[Federal Register: April 21, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 75)]
[Notices]
[Page 18216]
[DOCID:fr21ap09-42]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 2281 and 4851]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Authorization for
Continued Project Operation

April 14, 2009.
    On March 30, 2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, licensee for
the Woodleaf-Kanaka Junction Transmission Line and Sly Creek
Transmission Line Projects, filed Applications for a New License
pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the Commission's
regulations thereunder. The Woodleaf-Kanaka Junction Transmission Line
is located in Butte County, California, within the South Fork Feather
River watershed, and the Sly Creek Transmission Line is located in the
Sierra Nevada Range, also in Butte County, California.
    The licenses for Project Nos. 2281 and 4851 were issued for a
period ending March 31, 2009. Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C.
808(a)(1), requires the Commission, at the expiration of a license
term, to issue from year-to-year an annual license to the then licensee
under the terms and conditions of the prior license until a new license
is issued, or the project is otherwise disposed of as provided in
section 15 or any other applicable section of the FPA. If the project's
prior license waived the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then,
based on section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
558(c), and as set forth at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such
project has filed an application for a subsequent license, the licensee
may continue to operate the project in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the license after the minor or minor part license
expires, until the Commission acts on its application. If the licensee
of such a project has not filed an application for a subsequent
license, then it may be required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to
continue project operations until the Commission issues someone else a
license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.
    If the projects are subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is
hereby given that annual licenses for Projects Nos. 2281 and 4851 are
issued to the Pacific Gas and Electric Company for a period effective
April 1, 2009 through March 31, 2010, or until the issuance of new
licenses for the projects or other disposition under the FPA, whichever
comes first. If issuance of new licenses (or other disposition) does
not take place on or before March 31, 2010, notice is hereby given
that, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.18(c), annual licenses under section
15(a)(1) of the FPA are renewed automatically without further order or
notice by the Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise. If
the projects are not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is hereby
given that the Pacific Gas and Electric Company is authorized to
continue operation of the Woodleaf-Kanaka Junction Transmission Line
and Sly Creek Transmission Line Projects, until such time as the
Commission acts on its application for a subsequent license.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-9083 Filed 4-20-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 54 (Wednesday, March 20, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17198-17199]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06345]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0699; FRL-9529-5]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Primary Magnesium
Refining (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR which is abstracted below describes the
nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before April 19,
2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2012-0699, to: (1) EPA online, using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency,
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB
at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Learia Williams, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:

(202) 564-0050; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On October 17, 2012 (77 FR 63813), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any
additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to both EPA and OMB
within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0699, which is available for either public
viewing online at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at
the Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/
DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC.
The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is (202)
566-1752.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov to either submit or view public comments, access
the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, Confidentiality of Business Information (CBI), or
other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to
www.regulations.gov.
    Title: NESHAP for Primary Magnesium Refining (Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 2098.06, OMB Control Number 2060-0536.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2013. Under
OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to either conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
    Abstract: The affected entities are subject to the General
Provisions of the NESHAP at 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, and any changes,
or additions to the Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart
TTTTT. Owners or operators of the affected facilities must submit an
initial notification report, performance tests, and periodic reports
and results. They are also required to maintain records of the
occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the
operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the
monitoring system is inoperative. Reports are required, semiannually,
at a minimum.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 153
hours per response. ``Burden'' means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain,
or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously-applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Owners or operators of primary
magnesium refining facilities.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1.
    Frequency of Response: Occasionally and semiannually.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 611.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $60,410, which includes $59,210 in
labor costs, no capital/startup costs, and $1,200 in operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the labor hours in
this ICR compared to the previous ICR. This is due to two
consideration: (1) the regulations have not changed over the past three
years and are not anticipated to change over the next three years; and
(2) the growth rate for the industry is very low, negative or non-
existent, so there is no significant change in the overall burden.
However, there is an adjustment increase in the total estimated burden
costs. The change in the cost estimates occurred because the labor
rates have increased since the last ICR. This ICR uses the most recent
labor rates in calculating all burden costs.

John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2013-06345 Filed 3-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 15 (Friday, January 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3733-3735]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01117]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard; Honda

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document grants in full the American Honda Motor Co.,
Inc.'s (Honda) petition for an exemption of the Honda CR-V vehicle line
in accordance with 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard. This petition is granted because the agency has
determined that the antitheft device to be placed on the line as
standard equipment is likely to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking
requirements of 49 CFR part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard (Theft Prevention Standard).

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2016 model year (MY).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, West
Building, W43-439, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Ms. Ballard's phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Her fax number is (202)
493-2990.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated November 3, 2014, Honda
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard for the CR-V vehicle line beginning with MY 2016.
The petition requested an exemption from parts-marking pursuant to 49
CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, based
on the installation of an antitheft device as standard equipment for
the entire vehicle line.
    Under 49 CFR 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant
an exemption for one vehicle line per model year. In its petition,
Honda provided a detailed description and diagram of the identity,
design, and location of the components of the antitheft device for the
CR-V vehicle line. Honda stated that its CR-V vehicle line will include
a 2WD and a 4WD variation. Honda stated that its MY 2016 vehicle line
will be installed with a passive, transponder-based, electronic-engine
immobilizer antitheft device as standard equipment. Key components of
the antitheft device will include a passive immobilizer, transponder
ignition key, ``smart entry'' remote, Powertrain Control Module (PCM)
and an Immobilizer Entry System (IMOES). Honda also stated that it will
offer two types of ignition systems on its CR-V vehicle line.
Specifically, Honda stated that the CR-V vehicle line will be offered
with a ``keyed ignition'' system or a ``smart entry with push button
start'' ignition system (``smart entry''). The ``keyed ignition''
system will be installed on its 2WD LX and 4WD LX models and the
``smart entry'' system will be installed on its 2WD EX/EXL/Touring
models, and its 4WD EX/EXL/Touring models.
    Honda's submission is considered a complete petition as required by
49 CFR 543.7, in that it meets the general requirements contained in
Sec.  543.5 and the specific content requirements of Sec.  543.6.
    Honda stated that activation of its ``keyed ignition'' system
occurs when the engine is switched to the ``OFF'' position. Honda
further stated that its immobilization device is always active until
the vehicle is started using a matching ignition key and will be
activated again each time the engine is switched off. Deactivation of
the immobilizer device occurs when a valid key and matching
immobilization code is verified, allowing the engine to start and
continue normal operations. Specifically, the immobilization system
automatically checks for a matching code each time starting of the
vehicle is attempted. A matching code must be validated by both the PCM
and IMOES in order for the engine to start. Honda stated that if an
incorrect key is used to try and start the vehicle, the PCM will
prevent fueling of the engine but allow the vehicle to start and run a
few seconds before it automatically switches off and the immobilizer
telltale indicator begins to flash.
    According to Honda, the ``smart entry'' system operates identically
to its ``keyed ignition'' system except that ignition for its ``smart
entry'' system vehicle is started by pushing the Engine Start/Stop
button located to the right of the steering wheel on the vehicle
dashboard. Honda stated that activation of its ``smart entry'' system
occurs when the Start/Stop button is switched to the ``OFF'' position.
Honda stated that the ``smart entry'' system operates once the remote
is within operating range, the start/stop button is pushed and matching
codes are verified by both the PCM and the IMOES, allowing the engine
to start. Deactivation of the device occurs when a ``smart entry''
remote with matching codes is placed within the operating range and
verified, allowing the engine to continue normal operations. Honda
further states that if a ``smart entry'' remote without a matching code
is placed inside the operating range and the Engine Start/Stop button
is pushed, the PCM will prevent fueling and starting of the engine.
    In order to attract attention to an unauthorized person attempting
to enter its vehicles without the use of a transponder ignition key or
a ``smart entry'' remote, Honda stated that it will install a vehicle
security system as standard equipment on all CR-V vehicles to monitor
attempts of unauthorized entry. Specifically, Honda stated that
whenever an attempt is made to open one of its vehicle doors, hood or
trunk without turning a key in the key cylinder, or using the key fob
to disarm the vehicle, the vehicle's horn will sound and its lights
will flash. The vehicle security system is activated when all of the
doors are locked and the hood and trunk are closed and locked. Honda's
vehicle security system is deactivated by using the key fob to unlock
the vehicle doors or by unlocking the driver's door with the physical
ignition key. Honda stated that deactivation of the vehicle's security
system feature in its ``smart entry'' vehicles occurs when the ``smart
entry'' remote is within operating range and the operator grabs either
of the vehicle's front door handles.
    Honda also stated that its CR-V vehicle line will be installed with
other features that have been designed to prevent unauthorized entry of
its vehicles without the use of a key (i.e., specially-styled ignition
key and key cylinders). Honda stated that its key cylinders will be
designed to be resistant to tampering and its key fob remote will
utilize rolling codes for the lock and unlock functions of its
vehicles. Honda will also equip its vehicle line with a hood release,
counterfeit resistant VIN plates and secondary VINs as standard
equipment. Honda further stated that as an additional security measure,
key duplication will be strictly controlled by its authorized dealers.
    In addressing the specific content requirements of Sec.  543.6,
Honda provided information on the reliability and durability of its
proposed device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device,
Honda conducted tests based on its own specified standards. Honda
provided a detailed list of the tests it used to validate the
integrity, durability and reliability of the device and believes that
it follows a rigorous development process to ensure that its antitheft
device will be reliable and robust for the life of the vehicle and does
not require the presence of a key fob battery to function.
Additionally, Honda stated that its antitheft device has no moving
parts (i.e., the PCM, IMOES, ignition key, smart entry remote and the
electrical components are found within its own housing units) which
reduces the chance for deterioration or wear resulting from normal use.

    In support of its belief that its antitheft device will be as or
more effective in reducing and deterring vehicle theft than the parts-
marking requirement, Honda referenced data showing several instances of
the effectiveness of its proposed immobilizer device. Honda first
installed an immobilizer device as standard equipment on its MY 2002
CR-V vehicles and referenced NHTSA's theft rate data showing a decrease
in thefts since the installation of its immobilizer device. NHTSA's
theft rates for MYs 2010, 2011, and 2012 are 0.3195, 0.2742 and 0.2953
respectively. Using an average of 3 MYs theft data (2010-2012), the
theft rate for the CR-V vehicle line is well below the median at
0.2963.
    Honda also referenced a September 2005 Highway Loss Data Institute
report showing an overall reduction in theft rates for the Honda CR-V
vehicles after introduction of the immobilizer device. Honda stated
that the data show that there was an immediate decrease in MY/calendar
year 2002 thefts with its immobilizer-installed vehicles but also
showed sustained lower theft rates in following years.
    Based on the evidence submitted by Honda on its antitheft device,
the agency believes that the antitheft device for the CR-V vehicle line
is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle
theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7(b), the agency grants
a petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of Part
541 either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon
substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely
to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of Part 541. The agency
finds that Honda has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the
antitheft device for the Honda CR-V vehicle line is likely to be as
effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance
with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard.
This conclusion is based on the information Honda provided about its
device.
    Based on the supporting evidence submitted by Honda on its device,
the agency believes that the antitheft device for the CR-V vehicle line
is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle
theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard (49 CFR 541). The agency concludes that the device
will provide the five types of performance listed in Sec.  543.6(a)(3):
Promoting activation; attract attention to the efforts of an
unauthorized person to enter or move a vehicle by means other than a
key; preventing defeat or circumvention of the device by unauthorized
persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants;
and ensuring the reliability and durability of the device.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full Honda's
petition for exemption for the CR-V vehicle line from the parts-marking
requirements of 49 CFR part 541, beginning with the 2016 model year
vehicles. The agency notes that 49 CFR part 541, Appendix A-1,
identifies those lines that are exempted from the Theft Prevention
Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR part 543.7(f) contains
publication requirements incident to the disposition of all Part 543
petitions. Advanced listing, including the release of future product
nameplates, the beginning model year for which the petition is granted
and a general description of the antitheft device is necessary in order
to notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle lines exempted from
the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard.
    If Honda decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must
formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line must
be fully marked according to the requirements under 49 CFR parts 541.5
and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
    NHTSA notes that if Honda wishes in the future to modify the device
on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit a
petition to modify the exemption. Part 543.7(d) states that a Part 543
exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted under
this part and equipped with the anti-theft device on which the line's
exemption is based. Further, Part 543.9(c)(2) provides for the
submission of petitions ``to modify an exemption to permit the use of
an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in
that exemption.''
    The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that Part
543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself.
The agency did not intend in drafting Part 543 to require the
submission of a modification petition for every change to the
components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many
such changes could be de minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if the
manufacturer contemplates making any changes, the effects of which
might be characterized as de minimis, it should consult the agency
before preparing and submitting a petition to modify.
    Under authority delegated in 49 CFR part 1.95.

Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2015-01117 Filed 1-22-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: August 3, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 148)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 45571-45572]
[DOCID:fr03au10-20]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0590; FRL-9184-7]

Determination of Attainment for PM10 for the Las Vegas
Valley Nonattainment Area, NV

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to determine that the Las Vegas Valley
nonattainment area in Nevada attained the National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of
less than or equal to a nominal ten micrometers (PM10) by
the applicable attainment date (December 31, 2006), and that the Las
Vegas Valley nonattainment area is currently attaining the standard.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 2, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2010-0590, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office, EPA Region IX,
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wienke Tax at telephone number: (415)
947-4192, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the above EPA, Region
IX address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For further information, please see the
direct final action, of the same title, which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register. EPA is approving the attainment
determination as a direct final rule without prior proposal because EPA
views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no adverse
comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the
preamble to the direct final rule. If EPA receives no adverse comments,
EPA will not take further action on this proposed rule.
    If EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will withdraw the direct
final rule and it will not take effect. EPA will address all public
comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA
will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.
Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    Dated: July 21, 2010.
Keith Takata,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2010-19062 Filed 8-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 22 (Thursday, February 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 5282]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2238]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.
Extension:

    Rule 17g-3; SEC File No. 270-565; OMB Control No. 3235-0626.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 17g-3 (17 CFR 240.17g-3)
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.). The
Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to
the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and
approval.
    Rule 17g-3 contains reporting requirements. The collection of
information obligations imposed by the rule is mandatory. The
requirements of Rule 17g-3, however, apply only to credit rating
agencies that are registered with the Commission as a nationally
recognized statistical rating organization (``NRSRO)'', and
registration is voluntary. Under Rule 17g-3 each NRSRO must submit
annual audited financial statements. The Commission previously
estimated that approximately 30 credit rating agencies would register
with the Commission as NRSROs under section 15E of the Exchange Act.\1\
Currently, there are nine credit rating agencies that have registered
with the Commission as NRSROs. Consequently, while the Commission
expects more credit rating agencies may become registered as NRSROs
over the next few years, the Commission believes that the estimated
number of ten NRSROs should be used for purposes of the Paperwork
Reduction Act. Thus, the Commission estimates that the adjusted current
industry-wide annual burden for Rule 17g-3 would be 2,033 hours, which
includes a one-time reporting burden for processing reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Oversight of Credit Rating Agencies Registered as
Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations, 34-55857
(June 5, 2007), 72 FR 33564 at 33607 (June 18, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information on
respondents; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No
person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a
valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Thomas Bayer, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312 or
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
     Dated: January 27, 2012.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-2238 Filed 2-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P