41292 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 148 / Monday, August 3, 1998 / Notices

section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C.

1675a(a)) including the likely volume of

subject imports, likely price effects of

subject imports, and likely impact of

imports of Subject Merchandise on the

Domestic Industry.

(5) A list of all known and currently

operating U.S. producers of the

Domestic Like Product. Identify any

known related parties and the nature of

the relationship as defined in section

771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C.

1677(4)(B)).

(6) A list of all known and currently

operating U.S. importers of the Subject

Merchandise and producers of the

Subject Merchandise in Japan that

currently export or have exported

Subject Merchandise to the United

States or other countries since 1972.

(7) If you are a U.S. producer of the

Domestic Like Product, provide the

following information on your firm’s

operations on that product during

calendar year 1997 (report quantity data

in thousands of pounds and value data

in thousands of U.S. dollars). If you are

a union/worker group or trade/business

association, provide the information, on

an aggregate basis, for the firms in

which your workers are employed/

which are members of your association.

(a) Production (quantity) and, if

known, an estimate of the percentage of

total U.S. production of the Domestic

Like Product accounted for by your

firm’s(s’) production; and

(b) The quantity and value of U.S.

commercial shipments of the Domestic

Like Product produced in your U.S.

plant(s).

(8) If you are a U.S. importer or a

trade/business association of U.S.

importers of the Subject Merchandise

from Japan, provide the following

information on your firm’s(s’)

operations on that product during

calendar year 1997 (report quantity data

in thousands of pounds and value data

in thousands of U.S. dollars). If you are

a trade/business association, provide the

information, on an aggregate basis, for

the firms which are members of your

association.

(a) The quantity and value of U.S.

imports and, if known, an estimate of

the percentage of total U.S. imports of

Subject Merchandise from Japan

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) imports;

and

(b) The quantity and value of U.S.

commercial shipments of Subject

Merchandise imported from Japan.

(9) If you are a producer, an exporter,

or a trade/business association of

producers or exporters of the Subject

Merchandise in Japan, provide the

following information on your firm’s(s’)

operations on that product during

calendar year 1997 (report quantity data

in thousands of pounds and value data

in thousands of U.S. dollars). If you are

a trade/business association, provide the

information, on an aggregate basis, for

the firms which are members of your

association.

(a) Production (quantity) and, if

known, an estimate of the percentage of

total production of Subject Merchandise

in Japan accounted for by your firm’s(s’)

production; and

(b) The quantity and value of your

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an

estimate of the percentage of total

exports to the United States of Subject

Merchandise from Japan accounted for

by your firm’s(s’) exports.

(10) Identify significant changes, if

any, in the supply and demand

conditions or business cycle for the

Domestic Like Product that have

occurred in the United States or in the

market for the Subject Merchandise in

the Subject Country since the Order

Date, and significant changes, if any,

that are likely to occur within a

reasonably foreseeable time. Supply

conditions to consider include

technology; production methods;

development efforts; ability to increase

production (including the shift of

production facilities used for other

products and the use, cost, or

availability of major inputs into

production); and factors related to the

ability to shift supply among different

national markets (including barriers to

importation in foreign markets or

changes in market demand abroad).

Demand conditions to consider include

end uses and applications; the existence

and availability of substitute products;

and the level of competition among the

Domestic Like Product produced in the

United States, Subject Merchandise

produced in the Subject Country, and

synthetic methionine from other

countries.

(11) (OPTIONAL) A statement of

whether you agree with the above

definitions of the Domestic Like Product

and Domestic Industry; if you disagree

with either or both of these definitions,

please explain why and provide

alternative definitions.

Authority: This review is being conducted

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to

section 207.61 of the Commission’s rules.

Issued: July 28, 1998.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–20646 Filed 7–31–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

Proposed Final Judgment and

Competitive Impact Statement; United

States v. City of Stilwell, OK, et al.

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 Eastern District of

Oklahoma in United States v. City of

Stilwell, Oklahoma, et al., CIV 96–196B.

The proposed Final Judgment is subject

to approval by the Court after the

expiration of the statutory sixty-day

public comment period and compliance

with the Antitrust Procedures and

Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h).

On April 25, 1996, the United States

filed a civil antitrust complaint under

Section 4 of the Sherman Act, as

amended, 15 U.S.C. 4, alleging that

defendants City of Stilwell, Oklahoma

and the Stilwell Area Development

Authority adopted and enforced a

policy by which defendants, the sole

suppliers of public water and sewer

services to customers within Stilwell

city limits, refused to provide water or

sewer services to those unless they

agreed to purchase electric service from

the City’s Utility Department. The

complaint alleged that this ‘‘all-ornone’’ utility policy violated Sections 1

and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1

and 2, and sought a judgment by the

Court declaring the defendants’ policy

to be an unlawful restraint of trade. The

complaint also sought an order by the

Court to enjoin the defendants from

requiring any consumer of electricity to

purchase retail electric service from the

City as a condition of receiving water

and sewer service, or otherwise

discriminating against any customer

that purchases or may purchase electric

service elsewhere.

The United States and defendants

have stipulated that the proposed Final

Judgment may be entered after

compliance with the APPA, unless the

United States withdraws its consent.

The Court’s entry of the proposed Final

Judgment will terminate this civil action

against the defendants, except that the

Court will retain jurisdiction over the

matter for possible further proceedings

to construe, modify, terminate or

enforce the judgment, or to punish

violations of any of its provisions.

The proposed Final Judgment

contains three principal forms of relief.

First, the defendants are enjoined from

requiring any consumer of electricity to
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 148 / Monday, August 3, 1998 / Notices 41293

purchase retail electric service from the

defendants as a condition of receiving

water or sewer service from the

defendants. Second, defendants are

required to include a disclaimer on any

application for water or sewer service or

other written materials distributed by

defendants to prospective applicants for

water and sewer that states that

defendants do not require any

applicants to purchase electric service

from them as a condition of receiving

water or sewer service. Third, the

proposed Final Judgment requires

defendants to implement an antitrust

compliance program directed toward

avoiding a repetition of their

anticompetitive behavior.

Public comment is invited within the

sixty days of the publication of this

notice. All comments, and responses

thereto, will be published in the Federal

Register and filed with the Court.

Written comments should be directed to

Roger W. Fones, Chief, Transportation,

Energy and Agriculture Section,

Antitrust Division, 325 Seventh Street,

N.W., Suite 500, Washington, D.C.

20530 (telephone: (202) 307–6351).

Copies of the Complaint, Stipulation,

proposed Final Judgment and

Competitive Impact Statement are

available for inspection in Room 215 of

the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust

Division, 325 Seventh Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20530 (telephone:

(202) 514–2481) and at the office of the

Clerk of the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Oklahoma,

United States Courthouse, 5th and

Okmulgee Streets, Muskogee, Oklahoma

74401.

Copies of any of these materials may

be obtained upon request and payment

of a copying fee.

Constance K. Robinson,

Acting Director of Civil Non-Merger

Enforcement Antitrust Division.

United States of America, Plaintiff, v. City

of Stilwell, Oklahoma, et al., Defendants.

[Case No. CIV 96–196B]

Stipulation and Order

It is hereby stipulated by and between

the undersigned parties, by their

respective attorneys, as follows:

1. The Court has jurisdiction over the

subject matter of this action and over

each of the parties hereto, and venue of

this action is proper in the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of

Oklahoma.

2. The parties stipulated that a Final

Judgment in the form hereto attached

may be filed and entered by the Court,

upon the motion of any party or upon

the Court’s own motion, at any time

after compliance with the requirements

of the Antitrust Procedure and Penalties

Act (15 U.S.C. 16), and without further

notice to any party or other proceedings,

provided that plaintiff has not

withdrawn its consent, which it may do

at any time before the entry of the

proposed Final Judgment by serving

notice thereof on defendants and by

filing that notice with the Court.

3. Each defendant shall abide by and

comply with the provisions of the

proposed Final Judgment pending entry

of the Final Judgment by the Court and

shall, from the date of the signing of this

Stipulation by the parties, comply with

all the terms and provisions of the

proposed Final Judgment as though they

were in full force and effect as an order

of the Court.

4. In the event that plaintiff

withdraws its consent, as provided in

paragraph 2 above, then the parties are

released from all further obligations

under this Stipulation, and the making

of this Stipulation shall be without

prejudice to any party in this or any

other proceeding.

Respectfully submitted,

For Plaintiff, United States of America:

John R. Read,

Michele B. Cano,

Michael D. Billiel,

Attorneys, Antitrust Division, U.S.

Department of Justice, 325 Seventh Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004, (202) 307–

0468.

For Defendants, City of Stilwell and

Stilwell Area Development Authority:

Lloyd E. Cole, Jr.,

Nason Morton,

Cole Law Office, 120 W. Division Street,

Stilwell, OK 74960, (918) 696–7331.

Order

It is so ordered, this ll day of ll,

1998.

lllllllllllllllllllll

United States District Court Judge

United States of America, Plaintiff, v. City

of Stilwell, Oklahoma, et al. Defendants.

Final Judgment

[Case No. CIV 96–196–B]

Plaintiff, United States of America,

filed its Complaint on April 25, 1996.

Plaintiff and defendants, by their

respective attorneys, have consented to

the entry of this Final Judgment without

trial or adjudication of any issue of fact

or law. This Final Judgment shall not be

evidence against or an admission by any

party with respect to any issue of fact

or law. Therefore, without trial or

adjudication of any issue of fact or law

herein, and upon consent of the parties,

it is hereby Ordered, Adjudged, and

Decreed, as follows:

I. Jurisdiction

This Court has jurisdiction of the

subject matter of this action and of each

of the parties consenting hereto. Venue

is proper in the Eastern District of

Oklahoma. The Complaint states a claim

upon which relief may be granted

against the defendants under Sections 1

and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1

& 2.

II. Definitions

As used herein:

(A) the term ‘‘defendants’’ means the

City of Stilwell, Oklahoma (‘‘City’’) and

the Stilwell Area Development

Authority;

(B) the term ‘‘document’’ means all

‘‘writing and recordings’’ as that phrase

is defined in Rule 1001(1) of the Federal

Rules of Evidence;

(C) two or more products are

‘‘unbundled’’ when available separately

and priced such that the seller’s charge

for the combination is no less than the

sum of the individual product prices;

(D) the term ‘‘person’’ means any

natural person, corporation, firm,

company, sole proprietorship,

partnership, association, institution,

governmental unit, public trust, or other

legal entity.

III. Applicability

(A) This Final Judgment applies to the

defendants, jointly and severally, and to

their respective successors, assigns, and

to all other persons in active concert or

participation with any of them who

shall have received actual notice of the

Final Judgment by personal service or

otherwise.

(B) Nothing herein contained shall

suggest that any portion of this Final

Judgment is or has been created for the

benefit of any third party and nothing

herein shall be construed to provide any

rights to any third party.

IV. Prohibited and Mandated Conduct

(A) The defendants, and each of them,

are enjoined and restrained from

requiring any consumer of electric

energy to purchase retail electric service

from a defendant as a condition of

receiving water or sewer service from a

defendant.

(B) Any application for water or sewer

service or other written materials

distributed by a defendant to

prospective applicants for water or

sewer service shall include, in a

conspicuous manner, the following

disclaimer:

Although we provide electric service, as

well as water and sewer services, we do not

require you to purchase electric service from

us as a condition of receiving water or sewer

service and we will not discriminate against
41294 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 148 / Monday, August 3, 1998 / Notices

you if you do not purchase electric service

from us.

(C) The defendants, and each of them,

are enjoined and restrained from

denying, withholding, or delaying any

service, license or permit, or otherwise

threatening, discriminating or retaliating

against any person that has not agreed

to purchase or does not purchase

electric service from a defendant, unless

defendants’ reason for such conduct is

unrelated to such person’s choice of

retail electric provider.

V. Limiting Conditions

Nothing in this Final Judgment shall

prohibit a defendant from:

(A) Exercising any valid right now or

hereafter conferred by State law to

expropriate facilities used by any retail

electric supplier to furnish electric

energy within the City’s corporate

boundaries;

(B) Commencing or prosecuting, in

good faith, litigation to ascertain or

protect any right now or hereafter

conferred by State law to restrict the

furnishing of electric energy within the

City’s corporate boundaries to retail

electric suppliers authorized by law to

do so; and

(C) Furnishing any premises with

more than one utility service on an

unbundled basis.

VI. Compliance Program

(A) Defendants are ordered to

maintain an antitrust compliance

program which shall include the

following:

(1) Designating, within 30 days of

entry of this Final Judgment, an

Antitrust Compliance Officer with

responsibility for accomplishing the

antitrust compliance program and with

the purpose of achieving compliance

with this Final Judgment. The Antitrust

Compliance Officer shall, on a

continuing basis, supervise the review

of the current and proposed activities of

defendants to ensure that they comply

with this Final Judgment.

(2) The Antitrust Compliance Officer

shall be responsible for accomplishing

the following activities:

(a) providing copies of this Final

Judgment to individuals currently

serving on the governing boards, and to

non-clerical employees of the Stilwell

Utility Department and the Stilwell

Area Development Authority, and to

each individual hereafter assuming any

such position, and obtaining a written

certification from such individuals that

they received, read, understand to the

best of their ability, and agree to abide

by this Final Judgment and that they

have been advised that noncompliance

with the Final Judgment may result in

conviction for criminal contempt of

court; and

(b) briefing annually the governing

boards and the non-clerical employees

of the Stilwell Utility Department and

the Stilwell Area Development

Authority on this Final Judgment and

the antitrust laws.

VII. Certification

(A) Within 75 days after the entry of

this Final Judgment, the defendants

shall certify to the plaintiff that they

have complied with Section IV above,

designated an Antitrust Compliance

Officer, and distributed the Final

Judgment in accordance with Section

VI(A) above.

(B) For each year of the term of this

Final Judgment, the defendants shall file

with the plaintiff, on or before the

anniversary date of entry of this Final

Judgment, a statement as to the fact and

manner of their compliance with the

provisions of Section IV and VI above.

VIII. Plaintiff Access

(A) To determine or secure

compliance with this Final Judgment

and for no other purpose, duly

authorized representatives of the

plaintiff shall, upon written request of

the Assistant Attorney General in charge

of the Antitrust Division, and on

reasonable notice to a defendant made

to its principal office, be permitted,

subject to any legally recognized

privilege:

(1) Access during such defendant’s

office hours to inspect and copy all

documents in the possession or under

the control of the defendant, who may

have counsel present, relating to any

matters contained in this Final

Judgment; and

(2) Subject to the reasonable

convenience of such defendant and

without restraint or interference from it,

to interview officers, employees or

agents of the defendant, who may have

counsel present, regarding such matters.

(B) Upon the written request of the

Assistant Attorney General in charge of

the Antitrust Division made to a

defendant’s principal office, such

defendant shall submit such written

reports, under oath if requested, relating

to any matters contained in this Final

Judgment as may be reasonably

requested, subject to any legally

recognized privilege.

(C) No information or documents

obtained by the means provided in

Section VIII shall be divulged by the

plaintiff to any person other than a duly

authorized representative of the

Executive Branch of the United States,

except in the course of legal proceedings

to which the United States is a party

(including grand jury proceedings), or

for the purpose of securing compliance

with this Final Judgment, or as

otherwise required by law.

(D) If at the time information or

documents are furnished to plaintiff, the

defendant represents and identifies in

writing the material in any such

information or documents to which a

claim of protection may be asserted

under Rule 26(c)(7) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure, and the defendant

marks each pertinent page of such

material, ‘‘Subject to claim of protection

under Rule 26(c)(7) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure,’’ then 10 days notice

shall be given by plaintiff to the

defendant prior to divulging such

material in any legal proceeding (other

than a grand jury proceeding) to which

that defendant is not a party.

IX. Further Elements of the Final

Judgment

(A) This Final Judgment shall expire

ten years from the date of entry.

(B) Jurisdiction is retained by this

Court for the purpose of enabling any of

the parties to this Final Judgment to

apply to this Court at any time for

further orders and directions as may be

necessary or appropriate to carry out or

construe this Final Judgment, to modify

or terminate any or all of its provisions,

to enforce compliance, and to punish

violations of its provisions.

(C) Each party shall bear their

respective costs and attorneys fees.

(D) Entry of this Final Judgment is in

the public interest.

Dated: llll.

lllllllllllllllllllll

United States District Judge

United States of America, Plaintiff, v. City

of Stilwell, Oklahoma, et al., Defendants.

[Case No. CIV 96–196 B]

Competitive Impact Statement

The United States, pursuant to

Section 2(b) of the Antitrust Procedures

and Penalties Act (‘‘APPA’’), 15 U.S.C.

§ 16(b)–(h), files this Competitive

Impact Statement relating to the

proposed Final Judgment submitted for

entry in this civil antitrust proceeding.

I. Nature and Purpose of This

Proceeding

On April 25, 1996, the United States

filed a Complaint alleging that the

defendants City of Stilwell, Oklahoma

(‘‘City’’) and Stilwell Area Development

Authority (‘‘ADA’’) (collectively

‘‘Defendants’’) had violated the Sections

1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.

§§ 1 and 2. The Complaint challenged a

utility policy adopted and implemented

by Defendants, the sole suppliers of

public water and sewer services to
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 148 / Monday, August 3, 1998 / Notices 41295

customers within the Stilwell city

limits, by which Defendants refused to

extend or connect water or sewer lines

to customers unless the customers also

agreed to purchase electric service from

the City’s Utility Department. The effect

of this policy, commonly referred to as

the ‘‘all-or-none utility policy,’’ has

been to restrict competition in the

provision of electric services in newly

annexed areas of Stilwell.

On July 15, 1998, the United States

and Defendants filed a Stipulation and

Order consenting to the entry of a

proposed Final Judgment designed to

eliminate the all-or-none utility policy

and prevent Defendants from

implementing any similar restriction in

the future. Under the proposed Final

Judgment, Defendants would be

enjoined from requiring any consumer

of electric energy to purchase retail

electric service from Defendants as a

condition of receiving water or sewer

service from Defendants, and would be

enjoined from taking actions to impose

any similar restrictions on City residents

in the future. The proposed Final

Judgment also requires that any

application for water or sewer service or

other written materials distributed by

Defendants to prospective applicants

include a disclaimer stating that

customers are not required to purchase

City electricity as a condition of

receiving water or sewer service.

The United States and Defendants

have stipulated that the proposed Final

Judgment may be entered after

compliance with the APPA. Entry of the

proposed Final Judgment would

terminate the action, except that the

Court would retain jurisdiction to

construe, modify, or enforce the

provisions of the proposed Final

Judgment and to punish violations

thereof.

II. Description of the Events Giving Rise

to the Alleged Violation

The City of Stilwell is a charter

municipality, organized and existing

under the laws of the State of

Oklahoma. Its Utility Department was

established by Section 106 of the City’s

Charter as a business enterprise to

provide electricity within and around

the City’s corporate boundaries. The

Utility Department is governed by a

Utility Board of five members appointed

by the Mayor with the approval of the

City Council and is subject to the

Council’s oversight.

The Stilwell Area Development

Authority (‘‘ADA’’) is a public trust,

organized and existing under Oklahoma

law, to provide water and sewer service

for compensation within and around the

City’s corporate boundaries. It is

governed by a Board of Trustees whose

membership is identical to that of the

City’s Utility Board and which is

likewise subject to the Council’s

oversight.

Defendants provide water, sewer, and

electric service in Stilwell. Within the

pre–1961 boundaries of Stilwell, the

City’s Utility Department is the sole

provider of electric service. But in areas

of Stilwell annexed since that time, the

City competes with Ozarks Rural

Electric Cooperative (‘‘Ozarks’’) for sales

to new electric service customers. In

both pre-1961 Stilwell and areas

subsequently annexed, Defendants have

virtual monopoly on the sale of water

and sewer services.

Beginning as early as 1985, the

Defendants adopted an all-or-none

utility policy, refusing water and sewer

services to any customer who did not

agree to purchase electric service from

the City. The purpose of the policy was

to prevent Ozarks from obtaining new

electric customers in the annexed areas.

The Utility Department and ADA

formalized the all-or-none utility policy

in 1994, and the Stilwell City Council

subsequently approved the policy.

To enforce its all-or-none policy, the

Defendants denied water and sewer

connections, turned off already

connected lines, and otherwise

discriminated against those customers

in annexed areas who tried to obtain

electric service from Ozarks.

Defendants’ enforcement of the policy

deprived customers of their right to

choose freely among competing electric

service providers on the basis of price

and quality of service and eliminated

competition in the provision of electric

service in the annexed areas.

III. Explanation of the Proposed Final

Judgment

The provisions of the proposed Final

Judgment are designed to eliminate

Defendants’ all-or-none utility policy

and to prevent future actions by

Defendants to place similar restrictions

on electric consumers. The proposed

Final Judgment would enjoin

Defendants from requiring any

consumer of electricity to purchase the

City’s retail electric service as a

condition of receiving water or sewer

service from the City (Section IV(A)). In

addition,the proposed Final Judgment

would require defendants to include the

following disclaimer in a conspicuous

manner in any application for water or

sewer service or in any other written

materials they distribute to prospective

applicants for water or sewer services:

Although we provide electric service, as

well as water and sewer services, we do not

require you to purchase electric service from

us as a condition of receiving water or sewer

service and we will not discriminate against

you if you do not purchase electric service

from us.

(Section IV(B)). Defendants would also

be enjoined from threatening or

discriminating or retaliating against any

person because that person had not

agreed to purchase or did not purchase

electric service from Defendants

(Section IV(C)).

The proposed Final Judgment would

further require Defendants to establish

and maintain an antitrust compliance

program (Section VI) and file an annual

certificate of compliance with the

United States (Section VII). It would

also provide that the United States may

obtain information from the Defendants

concerning possible violations of the

Final Judgment (Section VIII).

The proposed Final Judgment would

not prohibit Defendants from exercising

any right under State law to expropriate

facilities used by any retail electric

supplier to furnish electricity within the

City’s corporate boundaries, or from

commencing or prosecuting, in good

faith, litigation to ascertain or protect

any right they might have under State

law to restrict the furnishing of

electricity within the City’s corporate

boundaries to retail electric suppliers

authorized by law to do so (Section V(A)

and (B)).

IV. Remedies Available to Potential

Private Litigants

Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15

U.S.C. 15, provides that any person who

has been injured as a result of conduct

prohibited by the antitrust laws may

bring suit in federal court to recover

three times the damages the person has

suffered, as well as costs and reasonable

attorneys’ fees. Entry of the proposed

Final Judgment will neither impair nor

assist the bringing of any private

antitrust damage action. Under the

provisions of Section 5(a) of the Clayton

Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(a), the proposed Final

Judgment has no prima facie effect in

any subsequent private lawsuit that may

be brought against defendants.

V. Procedures Available for

Modification of the Proposed Final

Judgment

The United States and Defendants

have stipulated that the proposed Final

Judgment may be entered by the Court

after compliance with the provisions of

the APPA, provided that the United

States has not withdrawn its consent.

The APPA conditions entry upon the

Court’s determination that the proposed

Final Judgment is in the public interest.

The APPA provides a period of at

least sixty days preceding the effective
41296 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 148 / Monday, August 3, 1998 / Notices

date of the proposed Final Judgment

within which any person may submit to

the United States written comments

regarding the proposed Final Judgment.

Any person who wishes to comment

should do so within sixty days of the

date of publication of this Competitive

Impact Statement in the Federal

Register. The United States will

evaluate and respond to the comments.

All comments will be given due

consideration by the Department of

Justice, which remains free to withdraw

its consent to the proposed Judgment at

any time prior to entry. The comments

and the responses of the United States

will be filed with the Court and

published in the Federal Register.

Written comments should be submitted

to: Roger W. Fones, Chief,

Transportation, Energy & Agriculture

Section, Antitrust Division, United

States Department of Justice, 325

Seventh Street, N.W., Suite 500,

Washington, D.C. 20004.

The proposed Final Judgment

provides that the Court retains

jurisdiction over this action, and the

parties may apply to the Court for any

order necessary or appropriate for the

modification, interpretation, or

enforcement of the Final Judgment. The

Proposed Final Judgment would expire

ten (10) years from the date of its entry.

VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Final

Judgment

The United States considered, as an

alternative to the proposed Final

Judgment, a full trial on the merits

against Defendants. In the view of the

Department of Justice, such a trial

would involve substantial cost to the

United States and is not warranted. The

proposed Final Judgment provides relief

that fully remedies the alleged

violations of the Sherman Act set forth

in the Complaint.

VII. 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.

For Plaintiff United States of America:

Dated: July lll, 1998.

Respectfully submitted,

John R. Read,

Michele B. Cano,

Michael D. Billiel,

Trial Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice,

Antitrust Division, 325 Seventh Street, N.W.,

Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20004, 202–307–

0468, 202–616–2441 (Facsimile).

[FR Doc. 98–20578 Filed 7–31–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Agency Information Collection

Activities: Proposed Collection;

Comment Request

ACTION: Request OMB Emergency

Approval; Notice of Information

Collection Under Review; New

Collection; Federal Firearms Licensee

Execution of Acknowledgment of

Obligations and Responsibilities Under

the National Instant Criminal

Background Check System (NICS).

The Department of Justice (DOJ),

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

has submitted the following information

collection request (ICR) utilizing

emergency review procedures, to the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for review and clearance in

accordance with 5 CFR 1320.13 (1)(i)(ii)

(2)(iii) Emergency Processing of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

The proposed information collection

is published to obtain comments from

the public and affected agencies.

Emergency review and approval of this

collection has been requested from OMB

by July 30, 1998. If granted, this

emergency approval is only valid for

180 days. A copy of this information

collection request, with applicable

supporting documentation, may be

obtained by calling Allen Nash,

Management Analyst, Federal Bureau of

Investigation, CJIS Division, Module C–

3, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg,

West Virginia 26306, (304) 625–2738.

Comments should be directed to

Office of Management and Budget,

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Attn: Department of Justice Desk

Officer, Washington, DC 20530.

During the first 60 days of this same

period a regular review of this collection

is also being undertaken. Public

comments are encouraged and will be

accepted until October 2, 1998. 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:

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed

collection of information is necessary

for the proper performance of the

function of the agency, including

whether the information will have

practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the

agencies estimate of the burden of the

proposed collection of the information,

including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and

(4) 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.

Overview of this information

collection:

(1) Type of Information Collection:

New data collection.

(2) Title of the Form/Collection:

Federal Firearms Licensee Execution of

Acknowledgement of Obligations and

Responsibilities Under the National

Instant Criminal Background Check

System (NICS).

(3) Agency form number, if any, and

the applicable component of the

Department of Justice sponsoring the

collection: Form: None. Criminal Justice

Information Services Division, Federal

Bureau of Investigation, Department of

Justice.

(4) Affected public who will be asked

or required to respond, as well as a brief

abstract: Primary: Business or other forprofit (Federally licensed firearms

dealers, manufacturers, or importers).

Brief Abstract: The Brady Handgun

Violence Prevention Act of 1994,

requires the Attorney General to

establish a national instant criminal

background check system that any

Federal Firearm Licensee may contact,

by telephone or by other electronic

means in addition to the telephone, for

information, to be supplied

immediately, on whether receipt of a

firearm to a prospective purchaser

would violate federal or state law. The

FFLs are requested to sign a legal

document in order to ensure the privacy

and security of NICS information.

(5) An estimate of the total number of

respondents and the amount of time

estimated for an average respondent to

respond: 60,000 Federal Firearms

Licensees at an average of 15 minutes to

respond.

(6) An estimate of the total public

burden (in hours) associated with the

collection: 15,000.

If additional information is required

contact: Mr. Robert B. Briggs, Clearance

Officer, United States Department of

Justice, Information Management and

Security Staff, Justice Management

Division, 1001 G Street NW, Suite 850,

Washington DC 20530.