[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 110 (Thursday, June 6, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28891-28895]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14075]



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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


United States v. Association of Family Practice Residency 
Directors; Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement

    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 a Competitive Impact Statement have been filed with 
the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri 
in United States v. Association of Family Practice Residency Directors, 
Civil No. 96-575-CV-W-2 (W.D. Mo., filed May 28, 1996).
    The Complaint alleges that the defendant entered into an agreement 
with the purpose and effect of restraining competition, in violation of 
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, by limiting competition 
among family practice residency programs to employ family practice 
residents. The proposed Final Judgment enjoins the continuance or 
recurrence of this practice.
    Public comment on the proposed Final Judgment is invited within the 
statutory 60-day comment period. Such comments and responses thereto 
will be published in the Federal Register and filed with the Court. 
Comments should be directed to Gail Kursh, Chief; Health Care Task 
Force; United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 325 
Seventh Street, NW., Room 400; Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: 202/
307-5799).
Rebecca P. Dick,
Deputy Director of Operations.

United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri 
Western Division

    United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Association of Family 
Practice Residency Director, Defendant. Civil Action No.: 96-575-CV-
W-2, Judge Gaitan.

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 hereto, and venue of this action is 
proper in the Western District of Missouri;
    2. The parties consent that a Final Judgment in the form hereto 
attached may be filled 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 the 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 the defendant and by filing that 
notice with the Court; and
    3. The defendant agrees to be bound by the provisions of the 
proposed Final Judgment pending its approval by the Court. If the 
plaintiff withdraws its consent, of if the proposed Final Judgment is 
not entered pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation, this Stipulation 
shall be of no effect whatsoever, and the making of this Stipulation 
shall be without prejudice to any party in this or in any other 
proceeding.


[[Page 28892]]


    For Plaintiff United States of America:
Anne K. Bingaman,
Assistant Attorney General.
Joel I. Klein,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General.
Rebecca P. Dick,
Deputy Director, Office of Operations.
Gail Kursh,
Chief, Health Care Task Force.
Mark J. Botti,
Attorney.
William E. Berlin,
Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Health Care 
Task Force, Room 450, Liberty Place Bldg., 325 Seventh Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20530, (202) 307-0827.
Alleen S. VanBebber,
Deputy United States Attorney, Missouri Bar No. 41460, 1201 Walnut St., 
Suite 2300, Kansas City, Missouri 64106, (816) 426-3130.
    For Defendant Association of Family Practice Residency 
Directors:
James R. Hobbs,
Wyrsch, Atwell, Mirakian, Lee & Hobbs, P.C., 1300 Mercantile Tower, 
1101 Walnut, Kansas City, Missouri 64106-2122, (816) 221-0080.

Final Judgment

    Plaintiff, the United States of America, having filed its Complaint 
on May 28, 1996, and plaintiff and defendant, by their respective 
attorneys, having consented to the entry of this Final Judgment without 
trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law, and without this 
final Judgment constituting any evidence against or an admission by any 
party regarding any issue of fact or law;
    Now, Therefore, before the taking of any testimony, and without 
trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law, and upon consent of 
the parties, it is hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed:
I

Jurisdiction

    This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and each of the 
parties to this action. The Complaint states claims upon which relief 
may be granted against the defendant under Section 1 of the Sherman 
Act, 15 U.S.C. 1.
II

Definitions

    As used in this Final Judgment:
    (A) ``AFPRD'' means the Association of Family Practice Residency 
Directors, each of its successors, divisions, parents, subsidiaries, 
and affiliates, each other person directly or indirectly, wholly or in 
part, owned or controlled by it, and each partnership or joint venture 
to which any of them is a party, and all of their directors, officers, 
and employees;
    (B) ``Contracting with'' means to negotiate, offer, accept, 
execute, or enter into an employment contract or agreement;
    (C) ``Current family practice residents'' means persons already 
enrolled in, committed to or employed by a family practice or other 
residency;
    (D) ``Inducements'' means salary, bonuses (signing, retention or 
other), loan forgiveness of repayment, housing allowance or subsidy, 
transportation allowance or subsidy, moonlighting payment, permissible 
moonlighting when on-call, additional payment for required on-call 
activity, moving expenses, travel expenses, reimbursement for any 
expense in an amount which exceeds the actual receipted expense and any 
other employment benefit or incentive;
    (E) ``The Match'' means the annual placement process conducted by 
the National Resident matching Program through which medical students 
and hospital residency programs select and are matched with their 
preferences;
    (F) ``Person'' means any natural person, corporation, firm, 
company, sole proprietorship, partnership, joint venture, association, 
institute, governmental unit, or other legal entity; and
    (G) ``Prespective family practice residents'' means medical 
students or other candidates for residency in a family practice 
program.
III

Applicability

    This Final Judgment applies to AFPRD and to all other persons who 
receive actual notice of this Final Judgment by personal service or 
otherwise and then act or participate in active concert with defendant.
IV

Prohibited Conduct

    Defendant is enjoined from:
    (A) Directly or indirectly prohibiting or restraining any person 
offering a family practice residency program from:
    (1) Competing to attract, obtain or retain the services of current 
or prospective family practice residents by offering or providing any 
or differing amounts, types, or combinations of inducements, including 
inducements offered or provided to current or prospective family 
practice residents in the same residency year;
    (2) Offering or providing confidential or non-written terms and 
conditions of inducements to current or prospective family practice 
residents;
    (3) Directly or indirectly soliciting, recruiting or contracting 
with current family practice residents of other residency programs; and
    (4) Considering applications submitted by current family practice 
residents and contracting with those residents without the knowledge or 
approval of the program director of any other residency program;
(hereinafter ``practices identified in Section IV(A)'').
    (B) Directly or indirectly adopting, disseminating, publishing, or 
seeking adherence to any code of ethics, rule, bylaw, resolution, 
policy, guideline, standard, manual, or policy statement that has the 
purpose or effect of prohibiting or restraining AFPRD members from 
engaging in any of the practices identified in Section IV(A) above, or 
that states or implies that any of these practices are, in themselves, 
unethical, unprofessional, or contrary to any policy of the AFPRD.
V

Compliance Program

Defendant is ordered to:
    (A) Within sixty (60) days of the date of entry of this Final 
Judgment, amend its code of ethics, rules, bylaws, resolutions, 
policies, guidelines, standards, manuals, or policy statements, and 
specifically those provisions or parts of provisions located at 
Sections 2(B), 2(C), 2(E)(1), 2(E)(2), and 2(E)(3) of the ``AFPRD 
Guidelines on the Ethical Recruitment of Family Practice Residents,'' 
to comply with Section IV above, and provide a copy of the final 
amended guidelines to plaintiff;
    (B) Send a copy of this Final Judgment, along with a written 
statement that there are no longer any AFPRD ethical guidelines or 
rules that state or imply that any of the practice identified in 
Section IV(A) above are, in themselves, unethical, unprofessional, or 
contrary to any policy of the AFPRD, regardless of anything defendant 
may have said about these practices in the past, to each current AFPRD 
member, within sixty (60) days from the date of entry of this Final 
Judgment, and thereafter sending annually such written statement to 
each current AFPRD member for a period of five (5) years after the date 
of entry of this Final Judgment;
    (C) Send a copy of this Final Judgment to each new AFPRD member no 
later than ten (10) days after membership in the AFPRD is granted, and 
thereafter annually until five (5) years after the date of entry of 
this Final Judgment;
    (D) Distribute within sixty (60) days from the entry of this Final 
Judgment, a

[[Page 28893]]

copy of the Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement to all 
directors and officers of defendant;
    (E) Distribute in a timely manner a copy of the final Judgment and 
Competitive Impact Statement to any person who succeeds to a position 
described in Paragraph V(D);
    (F) Brief annually in writing or orally those persons designated in 
Paragraphs V (D) and (E) on the meaning and requirements of this Final 
Judgment and the antitrust laws, including penalties for violation 
thereof;
    (G) Obtain from those persons designated in Paragraphs V (D) and 
(E) annual written certifications that they (1) have read, understand, 
and agree to abide by this Final Judgment, (2) understand that their 
noncompliance with this Final Judgment may result in conviction for 
criminal contempt of court and imprisonment and/or fine, and (3) have 
reported violations, if any, of this Final Judgment of which they are 
aware to counsel for defendant; and
    (H) Maintain for inspection by plaintiff a record of recipients to 
whom this Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement have been 
distributed and from whom annual written certifications regarding this 
Final Judgment have been received.
VI

Certifications

    (A) Within 75 days after entry of this Final Judgment, defendant 
shall certify to plaintiff that it has complied with the provisions of 
Sections V (A)-(B) above, and that it has made the distribution of the 
Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement as required by Section 
V(D); and
    (B) For 10 years after the entry of this Final Judgment, on or 
before its anniversary date, defendant shall certify annually to 
plaintiff whether it has complied with the provisions of Sections V 
applicable to it.
VII

Plaintiff's Access

    For the sole purpose of determining or securing compliance with 
this Final Judgment, and subject to any recognized privilege, 
authorized representatives of the United States Department of Justice, 
upon written request of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the 
Antitrust Division, shall on reasonable notice be permitted:
    (A) Access during regular business hours of defendant to inspect 
and copy all records and documents in the possession or under the 
control of defendant relating to any matters contained in this Final 
Judgment;
    (B) To interview officers, directors, employees, and agents of 
defendant, who may have counsel present, concerning such matters; and
    (C) To obtain written reports from defendant, under oath if 
requested, relating to any matters contained in this Final Judgment.
VIII

Jurisdiction Retained

    This Court retains jurisdiction to enable 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 of its 
provisions, to enforce compliance, and to punish violations of its 
provisions.
IX

Expiration of Final Judgment

    This Final Judgment shall expire ten (10) years from the date of 
entry.
X

Public Interest Determination

    Entry of this Final Judgment is in the public interest.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
United States District Judge

Competitive Impact Statement

    Pursuant to Section 2(b) of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties 
Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b) (``APPA''), the United States files this 
Competitive Impact Statement relating to the proposed Final Judgment 
submitted for entry in this civil antitrust proceeding.
I

Nature and Purpose of the Proceeding

    On May 28, 1996, the United States filed a civil antitrust 
complaint alleging that defendant, the Association of Family Practice 
Residency Directors (``AFPRD''), and others entered into an agreement 
that restrained competition among family practice residency programs to 
employ family practice residents, and constituted a per se violation of 
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1. The Complaint seeks 
injunctive relief to enjoin continuance or recurrence of this 
violation.
    The United States filed with the Complaint a proposed Final 
Judgment intended to resolve this matter. The Court's entry of the 
proposed Final Judgment will terminate this action, except that the 
Court will retain jurisdiction over the matter for any further 
proceedings that may be required to interpret, enforce, or modify the 
Judgment, or to punish violations of any of its provisions.
    Plaintiff and the defendant have stipulated that the Court may 
enter the proposed Final Judgment after compliance with the APPA, 
unless prior to entry the plaintiff withdraws its consent. The proposed 
Final Judgment provides that it entry does not constitute any evidence 
against, or admission by, any party concerning any issue of fact or 
law.
    The present proceeding is designed to ensure full compliance with 
the public notice and other requirements of the APPA. In the 
Stipulation to the proposed Final Judgment, the defendant has agreed to 
be bound by the provisions of the proposed Final Judgment pending its 
entry by the Court.
II

Practices Giving Rise to the Alleged Violations

    The AFPRD is a national professional association, located in Kansas 
City, Missouri, that was established in 1989 to represent the directors 
of hospital residency programs in the speciality of family practice 
medicine. Currently, the AFPRD has approximately 427 member directors, 
who represent approximately 95% of all family practice residency 
programs nationwide.
    In the late 1980s, competition increased among family practice 
residency programs for senior medical students, as well as for 
residents already employed by other family practice residencies, to 
fill vacancies for first- and second-year positions in those programs. 
Family practice residency programs increasingly began actively and 
directly to solicit the transfer of first year residents employed by 
other family practice residency programs. The solicitations sometimes 
took place without the knowledge of the other programs.
    During the same period, family practice residency programs also 
increasingly began to offer economic inducements to attract both senior 
medical students and current family practice residents. These 
inducements were sometimes offered to medical students before the 
annual placement process, known as the ``Match,'' conducted by the 
National Resident Matching Program, in which a computer program matches 
the preferences of senior medical students and hospital residency 
programs.
    Beginning in approximately 1990, the AFPRD began to receive an 
increasing number of complaints from its member program directors about 
competition

[[Page 28894]]

form other family practice residency programs for both senior medical 
students and current residents. For the purpose of eliminating the 
growing competition among family practice residency programs to attract 
senior medical students and current family practice residents to their 
programs, in 1992 the ARPRD promulgated ``Guidelines of the Ethnical 
Recruitment of Family Practice Residents'' (the ``Guidelines'').
    The Guidelines embody an agreement among the member family practice 
residency program directors to limit that competition by: (a) Not 
directly soliciting family practice residents from other residencies; 
(b) not offering contracts to applicants who are current residents in 
other family practice programs without the knowledge of the other 
program director; (c) making each incentive and other employment 
benefit offered by any applicant available to all applicants; and (d) 
not providing any inducements before the Match.
    After being distributed to and approved by the AFPRD membership, 
the Guidelines were distributed to and endorsed by other organizations 
concerned with family medicine or resident recruiting, and since that 
time have been provided to members and proxies at the AFPRD's annual 
business session, as well as to any individual upon request. In order 
to ensure compliance, the AFPRD responds to every complaint regarding a 
possible violation of the Guidelines by contacting both the complainant 
and the alleged violator to investigate the complaint, and where a 
violation has occurred, by informing the program director that his or 
her actions have violated the Guidelines.
    Since the AFPRD disseminated the Guidelines, competition among 
family practice residency programs to attract senior medical students 
and current family practice residents to those programs has been 
significantly reduced, and the terms and conditions of their employment 
have been less attractive than they could have obtained in a free and 
competitive market.
    Based on the facts described above, the Complaint alleges the AFPRD 
and others engaged in a contract, combination, or conspiracy that was 
per se unlawful under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, by:
    (a) Promulgating and agreeing to the Guidelines governing resident 
recruiting by family practice residency programs:
    (b) Through those Guidelines, prohibiting the use of certain 
recruiting practices such as directly soliciting current residents in 
other programs, offering a contract to a resident in another program 
without providing notice to that program's director, and regulating or 
restricting the payment of certain economic inducements; and
    (c) Disseminating and ensuring compliance with the Guidelines.
III

Explanation of the Proposed Final Judgment

    The proposal Final Judgment is intended to prevent the AFPRD and 
its member program directors from restraining competition in the future 
among family practice residency programs seeking to attract senior 
medical students and current family practice residents for their 
programs for the upcoming year.
A. Scope of the Proposed Final Judgment
    Section III of the proposed Final Judgment provides that the Final 
Judgment shall apply to the defendant and to all other persons who 
receive actual notice of the proposed Final Judgment by personal 
service or otherwise and then act or participate in active concert with 
the defendant.
B. Prohibitions and Obligations
    Sections IV and V of the proposed Final Judgment contain the 
substantive provisions of the Judgment.
    Section IV describes specific prohibited conduct. Section IV(A)(1) 
enjoins the defendant from directly or indirectly barring any family 
practice residency program from competing to attract, obtain, or retain 
the services of current or prospective family practice residency 
programs from offering or providing any inducements to attract current 
or prospective family practice residents in the same residency 
year.<SUP>1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Current family practice residents'' is defined in Section 
II a ``persons already enrolled in, committed to, or employed by a 
family practice or other residency,'' and ``Prospective family 
practice residents'' is defined in that Section as ``medical 
students or other candidates for residency in a family practice 
program.'' ``Inducements'' is defined in Section II as ``salary, 
bonuses (signing, retention, or other), loan forgiveness or 
repayment, housing allowance or subsidy, transportation allowance or 
subsidy, moonlighting payment, permissible moonlighting when on-
call, additional payment for required on-call activity, moving 
expenses, travel expenses, reimbursement for any expense in an 
amount which exceeds the actual receipted expense, and any other 
employment benefit or incentive.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section IV(A)(2) enjoins the AFPRD from directly or indirectly 
prohibiting any family practice residency program from offering 
confidential or spoken inducements in order to attract current or 
prospective family practice residents.
    Section IV(A)(3) enjoins the defendant from prohibiting any family 
practice residency program from directly or indirectly soliciting, 
recruiting, or contracting with current family practice residents of 
other residency programs. Section IV(A)(4) enjoins the defendant from 
prohibiting any person from considering applications submitted by 
current family practice residents or contracting with those residents 
without the knowledge or approval of the program director of any other 
residency program.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Contracting with,'' as defined in Section II of the Final 
Judgment, means ``to negotiate, offer, accept, execute, or enter 
into an employment contract or agreement.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, Section IV(B) enjoins the AFPRD from establishing any 
guideline, code of ethics, or other standard that prohibits or 
restrains AFPRD members from engaging in any of the program director of 
any other residency program.\2\
    Similarly, Section IV(B) enjoins the AFPRD from establishing any 
guideline, code of ethics, or other standard that prohibits or 
restrains AFPRD members from engaging in any of the practices 
identified in Section IV(A) of the Final Judgment, as described above, 
or that states or implies that any of these practices are, in 
themselves, unethical, unprofessional, or contrary to any policy of the 
AFPRD.
    Section V of the proposed Final Judgment contains additional 
provisions requiring the defendant to take certain affirmative actions 
to publicize the terms of this proposed Final Judgment and to maintain 
an antitrust compliance program. Section V(A) requires the AFPRD to, 
within sixty (60) days of the date of entry of the Final Judgment, 
amend the Guidelines, and specifically those provisions or parts of 
provisions located at Sections 2(B), 2(C) 2(E)(1), 2(E)(2), and 2(E)(3) 
of the Guidelines, to comply with Section IV above, and provide a copy 
of the final amended Guidelines to the plaintiff.
    Section V(B) requires the AFPRD to distribute a copy of the Final 
Judgment, along with a written statement that there are no longer any 
AFPRD ethical guidelines or rules that suggest that any of the 
practices identified in Section IV(A), as described above, are in 
themselves, unethical, unprofessional, or contrary to any policy of the 
AFPRD, regardless of anything defendant may have said about these 
practices in the past. The AFPRD is to send this statement and the 
Final Judgment to each current AFPRD member within sixty (60) days from 
the date of entry of this Final Judgment, and thereafter annually for a 
period of five (5) years.
    Section V(C) requires the defendant to send a copy of this Final 
Judgment to

[[Page 28895]]

each new AFPRD member no later than ten (10) days after it is admitted 
to membership, and thereafter annually until five (5) years after the 
date of entry of the Final Judgment. Section V(D) requires the AFPRD to 
distribute within sixty (60) days from the entry of the Final Judgment, 
a copy of the Final Judgment and this Competitive Impact Statement to 
all directors and officers of defendant, and Section V(E) requires 
defendant to distribute in a timely manner a copy of the Final Judgment 
and Competitive Impact Statement to any successor directors and 
officers in the future.
    Under Section V(F), the defendant must brief annually in writing or 
orally its directors and officers or their successors on the meaning 
and requirements of this final Judgment and the antitrust laws, 
including penalties for violating them, and under Section V(G), obtain 
from those persons annual written certifications that they (1) have 
read, understand, and agree to abide by this Final Judgment, (2) 
understand that their noncompliance with this final Judgment may result 
in conviction for criminal contempt of court and imprisonment and/or 
fine, and (3) have reported all violations of this Final Judgment of 
which they are aware to counsel for defendant. Section V(H) requires 
defendant to maintain for inspection by plaintiff a record of 
recipients to whom the Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement 
have been distributed and from whom annual written certifications 
regarding the Final Judgment have been received.
    Section VI of the proposed Final Judgment requires the defendant to 
certify its compliance with specified obligations of Section V(A) and 
(B). Section VII sets forth procedures by which plaintiff may obtain 
access to information needed to determine or secure defendant's 
compliance with the proposed Final Judgment. Finally, Section IX 
provides that the Judgment will expire ten (10) years after the date of 
its entry.
C. Effect of the Proposed Final Judgment on Competition
    The relief in the proposed Final Judgment is designed to remedy the 
violation alleged in the Complaint and prevent its recurrence. The 
Complaint alleges that the AFPRD violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act 
by agreeing upon and establishing guidelines to govern resident 
recruiting that restrained competition among family practice residency 
programs to employ family practice residents.
    The proposed Final Judgment eliminates the restraint on competition 
among family practice residency programs by enjoining the AFPRD from 
prohibiting its members from engaging in these competitive recruiting 
practices, and from adopting any guidelines, code of ethics, or other 
rules which prohibit these practices or which state or imply that they 
are unethical. The proposed Final Judgment also requires the AFPRD to 
withdraw the provisions from its current Guidelines that prohibit these 
resident recruiting practices and to notify its members that it has 
done so.
    The proposed Final Judgment contains provisions adequate to prevent 
further violations of the type upon which the Complaint is based and to 
remedy the effects of the alleged conspiracy. The proposed Final 
Judgment's injunctions will restore the benefits of free and open 
competition to the market for the services of family practice 
residents.
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 defendant and is not warranted because the proposed Final 
Judgment provides all of the relief necessary to remedy the violation 
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 lawsuit that may be brought 
against the defendant 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 Seventh Street, NW; Room 400; Washington, DC 20530, 
within the 60-day period provided by the Act. All 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 to protect the public interest. Moreover, Section 
VIII of 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 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.

    Respectfully submitted,
Mark J. Botti,
Attorney.
William E. Berlin,
Attorneys, Antitrust Division, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 325 Seventh 
Street, N.W., Room 450, Washington, D.C. 20530, (202) 307-0827.
Alleen S. Venbebber,
Deputy U.S. Attorney, Missouri Bar No. 41460, 1201 Walnut St., Suite 
2300, Kansas City, Missouri 64106, (816) 426-3130.
[FR Doc. 96-14075 Filed 6-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M