55174 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 181 / Tuesday, September 20, 2005 / Notices 

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 charges as to 

fall outside of the ‘reaches of the public interest’ ’’). 

The proposed Final Judgment, 

therefore, should not be reviewed under 

a standard of whether it is certain to 

eliminate every anticompetitive effect of 

a particular practice or whether it 

mandates certainty of free competition 

in the future. Court approval of a final 

judgment requires a standard more 

flexible and less strict than the standard 

required for a finding of liability. ‘‘[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 with 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 

Gillette, 406 F. Supp. at 716), 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). 

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 

Compliant, 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. 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 compliant’’ to inquire into 

other matters that the United States 

might have but did not pursue. Id. at 

1459–60. 

VII. 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: September 2, 2005. 

Respectfully submitted, 

David C. Kully (DC Bar #448763), 

Jill A. Beaird, 

Attorneys for the United States, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 

Litigation III Section, 325 Seventh Street, 

NW., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20530, (202) 

305–9969 (telephone), (202) 307–9952 

(facsimile), David.Kully@usdoj.gov. 

[FR Doc. 05–18498 Filed 9–19–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Mine Safety and Health Administration 

Petitions for Modification 

The following parties have filed 

petitions to modify the application of 

existing safety standards under section 

101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and 

Health Act of 1977. 

1. Kingwood Mining Company, LLC 

[Docket No. M–2005–062–C] 

Kingwood Mining Company, LLC, 

Route 1 Box 294C, Newburg, West 

Virginia 26410 has filed a petition to 

modify the application of 30 CFR 

75.364(b)(1) (Weekly examination) to its 

Whitetail K-Mine (MSHA I.D. No. 46–

08751) located in Preston County, West 

Virginia. The petitioner requests a 

modification of the existing standard to 

permit monitoring stations to be 

established for the left side entries 

(looking inby) from the belt entry over 

of South Mains #2 at #8 crosscut to 

South Mains #4 at #9 crosscut due to 

deteriorating roof conditions. The 

petitioner proposes to establish 

monitoring stations (MS–S1, S2, S3, & 

S4) at inlet entries (MS–S3 and S4) at 

South #4 between #9–#10 crosscut and 

the outlet entries (MS–S1 and S2) at 

South #2 between #6–#7 crosscut. The 

petitioner will have a certified person 

examine the monitoring stations on a 

weekly basis for air quantity, quality, 

and direction, and record the results of 

the examination in a book. The 

petitioner will also examine the 

stopping line between the belt entry and 

the intake air entry area in question 

from the South Mains #2 at #4 crosscut 

to South Mains #4 at #9 crosscut each 

production day for integrity, and record 

the results in the daily belt examiners 

book. The petitioner asserts that the 

proposed alternative method would 

provide at least the same measure of 

protection as the existing standard. 

2. Mach Mining, LLC 

[Docket No. M–2005–063–C] 

Mach Mining, LLC, P.O. Box 300, 

Johnston City, Illinois 62951 has filed a 

petition to modify the application of 30 

CFR 75.1909(b)(6) (Nonpermissible 

diesel-powered equipment; design and 

performance requirements) to its Mach 

#1 Mine (MSHA I.D. No. 11–03141) 

located in Williamson County, Illinois. 

The petitioner proposes to operate the 

Getman Roadbuilder as it was originally 

designed without front brakes. The 

petitioner will provide training to the 

grader operators on lowering the 

moldboard for additional stopping 

capability in emergency situations; train 

operators to recognize the appropriate 

speeds to use on different roadway 

conditions; and limit the maximum 

speed of the Roadbuilder to 10 miles per 

hour. The petitioner asserts that the 

proposed alternative method would 

provide at least the same measure of 

protection as the existing standard. 

Request for Comments 

Persons interested in these petitions 

are encouraged to submit comments via 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov; E-mail: zzMSHAComments@dol.gov; Fax: (202) 693–

9441; or Regular Mail/Hand Delivery/ 

Courier: Mine Safety and Health 

Administration, Office of Standards, 

Regulations, and Variances, 1100 

Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, 

Arlington, Virginia 22209. All 

comments must be postmarked or 

received in that office on or before 

October 20, 2005. Copies of these 

petitions are available for inspection at 

that address. 

Dated at Arlington, Virginia, this 15th day 

of September 2005. 

Rebecca J. Smith, 

Acting Director, Office of Standards, 

Regulations, and Variances. 

[FR Doc. 05–18738 Filed 9–19–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–43–P 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To 

Extend an Information Collection 

AGENCY: National Science Foundation 

(NSF). 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The National Science 

Foundation (NSF) is announcing plans 

to request clearance of this collection. In 

accordance with the requirement of 

Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13), 

we are providing opportunity for public 

comment on this action. After obtaining 

and considering public comment, NSF 

will prepare the submission requesting 

that OMB approve clearance of this 

collection for no longer than three years. 

DATES: Written comments on this notice 

must be received by November 21, 2005 

to be assured of consideration. 

Comments received after that date will 

be considered to the extent practicable. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance 

Officer, National Science Foundation, 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 295, 

Arlington, Virginia 22230; telephone 

(703) 292–7556; or send e-mail to 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 181 / Tuesday, September 20, 2005 / Notices 55175 

splimpto@nsf.gov. Individuals who use 

a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–

800–877–8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 

p.m. (eastern time) Monday through 

Friday. You also may obtain a copy of 

the data collection instrument and 

instructions from Ms. Plimpton. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title of Collection: Grantee Reporting 

Requirements for Science and 

Technology Centers (STC): Integrative 

Partnerships. 

OMB Number: 3145–0194. 

Expiration Date of Approval: January 

31, 2006. 

Type of Request: Intent to seek 

approval to extend an information 

collection. 

Abstract: The National Science 

Foundation (NSF) requests extension of 

data collection (annual reports) called 

‘‘Grantee Reporting Requirements for 

Science and Technology Centers (STC): 

Integrative Partnerships’’. The current 

data collection, designed to measure the 

Science and Technology Centers’

progress and plans, had been approved 

for use through January 2006. The 

annual reports have proven an effective 

means for efficiently gathering data from 

Centers. The data gathered through the 

annual reports under the current OMB 

approval has been used in making 

decisions about continued funding of 

individual Centers. In addition, a 

database of Centers’ characteristics, 

activities, and outcomes has been 

created using data from these annual 

reports. 

The Science and Technology Centers 

(STC): Integrative Partnerships Program 

supports innovation in the integrative 

conduct of research, education and 

knowledge transfer. Science and 

Technology Centers build intellectual 

and physical infrastructure within and 

between disciplines, weaving together 

knowledge creation, knowledge 

integration, and knowledge transfer. 

STCs conduct world-class research 

through partnerships of academic 

institutions, national laboratories, 

industrial organizations, and/or other 

public/private entities. Thus, new 

knowledge created is meaningfully 

linked to society. 

In addition, STCs enable and foster 

excellence in education, the integration 

of research and education, and the 

creation of bonds between learning and 

inquiry so that discovery and creativity 

more fully support the learning process. 

STCs capitalize on diversity through 

participation in Center activities and 

demonstrate leadership in the 

involvement of groups 

underrepresented in science and 

engineering. 

All Centers will be required to submit 

annual reports on progress and plans 

that are used as a basis for performance 

review and determining the level of 

continued funding. This continues the 

practice established under the 

previously approved data collection. To 

support this review and the 

management of a Center, new STCs are 

required to develop a set of management 

and performance indicators (continuing 

Centers have already developed these 

indicators). These indicators are 

submitted annually to NSF via 

FastLane. These indicators are both 

quantitative and descriptive and 

include, for example, the characteristics 

of Center personnel and students; 

sources of financial support and in-kind 

support; expenditures by operational 

component; characteristics of industrial 

and/or other sector participation; 

research activities; education activities; 

knowledge transfer activities; patents 

and licenses; publications; degrees 

granted to students involved in Center 

activities; descriptions of significant 

advances and other outcomes of the 

STCs’ efforts. The reporting will be 

added to the STC program database that 

has been compiled by an NSF 

evaluation technical assistance 

contractor to support decisions for 

continued funding of the Centers and 

will be made available for the 2007 

program evaluation. This database 

captures specific information that 

demonstrates progress towards 

achieving the goals of the individual 

Centers and the goals of the program. 

Such reporting requirements are 

included in the cooperative agreement 

that is binding between the academic 

institution and the NSF. 

Each Center’s annual report provides 

information about the following 

categories of activities: (1) Research, (2) 

education, (3) knowledge transfer, (4) 

partnerships, (5) diversity, (6) 

management, and (7) budget issues. 

For each of the categories the report 

describes overall objectives for the year, 

problems the Center has encountered in 

making progress towards goals for the 

year, specific outputs and outcomes for 

the year, and expected accomplishments 

and anticipated problems in the coming 

year. 

Use of the Information: NSF will use 

the information to make decisions on 

continued funding for the Centers, to 

evaluate the yearly progress of the 

program and to inform the upcoming 

2007 Program Evaluation. The data will 

be analyzed to evaluate progress 

towards specific goals of the STC 

program. 

Estimate of Burden: For the first year 

of this data collection, the time estimate 

for the 11 continuing Centers is a total 

of 550 hours. The time estimate for the 

2 newly funded Centers and the 

anticipated 4 additional Centers is a 

total of 600 hours. In subsequent years 

of the data collection, the time estimate 

is a total of 850 hours for the 17 Centers 

(the 11 established Centers, the 2 newly 

funded Centers, and the anticipated 4 

additional Centers). 

Respondents: Non-profit institutions; 

Federal Government. 

Estimated Number of Responses per 

Report: One from each of the 13 funded 

Centers and 4 anticipated Centers. 

Comments: Comments are invited on 

(a) whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

Agency, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

(b) the accuracy of the Agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

collection of information; (c) ways to 

enhance the quality, utility, and clarity 

of the information on respondents, 

including through the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology; and (d) ways to 

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. 

Dated: September 15, 2005. 

Suzanne H. Plimpton, 

Reports Clearance Officer, National Science 

Foundation. 

[FR Doc. 05–18680 Filed 9–19–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–M 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–331] 

Nuclear Management Company, Duane 

Arnold Energy Center; Notice of 

Consideration of Approval of Transfer 

of Facility Operating License and 

Opportunity for a Hearing 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (the Commission) is 

considering the issuance of an order 

under 10 CFR 50.80 approving the 

transfer of Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–49 for the Duane Arnold 

Energy Center (DAEC) to the extent 

currently held by Interstate Power and 

Light Company (IPL) as owner, and 

Nuclear Management Company, LLC 

(NMC) as licensed operator of DAEC. 

The transfer would be to FPL Energy