Notices. Proposed Consent Agreement

13,242 words·~60 min read·/register/2006/11/09/06-9085

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION [File No. 061 0187] Thermo Electron Corporation; Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Orders to Aid Public Comment AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. ACTION: Proposed Consent Agreement. SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this matter settles 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 complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 15, 2006. ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments. Comments should refer to “Thermo Electron Corp., File No. 061 0187,” to facilitate the organization of comments. A comment filed in paper form should include this reference both in the text and on the envelope, and should be mailed or delivered to the following address: Federal Trade Commission/Office of the Secretary, Room 135-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580.

Comments containing confidential material must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with Commission Rule 4.9(c). 16 CFR 4.9(c) (2005). 1 The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions. Comments that do not contain any nonpublic information may instead be filed in electronic form as part of or as an attachment to e-mail messages directed to the following e-mail box: *consentagreement@ftc.gov.* 1 The comment must be accompanied by an explicit request for confidential treatment, including the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record.

The request will be granted or denied by the Commission's General Counsel, consistent with applicable law and the public interest. *See* Commission Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. All timely and responsive public comments, whether filed in paper or electronic form, will be considered by the Commission, and will be available to the public on the FTC Web site, to the extent practicable, at *www.ftc.gov.* As a matter of discretion, the FTC makes every effort to remove home contact information for individuals from the public comments it receives before placing those comments on the FTC Web site.

More information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC's privacy policy, at *http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard H. Cunningham, Bureau of Competition, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580,

(202)326-2214. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and § 2.34 of the Commission Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned 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 thirty

(30)days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for October 17, 2006), on the World Wide Web, at *http://www.ftc.gov/os/2006/10/index.htm.* A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public Reference Room, Room 130-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580, either in person or by calling

(202)326-2222. Public comments are invited, and may be filed with the Commission in either paper or electronic form. All comments should be filed as prescribed in the ADDRESSES section above, and must be received on or before the date specified in the DATES section. Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Order To Aid Public Comment I. Introduction The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an Agreement Containing Consent Orders (“Consent Agreement”) from Thermo Electron Corporation (“Thermo”). The purpose of the Consent Agreement is to remedy the anticompetitive effects resulting from Thermo's acquisition of Fisher Scientific International Inc. (“Fisher”). Under the terms of the Consent Agreement, Thermo is required to divest Genevac Limited and Genevac, Inc. (hereinafter referred to together as “Genevac”), which together comprise the entirety of Fisher's centrifugal vacuum evaporator (“CVE”) business, within five months after the date Thermo signed the Consent Agreement. The Consent Agreement has been placed on the public record for thirty days to solicit comments from interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty days, the Commission will again review the Consent Agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the Consent Agreement or make it final. Pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated May 7, 2006, Thermo proposes to acquire Fisher in a transaction valued at approximately $12.8 billion. The Commission's complaint alleges that the proposed acquisition, if consummated, would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, by lessening competition in the market for high-performance CVEs. II. The Parties Headquartered in Waltham, Massachusetts, Thermo is one of the largest and most diversified suppliers of analytical instruments in the world. Founded in 1956, the company now employs 11,000 people worldwide with offices in thirty countries. Thermo owns many well-known laboratory equipment brands and sells high-performance CVEs under its Savant Speedvac brand. Thermo's 2005 worldwide revenue was $2.6 billion and its North American sales were approximately $1.2 billion. Fisher is headquartered in Hampton, New Hampshire. Founded in 1902 to supply equipment and consumables to laboratories, Fisher today employs 19,500 people worldwide, 13,000 of those in the United States. The company is divided into three segments: biopharma services, scientific equipment and products, and distribution. Fisher has many well-known laboratory equipment and instrument brands and sells its CVE products under the Genevac brand. Through its distribution operations, Fisher sells approximately 600,000 scientific and laboratory products and serves over 350,000 customers worldwide. Fisher's 2005 worldwide revenue was $5.6 billion, of which $4.1 billion was achieved in the United States. III. High-Performance CVEs High-performance CVEs apply heat, vacuum, and centrifugal force to rapidly remove solvents from samples suspended in solution in the wells of microtiter plates or test tubes, while preventing any molecular degradation or cross-contamination of the samples. High-performance CVEs are used primarily in combinatorial chemistry laboratories, which develop processes to simultaneously synthesize large collections of potentially biologically-active molecules, a process called parallel synthesis. The collections of molecules then can be tested for activity against identified targets as potential drug candidates during the early stages of the drug discovery process. In academic laboratories, high-performance CVEs are used to aid in the creation of chemical libraries of potentially biologically-active molecules for research purposes. High-performance CVEs typically cost between $25,000 and $100,000, depending on features and throughput capabilities. CVEs are available in both high-performance and lower-performance models. High-performance CVEs differ from their lower-performance counterparts in a number of significant respects. High-performance CVEs can process hundreds of samples at a time and include advanced control and monitoring capabilities to prevent cross contamination between samples or degradation of the molecules as they are evaporated. They also are compatible with corrosive and environmentally sensitive solvents, such as hydrochloric acid and acetonitrile. In addition, high-performance models offer sophisticated programing capabilities. All of these features are considered useful and necessary by high-performance CVE purchasers because they enhance the efficiency of their work and reduce the likelihood of sample loss, degradation, and contamination. High-performance CVE purchasers do not consider lower-performance CVEs to be viable alternatives because of the high value of the samples, which in many cases take a week or more to synthesize and can represent the entire quantity of the compound that the scientist has developed. The repercussions of a sample loss or degradation resulting from a failure of the CVE are simply too great to justify the use of lower performance CVEs in these applications. Besides the use of CVEs, there are also other methods available for removing solvents and drying samples, such as freeze drying and nitrogen blowdown. These technologies, however, have many limitations as compared to high-performance CVEs. Freeze drying, also called lyophilisation, is an effective technique for drying samples suspended in aqueous solvents. Lyophilisation is far less effective, however, with solvents that are not water-based and can be significantly more time consuming than high-performance CVEs when evaporating a large number of samples. Nitrogen blowdown equipment, which circulates nitrogen—a very dry gas—across the samples' surface to evaporate the solvent, does not capture the evaporated solvent and does not maintain a constant temperature during evaporation. These drawbacks, among others, prevent the alternative technologies from being viable alternatives to high-performance CVEs. The United States is the relevant geographic market in which to analyze the effects of Thermo's proposed acquisition of Fisher in the market for high-performance CVEs. Firms that lack significant U.S. business operations cannot compete meaningfully in the United States. Successful participation in the U.S. high-performance CVE market requires substantial domestic, even local service and support. Because many purchasers use their high-performance CVEs daily, breakdowns may halt work in the lab. Such delay is costly, so customers demand reliable equipment and, in the event of a breakdown, that required service, support, and replacement parts be readily available. Thus, establishing a reputation for high quality products and strong after-sales support is necessary to gain acceptance among customers and succeed in the U.S. high-performance CVE market. IV. Competitive Effects and Entry Conditions Thermo and Fisher are the only two significant suppliers in the approximately $10 million U.S. high-performance CVE market. Thermo and Fisher account for approximately 30 percent and 70 percent of the market, respectively, and compete directly on price, service, and product innovations. The evidence gathered in the Commission's investigation demonstrates that customers receive lower prices and other economic benefits, such as favorable service or payment terms, as a result of the competition between Thermo and Fisher. Indeed, many customers fear that the proposed transaction would allow the merged entity to increase prices of high-performance CVE's considerably, as they would have no alternative but to go along with a price increase imposed by the combined Thermo/Fisher. The evidence also shows that the parties compete on the basis of product performance, features, and innovation resulting in product improvements, such as enhanced vacuum and monitoring capabilities. If the proposed transaction were consummated, Thermo would obtain a virtual monopoly in the U.S. high-performance CVE market. Martin Christ GmbH (“Martin Christ”), which is based in Germany, also offers high-performance CVEs. Martin Christ currently is not a significant competitor in the United States, however, and is not expected to be in the future. Martin Christ has had minimal sales of its high-performance CVE products in the United States during the last three years, and its sales are not likely to increase sufficiently to restore the lost competition. Entry into the relevant market that would be sufficient to deter or counteract the anticompetitive effects of proposed transaction is unlikely to occur in a timely manner, as there are significant impediments to entry and expansion. First, a firm would have to design, develop, and test a product with functionality and reliability nearly equivalent to the products offered by incumbent models, while designing around, or obtaining licenses to, any intellectual property protecting the features and design of the incumbent high-performance CVEs. Second, if a prospective entrant does not have a pre-existing sales force directly selling related products, it also would have to establish a distribution channel by building a sales force and initiating a marketing effort sufficient to convince customers to buy its new high- performance CVE. Third, because high-performance CVEs are used regularly to perform critical laboratory functions, a new entrant must build a reputation for product quality and reliability and for responsive service in order to succeed. Finally, even if an entrant could overcome these barriers to entry, the relatively small high-performance CVE market, and correspondingly limited profit opportunities available to a new entrant, likely are insufficient to justify the investment necessary to enter the high-performance CVE market. V. The Consent Agreement The Consent Agreement effectively remedies the anticompetitive effects that are likely to occur as a result of the proposed transaction on the high-performance CVE market by requiring Thermo to divest Genevac, Fisher's stand alone CVE subsidiary. Pursuant to the Consent Agreement, Thermo is required to divest Genevac to a Commission-approved buyer, at no minimum price, within five months after the date Thermo signed the Consent Agreement. The Commission's goal in evaluating and approving purchasers of divested assets is to ensure that the competitive environment that existed prior to the acquisition is maintained. A proposed acquirer of divested assets must not itself present competitive problems. Should Thermo fail to accomplish the divestiture within the time and in the manner required by the Consent Agreement, the Commission may appoint a trustee to divest the assets. If approved, the trustee would have the exclusive power and authority to accomplish the divestiture within six months of being appointed, subject to any necessary extensions by the Commission. The Consent Agreement requires Thermo to provide the trustee with access to information related to the Genevac business as necessary to fulfill his or her obligations. The Order to Hold Separate and Maintain Assets (“Hold Separate Order”) that is included in the Consent Agreement requires that Thermo hold separate and maintain the viability of Genevac as a competitive operation until the business is transferred to the Commission-approved acquirer. Furthermore, it contains measures designed to ensure that no material confidential information is exchanged between Thermo and Genevac (except as otherwise provided in the Consent Agreement) and provisions designed to prevent interim harm to competition in the high-performance CVE market. The Hold Separate Order provides that the Commission may appoint a Hold Separate Trustee who is charged with the duty of monitoring Thermo's compliance with the Consent Agreement. Pursuant to that order, the Commission has appointed Harry Cole as Hold Separate Trustee to oversee Genevac prior to its divestiture and to ensure that Thermo complies with its obligations under the Consent Agreement. Mr. Cole was employed by Genevac from its incorporation in 1990 until 2005 and held numerous production, service, sales, and management positions, including serving as General Manager of Genevac with plenary responsibility for Genevac's performance. Mr. Cole's extensive background in the CVE market and intimate knowledge of Genevac uniquely qualify him to serve as the Hold Separate Trustee. The Hold Separate Order will become effective upon the date the Commission accepts the Consent Agreement for placement on the public record and will remain in effect until Thermo divests Genevac to a Commission-approved buyer. In the event that Thermo does not divest Genevac within the five-month time period, the Consent Agreement allows the Commission to appoint a trustee to divest Genevac. The Consent Agreement contains several further provisions designed to help ensure that the divestiture of Genevac is successful. First, because a few of Genevac's lower-performance CVEs are currently sold through Fisher's catalog, the Consent Agreement requires Themo, at the acquirer's option, to enter into a distribution agreement with the acquirer for Genevac's products to continue to be sold via the Fisher catalog, ensuring that Thermo cannot diminish Genevac's competitiveness by disrupting Genevac's distribution channels. Second, so that key Genevac employees stay with Genevac through the divestiture process, the Consent Agreement requires Thermo to implement and fund a retention plan for key employees. Third, the Consent Agreement prohibits Thermo from soliciting Genevac employees for at least a year after the divestiture of Genevac. For key Genevac employees, including its management and head of research and development, this prohibition is extended to two years. In order to ensure that the Commission remains informed about the status of the Genevac business pending divestiture, and about the efforts being made to accomplish the divestiture, the Consent Agreement requires Thermo to file periodic reports with the Commission until the divestiture is accomplished. The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the Consent Agreement, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the Decision and Order or the Hold Separate Order, or to modify their terms in any way. By direction of the Commission. Donald S. Clark, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-18917 Filed 11-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION [File No. 061-0139] Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Andrx Corporation; Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Orders to Aid Public Comment AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. ACTION: Proposed Consent Agreement. SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this matter settles 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 complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations. DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 29, 2006. ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments. Comments should refer to “Watson, Inc. and Andrx Corp., File No. 061 0139,” to facilitate the organization of comments. A comment filed in paper form should include this reference both in the text and on the envelope, and should be mailed or delivered to the following address: Federal Trade Commission/Office of the Secretary, Room 135-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. Comments containing confidential material must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with Commission Rule 4.9(c). 16 CFR 4.9(c) (2005). 1 The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions. Comments that do not contain any nonpublic information may instead be filed in electronic form as part of or as an attachment to e-mail messages directed to the following e-mail box: *consentagreement@ftc.gov.* 1 The comment must be accompanied by an explicit request for confidential treatment, including the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. The request will be granted or denied by the Commission's General Counsel, consistent with applicable law and the public interest. *See* Commission Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. All timely and responsive public comments, whether filed in paper or electronic form, will be considered by the Commission, and will be available to the public on the FTC Web site, to the extent practicable, at *http://www.ftc.gov.* As a matter of discretion, the FTC makes every effort to remove home contact information for individuals from the public comments it receives before placing those comments on the FTC Web site. More information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC's privacy policy, at *http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kari Wallace, Bureau of Competition, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580,

(202)326-3085. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and Section 2.34 of the Commission Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned 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 thirty

(30)days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for October 31, 2006), on the World Wide Web, at *http://www.ftc.gov/os/2006/10/index.htm.* A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public Reference Room, Room 130-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580, either in person or by calling

(1)Terminate Watson's marketing agreement with Interpharm Holdings, Inc. (“Interpharm”) and return all of the Watson rights and assets necessary to market generic hydrocodone bitartrate/ibuprofen tablets back to Interpharm;

(2)assign and divest the Andrx rights and assets necessary to develop, manufacture, and market generic extended release glipizide (“glipizide ER”) tablets to Actavis Elizabeth LLC, a subsidiary of The Actavis Group hf. (“Actavis”); and

(3)divest the Andrx rights and assets necessary to develop, manufacture, and market the eleven generic oral contraceptive products to Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. (“Teva”). The proposed Consent Agreement has been placed on the public record for thirty

(30)days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty

(30)days, the Commission will again review the proposed Consent Agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the proposed Consent Agreement, modify it, or make final the Decision and Order (“Order”). Pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated March 12, 2006, Watson proposes to acquire all of the outstanding shares of Andrx at a cost of $25.00 per share. The Commission's Complaint alleges that the proposed acquisition, if consummated, would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, by lessening competition in the U.S. markets for the manufacture and sale of the following generic pharmaceutical products:

(1)Hydrocodone bitartrate/ibuprofen tablets;

(2)glipizide ER tablets; and

(3)eleven oral contraceptive products (the “Products”). The proposed Consent Agreement will remedy the alleged violations by replacing the lost competition that would result from the acquisition in each of these markets. The Products and Structure of the Markets The proposed acquisition of Andrx by Watson would strengthen Watson's position in generic pharmaceuticals and provide Watson with a stronger pipeline of generic products. The companies overlap in a number of generic pharmaceutical markets, and if consummated, the transaction likely would lead to anticompetitive effects in thirteen of these markets, including eleven oral contraceptive markets. The transaction would reduce the number of competing generic suppliers in the overlap markets. The number of generic suppliers has a direct and substantial effect on generic pricing as each additional generic supplier can have a competitive impact on the market. Because there are multiple generic equivalents for each of the products at issue here, the branded versions no longer significantly constrain the generics' pricing. For four generic products, Watson and Andrx currently are two of a small number of suppliers offering the product. In each of these markets, there are a limited number of competitors. In nine additional oral contraceptive product markets, both Watson and Andrx have generic products either on the market or in development. Furthermore, there are few firms that are capable of, and interested in, entering these markets. As a result, the proposed acquisition would eliminate important future competition in these markets. Hydrocodone bitartrate/ibuprofen is a combination of an opioid analgesic agent, hydrocodone bitartrate, and a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (“NSAID”), ibuprofen and is the generic version of Abbott Laboratories Inc.'s Vicoprofen. Generic hydrocodone bitartrate/ibuprofen tablets are used for the short-term management of acute pain and have been available in the United States since 2003. In 2005, sales of generic hydrocodone bitartrate/ibuprofen exceeded $62 million. Only three companies compete in the generic hydrocodone bitartrate/ibuprofen market: Watson, Andrx, and Teva. An additional company is in the process of obtaining FDA approval and expects to enter the market once the approval is granted, which is likely to occur in the next two years. Teva is the market leader with approximately 62 percent of the market. Andrx and Watson account for the rest of the market with about 27 percent and 12 percent market share, respectively. After Watson's acquisition of Andrx, Watson's market share would increase from 12 percent to approximately 39 percent, and Teva would be the only remaining competitor to Watson. Glipizide ER is the generic version of Pfizer's Glucotrol XL. Glipizide ER corrects the effects of type 2 diabetes by stimulating the release of insulin in the pancreas, thereby reducing blood sugar levels in the body. Generic glipizide ER was first introduced in the United States in November 2003. In 2005, sales of generic glipizide ER totaled approximately $174 million. Watson is the leading supplier in the U.S. market for generic glipizide ER tablets with over 45 percent of the market. Only two other firms, Andrx and Greenstone Ltd. (“Greenstone”), compete with Watson in this market. Andrx and Greenstone have market shares of about 35 percent and 20 percent, respectively. Post-acquisition, Watson's market share would increase to over 80 percent, and Greenstone would be the only other remaining U.S. supplier of generic glipizide ER. Oral contraceptives are pills taken by mouth to prevent ovulation and pregnancy. They are the most common method of reversible birth control, used by up to 82 percent of women in the United States at some time during their reproductive years. Oral contraceptives contain various formulations of synthetic estrogen and progestin, which are chemical analogues of natural female hormones. Andrx and Teva have an agreement whereby Andrx develops and manufactures these oral contraceptives and Teva markets the products. Andrx also receives a royalty payment on Teva's sales of the products. In each of the eleven relevant oral contraceptive markets, Watson and Andrx/Teva are two of a limited number of suppliers or potential entrants. Two of the oral contraceptive products at issue are currently marketed formulations of generic norgestimate/ethinyl estradiol bioequivalent to the branded products, Ortho-Cyclen and Ortho Tri-Cyclen, from Johnson & Johnson. Both products have varying ratios of norgestimate (a progestin) and ethinyl estradiol (an estrogen) that prevent ovulation and pregnancy. Generic formulations of Ortho-Cyclen and Ortho Tri-Cyclen are among the best selling generic oral contraceptives, representing sales of over $58 million and $261 million, respectively, in 2005. Watson, Andrx/Teva, and Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Barr”) are the only suppliers of generic Ortho-Cyclen and generic Ortho Tri-Cyclen in the United States. After the acquisition, the combined Watson/Andrx would account for 28 percent of the generic Ortho-Cyclen market. Watson is the leading supplier in the U.S. market for the manufacture and sale of generic Ortho Tri-Cyclen tablets. After the acquisition, Watson would account for 56 percent of the market. Watson currently competes in seven additional oral contraceptive markets where Andrx/Teva is developing competitive products. These seven markets represent generic products that are equivalent to Ortho-cept, Triphasil 28, Alesse, Ortho-Novum 1/35, Ortho-Novum 7/7/7, Loestrin FE (1 mg/0.020 mg), and Loestrin FE (1.5 mg/0.030 mg). In each of these highly concentrated markets, Watson is one of only two or three suppliers. Andrx/Teva is one of a limited number of firms developing generic oral contraceptives that would compete in each of these markets, and is well-positioned to enter the markets in a timely manner. Both Watson and Andrx/Teva are developing generic Mircette tablets and generic Ovcon-35 tablets. They are two of a limited number of suppliers capable of entering these future generic markets in a timely manner. Entry Entry into the markets for the manufacture and sale of the Products would not be timely, likely or sufficient in its magnitude, character, and scope to deter or counteract the anticompetitive effects of the acquisition. Developing and obtaining Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approval for the manufacture and sale of the Products takes at least two

(2)years due to substantial regulatory, technological, and intellectual property barriers. Effects The proposed acquisition would cause significant anticompetitive harm to consumers in the U.S. markets for the manufacture and sale of generic hydrocodone bitartrate/ibuprofen tablets, generic glipizide ER tablets, generic Ortho-Cyclen tablets, and generic Ortho Tri-Cyclen tablets. In generic pharmaceutical markets, pricing is heavily influenced by the number of competitors that participate in a given market. Here, the evidence shows that the price of the generic pharmaceutical product at issue decreases with the entry of each additional competitor. The proposed transaction would eliminate one of at most four competitors in these markets. Evidence gathered during our investigation indicates that anticompetitive effects—whether unilateral or coordinated—are likely to result from a decrease in the number of independent competitors in the markets at issue. In the markets for generic hydrocodone bitartrate/ibuprofen and generic glipizide ER, the acquisition of Andrx by Watson would leave only two current competitors: The combined firm and one other company. The evidence indicates that the presence of three independent competitors in these markets allows customers to negotiate lower prices, and that a reduction in the number of competitors would allow the merged entity and other market participants to raise prices. Likewise, in the generic oral contraceptive markets, the reduction in the number of competitors from three to two would likely lead to higher prices. The competitive concerns can be characterized as both unilateral and coordinated in nature. The homogenous nature of the products involved, the minimal incentives to deviate, and the relatively predictable prospects of gaining new business all indicate that the firms in the market will find it profitable to coordinate their pricing. The impact that a reduction in the number of firms would have on pricing can also be explained in terms of unilateral effects, as the likelihood that the merging parties would be the first and second choices in a significant number of bidding situations is enhanced where the number of firms participating in the market decreases substantially. The acquisition also would cause significant anticompetitive harm to consumers in the U.S. markets for the manufacture and sale of generic Ortho-Cept tablets, generic Triphasil 28 tablets, generic Alesse tablets, generic OrthoNovum 1/35 tablets, generic OrthoNovum 7/7/7 tablets, generic Loestrin FE (1 mg/0.020 mg) tablets, and generic Loestrin FE (1.5 mg/0.030 mg) tablets, generic Mircette tablets and generic Ovcon-35 tablets by eliminating future competition between Watson and Andrx. In each of these markets, there are no more than three current suppliers, and Andrx is poised to enter in the near future. Andrx's independent entry into these markets likely would result in lower prices. The proposed transaction would eliminate that independent entry and, hence, would leave prices at their current, higher levels. The Consent Agreement The proposed Consent Agreement effectively remedies the proposed acquisition's anticompetitive effects in the relevant product markets. Pursuant to the Consent Agreement, Watson and Andrx are required to divest certain rights and assets related to the relevant products to a Commission-approved acquirer no later than ten

(10)days after the acquisition. Specifically, the proposed Consent Agreement requires that:

(1)Watson terminate its marketing agreement with Interpharm, thereby returning all of its rights to generic hydrocodone bitartrate/ibuprofen back to Interpharm;

(2)Andrx divest its rights and assets to generic glipizide ER to Actavis, including assigning its supply agreement with Pfizer, Inc.; and

(3)Andrx divest its rights and assets related to the eleven generic oral contraceptives to Teva, and supply Teva with the products for five years in order for Teva (or its designated contract manufacturer) to obtain all necessary FDA approvals to manufacture and sell the products independently. The acquirers of the divested assets must receive the prior approval of the Commission. The Commission's goal in evaluating possible purchasers of divested assets is to maintain the competitive environment that existed prior to the acquisition. A proposed acquirer of divested assets must not itself present competitive problems. Interpharm specializes in the development, manufacture, and marketing of generic pharmaceutical and over-the-counter products. Interpharm currently manufactures and markets 23 generic pharmaceutical products, and has ten ANDAs under review by the FDA. As a contract manufacturer for Watson's product, Interpharm is an acceptable acquirer of generic hydrocodone bitartrate/ibuprofen because it already has the experience, know-how, and manufacturing infrastructure to produce and sell generic hydrocodone bitartrate/ibuprofen in the United States. Interpharm understands the scientific and technical details of generic hydrocodone bitartrate/ibuprofen because it formulated, developed, and tested the product, and registered the product with the FDA. Moreover, Interpharm will not present competitive problems in any of the markets in which it will acquire a divested asset because it currently does not compete in those markets. With its resources, capabilities, good reputation, and experience marketing generic products, Interpharm is well-positioned to replicate the competition that would be lost with the proposed acquisition. Actavis is a leading developer, manufacturer, marketer, and distributer of generic pharmaceutical products, and is an acceptable acquirer of generic glipizide ER. Actavis has an extensive distribution network in the United States, with three major manufacturing facilities and approximately 162 pharmaceutical products in the U.S. market. Actavis also has experience obtaining FDA approvals for generic pharmaceutical products. While Actavis currently does not compete in the market for the divested assets, it has the resources, capabilities, good reputation, and experience necessary to restore fully the competition that would be lost if the proposed Watson/Andrx transaction were to proceed unremedied. Teva is a global pharmaceutical company specializing in the development, production, and marketing of generic and branded pharmaceuticals. Founded in 1901 and headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel, Teva employs approximately 25,000 people worldwide and has production facilities in Israel, North America, Europe, and Mexico. Teva and its affiliates are the world's largest generic pharmaceutical company with over 300 generic products, representing $6.6 billion in estimated 2006 revenue. Because of its current agreement with Andrx, and its well-known reputation and experience in the pharmaceutical industry, Teva is ideally positioned to be a viable, independent competitor in the eleven generic oral contraceptive markets. The acquisition of the eleven generic oral contraceptive products by Teva would effectively restore the competition that would be lost with the proposed merger. If the Commission determines that either Interpharm or Actavis is not an acceptable acquirer of the assets to be divested, or that the manner of the divestitures to Interpharm, Actavis, or Teva is not acceptable, the parties must unwind the sale and divest the Products within six

(6)months of the date the Order becomes final to another Commission-approved acquirer. If the parties fail to divest within six

(6)months, the Commission may appoint a trustee to divest the Product assets. The proposed remedy contains several provisions to ensure that the divestitures are successful. The Order requires Watson and Andrx to provide transitional services to enable the Commission-approved acquirers to obtain all of the necessary approvals from the FDA. These transitional services include technology transfer assistance to manufacture the Products in substantially the same manner and quality employed or achieved by Watson and Andrx. The Commission has appointed Francis J. Civille as the Interim Monitor to oversee the asset transfer and to ensure Watson and Andrx's compliance with all of the provisions of the proposed Consent Agreement. Mr. Civille has over 27 years of experience in the pharmaceutical industry. He is a highly-qualified expert in areas such as pharmaceutical research and development, regulatory approval, manufacturing and supply, and marketing. He has provided consulting services in healthcare business development to major pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, universities, and government agencies. In order to ensure that the Commission remains informed about the status of the proposed divestitures and the transfers of assets, the proposed Consent Agreement requires Watson and Andrx to file reports with the Commission periodically until the divestitures and transfers are accomplished. The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed Consent Agreement, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed Order or to modify its terms in any way. By direction of the Commission, with Commissioner Rosch recused. Donald S. Clark, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-18916 Filed 11-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION [File No. 052 3130] Zango, Inc., Formerly Kown as 180solutions, Inc.; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public Comment AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. ACTION: Proposed Consent Agreement. SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this matter settles 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 complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations. DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 5, 2006. ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments. Comments should refer to “Zango, Inc., File No. 052 3130,” to facilitate the organization of comments. A comment filed in paper form should include this reference both in the text and on the envelope, and should be mailed or delivered to the following address: Federal Trade Commission/Office of the Secretary, Room 135-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. Comments containing confidential material must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with Commission Rule 4.9(c). 16 CFR 4.9(c) (2005). 1 The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions. Comments that do not contain any nonpublic information may instead be filed in electronic form as part of or as an attachment to e-mail messages directed to the following e-mail box: *consentagreement@ftc.gov.* 1 The comment must be accompanied by an explicit request for confidential treatment, including the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. The request will be granted or denied by the Commission's General Counsel, consistent with applicable law and the public interest. *See* Commission Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. All timely and responsive public comments, whether filed in paper or electronic form, will be considered by the Commission, and will be available to the public on the FTC Web site, to the extent practicable, at *http://www.ftc.gov.* As a matter of discretion, the FTC makes every effort to remove home contact information for individuals from the public comments it receives before placing those comments on the FTC Web site. More information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC's privacy policy, at *http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David K. Koehler (202-326-3627) or Carl H. Settlemyer (202-326-2019), Bureau of Consumer Protection, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and Section 2.34 of the Commission Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned 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 thirty

(30)days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for November 3, 2006), on the World Wide Web, at *http://www.ftc.gov/os/2006/11/index.htm.* A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public Reference Room, Room 130-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580, either in person or by calling

(30)days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty

(30)days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement or make final the agreement's proposed order. General Allegations Respondents develop, market, and distribute via Internet downloads advertising software programs (“adware”)—including programs with the names n-CASE, 180search Assistant, Seekmo, and Zango—that monitor consumers' Internet use in order to display targeted pop-up ads. This matter concerns allegations that Respondents:

(1)Via a network of numerous affiliates and sub-affiliates installed their adware on consumers' computers without adequate notice or consent; and

(2)made their adware difficult for consumers to identify, locate, and remove. The Commission's complaint alleges that from at least 2002 through 2005, the primary way Respondents distributed their adware was through a network of affiliates. These affiliates often recruited large numbers of third-party sub-affiliates who purported to offer, generally for free, some content to the public, such as Internet browser upgrades, utilities, games, screensavers, peer-to-peer file sharing software and/or entertainment content (hereinafter “lureware”) and bundled the adware with that content. The Commission's complaint further alleges that consumers often have been unaware that Respondents' adware would be installed on their computers because it was not adequately disclosed to them that downloading the lureware would result in installation of Respondents' adware. In some instances, no reference to the adware was made on websites offering the lureware or in the install windows. In others, information regarding the adware was available only by clicking on inconspicuous hyperlinks contained in the install windows or in lengthy terms and conditions regarding the lureware. Often the existence and information about the effects of Respondents' adware could only be ascertained, if at all, by clicking through multiple inconspicuous hyperlinks. Other affiliates and sub-affiliates used security exploits and drive-by downloads to bypass consumer notice and consent completely. The complaint alleges that Respondents knew or should have known of their affiliates' and sub-affiliates' widespread failure to provide adequate notice of their adware and obtain consumer consent to its installation. The Commission's complaint further alleges that Respondents, until at least mid-2005, made identifying, locating, and removing their adware extremely difficult for consumers. Among other things, Respondents: installed code on consumers' computers that would enable their adware to be reinstalled silently after consumers attempted to uninstall or remove it; failed to identify adequately the name or source of the adware in pop-up ads so as to enable consumers to locate the adware on their computers; named adware files or processes with names resembling core systems software or applications and placing files in a variety of locations; listed the adware in the Windows Add/Remove utility under names intended and/or likely to confuse consumers; required consumers to have a live Internet connection and download additional software from Respondents to uninstall the adware; represented to consumers that the adware did not show pop-up ads and/or exaggerated the consequences of uninstalling the adware; provided uninstall tools that failed to uninstall the adware in whole or part; and/or reinstalled the adware files on consumers' computers with randomly generated names to avoid further detection and removal. Deception Allegation The Commission's complaint alleges that by offering content over the Internet such as browser upgrades, utilities, games, screensavers, peer-to-peer file sharing software and/or entertainment content, without disclosing adequately that this content was bundled with Respondents' adware, Respondents committed a deceptive practice. The bundling of Respondents' adware, which monitors their Internet use and causes them to receive pop-up advertisements, would be material to consumers in their decision whether to download the other software programs and/or content. Unfairness Allegations The Commission's complaint also alleges that it was an unfair practice for Respondents to install on consumers' computers, without their knowledge or authorization, adware that could not be reasonably identified, located, or removed by consumers. In addition, the complaint alleges that it was an unfair practice, in and of itself, for Respondents not to provide consumers with a reasonable means to identify, locate, and remove Respondents' adware from their computers. The complaint further alleges that these practices have caused or are likely to cause substantial consumer injury by requiring consumers to spend substantial time and/or money to locate and remove this adware from their computers. The injury to consumers was neither reasonably avoided by the consumers themselves, nor outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. The Proposed Consent Order The proposed consent order contains provisions designed to prevent Respondents from engaging in similar acts and practices in the future and to halt continuing harm caused by Respondents' prior unlawful practices. Part I of the proposed order prohibits Respondents from contacting any consumer's computer, to display ads or otherwise, if their adware was installed on that computer before January 1, 2006. Parts II and III prohibit Respondents from, or assisting others in, installing software onto any computer by exploiting security vulnerabilities or failing to give adequate notice to consumers, or installing any software program or application without express consent. “Express consent” is defined in the proposed order to require clear and prominent disclosure of material terms prior to and separate from any end user license agreement, and consumer activation of the download or installation via clicking a button or a substantially similar action. Part IV requires Respondents to establish, implement, and maintain a clearly disclosed, user-friendly mechanism through which consumers can report and Respondents can timely address complaints regarding Respondents' practices. Part V requires Respondents to establish, implement, and maintain a comprehensive program that is reasonably designed to require affiliates to obtain express consent before installing Respondents' software onto consumers' computers. Part V also contains sub-parts mandating certain measures Respondents must take to monitor their distribution network. Part VI requires Respondents to identify advertisements served via Respondents' adware in order for consumers to easily locate the source of the advertisement, easily access Respondents' complaint mechanism, and access directions on how to uninstall such adware. Part VII requires Respondents to provide reasonable and effective means for consumers to uninstall Respondents' adware. Part IX requires Respondents to pay $3 million to the Commission over the course of a year. In the discretion of the Commission, these funds may be used to provide such relief as it determines to be reasonably related to Respondents' practices alleged in the complaint, and to pay any attendant administrative costs. Such relief may include the rescission of contracts, payment of damages, and/or public notification respecting such unfair or deceptive practices. If the Commission determines, in its sole discretion, that such relief is wholly or partially impractical, any funds not used shall be paid to the U.S. Treasury. Part X requires Respondents to cooperate with the Commission in this action or any subsequent investigations related to or associated with the transactions or the occurrences that are the subject of the Complaint. The remaining order provisions govern record retention (Part VIII), order distribution (Part XI), ongoing reporting requirements (Parts XII and XIII), and filing a compliance report (Part XIV). Part XV provides that the order will terminate after twenty

(20)years under certain circumstances. 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 in any way their terms. By direction of the Commission. Donald S. Clark, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-18912 Filed 11-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION No FEAR Act Notice AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission (FTC). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission

(FTC)is providing notice to its employees, former employees, and applicants for Federal employment about the rights and remedies available to them under the Federal antidiscrimination, whistleblower protection, and retaliation laws. This notice fulfills the FTC's initial notification obligation under the Notification and Federal Employees Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act (No FEAR Act), as implemented by Office of Personnel Management

(OPM)regulations at 5 CFR part 724. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Wiggs, Director, Office of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO), by mail at Federal Trade Commission, Mail Drop H-413, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580, or by telephone at

(202)326-2197. Additional information can be found on the FTC's Web site at *http://www.ftc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 15, 2002, Congress enacted the “Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002,” which is now known as the No FEAR Act. *See* Pub. L. 107-174, codified at 5 U.S.C. 2301 note. As stated in the full title of the Act, the Act is intended to “require that Federal agencies be accountable for violations of antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws.” In support of this purpose, Congress found that “agencies cannot be run effectively if those agencies practice or tolerate discrimination.” Pub. L. 107-174, section 101(1). The Act also requires this agency to provide this notice to its Federal employees, former Federal employees and applicants for Federal employment to inform you of the rights and protections available to you under Federal antidiscrimination, whistleblower protection, and retaliation laws. Antidiscrimination Laws A Federal agency cannot discriminate against an employee or applicant with respect to the terms, conditions or privileges of employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, marital status or political affiliation. Discrimination on these bases is prohibited by one or more of the following statutes: 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(1), 29 U.S.C. 206(d), 29 U.S.C. 631, 29 U.S.C. 633a, 29 U.S.C. 791 and 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16. If you believe that you have been the victim of unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or disability, you must contact an Equal Employment Opportunity

(EEO)counselor within 45 calendar days of the alleged discriminatory action, or, in the case of a personnel action, within 45 calendar days of the effective date of the action, before you can file a formal complaint of discrimination with your agency. *See* , *e.g.* , 29 CFR part 1614. If you believe that you have been the victim of unlawful discrimination on the basis of age, you must either contact an EEO counselor as noted above or give notice of intent to sue to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

(EEOC)within 180 calendar days of the alleged discriminatory action. If you are alleging discrimination based on marital status or political affiliation, you may file a written complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel

(OSC)(see contact information below). In the alternative (or in some cases, in addition), you may pursue a discrimination complaint by filing a grievance through your agency's administrative or negotiated grievance procedures, if such procedures apply and are available. Whistleblower Protection Laws A Federal employee with authority to take, direct others to take, recommend or approve any personnel action must not use that authority to take or fail to take, or threaten to take or fail to take, a personnel action against an employee or applicant because of disclosure of information by that individual that is reasonably believed to evidence violations of law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, unless disclosure of such information is specifically prohibited by law and such information is specifically required by Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or the conduct of foreign affairs. Retaliation against an employee or applicant for making a protected disclosure is prohibited by 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8). If you believe that you have been the victim of whistleblower retaliation, you may file a written complaint (Form OSC-11) with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel at 1730 M Street, NW., Suite 218, Washington, DC 20036-4505 or online through the OSC Web site at *http://www.osc.gov.* Retaliation for Engaging in Protected Activity A Federal agency cannot retaliate against an employee or applicant because that individual exercises his or her rights under any of the Federal antidiscrimination or whistleblower protection laws listed above. If you believe that you are the victim of retaliation for engaging in protected activity, you must follow, as appropriate, the procedures described in the Antidiscrimination Laws and Whistleblower Protection Laws sections or, if applicable, the administrative or negotiated grievance procedures in order to pursue any legal remedy. Disciplinary Actions Under the existing laws, each agency retains the right, where appropriate, to discipline a Federal employee for conduct that is inconsistent with Federal antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws up to and including removal. If OSC has initiated an investigation under 5 U.S.C. 1214, however, according to 5 U.S.C. 1214(f), agencies must seek approval from the Special Counsel to discipline employees for, among other activities, engaging in prohibited retaliation. Nothing in the No FEAR Act alters existing laws or permits an agency to take unfounded disciplinary action against a Federal employee or to violate the procedural rights of a Federal employee who has been accused of discrimination. Additional Information For further information regarding the No FEAR Act regulations, refer to 5 CFR part 724, as well as the appropriate offices within the FTC ( *e.g.* , Office of EEO, Human Resources Management Office, or Office of the General Counsel). Additional information regarding Federal antidiscrimination, whistleblower protection and retaliation laws can be found on the EEOC Web site at *http://www.eeoc.gov* and on the OSC Web site at *http://www.osc.gov.* Existing Rights Unchanged Pursuant to section 205 of the No FEAR Act, neither the Act nor this notice creates, expands or reduces any rights otherwise available to any employee, former employee or applicant under the laws of the United States, including the provisions of law specified in 5 U.S.C. 2302(d). By direction of the Commission. Donald S. Clark, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-19066 Filed 11-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION [BCA 2006-N01] Board of Contract Appeals; The Establishment of The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals and the Termination of The Boards of Contract Appeals of the General Services Administration and the Departments of Agriculture, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs AGENCY: General Services Administration (GSA), Board of Contract Appeals. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In section 847 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-163, Congress established the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals

(CBCA)within GSA to hear and decide contract disputes involving executive agencies (other than the Department of Defense, the Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, the Department of the Air Force, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the United States Postal Service, the Postal Rate Commission, and the Tennessee Valley Authority) under the provisions of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 and regulations and rules issued thereunder. Boards of contract appeals currently exist at the General Services Administration and the departments of Agriculture, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs. Effective January 6, 2007, all of those boards in existence on that date will terminate, and their cases, Board judges, and other personnel will transfer to the new Civilian Board. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The legislation establishing the Civilian Board provides that the CBCA will have jurisdiction to decide contract appeals from any executive agency (other than the Department of Defense, the Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, the Department of the Air Force, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the United States Postal Service, the Postal Rate Commission, and the Tennessee Valley Authority). Cases currently before a board of contract appeals affected by the legislation will be transferred to the Civilian Board on January 6, 2007, and reassigned CBCA docket numbers. Agency acquisition personnel should review agency regulations, contract provisions, and language in contracting officer decision letters that may refer contractors to one of the affected boards of contract appeals for dispute resolution, including alternative dispute resolution, and modify those provisions accordingly. The Civilian Board will also conduct other proceedings as required or permitted under statutes or regulations. Such other proceedings include the resolution of disputes involving grants and contracts under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, 25 U.S.C. 450 *et seq.* Because jurisdiction over these disputes is vested by statute, 25 U.S.C. 450m-1(d), in the Department of the Interior Board of Contract Appeals, section 847(e) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 reassigns that jurisdiction to the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals. Such other proceedings also include the resolution of disputes between insurance companies and the Department of Agriculture's Risk Management Agency

(RMA)involving actions of the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation

(FCIC)pursuant to the Federal Crop Insurance Act, 7 U.S.C. 1501 *et seq.* These disputes were formerly resolved by the Department of Agriculture Board of Contract Appeals, and it is anticipated that this authority will be transferred to the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals under an agreement with the Secretary of Agriculture, as permitted under section 42(c)(2) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, 41 U.S.C. 438(c)(2). In addition, other proceedings that the Civilian Board will conduct include several types of cases heard by the General Services Board of Contract Appeals by delegation from the Administrator of General Services. It is anticipated that, effective January 6, 2007, the Administrator of General Services will redelegate those cases to the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals. Those cases include the following: — Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3726(i)(1), requests by carriers or freight forwarders to review actions taken by the Audit Division of the General Services Administration's Office of Transportation and Property Management. — Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3702, claims by Federal civilian employees against the United States for reimbursement of

(1)expenses incurred while on official temporary duty travel and

(2)expenses incurred in connection with relocation to a new duty station. — Pursuant to section 204 of the General Accounting Office Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-316, requests of agency disbursing or certifying officials, or agency heads, on questions involving payment of travel or relocation expenses that were formerly considered by the Comptroller General under 31 U.S.C. 3529. The offices of the Civilian Board of Contact Appeals will be located at 1800 M Street, NW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20036. The mailing address of the Civilian Board will be 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, DC 20405. The phone number of the Office of the Clerk of the Board will be

(202)606-8800; the facsimile number will be

(202)606-0019. The internet address of the Civilian Board's Web site will be *www.cbca.gsa.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Margaret S. Pfunder, Chief Counsel, GSA Board of Contract Appeals, telephone

(202)501-0272, internet address *margaret.pfunder@gsa.gov* . Dated: November 2, 2006. Stephen M. Daniels, Chairman, Board of Contract Appeals, General Services Administration. [FR Doc. E6-18982 Filed 11-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-AL-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary [Document Identifier: OS-0990-] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HHS. In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of a proposed collection for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects:

(1)The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions;

(2)the accuracy of the estimated burden;

(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden. *Type of Information Collection Request:* New. *Title of Information Collection:* Evaluation of the National Abstinence Media Campaign: Focus Group. *Form/OMB No.:* 0990. *Use:* The National Abstinence Media Campaign

(NAMC)is a media campaign to encourage and help parents to communicate with their children about the need to avoid premarital sexual intercourse. The purpose of this information collection is to conduct focus groups and qualitative analyses of the NAMC. *Frequency:* Reporting on Occasion. *Affected Public:* Individuals or Households. *Annual Number of Respondents:* 128. *Total Annual Responses:* 128. *Average Burden per Response:* 2 hrs. *Total Annual Hours:* 256. To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, e-mail your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and OS document identifier, to *Sherette.funncoleman@hhs.gov* , or call the Reports Clearance Office on

(202)690-6162. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collections must be received with 60-days, December 29, 2006 and directed to the OS Paperwork Clearance Officer at the following address: Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, Office of Resource Management, Attention: Sherrette Funn-Coleman (0990-NEW), Room 537-H, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington DC 20201. Dated: October 30, 2006. Mary Oliver-Anderson, Office of the Secretary, Paperwork Reduction Act Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-18963 Filed 11-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4151-05-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. 2006N-0433] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Guidance for Industry on How to Use E-Mail to Submit a Notice of Final Disposition of Animals Not Intended for Immediate Slaughter AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration

(FDA)is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the **Federal Register** concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on extending the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)approval on the existing reporting requirements for the information collection activity entitled “How to Use E-Mail to Submit a Notice of Final Disposition of Animals Not Intended for Immediate Slaughter.” DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by January 8, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to: *http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments* . Submit written comments on the collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denver Presley, Jr., Office of the Chief Information Officer (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1472. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the **Federal Register** concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document. With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics:

(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology. Guidance for Industry on How to Use E-Mail to Submit a Notice of Final Disposition of Animals Not Intended for Immediate Slaughter—21 CFR 514.117(b)(2) and 21 CFR 511.1(b)(5); (OMB Control Number 0910-0453)—Extension The Center for Veterinary Medicine

(CVM)monitors the final disposition of investigational animals where such animals do not enter the human food chain immediately at the completion of the investigational study. CVM's monitoring of the final disposition of investigational food animals is intended to ensure that unsafe residues of new animal drugs do not get into the food supply. CVM issues a slaughter authorization letter to investigational new animal drug

(INAD)sponsors that sets the terms under which investigational animals may be slaughtered (21 CFR 511.1(b)(5)). Also in this letter, CVM requests that sponsors submit a notice of final disposition of investigational animals

(NFDA)not intended for immediate slaughter. NFDAs have historically been submitted to CVM on paper. CVM's guidance “How to Use E-Mail to Submit a Notice of Final Disposition of Animals Not Intended for Immediate Slaughter” provides sponsors with the option to submit an NFDA as an e-mail attachment to CVM via the Internet. The likely respondents are INAD sponsors. FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows: **Table 1.—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden** 1 21 CFR Section/ Form No. No. of Respondents Annual Frequency per Response Total Annual Responses 2 Hours per Response Total Hours 511.1(b)(5)/Form FDA 3487 25 1.44 36 .08 2.88 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information. 2 Electronic submissions received between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2006. The number of respondents in table 1 are the number of sponsors registered to make electronic submissions (25). The number of total annual responses is based on a review of the actual number of such submissions made between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2006 (36 x hours per response (.08) = 2.88 total hours). Dated: November 6, 2006. Jeffrey Shuren, Assistant Commissioner for Policy. [FR Doc. E6-19044 Filed 11-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. 2006N-0183] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Guidance on Reagents for Detection of Specific Novel Influenza A Viruses AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration

(FDA)is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by December 11, 2006. ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-6974. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denver Presley, Jr., Office of the Chief Information Officer (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1472. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance. Guidance on Reagents for Detection of Specific Novel Influenza A Viruses—21 CFR 866.3332 (OMB Control Number 0910-0584)—Extension In accordance with section 513 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360c), FDA evaluated an application for an in vitro diagnostic device for detection of influenza subtype H5 (Asian lineage), commonly known as avian flu. FDA concluded that this device is properly classified into class II in accordance with section 513(a)(1)(B) of the act, because it is a device for which the general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls to provide such assurance. The statute permits FDA to establish as special controls many different things, including postmarket surveillance, development and dissemination of guidance, recommendations, and “other appropriate actions as the Secretary deems necessary” (section 513(a)(1)(B) of the act). This information collection is a measure that FDA determined to be necessary to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of reagents for detection of specific novel influenza A viruses. FDA issued an order classifying the H5 (Asian lineage) diagnostic device into class II on February 3, 2006, establishing the special controls necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of that device and similar future devices. The new classification will be codified in 21 CFR 866.3332, a regulation that will describe the new classification for reagents for detection of specific novel influenza A viruses and set forth the special controls that help to provide a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of devices classified under that regulation. The regulation will refer to the special control guidance document, “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Reagents for Detection of Specific Novel Influenza A Viruses,” which provides recommendations for measures to help provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for these reagents. The guidance document recommends that sponsors obtain and analyze postmarket data to ensure the continued reliability of their device in detecting the specific novel influenza A virus that it is intended to detect, particularly given the propensity for influenza viruses to mutate and the potential for changes in disease prevalence over time. As updated sequences for novel influenza A viruses become available (from the World Health Organization, National Institutes for Health, and other public health entities), sponsors of reagents for detection of specific novel influenza A viruses will collect this information, compare them with the primer/probe sequences in their devices and incorporate the result of these analyses into their quality management system, as required by 21 CFR 820.100(a)(1). These analyses will be evaluated against the device design validation and risk analysis required by 21 CFR 820.30(g), to determine if any design changes may be necessary. FDA considered comments expressed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention before the issuance of this guidance. FDA also published a notice in the **Federal Register** of May 22, 2006 (71 FR 29342) soliciting comments on this information collection as required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d). In response, FDA received one comment concerning this information collection. The comment pointed out that the estimated hours per response should be closer to 15, rather than FDA's estimate of 10 hours, in order to comply with quality system regulation/document control for the new information collection. FDA agrees with this comment and as a result, the annual reporting burden hour estimate has been recalculated accordingly, i.e., the total annual reporting burden hour estimate is now 300 hours instead of 200. Respondents to this collection of information are manufacturers of in vitro diagnostic devices. FDA estimates the burden for this collection of information as follows: **Table 1.—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden** No. of Respondents Annual Frequency per Response Total Annual Responses Hours per Response Total Hours Total Operating and Maintenance Costs 10 2 20 15 300 $3,500 The FDA estimates that 10 respondents will be affected annually. Each respondent will collect this information twice per year, estimated to take 15 hours. This results in a total data collection burden of 300 hours. (15 x 20 = 300). FDA estimates that cost of developing standard operating procedures for each data collection is $350 (10 hours of work at $35/hour). This results in a total cost to industry of $3,500 ($350 x 10 respondents). Dated: November 6, 2006. Jeffrey Shuren, Assistant Commissioner for Policy. [FR Doc. E6-19045 Filed 11-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [CGD08-06-039] Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety Advisory Committee AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety Advisory Committee (LMRWSAC) will meet to discuss various issues relating to navigational safety on the Lower Mississippi River and related waterways. The meeting will be open to the public. DATES: The next meeting of LMRWSAC will be held on Thursday, December 14, 2006, from 9 a.m. to 12 noon. This meeting may adjourn early if all business is finished. Requests to make oral presentations or submit written materials for distribution at the meeting should reach the Coast Guard on or before December 1, 2006. Requests to have a copy of your material distributed to each member of the committee in advance of the meeting should reach the Coast Guard on or before December 1, 2006. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the Hale Boggs Building, 500 Poydras St., New Orleans, LA 70130. This notice is available on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Junior Grade

(LTJG)Thao Nguyen, Assistant Committee Administrator, e-mail *thao.v.nguyen@uscg.mil.* Written materials and requests to make presentations should be mailed to Commanding Officer, USCG Sector New Orleans, Attn: Waterways Management, 1615 Poydras St, New Orleans, LA 70112. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463; 86 Stat. 770 (5 U.S.C. App. 2). Agenda of Meeting Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety Advisory Committee (LMRWSAC) The agenda includes the following:

(1)Introduction of committee members.

(2)Opening Remarks.

(3)Approval of the April 25, 2006 minutes.

(4)Old Business:

(a)Captain of the Port status report.

(b)VTS update report.

(c)Subcommittee/Working Group update reports.

(5)New Business.

(a)New Orleans PORTS System.

(6)Adjournment. Procedural The meeting is open to the public. Please note that the meeting may close early if all business is finished. At the Chair's discretion, members of the public may make oral presentations during the meeting. If you would like to make an oral presentation at the meeting, please notify the Committee Administrator no later than December 1, 2006. Written material for distribution at the meeting should reach the Coast Guard no later than December 1, 2006. If you would like a copy of your material distributed to each member of the committee in advance of the meeting, please submit 25 copies to the Committee Administrator no later than December 1, 2006. Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities, or to request special assistance at the meetings, contact the Committee Administrator at the location indicated under Addresses as soon as possible. Dated: October 23, 2006. J.R. Whitehead, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E6-18900 Filed 11-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5044-N-20] Notice of Proposed Information Collection for Public Comment; Civil Rights Front End and Limited Monitoring Review AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal. DATES: *Comments due date:* January 8, 2007. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name/or OMB Control number and should be sent to: Aneita Waites, Reports Liaison Officer, Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 4116, Washington, DC 20410-5000. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aneita Waites,

(202)708-0713, extension 4114, for copies of the proposed forms and other available documents. (This is not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department will submit the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended). This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to:

(1)Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

(3)enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; *e.g.* , permitting electronic submission of responses. This Notice also lists the following information: *Title of Proposal:* Civil Rights Front End and Limited Monitoring Review. *OMB Control Number:* 2577-new. *Description of the need for the information and proposed use:* The information collected during the onsite comprehensive reviews of Public Housing Agencies

(PHAs)will be used by HUD to evaluate the PHAs' compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws and regulations (Regulatory Authorities: 24 CFR 1.6(b); 24 CFR 8.55; 24 CFR 125). *Agency form number, if applicable:* None. *Members of affected public:* Public Housing Agencies *Estimation of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents:* The estimated total number of burden hours needed to prepare the information collection is 40; the number of respondents is 20; the frequency of response is annually; the estimated time to gather and prepared the necessary document is 2 hours per submission. *Status of the proposed information collection:* New Collection. Authority: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. Dated: November 3, 2006. Bessy Kong, Director, Office of Policy, Program and Legislative Initiatives. [FR Doc. E6-18888 Filed 11-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5045-N-45] Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD. ACTION: Notice SUMMARY: This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless. DATES: *Effective Date:* November 9, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Room 7262, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone

(202)708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired

(202)708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 1-800-927-7588. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in *National Coalition for the Homeless* v. *Veterans Administration,* No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determined suitable or unsuitable this week. Dated: November 1, 2006. Mark R. Johnston, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs. [FR Doc. 06-9085 Filed 11-8-06; 8:45am]

Connectionstraces to 29

Traces to 29 documents

CFR