Submission for OMB Review; Federal Acquisition Regulation; Cost or Pricing Data Requirements and Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data, 66377-66378 [2014-26459]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Notices mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES continued to compete on quality or quantity. Fortunately, antitrust law requires a different and more economically sensible result.15 It also is worth noting that no one— including but not limited to the parties—has presented a plausible efficiency justification that might suggest the collusion between AmeriGas and Blue Rhino to reduce the amount of propane in tanks sold to Walmart was somehow procompetitive.16 This enforcement action therefore simply does not implicate traditional concerns over false positives and the fear that the Commission might inadvertently chill procompetitive behavior.17 In addition, while much has been written about the important shift away from per se rules in favor of a more effects-based rule of reason analysis under modern antitrust doctrine, the benefits of this shift unsurprisingly accrue only where the challenged conduct potentially offers some procompetitive benefits.18 Again, that is not the case here. The record is devoid of evidence supporting a plausible efficiency justification for the challenged agreement. Moreover, the Supreme Court’s shift toward the rule of reason has always left 15 See, e.g., Areeda & Hovenkamp, supra note 14, ¶ 2022a, at 175 (‘‘For example, firms could presumably agree to insist on cash at the time of delivery but nevertheless compete vigorously on the price they charge. But to make much of this fact distorts the relative importance of the various terms of any transaction. The explicit ‘price’ of any good or service is a function not only of the nominal price but also for the credit terms, applicable discounts, rebates, terms of delivery, and the like. Firms might also agree about the nominal price but continue to compete by offering increasingly longer time periods before payment is due. The fact that such competition continues to exist does not serve to make the price-fixing agreement reasonable.’’). 16 Although the argument that AmeriGas and Blue Rhino’s co-filling arrangement offers an efficiency justification for the parties’ concerted action against Walmart has some superficial appeal, it can be dispensed with relatively easily. First, if we are to take seriously the claim that identical propane fill levels are necessary for the efficient operation of AmeriGas’s and Blue Rhino’s businesses, we would expect the parties to have agreed on the initial move from 17-pound to 15-pound tanks. They did not. In fact, after a lengthy investigation, the Commission concluded the parties independently reduced the amount of propane contained in their tanks and only colluded in subsequent negotiations with Walmart. Second, it would be a curious thing for two companies attempting to achieve an efficiency benefit—one that would reduce the costs passed on to purchasers—to seek to achieve that benefit by coordinating secretly rather than explaining to purchasers the costs of maintaining divergent filllevels for their propane tanks. 17 See Frank H. Easterbrook, The Limits of Antitrust, 63 Tex. L. Rev. 1, 15–17 (1984). 18 See, e.g., Joshua D. Wright, Comm’r, Fed. Trade Comm’n, The Economics of Resale Price Maintenance & Implications for Competition Law and Policy, Remarks before the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (Apr. 9, 2014), available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ documents/public_statements/302501/140409rpm. pdf. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:12 Nov 06, 2014 Jkt 235001 room for an appropriately truncated review for conduct that is likely to harm competition and without efficiency justification. The Court has made clear that attempting to place antitrust analysis into fixed categories is overly simplistic.19 The Court has recognized that ‘‘there is often no bright line separating per se from Rule of Reason analysis’’ 20 and that determining whether a ‘‘challenged restraint enhances competition’’ requires ‘‘an enquiry meet for the case.’’ 21 The alleged coordination between AmeriGas and Blue Rhino bears a ‘‘close family resemblance’’ to conduct long since ‘‘convicted in the court of consumer welfare’’ based upon ‘‘economic learning and market experience’’ that demonstrates such restraints are likely to harm consumers.22 Where, as here, the two principal suppliers in an industry have colluded in their negotiations with a major distributor to impose contractual terms the distributor initially resisted, and there are no plausible efficiency justifications suggesting the conduct may have been procompetitive, that enquiry is appropriately brief. Enforcement actions to prevent anticompetitive conduct with no plausible efficiency are a wise use of agency resources and should be a focus of the Commission’s competition mission because they bring immediate benefits for consumers with little risk of chilling procompetitive conduct. For all of these reasons, I voted in favor of issuing the Complaint and accepting the proposed Consent Agreements in this matter. [FR Doc. 2014–26551 Filed 11–6–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 19 See, e.g., Polygram Holding, Inc. v. FTC, 416 F.3d 29, 34–35 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (explaining usefully how the ‘‘Supreme Court’s approach to evaluating a section 1 claim has gone through a transition over the last twenty-five years, from a categorical approach to a more nuanced and case-specific inquiry’’). 20 Cal. Dental Ass’n v. F.T.C., 526 U.S. 756, 779 (1999) (quoting NCAA v. Board of Regents, 468 U.S. 85, 104 n.26 (1983)). 21 Id. at 779–81. 22 Polygram, 416 F.3d 29 at 36–37. PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 66377 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000–0013; Docket 2014– 0055; Sequence 21] Submission for OMB Review; Federal Acquisition Regulation; Cost or Pricing Data Requirements and Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB information collection. AGENCY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning Cost or Pricing Data Requirements and Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data. A notice was published in the Federal Register at 79 FR 51168 on August 27, 2014. No comments were received. DATES: Submit comments on or before December 8, 2014. ADDRESSES: Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000–0013, Cost or Pricing Data Requirements and Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data, by any of the following methods: • Regulations.gov: https:// www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number 9000–0013. Select the link that corresponds with ‘‘Information Collection 9000–0013, Cost or Pricing Data Requirements and Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data’’. Follow the instructions provided on the screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and ‘‘Information Collection 9000–0013, Cost or Pricing Data Requirements and Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data’’, on your attached document. • Fax: 202–501–4067. • Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms. Flowers/IC 9000–0013, Cost or Pricing Data Requirements and Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data. SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM 07NON1 66378 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Notices Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 9000–0013, Cost or Pricing Data Requirements and Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data, in all correspondence related to this collection. All comments received will be posted without change to https:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Dated: October 30, 2014. Edward Loeb, Acting Director, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, Office of Government-wide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy. [FR Doc. 2014–26459 Filed 11–6–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Edward Chambers, Procurement Analyst, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, GSA 202–501–3221 or Edward.chambers@gsa.gov. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review [30Day–15–14ATA] A. Purpose The Truth in Negotiations Act requires the Government to obtain certified cost or pricing data under certain circumstances. Contractors may request an exemption from this requirement under certain conditions and provide other information instead. B. Annual Reporting Burden Respondents: 32,111. Responses per Respondent: 6. Total Responses: 192,666. Hours per Response: 50.51. Total Burden Hours: 9,731,560. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES C. Public Comments Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202–501–4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000– 0013, Cost or Pricing Data Requirements and Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data, in all correspondence. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:12 Nov 06, 2014 Jkt 235001 The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) 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; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) 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; and (e) Assess information collection costs. To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639–7570 or send an email to omb@cdc.gov. Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice should be directed to the Attention: CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395–5806. Written PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 comments should be received within 30 days of this notice. Proposed Project Biomonitoring of Great Lakes Populations Program II—New—Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Background and Brief Description The Great Lakes Basin has suffered decades of pollution and ecosystem damage. Many chemicals persist in Great Lakes sediments, as well as in wildlife and humans. These chemicals can build up in the aquatic food chain. Eating contaminated fish is a known route of human exposure. In 2009, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) was enacted by Public Law 111–88. The GLRI FY2010–FY2014 Action Plan makes Great Lakes restoration a national priority for 12 Federal Agencies. The GLRI is led by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Under a 2013 interagency agreement with the US EPA, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) announced a funding opportunity called the ‘‘Biomonitoring of Great Lakes Populations’’ (CDC–RFA–TS13–1302). This applied public health program aims to measure Great Lakes chemicals in human blood and urine. These measures will be a baseline for current and future restoration activities. The measures will be compared to available national estimates. This program also aims to take these measures from people who may be at higher risk of harm from chemical exposures. This project will provide additional public health information to supplement the FY2010 CDC–RFA– TS10–1001 cooperative agreement program, ‘‘Biomonitoring of Great Lakes Populations,’’ hereafter referred to as ‘‘Program I’’ (OMB Control Number 0923–0044). The purpose of the current announcement is to evaluate body burden levels of priority contaminants in additional Great Lakes residents and susceptible populations who are at highest exposure risk and who are living in an area that was not previously addressed in Program I. The New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) received funding for the current program. NYSDOH will look at two subpopulations of adults living in Syracuse, NY, who are known to eat fish from Onondaga Lake. Onondaga Lake is a highly polluted Great Lakes Basin water body in Central New York located northwest of Syracuse. The target subpopulations are: (1) Burmese and Bhutanese refugees who are known to E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM 07NON1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 216 (Friday, November 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66377-66378]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26459]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[OMB Control No. 9000-0013; Docket 2014-0055; Sequence 21]


Submission for OMB Review; Federal Acquisition Regulation; Cost 
or Pricing Data Requirements and Information Other Than Cost or Pricing 
Data

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration 
(GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to 
an existing OMB information collection.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(44 U.S.C. chapter 35) the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be 
submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to 
review and approve an extension of a previously approved information 
collection requirement concerning Cost or Pricing Data Requirements and 
Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data. A notice was published in 
the Federal Register at 79 FR 51168 on August 27, 2014. No comments 
were received.

DATES: Submit comments on or before December 8, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-
0013, Cost or Pricing Data Requirements and Information Other Than Cost 
or Pricing Data, by any of the following methods:
     Regulations.gov: https://www.regulations.gov. Submit 
comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB 
control number 9000-0013. Select the link that corresponds with 
``Information Collection 9000-0013, Cost or Pricing Data Requirements 
and Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data''. Follow the 
instructions provided on the screen. Please include your name, company 
name (if any), and ``Information Collection 9000-0013, Cost or Pricing 
Data Requirements and Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data'', on 
your attached document.
     Fax: 202-501-4067.
     Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory 
Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. 
ATTN: Ms. Flowers/IC 9000-0013, Cost or Pricing Data Requirements and 
Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data.

[[Page 66378]]

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information 
Collection 9000-0013, Cost or Pricing Data Requirements and Information 
Other Than Cost or Pricing Data, in all correspondence related to this 
collection. All comments received will be posted without change to 
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business 
confidential information provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Edward Chambers, Procurement 
Analyst, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, GSA 202-501-3221 or 
Edward.chambers@gsa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Purpose

    The Truth in Negotiations Act requires the Government to obtain 
certified cost or pricing data under certain circumstances. Contractors 
may request an exemption from this requirement under certain conditions 
and provide other information instead.

B. Annual Reporting Burden

    Respondents: 32,111.
    Responses per Respondent: 6.
    Total Responses: 192,666.
    Hours per Response: 50.51.
    Total Burden Hours: 9,731,560.

C. Public Comments

    Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; 
whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of 
information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and 
methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the 
burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, 
through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology.
    Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the 
information collection documents from the General Services 
Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street 
NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755.
    Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0013, Cost or Pricing Data 
Requirements and Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data, in all 
correspondence.

    Dated: October 30, 2014.
Edward Loeb,
Acting Director, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, Office of 
Government-wide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, 
Office of Government-wide Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-26459 Filed 11-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P

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