Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 146 /Thursday, July 30, 1998 / Notices 40713

bank holding company and all of the

banks and nonbanking companies

owned by the bank holding company,

including the companies listed below.

The applications listed below, as well

as other related filings required by the

Board, are available for immediate

inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank

indicated. The application also will be

available for inspection at the offices of

the Board of Governors. Interested

persons may express their views in

writing on the standards enumerated in

the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the

proposal also involves the acquisition of

a nonbanking company, the review also

includes whether the acquisition of the

nonbanking company complies with the

standards in section 4 of the BHC Act.

Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking

activities will be conducted throughout

the United States.

Unless otherwise noted, comments

regarding each of these applications

must be received at the Reserve Bank

indicated or the offices of the Board of

Governors not later than August 24,

1998.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta

(Lois Berthaume, Vice President) 104

Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia

30303-2713:

1. Alabama National BanCorporation,

Birmingham, Alabama; to merge with

Community Financial Corporation,

Mableton, Georgia, and thereby

indirectly acquire Georgia State Bank,

Mableton, Georgia.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, July 27, 1998.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 98–20380 Filed 7–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–F

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The FTC has submitted to

OMB for review and clearance under the

Paperwork Reduction Act information

collection requirements stemming from

(1) a regulation that the Commission

enforces and (2) a study to assess the

effectiveness of Commission divestiture

orders in merger cases. On May 13,

1998, the FTC solicited comments

concerning these information collection

requirements. No comments were

received. The current Office of

Management and Budget (OMB)

clearances expire on July 31, 1998. The

FTC proposes that OMB extend its

approval for the regulation an additional

three years from clearance expiration

and that approval for the divestiture

order study be extended through

December 31, 1999.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before August 31, 1998.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Send written comments

to the Office of Management and

Budget, Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, New Executive

Office Building, Room 10202,

Washington, D.C. 20503, ATTN: Edward

Clarke, Desk Officer for the Federal

Trade Commission, and to Gary M.

Greenfield, Office of the General

Counsel, Federal Trade Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20580, (202) 326–

2753. All comments should be

identified as responding to this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Requests for additional information or

copies of the proposed information

collection requirements should be

addressed to Gary M. Greenfield at the

address listed above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FTC

has submitted requests for OMB review

of the two items described below.

Further information concerning the

entities subject to, and the burden

estimates for, these requirements can be

found at 63 FR 26607 (May 13, 1998).

The relevant information collection

requirements are as follows.

1. The Telemarketing Sales Rule, 16

CFR Part 310 (OMB Control Number

3084–0097).

Description of the information

collection and proposed use: The

Telemarketing Sales Rule implements

the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud

and Abuse Prevention Act, 15 U.S.C.

6101–6108 (‘‘Telemarketing Act’’ or

‘‘the Act’’). The Act seeks to prevent

deceptive or abusive telemarketing

practices. As specified by the Act, the

Telemarketing Rule mandates certain

disclosures regarding telephone sales

and requires telemarketers to retain

certain records regarding advertising,

sales, and employees. The disclosures

provide consumers with information

necessary to make informed purchasing

decisions. The records are to be made

available for inspection by the

Commission and other law enforcement

personnel to determine compliance with

the Rule.

Estimate of information collection

annual hours burden: 2,301,000 hours.

The estimated recordkeeping burden

is 50,000 hours for all industry members

affected by the Rule. The estimated

burden related to the disclosures that

the Rule requires is 2,251,000 hours

(rounded to nearest thousand) for all

affected industry members, for a total of

2,301,000 burden hours.

Recordkeeping: At the time the

Commission issued the Rule, it

estimated that during the initial and

subsequent years after the Rule took

effect, 100 new telemarketing entities

per year would find it necessary to

revise their practices to conform with

the Rule and that it would take each

such entity approximately 100 hours to

develop a compliant recordkeeping

system, for a total of 10,000 burden

hours a year. The Commission received

no comments of any kind in connection

with this estimate when it was issued

and this estimate continues to be

appropriate. There is no reason to

believe that the number of new entrants

into the telemarketing field who find it

necessary to revise their recordkeeping

system as a result of the Rule’s

recordkeeping requirements has

increased. Of the estimated 39,900

industry members who have already

assembled and retained the required

records in their recordkeeping systems,

staff estimates that each member

requires only one hour per year to file

and store records required by the Rule.

This estimate was rounded up to 40,000

hours. Therefore, the total yearly burden

hours associated with the Rule’s

recordkeeping requirements is 50,000.

Disclosure: Staff previously calculated

the burden associated with the Rule’s

disclosure requirements based primarily

on the total number of telemarketing

calls and the amount of time needed to

make the required basic disclosures, as

well as the number of calls resulting in

sales and the amount of time needed to

make the additional disclosures

required before a customer pays for

goods or services. While this

methodology remains appropriate in

large part, staff has determined that the

resulting burden estimate substantially

overstates the impact of the Rule unless

the analysis is refined to take into

account the number of firms that would

make the required disclosures even in

the absence of the Rule.

As noted above, the purpose of the

Rule’s disclosure provisions is to help

prevent consumer injury from deceptive

or abusive telemaketing practices by

ensuring that telemarketers provide

consumers with information they need

to avoid being misled. In fact, however,

the vast majority of telemarketing firms

are legitime businesses. Although

telemarketing fraud causes significant

harm to consumers—Congress has

estimated that misrepresentations or

material omissions in telemarketing

sales presentations result in $3 billion to

$40 billion annually in consumer

injury—the harm caused by
40714 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 146 /Thursday, July 30, 1998 / Notices

telemarketing fraud remains a small

fraction of the $400 billion in total

annual sales through telemarketing.

Staff believes that a substantial

majority of telemarketers now make the

disclosures required by the Rule in the

ordinary course of business because

doing so constitutes good business

practice. To the extent this is so, the

time and financial resources needed to

comply with disclosure requirements do

not constitute ‘‘burden.’’ 16 CFR

1320.3(b)(2). Moreover, many state laws

require the same or similar disclosures

mandated by the Rule. Thus, the

disclosure hours burden attributable

solely to the Rule is far less than the

total number of hours associated with

the disclosure. Staff estimated that the

disclosures required by the Rule would

occur in at least 75 percent of

telemarketing presentations even in the

absence of the Rule. Accordingly, staff

has determined that the hours burden

estimate for the Rule’s disclosure

requirements is 25 percent of the total

amount of hours associated with

disclosures of the type required by the

Rule. Staff previously estimated this

total to be 9,003,000 hours. No

comments were received refuting this

estimate. The portion attributable to the

Rule is accordingly 2,250,750 hours (.25

× 9,003,000). For present purposes, this

amount was rounded up to 2,251,000

hours.

Staff’s basis for its underlying

estimate of 9,003,000 total disclosure

hours was derived as follows. In

connection with issuing the Rule and

obtaining OMB clearance, staff

previously estimated that the 39,900

(rounded to 40,000) industry members

make approximately 9 billion calls per

year, or 225,000 calls per year per

company. The Telemarketing Sales Rule

provides that if an industry member

chooses to solicit inbound calls from

consumers by advertising media other

than direct mail or by using direct mail

solicitations that make certain required

disclosures, that member is exempted

from complying with other disclosures

required by the Rule. Because the

burden of complying with written

disclosures is less than the burden of

complying with the Rule’s oral

disclosure requirements, staff estimated

that at least 9,000 firms will choose to

adopt marketing methods that exempt

them from the oral disclosure

requirements.

In connection with issuing the Rule,

staff estimated that it takes 7 seconds for

telemarketers to disclose the required

outbound call information orally. Staff

also estimated that at least 60 percent of

calls result in ‘‘hang-ups’’ before the

seller or telemarketer can make all the

required disclosures. Staff estimated

that ‘‘hang-up’’ calls last for only 2

seconds. Accordingly, staff estimated

that the total amount of time associated

with these initial disclosure

requirements is approximately 250

hours per firm (90,000 non-hang up

calls (.40 × 225,000) × 7 seconds per call

+ 135,000 hang-up calls (.60 × 225,000)

× 2 seconds per call). Thus, the total

time expenditure for the 31,000 firms

choosing marketing methods that

require these oral disclosures is 7.75

million hours. When the Commission

initially published this estimate, it

received no comments and staff believes

the estimate remains appropriate. Based

on the assumption that no more than 25

percent of this time constitutes

‘‘burden’’ imposed solely by the Rules

(as opposed to the normal business

practices of most affected entities apart

from the Rule’s requirements), the

burden subtotal attributable to the basis

disclosure is 1,937,500 hours.

The Rule also requires additional

disclosures before the customers pays

for goods or services. Specifically,

telemarketers must disclose the total

cost of the offered goods or services; all

material restrictions; and all material

terms and conditions of the seller’s

refund, cancellation, exchange, or

repurchase policies (if a representation

about such a policy is a part of the sales

offer). If a prize promotion is involved

in connection with the sales of goods or

services, the telemarketer must also

disclosure information about the nonpurchase entry method for the prize

promotion. Staff estimated that these

disclosures take approximately 10

seconds. However, these disclosures are

required only where a call results in a

sale. Staff estimated that sales occur in

the approximately 6 percent of

telemarketing calls. Accordingly, the

estimated amount of time for the

disclosures is 17.5 hours per firm

(13,500 calls resulting in a sale—.06 ×

225,000—× 10 seconds) or 1.163 million

hours for the 31,000 firms choosing

marketing methods that require oral

disclosure. When the Commission

initially published this estimate, it

received no comments and staff believes

the estimate remains appropriate. Based

on the assumption that no more than 25

percent of this time constitutes

‘‘burden’’ imposed solely by the Rule,

the burden subtotal attributable to these

additional disclosures is 290,750 hours.

As noted, staff estimated that

approximately 9,000 telemarketing firms

will choose to use the written disclosure

option. Firms choosing this option are

likely to be those using written

advertising materials. Thus, the burden

of adding the required disclosures

should be minimal. Staff estimated that

a typical firm will spend approximately

10 hours per year engaged in activities

ensuring compliance with this provision

of the Rule, for an estimated total

burden of 90,000 hours for all 9,000

firms using written disclosure. When

the Commission initially published this

estimate, it received no comments and

staff believes the estimate remains

appropriate. Based on the assumption

that no more than 25 percent of this

time constitutes ‘‘burden’’ imposed

solely by the Rule, the burden subtotal

attributable to these written disclosures

is 22,500 hours.

Estimate of information collection

annual labor cost burden: $34,361,250.

The estimated labor cost for

recordkeeping is $600,000. Assuming a

cumulative burden of 10,000 hours/year

to set up compliant recordkeeping

systems, and applying to that a skilled

labor rate of $20/hours, set up costs

would approximate $200,000 annually

for all new telemarketing entities. Staff

also estimated that existing industry

members require 40,000 hours to

maintain compliance with the Rule’s

recordkeeping provisions. Using a

clerical cost rate of $10/hour,

cumulative recordkeeping maintenance

would cost approximately $400,000

annually. The estimated labor cost for

disclosure is $33,761,250, based on an

estimate of 2,250,750 disclosure burden

hours and a wage rate of $15/hour.

Estimate of information collection

annual capital and operating cost

burden: $10,022,000.

Total capital and start up costs: Staff

estimates that the capital and start up

costs associated with the Telemarketing

Sales Rule’s information collection

requirements are de minimis. The Rule’s

recordkeeping requirements mandate

that companies maintain records but not

in any particular form. While the

recordkeeping requirements necessitate

that the affected entity have some

storage device, virtually every entity is

likely already to possess the means to

store the required records. Most entities

keep the type of records required by the

Rule in the ordinary course of business.

Even assuming that an entity found it

necessary to purchase a storage device,

which could be as inexpensive as a

cardboard box, the annual expenditure

is likely to be very small when the cost

of the device is annualized over its

useful life. The Rule’s disclosure

requirements require no capital

expenditures.

Total operation/maintenance/

purchase of services costs: Affected

entities need some storage media such

as file folders, computer diskettes, or

paper in order to comply with the Rule’s
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 146 /Thursday, July 30, 1998 / Notices 40715

recordkeeping requirements. Although

staff believes that most affected entities

would maintain the required records in

the ordinary course of business, staff

estimated that the approximately 40,000

industry members affected by the Rules

spend an annual amount of $50 each on

office supplies as a result of the Rule’s

recordkeeping requirements, for a total

recordkeeping cost burden of

$2,000,000.

In connection with the Rule’s

disclosure requirements, telemarketing

firms likely incur additional costs for

telephone service, assuming that the

firms spend more time on the telephone

with customers as a result of the

required disclosures. Staff believes that

the hour burdens relating to the

required oral disclosures amount to

8,913,000 hours (7.75 million initial

disclosure hours + 1.163 million hours

regarding sales). Assuming all calls to

customers are long distance, at a

commercial calling rate of 6 cents per

minute ($3.60 per hour), affected

entities as a whole may incur up to

$32,086,800 in telecommunications

costs as a result of the Rule’s disclosure

requirements. However, as noted above,

only 25 percent of such disclosures

constitute ‘‘burden.’’ Accordingly, the

adjusted oral disclosure cost burden is

$8,021,700, rounded to $8,022,000.

As indicated previously, staff

estimated that approximately 9,000

entities will choose to comply with the

Rule through written disclosures.

However, staff estimated that those

companies incur no additional capital

or operating expenses as a result of the

Rule’s requirements because they are

likely to provide written information to

prospective customers in the ordinary

course of business and adding the

required disclosures to that written

information requires no supplemental

expenditures.

Thus, the total estimated operating

cost burdens associated with the Rule is

$10,022,000 (rounded to nearest

thousand).

2. Study of the Effectiveness of

Commission Divestiture Orders in

Merger Cases (OMB Control Number

3084–0115)

Description of the information

collection and proposed use: The

Commission is directed to prevent

‘‘unfair methods of competition’’ under

Section 5 of the Federal Trade

Commission Act (‘‘FTC Act’’), 15 U.S.C.

45, and is authorized to enforce the

Clayton Act’s proscriptions against

anticompetitive mergers. 15 U.S.C. 18,

21. Under these authorities, the

Commission examines proposed

transactions to determine whether

anticompetitive effects are likely. If it

has reason to believe that a transaction

is unlawful, the Commission either

seeks to enjoin the transaction or seeks

a remedy that it believes will alleviate

the likely anticompetitive effects.

When a proposed merger raises

competitive concerns, it is sometimes

the case that the problem arises in only

a limited number of markets in which

the parties compete, while the

remainder of the proposed transaction

poses no competitive harm. Thus, in

1978, the Commission began requiring

respondents in certain merger cases

with likely anticompetitive effects, as a

condition for the Commission’s decision

not to oppose a transaction, to divest

certain assets of business(es) in order to

cure the competitive problem. The

Commission requires that the divested

assets or business(es) be commercially

viable, and that the buyer of the assets

or business(es) have the capability of

competing effectively in the applicable

market(s).

In 1995, the FTC’s Bureau of

Competition and Bureau of Economics

undertook a pilot study to determine

whether a more comprehensive study of

these Commission divestiture orders

would be feasible and productive. The

staff concluded that further study is

necessary to draw more general

conclusions about the effectiveness of

the Commission’s divestiture process, as

the circumstances surrounding the

orders vary widely. OMB subsequently

granted clearance of such an expanded

study. Pursuant to that authority, FTC

staff has interviewed numerous parties

subject to divestiture orders

(‘‘respondents’’) and buyers of divested

assets or businesses (‘‘buyers’’). As with

the pilot study, the information that

staff has obtained continues to offer

important insights into the effectiveness

of the divestiture process.

Accordingly, the Commission’s

Bureau of Competition and Bureau of

Economics intend to continue to

conduct interviews with respondents

and buyers in order to complete their

review of the 36 sample orders

comprising the study. Thereafter, staff

will interview third parties and solicit

sales data from respondents and buyers.

The objectives of the study continue to

be to determine: (1) The effectiveness of

Commission orders that seek to preserve

or reestablish competition where the

Commission required divestiture of

certain assets; (2) the effect of certain

provisions in Commission orders (e.g.,

length of time permitted for divestiture,

‘‘crown jewels’’ provisions, etc.) on the

timeliness of divestitures and on the

success of the business or assets

divested; (3) the effect of the procedures

that respondents use to find a buyer on

the timeliness of the divestitures and on

the success of the business or assets

divested; (4) the effect of the divestiture

contract on the success of the divested

business or assets; (5) the effect of the

type of assets divested on the success of

the divested business; (6) the effect of

the type of buyer on the success of the

divested business; and (7) the extent to

which respondents fully complied with

the requirements under the order.

Securing information about the

success of divested businesses (or

businesses that have acquired divested

assets) will provide a better

understanding of the kind of order

provisions most likely to lead to

successful divestitures in merger

transactions. The survey is designed to

expand the Commission’s knowledge by

eliciting information across a broad

spectrum of industries. Such

information will be used to enhance the

effectiveness of Commission divestiture

orders.

Estimate of information collection

annual hours burden: 1,000 hours

(rounded).

The information to be collected will

be obtained by telephone interviews,

document requests, and a questionnaire.

Staff will conduct telephone interviews

with respondents, buyers, and third

parties (such as competitors, customers,

and suppliers). The divestiture study

includes a total of 51 divestitures arising

out of 36 orders. Staff has already

interviewed 32 buyers and 6

respondents; thus it will contact another

19 buyers and 30 respondents. It will

also contact 153 third-parties (on

average, three per divestiture) for a total

of 202 remaining telephone interviews.

All of the remaining interviews, like

those already conducted, should take

about 1.5 hours to complete, for a total

burden estimate of approximately 303

hours.

After interviewing respondents and

buyers, staff will ask them to submit

certain existing financial documents for

a five-year period beginning the year

before the divestiture occurred. Staff

will not request that any new

documents be created. Because only

documents already in existence will be

requested, the anticipated burden of

producing these documents will be

minimal, approximately two hours per

participant, for a total of 174 hours (51

buyers + 36 respondents = 87, 87 × 2 =

174).

Staff is also asking respondents and

buyers to complete a two-question chart

that requests sales in dollars and units

of each product or asset that was the

subject of the Commission’s competitive

concern in the case over a five-year
40716 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 146 /Thursday, July 30, 1998 / Notices

period beginning the year before the

divestiture. Staff estimates that the

burden on each participant to provide

this information will be 4 hours, for a

total of 348 hours (51 buyers + 36

respondents = 87, 87 × 4 = 348). The

total cumulative burden of the

document production and chart

completion will be 522 hours (174+348).

The estimated total burden for the entire

study is therefore calculated to be 825

hours (303+522), which has been

rounded to 1,000 hours to allow for

small additions such as interviews with

and follow-up document requests of

subsequent buyers.

Estimate of information collection

annual labor cost burden: $75,000.

It is difficult to calculate reliably the

costs associated with this information

collection, as they entail varying

compensation levels of executives,

management, and/or support staff

among many companies and various

industries. Individuals among some or

all of those labor categories may be

involved in the information collection

process. Nonetheless, assuming that

responses to interviews, the

questionnaire, and the document

request are handled by executive and

mid-management level personnel alone,

and applying a blended average hourly

compensation rate of $75/hour for their

labor, the total cost should not exceed

$75,000 (based on the upward rounding

of estimated total hourly burden for the

study).

Estimate of information collection

annual capital and operating cost

burden: None.

The data for the study are being

collected in two principal ways. Staff is

conducting telephone interviews and

asking respondents and buyers to

respond to a brief questionnaire and

produce existing documents. None of

these means of collecting information

requires any capital expenditure.

Interviews solely involve respondents

and buyers making available one or

more company officials for

approximately 11⁄2 hours. The

questionnaires and document requests

seek only information that the

respondents and buyers maintain in the

ordinary and usual course of their

business. No additional cost burden is

imposed.

Debra A. Valentine,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 98–20298 Filed 7–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

GENERAL SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION

Fleet Management Division;

Cancellation of Standard Forms

AGENCY: Federal Supply Service,

General Services Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the

General Services Administration’s

intent to cancel the following Standard

forms:

SF 149, U.S. Government National

Credit Card, and SF 149A, U.S.

Government Fleet Credit Card.

Both of these forms were replaced

with a bank credit card.

DATES: Effective July 30, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. William Webster, Environmental

and Legislation Branch (703) 305–6276.

This contact is for information on the

new fleet services credit card only.

Dated: July 20, 1998.

Barbara M. Williams,

Deputy Standard and Optional Forms

Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 98–20334 Filed 7–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–34–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and

Families

President’s Committee on Mental

Retardation; Meeting

AGENCY: President’s Committee on

Mental Retardation.

TIME AND DATE: August 28, 1998, 8 a.m.–

2 p.m.

PLACE: Renassaince Mayflower Hotel,

1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC. 20036.

STATUS: Full Committee Meetings are

open to the public. An interpreter for

the deaf will be available upon advance

request. All meeting sites are barrier

free.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The

Committee plans to discuss critical

issues concerning Federal Policy,

Federal Research and Demonstration,

State Policy Collaboration, Minority and

Cultural Diversity and Mission and

Public Awareness, relating to

individuals with mental retardation.

The PCMR acts in an advisory

capacity to the President and the

Secretary of the U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services on a broad

range of topics relating to programs,

services, and supports for persons with

mental retardation. The Committee, by

Executive Order, is responsible for

evaluating the adequacy of current

practices in programs and supports for

persons with mental retardation, and for

reviewing legislative proposals that

impact the quality of life that is

experienced by citizens with mental

retardation and their families.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Gary H. Blumenthal, 352–G Hubert H.

Humphrey Building, 200 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. 20201–

0001; (202) 619–0634.

Dated: July 24, 1998.

John L. Pride,

Deputy Executive Director, PCMR.

[FR Doc. 98–20420 Filed 7–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4184–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. 98N–0572]

Agency Information Collection

Activities: Proposed Collection;

Comment Request

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,

HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) is announcing an

opportunity for public comment on the

proposed collection of certain

information by the agency. Under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the

PRA), Federal agencies are required to

publish notice in the Federal Register

concerning each proposed collection of

information and to allow 60 days for

public comment in response to the

notice. This notice solicits comments on

the proposed collection of information

concerning a pilot program in which

volunteers from the retail food industry

will use Hazard Analysis Critical

Control Point (HACCP) principles and

partner with interested regulatory

authorities in the program

implementation.

DATES: Submit written comments on the

collection of information by September

28, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments

on the collection of information to the

Dockets Management Branch (HFA–

305), Food and Drug Administration,

5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville,

MD 20852. All comments should be

identified with the docket number

found in brackets in the heading of this

document.