60_Day_FR_Notice

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 42 / Thursday, March 4, 2010 / Notices
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; see also InBev, 2009 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 84787, at *20 (‘‘[T]he ‘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. 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). This
language effectuates what Congress

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:39 Mar 03, 2010

Jkt 220001

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 11.6
VIII. Determinative Documents
There are no determinative materials
or documents within the meaning of the
APPA that the United States considered
in formulating the proposed Final
Judgment.
Dated: February 22, 2010.
Respectfully submitted,
For Plaintiff The United States of America
David E. Altschuler,
Jade Alice Eaton,
Trial Attorneys, United States Department of
Justice, Antitrust Division, Transportation,
Energy & Agriculture Section, 450 5th Street,
NW., Suite 8000, Washington, DC 20530,
Telephone: (202) 307–6316,
[email protected],
[email protected].
[FR Doc. 2010–4545 Filed 3–3–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–11–P

6 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 00087

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

9953

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
[Docket No. OSHA–2010–0007]

Definition and Requirements for a
Nationally Recognized Testing
Laboratory (NRTL); Extension of the
Office of Management and Budget’s
(OMB) Approval of Information
Collection (Paperwork) Requirements
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Request for comment.
SUMMARY: OSHA requests comment
concerning its proposed extension of the
information collection requirements
specified by its Regulation on the
Definition and Requirements for a
Nationally Recognized Testing
Laboratory (29 CFR 1910.7). The
Regulation specifies procedures that
organizations must follow to apply for,
and to maintain, OSHA’s recognition to
test and certify equipment, products, or
material.
DATES: Comments must be submitted
(postmarked, sent, or received) by
May 3, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Electronically: You may
submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://
www.regulations.gov, which is the
Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the
instructions online for submitting
comments.
Facsimile: If your comments,
including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the
OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693–1648.
Mail, hand delivery, express mail,
messenger, or courier service: When
using this method, you must submit
three copies of your comments and
attachments to the OSHA Docket Office,
Docket No. OSHA–2010–0007, U.S.
Department of Labor, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration,
Room N–2625, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Deliveries (hand, express mail,
messenger, and courier service) are
accepted during the Department of
Labor’s and Docket Office’s normal
business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.,
e.t.
Instructions: All submissions must
include the Agency name and OSHA
docket number for the Information
Collection Request (ICR) (OSHA–2010–
0007). All comments, including any
personal information you provide, are
placed in the public docket without
change, and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov.

E:\FR\FM\04MRN1.SGM

04MRN1

9954

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 42 / Thursday, March 4, 2010 / Notices

For further information on submitting
comments see the ‘‘Public Participation’’
heading in the section of this notice
titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
Docket: To read or download
comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www/
regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket
Office at the address above. All
documents in the docket (including this
Federal Register notice) are listed in the
http://www/regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g.,
copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through
the Web site. All submissions, including
copyrighted material, are available for
inspection and copying at the OSHA
Docket Office. You may contact Todd
Owen at the address below to obtain a
copy of the ICR.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Todd Owen, Directorate of Standards
and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department
of Labor, Room N–3609, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210; telephone (202) 693–2222.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

I. Background
The Department of Labor, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork
and respondent (i.e., employer) burden,
conducts a preclearance consultation
program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed
and continuing information collection
requirements in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA–95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This
program ensures that information is in
the desired format, reporting burden
(time and costs) is minimal, collection
instruments are clearly understood, and
OSHA’s estimate of the information
collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (the Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.)
authorizes information collection by
employers as necessary or appropriate
for enforcement of the Act or for
developing information regarding the
causes and prevention of occupational
injuries, illnesses and accidents (29
U.S.C. 657).
A number of standards issued by
OSHA contain requirements for
equipment, products, or materials.
These standards often specify that
employers use only equipment,
products, or material tested or approved
by a nationally recognized testing
laboratory (NRTL); this requirement
ensures that employers use safe and
effective equipment, products, or
materials in complying with the
standards. Accordingly, OSHA
promulgated the regulation titled

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:39 Mar 03, 2010

Jkt 220001

‘‘Definition and Requirements for a
Nationally Recognized Testing
Laboratory’’ (the Regulation). The
Regulation specifies procedures that
organizations must follow to apply for,
and to maintain, OSHA’s recognition to
test and certify equipment, products, or
material for this purpose.
II. Special Issues for Comment
OSHA has a particular interest in
comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information
collection requirements are necessary
for the proper performance of the
Agency’s functions including whether
the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA’s estimate of
the burden (time and costs) of the
information collection requirements,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility and clarity of
the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on
employers who must comply; for
example, by using automated or other
technological information collection
and transmission techniques.
III. Proposed Actions
OSHA is requesting that OMB extend
its approval of the collection of
information requirements specified by
the Standard on the Definition and
Requirements for a Nationally
Recognized Testing Laboratory. The
Agency is requesting to retain its current
burden hour estimate of 1,340 hours.
The Agency will summarize the
comments submitted in response to this
notice, and will include this summary
in its request to OMB to extend the
approval of these information collection
requirements.
Type of Review: Extension of a
currently approved information
collection.
Title: Definition and Requirements for
a Nationally Recognized Testing
Laboratory (29 CFR 1910.7).
OMB Control Number: 1218–0147.
Affected Public: Business or other forprofits.
Number of Respondents: 67.
Frequency of Recordkeeping: On
occasion.
Total Responses: 67.
Average Time Per Response: 160
hours for an organization to prepare
initial recognition applications to 16
hours for an annual site visit.
Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1,340.
Estimated Cost (Operation and
Maintenance): $0.

PO 00000

Frm 00088

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

IV. Public Participation—Submission of
Comments on This Notice and Internet
Access to Comments and Submissions
You may submit comments in
response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://
www.regulations.gov, which is the
Federal eRulemaking Portal; (2) by
facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other
material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for the
ICR (Docket No. OSHA–2010–0007).
You may supplement electronic
submissions by uploading document
files electronically. If you wish to mail
additional materials in reference to an
electronic or facsimile submission, you
must submit them to the OSHA Docket
Office (see the section of this notice
titled ADDRESSES). The additional
materials must clearly identify your
electronic comments by your name,
date, and the docket number so the
Agency can attach them to your
comments.
Because of security procedures, the
use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of
comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the
delivery of materials by hand, express
delivery, messenger, or courier service,
please contact the OSHA Docket Office
at (202) 693–2350, (TTY (877) 889–
5627).
Comments and submissions are
posted without change at http://
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA
cautions commenters about submitting
personal information such as social
security numbers and date of birth.
Although all submissions are listed in
the http://www.regulations.gov index,
some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to
read or download through this Web site.
All submissions, including copyrighted
material, are available for inspection
and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
Information on using the http://
www.regulations.gov Web site to submit
comments and access the docket is
available at the Web site’s ‘‘User Tips’’
link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office
for information about materials not
available through the Web site, and for
assistance in using the Internet to locate
docket submissions.
V. Authority and Signature
David Michaels, PhD, MPH, Assistant
Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, directed the
preparation of this notice. The authority
for this notice is the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506

E:\FR\FM\04MRN1.SGM

04MRN1

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 42 / Thursday, March 4, 2010 / Notices
et seq.), and Secretary of Labor’s Order
No. 5–2007 (72 FR 31160).

NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action

Signed at Washington, DC, this 26th day of
February 2010.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health.

[Docket No. 50–416; NRC–2010–0082]

The NRC has completed its
environmental assessment of the
proposed exemption. The staff has
concluded that the proposed action to
extend the implementation deadline
would not significantly affect plant
safety and would not have a significant
adverse effect on the probability of an
accident occurring.
The proposed action would not result
in an increased radiological hazard
beyond those previously analyzed in the
environmental assessment and finding
of no significant impact made by the
Commission in promulgating its
revisions to 10 CFR part 73 as discussed
in a Federal Register notice dated
March 27, 2009 (74 FR 13926). There
will be no change to radioactive
effluents that affect radiation exposures
to plant workers and members of the
public. Therefore, no changes or
different types of radiological impacts
are expected as a result of the proposed
exemption.
The proposed action does not result
in changes to land use or water use, or
result in changes to the quality or
quantity of non-radiological effluents.
No changes to the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System permit
are needed. No effects on the aquatic or
terrestrial habitat in the vicinity of the
plant, or to threatened, endangered, or
protected species under the Endangered
Species Act, or impacts to essential fish
habitat covered by the MagnusonSteven’s Act are expected. There are no
impacts to the air or ambient air quality.
There are no impacts to historical and
cultural resources. There would be no
impact to socioeconomic resources.
Therefore, no changes to or different
types of non-radiological environmental
impacts are expected as a result of the
proposed exemption.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that
there are no significant environmental
impacts associated with the proposed
action. In addition, in promulgating its
revisions to 10 CFR part 73, the
Commission prepared an environmental
assessment and published a finding of
no significant impact [Part 73, Power
Reactor Security Requirements, 74 FR
13926 (March 27, 2009)].
The NRC staff’s safety evaluation will
be provided in the exemption that will
be issued as part of the letter to the
licensee approving the exemption to the
regulation, if granted.

[FR Doc. 2010–4555 Filed 3–3–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
Labor Surplus Area Classification
Under Executive Orders 12073 and
10582
AGENCY: Employment and Training
Administration, Labor.
ACTION:

Notice.

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is
to update the 2010 Labor Surplus Areas
annual list published in the Federal
Register, Vol. 74, No. 209, Friday,
October 30, 2009, pages 56217–56239.

Effective Date: The update of the
annual list of labor surplus areas is
effective immediately for all states, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
DATES:

Entergy Operations, Inc.; Grand Gulf
Nuclear Station, Unit 1; Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of an exemption, pursuant to
Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) section 73.5,
‘‘Specific exemptions,’’ from the
implementation date for certain new
requirements of 10 CFR part 73,
‘‘Physical protection of plants and
materials,’’ for Facility Operating
License No. DPR–46, issued to Entergy
Operations, Inc. (Entergy, the licensee),
for operation of the Grand Gulf Nuclear
Station, Unit 1 (GGNS), located in
Claiborne County, Mississippi.
Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21,
the NRC performed an environmental
assessment. Based on the results of the
environmental assessment, the NRC is
issuing a finding of no significant
impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action

Signed at Washington, DC, this 25th day of
February 2010.
Jane Oates,
Assistant Secretary for Employment and
Training Administration.

The proposed action would exempt
Entergy from the required
implementation date of March 31, 2010,
for several new requirements of 10 CFR
part 73. Specifically, Entergy would be
granted an exemption from being in full
compliance with certain new
requirements contained in 10 CFR 73.55
by the March 31, 2010, deadline.
Entergy has proposed an alternate full
compliance implementation date of
March 31, 2011, 1 year beyond the date
required by 10 CFR part 73. The
proposed action, an extension of the
schedule for completion of certain
actions required by the revised 10 CFR
part 73, does not involve any physical
changes to the reactor, fuel, plant
structures, support structures, water, or
land at the Entergy site.
The proposed action is in accordance
with the licensee’s application dated
January 14, 2010, as supplemented by
letters dated January 18 and February 4,
2010.

[FR Doc. 2010–4465 Filed 3–3–10; 8:45 am]

The Need for the Proposed Action

BILLING CODE 4510–FT–P

The proposed action is needed to
provide the licensee with additional
time to perform the required upgrades to
the Entergy security system due to
resource and logistical impacts of the
spring 2010 refueling outage and other
factors, such as limited vendor
resources.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Samuel Wright, Office of Workforce
Investment, Employment and Training
Administration, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Room S–4231,
Washington, DC 20210. Telephone:
(202) 693–2870 (This is not a toll-free
number).

For
supplementary, eligibility, classification
procedures and petition for exceptional
circumstances procedure information
refer to the original 2010 Labor Surplus
Area list at http://
edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E926165.pdf.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

9955

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:39 Mar 03, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00089

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

Environmental Impacts of the
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed
actions, the NRC staff considered denial

E:\FR\FM\04MRN1.SGM

04MRN1