21498 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Notices

9The financial risk-sharing requirement of a

QMCP ensures that the physician owners in the

venture share a clear economic incentive to achieve

substantial cost savings and provide better services

at lower prices to consumers. The 30% limitation

is designed to ensure that there are available

sufficient remaining physicians in the market with

the incentive to contract with competing managed

care plans or to form their own plans. These

limitations are particularly critical in this case in

view of defendants’ prior conduct in forming

negotiating groups with nearly every OB/GYN

practicing at private hospitals in Baton Rouge and

obtaining higher prices for these doctors.

10The QMCP’s subcontracting requirements are

designed to permit physician panels above the 30%

limit, but with sufficient safeguards to avoid the

risk of competitive harm. Specifically, the owners

of a QMCP must bear significant financial risk for

the payments to, and utilization practices of, the

panel physicians in excess of the 30% limitation.

In this way, a QMCP must operate with the same

incentives as a nonprovider-controlled plan to

bargain down the fees of the subcontracting

physicians, and the risk of it using the subcontracts

as a mechanism for increasing fees for physician

services is substantially reduced.

be withheld unreasonably. (Section

IV(D)(I)).

To comply with the requirements of a

QMCP set forth in the proposed Final

Judgment, (1) the owners or members of

WPHO (to the extent they compete with

other owners or members or compete

with physicians on their provider

panels) must share substantial financial

risk, and constitute no more than 30%

of the physicians in any relevant

market; 9 and (2) to the extent WPHO

has a provider panel that exceeds this

limit in any relevant market, there must

be a divergence of economic interest

between the owners and the

subcontracting physicians, such that the

owners have the incentive to bargain

down the fees of the subcontracting

physicians.10 (Section II(G) (1) and (2))

In addition, a QMCP cannot facilitate

agreements between competing

physicians concerning charges, or other

terms and conditions relating to payers

not contracting with the organization,

and cannot be operated with the

purpose or effect of maintaining or

increasing physician fees. (Section II(G)

(3) and (5)) The requirements of a QMCP

are necessary to avoid the creation of a

physician cartel while at the same time

allowing payers access to providercontrolled plans.

3. Applicability to Consenting

Physicians

The proposed Final Judgment applies

not only to named defendants Woman’s

Hospital and WPHO, but also to all

‘‘consenting physicians’’ defined as

physicians who continue as owners or

participants in physician networks

owned or operated by Woman’s

Hospital or WPHO. Consenting

physicians are required to affirm in

writing that the physician has read and

understands the Final Judgment and

agrees to be bound by it. (Section IV(B)).

Application of the proposed Final

Judgment to consenting physicians will

help prevent recurrence of the

violations alleged in the Complaint.

Those violations could not have

occurred without the willing

participation of physicians who, in

addition to Woman’s Hospital, were the

intended beneficiaries of those

violations. Physicians could abuse the

messenger model and the QMCP in

ways that might not violate the Final

Judgment but would at the same time

achieve the anticompetitive results

addressed by the Final Judgment. The

‘‘consenting physicians’’ provisions

should reduce this risk.

IV

Alternative to the Proposed Final

Judgment

The alternative to the proposed Final

Judgment would be a full trial on the

merits of the case. In the view of the

Department of Justice, such a trial

would involve substantial costs to the

United States and defendants and is not

warranted because the proposed Final

Judgment provides all of the relief

necessary to remedy the violations of

the Sherman Act alleged in the

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 a reasonable attorney’s

fee. 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

proposed Final Judgment has no prima

facie effect in any subsequent lawsuits

that may be brought against one or more

defendants in this matter.

VI

Procedures Available for Modification of

the Proposed Final Judgment

As provided by Sections 2 (b) and (d)

of the APPA, 15 U.S.C. 16 (b) and (d),

any person believing that the proposed

Final Judgment should be modified may

submit written comments to Gail Kursh,

Chief; Health Care Task Force; United

States Department of Justice; Antitrust

Division; 325 7th Street, NW., Room

400; Washington, DC 20530, within the

60-day period provided by the Act.

Comments received, and the

Government’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 Paragraph 2 of the

Stipulation, to withdraw its consent to

the proposed Final Judgment at any

time before its entry, if the Department

should determine that some

modification of the Final Judgment is

necessary for the public interest.

Moreover, the proposed Final Judgment

provides in Section IX 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 proposed Final

Judgment.

VII

Determinative Documents

No materials and documents of the

type described in Section 2(b) of the

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

in formulating the proposed Final

Judgment. Consequently, none are filed

herewith.

Dated: April 23, 1996.

Respectfully submitted,

lllllllllllllllllllll

Mark J. Botti,

Steven Kramer,

Pamela C. Girardi,

Attorneys, Antitrust Division, U.S. Dept. of

Justice, 325 7th Street, N.W., Room 450,

Washington, D.C. 20530, (202) 307–0827.

L.J. Hymel,

United States Attorney.

By: lllllllllllllllllll

John J. Gaupp,

LBN# 14976, Assistant United States

Attorney, 777 Florida St., Suite 208, Baton

Rouge, LA 70801, (504) 389–0443, Local

Counsel.

[FR Doc. 96–11796 Filed 5–9–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

Notice Pursuant to the National

Cooperative Research and Production

Act of 1993—Advanced

Telecommunications Information

Distribution Research Consortium

Notice is hereby given that, on

January 29, 1996, pursuant to Section

6(a) of the National Cooperative

Research and Production Act of 1993,

15 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), the

Advanced Telecommunications

information Distribution Research

Consortium (‘‘ATIRP Consortium’’) has

filed written notifications

simultaneously with the Attorney

General and the Federal Trade
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Notices 21499

Commission disclosing (1) the identities

of the parties and (2) the nature and

objectives of the venture. The

notifications were filed for the purpose

of invoking the Act’s provisions limiting

the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to

actual damages under specified

circumstances. Pursuant to Section 6(b)

of the Act, the identities of the parties

are the United States of America,

represented by U.S. Army Research

Laboratories (‘‘ARL’’), Adelphi, MD;

Sanders, a Lockheed Martin Company,

Nashua, NH; Bell Communications

Research, Inc., Morristown, NJ; City

University of New York, City College,

New York, NY; University of Delaware,

Newark, DE; GTE Laboratories, Inc.,

Waltham, MA; Howard University,

Washington, DC; University of

Maryland, College Park, MD;

Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

Cambridge, MA; Morgan State

University, Baltimore, MD; and

Motorola, Inc., Scottsdale, AZ.

The nature of the ATIRP Consortium

is to conduct research in the area of

telecommunications and information

distribution for a limited duration to

gain further knowledge and

understanding of emerging technologies.

Through its partnerships, the

Consortium will forge cooperative

relationships with the customer

community to develop innovative ideas

and applications for new

telecommunications and information

distribution technologies.

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 96–11652 Filed 5–9–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

Drug Enforcement Administration

Manufacturer of Controlled

Substances Notice of Registration;

Norac Co., Inc.

By Notice dated October 16, 1995, and

published in the Federal Register on

October 23, 1995, (60 FR 54387), Norac

Company, Inc., 405 S. Motor Avenue,

Azusa, California 91702, made

application to the Drug Enforcement

Administration to be registered as a bulk

manufacturer of tetrahydrocannabinols

(7370), a basic class of controlled

substance listed in Schedule I.

No comments or objections have been

received. DEA has considered the

factors in Title 21, United States Code,

section 823(a) and determined that the

registration of Norac Company, Inc. to

manufacture the listed controlled

substance is consistent with the public

interest at this time. Therefore, pursuant

to 21 U.S.C. 823 and 28 CFR 0.100 and

0.104, the Deputy Assistant

Administrator, Office of Diversion

Control, hereby orders that the

application submitted by the above firm

for registration as a bulk manufacturer

of the basic class of controlled substance

listed above is granted.

Dated: April 12, 1996.

Gene R. Haislip,

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–11665 Filed 5–9–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of the Secretary

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

May 6, 1996.

The Department of Labor (DOL) has

submitted the following public

information collection request (ICR) to

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for review and approval in

accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (P.L. 104–13, 44

U.S.C. Chapter 35). A copy of this

individual ICR, with applicable

supporting documentation, may be

obtained by calling the Department of

Labor Acting Departmental Clearance

Officer, Theresa M. O’Malley ((202)

219–5095). Individuals who use a

telecommunications device for the deaf

(TTY/TDD) may call (202) 219–4720

between 1:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern

time, Monday through Friday.

Comments should be sent to the

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the

Employment and Training

Administration, Office of Management

and Budget, Room 10235, Washington,

DC 20503 ((202) 395–7316), within 30

days from the date of this publication in

the Federal Register.

The OMB is particularly interested in

comments which:

* Evaluate whether the proposed

collection of information is necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of the agency, including

whether the information will have

practical utility;

* Evaluate the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

proposed collection of information,

including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions used;

* Enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and

* 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.

Agency: Employment and Training

Administration.

Title: Job Search Assistance

Demonstration Followup Interview.

Frequency: One-time survey.

Affected Public: Individuals or

households.

Number of Respondents: 4,500.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 30

minutes.

Total Burden Hours: 2,250.

Total Annualized capital/startup

costs: 0.

Total Annual Costs (operating/

maintaining systems or purchasing

services): 0.

Description: The information

collected in this questionnaire is

necessary for the evaluation of the Job

Search Assistance (JSA) demonstration,

a Congressionally mandated

demonstration and evaluation. The

questionnaire collects information on

employment and training services

received and labor market experiences

of unemployment insurance claimants

selected for the demonstration.

Theresa M. O’Malley,

Acting Departmental Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 96–11765 Filed 5–9–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

Office of the Assistant Secretary for

Administration and Management

National Skill Standards Board; Notice

of Open Meeting

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant

Secretary for Administration and

Management, Labor.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

SUMMARY: The National Skill Students

Board was established by an Act of

Congress, the Goals 2000: Educate

America Act of 1994, Title V, Pub L.

103–227. The 27-member National Skill

Standards Board will serve as a catalyst

and be responsible for the development

and implementation of a national

system of voluntary skill standards and

certification through voluntary

partnerships which have the full and

balanced participation of business,

industry, labor, education and other key

groups.

Time and Place: The meeting will be held

from 8:00 a.m. to appproximately 11:30 a.m.

on Friday, May 31, 1996, in the Mt. Vernon

Salon A & B, 2nd Floor of the Madison Hotel

at 15th & M Streets N.W, Washington, D.C.