60880 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 13, 2004 / Notices 

9This estimate incorporates any additional time 

needed to reproduce copies of audit reports for 

consumers upon their request. Inasmuch as 

consumers request such copies in only a minority 

of cases, this estimate is likely an overstatement.

10The industry source did not break down this 

estimate by cost item. Staff conservatively included 

the entire $100,000 in its estimate of capital and 

other non-labor costs, even though some of this 

burden is likely already accounted for as labor 

costs.

thus are covered by the Informal 

Dispute Settlement Rule. Therefore, staff 

assumes that virtually all of the 22,996 

disputes handled by the BBB fall within 

Rule 703. Apart from the BBB audit 

report, 2002 reports were also submitted 

by the mechanisms that handle dispute 

resolution for Toyota, Chrysler, Ford, 

and Mitsubishi, all of which are covered 

by the Rule. The Ford IDSM states that 

it handled 5,295 total disputes. The 

National Center for Dispute Settlement 

handles disputes for Mitsubishi, Toyota 

and Daimler-Chrysler. The 2002 audits 

of the Center’s operations show 154 injurisdiction Mitsubishi disputes were 

filed; it handled 2,353 in-jurisdiction 

cases on behalf of Toyota; and closed 

1,833 cases involving Daimler-Chrysler. 

Based on these figures, staff estimates 

that the total number of disputes 

handled by Rule 703 mechanisms is 

approximately 32,631. Thus, staff 

estimates the total burden to be 

approximately 21,754 hours (32,631 

disputes × 40 minutes ÷ 60).

Disclosure: The Rule requires that 

information about the mechanism be 

disclosed in the written warranty. Any 

incremental costs to the warrantor of 

including this additional information in 

the warranty are negligible. The 

majority of such costs would be borne 

by the IDSM, which is required to 

provide to interested consumers upon 

request copies of the various types of 

information the IDSM possesses, 

including annual audits. Consumers 

who have dealt with the IDSM also have 

a right to copies of their records. (IDSMs 

are permitted to charge for providing 

both types of information.) Given the 

small number of entities that have 

operated programs over the years, staff 

estimates that the burden imposed by 

the disclosure requirements is 

approximately 8,157 hours per year for 

the existing IDSMs to provide copies of 

this information. This estimate draws 

from the estimated number of 

consumers who file claims each year 

with the IDSMs (32,631) and the 

assumption that each consumer 

individually requests copies of the 

records relating to their dispute. Staff 

estimates that the copying would 

require approximately 15 minutes per 

consumer, including copies of the 

annual audit.9 Thus, the IDSMs 

currently operating under the Rule have 

an estimated total disclosure burden of 

8,157 hours (32,631 claims × 15 min. ÷

60).

Total annual labor cost: $438,000. 

Staff assumes that IDSMs use skilled 

clerical or technical support staff to 

compile and maintain the records 

required by the Rule at an hourly rate 

of $16; thus, the labor cost associated 

with the 21,754 recordkeeping burden 

hours is $348,064. Staff further assumes 

that IDSMs use clerical support at an 

hourly rate of $11 to reproduce records, 

and therefore that the labor costs of the 

8,157 disclosure burden hours is 

approximately $89,727. Accordingly, 

the combined total labor cost for 

recordkeeping and disclosures is 

$437,791, rounded to 438,000. 

Total annual capital or other nonlabor costs: $300,000. 

Total capital and start-up costs: The 

Rule imposes no appreciable current 

capital or start-up costs. The vast 

majority of warrantors have already 

developed systems to retain the records 

and provide the disclosures required by 

the Rule. Rule compliance does not 

require the use of any capital goods, 

other than ordinary office equipment, to 

which providers would already have 

access. 

The only additional cost imposed on 

IDSMs operating under the Rule that 

would not be incurred for other IDSMs 

is the annual audit requirement. One of 

the IDSMs currently operating under the 

Rule estimates the total annual costs of 

this requirement to be under $100,000. 

Because there are three IDSMs operating 

under the Rule (Toyota, Mitsubishi, and 

Chrysler share the same IDSM, though 

each company is reported separately), 

staff estimates the total non-labor costs 

associated with the Rule to be three 

times that amount, or $300,000.10 This 

extrapolated total, however, also reflects 

an estimated $120,000 for copying costs, 

which is accounted for separately under 

the category below. Thus, estimated 

costs attributable solely to capital or 

start-up expenditures is $180,000.

Other non-labor costs: $127,500 in 

copying costs. This total is based on 

estimated copying costs of 5 cents per 

page and several conservative 

assumptions or estimates. Staff 

estimates that the ‘‘average’’ disputerelated file is about 25 pages long and 

that a typical annual audit file is about 

200 pages in length. For purposes of 

estimating copying costs, staff assumes 

that every consumer complainant (or 

approximately 32,631 consumers) 

requests a copy of the file relating to his 

or her dispute. Staff also assumes that, 

for about 6,526 (20%) of the estimated 

32,631 disputes each year, consumers 

request copies of warrantors’ annual 

audit reports (although, based on 

requests for audit reports made directly 

to the FTC, the indications are that 

considerably fewer requests are actually 

made). Thus, the estimated total annual 

copying costs for average-sized files is 

approximately $40,788 (25 pages/file ×

.05 × 32,631 requests) and $65,260 for 

copies of annual audits (200 pages/audit 

report × .05 × 6,526 requests), for total 

copying costs of $106,048, rounded to 

$106,050. Beginning with the 2002 

audits, the FTC staff requested that the 

audits also be submitted in electronic 

format so they can be posted on the FTC 

web site. This new procedure will likely 

reduce the number of hours and costs of 

copying the audits, because the IDSMs 

will be able to refer consumers to the 

FTC web site, where they can download 

and/or print out the information 

needed. Because this process has only 

recently begun (and because not all 

consumers have access to a computer), 

it is too soon to estimate the decrease in 

hours and costs that may result from the 

public posting of the audits.

William E. Kovacic, 

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 04–22931 Filed 10–12–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

Granting of Request For Early 

Terminiation of the Waiting Period 

Under the Premerger Notification 

Rules 

Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 

U.S.C. 18a, as added by Title II of the 

Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust 

Improvements Act of 1976, requires 

persons contemplating certain mergers 

or acquisitions to give the Federal Trade 

Commission and the Assistant Attorney 

General advance notice and to wait 

designated periods before 

consummation of such plans. Section 

7A(b)(2) of the Act permits the agencies, 

in individual cases, to terminate this 

waiting period prior to its expiration 

and requires that notice of this action be 

published in theFederal Register.

The following transactions were 

granted early termination of the waiting 

period provided by law and the 

premerger notification rules. The grants 

were made by the Federal Trade 

Commission and the Assistant Attorney 

General for the Antitrust Division of the 

Department of Justice. Neither agency 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 13, 2004 / Notices 60881

intends to take any action with respect to these proposed acquisitions during 

the applicable waiting period.

Trans # Acquiring Acquired Entities 

TRANSACTIONS GRANTED EARLY TERMINATION—09/14/2004

20041328 ......................... Seiko Epson Corporation .................. Sanyo Epson Imaging Devices Corporation.Sanyo Epson Imaging Devices Corporation. 

20041335 ......................... J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. ................. TruSecure Corporation ...................... TruSecure Corporation. 

20041342 ......................... Ricoh Company, Ltd. ......................... Hitachi, Ltd. ....................................... Hitachi Printing Solutions, Ltd. 

20041353 ......................... Trevor Lloyd ...................................... Robert (and wife, Elsa) Eustace ....... Applied Systems, Inc. 

20041354 ......................... Cox Enterprises, Inc. ......................... Cox Enterprises, Inc. ......................... TCA Cable Partners. 

20041357 ......................... Kenneth R. Thomson ........................ KnowledgeNet.com, Inc. ................... KnowledgeNet.com, Inc. 

20041369 ......................... Cisco Systems, Inc. ........................... P-Cube, Inc. ...................................... P-Cube, Inc. 

20041371 ......................... J.W. Childs Equity Partners III, L.P. Fitness Quest, Inc. ............................ Fitness Quest, Inc. 

20041376 ......................... CCG Investments BVI, L.P. .............. Richard T. Lilly .................................. Lilly Software Associates, Inc. 

20041377 ......................... UICI ................................................... HealthMarket Inc. .............................. HealthMarket Administrative Services, Inc. 

20041378 ......................... Lincoln Insurance Group, Inc. ........... Security Mutual Life Nebraska Holding Company.SML Holdings Co. 

TRANSACTIONS GRANTED EARLY TERMINATION—09/15/2004

20041364 ......................... Collins Stewart Tullett plc .................. Arthur Hughes ................................... FPG Holdings Limited 

TRANSACTIONS GRANTED EARLY TERMINATION—09/16/2004

20041367 ......................... The Hearst Trust ............................... White Directory Publishers, Inc. ........ White Directory of Carolina, Inc., 

White Directory of Florida, Inc., 

White Directory of New England, 

Inc., White Directory of Pennsylvania, Inc., White Directory of Virginia, LLC, White Directory Publishers, Inc. 

TRANSACTIONS GRANTED EARLY TERMINATION—09/17/2004

20040710 ......................... General Electric Company ................ InVision Technologies, Inc. ............... InVision Technologies, Inc. 

20041356 ......................... GC Power Acquisition LLC ............... Centerpoint Energy, Inc. ................... Texas Genco Holdings, Inc., Texas 

Genco II LP, Texas Genco Services, LP 

20041382 ......................... International Power plc ...................... Edison International ........................... EME del Caribe Holding GmbH 

20041383 ......................... MGI Pharma, Inc. .............................. SuperGen, Inc. .................................. SuperGen, Inc. 

20041392 ......................... Austin Ventures VIII, L.P. .................. Mr. Russell B. Inserra ....................... Orion Marine Group Holdings, Inc. 

20041393 ......................... George David .................................... United Technologies Corporation ...... United Technologies Corporation 

20041400 ......................... QUALCOMM Incorporated ................ Iridigm Display Corporation ............... Iridigm Display Corporation. 

TRANSACTIONS GRANTED EARLY TERMINATION—09/20/2004

20041314 ......................... ConMed Corporation ......................... C.R. Bard, Inc. ................................... C.R. Bard, Inc. 

20041370 ......................... UBS AG ............................................. The Charles Schwab Corporation ..... Schwab Capital Markets L.P., 

SoundView Technology Group, 

Inc. 

60882 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 13, 2004 / Notices 

Trans # Acquiring Acquired Entities 

20041396 ......................... Sumitomo Corporation ...................... PG&E Corporation ............................. Hermiston Generating Company, 

L.P., Airport Ale House and Raw 

Bar, Inc., Alafaya Ale House and 

Raw Bar, Ltd., Ale House Management, Inc., Alpharetta Ale House 

and Raw Bar, Inc., Altamonte Ale 

House and Raw Bar, Inc., Boca 

Ale House and Raw Bar, Inc., 

Boynton Ale House, Inc., Bradenton Ale House and Raw Bar, 

Inc., Brandon Ale House and Raw 

Bar, Ltd., Buena Vista Ale House 

Raw Bar, Inc., Coral Springs Ale 

House and Raw Bar, Ltd., Davie 

Ale House and Raw Bar, Ltd., 

Daytona Ale House and Raw Bar, 

Ltd., Doral Ale House and Raw 

Bar, Inc., Florida Mall Ale House 

and Raw Bar, Inc., Fort Lauderale 

Ale House and Raw Bar, Inc., Ft 

Myers Ale House and Raw Bar 

Eas, Inc., Gardens Ale House and 

Raw Bar, Inc., Hiawassee Ale 

House and Raw Bar, Inc., Hollywood Ale House and Raw Bar, 

Inc., Jupiter Ale House, Inc., Kendall Ale House and Raw Bar, Inc., 

Kirkman Road Ale House and Raw 

Bar, Inc., Lakeland Ale House and 

Raw Bar, Inc., Mandarin Ale 

House and Raw Bar, Inc., North 

Miami Ale House and Raw Bar, 

Inc., Ocala Ale House and Raw 

Bar, Inc., Orlando Ale House and 

Raw Bar, Inc., Palm Harbor Ale 

House and Raw Bar, Inc., Pembroke Pines Ale House and Raw 

Bar, Ltd., Regency Ale House and 

Raw Bar, Ltd., Sanford Ale House 

and Raw Bar, Inc., Sarasota Ale 

House and Raw Bar, Inc., Southside Ale House and Raw Bar, Inc., 

St. Petersburg Ale House and 

Raw Bar, Inc., Tampa Ale House 

and Raw Bar, Inc., UNCC Charlotte Ale House and Raw Bar Limited Partnership. 

20041399 ......................... SKM Equity Fund III, L.P .................. John W. Miller.

TRANSACTIONS GRANTED EARLY TERMINATION—09/21/2004

20041263 ......................... Morton Manus and Iris Manus .......... WMG Parent Corporation .................. CPP/Belwin, Inc., International Music 

Publications Limited, Warner Bros, 

Publications U.S. Inc. 

20041391 ......................... SCF–IV, L.P. ..................................... Mr. Harold Hamm .............................. Hamm Co., Rental Tools, Inc. 

TRANSACTIONS GRANTED EARLY TERMINATION—09/23/2004

20041394 ......................... ArcLight Energy Partners Fund II, 

L.P..

General Electric Company ................ TIFD III–C, Inc. 

TRANSACTIONS GRANTED EARLY TERMINATION—09/24/2004

20041333 ......................... Kenneth R. Thomson ........................ Educational Testing Service .............. iLearning, Inc., The Chauncey Group 

Holdings Inc. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 13, 2004 / Notices 60883

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sandra M. Peay, Contact Representative 

or Renee Hallman, Case Management 

Assistant, Federal Trade Commission, 

Premerger Notification Office, Bureau of 

Competition, Room H–303, Washington, 

DC 20580 (202) 326–3100.

By Direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–22930 Filed 10–12–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

Privacy Act of 1974; Renewal of 

Computer Matching Program (Match 

No. 2001–06)

AGENCY: Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS), Centers for 

Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).

ACTION: Notice of renewal of computer 

matching program (CMP). 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, 

as amended, this notice announces the 

renewal of a CMP that CMS plans to 

conduct with the State of California 

Department of Health Services (DHS). 

We have provided background 

information about the proposed 

matching program in the 

‘‘Supplementary Information’’ section 

below. Although the Privacy Act 

requires only that CMS provide an 

opportunity for interested persons to 

comment on the proposed matching 

program, CMS invites comments on all 

portions of this notice. See ‘‘Effective 

Dates’’ section below for comment 

period.

DATES: CMS filed a report of the CMP 

with the Chair of the House Committee 

on Government Reform and Oversight, 

the Chair of the Senate Committee on 

Governmental Affairs, and the 

Administrator, Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) on 

October 1, 2004. We will not disclose 

any information under a matching 

agreement until 40 days after filing a 

report to OMB and Congress or 30 days 

after publication. We may defer 

implementation of this matching 

program if we receive comments that 

persuade us to defer implementation.

ADDRESSES: The public should address 

comments to: Director, Division of 

Privacy Compliance Data Development, 

Enterprise Databases Group, Office of 

Information Services, CMS, Mail stop 

N2–04–27, 7500 Security Boulevard, 

Baltimore, Maryland 21244–1850. 

Comments received will be available for 

review at this location, by appointment, 

during regular business hours, Monday 

through Friday from 9 a.m.–3 p.m., 

eastern daylight time.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Douglass Brown, Health Insurance 

Specialist, Division of Methods and 

Strategy, Program Integrity Group, 

Office of Financial Management, CMS, 

Mail-stop C3–02–16, 7500 Security 

Boulevard, Baltimore Maryland 21244–

1850. The telephone number is (410) 

786–0028 and e-mail is 

dbrown4@cms.hhs.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Description of the Matching Program 

A. General 

The Computer Matching and Privacy 

Protection Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100–

503), amended the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 

§ 552a) by describing the manner in 

which computer matching involving 

Federal agencies could be performed 

and adding certain protections for 

individuals applying for and receiving 

Federal benefits. Section 7201 of the 

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 

1990 (Pub. L. 100–508) further amended 

the Privacy Act regarding protections for 

such individuals. The Privacy Act, as 

amended, regulates the use of computer 

matching by Federal agencies when 

records in a system of records are 

matched with other Federal, State, or 

local government records. It requires 

Federal agencies involved in computer 

matching programs to: 

1. Negotiate written agreements with 

the other agencies participating in the 

matching programs; 

2. Obtain the Data Integrity Board 

approval of the match agreements; 

3. Furnish detailed reports about 

matching programs to Congress and 

OMB; 

4. Notify applicants and beneficiaries 

that the records are subject to matching; 

and, 

5. Verify match findings before 

reducing, suspending, terminating, or 

denying an individual’s benefits or 

payments. 

B. CMS Computer Matches Subject to 

the Privacy Act 

CMS has taken action to ensure that 

all CMPs that this Agency participates 

in comply with the requirements of the 

Privacy Act of 1974, as amended.

Dated: October 1, 2004. 

Mark B. McClellan, 

Administrator.

Computer Match No. 2001–06 

NAME: 

‘‘Computer Matching Agreement 

Between the Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS) and the State 

of California Department of Health 

Services (DHS) for Disclosure of 

Medicare and Medicaid Information’’. 

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION: 

Level Three Privacy Act Sensitive. 

PARTICIPATING AGENCIES: 

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services, and State of California 

Department of Health Services. 

AUTHORITY FOR CONDUCTING MATCHING

PROGRAM: 

This Computer Matching Program 

(CMP) is executed to comply with the 

Privacy Act of 1974 (Title 5 United 

States Code (U.S.C.) section 552a), as 

amended, the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) Circular A–130, titled 

‘‘Management of Federal Information 

Resources’’ at 65 FR 77677 (December 

12, 2000), and OMB guidelines 

pertaining to computer matching (54 FR 

25818, June 19, 1989). 

Authority for this matching program 

is given under the matching provisions 

of §§ 1816, 1842, and 1874(b) of the 

Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395h, 

1395u, and 1395kk(b)). Authority for 

DHS to participate in this computermatching program is given under the 

provisions of §§ 10740, 10748, 10750, 

14000, and 14000.3. 14000.4, 14005, 

14005.4, 14100.1, 14200 of the 

California Welfare and Institutions 

Code, and 42 CFR 431.300 through 

431.307. DHS is charged with 

administration of the Medicaid program 

in California and is the single state 

agency for such purpose. DHS may act 

as an agent or representative of the 

Federal government for any purpose in 

furtherance of DHS’s functions or 

administration of the Federal funds 

granted to the state. In California, the 

Medi-Cal Act provides qualifying 

individuals with health care and related 

remedial or preventive services, 

including both Medicaid services and 

services authorized under state law that 

are not provided under Federal law. The 

program to provide all such services is 

known as the Medi-Cal program. 

PURPOSE(S) OF THE MATCHING PROGRAM: 

The purpose of this Agreement is to 

establish the conditions, safeguards, and 

procedures under which CMS will 

conduct a computer matching program