60394 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 195 / Friday, October 8, 2004 / Notices 

B. Propane Storage and Terminaling 

Services 

Propane is used as a heating fuel 

during the winter months in much of 

the Southeastern United States. Propane 

marketers generally purchase propane 

from the major supply sources in Texas 

and Louisiana and ship that propane 

eastward over the Dixie Pipeline System 

(‘‘Dixie’’), the only common carrier 

propane pipeline in the Southeast. 

Because of certain physical and capacity 

constraints on Dixie west of Baton 

Rouge, Louisiana, the segments of Dixie 

west of Baton Rouge are often full 

(capacity constrained) during the winter 

months. Therefore, propane shippers 

along Dixie often must purchase 

propane during the spring and summer 

(non-peak) seasons, ship it eastward on 

Dixie and store the propane at locations 

east of Baton Rouge, such as 

Hattiesburg, Mississippi 

(‘‘Hattiesburg’’). This enables these 

propane marketers to access Dixie’s 

unconstrained capacity during the 

winter months to meet the peak demand 

of their customers for heating fuel. 

Hattiesburg is the site of massive, 

naturally occurring underground salt 

domes, which when leached out, 

provide economic storage capacity for 

propane. The salt domes and associated 

terminaling facilities located at 

Hattiesburg receive propane from Dixie 

during the non-peak months and then 

re-inject propane into Dixie during the 

winter heating season. Dixie shippers 

and other propane marketers pay 

significant fees to the owners of propane 

storage facilities for the right to store 

propane at Hattiesburg and inject it into 

Dixie. Enterprise and GulfTerra are 

direct and substantial competitors in 

providing propane storage and 

terminaling services in Hattiesburg. 

Enterprise currently owns a 50 percent 

undivided interest in a propane storage 

and terminaling facility located in 

Hattiesburg (with Dynegy Midstream 

Services, L.P. owning the other 50 

percent interest). Enterprise also owns a 

100 percent interest in a second propane 

storage facility located in nearby Petal, 

Mississippi. GulfTerra currently owns 

and operates a wholly owned propane 

storage and terminaling facility in 

Hattiesburg. 

The market for propane storage and 

terminaling services in Hattiesburg is 

highly concentrated, with Enterprise 

and GulfTerra currently controlling 

approximately 53 percent of propane 

storage capacity in that market. The 

proposed merger would leave 

Respondents with an ownership interest 

in three of the four propane storage and 

terminaling facilities located in 

Hattiesburg and substantially increase 

concentration in an already highly 

concentrated market. Entry into the 

market for propane storage and 

terminaling services requires substantial 

sunk costs and such entry is highly 

unlikely in response to a post-merger 

increase in propane storage and 

terminaling fees at Hattiesburg. By 

eliminating the actual, direct, and 

substantial competition that exists 

between Enterprise and GulfTerra in the 

relevant market, the proposed merger 

would be substantially likely to cause 

significant competitive harm to propane 

marketers who would likely incur 

increased prices and fees for propane 

storage and terminaling services in 

Hattiesburg. These increased costs 

would likely be passed on to propane 

customers supplied from Hattiesburg. 

The proposed Consent Order 

remedies the alleged anticompetitive 

effect of this merger in the propane 

storage and terminaling services market 

in Hattiesburg by requiring that 

Respondents divest either (1) their 

undivided 50 percent interest in the 

facility Enterprise co-owns with 

Dynegy, (the ‘‘Enterprise Propane 

Storage Interest,’’) or (2) their wholly 

owned Hattiesburg propane storage 

facility (the ‘‘Enterprise Petal LPG 

Storage Facility’’). If Respondents fail to 

divest either of these competing 

propane storage and terminaling assets 

on or before December 31, 2004, the 

Commission may appoint a Divestiture 

Trustee to divest either of the above 

referenced assets. The December 31, 

2004 deadline for the divestiture of the 

specified propane storage and 

terminaling assets of Respondents at 

Hattiesburg is designed to assure that a 

new owner of the divested assets will be 

in place prior to the 2005–06 propane 

storage contract season, which begins in 

April 2005. 

The Commission believes that 

divestiture by Respondents of their 

partially owned assets in each market to 

a Commission-approved purchaser 

would restore competition in each of the 

two markets potentially affected by the 

merger. However, as certain third 

parties have contractual rights that may 

impact on Respondents’ ability to 

transfer such partially owned assets, or 

that may affect or delay the timing of 

any such transfer, the proposed Consent 

Order gives Respondents the option of 

divesting either their partially owned 

assets or their wholly owned assets in 

each relevant market by the dates 

specified in the proposed Consent 

Order. 

III. The Hold Separate Order 

Because the Consent Agreement 

would allow the merger to proceed prior 

to the completion of each of the 

required divestitures, the Consent 

Agreement contains a Hold Separate 

Order covering the Starfish Interest and 

the Enterprise Propane Storage Interest. 

The purpose of the Hold Separate Order 

is to ensure that the Starfish Interest and 

the Enterprise Storage Propane Interest 

operate independently from Enterprise 

and GulfTerra pending the divestitures 

required under the proposed Consent 

Order. The Hold Separate Order is also 

intended to ensure the continuing 

viability, marketability, and 

competitiveness of these partially 

owned assets until they are divested. 

The Commission has appointed 

Richard J. Black as a monitor to oversee 

the management and operations of the 

Starfish Interest and the Enterprise 

Propane Storage Interest until the 

divestitures required by the Consent 

Order are complete. Mr. Black has more 

than 15 years of relevant experience in 

the midstream energy services business, 

including experience in pipeline 

transportation of natural gas in the 

deepwater regions of the Gulf of Mexico 

and in the marketing and sale of natural 

gas liquids. 

To assure that the Commission 

remains informed about the status of the 

required divestitures, the proposed 

Consent Order requires Respondents to 

file reports with the Commission 

periodically until the divestitures 

required under the Consent Order are 

accomplished. The Hold Separate Order 

will remain in effect until the 

Respondents or the Divestiture Trustee 

successfully divests the assets required 

to be divested under the Consent Order. 

The purpose of this analysis is to 

facilitate public comment on the 

Consent Agreement. This analysis is not 

intended to constitute an official 

interpretation of the Consent 

Agreement, nor is it intended to modify 

its terms in any way.

By direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–22697 Filed 10–7–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

[File No. 041 0164] 

Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P., et 

al.; Analysis to Aid Public Comment

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Proposed consent agreement.

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 195 / Friday, October 8, 2004 / Notices 60395

1Commission Rule 4.2(d), 16 CFR 4.2(d). The 

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).

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 November 1, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to 

‘‘Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P., et 

al., File No. 0410164,’’ 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 H–159, 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20580. Comments 

containing confidential material must be 

filed in paper form, as explained in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. 

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 filed in 

electronic form (except comments 

containing any confidential material) 

should be sent to the following e-mail 

box: consentagreement@ftc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dennis Johnson, FTC, Bureau of 

Competition, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326–

2712.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade 

Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 

46(f), and Section 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 

September 29, 2004), on the World 

Wide Web, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/

2004/09/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. Written 

comments must be submitted on or 

before November 1, 2004. Comments 

should refer to ‘‘Magellan Midstream 

Partners, L.P., et al., File No. 041 0164,’’

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 H–159, 600 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. If 

the comment contains any material for 

which confidential treatment is 

requested, it must be filed in paper 

(rather than electronic) form, and the 

first page of the document must be 

clearly labeled ‘‘Confidential.’’ 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 filed in 

electronic form should be sent to the 

following e-mail 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.

Analysis of Proposed Agreement 

Containing Consent Orders to Aid 

Public Comment 

The Federal Trade Commission, 

subject to its final approval, has 

accepted for public comment an 

Agreement Containing Consent Orders 

(‘‘Agreement’’) with Magellan 

Midstream Partners, L.P. (‘‘Magellan’’) 

and Shell Oil Company (‘‘Shell’’) to 

resolve the anticompetitive effects 

alleged in the Complaint issued by the 

Commission concerning Magellan’s 

acquisition of certain pipeline and 

terminal assets from Shell. 

By purchase and sale agreement dated 

June 23, 2004, Magellan plans to acquire 

a package of Midwest pipelines and 

terminals from Shell. Included in the 

assets being acquired is a refined 

petroleum products terminal in 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, that supplies 

light petroleum products, including 

gasoline and diesel fuel. Magellan 

already owns and operates another 

refined petroleum products terminal in 

Oklahoma City, and the proposed 

acquisition would substantially increase 

concentration in the terminaling of light 

petroleum products in the Oklahoma 

City Metropolitan Area. The Agreement 

requires that Magellan divest the 

terminal acquired from Shell to a 

Commission-approved buyer. 

The Agreement has been placed on 

the public record for 30 days for 

interested persons to comment. 

Comments received during this 30 day 

period will become part of the public 

record. After 30 days, the Commission 

will again review the Agreement and the 

comments received and will decide 

whether it should withdraw the 

Agreement or make the Agreement final. 

I. The Parties 

Magellan is a publicly traded limited 

partnership that is owned 64% by 

public shareholders, and 36% by 

Magellan Midstream Holdings, L.P. 

(which in turn is owned 50% by 

Madison Dearborn Partners and 50% by 

Carlyle Group/Riverstone Holdings). 

Magellan is primarily engaged in the 

storage, transportation, and distribution 

of refined petroleum products and 

ammonia. Its assets include a petroleum 

products pipeline and terminal system 

that serves the Mid-continent region of 

the United States, marine terminals 

along the Gulf Coast and near the New 

York Harbor, inland petroleum products 

terminals located principally in the 

southeastern United States, and a 

pipeline system for ammonia in the 

Mid-continent region. For the year 

ending December 31, 2003, Magellan 

had total annual revenues of 

60396 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 195 / Friday, October 8, 2004 / Notices 

approximately $485 million and total 

assets of nearly $1.2 billion. 

Shell Oil Company is the United 

States operating entity for the Royal 

Dutch/Shell Group of companies, which 

ultimately is owned 60% by Royal 

Dutch Petroleum Company of the 

Netherlands and 40% by The Shell 

Transport and Trading Company, p.l.c. 

of the United Kingdom (collectively 

referred to as ‘‘Shell’’). Shell is one of 

the largest integrated petroleum 

companies in the world, and is engaged 

in virtually all aspects of the energy 

business, including exploration, 

production, refining, transportation, 

distribution, and marketing. For the year 

ending December 31, 2003, Shell 

reported total gross revenues of more 

than $268 billion and total assets of 

approximately $124 billion. 

II. The Commission’s Complaint 

The Commission’s Complaint charges 

that Magellan’s agreement to acquire the 

Oklahoma City refined products 

terminal from Shell violates Section 5 of 

the Federal Trade Commission Act, as 

amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, and would, if 

consummated, 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.

The Complaint alleges that a relevant 

line of commerce in which to evaluate 

the effects of this acquisition is the 

terminaling of gasoline, diesel fuel, and 

other light petroleum products. Refined 

petroleum product terminals are 

specialized facilities that provide 

temporary storage for gasoline, diesel 

fuel, and other light petroleum 

products. Depending on their location, 

terminals receive deliveries from 

pipelines or marine vessels, store the 

products in large tanks, and redeliver 

them into tank trucks for ultimate 

delivery to retail gasoline stations or 

other buyers. There are no substitutes 

for petroleum terminals for providing 

such terminaling services. 

The Complaint alleges that a relevant 

section of the country in which to 

evaluate the effects of this acquisition is 

the Oklahoma City Metropolitan Area. 

Buyers of gasoline, diesel fuel, and other 

light petroleum products in the 

Oklahoma City Metropolitan Area, such 

as gasoline marketers and others, have 

no effective alternative to terminals 

located within the Oklahoma City 

Metropolitan Area. Because of costs and 

delivery logistics, terminals located 

outside the Oklahoma City Metropolitan 

Area are too far away to supply buyers 

in that area. 

The Complaint charges that Magellan 

and Shell are actual and potential 

competitors in the supply of terminaling 

services for gasoline, diesel fuel, and 

other light petroleum products in the 

Oklahoma City Metropolitan Area. 

Magellan and Shell have two of only a 

very limited number of terminals that 

can serve the Oklahoma City area. 

According to the Complaint, the market 

for terminaling services in the 

Oklahoma City Metropolitan Area is 

highly concentrated and would become 

significantly more highly concentrated 

as a result of this acquisition. Even if a 

terminal located 40 miles outside of 

Oklahoma City is included, the premerger Herfindahl-Hirschman Index is 

more than 3,100, and would increase by 

more than 1,200 points to a level 

exceeding 4,300. The Complaint further 

maintains that entry into the relevant 

market is not likely and if entry did 

occur, it would be neither timely nor 

sufficient to prevent or mitigate the 

anticompetitive effects of the 

acquisition. 

The Complaint further charges that 

the proposed acquisition, if 

consummated, may substantially lessen 

competition in the supply of 

terminaling services for gasoline, diesel 

fuel, and other light petroleum products 

in the Oklahoma City Metropolitan 

Area. Specifically, the acquisition 

would (1) eliminate direct competition 

between Magellan and Shell in the 

supply of terminaling services in the 

Oklahoma City Metropolitan Area, and 

(2) increase the likelihood of, or 

facilitate, collusion or coordinated 

interaction in the relevant market, each 

of which increases the likelihood that 

the prices of gasoline, diesel fuel, and 

other light petroleum products will 

increase in the relevant market. 

III. Terms of the Decision and Order 

and Order to Hold Separate and 

Maintain Assets 

The Decision and Order (‘‘Proposed 

Order’’) effectively remedies the 

acquisition’s alleged anticompetitive 

effects by requiring Magellan to divest 

the overlapping Shell terminal assets. 

The Shell Oklahoma City terminal is to 

be divested to a Commission-approved 

buyer and in a manner approved by the 

Commission. 

The Proposed Order requires that 

Magellan divest the Shell terminal, at no 

minimum price, within six months after 

Magellan signs the Agreement, to a 

buyer approved by the Commission. The 

Proposed Order includes several 

additional provisions to ensure the 

interim viability of the subject terminal, 

to ensure that the acquirer has an 

opportunity to enter into an agreement 

with Shell for the Shell volumes at the 

terminal, and to remedy the lessening of 

competition resulting from the proposed 

acquisition. In particular, the Proposed 

Order requires Shell to utilize the 

subject terminal for all of its branded 

and unbranded refined petroleum 

product requirements in the Oklahoma 

City Metropolitan Area until three 

months after divestiture of the terminal. 

It further prohibits Shell and Magellan 

until three months after divestiture from 

entering into or maintaining, or 

attempting to enter into or maintain, any 

agreement or understanding relating to 

the movement or transfer of Shell’s 

refined petroleum products volume 

from the subject terminal to any other 

terminaling facility owned, leased, or 

operated by Magellan. The order further 

prohibits Shell and Magellan from 

discussing or negotiating with each 

other any potential agreement or 

understanding relating to such 

movement or transfer. 

The Proposed Order also provides 

that should Magellan be unable to 

satisfy all conditions necessary to divest 

any intangible asset, Magellan will: (1) 

with respect to permits, licenses or 

other rights granted by governmental 

authorities (other than patents), provide 

such assistance as the acquirer may 

reasonably request in the acquirer’s 

efforts to obtain comparable permits, 

licenses or rights, and (2) with respect 

to other intangible assets (including 

patents and contractual rights), 

substitute equivalent assets or 

arrangements, subject to the prior 

approval of the Commission. A 

substituted asset or arrangement will 

not be deemed to be equivalent unless 

it enables the terminal to perform the 

same function at the same or less cost. 

The Proposed Order further provides 

that if the subject terminal has not been 

divested within the allotted time, a 

trustee may be appointed to sell the 

terminal to a buyer approved by the 

Commission. 

Other paragraphs of the Proposed 

Order contain provisions regarding 

compliance reports, notification of 

changes that may affect compliance, and 

access to materials that may be 

necessary to monitor compliance.

The Order to Hold Separate and 

Maintain Assets (‘‘Hold Separate 

Order’’) contains provisions designed to 

ensure that the Oklahoma City terminal 

at issue will be maintained separately 

and apart from Magellan pending 

divestiture. 

The Hold Separate Order provides 

that Magellan will hold the terminal 

assets separate from its other businesses 

and continue to maintain the terminal 

assets during the period prior to 

divestiture. Paragraph II also provides 

that pending divestiture Magellan will 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 195 / Friday, October 8, 2004 / Notices 60397

1Commission Rule 4.2(d), 16 CFR 4.2(d). The 

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).

contract with Shell for Shell to manage 

the terminal independently from 

Magellan’s other operations. Shell will 

report directly and exclusively to a hold 

separate trustee with respect to the 

operation of the terminal. Shell is 

required to keep confidential business 

information related to the terminal from 

Magellan employees, except as 

permitted by the Hold Separate Order. 

Other paragraphs of the Hold Separate 

Order contain provisions regarding 

compliance reports, notification of 

changes that may affect compliance, and 

access to materials that may be 

necessary to monitor compliance. 

The Hold Separate Order terminates 

on the earlier of two dates, either (1) 

three business days after the 

Commission withdraws its acceptance 

of the consent agreement, or (2) the day 

after the divestiture of the Oklahoma 

City terminal, as described in and 

required by the Proposed Order, is 

completed. 

IV. Opportunity for Public Comment 

By accepting the Agreement, 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 Agreement, including the proposed 

divestiture, to aid the Commission in its 

determination of whether it should 

make the Agreement final. This analysis 

is not intended to constitute an official 

interpretation of the Agreement or 

modify the terms of the Agreement in 

any way.

By direction of the Commission, Chairman 

Majoras recused. 

Donald S. Clark, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–22698 Filed 10–7–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

[File No. 031 0135] 

White Sands Health Care System, 

L.L.C., et al.; 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 October 28, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to 

‘‘White Sands Health Care System, 

L.L.C., et al., File No. 031 0135,’’ 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 H–159, 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20580. Comments 

containing confidential material must be 

filed in paper form, as explained in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. 

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 filed in electronic form 

(except comments containing any 

confidential material) should be sent to 

the following e-mail box: 

consentagreement@ftc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steve Vieux, FTC, Bureau of 

Competition, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326–

2306.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade 

Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 

46(f), and Section 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 

September 28, 2004), on the World 

Wide Web, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/

2004/09/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. Written 

comments must be submitted on or 

before October 28, 2004. Comments 

should refer to ‘‘White Sands Health 

Care System, L.L.C., et al., File No. 031 

0135,’’ 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 H–159, 600 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. If 

the comment contains any material for 

which confidential treatment is 

requested, it must be filed in paper 

(rather than electronic) form, and the 

first page of the document must be 

clearly labeled ‘‘Confidential.’’ 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 filed in 

electronic form should be sent to the 

following e-mail 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.

Analysis of Agreement Containing 

Consent Order To Aid Public Comment 

The Federal Trade Commission has 

accepted, subject to final approval, an 

agreement containing a proposed 

Consent Order with the White Sands 

Health Care System, L.L.C., Alamogordo 

Physicians’ Cooperative, Inc., Dacite, 

Inc., and James R. Laurenza. The 

agreement settles charges that these