TA–W–63,924A]
Boise Cascade, LLC, Wood Products
Division, La Grande Lumber Mill, La
Grande, OR; Boise Cascade, LLC,
Wood Products Division, La Grande
Particleboard, La Grande, OR; Notice
of Affirmative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration
Rexam Closure Systems, Inc., Bowling
Green, OH; Notice of Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration
By application postmarked October
24, 2008, the Oregon AFL–CIO Labor
Liaison and the Carpenter’s Industrial
Council 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 October 1,
2008. The Notice of Determination was
published in the Federal Register on
October 20, 2008 (73 FR 62323).
The initial investigation resulted in a
negative determination based on the
finding that imports of softwood lumber
and particleboard 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 provided additional
information pertaining to imports of
softwood lumber and particleboard and
requested further investigation
concerning the import impact on
production 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 to
determine if the workers meet the
eligibility requirements of the Trade Act
of 1974.
By application dated October 22,
2008, the International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, Region
2–B, 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 October 3,
2008. The Notice of Determination was
published in the Federal Register on
October 20, 2008 (73 FR 62323).
The initial investigation resulted in a
negative determination based on the
finding that imports of plastic closures
for plastic food industry packaging 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 provided additional
information pertaining to a shift in
subject plant production of plastic
closures for plastic food industry
packaging to China and requested
further investigation of import impact as
it relates to declining subject plant
production of plastic closures for plastic
food industry packaging.
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 if the workers meet the
eligibility requirements of the Trade Act
of 1974.
Conclusion
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.
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.
Darrin A. King,
Departmental Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. E8–27936 Filed 11–24–08; 8:45 am]
Signed at Washington, DC, this 14th day of
November 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8–27933 Filed 11–24–08; 8:45 am]
Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of
November 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8–27935 Filed 11–24–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:01 Nov 24, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\25NON1.SGM
25NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 25, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71692-71693]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-27936]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Office of the Secretary
Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request
November 21, 2008.
The Department of Labor (DOL) hereby announces the submission of
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; 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: DOL_PRA_
PUBLIC@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:
[[Page 71693]]
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: Inorganic Arsenic (29 CFR 1910.1018).
OMB Control Number: 1218-0104.
Affected Public: Business or other for-profits.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 3.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 385.
Estimated Total Annual Costs Burden: $31,165.
Description: The purpose of the Department's Inorganic Arsenic
Standard at 29 CFR 1910.1018 and the information collection
requirements contained therein is to provide protection for employees
from the adverse health effects associated with occupational exposure
to inorganic arsenic. For additional information, see the related 60-
day preclearance notice published in the Federal Register at 73 FR
55871 on September 26, 2008. PRA documentation prepared in association
with the preclearance notice is available on https://www.regulations.gov
under docket number OSHA 2008-0036.
Darrin A. King,
Departmental Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. E8-27936 Filed 11-24-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
