66868 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 1997 / Notices

Accompanying the Proposed Consent

Order is an Asset Maintenance

Agreement. Under its terms, Guinness

and Grand Met are required to preserve

and maintain the competitive viability

of all of the assets to be divested in

order to insure that the competitive

value of these assets will be maintained

after the merger but before the assets are

actually divested.

By accepting the Proposed Consent

Order subject to final approval, the

Commission anticipates that the

competitive problems alleged in the

compliant will be resolved. The purpose

of this analysis is to invite and facilitate

public comment concerning the

Proposed Consent Order. It is not

intended to constitute an official

interpretation of the Proposed Consent

Order, nor is it intended to modify the

terms in any way.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

Separate Statement of Commissioner

Mary L. Azcuenaga Concurring in Part

and Dissenting in Part in Guinness PLC,

File No. 971–0081

Today, the Commission accepts for

public comment a consent order settling

allegations that the merger of Guinness

PLC and Grand Metropolitan PLC would

violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act and

Section 5 of the Federal Trade

Commission Act. The complaint alleges

as antitrust product markets: (1)

‘‘premium Scotch,’’ which is defined as

‘‘blended Scotch whisky that is made

and bottled in Scotland, generally

advertised, promoted, and available

throughout the United States, and sold

at retail at prices comparable to the

prices of the Johnnie Walker Red,

Dewar’s White Label, and J&B Rare

brands,’’ and (2) ‘‘premium gin,’’ which

is defined as ‘‘gin that is made and

bottled in England, generally advertised,

promoted, and available throughout the

United States, and sold at retail at prices

comparable to the prices of Tanqueray,

Bombay Original, and Bombay Sapphire

brands.’’ I cannot support the complaint

as written.

Although at first glance the markets

may sound wacky (to use the

vernacular), the complaint merits our

careful attention. For reasons that are

not apparent, the proposed product

markets exclude brands not marketed

throughout the United States, if there

are any, that compete head to head with

the national brands. By definition, the

‘‘premium gin’’ product market also

excludes domestically bottled gin

brands, if any, that are sold at prices

comparable to Tanqueray and Bombay.

I see no reason for these seemingly

arbitrary exclusions.

More importantly, the price

limitations in the product markets do

not seem justifiable. As recognized in

Commission precedent, competition

occurs along a continuum of prices as

brands compete with products above

and below their prices. In Heublein,

Inc., 96 F.T.C. 385 (1980), for example,

the Commission dismissed the

complaint based on findings in an ‘‘all

wine’’ market and the table, dessert and

sparkling wine submarkets. As then

Commissioner Pitofsky stated in the

Heublein opinion, although the

competitive offerings of the wine

industry were not altogether

homogeneous, ‘‘those diverse products

nevertheless may ‘appropriately be

designated as a market’ for antitrust

analysis,’’ 96 F.T.C. at 576 quoting Coca

Cola Bottling Co. of New York, Inc., 93

F.T.C. 110 (1979).

Despite my disagreement with the

allegations in the complaint, I find

reason to believe that the merger of

Guinness PLC and Grand Metropolitan

PLC would violate the law on the basis

of a broader market and that an order to

remedy the lessening of competition in

the broader market would be

appropriate. The divestiture of the

Dewar’s Scotch and Bombay gin brands

will have some remedial effect in the

broader market, and for that reason, I

have voted to accept the order for public

comment. After the public comment

period, I will revisit the question

whether the order is sufficient or

whether the Commission should reject

the order and seek additional

divestitures in an administrative

proceeding.

[FR Doc. 97–33306 Filed 12–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Office of the Secretary

Agency Information Collection

Activities: Proposed Collections;

Comment Request

The Department of Health and Human

Services, Office of the Secretary will

periodically publish summaries of

proposed information collections

projects and solicit public comments in

compliance with the requirements of

Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995. To request more

information on the project or to obtain

a copy of the information collection

plans and instruments, call the OS

Reports Clearance Officer on (202) 690–

6207.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether

the proposed collection of information

is necessary for the proper performance

of the functions of the agency, including

whether the information shall have

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

proposed collection of information; (c)

ways to enhance the quality, utility and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the

burden of the collection of information

on respondents, including through the

use of automated collection techniques

or other forms of information

technology.

Proposed Projects 1

Evaluation of the Proposed Cash and

Counseling Demonstration—New—Cash

and Counseling is a consumer directed

care model for individuals with

physical or developmental disabilities.

A demonstration project utilizing this

model has been proposed. The Office of

the Assistant Secretary for Planning and

Evaluation is planning to engage in an

information collection for the purpose

of evaluating this demonstration.

Respondents: Individuals or

Households; Burden Information for

Baseline Interview—Number of

Respondents: 15,250; Burden per

Response: .62 hours; Total Burden for

Baseline: 9,455 hours—Burden

Information for Four-Month Treatment

Group Interview— Number of

Respondents: 7,245; Burden per

Response: .5 hours; Total Burden for

Four-Month Treatment Group Interview:

3,622 hours—Burden Information for

Eight-Month Treatment Group

Interview—Number of Respondents:

6,900; Burden per Response: .58 hours;

Total Burden for Eight-Month Treatment

Group Interview: 4,002 hours—Burden

Information for Nine-Month Followup

Interview—Number of Respondents:

13,800; Burden per Response: .75 hours;

Total Burden for Nine-Month Followup:

10,350 hours—Total Burden for Project:

27,429 hours.

Send comments to Cynthia Agens

Bauer, OS Reports Clearance Officer,

Room 503H, Humphrey Building, 200

Independence Avenue S.W.,

Washington DC, 20201. Written

comments should be received within 60

days of this notice.

Dated: December 4, 1997.

Dennis P. Williams,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Budget.

[FR Doc. 97–33355 Filed 12–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4150–04–M