21218 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 83 / Monday, May 1, 1995 / Notices

Street, NW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC

20005, (202) 624–0892. A copy of the

proposed consent decree may be

obtained in person or by mail from the

Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street,

NW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20005.

In requesting a copy please refer to the

referenced case and enclose a check in

the amount of $36.75 (25 cents per page

reproduction costs), payable to the

Consent Decree Library.

Joel M. Gross,

Acting Chief, Environmental Enforcement

Section, Environment and Natural Resources

Division.

[FR Doc. 95–10549 Filed 4–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

Antitrust Division

Proposed Final Judgment and

Competitive Impact Statement

In the matter of: United States v. Oregon

Dental Service.

Notice is hereby given pursuant to the

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act,

15 U.S.C. 16 (b)–(h), that a proposed

Final Judgment, Settlement Agreement,

and Competitive Impact Statement have

been filed with the United States

District Court for the Northern District

of California in United States of

America v. Oregon Dental Service, Civil

Action No. C95 1211 FMS. The

Complaint in this case alleges that the

defendant and others engaged in a

combination in unreasonable restraint of

interstate trade and commerce in

violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.

1. The proposed Final Judgment enjoins

the defendant for five years from

maintaining, adopting, or enforcing a

clause in its contracts with dentists that

requires the dentist to give the

defendant the lowest fees he or she

offers to any person or dental plan. It

also enjoins the defendant from taking

any other action, directly or indirectly,

to influence or attempt to influence

dentists’ discounting of fees or

participation in other dental plans.

Finally, the proposed Final Judgment

enjoins the defendant from disclosing or

in any way directly revealing to dentists

its maximum allowable or acceptable

fee for dental procedures.

Public comment on the proposed

Final Judgment is invited within the

statutory 60-day comment period,

which runs from 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 directed to

Christopher S. Crook, Acting Chief, San

Francisco Office, Box 36046, Antitrust

Division, U.S. Department of Justice,

San Francisco, California 94102

(telephone: (415) 556–6300).

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

Barbara J. Nelson, Philip R. Malone, Carla G.

Addicks, Antitrust Division, U.S.

Department of Justice, 450 Golden Gate

Avenue, Box 36046, 10th Floor, San

Francisco, California 94102–3478, (415)

556–6300, Attorneys for the United

States

In the United States District Court

Northern District of California

[Civil No. C95 1211 FMS]

In the matter of: United States of America,

Plaintiff, v. Oregon Dental Service,

Defendant.

Complaint

The United States of America, acting

under the direction of the Attorney

General of the United States, brings this

civil action to obtain equitable and other

relief against the defendant named

herein, and complains and alleges as

follows:

I. Jurisdiction and Venue

1. This Complaint is filed by the

United States under Section 4 of the

Sherman Act; 15 U.S.C. 4, as amended,

to prevent and restrain a continuing

violation by the defendant of Section 1

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

2. The defendant maintains an office,

transacts business, and is found within

the Northern District of California,

within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. 22 and

28 U.S.C. 1391(c).

II. Defendant

3. Oregon Dental Service (‘‘ODS’’), is

a corporation organized and existing

under the laws of the State of Oregon

with its principal place of business in

Portland, Oregon. ODS provides dental

coverage to employees of Oregon

corporations and others. Certain of those

employees are located in the Northern

District of California.

4. ODS is a non-profit corporation

whose participating providers consist of

dentists licensed to practice in Oregon

and who execute participating provider

agreements with ODS. At material

times, dentists comprised the majority

of the Board of Directors of ODS. At

material times, in excess of ninety

percent of dentists licensed to practice

in Oregon were participating providers

of ODS.

5. Various firms and individuals, not

named as defendants in this Complaint,

have entered into agreements with ODS

in violation of the Sherman Act as

alleged in this Complaint, and have

performed acts and made statements in

furtherance thereof.

III. Trade and Commerce

6. At material times, ODS has engaged

in the business of providing dental

insurance coverage. ODS contracts

directly with individual dentists and

groups of dentists for the provision of

dental services to persons covered by

ODS’ dental insurance plans.

Participating dentists agree to comply

with the terms of the contractual

agreements with ODS, and to abide by

ODS’ rules and policies.

7. ODS compensates participating

dentists on the basis of submitted fee

schedules. At material times, payments

from ODS to Oregon dentists constituted

a significant portion of most individual

participating dentist’s receipts from the

provision of dental services to patients.

8. At material times, ODS’

‘‘Participating Dentist Rules and

Policies’’ contained provisions known

as ‘‘most favored nation’’ clauses. These

provisions stated that, for example, the

‘‘lowest fee accepted by the Dentist for

services to be rendered to any group

shall constitute the Dentist’s filed fee

scheduled for payment of ODS Health

Plan claims.’’

9. ODS’ enforcement of the most

favored nation clauses in its rules and

policies resulted in most participating

dentists’ refusal to discount their fees to

non-ODS patients or competing dental

plans.

10. ODS’ most favored nation clauses

have caused significant numbers of

dentists to drop out of or refuse to join

competing discount dental plans.

Because such a large percentage of

Oregon dentists participate with ODS’

plan, the ODS most favored nation

clauses have resulted in many

competing dental plans being unable to

attract and/or retain sufficient numbers

of dentists to serve their members.

11. ODS periodically determines the

amount it will pay for procedures to

participating dentists based upon fee

filings submitted by the participating

dentists. A majority of these dentists

used the fee schedule they filed with

ODS as their fee schedule for all other

patients, including those covered by

other insurance plans and uninsured

patients.

12. ODS sets the maximum fee

allowable for a particular procedure at

the 90th percentile of all fees submitted

to it by participating dentists (the level

at or above the fee charged by 90% of

participating dentists). If 10 or fewer of

a dentist’s submitted fees are above the

90th percentile, ODS notifies the dentist

of the amount of the maximum

allowable fee. Most participating

dentists file fee schedules proposing to

charge more than the maximum
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 83 / Monday, May 1, 1995 / Notices 21219

allowable fee for 10 or fewer

procedures; when one of these dentists

is advised of the exact maximum

allowable fees, he or she is able to lower

the fees no more than necessary to

obtain approval from ODS. If the dentist

agrees to charge the maximum allowable

amount, the dentist signs the

notification and returns it to ODS.

13. Most dentists who are participants

with ODS are in independent, private

practices and are in actual or potential

competition with other participating

dentists for the provision of dental

services.

14. At material times, ODS and

participating dentists have utilized

interstate banking facilities and

purchased not insubstantial quantities

of goods and services from outside the

state of Oregon, for use in providing

dental insurance coverage or dental

services to patients.

15. The activities of ODS that are the

subject of this Complaint have been

within the flow of, and have

substantially affected, interstate trade

and commerce.

IV. Violation Alleged

16. Beginning at a time unknown to

the plaintiff and continuing through at

least September 1994, ODS and others

engaged in a combination in

unreasonable restraint of interstate trade

and commerce in violation of Section 1

of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. ODS

voluntarily abandoned the combination

in September, 1994, but this offense is

likely to recur unless the relief

hereinafter sought is granted.

17. For the purpose of forming and

effectuating this combination, ODS did

the following things, among others:

(a) Adopted and enforced most

favored nation clauses in the contracts

with dentists and in rules and policies

the dentists agreed to abide by, and

(b) Received and disseminated

information on the maximum allowable

fees for certain procedures, and

obtained signed commitments from

participating dentists to charge the

maximum allowable fees.

18. These agreements had the

following effects, among others:

(a) Price competition among dentists

for the provision of dental services has

been unreasonably restrained and fees

for such services have been stabilized at

a level higher than they might otherwise

have been;

(b) Price competition among dental

insurance plans has been unreasonably

restrained; and

(c) Consumers of dental services in

Oregon have been deprived of the

benefits of free and open competition.

V. Prayer

Wherefore, the plaintiff prays:

1. That the Court adjudge and decree

that ODS engaged in an unlawful

combination in unreasonable restraint of

interstate trade and commerce in

violation of Section 1 of the Sherman

Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, as alleged in the

Complaint.

2. That ODS, its members, officers,

directors, agents, employees, and

successors and all other persons acting

or claiming to act on its behalf be

enjoined, restrained and prohibited for

a period of five years from, in any

manner, directly or indirectly,

continuing, maintaining, or renewing

the alleged agreements, or from entering

into any other agreement,

understanding, plan, program, or other

arrangement having a similar purpose or

effect as the alleged agreements.

3. That the United States have such

other relief as the nature of the case may

require and the Court may deem just

and proper.

Dated: April 10, 1995.

Anne K. Bingaman,

Assistant Attorney General.

Mark C. Schechter,

Deputy Director of Operations.

Christopher S. Crook,

Acting Chief, San Francisco Office. Antitrust

Division, U.S. Department of Justice.

Barbara J. Nelson,

Philip R. Malone,

Carla G. Addicks,

Attorneys, Antitrust Division, U.S.

Department of Justice.

Barbara J. Nelson, Philip R. Malone, Carla

G. Addicks, Antitrust Division, U.S.

Department of Justice, 450 Golden Gate

Avenue, Box 36046, 10th Floor, San

Francisco, California 94102–3478, (415) 556–

6300, Attorneys for the United States.

In the United States District Court

Northern District of California

[Civil No. C95 1211 FMS]

In the matter of: United States of America,

Plaintiff, v. Oregon Dental Service,

Defendant.

Stipulation

It is stipulated by and between the

undersigned parties, by their respective

attorneys, that:

1. The Court has jurisdiction over the

subject matter of this action and over

each of the parties thereto, and venue of

this action is proper in the Northern

District of California;

2. The parties consent 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 Procedures and Penalties Act

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

notice to any party or other proceedings,

provided that plaintiff United States 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 the defendant and by

filing that notice with the Court. The

parties represent that they have full

authority to enter into this Stipulation.

3. In the event plaintiff United States

withdraws its consent or if the proposed

Final Judgment is not entered pursuant

to this Stipulation, this Stipulation shall

be of no effect whatever and the making

of this Stipulation shall be without

prejudice to any party in this or any

other proceeding.

4. The parties agree that the Final

Judgment resolves all disputes between

the parties as to the most favored nation

clause and disclosure of the maximum

allowable fees. Plaintiff will not

institute further investigation of ODS

with regard to the most favored nation

clause or disclosure of maximum

allowable fees so long as ODS remains

in compliance with the terms of the

Final Judgment, except for the purposes

of determining or securing compliance

with the Final Judgment.

5. ODS agrees to comply with the

provisions of the Final Judgment

pending entry of the Final Judgment.

Dated: March 28, 1995.

For the United States:

Barbra J. Nelson,

For the Defendant:

Timothy G. Beckler.

In the United States District Court

Northern District of California

In the matter of: United States of America,

Plaintiff v. Oregon Dental Service, Defendant.

[Civil No. C95 1211]

Final Judgment

Whereas, plaintiff, United States of

America through its attorney, filed its

Complaint on , 1995, alleging a

violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.

1;

Whereas, the defendant denies

liability with respect to all matters

subject of the complaint;

Whereas, there has been no

determination by the Court that a

violation of law has occurred;

Whereas, the plaintiff and defendant

desire to resolve their disputes without

trial or adjudication of any issue of law

or fact; and

Whereas, this Final Judgment shall

not be evidence against or an admission

by any party with respect to any issue

of law or fact;
21220 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 83 / Monday, May 1, 1995 / Notices

Now therefore, before the taking of

any testimony and without trial or

adjudication of any issue of law or fact

herein, 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. The

Complaint states a claim upon which

relief may be granted against the

defendant under Section I of the

Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1.

II. Definitions

As used herein, the term:

(A) ‘‘ODS’’ means Oregon Dental

Service;

(B) ‘‘Most Favored Nation Clause’’ or

‘‘MFN’’ means those provisions in the

defendant’s participating dentist

agreements that prior to September 28,

1994, required that the lowest fee

accepted by the participating dentist for

services rendered to any group

constituted the dentist’s filed fee

schedule for payment of ODS claims.

III. Applicability

(A) This Final Judgment applies to

ODS and to ODS’ officers, employees,

members acting as corporate policy

makers, directors, successors, assigns,

subsidiaries, divisions and any other

organizational units of any kind, and to

all other persons in active concert or

participation with any of them. Within

60 days of entry, ODS shall provide a

copy of this Final Judgment by mail or

personal service to ODS’ officers,

directors and managerial employees.

Thereafter, ODS shall distribute in a

timely manner a copy of this Final

Judgment to any new officer, director, or

managerial employee.

(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. Injunction

(A) ODS is enjoined and restrained

from:

(1) Maintaining, adopting, or

enforcing an MFN or similar provision

in participating dentist agreements or by

any other means or methods;

(2) Taking any other action, directly

or indirectly, to influence or attempt to

influence any dentist to refrain from

offering discount fees to any person or

dental plan or to refrain from

participating in any dental plan;

(3) Disclosing or in any way directly

revealing to a dentist or dentists the

maximum allowable or acceptable fee

for a dental procedure or procedures.

V. Retention of Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction is retained by the Court

for the purpose of enabling either party

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, modify it on the basis

of changed circumstances, terminate

any of its provisions, enforce

compliance, and punish violations of its

provisions.

Nothing in this provision shall give

standing to any person not a party to

this Final Judgment to seek any relief

related to it.

VI. Access to Information

For the purposes of determining or

securing compliance with the Final

Judgment, from time to time:

(A) Duly authorized representatives of

the United States, upon written request

of the Assistant Attorney General in

charge of the Antitrust Division, and on

reasonable notice to ODS, shall be

permitted, subject to any legally

recognized privilege, access, during

office hours, to inspect and copy all

books, ledgers, accounts,

correspondence, memoranda and other

records and documents in the

possession or under the control of ODS

relating to any matters contained in this

Final Judgment; and

(B) In the event that the plaintiff has

reasonable cause to believe that ODS

had not complied with the terms of this

Final Judgment, then upon the written

request of the Assistant Attorney

General in charge of the Antitrust

Division, ODS shall submit such written

reports, under oath if requested, with

respect to any of the matter contained in

this Final Judgment.

ODS shall have the right to be

represented by counsel in any such

process.

Any information provided to the

plaintiff under this section of the Final

Judgment shall be kept confidential by

the plaintiff and shall not be disclosed

to third parties except as necessary to

enforce the Final Judgment or as

otherwise previously agreed or required

by law.

Nothing in this Final Judgment

prohibits the plaintiff from using any

other investigatory method authorized

by law.

VII. Term

This Final Judgment shall expire five

years from the date of its entry.

VIII. Public Interest

Entry of this Final Judgment is in the

public interest.

Dated this llll day of llllll,

1995.

United States District Judge.

In the United States District Court

Northern District of California

In the matter of: United States of America,

Plaintiff, v. Oregon Dental Service,

defendant.

[Civil No. C95 1211]

Competitive Impact Statement

Pursuant to Section 2(b) of the

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act,

15 U.S.C. § 16(b)–(h), the United States

submits this Competitive Impact

Statement relating to the proposed Final

Judgment (or ‘‘the Judgment’’) submitted

for entry against and with the consent

of Oregon Dental Service (‘‘ODS’’ or

‘‘the defendant’’) in this civil

proceeding.

I. Nature and Purpose of the Proceeding

On April 10, 1995, the United States

filed this single-count civil antitrust suit

alleging that ODS, an Oregon non-profit

corporation which does business in the

Northern District of California, entered

into a combination in unreasonable

restraint of trade consisting of

agreements to restrain price competition

for dental services in violation of

Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.

1. Plaintiff asked the Court to find that

the defendant has violated Section 1 of

the Sherman Act and further asked the

Court to enjoin the continuation of the

combination.

Entry of the proposed Final Judgment

will terminate the action, except that the

Court will retain jurisdiction over the

matter for any further proceedings

required to interpret, enforce or modify

the judgment or to punish violations of

any of its provisions.

II. Practices Giving Rise to the

Violation

ODS is an Oregon non-profit

corporation. ODS’ principal place of

business is in Portland, Oregon. It was

created by the Oregon Dental

Association, a professional association

of dentists. Dentists hold the majority of

positions on ODS’ Board of Directors.

ODS contracts with businesses,

governmental agencies, and other

organizations to provide pre-paid dental

care coverage to their employees. ODS

contracts directly with dentists or

groups of dentists to provide dental

services to patients who are members of

those covered groups.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 83 / Monday, May 1, 1995 / Notices 21221

ODS compensates its participating

provider dentists for their services on

the basis of a fee for service, determined

in part through fee schedules submitted

by each dentist. ODS sets its maximum

allowable fee at the 90th percentile of

all fees for a procedure submitted to it

by participating dentists. That is, the

maximum allowable fee is equal to or

greater than the fees charged by 90% of

participating dentists. If 10 or fewer of

a dentist’s filed fees are above this 90th

percentile, ODS informs the dentist of

the maximum amount that it will pay

for the service. Most participating

dentists file fee schedules proposing to

charge above the maximum allowable

fee for 10 or fewer procedures, so they

are informed of exactly what fee they

may charge and can avoid lowering

their fees more than necessary to receive

payment from ODS. If the dentist agrees

to charge that amount, he or she signs

the notification and returns it to ODS.

In excess of 90 percent of the dentists

in the state of Oregon have provider

contracts with ODS. For most of these

dentist, payments from treatment of

ODS patients are a significant part of

their income. Most of these dentists are

in independent, private practice and

actually or potentially compete with

other participating ODS dentists to

provide dental service to both ODS and

non-ODS patients.

ODS’ participating dentists agree to

abide by ODS rules and policies, which

contain what is called a ‘‘most favored

nation’’ clause (‘‘MFN’’). The MFN

requires that each dentist charge ODS

the lowest price that dentist charges any

other group. Accordingly, if a dentist

reduces fees to a competing dental plan,

the MFN requires that the dentist also

reduce fees to ODS. The United States

alleges that the effect of the MFN has

been to require participating ODS

dentists to charge other dental plans and

non-ODS patients fees that are as high

as or higher than the fees charged to

ODS.

The Complaint alleges that, beginning

at a time unknown to the plaintiff and

continuing through at least September

1994, ODS and others engaged in a

combination in unreasonable restraint of

interstate trade and commerce in

violation of Section 1 of the Sherman

Act, 15 U.S.C. 1. The Complaint alleges

that the combination ended in

September 1994, when ODS voluntarily

terminated the MFN for business

reasons.

To form and effectuate this

combination, ODS adopted and

enforced an MFN in its rules and

policies which dentists were

contractually obligated to adhere to,

received and disseminated information

on the maximum allowable fees for

certain procedures, and obtained signed

commitments from participating

dentists to charge the maximum

allowable fees.

Had this case proceeded to trial, the

plaintiff was prepared to prove that the

combination unreasonably restrained

price competition among dentists and

between other dental insurance plans

and ODS, and stabilized prices for

dental services.

ODS’ adoption and enforcement of the

MFN restrained price competition

among Oregon dentists for the provision

of dental services because it caused

significant numbers of dentists to refuse

to discount their fees. Before the MFN

was enforced, certain Oregon dentists

had reduced their fees to ODS

competitors in order to participate in

the competitors’ managed-care plans.

Others had indicated a willingness to do

so.

After ODS began enforcing the MFN,

however, most participating dentists

refused to discount their fees to nonODS patients or competing discount

dental plans because, if they did, the

MFN would require them to also lower

all of their fees to ODS. Since most

dentists in Oregon receive a significant

portion of their income from treating

ODS patients, the cost to those dentists

of discounting their fees on non-ODS

patients or competing dental care plans

became too great to justify discounting.

For the same reason, it was too costly

for most dentists to drop their

participation in ODS’ plan in order to

avoid the MFN and be able to discount

their fees to competing discount dental

plans. Consequently, the MFN

substantially reduced discounting that

was occurring and, had it continued in

force, would have deterred future

discounting.

The plaintiff was also prepared to

prove that the combination

unreasonably restrained competition

between ODS and other dental

insurance plans. Because of the MFN

and its effect on the willingness of

dentists to join discount dental plans,

competing discount plans were unable

to attract and keep a sufficiently large

qualified, and geographically varied

panel of dentists to adequately serve

their members and make their plans

commercially marketable to employer

and other groups. Some plans left the

market or had their ability to attract and

serve patient groups severely restricted,

leading to a substantial reduction in

their ability to complete with ODS.

The combination deprived Oregon

consumers of price competition among

dentists who stopped discounting their

fees. Consumers were also deprived of

choices of competing dental insurance

plans offering different combinations of

dentists, services, and prices.

Moreover, the plaintiff was prepared

to prove that ODS’ revealing the

maximum acceptable fees to those

dentists with 10 or fewer procedures

over the maximum prevented those fees

from falling below the maximum and

effectively stabilized those fees at the

maximum acceptable level—a level

higher than they might otherwise have

been. As a result, consumers were

further deprived of price competition

among dentists.

III. Explanation of the Proposed Final

Judgment

The plaintiff and ODS have stipulated

that the Court may enter the proposed

Final Judgment after compliance with

the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties

Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h). The proposed

Final Judgment provides that its entry

does not constitute any evidence against

or admission of any party with respect

to any issue of law or fact.

Under the provisions of Section 2(e)

of the Antitrust Procedures and

Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(e), the

proposed Final Judgment may not be

entered unless the Court finds that entry

is in the public interest. Section VIII of

the proposed Final Judgment sets forth

such a finding.

The proposed Final Judgment is

intended to ensure that ODS does not

reinstate its MFN and ceases disclosing

its maximum allowable fees to

participating dentists. The proposed

Final Judgment also prohibits ODS from

taking any other action that may

influence dentists’ decisions regarding

the discounting of fees.

A. Scope of the Proposed Final

Judgment

Section III of the proposed Final

Judgment provides that the Final

Judgment shall apply to ODS and to

ODS’ officers, employees, members

acting as corporate policy makers,

directors, successors, assigns,

subsidiaries, divisions and any other

organizational units of any kind, and to

all other persons in active concert or

participation with any of them.

In the Stipulation to the proposed

Final Judgment, ODS has agreed to be

bound by the terms of the proposed

Final Judgment, pending its approval by

the Court.

B. Prohibitions and Obligations

Under Section IV of the proposed

Final Judgment, ODS is enjoined and

restrained for a period of five years from

maintaining, adopting, or enforcing an

MFN or similar provision in
21222 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 83 / Monday, May 1, 1995 / Notices

participating dentist agreements or by

any other means or methods, or by

taking any other action, directly or

indirectly, to influence or attempt to

influence any dentist to refrain from

offering discount fees to any person or

dental plan or to refrain from

participating in any dental plan. ODS is

also enjoined and restrained for a period

of five years from disclosing or in any

way directly revealing to a dentist or

dentists the maximum allowable or

acceptable fee for a dental procedure or

procedures.

The proposed Final Judgment also

provides that the plaintiff will have

access to information to enforce the

judgment.

C. Effect of the Proposed Final Judgment

on Competition

The relief required by the proposed

Final Judgment will prohibit

reinstatement of a substantial restraint

on price competition among dentists

and between ODS and other dental

plans in Oregon, by ensuring that ODS

will not adopt or enforce the limitations

on dentists’ abilities to discount created

by the MFN. The proposed Final

Judgment will also prohibit ODS from

taking any other action which might

discourage participating dentists from

discounting or participating in

competing discount plans. As a result,

dentists will be free to discount or to

join other discount plans, and discount

dental plans will no longer be prevented

by ODS’ actions from attracting and

maintaining viable panels of dentists to

serve their members.

Finally, the relief required by the

proposed Final Judgment will prohibit

ODS’ dissemination of the maximum fee

amount for particular procedures.

Without the information provided by

ODS, dentists will have to determine

independently the fees to charge for

their services.

The prohibitions in the proposed

Final Judgment will restore to dental

consumers the benefits of free and open

competition that were suppressed by

ODS’ adoption and enforcement of the

MFN. The proposed Final Judgment

prohibits ODS from reinstating the MFN

during the term of the Final Judgment.

IV. Alternatives to the Proposed Final

Judgment

The alternative to the proposed Final

Judgment is a full trial on the merits of

the case. Such a trial would involve

substantial cost to the United States and

the defendant and is not warranted

because the proposed Final Judgment

provides all the relief that is needed to

remedy the violations of the Sherman

Act alleged in the United States’

complaint.

V. Remedies Available to 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 suffered, as

well as costs and reasonable attorney’s

fees. Entry of the proposed Final

Judgment will neither impair nor assist

in the bringing of such actions. Under

the provisions of Section 5(a) of the

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

Judgment has no prima facie effect in

any subsequent lawsuits that may be

brought against the defendant in this

matter.

VI. Procedures Available for

Modification of the Proposed Final

Judgment

As provided in the Antitrust

Procedures and Penalties Act, any

person believing that the proposed

judgment should be modified may

submit written comments to Christopher

S Crook, Acting Chief, San Francisco

Office, Department of Justice, Antitrust

Division, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San

Francisco, California, 94102–3478,

within the 60-day period provided by

the Act. These comments, and the

plaintiff’s responses to them, will be

filed with the Court and published in

the Federal Register. All comments will

be given due consideration by the

Department of Justice, which remains

free, pursuant to the Stipulation, to

withdraw its consent to the proposed

Final Judgment at any time prior to its

entry if The Department should

determine that some modification of the

judgment is necessary to the public

interest. The proposed Final Judgment

provides that the Court will retain

jurisdiction over this action, and that

the parties may apply to the Court for

such orders as may be necessary or

appropriate for the modification,

interpretation, or enforcement of the

Judgment.

VII. Determinative Documents

No materials and documents of the

type described in Section 2(b) of the

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act,

15 U.S.C. 16(b), were considered in

formulating the proposed Judgment.

Consequently, none are filed herewith.

Dated: April 10, 1995.

Respectfully submitted,

Barbara J. Nelson,

Phillip R. Malone,

Carla G. Addicks,

Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice.

[FR Doc. 95–10596 Filed 4–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Bureau of Labor Statistics

Business Research Advisory Council

Committee on Occupational Safety and

Health Statistics; Cancellation of

Committee Meeting

SUMMARY: Due to the scheduling

difficulties of participants, the meeting

of the Business Research Advisory

Council Committee, on Occupational

Safety and Health Statistics has been

cancelled. The meeting had been

announced previously in the Federal

Register of April 12, 1995, 60 FR 18618.

The committee meeting was to have

taken place on Thursday, May 4, 1995,

1:00 p.m. at the Postal Square Building.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Constance B. DiCesare, Liaison for the

Business Research Advisory Council to

the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2

Massachusetts Avenue NE., Room 2850,

Washington, DC 20212 (202) 606–5887.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 25th day of

April, 1995.

Katharine G. Abraham,

Commissioner.

[FR Doc. 95–10632 Filed 4–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–24–M

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W–30,788]

Meridian Oil-Houston Region;

Houston, TX; Amended Certification

Regarding Eligibility To Apply for

Worker Adjustment Assistance

With other locations in the following

states, TA–W–30,788A Texas, TA–W–

30,788B Alabama, TA–W–30,788C

Louisiana, TA–W–30,788D Ohio, TA–W–

30,788E Oklahoma, and Meridian Oil

Corporate and Administrative Offices, TA–

W–30,788F Houston, TX, TA–W–30,788G

Fort Worth, TX.

In accordance with Section 223 of the

Trade Act of 1974 (19 USC 2273) the

Department of Labor issued a

Certification of Eligibility to Apply for

Worker Adjustment Assistance on

March 23, 1995, applicable to all

workers of the subject firm.