35376 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 107 / Friday, June 2, 2000 / Notices

Wisconsin

Jeff Smith, Section Chief, Federal/State

Relations, Wisconsin Department of

Administration, 101 East Wilson Street—

6th Floor, P.O. Box 7868, Madison,

Wisconsin 53707, Telephone: (608) 266–

0267, Fax: (608) 267–6931

Wyoming

Sandy Ross, State Single Point of Contact,

Department of Administration and

Information, 2001 Capitol Avenue, Room

214, Cheyenne, WY 82002, Telephone:

(307) 777–5492, Fax: (307) 777–3696

Territories

Guam

Joseph Rivera, Acting Director, Bureau of

Budget and Management Research, Office

of the Governor, P.O. Box 2950, Agana,

Guam 96932, Telephone: (671) 475–9411

or 9412, Fax: (671) 472–2825

Puerto Rico

Jose Caballero-Mercado, Chairman, Puerto

Rico Planning Board, Federal Proposals

Review Office, Minillas Government

Center, P.O. Box 41119, San Juan, Puerto

Rico 00940–1119, Telephone: (787) 727–

4444, (787) 723–6190, Fax: (787) 724–3270

North Mariana Islands

Mr. Alvaro A. Santos, Executive Officer,

Office of Management and Budget, Office

of the Governor, Saipan, MP 96950,

Telephone: (670) 664–2256, Fax: (670)

664–2272, Contact person: Ms. Jacoba T.

Seman, Federal Programs Coordinator,

Telephone: (670) 664–2289, Fax: (670)

664–2272

Virgin Islands

Nellon Bowry, Director, Office of

Management and Budget, #41 Norregade

Emancipation Garden, Station, Second

Floor, Saint Thomas, Virgin Islands 00802

Please direct all questions and

correspondence about intergovernmental

review to: Linda Clarke, Telephone: (809)

774–0750, Fax: (809) 776–0069.

If you would like a copy of this list faxed

to your office, please call our publications

office at: (202) 395–9068.

* In accordance with Executive Order

#12372, ‘‘Intergovernmental Review of

Federal Programs,’’ this listing represents the

designated State Single Points of Contact.

The jurisdictions not listed no longer

participate in the process BUT GRANT

APPLICANTS ARE STILL ELIGIBLE TO

APPLY FOR THE GRANT EVEN IF YOUR

STATE, TERRITORY, COMMONWEALTH,

ETC DOES NOT HAVE A ‘‘STATE SINGLE

POINT OF CONTACT.’’ STATES WITHOUT

‘‘STATE SINGLE POINTS OF CONTACT’’

INCLUDE: Alabama, Alaska; American

Samoa; Colorado; Connecticut; Hawaii;

Idaho; Kansas; Louisiana; Massachusetts;

Minnesota; Montana; Nebraska; New Jersey;

Ohio; Oklahoma; Oregon; Palau;

Pennsylvania; South Dakota; Tennessee;

Vermont; Virginia; and Washington. This list

is based on the most current information

provided by the States. Information on any

changes or apparent errors should be

provided to the Office of Management and

Budget and the State in question. Changes to

the list will only be made upon formal

notification by the State. Also, this listing is

published biannually in the Catalogue of

Federal domestic Assistance.

[FR Doc. 00–13689 Filed 6–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4184–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. 00D–1309]

Draft Guidance for Industry: Channels

of Trade Policy for Commodities With

Methyl Parathion Residues; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,

HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) is announcing the

availability of a proposed guidance

document entitled ‘‘Guidance for

Industry: Channels of Trade Policy for

Commodities With Methyl Parathion

Residues’’ (the proposed guidance). The

proposed guidance presents FDA’s

policy for implementing the channels of

trade provision for the pesticide

chemical methyl parathion in of the

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

(FFDCA) as amended by the Food

Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996.

The proposed guidance is intended to

assist firms in understanding FDA’s

planned approach to the enforcement of

this provision of the FQPA with regard

to residues of methyl parathion in food.

DATES: Submit written comments

concerning this guidance and the

information collection by August 1,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments

concerning the proposed guidance and

the collection of information provisions

to the Dockets Management Branch

(HFA–305), Food and Drug

Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm.

1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit

written requests for single copies of the

proposed guidance entitled ‘‘Guidance

for Industry: Channels of Trade Policy

for Commodities With Methyl Parathion

Residues’’ to Donna L. Myers, Center for

Food Safety and Applied Nutrition

(HFS–306), Food and Drug

Administration, 200 C St. SW.,

Washington, DC 20204, 202–205–4681.

Send one self-adhesive address label to

assist that office in processing your

request. Comments and requests for

copies should be identified with the

docket number found in brackets in the

heading of this document. A copy of the

proposed guidance and received

comments are available for public

examination in the Dockets

Management Branch between 9 a.m. and

4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael E. Kashtock, Center for Food

Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS–

306), Food and Drug Administration,

200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204,

202–205–4681, FAX 202–205–4422, email: mkashtoc@bangate.fda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On August 3, 1996, the FQPA was

signed into law. This law, which

amends the Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)

and the FFDCA, established a new

safety standard for pesticide residues in

food, with an emphasis on protecting

the health of infants and children. In

accordance with the FQPA, the

Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), the agency responsible for

regulating the use of pesticides (under

FIFRA) and establishing tolerances for

residues of pesticide chemicals in food

commodities (under the FFDCA), is in

the process of reassessing the pesticide

tolerances and exemptions that were in

effect when the law was signed. When

the determination is made that a

pesticide’s tolerance level does not meet

the safety standard set forth by the

FQPA, the registration for the pesticide

may be canceled for all or certain uses.

In addition, the tolerances for that

pesticide may be lowered or revoked for

the corresponding food commodities.

Under section 408(l)(2) of the FFDCA

(21 U.S.C. 346a(l)(2)), when the

registration for a pesticide is canceled or

modified due in whole or in part to

dietary risks to humans posed by

residues of that pesticide chemical on

food, the effective date for the

revocation of such tolerance (or

exemption in some cases) must be no

later than 180 days after the date such

cancellation becomes effective or 180

days after the date on which the use of

the canceled pesticide becomes

unlawful under the terms of the

cancellation, whichever is later.

When EPA takes such actions, food

derived from a commodity that was

lawfully treated with the pesticide may

not have cleared the channels of trade

by the time the revocation or new

tolerance level takes effect. The food

could be found by FDA, the agency that

is responsible for monitoring pesticide

residue levels and enforcing the

pesticide tolerances in most foods (the

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

has responsibility for meat, poultry, and

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 107 / Friday, June 2, 2000 / Notices 35377

certain egg products), to contain a

residue of that pesticide that does not

comply with the revoked or lowered

tolerance. FDA would normally deem

such food to be in violation of the law

by virtue of it bearing an illegal

pesticide residue. The food would be

subject to FDA enforcement action as an

‘‘adulterated’’ food. However, the

channels of trade provision of the FQPA

address the circumstances under which

a food is not unsafe solely due to the

presence of a residue from a pesticide

chemical for which the tolerance has

been revoked, suspended, or modified

by EPA. The channels of trade provision

(section 408(l)(5) of the FFDCA) states

the following:

PESTICIDE RESIDUES RESULTING

FROM LAWFUL APPLICATION OF

PESTICIDE.—Not withstanding any

other provision of this Act, if a tolerance

or exemption for a pesticide chemical

residue in or on a food has been

revoked, suspended, or modified under

this section, an article of that food shall

not be deemed unsafe solely because of

the presence of such pesticide chemical

residue in or on such food if it is shown

to the satisfaction of the Secretary that—

(A) the residue is present as the

result of an application or use of a

pesticide at a time and in a manner that

was lawful under the Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

Act; and

(B) the residue does not exceed a

level that was authorized at the time of

that application or use to be present on

the food under the tolerance,

exemption, food additive regulation, or

other sanction then in effect under this

Act; unless, in the case of any tolerance

or exemption revoked, suspended, or

modified under this subsection or

subsection (d) or (e), the Administrator

has issued a determination that

consumption of the legally treated food

during the period of its likely

availability in commerce will pose an

unreasonable dietary risk.

As part of the tolerance reassessment

process mandated by the FQPA, in a

cancellation order published in the

Federal Register of October 27, 1999 (64

FR 57877), EPA cancelled, effective on

the same date, several registered food

uses for the pesticide methyl parathion

(Ref. 1). These canceled food uses are as

follows: Apples, artichokes, beets

(greens alone), beets (with or without

tops), broccoli, brussels sprouts, carrots,

cauliflower, celery, cherries, collards,

grapes, kale, lentils, kohlrabi, lettuce,

mustard greens, nectarines, peaches,

pears, plums (fresh prunes), rutabagas

(with or without tops), rutabaga tops,

spinach, succulent beans and peas,

tomatoes, turnips (with or without tops),

turnips greens, vegetables leafy Brassica

(cole), and vetch.

Under the terms of the cancellation,

the application of the pesticide on the

crops specified became unlawful after

December 31, 1999. This action was

precipitated by EPA’s determination

that the dietary risks from exposure to

methyl parathion exceeded the safety

standard under the FFDCA. Consistent

with section 408(l)(2) of the FFDCA,

EPA is proposing in this issue of the

Federal Register to revoke the pesticide

tolerances for methyl parathion

corresponding to the canceled food

uses.

FDA anticipates that some foods

bearing methyl parathion residues

resulting from lawful application of this

pesticide will remain in the channels of

trade after the revocation of the

applicable tolerance for methyl

parathion (Refs. 2 through 4). If FDA

encounters such a food bearing a

residue of methyl parathion, it intends

to address the situation in accordance

with this proposed guidance. FDA has

developed this proposed guidance to set

forth its policy for how FDA plans to

approach its enforcement of the

channels of trade provision with respect

to the pesticide chemical methyl

parathion.

With this document, FDA is

announcing the availability of the

proposed guidance. The proposed

guidance represents FDA’s current

thinking on its planned enforcement

approach to the channels of trade

provision and how such provision

relates to FDA-regulated products with

methyl parathion residues. It does not

create or confer any rights for or on any

person and does not operate to bind

FDA or the public. The proposed

guidance is being distributed for

comment purposes, in accordance with

FDA’s policy for Level 1 Good Guidance

Practices documents as set out in the

Federal Register of February 27, 1997

(62 FR 8961).

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

of 1995 (the PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501–

3520), Federal agencies must obtain

approval from the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) for each collection of

information they conduct or sponsor.

‘‘Collection of information’’ is defined

in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR

1320.3(c) and includes agency requests

or requirements that members of the

public submit reports, keep records, or

provide information to a third party.

Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44

U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal

agencies to provide a 60-day notice in

the Federal Register concerning each

proposed collection of information

before submitting the collection to OMB

for approval. To comply with this

requirement, FDA is publishing notice

of the proposed collection of

information set forth in this document.

With respect to the following

collection of information, FDA invites

comments on: (1) Whether the proposed

collection of information is necessary

for the proper performance of FDA’s

functions, including whether the

information will have practical utility;

(2) the accuracy of FDA’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 respondents, including through the

use of automated collection techniques,

when appropriate, and other forms of

information technology.

Title: Suggested Documentation for

Demonstrating Compliance With the

Channels of Trade Provision

Description: Under the pesticide

tolerance reassessment process that EPA

was mandated to carry out under the

FQPA, EPA has proposed to revoke the

tolerances for the pesticide chemical

methyl parathion on several food

commodities. The FQPA includes a

provision in section 408(l)(5) of the

FFDCA, referred to as the ‘‘channels of

trade provision,’’ that addresses the

circumstances under which a food is not

unsafe solely due to the presence of a

residue from a pesticide chemical

whose tolerance has been revoked,

suspended, or modified by EPA.

In general, FDA anticipates that the

party responsible for food found to

contain methyl parathion residues

(within the former tolerance) after the

tolerance for the pesticide chemical has

been revoked, will be able to

demonstrate that such food was packed

or processed on or prior to December 31,

2000, by providing appropriate

documentation to the agency as

discussed in the proposed guidance.

FDA is not suggesting that firms

maintain a certain set list of documents

where anything less or different would

likely be considered unacceptable.

Rather, the agency is leaving it to each

firm’s discretion to maintain

appropriate documentation to

demonstrate that the food was so packed

or processed.

Examples of documentation which

FDA anticipates will serve this purpose

may be divided into two categories: (1)

Documentation associated with packing

codes, batch records, and inventory

records, and (2) other types of

35378 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 107 / Friday, June 2, 2000 / Notices

documentation. The first category

includes the types of documents that

many food processors routinely generate

as part of their basic food-production

operations. The second category may

include documentation that processors

generate for the express purpose of

compiling information that may satisfy

the showing required in the channels of

trade provision, such as copies of

product specification requirements

(requesting that the supplier not provide

commodities treated with methyl

parathion to the processor), written

acknowledgement from the supplier that

it intends to comply with the above

request, and records demonstrating that

the processor carried out an auditing

program (e.g., spot checks) to verify that

incoming commodities did not contain

residues of methyl parathion.

Description of Respondents: The

likely respondents to this collection of

information are firms in the produce

and food-processing industries who

handle food products that may contain

residues of methyl parathion after the

tolerances for this pesticide chemical

have been revoked.

FDA estimates the burden of this

collection of information as follows:

TABLE 1.—ESTIMATED ANNUAL

REPORTING BURDEN 1

No. of

Respondents

Annual

Frequency

per

Response

Total

Annual

Responses

Hours

per

Response

Total

Hours

67 1 67 3 201

1There are no capital costs or operating

and maintenance costs associated with this

collection of information.

TABLE 2.—ESTIMATED ANNUAL

RECORDKEEPING BURDEN 1

No. of

Recordkeepers

Annual

Frequency per

Recordkeeping

Total Annual

Records

Hours

per

Recordkeeper

Total

Hours

333 1 333 20 6,660

1There are no capital costs or operating

and maintenance costs associated with this

collection of information.

Estimates for the annual reporting

burden were determined by using the

maximum number of samples collected

throughout a year that FDA believes

may be found to contain methyl

parathion residues. Because all residues

are expected to have dissipated from

nonfrozen foods by the time FDA

intends to question firms about when a

food product was packed or processed

(i.e., after December 31, 2000), FDA

included only frozen food in its estimate

(i.e., processors of foods stored under

refrigerated and ambient conditions

were excluded) (Ref. 2). Although

residues within the former tolerance

resulting from legal application of

methyl parathion are not expected to be

found in nonfrozen foods after

December 31, 2000, under the channels

of trade provision, firms will have an

opportunity to make a showing that any

such food was packed or processed on

or before this date.

Considering the variation in and

effects of food handling, particularly

with regard to the time between

pesticide application and freezing, FDA

estimated that potentially half of all

frozen food products sampled may

contain methyl parathion residues, and

therefore, the responsible party, under

the approach set forth in this guidance,

would be subject to the reporting

requirement since it would be the

burden of the responsible party to

demonstrate that food found to contain

methyl parathion residues within the

former tolerance was packed or

processed on or before December 31,

2000.

When determining the annual

recordkeeping burden, importers and

domestic processors of frozen food

commodities affected by the revocation

of the pesticide chemical methyl

parathion were considered. FDA

estimated that most firms (at least 90

percent) maintain (or maintain access

to) Category I documentation (packing

codes, batch records, inventory records,

etc.) as part of their basic food

production and/or import operations. It

was presumed that the 10 percent of

firms which do not maintain such

documentation would likely begin

maintaining (or maintaining access to)

Category II documentation (other types

of documentation, such as certification

from the supplier that products do not

contain methyl parathion) rather than

instituting a system to begin

maintaining Category I documentation.

This being the case, a portion of the

recordkeeping burden was calculated as

the time required for the 10 percent of

firms not currently maintaining

Category I documentation, to develop

and maintain (or maintain access to)

Category II documentation.

As discussed in detail in the

guidance, some firms (i.e., frozen juice

manufacturers) may decide to maintain

Category II documentation in addition

to Category I documentation, as part of

the showing under the channels of trade

provision. FDA estimated that firms

fitting this description represent

approximately one third of the frozen

fruit, vegetable, and juice-processing

industry. Therefore, a portion of the

annual recordkeeping burden estimate

was calculated based upon the time

required for these firms to develop and

maintain Category II documentation.

Because all residues are expected to

have dissipated from nonfrozen foods

by the time FDA intends to ask for a

showing under section 408(l)(5) of the

FFDCA (i.e., after December 31, 2000),

FDA used the number of frozen food

processors when determining the

annual recordkeeping burden. As with

the annual reporting burden estimate,

although nonfrozen food processors are

entitled to make a showing under the

channels of trade provision, they were

excluded from this estimate because

based upon residue dissipation

estimates provided by EPA (Ref. 2),

methyl parathion residues within the

former tolerance resulting from legal

application are not expected to be found

in nonfrozen commodities after

December 31, 2000.

III. Comments

Interested persons may submit to the

Dockets Management Branch (address

above) written comments on the

proposed guidance by August 1, 2000.

Two copies of any comments are to be

submitted, except that individuals may

submit one copy. Comments are to be

identified with the docket number

found in brackets in the heading of this

document. The proposed guidance may

be seen in the office above between 9

a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday. An electronic version of this

draft guidance is available on the

Internet at http://www.fda.gov/.

IV. References

The following references have been

placed on display at the Dockets

Management Branch (address above)

and may be seen by interested persons

between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday.

1. Cancellation Order from the

Environmental Protection Agency Canceling

the Registration for Methyl Parathion

Effective October 27, 1999 (www.epa.gov/

fedrgstr/EPA–PEST/1999/October/Day-27/

p27800.htm), Federal Register (64 FR 57877),

October 27, 1999.

2. Environmental Protection Agency,

Residue Dissipation Chart, Draft Estimates of

Methyl Parathion Dissipation Rates in

Commodities Under Various Storage

Conditions, 1999.

3. American Frozen Food Institute, Letter

to FDA Estimating the Amount of Time

Frozen Fruits and Vegetables Are Likely to

Remain in Commerce Prior to Being

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 107 / Friday, June 2, 2000 / Notices 35379

Purchased by the Consumer (i.e., How Long

They Are Likely to Remain in the Channels

of Trade), October 26, 1999.

4. National Food Processors Association,

Letter to FDA Estimating the Amount of Time

Processed Foods Are Likely to Remain in the

Channels of Trade, August 23, 1999.

Dated: May 26, 2000.

Margaret M. Dotzel,

Associate Commissioner for Policy.

[FR Doc. 00–13813 Filed 6–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–01–F

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Health Care Financing Administration

[Document Identifier: HCFA–1965, HCFA–

2649, HCFA–5011A & HCFA–5011B]

Agency Information Collection

Activities; Proposed Collection;

Comment Request

AGENCY: Health Care Financing

Administration, HHS.

In compliance with the requirement

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

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the

Health Care Financing Administration

(HCFA), Department of Health and

Human Services, is publishing the

following summary of proposed

collections for public comment.

Interested persons are invited to send

comments regarding this burden

estimate or any other aspect of this

collection of information, including any

of the following subjects: (1) The

necessity and utility of the proposed

information collection for the proper

performance of the agency’s functions;

(2) the accuracy of the estimated

burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality,

utility, and clarity of the information to

be collected; and (4) the use of

automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology to

minimize the information collection

burden.

1. Type of Information Collection

Request: Extension of a currently

approved collection; Title of

Information Collection: Request for

Hearing—Part B Medicare Claim and

Supporting Regulations in 42 CFR

405.821; Form No.: HCFA–1965 (0938–

0034); Use: Section 1869 of the Social

Security Act authorizes a hearing for

any individual who is dissatisfied with

any determination and amount of

benefit paid. This form is used so that

a party may request a hearing by a

Hearing Officer because the review

determination failed to satisfy the

appellant. Frequency: Annually,

Quarterly and Monthly; Affected Public:

Individual or households, and not-forprofit institutions; Number of

Respondents: 55,000; Total Annual

Responses: 55,000, Total Annual Hours:

9,167.

2. Type of Information Collection

Request: Extension of a currently

approved collection; Title of

Information Collection: Request for

Reconsideration of Part A Insurance

Benefits and Supporting Regulations in

42 CFR 405.711; Form No.: HCFA–2649

(0938–0045); Use: Section 1869 of the

Social Security Act authorizes a hearing

for any individual who is dissatisfied

with the intermediary’s Part A

determination or the benefit amount

paid. This form is used by a party to

request a reconsideration of the initial

determination of benefits. Frequently:

Annually, quarterly and monthly;

Affected Public: Individuals or

households, and not-for-profit

institutions; Number of Respondents:

62,000; Total Annual Responses:

62,000; Total Annual Hours: 15,500.

3. Type of Information Collection

Request: Extension of a currently

approved collection; Title of

Information Collection: Request for Part

A Medicare Hearing by an

Administrative Law Judge and

Supporting Regulations in 42 CFR 498

Subpart D and E; Form No.: HCFA–

5011A–U6 (0938–0486); Use: Section

1869 of the Social Security Act

authorizes a hearing for any individual

who is dissatisfied with the

intermediary’s Part A determination or

the amount paid. This form is used by

the beneficiary or other qualified

appellant to request a hearing by an

Administrative Law Judge is the

reconsideration determination fails to

satisfy the appellant. Frequency:

Annually, Quarterly and Monthly;

Affected Public: Individuals or

households, and not-for-profit

institutions; Number of Respondents:

10,000; Total Annual Responses:

10,000; Total Annual Hours: 2,500.

4. Type of Information Collection

Request: Extension of a currently

approved collection; Tital of

Information Collection: Request for Part

B Medicare Hearing by an

Administrative Law Judge and

Supporting Regulations in 42 CFR 498

Subpart D and E; Form No.: HCFA–

5011B–U6 (0938-0567); Use: Section

1869 of the Social Security Act

authorizes a hearing for any individual

who is dissatisfied with the carrier’s

Part B determination or the amount

paid. This form is used by the

beneficiary or other qualified appellant

to request a hearing by an

Administrative Law Judge if the hearing

officer’s decision fail’s to satisfy the

appellant. Frequency: Annually,

quarterly and monthly; Affected Public:

Individuals or households, and not-forprofit institutions; Number of

Respondents: 10,000; Total Annual

Responses: 10,000; Total Annual

Responses: 10,000; Total Annual Hours:

2,500.

To obtain copies of the supporting

statement and any related forms for the

proposed paperwork collections

referenced above, access HCFA’s Web

Site address at http://www.hcfa.gov/

regs/prdact95.htm, or E-mail your

request, including your address, phone

number, OMB number, and HCFA

document identifier, to

Paperwork@hcfa.gov. or call the Reports

Clearance Office on (410) 786–1326.

Written comments and

recommendations for the proposed

information collections must be mailed

within 60 days of this notice directly to

the HCFA Paperwork Clearance Officer

designated at the following address:

HCFA, Office of Information Services,

Security and Standards Group, Division

of HCFA Enterprise Standards,

Attention: Dawn Willinghan, Room N2–

14–26, 7500 Security Boulevard,

Baltimore, Maryland 21244–1850.

Dated: May 25, 2000.

John P. Burke, III,

HCFA Reports Clearance Officer, HCFA Office

of Information Services, Security and

Standards Group, Division of HCFA

Enterprise Standards.

[FR Doc. 00–13860 Filed 6–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4120–03–U

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request; Request for

Clearance To Conduct Voluntary

Customer Satisfaction Surveys

SUMMARY: In compliance with the

requirement of Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

for opportunity for public comment on

proposed data collection projects, the

National Institute on Deafness and

Other Communication Disorders

(NIDCD), the National Institutes of

Health (NIH), will publish periodic

summaries of proposed projects to be

submitted to the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) for review and

approval.

Proposed Collection

Title: Request for Clearance to

Conduct Voluntary Customer

Satisfaction Surveys. Type of

Information Collection Request: NEW.