[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 197 (Thursday, October 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53202-53206]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-25289]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division


United States versus Greyhound Lines, Inc.; 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 Competitive Impact Statement have been filed with the 
United States District Court for the District of Columbia, in United 
States v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., Civil Action No. 95:CV01852. The 
Complaint in this case alleges that lease agreements between Greyhound 
and tenant bus companies operating at Greyhound's terminals violate 
Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The standard Bus Terminal License 
agreement between Greyhound and its tenants prohibits the tenants from 
selling tickets within a 25-mile radius of Greyhound's terminal or from 
accepting the tickets of other bus companies sold in this area. This 
provision is commonly known as the ``25-mile rule.'' The Complaint 
alleges that the 25-mile rule restricts competition in the provision of 
intercity bus transportation by preventing Greyhound's tenants from 
providing connecting service with bus companies operating at other 
terminals and from providing bus service from non-terminal facilities, 
such as airports and train stations. The Complaint also alleges that 
the 25-mile rule restricts competition in the distribution and sale of 
tickets for intercity bus transportation.
    On September 28, 1995, the United States and Greyhound filed a 
Stipulation in which they consented to the entry of a proposed Final 
Judgment providing the relief the United States seeks in the Complaint. 
The proposed Final Judgment requires Greyhound to remove the 25-mile 
rule from its Bus Terminal License agreements within 60 days of the 
entry of the Final Judgment. The proposed Final Judgment also enjoins 
Greyhound from terminating or discriminating against a tenant in order 
to prevent ticket sales outside the Greyhound terminal. Furthermore, 
Greyhound is enjoined from entering into exclusive interconnection 
agreements with other bus companies.
    Public comment 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 Roger W. Fones, Chief, Transportation, Energy & Agriculture Section, 
Antitrust Division, Department of Justice, Room 9104, 555 Fourth 
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20001 (telephone: 202-307-6351).
Rebecca P. Dick,
Deputy Director, Office of Operations, Antitrust Division.

United States District Court for the District of Columbia

    United States of America, Plaintiff v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 
Defendant.

[Civil Action No. 95-1852]

Stipulation

    It is stipulated by and between the undersigned parties, by their 
respective attorneys that:
    1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this 
action and over each of the parties thereto, and venue of this action 
is proper in the District of Columbia;
    2. The parties consent that a Final Judgment in the from hereto 
attached may be filed and entered by the Court, upon the motion of any 
party or upon the Court's own motion, at any time after compliance with 
the requirements of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (15 
U.S.C. 16), and without further notice to any party or other 
proceedings, provided that 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 Defendant and by filing that 
notice with the Court;
    3. In the event Plaintiff withdraws its consent or if the proposed 
Final Judgment is not entered pursuant to this Stipulation, this 
Stipulation shall be of no effect whatsoever, and the making of this 
Stipulation shall be without prejudice to pay party in this or any 
other proceeding.

    Dated: September 28, 1995.

    For Plaintiff United States of America.
Michael D. Billiel,
Michele B. Felasco,
Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 555 Fourth 
Street, N.W., Room 9104, Washington, D.C. 20001, (202) 307-6666.
    For Defendant Greyhound Lines, Inc.
Mark F. Horning,
Margaret M. Clark,
Steptoe & Johnson, 1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 
20036-1795, (202) 429-8126.

United States District Court for the District of Columbia

    United States of America, Plaintiff. v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 
Defendant.

[Civil Action No. 95-1852]

Final Judgment

    Plaintiff, United States of America, filed its Complaint on 
September 28, 1995. Plaintiff and Defendant, by their respective 
attorneys, have consented to the entry of this Final Judgment without 
trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law. This Final Judgment 
shall not be evidence against or an admission by any party with respect 
to any issue of fact or law. Nothing in this Final Judgment shall 
constitute an admission by Defendant of any violation of law, liability 
or wrongdoing. Therefore, before the taking of any testimony and 
without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law herein, and 
upon consent of the parties, it is hereby
    Ordered, adjudged, and decreed, as follows:

I

Jurisdiction

    This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action 
and of each of the parties consenting hereto. The Complaint states a 
claim upon which relief may be granted against the 

[[Page 53203]]
defendant under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1.

II

Definitions

    As used herein, the term:
    (A) ``BTL Agreement'' means the Bus Terminal License Agreement 
between Greyhound Lines, Inc., as owner, leaseholder or operator of a 
bus terminal, and a tenant carrier.
    (B) ``Defendant'' means Greyhound Lines, Inc., each of its 
predecessors, successors, divisions, 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 present and former employees, directors, 
officers, agents, consultants or other persons acting for or on behalf 
of any of them.
    (C) ``Tenant carrier'' means any bus company that is a tenant at a 
bus terminal owned, leased or operated by Defendant.
    (D) ``Twenty-five (25) Mile Rule'' means that provision in 
Greyhound's BTL Agreements that reads substantially as follows:

    Subject to Section 1, Licensee agrees that during the term 
hereof, it will use the Terminal as its major terminal in the City 
of [Name of City] for the aforesaid operations and will not without 
the prior written consent of the Company allow or permit any tickets 
or busbills to be sold at any other place within a twenty-five (25) 
mile radius of the Terminal, other than the Terminal, or honor the 
tickets or busbills of any other carrier for such transportation 
which are sold within the said twenty-five (25) mile radius. 
Notwithstanding the foregoing, tickets or busbills of Licensee may 
continue to be sold, and Licensee may honor the tickets or busbills 
of other carriers which are sold, at any place within the said 
twenty-five (25) mile radius where they are being sold as of the 
date of this Agreement. A list of such places where tickets or 
busbills of Licensee are sold within the twenty-five (25) mile 
radius of the Terminal is appended to this Agreement as Appendix 3. 
If Licensee wishes to change any such place of sale of its tickets 
or busbills to another place within five (5) miles of such place and 
within the said twenty-five (25) mile radius of the Terminal, 
Licensee may make such change upon thirty (30) days written notice 
to Company. It is further understood that in all of Licensee's bus 
schedules and advertising pertaining to its aforesaid operations, 
the terminal shall appear as the only place in the City of ________ 
where tickets or busbills are on sale.

III

Applicability

    (A) This Final Judgment applies to the defendant and to each of its 
subsidiaries, successors, assigns, officers, directors, employees, and 
agents, and to all other persons in active concert or participation 
with any of them who receive actual notice of this Final Judgment by 
personal service or otherwise.
    (B) Nothing contained herein shall suggest that any portion of this 
Final Judgment is or has been created for the benefit of any third 
party and nothing herein shall be construed to provide any rights to 
any third party.

IV

Prohibited Conduct

    (A) Defendant is ordered, within 60 days from the date of entry of 
this Final Judgment, to remove from each of its BTL Agreements the 
Twenty-five (25) Mile Rule. Defendant may comply with this provision by 
amending its existing BTL agreements to remove the Twenty-five (25) 
Mile Rule or by terminating such Agreements and negotiating new 
agreements not containing the Twenty-five Mile Rule.
    (B) Defendant is restrained and enjoined from:
    1. conditioning access to its terminals, directly or indirectly, 
upon a tenant carrier agreeing not to: (i) sell its tickets or busbills 
at locations other than the Greyhound terminal, or (ii) honor the 
tickets or busbills of another carrier sold at such other locations.
    2. terminating or threatening to terminate any BTL Agreement where 
the purpose or effect of such termination or threat of termination is 
to prohibit a tenant carrier from (i) selling its tickets or busbills 
at locations other than the Greyhound terminal, for transportation 
services using that Greyhound terminal or a terminal or facility that 
is competitive with such Greyhound terminal, or (ii) honoring the 
tickets or busbills of another carrier sold at such other locations.
    3. discriminating against any tenant carrier in the terms or 
conditions of any BTL Agreement or other agreement governing the lease 
of space in a bus terminal, where the purpose or effect of such 
discrimination is to (a) prohibit a tenant carrier from (i) selling its 
tickets or busbills at locations, other than the Greyhound terminal, 
for transportation services using that Greyhound terminal or a terminal 
or facility that is competitive with such Greyhound terminal, or (ii) 
honoring the tickets or busbills of another carrier sold at such other 
locations, or (b) prohibit or substantially limit the tenant from 
interlining any of its traffic with another carrier at another 
terminal.
    4. refusing to interline with any other carrier unless that carrier 
agrees to interline all of its traffic in a city or area with 
Greyhound, provided, however, that this paragraph shall not apply to an 
agreement between Greyhound and its franchisee, operating lessee or 
contractor.
    (C) Nothing in this Final Judgment shall:
    1. affect any provisions of defendant's existing BTL Agreements, 
other than the Twenty-five (25) Mile Rule.
    2. restrict Greyhound from (i) negotiating or renegotiating any 
percentage or minimum rents or other terms of compensation, including 
different terms of compensation for different tenants, provided that 
such differences in rents or terms of compensation are not conditioned 
on the tenant's use or non-use of a terminal other than the Greyhound 
terminal or (ii) from requiring that a tenant provide Greyhound with 
information on traffic volume using the Greyhound terminal, ticket 
sales of originating traffic or similar information needed to calculate 
or adjust compensation.
    3. restrict Greyhound from negotiating or renegotiating any non-
compensation terms or provisions in its current or future BTL 
Agreement, except as provided in paragraph B above.
    4. affect Greyhound's right to grant, control or terminate access 
to or usage of its terminals, including but not limited to termination 
for breach of a BTL Agreement, except as provided in paragraph B above.
    5. affect Greyhound's right to terminate any BTL Agreement due to a 
tenant carrier's refusal to renegotiate or agree to amended terms and 
conditions of a BTL Agreement, except as provided in paragraph B above.
    6. except as provided in paragraphs B(3) and C(2) above, require 
Greyhound to offer all tenants at a terminal identical terms of access, 
including but not limited to terms of compensation.
    7. affect Greyhound's obligation to comply with any federal, state 
or local law, rule, regulation or administrative order pertaining to 
terminal access or the interlining of traffic among carriers or affect 
Greyhound's operations pursuant to any effective tariff filed with the 
Interstate Commerce Commission or any successor agency, including any 
Commission or agency decision ruling upon or interpreting such tariff, 
or any pooling agreements while approved by the Interstate Commerce 
Commission or any successor agency.
    8. affect Greyhound's unilateral right to: (i) refuse to enter 
into, or terminate any interline agreement with any carrier; (ii) 
refuse to provide services to any carrier that has not authorized 
Greyhound to furnish such services or has not agreed to compensate 

[[Page 53204]]
Greyhound for such services pursuant to an agreement, or (iii) 
establish passenger or package express fares, terms or conditions 
relating to its transportation services.

V

Disclosure

    Defendant is ordered to send, within 60 days from the date of entry 
of this Final Judgment, a copy of this Final Judgment to each tenant 
carrier subject to a BTL Agreement, together with a written statement 
that the Twenty-five (25) Mile Rule is no longer in effect and will not 
be enforced.

VI

Compliance Program

    Defendant is ordered to maintain an antitrust compliance program 
which shall include the following:
    (A) Designating within 30 days of entry of this Final Judgment, an 
Antitrust Compliance Officer with responsibility for accomplishing the 
antitrust compliance program and with the purpose of achieving 
compliance with this Final Judgment. The Antitrust Compliance Officer 
shall, on a continuing basis, supervise the review of the current and 
proposed activities of defendant to ensure that it complies with this 
Final Judgment.
    (B) The Antitrust Compliance Officer shall be responsible for 
accomplishing the following activities:
    1. distributing copies of this Final Judgment in accordance with 
section V above;
    2. distributing, within 60 days from the entry of this Final 
Judgment, a copy of this Final Judgment to all officers and employees 
with responsibility for operating or managing terminals, negotiating 
BTL (or other terminal access) Agreements, overseeing compliance with 
BTL (or other terminal access) Agreements, or tenant carrier relations;
    3. briefing annually the officers and employees described above on 
this Final Judgment.

VII

Certification

    (A) Within 75 days after the entry of this Final Judgment, the 
defendant shall certify to the plaintiff that it has complied with 
IV(A) above, designated, an Antitrust Compliance Officer, and 
distributed the Final Judgment in accordance with Sections V and VI 
above.
    (B) For each year of the term of this Final Judgment, the defendant 
shall file with the plaintiff, on or before the anniversary date of 
entry of this Final Judgment, a statement as to the fact and manner of 
its compliance with the provisions of V and VI above.

VIII

Plaintiff Access

    (A) To determine or secure compliance with this Final Judgment and 
for no other purpose, duly authorized representatives of the plaintiff 
shall, upon written request of the Assistant Attorney General in charge 
of the Antitrust Division, and on reasonable notice to the defendant 
made to its principal office, be permitted, subject to any legally 
recognized privilege:
    1. access during the defendant's normal office hours to inspect and 
copy all documents in the possession or under the control of the 
defendant, who may have counsel present, relating to any matters 
contained in this Final Judgment; and
    2. subject to the reasonable convenience of the defendant and 
without restraint or interference from it, to interview officers, 
employees or agents of the defendant, who may have counsel present, 
regarding such matters.
    (B) Upon the written request of the Assistant Attorney General in 
charge of the Antitrust Division made to the defendant's principal 
office, the defendant shall submit such written reports, under oath if 
requested, subject to any legally recognized privilege.
    (C) No information or documents obtained by the means provided in 
Section VIII shall be divulged by the plaintiff to any person other 
than a duly authorized representative of the Executive Branch of the 
United States, except in the course of legal proceedings to which the 
United States is a party, or for the purpose of securing compliance 
with this Final Judgment, or as otherwise required by law.
    (D) If at the time information or documents are furnished by the 
defendant to plaintiff, the defendant represents and identifies in 
writing the material in any such information or documents to which a 
claim of protection may be asserted under Rule 26(c)(7) of the Federal 
Rules of Civil Procedure, and defendant marks such material, ``subject 
to claim of protection under Rule 26(c)(7) of the Federal Rules of 
Civil Procedure,'' then 10 days notice shall be given by plaintiff to 
defendant prior to divulging such material in any legal proceeding 
(other than a grand jury proceeding) to which defendant is not a party.

IX

Further Elements of the Final Judgment

    (A) This Final Judgment shall expire ten years from the date of 
entry.
    (B) Jurisdiction is retained by this Court for the purpose of 
enabling 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.
    (C) Entry of this Final Judgment is in the public interest.

    Dated ____________.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

United States District Court for the District of Columbia

    United States of America, Plaintiff, vs. Greyhound Lines, Inc. 
Defendant.

[Case Number: 1:95CV01852]

    Judge: Royce C. Lamberth.
    Date Stamp: 09/28/95.

Competitive Impact Statement

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

I

Nature and Purpose of the Proceeding

    On September 28, 1995, the United States filed a Complaint alleging 
that Greyhound Lines, Inc. (``Greyhound'') had violated Section 1 of 
the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1. The Complaint challenges a provision in 
Greyhound's bus terminal leases that prohibit tenant bus companies from 
selling tickets for intercity bus transportation within a 25-mile 
radius of Greyhound's terminals. The effect of this provision, commonly 
known as the ``25-mile rule,'' has been to restrict competition in the 
provision of intercity bus transportation service and in the sale of 
tickets for such service.
    On September 28, 1995, the United States and Greyhound filed a 
Stipulation by which they consented to the entry of a proposed Final 
Judgment designed to eliminate the 25-mile rule and prevent Greyhound 
from using any similar restriction. Under the proposed Final Judgment, 
Greyhound would be required to remove the 25-mile rule from existing 
terminal leases and would be enjoined from taking actions to 

[[Page 53205]]
impose similar restrictions on tenants in the future.
    The United States and Greyhound have agreed that the proposed Final 
Judgment may be entered after compliance with the APPA. Entry of the 
proposed Final Judgment will terminate the action, except that the 
Court will retain jurisdiction to construe, modify, and enforce the 
Final Judgment, and to punish violations of the its provisions.

II

Description of the Alleged Violation

    Greyhound is the only nationwide intercity but company providing 
bus transportation services for passengers and package express. 
Greyhound's total operating revenues for 1994 were approximately $616 
million.
    Greyhound operates approximately 200 bus terminals throughout the 
United States. Many smaller bus companies operate out of Greyhound's 
terminals pursuant to agreements known as Bus Terminal License 
(``BTL'') agreements. Currently. Greyhound has approximately 200 BTLs 
in effect with tenant bus companies in approximately 135 cities.
    Under the terms of the BTLs, Greyhound acts as the tenant bus 
companies' exclusive ticket agent, and also provides other services, 
including baggage handling, package express handling, and maintenance 
of the terminal facilities. The tenant bus companies pay rents based on 
ticket sales, either in the form of a set commission on each ticket 
sold or a pro rata share of the costs of operating the terminal. If a 
tenant's sales fall below a certain level, it pays a minimum rental fee 
specified in the BTL. The BTLs are terminable by either party on 30-
days notice.
    In August of 1992, Greyhound notified its tenants that all existing 
BTLs were to be terminated effective September 30, 1992, and that those 
bus companies wishing to remain tenants of Greyhound would be required 
to execute a new standardized BTL. Following several months of 
negotiations, Greyhound and its tenants executed new BTLs, most of 
which became effective in the first half of 1993.
    One of the new provisions contained in the current BTL agreements 
between Greyhound and its tenants is the 25-mile rule. The provision 
reads as follows:

    Subject to Section 1, Licensee agrees that during the term 
hereof, it will use the Terminal as its major terminal in the City 
of ________ for the aforesaid operations and will not without the 
prior written consent of Company allow or permit any tickets or 
busbills to be sold at any other place within a twenty-five (25) 
mile radius of the Terminal, other than the Terminal, or honor the 
tickets or busbills of any other carrier for such transportation 
which are sold within the said twenty-five (25) mile radius. 
Notwithstanding the foregoing, tickets or busbills of Licensee may 
continue to be sold, and Licensee may honor the tickets or busbills 
of other carriers which are sold, at any place within the twenty-
five (25) mile radius where they are being sold as of the date of 
this Agreement. A list of such places where tickets or busbills of 
Licensee are sold within the twenty-five mile radius of the Terminal 
is appended to this Agreement as Appendix 3. If Licensee wishes to 
change any such place of sale of its tickets or busbills to another 
place within five (5) miles of such place and within the said 
twenty-five (25) mile radius of the Terminal, Licensee may make such 
change upon thirty (30) days written notice to Company. It is 
further understood that in all of Licensee's bus schedules and 
advertising pertaining to its aforesaid operations, the Terminal 
shall appear as the only place in the City of ________ where tickets 
or busbills are on sale.

    The 25-mile rule prevents the tenant bus companies from selling bus 
tickets within a 25-mile radius of the Greyhound terminal in which they 
are a tenant, unless the location was grandfathered-in at the time the 
BTL was negotiated. The tenant bus companies are also prohibited from 
accepting bus tickets sold by any other carrier within the 25-mile 
area. Thus, tenant bus companies are prohibited from selling tickets at 
other bus terminals or stops, through travel agents, or by telephone 
from locations within the 25-mile radius.
    The rule has anticompetitive effects in two types of markets: 
intercity bus service and ticket distribution services. The effects on 
intercity bus service are of great concern and occur when the tenant is 
an actual or potential competitor of Greyhound in the provision of 
intercity bus service (either alone or, more commonly, through 
interlining with another carrier) in at least some city-pairs . In 
addition, the rule eliminates competition in the distribution of bus 
tickets, making Greyhound the exclusive ticket agent in the 25-mile 
area.
    Although most cities and towns are served by only the Greyhound 
terminal, in some larger metropolitan areas a second terminal exists. 
Bus companies often wish to serve more than one terminal in the same 
city in order to increase their opportunities to interline (exchange 
passengers) with other bus companies. Interlining benefits consumers by 
both increasing the number of destinations to which they have 
convenient connecting service and, in some cases, by giving consumers a 
choice between competing bus companies for at least part of their trip. 
Because bus companies generally find it undesirable to operate out of a 
terminal if originating passengers cannot purchase tickets there, the 
25-mile rule effectively prevents the tenants from operating from the 
second terminal. Indeed, by preventing Greyhound tenants from operating 
out of multiple terminals, the 25-mile rule may inhibit establishment 
of a second terminal. In addition, the 25-mile rule prevents tenant 
carriers from operating from non-terminal facilities that may be 
convenient for consumers, such as stops at airports, train stations, or 
college campuses. The 25-mile rule thus acts to prevent Greyhound's 
tenants from expanding their operations in ways that would 
significantly benefit consumers.

III

Explanation of the Proposed Final Judgment

    The proposed Final Judgment is designed to eliminate the 25-mile 
rule from existing BTLs and to prevent future actions by the defendant 
to place similar restrictions on ticket sales or interlining by tenant 
bus companies. Greyhound is required to remove the 25-mile rule from 
each BTL within 60 days of the entry of the Final Judgment (Section 
IV(A)). Greyhound is enjoined from conditioning access to its 
terminals, directly or indirectly, on an agreement not to sell tickets 
outside the Greyhound terminal (Section IV(B)1), terminating or 
threatening to terminate a BTL where the purpose or effect is to 
prohibit outside ticket sales (Section IV(B)2), or discriminating 
against a tenant carrier in the terms and conditions of terminal access 
where the purpose or effect is to prohibit outside ticket sales 
(Section IV(B)3). Greyhound is also enjoined from refusing to interline 
with a carrier unless that carrier agrees to interline exclusively with 
Greyhound (Section IV(B)4).
    Aside from the prohibition of the 25-mile rule or any similar 
restriction, the proposed Final Judgment does not limit Greyhound's 
ability to negotiate rents and other BTL terms with its tenants and to 
control terminal access (Section IV(C)). Within 60 days of entry of the 
proposed Final Judgment, Greyhound must provide each tenant bus company 
with a copy of the Final Judgment along with a written statement that 
the 25-mile rule is no longer in effect (Section V). The proposed Final 
Judgment further requires Greyhound to establish an antitrust 
compliance program (Section VI) and file an annual certificate of 
compliance with the 

[[Page 53206]]
Government (Section VII). The plaintiff may also obtain information 
from the defendant concerning possible violations of the Final Judgment 
(Section VIII).

IV

Remedies Available to Potential Private Litigants

    Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 15, provides that any 
person who has been injured in his business or property as a result of 
conduct forbidden by the antitrust laws may bring suit in federal court 
to recover three times the damages suffered, as well as costs and 
reasonable attorneys fees. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment will 
neither impair nor assist the bringing of any private antitrust damage 
action. 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 private lawsuit that may be brought.

V

Procedure Available for Modification of the Proposed Final Judgment

    The United States and defendant have stipulated that the proposed 
Final Judgment may be entered by the Court after compliance with the 
provisions of the APPA, provided that the United States has not 
withdrawn its consent. The APPA conditions entry upon the Court's 
determination that the proposed Final Judgment is in the public 
interest.
    The APPA provides a period of at least 60 days preceding the 
effective date of the proposed Final Judgment within which any person 
may submit to the United States written comments regarding the proposed 
Final Judgment. Any person who wishes to comment should do so within 60 
days of the date of publication of this Competitive Impact Statement in 
the Federal Register. The United States will evaluate the comments, 
determine whether it should withdraw its consent, and respond to the 
comments. The comments and the response of the United States will be 
filed with the Court and published in the Federal Register.
    Written comments should be submitted to: Roger W. Fones, Chief, 
Transportation, Energy & Agriculture Section, Antitrust Division, U.S. 
Department of Justice, Judiciary Center Building, 555 Fourth Street 
NW., Rm. 9104, Washington, DC 20001.

VI

Alternative to the Proposed Final Judgment

    The alternative to the proposed Final Judgment would be a full 
trial of the case against Greyhound. In the view of the Department of 
Justice, such a trial would involve substantial cost to the United 
States and is not warranted because the proposed Final Judgment 
provides relief that will remedy the violations of the Sherman Act 
alleged in the Complaint.

VII

Determinative Materials and Documents

    There are no materials or documents that the United States 
considered to be determinative in formulating this proposed Final 
Judgment. Accordingly, none are being filed with this Competitive 
Impact Statement.

    Dated: September 28, 1995.

    Respectfully submitted,
Michael D. Billiel (D.C. Bar #394377),
Michele B. Felasco,
Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 555 Fourth 
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001, (202) 307-6666.

Certificate of Service

    I hereby certify that I have caused a copy of the foregoing 
Competitive Impact Statement to be served on counsel for defendant in 
this matter in the manner set forth below:
    By hand: Mark F. Horning, Esquire, Steptoe & Johnson, 1330 
Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036-1795, for defendant 
Greyhound Lines, Inc.

    Dated: September 28, 1995.
Michael D. Billiel,
Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 555 Fourth Street, 
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001, (202) 307-6666.
[FR Doc. 95-25289 Filed 10-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M