12522 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2001 / Notices

39See note 7.

an additional 60 hours (4 questions × 15

hours each) for generic companies for a

total of 99 hours (39 hours + 60 hours).

Now that the Commission has added

a question for innovator companies

concerning citizen petitions, which it

also estimates will require

approximately 15 hours to answer, the

lower-end estimate is approximately

100 hours for innovator companies as

well as generic companies. The revised,

high-end of the estimated range (500

hours) recognizes that some companies

(approximately 30 percent of innovator

companies and generic companies) will

have to produce information for more

than three drug products, with fewer

than five percent of the companies

having to produce information on more

than 10 drug products. At the same

time, the upper-end estimate, though

based on this higher volume, also

recognizes inherent economies of scale

for the process of organizing,

identifying, and retrieving information

responsive to these requests.

The estimated burden of answering

the questions and producing documents

per respondent on a functional basis

breaks down as follows:

Hours

Organize document and information retrieval .............................. 20–50

Identify requested information ...... 20–200

Retrieve responsive information ... 25–100

Copy requested information ......... 10–50

Prepare response ......................... 25–100

100—500

The cumulative hours burden to

produce documents sought and prepare

the response will be between 9,000

hours (100 hours × 90 companies) and

45,000 hours (500 hours × 90

companies).

Associated Labor Cost: It is not

possible to calculate precisely the labor

costs associated with answering the

questions and producing the documents

requested, as responses will entail

participation by management and/or

support staff at various compensation

levels among many different companies.

Individuals among some or all of those

labor categories may be involved in the

information collection process. Based

on Geneva’s comments, staff has

increased the dollar figure per hour to

reflect the use of outside legal counsel

along with mid-management personnel

for handling most (an assumed 90

percent) of the tasks involved to gather

and produce the responsive

information. For such labor costs, we

estimate an average hourly wage of

$250/hour. In addition, staff estimates

an average hourly wage of $10 for the

labor of clerical employees who will

copy the responsive materials. Thus, the

labor costs per company should range

between $22,600 [(90 hours × $250/

hour) + (10 hours × $10/hour)] and

$113,000 [(450 hours × $250/hour) + (50

hours × $10/hour)], with approximately

70 of the 100 companies (70 percent ×

70 generic companies plus 70

percent×30 innovator companies)

averaging approximately $22,600 to

respond to information requests.

Assuming the remaining 30 companies

average approximately $67,800 each in

labor costs (the mean within the

estimated range), then total estimated

labor cost is $3,616,000 ((70 × $22,600)

+ (30 × $67,800)). By comparison, for

example, the Commission alleged that

Abbott paid Geneva a sum of $4.5

million per month to keep the generic

version of Hytrin off the market.39 Thus,

the Commission believes that the

estimated cost is reasonable in light of

the size of the markets involved, the

potential consumer harm, and

Congressional interest in the area.

Geneva estimates that the burden will

be ‘‘in excess of $300,000’’ to respond

to the information collection request as

proposed. Geneva Comment at 2. The

Commission believes Geneva’s estimate

is based on a misunderstanding of the

scope of the information collection

request. First, the Commission has

clarified the language of Request 1 to

exclude agreements not intended to be

covered by the request. Second, the

Commission has significantly shortened

the time period (by four years) for which

it seeks such documents. Third, for each

request, a company will only have to

produce documents and information

about specific drug products that are

listed in each company’s information

collection request, rather than for ‘‘all

products as to which the generic

company has made a Paragraph IV

certification.’’ Geneva Comment at 3.

Thus, Commission staff continues to

believe that the estimates provided

above are reasonable.

Estimated capital/other non-labor

costs: The capital or other non-labor

costs associated with the information

requests will be minimal. Although the

information requests may require that

respondents retain copies of the

information provided to the

Commission, industry members should

already have in place the means to store

information of the volume requested. In

addition, respondents may have to

purchase office supplies such as file

folders, computer diskettes, photocopier

toner, or paper in order to comply with

the Commission’s requests. Staff

estimates that each respondent will

spend $500 for such costs regarding the

information request, for a total

additional non-labor cost burden of

$45,000 ($500 × 90 companies).

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–4758 Filed 2–26–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

Granting of Request for Early

Termination 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 the Federal 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

intends to take any action with respect

to these proposed acquisitions during

the applicable waiting period.

Trans # Acquiring Acquired Entities

TRANSACTIONS GRANTED EARLY TERMINATION—01/22/2001

20011197 ........ The Pantry, Inc .............................. East Coast Oil Company ............... East Coast Oil Company.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2001 / Notices 12523

Trans # Acquiring Acquired Entities

20011273 ........ Neptune Orient Lines Limited ........ Oak Hill Partners, L.P .................... New Logistics Holdings Corp., e-Fulfillment Corp.

TRANSACTIONS GRANTED EARLY TERMINATION—01/23/2001

20011255 ........ CRH plc ......................................... Carl Lizza, Jr ................................. Mt. Hope Rock Products, Inc.

20011268 ........ Sulzer AG ...................................... Intra Therapeutics, Inc ................... IntraTherapeutics, Inc.

20011281 ........ SCP Pool Corporation ................... Hughes Supply, Inc ....................... Allstate Pool Supply, Inc.

TRANSACTIONS GRANTED EARLY TERMINATION—01/24/2001

20011238 ........ Newport Corporation ..................... Kensington Laboratories, Inc ......... Kensington Laboratories, Inc.

20011239 ........ David S. Harris .............................. Newport Corporation ..................... Newport Corporation.

20011240 ........ Paul E. Bacchi ............................... Newport Corporation ..................... Newport Corporation.

20011241 ........ Paul S. Filipski ............................... Newport Corporation ..................... Newport Corporation.

20011249 ........ Lightbridge, Inc .............................. Corsair Communications, Inc ........ Corsair Communications, Inc.

20011259 ........ Frank Lyon Jr ................................ U.S. Bancorp ................................. U.S. Bancorp.

20011274 ........ Professor Kurt Jenny ..................... OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc .............. OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

20011275 ........ Avaya Inc ....................................... VPNet Technologies, Inc ............... VPNet Technologies, Inc.

20011276 ........ Loyal Trust No. 1 ........................... Berkley Petroleum Corp ................ Berkley Petroleum Corp.

20011280 ........ Internet Capital Group, Inc ............ AssetTRADE.com,Inc .................... AssetTRADE.com, Inc.

20011282 ........ B.N. Bahadur ................................. Pep Guide LLC .............................. Lightsource Parent Corporation.

TRANSACTIONS GRANTED EARLY TERMINATION—01/26/2001

20011029 ........ Cook Inlet Region, Inc ................... Pocket Communications, Inc.,

debtor-in-possession.

DCR PCS, Inc.

Pocket Communications, Inc., debtor-in-possession.

20011160 ........ Bouygues S.A ................................ Henry S. Branscome ..................... Branscome Concrete, Inc.

20011209 ........ i2 Technologies, Inc ...................... Boston Ventures Limited Partnership V.EC–Content, Inc.

Trade Service Corporation.

20011262 ........ Triad Hospitals, Inc ........................ Hillcrest Healthcare System .......... SouthCrest L.L.C.

20011294 ........ Citigroup Inc .................................. Chase Industries Inc ...................... Chase Industries Inc.

TRANSACTIONS GRANTED EARLY TERMINATION—01/29/2001

20001728 ........ El Paso Energy Corporation .......... The Coastal Corporation ............... The Coastal Corporation.

20011264 ........ Six Flags, Inc ................................. Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc .. Sea World of Ohio.

20011269 ........ Stronach Trust ............................... Hilton Group plc ............................. Ladbroke Racing Pennsylvania Inc./Sports Broadcasting, Inc.

20011285 ........ Paul G. Allen ................................. TechTV, LLC ................................. TechTV, LLC.

20011290 ........ Deutsche Post AG ......................... DHL International Limited .............. DHL International Limited.

20011291 ........ Deutsche Post AG ......................... DHL Worldwide Express, Inc ........ DHL Worldwide Express, Inc.

20011297 ........ Amcor Limited ................................ CNC Containers Corporation ........ CNC Containers Corporation.

20011304 ........ Kyocera Corporation ...................... Windward Capital Associates, L.P Tycom Corporation.

20011311 ........ Thomson multimedia S.A .............. Carlton Communications plc ......... Carlton Communications Investments.

20011313 ........ Liberty Mutual Holding Company .. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance

Company.

Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company.

20011314 ........ Liberty Mutual Holding Company .. Employers Insurance of Wausau

Mutual Holding Company.

Employers Insurance of Wausau Mutual Holding

Company.

20011317 ........ J.P. Morgan Chase & Co .............. Advanta Corp ................................. Advanta Corp.

20011318 ........ Allen B. Morgan, Jr ........................ Regions Financial Corporation ...... Regions Financial Corporation.

20011319 ........ Regions Financial Corporation ...... Morgan Keegan, Inc ...................... Morgan Keegan, Inc.

20011322 ........ BBA Group PLC ............................ General Dynamics Corporation ..... Gulfstream Aerospace Services Corporation.

20011323 ........ Mr. Raul Alarcon, Jr ...................... International Church of the Foursquare Gospel.KSFG–FM Station.

20011341 ........ North American Metals, Ltd ........... Birmingham Steel Corporation ...... American Steel and Wire Corporation.

Birmingham Steel Corporation.

TRANSACTIONS GRANTED EARLY TERMINATION—01/30/2001

20011309 ........ Kaydon Corporation ....................... William J. & Alice M. Chorkey ....... ACE Controls International, Inc.

ACE Controls, Inc.

TRANSACTIONS GRANTED EARLY TERMINATION—01/31/2001

20011261 ........ Nextel Communications, Inc .......... Motorola, Inc .................................. Motorola, Inc.

20011299 ........ Hitachi, Ltd ..................................... OpNext, Inc .................................... OpNext, Inc.

20011301 ........ Clarity Partners, L.P. ..................... OpNext, Inc .................................... OpNext, Inc.

20011307 ........ Carlyle Partners III, L.P ................. Connecticut Health Foundation,

Inc.

Connecticare Holding Company, Inc.

20011325 ........ Olivetti S.p.A .................................. Empresa Nacional de

Telecomunicaciones.

Empresa Nacional de Telecomunicaciones.

12524 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2001 / Notices

Trans # Acquiring Acquired Entities

TRANSACTIONS GRANTED EARLY TERMINATION—02/01/2001

20011222 ........ CIENA Corporation ........................ Cyras Systems, Inc ....................... Cyras Systems, Inc.

TRANSACTIONS GRANTED EARLY TERMINATION—02/22/2001

20011327 ........ Hit Entertainment PLC ................... Lyrick Corporation ......................... Big Feats L.P.

Lyons Partnership L.P.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sandra M. Peay or Parcellena P.

Fielding, Contact Representatives,

Federal Trade Commission, Premerger

Notification Office, Bureau of

Competition, Room 303, Washington,

D.C. 20580, (202) 326–3100.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–4759 Filed 2–26–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention

The Committee on Immunization

Registry Standards and Electronic

Transactions and the American

Immunization Registry Association

Sponsored Meeting of Software

Vendors for Healthcare Providers:

Meeting

Name: Meeting with software vendors

for healthcare providers sponsored by

the Committee on Immunization

Registry Standards and Electronic

Transactions and the American

Immunization Registry Association.

Time and Date: 10 a.m.–1 p.m., July

12, 2001.

Place: Arkansas’ Excelsior Hotel,

Three Statehouse Plaza, Little Rock,

Arkansas 72201, telephone 501–375–

5000.

Status: Open to the public, including

all software vendors for healthcare

providers, limited only by the space

available. The meeting room

accommodates approximately 200

people.

Purpose: Immunization Registries Issue

Invitation to Vendors of Software for

Healthcare Providers

The Committee on Immunization

Registry Standards and Electronic

Transactions(CIRSET), in cooperation

with the American Immunization

Registry Association (AIRA), invites

vendors of healthcare software systems

to participate in a meeting on July 12,

2001, from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., in

conjunction with the Annual

Immunization Registry Conference

being held at the Arkansas’ Excelsior

Hotel in Little Rock, AK. The meeting

will explore the potential for two-way

data exchange between provider

software and state and community

immunization registries, as envisioned

by CIRSET, AIRA, the Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention’s

National Immunization Program (NIP),

and state and local immunization

registry programs.

Challenge

Immunization registries face technical

challenges similar to those faced by

most of the healthcare industry today—

how to enable communication among

numerous disparate systems. Registries

have been developed by a number of

different entities—managed care

organizations, independent software

vendors, states, cities, counties, and

local communities.

The developers of these registries

chose the hardware and software

support platforms that worked best

within their own systems, but the

resulting applications cannot

communicate with each other except

through expensive, custom interfaces.

Traditionally, these practices have

caused vendors of practice management

systems to have difficulty implementing

immunization record exchange because

each immunization registry had a

different vision, format, and protocol for

data exchange. This problem has been

addressed using a national standard for

electronic data exchange, Health Level

Seven. The standard was used to

develop an implementation guide for

immunization data exchange entitled,

‘‘Implementation Guide for

Immunization Data Transactions Using

Version 2.3.1 of the Health Level Seven

(HL7) Standard Protocol,’’ June 1999

(Guide). This Guide is the result of

collaboration by a number of

immunization registry developers who

acknowledge the value of standardized

data exchange and are ready to

implement data exchange among

registries. The Guide defines registry

specific messages in detail, showing a

range of fully valued messages that carry

a complete complement of

immunization data. The Guide also

defines a ‘‘minimum standard message’’

that could be implemented by a nonclinical system to communicate with a

registry. A minimum amount of data

could be saved to a file in a standard

HL7 format, creating a batch of updates

for the provider to send to the registry

on a periodic basis. The minimum

message consists of core demographic

and vaccine event data elements plus

values for additional HL7-required

fields. These are defined and examples

provided in the Guide.

Differences in interpretations,

acceptable codes, and definitions have

been resolved by consensus. Registries

agree that all will benefit if they adhere

to one national standard

implementation guide that can be

available to both registries and software

vendors of provider systems. One

vendor explained that, with one

national implementation, vendors

would be more ready to incorporate it

into the clinical or computer-based

patient record systems they were

building or upgrading. Another vendor

advised that, even though his product

was strictly a billing system, he believed

it would be possible to extract the

needed data and save it to a file as

services were performed in the clinic.

That file could be forwarded to the

registry, eliminating the need for

redundant data entry. A standard

implementation allows vendors to

assure their customers of compatibility

among all participating systems. Just as

importantly, implementing a national

standard that is already in use in a large

number of healthcare systems can save

time and money for all involved parties.

The Future

Continuing collaboration to ensure

that implementation plans meet

messaging requirements will enable

registry developers, vaccination

providers, and vendors of physician

systems to achieve interoperability not

previously possible. The core data set,

current vaccine and vaccine

manufacturers’ code sets, and the HL7

immunization messaging