Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2013 / Notices 21123 

to comment on it. Finally, standard 

filing procedures inform petitioners 

precisely what the Commission expects 

from them in order to make the statutory 

determinations that the statute requires. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2013–08135 Filed 4–8–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE 

CORPORATION 

Sunshine Act Meeting 

Pursuant to the provisions of the 

‘‘Government in the Sunshine Act’’ (5 

U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that 

the Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation’s Board of Directors will 

meet in open session at 3:00 p.m. on 

Thursday, April 11, 2013, to consider 

the following matters: 

Summary Agenda: No substantive 

discussion of the following items is 

anticipated. These matters will be 

resolved with a single vote unless a 

member of the Board of Directors 

requests that an item be moved to the 

discussion agenda. 

Disposition of minutes of previous 

Board of Directors’ Meetings. 

Memorandum re: Update to the 

Statement of Policy on Development 

and Review of FDIC Regulations and 

Policies. 

Summary reports, status reports, and 

reports of actions taken pursuant to 

authority delegated by the Board of 

Directors. 

DISCUSSION AGENDA: Memorandum re: 

Update of Projected Deposit Insurance 

Fund Losses, Income, and Reserve 

Ratios for the Restoration Plan. 

The meeting will be held in the Board 

Room on the sixth floor of the FDIC 

Building located at 550 17th Street NW., 

Washington, DC. 

This Board meeting will be Webcast 

live via the Internet and subsequently 

made available on-demand 

approximately one week after the event. 

Visit http://www.vodium.com/goto/fdic/ 

boardmeetings.asp to view the event. If 

you need any technical assistance, 

please visit our Video Help page at: 

http://www.fdic.gov/video.html. 

The FDIC will provide attendees with 

auxiliary aids (e.g., sign language 

interpretation) required for this meeting. 

Those attendees needing such assistance 

should call 703–562–2404 (Voice) or 

703–649–4354 (Video Phone) to make 

necessary arrangements. 

Requests for further information 

concerning the meeting may be directed 

to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Executive 

Secretary of the Corporation, at 202– 

898–7043. 

Dated: April 4, 2013. 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. 

Robert E. Feldman, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2013–08333 Filed 4–5–13; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

[File No. 111 0034] 

Charlotte Pipe and Foundry; Analysis 

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 May 2, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file a 

comment at https:// 

ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/ 

charlottepipeconsent online or on 

paper, by following the instructions in 

the Request for Comment part of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below. Write ‘‘Charlotte Pipe, File No. 

111 0034’’ on your comment and file 

your comment online at https:// 

ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/ 

charlottepipeconsent by following the 

instructions on the web-based form. If 

you prefer to file your comment on 

paper, mail or deliver your comment to 

the following address: Federal Trade 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

Room H–113 (Annex D), 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20580. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William L. Lanning (202–326–3361), 

FTC, Bureau of Competition, 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20580. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade 

Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and 

FTC Rule 2.34, 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 April 2, 2013), on the 

World Wide Web, at http://www.ftc.gov/ 

os/actions.shtm. 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. 

You can file a comment online or on 

paper. For the Commission to consider 

your comment, we must receive it on or 

before May 2, 2013. Write ‘‘Charlotte 

Pipe, File No. 111 0034’’ on your 

comment. Your comment—including 

your name and your state—will be 

placed on the public record of this 

proceeding, including, to the extent 

practicable, on the public Commission 

Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/ 

publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of 

discretion, the Commission tries to 

remove individuals’ home contact 

information from comments before 

placing them on the Commission Web 

site. 

Because your comment will be made 

public, you are solely responsible for 

making sure that your comment does 

not include any sensitive personal 

information, like anyone’s Social 

Security number, date of birth, driver’s 

license number or other state 

identification number or foreign country 

equivalent, passport number, financial 

account number, or credit or debit card 

number. You are also solely responsible 

for making sure that your comment does 

not include any sensitive health 

information, like medical records or 

other individually identifiable health 

information. In addition, do not include 

any ‘‘[t]rade secret or any commercial or 

financial information which * * * is 

privileged or confidential,’’ as discussed 

in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 

46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 

4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include 

competitively sensitive information 

such as costs, sales statistics, 

inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, 

manufacturing processes, or customer 

names. 

If you want the Commission to give 

your comment confidential treatment, 

you must file it in paper form, with a 

request for confidential treatment, and 

you have to follow the procedure 

explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
21124 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2013 / Notices 

1 In particular, the written request for confidential 

treatment that accompanies the comment must 

include the factual and legal basis for the request, 

and must identify the specific portions of the 

comment to be withheld from the public record. See 

FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). 

4.9(c).1 Your comment will be kept 

confidential only if the FTC General 

Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, 

grants your request in accordance with 

the law and the public interest. 

Postal mail addressed to the 

Commission is subject to delay due to 

heightened security screening. As a 

result, we encourage you to submit your 

comments online. To make sure that the 

Commission considers your online 

comment, you must file it at https:// 

ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/ 

charlottepipeconsent by following the 

instructions on the web-based form. If 

this Notice appears at http:// 

www.regulations.gov/#!home, you also 

may file a comment through that Web 

site. 

If you file your comment on paper, 

write ‘‘Charlotte Pipe, File No. 111 

0034’’ on your comment and on the 

envelope, and mail or deliver it to the 

following address: Federal Trade 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

Room H–113 (Annex D), 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20580. If possible, submit your 

paper comment to the Commission by 

courier or overnight service. 

Visit the Commission Web site at 

http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice 

and the news release describing it. The 

FTC Act and other laws that the 

Commission administers permit the 

collection of public comments to 

consider and use in this proceeding as 

appropriate. The Commission will 

consider all timely and responsive 

public comments that it receives on or 

before May 2, 2013. You can find more 

information, including routine uses 

permitted by the Privacy Act, in the 

Commission’s privacy policy, at http:// 

www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm. 

Analysis of Agreement Containing 

Consent Order To Aid Public Comment 

The Federal Trade Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘FTC’’) has accepted, 

subject to final approval, an Agreement 

Containing Consent Order (‘‘Consent 

Agreement’’) from Charlotte Pipe and 

Foundry Company (hereinafter ‘‘CP&F’’) 

and its wholly-owned subsidiary, 

Randolph Holding Company, L.L.C. 

(hereinafter ‘‘Randolph’’) (hereinafter 

jointly referred to as ‘‘Charlotte Pipe’’ or 

‘‘Respondents’’). The purpose of the 

Consent Agreement is to address the 

anticompetitive effects resulting from 

Charlotte Pipe’s 2010 acquisition (the 

‘‘Acquisition’’) of the cast iron soil pipe 

(‘‘CISP’’) business of Star Pipe Products, 

Ltd. (‘‘Star Pipe’’). The parties to that 

transaction also entered a 

‘‘Confidentiality and Non-Competition 

Agreement.’’ The Acquisition was not 

reportable under the Hart-Scott-Rodino 

Antitrust Improvement Act of 1976, 15 

U.S.C. 18a (‘‘HSR Act’’). The 

administrative complaint (‘‘Complaint’’) 

alleges that the Acquisition violated 

Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 

18, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade 

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

Under the terms of the proposed 

Consent Agreement, Charlotte Pipe is: 

required to provide prior notification to 

the FTC, for a period of ten years, of an 

acquisition of any entity engaged in the 

manufacture and sale of CISP products 

in or into the United States; prohibited 

from enforcing the ‘‘Confidentiality and 

Non-Competition Agreement’’ against 

Star Pipe; and required to inform its 

customers and the public of the 

Acquisition and other transactions 

involving other CISP competitors. 

The proposed Consent Agreement has 

been placed on the public record for 30 

days for receipt of comments from 

interested members of the public. 

Comments received during this period 

will become part of the public record. 

After 30 days, the Commission will 

review the Consent Agreement again 

and the comments received, and will 

decide whether it should withdraw from 

the Consent Agreement or make final 

the accompanying Decision and Order. 

The purpose of this Analysis to Aid 

Public Comment is to invite and 

facilitate public comment. It is not 

intended to constitute an official 

interpretation of the proposed Consent 

Agreement and the accompanying 

Decision and Order or in any way to 

modify their terms. 

The Consent Agreement is for 

settlement purposes only and does not 

constitute an admission by Charlotte 

Pipe that the law has been violated as 

alleged in the Complaint or that the 

facts alleged in the Complaint, other 

than jurisdictional facts, are true. 

I. The Complaint 

The Complaint makes the following 

allegations. 

A. The Respondents 

CP&F is a privately-held corporation 

with its principal place of business 

located at 2109 Randolph Road, 

Charlotte, NC 28207. CP&F is one of the 

largest producers and sellers of CISP 

products in the United States. 

Randolph is a wholly-owned 

subsidiary of CP&F. Randolph, acting on 

behalf of CP&F, executed both the 

Acquisition agreement as the ‘‘Buyer’’ of 

Star Pipe’s CISP business and the 

‘‘Confidentiality and Non-Competition 

Agreement’’ referenced herein. 

B. The Product and Structure of the 

Market 

CISP products are components of 

pipelines systems used in buildings to 

transport wastewater to the sewer 

system, to vent the plumbing system, 

and to transport rainwater to storm 

drains. The end-users of CISP products 

are construction firms, plumbers, or 

developers. 

The relevant line of commerce within 

which to analyze the effects of the 

Acquisition is the market for the sale of 

CISP products for use in commercial, 

industrial, and multi-story residential 

buildings in the United States. Plastic 

products are not a viable substitute for 

CISP products because state and local 

building codes in the United States 

generally require the use of CISP 

products in commercial, industrial, and 

multi-story residential buildings. 

The relevant geographic market 

within which to analyze the effects of 

the Acquisition is no broader than the 

United States, and may contain smaller 

geographic markets consisting of states, 

multi-state regions, or metropolitan 

areas. 

The United States CISP products 

market is highly concentrated. At the 

time of the Acquisition, two firms, 

Charlotte Pipe and McWane Inc., sold in 

excess of ninety percent of the CISP 

products in the United States. 

Companies that sell imported CISP 

products, including Star Pipe, 

accounted for the remaining sales. 

C. Star Pipe and the Acquisition 

In 2007, Star Pipe entered the United 

States CISP products market. Between 

2007 and 2010, Star Pipe expanded its 

sales base throughout the United States. 

In contested markets, Star Pipe acted as 

a disruptive force, competing on price 

and service to the benefit of consumers. 

In July 2010, Charlotte Pipe executed 

an Asset Purchase Agreement with Star 

Pipe to acquire the assets of Star Pipe’s 

CISP business for approximately $19 

million. Pursuant to the agreement, 

Charlotte Pipe purchased, among other 

things, Star Pipe’s inventory, its 

production equipment located in China, 

and its business records and customer 

list. The parties to the agreement also 

executed a ‘‘Confidentiality and NonCompetition Agreement’’ that 

prohibited Star Pipe and certain Star 

Pipe employees from competing with 

Charlotte Pipe in the United States, 

Mexico, and Canada for a period of six 

years. In addition, Star Pipe agreed to 

keep the Acquisition confidential and to 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2013 / Notices 21125 

send to its customers a letter indicating 

that it had decided to the exit the CISP 

business. After the Acquisition, 

Charlotte Pipe destroyed the CISP 

production equipment that it acquired 

from Star Pipe. 

D. Conditions of Entry 

Entry into the relevant markets would 

not be timely, likely, or sufficient in 

magnitude, character, and scope to deter 

or counteract the anticompetitive effects 

of the Acquisition. 

E. Effects 

The effects of Charlotte Pipe’s 

acquisition of Star Pipe’s CISP business 

have been a substantial lessening of 

competition in the relevant markets. 

Specifically, the Acquisition has: 

eliminated actual, direct, and 

substantial competition between 

Charlotte Pipe and Star Pipe in the 

relevant markets; substantially 

increased the level of concentration in 

the relevant markets; eliminated a 

maverick firm; increased the ability of 

Charlotte Pipe unilaterally to exercise 

market power; and prevented Star Pipe 

and certain Star Pipe employees from 

re-entering the CISP products market for 

a period of six years. 

II. The Proposed Order 

Paragraph II of the Proposed Order 

requires Charlotte Pipe to provide prior 

notification to the Commission of an 

acquisition of any entity engaged in the 

manufacture and sale of CISP products 

in or into the United States. This 

paragraph also requires Charlotte Pipe 

to comply with premerger notification 

procedures and waiting periods similar 

to those found in the HSR Act. 

This provision is necessary because 

Charlotte Pipe has previously acquired 

several firms in the CISP products 

market in non-reportable transactions. 

The Proposed Order affords the 

Commission an appropriate mechanism 

to review all proposed acquisitions by 

Charlotte Pipe in the CISP products 

market to guard against future 

anticompetitive transactions. 

Paragraph III of Proposed Order 

prevents Charlotte Pipe from enforcing 

the Confidentiality and NonCompetition Agreement. This frees Star 

Pipe, and its current and former 

employees, to enter and compete against 

Charlotte Pipe in the United States, 

Canada, or Mexico. 

Paragraphs IV–VII impose reporting 

and other compliance requirements. In 

particular, Charlotte Pipe is required to 

send a letter to its customers and to 

maintain a link on its Web site relating 

to the Acquisition and Charlotte Pipe’s 

other non-reportable transactions, 

including Matco-Norca in 2009, DWV 

Casting Company (‘‘DWV’’) in 2004, and 

Richmond Foundry, Inc. (‘‘Richmond 

Foundry’’) in 2002. This provision is 

appropriate because Charlotte Pipe’s 

confidential acquisitions are not widely 

known in the CISP industry and have 

given rise to a perception among 

distributors and end-users that 

importers of CISP products are transient 

and unreliable operations. The proposed 

order serves to inform market 

participants about Charlotte Pipe’s role 

in the exit of Star Pipe, Matco-Norca, 

DWV, and Richmond Foundry from the 

CISP industry. 

The Proposed Order will expire in 10 

years. 

By direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2013–08217 Filed 4–8–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Office of the Secretary 

Findings of Research Misconduct 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HHS. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) 

has taken final action in the following 

case: 

Andrew Aprikyan, Ph.D., University 

of Washington: Based on the report of an 

investigation conducted by the 

University of Washington (UW), the UW 

School of Medicine Dean’s Decision, the 

Decision of the Hearing Panel at UW, 

and additional analysis conducted by 

ORI, ORI found by a preponderance of 

the evidence that Dr. Andrew Aprikyan, 

former Research Assistant Professor, 

Division of Hematology, UW, engaged in 

research misconduct in research 

supported by National Cancer Institute 

(NCI), National Institutes of Health 

(NIH), grant CA89135 and National 

Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and 

Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), NIH, grant 

DK18951, and applies to the following 

publications and grant applications: 

• Blood pre-published online on 

January 16, 2003 (‘‘NEM’’) 

• Experimental Hematology 31:372– 

381, 2003 (‘‘CMA’’) 

• Blood 97:147–153, 2001 (‘‘ISB’’) 

• R01 CA89135–01A1 

• R01 HL73063–01 

• R01 HL79615–01 

Blood pre-published online on 

January 16, 2003, has been retracted and 

Experimental Hematology 31:372–381, 

2003, has been corrected. 

Specifically, ORI finds that by a 

preponderance of the evidence, 

Respondent falsified and/or fabricated 

results relating to the above publications 

and grants. Specifically, Respondent: 

1. Falsely reported sequencing data in 

the NEM manuscript to strengthen the 

hypothesis that NE mutations 

contributed to the phenotype observed 

in severe congenital neutropenia (SCN) 

patients. Specifically: 

a. Respondent falsely reported in 

Figures 2A and 3 that patient 3 had the 

R191Q neutrophil elastase (NE) 

mutation, when the majority of the 

sequencing experiments showed that 

the mutation was not present. 

b. Respondent fabricated text (p. 12) 

reporting that sequencing of RT–PCR 

products confirmed the expression of 

the NE mutants in the SCN patients and 

that no mutations were present in the 

granulocyte colony stimulating factor 

receptor (G–CSFR) gene and the 

Wiskott-Aldrich Syndrome (WAS) gene 

in SCN patients, when based on the lack 

of original records the experiments were 

not performed. The false claim for G– 

CSFR sequencing was also reported in 

CA89135–03. 

2. Falsely reported a two-fold increase 

in apoptosis of human promyelocytic 

(HL–60) cells transfected with NE 

mutants compared to wild type NE in 

Figure 4A, NEM, Figure 6A, CMA, 

Figure 8, HL73063–01, and Figure 7, 

HL79615–01. Respondent used arbitrary 

flow cytometry data files to generate 

histograms with the desired result. The 

false results supported the hypothesis 

that the NE mutations were sufficient 

for impaired survival of human myeloid 

cells. 

3. Falsified NE and +-actin Western 

blots in Figure 4B Blood, pre-published 

online January 16, 2003, Figure 5B of 

the manuscript initially submitted to 

Blood April 2002, and Figure 6B 

Experimental Hematology 31:372–381, 

2003, by falsely labeling lanes to 

support the hypothesis that accelerated 

apoptosis in mutant NE transfect HL–60 

cells was due to the mutation and not 

the level of protein present. Specifically: 

a. Respondent used portions of a 

single NE Wester blot to represent: 

Figure 4B as HL–60 cells transfected 

with L92H, R191Q, and wtNE, when the 

cells were transfected with R191Q, 

P110L, and D145–152; Figure 5B as HL– 

60 transfected with wtNE, mutNE, and 

EGFP when they were cells transfected 

with NE mutants, P110L, D145–152, and 

194 

b. Respondent used portions of a 

single +-actin Western blot to represent: 

Figure 4B as HL–60 cells transfected 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES