4268 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2008 / Notices 

2711.3–1. In the event of sale, the 

unreserved mineral estate will be 

conveyed simultaneously with the 

surface estate. The unreserved mineral 

interests have been determined to have 

no known mineral value pursuant to 43 

CFR 2720.2 (a). Acceptance of the sale 

offer will constitute an application for 

conveyance of the unreserved mineral 

interests. The purchaser will be required 

to pay a $50.00 non-refundable filing fee 

for conveyance of the available mineral 

interests. 

Competitive Sale Procedures 

The sales will be by sealed bid, 

followed by oral auction. Sealed bids 

must be received at the BLM Boise 

District Office at the above address no 

later than 4:30 p.m. MDT on the day 

before the sale. Federal law requires that 

bidders must be U.S. citizens 18 years 

of age or older, or in the case of a 

corporation, subject to the laws of any 

State of the U.S. Proof of citizenship 

shall accompany the bid. 

At 10 a.m. MDT on May 6, 2008, 

sealed bids will be opened at the BLM 

Boise District Office, and the highest 

acceptable sealed bid will be 

determined for each parcel. An oral 

auction will follow the determination of 

the highest acceptable sealed bid at or 

in excess of the appraised fair market 

value, with the opening oral bid being 

for not less than the highest acceptable 

sealed bid. Oral bidding will continue 

until the highest bid is determined. If no 

oral bids are received, the highest 

acceptable sealed bid will be considered 

the purchaser. If neither a sealed nor an 

oral bid is received for a particular 

parcel, that parcel will remain available 

for over-the-counter sale at the 

appraised fair market value for a period 

of 180 days following the sale date. 

The purchaser will have 30 days from 

the date of acceptance of the high bid to 

submit a deposit of 20 percent of the 

purchase price and the $50.00 filing fee 

for conveyance of mineral interests. The 

purchaser must remit the remainder of 

the purchase price within 180 days from 

the date of the sale. Payments must be 

by certified check, postal money order, 

bank draft or cashiers check payable to 

the U.S. Department of the Interior—

BLM. Failure to meet conditions 

established for this sale will void the 

sale, and any monies received will be 

forfeited to the BLM. 

Public Comments: For a period until 

March 10, 2008, the public and 

interested parties may submit written 

comments regarding the proposed sale 

to the BLM Four Rivers Field Manager 

at the above address. Before including 

your address, phone number, e-mail 

address, or other personal identifying 

information in your comment, be 

advised 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 from 

public review your personal identifying 

information, we cannot guarantee that 

we will be able to do so. 

The BLM will make available for 

public review, in their entirety, all 

comments submitted by businesses or 

organizations, including comments by 

individuals in their capacity as an 

official or representative of a business or 

organization. 

Any adverse comments on the 

proposed sales will be reviewed by the 

BLM Idaho State Director, who may 

sustain, vacate, or modify this realty 

action and issue a final determination. 

In the absence of any objections, the 

realty action will become the final 

determination of the Department of the 

Interior. (Authority: 43 CFR 2711.1–

2(a)). Protests on the proposed plan 

amendment must be received or 

postmarked no later than February 25, 

2008 and must be sent to the Director 

(760), Chief, Planning and 

Environmental Coordination, at the 

above address. Any protest to the plan 

amendment should include: (1) Name, 

address, telephone number and interest 

of protesting party, (2) identification of 

the issue being protested, (3) a statement 

on the parts of the plan being protested, 

(4) a copy of all documents addressing 

the issues that were submitted during 

the planning process, and (5) a concise 

statement explaining why the State 

Director’s decision is believed to be in 

error. The State Director will make a 

final decision on this proposed plan 

amendment following the Governor’s 

consistency review and resolution of 

any protests that may be received by the 

Director. (Authority: 43 CFR 1610.5–2) 

Parcels 1 through 5, which require a 

plan amendment, will not be sold prior 

to the completion of the plan 

amendment. 

Dated: January 16, 2008. 

John Sullivan, 

Acting Four Rivers Field Manager. 

[FR Doc. E8–1162 Filed 1–23–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–GG–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

Public Comment and Response on 

Proposed Final Judgment 

Pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures 

and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h), 

the United States hereby publishes 

below five comments received on the 

proposed Final Judgment in United 

States v. Federation of Physicians and 

Dentists, Case No. 1:05–cv–431, which 

were filed on December 17, 2007, in the 

United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Ohio, together with 

the United States’ response to the 

comments. 

Copies of the comments and the 

response are available for inspection at 

the Department of Justice, Antitrust 

Division; 325 Seventh Street, NW.; 

Room 200; Washington, DC 20530 

(telephone (202) 514–2481); and at the 

Office of the Clerk of the United States 

District Court for the Southern District 

of Ohio, Potter Stewart U.S. Courthouse, 

Room 103, 100 East Fifth Street, 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 (telephone (513) 

564–7500). Copies of any of these 

materials may be obtained upon request 

and payment of a copying fee. 

J. Robert Kramer II, 

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division. 

In the United States District Court for 

the Southern District of Ohio Western 

Division 

United States of America, Plaintiff, vs. 

Federation of Physicians and Dentists, 

et al., Defendants. 

[Case No. 1:05–cv–431] 

Hon. Sandra S. Beckwith, C.J. 

Hon. Timothy S. Hogan, M.J. 

Plaintiff United States’ Response to 

Public Comments 

Pursuant to the requirements of the 

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act 

(‘‘APPA’’ or ‘‘Tunney Act’’), 15 U.S.C. 

16(b)–(h), the United States submits this 

response to five public comments 

relating to the proposed Final Judgment 

that has been lodged with the Court for 

eventual entry in this case. After review 

of the comments, the United States 

continues to believe that the proposed 

Final Judgment will provide an effective 

and appropriate remedy for the antitrust 

violation alleged in the Complaint. 

Following publication of the comments 

and this response to them in the Federal 

Register, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 16(d), 

the United States will request that the 

Court enter the proposed Final 

Judgment. 

I. Procedural History 

On June 24, 2005, the United States 

filed this civil antitrust action, alleging 

that the Federation of Physicians and 

Dentists (‘‘Federation’’) and Federation 

employee Lynda Odenkirk, along with 

physician co-defendants Drs. Warren 

Metherd, Michael Karram, and James 

Wendel, coordinated a conspiracy 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2008 / Notices 4269 

among about 120 obstetriciangynecologist physicians (‘‘OB–GYNs’’) 

practicing in greater Cincinnati, Ohio, 

that unreasonably restrained interstate 

trade and commerce in violation of 

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

1. The physician defendants agreed to a 

judgment that was filed concurrently 

with the Complaint and entered by this 

Court on November 14, 2005, as being 

in the public interest. (Dkt. Entry #36). 

The Federation and Ms. Odenkirk (the 

‘‘Federation defendants’’), however, 

contested the charges. 

On January 26, 2006, the United 

States filed with the Court a motion 

seeking entry of partial summary 

judgment on liability against the 

Federation defendants. (Dkt. entry ## 

40, 47). After briefing on this motion 

was completed, the Federation 

defendants filed an unopposed motion 

requesting the Court to order that the 

case be referred to mediation. (Dkt. 

entry # 63). On April 14, 2006, the Court 

ordered that the case be referred to 

mediation. 

Following two mediation conferences 

and protracted settlement negotiations, 

on June 19, 2007, the United States filed 

with the Court a settlement stipulation 

(Dkt. Entry # 81) with the Federation 

defendants, consenting to entry of the 

proposed Final Judgment (Dkt. entry # 

81–2), which was lodged with the Court 

pending the parties’ compliance with 

the APPA. On July 18, 2007, the United 

States published the Stipulation, 

proposed Final Judgment, and 

Competitive Impact Statement (‘‘CIS’’) 

(Dkt. Entry # 84) in the Federal Register 

39450 (2007), as required by the APPA 

to facilitate public comments on the 

proposed Final Judgment. A summary of 

the terms of the proposed Final 

Judgment and CIS was published for 

seven consecutive days in the 

Cincinnati Enquirer from July 20 

through July 26, 2007, and in the 

Washington Post from July 18 through 

July 24, 2007, also pursuant to the 

APPA. The 60-day period for public 

comments on the proposed Final 

Judgment began on July 27, 2007, and 

expired on September 24, 2007. During 

that period, five comments were 

submitted. 

II. Summary of the Complainant’s 

Allegations 

The Federation is a membership 

organization of physicians and dentists, 

headquartered in Tallahassee, Florida. 

the Federation’s membership includes 

economically independent physician 

groups in private practice in many 

states, including Ohio. The Federation 

has offered member physicians 

assistance in negotiating fees and other 

terms in their contracts with health care 

insurers. 

In spring 2002, several Cincinnati 

OB–GYNs became interested in joining 

the Federation to negotiate higher fees 

from health care insurers. The physician 

defendants assisted the Federation in 

recruiting other Cincinnati-area OB–

GYNs as members. By June 2002, the 

membership of the Federation had 

grown to include a large majority of 

competing OB–GYN physicians in the 

Cincinnati area. 

Withe substantial assistance from the 

physician defendants and Ms. Odenkirk, 

the Federation coordinated and helped 

implement its members’ concerted 

demands to insurers for higher fees and 

related terms, accompanied by threats of 

contract terminations. From September 

2002 through the fall of 2003, Ms. 

Odenkirk communicated with the 

physician defendants and other 

cincinnati-area OB–GYN Federation 

members to coordinate their contract 

negotiations with health care insurers. 

Along with the physician defendants, 

Ms. Odenkirk developed a strategy to 

intensify Federation member 

physicians’ pressure on health care 

insurers to renegotiate their contracts, 

including informing member physicians 

about the status of competing member 

groups’ negotiations and taking steps to 

coordinate their negotiations. 

The agreement coordinated by the 

Federation defendants forced 

Cincinnati-area health care insurers to 

raise fees paid to Federation member 

OB–GYNs above the levels that would 

likely have resulted if Federation 

members had negotiated competitively 

with those insurers. As a result of the 

conspirators’ conduct, the three largest 

Cincinnati-area health care insurers 

each were forced to increase fees paid 

to most Federation member 0B-GYNs by 

approximately 15–20% starting July 1, 

2003, followed by cumulative increases 

of approximately 20–25% starting 

January 1, 2004, and approximately 25–

30% effective January 1, 2005. This 

conduct by Federation member OBGYNs, coordinated by the Federation 

defendants, also caused other insurers 

to raise the fees that they paid to 

Federation OB-GYN members. The 

increased fees paid by health care 

insurers to Federation OB-GYN 

members in the Cincinnati area are 

ultimately borne by employers and their 

employees. 

iii. Summary of Relief to be Obtained 

Under the Proposed Final Judgment 

The proposed Final Judgment is 

designed to enjoin the Federation 

defendants from taking future actions 

that could facilitate private-practice 

physicians in coordinating their 

dealings with payers for health care 

services. It accordingly prohibits the 

Federation defendants from being 

involved in its private-practice 

members’ negotiations or contracting 

with health insurers or other payers for 

health care services anywhere in the 

United States. 

The proposed Final Judgment 

prohibits the Federation defendants 

from providing any services to any 

physician in private practice (defined as 

an ‘‘independent physician’’) regarding 

such physician’s negotiation, 

contracting, or other dealings with any 

payer. The proposed Final Judgment 

also prohibits the Federation defendants 

from (1) representing any independent 

physician with any payer (including as 

a messenger); (2) reviewing or 

analyzing, for any such physician, any 

proposed or actual contract or contract 

term between the physician and any 

payer; and (3) communicating with any 

independent physician about the status 

of that physician’s, or any other 

physician’s, negotiations, contracting, or 

participation with any payer. The 

Federation defendants are also generally 

prohibited from communicating about 

any proposed or actual contract or 

contract term between any independent 

physician and any payer. In addition, 

the proposed Final Judgment enjoins the 

Federation defendants from responding 

to any question initiated by any payer, 

except to state that the Final Judgment 

prohibits such a response. Finally, the 

proposed Final Judgment generally 

prohibits the Federation defendants 

from training or educating, or 

attempting to train or educate, any 

independent physician in any aspect of 

contracting or negotiating with any 

payer. 

The proposed decree includes 

exceptions to these prohibitions 

covering conduct that neither threatens 

competitive harm nor undermines the 

clarity of the prohibitions. For example, 

the proposed decree limits its 

prohibition on training or educating 

independent physicians in any aspect of 

contracting or negotiating with payers 

by allowing the Federation defendants 

to 

(1) Speak on general topics (including 

contracting), when (a) invited to do so as part 

of a regularly scheduled medical educational 

seminar offering continuing medical 

education credit, (b) advance written notice 

has been given to Plaintiff, and (c) documents 

relating to what was said by the Federation 

defendants are retained by them for possible 

inspection by the United States. 

(2) Publish articles on general topics 

(including contracting) in a regularly 

disseminated newsletter; and 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
4270 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2008 / Notices 

(3) Provide education to independent 

physicians regarding the regulatory structure 

(including legislative developments) of 

workers compensation, Medicaid, and 

Medicare, except Medicare Advantage, 

provided that such conduct does not 

violate any other injunctive provision of 

the proposed Final Judgment. 

In a section titled ‘‘permitted 

conduct,’’ the proposed decree permits 

certain other conduct as well: 

(1) Federation defendants may engage in 

activities involving physician participation 

in written fee surveys that are covered by the 

‘‘safety zone’’ under Statement 6 of the 1996 

Statements of Antitrust Enforcement Policy 

in Health Care, 4 Trade Reg. Rep. (CCH) 

¶ 13,153, which addresses provider 

participation in exchanges of price and cost 

information; 

(2) Federation defendants and Federation 

members may engage in lawful union 

organizational efforts and activities; 

(3) Federation defendants may petition 

governmental entities in accordance with 

doctrine established in Eastern Railroad 

Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, 

Inc., 365 U.S. 127 (1961), and its progeny; 

and 

(4) Federation physician members may 

choose independently, or with other 

members or employees of such member’s 

bona fide solo practice or practice groups, the 

health insurers with which to contract, and/ 

or to refuse to enter into discussions or 

negotiations with any health care payer. 

The proposed Final Judgment clarifies 

that it does not alter the Federation’s 

obligations under the decree entered by 

the district court in Delaware in a prior, 

similar case against the Federation, 

United States v. Federation of 

Physicians and Dentists, Inc., CA 98–

475 JJF (D. Del., consent judgment 

entered Nov. 6, 2002) (the ‘‘Delaware 

decree’’). If there is any conflict between 

the injunctive provisions of the 

proposed Final Judgment and the 

injunctive provisions or conduct 

permitted by the Delaware decree, the 

proposed Final Judgment controls. The 

proposed Final Judgment embodies 

more stringent relief than that provided 

by the Delaware decree because it 

prohibits the Federation, for example, 

from representing physicians in their 

dealings with payers as a messenger and 

reviewing and analyzing physician 

contracts with any payer. The Delaware 

decree had permitted such conduct in 

limited circumstances. 

IV. Summary of Public Comments and 

the United States’ Responses to Them 

During the 60-day public comment 

period, the United States received 

comments from one individual and four 

medical societies. Upon review, the 

United States believes that nothing in 

the comments warrants a change in the 

proposed Final Judgment or suggests 

that the proposed Final Judgment is not 

in the public interest. None of the 

comments contend that the proposed 

decree fails adequately to redress the 

violations and competitive harm alleged 

in the Complaint. Rather, two of the 

comments contend that the proposed 

Final Judgment is too stringent, and 

another implies the same point. Two 

other comments contend that this case 

resulted from an unfair application of 

the antitrust laws to physicians in their 

dealings with insurers. The remaining 

comment generally criticizes what is 

characterized as an unreasonably 

aggressive antitrust enforcement policy 

by the Department of Justice and 

Federal Trade Commission with respect 

to physicians. The United States 

addresses these concerns below and 

explains why the proposed Final 

Judgment is appropriate. 

A. Comments Questioning the Charges 

Brought Against the Federation 

Defendants 

1. Summary of Comments Submitted by 

Dr. Michael Connair and the American 

Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 

Dr. Michael Connair, an orthopedic 

surgeon in Connecticut and a Vice 

President of the defendant Federation of 

Physicians and dentists, has submitted 

a comment (attachment 1) that criticizes 

the United States’ Competitive Impact 

Statement (‘‘CIS’’) (Dkt. Entry # 84) as 

‘‘reflect[ing] a misguided DOJ 

enforcement policy that ignores 

antitrust principles and that encourages 

anticompetitive behavior by insurers.’’

According to Dr. Connair, the CIS 

ignores that Cincinnati ‘‘physicians 

were forced to react to anti-competitive 

behaviors by Cincinnati insurers 

because the Department of Justice did 

not enforce antitrust principles against 

those insurers.’’

Similarly, the American Academy of 

Orthopaedic Surgeons’ comment 

(Attachment 2) expresses the Academy’s 

belief that this case ‘‘is the result of the 

antitrust laws not being applied equally 

to the insurance industry as they are to 

physicians or other professions,’’ which 

‘‘would reduce competition in the 

insurance industry and, ultimately, 

harm consumers.’’ The Academy’s 

comment also asserts that ‘‘[i]n this 

case, the physicians appeared to be 

reacting to anticompetitive behaviors by 

Cincinnati insurers which artifically 

lowered prices below Medicare levels.’’

2. United States’ Response to Comments 

Submitted by Dr. Michael Connair and 

the American Academy of Orthopaedic 

Surgeons 

Dr. Connair’s and the Academy’s 

comments challenge the United States’

decision to prosecute the defendants’

alleged anticompetitive conduct, rather 

than alleged anticompetitive actions by 

health insurers. Such an argument is 

outside the scope of this APPA 

proceeding because the APPA does not 

permit the Court to review the efficacy 

or ‘‘correctness’’ of the United States’

enforcement policy or its determination 

to pursue—or not pursue—a particular 

claim in the first instance. As explained 

by the District Court for the District of 

Columbia, in a Tunney Act ‘‘public 

interest’’ proceeding, the district court 

should not second-guess the 

prosecutorial decisions of the Antitrust 

Division regarding the nature of the 

claims brought in the first instance; 

‘‘rather, the court is to compare the 

complaint filed by the United States 

with the proposed consent decree and 

determine whether the proposed decree 

clearly and effectively addresses the 

anticompetitive harms initially 

identified.’’ United States v. The 

Thomson Corp, 949 F. Supp. 907, 913 

(D.D.C. 1996); accord, United States v. 

Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 1448, 1459 

(D.C. Cir. 1995) (in APPA proceeding, 

‘‘district court is not empowered to 

review the actions or behavior of the 

Department of Justice; the court is only 

authorized to review the decree itself’’). 

Although the comments of Dr. 

Connair and the Academy are beyond 

the scope of an APPA proceeding, the 

United States nevertheless observes that 

their comments are incorrect as a matter 

of fact and law. The United States 

believes that the uncontested evidence 

and law presented in support of its 

motion for summary judgment, which 

the Court was not called on to decide in 

view of the parties’ proposed settlement, 

strongly supports the Complaint’s 

allegations that the Federation 

defendants violated the antitrust laws. 

(Dkt. Entry ## 1, 47). Further, even if the 

Federation defendants believed that 

Cincinnati insurers had colluded on 

payments made to OB–GYNs, as the 

comments imply, such circumstances 

would provide no defense for the 

Federation defendants’ coordination of 

Cincinnati OB–GYNs price fixing. 

Controlling law is clear ‘‘[t]hat a 

particular practice may be unlawful is 

not, in itself, a sufficient justification for 

collusion among competitors to prevent 

it.’’ FTC v. Indiana Fed’n of Dentists, 

476 U.S. 447, 465 (1986). 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2008 / Notices 4271 

B. Comments Arguing that the Proposed 

Final Judgment is Overly Restrictive 

1. Summary of Comments Submitted by 

the Connecticut State Medical Society, 

Connecticut Orthopedic Society, and 

Utah State Orthopaedic Society 

The Connecticut State Medical 

Society (CSMS) comments (Attachment 

3) that the proposed Final Judgment is 

‘‘unnecessarily restrictive and more 

onerous than final decrees typically 

proposed by both the [Department of 

Justice] and the Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC) under similar 

circumstances in that it precludes the 

Federation from engaging in lawful 

conduct including representing 

physicians in their dealing with payers 

as messengers and from reviewing and 

analyzing physician contracts with any 

third-party payer.’’ The CSMS asks the 

United States to modify the proposed 

Final Judgment to allow the defendant 

Federation to participate in (1) qualified 

risk-sharing and qualified clinically 

integrated joint arrangements, (2) 

messenger-model arrangements, and (3) 

communications with physicians about 

insurer contracts. The Connecticut 

Orthopedic Society comments 

(Attachment 4) in support of the letter 

submitted by the CSMS. 

The Utah State Orthopaedic Society’s 

(‘‘USOS’s’’) comment (Attachment 5) 

states that the defendant Federation has 

served as a messenger for orthopedists 

in Utah with productive results. Based 

on the Utah experience, the comment 

‘‘presume[s] that the activities in 

Cincinnati have been handled in a 

similar fashion by the Federation.’’ The 

USOS’s comment further expresses the 

‘‘hope * * * [that] the ‘messenger 

model’ throughout the country is 

managed legally by those that employ 

it.’’

2. United States’ Response to Comments 

Submitted by the Connecticut State 

Medical Society, Connecticut 

Orthopedic Society, and Utah State 

Orthopaedic Society 

These comments seek entry of a 

decree that essentially tracks the 

Delaware decree. The United States had 

agreed to resolve its earlier case against 

the Federation, in part, to give the 

Federation an opportunity to conduct 

some of its activities in a lawful manner 

that should not have led to 

anticompetitive results. The Federation 

defendants’ actions in Cincinnati, as 

alleged in the United States’ Complaint 

(Dkt. Entry # 1) and demonstrated in its 

summary judgment brief (Dkt. Entry 

# 47), however, have shown that such a 

decree is insufficient to prevent the 

Federation defendants from engaging in 

substantial anticompetitive conduct 

and, therefore, that a more restrictive 

decree is appropriate. The Federation 

defendants’ alleged conduct in 

Cincinnati demonstrates that the 

USOS’s expressed ‘‘hope’’ that the 

Federation defendants have employed 

the ‘‘messenger model’’ appropriately 

elsewhere has not been realized. 

Had the Federation defendants’

complied with the Delaware decree, it 

plainly would have prevented them 

from coordinating Cincinnati OB-GYNs’

fee negotiations with health insurers. 

The Federation defendants nonetheless 

have steadfastly maintained that their 

conduct challenged in this matter 

complied with the Delaware decree, 

which—like the proposed Final 

Judgment—is nationwide in scope. 

Accordingly, the United States decided 

in this matter to negotiate a more 

restrictive proposed Final Judgment 

with the Federation defendants that 

assures that the Federation will not 

again engage in conduct that has the 

anticompetitive effect alleged in the 

complaint. The proposed Final 

Judgment thus provides appropriate 

additional assurance that the type of 

conduct that occurred in Cincinnati, 

despite the Delaware decree, will not 

recur. 

In short the orthopedic groups’

comments fail to recognize that the 

Federation defendants’ conduct in 

Cincinnati has shown that the Delaware 

decree is insufficient to prevent their 

recurrent anticompetitive conduct and, 

therefore, that a more stringent decree is 

required. ‘‘While the resulting 

[proposed Final Judgment] may curtail 

the exercise of liberties that the 

[Federation defendants] might otherwise 

enjoy, that is a necessary and, in cases 

such as this, unavoidable consequence 

of the [recurrent] violation.’’ Nat’l Soc’y 

of Prof’l Eng’rs v. United States, 435 

U.S. 679, 697 (1978). Although the 

proposed Final Judgment ‘‘goes beyond 

a simple proscription against the precise 

conduct previously pursued[,] that is 

entirely appropriate’’ under the 

circumstances. Id. at 698. 

Conclusion 

After considering the five comments 

received, the United States continues to 

believe that the proposed Final 

Judgment reasonably and appropriately 

addresses the harm alleged in the 

Complaint. Therefore, following 

publication of this response to 

comments in the Federal Register and 

submission of the United States’

certification of compliance with the 

APPA, the United States intends to 

request entry of the proposed Final 

Judgment once the Court determines 

that entry is in the public interest. 

Dated: December 17, 2007. 

Respectfully submitted, 

For Plaintiff United States of America 

Gregory G. Lockhart, 

United States Attorney. 

/s/ Gerald F. Kaminski 

Gerald F. Kaminski, 

Assistant United States Attorney, 

Bar No. 0012532. 

Office of the United States Attorney, 221 E. 

4th Street, Suite 400, Cincinnati, Ohio 

45202, (513) 684–3711. 

/s/ Steven Kramer 

Steven Kramer 

Attorney, Antitrust Division. 

U.S. Department of Justice, 1401 H Street, 

NW., Suite 4000, Washington, DC 20530, 

(202) 307–0997, steven.kramer@usdoj.gov. 

BILLING CODE 4401–11–M 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
4272 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN24JA08.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2008 / Notices 4273 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN24JA08.003</GPH>
4274 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN24JA08.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2008 / Notices 4275 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN24JA08.005</GPH>
4276 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN24JA08.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2008 / Notices 4277 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN24JA08.007</GPH>
4278 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN24JA08.008</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2008 / Notices 4279 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN24JA08.009</GPH>
4280 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN24JA08.010</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2008 / Notices 4281 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN24JA08.011</GPH>
4282 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN24JA08.012</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2008 / Notices 4283 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN24JA08.013</GPH>
4284 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN24JA08.014</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2008 / Notices 4285 

[FR Doc. 08–227 Filed 1–23–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4401–11–C 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN24JA08.015</GPH>