[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 31, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30863-30864]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-8313]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ANTITRUST MODERNIZATION COMMISSION


Request for Public Comment

AGENCY: Antitrust Modernization Commission.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Antitrust Modernization Commission requests comments from 
the public regarding specific questions relating to the issues selected 
for Commission study.

DATES: Comments are due by June 30, 2006.

ADDRESSES: By electronic mail: [email protected]. By mail: Antitrust 
Modernization Commission, Attn: Public Comments, 1120 G Street, NW., 
Suite 810, Washington, DC 20005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew J. Heimert, Executive Director 
& General Counsel, Antitrust Modernization Commission. Telephone: (202) 
233-0701; e-mail: [email protected]. Internet: http://www.amc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Antitrust Modernization Commission was 
established to ``examine whether the need exists to modernize the 
antitrust laws and to identify and study related issues.'' Antitrust 
Modernization Commission Act of 2002, Public Law No. 107-273, Sec.  
11053, 116 Stat. 1856. In conducting its review of the antitrust laws, 
the Commission is required to ``solicit the views of all parties 
concerned with the operation of the antitrust laws.'' Id. By this 
request for comments, the Commission seeks to provide a full 
opportunity for interested members of the public to provide input 
regarding certain issues selected for Commission study. From time to 
time, the Commission may issue additional requests for comment on 
issues selected for study.
    Comments should be submitted in written form. Comments should 
identify the topic to which it relates. Comments need not address every 
question within the topic. Comments exceeding 1500 words should include 
a brief (less than 250 word) summary. Commenters may submit additional 
background materials (such as articles, data, or other information) 
relating to the topic by separate attachment.
    Comments should identify the person or organization submitting the 
comments. If comments are submitted by an organization, the submission 
should identify a contact person within the organization. Comments 
should include the following contact information for the submitter: An 
address, telephone number, and e-mail address (if available). Comments 
submitted to the Commission will be made available to the public in 
accordance with Federal laws.
    Comments may be submitted either in hard copy or electronic form. 
Electronic submissions may be sent by electronic mail to 
[email protected]. Comments submitted in hard copy should be delivered 
to the address specified above, and should enclose, if possible, a CD-
ROM or a 3\1/2\ inch computer diskette containing an electronic copy of 
the comment. The Commission prefers to receive electronic documents 
(whether by e-mail or on CD-ROM/diskette) in portable document format 
(.pdf), but also will accept comments in Microsoft Word format.
    The AMC has issued this request for comments pursuant to its 
authorizing statute and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Antitrust 
Modernization Commission Act of 2002, Public Law No. 107-273, Sec.  
11053, 116 Stat. 1758, 1856; Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. 
App., Sec.  10(a)(3).

Topic for Comment

    The Commission requests comment on the following topic.

Criminal Remedies

    1. Some observers have opined that application of 18 U.S.C. 3571(d) 
consistent with the Constitution may be difficult in all but the most 
unusual circumstances after United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 
(2005), given Booker's requirement that the gain or loss be proven to a 
jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Should 18 U.S.C. 3571(d) be amended so 
that it is not applicable in Sherman Act prosecutions? If Section 
3571(d) were made inapplicable to Sherman Act prosecutions, should the 
maximum fine under the Sherman Act be increased? If so, what should be 
the revised fine amount?
    2. In responding to the first question, please also comment on the 
following:
    a. What is the practical difficulty of proving gain or loss from an 
antitrust violation beyond a reasonable doubt?
    b. If evaluation of the amount of gain or loss requires or warrants 
expert testimony, can it be said as a matter of law that gain or loss 
cannot, in such a case, be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?
    c. Why do businesses agree, post-Booker, to pay fine amounts in 
excess of the $10 million (now $100 million) statutory maximum?
    d. Is the threat of criminal prosecution of a greater number of 
individuals employed by a business, or of more serious sentences for 
the business's individuals, a factor that leads some businesses to 
agree to pay fine amounts in excess of the $10 million or $100 million 
maxima?

    Dated: May 24, 2006.


[[Page 30864]]


    By direction of the Antitrust Modernization Commission.
Andrew J. Heimert,
Executive Director and General Counsel, Antitrust Modernization 
Commission.
[FR Doc. E6-8313 Filed 5-30-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-YH-P