[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 163 (Wednesday, August 23, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43802-43803]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-20902]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Dkt. 5448]
Rubber Manufacturers Association, Inc., et al.; Prohibited Trade
Practices and Affirmative Corrective Actions
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
ACTION: Set aside order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This order reopens a 1948 consent order--which prohibited the
Association from formulating or enforcing resale price agreements,
exchanging resale price information or entering into price-fixing
agreements--and sets aside the consent order as to respondent Rubber
Manufacturers Association 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 February 2, 1948. Set aside order issued
July 19, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Piotrowski, FTC/S-2115,
Washington, D.C. 20580. (202) 326-2623.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Matter of Rubber Manufacturers
Association, Inc., et al. 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. 5,
38 Stat. 719, as amended; 15 U.S.C. 45)
Commissioners: Robert Pitofsky, Chairman, Mary L. Azcuenaga, Janet
D. Steiger, Roscoe B. Starek, III, Christine A. Varney
In the Matter of--
Rubber Manufacturers Association, Inc., a corporation;
George Flint, an individual;
Auburn Rubber Corporation, a corporation;
Avon Sole Company, a corporation;
Dryden Rubber Company, a corporation;
Essex Rubber Company, a corporation;
The B.F. Goodrich Company, a corporation;
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, a corporation;
Alfred Hale Rubber Corporation, a corporation;
The Holtite Manufacturing Company, a corporation;
Hood Rubber Company, a corporation;
The I.T.S. Company, a corporation;
The O'Sullivan Rubber Company, a corporation;
Panther-Panco Rubber Company, Inc., a corporation;
Seiberling Rubber Company, a corporation;
United States Rubber Company, a corporation;
Rubber Heel & Sole Manufacturers Association, a trade association;
R.S. Crawford, an individual;
Avon Sole Company, a corporation;
The Bearfoot Sole Company, Inc., a corporation;
Beebe Brothers Rubber Company, a corporation;
Bradstone Rubber Company, a corporation;
The Hagerstown Rubber Company, a corporation;
Hanover Rubber Company, a corporation;
Lynch Heel Company, a corporation;
The Monarch Rubber Company, Inc., a corporation;
The Norwalk Tire & Rubber Company, a corporation;
Plymouth Rubber Company, Inc., a corporation;
Quabaug Rubber Company, a corporation;
Travelite Rubber Company, Inc., a corporation;
Victor Products Corporation of Pennsylvania, a corporation;
Webster Rubber Company, a corporation;
Connecticut Leather & Findings Association, Inc., a corporation;
Harry Diamond, an individual;
Bridgefport Leather Company, a corporation;
Maurice Greenberg, an individual;
Diamond Leather Company, a corporation;
Louis Geghter, an individual;
New Haven Leather Company, Inc., a corporation;
Puzzo Brothers Company, a corporation;
Rochina Decroce and Anthony Decroce, Copartners d/b/a Torrington
Leather Company;
Zich Leather Company, a corporation; and
Cat's Paw Rubber Company, Inc., a corporation.
Order Reopening Proceeding and Setting Aside Order as to Respondent
Rubber Manufacturers Association, Inc.
On March 17, 1995, Rubber Manufacturers Association, Inc. (``Rubber
Manufacturers'') one of forty-three respondents named in this consent
order,\1\ filed its Petition to Reopen and Set Aside Consent Orders
(``Petition'') in this matter. Rubber Manufacturers requests that the
Commission set aside the 1948 consent order in this matter pursuant to
Section 5(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(b), Rule
2.51 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 16 C.F.R. 2.51, and the
Statement of Policy With Respect to Duration of Competition Orders and
Statement of Intention to Solicit Public Comment With Respect to
Duration of Consumer Protection Orders, issued on July 22, 1994, and
published at 59 FR 45,286-92 (Sept. 1, 1994) (``Sunset Policy
Statement''). In the Petition, Rubber Manufacturers affirmatively
states that it has not engaged in any conduct violating the terms of
the order. The Petition was placed on the public record, and the
thirty-day comment period expired on May 10, 1995. One comment,
relating to general policy issues concerning the Commission's Sunset
Policy Statement, was received.
\1\ The remaining respondents did not petition the Commission to
reopen and set aside the order as to them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.'' \2\ The Commission's consent order
in Docket No. 5448 was issued on February 2, 1948, and has been in
effect for forty-seven 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. 5448 as to respondent Rubber
Manufacturers.
\2\ See Sunset Policy Statement, 59 Fed. Reg. at 45,289.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
5448 be, and it hereby is, set aside, as to respondent Rubber
Manufacturers, as of the effective date of this order.
By the Commission.
Benjamin I. Berman,
Acting Secretary.
Concurring Statement of Commissioner Mary L. Azcuenaga in Rubber
Manufacturers Association, Inc., D. 5448 and D. 7505
I concur in the decision to grant the request of the Rubber
Manufacturers Association, Inc. to set aside the 1948 order in Docket
No. D. 5448 and the 1962 order in Docket No. D. 7505. I dissent from
the decision to limit the
[[Page 43803]]
setting aside of the order to the association, instead of setting aside
the order in its entirety.
The decision to limit relief to the Rubber Manufacturers
Association, one of forty-three respondents under the order, appears to
be inconsistent with the Commission's announced policy to presume
``that the public interest requires reopening and setting aside the
order in its entirety'' (emphasis added) ``when a petition to reopen
and modify a competition order is filed'' and the order is more than
twenty years old.\1\ The Commission's recognition of the limitations of
the findings underlying an order \2\ further suggests that the
presumption that an order will be terminated after twenty years should
apply to the order in its entirety and not be limited to the
petitioner.\3\
\1\ FTC, Statement of Policy with Respect to Duration of
Competition Orders and Statement of Intention To Solicit Public
Comment with Respect to Duration of Consumer Protection Orders (July
22, 1994), at 8 (hereafter ``Sunset Policy Statement'').
\2\ ``[F]indings upon which [orders] are based should not be
presumed to continue' for longer than twenty years. Sunset Policy
Statement at 4.
\3\ The presumption of termination after 20 years applies
automatically for new orders in competition cases and is not limited
to individual respondents, further supporting the view that the
twenty-year presumption in favor of sunset for existing orders
should apply to the order, not to particular respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I previously have expressed my concern that the adoption of a
presumption instead of an across-the-board rule in favor of sunset
``will impose costs by requiring respondents to file individual
petitions and the Commission to assess in the context of each such
petition whether the presumption has been overcome for that order.''
\4\ Now the Commission would further increase the burden on both public
and private resources by applying the presumption in favor of sunset
not only on a case-by-case basis but on a respondent-by respondent
basis.
\4\ Separate Statement of Commissioner Mary L. Azcuenaga on
Sunset Policy (July 22, 1994), at 7 (footnote omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petition filed by the Rubber Manufacturers Association invoked
the twenty-year presumption that the order should be set aside. No
evidence of recidivist conduct by any of the forty-three respondents,
having been presented to overcome the presumption,\5\ the order should
be set aside in its entirety.
\5\ See Sunset Policy Statement at 8 n.19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 95-20902 Filed 8-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
