6728 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2010 / Notices 

Aaron D. Hoag, Esq., Attorney, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 

450 Fifth Street, NW., Suite 4000, 

Washington, DC 20530, Telephone: (202) 

514–5038, Fax: (202) 514–7308, E-mail: 

aaron.hoag@usdoj.gov. 

Footnotes 

1. After their initial sale, concert 

tickets may be resold on the secondary 

ticketing market. Ticket brokers 

purchase tickets with the intention of 

reselling them to concertgoers. 

Secondary ticketing companies provide 

services that facilitate the resale of 

tickets to concertgoers by ticket brokers 

and others. 

2. While the conclusions reached in 

the antitrust analysis described below 

are not sensitive to the precise number 

of venues included within this class, for 

purposes of this Competitive Impact 

Statement, ‘‘major concert venues’’ are 

the 500 U.S. venues generating the 

greatest concert revenues in 2008, as 

reported in Pollstar, a leading source of 

concert industry information. Concert 

ticket revenues from events at these 

venues represent more than 90% of the 

concert ticket revenues at all venues 

reported in Pollstar. Major concert 

venues are a diverse group, which 

includes large stadiums and arenas with 

relatively few concerts (e.g., the Verizon 

Center in Washington, DC), mid-sized 

amphitheaters that host concerts 

regularly during certain seasons (e.g., 

Nissan Pavilion in Bristow, VA), and 

smaller clubs and theaters with frequent 

concerts throughout the year (e.g., 

Warner Theatre in Washington, DC and 

Live Nation’s House of Blues clubs). To 

account for this diversity, venues are 

weighted by their capacity in 

calculating shares of the market for 

primary ticketing services to major 

concert venues. Only public sources of 

information were used to calculate the 

market shares described in this 

Competitive Impact Statement. 

3. In this case, there are not 

significant transportation costs 

associated with the relevant services, so 

sellers’ locations do little to inform the 

market-definition inquiry, though they 

are not irrelevant to antitrust analysis. 

To the contrary, only sellers capable of 

serving major concert venues located in 

the United States can compete with 

Defendants in the relevant market. 

Many of those sellers are located within 

the United States, but some are foreign 

firms, as suggested by Live Nation’s 

adaptation of a European primary 

ticketing platform for use in the United 

States, which is discussed below. 

Foreign sellers historically have not 

competed effectively in the United 

States because of the significant 

investments required to enter the 

domestic market. Still, Live Nation’s 

example suggests that, with a significant 

investment of time and money, foreign 

primary ticketing companies might be 

capable of adapting their products for 

U.S. customers. 

4. Before 2009, by virtue as its 

position as a promoter, Live Nation 

received roughly 10% of the tickets to 

concerts it promoted, and it sold those 

tickets to concertgoers through its 

MusicToday subsidiary and a platform 

licensed from eTix. Live Nation also 

used the MusicToday platform to 

provide primary ticketing services to a 

few small venues. 

5. The 2004 amendments substituted 

‘‘shall’’ for ‘‘may’’ in directing relevant 

factors for court to consider and 

amended the list of factors to focus on 

competitive considerations and to 

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). 

6. 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’ ’’). 

7. 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.’’). 

8. The United States redacted 

competitively sensitive information and 

information unrelated to U.S. markets 

from the version of the AEG/TM 

Technology Agreement attached as 

Exhibit A. 

[FR Doc. 2010–2754 Filed 2–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–11–P 

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION 

BOARD 

The Merit Systems Protection Board 

(MSPB) is Providing Notice of the 

Opportunity to File Amicus Briefs in 

the Matters of Conyers v. Department 

of Defense, Docket No. CH–0752–09– 

0925–I–1, and Northover v. Department 

of Defense, Docket No. AT–0752–10– 

0184–I–1 

AGENCY: Merit Systems Protection 

Board. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: On January 25, 2010, the 

MSPB published in the Federal Register 

(see 75 FR 3939) a Notice of the 

opportunity to file amicus briefs in the 

matter of Crumpler v. Department of 

Defense, MSPB Docket Number DC– 

0752–09–0033–R–1, 2009 MSPB 233. 

Although the Crumpler case is now 

settled, the legal issue raised in that 

matter and noted in the January 25 

Federal Register notice remains 

unresolved. The cases of Conyers v. 

Department of Defense, Docket No. CH– 

0752–09–0925–I–1, and Northover v. 

Department of Defense, Docket No. AT– 

0752–10–0184–I–1, involve the same 

legal issue. 

Conyers and Northover raise the 

question of whether, pursuant to 5 CFR 

Part 732, National Security Position, the 

rule in Department of the Navy v. Egan, 

484 U.S. 518, 530–31 (1988), limiting 

the scope of MSPB review of an adverse 

action based on the revocation of a 

security clearance also applies to an 

adverse action involving an employee in 

a ‘‘non-critical sensitive’’ position due to 

the employee having been denied 

continued eligibility for employment in 

a sensitive position. 

Interested parties may submit amicus 

briefs or other comments on this issue 

no later than March 1, 2010. Amicus 

briefs must be filed with the Clerk of the 

Board. Briefs shall not exceed 15 pages 

in length. The text shall be doublespaced, except for quotations and 

footnotes, and the briefs shall be on 81⁄2; 

by 11 inch paper with one inch margins 

on all four sides. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2010 / Notices 6729 

DATES: All briefs submitted in response 

to this notice shall be filed with the 

Clerk of the Board on or before March 

1, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: All briefs shall be entitled 

‘‘Amicus Brief, Conyers and Northover.’’ 

Only one copy of the brief need be 

submitted. Briefs must be filed with the 

Office of the Clerk of the Board, Merit 

Systems Protection Board, 1615 M 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20419. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Matthew Shannon, Deputy Clerk of the 

Board, (202) 653–7200. 

Dated: February 4, 2010. 

William D. Spencer, 

Clerk of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 2010–2890 Filed 2–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7400–01–P 

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS 

ADMINISTRATION 

Senior Executive Service (SES) 

Performance Review Board; Members 

AGENCY: National Archives and Records 

Administration. 

ACTION: Notice; SES Performance 

Review Board. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the 

appointment of members of the National 

Archives and Records Administration 

(NARA) Performance Review Board. 

DATES: Effective Date: This appointment 

is effective on February 10, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Pamela S. Pope, Human Resources 

Services Division (NAH), National 

Archives and Records Administration, 

9700 Page Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63132, 

(314) 801–0882. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

4314(c) of Title 5, U.S.C., requires each 

agency to establish, in accordance with 

regulations prescribed by the Office of 

Personnel Management, one or more 

SES Performance Review Boards. The 

Board shall review the initial appraisal 

of a senior executive’s performance by 

the supervisor and recommend final 

action to the appointing authority 

regarding matters related to senior 

executive performance. 

The members of the Performance 

Review Board for the National Archives 

and Records Administration are: 

Adrienne C. Thomas, Deputy Archivist 

of the United States, Michael J. Kurtz, 

Assistant Archivist for Records 

Services—Washington, DC, and Martha 

A. Morphy, Assistant Archivist for 

Information Services. These 

appointments supersede all previous 

appointments. 

Dated: February 4, 2010. 

David S. Ferriero, 

Archivist of the United States. 

[FR Doc. 2010–2935 Filed 2–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7515–01–P 

THE NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE 

ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES 

Meeting of National Council on the 

Humanities 

AGENCY: The National Endowment for 

the Humanities. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

Pursuant to the provisions of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. 

L. 92–463, as amended) notice is hereby 

given that the National Council on the 

Humanities will meet in Washington, 

DC on February 25–26, 2010. 

The purpose of the meeting is to 

advise the Chairman of the National 

Endowment for the Humanities with 

respect to policies, programs, and 

procedures for carrying out his 

functions, and to review applications for 

financial support from and gifts offered 

to the Endowment and to make 

recommendations thereon to the 

Chairman. 

The meeting will be held in the Old 

Post Office Building, 1100 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. A 

portion of the morning and afternoon 

sessions on February 25–26, 2010, will 

not be open to the public pursuant to 

subsections (c)(4),(c)(6) and (c)(9)(B) of 

section 552b of Title 5, United States 

Code because the Council will consider 

information that may disclose: Trade 

secrets and commercial or financial 

information obtained from a person and 

privileged or confidential; information 

of a personal nature the disclosure of 

which would constitute a clearly 

unwarranted invasion of personal 

privacy; and information the premature 

disclosure of which would be likely to 

significantly frustrate implementation of 

proposed agency action. I have made 

this determination under the authority 

granted me by the Chairman’s 

Delegation of Authority dated July 19, 

1993. 

The agenda for the sessions on 

February 25, 2010 will be as follows: 

Committee Meetings 

(Open to the Public) 

Policy Discussion 

9–10:30 a.m. 

Digital Humanities—Room M–07 

Education Programs and Federal/State 

Partnership—Room 510A 

Preservation and Access—Room 415 

Public Programs—Room 421 

Research Programs—Room 315 

(Closed to the Public) 

Discussion of Specific Grant 

Applications and Programs Before the 

Council 

10:30 a.m. until Adjourned 

Digital Humanities—Room M–07 

Education Programs and 

Federal/State Partnership—Room 

510A 

Preservation and Access—Room 415 

Public Programs—Room 421 

Research Programs—Room 315 

The morning session of the meeting 

on February 26, 2010 will convene at 

9 a.m., in the first floor Council Room 

M–09, and will be open to the public, 

as set out below. The agenda for the 

morning session will be as follows: 

A. Minutes of the Previous Meeting 

B. Reports 

1. Introductory Remarks 

2. Staff Report 

3. Congressional Report 

4. Budget Report 

5. Presentation on NEH-supported 

Project about the Trans-Atlantic 

Slave Trade Database 

6. Reports on Policy and General 

Matters 

a. Digital Humanities 

b. Education Programs 

c. Federal/State Partnership 

d. Preservation and Access 

e. Public Programs 

f. Research Programs 

The remainder of the proposed 

meeting will be given to the 

consideration of specific applications 

and will be closed to the public for the 

reasons stated above. 

Further information about this 

meeting can be obtained from Michael 

P. McDonald, Advisory Committee 

Management Officer, National 

Endowment for the Humanities, 1100 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20506, or by calling 

(202) 606–8322, TDD (202) 606–8282. 

Advance notice of any special needs or 

accommodations is appreciated. 

Michael P. McDonald, 

Advisory Committee, Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2010–2836 Filed 2–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7536–01–P 

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE 

ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES 

Meetings of Humanities Panel 

AGENCY: The National Endowment for 

the Humanities. 

ACTION: Notice of meetings. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES