71704 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Notices 

1The other two rules relate to the information 

that must appear in any written warranty offered on 

a consumer product costing more than $15 and the 

pre-sale availability of warranty terms. 

2 40 FR 60168 (Dec. 31, 1975). 

3 15 U.S.C. 2310(a). 

4 15 U.S.C. 2310(a)(3). 

5 Id. 

6 15 U.S.C. 2310(a)(2). 

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: 

Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: 

(202) 694–1220. 

Shawn Woodhead Werth, 

Secretary and Clerk of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29407 Filed 11–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6715–01–M 

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION 

Notice of Agreements Filed 

The Commission hereby gives notice 

of the filing of the following agreements 

under the Shipping Act of 1984. 

Interested parties may submit comments 

on the agreements to the Secretary, 

Federal Maritime Commission, 

Washington, DC 20573, within ten days 

of the date this notice appears in the 

Federal Register. Copies of the 

agreements are available through the 

Commission’s Web site (http:// 

www.fmc.gov) or by contacting the 

Office of Agreements at (202) 523–5793 

or tradeanalysis@fmc.gov. 

Agreement No.: 012032–006. 

Title: CMA CGM/MSC/Maersk Line 

North and Central China-US Pacific 

Coast Two-Loop Space Charter, Sailing 

and Cooperative Working Agreement. 

Parties: A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S, CMA 

CGM S.A., and Mediterranean Shipping 

Company S.A. 

Filing Party: Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; 

Cozen O’Connor; 1627 I Street, NW., 

Suite 1100; Washington, DC 20006. 

Synopsis: The amendment revises the 

allocations for Maersk and MSC on 

Loop 2 of the parties’ transpacific 

service. 

Agreement No.: 012108. 

Title: The World Liner Data 

Agreement. 

Parties: ANL Container Line Pty Ltd.; 

A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S; CMA CGM 

S.A.; Compania Chilena de Navegacion 

Interoceanica S.A.; Hamburg-Sud; 

Hapag-Lloyd AG; Mediterranean 

Shipping Company S.A.; Orient 

Overseas Container Line Ltd.; and 

United Arab Shipping Company S.A.G. 

Filing Party: Wayne Rohde, Esq.; 

Cozen O’Connor; 627 I Street, NW., 

Suite 1100; Washington, DC 20006. 

Synopsis: The pending agreement has 

been changed to include ANL Container 

Line Pty Ltd. as a party to the 

Agreement. 

By Order of the Federal Maritime 

Commission. 

Dated: November 19, 2010. 

Karen V. Gregory, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29658 Filed 11–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Proposed Collection; 

Comment Request 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission 

(FTC or Commission). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The information collection 

requirements described below will be 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review, as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA). The FTC is seeking public 

comments on its proposal to extend 

through February 28, 2014, the current 

PRA clearance for information 

collection requirements contained in its 

Informal Dispute Settlement Procedures 

Rule. That clearance expires on 

February 28, 2011. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 24, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are 

invited to submit written comments 

electronically or in paper form, by 

following the instructions in the 

Request for Comments part of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below. Comments in electronic form 

should be submitted by using the 

following Web link: (https:// 

ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/ 

idsrpra) (and following the instructions 

on the Web-based form). Comments in 

paper form should be mailed or 

delivered to the following address: 

Federal Trade Commission, Office of the 

Secretary, Room HB–113 (Annex J), 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20580, in the manner 

detailed in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for copies of the collection of 

information and supporting 

documentation should be addressed to 

Allyson Himelfarb, Investigator, 

Division of Marketing Practices, Bureau 

of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade 

Commission, Room H–286, 600 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20580, (202) 326–2505. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Proposed Information Collection 

Activities 

Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521, 

Federal agencies must obtain approval 

from OMB for each collection of 

information they conduct or sponsor. 

‘‘Collection of information’’ means 

agency requests or requirements that 

members of the public submit reports, 

keep records, or provide information to 

a third party. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3), 5 CFR 

1320.3(c). Because the number of 

entities affected by the Commission’s 

requests will exceed ten, the 

Commission plans to seek OMB 

clearance under the PRA. As required 

by § 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the 

Commission is providing this 

opportunity for public comment before 

requesting that OMB extend the existing 

paperwork clearance for the information 

collection requirements associated with 

the Commission’s regulations under the 

FTC’s Informal Dispute Settlement 

Procedures Rule (the Dispute Settlement 

Rule or Rule) (OMB Control Number 

3084–0113), 16 CFR 703. 

The Dispute Settlement Rule is one of 

three rules 1 that the FTC implemented 

pursuant to requirements of the 

Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 

U.S.C. 2301 et seq. (Warranty Act or 

Act).2 The Dispute Settlement Rule, 16 

CFR 703, specifies the minimum 

standards which must be met by any 

informal dispute settlement mechanism 

(IDSM) that is incorporated into a 

written consumer product warranty and 

which the consumer must use before 

pursuing legal remedies under the Act 

in court. In enacting the Warranty Act, 

Congress recognized the potential 

benefits of consumer dispute 

mechanisms as an alternative to the 

judicial process. Section 110(a) of the 

Act sets out the Congressional policy to 

‘‘encourage warrantors to establish 

procedures whereby consumer disputes 

are fairly and expeditiously settled 

through informal dispute settlement 

mechanisms’’ and erected a framework 

for their establishment.3 As an incentive 

to warrantors to establish IDSMs, 

Congress provided in Section 110(a)(3) 

that warrantors may incorporate into 

their written consumer product 

warranties a requirement that a 

consumer must resort to an IDSM before 

pursuing a legal remedy under the Act 

for breach of warranty.4 To ensure 

fairness to consumers, however, 

Congress also directed that, if a 

warrantor were to incorporate such a 

‘‘prior resort requirement’’ into its 

written warranty, the warrantor must 

comply with the minimum standards set 

by the Commission for such IDSMs.5

Section 110(a)(2) of the Act directed the 

Commission to establish those 

minimum standards.6

The Dispute Settlement Rule contains 

standards for IDSMs, including 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Notices 71705 

7 In particular, the written request for confidential 

treatment that accompanies the comment must 

include the factual and legal basis for the request, 

and must identify the specific portions of the 

comment to be withheld from the public record. See 

FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). 

requirements concerning the 

mechanism’s structure (e.g., funding, 

staffing, and neutrality), the 

qualifications of staff or decision 

makers, the mechanism’s procedures for 

resolving disputes (e.g., notification, 

investigation, time limits for decisions, 

and follow-up), recordkeeping, and 

annual audits. The Rule requires that 

IDSMs establish written operating 

procedures and provide copies of those 

procedures upon request. 

The Dispute Settlement Rule applies 

only to those firms that choose to be 

bound by it by requiring consumers to 

use an IDSM. Neither the Rule nor the 

Act requires warrantors to set up IDSMs. 

A warrantor is free to set up an IDSM 

that does not comply with the Rule as 

long as the warranty does not contain a 

prior resort requirement. 

Request for Comments 

The FTC invites comments on: (1) 

Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(2) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate 

of the burden of the proposed collection 

of information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used; 

(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, 

and clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (4) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on those who are to respond, including 

through the use of appropriate 

automated, electronic, mechanical, or 

other technological collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology, e.g., permitting electronic 

submission of responses. All comments 

should be filed as prescribed below, and 

must be received on or before January 

24, 2011. 

Please also note that because your 

comments will be made public, you are 

solely responsible for ensuring that it 

does not include any sensitive personal 

information, such as any individual’s 

Social Security number, date of birth, 

driver’s license number or other State 

identification number or foreign country 

equivalent, passport number, financial 

account number, or credit or debit card 

number. It is also your own 

responsibility to ensure that your 

comment does not include any sensitive 

health information, such as medical 

records or other individually 

identifiable health information. In 

addition, your comment should not 

include any ‘‘[t]rade secret or any 

commercial or financial information 

which is obtained from any person and 

which is privileged or confidential 

* * *,’’ as provided in Section 6(f) of 

the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC 

Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). No 

comment, whether it contains such 

material or not, will be given 

confidential treatment unless the 

comment has been filed with the FTC 

Secretary; the comment is accompanied 

by a written confidentiality request that 

complies fully with FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 

CFR 4.9(c); 7 and the General Counsel, 

in his or her sole discretion, has 

determined to grant the request in 

accordance with applicable law and the 

public interest. 

Because paper mail addressed to the 

FTC is subject to delay due to 

heightened security screening, please 

consider submitting your comments in 

electronic form. Comments filed in 

electronic form should be submitted by 

using the following Web link: https:// 

ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/ 

idsrpra (and following the instructions 

on the Web-based form). To ensure that 

the Commission considers an electronic 

comment, you must file it on the Webbased form at the Web link: https:// 

ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/ 

idsrpra). If this Notice appears at 

http://www.regulations.gov/search/ 

index.jsp, you may also file an 

electronic comment through that Web 

site. The Commission will consider all 

comments that regulations.gov forwards 

to it. You may also visit the FTC Web 

site at http://www.ftc.gov to read the 

Notice and the news release describing 

it. 

A comment filed in paper form 

should include the ‘‘Warranty Rules: 

Paperwork Comment, FTC File No. 

P044403’’ 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–113 (Annex J), 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20580. 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. 

The FTC Act and other laws the 

Commission administers permit the 

collection of public comments to 

consider and use in this proceeding as 

appropriate. The Commission will 

consider all timely and responsive 

public comments that it receives, 

whether filed in paper or electronic 

form. Comments received will be 

available to the public on the FTC Web 

site, to the extent practicable, at http:// 

www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. 

As a matter of discretion, the 

Commission 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.shtm. 

Informal Dispute Settlement Rule 

Burden Statement 

Total annual hours burden: 13,000 

hours, rounded to the nearest thousand. 

The primary burden from the Dispute 

Settlement Rule comes from the 

recordkeeping requirements that apply 

to IDSMs that are incorporated into a 

consumer product warranty through a 

prior resort clause. In its 2007 

submission to OMB, staff estimated that 

the recordkeeping burden was 12,241 

hours per year, the reporting burden 

was 4,080 hours per year, and the 

disclosure requirements were 408 hours 

per year, or cumulatively, 

approximately 17,000 hours. Although 

the Rule’s information collection 

requirements have not changed since 

2007, staff has adjusted its previous 

estimates based on the following two 

factors. First, the annual audits filed by 

the two IDSMs currently operating 

under the Rule indicate that, on average, 

fewer disputes were handled since the 

previous submission to OMB in 2007. 

This factor results in a decreased annual 

hours burden estimate for the IDSMs. 

Second, staff has reevaluated the 

methodology used and the assumptions 

made in its previous submission with 

respect to the burden imposed on 

warrantors under the Rule, and now 

includes that analysis in its new 

estimates. This factor results in an 

increased annual burden estimate for 

warrantors. The calculations underlying 

staff’s new estimates follow. 

Recordkeeping: The Rule requires 

IDSMs to maintain records of each 

consumer warranty dispute that is 

referred to it. These case files must 

include information such as the 

consumer’s contact information, the 

make and model of the product at issue, 

all letters or other correspondence 

submitted by the consumer or 

warrantor, and all evidence collected to 

resolve the dispute. Because 

maintaining individual case records is a 

necessary function for any IDSM, much 

of the burden would be incurred in the 

ordinary course of the IDSM’s business. 

Nonetheless, staff retains its previous 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

71706 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Notices 

8According to its annual audits, the number of 

disputes filed each year with the BBB AUTO LINE 

are as follows: 20,658 in 2006; 17,365 in 2007; 

14,958 in 2008; and 11,768 in 2009. As of its most 

recent audit in 2009, the BBB AUTO LINE handled 

disputes on a national basis for thirteen automobile 

manufacturers. An additional eight manufacturers 

utilized BBB AUTO LINE in some States, but not 

others. 

9According to its annual audits, the number of 

disputes closed each year with NCDS are as follows: 

1,836 in 2006; 1,759 in 2007; 2,110 in 2008; and 

2,455 in 2009. 

10Because the number of annual disputes filed 

has fluctuated, staff believes that taking the average 

number of disputes filed for years 2006 through 

2009 (the most recent available data) is the best way 

to project what will happen over the next three 

years of the OMB clearance for the Rule. 

11 16 CFR 703.2(b). 

12 16 CFR 703.2(c). 

13 16 CFR 703.2(d). 

14This estimate includes the additional amount 

of time required to copy the annual audit upon a 

consumer’s request. However, because staff has 

determined that a very small minority of consumers 

request a copy of the annual audit, this estimate is 

likely an overstatement. In addition, at least a 

portion of case files are provided to consumers 

electronically, which further would reduce the 

paperwork burden borne by the IDSMs. 

estimate that maintaining individual 

case files imposes an additional burden 

of 30 minutes per case. 

The amount of work required will 

depend on the number of dispute 

resolution proceedings undertaken in 

each IDSM. A review of the annual 

audits completed since the prior 

submission to OMB in 2007 (audits for 

calendar years 2006 through 2009) 

indicates that currently there are two 

IDSMs operating under the Rule: the 

BBB AUTO LINE and the National 

Center for Dispute Settlement (NCDS). 

The BBB AUTO LINE audits from 

calendar years 2006 through 2009 

indicate that it handled an average of 

16,187 disputes each year.8 Audit 

reports submitted on behalf of NCDS, 

which most recently handled disputes 

on behalf of six automobile 

manufacturers, indicate that an average 

of 2,040 disputes were closed each year 

for calendar years 2006 through 2009.9

Based on the above figures, staff 

estimates that the average number of 

disputes handled annually by IDSMs 

covered by the Rule is approximately 

18,227 (an average of 16,187 disputes 

handled by BBB AUTO LINE + an 

average of 2,040 disputes handled by 

NCDS).10 Accordingly, staff estimates 

the total annual recordkeeping burden 

attributable to the Rule to be 

approximately 9,114 hours (18,227 

disputes × 30 minutes of burden) ÷ 60 

minutes). 

Reporting: The Rule requires IDSMs 

to update indexes, complete semiannual 

statistical summaries, and submit an 

annual audit report to the FTC. Staff 

retains its previous estimate that 

covered entities spend approximately 10 

minutes per case for these activities, 

resulting in a total annual burden of 

approximately 3,038 hours (18,227 

disputes × 10 minutes of burden ÷ 60 

minutes). 

Disclosure 

(a) Warrantors’ Disclosure Burden 

The Rule requires warrantors that 

elect to incorporate the use of an IDSM 

into their warranties to disclose in their 

warranties the following: a statement 

about the availability of the IDSM, the 

contact information for the IDSM, and 

any ‘‘prior resort requirement.’’ 11 In its 

2007 submission to OMB, staff noted 

that any incremental costs to the 

warrantor of including this additional 

information in the warranty would be 

negligible, and thus, did not account for 

warrantors’ disclosure burden in its 

previous submission. While staff 

continues to agree with that assessment, 

upon further review, staff has 

determined that it would be appropriate 

to account for the disclosure burden as 

it relates to warrantors based on two 

types of additional information that 

warrantors are required to disclose 

under the Rule: (1) More detailed 

information concerning the IDSM and 

its procedures; and (2) information that 

makes consumers aware of the existence 

of the IDSM. 

First, the Rule requires that 

warrantors include, either in the 

warranty or in a separate document 

accompanying the warranted product, 

more detailed information concerning 

the IDSM. Among other things, this 

information may include: a form 

addressed to the IDSM with spaces to be 

filled out by the consumer to provide 

the IDSM with information needed to 

resolve consumer disputes, a brief 

description of IDSM procedures, the 

time limits adhered to by the IDSM, and 

the types of information the IDSM might 

require for prompt resolution of the 

consumer dispute.12 Because warrantors 

have the option of providing this 

additional information in materials 

separate from the warranty, warrantors 

likely will bear an additional burden 

that is separate and apart from whatever 

burden already is imposed on 

warrantors from drafting warranty terms 

that comply with Rule 701, the rule on 

the disclosure of warranty terms. 

Second, the Rule requires that 

warrantors take steps reasonably 

calculated to make consumers aware of 

the IDSM’s existence at the time 

consumers experience warranty 

disputes.13 The annual audits—which 

are required to assess how well 

warrantors comply with this 

requirement—demonstrate the different 

steps warrantors take to inform 

consumers of the existence of the IDSM 

procedures. For example, some 

warrantors create separate pamphlets 

that deal specifically with the IDSM 

process. Other warrantors publish entire 

warranty manuals or booklets, within 

which several pages are dedicated to the 

IDSM. Still other warrantors have 

created posters to alert consumers to the 

existence of the informal dispute 

settlement process. Based on this 

information, it is clear that warrantors 

bear more than a negligible disclosure 

burden under the Rule. Accordingly, 

staff now includes an assessment of the 

disclosure burden for warrantors in its 

estimates as follows. 

A review of the annual audits of the 

BBB AUTO LINE and the NCDS 

indicates that currently there are 

approximately twenty-seven automobile 

manufacturers covered by the Rule. Staff 

assumes that each manufacturer spends 

an average of thirty hours a year 

creating, revising, and distributing the 

informational materials necessary to 

comply with the Rule, resulting in an 

annual disclosure burden of 810 hours 

(27 manufacturers × 30 hours). 

(b) IDSMs’ Disclosure Burden 

Under the Rule, a portion of the 

disclosure burden would be borne by 

the IDSM itself, which is required to 

provide to interested consumers upon 

request copies of the various types of 

information the IDSM possesses, 

including its annual audits. In addition, 

consumers who have filed disputes with 

the IDSM also have a right to copies of 

their records. (IDSMs are permitted to 

charge for providing both types of 

information.) 

Based on discussions with 

representatives of the IDSMs over the 

years, staff estimates that the burden 

imposed by the disclosure requirements 

is approximately 304 hours per year for 

the existing IDSMs to provide copies of 

this information. This estimate draws 

from the average number of consumers 

who file claims each year with the 

IDSMs (18,227) and the assumption that 

twenty percent of consumers 

individually request copies of the 

records pertaining to their disputes, or 

approximately 3,645 consumers. Staff 

estimates that copying such records 

would require approximately 5 minutes 

per consumer, including a negligible 

number of requests for copies of the 

annual audit.14 Thus, the IDSMs 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Notices 71707 

15The wage rates used in this Notice are based 

on recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics 

National Compensation Survey at http:// 

www.bls.gov/ncs/ncswage2009.htm, with the 

exception of the hourly wage rate for legal 

professionals, which is based upon industry 

knowledge. Hourly rates are rounded to the nearest 

dollar. 

currently operating under the Rule have 

an estimated total disclosure burden of 

304 hours (3,645 consumers × 5 minutes 

of burden ÷ 60 minutes). 

Accordingly, the total PRA-related 

annual hours burden attributed to the 

Rule is approximately 13,266 hours 

(9,114 hours for recordkeeping + 3,038 

hours for reporting + 1,114 hours for 

disclosures). 

Total annual labor cost: $265,000 

rounded to the nearest thousand. 

Recordkeeping: Staff assumes that 

IDSMs use clerical staff to comply with 

the recordkeeping requirements 

contained in the Rule at an hourly rate 

of $15.15 Thus, the labor cost associated 

with the 9,114 annual burden hours for 

recordkeeping is approximately 

$136,710 (9,114 burden hours × $15 per 

hour). 

Reporting: Staff assumes that IDSMs 

also use clerical support staff at an 

hourly rate of $15 to comply with the 

reporting requirements. Thus, the labor 

cost associated with the 3,038 annual 

burden hours for reporting is 

approximately $45,570 (3,038 burden 

hours × $15 per hour). 

Disclosure: Staff assumes that the 

work required to comply with the 

warrantors’ disclosure requirements 

entails an equal mix of legal, clerical, 

and graphic design work. The legal 

work entails ensuring that the warranty 

information and other materials contain 

the information required to be disclosed 

by the Rule, as well as reviewing the 

annual audits for any recommendations 

for how to improve the warrantors’ 

materials, and implementing those 

recommended changes as appropriate. 

The graphic design work entails creating 

pamphlets, brochures, posters, or other 

materials that are aimed at making 

consumers aware of the existence of the 

IDSM and its procedures. The clerical 

work entails copying and distributing 

those informational materials. Staff 

assumes that one third of the total 

disclosure hours for warrantors (270 

hours) requires legal work at a rate of 

$250 an hour, one third requires graphic 

design at a rate of $23 an hour, and one 

third requires clerical work at a rate of 

$15 an hour. This results in a disclosure 

labor burden of $77,760 for warrantors 

((270 × $250) + (270 × $23) + (270 × 

$15). 

In addition, staff assumes that IDSMs 

use clerical support at an hourly rate of 

$15 to reproduce records and, therefore, 

the labor cost associated with the 304 

annual hours of disclosure burden for 

IDSMs is approximately $4,560 (304 

burden hours × $15 per hour). 

Accordingly, the combined total 

annual labor cost for PRA-related 

burden under the Rule is approximately 

$264,600 ($136,710 for recordkeeping + 

$45,570 for reporting + $82,320 for 

disclosures). 

Total annual capital or other 

nonlabor costs: $322,000, rounded to 

the nearest thousand. 

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. In addition, according to a 

representative of one IDSM, it has 

already developed systems to collect 

and retain information needed to 

produce the indexes and statistical 

summaries required by the Rule, and 

thus, estimated very low capital or 

startup costs. 

The only additional cost imposed on 

IDSMs operating under the Rule that 

would not be incurred for other IDSMs 

is the annual audit requirement. 

According to representatives of the 

IDSMs, the vast majority of costs 

associated with this requirement are the 

fees paid to the auditors and their staffs 

to perform the annual audit. 

Representatives of the IDSMs previously 

estimated a combined cost of $300,000 

for both IDSMs currently operating 

under the Rule, and staff retains that 

estimate. 

Other non-labor costs: $22,000 in 

copying costs. This total is based on 

estimated copying costs of 7 cents per 

page and several conservative 

assumptions. Staff estimates that the 

average dispute-related file is 35 pages 

long and that a typical annual audit file 

is approximately 200 pages in length. As 

discussed above, staff assumes that 

twenty percent of consumers using an 

IDSM currently operating under the 

Rule (approximately 3,645 consumers) 

request copies of the records relating to 

their disputes. 

Staff also estimates that a very small 

minority of consumers request a copy of 

the annual audit. This assumption is 

based on (1) the number of consumer 

requests actually received by the IDSMs 

in the past; and (2) the fact that the 

IDSMs’ annual audits are available 

online. For example, annual audits are 

available on the FTC’s Web site, where 

consumers may view and or print pages 

as needed, at no cost to the IDSM. In 

addition, the Better Business Bureau 

makes available on its Web site the 

annual audit of the BBB AUTO LINE. 

Therefore, staff conservatively estimates 

that only five percent of consumers 

using an IDSM covered by the Rule 

(approximately 911 consumers) will 

request a copy of the IDSM’s audit 

report. 

Thus, the total annual copying cost 

for dispute-related files is 

approximately $8,930 (35 pages per file 

× $.07 per page × 3,645 consumer 

requests) and the total annual copying 

cost for annual audit reports is 

approximately $12,754 (200 pages per 

audit report × $.07 per page × 911 

consumer requests). Accordingly, the 

total cost attributed to copying under 

the Rule is approximately $21,684. 

Thus, the total non-labor cost under the 

Rule is approximately $321,684 

($300,000 for auditor fees + $21,684 for 

copying costs). 

Willard K. Tom, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29607 Filed 11–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Health Resources and Services 

Administration 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Submission for OMB 

Review; Comment Request 

Periodically, the Health Resources 

and Services Administration (HRSA) 

publishes abstracts of information 

collection requests under review by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), in compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of 

the clearance requests submitted to 

OMB for review, e-mail 

paperwork@hrsa.gov or call the HRSA 

Reports Clearance Office on (301) 443– 

1129. 

The following request has been 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget for review under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995: 

Proposed Project: Nurse Faculty Loan 

Program (NFLP) Annual Operating 

Report (AOR) Form (OMB No. 0915– 

0314)—[REVISION]. This clearance 

request is for approval of the modified 

online NFLP–AOR form for grantees to 

report annual NFLP loan fund activity. 

The Web-based (online) version of the 

NFLP–AOR form was developed and 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES