Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request, 5144-5145 [2010-1963]

Download as PDF 5144 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2010 / Notices jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Bechtel, 648 F.2d at 666 (emphasis added) (citations omitted).1 In determining whether a proposed settlement is in the public interest, the 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’s 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). Therefore, 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; see also InBev, 2009 U.S. 1 Cf. BNS, 858 F.2d at 464 (holding that the court’s ‘‘ultimate authority under the [APPA] is limited to approving or disapproving the consent decree’’); United States v. Gillette Co., 406 F. Supp. 713, 716 (D. Mass. 1975) (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’ ’’). VerDate Nov<24>2008 18:35 Jan 29, 2010 Jkt 220001 Dist. LEXIS 84787, at *20 (‘‘the ‘public interest’ is not to be measured by comparing the violations alleged in the complaint against those the court believes could have, or even should have, been alleged’’). 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. Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1459–60. As this Court 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.’’ 489 F. Supp. 2d at 15. In its 2004 amendments to the Tunney Act,2 Congress made clear its intent to preserve the practical benefits of utilizing consent decrees in antitrust enforcement, stating: ‘‘[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 11.3 2 The 2004 amendments substituted the word ‘‘shall’’ for ‘‘may’’ when directing the courts to consider the enumerated factors and amended the list of factors to focus on competitive considerations and address potentially ambiguous judgment terms. Compare 15 U.S.C. 16(e) (2004), with 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1) (2006); see also SBC Commc’ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 11 (concluding that the 2004 amendments ‘‘effected minimal changes’’ to Tunney Act review). 3 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 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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: January 20, 2010. Respectfully submitted. Christine A. Hill, DC Bar #461048, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Litigation II Section, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Suite 8700, Washington, DC 20530. (202) 305–2738. Certificate of Service I, Christine A. Hill, hereby certify that on January 20, 2010, I caused a copy of the foregoing Competitive Impact Statement to be served upon defendants Cameron International Corporation and NATCO Group Inc. by mailing the documents electronically to the duly authorized legal representatives of defendants as follows: Counsel for Defendant Cameron International Corporation Sean F.X. Boland, Esquire, Paul Cuomo, Esquire, Howrey LLP, 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. bolands@howrey.com. cuomop@howrey.com. Counsel for Defendant NATCO Group Inc. Bradley C. Weber, Esquire, Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP, 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2200, Dallas, Texas 75201. bweber@lockelord.com. Christine A. Hill, Esquire, DC Bar #461048, United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Litigation II Section, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Suite 8700, Washington, DC 20530. (202) 305–2738. [FR Doc. 2010–1961 Filed 1–29–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–11–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request January 26, 2010. 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 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.’’). E:\FR\FM\01FEN1.SGM 01FEN1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2010 / Notices 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 Department of Labor—Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Telephone: 202–395–7316/Fax: 202–395–5806 (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: Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for General Industry (29 CFR part 1910, subpart I). OMB Control Number: 1218–0205. Affected Public: Business or other forprofits. Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,500,000 VerDate Nov<24>2008 18:35 Jan 29, 2010 Jkt 220001 Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,552,171. Estimated Total Annual Costs Burden (excludes hourly wage costs): $0. Description: 29 CFR part 1910, subpart I of the Departments regulations requires that employers perform hazard assessments of the workplace to determine if personal protective equipment (PPE) is necessary and to communicate PPE selection decisions to affected workers. Subpart I also requires that employers train affected workers in the use of PPE and provide training under certain circumstances. Employers must document that the hazard assessment and training/retraining have been conducted. For additional information, see the related 60-day preclearance notice published in the Federal Register at Vol. 74 FR 61175 on November 23, 2009. PRA documentation prepared in association with the preclearance notice is available on https://www.regulations.gov under docket number OSHA–2009–0028. Darrin A. King, Departmental Clearance Officer. BILLING CODE 4510–26–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–71,375] AK Steel Corporation, Mansfield Works Division, Mansfield, OH; Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application dated December 10, 2009, the United Steel Workers, Local 169, requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers’ eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The determination was issued on November 2, 2009. The Notice of Determination will soon be published in the Federal Register. The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination based on the findings that imports of steel coils 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 regarding customers of the subject firm. The Department has carefully reviewed the request for reconsideration Frm 00113 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 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 8th day of January 2010. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. 2010–1892 Filed 1–29–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–64,453] [FR Doc. 2010–1963 Filed 1–29–10; 8:45 am] PO 00000 5145 ThyssenKrupp Crankshaft Company, LLC, Fostoria Machining, a Subsidiary of ThyssenKrupp AG Including On-Site Leased Workers From Kelly Services, Manpower Temporary Agency, Express Personnel and Trillium Fostoria, OH; 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 January 23, 2009, applicable to workers of ThyssenKrupp Crankshaft Company, LLC, a subsidiary of ThyssenKrupp AG, Fastoria, Ohio. The notice was published in the Federal Resister on February 10, 2009 (74 FR 6653). At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged in activities related to the production of crankshafts. New information shows that workers leased from Kelly Services, Manpower Temporary Agency, Express Personnel and Trillium were employed on-site by the Fostoria, Ohio location of ThyssenKrupp Crankshaft Company, LLC. The Department has determined that these workers were sufficiently E:\FR\FM\01FEN1.SGM 01FEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 20 (Monday, February 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5144-5145]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-1963]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of the Secretary


Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request

January 26, 2010.
    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

[[Page 5145]]

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 
Department of Labor--Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
(OSHA), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 
20503, Telephone: 202-395-7316/Fax: 202-395-5806 (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: Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for 
General Industry (29 CFR part 1910, subpart I).
    OMB Control Number: 1218-0205.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,500,000
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,552,171.
    Estimated Total Annual Costs Burden (excludes hourly wage costs): 
$0.
    Description: 29 CFR part 1910, subpart I of the Departments 
regulations requires that employers perform hazard assessments of the 
workplace to determine if personal protective equipment (PPE) is 
necessary and to communicate PPE selection decisions to affected 
workers. Subpart I also requires that employers train affected workers 
in the use of PPE and provide training under certain circumstances. 
Employers must document that the hazard assessment and training/
retraining have been conducted. For additional information, see the 
related 60-day preclearance notice published in the Federal Register at 
Vol. 74 FR 61175 on November 23, 2009. PRA documentation prepared in 
association with the preclearance notice is available on https://www.regulations.gov under docket number OSHA-2009-0028.

Darrin A. King,
Departmental Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-1963 Filed 1-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

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