67706 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 215 / Tuesday, November 8, 2005 / Notices 

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 the 

applicable law and the public interest. See 

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

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System, November 2, 2005. 

Robert deV. Frierson, 

Deputy Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. E5–6169 Filed 11–7–05; 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 

website at 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 December 2, 

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, and The San Francisco 

Company, San Francisco, California; to 

acquire 100 percent of the voting shares 

of First National Bank of Sachse, 

Sachse, Texas. 

B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas 

City (Donna J. Ward, Assistant Vice 

President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas 

City, Missouri 64198-0001: 

1. Frontier Holdings, LLC, Omaha, 

Nebraska; to merge with Frontier 

Bancorp, Davenport, Nebraska, and 

thereby indirectly acquire voting shares 

of Frontier Bank, Davenport, Nebraska. 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System, November 2, 2005. 

Robert deV. Frierson, 

Deputy Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. E5–6170 Filed 11–7–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210–01–S 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

[File No. 051–0050] 

Johnson & Johnson; Analysis of 

Agreement Containing 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 1, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are 

invited to submit written comments. 

Comments should refer to ‘‘Johnson & 

Johnson, File No. 051–0050,’’ 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 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: 

Michael R. Moiseyev, Bureau of 

Competition, Federal Trade 

Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW. Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326–

3106. 

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 November 2, 2005), on 

the World Wide Web, at http:// 

www.ftc.gov/os/2005/11/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 (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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 215 / Tuesday, November 8, 2005 / Notices 67707 

Analysis of Agreement Containing 

Consent Order To Aid Public Comment 

The Federal Trade Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) has accepted, subject to 

final approval, an Agreement 

Containing Consent Orders (‘‘Consent 

Agreement’’) from Johnson & Johnson 

(‘‘J&J’’). The purpose of the proposed 

Consent Agreement is to remedy the 

anticompetitive effects that would 

otherwise result from J&J’s acquisition 

of Guidant Corporation (‘‘Guidant’’). 

Under the terms of the proposed 

Consent Agreement, J&J is required to 

(a) grant to a third party a fully paid-up, 

non-exclusive, irrevocable license, 

enabling that third party to make and 

sell drug-eluting stents (‘‘DESs’’) with 

the Rapid Exchange (‘‘RX’’) delivery 

system, (b) divest to a third party J&J’s 

endoscopic vessel harvesting (‘‘EVH’’) 

product line, and (c) terminate its 

agreement to distribute the proximal 

anastomotic assist device (‘‘AAD’’) of 

Novare Surgical System, Inc. 

(‘‘Novare’’). 

The proposed 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 

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 December 15, 2004, J&J 

proposes to acquire Guidant in 

exchange for cash and voting securities 

in a transaction valued at approximately 

$25.4 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 removing an 

imminent competitor from the U.S. 

market for DESs and by lessening 

competition in the U.S. markets for EVH 

devices and proximal AADs. The 

proposed Consent Agreement would 

remedy the alleged violations by 

replacing the competition that would be 

lost in these markets as a result of the 

acquisition. 

J&J is a comprehensive and broadlybased manufacturer of products related 

to all aspects of human health care. In 

2004, J&J generated global sales of $47.3 

billion and U.S. sales of $27.7 billion. 

J&J is divided into three business 

segments: Consumer, Pharmaceutical, 

and Medical Devices and Diagnostics. 

The products impacted by the proposed 

transaction, DESs, EVH devices, and 

proximal AADs, fall within J&J’s 

Medical Devices and Diagnostics 

segment. 

Guidant manufactures products in 

three broad business units: cardiac 

rhythm management, vascular 

intervention, and cardiac surgery. In 

2004, Guidant’s sales were $3.8 billion 

globally and $2.53 billion in the United 

States. Guidant’s DES program is part of 

its vascular intervention business unit, 

and the company’s EVH device and 

proximal AAD are part of the cardiac 

surgery business unit. 

Drug-Eluting Stents 

A DES is a medical device typically 

consisting of a thin, metallic stent 

coated with an antiproliferative drug 

and a polymer, mounted on a delivery 

system. Interventional cardiologists use 

DESs to treat coronary artery disease, a 

condition caused by the build up of 

plaque deposits within one or more 

coronary arteries leading to reduced 

blood flow. DESs work by propping 

open the clogged artery or arteries and 

eluting a drug, which helps prevent the 

renarrowing of the artery, called 

restenosis. DESs are the most effective 

minimally-invasive method for treating 

coronary artery disease, and other 

products and procedures are not 

economic substitutes for DESs. 

DESs are sold mounted on a delivery 

system used to deploy the DES to the 

blocked area of the coronary artery. The 

two most common types of delivery 

system in the United States are over-thewire and Rapid Exchange (‘‘RX’’). Overthe-wire delivery systems employ a long 

guidewire and require two operators to 

implant the DES. In contrast, the RX 

delivery system employs a shorter 

guidewire that can be handled by a 

single operator. RX delivery systems 

currently are highly preferred by 

physicians in the United States and are 

increasing in popularity. Boston 

Scientific Corporation and Guidant own 

the intellectual property rights to the RX 

delivery system in the United States. 

The companies have cross-licensed each 

other, and J&J has access to the RX 

delivery system through an agreement 

with Guidant. Both DESs currently on 

the market, J&J’s Cypher and Boston 

Scientific’s Taxus, are available on the 

RX delivery system. 

The relevant geographic market in 

which to analyze the effects of the 

proposed acquisition on the DES market 

is the United States. DESs are medical 

devices that are regulated by the United 

States Food and Drug Administration 

(‘‘FDA’’). Performing the necessary 

clinical testing and navigating the 

approval process for the FDA can be 

burdensome and time-consuming. As 

such, DESs sold outside of the United 

States but not approved for sale in the 

United States do not provide viable 

competitive alternatives for U.S. 

consumers. 

The U.S. market for DESs is highly 

concentrated; currently only two firms, 

J&J and Boston Scientific, have products 

on the market. Guidant’s DES program 

is still in development, but it is 

anticipated to be one of at least three 

entrants, along with Medtronic, Inc. and 

Abbott Laboratories, likely to enter the 

U.S. market by the end of 2007. Guidant 

is the only anticipated entrant with 

rights to the intellectual property 

necessary to market a DES with the RX 

delivery system, the dominant delivery 

system in the United States. 

Developing and receiving FDA 

approval for a DES is difficult, timeconsuming and expensive. It can take 

hundreds of millions of dollars of 

research and development, significant 

funding for clinical trials, and an 

extensive amount of time to even reach 

the stage of seeking FDA approval. The 

regulatory process itself can also be 

time-consuming as the FDA reviews the 

volumes of materials and data a 

company submits in support of its 

application for approval. Considering all 

these factors, entry into the manufacture 

and sale of DESs is impossible to 

achieve within two to three years. 

In addition to the regulatory barriers 

facing firms seeking to enter the DES 

market, there are substantial intellectual 

property barriers an entrant must 

overcome. Firms must invent around or 

obtain licenses to patents covering 

nearly every aspect of a DES, including 

the design of stents, stent delivery 

systems, and the drugs and polymers 

used on DESs. Due to the difficulty of 

entry, firms must commit to entering the 

market years in advance of any 

anticipated entry, and timely and 

sufficient entry in response to a small 

but significant price increase is 

impossible. 

The proposed acquisition would 

cause significant competitive harm in 

the market for DESs by eliminating 

Guidant as the only potential competitor 

with the ability to offer a DES on an RX 

delivery system. As a third RX entrant 

into the DES market, Guidant likely 

would increase competition and reduce 

prices for DESs. Although two other 

firms, Abbott and Medtronic, are poised 

to enter the market in the same 

approximate time frame as Guidant, 

their lack of access to the RX delivery 

system makes it unlikely that either 

company could be a substantial 

competitive constraint on the DES 

market in the near term. The proposed 

67708 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 215 / Tuesday, November 8, 2005 / Notices 

acquisition therefore decreases the 

number of potential DES suppliers with 

access to the RX delivery system from 

three to two until at least late 2008, 

when Guidant’s key patents relating to 

the RX delivery system begin to expire. 

(The relevant Boston Scientific RX 

patents begin to expire this year). 

The proposed Consent Agreement 

effectively remedies the proposed 

acquisition’s anticompetitive effects in 

the market for DESs. Pursuant to the 

proposed Consent Agreement, the 

combined J&J/Guidant is required to 

license Guidant’s intellectual property 

surrounding the RX delivery system at 

no minimum price to an up-front buyer 

with a DES program in development no 

later than ten (10) days after the 

acquisition is consummated. Through 

the course of the investigation, 

Commission staff gathered a great deal 

of information about each of the 

companies developing DES products. In 

particular, staff investigated potential 

divestiture candidates and concluded 

that Abbott was among the companies 

well-positioned to replicate the 

competitive impact Guidant was likely 

to have absent the proposed acquisition. 

The parties have selected Abbott as the 

up-front buyer for the divestiture 

package. Abbott is a well-known and 

respected pharmaceutical and 

diagnostics company that has a number 

of vascular devices on the market 

already or in development. It has 

experience with both drugs and vascular 

devices, a highly regarded DES design, 

a strong and growing vascular sales 

force, and the necessary manufacturing 

capabilities. Abbott, therefore, is poised 

to become a strong competitor in the 

DES market when it enters in the second 

half of 2007, approximately the same 

time as Guidant’s anticipated date of 

entry. Access to the RX delivery system 

will allow Abbott to replace Guidant as 

the third entrant into the DES market 

with an RX delivery system. 

The Commission’s merger remedies 

are intended to maintain or to restore 

the competitive status quo. The 

Commission does not, as a matter of 

course, seek to ‘‘improve’’ on pretransaction competition. Based on the 

evidence gathered in the investigation, 

the Commission has determined that the 

license to Abbott should replicate the 

competitive conditions in DESs that 

existed prior to the proposed transaction 

between J&J and Guidant. As a result, a 

Commission order requiring licenses to 

additional parties is not necessary. 

Given the uncertainty inherent in a 

development program, the RX license 

contemplated by the proposed Consent 

Agreement is transferable, so that if 

Abbott’s DES program is not successful, 

it will have the incentive and ability to 

transfer the RX license to another firm 

developing a DES, ensuring that a 

successful third DES firm is able to 

enter the market with an RX delivery 

system in the relevant timeframe. The 

proposed Consent Agreement also 

requires the parties to enter into a 

covenant not to sue Abbott in relation 

to certain intellectual property rights 

regarding stent design, stent coating and 

the use of certain drugs on a stent. 

Endoscopic Vessel Harvesting Devices 

EVH devices are used in coronary 

artery bypass graft (‘‘CABG’’) surgery to 

remove a patient’s leg vein, arm artery, 

or other blood vessel that is then used 

as a conduit to bypass one or more 

blocked coronary arteries. EVH devices 

allow for a minimally-invasive 

procedure requiring only one to three 

small incisions. EVH has several clinical 

benefits over the other methods of 

vessel harvesting (the open method and 

bridging) both of which are much more 

invasive, leave large, unsightly scars 

and carry a greater risk of infection. 

Surgeons and physician’s assistants 

would not switch to these other 

methods of vessel harvesting even if the 

price of using EVH devices increased by 

five to ten percent. 

As with DESs, the United States is the 

relevant geographic market in which to 

analyze the effects of the proposed 

acquisition on the EVH device market. 

EVH devices are also medical devices 

subject to regulation by the FDA. 

Receiving FDA approval to market an 

EVH device in the United States can be 

a lengthy process, but is necessary in 

order to sell the devices in the Unites 

States. EVH devices sold outside of the 

United States but not approved by the 

FDA for sale in the United States 

therefore do not provide viable 

competitive alternatives for U.S. 

consumers. 

The U.S. market for EVH devices is 

highly concentrated with J&J and 

Guidant as the only competitors until 

very recently, when Terumo 

Corporation entered. Guidant currently 

dominates the market with over eighty 

percent market share. Terumo received 

FDA approval for its device in January, 

2005 and has yet to generate significant 

sales. 

Firms seeking to enter the market for 

EVH devices face regulatory hurdles and 

significant intellectual property barriers, 

both of which make entry into the 

market for EVH devices in the next two 

to three years highly unlikely. In 

addition, while the use of EVH devices 

in CABG surgery is increasing, the 

number of overall CABG surgeries 

appears to be decreasing due to, among 

other things, the increase in stenting 

procedures; this steady decline in the 

number of CABG procedures being 

performed in the United States makes it 

less likely that firms would choose to 

enter the EVH device market in 

response to a modest increase in the 

price of the devices. 

The proposed acquisition would 

constitute a virtual merger to monopoly 

in the market for EVH devices and is 

likely to lead to increased prices and 

decreased innovation in the market for 

those devices. Until recently, Guidant 

and J&J were the only two firms to offer 

an EVH device in the United States, and 

while Terumo recently entered, it is 

likely that it will take several years 

before Terumo’s device has a significant 

impact on the market for EVH devices. 

The proposed Consent Agreement 

effectively remedies the proposed 

acquisition’s anticompetitive effects in 

the market for EVH devices by requiring 

J&J to divest its EVH product line to a 

Commission-approved buyer at no 

minimum price. J&J has reached an 

agreement to divest the EVH business to 

Datascope. Datascope, a diversified 

medical device company, has a line of 

products used in cardiac surgery, 

including products used in CABG 

procedures. Pursuant to the Consent 

Agreement, J&J is required to 

accomplish the divestiture of its EVH 

product line no later than fifteen (15) 

business days after the acquisition is 

consummated. 

The proposed Consent Agreement 

permits the Commission-approved 

buyer of the EVH product line assets to 

enter into a supply agreement with J&J 

for a period of up to two (2) years. The 

supply agreement may be necessary 

because of the need to recreate or move 

manufacturing and/or packaging 

equipment and to allow time for the 

acquirer to receive approval from the 

FDA to begin manufacturing and/or 

packaging EVH device kits in its own 

facility. This supply agreement may also 

be necessary to allow J&J to supply 

certain components of the EVH devices 

until the acquirer is able to procure 

similar components from third-party 

vendors. 

In addition, the proposed Consent 

Agreement permits J&J to provide 

certain transitional services to the 

Commission-approved buyer of the EVH 

product line assets. These transitional 

services may be necessary for a smooth 

transition of the product line to the 

acquirer and to ensure continued and 

uninterrupted service to customers 

during the transition. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 215 / Tuesday, November 8, 2005 / Notices 67709 

Proximal Anastomotic Assist Devices 

Surgeons use proximal AADs in 

CABG procedures to avoid the need to 

clamp the aorta when attaching a 

harvested vessel to it. If a proximal AAD 

is not used, the surgeon must use a 

clamp to stop the flow of blood to a 

segment of the aorta while the harvested 

vessel is surgically attached. Using a 

clamp can cause calcified plaque 

particles to dislodge from the aorta and 

travel through the blood stream to the 

brain, risking neurological dysfunction 

or stroke. 

The proper geographic market in 

which to analyze the effects of the 

proposed transaction on the market for 

proximal AADs is the United States. 

Proximal AADs are medical devices that 

must be approved by the FDA before 

being marketed in the United States. As 

with other medical devices, the clinical 

testing and regulatory approval process 

for proximal AADs can be costly and 

time-consuming, preventing proximal 

AADs approved outside of the United 

States but not approved within the 

United States from serving as a 

competitive alternative for U.S. 

consumers. 

There are currently three firms in the 

U.S. market for proximal AADs, making 

it a highly concentrated market. The 

evidence indicates that J&J and 

Guidant’s manual proximal AADs are 

each others’ closest competitors. 

Medtronic also participates in the 

market with an automatic device that it 

recently launched in the United States. 

A fourth firm, St. Jude Medical, 

removed its automatic device, 

Symmetry, from the market last year 

amidst reports of device failures. J&J’s 

proximal AAD, eNclose, was 

developed and is manufactured by 

Novare; J&J and Novare have a 

distribution agreement making J&J the 

sole distributor of eNclose in the 

United States. 

As with the other medical devices 

discussed, entry into the market for 

proximal AADs is difficult, costly, and 

time-consuming. Additionally, the 

alleged safety concerns regarding St. 

Jude’s Symmetry device have resulted 

in greater scrutiny of proximal AADs by 

the FDA. The increased scrutiny is 

likely to substantially increase the cost 

of developing a proximal AAD. In 

addition, it appears that the publicity 

surrounding Symmetry’s removal from 

the market has dampened physician 

enthusiasm for these devices. These 

developments, along with the declining 

number of overall U.S. CABG 

procedures, decrease the likelihood of 

entry into this market. 

The proposed acquisition is likely to 

cause significant competitive harm in 

the market for proximal AADs by 

eliminating competition between J&J 

and Guidant and reducing the number 

of competitors in the market from three 

to two. The evidence has also shown 

that J&J and Guidant’s products are 

likely each others’ closest competitors 

in the proximal AAD market because 

they are more similar to each other than 

to Medtronic’s product. The proposed 

acquisition is therefore likely to enable 

the combined J&J/Guidant to raise prices 

for proximal AADs unilaterally. 

The proposed acquisition’s 

anticompetitive effects in the market for 

proximal AADs are remedied by the 

proposed Consent Agreement’s 

requirement that J&J terminate its 

distribution agreement with Novare for 

Novare’s proximal AAD, eNclose. It is 

anticipated that it will take Novare no 

more than two months to find a new 

distribution partner for eNclose. 

Appointment of an Interim Monitor and 

a Divestiture Trustee 

The proposed Consent Agreement 

contains a provision that allows the 

Commission to appoint an interim 

monitor to oversee J&J’s compliance 

with all of its obligations and 

performance of its responsibilities 

pursuant to the Commission’s Decision 

and Order. The interim monitor is 

required to file periodic reports with the 

Commission to ensure that the 

Commission remains informed about 

the status of the divestitures, about the 

efforts being made to accomplish the 

divestitures, and the provision of 

services and assistance during the 

transition period for the EVH 

divestiture. 

Finally, the proposed Consent 

Agreement contains provisions that 

allow the Commission to appoint a 

divestiture trustee if any or all of the 

above remedies are not accomplished 

within the time frames required by the 

Consent Agreement. The divestiture 

trustee may be appointed to accomplish 

any and all of the remedies required by 

the proposed Consent Agreement that 

have not yet been fulfilled upon 

expiration of the time period allotted for 

each. 

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 Decision 

and Order or to modify its terms in any 

way. 

By direction of the Commission, with 

Chairman Majoras and Commissioner 

Harbour recused. 

Donald S. Clark, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05–22165 Filed 11–7–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY 

OFFICE 

Advisory Council on Government 

Auditing Standards; Notice of Meeting 

The Advisory Council on Government 

Auditing Standards will meet Monday, 

December 5, 2005, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 

p.m., in room 7C13 of the Government 

Accountability Office building, 441 G 

Street, NW., Washington, DC. 

The Advisory Council on Government 

Auditing Standards will hold a meeting 

to discuss issues that may impact 

government auditing standards. The 

meeting is open to the public. Council 

discussions and reviews are open to the 

public. Members of the public will be 

provided an opportunity to address the 

Council with a brief (five minute) 

presentation on Monday afternoon. 

Any interested person who plans to 

attend the meeting as an observer must 

contact Sharon Chase, Council 

Assistant, 202–512–9406. A form of 

picture identification must be presented 

to the GAO Security Desk on the day of 

the meeting to obtain access to the GAO 

Building. For further information, 

please contact Ms. Chase. Please check 

the Government Auditing Standards 

Web page (http://www.gao.gov/govaud/ 

ybk01.htm) one week prior to the 

meeting for a final agenda. 

Jeanette M. Franzel, 

Director, Financial Management and 

Assurance. 

[FR Doc. 05–22205 Filed 11–7–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1610–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

Privacy Act of 1974; Report of a New 

System of Records 

AGENCY: Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS) Centers for 

Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). 

ACTION: Notice of a New System of 

Records (SOR). 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, 

we are proposing to establish a new