60-day Federal Register Notice

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 125 / Wednesday, July 2, 2025 / Notices
between the remedy secured and the
specific allegations in the government’s
Complaint, whether the proposed Final
Judgment is sufficiently clear, whether
its enforcement mechanisms are
sufficient, and whether it may positively
harm third parties. See Microsoft, 56
F.3d at 1458–62. With respect to the
adequacy of the relief secured by the
proposed Final Judgment, a court may
not ‘‘make de novo determination of
facts and issues.’’ United States v. W.
Elec. Co., 993 F.2d 1572, 1577 (D.C. Cir.
1993) (quotation marks omitted); see
also Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1460–62;
United States v. Alcoa, Inc., 152 F.
Supp. 2d 37, 40 (D.D.C. 2001); United
States v. Enova Corp., 107 F. Supp. 2d
10, 16 (D.D.C. 2000); InBev, 2009 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 84787, at *3. Instead, ‘‘[t]he
balancing of competing social and
political interests affected by a proposed
antitrust decree must be left, in the first
instance, to the discretion of the
Attorney General.’’ W. Elec. Co., 993
F.2d at 1577 (quotation marks omitted).
‘‘The court should also bear in mind the
flexibility of the public interest inquiry:
the court’s function is not to determine
whether the resulting array of rights and
liabilities is the one that will best serve
society, but only to confirm that the
resulting settlement is within the
reaches of the public interest.’’
Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1460 (quotation
marks omitted); see also United States v.
Deutsche Telekom AG, No. 19–2232
(TJK), 2020 WL 1873555, at *7 (D.D.C.
Apr. 14, 2020). More demanding
requirements would ‘‘have enormous
practical consequences for the
government’s ability to negotiate future
settlements,’’ contrary to congressional
intent. Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1456. ‘‘The
Tunney Act was not intended to create
a disincentive to the use of the consent
decree.’’ Id.
The United States’ predictions about
the efficacy of the remedy are to be
afforded deference by the Court. See,
e.g., Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461
(recognizing courts should give ‘‘due
respect to the Justice Department’s . . .
view of the nature of its case’’); United
States v. Iron Mountain, Inc., 217 F.
Supp. 3d 146, 152–53 (D.D.C. 2016) (‘‘In
evaluating objections to settlement
agreements under the Tunney Act, a
court must be mindful that [t]he
government need not prove that the
settlements will perfectly remedy the
alleged antitrust harms[;] it need only
provide a factual basis for concluding
that the settlements are reasonably
adequate remedies for the alleged
harms.’’ (internal citations omitted));
United States v. Republic Servs., Inc.,
723 F. Supp. 2d 157, 160 (D.D.C. 2010)

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:41 Jul 01, 2025

Jkt 265001

(noting ‘‘the deferential review to which
the government’s proposed remedy is
accorded’’); United States v. ArcherDaniels-Midland Co., 272 F. Supp. 2d 1,
6 (D.D.C. 2003) (‘‘A district court must
accord due respect to the government’s
prediction as to the effect of proposed
remedies, its perception of the market
structure, and its view of the nature of
the case.’’). The ultimate question is
whether ‘‘the remedies [obtained by the
Final Judgment are] so inconsonant with
the allegations charged as to fall outside
of the ‘reaches of the public interest.’ ’’
Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 (quoting W.
Elec. Co., 900 F.2d at 309).
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; see also U.S. Airways, 38
F. Supp. 3d at 75 (noting that the court
must simply determine whether there is
a factual foundation for the
government’s decisions such that its
conclusions regarding the proposed
settlements are reasonable); InBev, 2009
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84787, at *20 (‘‘[T]he
‘public interest’ is not to be measured by
comparing the violations alleged in the
complaint against those the court
believes could have, or even should
have, been alleged’’). 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.
Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1459–60.
In its 2004 amendments to the APPA,
Congress made clear its intent to
preserve the practical benefits of using
judgments proposed by the United
States in antitrust enforcement, Public
Law 108–237 § 221, and added the
unambiguous instruction that ‘‘[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); see also U.S. Airways,
38 F. Supp. 3d at 76 (indicating that a
court is not required to hold an
evidentiary hearing or to permit
intervenors as part of its review under
the Tunney Act). This language
explicitly wrote into the statute what
Congress intended when it first enacted
the Tunney Act in 1974. As Senator
Tunney explained: ‘‘[t]he court is
nowhere compelled to go to trial or to

PO 00000

Frm 00055

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

29047

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 Sen. Tunney). ‘‘A court
can make its public interest
determination based on the competitive
impact statement and response to public
comments alone.’’ U.S. Airways, 38 F.
Supp. 3d at 76 (citing Enova Corp., 107
F. Supp. 2d at 17).
VIII. Determinative Documents
There are no determinative materials
or documents within the meaning of the
APPA that were considered by the
United States in formulating the
proposed Final Judgment.
Dated: June 17, 2025.
Respectfully submitted,
For Plaintiff United States of America:
lllllllllllllllllllll
Daniel Monahan,
United States Department of Justice,
Antitrust Division, Defense, Industrials, and
Aerospace Section, 450 Fifth St. NW, Suite
8700, Washington, DC 20530, Telephone:
202–598–8774, Email: daniel.monahan@
usdoj.gov.
[FR Doc. 2025–12329 Filed 7–1–25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–11–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[OMB Number 1125–0007]

Agency Information Collection
Activities; Proposed Collection
eComments Requested; Extension and
Revision of a Previously Approved
Collection; Immigration Practitioner/
Organization Complaint Form
Executive Office for
Immigration Review, Department of
Justice.
ACTION: 60-Day notice.
AGENCY:

The Executive Office for
Immigration Review (EOIR), Department
of Justice (DOJ), will be submitting 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.
DATES: Comments are encouraged and
will be accepted for 60 days until
September 2, 2025.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have additional comments
especially on the estimated public
burden or associated response time,
suggestions, or need a copy of the
proposed information collection
instrument with instructions or
additional information, please contact
Justine Fuga, Associate General
SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\02JYN1.SGM

02JYN1

29048

Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 125 / Wednesday, July 2, 2025 / Notices

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES

Counsel, Office of the General Counsel,
Executive Office for Immigration
Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2600,
Falls Church, VA 22041, telephone:
(703) 305–0265, Justine.Fuga@usdoj.gov,
eoir.pra.comments@usdoj.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Written
comments and suggestions from the
public and affected agencies concerning
the proposed collection of information
are encouraged. Your comments should
address one or more of the following
four points:
—Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, 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;
—Evaluate whether and if so how the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected can be
enhanced; 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.
Abstract: Any individual may file a
complaint against an immigration
practitioner authorized to practice
before the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) and the immigration
courts of EOIR. See 8 CFR 1003.102. An
individual filing a complaint regarding
a practitioner’s behavior in proceedings
before EOIR must file the complaint in
writing by mail or email to EOIR’s
Office of the General Counsel’s Attorney
Discipline Unit (ADU) using Form
EOIR–44. The completed form must
state in detail certain information
supporting the complaint, including the
name and address of both the
complainant and the practitioner, the
date and nature of the alleged conduct
or behavior at issue, the individuals
involved, the harm to or damages
incurred by the complainant, and any
other relevant information. See 8 CFR
1003.104(a)(2). The information on this
form will be used to determine whether
the ADU should conduct a preliminary
disciplinary inquiry, request additional
information from the complainant, refer
the matter to a state bar disciplinary
authority or other law enforcement
agency, or take no further action. EOIR
has revised the Privacy Act Notice on

the form to update citations to legal
authority and clarify how EOIR uses the
collected information.
Overview of This Information
Collection
1. Type of Information Collection:
Extension and Revision of a previously
approved collection.
2. The Title of the Form/Collection:
Immigration Practitioner Complaint
Form.
3. The agency form number, if any,
and the applicable component of the
Department sponsoring the collection:
The agency form number is EOIR–44,
and the sponsoring component is EOIR.
4. Affected public who will be asked
or required to respond, as well as the
obligation to respond: The affected
public are individuals and households.
The obligation to respond is voluntary.
5. An estimate of the total number of
respondents and the amount of time
estimated for an average respondent to
respond: It is estimated that an average
of 100 respondents will complete the
form annually with an average of 2
hours per response.
6. An estimate of the total annual
burden (in hours) associated with the
collection: EOIR estimates an average of
200 total annual burden hours
associated with this collection.

Activity

Number of
respondents

Frequency
(annually)

Total annual
responses

Time per
response
(hours)

Total annual
burden
(hours)

EOIR–44—individuals or households ..................................

100

1

100

2

200

7. An estimate of the total annual cost
burden associated with the collection, if
applicable: The total estimated annual
public cost is $1,020. There are no
capital or start-up costs associated with
this information collection. There are no
fees associated with filing the form.
Most responses are printed and
submitted by mail to the agency. The
total annual printing cost to individuals
is estimated at $10.00 ($0.10 per page ×
1 page × 100 respondents). The total
postage cost to individuals is estimated
at $1,010.00 ($10.10 Priority Mail flat
rate envelope × 100 respondents).
However, the printing and postage costs
may be avoided by electronically
completing the form and submitting the
form by email.
If additional information is required
contact: Darwin Arceo, Department
Clearance Officer, United States
Department of Justice, Justice
Management Division, Policy and

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:41 Jul 01, 2025

Jkt 265001

Planning Staff, Two Constitution
Square, 145 N Street NE, 4W–218,
Washington, DC.
Dated: June 27, 2025.
Darwin Arceo,
Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S.
Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 2025–12291 Filed 7–1–25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–30–P

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET
Office of Federal Procurement Policy
Cost Accounting Standards Board
Meeting Agenda
Cost Accounting Standards
Board, Office Federal Procurement
Policy, Office of Management and
Budget.

AGENCY:

PO 00000

Frm 00056

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

Notice of agenda for closed Cost
Accounting Standards Board meetings.

ACTION:

The Office of Federal
Procurement Policy (OFPP), Cost
Accounting Standards Board (CAS
Board) is publishing this notice to
advise the public of its upcoming
meetings. The meetings are closed to the
public.
ADDRESSES: New Executive Office
Building, 725 17th Street NW,
Washington, DC 20503.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
L. McClung, Manager, Cost Accounting
Standards Board (telephone: 202–881–
9758; email: john.l.mcclung2@
omb.eop.gov).
SUMMARY:

The CAS
Board is issuing this notice to inform
the public of the discussion topics for a
monthly meeting that was held in June
and for meetings scheduled for July,
August, and September 2025. The list of

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

E:\FR\FM\02JYN1.SGM

02JYN1