Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 42 / Thursday, March 4, 2010 / Notices 9953 

6See 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.’’). 

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 

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, 

david.altschuler@usdoj.gov, 

jade.eaton@usdoj.gov. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4545 Filed 3–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–11–P 

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. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

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: 

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 

‘‘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. 

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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 42 / Thursday, March 4, 2010 / Notices 9955 

et seq.), and Secretary of Labor’s Order 

No. 5–2007 (72 FR 31160). 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 26th day of 

February 2010. 

David Michaels, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational 

Safety and Health. 

[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. 

DATES: 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. 

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). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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/E9- 

26165.pdf. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 25th day of 

February 2010. 

Jane Oates, 

Assistant Secretary for Employment and 

Training Administration. 

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

BILLING CODE 4510–FT–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–416; NRC–2010–0082] 

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 

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. 

The Need for the Proposed Action 

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. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action 

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. 

Environmental Impacts of the 

Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

As an alternative to the proposed 

actions, the NRC staff considered denial 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES