9266 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Notices 

withhold the names and/or addresses of 

those who comment will be made on a 

case-by-case basis. Such requests will be 

honored to the extent allowed by law. 

The BLM will make available for public 

review, in their entirety, all comments 

submitted by businesses or 

organizations, including comments by 

individuals in their capacity as an 

official or representative of a business or 

organization. 

(Authority: 43 CFR 2711.1–2) 

Lori A. Armstrong, 

Shoshone Field Manager. 

[FR Doc. E9–4489 Filed 3–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–$$–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

Temporary Concession Contract for 

Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, 

WA 

AGENCY: National Park Service, 

Department of the Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed award of 

temporary concession contract for the 

Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, 

WA. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 36 CFR 51.24, 

public notice is hereby given that the 

National Park Service proposes to award 

a temporary concession contract for the 

conduct of certain visitor services 

within Lake Chelan National Recreation 

Area, Washington for a term not-toexceed 3 years. The visitor services 

include overnight accommodations, 

food and beverage, retail, fuel, and 

transportation services. This action is 

necessary to avoid interruption of 

visitor services. 

DATES: The term of the temporary 

concession contract will commence (if 

awarded) no earlier than March 1, 2009. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

temporary concession contract is 

proposed to be awarded to Stehekin 

Adventure, LLC, a qualified person. 

Stehekin Adventure, LLC, also is the 

incumbent concessioner, who operated 

all visitor services, after a sale and 

transfer was completed in 2006, under 

Concession Contract CC–LACH003–94. 

The 1998 Concessions Management 

Improvement Act provides by its terms 

that, to avoid interruption of services to 

visitors, the National Park Service may 

award non-competitively a temporary 

contract to perform such services for a 

term not-to-exceed 3 years in aggregate. 

16 U.S.C. 5952(11). Because this 

temporary contract will not exceed 3 

years, this action complies with the 

provisions of this statutory provision. 

The National Park Service issued a 

prospectus on March 21, 2008, closing 

on June 4, 2008, for solicitation of a new 

10-year concession contract; however, 

no proposals were received. The 

National Park Service has determined 

that a temporary contract is necessary in 

order to avoid interruption of visitor 

services and has taken all reasonable 

and appropriate steps to consider 

alternatives to avoid an interruption of 

visitor services. 

This action is issued pursuant to 36 

CFR 51.24(b). This is not a request for 

proposals. 

Dated: February 3, 2009. 

Ernest Quintana, 

Acting Deputy Director, Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–4540 Filed 3–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–70–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 

and Explosives 

[OMB Number 1140–0071] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Collection; 

Comments Requested: 

ACTION: 60-Day Notice of Information 

Collection Under Review: Notification 

to Fire Safety Authority of Storage of 

Explosive Materials. 

The Department of Justice (DOJ), 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 

and Explosives (ATF), will be 

submitting 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. 

The proposed information collection is 

published to obtain comments from the 

public and affected agencies. Comments 

are encouraged and will be accepted for 

‘‘sixty days’’ until May 4, 2009. This 

process is conducted in accordance with 

5 CFR 1320.10. 

If you have comments especially on 

the estimated public burden or 

associated response time, suggestions, 

or need a copy of the proposed 

information collection instrument with 

instructions or additional information, 

please contact Debra Satkowiak, Chief, 

Explosives Industry Programs Branch, 

Room 6E405, 99 New York Avenue, NE., 

Washington, DC 20226. 

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 agencies’ 

estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

—Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; 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 

of information technology, e.g., 

permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Overview of this information 

collection: 

(1) Type of Information Collection: 

Extension of a currently approved 

collection. 

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: 

Notification to Fire Safety Authority of 

Storage of Explosive Materials. 

(3) Agency form number, if any, and 

the applicable component of the 

Department of Justice sponsoring the 

collection: Form Number: None. Bureau 

of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 

Explosives. 

(4) Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: Primary: Business or other forprofit. Other: Farms, State. Local, or 

Tribal Government, Individuals or 

households. The information is 

necessary for the safety of emergency 

response personnel responding to fires 

at sites where explosives are stored. The 

information is provided both orally and 

in writing to the authority having 

jurisdiction for fire safety in the locality 

in which explosives are stored. 

(5) An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 

estimated for an average respondent to 

respond: It is estimated that 5,000 

respondents will take 30 minutes to 

complete the notifications.. 

(6) An estimate of the total public 

burden (in hours) associated with the 

collection: There are an estimated 2,500 

annual total burden hours associated 

with this collection. 

If additional information is required 

contact: Lynn Bryant, Department 

Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning 

Staff, Justice Management Division, 

Department of Justice, Patrick Henry 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Notices 9267 

1The 2004 amendments substituted ‘‘shall’’ for 

‘‘may’’ in directing relevant factors for the 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 United States v. SBC Commc’ns, Inc., 489 

F. Supp. 2d 1, 11 (D.D.C. 2007) (concluding that the 

2004 amendments ‘‘effected minimal changes’’ to 

Tunney Act review). 

Building, Suite 1600, 601 D Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20530. 

Dated: February 25, 2009. 

Lynn Bryant, 

Department Clearance Officer, PRA, United 

States Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. E9–4413 Filed 3–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–FY–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

Public Comment and Response on 

Proposed Final Judgment 

Pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures 

and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h), 

the United States hereby publishes 

below the comment received on the 

proposed Final Judgment in United 

States et al. v. Verizon Communications 

Inc. and Alltel Corporation, No. 1:08– 

CV–01878–EGS, which were filed in the 

United States District Court for the 

District of Columbia, on February 17, 

2009, together with the response of the 

United States to the comment. 

Copies of the comment and the 

response are available for inspection at 

the Department of Justice Antitrust 

Division, 325 Seventh Street, NW., 

Room 200, Washington, DC 20530, 

(telephone (202) 514–2481), and at the 

Office of the Clerk of the United States 

District Court for the District of 

Columbia, 333 Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20001. Copies of 

any of these materials may be obtained 

upon request and payment of a copying 

fee. 

Patricia Brink, 

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust 

Division. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF 

COLUMBIA 

United States of America, State of 

Alabama, State of California, State of 

Iowa, State of Kansas, State of 

Minnesota, State of North Dakota, and 

State of South Dakota, Case No. 1:08– 

Cv–01878 (Egs), Plaintiffs, v. Verizon 

Communications Inc. and Alltel 

Corporation, Defendants 

Plaintiff United States’s Response to 

Public Comments 

Pursuant to the requirements of the 

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 

15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h) (‘‘APPA’’ or 

‘‘Tunney Act’’), plaintiff United States 

hereby responds to the public comment 

received regarding the proposed Final 

Judgment in this case. After careful 

consideration of the comment, plaintiff 

United States continues to believe that 

the proposed Final Judgment will 

provide an effective and appropriate 

remedy for the antitrust violation 

alleged in the Complaint. Plaintiff 

United States will move the Court for 

entry of the proposed Final Judgment 

after the public comment and this 

Response have been published in the 

Federal Register, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 

§ 16(b), (d). 

On October 30, 2008, plaintiff United 

States and the States of Alabama, 

California, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, 

North Dakota, and South Dakota filed 

the Complaint in this matter alleging 

that the proposed merger of two mobile 

wireless telecommunications service 

providers, Verizon Communications Inc. 

(‘‘Verizon’’) and Alltel Corporation 

(‘‘Alltel’’), would violate Section 7 of 

the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18 in certain 

geographic areas of the United States. 

Simultaneously with the filing of the 

Complaint, plaintiff United States filed 

a proposed Final Judgment and a 

Preservation of Assets Stipulation and 

Order signed by plaintiff United States, 

the plaintiff States and the defendants 

consenting to the entry of the proposed 

Final Judgment after compliance with 

the requirements of the Tunney Act. 

Pursuant to those requirements, plaintiff 

United States filed a Competitive Impact 

Statement (‘‘CIS’’) in this Court on 

October 30, 2008; published the 

proposed Final Judgment and CIS in the 

Federal Register on November 12, 2008, 

see 73 FR 66,922 (2008); and published 

a summary of the terms of the proposed 

Final Judgment and CIS, together with 

directions for the submission of written 

comments relating to the proposed Final 

Judgment, in the Washington Post for 

seven days beginning on November 19, 

2008 and ending on November 25, 2008. 

The defendants filed the statements 

required by 15 U.S.C. § 16(g) on 

November 7, 2008. The 60-day period 

for public comments ended on January 

24, 2009, and one comment was 

received as described below and 

attached hereto. 

I. Background 

As explained more fully in the 

Complaint and the CIS, the likely effect 

of this transaction would be to lessen 

competition substantially for mobile 

wireless telecommunications services in 

94 geographic areas in the states of 

Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, 

Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, 

Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, 

New Mexico, North Carolina, North 

Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South 

Dakota, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming. 

To restore competition in these markets, 

the proposed Final Judgment, if entered, 

would require defendants to divest (a) 

Alltel’s mobile wireless 

telecommunications businesses and 

related assets in 85 Cellular Market 

Areas (‘‘CMAs’’); (b) Verizon’s mobile 

wireless telecommunications businesses 

and related assets acquired from Rural 

Cellular Corporation in August 2008 in 

seven CMAs; and (c) Verizon’s mobile 

wireless telecommunications businesses 

and related assets (excluding those 

acquired from Rural Cellular 

Corporation in August 2008) in two 

CMAs. Entry of the proposed Final 

Judgment would terminate this action, 

except that the Court would retain 

jurisdiction to construe, modify, or 

enforce the provisions of the proposed 

Final Judgment and punish violations 

thereof. 

II. Legal Standard Governing the 

Court’s Public Interest Determination 

Upon publication of the public 

comments and this Response, plaintiff 

United States will have fully complied 

with the Tunney Act. It will then ask 

the court to determine that entry of the 

proposed Final Judgment would be ‘‘in 

the public interest,’’ and to enter it. 15 

U.S.C. 16(e)(1). In making that 

determination, the court, in accordance 

with the statute as amended in 2004,1 is 

required to consider: 

(A) The competitive impact of such 

judgment, including termination of alleged 

violations, provisions for enforcement and 

modification, duration of relief sought, 

anticipated effects of alternative remedies 

actually considered, whether its terms are 

ambiguous, and any other competitive 

considerations bearing upon the adequacy of 

such judgment that the court deems 

necessary to a determination of whether the 

consent judgment is in the public interest; 

and 

(B) The impact of entry of such judgment 

upon competition in the relevant market or 

markets, upon the public generally and 

individuals alleging specific injury from the 

violations set forth in the complaint 

including consideration of the public benefit, 

if any, to be derived from a determination of 

the issues at trial. 

15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1)(A)–(B). In considering 

these statutory factors, the court’s 

inquiry is necessarily a limited one as 

the government is entitled to ‘‘broad 

discretion to settle with the defendant 

within the reaches of the public 

interest.’’ United States v. Microsoft 

Corp., 56 F.3d 1448, 1461 (DC Cir. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES