66188 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 27, 2007 / Notices 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing of 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Even 

where electronic filing of a document is 

permitted, certain documents must also 

be filed in paper form, as specified in II 

(C) of the Commission’s Handbook on 

Electronic Filing Procedures, 67 FR 

68168, 68173 (November 8, 2002). 

Additional written submissions to the 

Commission, including requests 

pursuant to section 201.12 of the 

Commission’s rules, shall not be 

accepted unless good cause is shown for 

accepting such submissions, or unless 

the submission is pursuant to a specific 

request by a Commissioner or 

Commission staff. 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

review must be served on all other 

parties to the review (as identified by 

either the public or BPI service list), and 

a certificate of service must be timely 

filed. The Secretary will not accept a 

document for filing without a certificate 

of service. 

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. 

Issued: November 20, 2007. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E7–22975 Filed 11–26–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[USITC SE–07–026] 

Government in the Sunshine Act 

Meeting Notice 

Agency Holding the Meeting: United 

States International Trade Commission. 

Time and Date: November 29, 2007 at 

11 a.m. 

Place: Room 101, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 

(202) 205–2000. 

Status: Open to the public. 

Matters To Be Considered 

1. Agenda for future meetings: None. 

2. Minutes. 

3. Ratification List. 

4. Inv. No. 731–TA–909 (Review)(Low 

Enriched Uranium from France)—

briefing and vote. (The Commission is 

currently scheduled to transmit its 

determination and Commissioners’

opinions to the Secretary of Commerce 

on or before December 13, 2007.) 

5. Outstanding action jackets: None. 

In accordance with Commission 

policy, subject matter listed above, not 

disposed of at the scheduled meeting, 

may be carried over to the agenda of the 

following meeting. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: November 21, 2007. 

William R. Bishop, 

Hearings and Meetings Coordinator. 

[FR Doc. E7–23008 Filed 11–26–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

United States v. Multiple Listing 

Service Of Hilton Head Island, Inc.; 

Proposed Final Judgment and 

Competitive Impact Statement 

Notice is hereby given pursuant to the 

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 

15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h), that a proposed 

Final Judgment, Stipulation and 

Competitive Impact Statement have 

been filed with the United States 

District Court for the District of South 

Carolina in United States of America v. 

Multiple Listing Service of Hilton Head 

Island, Inc., Civil Action No, 07–3435. 

On October 17, 2007, the United States 

filed a Complaint alleging that the 

Multiple Listing Service of Hilton Head 

Island, Inc. violated section 1 of the 

Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, by adopting 

and enforcing rules that restrict access 

to the Multiple Listing Service database 

and limit members’ business behavior. 

The proposed Final Judgment, filed at 

the same time as the Complaint, 

requires the group to change its 

membership rules so that low-priced 

and innovative real estate brokers can 

compete in the Hilton Head area. 

Copies of the Complaint, proposed 

Final Judgment and Competitive Impact 

Statement are available for inspection at 

the Department of Justice, Antitrust 

Division, Antitrust Documents Group, 

325 7th Street, NW., Room 215, 

Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: 202–

514–2481), on the Department of 

Justice’s Web site at http:// 

www.usdoj.gov/atr. and at the Office of 

the Clerk of the United States District 

Court for the District of South Carolina. 

Copies of these materials may be 

obtained from the Antitrust Division 

upon request and payment of the 

copying fee set by Department of Justice 

regulations. 

Public comment is invited within 60 

days of the date of this notice. Such 

comments, and responses thereto, will 

be published in the Federal Register 

and filed with the Court. Comments 

should be addressed to John R. Read, 

Chief, Litigation III Section, Antitrust 

Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 

325 7th Street, NW., Suite 300, 

Washington, DC 20530, (202) 307–0468. 

J. Robert Kramer II, 

Director of Operations Antitrust Division. 

United States District Court for the 

District of South Carolina Beaufort 

Division 

United States of America, Department 

of Justice, Antitrust Division, 325 7th 

Street, NW., Suite 300, Washington, DC 

20530, Plaintiff, v. Multiple Listing 

Service of Hilton Head Island, Inc., 18 

Bow Circle, Hilton Head Island, SC 

29928, Defendant 

Civil Action No.9 :07–CV–3435–SB 

Filed: 10/16/07 

Complaint for Equitable Relief for 

Violation of 15 U.S.C. 1 Sherman 

Antitrust Act 

Complaint 

The United States of America, by its 

attorneys acting under the direction of 

the acting Attorney General, brings this 

civil antitrust action against Defendant 

Multiple Listing Service of Hilton Head 

Island, Inc. (‘‘Hilton Head MLS’’) to 

obtain equitable and other relief for 

violation of Section 1 of the Sherman 

Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, as amended. 

Introduction 

1. The United States brings this action 

to enjoin the Defendant from enforcing 

certain of its rules that unreasonably 

restrain competition among real estate 

brokers in the Hilton Head, South 

Carolina area Defendant is a multiple 

listing service, which is controlled by its 

members who are real estate brokers 

competing to sell brokerage services to 

consumers in the Hilton Head area. 

2. Defendant provides a variety of 

services to its members, including the 

maintenance of a database of past and 

current listings of properties for sale in 

the Hilton Head area. Access to the 

database is critical to being a successful 

broker. Therefore, brokers seeking to 

provide brokerage services in the Hilton 

Head area need to be members of the 

Hilton Head MLS. 

3. By its rules, Defendant denies 

membership to brokers who would 

likely compete aggressively on price or 

would introduce Internet-based 

brokerage into the market, and imposes 

unreasonable membership costs on 

publicly-owned brokerage companies. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 27, 2007 / Notices 66189 

Defendant’s rules also stabilize prices by 

forcing member brokers to provide a 

certain set of brokerage services, 

whether or not the consumer desires to 

purchase those services. 

4. Additionally, Defendant has 

authorized its Board of Trustees to 

adopt rules that would regulate 

commissions and impose discriminatory 

requirements on Internet-based brokers. 

The mere prospect that the Board might 

adopt such rules likely inhibits price 

and service competition. Their actual 

adoption would stabilize prices and 

competitively disadvantage Internetbased brokers. 

5. By adopting and enforcing rules 

that restrict access to its database and 

limit members’ business behavior, 

Defendant has restrained competition, 

reduced consumers’ choices, and 

stabilized prices on Hilton Head Island. 

Defendant And Its Members 

6. Defendant Hilton Head MLS is 

organized as a not-for-profit corporation 

under the laws of South Carolina with 

its principal place of business on Hilton 

Head Island, Beaufort County, South 

Carolina. 

7. Hilton Head MLS is a joint venture 

of over one hundred competing licensed 

brokers and other licensed real estate 

professionals doing business in the 

Hilton Head area. Hilton Head MLS 

serves Hilton Head Island, South 

Carolina. Although Hilton Head MLS 

also serves several surrounding counties 

as well as Hilton Head Island, close to 

85 percent of the properties listed—as 

measured by dollar volume of closed 

transactions—in the Hilton Head MLS 

are located on Hilton Head Island, 

which no other MLS serves. 

8. Whenever this complaint refers to 

any act, deed, or transaction of the 

Hilton Head MLS, it means the Hilton 

Head MLS is engaged in the act, deed, 

or transaction by or through its 

members, officers, directors, trustees, 

employees, or other representatives 

while they were actively engaged in the 

management, direction, control, or 

transaction of its business or affairs. 

9. Various others, not named as 

Defendants, have participated as 

conspirators with Hilton Head MLS in 

the violations alleged in this complaint, 

and have performed acts and made 

statements to further the conspiracy. 

Jurisdiction and Venue 

10. This Court has subject matter 

jurisdiction over this action under 

Section 4 of the Sherman Act, as 

amended, 15 U.S.C. 4, and 28 U.S.C. 

1331, 1337(a), and 1345. 

11. Because Hilton Head MLS 

maintains its principal place of business 

on Hilton Head Island, South Carolina 

and transacts business and is found 

within this District, venue is proper in 

this District under 15 U.S.C. 22 and 28 

U.S.C. 1391(b) . 

Trade and Commerce 

12. Broker-members of the Hilton 

Head MLS provided residential real 

estate brokerage services to in-state and 

out-of-state clients seeking to buy or sell 

property in the Hilton Head area. In 

2005, those brokers facilitated the 

exchange of property worth over $2.5 

billion, and they collected fees of 

approximately $170 million for their 

services. Interstate mortgage financing is 

affected by this exchange of property. 

13. The Hilton Head MLS’s activities 

and the violations alleged in this 

Complaint affect brokers, home buyers, 

and home sellers located throughout the 

United States. The Hilton Head MLS’ s 

real estate activities are in the flow of, 

and have a substantial effect on, 

interstate commerce. 

Concerted Action 

14. The rules of the Hilton Head MLS 

are the product of agreements or 

concerted action among brokers who 

compete in the Hilton Head area. The 

broker-members of the Hilton Head 

MLS, as a group and through the Board 

they elect and the staff they indirectly 

employ, maintain and enforce MLS 

rules affecting a broker’s participation in 

the MLS. 

Relevant Markets 

15. The provision of real estate 

brokerage services to sellers of 

residential real property and the 

provision of real estate brokerage 

services to buyers of residential real 

property are relevant service markets 

within the meaning of the antitrust 

laws. In the event of a small but 

significant increase in the price of 

brokerage services, the number of 

buyers and sellers that would switch to 

another way of selling or buying a home 

would not be sufficient to make such a 

price increase unprofitable. 

16. The real estate brokerage business 

is local in nature. Most sellers prefer to 

work with a broker who is familiar with 

local market conditions. Likewise, most 

buyers seek to purchase property in a 

particular city, community, or 

neighborhood, and typically prefer to 

work with a broker who has knowledge 

of the area in which they have an 

interest. Both home buyers and home 

sellers desire a residential real estate 

broker who is a member of the MLS that 

serves the area in which they are 

purchasing or selling a home. Even 

though the Hilton Head MLS’s service 

area encompasses neighboring counties 

as well as Hilton Head Island, nearly 85 

percent of the properties listed—as 

measured by dollar volume of closed 

transactions—in the database are 

located on Hilton Head Island. In the 

event of a small but significant increase 

in the price of brokerage services 

relating to properties located on Hilton 

Head Island, the number of buyers and 

sellers who would switch to brokerage 

services relating to properties located 

elsewhere would not be sufficient to 

make such a price increase unprofitable. 

Therefore, for purposes of this 

complaint, Hilton Head Island 

constitutes the relevant geographic 

market, within the meaning of the 

antitrust laws. 

Background Of The Offense 

Industry Background and MLS Market 

Power 

17. Most prospective home sellers and 

buyers engage the services of a broker to 

purchase and sell homes. Real estate 

brokers formed the Hilton Head MLS to 

facilitate the provision of real estate 

brokerage services to such buyers and 

sellers. 

18. The Hilton Head MLS pools and 

disseminates information on almost 

every property available for sale on 

Hilton Head Island. It combines its 

members’ property listings information 

into an electronic database and makes 

this data available to all brokers who are 

members of the MLS. By listing 

information on a home in the MLS, a 

broker can market it to a large number 

of potential buyers. A broker 

representing a buyer likewise can search 

the MLS to provide a home buyer with 

information about nearly all the listed 

properties in the area that match the 

buyer’s housing needs. 

19. Members of the Hilton Head MLS 

utilize the database as a clearinghouse 

to, among other things: communicate 

the listings information of the properties 

that they have for sale to other members; 

offer to compensate other members as 

cooperating brokers if they locate 

purchasers for those listings; locate 

properties for prospective purchasers; 

distribute listings to other members for 

advertisement purposes; and compile 

and distribute market statistics. 

20. The Hilton Head MLS also 

maintains records of sold homes. These 

‘‘sold data’’ records are very important 

for brokers working with sellers to set 

an optimum sales price. Brokers 

representing a buyer likewise use the 

sold data to help buyers determine what 

price to offer for a home. 

21. Access to the database provided 

by the Hilton Head MLS is critical for 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
66190 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 27, 2007 / Notices 

brokers who wish to serve buyers or 

sellers successfully on Hilton Head 

Island. By virtue of marketwide 

participation and control over a 

critically important input, the Hilton 

Head MLS has market power. 

Growth of Alternative Business Models 

22. The prices consumers paid to 

brokers for the brokerage services 

associated with a typical home sales 

transaction have increased substantially 

since 2003 on Hilton Head Island and in 

many other parts of the country. This is 

because brokers who adhere to 

traditional methods of doing business 

typically charge a fee calculated as a 

percentage of the sales price of the 

home, and that percentage has tended to 

be relatively inflexible as housing prices 

on Hilton Head Island and in many 

other parts of the country have 

increased dramatically. As a result of 

these higher prices, brokers offering 

competitively significant alternatives to 

traditional methods have emerged in 

other areas of the country. 

23. Technology-Savvy Brokers. Some 

brokers in other parts of the United 

States use technology to automate 

certain tasks and to communicate more 

efficiently with consumers. For 

example, technology enables brokers to 

contact, communicate with, and service 

consumers remotely or in-person 

without the need for a retail office 

location that consumers can visit. Such 

technology-savvy brokers can reduce 

brokerage costs by operating fewer or no 

physical offices, and may pass cost 

savings on to consumers through 

reduced brokerage fees. 

24. Fee-for-Service Brokers. Other 

brokers around the country now 

contract with buyers and sellers to 

provide a subset of services for a flat fee 

rather than for a percentage of the home 

sale price. Fee-for-service brokers 

provide certain enumerated services 

such as marketing the house or 

attending closings, while the buyer or 

seller takes responsibility for other 

services associated with brokerages such 

as making offers and counteroffers or 

conducting open houses on their own. 

Through fee-for-service packages, 

buyers and sellers can save money by 

purchasing only the services that they 

wish for their broker to provide. 

25. Price Discounters and Publiclyowned Brokerages. Brokers in other 

areas of the country have attracted 

customers by offering full-service, 

reduced commission brokerage services. 

Additionally, brokers in other areas of 

the country have sought competitive 

advantage by creating nationwide firms. 

These firms raise capital through public 

ownership, invest in nationwide brands 

and provide brokerage services to 

consumers in multiple markets. 

26. These types of brokerage models 

have not emerged on Hilton Head Island 

due to Defendant’s rules. As a result, the 

prices that consumers pay for brokerage 

services are higher on Hilton Head 

Island than in other areas of the country. 

Restraints on Competition 

27. Defendant’s rules and practices 

have harmed competition in a variety of 

ways. As a result of Defendant’s rules, 

consumers of residential real estate 

brokerage services on Hilton Head 

Island have fewer choices among types 

of brokers and pay higher fees for those 

services than consumers in other areas 

of the country. Defendant’s rules and 

practices are not reasonably necessary to 

achieve the procompetitive benefits of 

the MLS. Instead, the rules at issue here 

unreasonably: (1) Raise entry barriers for 

potential competitors by imposing 

burdensome prerequisites for 

membership; (2) provide a means of 

identifying potentially aggressive 

competitors so they can be excluded 

from membership; (3) stabilize the price 

of brokerage services through the 

prospect of price controls; (4) deter the 

emergence of Internet-based brokerages; 

(5) stabilize the price of, and reduce 

consumer options for, brokerage 

services by dictating the services that all 

brokers must provide; and (6) 

discourage entry of potential 

competitors who raise funds through 

public ownership. 

28. Defendant’s rules achieve these 

adverse effects by requiring that brokermembers: (1) Maintain a physical office 

within the Hilton Head MLS service 

area; (2) reside within the area served by 

the Hilton Head MLS; (3) operate their 

offices during hours deemed reasonable 

by the Hilton Head MLS; and (4) hold 

a South Carolina real estate license as 

their primary license. (Bylaw Article II, 

Section II; Bylaw Article VII; & Rule II.) 

These rules allow Defendant to deny 

membership to brokers who operate 

business models that would increase 

competition. For example, these rules 

enable Defendant to exclude 

technology-savvy brokers who serve 

their clients without a physical office 

and who can pass along the cost savings 

to consumers through reduced 

commission rates. These rules also 

deprive consumers of the benefits of 

competition from brokers who work 

part-time or who are licensed under 

reciprocity provisions of South Carolina 

law. 

29. Defendant’s rules have enabled it 

to identify applicants who could be 

aggressive competitors and deny their 

application for membership. Brokerapplicants are required to disclose their 

business history and prior employment, 

undergo a credit check, and obtain 

letters of recommendation from three 

current broker-members, i.e., those with 

whom the applicant would compete. 

(Bylaw Article VII, Section IV; Bylaw 

Article VII, Section IV(a); Rule II.A.2.) 

These rules have allowed unreasonable 

denials of membership and thus 

deprived consumers of the benefits of 

competition. 

30. Defendant has authorized its 

Board of Trustees to adopt mandatory 

guidelines that would regulate the 

commission that listing brokers offer to 

selling brokers in exchange for their 

cooperation on the home sale. (Bylaw 

Article XI, Section I.) The mere prospect 

that the Board might adopt such 

controls likely inhibits price 

competition. Their actual adoption 

would directly fix and stabilize prices. 

31. Defendant has a rule that requires 

its members to provide certain services 

to all brokerage customers, whether or 

not desired by the customer. (Bylaw 

Article X; MLS Listing Agreement.) 

Embodied in the terms of Defendant’s 

mandatory form listing agreement, this 

rule prevents current and prospective 

members from operating a fee-forservice business model. This rule 

decreases competition and harms 

consumers because it insulates 

Defendant’s members from the 

competitive pressures posed by brokers 

who would offer additional pricing and 

service choices to their customers. 

32. Defendant has authorized its 

Board of Trustees to impose 

discriminatory requirements on 

Internet-based real estate brokers. 

(Bylaw Article II, Section II.) The mere 

prospect that the Board might adopt 

such controls likely deters Hilton Head 

brokers from developing that business 

mode! and thereby inhibits such service 

competition. Such requirements, if 

implemented, would competitively 

disadvantage Internet-based brokers and 

discourage them from joining the MLS 

and competing on Hilton Head Island, 

thereby limiting consumer choice. 

33. Defendant has a ‘‘change in 

ownership’’ rule that requires publiclyheld brokerages to make a significant 

payment to the Defendant every time a 

share of their stock changes hands. 

(Bylaw Article VII, Section X; Rules 

II.A.3; II.B & II.E.) This rule 

competitively disadvantages publiclyowned companies and discourages them 

from joining the MLS and competing on 

Hilton Head Island, thereby limiting 

consumer choice. 

34. Taken together, Defendant’s rules 

discourage competition on price and 

service, and inhibit competitive actions 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 27, 2007 / Notices 66191 

that would alter the status quo. As a 

result of Defendant’s anticompetitive 

rules, consumers of brokerage services 

on Hilton Head Island have fewer 

choices of service options and pay 

higher prices for real estate brokerage 

services than do consumers in other 

parts of the country. 

Violations Alleged 

35. Defendant’s above-referenced 

rules and practices constitute a contract, 

combination, or conspiracy by 

competitors with market power that 

unreasonably restrains competition on 

Hilton Head Island in violation of 

section I of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 

1. Defendant’s rules and practices are 

not reasonably necessary to carry out 

the procompetitive purposes of a 

multiple listing service. 

36. The aforesaid contract, 

combination, or conspiracy has had and 

will continue to have unreasonable 

anticompetitive effects in the relevant 

market, including: 

a. stabilizing and raising prices for 

real estate brokerage services; 

b. reducing competition on price and 

quality for real estate brokerage services; 

c. impeding innovation in the 

provision of real estate brokerage 

services; 

d. preventing consumers from 

choosing fee-for-service brokerage 

models; and 

e. creating barriers to entry into the 

provision of real estate brokerage 

services. 

Request for Relief 

Wherefore, the United States prays 

that final judgment be entered against 

Defendant declaring, ordering, and 

adjudging: 

a. That the aforesaid contract, 

combination, or conspiracy 

unreasonably restrains trade and is 

illegal under Section 1 of the Sherman 

Act, 15 U.S.C. 1; 

b. That the Defendant, its officers, 

directors, agents, employees, successors, 

and assigns and all other persons acting 

or claiming to act on their behalf, be 

permanently enjoined from engaging in, 

carrying out, renewing or attempting to 

engage in, carry out or renew the 

combination and conspiracy alleged 

herein, or any other combination or 

conspiracy having a similar purpose or 

effect in violation of section 1 of the 

Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1; and 

c. That the Court grant such other 

relief as the United States may request 

and the Court deems just and proper. 

Dated: October 16, 2007. 

For Plaintiff United States of America. 

Thomas O. Barnett, 

Assistant Attorney General. 

David L. Meyer, 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General. 

J. Robert Kramer II, 

Director of Operations. 

John Read, 

Chief, Litigation III Section. 

Nina Hale, 

Assistant Chief, Litigation III Section. 

Lisa A. Scanlon, Owen M. Kendler, 

Christopher M. Ries, 

Attorneys for the United States of America, 

U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust 

Division, 325 7th Street, N.W., Suite 300, 

Washington, DC 20530, Telephone: (202) 

616–5954, Facsimile: (202) 514–7308. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Reginald I. Lloyd, 

United States Attorney. 

By: 

Barbara M. Bowens (I.D. 4004), 

Assistant United States Attorney, 1441 Main 

Street, Suit 500, Columbia, South Carolina 

29201. 

United States District Court for the 

District of South Carolina; 

United States of America, Plaintiff, v. 

Multiple Listing Service of Hilton Head 

Island, Inc., Defendant 

Proposed Final Judgment 

Whereas, Plaintiff, United States of 

America, filed its Complaint on October 

16, 2007, and Plaintiff and Defendant, 

Multiple Listing Service of Hilton Head 

Island, Inc., by their respective 

attorneys, have consented to the entry of 

this Final Judgment (the ‘‘Final 

Judgment’’) without trial or adjudication 

of any issue of fact or law, and this Final 

Judgment shall not be evidence against 

or an admission by any party regarding 

any issue of fact or law; 

And Whereas, Defendant is a multiple 

listing service among competing real 

estate brokerages, organized as a not-forprofit corporation under the laws of 

South Carolina, and maintains its 

principal place of business in Hilton 

Head Island, South Carolina; 

And Whereas, Defendant agrees to be 

bound by the provisions of this Final 

Judgment pending its approval by the 

Court; 

And Whereas, Defendant agrees to 

take certain actions for the purpose of 

remedying the loss of competition 

alleged in the Complaint; 

And Whereas, Defendant has 

represented to the United States that the 

actions required below can and will be 

made and that Defendant will later raise 

no claim of hardship or difficulty as 

grounds for asking the Court to modify 

any of the provisions contained below; 

Now Therefore, before any testimony 

is taken, without trial or adjudication of 

any issue of fact or law, and upon 

consent of the parties, it is Ordered, 

adjudged, and decreed: 

I. Jurisdiction 

This Court has jurisdiction over the 

subject matter of and each of the parties 

to this action. The Complaint states a 

claim upon which relief may be granted 

against Defendant under section 1 of the 

Sherman Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1. 

II. Definitions 

As used in this Final Judgment: 

A ‘‘Defendant’’ means the Multiple 

Listing Service of Hilton Head Island, 

Inc., its successors and assigns, and its 

members, officers, managers, 

committees, and employees. 

B. ‘‘Affiliate Member’’ means any 

member of the Defendant that is 

engaged in banking, mortgage lending, 

mortgage brokering, and similarly 

related fields. 

C. ‘‘Associate Member’’ means: (1) A 

member of the Defendant who is an 

‘associated licensee’ as the term is 

defined in S.C. Code Ann. § 40–57–30 

(2005) or any recodification thereof; and 

(2) a Licensee who associates with a 

Full Member or a Broker-in-Charge of a 

Full Member. 

D. ‘‘Applicant’’ means a person who 

applies for full, associate, or affiliate 

membership in the Multiple Listing 

Service of Hilton Head Island. 

E. ‘‘Appraiser’’ means any person who 

is licensed under Title 40 Chapter 60 of 

the South Carolina Revised Statutes or 

any future recode fication thereof and 

legally can perform real estate appraisal. 

F. ‘‘Appraisal Firm’’ means a firm 

owned by or employing an Appraiser. 

G. ‘‘Broker-in-Charge’’ means: (1) A 

‘‘broker-in-charge’’ as the term is 

defined in S.C. Code Ann. § 40–57–30 

(2005) or any recodification thereof; or 

(2) any licensed broker who is 

designated as having responsibility over 

the actions of all its associated licensees 

and is affiliated with a Full Member. 

H. ‘‘Buyer’s Representation 

Agreement’’ means the contract between 

a Licensee and Client or any other 

person who is a prospective home 

buyer. 

I. ‘‘Client’’ means a person with 

whom a Licensee has established an 

agency relationship. 

J. ‘‘Compensation’’ means: (1) Any 

commission or fee charged by, or rebate 

offered by, a Licensee to a Client or any 

person who is a prospective home buyer 

or seller; (2) any commission or 

payment offered to other Licensees in 

exchange for cooperation on a property 

transaction; or (3) any commission, 

salary, or fee exchanged between a Full 

Member and its affiliated or employed 

Licensees. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
66192 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 27, 2007 / Notices 

K. ‘‘Full Member’’ means any member 

of the MLS that is a real estate brokerage 

firm having a Broker-in-Charge or an 

Appraisal firm. 

L. ‘‘Licensee’’ means: (1) Any person 

who is licensed under Title 40 Chapter 

57 of the South Carolina Code 

Annotated or any future recodification 

thereof; (2) any person who legally can 

perform acts of real estate brokerage; or 

(3) any person who legally can perform 

acts of real estate brokerage while acting 

under the supervision of a licensed 

broker. 

M. ‘‘Listing Agreement’’ means the 

contract between a Licensee and Client 

or any other person who is a prospective 

home seller. 

N. ‘‘Member MLS Database Access’’

means the security measures, such as a 

login-id and password or key token, 

needed to access the complete MLS 

database provided by Defendant to Full, 

Associate or Affiliate Members. Member 

MLS Database Access does not mean or 

encompass any login-id or password 

that a Full or Associate Member 

establishes for, or grants to, its 

customers or clients either to access the 

broker’s website or to access listings 

content provided on the broker’s 

website. 

O. ‘‘Method of Service’’ means the 

time, place, or manner in which a 

Licensee provides brokerage services to 

Clients or any other person who is a 

prospective home buyer or seller, 

subject to state and federal law (e.g., 

office hours, the method by which the 

Licensee markets properties for sale, 

and the method by which the Licensee 

provides listings information to Clients 

or any other person who is a prospective 

home buyer or seller). 

P. ‘‘MLS’’ means any multiple listing 

service owned or operated by Multiple 

Listing Service of Hilton Head Island, 

Inc. 

Q. ‘‘MLS Listing’’ means any listing in 

which: 

1. The Client or any other person who is 

a prospective home seller grants the Licensee 

the sole right to make an offer of 

compensation to cooperating brokers; and 

2. The Licensee makes an offer of 

compensation to other cooperating Full or 

Associate Members. 

R. ‘‘MLS Service Area’’ means the 

geographic area from which listings are 

placed in the MLS by Full or Associate 

Members. 

S. ‘‘Office Exclusive’’ means a listing 

in which the owner refuses to grant 

permission for distribution of the listing 

to the MLS. 

T. ‘‘Real Estate Brokerage Firm’’

means a firm owned by or employing a 

Broker-in-Charge. 

U. ‘‘Scope of Service’’ means the set 

of specific brokerage services a Licensee 

has agreed it will provide to a Client or 

such other person who is a prospective 

home buyer or seller as well as the set 

of specific services that a Licensee will 

allow a Client or any other person who 

is prospective home buyer or seller to 

perform herself or himself (whether or 

not the licensee offers to provide such 

services). The Scope of Service may be 

set forth in a Listing Agreement, Buyers 

Representation Agreement, or other 

agreement between a Licensee and a 

Client or any other person who is a 

prospective home buyer or seller. 

V. ‘‘Trustees’’ means the Trustees 

elected by the Full Members of 

Defendant. 

III. Applicability 

This Final Judgment applies to the 

Defendant and all other persons in 

active concert or participation with it 

who receive actual notice of this Final 

Judgment by personal service or 

otherwise. 

IV. Prohibited Conduct 

A. Subject to the provisions of 

paragraph VI, Defendant is enjoined and 

restrained from adopting or enforcing 

any bylaw, rule, regulation, policy, or 

practice that has the purpose or effect of 

excluding: 

1. from full membership any Real Estate 

Brokerage Firm that has a broker-in-charge 

holding an active real estate broker license 

issued by the appropriate State of South 

Carolina governmental licensing authority or 

any Appraisal Firm owned by or employing 

at least one person with an active appraiser 

license issued by the appropriate State of 

South Carolina governmental licensing 

authority; or 

2. from associate membership any Licensee 

who holds an active real estate broker, agent, 

or salesman license issued by the appropriate 

State of South Carolina governmental 

licensing authority. 

B. Subject to the provisions of 

paragraph VI, Defendant is enjoined and 

restrained from adopting or enforcing 

any bylaw, rule, regulation, policy, or 

practice that has the purpose or effect 

of: 

1. failing to make available or furnish on 

like terms to any Full Member any and all 

services that Defendant now or hereafter 

makes available or furnishes to any of its Full 

Members; 

2. failing to make available or furnish on 

like terms to any Associate Member any and 

all services that Defendant now or hereafter 

makes available or furnishes to any of its 

Associate Members; 

3. failing to make available or furnish on 

like terms to any member who is an 

Appraiser any and all services that Defendant 

now or hereafter makes available or furnishes 

to any of its members who are Appraisers; 

4. discriminating against, disfavoring, 

disciplining, or expelling any Full or 

Associate Member based on its office 

location, corporate structure, level or type of 

Compensation, Scope of Service, or Method 

of Service; 

5. requiring any Full or Associate Member 

to perform brokerage services in excess of 

those required by South Carolina law; 

6. prescribing the terms of Listing 

Agreements, Buyer’s Representation 

Agreements, or any other agreement between 

a Full or Associate Member and any Client 

or any other person who is a prospective 

home buyer or seller; 

7. refusing to accept or place in the MLS 

any MLS Listing submitted by a Full or 

Associate Member; 

8. prescribing, recommending, setting 

standards, or guidelines concerning 

Compensation; 

9. requiring an Applicant or a Full Member 

to inform Defendant of the ownership 

interests that others have in such Applicant 

or Full Member or charging a fee for a change 

in ownership; 

10. requiring any Full or Associate 

Member, Appraiser or Trustee to reside or 

have an office in the MLS Service Area or 

any particular area or location; or 

11. changing its three classes of 

membership (Full, Associate, and Affiliate) 

without the prior approval of the Department 

of Justice. 

V. Required Conduct 

A. Defendant is required to accept all 

Applicants into the Applicant’s 

corresponding membership class (Full, 

Associate, or Affiliate) as follows: 

1. any Real Estate Brokerage Firm that has 

a Broker-in-Charge who holds an active real 

estate broker license issued by the 

appropriate State of South Carolina 

governmental licensing authority shall be 

granted Full Membership; 

2. any Licensee who holds an active real 

estate broker, agent, or salesman license 

issued by the appropriate State of South 

Carolina governmental licensing authority 

shall be granted Associate Membership; and 

3. any Appraisal Firm with an owner or 

employee holding an active appraiser license 

issued by the appropriate State of South 

Carolina governmental licensing authority 

shall be granted Full Membership. 

B. Defendant is ordered to delete from 

its Bylaws and Rules and suspend 

enforcement of: 

1. The language in Bylaw Article II, Section 

II stating: 

‘‘Any realty or appraisal firm whose Broker 

in Charge or Head Appraiser applies for 

membership and which is owned as a 

subsidiary or affiliate of a realty firm which 

has its headquarters a state other than South 

Carolina must comply with the following 

additional regulations: * * * (2) it must have 

an office located within the Multiple Listing 

Service area (Beaufort, Jasper, Allendale, 

Bamberg, Barnwell, Colleton, Hampton and 

Orangeburg counties); (3) the broker in 

charge or head appraiser of such realty or 

appraisal must be a resident of the Multiple 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 27, 2007 / Notices 66193 

Listing Service area (Beaufort, Jasper, 

Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell, Colleton, 

Hampton and Orangeburg counties); and (4) 

all licensees of the realty firm or appraisal 

firm must hold their South Carolina license 

as their primary license.’’

2. The language in Bylaw Article V, 

Section I stating: 

‘‘The Board of Trustees of MLS shall 

consist of persons who are residents of the 

counties served by MLS, including Beaufort, 

Jasper, Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell, 

Colleton, Hampton and Orangeburg, South 

Carolina,’’

3. The language in Bylaw Article VII, 

Section II stating: 

i. ‘‘and shall consist of the brokers-in 

charge or Head appraiser of realty and 

appraisal firms who qualify for membership 

based upon the following criteria: (a) the firm 

has established and maintained a specific 

place of business in any of the following 

counties served by MLS: Beaufort, Jasper, 

Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell, Colleton, 

Hampton and Orangeburg, which office is 

available to the public during reasonable 

business hours;’’ and 

ii. ‘‘Membership of internet only members 

are subject to restrictions set by the Board of 

Trustees.’’

4. The language in Bylaw Article VII, 

Section ill stating: 

‘‘which: (a) Have established and 

maintained a specific place of business 

within the Multiple Listing Service Area 

(which includes Beaufort, Jasper, Allendale, 

Bamberg, Barnwell, Colleton, Hampton and 

Orangeburg counties) that is available to the 

public during reasonable business hours;’’

5. The language in Bylaw Article VII, 

Section IV stating: 

i. ‘‘to obtain or make credit checks or’’; and 

ii. ‘‘and applications may require that the 

applicant supply various information and 

recommendations, including but not limited 

to: 

(a) Three (3) separate character references 

from three (3) presently qualified Full 

Members; and 

(b) In the case of Full Members, a history 

of business experience and employment 

information concerning all persons, 

including all partners and shareholders, who 

have any ownership interest in the applicant. 

Any such party acquiring an ownership 

interest of any kind after acceptance of the 

realty firm as a Full Member must submit all 

information required by this Section within 

ten (10) days after acquisition of the 

ownership interest and must be approved by 

the Board of Trustees.’’

6. The Bylaw Article VII, Section X stating: 

‘‘In the event of any change of ownership 

of a member firm as determined by the Board 

of Trustees in accordance with the provisions 

of the Rules and Regulations, the Board of 

Trustees, at its option, may terminate the 

membership of such firm and require the 

firm to reapply for membership and pay the 

then current initiations fees in MLS as if said 

firm had never been a member of MLS.’’

7. The language in Bylaw Article XI, 

Section I stating: 

‘‘The listing Full Member shall specify a 

commission split or other compensation 

which would be reasonably expected to 

encourage cooperation by other Full 

Members. It is to the advantage of the listing 

Full Member, and, consequently the owner, 

to establish compensation which will 

encourage other MLS Full Members to devote 

time and energy to the sale of the owner’s 

listing with the expectation of reasonable 

compensation for the member’s efforts. The 

Board of Trustees may adopt compensation 

guidelines that it deems sufficient to 

encourage such devotion of time and energy. 

Any Full Member which the Board of 

Trustees, in its sole discretion, believes is 

consistently establishing compensation 

which would discourage the intended 

cooperation by other Full Members may have 

its membership terminated by a majority vote 

of the Board of Trustees.’’

8. The language in Rules and Regulations 

Section II, stating: 

i. ‘‘A.1.c. Establish and maintain a specific 

place of business in Beaufort, Jasper, 

Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell, Colleton, 

Hampton, Orangeburg Counties, which is 

available to the public.’’; 

ii. ‘‘A.2.c. Submit letters of 

recommendation from the Broker-In-Charge/ 

Head Appraiser of three (3) firms who are 

members in good standing with the MLS of 

Hilton Head Island, Inc.’’; 

iii. ‘‘A.2.g. Submit statement of Residence 

of Owners and Broker-In-Charge/Head 

Appraiser’’; 

iv. ‘‘A.2.h. (2) address of the New Firm’s 

office located within the Multiple Listing 

Service area (Beaufort, Jasper, Allendale, 

Bamberg, Barnwell, Colleton, Hampton, [and] 

Orangeburg Counties); (3) the address of the 

Broker-In-Charge/Head Appraiser to confirm 

that he/she is a resident of the Multiple 

Listing Service area; and (4) confirmation 

that all licensees of the New Firm hold their 

South Carolina licenses as their primary 

license and are residences of the 

aforementioned area’’; and 

v. ‘‘B. Board of Trustees must be notified 

of any ownership changes within 10 days of 

said change and all changes of ownership 

fees paid. Notification must be in writing and 

signed by the BIC/Head Appraiser. A new 

Membership Agreement and Principals Audit 

must be fully executed and signed by the 

BIC/Head Appraiser and submitted to the 

MLS office along with notification. (Forms 

may be obtained on the MLS website 

www.hiltonheadmls.com and selecting 

Members Only.)’’

9. The language in Rules and Regulations 

Section IT, Subsection E referring to 

principals. 

10. The language in Rules and Regulations 

Section VI, Subsection 2 stating: 

‘‘Only MLS Exclusive Right to Sell Listing 

Agreements are accepted.’’

C. Defendant is ordered to delete the 

term ‘‘Exclusive Agency’’ in Rules and 

Regulations Section VI, Subsection 7 

and replace it with ‘‘Office Exclusive.’’

VI. PERMITTED CONDUCT 

Notwithstanding the above, nothing 

shall prohibit Defendant from: 

A. Requiring Applicants or Full, 

Associate, or Affiliate Members to pay: 

1. A fee equal to the reasonable set-up costs 

of preparing to make Defendant’s services 

available to the Applicant, Full, Associate, or 

Affiliate Member; 

2. A reasonable security deposit, to secure 

against any unpaid claims or charges that 

may be asserted by Defendant against the 

Applicant, Full, Associate, or Affiliate 

Member; and 

3. Fees for use of Defendant’s services that 

are non-discriminatory and reflect the 

reasonable expenses of Defendant’s 

operations. 

B. Adopting or enforcing any bylaw, 

rule, regulation, policy practice, or 

agreement that is required for the MLS 

not to violate South Carolina law. 

C. Publishing or making available 

illustrative Listing Agreements, Buyer’s 

Representation Agreements, and any 

other written agreements, or contracts 

that Full or Associate Members may 

choose to use or modify, provided any 

such agreements leave blank the 

Compensation terms. 

D. Adopting or enforcing any bylaw, 

rule, regulation, policy, practice, or 

agreement that prohibits Full, Associate, 

or Affiliate Members from enabling a 

third party to make use of its Member 

MLS Database Access. 

E. Requiring a Full Member to notify 

the MLS of a change in or departure of 

its Broker-in-Charge, or the departure of 

any Associate Member. 

F. Requiring a Full Member to provide 

the MLS with the name of a designated 

contact person to whom the MLS may 

direct correspondence and inquiries. 

VII. COMPLIANCE AND INSPECTION 

A. Within sixty (60) days after the 

date of entry of this Final Judgment, 

Defendant shall: (J) provide each of its 

members, trustees, and employees with 

notice of the amendments to its bylaws, 

rules, regulations and policies to 

conform to the provisions of this Order; 

(2) provide each of its members, 

trustees, and employees with a copy of 

this Order via its member-only Internet 

page; (3) inform all persons who are 

known to have inquired about 

membership in the last two years but 

who are not members of the 

amendments to its bylaws, rules, 

regulations and policies to conform to 

the provisions of this Order; (4) inform 

all persons under subsection (3) that 

they may apply or reapply for 

membership and that Defendant will 

grant membership if the applicant meets 

the requirements of the bylaws, rules, 

regulations and policies as revised by 

this Order; and (5) place on its home 

page of its publicly accessible web site 

(currently http:// 

www.hiltonheadmls.com) a notice of the 

Final Judgment with a link to the Final 

Judgment. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
66194 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 27, 2007 / Notices 

B. For the purposes of determining or 

securing compliance with this Final 

Judgment, or of determining whether 

the Final Judgment should be modified 

or vacated, and subject to any legally 

recognized privilege, from time to time 

duly authorized representatives of the 

United States Department of Justice, 

including consultants and other persons 

retained by the United States, shall, 

upon written request of a duly 

authorized representative of the 

Assistant Attorney General in charge of 

the Antitrust Division, and on 

reasonable notice to Defendant, be 

permitted: 

1. access during Defendant’s office hours to 

inspect and copy, or at Plaintiffs option, to 

require Defendant to provide copies of, all 

books, ledgers, accounts, records and 

documents in the Defendant’s possession, 

custody, or control, relating to any matters 

contained in this Final Judgment; and 

2. to interview, either informally or on the 

record, Defendant’s trustees, officers, 

employees, or agents, who may have their 

individual counsel present, regarding such 

matters. The interviews shall be subject to 

the reasonable convenience of the 

interviewee and without restraint or 

interference by Defendant. 

C. Upon the written request of a duly 

authorized representative of the 

Assistant Attorney General in charge of 

the Antitrust Division, for the purposes 

of determining or securing compliance 

with this Final Judgment, or of 

determining whether the Final 

Judgment should be modified or 

vacated, and subject to any legally 

recognized privilege, Defendant shall 

submit written reports or interrogatory 

responses, under oath if requested, 

relating to any of the matters contained 

in this Final Judgment as may be 

requested. 

D. No information or documents 

obtained by the means provided in this 

section shall be divulged by the United 

States to any person other than an 

authorized representative of the 

executive branch of the United States, 

except in the course of legal proceedings 

to which the United States is a party 

(including grand jury proceedings), or 

for the purpose of securing compliance 

with this Final Judgment, or as required 

by law. 

VIII. Retention Of Jurisdiction 

This Court retains jurisdiction to 

enable any party to this Final Judgment 

to apply to this Court at any time for 

further orders and directions as may be 

necessary or appropriate to carry out or 

construe this Final Judgment, to modify 

any of its provisions, to extend the 

duration of the Final Judgment, to 

enforce compliance, and to punish 

violations of its provisions. 

IX. Expiration Of Final Judgment 

This Final Judgment will expire ten 

(10) years from the date of its entry. 

X. Notice 

For purposes of this Final Judgment, 

any notice or other communication shall 

be given to the person at the address set 

forth below (or such other addresses as 

the recipient may specify in writing): 

John R. Read, Chief, Litigation III 

Section, U.S. Department of Justice, 

Antitrust Division, 325 Seventh Street, 

NW., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20530. 

XI. Public Interest Determination 

Entry of this Final Judgment is in the 

public interest. 

Date: 

lllllllllllllllllllll

Court approval subject to procedures of 

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 

U.S.C. 16 

lllllllllllllllllllll

United States District Judge. 

United States District Court for the 

District of South Carolina Beaufort 

Division; 

United States of America, Plaintiff, v. 

Multiple Listing Service of Hilton Head 

Island, Inc, Defendant 

Civil Action No. 9:07–CY–3435–SB 

Filed: 10/16/2007 

Competitive Impact Statement 

Plaintiff United States of America 

(‘‘United States’’), pursuant to section 

2(b) of the Antitrust Procedures and 

Penalties Act (‘‘APPA’’ or ‘‘Tunney 

Act’’), 15 U.S.C 16(b)–(h), files this 

Competitive Impact Statement relating 

to the proposed Final Judgment 

submitted for entry in this civil antitrust 

proceeding. 

I. Nature and Purpose of the 

Proceedings 

On October l, 2007, the United 

States filed a civil antitrust complaint 

alleging that Defendant Multiple Listing 

Service of Hilton Head Island, Inc. 

(‘‘Hilton Head MLS’’) violated Section 1 

of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, by 

enforcing certain rules that 

unreasonably restrain competition 

among real estate brokers in the Hilton 

Head, South Carolina area. Defendant is 

a multiple listing service, which is 

controlled by its members who are real 

estate brokers competing to sell 

brokerage services to consumers in the 

Hilton Head area. As explained more 

fully below, brokers seeking to provide 

brokerage services in the Hilton Head 

area need to be members of the Hilton 

Head MLS. 

In its Complaint, the United States 

alleges that the Defendant, by its rules, 

denies membership to brokers who 

would likely compete aggressively on 

price or would introduce Internet-based 

brokerage, and imposes unreasonable 

membership costs on publicly-owned 

brokerage companies. Defendant’s rules 

also stabilize prices by forcing member 

brokers to provide a certain set of 

brokerage services, whether or not the 

consumer desires to purchase those 

services. The United States also alleges 

that the Defendant has authorized its 

Board of Trustees to adopt rules that 

would regulate commissions and 

impose discriminatory requirements on 

Internet-based brokers. 

At the same time the Complaint was 

filed, the United States filed a 

Stipulation and proposed Final 

Judgment, which are designed to 

eliminate the anticompetitive effects of 

the acquisition. The proposed Final 

Judgment, which is explained more 

fully below, requires the Defendant to 

rescind certain of its rules. The 

proposed Final Judgment also prohibits 

Defendant from adopting new rules that 

have the effect of excluding real estate 

brokers from membership based on such 

criteria as their business model, price 

structure, or office location. The 

proposed Final Judgment further 

prohibits Defendant from adopting new 

rules that would dictate the services and 

prices that its members must offer to 

their clients. 

The Stipulation and proposed Order 

require Hilton Head MLS to take the 

actions required under the proposed 

Final Judgment. The United States and 

Hilton Head MLS have also stipulated 

that the proposed Final Judgment may 

be entered after compliance with the 

APPA, unless the United States 

withdraws its consent. Entry of the 

proposed Final Judgment would 

terminate this action, except that this 

Court would retain jurisdiction to 

construe, modify, and enforce the 

proposed Final Judgment and to punish 

violations thereof. 

II. Description of the Events Giving Rise 

to the Alleged Violation of the Antitrust 

Laws 

A. Description of the Defendant and Its 

Activities 

Hilton Head MLS is organized as a 

not-for-profit corporation under the 

laws of South Carolina with its 

principal place of business on Hilton 

Head Island, Beaufort County, South 

Carolina. Hilton Head MLS is a joint 

venture of over one hundred competing 

licensed brokers and other licensed real 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 27, 2007 / Notices 66195 

1The Hilton Head MLS requires that brokerage 

firms, rather than individual brokers, be members 

of the MLS. For the purposes of this document, any 

reference to brokers includes also the brokerage 

firms with which the broker is associated. 

estate professionals doing business in 

the Hilton Head area.1

Most prospective home sellers and 

buyers engage the services of a broker to 

purchase and sell homes. Real estate 

brokers formed the Hilton Head MLS to 

facilitate the provision of real estate 

brokerage services to such buyers and 

sellers. The Hilton Head MLS pools and 

disseminates information on almost 

every property available for sale on 

Hilton Head Island. It combines its 

members’ property listings information 

into an electronic database and makes 

this data available to all brokers who are 

members of the MLS. By listing 

information on a home in the MLS, a 

broker can market it to a large number 

of potential buyers. A broker 

representing a buyer likewise can search 

the MLS to provide a home buyer with 

information about nearly all the listed 

properties in the area that match the 

buyer’s housing needs. 

Members of the Hilton Head MLS 

utilize the database as a clearinghouse 

to, among other things: communicate 

the listings information of the properties 

that they have for sale to other members; 

offer to compensate other members as 

cooperating brokers if they locate 

purchasers for those listings; locate 

properties for prospective purchasers; 

distribute listings to other members for 

advertisement purposes; and compile 

and distribute market statistics. The 

Hilton Head MLS also maintains records 

of sold homes. These ‘‘sold data’’

records are very important for brokers 

working with sellers to set an optimum 

sales price. Brokers representing a buyer 

likewise use the sold data to help buyers 

determine what price to offer for a 

home. 

Access to the database provided by 

the Hilton Head MLS is critical for 

brokers who wish to serve buyers or 

sellers successfully on Hilton Head 

Island. By virtue of market-wide 

participation and control over a 

critically important input, the Hilton 

Head MLS has market power. 

Industry Background 

The prices consumers paid to brokers 

for the brokerage services associated 

with a typical home sales transaction 

have increased substantially since 2003 

on Hilton Head Island and in many 

other parts of the country. This is 

because brokers who adhere to 

traditional methods of doing business 

typically charge a fee calculated as a 

percentage of the sales price of the 

home, and that percentage has tended to 

be relatively inflexible as housing prices 

on Hilton Head Island and in many 

other parts of the country have 

increased dramatically. As a result of 

these higher prices, brokers offering 

competitively significant alternatives to 

traditional methods have emerged in 

other areas of the country. 

Some brokers in other parts of the 

United States use technology to 

automate certain tasks and to 

communicate more efficiently with 

consumers. For example, technology 

enables brokers to contact, communicate 

with, and service consumers remotely or 

in-person without the need for a retail 

office location that consumers can visit. 

Such technology-savvy brokers can 

reduce brokerage costs by operating 

fewer or no physical offices, and may 

pass cost savings on to consumers 

through reduced brokerage fees. 

Other brokers around the country now 

contract with buyers and sellers to 

provide a subset of services for a flat fee 

rather than for a percentage of the home 

sale price. Fee-for-service brokers 

provide certain enumerated services 

such as marketing the house or 

attending closings, while the buyer or 

seller takes responsibility for other 

services associated with brokerages such 

as making offers and counteroffers or 

conducting open houses on their own. 

Through fee-for-service packages, 

buyers and sellers can save money by 

purchasing only the services that they 

wish their broker to provide. Brokers in 

other areas of the country have attracted 

customers by offering full-service, 

reduced commission brokerage. 

Additionally, still other brokers in other 

areas of the country have sought a 

competitive advantage by creating 

nationwide firms. These firms raise 

capital through public ownership, 

invest in nationwide brands, and 

provide brokerage services to consumers 

in multiple markets. 

C. Description of the Alleged Violation 

Defendant Hilton Head MLS, through 

the collective voting of its broker 

membership, has adopted and enforced 

rules and practices that exclude new 

entry and restrict member output. These 

rules are not reasonably necessary to 

carry out the procompetitive purposes 

of the multiple listing service. As such, 

these rules are agreements amongst 

competitors that restrain competition. 

Accordingly, in its Complaint, the 

United States alleges that Defendant’s 

rules constitute a contract, combination, 

or conspiracy by competitors with 

market power that unreasonably 

restrains competition on Hilton Head 

Island in violation of Section I of the 

Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1. 

Specifically, the Complaint alleges 

that Defendant has rules and practices 

that require broker-members to: (1) 

Maintain a physical office within the 

Hilton Head MLS service area; (2) reside 

within the area served by the Hilton 

Head MLS; (3) operate their offices 

during hours deemed reasonable by the 

Hilton Head MLS; and (4) hold a South 

Carolina real estate license as their 

primary license. (Bylaw Article II, 

Section II; Bylaw Article VII; & Rule II.) 

These rules allow Defendant to deny 

membership to brokers who operate 

business models that would increase 

competition. These rules enable 

Defendant to exclude technology-savvy 

brokers who serve their clients without 

a physical office and who can pass 

along the cost savings to consumers 

through reduced commission rates. 

These rules also deprive consumers of 

the benefits of competition from brokers 

who work part-time or who are licensed 

under reciprocity provisions of South 

Carolina Law. 

Defendant’s rules have also enabled it 

to identity applicants for MLS 

membership who could be aggressive 

competitors and deny their application 

for membership. Broker-applicants are 

required to disclose their business 

history and prior employment, undergo 

a credit check, and obtain letters of 

recommendation from three current 

broker-members, i.e., those with whom 

the applicant would compete. (Bylaw 

Article VII, Section IV; Bylaw Article 

VII, Section IV(a); Rule II.A.2.) These 

rules have allowed unreasonable denials 

of membership and thus deprived 

consumers of the benefits of 

competition. 

Defendant has authorized its Board of 

Trustees to adopt mandatory guidelines 

that would regulate the commission that 

listing brokers offer to selling brokers in 

exchange for their cooperation on the 

home sale. (Bylaw Article XI, Section I.) 

The mere prospect that the Board might 

adopt such controls likely inhibits price 

competition. Their actual adoption 

would directly fix and stabilize prices. 

Defendant also has a rule that requires 

its members to provide certain services 

to all brokerage customers, whether or 

not desired by the customer. (Bylaw 

Article X; MLS Listing Agreement.) 

Embodied in the terms of Defendant’s 

mandatory form listing agreement, this 

rule prevents current and prospective 

members from operating a fee-forservice business model. This rule 

decreases competition and harms 

consumers because it insulates 

Defendant’s members from the 

competitive pressures posed by brokers 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
66196 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 27, 2007 / Notices 

who would offer additional pricing and 

service choices to their customers. 

Defendant has also authorized its 

Board of Trustees to impose 

discriminatory requirements on 

Internet-based real estate brokers. 

(Bylaw Article II, Section II.) Such 

requirements, if implemented, would 

competitively disadvantage Internetbased brokers and discourage them from 

joining the MLS and competing on 

Hilton Head Island, thereby limiting 

consumer choice. The mere prospect 

that the Board might adopt such 

controls likely deters Hilton Head 

brokers from developing an Internetbased model and thereby inhibits such 

service competition. 

In addition, Defendant has a ‘‘change 

in ownership’’ rule that requires 

publicly-held brokerages to make a 

significant payment to the Defendant 

every time a share of their stock changes 

hands. (Bylaw Article VII, Section X; 

Rules II.A.3; IIB & IIE.). This rule 

competitively disadvantages publiclyowned companies and discourages them 

from joining the MLS and competing on 

Hilton Head Island, thereby limiting 

consumer choice. 

D. Harm From the Alleged Violation 

Taken together, Defendant’s rules 

discourage competition on price and 

service, and inhibit competitive actions 

that would alter the status quo. 

Furthermore, there are no plausible 

justifications that these rules are 

reasonably necessary to carry out the 

procompetitive purposes of the multiple 

listing service. As a result of 

Defendant’s anticompetitive rules, 

consumers of brokerage services on 

Hilton Head Island have fewer choices 

of service options and pay higher prices 

for real estate brokerage services than do 

consumers in other parts of the country. 

Data analyzed from a MLS in another 

area of the country support these 

allegations. Data have shown an inverse 

correlation between the share of homes 

listed by fee-for-service brokers in the 

area and the level of cooperating 

commission offered to buyer’s brokers 

for homes in that area. Thus, controlling 

for other influences, where fee-forservice brokers account for a greater 

portion of listings in an area, traditional 

brokers in that area offer lower 

cooperating commissions, on average, to 

brokers representing buyers. 

III. Explanation of the Proposed 

Amended Final Judgment 

The proposed Final Judgment will 

restore the competition that the 

agreement among the Hilton Head MLS 

members has eliminated and will 

prevent Hilton Head MLS from engaging 

in similar conduct in the future. The 

proposed Final Judgment will first 

require Hilton Head MLS to rescind all 

of the current MLS rules discussed 

above. Second, the proposed Final 

Judgment will enjoin Hilton Head MLS 

from adopting or enforcing any rules 

that will have a similar purpose or 

effect. More specifically, the proposed 

Final Judgment will prevent the 

Defendant from adopting rules or 

engaging in practices that (i) exclude 

active, licensed real estate professionals 

from their respective membership class 

in the MLS; (ii) fail to furnish under like 

terms to any member any services it 

furnishes to other members in its 

membership class; (iii) discriminate 

against any member based on its office 

location, corporate structure, level or 

type of compensation, scope of service, 

or method of service; (iv) require 

members to perform brokerage services 

in excess of those required by state law; 

(v) prescribe the terms of agreements 

between a member and its clients or any 

other person who is a prospective home 

buyer or seller; (vi) refuse to accept and 

place in the Multiple Listing Service 

any member’s MLS listing; (vii) set 

standards or guidelines concerning 

compensation; (viii) charge members a 

fee for any change in ownership; (ix) 

require a member to maintain an office 

or reside in the MLS Service Area or any 

other particular location; or (x) alter any 

of its three classes of membership 

without the prior approval of the 

Department of Justice. The proposed 

Final Judgment will also require Hilton 

Head MLS to provide each of its 

members, trustees, employees, and 

agents with a copy of the proposed Final 

Judgment; inform all persons who 

inquired about membership in the last 

two years but who are not members of 

the MLS of the changes in the MLS rules 

caused by the proposed Final Judgment; 

and place on the home page of its 

publicly accessible website a notice of 

the proposed Final Judgment with a link 

to the proposed Final Judgment and the 

amended rules. 

IV. Remedies Available to Potential 

Private Litigants 

Section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 

U.S.C. 15) provides that any person who 

has been injured as a result of conduct 

prohibited by the antitrust laws may 

bring suit in federal court to recover 

three times the damages the person has 

suffered, as well as costs and reasonable 

attorneys’ fees. Entry of the proposed 

Final Judgment will neither impair nor 

assist the bringing of any private 

antitrust damage action. Under the 

provisions of section 5(a) of the Clayton 

Act (15 U.S.C. 16(a)), the proposed Final 

Judgment has no prima facie effect in 

any subsequent private lawsuit that may 

be brought against the Defendant. 

V. Procedures Available for 

Modification of the Proposed Final 

Judgment 

The United States and the Defendant 

have stipulated that the proposed Final 

Judgment may be entered by the Court 

after compliance with the provisions of 

the APPA, provided that the United 

States has not withdrawn its consent. 

The APPA conditions entry upon the 

Court’s determination that the proposed 

Final Judgment is in the public interest. 

The APPA provides a period of at 

least sixty (60) days preceding the 

effective date of the proposed Final 

Judgment within which any person may 

submit to the United States written 

comments regarding the proposed Final 

Judgment. Any person who wishes to 

comment should do so within sixty (60) 

days of the date of publication of this 

Competitive Impact Statement in the 

Federal Register, or the last date of 

publication in a newspaper of the 

summary of this Competitive Impact 

Statement, whichever is later. All 

comments received during this period 

will be considered by the United States 

Department of Justice, which remains 

free to withdraw its consent to the 

proposed Final Judgment at any time 

prior to the Court’s entry of judgment. 

The comments and the response of the 

United States will be filed with the 

Court and published in the Federal 

Register. 

Written comments should be 

submitted to: John Read, Chief, 

Litigation III Section, Antitrust Division, 

United States Department of Justice, 325 

Seventh Street, NW., Suite 300, 

Washington, DC 20530. 

The proposed Final Judgment 

provides that the Court retains 

jurisdiction over this action, and the 

parties may apply to the Court for any 

order necessary or appropriate for the 

modification, interpretation, or 

enforcement of the Final Judgment. 

VI. Alternatives to the Proposed 

Amended Final Judgment 

The United States considered, as an 

alternative to the proposed Final 

Judgment, a full trial on the merits 

against the Defendant. Given the 

inherent delays of a full trial and the 

appeals process, the United States is 

satisfied that the relief contained in the 

proposed Final Judgment will quickly 

establish, preserve, and ensure 

competition for real estate brokerage 

services in the Hilton Head MLS Service 

Area. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 27, 2007 / Notices 66197 

2Compare 15 U.S.C. 16(e) (2004), with 15 U.S.C. 

16(e)(1) (2006) (substituting ‘‘shall’’ for ‘‘may’’ in 

directing relevant factors for court to consider and 

amending list of factors to focus on competitive 

considerations and to address potentially 

ambiguous judgment terms). The 2004 amendments 

do not affect the substantial precedent in this and 

other circuits analyzing the scope and standard of 

review for APPA proceedings. See SBC Commc’ns, 

2007 WL 1020746, at *9 (‘‘[ A] close reading of the 

law demonstrates that the 2004 amendments 

effected minimal changes. * * *’’). 

3The Microsoft court explained that a court 

making a public interest determination under the 

APPA should consider, among other things, the 

relationship between the remedy secured and the 

specific allegations set forth in the government’s 

complaint, whether the decree is sufficiently clear, 

whether enforcement mechanisms are sufficient, 

and whether the decree may positively harm third 

parties. Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1458–62. 

4Cf 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’’), aff’d sub nom. Maryland v. 

United States, 460 U.S. 1001 (1983). 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’ ’’). 

5United States v. Mid-Am. Dairymen. Inc., 1977–

1 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 61,508, at 71,980 (W.D. Mo. 

1977) (‘‘[T]he Court, in making its public interest 

finding, should * * * carefully consider the 

explanations of the government in the competitive 

Continued 

VII. Standard of Review Under the 

APPA for Proposed Amended Final 

Judgment 

The APPA requires that proposed 

consent judgments in antitrust cases 

brought by the United States be subject 

to a sixty-day comment period, after 

which the Court shall determine 

whether entry of the proposed Final 

Judgment ‘‘is in the public interest.’’ 15 

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

determination, the Court, in accordance 

with amendments to the APPA in 2004, 

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)(l)(A) & (B); see generally 

United States v. SBC Commc’ns, Inc., 

Nos. 05–2102 and 05–2103, 2007 WL 

1020746, at *9–16 (D.D.C. Mar. 29, 

2007) (assessing public interest standard 

under APPA and effect of 2004 

amendments).2 As courts have held—

both before and after the 2004 

amendments—the United States is 

entitled to deference in crafting its 

antitrust settlements, especially with 

respect to the scope of its complaint and 

the adequacy of its remedy, which are 

the ‘‘two most significant legal 

questions’’ relating to a public interest 

determination. United States v. 

Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 1448, 1458–62 

(D.C. Cir. 1995); SBC Commc’ns, 2007 

WL 1020746, at *12–*16.3.3

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 

effectiveness of antitrust enforcement by 

consent decree. 

Bechtel, 648 F.2d at 666 (emphasis 

added) (citations omitted).4 In making 

its public interest determination, a 

district court must accord due respect to 

the United States’ prediction as to the 

effect of proposed remedies, its 

perception of the market structure, and 

its views of the nature of the case. SBC 

Commc’ns, 2007 WL 1020746, at *16 

(United States entitled to ‘‘deference’’ as 

to ‘‘predictions about the efficacy of its 

remedies’’); United States v. ArcherDaniels-Midland Co., 272 F. Supp. 2d 1, 

6 (D.D.C. 2003). 

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 interest.’ ’’

United States v. AT&T Co., 552 F. Supp. 

131, 151 (D.D.C. 1982) (citations 

omitted) (quoting Gillette, 406 F. Supp. 

at 716); see also United States v. Alcan 

Aluminum Ltd., 605 F. Supp. 619, 622 

(W.O. 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, 2007 

WL 1020746, at *16. 

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. As the 

United States District Court for the 

District of Columbia recently confirmed 

in SBC Communications, 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, 2007 WL 1020746, at 

*14. 

In its 2004 amendments to the 

Tunney Act, Congress made clear its 

intent to preserve the practical benefits 

of utilizing consent decrees in antitrust 

enforcement, adding the unambiguous 

instruction ‘‘[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 codified the intent of the 

original 1974 statute, expressed by 

Senator Tunney in the legislative 

history: ‘‘[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.’’ SSC 

Commc’ns, 2007 WL 1020746, at *9.5


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
66198 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 27, 2007 / Notices 

impact statement and its responses to comments in 

order to determine whether those explanations are 

reasonable under the circumstances.’’). 

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 Amended Final Judgment. 

Dated: October 16, 2007. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Lisa A. Scanlon, 

Owen M. Kendler, 

Christopher M. Ries, 

Attorneys for the United States of America, 

U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust 

Division, 325 7th Street, NW., Suite 300, 

Washington, DC 20530, Telephone: (202) 

616–5954, Facsimile: (202) 514–7308. 

Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that on October 16, 2007, 

I caused a copy of the foregoing Competitive 

Impact Statement to be served on counsel for 

Defendant in this matter in the manner set 

forth below: 

Jane W. Trinkley, 

McNair Law Firm, P.A. P.O. Box 11390, 

Columbia, SC 29211, (via e-mail and firstclass mail). 

Respectfully submitted, 

Reginald I. Lloyd, 

United States Attorney. 

By: 

Barbara M. Bowens (I.D. 4004), 

Counsel for Defendant, Assistant United 

States Attorney, 1441 Main Street, Suite 

500, Columbia, South Carolina 29201. 

Christopher M. Ries, 

Attorney for the United States of America, 

U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust 

Division, 325 7th Street, NW., Suite 300, 

Washington, DC 20530, Telephone: (202) 

616–5954, Facsimile: (202) 514–7308. 

[FR Doc. 07–5653 Filed 11–26–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Office of the Secretary 

Submission for OMB Review: 

Comment Request 

November 20, 2007. 

The Department of Labor (DOL) 

hereby announces the submission of the 

following public information collection 

requests (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 each ICR, with applicable 

supporting documentation; including 

among other things a description of the 

likely respondents, proposed frequency 

of response, and estimated total burden 

may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov 

Web site at http://www.reginfo.gov/ 

public/do/PRAMain or by contacting 

Darrin King on 202–693–4129 (this is 

not a toll-free number)/e-mail: 

king.darrin@dol.gov. 

Interested parties are encouraged to 

send comments to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attn: Katherine Astrich, OMB Desk 

Officer for the Employment and 

Training Administration (ETA), Office 

of Management and Budget, Room 

10235, Washington, DC 20503, 

Telephone: 202–395–7316/Fax: 202–

395–6974 (these are not a toll-free 

numbers), e-mail: 

OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov within 

30 days from the date of this publication 

in the Federal Register. In order to 

ensure the appropriate consideration, 

comments should reference the OMB 

Control Number (see below). 

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 

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. 

Type of Review: Extension without 

change of a currently approved 

collection. 

Title: Application for Alien 

Employment Certification. 

OMB Control Number: 1205–0015. 

Form Number: ETA–750, Parts A and 

B. 

Affected Public: Private Sector: 

Business or other for-profits; Farms; and 

Not-for-profit institutions. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

38,635. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 56,426. 

Estimated Total Annual Costs Burden: 

$1,318,838. 

Description: The information 

collection is required by section 

212(a)(5)(A), section 214(c) and section 

218 of the Immigration and Nationality 

Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(5)(A), 

1184(c) and 1188). The INA mandates 

the Secretary of Labor to certify that any 

alien seeking to enter the United States 

for the purpose of performing skilled or 

unskilled labor is not adversely affecting 

wages and working conditions of U.S. 

workers similarly employed and that 

there are not sufficient U.S. workers 

able, willing, and qualified to perform 

such skilled or unskilled labor. Before 

any employer may request any skilled or 

unskilled alien labor, it must submit a 

request for certification to the Secretary 

of Labor containing the elements 

prescribed by the INA or meet one of the 

exceptions in the INA. Both the 

Department of Labor and the 

Department of Homeland Security have 

promulgated regulations to implement 

these sections of the INA. The relevant 

regulations are 20 CFR 655.1–4, 20 CFR 

655.90–113, 20 CFR 655.200–215, 8 CFR 

204.5(k)(4)(ii), and 8 CFR 214.2(h)(5) 

and (6). 

In order to meet its statutory 

responsibilities under the INA, the 

Department needs to extend an existing 

collection of information pertaining to 

employers seeking to import foreign 

labor. The Form ETA–750 is the 

mechanism used to collect the necessary 

information which is utilized not only 

by the Department, but also by other 

Federal agencies to meet the 

requirements of the INA. The 

Department uses the information 

collected to implement several of its 

nonimmigrant worker programs, 

including the H–2A and H–2B 

temporary work programs, and for both 

permanent and temporary programs for 

the employment of alien professional 

athletes. The Department of Homeland 

Security, U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services, utilizes the form 

for its National Interest Waiver program 

for employment-sponsored immigration. 

Agency: Employment and Training 

Administration. 

Type of Review: Revision and 

extension of a currently approved 

collection. 

Title: Employment and Training Data 

Validation Requirement. 

OMB Number: 1205–0448. 

Form Numbers: ETA–DRVS Labor 

Exchange User’s Guide Version 6.3; 

DRVS Workforce Investment Act Users 

Guide Version 6.3; NFJP Validation 

Form Version 2.0; and TAA Handbook 

Version 2.0. 

Affected Public: State governments 

and not-for-profit institutions. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

318. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES