Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 193 / Thursday, October 6, 2005 / Notices 58411 

1The 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). 

2. Fortune Financial Corporation, 

Arnold, Missouri; to become a bank 

holding company by acquiring 100 

percent of the voting shares of 

FortuneBank, Arnold, Missouri (in 

organization). 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System, October 3, 2005. 

Robert deV. Frierson, 

Deputy Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. E5–5490 Filed 10–5–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210–01–S 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

Formations of, Acquisitions by, and 

Mergers of Bank Holding Companies 

The companies listed in this notice 

have applied to the Board for approval, 

pursuant to the Bank Holding Company 

Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) 

(BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 

225), and all other applicable statutes 

and regulations to become a bank 

holding company and/or to acquire the 

assets or the ownership of, control of, or 

the power to vote shares of a bank or 

bank holding company and all of the 

banks and nonbanking companies 

owned by the bank holding company, 

including the companies listed below. 

The applications listed below, as well 

as other related filings required by the 

Board, are available for immediate 

inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 

indicated. The application also will be 

available for inspection at the offices of 

the Board of Governors. Interested 

persons may express their views in 

writing on the standards enumerated in 

the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the 

proposal also involves the acquisition of 

a nonbanking company, the review also 

includes whether the acquisition of the 

nonbanking company complies with the 

standards in section 4 of the BHC Act 

(12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise 

noted, nonbanking activities will be 

conducted throughout the United States. 

Additional information on all bank 

holding companies may be obtained 

from the National Information Center 

Web site at http://www.ffiec.gov/nic/. 

Unless otherwise noted, comments 

regarding each of these applications 

must be received at the Reserve Bank 

indicated or the offices of the Board of 

Governors not later than October 31, 

2005. 

A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 

(Glenda Wilson, Community Affairs 

Officer) 411 Locust Street, St. Louis, 

Missouri 63166-2034: 

1. First Banks, Inc., Hazelwood, 

Missouri; to acquire an additional 8.52 

percent, for a total of 24.99 percent, of 

the voting shares of Community West 

Bancshares, Goleta, California, and 

thereby indirectly acquire voting shares 

of Community West Bank, National 

Association, Goleta, California. 

2. Fortune Financial Corporation, 

Arnold, Missouri; to become a bank 

holding company by acquiring 100 

percent of the voting shares of 

FortuneBank, Arnold, Missouri (in 

organization). 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System, October 3, 2005. 

Robert deV. Frierson, 

Deputy Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. E5–5491 Filed 10–5–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210–01–S 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

[File No. 051 0115] 

The Procter & Gamble Company and 

The Gillette Company; 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 October 29, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are 

invited to submit written comments. 

Comments should refer to ‘‘Procter & 

Gamble, et al., File No. 051 0115,’’ 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 159–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 email 

messages directed to the following email 

box: consentagreement@ftc.gov. 

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: 

Norman Armstrong, Jr., Bureau of 

Competition, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326–

2072. 

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 September 30, 2005), on 

the World Wide Web, at http:// 

www.ftc.gov/os/2005/09/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 

58412 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 193 / Thursday, October 6, 2005 / Notices 

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 Procter & Gamble Company 

(‘‘P&G’’) and The Gillette Company 

(‘‘Gillette’’) are both leading suppliers of 

consumer products worldwide. P&G 

proposes to acquire Gillette. The Federal 

Trade Commission (‘‘Commission’’) has 

accepted, subject to final approval, an 

Agreement Containing Consent Orders 

(‘‘Consent Agreement’’) from P&G and 

Gillette. The purpose of the Consent 

Agreement is to remedy the 

anticompetitive effects that would 

otherwise result from P&G’s proposed 

acquisition. Under the terms of the 

Consent Agreement, the parties will be 

required to divest: (1) Gillette’s 

Rembrandt at-home teeth whitening 

business; (2) P&G’s Crest SpinBrushTM

battery-powered and rechargeable 

toothbrush business; and (3) Gillette’s 

Right Guard men’s antiperspirant/ 

deodorant (‘‘AP/DO’’) business. In 

addition, P&G is required to amend its 

joint venture agreement with Philips 

Oral Healthcare, Inc. (‘‘Philips’’) 

regarding the Crest Sonicare 

IntelliClean System (‘‘IntelliClean’’) 

rechargeable toothbrush. 

The proposed Consent Agreement has 

been placed on the public record for 

thirty (30) days to solicit comments 

from interested people. 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 or 

make it final. 

Pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of 

Merger dated January 27, 2005, P&G 

proposes to acquire 100 percent of the 

voting securities of Gillette in a 

transaction valued at approximately $57 

billion (‘‘Proposed Acquisition’’). 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 United States markets for the 

research, development, manufacture, 

distribution, and sale of at-home teeth 

whitening products, adult batterypowered toothbrushes, rechargeable 

toothbrushes, and men’s AP/DOs. 

Consistent with the well-established 

approach to merger analysis, we have 

determined the appropriate product 

markets in which to analyze the likely 

competitive effects of the proposed 

merger. Staff initially examined whether 

the combination of the two companies’

broad array of consumer products 

would be likely to have anticompetitive 

effects, including not only increased 

prices in the short term but also the 

creation of entry barriers that could 

affect price and innovation in the long 

term. In particular, staff investigated 

whether the combined entity would 

have an increased ability to exploit its 

position as a so-called ‘‘category 

manager’’ or ‘‘category captain,’’ in 

order to obtain premium retailer shelf 

space and potentially exclude or 

disadvantage competitors in various 

broad categories, like oral care or AP/ 

DO. 

The investigation has disclosed, 

however, that most retailers do not look 

at broad categories, like oral care and 

AP/DO, when they decide which 

products to stock and sell. They 

generally make decisions on individual 

products (e.g., men’s AP/DO), that are 

perceived to be close substitutes within 

these broad categories. One supplier 

may be preferred for an individual 

product even though another supplier is 

preferred for other products in the broad 

category. Moreover, most retailers are 

likely to employ different category 

captains to assist them on a product-byproduct basis within the broad 

categories. We have therefore concluded 

that the loss of competition between the 

merging parties in broad categories is 

unlikely to cause competitive harm. We 

have instead focused on individual 

products within the broad categories. 

These individual product markets 

include at-home teeth whitening, 

battery-powered toothbrushes, and 

men’s AP/DO. The Commission has 

sought and obtained relief in these 

relevant markets. 

II. The Parties 

Headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, 

P&G is one of the largest and most 

diversified suppliers of consumer 

products in the world. In 2004, P&G had 

worldwide net sales of approximately 

$51.4 billion. With its Crest line of 

products, P&G is one of the leading 

suppliers of oral care products in the 

United States. The Crest family of 

products includes the Crest

WhitestripsTM and Crest Night 

EffectsTM lines of at-home teeth 

whitening products and the Crest

SpinBrushTM line of battery-powered 

toothbrushes. P&G is also a leading 

supplier of men’s AP/DOs under its Old 

Spice brand. 

Gillette, based in Boston, 

Massachusetts, is also one of the world’s 

leading suppliers of consumer products. 

Gillette had total worldwide net sales of 

approximately $10.5 billion in its 2004 

fiscal year. Like P&G, Gillette is one of 

the leading suppliers of oral care 

products in the United States with its 

Oral-B and Oral-B Braun line of 

manual, battery-powered, and 

rechargeable toothbrushes, and its OralB Rembrandt and Rembrandt line 

of at-home teeth whitening products. 

Gillette is also a leading supplier of 

men’s AP/DOs under its Right Guard 

and Gillette Series brands. 

III. At-Home Teeth Whitening Products 

One of the relevant markets in which 

to assess the competitive effects of the 

Proposed Acquisition is the United 

States market for at-home teeth 

whitening products. At-home teeth 

whitening products whiten teeth by 

bleaching them with either hydrogen or 

carbamide peroxide. These products are 

typically sold over-the-counter through 

food, drug, club, and mass merchandise 

channels and are marketed to be used by 

the consumer at home. There are several 

different types of at-home teeth 

whitening products, including strips, 

gels, pens and sticks, although strip and 

gel products account for the vast 

majority of sales of at-home teeth 

whitening products in the United States. 

The United States market for at-home 

teeth whitening products is highly 

concentrated, with P&G and Gillette as 

the two largest suppliers in this market 

and the only two significant suppliers of 

branded strips. P&G is the market leader 

with its Crest Whitestrips and Crest 

Night Effects products, while Gillette 

is the second leading supplier with its 

Oral-B Rembrandt and Rembrandt

products. Together, the parties account 

for over 80% of the sales in this market. 

The Proposed Acquisition would 

significantly increase concentration in 

the United States market for at-home 

teeth whitening products, leaving P&G 

as the dominant supplier. By 

eliminating competition between the 

two leading suppliers, the Proposed 

Acquisition would likely result in 

higher prices, reduced innovation, and 

fewer product choices for consumers in 

this market. 

IV. Adult Battery-Powered 

Toothbrushes 

A second relevant product market in 

which to assess the competitive effects 

of the Proposed Acquisition is the 

United States market for adult batterypowered toothbrushes. Adult batteryVerDate Aug<31>2005 19:52 Oct 05, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06OCN1.SGM 06OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 193 / Thursday, October 6, 2005 / Notices 58413 

2The Rembrandt business that will be divested 

includes all of Gillette’s existing and future teeth 

whitening products. For viability reasons, the 

purchaser of the Right Guard business will have the 

option of acquiring certain manufacturing assets 

and/or Gillette’s Soft & Dri and Dry Idea assets. 

powered toothbrushes are usually 

powered by AA or AAA batteries and 

either have oscillating or pulsating 

brush heads. The majority of adult 

battery-powered toothbrushes are sold 

at retail for between $5 and $8, and the 

batteries and brush heads can be 

replaced on some, but not all, products. 

Adult battery-powered toothbrushes are 

typically marketed as upgrades over 

manual toothbrushes and are more 

affordable than sophisticated 

rechargeable toothbrushes. 

The United States market for adult 

battery-powered toothbrushes is highly 

concentrated. P&G and Gillette are the 

two largest suppliers in this market. 

P&G markets its adult battery-powered 

products under the Crest SpinBrushTM

brand name, while Gillette sells its adult 

battery-powered products under the 

Oral-B brand name. Gillette also 

dominates the adult high-priced manual 

and low-priced rechargeable toothbrush 

segments, which are the segments most 

likely to capture any switching away 

from adult battery-powered 

toothbrushes in the face of a price 

increase. Together, the parties account 

for over 85% of the sales in the United 

States adult battery-powered toothbrush 

market. 

The Proposed Acquisition would 

significantly increase concentration in 

the United States market for adult 

battery-powered toothbrush products, 

leaving P&G as the dominant supplier. 

By eliminating competition between the 

two leading suppliers, the Proposed 

Acquisition would likely result in 

higher prices, reduced innovation, and 

fewer product choices for consumers in 

this market. 

V. Rechargeable Toothbrushes 

A third relevant product market in 

which to assess the competitive effects 

of the Proposed Acquisition is the 

United States market for rechargeable 

toothbrushes. Rechargeable 

toothbrushes contain a rechargeable 

battery that powers high-speed 

oscillating, pulsating, or vibrating brush 

heads. They have a separate recharging 

unit that plugs into an electrical outlet 

to recharge the battery contained in the 

toothbrush. Brush heads for these 

products are almost always replaceable. 

Rechargeable toothbrushes typically are 

sold at retail for between $20 and $150, 

and are marketed as the premium 

brushing option for consumers. 

The United States market for 

rechargeable toothbrushes is highly 

concentrated with only two suppliers, 

Gillette and Philips, accounting for 

virtually all of the sales of these 

products. Gillette markets a full line of 

rechargeable toothbrush products under 

the Oral-B Braun brand name, while 

Philips sells mostly mid-to high-end 

products under the Philips Sonicare

brand name. Philips and P&G also have 

a joint venture to co-develop and comarket the IntelliClean product, the first 

integrated toothbrush/dentifrice product 

(i.e., toothbrush that self dispenses 

toothpaste) sold in the United States. As 

a result, the Proposed Acquisition 

would allow P&G to acquire the only 

significant competitor to its joint 

venture partner, Philips, thereby 

reducing P&G’s incentives to support 

the IntelliClean product. The agreement 

between Philips and P&G also contains 

non-compete provisions that, if the 

Proposed Acquisition were 

consummated, could harm consumers. 

The Proposed Acquisition would 

eliminate P&G’s incentive to fully 

support and promote the IntelliClean 

product and create a situation where the 

only two suppliers in the market are 

subject to non-compete provisions. 

Accordingly, the Proposed Acquisition 

would likely result in higher prices, 

reduced innovation, and fewer product 

choices for consumers in this market. 

VI. Men’s AP/DOs 

A fourth relevant product market in 

which to assess the competitive effects 

of the Proposed Acquisition is the 

United States market for men’s AP/DOs. 

An antiperspirant is a substance that is 

used to prevent or reduce underarm 

sweating. A deodorant is a substance 

that is used to suppress underarm odor. 

These ingredients are typically 

combined together for complete 

underarm protection. AP/DOs are 

typically gender-specific and sold in 

various forms, including roll-ons, 

traditional solids, invisible solids, gels, 

and aerosols. Men’s AP/DOs are unique 

in, among other things, their packaging, 

fragrances, marketing, formulations, and 

location on the shelf. 

The United States market for men’s 

AP/DOs is highly concentrated. P&G 

and Gillette are the two largest suppliers 

of men’s AP/DOs in the United States. 

P&G markets its men’s AP/DOs under 

the Old Spice brand name, while 

Gillette sells its products under the 

Right Guard and Gillette Series’ brand 

names. Combined, the Respondents 

account for well over 50% of the sales 

in this highly concentrated market. 

Accordingly, the Proposed 

Acquisition would significantly increase 

concentration in the United States 

market for men’s AP/DOs, leaving P&G 

as the dominant supplier. By 

eliminating competition between the 

two leading suppliers, the Proposed 

Acquisition would likely result in 

higher prices and fewer product choices 

for consumers in this market. 

VII. Entry 

Entry into the United States at-home 

teeth whitening, adult battery-powered 

toothbrush, rechargeable toothbrush, 

and men’s AP/DO markets is unlikely to 

deter or counteract the anticompetitive 

effects of the Proposed Acquisition. 

Entry into these markets is difficult and 

time-consuming and would require the 

investment of extremely high sunk costs 

to, among other things, develop 

products, provide advertising and 

promotional funding, establish a strong 

brand name, and create a distribution 

network. A new entrant also faces the 

difficult task of convincing retailers to 

carry their products. 

VIII. The Consent Agreement 

The Consent Agreement effectively 

remedies the Proposed Acquisition’s 

anticompetitive effects in the relevant 

markets discussed above. The Consent 

Agreement preserves competition in 

these markets by requiring the 

divestiture of: (1) The Rembrandt athome teeth whitening business to a 

Commission-approved acquirer; (2) the 

Crest SpinBrush battery-powered 

business to Church & Dwight Company, 

Inc. (‘‘Church & Dwight’’); and (3) the 

Right Guard business to a Commissionapproved acquirer.2 In addition, the 

Consent Agreement requires P&G to 

amend its joint venture agreement to 

allow Philips to independently market 

and sell the IntelliClean product. 

The divestiture of the Rembrandt 

business must take place within three 

(3) months and the Right Guard 

business within four (4) months after 

the date the order becomes final. The 

Commission’s goal in evaluating 

possible 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 the parties 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 these assets. 

If approved, the trustee would have the 

exclusive power and authority to 

accomplish the divestiture within one 

year of being appointed, subject to any 

necessary extensions by the 

Commission. The Consent Agreement 

58414 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 193 / Thursday, October 6, 2005 / Notices 

3The Order to Maintain Assets also requires that 

P&G and Gillette maintain the viability of the Soft 

& Dri and Dry Idea businesses. 

1The 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). 

requires the parties to provide the 

trustee with access to information 

related to, among other things, the 

Rembrandt and Right Guard businesses 

as necessary to fulfill his or her 

obligations. 

The Order to Maintain Assets that is 

included in the Consent Agreement 

requires that P&G and Gillette maintain 

the viability of the Rembrandt and Right 

Guard businesses as competitive 

operations until the businesses are 

transferred to Commission-approved 

acquirers.3 The Commission has 

approved Edward Gold of 

PricewaterhouseCoopers as the Interim 

Monitor pursuant to the Consent 

Agreement to ensure that P&G and 

Gillette comply with the provisions of 

the Order. 

There are also several provisions of 

the Consent Agreement designed to 

ensure the success of the divestiture of 

the Crest SpinBrush business to Church 

& Dwight. First, the Consent Agreement 

requires P&G to divest its rights and 

assets relating to adult battery-powered 

toothbrushes, including all research and 

development data, sales and marketing 

materials, and intellectual property. 

Second, P&G will provide Church & 

Dwight with a license to the Crest 

trademark, subject to minimum 

protections under trademark law, for 

use with the SpinBrush brand name that 

will be acquired outright by Church & 

Dwight. These provisions are designed 

to ensure that Church & Dwight can 

successfully transition the Crest 

SpinBrush family of products to a brand 

name of its choosing. Third, the Consent 

Agreement allows, and provides 

incentives for, P&G to render 

transitional services to Church & Dwight 

and retailers for a period of time to 

ensure the continuity and competitive 

viability of the products. 

The Commission is satisfied that 

Church & Dwight is a well-qualified 

acquirer of the Crest SpinBrush 

business. Church & Dwight sells a 

variety of consumer products 

throughout the world, including oral 

care, personal care, and household 

products, and had total worldwide net 

sales of approximately $1.5 billion in 

2004. The company owns several wellknown oral care brands, such as Arm & 

Hammer, Aim, and MentadentTM, 

and currently sells a variety of oral care 

products, including toothpaste and 

manual toothbrushes. Because of its 

existing business, Church & Dwight 

already has an experienced sales force 

that has relationships with major 

retailers and dental professionals, 

thereby enabling it to be a successful 

acquirer of the SpinBrush assets. 

The Consent Agreement also requires 

P&G to amend its joint venture 

agreement with Philips regarding 

IntelliClean. The amended agreement, 

which is an attachment to the order, 

allows Philips to independently market 

and sell IntelliClean. The amended 

agreement also eliminates all noncompete provisions allowing both P&G 

and Philips to develop and sell future 

rechargeable toothbrush products. 

The purpose of this analysis is to 

facilitate public comment on the 

Consent Agreement, and is not intended 

to constitute an official interpretation of 

the proposed Decision and Order or the 

Order to Maintain Assets, or to modify 

their terms in any way. 

By direction of the Commission, with 

Chairman Majoras and Commissioner 

Harbour recused. 

Donald S. Clark, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05–20043 Filed 10–5–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–U 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

[File No. 052 3136] 

Superior Mortgage Corporation; 

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 October 27, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are 

invited to submit written comments. 

Comments should refer to ‘‘Superior 

Mortgage, File No. 052 3136,’’ 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 159-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 email box: consentagreement@ftc.gov. 

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: 

Jessica Rich, Bureau of Consumer 

Protection, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326–

3224. 

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 September 28, 2005), on 

the World Wide Web, at http://