Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices 17481 

2Federal Trade Commission & United States 

Department of Justice, Antitrust Guidelines for 

Collaboration Among Competitors (‘‘Competitor 

Collaboration Guidelines’’) § 1.2 (2000); In re North 

Texas Specialty Physicians, 140 F.T.C. 715, 729 

(2005) (‘‘We do not believe that the per se 

condemnation of naked restraints has been affected 

by anything said either in California Dental or 

Polygram’’). 

3Because McWane’s communication informed its 

rivals of the terms of price coordination desired by 

McWane without containing any information for 

customers, this communication had no legitimate 

business justification. See In re Petroleum Products 

Antitrust Litig., 906 F.2d 432, 448 (9th Cir. 1990) 

(public communications may form the basis of an 

agreement on price levels when ‘‘the public 

dissemination of such information served little 

purpose other than to facilitate interdependent or 

collusive price coordination’’). 

4The Commission articulated a safe harbor for 

exchanges of price and cost information in 

Statement 6 of the 1996 Health Care Guidelines. See 

Dep’t of Justice & Federal Trade Comm’n, 

Statements of Antitrust Enforcement Policy in 

Health Care, Statement 6: Enforcement Policy on 

Provider Participation in Exchanges of Price and 

Cost Information (1996). The DIFRA information 

exchange failed to qualify for the safety zone of the 

Health Care Guidelines for several reasons. 

Although the DIFRA information exchange was 

managed by a third party, the information 

exchanged was insufficiently historical, the 

participants in the exchange too few, and their 

individual market shares too large to qualify for the 

permissive treatment contemplated by the Health 

Care Guidelines. While failing to qualify for the 

safety zone of the Health Care Guidelines is not in 

itself a violation of Section 5, firms that wish to 

minimize the risk of antitrust scrutiny should 

consider structuring their collaborations in 

accordance with the criteria of the safety zone. 

II. Legal Analysis 

The January and June 2008 price 

restraints among Star, McWane, and 

Sigma alleged in the complaint are 

naked restraints on competition that are 

per se unlawful.2

The June 2008 agreement, which was 

allegedly reached after a public 

invitation to collude by McWane, 

illustrates how price fixing agreements 

may be reached in public. Here, 

McWane’s invitation to collude was 

conveyed in a letter sent to waterworks 

distributors, the common customers of 

Star, McWane, and Sigma. McWane’s 

letter contained a section that was 

meaningless to waterworks distributors, 

but was intended to inform Star and 

Sigma of the terms on which McWane 

desired to fix prices.3

The DIFRA information exchange was 

a component of the illegal price fixing 

agreement. Specifically, the complaint 

alleges that the DIFRA information 

exchange played a critical role in the 

2008 price fixing conspiracy, first as the 

quid pro quo for a price increase by 

McWane in June 2008, and then by 

enabling Star, McWane, and Sigma to 

monitor each others’ adherence to the 

collusive arrangement through the 

second half of 2008. 

Evaluated apart from the price fixing 

conspiracy, Star’s participation in the 

information exchange is an independent 

violation of the antitrust laws because 

this concerted action facilitated price 

coordination among the three 

competitors.4

III. The Proposed Order 

The proposed order is designed to 

remedy the unlawful conduct charged 

against Star in the complaint and to 

prevent the recurrence of such conduct. 

Paragraph II.A of the proposed order 

prohibits Star from participating in or 

maintaining any combination or 

conspiracy between any competitors to 

fix, raise or stabilize the prices at which 

DIPF are sold in the United States, or to 

allocate or divide markets, customers, or 

business opportunities. 

Paragraph II.B of the proposed order 

prohibits Star from soliciting or inviting 

any competitor to participate in any of 

the actions prohibited in Paragraphs 

II.A. 

Paragraph II.C of the proposed order 

prohibits Star from participating in or 

facilitating any agreement between 

competitors to exchange ‘‘Competitively 

Sensitive Information’’ (‘‘CSI’’), defined 

as certain types of information related to 

the cost, price, output or customers of 

or for DIPF. Paragraph II.D of the 

proposed order prohibits Star from 

unilaterally disclosing CSI to a 

competitor, except as part of the 

negotiation of a joint venture, license or 

acquisition, or in certain other specified 

circumstances. Paragraph II.E of the 

proposed order prohibits Star from 

attempting to engage in any of the 

activities prohibited by Paragraphs II.A, 

II.B, II.C, or II.D. 

The prohibitions on Star’s 

communication of CSI with competitors 

contained in Paragraphs II.C and II.D of 

the proposed order are subject to a 

proviso that permits Star to 

communicate CSI to its competitors 

under certain circumstances. Under the 

proposed order, Star may participate in 

an information exchange with its 

competitors in the DIPF market 

provided that the information exchange 

is structured in such a way as to 

minimize the risk that it will facilitate 

collusion among Star and its 

competitors. Specifically, the proposed 

order requires any exchange of CSI to 

occur no more than twice yearly, and to 

involve the exchange of aggregated 

information more than six months old. 

In addition, the aggregated information 

that is exchanged must be made 

publicly available, which increases the 

likelihood that an information exchange 

involving Star will simultaneously 

benefit consumers. The proposed order 

also prohibits Star’s participation in an 

exchange of CSI involving price, cost or 

total unit cost of or for DIPF when the 

individual or collective market shares of 

the competitors seeking to participate in 

an information exchange exceed 

specified thresholds. The rationale for 

this provision is that in a highly 

concentrated market the risk that the 

information exchange may facilitate 

collusion is high. Due to the highly 

concentrated state of the DIPF market as 

currently structured, an information 

exchange involving Star and relating to 

price, output or total unit cost of or for 

DIPF is unlikely to reoccur in the 

foreseeable future. 

Paragraph III of the proposed order 

requires Star to cooperate with 

Commission staff in the still-pending 

administrative litigation against 

McWane. 

The proposed order has a term of 20 

years. 

By direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7234 Filed 3–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

[OMB Control No. 3090–0262; Docket 2012– 

0001; Sequence 3] 

General Services Administration 

Acquisition Regulation; Information 

Collection; Identification of Products 

With Environmental Attributes 

AGENCY: Office of Acquisition Policy, 

GSA. 

ACTION: Notice of request for comments 

regarding a extension of a previously 

existing OMB clearance. 

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act the 

Regulatory Secretariat will be 

submitting to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) a request to review 

and approve an extension of a 

previously approved information 

collection requirement regarding 

identification of products with 

environmental attributes. 

Public comments are particularly 

invited on: Whether this collection of 

information is necessary and whether it 

will have practical utility; whether our 

estimate of the public burden of this 

collection of information is accurate and 

based on valid assumptions and 

methodology; and ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before: 

May 25, 2012. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
17482 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Dana Munson, Procurement Analyst, 

General Services Acquisition Policy 

Division, GSA, at telephone (202) 357– 

9652 or via email to 

dana.munson@gsa.gov. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

identified by Information Collection 

3090–0262, Identification of Products 

with Environmental Attributes, by any 

of the following methods: 

• Regulations.gov: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Submit comments 

via the Federal eRulemaking portal by 

inputting ‘‘Information Collection 3090– 

0262, Identification of Products with 

Environmental Attributes’’, under the 

heading ‘‘Enter Keyword or ID’’ and 

selecting ‘‘Search’’. Select the link 

‘‘Submit a Comment’’ that corresponds 

with ‘‘Information Collection 3090– 

0262, Identification of Products with 

Environmental Attributes’’. Follow the 

instructions provided at the ‘‘Submit a 

Comment’’ screen. Please include your 

name, company name (if any), and 

‘‘Information Collection 3090–0262, 

Identification of Products with 

Environmental Attributes’’ on your 

attached document. 

• Fax: 202–501–4067. 

• Mail: General Services 

Administration, Regulatory Secretariat 

(MVCB), 1275 First Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20417. Attn: Hada 

Flowers/IC 3090–0262, Identification of 

Products with Environmental 

Attributes. 

Instructions: Please submit comments 

only and cite Information Collection 

3090–0262, Identification of Products 

with Environmental Attributes, in all 

correspondence related to this 

collection. All comments received will 

be posted without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal and/or business confidential 

information provided. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Purpose 

General Services Administration 

(GSA) requires contractors submitting 

Multiple Award Schedule Contracts to 

identify in their GSA price lists those 

products that they market commercially 

that have environmental attributes. The 

identification of these products will 

enable Federal agencies to maximize the 

use of these products to meet the 

responsibilities expressed in statutes 

and executive orders. 

B. Annual Reporting Burden 

Respondents: 9,000. 

Responses per Respondent: 1. 

Annual Responses: 9,000. 

Hours per Response: 3. 

Total Burden Hours: 27,000. 

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: 

Requesters may obtain a copy of the 

information collection documents from 

the Regulatory Secretariat Division 

(MVCB), 1275 First Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20417, telephone (202) 

501–4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 

3090–0262, Identification of Products 

with Environmental Attributes, in all 

correspondence. 

Dated: March 19, 2012. 

Joseph A. Neurauter, 

Director, Office of Acquisition Policy, Senior 

Procurement Executive. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7197 Filed 3–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–61–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Administration on Aging 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Submission for OMB 

Review; Comment Request; State 

Annual Long-Term Care Ombudsman 

Report and Instructions 

AGENCY: Administration on Aging, HHS. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Administration on Aging 

(AoA) is announcing that the proposed 

collection of information listed below 

has been submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and clearance under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Submit written comments on the 

collection of information by April 25, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments 

on the collection of information by fax 

202.395.6974 or by mail to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

OMB, New Executive Office Bldg., 725 

17th St. NW., Rm. 10235, Washington, 

DC 20503, Attn: Brenda Aguilar, Desk 

Officer for AoA. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Louise Ryan, telephone: (202) 357–3503; 

email: louise.ryan@aoa.hhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, AoA 

has submitted the following proposed 

collection of information to OMB for 

review and clearance. 

States provide the following data and 

narrative information in the report: 

1. Numbers and descriptions of cases 

filed and complaints made on behalf of 

long-term care facility residents to the 

statewide ombudsman program; 

2. Major issues identified impacting 

on the quality of care and life of longterm care facility residents; 

3. Statewide program operations; and 

4. Ombudsman activities in addition 

to complaint investigation. 

The report form and instructions have 

been in continuous use, with minor 

modifications, since they were first 

approved by OMB for the FY 1995 

reporting period. This request is for 

approval to extend use of the current 

form and instructions, with no 

modifications, for three years, covering 

the FY 2012–2014 reporting periods. 

The data collected on complaints filed 

with ombudsman programs and 

narrative on long-term care issues 

provide information to Centers for 

Medicare and Medicaid Services and 

others on patterns of concerns and 

major long-term care issues affecting 

residents of long-term care facilities. 

Both the complaint and program data 

collected assist the states and local 

ombudsman programs in planning 

strategies and activities, providing 

training and technical assistance and 

developing performance measures. 

A reporting form and instructions 

may be viewed in the ombudsman 

section of the AoA Web site, 

www.aoa.gov. 

AoA estimates the burden of this 

collection and entering the report 

information as follows: Approximately 

8,569 hours, with 52 State Agencies on 

Aging responding annually. 

Dated: March 2, 2012. 

Kathy Greenlee, 

Assistant Secretary for Aging. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7219 Filed 3–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4154–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

[Docket No. FDA–2011–N–0624] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Submission for Office of 

Management and Budget Review; 

Comment Request; Notice of 

Participation 

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, 

HHS. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) is announcing 

that a proposed collection of 

information has been submitted to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and clearance under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Fax written comments on the 

collection of information by April 25, 

2012. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES