Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Notices 66377 

15See, e.g., Areeda & Hovenkamp, supra note 14, 

¶ 2022a, at 175 (‘‘For example, firms could 

presumably agree to insist on cash at the time of 

delivery but nevertheless compete vigorously on the 

price they charge. But to make much of this fact 

distorts the relative importance of the various terms 

of any transaction. The explicit ‘price’ of any good 

or service is a function not only of the nominal 

price but also for the credit terms, applicable 

discounts, rebates, terms of delivery, and the like. 

Firms might also agree about the nominal price but 

continue to compete by offering increasingly longer 

time periods before payment is due. The fact that 

such competition continues to exist does not serve 

to make the price-fixing agreement reasonable.’’). 

16Although the argument that AmeriGas and Blue 

Rhino’s co-filling arrangement offers an efficiency 

justification for the parties’ concerted action against 

Walmart has some superficial appeal, it can be 

dispensed with relatively easily. First, if we are to 

take seriously the claim that identical propane fill 

levels are necessary for the efficient operation of 

AmeriGas’s and Blue Rhino’s businesses, we would 

expect the parties to have agreed on the initial move 

from 17-pound to 15-pound tanks. They did not. In 

fact, after a lengthy investigation, the Commission 

concluded the parties independently reduced the 

amount of propane contained in their tanks and 

only colluded in subsequent negotiations with 

Walmart. Second, it would be a curious thing for 

two companies attempting to achieve an efficiency 

benefit—one that would reduce the costs passed on 

to purchasers—to seek to achieve that benefit by 

coordinating secretly rather than explaining to 

purchasers the costs of maintaining divergent filllevels for their propane tanks. 

17See Frank H. Easterbrook, The Limits of 

Antitrust, 63 Tex. L. Rev. 1, 15–17 (1984). 

18See, e.g., Joshua D. Wright, Comm’r, Fed. Trade 

Comm’n, The Economics of Resale Price 

Maintenance & Implications for Competition Law 

and Policy, Remarks before the British Institute of 

International and Comparative Law (Apr. 9, 2014), 

available at http://www.ftc.gov/system/files/

documents/public_statements/302501/140409rpm.

pdf. 

19See, e.g., Polygram Holding, Inc. v. FTC, 416 

F.3d 29, 34–35 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (explaining usefully 

how the ‘‘Supreme Court’s approach to evaluating 

a section 1 claim has gone through a transition over 

the last twenty-five years, from a categorical 

approach to a more nuanced and case-specific 

inquiry’’). 

20Cal. Dental Ass’n v. F.T.C., 526 U.S. 756, 779 

(1999) (quoting NCAA v. Board of Regents, 468 U.S. 

85, 104 n.26 (1983)). 

21 Id. at 779–81. 

22Polygram, 416 F.3d 29 at 36–37. 

continued to compete on quality or 

quantity. Fortunately, antitrust law 

requires a different and more 

economically sensible result.15

It also is worth noting that no one— 

including but not limited to the 

parties—has presented a plausible 

efficiency justification that might 

suggest the collusion between AmeriGas 

and Blue Rhino to reduce the amount of 

propane in tanks sold to Walmart was 

somehow procompetitive.16 This 

enforcement action therefore simply 

does not implicate traditional concerns 

over false positives and the fear that the 

Commission might inadvertently chill 

procompetitive behavior.17 In addition, 

while much has been written about the 

important shift away from per se rules 

in favor of a more effects-based rule of 

reason analysis under modern antitrust 

doctrine, the benefits of this shift 

unsurprisingly accrue only where the 

challenged conduct potentially offers 

some procompetitive benefits.18 Again, 

that is not the case here. The record is 

devoid of evidence supporting a 

plausible efficiency justification for the 

challenged agreement. 

Moreover, the Supreme Court’s shift 

toward the rule of reason has always left 

room for an appropriately truncated 

review for conduct that is likely to harm 

competition and without efficiency 

justification. The Court has made clear 

that attempting to place antitrust 

analysis into fixed categories is overly 

simplistic.19 The Court has recognized 

that ‘‘there is often no bright line 

separating per se from Rule of Reason 

analysis’’ 20 and that determining 

whether a ‘‘challenged restraint 

enhances competition’’ requires ‘‘an 

enquiry meet for the case.’’ 21

The alleged coordination between 

AmeriGas and Blue Rhino bears a ‘‘close 

family resemblance’’ to conduct long 

since ‘‘convicted in the court of 

consumer welfare’’ based upon 

‘‘economic learning and market 

experience’’ that demonstrates such 

restraints are likely to harm 

consumers.22 Where, as here, the two 

principal suppliers in an industry have 

colluded in their negotiations with a 

major distributor to impose contractual 

terms the distributor initially resisted, 

and there are no plausible efficiency 

justifications suggesting the conduct 

may have been procompetitive, that 

enquiry is appropriately brief. 

Enforcement actions to prevent 

anticompetitive conduct with no 

plausible efficiency are a wise use of 

agency resources and should be a focus 

of the Commission’s competition 

mission because they bring immediate 

benefits for consumers with little risk of 

chilling procompetitive conduct. 

For all of these reasons, I voted in 

favor of issuing the Complaint and 

accepting the proposed Consent 

Agreements in this matter. 

[FR Doc. 2014–26551 Filed 11–6–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

[OMB Control No. 9000–0013; Docket 2014– 

0055; Sequence 21] 

Submission for OMB Review; Federal 

Acquisition Regulation; Cost or Pricing 

Data Requirements and Information 

Other Than Cost or Pricing Data 

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DOD), 

General Services Administration (GSA), 

and National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Notice of request for public 

comments regarding an extension to an 

existing OMB information collection. 

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. chapter 35) the Regulatory 

Secretariat Division will be submitting 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) a request to review and approve 

an extension of a previously approved 

information collection requirement 

concerning Cost or Pricing Data 

Requirements and Information Other 

Than Cost or Pricing Data. A notice was 

published in the Federal Register at 79 

FR 51168 on August 27, 2014. No 

comments were received. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

December 8, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

identified by Information Collection 

9000–0013, Cost or Pricing Data 

Requirements and Information Other 

Than Cost or Pricing Data, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Regulations.gov: http://

www.regulations.gov. Submit comments 

via the Federal eRulemaking portal by 

searching the OMB control number 

9000–0013. Select the link that 

corresponds with ‘‘Information 

Collection 9000–0013, Cost or Pricing 

Data Requirements and Information 

Other Than Cost or Pricing Data’’. 

Follow the instructions provided on the 

screen. Please include your name, 

company name (if any), and 

‘‘Information Collection 9000–0013, 

Cost or Pricing Data Requirements and 

Information Other Than Cost or Pricing 

Data’’, on your attached document. 

• Fax: 202–501–4067. 

• Mail: General Services 

Administration, Regulatory Secretariat 

Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms. 

Flowers/IC 9000–0013, Cost or Pricing 

Data Requirements and Information 

Other Than Cost or Pricing Data. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

66378 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Notices 

Instructions: Please submit comments 

only and cite Information Collection 

9000–0013, Cost or Pricing Data 

Requirements and Information Other 

Than Cost or Pricing Data, in all 

correspondence related to this 

collection. All comments received will 

be posted without change to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal and/or business confidential 

information provided. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Edward Chambers, Procurement 

Analyst, Federal Acquisition Policy 

Division, GSA 202–501–3221 or 

Edward.chambers@gsa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Purpose 

The Truth in Negotiations Act 

requires the Government to obtain 

certified cost or pricing data under 

certain circumstances. Contractors may 

request an exemption from this 

requirement under certain conditions 

and provide other information instead. 

B. Annual Reporting Burden 

Respondents: 32,111. 

Responses per Respondent: 6. 

Total Responses: 192,666. 

Hours per Response: 50.51. 

Total Burden Hours: 9,731,560. 

C. Public Comments 

Public comments are particularly 

invited on: Whether this collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of functions of the FAR, 

and whether it will have practical 

utility; whether our estimate of the 

public burden of this collection of 

information is accurate, and based on 

valid assumptions and methodology; 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and ways in which we can 

minimize the burden of the collection of 

information on those who are to 

respond, through the use of appropriate 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: 

Requesters may obtain a copy of the 

information collection documents from 

the General Services Administration, 

Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 

1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 

20405, telephone 202–501–4755. 

Please cite OMB Control No. 9000– 

0013, Cost or Pricing Data Requirements 

and Information Other Than Cost or 

Pricing Data, in all correspondence. 

Dated: October 30, 2014. 

Edward Loeb, 

Acting Director, Federal Acquisition Policy 

Division, Office of Government-wide 

Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition 

Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2014–26459 Filed 11–6–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry 

[30Day–15–14ATA] 

Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork 

Reduction Act Review 

The Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry (ATSDR) has submitted 

the following information collection 

request to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for review and approval 

in accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for 

the proposed information collection is 

published to obtain comments from the 

public and affected agencies. 

Written comments and suggestions 

from the public and affected agencies 

concerning the proposed collection of 

information are encouraged. Your 

comments should address any of the 

following: (a) 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; (b) Evaluate the 

accuracy of the agencies estimate of the 

burden of the proposed collection of 

information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used; 

(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; (d) 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; and (e) Assess information 

collection costs. 

To request additional information on 

the proposed project or to obtain a copy 

of the information collection plan and 

instruments, call (404) 639–7570 or 

send an email to omb@cdc.gov. Written 

comments and/or suggestions regarding 

the items contained in this notice 

should be directed to the Attention: 

CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management 

and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 or 

by fax to (202) 395–5806. Written 

comments should be received within 30 

days of this notice. 

Proposed Project 

Biomonitoring of Great Lakes 

Populations Program II—New—Agency 

for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry (ATSDR), Department of Health 

and Human Services (DHHS). 

Background and Brief Description 

The Great Lakes Basin has suffered 

decades of pollution and ecosystem 

damage. Many chemicals persist in 

Great Lakes sediments, as well as in 

wildlife and humans. These chemicals 

can build up in the aquatic food chain. 

Eating contaminated fish is a known 

route of human exposure. 

In 2009, the Great Lakes Restoration 

Initiative (GLRI) was enacted by Public 

Law 111–88. The GLRI FY2010–FY2014 

Action Plan makes Great Lakes 

restoration a national priority for 12 

Federal Agencies. The GLRI is led by 

the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (US EPA). Under a 2013 

interagency agreement with the US EPA, 

the Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry (ATSDR) announced a 

funding opportunity called the 

‘‘Biomonitoring of Great Lakes 

Populations’’ (CDC–RFA–TS13–1302). 

This applied public health program 

aims to measure Great Lakes chemicals 

in human blood and urine. These 

measures will be a baseline for current 

and future restoration activities. The 

measures will be compared to available 

national estimates. This program also 

aims to take these measures from people 

who may be at higher risk of harm from 

chemical exposures. 

This project will provide additional 

public health information to 

supplement the FY2010 CDC–RFA– 

TS10–1001 cooperative agreement 

program, ‘‘Biomonitoring of Great Lakes 

Populations,’’ hereafter referred to as 

‘‘Program I’’ (OMB Control Number 

0923–0044). The purpose of the current 

announcement is to evaluate body 

burden levels of priority contaminants 

in additional Great Lakes residents and 

susceptible populations who are at 

highest exposure risk and who are living 

in an area that was not previously 

addressed in Program I. 

The New York State Department of 

Health (NYSDOH) received funding for 

the current program. NYSDOH will look 

at two subpopulations of adults living in 

Syracuse, NY, who are known to eat fish 

from Onondaga Lake. Onondaga Lake is 

a highly polluted Great Lakes Basin 

water body in Central New York located 

northwest of Syracuse. The target 

subpopulations are: (1) Burmese and 

Bhutanese refugees who are known to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES