Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 92 / Thursday, May 11, 2000 / Notices 30411

1 15 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.

2 16 C.F.R. parts 701, 702 and 703.

3Many of these issues have recently been debated

in the context of the drafting of a proposed state

law, drafted by the National Conference of

Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL).

That proposed law, entitled the ‘‘Uniform Computer

Information Transaction Act’’ (UCITA), would,

among other things, affirm the enforceability of

mass market software licenses. Many of the

provisions of UCITA, including the provisions

dealing with mass market licenses, have raised

concern among some consumer groups and law

enforcement officials, including the staff of the

Federal Trade Commission. The FTC staff advocacy

letters can be found on the Commission’s web site

Continued

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston

(Richard Walker, Community Affairs

Officer) 600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston,

Massachusetts 02106–2204:

1. Washington Trust Bancorp, Inc.,

Westerly, Rhode Island; to acquire

Phoenix Investment Management

Company, Inc., Providence, Rhode

Island, and thereby engage in

investment advisory services consistent

with section 225.28(b)(6) of Regulation

Y.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, May 8, 2000.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 00–11879 Filed 5–10–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–P

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

Public Forum: Warranty Protection for

High-Tech Products and Services

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Initial notice requesting

academic papers and public comment

and announcing public forum.

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade

Commission plans to hold a public

forum to examine warranty protection

for software and other computer

information products and services that

are marketed to consumers, and seeks

academic papers and public comment to

inform this examination.

DATES: Papers and written comments are

requested to be submitted on or before

September 11, 2000. The forum will be

held during the fall of 2000.

ADDRESSES: Six hard copies of each

paper and written comment should be

submitted to: Secretary, Federal Trade

Commission, Room H–159, 600

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,

DC 20580. Alternatively, the

Commission will accept papers and

comments submitted to the following email address: ‘‘softwarecomments@ftc.gov.’’ The content of any

papers or comments submitted by email should be organized in

sequentially numbered paragraphs. All

submissions should be captioned ‘‘HighTech Warranty Project—Comment,

P994413.’’

Form and Availability of Comments:

To enable prompt review and

accessibility to the public, papers and

comments also should be submitted, if

possible, in electronic form, on either a

51⁄4 or 31⁄2 inch computer disk, with a

disk label stating the name of the

submitter and the name and version of

the word processing program used to

create the document. (Programs based

on DOS or Windows are preferred. Files

from other operating systems should be

submitted in ASCII text format.)

Papers and written comments will be

available for public inspection in

accordance with the Freedom of

Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, and

Commission regulations, 16 CFR Part

4.9, on normal business days between

the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. at

Room 130, Federal Trade Commission,

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20580. The

Commission will make this notice and,

to the extent possible, all papers or

comments received in electronic form in

response to this notice available to the

public through the Internet at the

following address: http://www.ftc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The

exact dates, location, and information

about public participation in the forum

will be announced later by Federal

Register notice. For questions about this

request for academic papers and

comments, contact either:

Adam Cohn, Attorney, Division of

Marketing Practice, Bureau of

Consumer protection, Federal Trade

Commission, 600 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580,

telephone 202–326–3411; or

Carole Danielson, Senior Investigator,

Division of Marketing Practices,

Bureau of Consumer Protection,

Federal Trade Commission, 600

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20580, telephone

(202) 326–3115.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background: Magnuson-Moss Warranty

Act

In 1975, Congress passed the

Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (‘‘Act’’) 1

in response to a number of widespread

problems consumers encountered when

the products they purchased were

defective. First, warranties were often

very vague or extremely technical and

thus difficult to understand and

interpret. Second, companies often gave

a narrow written warranty, but then

disclaimed all implied warranties in the

same document, thus providing the

consumer with little or no recourse if

the product turned out to be defective.

Third, some manufacturers restricted

the warranty and limited its remedies to

such an extent that the warranty proved

to be useless to consumers. Finally, the

lack of privity with a distant

manufacturer often precluded the

consumer from seeking a remedy in

court.

In addressing these problems, the

Congress did not mandate that

manufacturers or sellers provide written

warranties on consumer products, nor

did it mandate substantive warranty

terms for consumer products. Rather,

Congress mandated that any company

that chooses to give a written warranty

on a consumer product must follow

some basic ground rules. As set forth in

the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and

in the regulations promulgated under

the Act,2 these basic ground rules were

designed to ensure: that warranties for

consumer products be clear and

understandable; that warranties not

become vehicles to disclaim or

otherwise restrict substantive consumer

rights provided by state law; that

warranties be available prior to sale so

consumers could know the warranty

terms before buying the product and

could compare the warranties of

different sellers; and, that sellers and

manufacturers honor the terms of their

warranties. Finally, the Act gave

consumers the right to sue for any

violation of the Act, including breach of

express or implied warranty.

Software and Other Computer

Information Products and Services

Today, many of the issues that were

important three decades ago in the

context of written consumer product

warranties are being debated in the

context of mass market ‘‘shrinkwrap’’ or

‘‘clickwrap’’ software licenses. For

example, software licenses may be

written in technical, or otherwise

complicated language that some

consumers might find difficult to

understand. Additionally, just as

written warranties prior to 1975 were

sometimes used to disclaim substantive

implied warranty protections provided

by state law, some of today’s mass

market software licenses contain

provisions that seek to disclaim similar

state-implied warranty protections (e.g.,

fitness, merchantability). Moreover,

some mass market software licenses

may not be available for consumers to

review until after the consumer has paid

for the software. Thus, consumers may

be unaware of the terms and conditions

until after the product is purchased.3

30412 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 92 / Thursday, May 11, 2000 / Notices

at http://www.ftc.gov/be/v990010.htm and http://

www.ftc.gov/be/v980032.htm.

In seeking public comment and

holding a public forum, the Commission

hopes to facilitate discussion of how

government, private industry, and

consumer advocates can work together

to ensure that consumers receive

adequate information when purchasing

software and other computer

information products and services.

Additional concerns include how to

ensure that consumers are able to retain

existing protections afforded by state

law and compare warranty protections

when shopping for software and other

computer information products and

services.

Invitation To Comment

The Commission requests that

interested parties, including academics,

industry members, consumer advocates,

and government representatives, submit

academic papers or written comments

on any issue of fact, law, or policy that

may inform the Commission’s

examination of warranty protection for

software and other high-tech consumer

goods and services. Please provide

copies of any studies, surveys, research,

or other empirical data referenced in

responses.

The questions set forth below are

intended only as examples of the issues

relevant to the Commission’s

examination. Commenters are invited to

discuss any relevant issue, regardless of

whether it is identified below.

General

1. What warranty protections exist for

consumers who purchase software and

other computer information products

and services?

2. What expectations do consumers

have about reliability of software and

other computer information products

and services? Are these expectations

met?

3. What remedies are typically

available to consumers if software or

another computer information product

or service fails to perform as the

consumer expected?

a. What warranty remedies are

available to purchasers of such products

and services?

b. What remedies are supplied by

state or federal law?

c. Do consumers seek to invoke these

remedies, and if so, how often are they

successful?

4. Are consumers able to comparison

shop for different computer information

products or services based on the terms

of warranty coverage? Are consumers

interested in doing so? Do

manufacturers or sellers of software and

other computer information products

and services compete with each other

on the basis of warranty coverage?

5. Do the current protections

encourage efficiency in the timing,

selection, and amount of detail in

information conveyed to consumers?

6. Do existing laws and industry

practices protect consumers in the event

that software and other computer

information products or services are

defective? How often does this occur?

7. What developments are underway

by private or public entities at the

international, national, state, or local

levels that would have an impact on

consumer’s rights in the context of

transactions involving software or other

computer information products and

services?

a. How would the proposed Uniform

Computer Information Transactions Act

(UCITA) affect consumers?

b. What role, if any, would be

appropriate for the federal government

with respect to protecting consumers

who purchase software or other

computer information products and

services? What role, if any, would be

appropriate for state and local

government? Consumer groups? Private

industry?

c. Are there international

developments prompting uniformity of

software or other computer information

products and services?

Effect of Mass Market Licenses on

Warranty Protection

8. What is the impact of

characterizing a mass-market software

transaction as a license as opposed to a

sale of goods?

a. What is the rationale for such a

characterization?

b. What are the legal implications of

this characterization?

c. How does this affect consumers?

d. To what extent, if any, should

software transactions be treated

differently from transactions involving

other intellectual property, such as the

sale of compact discs, videocassettes,

and printed books?

e. Are some types of products

involving intellectual property better

suited to be distributed to consumers in

license transactions as opposed to a sale

of goods? Why?

9. To what extent, if any, do mass

market licenses for software typically

create express warranties?

10. To what extent, if any, do implied

warranties arise in the context of mass

market licenses for software?

11. To what extent, if any, do mass

market licenses for software typically

disclaim express or implied warranties?

12. How are consumers affected by

the use of ‘‘shrinkwrap’’ or ‘‘clickwrap’’

licenses in mass market purchases of

software?

a. How are these licenses treated

under existing law—that is, to what

extent are these licenses enforceable?

b. What types of terms are typically

included in a software license?

c. What types license of terms are

beneficial to consumers? What types of

terms may cause consumer harm? What

legal recourse do consumers have in

such circumstances?

d. To what extent are the terms of

shrinkwrap or clickwrap licenses

currently available to interested

consumers prior to purchase?

e. What is the impact of license terms

mandating certain types of alternative

dispute resolution, such as arbitration?

How frequently, if at all, are such terms

enforced by licensors?

f. Do shrinkwrap or clickwrap

licenses discourage firms from

competing on the basis of licensing

terms? If so, which terms would be more

likely to change if there were full prior

sale disclosure? Why?

13. What role, if any, does the

Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act play in

the marketing, sale, or licensing of

software or other computer information

products or services to consumers?

a. Is it appropriate that software be

treated as a ‘‘consumer product’’ subject

to the Act?

b. Is it appropriate that software be

treated as ‘‘tangible personal property’’

subject to the Act?

c. Is it appropriate for the typical

consumer transaction to acquire

software to be treated as a ‘‘sale’’ of

software subject to the Act?

d. Is it appropriate that software

licenses be treated as a ‘‘warranties’’

subject to the Act?

Future Trends: High-Tech Legal

Theories in the Low-Tech Marketplace

14. Recent proposed revisions to UCC

Article 2 (sale of goods) suggest that

post-sale disclosure of terms may

become acceptable in the sale of goods

content. What would be the costs and

benefits of applying a licensing model to

goods covered by UCC Article 2? Does

this suggest the importation of a

licensing model into such sales of

goods? If so, what effect, if any, will this

have on consumers?

Public Forum

15. What should be the primary focus

and scope of the Commission’s initial

public forum on ‘‘Warranty Protection

for High-Tech Products and Services?’’

16. Which interests should be

represented at the Commission’s initial

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 92 / Thursday, May 11, 2000 / Notices 30413

public forum on ‘‘Warranty Protection

for High-Tech Products and Services?’’

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–11802 Filed 5–10–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention

HIV; Preventing Transmission Through

Transplantation of Human Tissue

Organs; U.S. Public Health Service

Guidelines; Notice of Meeting

In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of

the Federal Advisory Committee Act

(Pub. L. 92–463), the Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention (CDC)

announces the following meeting.

Name: Consultation to discuss the

revision of the U.S. Public Health

Service Guidelines for Preventing

Transmission of Human

Immunodeficiency Virus Through

Transplantation of Human Tissue and

Organs [MMWR/May 20, 1994/Vol.43/

No.RR–8].

Times and Dates: 8:30 a.m.–5 p.m.,

June 26, 2000. 8:30 a.m.–4:30 p.m., June

27, 2000.

Place: Holiday Inn Select, 130

Clairmont Avenue, Decatur, Georgia

30030.

Status: Open to the public, limited

only by the space available. The meeting

room accommodates approximately 100

people.

Purpose: Attendees will discuss the

potential revisions to the U.S. Public

Health Service recommendations for

guidelines for Preventing Transmission

of Human Immunodeficiency Virus

Through Transplantation of Human

Tissue and Organs [MMWR/May 20,

1994/Vol. 43/ No.RR–8].

Matters To Be Discussed: Agenda

items will include recent research

regarding the transplantation of human

tissue and organs.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Helen Witten, Division of HIV/

AIDS Prevention—Surveillance and

Epidemiology, Office of the Director,

National Center for HIV, STD, and TB

Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS

D–21, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, 404–639–

4592 or muw4@cdc.gov or, Dr. Kenneth

A. Clark, Division of HIV/AIDS

Prevention—Surveillance and

Epidemiology, National Center for HIV,

STD, and TB Prevention, 1600 Clifton

Road NE, MS E–46, Atlanta, Georgia

30333, 404–639–2085 or

KClark@cdc.gov.

The Director, Management Analysis

and Services Office, has been delegated

the authority to sign Federal Register

Notices pertaining to announcements of

meetings and other committee

management activities, for both the

Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention and the Agency for Toxic

Substances and Disease Registry.

Dated: May 3, 2000.

Carolyn J. Russell,

Director, Management Analysis and Services

Office, Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention.

[FR Doc. 00–11794 Filed 5–10–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163–18–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention

Stigma Meeting

In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of

the Federal Advisory Committee Act

(Pub. L. 92–463), the Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention (CDC)

Announces the Following Meeting

Name: Stigma Meeting.

Time and Date: 9:30 a.m.–4 p.m., June

9, 2000.

Place: Hyatt Regency Hotel, 265

Peachtree Street, Atlanta, Georgia

30303.

Status: Open to the public, limited

only by the space available. The meeting

room accommodates approximately 54

people.

Purpose: To discern the role of stigma

in communications efforts directed at

HIV positive and negative persons. To

consult and collaborate with leading

experts to develop strategies for future

efforts in prevention and to fine tune

existing communications plans. Our

continued efforts to reach those at

highest-risk for HIV will necessitate

collaboration among organizations and

audiences infrequently reached through

CDC’s traditional methods.

Matters To Be Discussed: Agenda

items include an overview of the stigma

issue, presentations on research on

stigma and HIV, and an expert panel

discussion of public health and private

sector efforts which could together

begin to counter stigma associated with

HIV testing and early entrance into care.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michelle Bonds, National Center for

HIV, STD, and TB Prevention, Office of

Communications, 1600 Clifton Road,

NE, M/S E–07, Atlanta, Georgia 30333,

telephone 404/639–8890.

The Director, Management Analysis

and Services Office, has been delegated

the authority to sign Federal Register

Notices pertaining to announcements of

meetings and other committee

management activities, for both the

Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention and the Agency for Toxic

Substances and Disease Registry.

Dated: May 3, 2000.

Carolyn J. Russell,

Director, Management Analysis and Services

Office, Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention.

[FR Doc. 00–11793 Filed 5–10–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163–18–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN

AND FAMILIES

Statement of Organization, Functions

and Delegations of Authority

AGENCY: Office of Legislative Affairs and

Budget (OLAB)/ACF/DHHS.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This Notice amends Part K of

the Statement of Organization,

Functions, and Delegations of Authority

of the Department of Health and Human

Services (DHHS), Administration for

Children and Families (ACF) as follows:

Chapter KT, Office of Legislative Affairs

and Budget (OLAB), (63 FR 45510), as

last amended, August 26, 1998. This

notice reflects the consolidation of the

two budget divisions in the Office of

Legislative Affairs and Budget into one

division to improve its efficiency and

effectiveness. Specifically, delete

Chapter KT in its entirety, and replace

with the following:

KT.00 Mission. The Office of

Legislative Affairs and Budget (OLAB)

provides leadership in the development

of legislation, budget, and policy,

ensuring consistency in these areas

among ACF program and staff offices,

and with ACF and the Department’s

vision and goals. It advises the Assistant

Secretary for Children and Families on

all policy and programmatic matters,

which substantially impact the agency’s

legislative program, budget

development, budget execution and

regulatory agenda. The Office serves as

the primary contact for the Department,

the Executive Branch, and the Congress

on all legislative, budget development

and execution and regulatory activities.

KT.10 Organization. A Director, who

reports to the Assistant Secretary for