25222 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 91 / Thursday, May 11, 1995 / Notices

physical endurance and mental

alertness.

The complaint also alleges that

through the use of trade names,

respondents falsely and misleadingly

represented that (1) ‘‘Sleeper’s Diet’’

promotes weight loss during sleep; (2)

‘‘Memory Booster’’ improves memory

retention; (3) ‘‘Dark Circle Eye

Treatment’’ removes dark circles from

under the eyes; and (4) ‘‘Super Fat

Burners’’ reduces body fat.

The consent agreement resolving

these allegations requires respondents to

cease and desist from misrepresenting

the existence, contents, validity, results,

conclusions, or interpretations of any

test, study, research article, or any other

scientific opinion or data. As to the

products ‘‘Sleeper’s Diet,’’ ‘‘LArginine,’’ or ‘‘L-Ornithine,’’ or any

other substantially similar amino acid

product, respondents are to cease and

desist from representing that (1) any

such product stimulates greater

production or release of human growth

hormone in a user than a non-user of

such product; (2) any such product

promotes muscular development; or (3)

any such product burns fat or otherwise

alters human metabolism to use up or

burn stored fat, or promotes weight loss.

In connection with the products LCysteine, L-Methionine, or any other

substantially similar hair care product,

respondents are to cease and desist from

representing that any such product will

prevent or retard hair loss or promote

hair growth where hair has already been

lost. As to any hair care product or

service, respondents are to cease and

desist from representing that (1) the use

of the product or service will prevent,

cure, relieve, reverse, or reduce hair

loss; or (2) the use of the product or

service will promote the growth of hair

where hair already has been lost, unless,

at the time of making such

representation, respondents possess and

rely upon competent and reliable

scientific evidence that substantiates the

representation.

Respondents are also prohibited from

manufacturing, advertising, labeling,

packaging, promoting, offering for sale,

selling, or distributing any product that

is represented as promoting hair growth

or preventing hair loss, unless the

product is the subject of an approved

new drug application for such purpose

under the Federal Food, Drug, and

Cosmetic Act.

Respondents also are required to

possess and rely upon competent and

reliable scientific evidence as

substantiation for any representation

that any product (1) cures, treats,

prevents, or reduces the risk of

developing any disease, disorder or

condition in humans or relatives

symptoms thereof (2) provides any

weight loss or weight control benefit or

otherwise provides an effective

treatment of obesity; (3) suppresses

appetite, reduces the body’s absorption

of calories, stimulates metabolism, or

reduces serum cholesterol; (4) cures,

treats, prevents or reduces the risk of

benign prostatic hypertrophy; (5)

promotes greater muscular

development, endurance, strength,

power, definition, or stamina, or shorter

exercise recovery or recuperation time

in a user than a non-user of such

product; (6) removes or diminishes dark

circles under the eyes; (7) improves

mental clarity, mental concentration,

mental comprehension, mental

retention or mental alertness; (8) aids

digestion or promotes increased

absorption of nutrients from ingested

foods; (9) relieves stress or promotes

relaxation; or (10) prevents, relieves or

treats fatigue or boosts energy. However,

the agreement states that this

substantiation requirement does not

apply if respondents are merely selling

another manufacturer’s products, and,

inter alia, the product representation is

made only on a product label or insert,

and is not otherwise advertised or

promoted by respondents. The consent

agreement also notes that this ‘‘safe

harbor’’ provision is currently identical

to the ‘‘safe harbor’’ proviso contained

in Paragraph V. of the order in General

Nutrition, Inc., Docket No. 9175, that it

is the intention of the parties to the

instant order that the provisos shall

remain identical, and that respondents

agree to be bound by any subsequent

modifications (including vacation) of

the safe harbor proviso in Docket No.

9175, without any further formal

modification of the instant order.

Respondents retain their right to file a

petition to modify or vacate the instant

order.

Also under the order, respondents

may not use the name ‘‘Sleeper’s Diet’’

or any other brand name that represents

that such product has the ability to

promote weight loss during sleep; use

the name ‘‘Memory Booster’’ or any

other brand name that represents that

such product improves memory

retention; use the name ‘‘Dark Circle

Eye Treatment’’ or any other brand

name that represents that such product

removes dark circles from under the

eyes; or use the name ‘‘Super Fat

Burners’’ or any other brand name that

represents that such product reduces

body fat, unless, at the time of making

such representation, respondents

possess and rely upon competent and

reliable scientific evidence that

substantiates the representation.

Under the terms of the order,

respondents shall pay $250,000.00 to

the Federal Trade Commission. The

funds paid by respondents shall, in the

discretion of the Federal Trade

Commission, be used to provide direct

redress to consumers allegedly injured

by respondents. If redress to consumers

is impracticable or unwarranted, any

funds not used for redress shall be paid

to the United States Treasury.

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 any of their terms.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

Statement of Commissioner Mary L.

Azcuenaga Concerning Nature’s

Bounty, Inc.

File No. 932 3224

I dissent from the Commission’s

decision to accept a proposed consent

order with Nature’s Bounty and its

subsidiaries, Puritan’s Pride, Inc., and

Vitamin World, Inc., because the order

leaves the respondents free to sell

products they know, or should know,

are deceptively labeled.

The proviso in Paragraph V of the

consent order states that the

respondents would not necessarily be

liable for false or unsubstantiated claims

appearing on the labels or in the

packaging of the products sold at its

stores, even it if were clear that the

companies had actual knowledge that

those claims were unsubstantiated or

untrue. I believe that the other should

hold the respondents liable if they

know, or should know, that the labels or

packaging of any such product contains

false or unsubstantiated claims.

[FR Doc. 95–11554 Filed 5–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

[Dkt. C–3566]

Ninzu, Inc., et al.; 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 requires, among other things, the

Maryland-based marketers to possess

and rely upon competent and reliable

scientific substantiating evidence to
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 91 / Thursday, May 11, 1995 / Notices 25223

1Copies of the Complaint and Decision and Order

are available from the Commission’s Public

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

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. 20580.

support any performance, benefits,

efficacy, or safety claims they make for

any weight loss or weight control

product or program or any acupressure

device they market in the future.

DATES: Complaint and Order issued

April 7, 1995.1

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard Cleland, FTC/S–4002,

Washington, DC. 20580. (202) 326–3088.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

Tuesday, January 31, 1995, there was

published in the Federal Register, 60 FR

5932, a proposed consent agreement

with analysis In the Matter of Ninzu,

Inc., et al., 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 cease and desist, as set forth

in the proposed consent agreement, in

disposition of this proceeding.

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

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

15 U.S.C. 45, 52)

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–11550 Filed 5–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

[File No. 931–0083]

Physicians Group, Inc., 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, the respondent, a

Danville physicians’ group, and its

seven board members from attempting

to engage in an agreement or agreeing

with other physicians to negotiate or

refuse to negotiate with a third party

payor. In addition, it would require

dissolution of the respondent within

120 days.

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:

Mark Horoschak or Rendell Davis, FTC/

S–3115, Washington, DC 20580. (202)

326–2756 or (202) 326–2894.

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)).

Before Federal Trade Commission

In the matter of Physicians Group, Inc., a

corporation, Edwin J. Harvie, Jr., M.D., Eric

N. Davidson, M.D., Milton Greenberg, M.D.,

Noah F. Gibson, IV, M.D., William W.

Henderson, IV, M.D., Douglas W. Shiflett,

M.D., and Lawrence G. Fehrenbaker, M.D.,

individually. File No. 931 0083.

Agreement Containing Consent Order

To Cease and Desist

The Federal Trade Commission

having initiated an investigation of

certain acts and practices of the

respondents named in the caption

hereof, hereinafter sometimes referred to

as proposed respondents, and it now

appearing that the proposed

respondents are willing to enter into an

agreement containing an order to cease

and desist from the use of the acts and

practices being investigated,

It is hereby agreed by and between the

proposed respondents and counsel for

respondent Physicians Group, Inc., and

counsel for the Federal Trade

Commission that:

1. Proposed Respondent Physicians

Group, Inc. is a nonstock corporation

organized, existing, and doing business

under and by virtue of the laws of the

Commonwealth of Virginia, with its

principal place of business in Danville,

Virginia. For purposes of this agreement

and order, its address is Physicians

Group, Inc., c/o Dr. Edwin J. Harvie, Jr.,

101 Holbrook Street, Danville, Virginia

24541.

2. The individual respondents named

in the caption above are the members of

the board of directors of proposed

respondent Physicians Group, Inc., are

physicians licensed to practice

medicine in the Commonwealth of

Virginia, and are engaged in the

business of providing physician services

to patients for a fee in Pittsylvania

County and Danville, Virginia. Their

respective business addresses are as

follows:

Edwin J. Harvie, Jr., M.D., Internal

Medicine Associates, Ltd., 101

Holbrook Street, Danville, Virginia

24541;

Eric N. Davidson, M.D., Piedmont

Internal Medicine, Inc., 125 Executive

Drive, Suite H, Danville, Virginia

24541;

Milton Greenberg, M.D., 171 South

Main Street, Danville, Virginia 24541;

Noah F. Gibson, IV, M.D., 181 North

Main Street, Danville, Virginia 24541;

William W. Henderson, IV, M.D.,

Danville Pulmonary Clinic, Inc., 110

Exchange Street, Suite G, Danville,

Virginia 24541;

Douglas W. Shiflett, M.D., Internal

Medicine Associates, Ltd., 101

Holbrook Street, Danville, Virginia

24541; and

Lawrence G. Fehrenbaker, M.D.,

Danville Urologic Clinic, P.O. Box

1360, Danville, Virginia 24543.

3. Proposed respondents admit all the

jurisdictional facts set forth in the draft

of complaint.

4. Proposed respondents waive:

(a) Any further procedural steps;

(b) The requirement that the

Commission’s decision contain a

statement of findings of fact and

conclusions of law;

(c) All rights to seek judicial review

or otherwise to challenge or contest the

validity of the order entered pursuant to

this agreement; and

(d) Any claim under the Equal Access

to Justice Act.

5. This agreement shall not become

part of the public record of the

proceeding unless and until it is

accepted by the Commission. If this

agreement is accepted by the

Commission it, together with the draft of

complaint contemplated thereby, will be

placed on the public record for a period

of sixty (60) days and information with

respect thereto will be publicly released.

The Commission thereafter may either

withdraw its acceptance of this

agreement and so notify the proposed

respondents, in which event it will take

such action as it may consider

appropriate, or issue and serve its

complaint (in such form as the

circumstances may require) and

decision, in disposition of the

proceeding.

6. This agreement is for settlement

purposes only and does not constitute