30122 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 10, 2000 / Notices

percentages of their needs through the

exchange? Are there circumstances

when it is likely to make business sense

for a buyer to participate solely in one

B2B electronic marketplace? What

factors are relevant to whether a buyer

participates in multiple B2B electronic

marketplaces selling similar products?

10. What consequences can be

expected to follow from a decision to

join, or not to join, a B2B electronic

marketplace? Do B2B electronic

marketplaces have implications for

wholesalers or other middlemen? For

long-term contracting?

Seller Perspectives

1. What business reasons prompt

sellers to be interested in selling

through B2B electronic marketplaces?

For example, what savings do sellers

expect to gain through such

marketplaces? How were sales made

before the availability of such

marketplaces? Are sellers based outside

the United States participating in such

marketplaces?

2. What are the sources of the

expected savings? Are savings expected

to come from reductions in transactions

costs? From volume-related scale

economies? From inventory reductions?

From the ability to do business more

readily with distant buyers? From other

sources?

3. What factors affect the desirability

of transacting business through B2B

electronic marketplaces and the extent

of likely electronic marketplace usage?

Does it matter whether the product at

issue is homogeneous or differentiated?

4. Does it make a difference to sellers

who owns or operates the B2B

electronic marketplace? If so, why? How

do sellers decide in which marketplaces

to participate? What factors affect

participation decisions?

5. Are there any increased costs to

sellers of doing business in B2B

electronic marketplaces? Are any

distribution costs increased? What

effects will B2B electronic marketplaces

likely have on sellers’ profit margins?

6. Do sellers see competitors’ prices

posted on B2B electronic marketplaces?

If so, how do sellers respond? What role

do computer programs play?

7. What other information, if any, do

B2B electronic marketplaces make

available to sellers about competing

sellers? For example, can sellers receive

information about competitors’ available

capacity?

8. What rules do sellers typically want

to govern B2B electronic marketplace

solicitations? Are there circumstances

when sellers may wish to limit the

number or identity of possible

purchasers or otherwise structure

auction procedures?

9. Must a minimum level or

percentage of sales be made through a

B2B electronic marketplace in which a

seller participates? Do B2B electronic

marketplaces impose any other

requirements affecting participants’

outside sales?

10. What consequences can be

expected to follow from a decision to

join, or not to join, a B2B electronic

marketplace? Do B2B electronic

marketplaces have implications for

wholesalers or other middlemen? For

long-term contracting?

Public Policy Perspectives

1. What competition issues may be

raised by B2B electronic marketplaces?

What are likely procompetitive benefits,

and what are possible anticompetitive

concerns?

2. Under what circumstances are B2B

electronic marketplaces likely to

increase or diminish competition? What

has the experience been so far?

3. How do B2B electronic

marketplaces affect entry at the buyer or

seller level? How does entry occur in

the market for B2B electronic

marketplaces?

4. What issues are relevant to

structuring and implementing B2B

electronic marketplaces so as to both

realize efficiencies and avoid

competition problems? For example,

what mechanisms might be included to

prevent inappropriate sharing of

competitive, confidential information?

Are any of these mechanisms likely to

be impractical or undesirable from a

business perspective?

5. Does the development of

competition within and among B2B

electronic marketplaces depend in part

on any intellectual property rights

relating to the design or operation of

such marketplaces?

6. What implications, if any, do B2B

electronic marketplaces have for market

structure and market concentration?

The Commission welcomes

suggestions for other questions that also

should be addressed. Proposed

questions, identified as such, may be

sent by electronic mail to

b2bmarketplaces@ftc.gov.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–11604 Filed 5–9–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P

HARRY S. TRUMAN SCHOLARSHIP

FOUNDATION

Notice of Intent To Extend an

Information Collection

AGENCY: Harry S. Truman Scholarship

Foundation.

ACTION: Notice and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the

requirements of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

for opportunity for public comment on

proposed data collection projects, the

Harry S. Truman Scholarship

Foundation [Foundation] will publish

periodic summaries of proposed

projects.

Comments are invited on (a) whether

the proposed collection of information

is necessary for the proper performance

of the functions of the agency, including

whether the information shall have

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

proposed collection of information; (c)

ways to enhance the quality, utility and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the

burden of the collection of information

on respondents, including through the

use of automated collection techniques

or the forms of information technology.

DATES: Written comments on this notice

must be received by July 10, 2000 to be

assured of consideration. Comments

received after that date will be

considered to the extent practicable.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Contact Louis H. Blair, Executive

Secretary, Harry S. Truman Scholarship

Foundation, 712 Jackson Place, NW,

Washington, DC 20006; telephone 202–

395–4831; or send e-mail to

lblair@truman.gov. You also may obtain

a copy of the data collection instrument

and instructions from Mr. Blair.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title of Collection: Truman Scholar

Payment Request Form.

OMB Approval Number: 3200–0005.

Expiration Date of Approval: May 31,

1997.

Type of Request: Intent to seek

approval to extend an information

collection for three years.

Proposed Project: The Foundation has

been providing scholarships since 1977

in compliance with PL 93–642. This

data collection instrument is used to

collect essential information to enable

the Truman Scholarship Foundation to

determine the amount of financial

support to which each Truman Scholar

is eligible and then to make the

payment. A total response rate of 100%

was provided by the 273 Truman

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 10, 2000 / Notices 30123

Scholars who received support in FY

1999.

Estimate of Burden: The Foundation

estimates that, on average, 0.5 hours per

Scholar applying for funds will be

required to complete the Payment

Request Form, for a total annual burden

of 136.5 hours for all applicants.

Respondents: Individuals.

Estimated Number of Responses: 273.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on

Respondents: 136.5 hours.

Dated: May 4, 2000.

Louis H . Blair,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–11726 Filed 5–9–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–AD–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention

[Program Announcement 00063]

Interdisciplinary Evaluation of

Combination Therapy for

Uncomplicated Malaria; Notice of

Availability of Funds

A. Purpose

The Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC) announces the

availability of fiscal year (FY) 2000

funds for a cooperative agreement

program for Interdisciplinary

Evaluations of Combination Therapy for

Uncomplicated Malaria. CDC is

committed to achieving the health

promotion and disease prevention

objectives of ‘‘Healthy People 2010’’, a

national activity to reduce morbidity

and mortality and improve the quality

of life. This announcement is related to

the focus areas of Immunization and

Infectious Diseases. The purpose of the

program is to evaluate the effectiveness

of combination antimalarial therapy at

district or multidistrict level in subSaharan Africa.

B. Eligible Applicants

Assistance will be provided only to

Ifakara Health and Research

Development Center (IHRDC), in Ifakara,

United Republic of Tanzania. No other

applications are solicited.

The United Republic of Tanzania is

the only country located in sub-Saharan

Africa where large portions of the

country are located in areas of active,

and intense, transmission of the parasite

Plasmodium falciparum. They represent

one of only a few countries where drug

policy reform is underway because of

antimalarial drug resistance and is

actively engaged in developing and

testing strategies for addressing the

problem of antimalarial drug resistance.

Antimalarial drug resistance to

chloroquine, the traditional first-line

treatment for uncomplicated malaria,

has intensified to a point where the

Ministry of Health has decided to

switch to an alternative medicine,

sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine (SP), for

first-line treatment of malaria. Because

of concerns that this strategy will be

short lived due to pre-existing levels of

drug resistance to SP, the Ministry of

Health is keenly interested in

understanding potential future options

for addressing this pressing public

health challenge.

The IHRDC in Ifakara, Tanzania, is a

non-government organization that

comes under the jurisdiction of the

United Republic of Tanzania, Ministry

of Health. The Ministry of Health has

oversight of the IHRDC and must

approve all actions taken on behalf of

the United Republic of Tanzania. IHRDC

is the only institution in sub-Saharan

Africa that is located in an area of very

intense malaria transmission, that is

located in a country that: Is poised to

adopt a national malaria treatment

policy of SP while actively engaged in

investigating future treatment options; is

actively engaged in research activities

that are directly related to the objectives

listed above; and has the needed

experience and capacity. Because of its

work in malaria for more than a decade,

IHRDC is an internationally respected

research institution. Investigators at

IHRDC have a detailed understanding of

the epidemiologic patterns and

geographic distribution of malaria

infection and transmission in their area,

are actively engaged in using state-ofthe-art techniques for evaluating

antimalarial drug resistance, and have

needed and proven expertise in sociobehavioral research related to malaria.

In addition, the IHRDC maintains a

demographic surveillance system (DSS)

covering approximately 55,000

individuals, allowing for measurement

of public health impact of malaria

treatment policies, and, through its

existing collaborative links to other

institutions and projects, has the ability

to access comparable data from 2

additional DSS data bases (covering a

total population of over 300,000

individuals). The IHRDC is the only

organization that has the capacity to

carry out large-scale community-based

public health interventions, to conduct

malaria research, and to correctly

diagnose drug resistant malaria

infections in its laboratories and field

activities. They have the required field

experience and demonstrated capacity

in areas directly related to all 6

principal objectives of this proposed

evaluation: (1) Using state-of-the-art

methods of diagnosing antimalarial drug

resistance, including in vivo, in vitro,

and molecular methods; (2) monitoring

for changes in gametocytemia rates; (3)

socio-behavioral research related to

malaria, malaria drug use practices, and

malaria treatment seeking practices; (4)

economics of malaria and malaria

treatment; (5) research into the process

development of public health policy

related to malaria; and (6) monitoring

for public health impact, including on a

population level.

C. Availability of Funds

Approximately $500,000 is available

in FY 2000 to fund one award. It is

expected that the award will begin on or

about August 30, 2000, and will be

made for a 12-month budget period

within a project period of up to five

years. The funding estimate may

change.

Continuation awards within an

approved project period may be made

on the basis of satisfactory progress as

evidenced by required reports and the

availability of funds.

D. Program Requirements

In conducting activities to achieve the

purpose of this program, the recipient

will be responsible for conducting the

activities under 1. (Recipient Activities)

and CDC will be responsible for

conducting the activities under 2. (CDC

Activities).

1. Recipient Activities

a. Identify an appropriate set of

districts for the evaluation of a pilot

policy of antimalarial combination

therapy, including comparison areas

using SP monotherapy for treatment of

all cases of uncomplicated malaria.

b. Design a multifaceted evaluation

program to determine the effectiveness

of antimalarial combination therapy on

inhibiting development of drug

resistance and decreasing malaria

transmission, as well as to elucidate

programmatic, behavioral, economic, or

policy aspects of combination therapy

that could either enhance or limit this

effectiveness.

c. Define, collect, and analyze

baseline data: Collect baseline data so

that the public health impact of the

interventions can be evaluated

(including impact on mortality rates).

d. Carry out the evaluation activities.

e. Measure the effect of the national

treatment policy compared with the

pilot policy of combination therapy in

terms of (1) inhibiting the development

of resistance to SP; (2) interrupting