Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 237 / Friday, December 8, 2000 / Notices 77031

1Most of the estimated start-up time relates to the

development and installation of computer systems

geared to more efficiently handle customer orders.

2Statistical Abstract of the United States, 119th

edition, 1999, U.S. Department of Commerce,

Economics and Statistics Administration.

http://www.federalreserve.gov for an

electronic announcement. (The Web site

also includes procedural and other

information about the open meeting.)

Dated: December 6, 2000.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 00–31439 Filed 12–6–00; 2:12 pm]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–P

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Board of

Governors of the Federal Reserve

System.

TIME AND DATE: Approximately 12 noon,

Wednesday, December 13, 2000,

following a recess at the conclusion of

the open meeting.

PLACE: Marriner S. Eccles Federal

Reserve Board Building, 20th and C

Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1. Personnel actions (appointments,

promotions, assignments,

reassignments, and salary actions)

involving individual Federal Reserve

System employees.

2. Any matters carried forward from a

previously announced meeting.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Lynn S. Fox, Assistant to the Board;

202–452–3204.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You may

call 202–452–3206 beginning at

approximately 5 p.m. two business days

before the meeting for a recorded

announcement of bank and bank

holding company applications

scheduled for the meeting; or you may

contact the Board’s Web site at http://

www.federalreserve.gov for an

electronic announcement that not only

lists applications, but also indicates

procedural and other information about

the meeting.

Dated: December 6, 2000.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 00–31440 Filed 12–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–P

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

Agency Information Collection

Activities; Submission for OMB

Review; Comment Request

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade

Commission (FTC) has submitted to the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for review under the Paperwork

Reduction Act (PRA) information

collection requirements contained in its

Mail or Telephone Order Merchandise

Trade Regulation Rule (MTOR or

‘‘Rule’’). The FTC is soliciting public

comments on the proposal to extend

through January 31, 2004 the current

PRA clearance for information

collection requirements contained in the

Rule. That clearance expires on January

31, 2001.

DATES: Comments must be filed by

January 8, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget, New Executive Office Building,

Room 10202, Washington, DC 20503,

ATTN: Desk Officer for the Federal

Trade Commission, and to Secretary,

Federal Trade Commission, Room H–

159, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,

Washington, DC 20580. All comments

should be captioned ‘‘Mail or Telephone

Order Merchandise Trade Regulation

Rule: Paperwork comment.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Requests for additional information

should be addressed to Joel N. Brewer,

Attorney, Division of Enforcement,

Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal

Trade Commission, Room S–4632, 601

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington

DC 20580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

October 3, 2000, the FTC sought

comment on the information collection

requirements associated with MTOR, 16

CFR Part 435 (Control Number: 3084–

0106). See 65 FR 58997. No comments

were received.

The Rule was promulgated in 1975 in

response to consumer complaints that

many merchants were failing to ship

merchandise ordered by mail 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 also 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 telefax or by

computer through the use of a modem

(e.g., Internet sales), and the Rule was

then renamed the ‘‘Mail or Telephone

Order Merchandise Rule.’’

Generally, the MTOR 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 has paid by

credit card, the Rule 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

Estimated total annual hours burden:

2,753,000 hours (rounded up to the

nearest thousand).

In its 1997 PRA notice and

submission to OMB regarding the Rule,

FTC staff estimated that 71,560

established companies each spend an

average of 50 hours per year on

compliance with the Rule, and that

approximately 1,000 new industry

entrants spend an average of 230 hours

(an industry estimate) for compliance

measures associated with start-up.1 62

FR 63717, Dec. 2, 1997. Thus, the total

estimated hours burden was 3,808,000

hours [(71,560 X 50 hours) + (1,000 X

230 hours)].

No provisions in the Rule have been

amended or changed in any manner

since staff’s 1997 PRA submission to

OMB. Thus, all of the requirements

relating to disclosure and notification

remain the same. However, while staff’s

estimate of average time required by

companies to comply with the Rule is

unchanged, staff has reduced its

estimate of total industry hours based

on more current data revealing a smaller

industry population. Based on 1999

Statistical Abstract data (the most

current industry data available),2 there

are approximately 45,919 existing

establishments subject to the Rule.

Staff, however, has increased its

estimate of the number of new

77032 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 237 / Friday, December 8, 2000 / Notices

3Under 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).

4Projecting sales for ‘‘non-store catalogue and

mail order houses’’ and ‘‘non-store direct selling

establishments’’ (according to the 1999 Statistical

Abstract) to all merchants subject to the MTOR,

staff estimates that direct sales to consumers in

1999 would have been $109.45 billion. Thus, the

labor cost of compliance by existing and new

businesses in 1999 would have amounted to less

than .03% of sales.

companies that enter the market each

year from 1,000 to 1,985. This, too, is

based on 1999 Statistical Abstract data.

Thus, the current total of affected firms

consists of approximately 47,904

established and new companies. Accordingly, staff estimates total

industry hours to comply with the

MTOR is 2,752,500 hours [(45,919 X 50

hours) + (1,985 X 230 hours)].

This is a conservative estimate.

Arguably much of the estimated time

burden for disclosure-related

compliance would be incurred even

absent the Rule. Representatives from

industry trade associations and other

knowledgeable individials have

consistently stated that compliance with

the Rule is widely regarded by direct

marketers as being good business

practice. The Rule’s notification

requirements would be voluntarily

initiated by most merchants to meet

consumer expectations regarding 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, which

are important to direct marketers’

success. Thus, it appears that much of

the time and expense associated with

Rule compliance may not constitute

‘‘burden’’ under the PRA 3 although the

above estimates account for it as such.

In estimating PRA burden, staff

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 OMB regulation

implementing the PRA, the definition of

burden arguably includes upgrading and

maintaining computer and other

systems used to comply with a rule’s

requirements. Conversely, to the extent

that these systems are used in the

ordinary course of business

independent of the Rule, their

associated upkeep would fall outside

the realm of PRA ‘‘burden.’’

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.

Since 1997 many businesses have

upgraded the information management

systems they need, in part, to comply

with the Rule, and to more effectively

track orders. These upgrades, however,

mostly were needed to deal with

growing consumer demand for

merchandise resulting, in part, from

increased public acceptance of making

purchases over the telephone and, more

recently, the Internet. Accordingly, most companies now

maintain records and provide updated

order information of the kind required

by the Rule in their ordinary course of

business. Nevertheless, staff

conservatively assumes that the time

existing and new companies devote to

compliance with the Rule remains the

same as in 1997.

Estimated labor costs: $31,136,000,

rounded to the nearest thousand.

Labor costs are derived by applying

appropriate hourly cost figures to the

burden hours described above.

According to the 1999 Statistical

Abstract, average payroll for ‘‘non-store

catalogue and mail order houses’’ and

‘‘non-store direct selling

establishments’’ rose $0.322 per hour

per year between 1991 and 1996. In

1996, average payroll was $10.34 per

hour. Assuming average payroll

continued to increase $0.322 per hour

per year, in 1999 average payroll would

have reached $11.31 per hour. Because

the bulk of the burden of complying

with the MTOR is borne by clerical

personnel, staff believes that the average

hourly payroll figure for non-store

catalogue and mail order houses and

non-store direct selling establishments

is an appropriate measure of a direct

marketer’s average labor cost to comply

with the Rule. Thus, the total annual

labor cost to new and established

businesses in 1999 for Rule compliance

is approximately $31,136,000 (2,753,000

hours × $11.31/hr.). Relative to direct

industry sales, this total is negligible.4

Estimated annual non-labor cost

burden: $0 or minimal.

The applicable requirements impose

minimal start-up costs, as businesses

subject to the Rule generally have or

obtain necessary equipment for other

business purposes, i.e., inventory and

order management, and customer

relations. For the same reason, staff

anticipates printing and copying costs to

be minimal, especially given that

telephone order merchants have

increasingly turned to electronic

communications to notify consumers of

delay and to provide cancellation

options. Staff believes that the above

requirements necessitate ongoing,

regular training so that covered entities

stay current and have a clear

understanding of federal mandates. This

training, however, would be a small

portion of and subsumed within the

ordinary training that employees receive

apart from that associated with the

information collected under the Rule.

John D. Graubert,

Acting General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 00–31337 Filed 12–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control And

Prevention

[60Day–01–07]

Proposed Data Collections Submitted

for Public Comment and

Recommendations

In compliance with the requirement

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

Paperwork reduction Act of 1995, the

Center for Disease Control and

Prevention is providing opportunity for

public comment on proposed data

collection projects. To request more

information on the proposed projects or

to obtain a copy of the data collection

plans and instruments, call the CDC

Reports Clearance Officer on (404) 639–

7090.

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

for other forms of information

technology. Send comments to Anne

O’Connor, CDC Assistant Reports

Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton Road,

MS–D24, Atlanta, GA 30333. Written

comments should be received within 60

days of this notice.

Proposed Project

National Exposure Registry—

Extension—(OMB No. 0923–0006)