Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 110 / Thursday, June 6, 1996 / Notices 28891

1The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19

CFR 207.2(f)).

2 Vice Chairman Nuzum not participating.

3For purposes of this investigation, fresh or

chilled tomatoes are all fresh or chilled tomatoes

(fresh tomatoes) except those which are grown for

processing. Processing is defined to include

preserving by any commercial process, such as

canning, dehydrating, drying or the addition of

chemical substances, or converting the tomato

product into juices, sauces, or purees. Further, such

excluded imports of fresh tomatoes for processing

are accompanied by an ‘‘Importer’s Exempt

Commodity Form’’ (FV–6) pursuant to 5 CFR

980.501(a)(2) and 980.212(1). Fresh tomatoes that

are imported for cutting up, not further processed

(e.g., tomatoes used in the preparation of fresh salsa

or salad bars), and not accompanied by an FV–6

form are covered by the scope of the investigation.

[Investigation No. 731–TA–747 (Preliminary)

Fresh Tomatoes From Mexico; Import

Investigation

Determination

On the basis of the record 1 developed

in the subject investigation, the

Commission determines,2 pursuant to

section 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930

(19 U.S.C. 1673b(a)), that there is a

reasonable indication that an industry

in the United States is materially

injured by reason of imports from

Mexico of fresh chilled tomatoes,

provided for in subheadings 0702.00.20,

0702.00.40, 0702.00.60, and 9906.07.01

through 9906.07.09 of the Harmonized

Tariff Schedule of the United States,3

that are alleged to be sold in the United

States at less than fair value (LTFV).

Background

On April 1, 1996, a petition was filed

by counsel on behalf of the Florida

Tomato Growers Exchange, Orlando, FL,

Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association,

Orlando, FL, Florida Farm Bureau

Federation, Gainesville, FL, South

Carolina Tomato Association, Inc.,

Charleston, SC, Gadsden County

Tomato Growers Association, Inc.,

Quincy, FL, Accomack County Farm

Bureau, Accomack, VA, Florida Tomato

Exchange, Orlando, FL, Bob Crawford,

Commissioner of Agriculture, Florida

Department of Agriculture and

Consumer Services, Tallahassee, FL,

and the Ad Hoc Group of Florida,

California, Georgia, Pennsylvania, South

Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia

Tomato Growers, with the Commission

and Commerce. The petition alleges that

an industry in the United States is

materially injured or threatened with

material injury by reason of less than

fair value imports of fresh tomatoes

from Mexico. Accordingly, effective

April 1, 1996, the Commission

instituted antidumping Investigation

No. 731–TA–747 (Preliminary).

Notice of the institution of the

Commission’s investigation and of a

public conference to be held in

connection therewith was given by

posting copies of the notice in the Office

of the Secretary, U.S. International

Trade Commission, Washington, DC,

and by publishing the notice in the

Federal Register of April 10, 1996 (61

FR 15968). The conference was held in

Washington, DC, on April 22, 1996, and

all persons who requested the

opportunity were permitted to appear in

person or by counsel.

The Commission transmitted its

determination in this investigation to

the Secretary of Commerce on May 16,

1996. The views of the Commission are

contained in USITC Publication 2967

(May 1996), entitled Fresh Tomatoes

from Mexico: Investigation No. 731–

TA–747 (Preliminary).

By order of the Commission.

Issued: May 28, 1996.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–14134 Filed 6–5–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

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.
28892 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 110 / Thursday, June 6, 1996 / Notices

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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 110 / Thursday, June 6, 1996 / Notices 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.

lllllllllllllllllllll

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 firstand 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
28894 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 110 / Thursday, June 6, 1996 / Notices

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.’’

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.’’

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.1

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

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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 110 / Thursday, June 6, 1996 / Notices 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

Drug Enforcement Administration

Jerry Neil Rand, M.D.; Denial of

Registration

On September 5, 1995, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA), issued an Order

to Show Cause to Jerry Neil Rand, M.D.,

(Respondent) of San Diego, California,

notifying him of an opportunity to show

cause as to why DEA should not deny

his application for a DEA Certificate of

Registration, under 21 U.S.C. 823(f), as

being inconsistent with the public

interest. Specifically, the Order to Show

Cause alleged, in relevant part, that in