Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 1995 / Notices 10871

1A stay will be issued routinely by the

Commission in those proceedings where an

informed decision on environmental issues

(whether raised by a party or by the Commission’s

Section of Environmental Analysis in its

independent investigation) cannot be made prior to

the effective date of the notice of exemption. See

Exemption of Out-of-Service Rail Lines, 5 I.C.C.2d

377 (1989). Any entity seeking a stay on

environmental concerns is encouraged to file its

request as soon as possible in order to permit the

Commission to review and act on the request before

the effective date of this exemption.

2See Exempt. of Rail Abandonment—Offers of

Finan. Assist., 4 I.C.C.2d 164 (1987).

3The Commission will accept a late-filed trail use

request as long as it retains jurisdiction to do so.

4Conrail indicates that, subject to the

abandonment, they have contracted to sell the

bridge to Capital Area Transit for the purpose of

preserving it as a historical structure and for

possible future public use.

the Commission’s decision. To purchase

a copy of the full decision, write to, call,

or pick up in person from: Dynamic

Concepts, Inc., Room 2229, Interstate

Commerce Commission Building, 1201

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20423. Telephone (202) 289–4357/

4359. [Assistance for the hearing

impaired is available through TDD

services (202) 927–5721.]

Decided: February 10, 1995.

By the Commission, Chairman McDonald,

Vice Chairman Morgan, and Commissioners

Simmons and Owen.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–4914 Filed 2–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7035–01–P

[Docket No. AB–167 (Sub-No. 1144X)]

Consolidated Rail Corporation—

Abandonment Exemption—in

Cumberland and Dauphin Counties, PA

Consolidated Rail Corporation

(Conrail) has filed a notice of exemption

under 49 CFR 1152 Subpart F—Exempt

Abandonments to abandon a 1-mile line

of railroad (the Cumberland Valley

Railroad Bridge) spanning the

Susquehanna River, between Harrisburg

and Lemoyne, PA, located on a portion

of track known as the Shippensburg

Secondary, between milepost 0.5 and

milepost 1.5, in Cumberland and

Dauphin Counties, PA.

Conrail has certified that: (1) No local

or overhead traffic has moved over the

line for at least 2 years; (2) no formal

complaint filed by a user of rail service

on the line (or by a state or local

government entity acting on behalf of

such user) regarding cessation of service

over the line either is pending with the

Commission or with any U.S. District

Court or has been decided in favor of

the complainant within the 2-year

period; and (3) the requirements at 49

CFR 1105.7 (environmental reports), 49

CFR 1105.8 (historic report), 49 CFR

1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR

1105.12 (newspaper publication), and

49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to

governmental agencies) have been met.

As a condition to use of this

exemption, any employee adversely

affected by the abandonment shall be

protected under Oregon Short Line R.

Co.—Abandonment—Goshen, 360 I.C.C.

91 (1979). To address whether this

condition adequately protects affected

employees, a petition for partial

revocation under 49 U.S.C. 10505(d)

must be filed.

Provided no formal expression of

intent to file an offer of financial

assistance (OFA) has been received, this

exemption will be effective on March

30, 1995, unless stayed pending

reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do

not involve environmental issues,1

formal expressions of intent to file an

OFA under 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2),2 and

trail use/rail banking requests under 49

CFR 1152.29 3 must be filed by March

10, 1995. Petitions to reopen or requests

for public use conditions under 49 CFR

1152.28 must be filed by March 20,

1995,4 with: Office of the Secretary,

Case Control Branch, Interstate

Commerce Commission, Washington,

DC 20423.

A copy of any pleading filed with the

Commission should be sent to

applicant’s representative: John J.

Paylor, Consolidated Rail Corporation,

Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market

Street, P.O. Box 41416, Philadelphia, PA

19101–1416.

If the notice of exemption contains

false or misleading information, the

exemption is void ab initio.

Conrail has filed an environmental

report which addresses the

abandonment’s effects, if any, on the

environment and historic resources. The

Section of Environmental Analysis

(SEA) will issue an environmental

assessment (EA) by March 3, 1995.

Interested persons may obtain a copy of

the EA by writing to SEA (Room 3219,

Interstate Commerce Commission,

Washington, DC 20423) or by calling

Elaine Kaiser, Chief of SEA, at (202)

927–6248. Comments on environmental

and historic preservation matters must

be filed within 15 days after the EA is

available to the public.

Environmental, historic preservation,

public use, or trail use/rail banking

conditions will be imposed, where

appropriate, in a subsequent decision.

Decided: February 16, 1995.

By the Commission, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–4874 Filed 2–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7035–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

United States v. Association of Retail

Travel Agents: Public Comments and

Response on Proposed Final

Judgment

Pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures

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

the United States publishes below the

comments received on the proposed

Final Judgment in United States v.

Association of Retail Travel Agents,

Civil Action No. 94–2305 (PF), United

States District Court for the District of

Columbia, together with the response of

the United States to the comments.

Copies of the response and the public

comments are available on request for

inspection and copying in room 3233 of

the Antitrust Division, U.S. Department

of Justice, Tenth Street and

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC. 20530, and for

inspection at the Office of the Clerk of

the United States District Court for the

District of Columbia, United States

Courthouse, Third Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20001.

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

United States’ Response to Public

Comments

Introduction

In the United States District Court for the

District of Columbia

United States of America, Plaintiff, v.

Association of Retail Travel Agents,

Defendant. [Civil No: 94–2305 (PF).]

Pursuant to section 2(d) of the

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act

(‘‘APPA’’), 15 U.S.C. 16(d), the United

States responds to public comments on

the proposed Final Judgment submitted

for entry in this civil antitrust

proceeding.

This action began on October 25,

1994, when the United States filed a

Complaint alleging that the Association

of Retail Travel Agents (hereinafter

‘‘ARTA’’) had entered into a contract,

combination or conspiracy in restraint

of trade in violation of section 1 of the

Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1). The

Complaint alleges that ARTA, a trade

association, all of whose members are
10872 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 1995 / Notices

travel agents, and its members agreed on

commission levels and other terms of

trade on which to transact business with

providers of travel services, and

encouraged and participated in a group

boycott with the intent to induce certain

providers of travel services to agree to

certain commission levels and practices.

The Complaint seeks an order enjoining

ARTA from inviting or encouraging

such concerted action by travel agents.

Simultaneously with the filing of the

Complaint, the United States filed a

proposed Final Judgment, a Competitive

Impact Statement (‘‘CIS’’) and a

Stipulation signed by ARTA for entry of

the proposed Final Judgment. The

proposed Final Judgment resolves the

antitrust violation alleged in the

Complaint by enjoining ARTA from

inviting or encouraging travel agents to

deal with travel providers only on

agreed terms. This prohibition includes

any agreements on Specified

commission levels. The proposed Final

Judgment also prohibits ARTA from

adopting or disseminating any rules,

policies, or statements that have the

purpose or effect of advocating or

encouraging such a concerted refusal to

deal. Finally, the proposed Final

Judgment requires ARTA periodically to

inform its members, officers and board

members on the requirements of the

proposed Final Judgments and the

antitrust laws.

As required by the APPA, on

December 8, 1994, ARTA filed with this

Court a description of written and oral

communications on its behalf within the

reporting requirements of section 15(g)

of the APPA. A summary of the terms

of the proposed Final Judgment and CIS,

and directions for the submission of

written comments relating to the

proposal were published in the

Washington Post for seven consecutive

days beginning November 13, 1994. The

proposed Final Judgment and CIS were

published in the Federal Register on

November 17, 1994. 59 FR 59422 (1994).

The 60-day period for public

comments commenced on November 18,

1994 and expired on January 16, 1995.

The United States has received one

comment on the proposed Final

Judgment, from the Independent Travel

Agencies of America Association, Inc.

(‘‘ITAA’’). That comment is being filed

with the Court along with this response.

I. Legal Standards Governing the

Court’s Public Interest Determination

The procedural requirement of the

Tunney Act are intended to eliminate

secrecy from the consent decree process,

to ensure that the Justice Department

has access to information from the

widest spectrum of persons with

knowledge of the issues bearing on the

consent decree, and to create a public

record of the reasoning behind the

government’s consent to the decree.

Hearings on H.R. 9703, H.R. 9947, and

S. 782, Consumer Decree Bills Before the

Subcomm. on Monopolies and

Commercial Law of the House Judiciary

Committee, 93rd Cong. 1st Sess. 40

(1977) (hereinafter ‘‘Hearings’’)

(Statement of Senator Tunney.) See also

United States v. Western Electric Co.,

993 F.2d 1572 (D.C. (Cir.), cert. denied,

114 S. Ct. 487 (1993); United States v.

American Tel. and Tel. Co., 552 F.

Supp. 131, 148 (D.D.C. 1982), aff’d sub

nom. Maryland v. United States, 460

U.S. 1001 (1983).

The issue in a Tunney Act proceeding

is whether the relief provided by the

decree adequately protects the public

interest. Although the Tunney Act

requires the Court to make an

independent determination that a

decree is in the public interest, the

Court’s role is limited. Congress

intended to preserve the viability of the

consent decree process by avoiding

lengthy and protracted judicial

proceedings, and therefore, ‘‘[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.’’ United States v.

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

Cir. 1981).

The Court’s public interest inquiry

must be conducted in light of the

‘‘violations set forth in the complaint.’’

15 U.S.C. 16(b). The enforcement

agency’s decision about what charges to

bring in its complaint is a matter

generally ‘‘committed to the agency’s

absolute discretion.’’ Heckler v. Chaney,

470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985).

II. Public Comments

ITAA states that the proposed Final

Judgment should be modified to require

ARTA to agree (a) not to lobby or ‘‘foster

legislation’’ that would discriminate

against travel agencies that are not

members of ARTA, and (b) not to use

the press to discriminate, or to cause

travel suppliers to discriminate, against

non-ARTA travel agencies. ITAA’s

comment does not discuss how such

remedies are related to, or would cure,

the violations alleged in the Complaint,

nor explain why the proposed remedies

would otherwise be appropriate.

Upon careful consideration, the

government does not believe there is

any reason to modify the proposed Final

Judgment. As noted, the Complaint in

this case alleges a boycott by ARTA to

induce travel suppliers to agree to

commission rates and other terms. It

does not allege any activity directed

toward or utilizing legislation or the

press. Nor does it allege any activity

involving or directed toward travel

agents activity involving or directed

toward travel agents that are not ARTA

members. Moreover, it does not appear

that the relief proposed by ITAA would

prevent or mollify the violations that are

alleged in the complaint. The lack of a

connection between ITAA’s proposed

relief and any alleged antitrust violation

is particularly apparent here because

attempts to petition a legislature,

standing alone, are normally not subject

to the antitrust laws. See Eastern

Railroads Presidents Conference v.

Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127

(1961).

III. Conclusion

The decree provides relief entirely

adequate to redress the harm caused by

defendant’s conduct. Entry of the decree

is in the public interest. ITAA’s

comment and this response will be

published in the Federal Register.

Dated: February 14, 1995.

Anne K. Bingaman,

Assistant Attorney General.

Robert E. Litan,

Deputy Assistant Attorney General.

Respectfully submitted,

Roger W. Fones,

Donna N. Kooperstein,

Robert D. Young,

Nina B. Hale,

Attorneys, Transportation, Energy, and

Agriculture Section, Antitrust Division,

Department of Justice.

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that I have caused a

copy of the foregoing UNITED STATES

RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS to

be served upon Alexander Anolik, 693

Sutter St., 6th Floor, San Francisco, CA

94102 by first class mail, postage

prepaid.

Dated: February 14, 1995.

Robert D. Young,

Transportation, Energy and Agriculture

Section, Antitrust Division, Department of

Justice.

November 1,1994.

Mr. Roger Fones,

Chief, Transportation, Energy and

Agriculture Section, Antitrust Division,

Judiciary Center Building, 555 4th Street,

NW, Rm 9104, Washington, DC 20001

Re: United States of America v. Association

of Retail Travel Agents Case Number

1:94CVO2305

Dear Mr. Fones: I am General Counsel of

the Independent Travel Agencies of America

Association. We represent in excess of 5000

independent travel agencies across the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 1995 / Notices 10873

country. We at ITAA and many of our

members have read with great interest your

release of Tuesday October 25, 1994, ‘‘Travel

Agent Trade Association Agrees To End

Anticompetitive Practices’’ as well as the

‘‘Complaint’’ the ‘‘Stipulation’’ the proposed

‘‘Final Judgment’’ and the ‘‘Competitive

Impact Statement’’.

In accordance with the Section V of the

Competitive Impact Statement on behalf of

this association and our members we would

like to register our comments as the Final

Judgment when implemented will have a

great effect upon many, if not all, of our

members.

The Final judgment should be modified as

follows:

1. ARTA should agree not to lobby or foster

legislation in any state that would

discriminate in any way against non-ARTA

travel agencies.

2. ARTA should agree not to use the press

to discriminate against non-ARTA travel

agencies.

3. ARTA should agree not to use the press

to cause suppliers of travel not to want to

work with non-ARTA travel agencies.

Thank you for your time and trouble and

if you have any questions with regard to

these proposed modifications please contact

me directly.

Sincerely,

Alan A. Benjamin

[FR Doc. 95–4800 Filed 2–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

Notice of Attestations Filed by

Facilities Using Nonimmigrant Aliens

as Registered Nurses

AGENCY: Employment and Training

Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor

(DOL) is publishing, for public

information, a list of the following

health care facilities that have submitted

attestations (Form ETA 9029 and

explanatory statements) to one of four

Regional Offices of DOL (Boston,

Chicago, Dallas and Seattle) for the

purpose of employing nonimmigrant

alien nurses. A decision has been made

on these organizations’ attestations and

they are on file with DOL.

ADDRESSES: Anyone interested in

inspecting or reviewing the employer’s

attestation may do so at the employer’s

place of business.

Attestations and short supporting

explanatory statements are also

available for inspection in the U.S.

Employment Service, Employment and

Training Administration, Department of

Labor, Room N–4456, 200 Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.

Any complaints regarding a particular

attestation or a facility’s activities under

that attestation, shall be filed with a

local office of the Wage and Hour

Division of the Employment Standards

Administration, Department of Labor.

The addresses of such offices are found

in many local telephone directories, or

may be obtained by writing to the Wage

and Hour Division, Employment

Standards Administration, Department

of Labor, Room S–3502, 200

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20210.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Regarding the Attestation Process

Chief, Division of Foreign Labor

Certifications, U.S. Employment

Service. Telephone: 202–219–5263 (this

is not a toll-free number).

Regarding the Complaint Process

Questions regarding the complaint

process for the H–1A nurse attestation

program will be made to the Chief, Farm

Labor Program, Wage and Hour

Division. Telephone: 202–219–7605

(this is not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Immigration and Nationality Act

requires that a health care facility

seeking to use nonimmigrant aliens as

registered nurses first attest to the

Department of Labor (DOL) that it is

taking significant steps to develop,

recruit and retain United States (U.S.)

workers in the nursing profession. The

law also requires that these foreign

nurses will not adversely affect U.S.

nurses and that the foreign nurses will

be treated fairly. The facility’s

attestation must be on file with DOL

before the Immigration and

Naturalization Service will consider the

facility’s H–1A visa petitions for

bringing nonimmigrant registered

nurses to the United States. 26 U.S.C.

1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(a) and 1181(m). The

regulations implementing the nursing

attestation program are at 20 CFR parts

655, subpart D, and 29 CFR part 504

(January 6, 1994). The Employment and

Training Administration, pursuant to 20

CFR 655.310(c), is publishing the

following list of facilities which have

submitted attestations which have been

accepted for filing and those which have

been rejected.

The list of facilities is published so

that U.S. registered nurses, and other

persons and organizations can be aware

of health care facilities that have

requested foreign nurses for their staff.

If U.S. registered nurses or other persons

wish to examine the attestation (on

Form ETA 9029) and the supporting

documentation, the facility is required

to make the attestation and

documentation available. Telephone

numbers of the facilities chief executive

officer also are listed to aid public

inquiries. In addition, attestations and

explanatory statements (but not the full

supporting documentation) are available

for inspection at the address for the

Employment and Training

Administration set forth in the

ADDRESSES section of this notice.

If a person wishes to file a complaint

regarding a particular attestation or a

facility’s activities under the attestation,

such complaint must be filed at the

address for the Wage and Hour Division

of the Employment Standards

Administration set forth in the

ADDRESSES section of this notice.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 14th day of

February 1995.

John M. Robinson,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Employment and

Training Administration.

DIVISION OF FOREIGN LABOR CERTIFICATIONS, HEALTH CARE FACILITY ATTESTATIONS

[FORM ETA–9029]

CEO-Name/Facility name/Address State Action date

ETA REGION 1

01/02/95 TO 01/08/95

Maria Lapid, Abbott Manor Convalescent Center, 810 Central Ave., Plainfield, NJ 07060, 201–757–0696 ................... NJ 01/05/95

ETA CONTROL NUMBER—1/216641 ACTION—ACCEPTED

Martha R. Zeltner, Cranford Hall Nursing Home, 600 Lincoln Park East, Cranford, NJ 07016, 908–276–7100 ............ NJ 01/06/95

ETA CONTROL NUMBER—1/216771 ACTION—ACCEPTED

Maria Lapid, Green Acres Manor, 1931 Lakewood Road (Route 9), Toms River, NJ 08755, 201–286–2323 ............... NJ 01/06/95