59846 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 195 / Friday, October 6, 2000 / Notices

Governors. Interested persons may

express their views in writing on the

question whether the proposal complies

with the standards of section 4 of the

BHC Act. Additional information on all

bank holding companies may be

obtained from the National Information

Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.

Unless otherwise noted, comments

regarding the applications must be

received at the Reserve Bank indicated

or the offices of the Board of Governors

not later than November 3, 2000.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of

Richmond (A. Linwood Gill, III, Vice

President), 701 East Byrd Street,

Richmond, Virginia 23261–4528:

1. FNB Corporation, Christiansburg,

Virginia; to acquire SWVA Bancshares,

Inc., Roanoke, Virginia, and thereby

indirectly acquire Southwest Virginia

Savings Bank, FSB, Roanoke, Virginia,

and thereby engage in operating a

savings association, pursuant to § 225.28

(b)(4)(ii) of Regulation Y, and Southwest

Virginia Service Corporation, Inc.,

Roanoke, Virginia, and thereby engage

in acting as an agent in the sale of credit

related insurance, pursuant to

§ 225.28(b)(11)(i) of Regulation Y.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, October 3, 2000.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 00–25771 Filed 10–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–P

FEDERAL RESERVE

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Board of

Governors of the Federal Reserve

System.

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Wednesday,

October 11, 2000.

PLACE: Marriner S. Eccles Federal

Reserve Board Building, 20th and C

Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

1. Personnel actions (appointments,

promotions, assignments,

reassignments, and salary actions)

involving individual Federal Reserve

System employees.

2. Any matters carried forward from a

previously announced meeting.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Lynn S. Fox, Assistant to the Board;

202–452–3204.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You may

call 202–452–3206 beginning at

approximately 5 p.m. two business days

before the meeting for a recorded

announcement of bank and bank

holding company applications

scheduled for the meeting; or you may

contact the Board’s Web site at http://

www.federalreserve.gov for an

electronic announcement that not only

lists applications, but also indicates

procedural and other information about

the meeting.

Dated: October 4, 2000.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 00–25910 Filed 10–4–00; 10:36 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–P

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

[File No. 001 0098]

Manheim Auctions, Inc., Cox

Enterprises, Inc., ADT Automotive

Holdings, Inc., and Tyco International,

Ltd.; Analysis to Aid Public Comment

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Proposed consent agreement.

SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this

matter settles alleged violated 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 that

accompanies the consent agreement 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 October 31, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary,

Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue,

NW., Washington, DC 20580.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

B. Kirkwood, FTC Northwest Region,

915 Second Avenue, Suite 2896, Seattle,

Washington 98174, (206) 220–4484.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade

Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C.

46, and section 2.34 of the

Commission’s 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 2, 2000), on the World Wide

Web, at ‘‘http://www.ftc.gov/os/2000/

09/index.htm.’’ A paper copy can be

obtained from the FTC Public Reference

Room, Room H–130, 600 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580,

either in person or by calling (202) 326–

3627.

Public comment is invited. Comments

should be directed to: FTC/Office of the

Secretary, Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580.

Two paper copies of each comment

should be filed, and should be

accompanied, if possible, by a 31⁄2 inch

diskette containing an electronic copy of

the comment. Such comments or views

will be considered by the Commission

and will be available for inspection and

copying at its principal office in

accordance with section 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of

the Commission’s Rules of Practice (16

CFR 4.9(b)(6)(ii)).

Analysis of the Complaint and

Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public

Comment

I. Introduction

The Federal Trade Commission

(‘‘Commission’’) has accepted for public

comment an Agreement Containing

Consent Order (‘‘proposed order’’) with

Manheim Auctions, Inc. (‘‘Manheim’’),

Tyco International, Ltd. (‘‘Tyco’’), ADT

Automotive Holdings, Inc. (‘‘ADT’’), and

Cox Enterprises, Inc. (‘‘Cox’’)

(collectively ‘‘Proposed Respondents’’).

The proposed order seeks to remedy the

anticompetitive effects of Manheim’s

proposed acquisition of ADT’s

wholesale motor vehicle auctions by

requiring Manheim to divest eight of the

acquired ADT auctions in locations

where Manheim already owns auctions

and its ownership of these acquired

auctions would likely injure

competition. Moreover, the proposed

order seeks to remedy the

anticompetitive effects of Manheim’s

1996 acquisition of an auction in the

Phoenix, Arizona area by requiring

Manheim to divest one of its Phoenixarea auctions.

II. Description of the Parties and the

Proposed Acquisition

Manheim, a Delaware corporation, is

a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cox and

is the largest auto auction company in

the United States. Manheim operates 65

auctions nationwide and reported sales

of 4.1 million vehicles in 1999.

Manheim has acquired 55 auctions in

the last 10 years. ADT, a Delaware

corporation, is a wholly owned

subsidiary of Tyco and is the thirdlargest auction company in the United

States. ADT operates 28 auctions

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 195 / Friday, October 6, 2000 / Notices 59847

nationwide and reported sales of 1.3

million automobiles in 1999.

By the terms of a Stock Purchase

Agreement dated January 13, 2000,

Manheim will acquire all of ADT’s

outstanding voting stock for

approximately $1 billion.

In a separate transaction that occurred

in 1996, Manheim acquired JM Family

Enterprises, Inc., its sole competitor in

the provision of wholesale motor

vehicle auction services in the greater

metropolitan area of Phoenix, Arizona.

III. The Proposed Complaint

The proposed complaint alleges that

the relevant line of commerce (i.e., the

product market) in which to analyze

this transaction is the provision of

wholesale motor vehicle auction

services (‘‘WMVA services’’) by major

vehicle auctioneers. These services

include marshaling motor vehicles

before auctions, preparing condition

reports, reconditioning the motor

vehicles, promoting and marketing

auctions to potential buyers, auctioning

motor vehicles, and reporting the results

of those auctions.

Major wholesale auctions serve

automakers and large institutional

lessors that sell large quantities of used

motor vehicles. They are equipped with

advanced computer systems and

technology that allow them to deal with

larger customers than the smaller

wholesale auto auctions can handle.

Moreover, this technological

sophistication and the resulting benefits

and services simultaneously attract a

large number of buyers and sellers to

each auction. These attributes

distinguish major wholesale auction

services from the broader market, which

consists of services provided by small,

independent wholesale auctions that

serve regional customers. Typically,

major wholesale auctions serve a trade

area consisting of a large city and the

surrounding metropolitan area.

The proposed complaint further

alleges that Manheim’s proposed

acquisition of ADT, if consummated,

may substantially lessen competition in

violation of 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, in the following trade areas (i.e., the

geographic markets): (a) The greater

metropolitan area of Kansas City,

Missouri; (b) the Colorado Front Range,

which includes the greater metropolitan

areas of Denver and Colorado Springs;

(c) the greater metropolitan area of

Atlanta, Georgia; (d) the greater

metropolitan area of San Francisco,

California; (e) the greater metropolitan

area of Seattle, Washington; and (f) the

I–4 Corridor of Florida, which includes

the greater metropolitan areas of Tampa,

Orlando, and Daytona Beach. The

acquisition would substantially increase

concentration and create a monopoly in

the provision of WMVA services, as

evidenced by post-acquisition

Herfindahl-Hirschman Indices (‘‘HHIs’’)

of 10,000 in each of these geographic

markets. After the proposed acquisition,

Manheim would have the ability to

unilaterally increase prices charged for

WMVA services and to substantially

decrease the quality and range of

services offered to auction customers in

these areas.

The proposed complaint also alleges

that in 1996 Manheim acquired JM

Family Enterprises, Inc., its sole

competitor in the provision of WMVA

services in the greater Phoenix, Arizona

area. The effect of that acquisition,

which also resulted in an HHI of 10,000,

may have been to substantially lessen

competition and create a monopoly in

violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act

and Section 5 of the Federal Trade

Commission Act. Manheim may have

both unilaterally increased prices

charged for WMVA services and

reduced the quality and range of

services offered to auction customers in

the greater Phoenix area.

The proposed complaint further

alleges that new entry into the relevant

geographic markets will not likely,

timely or sufficient to prevent or

counteract these anticompetitive effects.

Building an auction requires substantial

amounts of capital and entails

significant assumption of risk. Other

companies have recently required more

than two years to complete construction

of major auctions. Moreover, even if

built, a competing auction would not

likely provide significant competition to

an existing firm. Because of the large

capital investment required, major

auctions must sell a high volume of

motor vehicles to be profitable, while

sellers are reluctant to use the services

of an auction that does not have an

existing base of strong buyers and

buyers are reluctant to attend an auction

that does not have a significant number

of participating sellers. Consequently,

existing auctions possess a considerable

first-mover advantage over new

entrants. Thus, even if a competitor

entered the market, it might not attract

enough business to restore competition.

In the Phoenix area, no new competitors

have entered since 1996.

IV. Terms of the Agreement Containing

Consent Order

The proposed order is designed to

remedy the alleged anticompetitive

effects of the proposed acquisition.

Under the terms of the proposed order,

the Proposed Respondents must divest

to ADESA eight of the acquired ADT

auctions and one Manheim auction that

currently operate in the geographic

markets described above.

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 buyer of

divested assets must not itself present

competitive problems.

The Commission is satisfied that

ADESA is a well-qualified acquirer of

the divested assets. Based in

Indianapolis, Indiana, ADESA is a large

chain with 30 auction sites throughout

the United States. ADESA possesses the

necessary industry expertise to replace

the competition that existed prior to the

proposed acquisition in the divestiture

markets. Furthermore, ADESA poses no

separate competitive issues as the

acquirer of the divested assets.

The proposed order requires that

Proposed Respondents divest the nine

auctions to ADESA, in accordance with

an agreement between Manheim and

ADESA, within 3 months after Manheim

acquires ADT. If, at the time the

Commission decides to make the

proposed order final, the Commission

notifies the Proposed Respondents that

ADESA is not an acceptable acquirer, or

that the agreement with ADESA is not

an acceptable manner of divestiture,

then Proposed Respondents must

immediately rescind the transaction and

divest the auction, within 6 months

after the proposed order becomes final,

to an acquirer approved by the

Commission.

The proposed order also includes a

provision requiring Proposed

Respondents to use their best efforts to

maintain the auctions as they would in

the ordinary course of business until the

divestiture occurs. Moreover, the

proposed order prohibits Proposed

Respondents from soliciting and hiring

employees away from the divested

auctions for a period of one year after

the divestitures occur.

Additionally, for a period of 10 years

after the proposed order becomes final,

Proposed Respondents must provide

written notice to the Commission prior

to acquiring any interest in any

wholesale auction facility. Furthermore,

Proposed Respondents must provide the

Commission with a report of

compliance with the proposed order

within 30 days after the proposed order

becomes final and every 30 days

thereafter until they have complied with

their divestiture obligations.

Respondents are also required to

provide annual reports during the term

59848 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 195 / Friday, October 6, 2000 / Notices

of the proposed order. For Manheim and

Cox, the term of the proposed order is

10 years; for ADT and Tyco, the term

ends when the eight ADT auctions are

transferred to Manheim.

In the event that Proposed

Respondents fail to divest the required

auctions within the time allotted, the

proposed order enables the Commission

to appoint a trustee to divest any assets

necessary to satisfy the requirements of

the proposed order. Appointment of a

trustee is in addition to civil penalties

and other relief available from Proposed

Respondents for non-compliance with

any provision of the proposed order.

V. Opportunity for Public Comment

The proposed order has been placed

on the public record for 30 days for

receipt of comments by interested

persons. Comments received during this

period will become part of the public

record. After 30 days, the Commission

will again review the proposed order

and the comments received and will

decide whether it should withdraw from

the proposed order of make it final. By

accepting the proposed order subject to

final approval, the Commission

anticipates that the competitive

problems alleged in the proposed

complaint will be resolved. The purpose

of this analysis is to invite public

comment on the proposed order,

including the proposed divestitures, to

aid the Commission in its determination

of whether to make the proposed order

final. This analysis is not intended to

constitute an official interpretation of

the proposed order, nor is it intended to

modify the terms of the proposed order

in any way.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–25661 Filed 10–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Office of the Secretary

Findings of Scientific Misconduct

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the Office of Research Integrity (ORI)

and the Assistant Secretary for Health

have taken final action in the following

case:

Caroline E. Garey, Boston College:

Based on the Report and Addendum of

the Boston College Research Misconduct

Investigation Committee and additional

analysis conducted by ORI in its

oversight review, the U.S. Public Health

Service (PHS) finds that Ms. Caroline E.

Garey, former doctoral student, Boston

College, engaged in scientific

misconduct by falsifying research

supported by National Institute of

Neurological Disorders and Strokes

(NINDS), National Institutes of Health

(NIH), grant R01 NS23355.

Specifically, as a graduate student at

Boston College, Ms. Garey falsified

restriction fragment length

polymorphism (RFLP) data for ABP and

DBA backcross mice DNA samples by

misrepresenting results from multiple

assays of identical backcross ABP DNA

samples as being from different animals

and misrepresenting the autoradiograms

of backcross ABP DNA samples as the

results from experiments on backcross

DBA mice. Ms. Garey reported this

falsified data in her doctoral

dissertation, ‘‘Defect in the

ceruloplasmin gene associated with

epilepsy in the EL mouse,’’ and in an

article in Nature Genetics 6:426–431,

1994. She caused her falsified data to be

reported by her laboratory director in

NINDS, NIH, grant application 2 R01

NS23355–08A1 and at an international

workshop on epilepsy on September 24,

1994. Ms. Garey also fabricated a

translation table that she used to assign

falsified RFLP data to individual

backcross DBA mice. As a result of

falsifying these assays over a minimum

of two and one-half years, none of Ms.

Garey’s research can be considered

reliable and the Nature Genetics

publication has been retracted. These

actions adversely and materially

affected the laboratory’s ongoing

research on the genetic causes of

epilepsy.

Ms. Garey also has engaged in a

pattern of dishonest conduct that

indicates that she is not presently

responsible to be a steward of Federal

funds. This pattern of behavior includes

(1) a history of falsely claiming that she

has performed scientific experiments

when she has not, and (2) repeated

instances in which she has

misrepresented her credentials to

prospective employers, colleagues,

customers, and the general public as

including a Ph.D. degree even though

Boston College refused to grant her a

doctoral degree because of her scientific

misconduct.

The publication affected is:

• Garey, C.E., Schwarzman, A.L.,

Rise, M.L., & Seyfried, T.N.

‘‘Ceruloplasmin gene defect associated

with epilepsy in EL mice.’’ Nature

Genetics 6:426–431, 1994 (retracted in

Nature Genetics 11:104, 1995).

While Ms. Garey does not admit to the

allegations of scientific misconduct, she

has entered into a Voluntary Exclusion

Agreement with PHS in which she has

voluntarily agreed for a period of five (5)

years, beginning on September 25, 2000:

(1) To exclude herself from any

contracting or subcontracting with any

agency of the United States Government

and from eligibility for, or involvement

in, nonprocurement transactions (e.g.,

grants and cooperative agreements) of

the United States Government as

defined in 45 CFR part 76 (Debarment

Regulations);

(2) To exclude herself from serving in

any advisory capacity to PHS, including

but not limited to service on any PHS

advisory committee, board, and/or peer

review committee.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Director, Division of Investigative

Oversight, Office of Research Integrity,

5515 Security Lane, Suite 700,

Rockville, MD 20852, (301) 443–5330.

Chris Pascal,

Director, Office of Research Integrity.

[FR Doc. 00–25568 Filed 10–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–17–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention

Ethics Subcommittee of the Advisory

Committee to the Director, Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention;

Meeting

In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of

the Federal Advisory Committee Act

Pub. L. 92–463), the Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention (CDC)

announces the following subcommittee

meeting.

Name: Ethics Subcommittee of the

Advisory Committee to the Director, CDC.

Time and Date: 9:30 a.m.–5 p.m., October

16, 2000.

Place: Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, NE, Building

16, Room 5126, Atlanta, Georgia 30333.

Status: Open to the public, limited only by

the space available. The meeting room

accommodates approximately 25 people.

Purpose: This subcommittee will

anticipate, identify, and propose solutions to

strategic and broad ethical issues facing CDC.

Matters To Be Discussed: Agenda items

will include updates from the Associate

director for Science, Dixie E. Snider, M.D.,

M.P.H.; a discussion on ethical

considerations of studies to evaluate the risk

of transmission of Human Herpes virus

(HHV–8) in international settings; and

anticipating issues involved in future

decisions regarding this issue.