62340 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 209 / Monday, October 31, 2005 / Notices 

1See United States v. Gillette Co., 406 F. Supp. 

713, 716 (D. Mass. 1975)(recognizing it was not the 

court’s duty to settle; rather, the court must only 

answer ‘‘whether the settlement achieved [was] 

within the reaches of the public interest’’). A 

‘‘public interest’’ determination can be made 

properly on the basis of the Competitive Impact 

Statement and Response to Comments filed by the 

Department of Justice pursuant to the APPA. 

Although the APPA authorizes the use of additional 

procedures, 15 U.S.C. 16(f), those procedures are 

discretionary. A court need not invoke any of them 

unless it believes that the comments have raised 

significant issues and that further proceedings 

would aid the court in resolving those issues. See 

H.R. Rep. No. 93–1463, 93rd Cong., 2d Sess. 8–9 

(1974), reprinted in 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6535, 6538–

39. 

2Cf. 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’’); Gillette, 406 F. Supp. at 716 (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’ ’’). 

Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 144B, 1458–62 

(D.C. Cir. 1995). 

‘‘Nothing in this section shall be 

construed to require the court to 

conduct an evidentiary hearing or to 

require the court to permit anyone to 

itnervene.’’ 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(2). Thus, in 

conducting this inquiry, ‘‘[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).1

Rather. 

[a]bsent 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 responss to comments in 

order to determine whether those 

explanations are reasonable under the 

circumstances. 

United States v. Mid-America 

Dairymen, Inc., 1977–1 Trade Cas. 

(CCH) ¶ 61,508, at 71,980 (W.D. Mo. 

1977). 

Accordingly, with respect to the 

adequacy of the relief secured by the 

decree, a court may not ‘‘engage in an 

unrestricted evaluation of what relief 

would best serve the public.’’ United 

States v. BNS, Inc., 858 F.2d 456, 462 

(9th Cir. 1988) (citing United States v. 

Bechtel Corp., 648 F.2d 660, 666 (9th 

Cir. 1981)); see also Microsoft, 56 F.3d 

at 1460–62. Courts have held that: 

[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. The court’s role in 

protecting the public interest is one of 

insuring that the government has not 

breached its duty to the public in consenting 

to the decree. The court is required to 

determine not whether a particular decree is 

the one that will best serve society, but 

whether the settlement is ‘‘within the reaches 

of the public interest.’’ More elaborate 

requirements might undermine the 

effectivness of antitrust enforcement by 

consent decree. 

Bechtel, 648 F.2d at 666 (emphasis 

added) (citations omitted).2

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 within the range of acceptability or 

is ‘within the reaches of public 

interests.’ ’’ United States v. AT&T Corp. 

552 F. Supp 131, (D.D.C. 1982) (citation 

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 through 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 

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. 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. Id. at 1459–60. 

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: October 20, 2005. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Jennifer L. Cihon (OH Bar #0068404) 

Angela L. Hughes (DC Bar #303420) 

John M. Snyder (DC Bar #456921) 

Bethany K. Hipp (GA Bar #141678). 

Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that on October 20, 

2005, I caused a copy of the foregoing 

Competitive Impact Statement to be 

served on counsel for defendants in this 

matter in the manner set forth below: 

By electronic mail and hand delivery: 

Counsel for Defendant Cal Dive 

International, Inc., Daniel L. 

Wellington (D.C. Bar #273839), Neely 

B. Agin (D.C. Bar #456005), Fulbright 

& Jaworski LLP, 801 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 

20004–2623, Tel: (202) 662–4574, 

Fax: (202) 662–4643. 

Counsel for Defendants Stolt Offshore 

S.A., Stolt Offshore, Inc. and S&H 

Diving LLC, Paul C. Cuomo (D.C. Bar 

#457793), Sean F. Boland (D.C. Bar 

#249318), Howrey LLP, 1299 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20004–2402, Tel: 

(202) 783–0800, Fax: (202) 383–6610. 

Jennifer L. Cihon (OH Bar #0068404, 

Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 325 

Seventh Street, NW., Suite 500, 

Washington, DC 20530, (202) 307–3278, 

(202) 616–2441 (Fax). 

[FR Doc. 05–21510 Filed 10–28–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Office of the Secretary 

Submission for OMB Review: 

Comment Request 

October 25, 2005. 

The Department of Labor (DOL) has 

submitted the following public 

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 (Pub. L. 104–

13,44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). A copy of this 

ICR, with applicable supporting 

documentation, may be obtained by 

calling the Department of Labor. To 

obtain documentation contact Ira Mills 

on 202–693–4122 (this is not a toll-free 

number) or E-Mail: Mills.Ira@dol.gov. 

Comments should be sent to Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attn: OMB Desk Officer for ETA, Office 

of Management and Budget, Room 

10235, Washington, DC 20503, 202–

395–7316 (this is not a toll free number), 

within 30 days from the date of this 

publication in the Federal Register. 

The OMB is particularly interested in 

comments which: 

• Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 209 / Monday, October 31, 2005 / Notices 62341 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

• Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s 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. 

Agency: Employment and Training 

Administration (ETA). 

Type of Review: Revision of a 

currently approved collection. 

Title: Reporting and Performance 

Standards System for Migrant and 

Seasonal Farmworker Programs Under 

Title I, Section 167 of the Workforce 

Investment Act (WIA). 

OMB Number: 1205–0425. 

Frequency: Quarterly; Annually. 

Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal 

government; Not-for-profit institutions. 

Type of Response: Recordkeeping; 

Reporting. 

Number of Respondents: 53. 

Annual Responses: 29,871. 

Average Response time: 60.25 hours—

combined annual time for filling out 

Form 9095 quarterly and Forms 9093 

and 9094 annually. 

Total Annual Burden Hours: 70,562. 

Total Annualized Capital/Startup 

Costs: 0. 

Total Annual Costs (operating/ 

maintaining systems or purchasing 

services): 0. 

Description: This collection of 

information relates to the operation of 

employment and training programs for 

Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers 

under title I, section 167 of the 

Workforce Investment Act (WIA). It also 

contains the basis of the new 

performance standards system for WIA 

section 167 grantees, which is used for 

program oversight, evaluation and 

performance assessment. 

Ira L. Mills, 

Departmental Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 05–21598 Filed 10–28–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employee Benefits Security 

Administration 

Proposed Extension of Information 

Collection; Comment Request 

Disclosures by Insurers to General 

Account Policyholders 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA 

95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), the 

Department of Labor (the Department) 

conducts a preclearance consultation 

program to provide the general public 

and Federal agencies with an 

opportunity to comment on proposed 

and continuing collections of 

information. This program helps to 

ensure that the data the Department 

gathers can be provided in the desired 

format, that the reporting burden on the 

public (time and financial resources) is 

minimized, that the public understands 

the Department’s collection 

instruments, and that the Department 

can accurately assess the impact of 

collection requirements on respondents. 

By this notice, the Department is 

soliciting comments concerning the 

information collection provisions of the 

regulation pertaining to section 401(c) of 

the Employee Retirement Income 

Security Act of 1974, as amended 

(ERISA). The statute and the regulatory 

provisions codified at 29 CFR 

2550.401c-1 require insurers that issue 

certain types of insurance policies to 

employee benefit plans to make specific 

one-time and annual disclosures to such 

plans if assets of the plan are held in the 

insurer’s general account. A copy of the 

ICR may be obtained by contacting the 

office listed in the ADDRESSES section of 

this notice. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted to the office shown in the 

ADDRESSES section below on or before 

December 30, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are 

invited to submit written comments 

regarding the information collection 

request and burden estimates to: Gerald 

B. Lindrew, Office of Policy and 

Research, U.S. Department of Labor, 

Employee Benefits Security 

Administration, 200 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Room N–5647, 

Washington, DC 20210. Telephone: 

(202) 693–8410; Fax: (202) 219–4745. 

These are not toll-free numbers. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Section 1460 of the Small Business 

Job Protection Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–

188) amended ERISA by adding Section 

401(c), which clarified the extent to 

which assets of an insurer’s general 

account constitute assets of an employee 

benefit plan when that insurer has 

issued policies for the benefit of the 

plan and such policies are supported by 

assets of the general account. Section 

401(c) established certain requirements 

and disclosures for insurance 

companies that offer and maintain 

policies for employee benefit plans 

where the plans’ assets are held in the 

insurer’s general account. Section 401(c) 

also required the Secretary to provide 

guidance on the statutory requirements; 

such guidance was issued as a final 

rulemaking on January 5, 2000 (65 CFR 

614). The regulation includes 

information collection provisions 

pertaining to one-time and annual 

disclosure obligations of insurers. The 

information collection provisions in the 

final rulemaking were submitted for 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) in an information 

collection request (ICR) in connection 

with promulgation of the final 

rulemaking and were approved by OMB 

under OMB Control No. 1210–0114. The 

ICR approval is scheduled to expire on 

January 31, 2006. 

II. Desired Focus of Comments 

The Department is particularly 

interested in comments that: 

• Evaluate whether the collections of 

information are necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

• Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

collections 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. 

III. Current Action 

The Employee Benefits Security 

Administration (EBSA) is requesting an 

extension of the currently approved ICR 

for the Disclosures by Insurers to 

General Account Policyholders. EBSA is 

not proposing or implementing changes 

to the regulation or to the existing ICR. 

A summary of the ICR and the current 

burden estimates follows: