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:// 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 193 / Thursday, October 6, 2005 / Notices 58415 

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 

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 

The Federal Trade Commission has 

accepted a consent agreement, subject to 

final approval, from Superior Mortgage 

Corp. (‘‘Superior Mortgage’’). Superior 

Mortgage is a mortgage lender 

specializing in residential mortgage 

loans with headquarters in Tuckerton, 

New Jersey. Superior Mortgage collects 

sensitive customer information, 

including customer names, Social 

Security numbers, credit histories, and 

bank and credit card account numbers, 

and is a ‘‘financial institution’’ subject 

to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s 

Standards for Safeguarding Customer 

Information Rule, 16 CFR part 314 

(‘‘Safeguards Rule’’). 

The proposed consent order has been 

placed in 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 

agreement and the comments received 

and will decide whether it should 

withdraw from the agreement and take 

other appropriate action or make final 

the agreement’s proposed order. 

This matter concerns Superior 

Mortgage’s alleged violations of the 

Safeguards Rule, as well as alleged 

security misrepresentations to 

consumers on Superior Mortgage’s Web 

site. The Safeguards Rule, which 

became effective on May 23, 2003, 

requires financial institutions to 

implement reasonable policies and 

procedures to ensure the security and 

confidentiality of customer information, 

including: 

• Designating one or more employees 

to coordinate the information security 

program; 

• Identifying reasonably foreseeable 

internal and external risks to the 

security, confidentiality, and integrity of 

customer information, and assessing the 

sufficiency of any safeguards in place to 

control those risks; 

• Designing and implementing 

information safeguards to control the 

risks identified through risk assessment, 

and regularly testing or otherwise 

monitoring the effectiveness of the 

safeguards’ key controls, systems, and 

procedures; 

• Overseeing service providers, and 

requiring them by contract to protect the 

security and confidentiality of customer 

information; and 

• Evaluating and adjusting the 

information security program in light of 

the results of testing and monitoring, 

changes to the business operation, and 

other relevant circumstances. 

The Commission’s complaint alleges 

that Superior Mortgage failed to 

implement the protections required by 

the Safeguards Rule and, specifically, 

that it failed to: (1) Assess risks to its 

customer information until more than a 

year after the Safeguard Rule’s effective 

date; (2) institute appropriate password 

policies to control access to company 

systems and documents containing 

sensitive customer information; (3) 

encrypt or otherwise protect sensitive 

customer information before sending it 

by e-mail; and (4) take reasonable steps 

to ensure that its service providers were 

providing appropriate security for 

customer information and addressing 

known security risks in a timely 

fashion. 

The complaint also alleges that 

Superior Mortgage violated section 5 of 

the Federal Trade Commission Act 

(‘‘FTC Act’’) by representing that the 

personal information it obtained from 

consumers through http:// 

www.supmort.com was encrypted using 

SSL from the time of submission until 

receipt by Superior Mortgage, when in 

fact that information was encrypted 

only while it was being transmitted 

between a visitor’s Web browser and the 

Web site’s server (using SSL); once the 

information reached the server, it was 

decrypted and e-mailed to Superior 

Mortgage’s headquarters and branch 

offices in clear, readable text. 

The proposed order contains 

provisions designed to prevent Superior 

Mortgage from future practices similar 

to those alleged in the complaint. 

Specifically, part I of the proposed order 

prohibits Superior Mortgage from 

misrepresenting the extent to which it 

maintains and protects the privacy, 

confidentiality, or security of any 

personal information collected from or 

about consumers. Part II of the proposed 

order prohibits Superior Mortgage from 

violating the Safeguards Rule. Part III of 

the proposed order requires that 

Superior Mortgage obtain, within 180 

days after being served with the final 

order approved by the Commission, and 

on a biennial basis thereafter for ten (10) 

years, an assessment and report from a 

qualified, objective, independent thirdparty professional, certifying that: (1) 

Superior Mortgage has in place a 

security program that provides 

protections that meet or exceed the 

protections required by the Safeguards 

Rule, and (2) Superior Mortgage’s 

security program is operating with 

sufficient effectiveness to provide 

reasonable assurance that the security, 

confidentiality, and integrity of 

nonpublic personal information has 

been protected. This provision is 

substantially similar to comparable 

provisions obtained in prior 

Commission orders under the 

Safeguards Rule and Section 5 of the 

FTC Act. See, e.g., Sunbelt Lending 

Servs., Inc., FTC Docket No. C–4129 

(Jan. 7, 2005); Tower Records, FTC 

Docket No. C–4110 (June 2, 2004). 

Part III of the proposed order also 

requires Superior Mortgage to retain 

documents relating to compliance. For 

the assessments and supporting 

documents, Superior Mortgage must 

retain the documents for three (3) years 

after the date that each assessment is 

prepared. 

Parts IV through VII of the proposed 

order are reporting and compliance 

provisions. Part IV requires 

dissemination of the order now and in 

the future to persons with supervisory 

responsibilities. Part V ensures 

notification to the FTC of changes in 

corporate status. Part VI mandates that 

Superior Mortgage submit compliance 

reports to the FTC. Part VII is a 

provision ‘‘sunsetting’’ the order after 

twenty (20) years, with certain 

exceptions. 

The purpose of this analysis is to 

facilitate public comment on the 

proposed order. 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. 

Donald S. Clark, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05–20042 Filed 10–5–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Office of the Secretary 

[Document Identifier: OS–0990–0268] 

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