[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 10 (Friday, January 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 2428]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00681]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AC22-28-000]

Notice of Filing; Virginia Electric and Power Company, d/b/a
Dominion Energy Virginia

    Take notice that on December 30, 2021, Virginia Electric and Power
Company d/b/a Dominion Energy Virginia (DEV) submitted a request for
approval to use Account 182.2,Unrecovered Plant and Regulatory Study
Costs, of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
Uniform System of Accounts for its (i) unrecovered 2019 plant
retirement costs and (ii) remaining unrecovered plant balances related
to certain early generating plant retirements announced in 2020, upon
retirement in 2023, and a waiver to record the subsequent amortization
to Account 403, Depreciation Expense, over the respective state
jurisdictions' recovery period.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant. On or before the comment date, it is
not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons
other than the Applicant.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
[email protected] or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 27, 2022.

    Dated: January 10, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-00681 Filed 1-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 203)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 64965-64966]
[DOCID:fr21oc10-14]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0771; Airspace Docket No. 10-AGL-12]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Mansfield, OH

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E airspace at Mansfield,
OH. Additional controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) at Mansfield Lahm
Regional Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety
and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the
airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 6, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You
must identify the docket number FAA-2010-0771/Airspace Docket No. 10-
AGL-12, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments
through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the
public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any
final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office
(telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at
the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: 817-321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2010-0771/
Airspace Docket No. 10-AGL-12.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking

documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://
www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_
amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Central Service Center, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort
Worth, TX 76137.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), part 71 by adding additional Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface for SIAPs at Mansfield Lahm
Regional Airport, Mansfield, OH. Controlled airspace is needed for the
safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9U, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15, 2010, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle I, section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would add additional controlled airspace at Mansfield Lahm
Regional Airport, Mansfield, OH.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

    1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order
7400.9U Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 18,
2010, and effective September 15, 2010, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

AGL OH E5 Mansfield, OH [Amended]

Mansfield, Mansfield Lahm Regional Airport, OH
    (Lat. 40[deg]49'17'' N., long. 82[deg]31'00'' W.)
Galion, Galion Municipal Airport, OH
    (Lat. 40[deg]45'12'' N., long. 82[deg]43'26'' W.)
Shelby, Shelby Community Airport, OH
    (Lat. 40[deg]52'22'' N., long. 82[deg]41'51'' W.)
Willard, Willard Airport, OH
    (Lat. 41[deg]02'20'' N., long. 82[deg]43'28'' W.)
Mansfield VORTAC
    (Lat. 40[deg]52'07'' N., long. 82[deg]35'28'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.9-mile radius of Mansfield Lahm Regional Airport, and
within a 6.3-mile radius of Galion Municipal Airport, and within a
6.3-mile radius of Shelby Community Airport, and within a 6.3-mile
radius of Willard Airport, and within 4 miles each side of the
137[deg] bearing from Mansfield Lahm Regional Airport extending from
the 6.9-mile radius to 11.1 miles southeast of the airport, and
within 4 miles each side of the 317[deg] bearing from Mansfield Lahm
Regional Airport extending from the 6.9-mile radius to 10.7 miles
northwest of the airport, and within 4 miles each side of the
047[deg] bearing from Mansfield Lahm Regional Airport extending from
the 6.9-mile radius to 11.2 miles northeast of the airport, and
within 4 miles each side of the 227[deg] bearing from Mansfield Lahm
Regional Airport extending from the 6.9-mile radius to 10.9 miles
southwest of the airport, and within 6.1 miles each side of the
Mansfield VORTAC 307[deg] radial extending from the 6.9-mile radius
to 13.3 miles northwest of the VORTAC, and within 4.4 miles each
side of the Mansfield VORTAC 130[deg] radial extending from the 6.9-
mile radius to 13.8 miles southeast of the VORTAC.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on October 6, 2010.
Anthony D. Roetzel,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2010-26528 Filed 10-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4901-13-P


    Comments for Draft Appendix F (Part 60)  -  Quality Assurance Procedure
                                  Procedure 6
                                                      Richard A. Hovan Sr.
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>
                                                      June 19, 2013

2.0 Definitions: There is no reference to 40CFR Part60 standards for a Cylinder Gas Audit (CGA). This in itself is a part of Appendix F. This must be added.
2.5 Dynamic Spiking: "known concentration of HCL" how is this addressed? If this is going to be a means to provide daily checks for the system then a Traceable Calibration Gas must be used. Any other means should have the same rigorous QA requirements. This specifically addresses the use of calibrators. Any device that is used on a daily basis to perform a daily system check (by definition of "good Science") must perform the minimum daily checks of the rest of the system.
2.6 Liquid Evaporative Standard: Liquid Evaporative Standard or for that matter any "standard" must be provided with its own performance and test method standard; just like portable analyzers where required to meet CTM 030 &034 which were written specifically for defined applications for a portable.  As a minimum a Conditional Test Method (CTM) must be written and posted on the EPA website for state accessibility and use when employing an alternative means of validation such as Dynamic Spiking in place of traditional traceable cylinder gas testing.					              In addition, if a piece of hardware is being used that is integrated into the CEM system, by EPA definition it is then part of the system and it must meet all QA/QC procedures of the system. With that in consideration, then as a minimum, a Performance Specification should be required for the Calibration Gas Generator. As a minimum a daily Traceable Zero Gas should be applied to any kind of "calibrator."
2.8 Reference Gas Concentrations: As referenced in Table 4 of PS-18 (rev3); Zero is referenced as LOD, in reality a Traceable Zero Gas (TZG) is available and NIST has a test method in place to provide gas suppliers to create and supply TZG. 	                                                                    	         As additional comments for this section, I respectfully disagree with the "NA" for Zero gas for Spiking. If Spiking is to be applied then it should meet the same criteria as cylinder gas checks and at a minimum have two (2) points, the first being Zero (TZG). NOTE: The biggest issue with any calibrator is that they are affected by local climate conditions which include temperature, humidity and ambient pollutant conditions. With respect to the later; filtered (carbon) air is used for the blending but there is no method of checking the filtered ambient air (typically it is replaced on a routine time schedule). The problem with this methodology is that the ambient air levels of pollutants vary day by day, especially for gases such as HCl and Hg, where just mixing the coal in the yard could easily produce high transient pollutant conditions.                                                        If Spiking is to be used as a means of validation then a Zero Gas spike must be incorporated.
5.2 Concentration Accuracy Auditing Requirements:  ".... Once each calendar quarter by dynamic spiking (DSA), cylinder gas audits (CGA) or other acceptable alternative..." implies that DSA is the standard which is absolutely incorrect. The fact is that DSA is a new alternative method and PS-18 is actually just defining it. Based on the existing Appendix F standards CGA's are the `gold standard' and this should be reflected in this document, not contradicting itself. I would propose that this statement read "...Once each calendar quarter by cylinder gas audit (CGA) or other acceptable alternative such as dynamic spiking audits (DSA)..."                                                                                NOTE: if the present language is left as is, EPA can expect that there will be a large number of requests from industry and analyzer manufacturers that this same method be acceptable for standard gases such as NOX, SO2, CO, CO2, and even O2. If this is the case then EPA should expect a very labor intensive process of changing all the existing Performance Specifications to reflect this.
      <IP_ADDRESS> Perform a CGA: "... known concentrations within the following ranges..." the table should be as follows to conform to the standards as defined by the existing Appendix F:
                                  Audit Point
                                  Audit Range
                                       1
                    Zero (TZG preferred) or 10-20% of span
                                       2
                                40-60% of span
                                       3
                                70-100% of span

      <IP_ADDRESS> Preform a CGA with DSA: reference Appendix A to PS-18 of Appendix B  -  this does not exist in the present (rev3) of PS-18. Therefore my comment will be directed simply to the fact that DSA must meet the same 3 point criteria as a standard cylinder gas method, i.e. 3 points as follows:
                                  Audit Point
                                  Audit Range
                                       1
                    Zero (TZG preferred) or 10-20% of span
                                       2
                                40-60% of span
                                       3
                                70-100% of span

5.5 Criteria for Optional QA Test Frequency: this entire section should be removed from the document. Simple logic dictates this for the following reasons. The method of monitoring HCl has been documented by the EPA as a "higher degree of difficulty" to measure than regular pollutants such as NOX, SO2, and CO and the concept of allowing this measurement to have less restrictive testing has no good engineering logic.                                             NOTE: if the present language is left as is, EPA can expect that there will be a large number of requests from industry and analyzer manufacturers that this same method be acceptable for standard gases such as NOX, SO2, CO, CO2, and even O2. If this is the case then EPA should expect a very labor intensive process of changing all the existing Test Methods to reflect this.
      5.5.1 "If the CEMS is in control for eight consecutive quarters that include a minimum of two RATAs, the source owner or operator may revise their auditing procedures to use CGA or DSA each quarter for eight subsequent quarters." As stated in 5.5 comment, this should be removed.
      5.5.2 "The source owner of operator must perform at least one RATA that meets the acceptance criteria every 2 years." They must perform every year. As stated in 5.5 comments, this should be removed.
5.6 "...owner or operator fails a RATA, CGA or DSA..." this should be removed as it is specific reference to 5.5 and 5.5 should be removed as defined above.


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND

TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM

October 18, 2007

SUBJECT:	A Review of “Maternal Residence near Agricultural Pesticide
Applications and Autism Spectrum Disorders among Children in the
California Central Valley” Roberts et al., 2007 [EHP, 115; 10:
1482-1489]  (Endosulfan (PC code 079401) and Dicofol (PC code 010501))

DP Barcode D342660

FROM:	Carol Christensen, MPH

		Chemistry and Exposure Branch

				Health Effects Division (7509P)

THRU:	David J. Miller, Chief

		Chemistry and Exposure Branch

				Health Effects Division (7509P)

TO:		Tracey Perry, Chemical Review Manager

		Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P)

		In the study “Maternal Residence near Agricultural Pesticide
Applications and Autism Spectrum Disorders among Children in the
California Central Valley” by Roberts et al. (2007) [Environmental
Health Perspectives, vol. 115, Issue 10, pp.1482], the authors
investigated the association between maternal pesticide exposure and
development of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in offspring.  This
memorandum provides a review of the study for use in the endosulfan and
dicofol Reregistration Eligibility Documents (RED).  The pesticide
registrants Makhteshim-Agan of North America (MANA) also submitted a
review of this study (8/20/07).  The Agency acknowledges receipt of this
review and notes in this review many of the same points made by MANA.
The study authors and HED acknowledge this is a hypothesis-generating
study and would not attempt causal inference based upon this study
alone.

	Background

	At this time, little is known about the association between pesticides
and pediatric neurological development.  Therefore, the authors studied
the hypothesis that infants born to women living in close proximity to
pesticide treated agricultural fields experience greater risk of
developing autism spectrum disorder (ASD) than infants born to women who
live further away from agricultural fields.  Many agree that ASD is a
functional deficit caused by an alternation to specific brain structures
during certain temporal windows during in utero development.
Researchers also agree that while there is a strong genetic component
suggested by previous epidemiologic investigations (studies in twins and
siblings), the environment also likely plays a role; gene by environment
interactions in the development of ASD are strongly implicated.
Although the specific causal “pathway to autism” is unknown, the
authors posit that pesticides which produce neurologic effects in animal
studies may play a role in the development of ASD.  Many studies have
shown pesticides can “drift” from the site of application and are
detected in nearby residential homes.  The study was conducted as part
of a demonstration project of the utility of environmental public health
tracking, an initiative funded by the CDC to generate clues for further
etiologic study into environmental causes of disease.

Study Design and Results

Using publicly available datasets, the authors assessed both pesticide
exposure and an ASD outcome.  Pesticide exposure was determined through
use of California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) pesticide use
records correlated with maternal residence recorded on the birth
certificate.  Geocoding these two types of variables allowed the authors
to ascertain the distance between maternal residence and agricultural
fields for analysis.  ASD outcome was ascertained through the state’s
Department of Developmental Services (DDS) which collects information
concerning ASD cases to provide social services to families with ASD
affected children.  Families are referred to the DDS through doctors,
educators, family or friends.  According to the authors, the DDS is used
widely across various racial and economic groups in the population.  To
be eligible for DDS services, children must meet the criteria for ASD or
other developmental disorders as administered by the state.  The authors
did not limit the age range for eligibility into the study.  Using DDS
records of ASD diagnosis and birth certificate data, the authors
identified 465 ASD cases from 19 counties in Central Valley of southern
California who met the study criteria.  Authors excluded infant deaths,
multiple births, premature infants (less than 37 weeks) and low birth
weight infants (less than 2500 grams).  Controls (n=6975) were frequency
matched to cases (15:1) by gestational age using incidence-density
sampling procedures.

	The authors’ goal was to assess whether in utero exposure to
pesticides (measured as proximity of maternal residence to agricultural
fields) is associated with the probability (or odds) of developing ASD
in childhood.  Numerous specific hypothesis were generated by combining
information concerning potential developmental or reproductive toxicity
or neurotoxicity of specific pesticides (n=54); maternal residential
distance from agricultural fields (250, 500, 750 and 1,000 meters); and,
three critical windows of gestational development (central nervous
system development (CNS), neural tube closure and entire gestational
period) during which exposure to pesticides may be a putative risk
factor for ASD.  Applying the decision criteria of at least 5 cases or
control subjects per quartile of exposure (distance from field) to the
total number of hypotheses generated by combining the three data sources
listed above, the authors analyzed a total of 249 separate hypotheses.
The authors employed published statistical methods to adjust the
significance level (i.e., p-value) to control for multiple comparisons.
Conditional logistic regression was utilized to measure the association
for each separate hypothesis, adjusting for race/ethnicity, maternal
education, and DDS receiving center.  All variables were modeled as
categorical; no linearity assumption was applied.  Upon analysis of
these 249 a priori hypotheses, eight hypotheses were identified as
significant using both the unadjusted and multiple-comparison adjusted
p-values.  Four of the eight hypotheses relate to organochlorine
pesticides at each exposure level (250m, 500m, 750m, and 1,000 m) during
both the gestational period of CNS development and the entire
gestational period.  Only the four organochlorine pesticide hypotheses
noted above met the criteria of at least one case for each quartile of
exposure at the selected radius of 500m from the treated field for a
posteriori analysis of varying exposure time-windows.  To refine the
critical period of gestational development, the a posteriori analysis
employed an 8-week moving time-window for the period 300 days prior to
and 300 days post-conception to identify the optimal model (the
gestational time period during which pesticide exposure was most closely
associated with ASD).  As a result, the time period of 26-81 days
post-conception was identified as the most informative exposure window.
In the study area (19 counties in CA Central Valley), the
organochlorines endosulfan and dicofol accounted for nearly all of the
OC use (>98%).  It should be noted there were only 88 subjects exposed
to dicofol and 27 exposed to endosulfan at the distance 500m from the
treated field during this gestational time window.  Odds ratios are only
presented for the OC class and not these individual chemicals due to low
numbers of exposed cases and controls.  Additional sensitivity analyses
and varying statistical models did not substantially change the
conclusion.  The results of this analysis reveals that in utero exposure
to OCs (as measured by maternal residence distance from the treated
field of 500m) is associated with a 6-fold increase in risk of ASD
[OR=6.1 (95% C.I. 2.4-15.3)] in childhood when compared to those
children who did not experience in utero exposure to OC (as measured by
maternal residence distance from treated field of greater than 1,000m).
The most commonly applied organochlorines in this study population are
endosulfan and dicofol.   The authors state that this is the first study
to explore whether the risk of ASD is associated with residential
exposure at drift concentrations and the “results require replication
in further studies and should be treated with caution.” Overall, this
hypothesis-generating study suggests, according to the authors, “the
possibility of a connection between gestational exposure to
organochlorine pesticides and ASD and requires further study.”

	Review

	Strengths of this study include novel use of publicly available
datasets to investigate a new hypothesis; the large size of the study
(465 cases and 6975 controls) allowed for investigation of multiple
hypotheses inexpensively; the applicability of the case-control study
design to a study of a rare disease such as ASD; the utility of the
study design for evaluating numerous hypotheses within one study; and,
the sophisticated use of multiple-comparison control methods to avoid
Type I errors.  This is a hypothesis generating study.  This work
provides leads which should be further investigated in subsequent
etiologic studies of OC’s and endosulfan and dicofol.  The study is a
necessary first step to investigating the role of environmental
chemicals, pesticides, and ASD.

	Limitations of this study include possibility of selection bias and
misclassification of both the exposure and outcome; the authors
acknowledge these limitations.  If participation in the DDS varies by
exposure-status (proximity to treated field) possibly due to differences
in race, income or other SES factor, selection bias may be induced.  If
present, selection bias may affect the validity of the study results.
While there is no way to directly assess this potential, the authors
state the DDS participants are diverse in race-ethnicity and income
level.  In addition, while there are standard measures now available for
diagnosing ASD, application of those measures may vary by state DDS
investigator, referring MD or educational personnel.  The authors note
that more mild cases of ASD may be missed in this study.  ASD is a
complex, multi-faceted condition with no clear indicator of disease
status such as a genetic marker, therefore, outcome misclassification
may occur.  Misclassification of exposure level (pesticide exposure) may
occur based upon the indirect measure of exposure utilized, proximity of
maternal residence to treated field.  Pesticide exposure as a result of
use of products in the home environment or in occupational settings is
not directly measured in this study.  Errors in maternal residence
records or migration of participants between time of conception, time of
birth and time of diagnosis may also adversely affect exposure
classification.  The misclassification should be non-differential
leading to an attenuation of the risk estimate.  The study authors did
not collect all potentially confounding variables such as prenatal
vitamin intake or level of prenatal care which may affect ASD outcome.

	However, this study indicates additional etiologic study of the
association between pesticide exposure and the organochlorines
endosulfan and dicofol specifically and development of ASD warrants
further investigation.  Indeed, the CHARGE (Childhood Autism Risks from
Genetics and Environment) study was initiated to investigate such
hypotheses.  Pesticides are among the environmental exposures to be
evaluated in this population-based cohort of children in California
(Hertz-Picciotto, 2006).

	Recommendation/Next Steps

	As a hypothesis-generating study, causal inference is not possible
based upon these results.  To determine whether an exposure is causally
related to a disease, it is generally agreed that numerous criteria must
be met.  For this hypothesis, some of the criteria are now met, but not
all.  Evidence suggestive of a potential causal association includes the
biological plausibility that organochlorines may affect the developing
fetal brain given prior evidence of the developmental toxicity of OCs
and their close structural similarity to other development toxicants
such as DDT.  In this study, a dose-response trend was observed and
temporality is established.  Another factor suggestive of a potential
causal association includes the strong magnitude of the association
measured, although it is based on only a small number of cases.  Factors
which must still be elucidated to make a causal inference concerning the
association between OC exposure and ASD include the need to repeat these
results in other etiologic studies, further evaluation of the mechanisms
of ASD development and how OC chemicals may be involved, and refutation
of other alternative explanations for the association between pesticide
exposure and ASD such as other occupational exposures, quality of
prenatal care or other high-penetrance genetic factors.  More work is
needed in this area before causal inference can be attempted.

	HED will follow the work of the CHARGE study and other etiologic
investigations of the association between OC exposure and autism
spectrum disorder.

cc:  	Dr. Elissa Reaves, Reregistration Branch II

	Health Effects Division (7509P)

References

Robert, E.M., English, P.B., Grether, J.K., Windham, G.C., Somberg, L.,
and C. Wolff. (2007)  “Maternal Residence Near Agricultural Pesticide
Applications and Autism Spectrum Disorders among Children in the
California Central Valley.”  Environmental Health Perspectives 115;
10:1482-1489.

Hertz-Picciotta, I., Croen, L.A., Hansen, R., Jones, C.R., van de Water,
J., and I.N. Pessah.  (2006)  “The CHARGE Study:  An Epidemiologic
Investigation of Genetic and Environmental Factors Contributing to
Autism.”  Environmental Health Perspectives, 114;7:1119-1125.

 PAGE

  PAGE   1

  PAGE

  PAGE   6


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 189 (Wednesday, September 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58809-58810]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24698]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2015-0092]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with part 211 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a
document dated July 30, 2015, the American Short Line and Regional
Railroad Association

(ASLRRA) has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for
an amendment to its existing waiver of compliance in Docket Number FRA-
2009-0078. Specifically, this waiver exempts certain ASLRRA member
railroads from provisions of the Federal hours of service laws and
regulations contained at 49 CFR 228.405(a)(3). In its petition, ASLRRA
seeks to amend the waiver to include the hours of midnight to 6 a.m.
for certain railroads that will participate in a pilot project to
measure the effectiveness of certain measures implemented to mitigate
any adverse fatigue effects that might otherwise occur if the waiver
were expanded to include those hours. These railroads all currently
participate in the existing waiver in Docket Number FRA-2009-0078. The
pilot project will employ a mandatory napping program for employees
operating under the waiver between the hours of midnight and 6 a.m.
Followup data (e.g., sleep logs/diaries, self-report questionnaires,
and interview responses) will be collected from participants who
undertake the napping regimen and report the results. The sample size,
if a paired comparison or repeated measures analysis is used, will
provide sufficient statistical power to analyze the data and make
appropriate generalizations to the industry as a whole. If the data
supports it, ASLRRA will then seek to expand the waiver for all
participating railroads to include the hours of midnight to 6 a.m. when
approved mitigation measures are employed. Forty ASLRRA member
railroads are proposed to be included in this pilot program. A complete
list of the railroads that would like to participate may be found in
ASLRRA's July 30, 2015, petition letter in Docket Number FRA-2015-0092.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by November 16, 2015 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records
notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.
See also http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy
notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 24, 2015.
Ron Hynes,
Director, Office of Technical Oversight.
[FR Doc. 2015-24698 Filed 9-29-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


Schering Plough’s response to Section 114 letter.

Confidential Business Information located at EPA headquarters 1310 L St NW.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 13 (Monday, January 23, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7904-7906]
[FR Doc No: 2017-01298]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79796; File No. SR-C2-2017-003]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule To
Amend the Fees Schedule

January 13, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 3, 2017, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``C2'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://

www.c2exchange.com/Legal/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary,
and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to increase the fees charged for a CMI Login ID and
FIX Login ID. The Exchange currently assesses $500 per Login ID, per
month for CMI Login IDs and FIX Login IDs. The Exchange has expended
significant resources setting up, providing and maintaining this
connectivity and has ongoing and increasing costs associated with
maintaining connectivity. The Exchange desires to recoup such costs and
as such, proposes to increase the monthly fees from $500 per Login ID,
per month to $550 per Login ID, per month.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\3\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \4\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\5\ which requires that Exchange rules
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other persons using
its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes increasing the CMI Login ID and FIX Login ID
fees is reasonable because the Exchange desires to recoup increasing
costs associated with maintaining connectivity to C2. The Exchange
believes it's equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all
Permit Holders will be assessed the same amount for Login ID fees.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    C2 does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act because all Permit Holders will be assessed the
same Login ID fees and because the increased fee will help the Exchange
recoup costs associated with maintaining connectivity to the Exchange.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will impose any
burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because it only applies to
trading on the Exchange. Should the proposed change make C2 a more
attractive trading venue for market participants at other exchanges,
such market participants may elect to become market participants at C2.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \6\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \7\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-C2-2017-003 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2017-003. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments

received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2017-003 and should be
submitted on or before February 13, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-01298 Filed 1-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 14, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 240)]
[Notices]
[Page 71162-71164]
[DOCID:fr14de07-70]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2007-0084]

Construction Standards on Posting Emergency Telephone Numbers and
Floor Load Limits; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's
(OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comment concerning its proposal to extend
OMB approval of the information collection requirements specified by
the Construction Standards on Posting Emergency Telephone Numbers and
Floor Load Limits (paragraph (f) of Sec.  1926.50 and paragraph (a)(2)
of Sec.  1926.250, respectively).

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
February 12, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal

eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer

than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit three copies of your comments
and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, OSHA Docket No. OSHA-2007-
0084, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210. Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier
service) are accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket
Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., ET.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and OSHA
docket number for the ICR (OSHA-2007-0084). All comments, including any
personal information you provide, are placed in the public docket
without change, and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov.
 For further information on submitting comments see

the ``Public Participation'' heading in the section of this notice
titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at

the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;

however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through the Web site. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Stewart
Burkhammer at the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stewart Burkhammer, Directorate of
Construction, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3468, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
2020.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
    This program ensures that information is in the desired format,
reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, collection instruments
are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information
collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety and Health Act
of 1970 (the Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) authorizes information
collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for enforcement of
the Act or for developing information regarding the causes and
prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29
U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires that OSHA obtain such
information with minimum burden upon employers, especially those
operating small businesses, and to reduce to the maximum extent
feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in obtaining information
(29 U.S.C. 657).
    Two construction standards, ``Medical Services and First Aid''
(Sec.  1926.50), and ``General Requirements for Storage'' (Sec.
1926.250), contain posting provisions. Paragraph (f) of Sec.  1926.50
requires employers to post emergency telephone numbers for physicians,
hospitals, or ambulances at the worksite if the 911 emergency telephone
service is not available; in the event an employee has a serious injury
at the worksite, this posting requirement expedites emergency medical
treatment of the employee. Paragraph (a)(2) of Sec.  1926.250 specifies
that employers must post the maximum safe load limits of floors located
in storage areas inside buildings or other structures, unless the
floors are on grade. This provision prohibits employers from
overloading floors in areas used to store material and equipment in
multi-story units that are under construction, thereby preventing the
floors from collapsing and seriously injuring employees.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information
collection requirements contained in the two construction standards,
``Medical Services and First Aid'' paragraph (f) of Sec.  1926.50, and
``General Requirements for Storage'' paragraph (a)(2) of Sec.
1926.250. The Agency is requesting to increase its current burden hour
total from 8,901 hours to 197,819, for a total increase of 188,918
hours associated with these two Standards. The Agency will summarize
the comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this
summary in the request to OMB.
    Type of Review: Extension of currently approved information
collection requirements.
    Title: Construction Standards on the Posting of Emergency Telephone
Numbers and Floor Load Limits.
    OMB Number: 1218-0093.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit; not-for-profit
institutions; Federal Government; State, local, or Tribal governments.
    Number of Respondents: 801,837.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Total Responses: 1,591,674.
    Average Time per Response: Varies from 2 minutes (.03 hour) to post
emergency numbers to 15 minutes (.25 hour) to develop and post load
limits for floors.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 197,819.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal

eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (FAX); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2007-0084). You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them
to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a

significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov.
 Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about

submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
 index, some information (e.g., copyrighted

material) is not publicly available to read or download through this
Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are
available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit

comments and access the docket is available at the Web site's ``User
Tips'' link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about
materials not available through the Web site, and for assistance in
using the Internet to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The
authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2007 (72 FR
31159).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on December 10, 2007.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
 [FR Doc. E7-24210 Filed 12-13-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 37 (Friday, February 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11132-11133]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4289]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0145]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Improving Food Safety and Defense Capacity of the
State and Local Level: Review of State and Local Capacities

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 a survey entitled ``Improving Food Safety
and Defense Capacity of the State and Local Level: Review of State and
Local Capacities.'' The data collection will obtain knowledge of State
and local capacities including food safety defense staffing and
expertise, laboratory capacities, and information systems to support
food and feed safety and defense.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by April 24, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Information Management, Food and Drug
Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., P150-400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301-
796-7726<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information before
submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this
requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of
information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA'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 respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Improving Food Safety and Defense Capacity at the State and Local
Level: Review of State and Local Capacities--(OMB Control Number 0910--
New)

    The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) (Pub. L. 111-353) states
that a review must be conducted to assess the State and local
capacities to show needs for enhancement in the areas or staffing
levels, laboratory capacities, and information technology systems. This
mandate is referenced again in FSMA section 110 stating that a review
of current food safety and food defense capabilities must be presented
to Congress no later than 2 years after the date of enactment
(enactment date January 4, 2011). In order to facilitate this review,
this team must distribute a

survey to State and local health and agriculture agencies. In doing so,
this team will be able to analyze the gaps and trends to occur at these
respective levels which will allow FSMA counterparts to develop ways to
enhance food safety and food defense. In developing these strategies,
FDA will be able to work with other Federal Agencies to improve and
expand food safety and defense to ultimately reach a state of an
integrated food safety system.
    FDA will conduct the survey electronically which allows FDA to
conduct streamlines analysis while creating a low-burden, user-friendly
environment for respondents to complete the survey. Once the results
have been tabulated, a report will be generated and given to FSMA
section 110 to present to Congress as well as FSMA section 205(c)1 to
develop the strategies to leverage and enhance current State and local
capacities.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                      Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden\1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                No. of                          Average
                                Activity                                      No. of       responses per   Total annual     burden per      Total hours
                                                                            respondents     respondent       responses       response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current State and local government employees............................           1,400               1           1,400               1           1,400
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    This survey is slated to be a one-time survey. Through testing on
six FDA employees who were formerly State employees, the survey
development team has come to the conclusion that it should take no
longer than 1 hour for the 1,400 current State and local government
employees to complete the survey. FDA is requesting this data
collection burden so as not to restrict the Agency's ability to gather
information on public sentiment for its proposals in its regulatory and
communications programs.

    Dated: February 17, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-4289 Filed 2-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 241 (Monday, December 16, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76050-76052]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29050]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0688; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-221-AD;
Amendment 39-17683; AD 2013-24-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; EADS CASA (Type Certificate Previously
Held by Construcciones Aeron[aacute]uticas, S.A.) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
EADS CASA (Type Certificate Previously Held by Construcciones
Aeron[aacute]uticas, S.A.) Model C-212-CB, C-212-CC, C-212-CD, C-212-
CE, and C-212-DF airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of the
propeller pitch control (PPC) lever becoming disconnected from the
engine due to a missing bolt. This AD requires modifying the PPC lever
attachment system. We are issuing this AD to prevent PPC shaft
disconnection, which could lead to a loss of propeller pitch control,
possibly resulting in uncommanded change to the engine power settings
and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective January 21, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 21,
2014.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2013-0688; or in person at the
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC.
    For EADS-CASA service information identified in this AD, contact
EADS-CASA, Military Transport Aircraft Division (MTAD), Integrated
Customer Services (ICS), Technical Services, Avenida de Arag[oacute]n
404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone +34 91 585 55 84; fax +34 91 585 55
05; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.eads.net. For Honeywell service information identified in this AD,
contact Honeywell International Inc., 111 S. 34th Street, Phoenix, AZ
85034-2802; Internet: http://portal.honeywell.com; telephone: 800-601-
3099. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-
227-1221.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace
Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 13, 2013 (78 FR
49235). The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2012-0251, dated November 27, 2012 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states:

    An occurrence was reported where the propeller pitch control
(PPC) lever disconnected from the engine (a TPE331-10R-511C) on a C-
212-CC aeroplane.
    The result of the subsequent investigation revealed that the PPC
lever disconnection occurred due to a missing bolt, which fixes the
clamp that joins the PPC lever to the PPC rod.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to a loss of an
affected propeller pitch control, possibly resulting in uncommanded
change to the engine power settings and consequent reduced control
of the aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, EADS-CASA developed
a modification (mod 10515) that eliminates the possibility of PPC
shaft disconnection and made this available through Service Bulletin
SB-212-76-0009 to be applied in service.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires
modification of PPC lever attachment system.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-0688-0002.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (78 FR 49235, August 13,
2013) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Explanation of Change Made to the AD

    We have changed paragraph (c) of this AD to remove EADS CASA (Type
Certificate previously held by Construcciones Aeron[aacute]uticas,
S.A.) Model C-212-CF airplanes, which were included in the NPRM (78 FR
49235, August 13, 2013) in error.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed. We have
determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (78 FR 49235, August 13, 2013) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 49235, August 13, 2013).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 42 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
              Action                        Labor cost            Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification......................  20 work-hours x $85 per            $1,018           $2,718         $114,156
                                     hour = $1,700.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-0688-0002; or in
person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for the Docket Operations office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2013-24-09 EADS CASA (Type Certificate Previously Held by
Construcciones Aeron[aacute]uticas, S.A.): Amendment 39-17683.
Docket No. FAA-2013-0688; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-221-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective January 21,
2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to EADS CASA (Type Certificate previously held
by Construcciones Aeron[aacute]uticas, S.A.) Model C-212-CB, C-212-
CC, C-212-CD, C-212-CE, and C-212-DF airplanes; certificated in any
category; all serial numbers, except those that have been modified
in production to incorporate EADS CASA Modification 10515.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 76, Engine
Controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of the propeller pitch control
(PPC) lever becoming disconnected from the engine due to a missing
bolt. We are issuing this AD to prevent PPC shaft disconnection,
which could lead to a loss of propeller pitch control, possibly
resulting in uncommanded change to the engine power settings and
consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD
performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions
have already been done.

(g) Modification

    Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the
PCC lever attachment system of the aircraft engine, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of EADS-CASA Service Bulletin
SB-212-76-0009, Revision 1, dated August 03, 2012.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD: EADS-CASA Service Bulletin
SB-212-76-0009, Revision 1, dated August 03, 2012, refers to
Honeywell Service Bulletin TPE331-72-2190, dated December 21, 2011,
as an additional source of guidance for modifying the cam assembly.

(h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, ANM-
116, International Branch, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Shahram
Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(i) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012-0251, dated November 27,
2012, for related information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-0688-0002.
    (2) Honeywell service information referenced in this AD can be
obtained from Honeywell International Inc., 111 S. 34th Street,
Phoenix, AZ 85034-2802; Web site: http://portal.honeywell.com; or
call Honeywell toll free at phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> (U.S./Canada) or
602-365-3099 (International Direct).

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) EADS-CASA Service Bulletin SB-212-76-0009, Revision 1, dated
August 03, 2012.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For EADS-CASA service information identified in this AD,
contact EADS-CASA,

Military Transport Aircraft Division (MTAD), Integrated Customer
Services (ICS), Technical Services, Avenida de Arag[oacute]n 404,
28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone +34 91 585 55 84; fax +34 91 585 55
05; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.eads.net.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 15, 2013.
John Piccola,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-29050 Filed 12-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 233 (Monday, December 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 87635]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29089]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Form BD-N/Rule 15b11-1; SEC File No. 270-498, OMB Control No.
3235-0556.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collection of information provided for in Rule 15b11-1 (17 CFR
240.15b11-1) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange
Act'') (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 15b11-1 provides that a broker or dealer may register by
notice pursuant to section 15(b)(11)(A) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C.
78o(b)(11)(A)) if it: (1) Is registered with the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission as a futures commission merchant or an introducing
broker, as those terms are defined in the Commodity Exchange Act (7
U.S.C. 1, et seq.); (2) is a member of the National Futures Association
or another national securities association registered under section
15A(k) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78o-3(k)); and (3) is not
required to register as a broker or dealer in connection with
transactions in securities other than security futures products. The
rule also requires a broker or dealer registering by notice to do so by
filing Form BD-N (17 CFR 249.501b) in accordance with the instructions
to the form. In addition, the rule provides that if the information
provided by filing the form is or becomes inaccurate for any reason,
the broker or dealer shall promptly file an amendment on the form
correcting such information.
    The Commission staff estimates that the total annual reporting
burden associated with Rule 15b11-1 and Form BD-N is approximately
three hours, based on an average of two initial notice registrations
per year that each take approximately 30 minutes to complete, for one
hour, plus an average of nine amendments per year that each take
approximately fifteen minutes to complete, for 2.25 hours, rounded down
to two hours, for a total of three hours.
    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
collected; 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.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: November 17, 2016.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-29089 Filed 12-2-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26391-26392]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09541]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. DOT- NHTSA-2022-0008]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Notice and Request for
Comment; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback
on Agency Service Delivery

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

ACTION: Notice and request for comments for a reinstatement of a
previously approved information collection.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR)
abstracted below will be submitted to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This document describes a
collection of information for which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval
on generic clearance for qualitative feedback on agency service
delivery. A Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following information collection was
published on January 13, 2022, 87FR2235. No comments were received.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or June 3, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed
information collection, including suggestions for reducing burden,
should be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget at
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. To find this information collection,
select ``Currently under Review--Open for Public Comment'' or use the
search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information or access
to background documents, contact Walter Culbreath, NIO-0300, (202)-366-
1566, Office of the Chief Information Officer, W51-316, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
Please identify the relevant collection of information by referring to
its OMB Control Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), a
Federal agency must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) before it collects certain information from the public and
a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a
Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control
number. In compliance with these requirements, this notice announces
that the following information collection request will be submitted
OMB.
    A Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting
public comments on the following information collection was published
on January 13, 2022.
    Title: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback
on Agency Service Delivery.
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0682.
    Form Number: To be determined by specific collections.
    Type of Request: Reinstatement of a previously approved information
collection.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: 3 years from date of
approval.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: Executive Order 12862
directs Federal agencies to provide the highest quality service
possible to the public. This proposed information collection provides a
means to garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an
efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Administration's
commitment to improving service delivery.
    This feedback collected through this information collection will
provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences
and expectations; provide early warning of issues with service; or
focus attention on areas where communication, training, or changes in
operations might improve delivery of products or services. The feedback
will allow for ongoing, collaborative, and actionable communication
between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders. This information
collection will also allow feedback to contribute directly to

the improvement of program management.
    The Agency will only submit a collection for approval under this
generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:
     The collection is voluntary.
     The collection is low-burden for respondents (based on
considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or
burden-hours per respondent) and is low-cost for both the respondents
and the Federal Government.
     The collection is non-controversial and does not raise
issues of concern to other Federal agencies.
     Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions
from respondents who have experience with the program or may have
experience with the program in the near future.
     Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected
only to the extent necessary and is not retained.
     Information gathered is intended to be used only
internally for general service improvement and program management
purposes and is not intended for release outside of the agency (if
released, the agency must indicate the qualitative nature of the
information).
     Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of
substantially informing influential policy decisions; and
     Information gathered will yield qualitative information;
the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically
reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the
population of study.
    Feedback collected under this generic clearance provides useful
information, but it does not yield data that can be generalized to the
overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative
information will not be used for quantitative information collections
that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as
monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such
data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target
population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame,
the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the
precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed
sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing
potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any
testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding
the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely
to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for
other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative
results.
    As a general matter, information collections under this request
will not result in any new system of records containing privacy
information and will not ask questions of a sensitive nature, such as
sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters
that are commonly considered private.
    Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the
Information
    Improving agency programs requires ongoing assessment of service
delivery--systematic review of the operation of a program compared to a
set of explicit or implicit standards--as a means of contributing to
the continuous improvement of those programs. The Agency will collect,
analyze, and interpret information gathered through this generic
clearance to identify strengths and weaknesses of current services and
make improvements in service delivery based on that feedback. The
solicitation of feedback will target areas such as: timeliness,
appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of
service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery.
Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or
maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If this
information were not collected, vital feedback from customers and
stakeholders on the Agency's services would be unavailable and the
Agency would not know if adjustments would be warranted.
    Affected Public: Individuals and Households, Businesses and
Organizations, State, Local or Tribal Government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 113,582.
    Frequency: On Occasion, per request.
    Number of Responses: 113,582.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 20,204.
    The 20,204 annual burden hours requested are based on the number of
collections we expect to conduct over the requested period for this
clearance.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost: $0.
    Participation in this collection is voluntary, and there are no
costs to respondents beyond the time spent participating in the
surveys.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspects of
this information collection, including (a) 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; (b) 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; (c) ways to enhance
the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including 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.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter
35, as amended; 49 CFR 1.49; and DOT Order 1351.29.

    Dated: April 29, 2022.
William Berry,
Director, Office of IT Compliance,
[FR Doc. 2022-09541 Filed 5-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P