Multiple Award Schedule Advisory Panel; Notification of Public Advisory Panel Meeting /SUBJECT>, 65859 [E8-26323]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 5, 2008 / Notices
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
useful role for continued antitrust
scrutiny of RPM.
* * *
At this early stage of the application
of Leegin by the lower courts and the
Commission, the Leegin factors can
serve as helpful guides to begin an
assessment of when RPM deserves
closer scrutiny. Through the
Commission’s own enforcement work,
research, and external consultations
such as workshops, we anticipate
further refinements to this analysis,
including the further specification of
scenarios in which RPM poses
potential hazards and those in which
it does not.
Nine West, supra n. 11 at 9-14 (citations
omitted).
By holding these Workshops, the FTC
hopes to identify the market facts,
circumstances, and conditions under
which the use of RPM is likely to be
procompetitive or benign, as opposed to
anticompetitive and harmful to
consumers. The Commission believes
that an appropriate antitrust approach to
RPM requires the means for
distinguishing permissible from
impermissible conduct in varied
circumstances. Moreover, those means
should provide reasonable guidance to
businesses attempting to evaluate the
legality of proposed conduct before
undertaking it. The development of
clear standards that both protect
consumers and enable businesses to
adopt strategies that comply with the
antitrust laws presents some of the most
complex issues facing the Commission,
the courts, and the antitrust bar.
Given this challenge—and because
antitrust analysis must reflect the
particular market facts and
circumstances within which a restraint
has been adopted—the FTC encourages
commenters to describe actual examples
of RPM that the FTC should consider in
the context of the Workshop, discuss the
business reasons for the conduct, and
the actual or likely competitive effects
of the conduct.
Illustrative Questions for Consideration
With Respect to the RPM Usages That
the Commenter Discusses. Commenters
should indicate whether responses
would change if the conduct is an
express RPM agreement or an RPM
arrangement that achieves its outcome
under a Colgate policy.13 Commenters
13 A manufacturer uses a Colgate policy when it
does not ask retailers for any agreement regarding
resale prices; rather, the manufacturer announces in
advance that it will only sell its products to retailers
that resell those products at or above the prices it
specifies, and then enforces the policy by deciding
unilaterally that it will refuse to make any future
sales of its products to any retailer who has violated
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:24 Nov 04, 2008
Jkt 217001
should also indicate whether responses
would differ if the arrangement were
directed toward different industry levels
(e.g., retail, wholesale, or manufacturer).
1. How should the structure of the
market and the market shares of
participants be taken into account in
analyzing RPM?
2. Are there other specific market
facts or circumstances that might have
an impact on the likely competitive
effects of RPM under the circumstances
described? Without limiting the scope of
this question, commenters are
specifically invited to comment on the
effect on marginal and inframarginal
consumers.
3. What are the business reasons (e.g.,
management, marketing, financial, etc.)
for the use of RPM? Are there alternative
business strategies available to achieve
the same results? What factors,
including any cost savings, entered the
decision to use RPM to achieve the
desired result?
4. To what extent does uncertainty
regarding the legality of RPM under
state law affect the decision to use RPM?
5. What are the likely procompetitive
and anticompetitive effects of RPM
under the circumstances described?
6. What strategies might competitors
use to respond to a loss of sales to a firm
that uses RPM?
7. Under what market conditions is
the use of RPM likely either to promote
or hinder market entry by other
manufacturers or retailers?
8. Are there industries where the use
of RPM is prominent?
9. Are there any original theoretical,
analytical or empirical studies on the
nature or competitive effects of RPM or
alternatives to RPM that should be
brought to the attention of the
Commission?
10. What tests or standards should
courts or enforcement agencies use in
assessing whether particular conduct
violates Sections 1 or 5? Commenters
are specifically requested to assess
whether the test or standard applicable
to a particular usage of RPM might vary
based on particular market facts or
circumstances. Additionally, are there
particular market facts and
circumstances where the approach
established by the Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit in
Polygram Holding, Inc. v. Fed. Trade
Comm’n, 416 F. 3d (D.C. Cir. 2005),
would or would not be appropriate?
its pricing policies. These arrangements take their
name from the Supreme Court’s decision in United
States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300, 307-8 (1919)
(distinguishing Dr. Miles on the ground that the
‘‘unlawful combination [in that case] was effected
through contracts which undertook to prevent
dealers from freely exercising the right to sell’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
65859
By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8–26404 Filed 11–4–08: 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750–01–S
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
Multiple Award Schedule Advisory
Panel; Notification of Public Advisory
Panel Meeting/SUBJECT≤
U.S. General Services
Administration (GSA).
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The U.S. General Services
Administration’s (GSA) Multiple Award
Schedule Advisory Panel (MAS Panel),
a Federal Advisory Committee, meeting
scheduled for October 27, 2008 was
cancelled.
Dated: October 30, 2008.
David A. Drabkin,
Deputy Chief Acquisition Officer, Office of
the Chief Acquisition Officer, General
Services Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–26323 Filed 11–04–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820–EP–S
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health; Decision To
Evaluate a Petition To Designate a
Class of Employees at the Linde
Ceramics Plant, Tonawanda, NY, To Be
Included in the Special Exposure
Cohort
National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH), Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS).
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) gives notice as
required by 42 CFR 83.12(e) of a
decision to evaluate a petition to
designate a class of employees at the
Linde Ceramics Plant, Tonawanda, New
York, to be included in the Special
Exposure Cohort under the Energy
Employees Occupational Illness
Compensation Program Act of 2000. The
initial proposed definition for the class
being evaluated, subject to revision as
warranted by the evaluation, is as
follows:
Facility: Linde Ceramics Plant.
Location: Tonawanda, New York.
Job Titles and/or Job Duties: All
employees.
E:\FR\FM\05NON1.SGM
05NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 215 (Wednesday, November 5, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 65859]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-26323]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Multiple Award Schedule Advisory Panel; Notification of Public
Advisory Panel Meeting/SUBJECT>
AGENCY: U.S. General Services Administration (GSA).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. General Services Administration's (GSA) Multiple
Award Schedule Advisory Panel (MAS Panel), a Federal Advisory
Committee, meeting scheduled for October 27, 2008 was cancelled.
Dated: October 30, 2008.
David A. Drabkin,
Deputy Chief Acquisition Officer, Office of the Chief Acquisition
Officer, General Services Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-26323 Filed 11-04-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-EP-S
