30 Day Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 26, 2019 / Notices
F.2d at 1577 (quotation marks omitted).
‘‘The court should bear in mind the
flexibility of the public interest inquiry:
the court’s function is not to determine
whether the resulting array of rights and
liabilities is one that will best serve
society, but only to confirm that the
resulting settlement is within the
reaches of the public interest.’’
Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1460 (quotation
marks omitted). More demanding
requirements would ‘‘have enormous
practical consequences for the
government’s ability to negotiate future
settlements,’’ contrary to congressional
intent. Id. at 1456. ‘‘The Tunney Act
was not intended to create a
disincentive to the use of the consent
decree.’’ Id.
The United States’ predictions about
the efficacy of the remedy are to be
afforded deference by the Court. See,
e.g., Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461
(recognizing courts should give ‘‘due
respect to the Justice Department’s . . .
view of the nature of its case’’); United
States v. Iron Mountain, Inc., 217 F.
Supp. 3d 146, 152–53 (D.D.C. 2016) (‘‘In
evaluating objections to settlement
agreements under the Tunney Act, a
court must be mindful that [t]he
government need not prove that the
settlements will perfectly remedy the
alleged antitrust harms[;] it need only
provide a factual basis for concluding
that the settlements are reasonably
adequate remedies for the alleged
harms.’’) (internal citations omitted);
United States v. Republic Servs., Inc.,
723 F. Supp. 2d 157, 160 (D.D.C. 2010)
(noting ‘‘the deferential review to which
the government’s proposed remedy is
accorded’’); United States v. ArcherDaniels-Midland Co., 272 F. Supp. 2d 1,
6 (D.D.C. 2003) (‘‘A district court must
accord due respect to the government’s
prediction as to the effect of proposed
remedies, its perception of the market
structure, and its view of the nature of
the case’’). The ultimate question is
whether ‘‘the remedies [obtained by the
Final Judgment are] so inconsonant with
the allegations charged as to fall outside
of the ‘reaches of the public interest.’’’
Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 (quoting W.
Elec. Co., 900 F.2d at 309).
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 U.S. Airways, 38
F. Supp. 3d at 75 (noting that the court
must simply determine whether there is
a factual foundation for the
government’s decisions such that its

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:47 Nov 25, 2019

Jkt 250001

conclusions regarding the proposed
settlements are reasonable); InBev, 2009
U.S. 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.
In its 2004 amendments to the APPA,
Congress made clear its intent to
preserve the practical benefits of using
consent judgments proposed by the
United States in antitrust enforcement,
Public Law 108–237 § 221, and added
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); see also
U.S. Airways, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 76
(indicating that a court is not required
to hold an evidentiary hearing or to
permit intervenors as part of its review
under the Tunney Act). This language
explicitly wrote into the statute what
Congress intended when it first 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 Sen. Tunney). ‘‘A court
can make its public interest
determination based on the competitive
impact statement and response to public
comments alone.’’ U.S. Airways, 38 F.
Supp. 3d at 76 (citing Enova Corp., 107
F. Supp. 2d at 17).
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: November 18, 2019
Respectfully submitted,
lllllllllllllllllll
Jeremy Evans, (DC Bar #478097) ,
Barbara W. Cash,
William M. Martin,
United States Department of Justice,
Antitrust Division, Transportation,
Energy, and Agriculture Section, Liberty

PO 00000

Frm 00073

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

65185

Square Building, 450 Fifth Street NW,
Suite 8000, Washington, DC 20530,
Telephone: (202) 598–8193.
[FR Doc. 2019–25600 Filed 11–25–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–11–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Foreign Claims Settlement
Commission
[F.C.S.C. Meeting and Hearing Notice No.
08–19]

Sunshine Act Meeting
The Foreign Claims Settlement
Commission, pursuant to its regulations
(45 CFR part 503.25) and the
Government in the Sunshine Act (5
U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in
regard to the scheduling of open
meetings as follows:
TIME AND DATE: Thursday, December 5,
2019, at 10:00 a.m.
PLACE: All meetings are held at the
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission,
441 G St NW, Room 6234, Washington,
DC.
STATUS: Open.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 10:00 a.m.—
Issuance of Proposed Decisions under
the Guam World War II Loyalty
Recognition Act, Title XVII, Public Law
114–328.
CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Requests for information, or advance
notices of intention to observe an open
meeting, may be directed to: Patricia M.
Hall, Foreign Claims Settlement
Commission, 441 G St NW, Room 6234,
Washington, DC 20579. Telephone:
(202) 616–6975.
Brian Simkin,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2019–25713 Filed 11–22–19; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–BA–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[OMB Number 1190–0019]

Agency Information Collection
Activities; Proposed eCollection;
eComments Requested; Extension
Without Change of a Currently
Approved Collection. Requirement
That Movie Theaters Provide Notice as
to the Availability of Closed Movie
Captioning and Audio Description
Civil Rights Division,
Department of Justice.
ACTION: 30-Day notice.
AGENCY:

The Department of Justice
(the Department), Civil Rights Division,
Disability Rights Section (DRS), will

SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\26NON1.SGM

26NON1

65186

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 26, 2019 / Notices

submit the following information
collection extension request to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
DATES: Comments are encouraged and
will be accepted for 30 days until
December 26, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have additional comments
(especially on the estimated public
burden or associated compliance time)
or need additional information, please
contact: Rebecca B. Bond, Chief,
Disability Rights Section, Civil Rights
Division, U.S. Department of Justice, by
mail at 4CON, 950 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW, Washington, DC 20530; send an
email to [email protected]; or call
(800) 514–0301 (voice) or (800) 514–
0383 (TTY) (the Division’s Information
Line). Written comments and/or
suggestions can also be sent to the
Office of Management and Budget,
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Attention Department of Justice
Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or
sent to OIRA_submissions@
omb.eop.gov. Include the title of this
proposed collection: ‘‘Requirement that
Movie Theaters Provide Notice as to the
Availability of Closed Movie Captioning
and Audio Description,’’ in the subject
line of all written comments. You may
obtain copies of this notice in an
alternative format by calling the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Information Line at (800) 514–0301
(voice) or (800) 514–0383 (TTY).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Written
comments and suggestions from the
public and affected agencies concerning
the proposed collection of information
are encouraged. Your comments should
address one or more of the following
four points:
—Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the Civil Rights Division,
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;
—Evaluate whether, and if so, how the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected can be
enhanced; 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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:47 Nov 25, 2019

Jkt 250001

of information technology, e.g.,
permitting electronic submission of
responses.
Overview of Information Collection
1. Type of information collection:
Extension of Currently Approved
Collection.
2. The title of the form/collection:
Requirement that Movie Theaters
Provide Notice as to the Availability of
Closed Movie Captioning and Audio
Description.
3. The agency form number, if any,
and the applicable component of the
Department sponsoring the collection:
Form Number: OMB Number 1190–
0019.
Component: The applicable
component within the Department of
Justice is the Disability Rights Section in
the Civil Rights Division.
4. Affected public who will be
required to comply, as well as a brief
abstract:
Affected Public (Primary): Businesses
and not-for-profit institutions that own,
operate, or lease a movie theater that has
one or more auditoriums showing
digital movies with closed movie
captioning and audio description, and
that provide notice of movie showings
and times. Under the relevant
regulation, ‘‘movie theater’’ means a
facility other than a drive-in theater that
is used primarily for the purpose of
showing movies to the public for a fee.
Affected Public (Other): None.
Abstract: The Department of Justice’s
Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights
Section (DRS), is seeking to extend its
information collection arising from a
regulatory provision that requires
covered movie theaters to disclose
information to the public regarding the
availability of closed movie captioning
and audio description for movies shown
in their auditoriums.
Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), at 42 U.S.C.
12182, prohibits public
accommodations from discriminating
against individuals with disabilities.
The existing ADA title III regulation, at
28 CFR 36.303(a)–(g), requires covered
entities to ensure effective
communication with individuals with
disabilities. The title III regulation
clarifies that movie theaters that provide
captioning or audio description for
digital movies must ensure ‘‘that all
notices of movie showings and times at
the box office and other ticketing
locations, on websites and mobile apps,
in newspapers, and over the telephone,
inform potential patrons of the movies
or showings that are available with
captioning and audio description.’’ 28
CFR 36.303(g). This requirement does

PO 00000

Frm 00074

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

not apply to any third-party providers of
films, unless they are part of or subject
to the control of the public
accommodation. Id. Movie theaters’
disclosure of this information will
enable individuals with hearing and
vision disabilities to readily find out
where and when they can have access
to movies with these features.
5. An estimate of the total number of
respondents and the amount of time
estimated for an average respondent to
respond:
Estimated total number of
respondents: The Department’s initial
PRA request for this collection relied on
U.S. Census Bureau data from 2012 and
estimated that there was a total of 1,876
firms owning one or more movie
theaters in the United States that were
potentially subject to this disclosure.
See 81 FR 37643 (June 10, 2016). The
most recent U.S. Census Bureau data,
from 2016, estimated that there was a
total of 1,790 firms owning one or more
movie theaters. See U.S. Census Bureau,
2016 SUSB Annual Data Tables by
Establishment Industry, Data by
Enterprise Employment Size, U.S., 6digit NAICS. As the vast majority of U.S.
movie theaters now show digital
movies, which typically allow for closed
captioning and audio description, to the
extent that each of these movie theater
firms that shows digital movies provides
notices of movie showings and times to
the public about those films, they must
provide information concerning the
availability of closed movie captioning
and audio description in their
communications.
Estimated average time to respond:
The Department acknowledges that the
amount of time it will take a respondent
to comply with this requirement may
vary depending on the number of
movies that the respondent is showing
at any given time. Based on information
gathered during the initial rulemaking
process, the Department estimates that
respondents will take an average of up
to 10 minutes each week to update
existing notices of movie showings and
times with closed captioning and audio
description information. Therefore, the
Department estimates that each firm
owning one or more theaters offering
digital movies with closed captioning or
audio description will spend
approximately ((10 minutes/week × 52
weeks/year) ÷ 60 minutes/hour) 8.7
hours each year to comply with this
requirement.
The Department anticipates that firms
owning one or more movie theaters will
likely update their existing listings of
movie showings and times to include
information concerning the availability
of closed movie captioning and audio

E:\FR\FM\26NON1.SGM

26NON1

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 26, 2019 / Notices
description on a regular basis. The
Department’s research suggests that this
information would only need to be
updated whenever a new movie with
these features is added to the schedule.
This will vary as some movies stay on
the schedule for longer periods of time
than others, but the Department
estimates that respondent firms will
update their listings to include this
information weekly. In the future, if all
movies are distributed with these
accessibility features, specific notice on
a movie-by-movie basis may no longer
be necessary and firms owning movie
theaters may only need to advise the
public that they provide closed
captioning and audio description for all
of their movies.
6. An estimate of the total annual
public burden (in hours) associated with
the collection: The estimated public
burden associated with this collection is
15,573 hours. The Department estimates
that respondents will take an average of
10 minutes each week to update their
existing listings of movie showings and
times with the required information
about closed captions and audio
description. If each respondent spends
10 minutes each week to update its
notices of moving showings and times
to include this information, the average
movie theater firm will spend 8.7 hours
annually ((10 minutes/week × 52 weeks/
year) ÷ 60 minutes/hour) complying
with this requirement. The Department
expects that the annual public burden
hours for disclosing this information
will total (1,790 respondents × 8.7
hours/year) 15,573 hours.
If additional information is required,
contact: Melody Braswell, Department
Clearance Officer, United States
Department of Justice, Justice
Management Division, Policy and
Planning Staff, Two Constitution
Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A,
Washington, DC 20530.
Dated: November 21, 2019.
Melody Braswell,
Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S.
Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 2019–25640 Filed 11–25–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–13–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:47 Nov 25, 2019

Jkt 250001

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[OMB Number 1105–0099]

Agency Information Collection
Activities; Proposed eCollection
eComments Requested; Extension
With Change, of a Previously
Approved Collection; USMS Medical
Forms
U.S. Marshals Service,
Department of Justice.
ACTION: 30-Day notice.
AGENCY:

The Department of Justice
(DOJ), U.S. Marshals Service (USMS),
will submit 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.
DATES: Comments are encouraged and
will be accepted for 30 days until
December 26, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have additional comments,
particularly with respect to the
estimated public burden or associated
response time, have suggestions, need a
copy of the proposed information
collection instrument with instructions,
or desire any additional information,
please contact Nicole Timmons either
by mail at CG–3, 10th Floor,
Washington, DC 20530–0001, by email
at [email protected], or by
telephone at 202–236–2646. Written
comments and/or suggestions can also
be sent to the Office of Management and
Budget, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Attention
Department of Justice Desk Officer,
Washington, DC 20503 or sent to OIRA_
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Written
comments and suggestions from the
public and affected agencies concerning
the proposed collection of information
are encouraged. Your comments should
address one or more of the following
four points:
—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;
—Evaluate whether and if so how the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected can be
enhanced; and
—Minimize the burden of the collection
of information on those who are to
SUMMARY:

PO 00000

Frm 00075

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

65187

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.
Overview of This Information
Collection
1. Type of Information Collection:
Extension and revision of a currently
approved collection.
2. The Title of the Form/Collection:
USMS Medical Forms.
3. The agency form number, if any,
and the applicable component of the
Department sponsoring the collection:
Form Numbers:
—USM–522A Physician Evaluation
Report for USMS Operational
Employees
—USM–522P Physician Evaluation
Report for USMS Operational
Employees—Pregnancy Only
—USM–600 Physical Requirements of
USMS District Security Officers
—CSO–012 Request to Reevaluate Court
Security Officer’s Medical
Qualification
4. Affected public who will be asked
or required to respond, as well as a brief
abstract:
Æ USM–522A Physician Evaluation
Report for USMS Operational
Employees.
D Affected public: Private sector
(Physicians).
D Brief abstract: This form is
completed by an USMS operational
employee’s treating physician to report
any illness/injury (other than
pregnancy) that requires restriction from
full performance of duties for longer
than 80 consecutive hours.
Æ USM–522P Physician Evaluation
Report for USMS Operational
Employees (Pregnancy Only).
D Affected public: Private sector
(Physicians).
D Brief abstract: Form USM–522P
must be completed by the OB/GYN
physician of pregnant USMS
operational employees to specify any
restrictions from full performance of
duties.
Æ USM–600 Physical Requirements of
USMS District Security Officers.
D Affected public: Private sector
(Physicians).
D Brief abstract: It is the policy of the
USMS to ensure a law enforcement
work force that is medically able to
safely perform the required job
functions. All applicants for law
enforcement positions must have preemployment physical examinations;
existing District Security Officers

E:\FR\FM\26NON1.SGM

26NON1