36694 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 129 /Tuesday, July 7, 1998 / Notices

Global and AP Green are the only two

producers of glass-furnace silica

refractories in the United States, and

entry of other producers is unlikely and

would be time consuming. The

Commission’s Complaint alleges that

the proposed acquisition, which would

result in a monopoly in the United

States, would lessen competition by

eliminating competition between Global

and AP Green, and would lead to higher

prices and less product innovation.

The proposed Order accepted for

public comment contains provisions

that would require Global to divest AP

Green’s glass-furnace silica refractories

business to Robert R. Worthen and

Dennis R. Williams (jointly or through

a corporation called Utah Refractories

Corp.) in a manner that receives the

prior approval of the Commission

within 30 days of the date the proposed

Order was accepted for public comment,

or if such divestiture fails, to another

buyer that receives the prior approval of

the Commission in a manner that

receives the prior approval of the

Commission within 90 days of the date

the proposed Order was accepted for

public comment. The divestiture

includes the AP Green manufacturing

plant located in Lehi, Utah, where AP

Green produces silica refractories,

together with the sources of raw

materials used to manufacture silica

refractories and all other assets relating

to the research, development,

production, sale, or distribution of silica

refractories, but excluding AP Green’s

manufacturing facility in Sproul,

Pennsylvania. Global’s divestiture of the

AP Green silica refractories business, if

completed, would satisfy the

requirements of the Order and remedy

the lessening of competition alleged in

the Complaint.

If Global fails to divest AP Green’s

silica refractories business within 90

days of the date the proposed Order was

accepted for public comment, then the

Commission may appoint a trustee to

divest AP Green’s silica refractories

business, or, at the option of the trustee,

Global’s Northeast, Maryland

manufacturing plant, where Global

produces silica refractories, together

with the sources of raw materials used

to manufacture silica refractories and all

other assets relating to the research,

development, production, sale, or

distribution of silica refractories, but

excluding Global’s manufacturing

facility in Calhoun, Georgia.

The Order also contains a provision

requiring Global to maintain the

viability and marketability of the Global

and AP Green silica refractories

businesses pending the divestiture.

The consent is crafted to preserve the

current competitive state of the U.S.

market for glass-furnace silica

refractories. The consent will maintain

the AP Green silica plant as an

independent supplier of glass-furnace

silica refractories for U.S. customers.

Thus, there will continue to be two

domestic sources of the product, as

there were prior to the proposed merger.

The purpose of this analysis is to

facilitate public comment on the

proposed Order. Comments should also

be directed to whether the pre-approved

buyers, Robert R. Worthen and Dennis

R. Williams and their corporation, Utah

Refractories Corp., will be financially

viable and able to replace the

competition lost by this acquisition.

This analysis is not intended to

constitute an official interpretation of

the Agreement or the proposed Order or

in any way to modify the terms of the

Agreement or the proposed Order.

Benjamin I. Berman,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–17933 Filed 7–6–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

[File No. 972–3157]

Herbal Worldwide Holdings Corp., et

al.; Analysis To Aid Public Comment

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Proposed consent agreement.

SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this

matter settles alleged violations of

federal law prohibiting unfair or

deceptive acts or practices or unfair

methods of competition. The attached

Analysis To Aid Public Comment

describes both the allegations in the

draft complaint that accompanies the

consent agreement and the terms of the

consent order—embodied in the consent

agreement—that would settle these

allegations.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before September 8, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary,

Room 159, 6th St. and Pa. Ave., NW,

Washington, DC 20580.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom

Carter or Susan Arthur, Dallas Regional

Office, Federal Trade Commission, 100

N. Central Expressway, Suite 500,

Dallas, TX. 75201. (214) 979–9350.

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

complaint. An electronic copy of the

full text of the consent agreement

package can be obtained from the FTC

Home Page (for June 26, 1998), on the

World Wide Web, at ‘‘http://

www.ftc.gov/os/actions97.htm.’’ A

paper copy can be obtained from the

FTC Public Reference Room, Room H–

130, Sixth Street and Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 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, subject to final

approval, to a proposed consent order

from Herbal Worldwide Holdings Corp.,

Jose ́ Diaz, and Eduardo N. Naranjo

(hereinafter ‘‘respondents’’).

Respondents are marketers of an overthe-counter weight loss product called

‘‘Fattache ́.’’

The proposed consent order has been

placed on the public record for sixty

(60) days for the 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 any comments

received and will decide whether it

should withdraw from the agreement

and take other appropriate action or

make final the agreement’s proposed

order.

This matter has focused on

respondents’ Spanish-language

television advertisement for Fattache ́.

The ingredients in Fattache ́ include

psyllium, chitosan, glucomannan, and

apple pectin.

The proposed complaint alleges that

respondents made unsubstantiated

claims that: (1) Fattache ́ causes weight

loss without a change in diet: (2)

Fattache ́ prevents the absorption of

ingested fat; (3) Fattache ́ helps eliminate

ingested fat before it is absorbed, and (4)

testimonials from consumers appearing

in advertisements for Fattache ́ reflect

the typical or ordinary experience of
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 129 /Tuesday, July 7, 1998 / Notices 36695

members of the public who use

Fattache ́.

Parts I and II of the proposed order

prohibit the respondents from making

the challenged claims, unless at the time

of the representation, the respondents

possess and rely on competent and

reliable scientific evidence that

substantiates the representation. Part II

of the order also requires that if the

respondents do not have substantiation

for claims made through the use of

consumer testimonials, that the

advertisement disclose the results that

users can generally expect to achieve, or

the limited applicability of the

endorser’s experience to what users can

generally expect to achieve.

Because this matter involves

substances that could be regulated by

the FDA as a food or drug, Part III of the

order includes a ‘‘safe harbor’’ allowing

the respondents to make any claims

approved in any new drug application,

or in any tentative final or final standard

promulgated by that agency. In addition,

Part IV of the proposed order includes

a safe harbor for representations

specifically permitted by regulations

promulgated by the FDA pursuant to the

Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of

1990.

The proposed order also requires the

respondents to maintain materials relied

on to substantiate clams covered by the

order; to provide a copy of the consent

agreement to all employees or

representatives with duties affecting

compliance with the terms of the order;

and to file one or more compliance

reports detailing compliance with the

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 proposed order, or to

modify in any way their terms.

Benjamin J. Berman.

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–17934 Filed 7–6–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

[File No. 972–3071]

Nutrivida, Inc., et al.; Analysis To Aid

Public Comment

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Proposed consent agreement.

SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this

matter settles alleged violations of

federal law prohibiting unfair or

deceptive acts or practices or unfair

methods of competition. The attached

Analysis to Aid Public Comment

describes both the allegations in the

draft complaint that accompanies the

consent agreement and the terms of the

consent order—emobodied in the

consent agreement—that would settle

these allegations.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before September 8, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary,

Room 159, 6th St. and Pa. Ave., NW,

Washington, DC 20580.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jeffrey Klurfeld or Erika Wodinsky, San

Francisco Regional Office, Federal

Trade Commission, 901 Market Street,

Suite 570, San Francisco, CA. 94103.

(415) 356–5270.

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

complaint. An electronic copy of the

full text of the consent agreement

package can be obtained from the FTC

Home Page (for June 26, 1998), on the

World Wide Web, at ‘‘http://

www.ftc.gov/os/actions97.htm.’’ A

paper copy can be obtained from the

FTC Public Reference Room, Room H–

130, Sixth Street and Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 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, subject to final approval, an

agreement to a proposed consent order

from Nutrivida Inc. (‘‘Nutrivida’’) and

Frank Huerta, an officer and director of

the company.

The proposed consent order has been

placed on the public record for sixty

(60) days for the receipt 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 comments received and

will decide whether it should withdraw

from the agreement and take appropriate

action or make final the agreement’s

proposed order.

This matter concerns Spanish

language television advertisements,

including program length

‘‘infomercials,’’ for the proposed

respondents’ Cartilet shark cartilage

capsules. The Commission’s complaint

alleges that the proposed respondents

made unsubstantiated representations

that: (1) Cartilet shark cartilage capsules

are effective in the symptomatic relief,

treatment, or cure of cancer; (2) Cartilet

shark cartilage capsules are effective in

the symptomatic relief or treatment of

rheumatism, arthritis, diabetes, fibroids,

bursitis, circulatory problems, and cysts;

and (3) testimonial from a consumer

who appears in the advertisements for

Cartilet shark cartilage capsules reflects

the typical or ordinary experience of

members of the public who use the

product. The Commission’s complaint

also alleges that the proposed

respondents falsely represented that

studies prove that Cartilet shark

cartilage capsules are effective in the

symptomatic relief or treatment of

cancer, arthritis, and diabetes and that

the proposed respondents

misrepresented that their infomercial for

the Cartilet shark cartilage capsules was

an independent television program and

not paid advertising.

Paragraph I of the proposed order

prohibits proposed respondents from

representing that Nutrivida’s Cartilet

shark cartilage capsules or any other

product are effective in the symptomatic

relief, treatment, or cure of cancer or

that Nutrivida’s Cartilet shark cartilage

capsules are effective in the

symptomatic relief or treatment of

rheumatism, arthritis, diabetes, fibroids,

bursitis, circulatory problems, and cysts;

unless, at the time the representation is

made, respondents possess and rely

upon competent and reliable scientific

evidence that substantiates the

representation.

Paragraph II of the proposed order

would prohibit for Cartilet shark

cartilage capsules or any food, dietary

supplement, or drug, representations

about the health benefits, performance,

or efficacy of such product unless, at the

time the representation is made,

respondents possess and rely upon

competent and reliable scientific

evidence that substantiates the

representation.

Paragraph III of the proposed order

would prohibit for Cartilet shark

cartilage capsules or any food, dietary

supplement or drug, misrepresentations

about the existence, contents, validity,