Part 955 30-day Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 25, 2008 / Notices
Taylor House, (Bay St. Louis MRA) 808
N. Beach Blvd., Bay St. Louis,
86003273
Taylor School, (Bay St. Louis MRA) 116
Leonard St. Bay St. Louis, 87000209
Onward Oaks, (Bay St. Louis MRA) 972
South Beach Blvd., Bay St. Louis,
96001265
Harrison County
Brielmaier House, (Biloxi MRA) 710
Beach Blvd., Biloxi, 84002170
Fisherman’s Cottage, (Biloxi MRA) 138
Lameuse St., Biloxi, 84002182
Gillis House, 590 Beach Blvd., Biloxi,
78001599
Hewes, Finley B., House, 604 E. Beach
Blvd., Gulfport, 02000852
House at 771 West Water Street, (Biloxi
MRA) 771 W. Water S., Biloxi,
84002191
Milner House, 720 E. Beach Blvd.,
Gulfport, 72000692
Reed, Pleasant House, 928 Elmer St.,
Biloxi, 79001308
Toledano-Philbrick-Tullis House, 947 E.
Beach Blvd., Biloxi, 76001095
Jackson County
Clark, Clare T., House, (Pascagoula
MPS) 1709 Beach Blvd., Pascagoula,
91001785
Cottage by the Sea Tavern, (Pascagoula
MPS) 1205 Beach Blvd., Pascagoula,
91001789
Farnsworth, R.A., Summer Home,
(Pascagoula MPS) 901 Beach Blvd.,
Pascagoula, 91001790
Halstead Place, (Ocean Springs MRA) E.
Beach Dr., Ocean Springs, 87000594
Hull, Edgar W., House, (Pascagoula
MPS) 2903 Beach Blvd., Pascagoula,
91001797
Kinne, Georgia P., House, (Pascagoula
MPS) 1101 Beach Blvd., Pascagoula,
91001798
Lauderdale County
Meridian Baptist Seminary, 16th St. and
31st Ave. Meridian, 79001326
[FR Doc. E8–14297 Filed 6–24–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–70–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Notice of Proposed Information
Collection for 1029–0054 and 1029–
0083
Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:

SUMMARY: In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the

VerDate Aug<31>2005

20:04 Jun 24, 2008

Jkt 214001

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement (OSM) is announcing
that the information collection requests
for 30 CFR 872, Abandoned mine
reclamation funds; and 30 CFR part 955
and the Form OSM–74, Certification of
Blasters in Federal program States and
on Indian lands have been forwarded to
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and reauthorization.
The information collection packages
were previously approved and assigned
clearance numbers 1029–0054 for 30
CFR 872, and 1029–0083 for 30 CFR 955
and the OSM–74 form. This notice
describes the nature of the information
collection activities and the expected
burdens and costs.
DATES: OMB has up to 60 days to
approve or disapprove the information
collection but may respond after 30
days. Therefore, public comments
should be submitted to OMB by July 25,
2008, in order to be assured of
consideration.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments to the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Attention: Department of
Interior Desk Officer, by telefax at (202)
395–6566 or via e-mail to
OIRA_Docket@omb.eop.gov. Also,
please send a copy of your comments to
John A. Trelease, Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement,
1951 Constitution Ave., NW., Room
202–SIB, Washington, DC 20240, or
electronically to jtrelease@osmre.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To
request a copy of the information
collection requests, explanatory
information and related forms, contact
John A. Trelease at (202) 208–2783, or
electronically to jtrelease@osmre.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office
of Management and Budget (OMB)
regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which
implement provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13),
require that interested members of the
public and affected agencies have an
opportunity to comment on information
collection and recordkeeping activities
[see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)]. OSM has
submitted requests to OMB to renew its
approval for the collections of
information for 30 CFR 872, Abandoned
mine reclamation funds; and 30 CFR
955 and the Form OSM–74, Certification
of Blasters in Federal program States
and on Indian lands. OSM is requesting
a 3-year term of approval for these
information collection activities.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control

PO 00000

Frm 00069

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

36103

numbers for these collections of
information are listed in 30 CFR 872.10,
which is 1029–0054; and on the form
OSM–74 and in 30 CFR 955.10, which
is 1029 0083.
As required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d),
Federal Register notices soliciting
comments on these collections of
information were published on March
19, 2008 (73 FR 14838), for 30 CFR 872,
and on March 31, 2008 (73 FR 16908),
for the form OSM–74 and 30 CFR 955.
No comments were received from either
notice. This notice provides the public
with an additional 30 days in which to
comment on the following information
collection activities:
Title: 30 CFR Part 872—Abandoned
mine reclamation funds.
OMB Control Number: 1029–0054.
Summary: 30 CFR part 872 establishes
a procedure whereby States and Indian
tribes submit written statements
announcing the State/Tribe’s decision
not to submit reclamation plans, and
therefore, will not be granted AML
funds.
Bureau Form Number: None.
Frequency of Collection: Once.
Description of Respondents: State and
Tribal abandoned mine land
reclamation agencies.
Total Annual Responses: 1.
Total Annual Burden Hours: 1.
Title: 30 CFR Part 955 and Form
OSM–74—Certification of blasters in
Federal program States and on Indian
lands.
OMB Control Number: 1029–0083.
Summary: This information is being
collected to ensure that the applicants
for blaster certification are qualified.
This information, with blasting tests,
will be used to determine the eligibility
of the applicant. The affected public
will be blasters who want to be certified
by the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement to
conduct blasting on Indian lands or in
Federal primacy States.
Bureau Form Number: OSM–74.
Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
Description of Respondents:
Individuals intent on being certified as
blasters in Federal program States and
on Indian lands.
Total Annual Responses: 8.
Total Annual Burden Hours: 18.
Total Annual Non-Wage Burden Cost:
$549.
Send comments on the need for the
collection of information for the
performance of the functions of the
agency; the accuracy of the agency’s
burden estimates; ways to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the
information collection; and ways to
minimize the information collection

E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM

25JNN1

36104

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 25, 2008 / Notices

burden on respondents, such as use of
automated means of collection of the
information, to the addresses listed
under ADDRESSES. Please refer to the
appropriate OMB control number in all
correspondence, 1029–0054 for 30 CFR
part 872 and 1029–0083 for 30 CFR part
955 and the OSM–74 form.
Before including your address, phone
number, e-mail address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment—including your
personal identifying information—may
be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.

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 Northern District of
Illinois. Copies of these materials may
be obtained from the Antitrust I
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,
450 5th Street, NW., Suite 4000,
Washington, DC 20530, (202) 307–0468.

Dated: June 5, 2008.
John R. Craynon,
Chief, Division of Regulatory Support.
[FR Doc. E8–14212 Filed 6–24–08; 8:45 am]

J. Robert Kramer II,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

United States v. National Association
of Realtors; 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 Northern District
of Illinois in United States of America
v. National Association of Realtors,
No. 05–C–5140. On September 8, 2005,
the United States filed a Complaint
alleging that the National Association of
Realtors (‘‘NAR’’) violated section 1 of
the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, by
adopting policies that suppress
competition from real estate brokers
who use password-protected ‘‘virtual
office Web sites’’ or ‘‘VOWs’’ to deliver
high-quality brokerage services to their
customers. The proposed Final
Judgment, filed on May 27, 2008,
requires NAR to repeal the challenged
policies and to adopt new rules that do
not discriminate against brokers who
use VOWs.
Copies of the Amended Complaint,
proposed Final Judgment and
Competitive Impact Statement are
available for inspection at the
Department of Justice, Antitrust
Division, Antitrust Documents Group,
450 5th Street, NW., Room 1010,
Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: 202

VerDate Aug<31>2005

20:04 Jun 24, 2008

Jkt 214001

United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois Eastern Division
United States of America, Department of
Justice, Antitrust Division, 325 7th Street,
NW., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20530.
Plaintiff,
v.
National Association of Realtors, 430 North
Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL 60611,
Defendant.
Civil Action No. 05C–5140,
Judge Filip,
Magistrate Judge Denlow,
Filed: October 4, 2005.
Amended Complaint
The United States of America, by its
attorneys acting under the direction of the
Attorney General, brings this civil action
pursuant to section 4 of the Sherman Act, as
amended, 15 U.S.C. 4, to obtain equitable and
other relief to prevent and restrain violations
of section 1 of the Sherman Act, as amended,
15 U.S.C. 1. The United States alleges:
1. The United States brings this action to
enjoin the defendant a national association of
real estate brokers—from maintaining or
enforcing policies that restrain competition
from brokers who use the Internet to more
efficiently and cost effectively serve home
sellers and buyers, and from adopting other
related anticompetitive rules.
2. The brokers against whom the policies
discriminate operate secure, passwordprotected Internet sites that enable the
brokers’ customers to search for and receive
real estate listings over the Internet. These
Web sites thus replace or augment the
traditional practice by which the broker
conducts a search of properties for sale and
then provides information to the customer by
hand, mail, fax, or e-mail. Since these Web
sites were first developed in the late 1990s,
brokers’ use of the Internet in connection
with their delivery of brokerage services has
become an important competitive alternative
to traditional ‘‘brick-and-mortar’’ business
models.
3. Defendant’s members include traditional
brokers who are concerned about

PO 00000

Frm 00070

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

competition from Internet-savvy brokers.
Before defendant adopted its policies, several
of its members voiced opposition to brokers’
delivery of listings to customers through their
Web sites—sites that defendant referred to as
‘‘virtual office Web sites,’’ or ‘‘VOWs.’’ The
head of the working group created by
defendant to develop regulations for VOWs
argued that defendant should act quickly in
adopting regulations for the use of these Web
sites because brokers operating VOWs were
‘‘scooping up market share just below the
radar.’’ The chairman of the board of RE/
MAX, the nation’s second-largest real estate
franchisor, publicly expressed his concern
that these Internet sites would inevitably
place downward pressure on brokers’
commission rates. One broker complained
that because of the lower cost structure of
brokers who provide listings to their
customers over the Internet, ‘‘they are able to
kick-back 1% of the sales price to the buyer.’’
And Cendant, the nation’s largest real estate
franchisor and owner of the nation’s largest
real estate brokerage, asserted in a widely
circulated white paper that it was ‘‘not
feasible’’ for even the largest traditional
brokers to compete with large Internet
companies that operated or affiliated with
brokers operating VOWs.
4. In response to such concerns, defendant,
through its members, adopted a policy (the
‘‘Initial VOW Policy’’) limiting this new
competition. The Initial VOW Policy has
been implemented in many markets. After
plaintiff informed NAR of its intention to
bring this action, NAR announced that it had
modified this policy (the ‘‘Modified VOW
Policy’’). Plaintiff challenges both policies in
this action as part of a single, ongoing
contract, combination, or conspiracy.
5. These policies significantly alter the
governing multiple listing services (‘‘MLSs’’).
MLSs collect detailed information about
nearly all properties for sale through brokers
and are indispensable tools for brokers
serving buyers and sellers in each MLS’s
market area. Defendant’s local Realtor
associations (‘‘member boards’’) control a
majority of the MLSs in the United States.
6. Defendant’s VOW Policies permit
brokers to withhold their clients’ listings
from VOW operators by means of an ‘‘optout’’ right. In essence, the policies allow
traditional brokers to block the customers of
web-based competitors from using the
Internet to review the same set of MLS
listings that the traditional brokers provide to
their customers.
7. The working group that formulated
defendant’s Initial VOW Policy understood
that the opt-out right was fundamentally
anticompetitive and harmful to consumers.
Two members of the working group wrote
that the opt-out right would be ‘‘abused
beyond belief’’ as traditional brokers
selectively withhold listings from particular
VOW-based competitors. The chairman of the
working group admitted that the opt-out right
was likely to be exercised by brokers
notwithstanding the fact that ‘‘it may not be
in the seller[’]s best interest to opt out.’’ But
he took comfort in the fact that the rule did
not require brokers to disclose to clients that
their listings would be withheld from some
prospective purchasers as a result of the

E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM

25JNN1