32826 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 25, 1996 / Notices

2See 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1341, 1343 (mail and wire

fraud).

3See Fashion Originators’ Guild v. FTC, 312 U.S.

457, 466 (1941); FTC v. Brown Shoe Co., 384 U.S.

316, 321 (1966) (Commission could ‘‘ban trade

practices which conflict with the basic policies of

the Sherman and Clayton Acts even though such

practices may not actually violate those laws’’); FTC

v. Cement Institute, 333 U.S. 683, 708 (1948)

(Commission was intended to ‘‘restrain practices as

‘unfair’ which, although not yet having grown into

Sherman Act dimensions would most likely do so

if left unrestrained’’).

persons. Comments received during this

period will become part of the public

record. After 60 days, the Commission

will again review the agreement and the

comments received and will decide

whether it should withdraw from the

agreement or make final the agreement’s

proposed order.

The complaint alleges that two

representatives of Precision Moulding

Co., Inc. visited one of its competitors

and invited the competitor to raise its

prices for stretcher bars. The complaint

alleges that the invitation to collude, if

accepted, would constitute an

agreement in restraint of trade.

Solicitations to collude have been

condemned as unlawful under Section 2

of the Sherman Act (attempted

monopolization), under the wire and

mail fraud statutes,2 and under Section

5 of the FTC Act. In this case, the

structure of the stretcher market is not

conducive to prosecution under Section

2 of the Sherman Act. Market structure

does not affect whether an alleged

solicitation to collude can be prosecuted

under the wire fraud or mail fraud

statutes. However, those statutes do not

apply in this case, because there is no

evidence that Precision Moulding

Company, Inc. used either the telephone

(or another form of wire

communication) or the mail to invite its

competitor to collude. Thus, if not

prosecuted under Section 5 of the FTC

Act, the conduct would go unpunished.

Solicitations to collude have been

alleged to be unfair methods of

competition that violate Section 5 of the

FTC Act, which reaches anticompetitive

activities that may not violate the

Sherman Act.3 During the past several

years, the Commission has entered into

several consent agreements involving

invitations to collude that could not be

reached under the wire and mail fraud

statutes. See YKK, C–3345 (1993);

Quality Trailer Products, C–3403 (1992)

(‘‘Quality’’); A.E. Clevite, Inc., C–3429

(1993). The Commission has

condemned invitations to collude where

the evidence is unambiguous, regardless

of market power. Section 5 provides an

appropriate vehicle for relief where the

conduct falls short of criminal liability.

The alleged conduct engaged in by

Precision Moulding Co., Inc. and the

terms of the proposed consent order are

similar to the conduct alleged and the

relief obtained in Quality Trailer

Products, C–3403 (1992). In Quality,

according to the Commission complaint,

two representatives of a firm visited the

headquarters of a competitor and met

with an officer of the firm. During the

course of the meeting, they invited the

competitor to fix prices. As in Quality,

the visit here was uninvited, and the

solicitor informed its competitor in a

private conservation that its prices were

too low. See Quality (Concurring

Statement of Commissioner Azcuenaga)

(Nov. 5, 1992).

The proposed consent order prohibits

Precision Moulding Co., Inc. from

requesting, suggesting, urging, or

advocating that any other producer or

seller of stretcher bars raise, fix or

stabilize prices or price levels, or engage

in any other pricing action. The

proposed consent order also prohibits

Precision Moulding Co., Inc. from

entering into, adhering to, maintaining,

or carrying out any combination,

conspiracy, agreement, understanding,

plan or program with any other

producer or seller of stretcher bars to

fix, raise, establish, control, maintain or

stabilize prices or price levels. The

provisions of the order apply to

stretcher bar products of any size.

The purpose of this analysis is to

facilitate public comment on the

proposed order, and it is not intended

to constitute an official interpretation of

the agreement and proposed order or to

modify in any way their terms.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–16114 Filed 6–24–96; 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)

has made final findings of scientific

misconduct in the following case:

Robert J. Altman, M.D., University of

California at San Francisco (UCSF):

Based on an investigation conducted by

the institution as well as information

obtained by ORI during its oversight

review, ORI found that Robert J. Altman,

M.D., Research Fellow, Department of

Obstetrics, Gynecology, and

Reproductive Sciences, UCSF,

committed scientific misconduct by

fabricating and falsifying data in

research supported by two National

Institutes of Health grants.

Specifically, Dr. Altman fabricated an

experiment related to an ovarian cell

line injected intraperitoneally into 12

nude mice. The resulting data were

reported in (1) a manuscript in page

proof entitled ‘‘Inhibiting vascular

endothelial growth factor arrests growth

of ovarian cancer in an intraperitoneal

model’’ (Journal of the National Cancer

Institute); (2) a manuscript entitled

‘‘Vascular endothelial growth factor is

essential for human ovarian carcinoma

growth in vivo,’’ submitted to the

Journal of Clinical Investigation (JCI

manuscript); and (3) a published

abstract entitled ‘‘Vascular endothelial

growth factor is essential for ovarian

cancer growth in vivo’’ (Society for

Gynecologic Investigation, abstract

#079). Further, in the JCI manuscript,

Dr. Altman (1) falsified the number of

subjects with ovarian tumors from

whom he obtained sections of tissue for

examination of the expression of

vascular endothelial growth factor

(VEGF) purportedly by both in situ

hybridization and

immunohistochemistry, and (2) falsely

reported that VEGF expression was

examined by in situ hybridization and

immunohistochemistry in papillary

serous- (n=7) and mucinous- (n=5)

cystadenocarcinomas, when the number

of surgical cases involving papillary

serous tumors was four and the number

of mucinous tumors was zero. Dr.

Altman examined VEGF expression in

only three papillary serous tumor

specimens, one specimen both ιin situ

and by immunohistochemistry and the

remaining two solely by

immunohistochemistry.

Dr. Altman has entered into a

Voluntary Exclusion Agreement with

ORI in which he has voluntarily agreed,

for the three (3) year period beginning

June 11, 1996, to exclude himself from:

(1) 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 C.F.R. Part

76 (Debarment Regulations), and (2)

Serving in any advisory capacity to the

Public Health Service (PHS), including

but not limited to service on any PHS

advisory committee, board, and/or peer

review committee, or as a consultant.

The above voluntary exclusion shall

not apply to Dr. Altman’s future training
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 25, 1996 / Notices 32827

or practice of clinical medicine whether

as a medical student, resident, fellow, or

licensed practitioner, as the case may

be, unless that practice involves

research or research training.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Director, Division of Research

Investigations, Office of Research

Integrity, 5515 Security Lane, Suite 700,

Rockville, MD 20852.

Chris B. Pascal,

Acting Director, Office of Research Integrity.

[FR Doc. 96–16102 Filed 6–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–17–P

Administration for Children and

Families

Proposed Information Collection

Activity; Comment Request

Proposed Projects

Title: Comprehensive Child

Development Program Management

Information System.

OMB No.: 0980–0226.

Description: The Comprehensive

Child Development Program (CCDP)

provides comprehensive services to

low-income families through 19

grantees. Data on the feasibility and

management of the program will be

collected through the management

information (MIS) submitted here. The

data will be collected from CCDP

grantee agencies and will continue to be

used for (1) research, (2) federal

monitoring, and (3) internal project

management.

Respondents: State, Local or Tribal

Govt.

ANNUAL BURDEN ESTIMATES

Instrument

Number

of respondents

Number

of responses

per respondent

Average

burden

hours

per response

Total

burden

hours

CCDP MIS ................................................................................................................................................... 11,212 16.2 .14 25,935

Estimated Total Annual Burden

Hours: 25,935.

In compliance with the requirements

of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the

Administration for Children and

Families is soliciting public comment

on the specific aspects of the

information collection described above.

Copies of the proposed collection of

information can be obtained and

comments may be forwarded by writing

to the Administration for Children and

Families, Office of Information Services,

Division of Information Resource

Management Services, 370 L’Enfant

Promenade, SW., Washington, DC

20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance

Officer. All requests should be

identified by title.

In addition, requests for copies may

be made and comments forwarded to

the Reports Clearance Officer over the

Internet by sending message to

rsargis@acf.dhhs.gov. Internet messages

must be submitted as an ASCII file

without special characters or

encryption.

The Department specifically requests

comments on: (a) Whether the proposed

collection of information is necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of the agency, including

whether the information shall have

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

proposed collection of information; (c)

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the

burden of the collection of information

on respondents, including through the

use of automated collection techniques

or other forms of information

technology. Consideration will be given

to comments and suggestions submitted

within 60 days of this publication.

Dated: June 19, 1996.

Larry Guerrero,

Director, Office of Information System

Services.

[FR Doc. 96–16049 Filed 6–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4184–01–M

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

Title: Objective Evaluation Report

(OER), Administration for Native

Americans.

OMB No.: 0980–0144.

Description: The project selfevaluation information collected by the

Objective Evaluation Report about a

grantee’s project is needed to meet

ANA’s legislatively required evaluation

of grantee locally-determined financial

assistance grant objective. The report is

used in the following Administration for

Native American’s Program’s

competitive areas grants—Social and

Economic Development Strategies

(SEDS), ANA Regulatory Environmental

Enhancement, ANA Native American

Languages Preservation and

Enhancements, and ANA Mitigation of

Environomental Impacts to Indian

Lands due to Department of Defense

Activities. The information, when

aggregated, is used to evaluate and

monitor the grant project.

Respondents: State, Local or Tribal

Govt.

ANNUAL BURDEN ESTIMATES

Instrument

Number of

respondents

Number

of responses

per respondent

Average

burden

hours

per response

Total

burden

hours

OWP ................................................................................................................................................................ 250 1 2 500