Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 55 / Friday, March 21, 1997 / Notices 13619

hours of operation. This provision is not

changed by the proposed consent order.

Part II.A of the Commission’s order of

February 22, 1989, prohibited the

dealers from exchanging information or

communicating with any other dealer or

association concerning hours of

operation, except to the extent necessary

(i) to comply with any order of the

Commission, and (ii) after two (2) years

from the date the order becomes final,

to incorporate individual dealers’ hours

of operation in lawful joint

advertisements. Part II.A has two

exceptions to the two-year prohibition

against the inclusion of individual

dealers’ hours of operation in joint

advertising. First, the prohibition would

not apply to individual dealers that are

legally operated under common control.

Second, the prohibition would not

apply to joint advertising for special

events such as tent sales, mall sales, or

annual sales when hours of operation

are extended. These provisions are not

changed by the proposed consent order.

Part II.B of the Commission’s order of

February 22, 1989, prohibited the

dealers from requesting, recommending,

coercing, influencing, inducing,

encouraging or persuading any dealer or

dealer association to maintain, adopt or

adhere to any hours of operation. This

provision is not changed by the

proposed consent order.

Part III of the Commission’s order of

February 22, 1989, as modified by the

Commission’s Order of June 20, 1995,

required the dealers to maintain for a

period of one year, a minimum of sixtyfour hours of operation per week for the

sale and lease of motor vehicles, or

alternatively, a minimum of an average

of ten and a half hours during weekdays

plus an additional eight hours on

Saturdays. Under the proposed consent

order, the term of this requirement is

reduced to the period for which the

dealers were in compliance with the

requirement pending appeal of the

Commission’s order of June 20, 1995.

Accordingly, under the proposed

consent order the dealers will have no

further obligations to maintain

minimum hours of operation.

Part IV of the Commission’s order of

February 22, 1989, required the dealers,

beginning thirty days after the order

became final and for a minimum of four

weeks thereafter, to place at least four

weekly advertisements in Detroit

newspapers explaining that the dealers

were required by Commission order to

offer extended shopping hours for one

year. The dealers fulfilled their

obligations under this provision

pending appeal of the Commission’s

June 20, 1995 order. Accordingly, the

proposed consent order imposes no

further obligations under this provision.

Part V of the Commission’s order of

February 22, 1989, required the dealers,

while Part III of the order was in effect,

to disclose their hours of operation in

all advertising, with limited exceptions.

Since the proposed consent order limits

the dealers’ obligations under Part III to

their compliance to date, the dealers

will have no further obligations under

Part V.

Parts VI, VII and VIII of the

Commission’s order of February 22,

1989, applied only to the association

respondents. Accordingly, the dealers

will have no obligations under these

provisions.

Part IX of the Commission’s order of

February 22, 1989, required the dealers

to give a copy of the order to each

employee and, for a period of five years,

to give a copy to each new employee

involved in motor vehicle sales or

leasing. This provision is not changed

by the proposed consent order.

Part X of the Commission’s order of

February 22, 1989, required the dealers

to file annual compliance reports for a

period of five years. The proposed

consent order would give the dealers

credit for compliance reports filed since

the effective date of the Commission’s

order of June 20, 1995.

Part XI of the Commission’s order of

February 22, 1989, required the dealers,

for a period of five years, to inform the

Commission of any change in corporate

status that may affect compliance

obligations under the order, or, with

respect to individual respondents, of

any change in employment. This

provision is not changed by the

proposed consent order.

The purpose of this analysis is to

facilitate public comment on the

proposed order, and it is not intended

to constitute an official interpretation of

the agreement and the proposed order or

to modify in any way their terms.

Parties to the Consent Agreement

Dealer Respondents

Crestwood Dodge, Inc., 32850 Ford

Road, Garder City, MI 48135

Bob Borst Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., a/k/a

Bob Borst Lincoln-Mercury Sales Inc.,

1950 W. Maple Road, Troy, MI 48084

Bob Dusseau, Inc., a/k/a Bob Dusseau

Lincoln-Mercury, 31625 Grant River

Avenue, Farmington, MI 48024

Bob Maxey Lincoln-Mercury Sales, Inc.,

16901 Mack Avenue, Detroit, MI

48224

Crest Lincoln-Mercury Sales, Inc., 36200

Van Dyke Avenue, Sterling Heights,

MI 48077

Stewart Chevrolet, Inc., 23755 Allen

Road, Woodhaven, MI 48183

Woody Pontiac Sales, Inc., 12140 Joseph

Campau, Hamtramck, MI 48212

Jack Demmer Ford, Inc., a/k/a/ Jack

Demmer Ford, 37300 Michigan

Avenue, Wayne, MI 48184

Al Long Ford, Inc., 13711 E. Eight Mile

Road, Warren, MI 48089

Ed Schmid Ford, Inc., 21600 Woodward

Avenue, Ferndale, MI 48220

Ray Whitfield Ford, a/k/a/ Ray

Whitfield Ford, Inc., 10725 S.

Telegraph Road, Taylor, MI 48180

Individual Respondents

Robert C. Borst, c/o Bob Borst LincolnMercury, Inc., 1950 W. Maple Road,

Troy, MI 48084

Robert Dusseau, a/k/a/ Robert F.

Dusseau, c/o Bob Dusseau LincolnMercury, 31625 Grant River Avenue,

Farmington, MI 48024

Robert Maxey, c/o Bob Maxey LincolnMercury Sales Inc., 16901 Mack

Avenue, Detroit, MI 48224

William Ritchie, a/k/a/ William R.

Ritchie, c/o Crest Lincoln-Mercury

Sales, Inc., 36200 Van Dyke Avenue,

Sterling Heights, MI 48077

Gordon L. Stewart, a/k/a/ Gordon

Stewart, c/o Steward Chevrolet, Inc.,

23755 Allen Road, Woodhaven, MI

48183

Woodrow W. Woody, c/o Woody

Pontiac Sales, Inc., 12140 Joseph

Campau, Hamtramck, MI 48212

John E. Demmer, a/k/a/ Jack E. Demmer,

c/o Jack Demmer Ford, Inc., 37300

Michigan Avenue, Wayne, MI 48184

Edward F. Schmid, a/k/a/ Edward

Schmid, c/o Ed Schmid Ford, Inc.,

21600 Woodward Avenue, Ferndale,

MI 48220

Raymond J. Whitfield, a/k/a/ Raymond

Whitfield, c/o Ray Whitfield Ford,

10725 S. Telegraph Road, Taylor, MI

48180

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–7261 Filed 3–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

[File No. 962–3175]

Gerber Products Company; Analysis

To Aid Public Comment

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Proposed consent agreement.

SUMMARY: In settlement of alleged

violations of federal law prohibiting

unfair or deceptive acts or practices and

unfair methods of competition, this

consent agreement, accepted subject to

final Commission approval, would

prohibit, among other things, the baby

food company from representing the

extent to which doctors or other health
13620 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 55 / Friday, March 21, 1997 / Notices

professionals recommend baby and

toddler foods or from representing any

recommendation or endorsement of

these products unless it has competent

and reliable evidence that substantiates

the claim. Gerber also would be

prohibited from misrepresenting any

survey or research. The complaint

accompanying the consent agreement

alleges that Gerber claimed that four out

of five pediatricians recommend Gerber

baby food, when in fact, the study on

which Gerber relied showed that only

12 percent of the pediatricians surveyed

recommended Gerber.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before May 20, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary,

Room 159, 6th St. and Pa. Ave., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20580.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anne Maher, Federal Trade

Commission, S–4002, 6th St. and Pa.

Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.

(202) 326–2987. Rosemary Rosso,

Federal Trade Commission, S–4002, 6th

St. and Pa. Ave., NW., Washington, D.C.

20580. (202) 326–2174.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade

Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C.

46, and Section 2.34 of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice (16 CFR

2.34), notice is hereby given that the

above-captioned consent agreement

containing a consent order to cease and

desist, having been filed with and

accepted, subject to final approval, by

the Commission, has been placed on the

public record for a period of sixty (60)

days. The following Analysis to Aid

Public Comment describes the terms of

the consent agreement, and the

allegations in the accompanying

complaint. An electronic copy of the

full text of the consent agreement

package can be obtained from the

Commission Actions section of the FTC

Home Page (for March 12, 1997), on the

World Wide Web, at ‘‘http://

www.ftc.gov/os/actions/htm.’’ A paper

copy can be obtained from the FTC

Public Reference Room, Room H–130,

Sixth Street and Pennsylvania Avenue,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580, either in

person or by calling (202) 326–3627.

Public comment is invited. Such

comments or views will be considered

by the Commission and will be available

for inspection and copying at its

principal office in accordance with

Section 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission’s

Rules of Practice (16 CFR 4.9(b)(6)(ii)).

Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To

Aid Public Comment

The Federal Trade Commission has

accepted an agreement to a proposed

consent order from Gerber Products

Company (‘‘Gerber’’).

The proposed consent order has been

placed on the public record for sixty

(60) days for reception of comments by

interested persons. Comments received

during this period will become part of

the public record. After sixty (60) days,

the Commission will again review the

agreement and the comments received

and will decide whether it should

withdraw from the agreement or make

final the agreement’s proposed order.

The Commission’s complaint in this

matter charges Gerber with engaging in

deceptive practices in connection with

the advertising of Gerber baby and

toddler foods. The television, radio and

print advertisements at issue expressly

represented that ‘‘4 out of 5

pediatricians who recommend baby

food recommend Gerber.’’ According to

the complaint, the advertisements

falsely represented that competent and

reliable studies or surveys supported

that claim. The complaint explains that,

in the survey relied upon by Gerber, 562

of the surveyed doctors responded to

the questions concerning baby food. Of

these 562 pediatricians, 408 responded

that they recommend baby food to their

patients at least once per week. Of the

408 pediatricians who recommend baby

food, only 76 recommend specific

brands, and 67 of those recommended

Gerber. Thus, only 67 of the 408

pediatricians who recommend baby

food, or approximately 16 percent,

recommend Gerber to their patients.

The complaint also alleges that the

advertising at issue made an implied

claim that approximately 4 out of 5

pediatricians recommend Gerber.

Because this claim is broader than the

claim alleged above, the base is 562, the

total number of pediatricians surveyed

who answered the relevant questions.

Of these 562 pediatricians, 67, or

approximately 12 percent,

recommended Gerber. Therefore,

according to the complaint, this claim is

unsubstantiated.

The proposed consent order contains

provisions designed to remedy the

violations charged and to prevent

Gerber from engaging in similar acts and

practices in the future.

Part I of the order requires Gerber not

to make any representation about the

extent to which doctors or other health,

nutrition, child care, or medical

professionals recommend baby or

toddler food, or about the

recommendation, approval, or

endorsement of such products by any

health, nutrition, child care, or medical

professional, profession, group or other

such entity, unless it possesses

competent and reliable evidence, which

when appropriate must be competent

and reliable scientific evidence, that

substantiates the representation.

Part II prohibits Gerber, in connection

with the manufacturing, labeling,

advertising, promotion, offering for sale,

sale or distribution of any baby or

toddler food, from misrepresenting the

existence, contents, validity, results,

conclusion or interpretations of any

survey, test, study, or research. The

order does not prohibit Gerber from

making truthful, non-misleading

statements about survey results.

Part III provides that representations

that would be specifically permitted in

food labeling, under regulations issued

by the Food and Drug Administration

pursuant to the Nutrition Labeling and

Education Act of 1990, or by nutrition

labeling regulations promulgated by the

Department of Agriculture pursuant to

the Federal Meat Inspection Act or the

Poultry Products Inspection Act, are not

prohibited by the order.

Part IV requires Gerber to maintain

copies of certain materials relating to

advertisements covered by the order and

documents relating to substantiation of

advertisements covered by the order.

Part V requires Gerber to distribute

copies of the order to certain current

and future officers and employees of the

company. Part VI requires Gerber to

notify the Commission of any changes

in the corporate structure that might

affect compliance with the order. Part

VII requires Gerber to file with the

Commission one or more reports

detailing compliance with the order.

Part VIII provides that the order will

terminate after 20 years under certain

circumstances.

The purpose of this analysis is to

facilitate public comment on the

proposed order, and it is not intended

to constitute an official interpretation of

the agreement and proposed order or to

modify in any way their terms.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–7262 Filed 3–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M