[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 84-85]
[FR Doc No: 2021-28418]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC21-37-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (Ferc-520); Comment
Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved
information collection, FERC-520 (Application for Authority to Hold
Interlocking Directorate Positions), which will be submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a review of the information
collection requirements. The Commission published a 60-day notice on
August 11, 2021 and received no comments.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due February 2,
2022.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments on FERC-520 to OMB through
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission Desk Officer. Please identify the OMB control number (1902-
0083) in the subject line. Your comments should be sent within 30 days
of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
    Please submit a copy of your comments (identified by Docket No.
IC21-37-000) to the Commission as noted below. Electronic filing
through http://www.ferc.gov is preferred.
     Electronic Filing: Documents must be filed in acceptable
native applications and print-to-PDF, but not in scanned or picture
format.
     For those unable to file electronically, comments may be
filed by USPS mail or by hand (including courier) delivery.
    [cir] Mail via U.S. Postal Service Only to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street
NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    [cir] Hand (including courier) delivery to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.

Instructions

    OMB submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with
submission guidelines at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Using the
search function under the ``Currently Under Review field,'' select
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; click ``submit'' and select
``comment'' to the right of the subject collection.
    FERC submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with
submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov. For user assistance,
contact FERC Online Support by email at [email protected], or
by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll-free).
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
[email protected] and telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-520 (Application for Authority to Hold Interlocking
Directorate Positions).
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0083.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-520 information
collection requirements with no revisions to the current requirements.
    Abstract: FERC Form No. 520 is an application requesting FERC
authorization for officers and directors of regulated public utilities
to simultaneously hold positions of officers and directors of certain
other entities. Section 305(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) \1\
prohibits the holding of specific interlocking positions unless the
Commission has authorized the holding of such positions upon a
determination that neither public nor private interests will be
adversely affected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C 825d(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FERC-520 consists of three information collection activities. A
``full application,'' in accordance with 18 CFR 45.8, provides detailed
information about the positions for which authorization is sought,
including a description of duties. Submission of a more streamlined
``informational report,'' in accordance with 18 CFR 45.9, is a
condition for an automatic grant of authorization to hold interlocking
directorates. This automatic authorization is available only to certain
types of officers and directors. Finally, a ``notice of change,'' in
accordance with 18 CFR 45.5, is required within 60 days after an
officer or director resigns or withdraws from Commission-authorized
interlocked positions or if the applicant is not re-elected or
reappointed to the interlocked position. However, no notice of change
is required if the only change is: (1) A resignation or withdrawal from
fewer than all positions held between or among affiliated public
utilities; (2) a reelection or reappointment to a position that was
previously authorized; or (3) holding a different or additional
interlocking position that would qualify for automatic authorization
under 18 CFR 45.9.
    The Commission published a 60-day notice on August 11, 2021 (86 FR
44013) and received no comments.
    Types of Respondents: Officers and directors of public utilities
seeking authorization to hold interlocking directorates.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: The estimated annual hour burdens and
costs are itemized in the following table:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          A.              B.              C.                       D.                                 E.
                                         Number of          Annual    Total number  Average........................  Total annual burden hours & total
                                       respondents       number of    of responses  burden & cost per response \2\.   annual cost
                                                     responses per     (column A x                                   (column C x column D)
                                                        respondent       column B)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full Application..................              16               1              16  50 hrs.; $4,350................  800 hrs.; $69,600.

Informational Report..............             500               1             500  8 hrs.; $696...................  4,000 hrs.; $348,000.
Notice of Change..................             100               1             100  0.25 hrs.; $21.75..............  25 hrs.; $2,175.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals........................             616  ..............             616  ...............................  4,825 hrs.; $419,775.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Commission staff estimates that the average industry hourly
cost for this information collection is approximated by the current
FERC 2021 average hourly costs for wages and benefits, i.e., $87.00/
hour.

    Dated: December 27, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-28418 Filed 12-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 79 (Friday, April 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 22989]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09552]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC15-126-000.
    Applicants: Imperial Valley Solar Company (IVSC) 2, LLC.
    Description: Application of Imperial Valley Solar Company (IVSC) 2,
LLC for Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and
Requests for Waivers, Confidential Treatment, Shortened Comment Period.
    Filed Date: 4/20/15.
    Accession Number: 20150420-5183.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1013-001.
    Applicants: WSPP Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Compliance filing to be
effective 4/11/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/20/15.
    Accession Number: 20150420-5114.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1534-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-
04-20_SA 2772 ATC-Madison Gas and Electric Co. CFA to be effective 6/
20/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/20/15.
    Accession Number: 20150420-5119.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1535-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-
04-20_SA 6507_White Pine 1 SSR Renewal Agreement to be effective 4/16/
2015.
    Filed Date: 4/20/15.
    Accession Number: 20150420-5139.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1536-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-
04-20_Schedule 43H_Renewal White Pine 1 SSR to be effective 4/16/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/20/15.
    Accession Number: 20150420-5181.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1537-000.
    Applicants: Constellation Energy Services, Inc.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing per 35.1: Notice of Sucession
to be effective 4/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/20/15.
    Accession Number: 20150420-5213.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1538-000.
    Applicants: Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation.
    Description: Tariff Withdrawal per 35.15: SHWPC Notice of
Cancellation to be effective 4/20/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/20/15.
    Accession Number: 20150420-5215.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1539-000.
    Applicants: Constellation Energy Services of New York, Inc.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing per 35.1: Notice of Succession
to be effective 4/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/20/15.
    Accession Number: 20150420-5218.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 20, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-09552 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 146)]
[Notices]
[Page 43929]
[DOCID:fr29jy08-43]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13188-000; Project No. 13189-000]

FFP Missouri 10, LLC, FFP Missouri 11, LLC; Notice of Preliminary
Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions
To Intervene, and Competing Applications

July 22, 2008.
    On April 18, 2008, FFP Missouri 10, LLC and FFP Missouri 11, LLC
(Free Flow Power Corporation) each filed an application, pursuant to
section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study the
feasibility of the Missouri River 10 and the Missouri River 11
Projects, to be located in the Missouri River in Warren and Franklin
Counties, Missouri.
    The proposed Missouri River 10 project consists of: (1) 4,620
proposed 20-kilowatt Free Flow generating units having a total
installed capacity of 92.4-megawatts, (2) a mooring system, (3) a
proposed transmission line, and (4) appurtenant facilities. The
proposed Missouri River 10 Project would have an average annual
generation of 404,712-gigawatt-hours and be sold to a local utility.
    The proposed Missouri River 11 project consists of: (1) 3,720
proposed 20-kilowatt Free Flow generating units having a total
installed capacity of 72-megawatts, (2) a mooring system, (3) a
proposed transmission line, and (4) appurtenant facilities. The
proposed Missouri River 11 Project would have an average annual
generation of 404,712-gigawatt-hours and be sold to a local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Daniel R. Irwin, Free Flow Power
Corporation, 33 Commercial Street, Gloucester, MA 01930, phone: 978-
232-3536.
    FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-13188
or P-13189) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-17289 Filed 7-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 29 (Friday, February 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8084-8085]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02790]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[OST Docket No. DOT-OST-2011-0022]

Notice of Submission of Proposed Information Collection to OMB
Agency Request for Renewal of a Previously Approved Collection: Online
Complaint/Comment Form for Service-Related Issues in Air Transportation

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
notice announces that the request for reinstatement of an OMB Control
Number for the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below is
being forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review
and comment. A Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following information collection was
published on November 29, 2021.

DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by March 14, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Management and
Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503. Comments may
also be sent via email to OMB at the following address:
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daeleen Chesley, Office of the
Secretary, Office of Aviation Consumer Protection (C-70), Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590, 202 366-
6792 (voice) or at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2105-0568.
    Title: Reinstatement of the Office of Aviation Consumer
Protection's web page Online Complaint/Comment Form.
    Abstract: The Department of Transportation's (Department) Office of
Aviation Consumer Protection (OACP, formerly the Office of Aviation
Enforcement and Proceedings) has broad authority under 49 U.S.C.,
subtitle VII, to investigate and enforce consumer protection and civil
rights laws and regulations related to air transportation.
    Among other things, OACP is responsible for receiving and
investigating service-related consumer complaints filed against
airlines and other air travel-related companies. Once received, the
complaints are reviewed by the office to determine the extent to which
these entities are in compliance with federal aviation consumer
protection and civil rights laws and what, if any, action should be
taken regarding consumer complaints. Consumer complaints and comments
are also used by the office to identify opportunities to help improve
airline consumer satisfaction. The information submitted via the online
form can also serve as a basis for rulemaking, legislation and
research.
    The key reason for this request is to enable consumers to continue
to file their complaints and comments to the Department using an online
form, whether via their personal computer or on a mobile/electronic
device. If the online complaint form is not available, the Department
may receive fewer complaints, comments, and inquiries from consumers.
The lack of consumer input could inhibit OACP's ability to effectively
investigate individual complaints against both airlines and other air
travel-related companies. It would also impact OACP's ability to become
aware of patterns and practices that may develop in violation of the
Department's rules. The information collection continues to further the
objective of 49 U.S.C. 41712 to protect consumers from unfair or
deceptive practices, the objective of Sec.  41705 and Sec.  40127 to
ensure the civil rights of air travelers are respected, and the
objective of Sec.  41702 to ensure safe and adequate service in air
transportation.
    Filing a complaint or comment using a web-based form is voluntary
and minimizes the burden on respondents. Based on the table below,
approximately ninety percent of the submissions (complaints, comments,
and inquiries) received by OACP during calendar years (CYs) 2017
through 2019 were filed using the web-based form as shown in the table
below.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In CYs 2020/21, OACP received an unusually high number
(100,613/48,015, respectively) of online submissions, primarily
complaints, largely due to flight cancellations and refund issues
that resulted from the COVID-19 pandemic. Using the average number
of submissions from the three previous CYs more accurately reflects
the annual number of online submissions received by OACP.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Percentage of
                                                                   Total number    Total number     complaints
                          Calendar year                            of complaints   of complaints   filed online
                                                                       filed       filed online         (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017............................................................          18,155          16,067              89
2018............................................................          15,546          13,964              90
2019............................................................          15,342          14,107              92
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Average Total per Year (above)..............................          16,348          14,713              90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most of the submissions are complaints that are filed using the
electronic web-based form. At times, consumers may also choose to file
a complaint with the Department using regular mail or by phone message.
The type of information requested on the form includes complainant's
name, address, phone number (including area code), email address, and
name of the airline or company about which she/he is complaining, as
well as the flight date and flight itinerary (where applicable) of a
complainant's trip. In addition, a consumer may also use the form to
give a description of a specific air-travel related problem or to ask
for air-travel related information from the OACP. The Department has
limited its informational request to that necessary to meet its
aviation consumer protection responsibilities.
    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its implementing
regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to issue two
notices seeking public comment on information collection activities
before OMB may approve paperwork packages. 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR
1320.5, 1320.8(d)(1), 1320.12. On November 29, 2021, OST published a
60-day notice in the Federal Register soliciting comment on the ICR for
which the agency is seeking reinstatement from OMB. 86 FR 67785. The
comment period ended on January 28, 2022. OST received no comments
after issuing this notice. Accordingly, the Department announces that
this

information collection activity has been re-evaluated and certified
under 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and forwarded to OMB for review and approval
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12(c).
    Before OMB decides whether to reinstate this proposed collection of
information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. 44 U.S.C.
3507(b); 5 CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires OMB to approve or
disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30-day
notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d); see also
60 FR 44978, 44983 (Aug. 29, 1995). The 30-day notice informs the
regulated community to file relevant comments to OMB and affords the
agency adequate time to digest public comments before it renders a
decision. 60 FR 44983 (Aug. 29, 1995). Therefore, respondents should
submit their respective comments to OMB within 30 days of publication
to best ensure their full consideration. 5 CFR 1320.12(c); see also 60
FR 44983 (Aug. 29, 1995).
    Respondents: Consumers that Choose to File an Online Complaint/
Comment with the Office of Aviation Consumer Protection.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 14,713 (based on averaging data
from CYs 2017-19).
    Estimated Total Burden on Respondents: 3,678.25 hours (220,695
minutes). The estimate was calculated by multiplying the average number
of cases filed using the online form in CYs17-19 (14,713) by the time
needed to fill out the online form (15 minutes).
    The information collection is available for inspection in
regulations.gov, as noted in the
    ``Addresses'' section of this document.
    Comments are Invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of
the proposed information collection; (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.
    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the
request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of
public record on the docket.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter
35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:48.

    Issued in Washington, DC on February 4, 2022.
Kimberly Graber,
Deputy Assistant General Counsel, Office of Aviation Consumer
Protection.
[FR Doc. 2022-02790 Filed 2-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register: November 13, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 220)]
[Notices]
[Page 67217-67218]
[DOCID:fr13no08-83]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Form N-17f-1, SEC File No. 270-316, OMB Control No. 3235-0359.

    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
collections of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension and approval.
    Form N-17f-1 (17 CFR 274.219) is entitled ``Certificate of
Accounting of Securities and Similar Investments of a Management
Investment Company in the Custody of Members of National Securities
Exchanges.'' The form serves as a cover sheet to the accountant's
certificate that is required to be filed periodically with the
Commission pursuant to rule 17f-1 (17 CFR 270.17f-1) under the Act,
entitled ``Custody of Securities with Members of National Securities
Exchanges,'' which sets forth the conditions under which a fund may
place its assets in the custody of a member of a national securities
exchange. Rule 17f-1 requires, among other things, that an independent
public accountant verify the fund's assets at the end of every annual
and semi-annual fiscal period, and at least one other time during the
fiscal year as chosen by the independent accountant. Requiring an
independent accountant to examine the fund's assets in the custody of a
member of a national securities exchange assists Commission staff in
its inspection program and helps to ensure that the fund assets are
subject to proper auditing procedures. The accountant's certificate
stating that it has made an examination, and describing the nature and
the extent of the examination, must be attached to Form N-17f-1 and
filed with the Commission promptly after each examination. The form
facilitates the filing of the accountant's certificates,

and increases the accessibility of the certificates to both Commission
staff and interested investors. Commission staff estimates that on an
annual basis it takes: (i) 1 hour of clerical time to prepare and file
Form N-17f-1; and (ii) 0.5 hour for the fund's chief compliance officer
to review Form N-17f-1 prior to filing with the Commission, for a total
of 1.5 hours. Each fund is required to make 3 filings annually, for a
total annual burden per fund of approximately 4.5 hours.\1\ Commission
staff estimates that an average of 5 funds currently file Form N-17f-1
with the Commission 3 times each year, for a total of 15 responses
annually.\2\ The total annual hour burden for Form N-17f-1 is therefore
estimated to be approximately 22.5 hours.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: (1.5
hours x 3 responses annually = 4.5 hours).
    \2\ This estimate is based on a review of Form N-17f-1 filings
made with the Commission over the last three years.
    \3\ This estimate is based on the following calculations: (4.5
hours x 5 funds = 22.5 total hours).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a
comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of
Commission rules. Compliance with the collections of information
required by Form N-17f-1 is mandatory for funds that place their assets
in the custody of a national securities exchange member. Responses will
not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless
it displays a currently valid control number.
    The Commission requests written comments on: (a) Whether the
collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information has
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the
burdens 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 in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Lewis W. Walker, Acting
Director/CIO, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an e-
mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: November 5, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-26958 Filed 11-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39837-39838]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13077]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD22-9-000]

New England Winter Gas-Electric Forum; Supplemental Notice of
Second New England Winter Gas-Electric Forum

    As announced in the Notice of Forum and the Supplemental Notices of
Forum issued in this proceeding on February 16, 2023, April 13, 2023,
and May 26, 2023, respectively, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission) will convene a Commissioner-led forum on
Tuesday, June 20, 2023, to discuss possible solutions to the
electricity and natural gas challenges facing the New England region.
Attached to this notice are questions for the panelists; we request
panelists file position statements addressing these questions in this
docket. Written responses to these questions are voluntary and will be
used to supplement the record for discussion at the forum.
    Please note that the start time for the forum has been changed to
8:30 a.m. Eastern Time. The final agenda for this forum is attached,
which includes updated panel times and a final list of forum panelists.
    While the forum is not for the purpose of discussing any specific
matters before the Commission, some forum discussions may involve
issues raised in proceedings that are currently pending before the
Commission. These proceedings include, but are not limited to, the
cases listed below. Additions to the list appear in italics:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Docket Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constellation Mystic Power LLC.........  ER18-1639-000, ER18-1639-014,
                                          ER18-1639-015, ER18-1639-018,
                                          ER18-1639-021, ER18-1639-023,
                                          ER18-1639-024.
ISO New England Inc....................  ER19-1428-000, ER19-1428-001,
                                          ER19-1428-002, ER19-1428-003,
                                          ER19-1428-004, ER19-1428-005,
                                          ER19-1428-006.
NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC...........  EL21-3-000, EL21-3-001.
NECEC Transmission LLC and Avangrid,     EL21-6-000, EL21-6-001.
 Inc. v. NextEra Energy Resources, LLC.
ISO New England Inc....................  ER23-1588-000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The forum will be open to the public and be held at the DoubleTree
by Hilton Portland, 363 Maine Mall Rd., Portland, ME 04106.
Registration for in-person attendance is required, and there is no fee
for attendance. A link to attendee registration is available on the New
England Winter Gas-Electric Forum event page on the Commission's
website. Due to space constraints, seating for this event will be
limited and registrants that get a confirmed space will be contacted
via email. Only confirmed registrants will be admitted to the forum
given the maximum occupancy limit at the venue (as required by fire and
building safety code). Therefore, the Commission encourages members of
the public who wish to attend this event in person to register at their
earliest convenience. Online registration will be open until June 19,
the day before the forum, or as long as attendance capacity is
available. Once registration has reached capacity, registration will be
closed. However, those interested in attending after capacity has been
reached can join a waiting list (using the same registration link) and
be notified if space becomes available. Those who are unable to attend
in person may watch the free webcast.
    The webcast will allow persons to listen and observe the forum
remotely but not participate. Information on this forum, including a
link to the webcast, will be posted prior to the event on this forum's
event page on the Commission's website. A recording of the webcast will
be made available after the forum in the same location on the Calendar
of Events. The forum will be transcribed. Transcripts of the forum will
be available for a fee from Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
send an email to [email protected], call toll-free<PHONE_NUMBER>
(voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    For more information about this forum, please contact
[email protected] or [email protected] for technical or
logistical questions.

    Dated: June 13, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-13077 Filed 6-16-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 15, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13812-13813]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05097]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0796]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Testing
Communications on Medical Devices and Radiation-Emitting Products

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by April
14, 2017.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0678.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Testing Communications on Medical Devices and Radiation-Emitting
Products--OMB Control Number 0910-0678--Extension

    FDA is authorized by section 1003(d)(2)(D) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 393(d)(2)(D)) to conduct educational
and public information programs relating to the safety of regulated
medical devices and radiation-emitting products. FDA must conduct
needed research to ensure that such programs have the highest
likelihood of being effective. Improving communications about medical
devices and radiation emitting products will involve many research
methods, including individual in-depth interviews, mall-intercept
interviews, focus groups, self-administered surveys, gatekeeper
reviews, and omnibus telephone surveys.
    The information collected will serve three major purposes. First,
as formative research it will provide critical knowledge needed about
target audiences to develop messages and campaigns about medical device
and radiation-emitting product use. Knowledge of consumer and health
care professional decision making processes

will provide the better understanding of target audiences that FDA
needs to design effective communication strategies, messages, and
labels. These communications will aim to improve public understanding
of the risks and benefits of using medical devices and radiation-
emitting products by providing users with a better context in which to
place risk information more completely.
    Second, as initial testing, it will allow FDA to assess the
potential effectiveness of messages and materials in reaching and
successfully communicating with their intended audiences. Testing
messages with a sample of the target audience will allow FDA to refine
messages while still in the developmental stage. Respondents will be
asked to give their reaction to the messages in either individual or
group settings.
    Third, as evaluative research, it will allow FDA to ascertain the
effectiveness of the messages and the distribution method of these
messages in achieving the objectives of the message campaign.
Evaluation of campaigns is a vital link in continuous improvement of
communications at FDA.
    Annually, FDA projects about 30 studies using a variety of research
methods and lasting an average of 0.17 hours each (varying from 0.08 to
1.5 hours). FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information
based on prior recent experience with the various types of data
collection methods described earlier. FDA is requesting this 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.
    In the Federal Register of October 28, 2016 (81 FR 75134), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Number of
                   Activity                        Number of     responses per   Total annual         Average  burden per  response         Total hours
                                                  respondents     respondent       responses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual in-depth interviews................             360               1             360  .75 (45 minutes)........................             270
General public focus group interviews.........             144               1             144  1.5.....................................             216
Intercept interviews: Central location........             200               1             200  .25 (15 minutes)........................              50
Intercept interviews: Telephone...............           4,000               1           4,000  .08 (5 minutes).........................             320
Self-administered surveys.....................           2,400               1           2,400  .25 (15 minutes)........................             600
Gatekeeper reviews............................             400               1             400  .5 (30 minutes).........................             200
Omnibus surveys...............................           1,200               1           1,200  .17 (10 minutes)........................             204
                                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total (general public)....................           8,704  ..............  ..............  ........................................           1,860
                                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physician focus group interviews..............             144               1             144  1.5.....................................             216
                                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total (physician).........................             144  ..............  ..............  ........................................             216
                                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total (overall).......................           8,848  ..............  ..............  ........................................           2,076
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Dated: March 9, 2017.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-05097 Filed 3-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:The proposed 75-day period to review the proposed regulations seems fairly unreasonable to me. I would also like to request that the review period be extended to 180 days.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 28, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40335-40336]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16006]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0222; FRL-8714-02-R9]

Air Plan Approval; California; Mojave Desert Air Quality
Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve a revision to the Mojave Desert Air Quality
Management District (MDAQMD or ``District'') portion of the State
Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns emissions of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) from wood products coating operations. We are
approving a local rule that regulates these emission sources under the
Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES: This rule will be effective on August 27, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0222. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information. If you need assistance
in a language other than English or if you are a person with
disabilities who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you,
please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Schwartz, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments
III. EPA Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On April 21, 2021 (86 FR 20643), the EPA proposed to approve the
following rule into the California SIP.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Local Agency                Rule No.              Rule title               Amended        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MDAQMD............................            1114  Wood Products Coating             08/24/2020      11/18/2020
                                                     Operations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed to approve this rule because we determined that it
complies with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action
contains more information on the rule and our evaluation.

II. Public Comments

    The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received no comments.

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted. Therefore, as authorized in section
110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully approving this rule into the
California SIP. The August 24, 2020 version of Rule 1114 will replace
the previously approved version of this rule in the SIP.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
MDAQMD rules described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office
(please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 27, 2021. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 8, 2021.
Elizabeth Adams,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(518)(i)(A)(6) and
(c)(558) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan-in part.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (518) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (6) Previously approved on July 2, 2019 in paragraph
(c)(518)(i)(A)(1) of this section and now deleted with replacement in
paragraph (c)(558)(i)(A)(1) of this section, Rule 1114, ``Wood Products
Coating Operations,'' amended on January 22, 2018.
* * * * *
    (558) The following rules were submitted on November 18, 2020, by
the Governor's designee as an attachment to a letter dated November 17,
2020.
    (i) Incorporation by reference. (A) Mojave Desert Air Quality
Management District.
    (1) Rule 1114, ``Wood Products Coating Operations,'' amended on
August 24, 2020.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (B) [Reserved]
    (ii) [Reserved]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-16006 Filed 7-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


MEMORANDUM

TO: 		EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0195

FROM: 	Nathan Topham, Environmental Engineer
      U.S. EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MICG (D243-02)

DATE: 	July 10, 2020

SUBJECT: 	Summary of May 28, 2020 Meeting with NTAA on May 22, 2020 Proposed Amendments to Residential Wood Heater New Source Performance Standards

Attendees
EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS)
National Tribal Air Association (NTAA)
Summary
Mr. Topham described the contents of the May 22, 2020 proposed rule amendments (85 FR 31124) for the Residential Wood Heater NSPS and provided details of how to register for the June 8, 2020 public hearing. Mr. Topham informed attendees on the call that if they wanted to request formal consultation, to contact Ms. Toni Colon of the U.S. EPA.


[Federal Register: January 20, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 12)]
[Notices]
[Page 3278]
[DOCID:fr20ja10-121]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2009-62]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of
FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the
inclusion or 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 involved and must be received on or before February 9, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2009-
1058 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Forseth, ANM-113,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA
98057-3356, or Ralen Gao,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of Rulemaking (ARM-1),
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 14, 2010.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2009-1058.
    Petitioner: The Boeing Company.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 25.981(a)(3).
    Description of Relief Sought: The petitioner seeks relief from the
requirements of fuel-tank structural lightning protection for the
Boeing 747-8/8F model airplane.

[FR Doc. 2010-927 Filed 1-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


         FQPA Supplemental Information Document for Zeta-Cypermethrin

EPA Registration Division contact: Andrew Ertman<PHONE_NUMBER>

IR-4 Project, Rutgers, The State University of NJ, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540

PP #0E7717

	EPA has received a pesticide petition (PP #0E7717) from IR-4 Project, Rutgers, The State University of NJ, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.418  by establishing a tolerance for residues of zeta-cypermethrin in or on the raw agricultural commodity pistachio at 0.05  parts per million (ppm), artichoke, globe at 0.80  parts per million (ppm), barley, grain at 1.7  parts per million (ppm), barley, hay at 5.0  parts per million (ppm), barley, straw at 19.0  parts per million (ppm), buckwheat, grain at 1.7  parts per million (ppm), buckwheat, hay at 5.0  parts per million (ppm), buckwheat, straw at 19.0  parts per million (ppm), oat, grain at 1.7  parts per million (ppm), oat, hay at 5.0  parts per million (ppm), oat, straw at 19.0  parts per million (ppm), rye, grain at 1.7  parts per million (ppm), rye, hay at 5.0  parts per million (ppm), and rye, straw at 19.0  parts per million (ppm). EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism. The metabolism of cypermethrin in plants is adequately understood. Studies have been conducted to delineate the metabolism of radiolabelled cypermethrin in various crops all showing similar results. The residue of concern is the parent compound only.

	2. Analytical method. There is a practical analytical method for detecting and measuring levels of cypermethrin in or on food with a limit of detection that allows monitoring of food with residues at or above the levels set in these tolerances (Gas Chromatography with Electron Capture Detection (GC/ECD).

	3. Magnitude of residues. Crop field trial residue data from studies conducted at the maximum label rates for representative commodities for tree nuts, globe artichoke, barley, buckwheat, oat and rye show that the proposed zeta-cypermethrin tolerances in or on the raw agricultural commodity pistachio at 0.05  parts per million (ppm), artichoke, globe at 0.80  parts per million (ppm), barley, grain at 1.7  parts per million (ppm), barley, hay at 5.0  parts per million (ppm), barley, straw at 19.0  parts per million (ppm), buckwheat, grain at 1.7  parts per million (ppm), buckwheat, hay at 5.0  parts per million (ppm), buckwheat, straw at 19.0  parts per million (ppm), oat, grain at 1.7  parts per million (ppm), oat, hay at 5.0  parts per million (ppm), oat, straw at 19.0  parts per million (ppm), rye, grain at 1.7  parts per million (ppm), rye, hay at 5.0  parts per million (ppm), and rye, straw at 19.0  parts per million (ppm), will not be exceeded when the zeta-cypermethrin products labeled for these uses are used as directed.

B. Toxicological Profile

	1. Acute toxicity.  For the purposes of assessing acute dietary risk, FMC has used the NOEL of 10.0 mg/kg/day from the zeta-cypermethrin acute neurotoxicity study in rats. The LOAEL of 50.0 mg/kg/day was based on clinical signs. This acute dietary endpoint is used to determine acute dietary risks to all population subgroups.
	2. Genotoxicty. The following genotoxicity tests were all negative: in vivo chromosomal aberration in rat bone marrow cells; in vitro cytogenic chromosome aberration; unscheduled DNA synthesis; CHO/HGPTT mutagen assay; weakly mutagenic: gene mutation (Ames).
	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. No evidence of additional sensitivity to young rats was observed following pre- or postnatal exposure to zeta-cypermethrin.
      a. A two-generation reproductive toxicity study with zeta-cypermethrin in rats demonstrated a NOEL of 7.0 mg/kg/day and a LOEL of 27.0 mg/kg/day for parental/systemic toxicity based on body weight, organ weight, and clinical signs. There were no adverse effects in reproductive performance. The NOEL for reproductive toxicity was considered to be > 45.0 mg/kg/day (the highest dose tested).
      b. A developmental study with zeta-cypermethrin in rats demonstrated a maternal NOEL of 12.5 mg/kg/day and a LOEL of 25 mg/kg/day based on decreased maternal body weight gain, food consumption and clinical signs. There were no signs of developmental toxicity at 35.0 mg/kg/day, the highest dose level tested.
      c. A developmental study with cypermethrin in rabbits demonstrated a maternal NOEL of 100 mg/kg/day and a LOEL of 450 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight gain. There were no signs of developmental toxicity at 700 mg/kg/day, the highest dose level tested.

	4. Subchronic toxicity. Short- and intermediate-term toxicity (incidental oral exposure). The NOEL of 10.0 mg/kg/day based on clinical signs at the LEL of 50.0 mg/kg/day in the zeta-cypermethrin acute neurotoxicity study in rats would also be used for short-term %aPAD and MOE calculations (as well as acute, discussed in (1) above), and the NOEL of 5.0 mg/kg/day based on decreased motor activity in the
zeta-cypermethrin subchronic neurotoxicity study in rats, would be used for intermediate-term MOE calculations.
	5. Chronic toxicity. a. The chronic reference dose (RfD) of 0.06 mg/kg/day for zeta-cypermethrin is based on a NOEL of 6.0 mg/kg/day from a cypermethrin chronic feeding study in dogs and an uncertainty factor of 100. The endpoint effect of concern was based on clinical signs.
      b. Cypermethrin is classified as a Group C chemical (possible human carcinogen with limited evidence of carcinogenicity in animals) based upon limited evidence for carcinogenicity in female mice; assignment of a Q* has not been recommended.
	6. Animal metabolism. The metabolism of cypermethrin in animals is adequately understood.  Cypermethrin has been shown to be rapidly absorbed, distributed, and excreted in rats when administered orally. Cypermethrin is metabolized by hydrolysis and oxidation.

      7. Metabolite toxicology. The Agency has previously determined that the metabolites of cypermethrin are not of toxicological concern and need not be included in the tolerance expression nor in the risk exposure assessments.

	8. Endocrine disruption. No special studies investigating potential estrogenic or other endocrine effects of cypermethrin have been conducted. However, no evidence of such effects were reported in the standard battery of required toxicology studies which have been completed and found acceptable. Based on these studies, there is no evidence to suggest that cypermethrin has an adverse effect on the endocrine system.

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure
      i. Food. Permanent tolerances, in support of registrations, currently exist for residues of zeta-cypermethrin on: alfalfa hay, alfalfa forage, alfalfa seed, aspirated grain fractions, sugar beets (roots and tops), head, stem and leafy Brassica vegetables, cabbage, field corn grain, pop corn grain, field corn forage, field corn stover, pop corn stover, sweet corn (K+CWHR), sweet corn forage, sweet corn stover, cotton undelinted seed, Citrus fruits (and dried pulp and oil), dried shelled peas and beans, edible podded legume vegetables, fruiting vegetables (except Cucurbits), leafy vegetables, head lettuce, bulb and green onions, pecans, rice grain, rice hulls, rice straw, sorghum forage, sorghum grain, sorghum stover, soybean seed, succulent shelled peas and beans, sugarcane, wheat forage, wheat grain, wheat hay, wheat straw, almond hulls, nongrass animal feed forage and hay, berries, cilantro leaves, pome fruit, stone fruit, grape, grass forage, fodder and hay group (forage and hay), tree nuts, peanut, rapeseed (canola), sunflower, sunflower refined oil, safflower seed, flax seed, oilseeds (seed and refined oil), turnip greens, cucurbit vegetables, root and tuber vegetables, okra, rice grain (wild), meat, fat and meat byproducts of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, sheep and poultry, eggs, milk and milk fat. For the purposes of assessing the potential dietary exposure for these existing and the subject proposed tolerances, FMC has utilized available information on anticipated residues, monitoring data and percent crop treated as follows:
Acute exposure and risk. Acute dietary exposure risk assessments are performed for a food use pesticide if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a one day or single exposure. For the purposes of assessing acute dietary risk for zeta-cypermethrin, FMC has used the NOEL of 10.0 mg/kg/day from the zeta-cypermethrin acute neurotoxicity study in rats with an uncertainty factor (UF) of 100 (acute RfD =0.10 mg/kg/day). The LEL of 50.0 mg/kg/day was based on clinical signs. This acute dietary endpoint is used to determine acute dietary risks to all population subgroups.  Available information on anticipated residues, monitoring data and percent crop treated was incorporated into a Tier 3 analysis, using Monte Carlo modeling for commodities that may be consumed in a single serving. These assessments show that the percent acute Population Adjusted Dose (%aPAD) all fall below the EPA's level of concern (>= 100%). The 95th percentile of exposure for the overall U. S. population was estimated to be 0.002259 mg/kg/day (%aRfD of 2.26); 99[th] percentile 0.006990 mg/kg/day (%aRfD of 6.99); and 99.9th percentile 0.024661 mg/kg/day (%aRfD of 24.66). The 95th percentile of exposure for all infants (<1 year) was estimated to be 0.004860 mg/kg/day (%aRfD of 4.86); 99th percentile 0.012677 mg/kg/day (%aRfD of 12.68); and 99.9th percentile 0.035462 mg/kg/day (%aRfD of 35.46). The 95th percentile of exposure for children 1 to 2 years old and children 3 to 5 years old was estimated to be, respectively, 0.006431 mg/kg/day (%aRfD of 6.43) and 0.004420 mg/kg/day (%aRfD of 4.42); 99th percentile 0.015624 mg/kg/day (%aRfD of 15.62) and 0.011144 (%aRfD of 11.14); and 99.9th percentile 0.053514 mg/kg/day (%aRfD of 53.51) and 0.047157 (%aRfD of 47.16). The 95th percentile of exposure for females (13-49 years) was estimated to be 0.001929 mg/kg/day (%aRfD of 1.93); 99th percentile 0.005332 mg/kg/day (%aRfD of 5.33); and 99.9th percentile 0.020416 mg/kg/day (%aRfD of 20.42). Therefore, FMC concludes that the acute dietary risk of zeta-cypermethrin, as estimated by the dietary risk assessment, does not appear to be of concern.
Chronic exposure and risk. The chronic reference dose (cRfD) of 0.06 mg/kg/day for zeta-cypermethrin is based on a NOEL of 6.0 mg/kg/day from a cypermethrin chronic feeding study in dogs and an uncertainty factor of 100. The endpoint effect of concern was based on clinical signs. A chronic dietary exposure/risk assessment has been performed for zeta-cypermethrin using the above cRfD.   Available information on anticipated residues, monitoring data and percent crop treated was incorporated into the analysis to estimate the anticipated residue contribution (ARC). The ARC is generally considered a more realistic estimate than an estimate based on tolerance level residues. The ARC are estimated to be 0.000691 mg/kg body weight (bwt)/day and utilize 1.2 percent of the cRfD for the overall U. S. population. The ARC for all infants (<1 year) are estimated to be 0.001234 mg/kg (bwt)/day and utilizes 2.1 percent of the cRfD. The ARC for children 1 to 2 years old and children 3 to 5 years old are estimated to be 0.0025071 mg/kg (bwt)/day and 0.001781 mg/kg (bwt)/day and utilizes 4.2 percent and 3.0 percent of the cRfD, respectively. The ARC for females (13-49 years) is estimated to be 0.000483 mg/kg (bwt)/day and utilizes 0.8 percent of the RfD. Generally speaking, the EPA has no cause for concern if the total dietary exposure from residues for uses for which there are published and proposed tolerances is less than 100 percent of the cRfD. Therefore, FMC concludes that the chronic dietary risk of zeta-cypermethrin, as estimated by the dietary risk assessment, does not appear to be of concern.

	ii. Drinking water. Laboratory and field data have demonstrated that cypermethrin is immobile in soil and will not leach into groundwater. Other data show that cypermethrin is virtually insoluble in water and extremely lipophilic. As a result, FMC concludes that residues reaching surface waters from field runoff will quickly adsorb to sediment particles and be partitioned from the water column. Drinking water estimated concentrations (DWEC) and the corresponding drinking water level of comparison (DWLOC) values were calculated for chronic and acute exposures. The results show that all DWLOC values exceed the DWEC values. Thus, exposure to zeta-cypermethrin and cypermethrin residues in drinking water is not of concern. US EPA's draft SOP for Incorporating Estimates of Drinking Water Exposure Into Aggregate Risk Assessments was used to perform a drinking water analysis. This SOP utilizes a variety of tools to conduct drinking water assessment. These tools include water models such as FQPA Index Reservoir
Screening Tool (FIRST), PRZM/EXAMS, SCIGROW and monitoring data. If monitoring data are not available then the models are used to predict potential residues in drinking water. The technique recommended in the drinking water SOP compares a calculated Drinking Water Level of Comparison (DWLOC) value to the Drinking Water Estimated Concentration (DWEC) value. The DWEC value results
from either the monitoring data residues or modeled water residues. If the DWLOC value exceeds the DWEC value then there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result from the acute or chronic aggregate exposure. In the case of cypermethrin and zeta-cypermethrin, monitoring data do not exist. Therefore, the FIRST model was used to estimate a surface water residue. The risk assessment for drinking water compares two values: the DWLOC and the DWEC. The DWLOC is the drinking water level of comparison. This is the maximum allowable drinking water concentration (in ppb). The DWEC is the drinking water environmental concentration, which is derived either from monitoring studies or from modeling. If the DWLOC is greater than the DWEC, then the overall exposure from water, food, and residential is considered to be acceptable. The calculated DWLOC values for acute and chronic exposures for all adults, adult females and children exceed the modeled DWEC surface water residues. Therefore, there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result from cumulative and aggregate (food and water) exposure to cypermethrin and zeta-cypermethrin residues.

	2. Non-dietary exposure. Occupational and residential risk were recently assessed for cypermethrin and zeta-cypermethrin under the re-registraion process for cypermethrin.  For occupational handler risk, short- and intermediate-term dermal risks were not assessed for occupational handlers since no short- or intermediate-term dermal endpoints were identified.  When data were available to assess risks, short- and intermediate-term inhalation risks to occupational handlers are below the Agency's level of concern (i.e., MOE >100) at baseline (long sleeved shirt, long pants, shoes and socks).  Occupational post-application exposures and risks were not assessed for applications of cypermethrin and zeta-cypermethrin to residential and commercial lawns, and in and around industrial, commercial, and residential premises, since no short- or intermediate-term dermal endpoints of concern were identified and long-term exposures are not expected for tasks involving any of the registered use patterns.  There are no residential handler scenarios for zeta-cypermethrin. All registered uses of zeta-cypermethrin are for occupational use only.  Post-application risks to toddlers from incidental oral ingestion were assessed using a short-term incidental oral endpoint (10 mg/kg/day) for zeta-cypermethrin. For residential post-application risks, MOEs are not a concern for any of the oral non-dietary scenarios, because they are greater than 100 and do not exceed HED's level of concern (i.e., MOE < 100) for risk assessments in non-occupational settings. When the post-application risks to toddlers from incidental oral ingestion following applications to lawns were combined, the results indicate that the combined risks are below EPA's level of concern.

D. Cumulative Effects	In consideration of potential cumulative effects of zeta-cypermethrin and other substances that may have a common mechanism of toxicity, to our knowledge there are currently no available data or other reliable information indicating that any toxic effects produced by zeta-cypermethrin would be cumulative with those of other chemical compounds; thus only the potential risks of zeta-cypermethrin have been considered in this assessment of its aggregate exposure. FMC intends to submit information for the EPA to consider concerning potential cumulative effects of zeta-cypermethrin consistent with the schedule established by EPA at 62 Federal Register 42020 (August 4, 1997) and other EPA publications pursuant to the Food Quality Protection Act.

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population.  The chronic reference dose (cRfD) of 0.06 mg/kg/day for zeta-cypermethrin is based on a NOEL of 6.0 mg/kg/day from a cypermethrin chronic feeding study in dogs and an uncertainty factor of 100. The endpoint effect of concern was based on clinical signs. A chronic dietary exposure/risk assessment has been performed for zeta-cypermethrin using the above cRfD. Available information on anticipated residues, monitoring data and percent crop treated was incorporated into the analysis to estimate the anticipated residue contribution (ARC). The ARC is generally considered a more realistic estimate than an estimate based on tolerance level residues. The ARC are estimated to be 0.000691 mg/kg body weight (bwt)/day and utilize 1.2 percent of the cRfD for the overall U. S. population. The ARC for all infants (<1 year) are estimated to be 0.001234 mg/kg (bwt)/day and utilizes 2.1 percent of the cRfD. The ARC for children 1 to 2 years old and children 3 to 5 years old are estimated to be 0.0025071 mg/kg (bwt)/day and 0.001781 mg/kg (bwt)/day and utilizes 4.2 percent and 3.0 percent of the cRfD, respectively. The ARC for females (13-49 years) is estimated to be 0.000483 mg/kg (bwt)/day and utilizes 0.8 percent of the RfD.  Generally speaking, the EPA has no cause for concern if the total dietary exposure from residues for uses for which there are published and proposed tolerances is less than 100 percent of the cRfD. Therefore, FMC concludes that the chronic dietary risk of zeta-cypermethrin, as estimated by the dietary risk assessment, does not appear to be of concern.
Acute dietary exposure risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a one day or single exposure. For the purposes of assessing acute dietary risk for zeta-cypermethrin, FMC has used the NOEL of 10.0 mg/kg/day from the zeta-cypermethrin acute neurotoxicity study in rats with an uncertainty factor (UF) of 100 (acute RfD =0.10 mg/kg/day). The LEL of 50.0 mg/kg/day was based on clinical signs. This acute dietary endpoint is used to determine acute dietary risks to all population subgroups. Available information on anticipated residues, monitoring data and percent crop treated was incorporated into a Tier 3 analysis, using Monte Carlo modeling for commodities that may be consumed in a single serving. These assessments show that the percent acute Population Adjusted Dose (%aPAD) all fall below the EPA's level of concern (>=100%).   The 95th percentile of exposure for the overall U. S. population was estimated to be 0.002259 mg/kg/day (%aRfD of 2.26); 99[th] percentile 0.006990 mg/kg/day (%aRfD of 6.99); and 99.9th percentile 0.024661 mg/kg/day (%aRfD of 24.66). The 95th percentile of exposure for all infants (<1 year) was estimated to be 0.004860 mg/kg/day (%aRfD of 4.86); 99th percentile 0.012677 mg/kg/day (%aRfD of 12.68); and 99.9th percentile 0.035462 mg/kg/day (%aRfD of 35.46). The 95th percentile of exposure for children 1 to 2 years old and children 3 to 5 years old was estimated to be, respectively, 0.006431 mg/kg/day (%aRfD of 6.43) and 0.004420 mg/kg/day (%aRfD of 4.42); 99th percentile 0.015624 mg/kg/day (%aRfD of 15.62) and 0.011144 (%aRfD of 11.14); and 99.9th percentile 0.053514 mg/kg/day (%aRfD of 53.51) and 0.047157 (%aRfD of 47.16). The 95th percentile of exposure for females (13-49 years) was estimated to be 0.001929 mg/kg/day (%aRfD of 1.93); 99th percentile 0.005332 mg/kg/day (%aRfD of 5.33); and 99.9th percentile 0.020416 mg/kg/day (%aRfD of 20.42). Therefore, FMC concludes that the acute dietary risk of zeta-cypermethrin, as estimated by the dietary risk assessment, does not appear to be of concern.

	2. Infants and children.
a. General. In assessing the potential for additional sensitivity of infants and children to residues of zeta-cypermethrin, FMC considered data from developmental toxicity studies in the rat and rabbit, and a two-generation reproductive study in the rat. The data demonstrated no indication of increased sensitivity of rats to zeta-cypermethrin or rabbits to cypermethrin in utero and/or postnatal exposure to zeta-cypermethrin or cypermethrin. The developmental toxicity studies are designed to evaluate adverse effects on the developing organism resulting from pesticide exposure during prenatal development to one or both parents. Reproduction studies provide information relating to effects from exposure to the pesticide on the reproductive capability of mating animals and data on systemic toxicity. FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA may apply an additional margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for pre- and post-natal toxicity and the completeness of the database.
b. Developmental toxicity studies. In the prenatal developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits, there was no evidence of developmental toxicity at the highest doses tested (35.0 mg/kg/day in rats and 700 mg/kg/day in rabbits). Decreased body weight gain was observed at the maternal LOEL in each study; the maternal NOEL was established at 12.5 mg/kg/day in rats and 100 mg/kg/day in rabbits.
c. Reproductive toxicity study. In the two-generation reproduction study in rats, offspring toxicity (body weight) and parental toxicity (body weight, organ weight, and clinical signs) was observed at 27.0 mg/kg/day and greater. The parental systemic NOEL was 7.0 mg/kg/day and the parental systemic LOEL was 27.0 mg/kg/day. There were no developmental (pup) or reproductive effects up to 45.0 mg/kg/day, highest dose tested.
d. Pre- and post-natal sensitivity.
i. Pre-natal. There was no evidence of developmental toxicity in the studies at the highest doses tested in the rat (70.0 mg/kg/day) or in the rabbit (700 mg/kg/day).  Therefore, there is no evidence of a special dietary risk (either acute or chronic) for infants and children which would require an additional safety factor.
ii. Post-natal. Based on the absence of pup toxicity up to dose levels which produced toxicity in the parental animals, there is no evidence of special post-natal sensitivity to infants and children in the rat reproduction study.
e. Conclusion. Based on the above, FMC concludes that reliable data support use of the standard 100-fold uncertainty factor, and that an additional uncertainty factor is not needed to protect the safety of infants and children. As stated above, aggregate exposure assessments utilized significantly less than 1 percent of the RfD for either the entire U. S. population or any of the 26 population subgroups including infants and children. Therefore, it may be concluded that there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to zeta-cypermethrin residues.

F. International Tolerances	There are no Canadian, or Mexican residue limits for residues of cypermethrin or zeta-cypermethrin in or on representative commodities for pistachio, globe artichoke or barley, buckwheat, oat and rye (grain, hay and straw).  The Codex MRLs for cypermethrin are for barley at 0.50 ppm.


Matt Spears EPA OAR, OTAQ, ASD Transmission Date: 01/ 11/ 2005 10: 55: 00 AM To: donald. nagy@ gm. com cc: Alan Stout/ AA/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Michael Sabourin/ AA/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, " Vaillancourt, Michael ( M. T.)" < mvaillan@ ford. com>, ram12@ daimlerchrysler. com, shirish. a. shimpi@ Cummins. com Subject: Re: Additional Comments on Part 1065 NOx Humidity Correction Factor Thank you & request for additional information on datapoints Hi Don:

Thank you for the letter and the comprehensive chart. That helps us understand your comments much better.

We are currently reviewing two other similar submissions of comments, but some of the other comments have specific NOx humidity sensitivity information based on specific emissions control technology, including some nonroad SI information. In order to put your comments in context with the other information we've received, would you elaborate on the origin of the Ford and GM datapoints by addressing the following questions? If any of the information is not available, just indicate N/ A. However, the more information you can provide the better we will be able to evaluate your comments with respect to the other information.

1. What test cycle( s) were used? If these were steady state points, what was the speed( s) and road load( s)? 2. What were the model( s) and model year( s) of the vehicles? 3. What year( s) was the data collected? 4. What fuel( s) were used? 5. For each vehicle, what was the most stringent emissions standard that the vehicle met? 6. For each vehicle, briefly identify the technology for the following: a. Fuel injection? ( e. g. carb., TBI, PFI, etc.) b. F/ A ratio control? ( e. g. carb., open loop MAF, MAP & speed, closed loop single O2, dual O2, target F/ A or lamda stoich (, etc.) c. Aftertreatment? ( e. g. none, 3 way catalyst, light off cat., electrically heated, HC adsorber, etc.) d. Knock control? ( e. g. , none, sensor type, analog filtered signal or DSP, individual cylinder or bank control, etc.) e. EGR? ( e. g. yes, no) f. OBD? ( e. g. none, OBDII, etc.)

Thanks again for the good information,

Matt Spears US EPA 734 214 4921


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 49 (Thursday, March 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 14309]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05462]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Form CB; OMB Control No. 3235-0518, SEC File No. 270-457.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Form CB (17 CFR 239.800) is a Document filed in connection with a
tender offer for a foreign private issuer. This form is used to report
an issuer tender offer conducted in compliance with Exchange Act Rule
13e-4(h)(8) (17 CFR 240.13e-4(h)(8)) and a third-party tender offer
conducted in compliance with Exchange Act Rule 14d-1(c) (17 CFR
240.14d-1(c)). Form CB takes approximately 0.5 hours per response to
prepare and is filed by approximately 200 respondents annually. We
estimate that 25% of the 0.5 hours per response (0.125 hours) is
prepared by the respondent for an annual reporting burden of 25 hours
(0.125 hours per response x 200 responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed
collection of information is necessary for the 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 imposed by 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 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 unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comment to Thomas Bayer, 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: March 7, 2014.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-05462 Filed 3-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P