[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 178 (Wednesday, September 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 56777]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23448]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4023-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Connecticut; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Connecticut (FEMA-4023-DR), dated September 2, 2011,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 4, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Connecticut is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of September 2, 2011.

    Hartford, Tolland, and Windham Counties for Public Assistance,
including direct federal assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-23448 Filed 9-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 235 (Friday, December 8, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 85677-85678]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26990]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-819, OMB Control No. 3235-0780]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension: Rule 0-5

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

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit this collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 0-5 (17 CFR 270.0-5) under the Investment Company Act (the
``Act'') (15 U.S.C. 80a et seq.) entitled ``Procedure with Respect to
Applications and Other Matters,'') sets forth procedure for
applications seeking orders for exemptions or other relief under the
Investment Company Act. Rule 0-5(e) requires applicants seeking
expedited review to include certain information with the application.
Rule 0-5(e)(1) requires that the cover page of the application include
a notation prominently stating ``EXPEDITED REVIEW REQUESTED UNDER 17
CFR 270.0-5(d).'' Rule 0-5(e)(2) requires applicants to submit exhibits
with marked copies of the application showing changes from the final
versions of two precedent applications identified as substantially
identical. Rule 0-5(e)(3) requires an accompanying cover letter,
signed, on behalf of the applicant, by the person executing the
application (i) identifying two substantially identical applications
and explaining why the applicant chose those particular applications,
and if more recent applications of the same type have been approved,
why the applications chosen, rather than the more recent applications,
are appropriate; and (ii) certifying that that the applicant believes
the application meets the requirements of rule 0-5(d) and that the
marked copies required by rule 0-5(e)(2) are complete and accurate.
    Rule 0-5(g) provides that, if an applicant has not responded in
writing to a request for clarification or modification of an
application filed under standard review within 120 days after the
request, the application will be deemed withdrawn. As an oral response
would not stop an application from being deemed withdrawn, rule 0-5(g),
requires applicants to respond ``in writing'' and therefore create an
additional cost within the meaning of the PRA.
    The information collected under rule 0-5(g) and (e) is intended to
provide an expedited review procedure for certain applications and
establish an internal timeframe for review of applications outside of
the expedited procedure. The rule is meant to provide relief as
efficiently and timely as possible, while also ensuring that
applications continue to be carefully analyzed consistent with the
relevant statutory standards.
    Applicants for orders under the Act can include investment
companies and affiliated persons of investment companies. Applicants
file applications as they deem necessary. The Commission receives
approximately 116 applications per year under the Act, and of the 116
applications, we estimate to receive approximately 32 applications
seeking expedited review under the Act. Although each application is
typically submitted on behalf of multiple entities, the entities in the
vast majority of cases are related companies and are treated as a
single applicant for purposes of this analysis. Each application
subject to rules 0-5(e) and 0-5(g) does not impose any ongoing
obligations or burdens on the part of an applicant.
    Much of the work of preparing an application is performed by
outside counsel. Based on conversations with applicants and Staff
experience, approximately 20 percent of applications are prepared by
in-house counsel.
    The mandatory requirements under rule 0-5(e) increase the estimated
hour or cost burden for applicants utilizing in-house counsel by 7
hours \1\ or $3,388 \2\ per application. Therefore, the mandatory
requirements under rule 0-5(e) increase the total estimated annual hour
burden by approximately 50 hours utilizing in-house counsel.\3\ The
total estimated annual cost burden for utilizing in-house counsel is
$24,200.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: 5 hours
(estimated hours per application to prepare the marked copies) + 2
hour (estimated hours per application to explain, notate, and
certify) = 7 hours.
    \2\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: 5
(estimated hours per application to prepare the marked copies) x
$484 (hourly rate for an in-house counsel) = $2,420; 2 (estimated
hours per application to explain, notate, and certify) x $484
(hourly rate for an in-house counsel) = $968; $2,420 (estimated cost
per application to prepare the marked copies) + $968 (estimated cost
per application to explain, notate, and certify) = $3,388; the
hourly wages data is from the Securities Industry Financial Markets
Association's Management & Professional Earnings in the Securities
Industry 2013, modified by Commission Staff to account for an 1,800-
hour work-year and inflation, and multiplied by 5.35 (professionals)
to account for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits, and overhead,
suggests that the cost for in-house counsel is $484 per hour.
    \3\ This estimate is based on the following calculations: [5
(estimated hours per application to prepare the marked copies) + 2
(estimated hours per application to explain, notate, and certify)] x
32 (estimated number of applications under expedited review) x 0.20
(approximate percentage of applications prepared by in-house
counsel) = 44.8 (rounded up to 50).
    \4\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: 50
(estimated total hours utilizing in-house counsel) x $484 (hourly
rate for an in-house counsel) = $24,200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate to receive approximately 84 applications \5\ per year
seeking standard review under the Act and of the 84 applications, we
estimate that in approximately 10 percent of those, the applicants
respond ``in writing'' to avoid the application being deemed withdrawn
pursuant to rule 0-5(g). We believe the ``in writing'' requirement
under rule 0-5(g) increases the burden for applicants utilizing in-
house counsel by 2 hours or $968 per application.\6\ Therefore, the
``in writing'' requirement under rule 0-5(g) increases the total
estimated annual hour burden by approximately 3.36 hours utilizing in-
house counsel.\7\ The total estimated

annual cost burden utilizing in-house counsel is $1,626.24.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: 116
(estimated number of all applications) -32 (estimated number of
applications under expedited review) = 84.
    \6\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: 2
(estimated hours to prepare ``in writing'' response) x $484 (hourly
rate for an in-house counsel) = $968.
    \7\ This estimate is based on the following calculations: 2
(estimated hours to prepare ``in writing'' response) x 84 (estimated
number of applications under standard review) x 0.10 (approximate
percentage of application required to respond ``in writing'') x 0.20
(approximate percentage of applications prepared by in-house
counsel) = 3.36.
    \8\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: 3.36
(estimated total hours utilizing in-house counsel) x $484 (hourly
rate for an in-house counsel) = $1,626.24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
estimate of the burden of the 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 by February 6, 2024.
    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: David Bottom, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o John
Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
[email protected].

    Dated: December 5, 2023.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-26990 Filed 12-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21556-21557]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8528]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2299-075]

Don Pedro Hydroelectric Project: Turlock Irrigation District;
Modesto Irrigation District; Supplement to Notice of Study Dispute
Resolution Technical Conference

    On March 16, 2012, the Commission issued a Notice of Dispute
Resolution Process Schedule, Panel, Technical Conference, and Modified
Filing Times for Panel Recommendations and Dispute Determination. The
notice announced that the Don Pedro Study Dispute Resolution Panel's
technical conference would be an all day meeting in Sacramento,
California on April 17, 2012. The notice stated that further details
would be supplied in a future notice. Below are the final meeting
details:
    a. Date and Time of Meeting: Tuesday, April 17, 2012. 9 a.m.-5 p.m.
    b. Place: Holiday Inn, Sacramento-Capitol Plaza, 300 J Street,
Sacramento, CA 95814,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    c. FERC Contact: Stephen Bowler, Don Pedro Hydroelectric Project,
Dispute Resolution Panel Chair,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    d. Purpose of Meeting:
    The purpose of the technical conference is for the disputing
agencies, the applicant, and the Commission to provide the Panel with
additional information necessary to evaluate the disputed studies. All
local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other interested
parties are invited to attend the meeting as observers. The Panel may
also request information or clarification on written submissions as
necessary to understand the matters in dispute. The Panel will limit
all input that it receives to the specific studies or information in
dispute and will focus on the applicability of such studies or
information to the study criteria stipulated in 18 CFR 5.9(b). If the
number of participants wishing to speak creates time constraints, the
Panel may, at its discretion, limit the speaking time for each
participant.
    e. Proposed Agenda:
    The Panel will gather information on NMFS identified study requests
1-4 and 7-9 as being in dispute. Specifically, the disputed study
requests are: Request 1--Effects of the Project and Related LaGrange
Complex Facilities on Anadromous Fish; Request 2--Effects of the
Project and Related Facilities Evaluated Through an Operations Model;
Request 3--Effects of the Project

and Related Activities on Fish Passage for Anadromous Fish; Request 4--
Effects of the Project and Related Facilities Hydrology for Anadromous
Fish: Magnitude, Timing, Duration, and Rate of Change; Request 7--
Evaluation of the Upper Tuolumne Habitats for Anadromous Fish; Request
8--Salmon and Steelhead Full Life-Cycle Population Models; and Request
9--Effects of the Project and Related Facilities on Ecosystem/Marine-
Derived Nutrients for Anadromous Fish.

    Dated: April 2, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-8528 Filed 4-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 23, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33185-33186]
[FR Doc No: 2023-10969]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No.: FAA-2022-1607; Summary Notice No. 2023-13]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; LAN Cargo
S.A.

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The
purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and
participation in, the

FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the
inclusion nor omission of information in the summary is intended to
affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before June 12, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2022-1607
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean O'Tormey at<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office
of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW, Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Angela O. Anderson,
Director, Regulatory Support Division, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2022-1607.
    Petitioner: LAN Cargo S.A.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Sec. Sec.  61.77(a), 61.3(a)(1).
    Description of Relief Sought: Petitioner seeks an exemption from
Sec.  61.77(a) to allow three of its pilots who hold the appropriate
pilot certificates and ratings from the Chilean Civil Aviation
Authority (CAA) to conduct the following non-revenue flights with
Boeing 767 aircraft without a Special Permit Purpose Authorization: (1)
delivery flights of N-registered aircraft, (2) maintenance ferry or
repositioning of N-registered aircraft to and from the United States,
and (3) maintenance ferry or repositioning of N-registered aircraft to
and from third counties outside the United States.

[FR Doc. 2023-10969 Filed 5-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P