Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 251 / Thursday, December 31, 2020 / Notices 86965 

antitrust violations alleged in the 

complaint was reasonable, and whether 

the mechanism to enforce the final 

judgment are clear and manageable’’). 

As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit has held, 

under the APPA a court considers, 

among other things, the relationship 

between the remedy secured and the 

specific allegations in the government’s 

complaint, whether the proposed Final 

Judgment is sufficiently clear, whether 

its enforcement mechanisms are 

sufficient, and whether it may positively 

harm third parties. See Microsoft, 56 

F.3d at 1458–62. With respect to the 

adequacy of the relief secured by the 

proposed Final Judgment, a court may 

not ‘‘make de novo determination of 

facts and issues.’’ United States v. W. 

Elec. Co., 993 F.2d 1572, 1577 (D.C. Cir. 

1993) (quotation marks omitted); see 

also Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1460–62; 

United States v. Alcoa, Inc., 152 F. 

Supp. 2d 37, 40 (D.D.C. 2001); United 

States v. Enova Corp., 107 F. Supp. 2d 

10, 16 (D.D.C. 2000); InBev, 2009 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 84787, at *3. Instead, ‘‘[t]he 

balancing of competing social and 

political interests affected by a proposed 

antitrust consent decree must be left, in 

the first instance, to the discretion of the 

Attorney General.’’ W. Elec. Co., 993 

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); see also United States v. 

Deutsche Telekom AG, No. 19–2232 

(TJK), 2020 WL 1873555, at *7 (D.D.C. 

Apr. 14, 2020). 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 

conclusions regarding the proposed 

settlements are reasonable); 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. 

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: December 23, 2020. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Catherine R. Reilly, 

U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 

Healthcare and Consumer Products Section, 

450 Fifth Street, NW, Suite 4100, Washington, 

DC 20530, catherine.reilly@usdoj.gov. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28905 Filed 12–30–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–11–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Proposed 

Consent Decree Under the Clean Water 

Act 

On December 23, 2020, the 

Department of Justice lodged a proposed 

Consent Decree with the United States 

District Court for the Central District of 

Illinois in the lawsuit entitled United 

States and Illinois v. Peoria City of 

Illinois and the Greater Peoria Sanitary 

and Sewage Disposal District, Civil 

Action No. 20–1444. 

The United States and State of Illinois 

filed this lawsuit under the Clean Water 

Act. The complaint seeks civil penalties 

and injunctive relief for violations of the 

Act and related permits addressing the 

sewer system that serves the City of 

Peoria and is operated by the 

Defendants. Among other things, the 

consent decree requires Peoria to 

significantly reduce sewage overflows 

from the system by performing a series 

of improvement projects over 18 years 

that meet final criteria and satisfy 

interim milestones. The Greater Peoria 

Sanitary and Sewage Disposal District 

(‘‘GPSD’’) is required to perform 

additional system improvements that 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
86966 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 251 / Thursday, December 31, 2020 / Notices 

will result in reduced sewage overflows. 

In addition, Peoria will pay a penalty of 

$75,000 to the United States, $25,000 to 

the State, and perform a $200,000 Stateonly supplemental environmental 

project. The District will pay a $150,000 

penalty, split evenly between the United 

States and the State. 

The publication of this notice opens 

a period for public comment on the 

Consent Decree. Comments should be 

addressed to the Assistant Attorney 

General, Environment and Natural 

Resources Division, and should refer to 

United States and Illinois v. Peoria City 

of Illinois and the Greater Peoria 

Sanitary and Sewage Disposal District, 

D.J. Ref. No. 90–5–1–1–08724. All 

comments must be submitted no later 

than thirty (30) days after the 

publication date of this notice. 

Comments may be submitted either by 

email or by mail: 

To submit 

comments: Send them to: 

By email ....... pubcomment-ees.enrd@

usdoj.gov. 

By mail ......... Assistant Attorney General, 

U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. 

Box 7611, Washington, DC 

20044–7611. 

During the public comment period, 

the Consent Decree may be examined 

and downloaded at this Justice 

Department website: https://

www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees. 

We will provide a paper copy of the 

Consent Decree upon written request 

and payment of reproduction costs. 

Please mail your request and payment 

to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ— 

ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 

20044–7611. 

Please enclose a check or money order 

for $29 (25 cents per page reproduction 

cost) payable to the United States 

Treasury. For a paper copy without the 

exhibits and signature pages, the cost is 

$22.25. 

Henry S. Friedman, 

Assistant Section Chief, Environmental 

Enforcement Section, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28923 Filed 12–30–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Office of the Secretary 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Submission for OMB 

Review; Comment Request; American 

Time Use Survey 

ACTION: Notice of availability; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor 

(DOL) is submitting this Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS)-sponsored 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 

(PRA). Public comments on the ICR are 

invited. 

DATES: The OMB will consider all 

written comments that agency receives 

on or before February 1, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

PRAMain. Find this particular 

information collection by selecting 

‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open 

for Public Comments’’ or by using the 

search function. 

Comments are invited on: (1) Whether 

the collection of information is 

necessary for the proper performance of 

the functions of the Department, 

including whether the information will 

have practical utility; (2) if the 

information will be processed and used 

in a timely manner; (3) the accuracy of 

the agency’s estimates of the burden and 

cost of the collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; (4) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility and 

clarity of the information collection; and 

(5) ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anthony May by telephone at 202–693– 

4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or 

by email at DOL_PRA_PUBLIC@dol.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

American Time Use Survey (ATUS) is 

the Nation’s first federally administered, 

continuous survey on time use in the 

United States. It measures, for example, 

time spent with children, working, 

sleeping, or doing leisure activities. In 

the United States, several existing 

Federal surveys collect income and 

wage data for individuals and families, 

and analysts often use such measures of 

material prosperity as proxies for 

quality of life. Time-use data 

substantially augment these quality-oflife measures. The data also can be used 

in conjunction with wage data to 

evaluate the contribution of non-market 

work to national economies. This 

enables comparisons of production 

between nations that have different 

mixes of market and non-market 

activities. The ATUS is used to develop 

nationally representative estimates of 

how people spend their time. This is 

accomplished by collecting a time diary 

about the activities survey respondents 

did over a 24-hour period ‘‘yesterday,’’ 

from 4 a.m. on the day before the 

interview until 4 a.m. on the day of the 

interview. In the one-time interview, 

respondents also report who was with 

them during the activities, where they 

were, how long each activity lasted, and 

if they were paid. All of this information 

has numerous practical applications for 

sociologists, economists, educators, 

government policymakers, 

businesspersons, health researchers, and 

others. The Well-being Module, a 

supplement to the ATUS, provides an 

additional dimension to data on time 

use by providing information about how 

Americans experience their time. 

Specifically, the Module collects 

information about how happy, tired, 

sad, and stressed individuals were 

yesterday, and the degree to which they 

felt pain, for three activities randomly 

selected from the time diary. The 

Wellbeing Module also collects data on 

whether people were interacting with 

anyone while doing the selected 

activities and how meaningful the 

activities were to them. Some general 

health questions, a question about 

overall life satisfaction, and a question 

about respondents’ overall affective 

experience yesterday also are asked. For 

additional substantive information 

about this ICR, see the related notice 

published in the Federal Register on 

May 5, 2020 (85 FR 26716). 

This information collection is subject 

to the PRA. A Federal agency generally 

cannot conduct or sponsor a collection 

of information, and the public is 

generally not required to respond to an 

information collection, unless the OMB 

approves it and displays a currently 

valid OMB Control Number. In addition, 

notwithstanding any other provisions of 

law, no person shall generally be subject 

to penalty for failing to comply with a 

collection of information that does not 

display a valid OMB Control Number. 

See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. 

DOL seeks PRA authorization to 

reinstate this information collection for 

three (3) years. OMB authorization for 

an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) 

years without renewal. The DOL notes 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES