0603026 Informal Interpretation

From: (redacted)

Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 2:34 PM

To: Verne, B.Michael

Subject:802.2(c) - Unproductive real property question

HiMike

Just a quick question. I'm looking at a transaction wherewe're trying to figure out the value of non-exempt assets and need to confirmhow we define contiguous/non-contiguous parcels for purposes of 802.2(c). I seeyour 1999 informal opinion at:

http://wvvw.ftc.gov/bc/hsr/informal/opinions/9906010.htm

In oursituation, we're looking at parcels of real property (potentially"unproductive real property"). There are two parcels that areseparated only by a state highway, and I gather from your 1999 interpretationthat the existence of the highway is probably sufficient to make the twoparcels distinct enough that there are deemed to be "non-contiguous"and that, therefore, each (separately) would be subject to its $5million/36-month test as provided in 802.2(c). Is that correct? (MV comment YES)

Also,for future reference, is it enough to have a current map that shows the eitherthe existence of a government road/street/highway or the existence of a river,for purposes of calling parcels on opposite sides of those"boundaries" "non-contiguous" for purposes of 802.2(c)? Iasked you about the sufficiency of a mapped river in the recent past (seeattached email), but am wanting to appreciate if there's a broader, generallyaccepted FTC position on this question. Thanks in advance, Mike
(MV comment map is ok. No broader FTC position.)