46498 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 1997 / Notices

1. Texas Financial Bancorporation,

Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota, and

Delaware Financial, Inc., Wilmington,

Delaware; to acquire 100 percent of the

voting shares of CNB Bancshares of

Victoria, Victoria, Texas, and thereby

indirectly acquire Citizens Bancorp of

Delaware, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware,

and Citizens National Bank, Victoria,

Texas.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, August 28, 1997.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 97–23316 Filed 9–2–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–F

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Notice of Proposals to Engage in

Permissible Nonbanking Activities or

to Acquire Companies that are

Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking

Activities

The companies listed in this notice

have given notice under section 4 of the

Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C.

1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12

CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to

acquire or control voting securities or

assets of a company that engages either

directly or through a subsidiary or other

company, in a nonbanking activity that

is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12

CFR 225.28) or that the Board has

determined by Order to be closely

related to banking and permissible for

bank holding companies. Unless

otherwise noted, these activities will be

conducted throughout the United States.

Each notice is available for inspection

at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated.

The notice also will be available for

inspection at the offices of the Board of

Governors. Interested persons may

express their views in writing on the

question whether the proposal complies

with the standards of section 4 of the

BHC Act.

Unless otherwise noted, comments

regarding the applications must be

received at the Reserve Bank indicated

or the offices of the Board of Governors

not later than September 26, 1997.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of

Minneapolis (Karen L. Grandstrand,

Vice President) 250 Marquette Avenue,

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-2171:

1. Spectrum Bancorporation, Inc.,

Omaha, Nebraska; to acquire First

Savings & Loan Association of South

Dakota, Inc., Aberdeen, South Dakota,

and thereby engage in the operation of

a savings association, pursuant to §

225.28(b)(4) of the Board’s Regulation Y.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, August 28, 1997.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 97–23317 Filed 9–2–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–F

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

Agency Information Collection

Activities; Proposed Collection;

Comment Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: None.

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade

Commission (FTC or Commission) is

announcing an opportunity for public

comment on the proposed extension of

OMB approval under the Paperwork

Reduction Act for ‘‘collection of

information’’ requirements contained in

the Mail or Telephone Order

Merchandise Trade Regulation Rule, 16

CFR Part 435.

DATES: Submit written comments on the

collection of information on or before

November 3, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to

Elaine W. Crockett, Attorney, Office of

the General Counsel, Room 598, 6th St.

and Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 20580. All

comments should be identified as

responding to this notice.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (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 that 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 cause members of the

public to submit reports, keep records,

or provide information to a third party.

As required by section 3506(c)(2)(A) of

the PRA, the FTC is providing this

opportunity for public comment before

requesting that OMB extend the existing

paperwork clearance for the Mail or

Telephone Order Merchandise Rule.

The FTC invites comments on: (1)

Whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the FTC’s functions,

including whether the information will

have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of

the FTC’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 through the use of

automated collection techniques, when

appropriate, and other forms of

information technology.

Mail or Telephone Order Merchandise

Trade Regulation Rule, 16 CFR Part

435—(OMB Control Number 3084–

0106)—Extension

The Mail Order Merchandise Rule

was promulgated in 1975 in response to

consumer complaints that many

merchants were failing to ship mail

order merchandise on time, failing to

ship at all, or failing to provide prompt

refunds for unshipped merchandise.

The Rule took effect on February 2,

1976. A second rulemaking proceeding

in 1993 demonstrated that the delayed

shipment and refund problems of the

mail order industry were being

experienced by consumers who ordered

merchandise over the telephone. The

Commission amended the Rule,

effective on March 1, 1994, to include

merchandise ordered by telephone,

including by FAX or by computer

through the use of a modem.

Generally, the Rule requires a

merchant to: (1) Have a reasonable basis

for any express or implied shipment

representation made in soliciting the

sale; (2) ship within the time period

promised, and if no time period is

promised, within 30 days; (3) notify the

consumer and obtain the consumer’s

consent to any delay in shipment; and

(4) make prompt and full refunds when

the consumer exercises a cancellation

option or the merchant is unable to meet

the Rule’s other requirements.

The notice provisions in the Rule

require a merchant, who is unable to

ship within the promised shipment time

or 30 days, to notify the consumer of a

revised date and his or her right to

cancel the order and obtain a prompt

refund. Delays beyond the revised

shipment date also trigger a notification

requirement to consumers. When the

Rule requires the merchant to make a

refund and the consumer paid by credit

card, it also requires the merchant to

notify the consumer either that any

charge to the consumer’s charge account

will be reversed or that the merchant

will take no action that will result in a

charge.

Burden statement: In its 1995 PRA

submission to OMB, the FTC estimated

that 1,897 large businesses and 68,663

small businesses are covered by the

Rule. As stated in the agency’s 1995

submission, the conditional nature of

some of the Rule’s requirements makes

it difficult to quantify the exact PRA

burden involved. Nonetheless, the

agency estimated that 70,560 businesses

spend an average of 229.78 hours per
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 1997 / Notices 46499

year on compliance with the Rule, for a

total estimate of 16,213,300 burden

hours.

No provisions in the Mail or

Telephone Order Merchandise Rule

have been amended or changed in any

manner. All of the requirements relating

to disclosure and notification remain

the same. We have, however, reduced

the 1995 total burden estimate of

16,213,300 hours for the reasons

discussed below.

In the OMB regulation implementing

the PRA, burden is defined to exclude

any effort that would be expended

regardless of any regulatory

requirement. 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2). In past

rulemaking proceedings, industry trade

associations and individual witnesses

have testified that compliance with the

Rule is now widely regarded by direct

marketers as being good business

practice. The Rule’s notification

requirements would be followed in any

event by most merchants to meet

consumer expectations with respect to

timely shipment, notification of delay,

and prompt and full refunds. Providing

consumers with notice about the status

of their orders fosters consumer loyalty

and encourages repeat purchases that

are important to the success of direct

marketers. Thus, much of the time and

expense associated with Rule

compliance is not properly treated as

burden under the PRA.

In estimating any remaining burden,

the agency has considered ‘‘the total

time, effort, or financial resources

expended by persons to generate,

maintain, retain, disclose or provide

information to or for a Federal agency.’’

5 CFR 1320.3(b)(1). This includes

‘‘developing, acquiring, installing, and

utilizing technology and systems for the

purpose of disclosing and providing

information.’’ 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(1)(iv).

Although not expressly stated in the

regulation, it seems reasonable to infer

that the definition of burden would

include upgrading and maintaining

computer systems used to comply with

the Rule’s requirements.

The mail order industry has been

subject to the basic provisions of the

Rule since 1976 and the telephone order

industry since 1994. Thus, businesses

have had several years (and some have

had decades) to integrate compliance

systems into their business procedures.

Nonetheless, staff has allocated some

hours, estimated at 150 hours annually

per company, toward the maintenance

of computer systems by the affected

companies, even though maintenance

and upkeep arguably would also be part

of ordinary business practice in the

industry.

Further, in our best judgment (more

accurate data from the industry is not

currently available), approximately

1,000 new companies have entered the

market since 1995. Thus, the current

total affected firms would consist of

approximately 71,560 companies.

Additionally, staff estimates that the

approximately 1,000 new companies

enter the covered market each year.

Further, we estimate that new

companies entering the market would

need 230 hours per year (1995 figure of

229.78 rounded to 230) for compliance

measures associated with system startup, although again, it could be argued

that such efforts would be undertaken

even absent the Rule. We have therefore

estimated that the total burden for

compliance with the Rule would be

approximately 10,964,000 hours.

(1,000×230=230,000)+

(71,560×150=10,734,000.)

To emphasize, the FTC has not

amended, nor is it in the process of

amending, the Mail or Telephone Order

Merchandise Rule. The burden hours

associated with the Rule have been

recalculated because the originallyestimated hours included one-time start

up tasks (i.e., implementing systems and

processes to meet the Rule’s

requirements) that have now been

completed by most of the affected

companies.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elaine W. Crockett (202) 326–2453; FAX

(202) 326–2447; E-mail:

ecrockett@ftc.gov.

Jay C. Shaffer,

Acting General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 97–23311 Filed 9–2–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS

ANNOUNCEMENT: 62 F.R., Friday, August

22, 1997, Page No. 44698.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF

THE MEETING: 10:00 a.m., Wednesday,

September 4, 1997.

CHANGES IN THE AGENDA: The Federal

Trade Commission has canceled its

previously scheduled Oral Argument

meeting for September 4, 1997, at 10:00

a.m.

Benjamin I. Berman,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–23385 Filed 8–28–97; 4:11 pm]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS

ANNOUNCEMENT: 62 F.R., Friday, August

22, 1997, Page No. 44698.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF

THE MEETING: 2:00 p.m., Wednesday,

September 3, 1997.

CHANGES IN THE AGENDA: The Federal

Trade Commission has cancelled its

previously scheduled Oral Argument

meeting for September 3, 1997, at 2:00

p.m.

Benjamin I. Berman,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–23527 Filed 8–29–97; 3:28 pm]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Office of the Secretary

Agency Information Collection

Activities: Submission for OMB

Review; Comment Request

The Department of Health and Human

Services, Office of the Secretary

publishes a list of information

collections it has submitted to the Office

of Management and Budget (OMB) for

clearance in compliance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. Chapter 35) and 5 CFR 1320.5.

The following are those information

collections recently submitted to OMB.

1. Information Collection

Requirements Contained in 42 CFR part

1004 (Revised Peer Review Organization

Sanctions for Failing to Meet Statutory

Obligations)—This information

collection requirement is necessary to

enable a Peer Review Organization

(PRO) to submit a report and

recommendation to the OIG if PROidentified violations have not been

resolved. In addition, an alternative

sanctions notification process provides

sanctioned practitioners or other

persons the option of informing patients

directly to the sanction action taken

against them.—Respondents:

Individuals, Business or other for-profit;

Not-for-profit institutions—Burden

Information for the PRO Report—

Annual Responses: 7;Annual Burden

per Response: 4 hours;Annual Burden

for PRO Report: 28 hours—Burden

Information for the Sanction

Notification—Annual Responses:

5;Annual Burden per Response: 2

hours;Annual Burden for Sanction

Notification: 10 hours—Total Burden:

38 hours.

OMB Desk Officer: Allison Eydt.