Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2001 / Notices 29571

1 40 FR 60168 (December 31, 1975).

2 15 U.S.C. 2302(a).

holding company. The factors that are

considered in acting on the notices are

set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12

U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for

immediate inspection at the Federal

Reserve Bank indicated. The notices

also will be available for inspection at

the office of the Board of Governors.

Interested persons may express their

views in writing to the Reserve Bank

indicated for that notice or to the offices

of the Board of Governors. Comments

must be received not later than June 14,

2001.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland

(Paul Kaboth, Banking Supervision)

1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio

44101–2566:

1. William Robert Baierl, Wexford,

Pennsylvania; to retain voting shares of

NSD Bancorp, Inc., Pittsburgh,

Pennsylvania, and thereby indirectly

retain voting shares of Northside Bank,

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

B. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

(Randall C. Sumner, Vice President) 411

Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri

63166–2034:

1. Bill Ray Foster, Springfield,

Missouri; to acquire additional voting

shares of Village Bancshares, Inc.,

Springfield, Missouri, and thereby

indirectly acquire additional voting

shares of Village Bank, Springfield,

Missouri.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, May 25, 2001.

Robert deV. Frierson

Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 01–13667 Filed 5–30–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–S

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Formations of, Acquisitions by, and

Mergers of Bank Holding Companies;

Correction

This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc.

01-13079) published on page 28750 of

the issue for Thursday, My 24, 2001.

Under the Federal Reserve Bank of

Richmond heading, the entry for Greer

Bancshares Incorporated, Greer, South

Carolina, is revised to read as follows:

A. Federal Reserve Bank of

Richmond (A. Linwood Gill, III, Vice

President) 701 East Byrd Street,

Richmond, Virginia 23261–4528:

1. Greer Bancshares Incorporated,

Greer, South Carolina; to become a bank

holding company by acquiring 100

percent of the voting shares of Greer

State Bank, Greer, South Carolina.

Comments on this application must

be received by June 18, 2001.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, May 25, 2001.

Robert deV. Frierson

Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 01–13668 Filed 5–30–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–S

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

Agency Information Collection

Activities; Proposed Collection;

Comment Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission

(‘‘FTC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The information collection

requirements described below will be

submitted to the Office of Management

and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) for review, as

required by the Paperwork Reduction

Act (‘‘PRA’’). The FTC is seeking public

comments on its proposal to extend

through September 30, 2004 the current

PRA clearance for information

collection requirements contained in (1)

the Rule Concerning Disclosure of

Written Consumer Product Warranty

Terms and Conditions; (2) the Rule

Governing Pre-Sale Availability of

Written Warranty Terms; and (3) the

Informal Dispute Settlement Procedures

Rule. These clearances expire on

September 30, 2001 (collectively,

‘‘Warranty Rules’’).

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before July 30, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to

Secretary, Federal Trade Commission,

Room H–159, 600 Pennsylvania Ave.,

NW., Washington, DC 20580. All

comments should be captioned

‘‘Warranty Rules: Paperwork comment.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Requests for additional information or

copies of the proposed information

requirements should be addressed to

Carole Danielson, Investigator, Division

of Marketing Practices, Bureau of

Consumer Protection, Federal Trade

Commission, Room H–238, 600

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,

DC 20580, (202) 326–3115.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the

PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), Federal

agencies must obtain approval from

OMB for each collection of information

they conduct or sponsor. ‘‘Collection of

information’’ means agency requests or

requirements that members of the public

submit reports, keep records, or provide

information to a third party. 44 U.S.C.

3502(3), 5 CFR 1320.3(c). 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 Rules 701, 702, and 703

(OMB Control Numbers 3084–0111,

3084–0112, and 3084–0113,

respectively).

The FTC invites comments on: (1)

Whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

agency, including whether the

information will have practical utility;

(2) the accuracy of the agency’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 those who are to respond, including

through the use of appropriate

automated, electronic, mechanical, or

other technological collection

techniques or other forms of information

technology, e.g., permitting electronic

submission of responses.

The Warranty Rules implement the

Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15

U.S.C. 2301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), which

governs written warranties on consumer

products. The Act directed the FTC to

promulgate rules regarding the

disclosure of written warranty terms

and conditions, rules requiring that the

terms of any written warranty on a

consumer product be made available to

the prospective purchaser before the

sale of the product,and rules

establishing minimum standards for

informal dispute settlement

mechanisms that are incorporated into a

written warranty. Pursuant to the Act,

the Commission published the instant

three rules.1

Consumer Product Warranty Rule

(‘‘Warranty Rule’’)

The Warranty Rule specifies the

information that must appear in a

written warranty on a consumer

product. It sets forth what warrantors

must disclose about the terms and

conditions of the written warranties

they offer on consumer products that

cost the consumer more than $15.00.

The Rule tracts the disclosure

requirements suggested in section 102(a)

of the Act,2 specifying information that

must appear in the written warranty

and, for certain disclosures, mandates

the exact language that must be used.

The Warranty Rule requires that the

information be conspicuously disclosed

in a single document in simple, easily

understood language. In promulgating

this rule, the Commission determined

29572 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2001 / Notices

3 40 FR 60168, 60169–60170.

4 52 FR 7569 (March 12, 1987).

that the items required to be disclosed

are material facts about products

warranties, the non-disclosure of which

would be deceptive or misleading.3

The Rule Governing Pre-Sale

Availability of Written Warranty Terms

(‘‘Pre-Sale Availability Rule’’)

In accordance with section

102(b)(1)(A) of the Act, the Pre-sale

Availability Rule establishes

requirements for sellers and warrantors

to make the text of any written warranty

on a consumer product available to the

consumer before sale. Following the

Rule’s original promulgation, the

Commission amended it to provide

sellers with greater flexibility in how to

make warranty information available.4

Among other things the amended

Rule requires sellers to make the text of

the warranty readily available either by

(1) displaying it in close proximity to

the product or (2) furnishing it on

request and posting signs in prominent

locations advising consumers that the

warranty is available. The Rule requires

warrantors to provide materials to

enable sellers to comply with the Rule’s

requirements, and also sets out the

methods by which warranty information

can be made available before the sale if

the product is sold through catalogs,

mail order, or door-to-door sales.

Informal Dispute Settlement Rule

‘‘(Informal Dispute Settlement Rule’’)

This rule specifies the minimum

standards which must be met by any

informal dispute settlement mechanism

that is incorporated into a written

consumer product warranty and which

the consumer must use before pursuing

legal remedies in court. In enacting the

Warranty Act, Congress recognized the

potential benefits of consumer dispute

mechanisms as an alternative to the

judicial process. Section 110(a) of the

Act sets out the Congressional policy to

‘‘encourage warrantors to establish

procedures whereby consumer disputes

are fairly and expeditiously settled

through informal dispute settlement

mechanisms’’ (‘‘IDSMs’’) and erected a

framework for their establishment. As

an incentive to warrantors to establish

IDSMs, Congress provided in section

110(a)(3), 15 U.S.C. 2310(a)(3), that

warrantors may incorporate into their

written consumer product warranties a

requirement that a consumer must resort

to an IDSM before pursuing a legal

remedy under the Act for breach of

warranty. To ensure fairness to

consumers, however, Congress also

directed that, if a warrantor were to

incorporate such a ‘‘prior resort

requirement’’ into its written warranty,

the warrantor must comply with the

minimum standards set by the

Commission for such IDSMs. Section

110(a)(2) directed the Commission to

establish those minimum standards.

The Informal Dispute Settlement Rule

contains extensive procedural standards

for IDSMs. These standards include

requirements concerning the

mechanism’s structure (e.g., ,funding,

staffing, and neutrality), the

qualifications of staff or decision

makers, the mechanism’s procedures for

resolving disputes (e.g., notification,

investigation, time limits for decisions,

and follow-up), recordkeeping, and

annual audits. The Rule requires that

warrantors establish written operating

procedures and provide copies of those

procedures upon request. The Rule’s

recordkeeping requirements specify that

all records may be kept confidential or

otherwise made available only on terms

specified by the mechanism. However,

the records are available for inspection

by the Commission and other law

enforcement personnel to determine

compliance with the Rule, and the

records relating to a specific dispute are

available to the parties in that dispute.

In addition, the audits and certain

specified records are available to the

general public for inspection and

copying.

This rule applies only to those firms

that choose to be bound by it by placing

a prior resort requirement in their

written consumer product warranties.

Neither the Rule nor the Act requires

warrantors to set up IDSMs.

Furthermore, a warrantor is free to set

up an IDSM that does not comply with

this rule as long as the warranty does

not contain a prior resort requirement.

Warranty Rule Burden Statement

Total annual hours burden: 34,000

hours. In 1998, the FTC estimated that

the information collection burden of

including the disclosures required by

the Warranty Rule in consumer product

warranties was approximately 34,000

hour per year per manufacturer. Since

the Rule’s paperwork requirements have

not changed since then, and staff

believes that the population affected is

largely unchanged, staff concludes that

its prior estimate remains reasonable.

Moreover, since most warrantors would

disclose this information even if there

were no statute or rule requiring them

to do so, this estimate and those below

pertaining to the Warranty Rule likely

overstate the paperwork burden

attributable to it. The Rule has been in

effect since 1976, and most warrantors

have already modified their warranties

to include the information the Rule

requires.

The above estimate is derived as

follows. Based on conversations with

various warrantors’ representatives over

the years, staff concluded that eight

hours per year is a reasonable estimate

of warrantors’ paperwork burden

attributable to the Warranty Rule. This

estimate includes the task of ensuring

that new warranties and changes to

existing warranties comply with the

Rule. In 1995, staff reported that the

most recently published census data

indicated that there was a 17% increase

in manufacturing establishments during

the 1980s. Adjusting for these increases,

staff estimated in 1995 that the number

of manufacturing entities had increased

to 4,241 (3,625 × 1.17), which produced

an adjusted burden figure of 33,928

(4,241 × 8 hours annually/

manufacturer), rounded to 34,000. As

staff does not believe that the

population affected nor the burden per

entity has changed materially, it

maintains this prior estimate for the

instant purposes.

Total annual labor costs: Labor costs

are derived by applying appropriate

hourly cost figures to the burden hours

described above. The work required to

comply with the Warranty Rule is

predominantly clerical. Based on an

average hourly rate of $10 for clerical

employees and 34,000 total burden

hours, the annual labor cost is

approximately $340,000.

Total annual capital or other nonlabor costs: The Rule imposes no

appreciable current capital or start-up

costs. The vast majority of warrantors

have already modified their warranties

to include the information the Rule

requires. Rule compliance does not

require the use of any capital goods,

other than ordinary office equipment,

which providers would already have

available for general business use.

Pre-Sale Availability Rule Burden

Statement

Total annual hours burden: Staff

estimates that the burden of including

the disclosures required by the Pre-Sale

Availability Rule in consumer product

warranties is 2,760,000 hours, rounded

to the nearest thousand.

In 1998, FTC staff estimated that the

information collection burden of

including the disclosures required by

the Pre-Sale Availability Rule in

consumer product warranties was

approximately 2, 759,700 hours per year

per manufacturer. Since then, some

online retailers have begun to post

warranty information on their web sites,

which should reduce their cost of

providing the required information.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2001 / Notices 29573

5Although some retailers may choose to display

a more elaborate or expensive sign, that is not

required by the Rule.

6So far as staff is aware, all or virtually all of the

IDSMs subject to the Rule are within the auto

industry.

However, this method of compliance is

still evolving and involves a relatively

small number of firms. Furthermore,

those online retailers that also operate

‘‘brick-and-mortar’’ operations would

still have to provide paper copies of the

warranty for review by those customers

who do not do business online. Thus,

online methods of complying with the

Rule do not yet appear to be sufficiently

widespread so as to significantly alter

the measure of burden associated with

the Rule.

Given no change in the Rule’s

paperwork requirements since 1998, the

considerations noted above, and staff’s

belief that the population affected is

largely unchanged, staff believes that its

prior estimate remains reasonable. That

estimate was based on the following

calculations regarding retailers and

manufacturers. As of 1995, there were

6,552 large retailers, 422,100 small

retailers, 146 large manufacturers, and

4,095 small manufacturers. Because of

the reduced burden due to the Rule’s

amendments, large retailers now spend

an average of 26 hours per year and

small retailers an average of 6 hours per

year to comply with the Rule. This

yields a total burden of 2,702,952 hours

for retailers. Large manufacturers spend

an average of 52 hours per year and

small manufacturers spend an average

of 12 hours per year, for a total burden

estimate of 56,732 hours. Thus, the

combined total burden is 2,760,000

hours, rounded to the nearest thousand.

Total annual labor cost: The work

required to comply with the Pre-Sale

Availability Rule is predominantly

clerical, e.g., providing copies of

manufacturer warranties to retailers and

retailer maintenance of them. Assuming

a clerical labor cost rate of $10/hour, the

total annual labor cost burden is

approximately $27,600,000.

Total annual capital or other nonlabor costs: De minimis. The vast

majority of retailers and warrantors

already have developed systems to

provide the information the Rule

requires. Compliance by retailers

typically entails simply filing warranties

in binders and posting an inexpensive

sign indicating warranty availability.5

Manufacturer compliance entails

providing retailers with a copy of the

warranties included with their products.

Informal Dispute Settlement Rule

Burden Statement

Total annual hours burden: 36,000

hours. The primary burden from the

Informal Dispute Settlement Rule comes

from its recordkeeping requirements

that apply to IDSMs incorporated into a

consumer product warranty. Disclosure

requirements are much more limited.

Staff estimates that recordkeeping and

reporting burdens are 24,625 hours per

year and the disclosure burdens are

9,235 hours per year. The total

estimated burden imposed by the Rule

is thus approximately 34,000 hours,

rounded to the nearest thousand. This

marks an increase over staff’s estimates

dating back to the FTC’s prior clearance

request regarding the Rule. At that time,

staff estimated that recordkeeping and

reporting burden was 4,334 hours per

year and 1,625 hours per year for

disclosure requirements or,

cumulatively, approximately 6,000

hours.

Although the Rule’s paperwork

requirements have not changed since

the FTC’s immediately preceding PRA

clearance request, staff now has reason

to believe that more manufacturers have

since chosen to be covered by the Rule.

The calculations underlying these

increased estimates follow.

Recordkeeping: The Rule requires that

IDSMs maintain individual case files,

update indexes, complete semi-annual

statistical summaries, and submit an

annual audit report to the FTC. The

greatest amount of time to meet

recordkeeping requirements is devoted

to compiling individual case records.

Since maintaining individual case

records is a necessary function for any

IDSM, much of the burden would be

incurred in any event; however, staff

estimates that the Rule’s recordkeeping

requirements impose an additional

burden of 30 minutes per case. Staff also

has allocated 10 minutes per case for

compiling indexes, statistical

summaries, and the annual audit

required by the Rule, resulting in a total

recordkeeping requirement of 40

minutes per case.

The amount of work required will

depend on the total number of dispute

resolution proceedings undertaken in

each IDSM. The 1999 audit report for

the BBB AUTO LINE states that, during

calendar year 1999, it handled 21,392

warranty disputes on behalf of 14

manufacturers (including General

Motors, Saturn, Honda, Volkswagen,

Isuzu, and Nissan, as well as smaller

companies such as Rolls Royce and

Land Rover). Industry representatives

have informed staff that all domestic

manufacturers and most importers now

include a ‘‘prior resort‘‘ requirement in

their warranties, and thus are covered

by the Informal Dispute Settlement

Rule. Therefore, staff assumes that

virtually all of the 21,392 disputes

handled by the BBB fall within the

Rule’s parameters. Apart from the BBB

audit report, 1999 reports were also

submitted by the two mechanisms that

handle dispute resolution for Toyota

and Ford, both of which are covered by

the Rule.6 The Ford IDSM states that it

handled 7,246 total disputes. The audit

of the Toyota ISDM did not state the

total number of disputes handled;

however, based on consumer

publications tracking the auto industry,

staff conservatively estimates that the

Toyota IDSM handled approximately

3,600 total disputes. All of the Toyota

and Ford disputes are covered by the

Informal Dispute Settlement Rule.

Daimler-Chrysler is the only major

domestic auto manufacturer for which

staff has no data. However, assuming

that the incidence of disputes relative to

sales is proportional to that experienced

by Ford, the number of disputes

handled by Chrysler’s IDSM would be

approximately two-thirds of the Ford

total, i.e., roughly 4,700 disputes. Based

on the above data and assumptions, staff

projects that the total number of

disputes handled by the Rule’s

mechanisms total is 36,938. Thus, staff

estimates the total burden to be

approximately 24,625 hours (36,938

disputes × 40 minutes ÷ 60 min./hr.).

Disclosure: The Rule requires that

information about the mechanism be

disclosed in the written warranty. Any

incremental costs to the warrantor of

including this additional information in

the warranty are negligible. The

majority of such costs would be borne

by the IDSM, which is required to

provide to interested consumers upon

request copies of the various types of

information the IDSM possesses,

including annual audits. Consumers

who have dealt with the IDSM also have

a right to copies of records relating to

their disputes. (IDSMs are permitted to

charge for providing both types of

information.) Given the small number of

entities that have operated programs

over the years, staff estimates that the

burden imposed by the disclosure

requirements is approximately 9,235

hours per year for the existing IDSMs to

provide copies of this information. This

estimate draws from the estimated

number of consumers file claims each

year with the IDSMs (36,938) and the

assumption that each consumer

individually requests copies of the

records relating to their dispute. Staff

estimates that the copying would

require approximately 15 minutes per

consumer, including copies of the

29574 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2001 / Notices

7This estimate incorporates any additional time

needed to reproduce copies of audit reports for

consumers upon their request. Inasmuch as

consumers request such copies in only a minority

of cases, this estimate is likely an overstatement.

8The industry source did not break down this

estimate by cost item. Staff conservatively included

the entire $100,000 in its estimate of capital and

other non-labor costs, even though some of this

burden is likely already accounted for as labor

costs.

annual audit.7 Thus, the IDSMs

currently operating under the Rule

would have a total estimated burden of

about 9,235 hours (36,936 × 15 min. 60

min./hr.).

Total annual labor cost: $461,725.

Assuming that IDSMs use skilled

clerical or technical support staff to

compile and maintain the records

required by the Rule at an hourly rate

of $15, the labor cost associated with the

24,625 recordkeeping burden hours

would be $369,375. If IDSMs use

clerical support at an hourly rate of $10

to reproduce records, the labor costs of

the 9,235 disclosure burden hours is

approximately $92,350. The combined

total labor cost for recordkeeping and

disclosures is $461,725.

Total annual capital or other nonlabor costs: $300,000.

Total capital and start-up costs: The

Rule imposes no appreciable current

capital or start-up costs. The vast

majority of warrantors have already

developed systems to retain the records

and provide the disclosures required by

the Rule. Rule compliance does not

require the use of any capital goods,

other than ordinary office equipment, to

which providers would already have

access.

The only additional cost imposed on

IDSMs operating under the Rule that

would not be incurred for other IDSMs

is the annual audit requirement. One of

the IDSMs currently operating under the

Rule estimates the total annual costs of

this requirement to be under $100,000.

Since there are three IDSMs operating

under the Rule (Toyota and Chrysler

share the same IDSM, though each

company is reported separately), staff

estimates the total non-labor costs

associated with the Rule to be three

times that amount, or $300,000.8 This

extrapolated total, however, also reflects

an estimated $120,000 for copying costs,

which is accounted for separately under

the category below. Thus, estimated

costs attribute solely to capital or startup expenditures is $180,000.

Other non-labor costs: $120,000 in

copying costs. This total is based on

estimated copying costs of 5 cents per

page and several conservative

assumptions or estimates. Staff

estimates that the ‘‘average’’ disputerelated file is about 25 pages long and

that a typical annual audit file is about

200 pages in length. For purposes of

estimating copying costs, staff assumes

that every consumer complainant (or

approximately 36,938 consumers)

requests a copy of the file relating to his

or her dispute. Staff also assumes that,

for about 7,388 (20%) of the estimated

36,938 disputes each year, consumers

request copies of warrantors’ annual

audit reports (although, based on

requests for audit reports made directly

to the FTC, the indications are that

considerably fewer requests are actually

made). Thus, the estimated total annual

copying costs for avarage-sized files

would be approximately $46,173 (25

pages/file ×.05×36,938 requests) and

$73,880 for copies of annual audits (200

pages/audit report×.05×7,388 requests),

for total copying costs of $120,053,

rounded to $120,000).

John D. Graubert,

Acting General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 01–13646 Filed 5–30–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

GENERAL SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION

Office of Communications;

Cancellation of an Optional Form by

the Department of Defense

AGENCY: General Services

Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense

canceled the following Optional Form

because of low usage: OF 80, 999 (Label)

(Small)

DATES: Effective May 31, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Barbara Williams, General Services

Administration, (202) 501–0581.

Dated: April 6, 2001.

Barbara M. Williams,

Deputy Standard and Optional Forms

Management Officer, General Services

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–13686 Filed 5–30–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–34–M

GENERAL SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION

Public Buildings Service; Availability

of Draft Environmental Impact

Statement: United States Mission to

the United Nations

Pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the

National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) of 1969, as amended, as

implemented by the Council on

Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts

1500–1508), the General Services

Administration (GSA) has filed with the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

and made available to other government

agencies and interested private parties,

the Draft Environmental Impact

Statement (DEIS) for the demolition of

the Federal building currently housing

the United States Mission to the United

Nations (USUN) and the subsequent

construction of a new facility on the

same site.

The DEIS is on file at GSA offices in

Manhattan. Copies of the DEIS

Executive Summary or additional

information may be obtained from:

General Services Administration, Public

Buildings Service—2PT, 26 Federal

Plaza, Room 1609, New York, New

York, 10278, ATTN: Peter Sneed.

Written comments regarding the DEIS

may be submitted until Friday July 13th,

2001 and should be addressed to

General Services Administration in care

of the above noted individual. A public

hearing is scheduled for Wednesday

June 13th, 2001, at the New York

University Medical College Classroom

A, 550 First Avenue (between 31st and

32nd Streets), New York, New York at

7 PM.

Dated: May 14, 2001.

Steve Ruggiero,

Acting Regional Administrator (2A).

[FR Doc. 01–13587 Filed 5–30–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–23–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention

[60-Day–01–45]

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 for

opportunity for public comment on

proposed data collection projects, the

Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic

summaries of proposed 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