Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 1998 / Notices 3747

1See generally Commission Policy Statement in

Regard to Comparative Advertising, 16 CFR 14.15

(1997) (comparative advertising assists consumers

in making rational purchase decisions, encourages

product improvement or innovation, and can lead

to lower market prices).

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

[File No. 951–0083]

Sensormatic Electronics Corporation;

and Checkpoint Systems, Inc.—

Analysis to Aid Public Comment

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Proposed Consent Agreements.

SUMMARY: The consent agreements in

these matters settle 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 complaints that accompany the

consent agreements and the terms of the

consent orders—embodied in the

consent agreements—that would settle

these allegations.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before March 27, 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:

William Baer or Michael Antalics, FTC/

H–374, Washington, D.C. 20580. (202)

326–2932 or 326–2821.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade

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

46 and § 2.34 of the Commission’s rules

of practice (16 CFR 2.34), notice is

hereby given that the above-captioned

consent agreements containing consent

orders to cease and desist, having been

filed with and accepted, subject to final

approval, by the Commission, have 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

agreements, and the allegations in the

complaints. An electronic copy of the

full text of the consent agreement

packages can be obtained from the FTC

Home Page (for January 21, 1998), 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,

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

§ 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission’s rules

of practice (16 CFR 4.9(b)(6)(ii)).

Analysis of Proposed Consent Orders

To Aid Public Comment

The Federal Trade Commission has

accepted agreements to proposed

consent orders from Sensormatic

Electronics Corporation (‘‘Sensormatic’’)

and Checkpoint Systems, Inc.

(‘‘Checkpoint’’). Sensormatic’s principal

place of business is located at 951

Yamato Road, Boca Raton, Florida.

Checkpoint’s principal place of business

is located at 101 Wolf Drive, Thorofare,

New Jersey.

The proposed consent orders have

been placed on the public record for 60

days for reception of comments by

interested persons. Comments received

during this period will become part of

the public record. After 60 days, the

Commission will again review the

agreements and the comments received,

and will decide whether it should

withdraw from the agreements or make

final the agreements’ proposed orders.

Sensormatic and Checkpoint are the

two largest manufacturers and sellers of

electronic article surveillance (‘‘EAS’’)

systems in the United States and the

world. Their combined worldwide sales

exceed 70 percent of total EAS industry

sales.

EAS systems are used primarily by

retailers to deter and detect shoplifting

and employee theft. Bits of reactive

metal or electronic transmitters called

‘‘tags’’ are attached to products sold in

retail stores. When a product is

purchased, the tag is removed or

deactivated by the cashier. If a tag

passes through an EAS system’s sensors

at a store exit without being deactivated,

it sets off an alarm. EAS systems are also

commonly found in libraries and video

stores.

The complaint alleges that

Sensormatic and Checkpoint entered a

written agreement on June 27, 1993 to

refrain from ‘‘negative advertising or

other negative selling, promotional

activities or other communications with

respect to the other party or the other

party’s products and services,’’

including ‘‘statements that the other

party’s products or services cause or

may cause harm to customers,

consumers or merchandise.’’ The

complaint further alleges that the

respondents have construed the June 27,

1993 agreement to restrict comparative

advertising relating to the performance

and effectiveness of the proposed

respondents’ EAS systems.

The complaint alleges that the June

27, 1993 agreement deprives retailers,

other customers who purchase EAS

systems, and consumers of comparative

information about the characteristics of

EAS systems that they would find

helpful. In particular, the complaint

alleges that retailers and other EAS

customers have an interest in obtaining

comparative information relevant to

their purchasing decisions. The

complaint further alleges that certain

information about EAS systems, such as

the potential harm to retail products and

information about possible interactions

between certain medical devices and

EAS equipment, is relevant to

consumers. Finally, the complaint

alleges that the June 27, 1993 agreement

is an agreement among competitors to

refrain from making truthful, nondeceptive claims, including

comparisons, criticisms, or disparaging

statements in advertising, and that this

agreement constitutes an unfair method

of competition in violation of Section 5

of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

On many occasions, the Commission

has prohibited groups of horizontal

competitors from agreeing to refrain

from making truthful, non-deceptive

claims, including comparisons,

criticisms, or disparaging statements in

advertising. The Commission has

recognized that one of the benefits of

competition is that competitors may be

driven to provide consumers with

information that makes for better

educated, effective consumers.1 The

alleged conduct engaged in by

Sensormatic and Checkpoint and the

terms of the proposed orders are similar

to the conduct alleged and the relief

obtained in Personal Protective Armor

Association, Inc., 117 F.T.C. 104 (1994).

Sensormatic and Checkpoint have

signed consent agreements containing

the proposed consent orders. The

proposed consent orders require

Sensormatic and Checkpoint to declare

null and void the negative advertising

provision of the June 27, 1993

agreement. The proposed consent orders

also prohibit Sensormatic and

Checkpoint from entering into any

agreement that prohibits, restricts,

impedes, interferes with, restrains,

places limitations on, or advises against

engaging in truthful, non-deceptive

advertising, comparative advertising,

promotional and sales activities for

twenty years after the date the order

becomes final. In addition, the proposed

consent orders require that Sensormatic

and Checkpoint provide copies of the

orders to their respective executives,

and that Sensormatic and Checkpoint

file annual compliance reports with the

Federal Trade Commission.
3748 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 1998 / Notices

1Copies of the Complaint and the Decision and

Order are available from the Commission’s Public

Reference Branch, H–130, 600 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580.

The purpose of this analysis is to

facilitate public comment on the

proposed orders, and it is not intended

to constitute an official interpretation of

the agreement and proposed orders or to

modify in any way their terms.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–1802 Filed 1–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Dkt. C–3743]

Tenet Healthcare Corp.; Prohibited

Trade Practices, and Affirmative

Corrective Actions

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Consent order.

SUMMARY: In settlement of alleged

violations of federal law prohibiting

unfair or deceptive acts or practices and

unfair methods of competition, this

consent order, among other things,

requires Tenet Healthcare Corporation

(‘‘Tenet’’), a California acute care

hospital chain, to divest OrNda’s French

Hospital Medical Center and related

assets and facilities by August 1, 1997.

The consent order also requires Tenet to

maintain the marketability and viability

of French Hospital, pending the

divestiture of French, and to notify the

Commission before combining its acute

care hospitals in San Luis Obispo

County with any other acute care

hospital in the area and before acquiring

any Monarch stock.

DATES: Complaint and Order issued May

20, 1997.1

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Leibenluft, FTC/S–3115,

Washington, DC 20580. (202) 326–3688.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

Wednesday, February 5, 1997, there was

published in the Federal Register, 62 FR

5418, a proposed consent agreement

with analysis In the Matter of Tenet

Healthcare Corporation, for the purpose

of soliciting public comment. Interested

parties were given sixty (60) days in

which to submit comments, suggestions

or objections regarding the proposed

form of the order.

Comments were filed and considered

by the Commission. The Commission

has ordered the issuance of the

complaint in the form contemplated by

the agreement, made its jurisdictional

findings and entered an order to divest,

as set forth in the proposed consent

agreement, in disposition of this

proceeding.

(Sec. 6, 38 Stat. 721; 15 U.S.C. 46. Interpret

or apply sec. 5, 38 Stat 719, as amended; sec.

7, 38 Stat. 731, as amended; 15 U.S.C. 45, 18)

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–1800 Filed 1–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

GENERAL SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION

[OMB Control No. 3090–0093]

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request Entitled Transportation

Discrepancy Report, SF 361

AGENCY: Federal Supply Service, GSA.

ACTION: Notice of request for public

comments regarding reinstatement to a

previously approved OMB clearance

(3090–0093).

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Office of

Acquisition Policy has submitted to the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) a request to review and approve

a reinstatement of a previously

approved information collection

requirement concerning Transportation

Discrepancy Report, SF–361.

DATES: Comment Due Date: March 27,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments regarding this

burden estimate or any other aspect of

this collection of information, including

suggestions for reducing this burden,

should be submitted to: Edward

Springer, GSA Desk Officer, Room 3235,

NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and to

Marjorie Ashby, General Services

Administration (MVP), 1800 F Street

NW., Washington, DC 20405.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Roger Sullins, Federal Supply Service

(816) 926–2932.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Purpose

The GSA is requesting the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) to

reinstate information collection, 3090–

0093 concerning Transportation

Discrepancy Report, SF–361. This form

is prepared by Government shippers or

receivers to document loss, damage, or

other discrepancy resulting from the

movement of freight by commercial

transportation companies.

B. Annual Reporting Burden

Respondents: 160; annual responses:

1; average hours per response: 1; burden

hours: 160.

Copy of Proposal: A copy of this

proposal may be obtained from the GSA

Acquisition Policy Division (MVP),

Room 4011, GSA Building, 1800 F

Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, or

by telephoning (202) 501–3822, or by

faxing your request to (202) 501–3341.

Dated: January 20, 1998.

Ida M. Ustad,

Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of

Acquisition Policy.

[FR Doc. 98–1770 Filed 1–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–61–M

GENERAL SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION

[OMB Control No. 3090–0058]

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request Entitled Deposit Bond—

Annual Sale of Government Personal

Property

AGENCY: Federal Supply Service, GSA.

ACTION: Notice of request for public

comments regarding reinstatement to a

previously approved OMB clearance

(3090–0058).

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Office of

Acquisition Policy has submitted to the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) a request to review and approve

a reinstatement of a previously

approved information collection

requirement concerning Deposit Bond—

Annual Sale of Government Personal

Property.

DATES: Comment Due Date: March 27,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments regarding this

burden estimate or any other aspect of

this collection of information, including

suggestions for reducing this burden,

should be submitted to: Edward

Springer, GSA Desk Officer, Room 3235,

NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and to

Marjorie Ashby, General Services

Administration (MVP), 1800 F Street

NW., Washington, DC 20405.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andrea Dingle, Federal Supply Service,

(703) 305–6190.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Purpose

The GSA is requesting the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) to

reinstate information collection, 3090–

0058, concerning Deposit Bond—

Annual Sale of Government Personal

Property. This form is used by a bidder

participating in sales of Government

personal property whenever the sales

invitation permits an annual type of