Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2001 / Notices 65713

persons. Comments received during this

period will become part of the public

record. After 30 days, the Commission

will again review the proposed consent

order and the comments received and

will decide whether it should withdraw

from the agreement or make the

proposed consent order final.

By accepting the proposed consent

order subject to final approval, the

Commission anticipates that the

competitive problems alleged in the

complaint will be resolved. The purpose

of this analysis is to invite public

comment on the proposed consent

order, including the proposed sale of

supermarkets to Kroger and Winn-Dixie,

in order to aid the Commission in its

determination of whether to make the

proposed consent order final. This

analysis is not intended to constitute an

official interpretation of the proposed

consent order nor is it intended to

modify the terms of the proposed

consent order in any way.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–31338 Filed 12–19–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

[File No. 011 0083]

Nestle Holdings, Inc. and Ralston

Purina Co.; Analysis 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 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 January 11, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Comments filed in paper

form should be directed to: FTC/Office

of the Secretary, Room 159-H, 600

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20580. Comments filed

in electronic form should be directed to:

consentagreement@ftc.gov, as

prescribed below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Phillip L. Broyles, Bureau of

Competition, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue,

NW., Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326–

2805.

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’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 December 11, 2001), on

the World Wide Web, at http://

www.ftc.gov/os/2001/12/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. Comments

filed in paper form should be directed

to: FTC/Office of the Secretary, Room

159–H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20580. If a comment

contains nonpublic information, it must

be filed in paper form, and the first page

of the document must be clearly labeled

‘‘confidential.’’ Comments that do not

contain any nonpublic information may

instead be filed in electronic form (in

ASCII format, WordPerfect, or Microsoft

Word) as part of or as an attachment to

email messages directed to the following

email box: consentagreement@ftc.gov.

Such comments will be considered by

the Commission and will be available

for inspection and copying at its

principal office in accordance with

§ 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission’s rules

of practice, 16 CFR 4.9(b)(6)(ii)).

Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To

Aid Public Comment

I. Introduction

The Federal Trade Commission

(‘‘Commission’’) has issued a complaint

(‘‘Complaint’’) alleging that the

proposed merger of Nestle Holdings,

Inc. (‘‘Nestle’’), and Ralston Purina

Company (‘‘Ralston’’) (collectively

‘‘Proposed Respondents’’) 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, and has entered

into an agreement containing consent

orders (‘‘Agreement Containing Consent

Orders’’) pursuant to which

Respondents agree to be bound by a

proposed consent order that requires

divestiture of certain assets (‘‘Proposed

Consent Order’’) and an order that

requires Proposed Respondents to

maintain certain assets pending

divestiture (‘‘Asset Maintenance

Order’’). The Proposed Order remedies

the likely anticompetitive effects arising

from Proposed Respondents’ proposed

merger, as alleged in the Complaint. The

Asset Maintenance Order preserves

competition pending divestiture.

II. Description of the Parties and the

Transaction

Nestle Holdings, Inc., is a corporation

organized, existing, and doing business

under and by virtue of the laws of the

State of Delaware. This subsidiary of

Nestle S.A. is the U.S. corporation that

will be purchasing all of the outstanding

Ralston shares. Nestle SA, the largest

food corporation in the world,

manufactures, distributes, and sells

dairy products, soluble coffee, roast and

ground coffee, mineral water, beverages,

breakfast cereals, coffee creamers, infant

foods and dietetic products, culinary

products (seasonings, canned foods,

pasta, sauces, etc.), frozen foods, ice

cream, refrigerated products (e.g.,

yogurt, desserts, pasta, sauces),

chocolate, food services,

ophthalmological products, cosmetics,

and pet foods. Nestle sells its pet food

products in the U.S. through its Friskies

division, including Alpo, Come ‘‘N Get

It, Mighty Dog, Friskies, Fancy Feast,

Jim Dandy, and Chef’s Blend. Nestle had

worldwide sales of approximately 81.4

billion Swiss francs and United States

sales of approximately $7.8 billion for

all products in 2000.

Ralston is a corporation organized,

existing, and doing business under and

by virtue of the laws of the State of

Missouri. Ralston is the world’s leading

producer of dry dog and dry and softmoist cat foods. The brands that Ralston

manufacturers, distributes, and sells

include Dog Chow, Puppy Chow, Cat

Chow, Kitten Chow, Purina Special

Care, Meow Mix, Purina O.N.E., Purina

Pro Plan, Fit & Trim, Clinical Nutrition

Management, Alley Cat, Deli-Cat,

Thrive, Tender Vittles, Happy Cat,

Chuck Wagon Stampede, and Main

Stay. Ralston had worldwide sales of

approximately $3 billion and United

States sales of approximately $2.36

billion for all products for fiscal year

2000.

Pursuant to a merger agreement dated

January 15, 2001, Nestle agreed to

purchase all of Ralston’s outstanding

shares of common stock in a transaction

valued at $ 10.3 billion. Nestle intends

65714 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2001 / Notices

to call the merged entity Nestle Purina

Pet Care.

III. The Complaint

The complaint alleges that the market

in which to analyze the competitive

effects of the proposed transaction is the

sale of dry cat food in the United States.

Wet and dry cat foods constitute

separate product markets. Wet cat food

differs from dry cat food in production,

ingredients, appearance, packaging,

aroma, price, and convenience.

Ralston’s share of the dry cat food

market across all channels of

distribution is approximately 34%.

Nestle has a market share of

approximately 11% of the dry cat food

market across all channels of

distribution. The dry cat food market in

the United States is moderately

concentrated. The merger of Nestle and

Ralston would substantially increase

concentration in this market, raising the

HHI level to more than 2400, an

increase of more than 750 points. Entry

would not be timely, likely, or sufficient

to prevent anti-competitive effects in the

relevant market.

The Complaint alleges that the merger

of Nestle and Ralston would

substantially lessen competition in the

dry cat food market 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

ways, among others: (a) By eliminating

direct competition in the sale of dry cat

food between Nestle and Ralston; and

(b) by increasing the likelihood that the

combination of Nestle and Ralston will

unilaterally exercise market power; each

of which increases the likelihood that

prices will be higher with the

acquisition than they would be absent

the acquisition.

The Proposed Consent Order requires

Proposed Respondents to divest the

Meow Mix and Alley Cat brands of dry

cat food to an up-front buyer, J.W.

Childs Equity Partners II, L.P.

(‘‘Childs’’), no later than 20 days after

the Commission accepts the Proposed

Consent Agreement for public comment

or January 31, 2002, whichever is later,

to remedy the Commission’s concerns.

Childs is a Boston-based investment

firm founded in 1995. Structured as a

limited partnership, Childs has total

committed capital of $982 million. The

Commission is satisfied that Childs’

acquisition of the divested assets will

restore the competition lost as a result

of the proposed merger of Nestle and

Ralston. Childs has a past history of

successfully developing the business of

consumer products companies. The

designated CEO of the businesses that

will produce and sell the brands to be

divested has expertise in manufacturing

dry pet foods. Childs also owns the

Hartz Mountain Corporation (‘‘Hartz’’), a

leading manufacturer and distributor of

pet supplies in the United States. Hartz

sells its pet supplies and treats in the

same retail outlets as the brands to be

divested.

IV. Terms of the Proposed Order

The Proposed Order resolves the

Commission’s antitrust concerns with

the merger as discussed below.

A. Divestiture Provisions

Paragraph II.A. of the Proposed Order

requires Proposed Respondents to divest

to Childs all of Proposed Respondents’

rights, titles, and interests in and to all

assets relating to the Meow Mix and

Alley Cat brands. The Meow Mix brand

includes the original Meow Mix product

and Meow Mix Seafood Middles.

Specifically, Proposed Respondents

must divest all interests in the research,

development, manufacture, distribution,

marketing, and sales of the Meow Mix

and Alley Cat brands of dry cat food

products anywhere in the United States

and Canada. Proposed Respondents also

must divest any and all trademarks,

service marks, trademark and service

mark registrations, and pending

trademark and service mark

registrations that relate exclusively to

the Meow Mix or Alley Cat brand of dry

cat food products outside of the United

States and Canada. Proposed

Respondents must further divest all

inventories and supplies held by, or

under their control; all intellectual

property owned by or licensed to

Proposed Respondents; copies of all

customer lists and supplier lists; all

rights of Proposed Respondents under

any contract; all governmental

approvals, consents, licenses, permits,

waivers, or other authorizations held by

Proposed Respondents, to the extent

transferable; all rights of Proposed

Respondents under any warranty and

guarantee, express or implied; and

copies of all relevant portions of books,

records, and files held by, or under the

control of, Proposed Respondents.

Paragraph II.C. further provides that if

the Commission determines that Childs

is not an acceptable purchaser of the

assets to be divested, Proposed

Respondents shall immediately

terminate or rescind the sale of the

assets to be divested to Childs and

divest these assets at no minimum price

to another purchaser that receives the

prior approval of the Commission no

later than 180 days from the date that

this Proposed Order becomes final.

Paragraph II.D. of the Proposed Order

requires that Proposed Respondents

grant a patent license to Childs for the

coating applied to Meow Mix products.

The license covers current Meow Mix

products as well as any pet product

Childs chooses to manufacture in the

future. Paragraph II.F. of the Proposed

Order requires Proposed Respondents to

provide Childs with a supply of Meow

Mix and Alley Cat products for a period

of up to two years from the date of the

divestiture. Paragraph II.G. requires

Proposed Respondents to provide

technical assistance to Childs, as

needed, for a period of up to two years

from the date of divestiture, which

includes expert advice, assistance, and

training relating to the manufacture of

the Meow Mix and Alley Cat brands.

Paragraph VI of the Proposed Order

requires Childs, for a period of 5 years,

to obtain the Commission’s approval

before selling all or substantially all of

the United States assets acquired in the

divestiture. The Commission does not

routinely require acquirers of divested

assets to obtain approval before

subsequent sales. In cases, however,

where the proposed acquirer’s current

plans indicate that there is a high

probability that the assets will be resold,

possibly within two-five years, it is

appropriate for the Commission to

include such a provision. C.f., e.g., the

Commission’s final order in Albertson’s,

Inc., Docket No. C–3986.

B. Monitor Trustee Provisions

Paragraph IV of the Proposed Order

appoints a Monitor Trustee to monitor

compliance with the terms of the Order.

The Proposed Consent Order provides

the Monitor Trustee with the power and

authority to monitor the Proposed

Respondents’ compliance with the

terms of the Proposed Consent Order,

and full and complete access to

personnel, books, records, documents,

and facilities of the Proposed

Respondents to fulfill that

responsibility. In addition, the Monitor

Trustee may request any other relevant

information that relates to the Proposed

Respondents’ obligations under the

Proposed Consent Order. The Proposed

Consent Order precludes Proposed

Respondents from taking any action to

interfere with or impede the Monitor

Trustee’s ability to perform his or her

responsibilities or to monitor

compliance with the Proposed Consent

Order.

The Monitor Trustee may hire such

consultants, accountants, attorneys, and

other assistants as are reasonably

necessary to carry out the Monitor

Trustee’s duties and responsibilities.

The Proposed Consent Order requires

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2001 / Notices 65715

1See, e.g., Federal Trade Commission Bureau of

Competition Staff, A Study of the Commission’s

Divestiture Process (1999).

the Proposed Respondents to bear the

cost and expense of hiring these

assistants.

C. Other Terms

Paragraphs V and VII–X of the

Proposed Consent Order detail certain

general provisions. Paragraph V

authorizes the Commission appoint a

divestiture trustee in the event Nestle

fails to divest the assets as required by

the Proposed Consent Order. Paragraph

VII requires Respondents to provide a

copy of the Proposed Consent Order to

each of their officers, employees, and

agents with managerial responsibilities

for any obligation under the Proposed

Order. Paragraph VIII requires Proposed

Respondents to provide the Commission

with periodic reports of compliance

with the Proposed Consent Order.

Paragraph IX provides for notification to

the Commission in the event of any

changes in the corporate Proposed

Respondents. Paragraph X requires

Proposed Respondents to grant access to

any authorized Commission

representative for the purpose of

determining or securing compliance

with the Proposed Consent Order.

Paragraph XI terminates the Proposed

Consent Order after ten years from the

date the Proposed Consent Order

becomes final.

V. Opportunity for Public Comment

The Proposed Consent Order has been

placed on the public record for thirty

(30) days for receipt of comments by

interested persons. The Commission has

also issued its Complaint in this matter

as well as the Asset Maintenance Order.

Comments received during this thirty

day comment period will become part of

the public record. After thirty days, the

Commission will again review the

Proposed Consent Order and the

comments received and will decide

whether it should withdraw from the

Proposed Consent Order or make final

the agreement’s Proposed Consent

Order.

By accepting the Proposed Consent

Order subject to final approval, the

Commission anticipates that the

competitive problems alleged in the

complaint will be resolved. The purpose

of this analysis is to invite public

comment on the Proposed Consent

Agreement, to aid the Commission in its

determination of whether it should

make final the Proposed Order

contained in the agreement. 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,

Chairman Muris recused.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

Statement of Commissioner Sheila F.

Anthony

Yesterday, the Commission accepted

for public comment a proposed consent

agreement in this case. The evidence

developed during the Commission’s

investigation unequivocally

demonstrates that, absent the proposed

relief, the acquisition by Nestle of

Ralston would violate the antitrust laws

and likely would result in harm to

consumers of dry cat food. The parties

have agreed to divest Ralston’s Meow

Mix and Alley Cat brands to J.W. Childs,

a private equity investment firm. While

I have concurred in the Commission’s

decision, I write separately to express

my concerns about some aspects of the

divestiture proposal.

The assets to be divested consist of

two proven cat food brands and little

else. Standing alone, these brands do

not constitute a complete, ongoing

business. Rather, J.W. Childs will have

to create a new competitor largely from

whole cloth. In order to turn the

divested assets into a viable business

entity, J.W. Childs will need to develop,

among other things, its own research

and development program,

manufacturing facilities, distribution

system, and sales and marketing

operations. Such a prospect is daunting

even when the purchaser is a

participant in the same or a closely

related business—which is why

divestitures of stand-alone businesses

present the most successful formula for

restoring competition.1

The risk to consumers is further

heightened where, as here, the proposed

purchaser is a financial buyer. When

compared to dedicated industry

participants, investment firms may have

quite different incentives and goals in

operating a business. For example, a

financial buyer’s business plan often

involves selling the acquired business

within a relatively short period of time.

In the end, I am convinced that this

is a rather unique situation and that

consumers will be adequately protected

by the proposed relief. Manufacturing

and distribution in this industry

segment is routinely and economically

contracted out through ‘‘co-packing’’

arrangements. Moreover, this particular

financial buyer, J.W. Childs, is

financially strong, has a proven track

record of good management and growth

of acquired firms, and has some

experience in the pet industry with its

Hartz Mountain line of pet care

products. These factors have led me to

conclude that J.W. Childs is very likely

to restore lost competition and preserve

choices for dry cat food consumers.

I wish to make it clear, however, that

I remain skeptical of divestiture plans

that require a purchaser to take brands

alone, then build a competitive

company from scratch. In addition, I

will closely examine divestiture

proposals where the buyer is a financial

company. In most cases, I would prefer

to see divested assets go to a company

with a stronger likelihood of operating

the business for the long term.

Concurring Statement of Commissioner

Mozelle W. Thompson

The Commission today has voted to

accept a Consent Order that remedies

competitive concerns in the dry cat food

market stemming from Nestle S.A.’’s

(‘‘Nestle’’) proposed acquisition of

Ralston Purina Co. (‘‘Ralston’’).

Pursuant to the proposed Consent

Agreement and Order, Ralston would

divest its top-selling Meow Mix brand

and its Alley Cat brand to investment

firm J.W. Childs Equity Partners II, L.P.

(‘‘Childs’’), owners of the Hartz

Mountain line of specialty pet care

products. For me, this decision was

difficult because the continued

competitiveness of these brands is so

important to consumers.

As always, the key issue facing the

Commission in its analysis of the

proposed remedy is whether or not the

remedy will restore competition that

would be lost as a result of the proposed

merger. This is at its essence a factual

inquiry, involving consideration of a

multitude of factors, including the

extent of the prospective buyer’s

industry know-how, its financial

viability, its future marketing plans, and

its capacity to research, develop, and

make innovations to the relevant

products.

Our analysis here was made all the

more difficult in that we were presented

with a buyer that does not have a record

of experience in the market in question,

therefore, historical indicia of market

competitiveness were not available for

the Commission’s review. As such, the

Commission undertook an

extraordinarily rigorous analysis of

Childs and its ability to be competitive

with the assets in question. Ultimately,

my primary reservation was not about

Childs’ ability to be competitive in the

dry cat food marketplace, but rather that

Childs, as a financial buyer, might in the

near term re-sell the assets in question

to a buyer who will operate the business

65716 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2001 / Notices

poorly or not at all, thus defeating the

purpose of the Commission’s Order.

These concerns are addressed in

Section VI of the proposed Order, which

provides that Childs’ will not sell the

acquired assets within five years of the

date of the Order without prior approval

of the Commission. While generally I

am cautious about including lengthy

oversight provisions in such orders, it is

appropriate in this case because these

provisions ensure that in the event of a

resale by Childs, the Commission will

be able to assure that the prospective

buyer is committed to enhancing the

assets in question, thus maintaining the

integrity of the Commission’s Order.

Concurring Statement of Commissioner

Orson Swindle

The Commission has accepted for

public comment a consent agreement to

resolve complaint allegations that the

effect of Nestle S.A.’’s (‘‘Nestle’’)

acquisition of Ralston Purina Co.

(‘‘Ralston’’) may be to substantially

lessen competition in the market for the

sale of dry cat food in the United States.

To remedy these competitive concerns,

the merging parties have entered into a

consent agreement under which Ralston

would divest its Meow Mix and Alley

Cat brands to J.W. Childs Equity

Partners II, L.P. (‘‘J.W. Childs’’), an

investment firm that owns the Hartz line

of pet care products. Because the

divestiture to J.W. Childs is likely to

replace the competition in the market

for dry cat food that otherwise would

have been lost due to the Nestle/Ralston

merger, I have voted to accept the

consent agreement for public comment.

One provision in the proposed

consent agreement is unusual and may

raise concerns, however. Paragraph VI

of the Proposed Consent Order requires

J.W. Childs, for a period of five years,

to obtain Commission approval before

selling all or substantially all of the

assets acquired in the divestiture. The

Analysis to Aid Public Comment

explains that the Commission does not

routinely impose such prior approval

requirements, but it is appropriate to do

so ‘‘where the proposed acquirer’s

current plans indicate that there is a

high probability that the assets will be

resold, possibly within 2–5 years.’’ The

purpose of the prior approval

requirement is to make certain that

whoever buys the resold assets from

J.W. Childs would be a sufficient

competitor to remedy the lessening of

competition from the Nestle/Ralston

transaction alleged in the complaint.

See Paragraph VI.F. of the Proposed

Consent Order.

I agree that J.W. Childs warranted a

hard look as a prospective buyer

because it might resell the divested

assets in the near future. It is possible

that this close scrutiny would go for

naught if J.W. Childs were promptly to

resell the assets to a less qualified buyer.

On the other hand, this risk is always

present—even had the assets remained

in Ralston’s hands. I think that our

approval of J.W. Childs as the buyer

means that we have determined that, in

spite of any possible resale plans, the

company will develop and employ the

assets as vigorously as Ralston would

have done. Once we have made this

determination, I question the need for

imposing a prior approval requirement

on J.W. Childs that we would not have

imposed on a buyer that was less likely

to resell the assets.

I also think that the prior approval

requirement may require that the

Commission make a difficult

determination. For example, assume

that J.W. Childs seeks prior approval to

resell the assets four years after the

Nestle/Ralston merger has been

consummated. The Commission

presumably will have to determine

whether the prospective buyer of the

resold assets will compete as effectively

as Ralston would have competed in the

absence of the Nestle/Ralston merger.

Given the passage of four years since the

merger and the dynamic nature of

markets, it may be difficult for the

Commission to make this determination

with a high degree of confidence.

I welcome public comments on the

prior approval provision included in

Paragraph VI of the Proposed Consent

Order, including any suggestions for

distinguishing between situations where

the additional relief may be justified

and those where it is not.

[FR Doc. 01–31339 Filed 12–19–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Office of the Assistant Secretary for

Planning and Evaluation

Secretary’s Advisory Committee on

Regulatory Reform; Notice of Meeting

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of a

meeting by the Department of Health

and Human Services (HHS) Secretary’s

Advisory Committee on Regulatory

Reform. As governed by the Federal

Advisory Committee Act in accordance

with section 10(a)(2), the Secretary’s

Advisory Committee on Regulatory

Reform is seeking guidance for the

Department’s efforts to streamline

regulatory requirements. The Advisory

Committee will advise and make

recommendations for changes that

would be beneficial in four broad areas:

health care delivery, health systems

operations, biomedical and health

research, and the development of

pharmaceuticals and other products.

All meetings and hearings of the

Committee are open to the general

public. During each meeting, invited

witnesses will address how regulations

affect health-related issues. Meeting

agendas will also allow time for public

comment. Additional information on

each meeting’s agenda and list of

participating witnesses will be posted

on the Committee’s Web site prior to the

meetings (http://

www.regreform.hhs.gov).

DATES: The first meeting of the

Secretary’s Advisory Committee on

Regulatory Reform will be held on

Monday, January 7, 2002, from 9 a.m. to

5:30 p.m. and on Tuesday, January 8,

2002, from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The Secretary’s Advisory

Committee on Regulatory Reform will

meet on Monday, January 7, in the Ross

Auditorium at Providence Hospital,

1150 Varnum Street NE., Washington,

DC 20017. On Tuesday, January 8, the

Committee will meet in Room 800 of the

Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200

Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, DC 20201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christy Schmidt, Executive Coordinator,

Secretary’s Advisory Committee on

Regulatory Reform, Office of the

Assistant Secretary for Planning and

Evaluation, 200 Independence Avenue,

SW., Room 801, Washington, DC 20201,

(202) 401–5182.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Providence Hospital and the Hubert H.

Humphrey Building are in compliance

with the Americans with Disabilities

Act. Anyone planning to attend the

meeting who requires special disabilityrelated arrangements such as signlanguage interpretation should provide

notice of their need by Friday,

December 31, 2001. Please make any

request to Michael Starkweather ‘‘

phone: 301–628–3141; fax: 301–628–

3101; email: mstarkweather@s-3.com.

On June 8, 2001, HHS Secretary

Thompson announced a Departmentwide initiative to reduce regulatory

burdens in health care, to improve

patient care, and to respond to the

concerns of health care providers and

industry, State and local Governments,

and individual Americans who are

affected by HHS rules. As part of this

initiative, the Department is establishing

the Secretary’s Advisory Committee on