Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 209 / Monday, October 31, 2005 / Notices 62313 

1Commission Rule 4.2(d), 16 CFR 4.2(d). The 

comment must be accompanied by an explicit 

request for confidential treatment, including the 

factual and legal basis for the request, and must 

identify the specific portions of the comment to be 

withheld from the public record. The request will 

be granted or denied by the Commission’s General 

Counsel, consistent with applicable law and the 

public interest. See Commission Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 

4.9(c). 

2The comments are available at http:// 

www.ftc.gov/os/comments/pratobaccoreports/ 

index.htm. 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733 or call (214) 

665–8030. 

Dated: October 19, 2005. 

Richard E. Greene, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 05–21623 Filed 10–28–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Submission for OMB 

Review; Comment Request 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The information collection 

described below will be submitted to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). The FTC proposes to 

issue compulsory process orders to the 

largest cigarette manufacturers and 

smokeless tobacco manufacturers in 

order to obtain information from those 

companies concerning, inter alia, their 

sales and marketing expenditures. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed 

information requests must be received 

on or before November 30, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are 

invited to submit written comments. 

Comments should refer to ‘‘Tobacco 

Reports: Paperwork Comment, FTC File 

No. P054507’’ to facilitate the 

organization of comments. A comment 

filed in paper form should include this 

reference both in the text and on the 

envelope and should be mailed or 

delivered, with two complete copies, to 

the following address: Federal Trade 

Commission/Office of the Secretary, 

Room H–135 (Annex G), 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20580. Because paper 

mail in the Washington area and at the 

Commission is subject to delay, please 

consider submitting your comments in 

electronic form (in ASCII format, 

WordPerfect, or Microsoft Word), as part 

of or as an attachment to e-mail 

messages directed to the following email box: TobaccoReports@ftc.gov. 

However, if the comment contains any 

material for which confidential 

treatment is requested, it must be filed 

in paper form, and the first page of the 

document must be clearly labeled 

‘‘Confidential.’’ 1

All comments should additionally be 

submitted to: Office of Management and 

Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the 

Federal Trade Commission. Comments 

should be submitted via facsimile to 

(202) 395–6974 because U.S. Postal Mail 

is subject to lengthy delays due to 

heightened security precautions. 

The FTC Act and other laws the 

Commission administers permit the 

collection of public comments to 

consider and use in this proceeding as 

appropriate. All timely and responsive 

public comments will be considered by 

the Commission and will be available to 

the public on the FTC Web site, to the 

extent practicable, at http://www.ftc.gov. 

As a matter of discretion, the FTC makes 

every effort to remove home contact 

information for individuals from the 

public comments it receives before 

placing those comments on the FTC 

website. More information, including 

routine uses permitted by the Privacy 

Act, may be found in the FTC’s privacy 

policy at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/ 

privacy.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the proposed collection of 

information should be addressed to 

Michael Ostheimer, Attorney, Division 

of Advertising Practices, Bureau of 

Consumer Protection, Federal Trade 

Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20580. 

Telephone: (202) 326–2699, e-mail: 

TobaccoReports@ftc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For nearly 

forty years, the Federal Trade 

Commission has published periodic 

reports containing data on domestic 

cigarette sales and marketing 

expenditures by the major U.S. cigarette 

manufacturers. The Commission has 

published comparable reports on 

smokeless tobacco sales and marketing 

expenditures since 1987. Both reports 

originally were issued pursuant to 

statutory mandates. After those statutory 

mandates were terminated, the 

Commission continued to collect and 

publish information obtained from the 

cigarette and smokeless tobacco 

industries pursuant to section 6(b) of the 

FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(b). 

More recently, the Commission 

decided to address its information 

requests to the ultimate parent of each 

of the leading cigarette and smokeless 

tobacco manufacturers in order to 

ensure that no relevant data from 

affiliated companies go unreported. This 

change presumably increases the 

number of separately incorporated 

entities affected by the Commission’s 

requests. 

The FTC proposes to send 

information requests on an annual basis 

to the ultimate parent company of each 

of the five largest cigarette companies 

and each of the five largest smokeless 

tobacco companies in the United States 

(‘‘industry members’’). The information 

requests will seek data regarding, inter 

alia: (1) The tobacco sales of industry 

members; (2) how much industry 

members spend advertising and 

promoting their tobacco products, and 

the specific amounts spent in each of a 

number of specified expenditure 

categories; (3) whether industry 

members are involved in the appearance 

of their tobacco products in television 

shows or movies; (4) how much 

industry members spend on advertising 

intended to reduce youth tobacco usage; 

(5) the events, if any, during which 

industry members’ tobacco brands are 

televised; and (6) for the cigarette 

industry, the tar, nicotine, and carbon 

monoxide ratings of their cigarettes, to 

the extent they possess such data. The 

information will be sought using 

compulsory process under section 6(b) 

of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(b) 

(hereinafter ‘‘6(b) orders’’). 

On May 9, 2005, the FTC sought 

public comment on its proposed 

information collection requests to the 

major cigarette and smokeless tobacco 

manufacturers. 70 FR 24415. Nine 

comments were received, which are 

discussed below.2 Pursuant to the OMB 

regulations that implement the PRA, 5 

CFR part 1320, the FTC is providing this 

second opportunity for public comment 

while seeking OMB approval for the 

proposed information requests. 

Comments received: The FTC 

received seven comments supporting 

the collection and reporting of the data 

in question. Those comments were 

from: (1) The Tobacco Free Kansas 

Coalition, Inc.; (2) Michael P. Eriksen, 

Sc.D., of the Institute of Public Health 

at Georgia State University; (3) the 

California Department of Health 

Services; (4) the San Luis Obispo 

County Tobacco Control Coalition; (5) 

the National Center for Chronic Disease 

Prevention and Health Promotion, 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention; (6) the National Association 

of Attorneys General; and (7) a group of 

44 public health organizations, 

including the American Lung 

Association, the American Medical 

Association, and the American Public 

62314 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 209 / Monday, October 31, 2005 / Notices 

3Philip Mossis USA was the only cigarette or 

smokeless tobacco company to submit a comment 

in response to the Commission’s notice. 

Health Association. In addition, Philip 

Morris USA filed a comment raising 

several issues regarding the proposed 

information collection.3 Finally, the 

Commission also received one comment 

from an individual opposed to the use 

of federal funds to collect the 

information at issue. 

1. Comments Supporting the Data 

Collection. The comments from public 

health and governmental entities 

supporting the data collection note that 

the Commission’s reports are the only 

source of comprehensive information 

about the marketing and promotion 

activities of the cigarette and smokeless 

tobacco industries. The Tobacco Free 

Kansas Coalition, Inc. stated that the 

data reported by the Commission are 

essential in trying to establish funding 

for tobacco prevention and cessation 

programs. The California Department of 

Health Services uses the data to assess 

the rate of expansion of tobacco 

industry marketing and promotion, in 

order to prioritize resources among its 

various tobacco control priorities. The 

Public Health Service of the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention (PHS–

CDC) noted that the Commission’s 

reports are the only data source 

available for surveillance of industry 

spending, and are therefore ‘‘essential in 

monitoring industry tactics regarding 

advertising, including documenting 

important shifts such as increases in 

promotional spending.’’ The PHS–CDC 

also noted that the FTC reports 

constitute a source of information to 

monitor industry compliance with 

restrictions such as the Master 

Settlement Agreement that resulted 

from the settlement of 46 states’

lawsuits against the tobacco industry, 

and that the data in those reports are 

also used to help interpret the results of 

evaluations of tobacco control programs. 

The 44 public health organizations 

stated that the FTC’s reports are 

virtually the only source of reliable 

information on cigarette and smokeless 

tobacco marketing and sales, and that 

they play a ‘‘vital role’’ in enabling 

government officials, organizations and 

professional communities to do their 

work. 

Some of the commenters supporting 

continued data collection did 

recommend changes that they believed 

would increase the utility of the 

Commission’s reports. The California 

Department of Health suggested that the 

data be reported on a state-by-state 

basis, rather than the national basis that 

the Commission has always used, and 

that state-by-state data be further broken 

down to provide, among other things, 

company-specific or brand-specific data, 

and marketing expenditures targeting 

ethnic populations. The PHS–CDC 

stated that the utility of the 

Commission’s reports could be 

increased by the provision of detailed 

information about individual 

manufacturers’ expenditures, as well as 

brand-specific or brand-categoryspecific, state-specific and major-mediamarket-specific information. The 44 

public health organizations similarly 

suggested in their joint comment, among 

other things, that the Commission report 

its data on a state-by-state basis, and, to 

the extent possible given trade secret 

and confidentiality concerns, by 

individual company or brand. 

The FTC has determined that even if 

the cigarette and smokeless tobacco 

companies are able to report their 

advertising and marketing expenditures 

on a state-by-state or regional basis, 

requiring them to do so at this time 

would likely increase the burden on 

those companies without a sufficient 

increase in the utility of the reports. In 

addition, with regard to data such as the 

amount spent to promote individual 

brands of cigarettes or smokeless 

tobacco and the amount that a particular 

company spends to promote all of its 

products, the FTC is prohibited from 

disclosing such information while it 

remains confidential commercial 

information. 15 U.S.C. 46(f). 

Accordingly, the FTC does not intend to 

require reporting on a state-by-state or 

regional basis or release disaggregated 

expenditure data. 

The 44 public health organizations 

made a number of additional 

suggestions. First, the organizations 

suggested that the FTC provide more 

detailed information about promotional 

allowance and retail-value-added 

expenditures. In 2002, the Commission 

did in fact revise a number of the 

categories in which advertising and 

promotional expenses were to be 

reported by the manufacturers. Those 

changes included splitting the ‘‘retailvalue-added’’ category into two 

subcategories (retail-value-added 

involving free cigarettes, and retailvalue-added involving free non-cigarette 

items), and breaking down the 

‘‘promotional allowance’’ category into 

four new categories (price discounts, 

promotional allowances paid to 

retailers, promotional allowances paid 

to wholesalers, and other promotional 

allowances). The public health 

organizations do not specify what kind 

of additional information about these 

expenditure categories they want. 

Second, the public health 

organizations suggest that the FTC 

collect information from the top nine 

companies in the smokeless tobacco and 

cigarette industries. The Commission 

has traditionally issued its cigarette and 

smokeless tobacco information requests 

to the five or six largest companies in 

each industry. At this time, it is not 

necessary for the FTC to increase the 

number of cigarette and smokeless 

tobacco industry members from whom it 

will collect information to 18, as 

suggested by the 44 public health 

organizations. In 2003, the five cigarette 

companies from whom the FTC 

proposes collecting information were 

responsible for over 90% of cigarette 

sales, and the five smokeless tobacco 

companies were responsible for over 

95% of smokeless tobacco sales. It is 

unlikely that collecting information 

from 18 companies, as opposed to the 

10 to 15 companies contemplated by the 

FTC, would significantly alter the 

overall picture of the industries because 

the leading companies also are 

responsible for most cigarette and 

smokeless tobacco advertising. In light 

of the aggregated nature of the 

information reported, the incremental 

benefit of collecting information from 

increasingly small companies would 

appear to outweigh the burden on those 

companies. 

Finally, the public health 

organizations made a number of 

additional suggestions, including a 

request that the FTC report cigarette 

company television advertising 

regarding their charitable activities. The 

FTC will consider these suggestions 

when it next issues 6(b) orders to the 

cigarette and smokeless tobacco 

companies for sales and marketing 

expenditure data, bearing in mind not 

only the potential benefits to those who 

desire the information, but also the 

feasibility of requiring the companies to 

provide that information and the burden 

of requiring them to do so. 

2. Comment Opposing the Data 

Collection. The sole comment opposing 

the data collection objected to the 

expenditure of taxpayer money for the 

purpose of collecting the data in 

question, stating that ‘‘if the tobacco 

industry wants it, let them pay for it.’’

This comment appears to be based on 

the erroneous assumption that the 

Commission collects the data in 

question for the benefit of the cigarette 

and smokeless tobacco companies. 

3. Comment of Philip Morris USA. 

Philip Morris USA took no position on 

the proposed collection of information 

and offered no comment on the FTC 

staff’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection. It did, however, 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 209 / Monday, October 31, 2005 / Notices 62315 

4The staff’s burden estimate takes into account 

that the first request to the five smokeless tobacco 

companies may cover data for three calendar years. 

comment on ways to enhance the 

quality of the information that the 

Commission proposes to collect, and on 

ways to minimize the burden imposed 

on tobacco companies in responding to 

the Commission. Specifically, Philip 

Morris suggested that the Commission: 

(1) Identify the companies from which 

it seeks data based on a particular sales 

volume or market share, instead of from 

a preset number of companies; (2) solicit 

information from the tobacco companies 

on a predetermined schedule; (3) 

increase from 60 days to 90 days the 

amount of time provided to the 

companies to submit the requested data; 

(4) announce in advance any changes in 

the kinds of data to be collected or in 

the ways that specific data should be 

reported; (5) allow advertising and 

promotional expenditure data to be 

reported to the nearest $1,000, rather 

than to the dollar; and (6) allow 

expenses to be reported based on 

generally accepted accounting 

principles. 

Philip Morris suggests that the FTC 

use sales volume or market share 

benchmarks to identify those companies 

to whom it will send information 

requests. The FTC does, in fact, consider 

changes in industry market share in 

determining whether requests should be 

issued to new companies that have not 

previously received them, but does not 

believe it must adopt any one specific 

mechanism for determining to whom it 

will issue information requests. Insofar 

as the FTC is asking for clearance from 

OMB under the PRA to send 

information requests to up to 15 

companies, it will retain the flexibility 

to adapt to major changes in either 

industry. 

Philip Morris suggests several 

reasonable ways to decrease the burden 

on the cigarette and smokeless tobacco 

companies. Accordingly, after the first 

set of 6(b) orders, which will be issued 

after the FTC obtains OMB clearance to 

do so, the FTC will attempt to issue its 

6(b) orders in the second calendar 

quarter of the year; unforeseen events 

may, however, change this schedule in 

any particular year. The FTC will also 

extend the time period for companies to 

submit their responses from 60 days to 

90 days, and permit advertising and 

promotional expenditure data to be 

reported to the nearest $1,000. 

Furthermore, the FTC intends that 

expenses be reported based on generally 

accepted accounting principles, and 

Philip Morris’s suggestion provides an 

opportunity to clear up any confusion 

on this issue. 

Philip Morris states that it would like 

advance notice of any changes to the 

information requirements in the 6(b) 

orders. The FTC provided advance 

notice of certain relatively significant 

changes to the cigarette and smokeless 

tobacco 6(b) orders in 2002, so that the 

companies would have additional time 

to prepare for these changes. The FTC 

will consider whether any additional 

burden on the companies from 

relatively minor changes in the 

reporting requirements will be 

outweighed by the costs of the 

significant delay in obtaining the data 

that would result from providing 

advance notice. 

Estimated hours burden: The FTC 

staff’s estimate of the hours burden is 

based on the time required to respond 

to each information request. Although 

the FTC intends to issue the information 

requests only to the five largest cigarette 

companies and the five largest 

smokeless tobacco companies (for a total 

of ten information requests), the burden 

estimate is based on up to 15 

information requests being issued per 

year to take into account any future 

changes in these industries. Because 

these companies vary greatly in size, in 

the number of products that they sell, 

and in the extent and variety of their 

advertising and promotion, the staff has 

provided a range of the estimated hours 

burden. Based upon its knowledge of 

the industries, the staff estimates that 

the time required to gather, organize, 

format, and produce their responses 

ranges between 30 and 80 hours per 

information request for all but the very 

largest companies. The very largest 

companies could require hundreds of 

hours per year. Thus, the staff estimates 

a total of 1,800 hours per year, with an 

average burden per company for each of 

the intended ten recipients of 180 hours. 

The staff estimates that for possible 

additional recipients, which would be 

smaller companies, the burden should 

not exceed 300 hours (60 hours per 

company × 5 companies). Thus the 

staff’s estimate of the total burden is 

2,100 hours. These estimates include 

any time spent by separately 

incorporated subsidiaries and other 

entities affiliated with the ultimate 

parent company that has received the 

information request.4

Estimated cost burden: It is not 

possible to calculate with precision the 

labor costs associated with this data 

production, as they entail varying 

compensation levels of management 

and/or support staff among companies 

of different sizes. Financial, legal, 

marketing, and clerical personnel may 

be involved in the information 

collection process. The staff assumes 

that professional personnel will handle 

most of the tasks involved in gathering 

and producing responsive information, 

and have applied an average hourly 

wage of $150/hour for their labor. The 

staff’s best estimate for the total labor 

costs for up to 15 information requests 

is $315,000. 

The staff estimates that the capital or 

other non-labor costs associated with 

the information requests are minimal. 

Although the information requests may 

necessitate that industry members 

maintain the requested information 

provided to the Commission, they 

should already have in place the means 

to compile and maintain business 

records. 

William Blumenthal, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 05–21592 Filed 10–28–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Meeting of the National Vaccine 

Advisory Committee 

AGENCY: Department of Health and 

Human Services, Office of the Secretary. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: As stipulated by the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act, the 

Department of Health and Human 

Services (DHHS) is hereby giving notice 

that the National Vaccine Advisory 

Committee (NVAC) will hold a meeting. 

The meeting is open to the public. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

November 29, 2005, from 9 a.m. to 5 

p.m., and on November 30, 2005, from 

9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: Department of Health and 

Human Services; Hubert H. Humphrey 

Building, Room 705–A; 200 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20201. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Emma English, Program Analyst, 

National Vaccine Program Office, 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, Room 443–H Hubert H. 

Humphrey Building, 200 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201; 

(202) 690–5566, nvac@osophs.dhhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to section 2101 of the Public Service Act 

(42 U.S.C. 300aa–1), the Secretary of 

Health and Human Services was 

mandated to establish the National 

Vaccine Program to achieve optimal 

prevention of human infectious diseases 

through immunization and to achieve 

optimal prevention against adverse