25226 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 91 / Thursday, May 11, 1995 / Notices

The proposed complaint alleges that

this conduct had the following purpose,

tendency, and capacity to result in the

following effects:

A. Restraining competition among

physicians in Pittsylvania County and

Danville, Virginia;

B. Depriving consumers in

Pittsylvania County and Danville,

Virginia, of the benefits of competition

among physicians;

C. Fixing or increasing the prices that

are paid for physician services in

Pittsylvania County and Danville,

Virginia;

D. Fixing the terms and conditions

upon which physicians in Pittsylvania

County and Danville, Virginia, would

deal with third-party payors, including,

but not limited to, terms and conditions

of cost containment, and thereby raising

the price to consumers of insurance

coverage issued by third-party payors;

and

E. Depriving consumers in

Pittsylvania County and Danville,

Virginia, of the benefits of managed

care.

Finally, the proposed complaint

alleges that the above actions of PGI and

the PGI Directors constitute unfair

methods of competition, in violation of

section 5 of the Federal Trade

Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 45.

The Proposed Consent Order

The proposed consent order would

prohibit PGI and the PGI Directors from

engaging in, or attempting to engage in,

any combination, conspiracy,

agreement, or understanding, with or

among any physician(s) to negotiate,

deal, or refuse to deal with a payor, or

to determine any terms, conditions, or

requirements upon which physicians

deal with a payor, including, but not

limited to, terms of reimbursement or of

cost containment.

The proposed consent order would

also prohibit PGI and the PGI Directors

from encouraging, advising, pressuring,

inducing, or attempting to induce any

physician to (1) refuse to deal with a

payor, or (2) deal with a payor on terms

collectively determined by physicians,

including such terms as terms of

reimbursement or terms of cost

containment.

The proposed consent order

specifically permits the following:

1. Physicians who practice together as

partners or employees in the same

professional business entity collectively

determining the fees to be charged for

services rendered by that professional

business entity, or collectively

determining other terms on which that

professional business entity deals with

payors. (For purposes of this consent

order, ‘‘professional business entity’’

means professional corporation,

professional partnership, and

professional limited liability company.)

2. Physicians who participate in the

same integrated joint venture

collectively determining the fees to be

charged for services rendered by that

integrated joint venture or collectively

determining other terms on which that

integrated joint venture deals with

payors. (For purposes of the proposed

consent order, ‘‘integrated joint

venture’’ means a joint arrangement to

provide health care services in which all

physicians participating in the venture

who would otherwise be competitors (1)

pool their capital to finance the venture,

by themselves or together with others,

and (2) share a substantial risk of loss

from their participation in the venture.)

3. The exercise of rights permitted

under the First Amendment to the

United States Constitution to petition

any federal or state government

executive agency or legislative body

concerning legislation, rules, or

procedures, or to participate in any

federal or state administrative or

judicial proceeding.

4. Physicians participating at the

request of a payor in utilization review

activities organized and controlled by

the payor insofar as such participation

continues only at the sufferance of the

payor.

The proposed consent order would

require PGI to dissolve itself within 120

days after the date on which the

proposed order becomes final. PGI

Directors are to take all actions

necessary to effect dissolution of PGI as

required by the proposed consent order.

The proposed consent order would

also require PGI to distribute copies of

the proposed complaint and proposed

order to past and present members of

PGI and each payor who, at any time

since February 18, 1986, has

communicated any desire, willingness,

or interest in contracting for physician

services with PGI or with any of the PGI

Directors. Each of the PGI Directors is to

deliver to PGI a list of payors from

whom he has received such a

communication.

The order would require PGI and the

PGI Directors to (1) file compliance

reports with the Commission, (2) notify

the Commission of certain proposed

changes in PGI or the PGI Directors that

may affect their compliance with the

order, and (3) permit representatives of

the Commission to have access to

documents in the possession or under

the control of PGI or the PGI Directors

relating to any matters contained in the

order and to interview the officers,

directors, or employees of PGI and the

employees of the PGI Directors.

The proposed consent order would

terminate 20 years after the date it is

issued.

PGI and the PGI Directors agreed to

the proposed consent order for

settlement purposes only, and their

agreement to the order does not

constitute an admission by them that

the law has been violated as alleged in

the proposed complaint.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–11553 Filed 5–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

[Dkt. 6699]

Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., Prohibited

Trade Practices and Affirmative

Corrective Actions

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Set aside order.

SUMMARY: This order reopens a 1957

consent order—which prohibited the

respondent from discriminating in price

between competing purchasers by

charging auto manufacturers less for

automotive safety glass than it charged

glass distributors and glass dealers—and

sets aside the consent order pursuant to

the Commission’s Sunset Policy

Statement, under which the

Commission presumes that the public

interest requires terminating

competition orders that are more than

20 years old.

DATES: Consent order issued April 19,

1957. Set aside order issued April 4,

1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Daniel Ducore, FTC/S–2115,

Washington, DC 20580. (202) 326–2526.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

Matter of Pittsburgh Plate Glass

Company. The prohibited trade

practices and/or corrective actions are

removed as indicated.

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

or applies sec. 2, 49 Stat. 1526; 15 U.S.C. 13)

In the matter of Pittsburgh Plate Glass

Company, a corporation. Docket No. 6699.

Order Reopening Proceeding and Setting

Aside Order

On December 9, 1994, PPG Industries, Inc.,

the successor to Pittsburgh Plate Glass

Company, (‘‘PPG’’), filed a Petition to Reopen

and Set Aside Consent Order (‘‘Petition’’) in

this matter. PPG requests that the

Commission set aside the 1957 consent order

in this matter pursuant to Rule 2.51 of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.51,

and the Statement of Policy With Respect to

Duration of Competition Orders and

Statement of Intention to Solicit Public
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 91 / Thursday, May 11, 1995 / Notices 25227

1See Sunset Policy Statement, 59 Fed. Reg. at

45,289.

1Copies of the Complaint and the Decision and

Order are available from the Commission’s Public

Reference Branch, H–130, 6th Street & Pennsylvania

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.

Comment With Respect to Duration of

Consumer Protection Orders, issued July 22,

1994, published at 59 FR 45,286–92 (Sept. 1,

1994) (‘‘Sunset Policy Statement’’). In the

Petition, PPG affirmatively states that it has

not engaged in any conduct violating the

terms of the order. The Request was placed

on the public record, and the thirty-day

comment period expired on January 16, 1995.

Two public comments were received.

The Commission in its July 22, 1994,

Sunset Policy Statement said, in relevant

part, that ‘‘effective immediately, the

Commission will presume, in the context of

petitions to reopen and modify existing

orders, that the public interest requires

setting aside orders in effect for more than

twenty years.’’ 1 The Commission’s order in

Docket No. 6699 was issued on April 19,

1957, and has been in effect for more than

37 years. Consistent with the Commission’s

July 22, 1994, Sunset Policy Statement, the

presumption is that the order should be

terminated. Nothing to overcome the

presumption having been presented, the

Commission has determined to reopen the

proceeding and set aside the order in Docket

No. 6699.

Accordingly, it is ordered that this matter

be, and it hereby is, reopened;

It is further ordered that the Commission’s

order in Docket No. 6699 be, and it hereby

is, set aside, as of the effective date of this

order.

By the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–11551 Filed 5–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

[Dkt. C–3571]

Reckitt & Colman plc; 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 acts and practices and unfair

methods of competition, this consent

order allows, among other things,

Reckitt & Colman to acquire L&F

Products Inc. with the required prior

approval on the condition that it sells its

own rug cleaning assets, within six

months, to a Commission approved

acquirer. If the divestiture is not

completed on time, the consent order

permits the Commission to appoint a

trustee to complete the transaction. In

addition, the consent order requires the

respondent to obtain Commission

approval, for ten years, before acquiring

any interest in the carpet-deodorizer

business in the United States.

DATES: Complaint and Order issued

April 4, 1995.1

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ann Malester, FTC/S–2224,

Washington, DC 20580. (202) 326–2820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On Friday,

January 13, 1995, there was published

in the Federal Register, 60 FR 3236, a

proposed consent agreement with

analysis In the Matter of Reckitt &

Colman plc, 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.

No comments having been received,

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. 95–11549 Filed 5–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

[File No. 921 0117]

Reebok International Ltd., et al.;

Proposed Consent Agreement With

Analysis to Aid Public Comment

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Proposed consent agreement.

SUMMARY: In settlement of alleged

violations of federal law prohibiting

unfair acts and practices and unfair

methods of competition, this consent

agreement, accepted subject to final

Commission approval, would prohibit,

among other things, a Massachusetts

corporation and its subsidiary from

fixing, controlling or maintaining the

resale prices at which any dealer may

advertise, promote, offer for sale or sell

any Reebok or Rockport product. The

Consent agreement also would prohibit,

for a period of ten years, the

respondents from enforcing or

threatening suspension or termination

of a dealer that sells or advertises a

product below a resale price designed

by Reebok or Rockport.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 10, 1995.

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:

Alan Loughnan, New York Regional

Office, Federal Trade Commission, 150

William St., Suite 1300, New York, NY

10038. (212) 264–0459.

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 following 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. 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)).

Commissioners: Janet D. Steiger, Chairman,

Mary L. Azcuenaga, Roscoe B. Starek, III,

Christine A. Varney

In the matter of Reebok International Ltd.,

and the Rockport Company, Inc.,

corporations File No. 921 0117

Agreement Containing Consent Order to

Cease and Desist

The Federal Trade Commission

having initiated an investigation of

certain acts and practices of Reebok

International Ltd. and The Rockport

Company, Inc., a subsidiary of Reebok

International Ltd., and it now appearing

that Reebok International Ltd. and The

Rockport Company, Inc., hereinafter

sometimes referred to as proposed

respondents, are willing to enter into an

agreement containing an order to cease

and desist from engaging in the acts and

practices being investigated,

It is hereby agreed by and between

Reebok International Ltd. and The

Rockport Company, Inc., by their duly

authorized officers, and their attorneys,

and counsel for the Federal Trade

Commission that:

1. Proposed respondents Reebok

International Ltd. and The Rockport

Company, Inc., a subsidiary of Reebok

International Ltd., are corporations

organized, existing and doing business

under and by virtue of the laws of the

State of Massachusetts. The mailing

address and principal place of business

of proposed respondent Reebok

International Ltd. is: 100 Technology

Center Drive, Stoughton, Massachusetts

02072. The mailing address and

principal place of business of proposed

respondent The Rockport Company, Inc.