costs and no changes to filing fees associated with the proposed
amendments to sections 3 and 4. See Table 10.
    \206\ Based on the analysis in section IV.C, initial costs for
new section 4 filers is estimated at $80,325 per annual filing per
large private equity adviser, which is $16,865 higher than the cost
of initial filing prior to the proposal, which was estimated at
$63,460. See Table 6. In addition, new section 4 filers will be
subject to a filing fee of $150 per annual filing and an external
cost burden ranging from $0 to $50,000 per adviser, which remains at
the same level as before the proposal. See Table 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the benefits section, we believe that part of the
costs to advisers arising from the proposed amendments would be
mitigated by the cost savings resulting from reduced ambiguities and
inefficiencies that currently exist in the reporting requirements, as
this may reduce the amount of time and effort required for some
advisers to prepare and submit Form PF information.
    The direct costs associated with the proposed new current reporting
requirements for the advisers of qualifying hedge funds and private
equity funds would include initial costs required to set up a system
for monitoring significant events that are subject to the current
reporting requirement as well as filing fees (the amount of which would
be determined by the Commission in a separate action).\207\ We
anticipate these initial costs to be limited because the current report
triggers were tailored and designed not to be overly burdensome and to
allow advisers to use existing risk management frameworks that they
already maintain to actively assess and manage risk. In particular,
advisers would use the same PFRD non-public filing system as used to
file the rest of Form PF.\208\ The subsequent compliance costs would
depend on the occurrence of the reporting events and frequency with
which those events occur.\209\ To the extent that the reporting events
occur infrequently, we anticipate the costs associated with the
proposed current reporting requirement to be limited as advisers would
not be required to file current reports in the absence of the events.
For example, during periods of normal market activity we would expect
relatively few filings for this part of Form PF. The costs associated
with the proposed amendment, however, would increase with the frequency
of stress events at the adviser's funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \207\ See supra section II.A.3.
    \208\ Id.
    \209\ Based on the analysis in section IV.C, direct internal
costs associated with the preparation and filing of current reports
is estimated at $3,538 per report for large hedge fund advisers and
$4,182 per report for private fund advisers. See Table 8. In
addition, large hedge fund advisers will be subject to an external
cost burden of $992 per report associated with outside legal
services and additional one-time cost ranging from $0 to $12,500,
per adviser associated with system changes. See Table 11. Private
equity advisers will be subject to an external cost burden of $992
per report associated with outside legal service. Additionally,
there will be a filing fee per current report for both hedge fund
and private equity fund advisers that is yet to be determined, as
explained in footnote 1 to Table 11. See Table 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Indirect costs for advisers would include the costs associated with
additional actions that advisers may decide to undertake in light of
the additional reporting requirements. Specifically, to the extent that
the proposed amendments provide an incentive for advisers to improve
internal controls and devote additional time and resources to managing
their risk exposures and enhancing investor protection, this may result
in additional expenses for advisers, some of which may be passed on to
the funds and their investors.\210\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \210\ As discussed above, the length of the reporting period is
intended to mitigate costs associated with advisers needing to both
respond to the reporting event and file the required current report.
See supra section II.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Form PF collects confidential information about private funds and
their trading strategies, and the inadvertent public disclosure of such
competitively sensitive and proprietary information could adversely
affect the funds and their investors. However, we anticipate that these
adverse effects would be mitigated by certain aspects of the Form PF
reporting requirements and controls and systems designed by the
Commission for handling the data. For example, with the exception of
select questions, such as those relating to restructurings/
recapitalizations of portfolio companies and investments in different
levels of the same portfolio company by funds advised by the adviser
and its related person,\211\ Form PF data generally could not, on its
own, be used to identify individual investment positions. The
Commission has controls and systems for the use and handling of the
proposed modified and new Form PF data in a manner that reflects the
sensitivity of the data and is consistent with the maintenance of its
confidentiality. The Commission has substantial experience with the
storage and use of nonpublic information reported on Form PF as well as
other

nonpublic information that the Commission handles in its course of
business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \211\ See supra section II.B.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Effects on Efficiency, Competition, and Capital Formation

    We anticipate that the increased ability for the Commission's and
FSOC's oversight, resulting from the proposed amendments, would promote
better functioning and more stable financial markets, which would lead
to efficiency improvements. The additional, more granular, and timely
data collected on the amended Form PF about private funds and advisers
would help reduce uncertainty about risks in the U.S. financial system
and inform and frame regulatory responses to future market events and
policymaking. It would also help develop regulatory tools and
mechanisms that could potentially be used to make future systemic
crises episodes less likely to occur and less costly and damaging when
they do occur.
    Also, we believe that the proposed amendments would improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of the Commission's and FSOC's oversight
of private fund advisers by enabling them to manage and analyze
information related to the risks posed by private funds more quickly,
more efficiently, and more consistently than is currently possible.
Private fund advisers' responses to new proposed questions would help
the Commission and FSOC better understand the investment activities of
private funds and the scope of their potential effect on investors and
the U.S. financial markets.
    We do not anticipate significant effects of the proposed amendments
on competition in the private fund industry because the reported
information generally would be nonpublic and similar types of advisers
would have comparable burdens under the amended Form.
    As discussed in the benefits sections, we expect the proposed
amendments would enhance the Commission's and FSOC's systemic risk
assessment and investor protection efforts, which could ultimately lead
to more resilient financial markets and instill stronger investor
confidence in the U.S. private fund industry and financial markets more
broadly. We anticipate that these developments would make U.S.
financial markets more attractive for investments and improve private
fund advisers' ability to raise capital, thereby, facilitating capital
formation.

E. Reasonable Alternatives

1. Changing the Frequency of Current Reporting
    As an alternative to current reporting for hedge fund and private
equity fund advisers, we considered requiring advisers to report
relevant information as part of the existing Form PF filing or on a
scheduled basis, such as semi-annually, quarterly, or monthly.
    In general, these alternatives would provide the Commission and
FSOC with the same information but at potentially greater cost to
advisers and on a less timely basis. Specifically, we believe that
neither of these alternative approaches would significantly reduce the
cost burden to advisers compared to the proposed current reporting
requirement, because advisers would still need to incur initial costs
to set up a system for monitoring significant events that are subject
to the proposed current reporting requirement. In the case of advisers
who experience only a few reporting events per year, the alternative
filing frequency for current reports could also increase subsequent
reporting costs, as advisers would be required to file two, four, or
twelve reports per year rather than one report upon the occurrence of
each reporting event.
    At the same time, delayed reporting about stress events at hedge
funds and significant events at private equity funds would
significantly reduce the Commission's and FSOC's ability to assess and
frame timely responses to the emerging risks and limit potential market
disruptions, damages, and costs associated with them.
2. Giving Current Report Filers More Time To Reply (Versus One Business
Day)
    We also considered an alternative to require hedge fund and private
equity advisers to file current reports within a time period longer
than one business day.
    Although this alternative would provide more time to advisers to
prepare and file the form, we do not anticipate that this would reduce
the cost burden to advisers as compared to the proposed one-day
reporting requirement. We believe that the proposed structures of
sections 5 and 6 of Form PF are relatively simple and require advisers
to flag the reporting event from a menu of available options and add
straightforward explanatory notes about the events, which generally
should not require considerable time to complete. Extending the
reporting time period may increase internal costs to advisers to
prepare and review the required disclosure, to the extent a longer
reporting time period indirectly signals to advisers a need for greater
detail, thoroughness, or diligence.
    On the other hand, due to the time sensitive nature of the reported
events, additional reporting time would significantly reduce the
Commission's and FSOC's ability to assess and frame timely responses to
the emerging risks and limit potential market disruptions, damages and
costs associated with them.
3. Alternative Reporting Thresholds for Current Reporting by Hedge Fund
Advisers (Versus Just Large Hedge Fund Advisers to Qualifying Hedge
Funds)
    We considered an alternative to require all hedge fund advisers to
file section 5 of Form PF upon occurrence of stress events at one of
their hedge funds (irrespective of the fund size) instead of requiring
this reporting from only large advisers to qualifying hedge funds.
Although this information would be beneficial for the Commission and
FSOC, as this would provide a more complete picture of the stress
events in the hedge fund industry and allow better assessment of
systemic risk and investor protection issues in the smaller hedge funds
space, we believe that this benefit would be marginal as compared to
the benefit of the information about qualifying hedge funds for two
reasons. First, the hedge fund industry is dominated by qualifying
hedge funds that currently account for approximately 81 percent of the
industry's gross assets under management among filers of Form PF.\212\
Therefore, the proposed current reporting requirement would cover
stress events that affect a broad, representative set of assets in the
hedge fund industry. Second, the proposed current reporting is designed
to serve as a signal to the Commission and FSOC about systemically
important stress events at hedge funds. Stress events at larger hedge
funds are more likely to be systemically important due to their
quantitatively important positions in a market and more extensive use
of leverage. Overall, we believe at this time that requiring advisers
to smaller hedge funds to file current reports would impose a
significant burden on these smaller advisers and not significantly
expand or improve the Commission's and FSOC's oversight and assessment
of systemic risk efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \212\ See supra footnote 129.

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

    We also considered an alternative to increase the reporting
threshold for hedge funds that would require a subgroup of the largest
qualifying hedge funds to file current reports. Although this
alternative would reduce the reporting burden at smaller qualifying
hedge advisers, we believe that this would also reduce the benefit
associated with the proposed current reporting. Specifically, we
believe that this alternative would likely impede the Commission's and
FSOC's ability to assess and respond to emerging industry risks, as
this would reduce the scope of reported stress events to the events
that affect the largest qualifying hedge funds. To the extent that
largest qualifying hedge funds have a greater propensity to withstand
deteriorating market conditions, the Commission and FSOC would have
less visibility into the stress events that simultaneously affect
smaller qualifying hedge funds that may indicate or have implications
for systemic risk and investor protection concerns.
4. Requiring Fewer Private Equity Advisers To File Current Reports (by
Introducing a Reporting Threshold)
    We considered an alternative current reporting requirement for
private equity advisers where only advisers to larger private equity
funds would be required to file section 6 of form PF, i.e., imposing a
fund size threshold for current reporting.
    Although this alternative would reduce the reporting burden at
smaller private equity advisers, we believe that this would also reduce
the benefit associated with the proposed current reporting.
Specifically, one of the goals of the proposed current reporting for
private equity funds is to provide the Commission with indicators of
potential conflicts of interests and investor harm at the funds. This
would enable the Commission to target its examination program more
efficiently and effectively and better identify areas in need of
regulatory oversight and market assessment to increase investor
protection. The Commission's oversight of private equity advisers is
not limited to the advisers of a certain size. Conflicts of interest
and resulting investor harm may occur at private equity advisers of all
sizes, and the Commission has brought a number of enforcement actions
against smaller advisers in the past.\213\ In that regard, current
reports by smaller private equity advisers would be beneficial for the
Commission's improved ability to protect investors in smaller funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \213\ For example, in 2019 the Commission investigated
Corinthian Capital Group, LLC for misuse of its assets under
management. As of December 31, 2017, Corinthian managed $270 million
in assets. See, e.g., Administrative Proceeding, File No. 3-19159
(May 6, 2019), available at https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2019/ia-5229.pdf. Another example, in 2015 the Commission
investigated Fenway Partners, LLC for potential conflicts of
interest. As of April 29, 2015, Fenway Partners had $445 million in
assets under management. See, e.g., Administrative Proceeding, File
No. 3-16938 (November 3, 2015), available at https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2015/ia-4253.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We recognize that the costs associated with the proposed current
reporting requirement may appear higher to smaller advisers as compared
to larger advisers. However, as discussed in the costs section, we
expect the reporting events to be relatively infrequent and, therefore,
the costs associated with current reporting to be relatively low.
5. Changing the Reporting Events for Current Reporting by Hedge Fund
Advisers
    We also considered alternatives to which stress events should
trigger current reporting for hedge fund advisers. Alternative
reporting events include both different thresholds for how severe of a
stress event triggers a current report, as well as different categories
of stress events altogether, separate from those considered in the
proposal. For example, a hedge fund reporting for proposed Item B would
be triggered by a loss equal to or greater than 20 percent of a fund's
most recent net asset value over a rolling 10 business day period,\214\
and this threshold could be revised to be triggered by a 10% loss, or a
30% loss, or any other threshold. As another alternative, and as
discussed above, the threshold could instead compare losses against the
volatility of the fund's returns.\215\ Lastly, current reporting could
alternatively be triggered by stress events besides those considered in
this proposal. For example, hedge fund current reporting could be
triggered by a large increase in the volatility of the fund's returns,
even if that volatility does not result in investment losses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \214\ See supra section II.A.1.a.
    \215\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, alternative triggers to current reporting requirements
would either provide the Commission and FSOC with more information at a
greater cost to advisers, less information at a lower cost to advisers,
or an alternative metric for measuring the same stress event as the
proposed reporting event. We believe that the thresholds as proposed
would trigger reporting for relevant stress events for which we seek
timely information while minimizing the potential for false positives
and multiple unnecessary current reports, but as discussed above we
request suggestions and comments on each proposed reporting event.
6. Alternative Size Threshold for Section 4 Reporting by Large Private
Equity Advisers
    The proposed amendments to section 4 of form PF include a proposal
to reduce the filing threshold for large private equity advisers from
$2 billion to $1.5 billion. We also considered alternatives to reduce
the reporting size threshold below $1.5 billion or increase it above $2
billion.
    We believe that increasing the threshold for large private equity
advisers above $2 billion would likely impede the Commission's and
FSOC's ability to a representative picture of the private fund industry
and lead to misleading conclusions regarding emerging industry trends
and characteristics, as this would reduce the coverage of private
equity assets in today's market below 67 percent, which is already
below the originally envisioned 75 percent coverage.\216\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \216\ See supra footnotes 62-63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the other hand, reducing the current report size threshold below
$1.5 billion would be marginally beneficial for the Commission's and
FSOC's risk oversight and assessment efforts as this would increase the
representativeness of the sample of reporting advisers. Given that
smaller private equity advisers and funds now account for a larger
fraction of the industry than they did when the Form PF was originally
adopted,\217\ collecting more detailed information about these funds
would help the Commission and FSOC to detect certain new trends and
group behaviors with potential systemic consequences among these
advisers and funds. However, this would also increase the number of
advisers that would be categorized as large private equity advisers
subject to the more detailed reporting and impose additional reporting
burden on those advisers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \217\ See supra footnote 141.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We think that the proposed new threshold of $1.5 billion strikes an
appropriate balance between obtaining information regarding a
significant portion of the private equity industry for analysis while
continuing to minimize the burden imposed on smaller advisers.
7. Alternatives to the New Section 3 and 4 Reporting Requirements for
Large Private Equity and Liquidity Fund Advisers
    The proposed amendments also include new questions and revisions to

existing questions in sections 3 and 4 for large private equity
advisers and large liquidity fund advisers. The additional large
private equity adviser revisions are designed to enhance the
Commission's and FSOC's understanding of certain practices in the
private equity industry and amend certain existing questions to improve
data collection.\218\ The additional large liquidity fund adviser
revisions are designed to help us see a more complete picture of the
short-term financing markets in which liquidity funds invest, and in
turn, enhance the Commission and FSOC's ability to monitor and assess
short-term financing markets and facilitate better regulatory oversight
of those markets and their participants.\219\ We also considered
alternatives to each of these sets of proposed amendments in the form
of different choices of framing, level of detail requested, and precise
information targeted. For example, for Question 68 of section 4, on
reporting of private equity private credit strategies, we considered
consolidating ``Private Credit--Junior/Subordinated Debt,'' ``Private
Credit--Mezzanine Financing,'' ``Private Credit--Senior Debt,'' and
Private Credit--Senior Subordinated Debt'' into the ``Private Credit--
Direct Lending/Mid Market Lending'' category.\220\ For the questions in
section 3 on liquidity fund strategies to maintain a stable price per
share, we considered maintaining the existing questions and adding the
new proposed Question 52, which requires advisers to state directly
whether the reporting fund seeks a stable price per share, instead of
replacing existing questions with the new Question 52.\221\ We believe
that the amendments as proposed maximize data quality and enhance the
usefulness of reported data, but as discussed above we request
suggestions and comments on each proposed change.\222\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \218\ See supra section II.B.
    \219\ See supra section II.C.
    \220\ See supra section II.B.
    \221\ See supra section II.C.
    \222\ See supra sections II.B to C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Request for Comment

    We request comment on all aspects of our economic analysis,
including the potential costs and benefits of the proposed amendments
and alternatives thereto, and whether the amendments, if we were to
adopt them, would promote efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. In addition, we request comments on our selection of data
sources, empirical methodology, and the assumptions we have made
throughout the analysis. Commenters are requested to provide empirical
data, estimation methodologies, and other factual support for their
views, in particular, on costs and benefits estimates. In addition, we
request comment on:
    119. Whether there are any additional costs and benefits associated
with the proposed amendments to Form PF that should be considered? What
additional materials and data should we consider for estimating these
costs and benefits?
    120. Whether our assumptions about costs associated with the
proposal are accurate? For example, is it accurate to assume that the
proposed reporting requirements would be less burdensome to advisers
who are already accustomed to the PFRD filing system they use to file
the rest of Form PF?

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The proposal would revise an existing ``collection of information''
within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(``PRA'').\223\ The SEC is submitting the collection of information to
the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for review in accordance
with the PRA.\224\ The title for the collection of information is
``Form PF and Rule 204(b)-1'' (OMB Control Number 3235-0679), and
includes both Form PF and rule 204(b)-1 (``the rules''). 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. Compliance with the information collection is
mandatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \223\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 through 3521.
    \224\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d); 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The respondents are investment advisers who are (1) registered or
required to be registered under Advisers Act section 203, (2) advise
one or more private funds, and (3) managed private fund assets of at
least $150 million at the end of their most recently completed fiscal
year (collectively, with their related persons).\225\ Form PF divides
respondents into groups based on their size and types of private funds
they manage, requiring some groups to file more information more
frequently than others. The types of respondents are (1) smaller
private fund advisers (i.e., private fund advisers who do not qualify
as a large private fund adviser), (2) large hedge fund advisers, (3)
large liquidity fund advisers, and (4) large private equity
advisers.\226\ As discussed more fully in section II above and as
summarized in sections IV.A and IV.C below, the proposal would require
current reporting for some groups, and would revise what some groups
would file.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \225\ See 17 CFR 275.204(b)-1.
    \226\ See supra footnote 8 (discussing the definitions of large
hedge fund advisers, large liquidity fund advisers, and large
private equity advisers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Purpose and Use of the Information Collection

    The rules implement provisions of Title IV of the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (``Dodd-Frank Act''), which
amended the Advisers Act to require the SEC to, among other things,
establish reporting requirements for advisers to private funds.\227\
The rules are intended to assist the FSOC in its monitoring obligations
under the Dodd-Frank Act, but the SEC also may use information
collected on Form PF in its regulatory programs, including
examinations, investigations, and investor protection efforts relating
to private fund advisers.\228\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \227\ See 15 U.S.C. 80b-4(b) and 15 U.S.C. 80b-11(e).
    \228\ See 2011 Form PF Adopting Release, supra footnote 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendments are designed to enhance FSOC's ability to
monitor systemic risk as well as bolster the SEC's regulatory oversight
of private fund advisers and investor protection efforts. The proposed
amendments would do the following:
     Require large hedge fund advisers to file current reports
upon certain reporting events, as discussed more fully in section II.A
above;
     Require advisers to private equity funds to file current
reports upon certain reporting events, as discussed more fully in
section II.A above;
     Reduce the threshold to qualify as a large private equity
adviser, as discussed more fully in section II.B above.
     Amend how large private equity advisers report information
about the private equity funds they advise, as discussed more fully in
section II.B above; and
     Amend how large liquidity fund advisers report information
about the liquidity funds they advise, as discussed more fully in
section II.C above.

    The proposed current reporting requires advisers to report
information upon reporting events, which could occur more or less than
quarterly.\229\ As discussed more fully in sections I and II, above, we
are proposing the current reporting requirements so we and FSOC can
receive more timely data to identify and respond to private funds that
are facing stress that could result in investor harm or systemic risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \229\ See 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Confidentiality

    Responses to the information collection will be kept confidential
to the extent permitted by law.\230\ Form PF elicits non-public
information about private funds and their trading strategies, the
public disclosure of which could adversely affect the funds and their
investors. The SEC does not intend to make public Form PF information
that is identifiable to any particular adviser or private fund,
although the SEC may use Form PF information in an enforcement action
and to assess potential systemic risk.\231\ SEC staff issues certain
publications designed to inform the public of the private funds
industry, all of which use only aggregated or masked information to
avoid potentially disclosing any proprietary information.\232\ The
Advisers Act precludes the SEC from being compelled to reveal Form PF
information except (1) to Congress, upon an agreement of
confidentiality, (2) to comply with a request for information from any
other Federal department or agency or self-regulatory organization for
purposes within the scope of its jurisdiction, or (3) to comply with an
order of a court of the United States in an action brought by the
United States or the SEC.\233\ Any department, agency, or self-
regulatory organization that receives Form PF information must maintain
its confidentiality consistent with the level of confidentiality
established for the SEC.\234\ The Advisers Act requires the SEC to make
Form PF information available to FSOC.\235\ For advisers that are also
commodity pool operators or commodity trading advisers, filing Form PF
through the Form PF filing system is filing with both the SEC and
CFTC.\236\ Therefore, the SEC makes Form PF information available to
FSOC and the CFTC, pursuant to Advisers Act section 204(b), making the
information subject to the confidentiality protections applicable to
information required to be filed under that section. Before sharing any
Form PF information, the SEC requires that any such department, agency,
or self-regulatory organization represent to the SEC that it has in
place controls designed to ensure the use and handling of Form PF
information in a manner consistent with the protections required by the
Advisers Act. The SEC has instituted procedures to protect the
confidentiality of Form PF information in a manner consistent with the
protections required in the Advisers Act.\237\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \230\ See 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2)(vii) and (viii).
    \231\ See 15 U.S.C. 80b-10(c).
    \232\ See e.g., Private Funds Statistics, issued by staff of the
SEC Division of Investment Management's Analytics Office, which we
have used in this PRA as a data source, available at https://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/private-funds-statistics.shtml.
    \233\ See 15 U.S.C. 80b-4(b)(8).
    \234\ See 15 U.S.C. 80b-4(b)(9).
    \235\ See 15 U.S.C. 80b-4(b)(7).
    \236\ See 2011 Form PF Adopting Release, supra footnote 2, at
n.17.
    \237\ See 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2)(viii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Burden Estimates

    We are revising our total burden estimates to reflect the proposed
amendments, updated data, and new methodology for certain
estimates.\238\ The tables below map out the Form PF requirements as
they apply to each group of respondents and detail our burden
estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \238\ For the previously approved estimates, see ICR Reference
No.<PHONE_NUMBER>-019 (conclusion date Apr. 1, 2021), available at
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202011-3235-019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Proposed Form PF Requirements by Respondent

                              Table 1--Proposed Form PF Requirements by Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Smaller private    Large hedge fund     Large liquidity      Large private
             Form PF                 fund advisers         advisers          fund advisers      equity advisers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 1a and section 1b (basic  Annually..........  Quarterly.........  Quarterly.........  Annually.
 information about the adviser
 and the private funds it
 advises); No proposed revisions.
Section 1c (additional            Annually, if they   Quarterly.........  Quarterly, if they  Annually, if they
 information concerning hedge      advise hedge                            advise hedge        advise hedge
 funds); No proposed revisions.    funds.                                  funds.              funds.
Section 2 (additional             No................  Quarterly.........  No................  No.
 information concerning
 qualifying hedge funds); No
 proposed revisions.
Section 3 (additional             No................  No................  Quarterly.........  No.
 information concerning
 liquidity funds); Proposed
 revisions.
Section 4 (additional             No................  No................  No................  Annually.
 information concerning private
 equity funds); Proposed
 revisions.
Section 5 (current reporting      No................  Upon a reporting    No................  No.
 concerning qualifying hedge                           event.
 funds); The proposal would add
 section 5.
Section 6 (current reporting for  Upon a reporting    No................  No................  Upon a reporting
 private equity advisers); The     event, if they                                              event.
 proposal would add section 6.     advise private
                                   equity funds.
Section 7 (temporary hardship     Optional, if they   Optional, if they   Optional, if they   Optional, if they
 request); The proposal would      qualify.            qualify.            qualify.            qualify.
 make this available for current
 reporting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Annual Hour Burden Estimates

    Below are tables with annual hour burden estimates for (1) initial
filings, (2) ongoing annual and quarterly filings, (3) current
reporting, and (4) transition filings, final filings, and temporary
hardship requests.
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.000

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.005

3. Annual Monetized Time Burden Estimates

    Below are tables with annual monetized time burden estimates for
(1) initial filings, (2) ongoing annual and quarterly filings, (3)
current reporting, and (4) transition filings, final filings, and
temporary hardship requests.\239\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \239\ The hourly wage rates are based on (1) SIFMA's Management
& Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry 2013, modified by
SEC staff to account for an 1,800-hour work-year and inflation, and
multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee
benefits and overhead; and (2) SIFMA's Office Salaries in the
Securities Industry 2013, modified by SEC staff to account for an
1,800-hour work-year and inflation, and multiplied by 2.93 to
account for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits and overhead.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.010

4. Annual External Cost Burden Estimates
    Below are tables with annual external cost burden estimates for (1)
initial filings as well as ongoing annual and quarterly filings and (2)
current reporting. There are no filing fees for transition filings,
final filings, or temporary hardship requests and we continue to
estimate there would be no external costs for those filings, as
previously approved.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.013

5. Summary of Estimates and Change in Burden

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.015

BILLING CODE 8011-01-C

D. Request for Comments

    We request comment on whether our estimates for burden hours and
external costs as described above are reasonable. Pursuant to 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(B), the Commission solicits comments in order to (1)
evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the functions of the SEC, including
whether the information will have practical utility; (2) evaluate the
accuracy of the SEC's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection
of information; (3) determine whether there are ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) determine whether there are ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.
    Persons wishing to submit comments on the collection of information
requirements of the proposed amendments should direct them to the OMB
Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission,
[email protected], and should send a copy to
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549-1090, with reference to File No. S7-01-22. OMB is
required to make a decision concerning the collections of information
between 30 and 60 days after publication of this release; therefore a
comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it within 30 days after publication of this release. Requests
for materials submitted to OMB by the Commission with regard to these
collections of information should be in writing, refer to File No. S7-
01-22, and be submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission,
Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-2736.

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (``Regulatory Flexibility
Act'') \240\ requires the SEC to prepare and make available for public
comment an initial regulatory flexibly analysis of the impact of the
proposed rule amendments on small entities, unless the SEC certifies
that the rules, if adopted would not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.\241\ Pursuant to section
605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the SEC hereby certifies that
the proposed amendments to Advisers Act rule 204(b)-1 and Form PF would
not, if adopted, have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \240\ 5 U.S.C. 601, et. seq.
    \241\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the purposes of the Advisers Act and the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, an investment adviser generally is a small entity if it (1) has
assets under management having a total value of less than $25 million;
(2) did not have total assets of $5 million or more on the last day of
the most recent fiscal year; and (3) does not control, is not
controlled by, and is not under common control with another investment
adviser that has assets under management of $25 million or more, or any
person (other than a natural person) that had total assets of $5
million or more on the last day of its most recent fiscal year.\242\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \242\ 17 CFR 275.0-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By definition, no small entity on its own, would meet rule 204(b)-1
and Form PF's minimum reporting threshold of $150 million in regulatory
assets under management attributable to private funds. Based on Form PF
and Form ADV data as of September 2021, the SEC estimates that no small
entity advisers are required to file Form PF. The SEC does not have
evidence to suggest that any small entities are required to file Form
PF but are not filing Form PF. Therefore, there would be no significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SEC
encourages written comments on the certification. Commentators are
asked to describe the nature of any impact on small entities and
provide empirical data to support the extent of the impact.

VI. Consideration of Impact on the Economy

    For purposes of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996 (``SBREFA''),\243\ the SEC must advise OMB whether a
proposed regulation constitutes a ``major'' rule. Under SBREFA, a rule
is considered ``major'' where, if adopted, it results in or is likely
to result in the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \243\ Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996)
(codified in various sections of 5 U.S.C., 15 U.S.C., and as a note
to 5 U.S.C. 601).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     An annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more;
     A major increase in costs or prices for consumers or
individual industries; or
     Significant adverse effects on competition, investment, or
innovation.
    The SEC requests comment on whether the proposal would be a ``major
rule'' for purposes of SBREFA. The SEC solicits comment and empirical
data on the following:
     The potential effect on the U.S. economy on an annual
basis;
     Any potential increase in costs or prices for consumers or
individual industries; and
     Any potential effect on competition, investment, or
innovation.
    Commenters are requested to provide empirical data and other
factual support for their views to the extent possible.

VII. Statutory Authority

    The Commission is proposing amendments to Form PF pursuant to
authority set forth in Sections 204(b) and 211(e) of the Advisers Act
[15 U.S.C. 80b-4(b) and 80b-11(e)].

List of Subjects 17 CFR Part 275 and 279

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

    By the Commission.

    Dated: January 26, 2022.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.

Text of Proposed Rules

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, title 17, chapter II of
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows.

PART 275--RULES AND REGULATIONS, INVESTMENT ADVISERS ACT OF 1940

0
1. The general authority citation for part 275 continues to read as
follows.

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 80b-2(a)(11)(G), 80b-2(a)(11)(H), 80b-
2(a)(17), 80b-3, 80b-4, 80b-4a, 80b-6(4), 80b-6a, and 80b-11, unless
otherwise noted.
* * * * *
0
2. Amend Sec.  275.204(b)-1 by revising paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (f)(3)
to read as follows:

Sec.  275.204(b)-1   Reporting by investment advisers to private funds.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Complete and file in paper format, in accordance with the
instructions to Form PF, Item A of Section 1a and Section 7 of Form PF,
checking the box in Section 1a indicating that you are requesting a
temporary hardship exemption, no later than one business day after the
electronic Form PF filing was due;
* * * * *
    (3) The temporary hardship exemption will be granted when you file
Item A of Section 1a and Section 7 of Form PF, checking the box in
Section 1a indicating that you are requesting a temporary hardship
exemption.
* * * * *

PART 279--FORMS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE INVESTMENT ADVISERS ACT OF
1940

0
3. The authority citation for part 279 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  The Investment Advisers Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. 80b-
1, et seq., Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376.

Sec.  279.9   Form PF, reporting by investment advisers to private
funds.

    Note:  The text of Form PF does not, and the amendments will
not, appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

0
4. Revise PF (referenced in Sec.  279.9) to read as follows.
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.024

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.025

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.026

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.027

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.028

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.029

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.030

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.031

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.032

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.033

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.034

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.035

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.036

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.037

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.038

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.039

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.040

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.041

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.042

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.043

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.044

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.045

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.046

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.047

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.048

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.049

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.050

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.051

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.052

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.053

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.054

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.055

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.056

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.057

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.058

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.059

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.060

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.061

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.062

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.063

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.064

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.065

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.066

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.067

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.068

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.069

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.070

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.071

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.072

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.073

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.074

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.075

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.076

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.077

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.078

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.079

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.080

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.081

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.082

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.083

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.084

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.085

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.086

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.087

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.088

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.089

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.090

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.091

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.092

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.093

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE22.094

[FR Doc. 2022-01976 Filed 2-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-C


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 61 (Monday, March 31, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 18124]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06866]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Notice of Applications for
Modification of Special Permit

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: List of Applications for Modification of Special Permits.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR Part 107,
Subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous
Materials Safety has received the applications described herein. This
notice is abbreviated to expedite docketing and public notice. Because
the sections affected, modes of transportation, and the nature of
application have been shown in earlier Federal Register publications,
they are not repeated here. Requests for modification of special
permits (e.g. to provide for additional hazardous materials, packaging
design changes, additional mode of transportation, etc.) are described
in footnotes to the application number. Application numbers with the
suffix ``M'' denote a modification request. These applications have
been separated from the new application for special permits to
facilitate processing.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 15, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Address Comments To: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC 20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the applications are
available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHI-J-
30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington DC or at http://regulations.gov.
    This notice of receipt of applications for modification of special
permit is published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal
hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR
1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 19, 2014.
Donald Burger,
Chief, General Approvals and Permits.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Nature of special
   Application No.         Docket No.            Applicant       Regulation(s) affected       permit thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          MODIFICATION SPECIAL PERMITS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14808-M.............  ....................  Amtro Alfa          49 CFR 178.51(b),        To modify the special
                                             Metalomecanica SA   (f)(1) and (2), and      permit to authorize an
                                             Portugal.           (g).                     increase in the
                                                                                maximum water capacity
                                                                                to 10 gallons.
15036-M.............  ....................  UTLX                49 CFR 173.31(e)(2),     To modify the special
                                             Manufacturing,      173.244, 173.314,        permit to authorize an
                                             Incorporated        179.102-2, 179.102-3.    increase of the
                                             Alexandria, LA.                              inspection interval to
                                                                                five years.
15832-M.............  ....................  Baker Petrolite     49 CFR 172.102(c)        To modify the special
                                             (BPC) Corporation   Special Provision B14    permit to authorize an
                                             Sugar Land, TX.     and TP38.                additional tank
                                                                                design.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2014-06866 Filed 3-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4909-60-M


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

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account.

After vaping for just 4 weeks I was able to completely quit smoking with no desire to pick up cigarettes again.  CASAA.Org is full of useful information.

I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.

Best Regards,

Mike


[Federal Register: September 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 176)]
[Notices]
[Page 52098-52099]
[DOCID:fr12se07-72]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1971-079 Idaho/Oregon]

Idaho Power Company; Notice of Availability of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for the Hells Canyon Project

August 31, 2007.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 F.R. 47897), the Office
of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for license for the
Hells Canyon Project (FERC No. 1971), located on the Snake River in
Washington and Adams

Counties, Idaho, and Wallowa and Baker Counties, Oregon, and has
prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement (final EIS) for the
project. About 5,270 acres of federal lands administered by the Forest
Service and the Bureau of Land Management (Payette and Wallowa-Whitman
National Forests and Hells Canyon National Recreational Area) are
included within the project boundary.
    The final EIS contains staff evaluations of the applicant's
proposal and the alternatives for relicensing the Hells Canyon Project.
The final EIS documents the views of governmental agencies, non-
governmental organizations, affected Indian tribes, the public, the
license applicant, and Commission staff.
    A copy of the final EIS is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Branch, Room 2A, located at 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, 1-866-208-3676<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
The final EIS also may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
 under the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number

excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,

(202) 502-8659.
    CD versions of the final EIS have been mailed to everone on the
mailing list for the project. Copies of the CD, as well as a limited
number of paper copies, are available from the Public Reference Room
identified above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp
 to be notified via e-mail of new filings and

issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    For further information, contact Alan Mitchnick at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Emily Carter at<PHONE_NUMBER>,

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-17925 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 1, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11358-11359]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04242]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0129; Airspace Docket No. 22-AGL-8]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Marshall, MI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend the Class E airspace at
Marshall, MI. The FAA is proposing this action due to an airspace
review conducted as part of the decommissioning of the Litchfield very
high frequency (VHF) omnidirectional range (VOR) as part of the VOR
Minimal Operational Network (MON) Program.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 15, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone
(202) 366-9826, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2022-0129/Airspace Docket No. 22-AGL-8 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except federal holidays.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. FAA Order JO 7400.11 is also available for inspection at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of FAA Order JO 7400.11F at NARA, email:
[email protected] or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface at Brooks Field, Marshall, MI, to support instrument
flight rule operations at this airport.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2022-0129/
Airspace Docket No. 22-AGL-8.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic
Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective
September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as
listed

in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by amending the
Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to
within a 6.3-mile (decreased from a 6.5-mile) radius of Brooks Field,
Marshall, MI; removing the city associated with the airport in the
header to comply with changes to FAA Order JO 7400.2N, Procedures for
Handling Airspace Matters; and removing the exclusionary language from
the airspace legal description as it is not required.
    This action is due to an airspace review conducted as part of the
decommissioning of the Litchfield VOR, which provided navigation
information for the instrument procedures at this airport, as part of
the VOR MON Program.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10,
2021, and effective September 15, 2021, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AGL MI E5 Marshall, MI [Amended]

Brooks Field, MI
    (Lat. 42[deg]15'04'' N, long. 84[deg]57'20'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.3-mile radius of Brooks Field.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on February 24, 2022.
Martin A. Skinner,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2022-04242 Filed 2-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 51 (Thursday, March 18, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 14760]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05609]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4504-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

Kansas; 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 Kansas (FEMA-4504-DR), dated March 29, 2020, and
related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on January 10, 2021.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Kathy Fields,
of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for
this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Paul Taylor as Federal
Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    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.

Robert J. Fenton, Jr.,
Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Administrator, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-05609 Filed 3-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 126 (Monday, July 3, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42707-42708]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14054]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER23-2236-000]

Chisholm Trail Solar Energy LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Chisholm Trail Solar Energy LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is July 17, 2023.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help

members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice
communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available
information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and
assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or
requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at
(202) 502-6595 or [email protected].

    Dated: June 27, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-14054 Filed 6-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 89 (Monday, May 9, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28093-28094]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10896]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2015-1097]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0027

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR),
abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of a
revision to the following collection of information: 1625-0027, Vessel
Documentation. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect
from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose
paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before June
8, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2015-1097] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, you
may submit comments to OIRA using one of the following means:
    (1) Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Mail: OIRA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503,
attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
    (3) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. To ensure your comments are received in a
timely manner, mark the fax, attention Desk Officer for the Coast
Guard.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
COMMANDANT (CG-612), ATTN: PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT MANAGER, U.S. COAST
GUARD, 2703 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AVE. SE., STOP 7710, WASHINGTON, DC
20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection. The Coast Guard invites comments on whether
this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for
the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the
Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical
utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of
the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of

information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether
to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request, [USCG-2015-1097], and must be received by June 8,
2016.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice
of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB
Control Number: 1625-0027.

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (81 FR 3152, January 20, 2016)
required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments.
Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collections.

Information Collection Request

    Title: Vessel Documentation.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0027.
    Summary: The information collected will be used to establish the
eligibility of a vessel to: (a) Be documented as a ``vessel of the
United States'', (b) engage in a particular trade, and/or (c) become
the object of a preferred ship's mortgage. The information collected
concerns citizenship of owner/applicant and build, tonnage and markings
of a vessel.
    Need: Title 46 U.S.C. Chapters 121, 123, 125 and 313 requires the
documentation of vessels. A Certificate of Documentation (COD) is
required for the operation of a vessel in certain trades, serves as
evidence of vessel nationality and permits a vessel to be subject to
preferred mortgages.
    Forms: CG-1258, Application for Initial, Exchange, or Replacement
of Certificate of Documentation/Redocumentation; CG-1258, Section A--
Additional Vessels; CG-1258, Section H--Additional Owners; CG-1258,
Section L--Attachment to Limited Liability Company; CG-1258, Section
L--Attachment to Partnership; CG-1258, Section L--Attachment to Joint
Venture or Association; CG-1258, Section L--Attachment to Trust
Arrangement; CG-1261, Builder's Certification and First Transfer of
Title; CG-1270, Certificate of Documentation; CG-1280, Vessel Renewal
Notification Application for Renewal; CG-1340, Bill of Sale; CG-1356,
Bill of Sale by Government Entity Pursuant to Court Order or
Administrative Degree of Forfeiture; CG-4593, Application, Consent, and
Approval for Withdrawal of Application for Documentation or Exchange of
Certificate of Documentation; CG-5542, Optional Application for Filing;
CG-7042, Authorization for Credit Card Transactions; and CG-7043,
Abstract of Title/Certified COD Request.
    Respondents: Owners/builders of yachts and commercial vessels of at
least 5 net tons.
    Frequency: Annually.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from
67,882 hours to 77,619 hours a year due to an increase in the estimated
annual number of responses. With one exception, there is no proposed
change to the reporting or recordkeeping requirements of this
collection. This ICR is revised to account for the recordkeeping burden
of form CG-1270 (Certificate of Documentation (COD)). A COD is issued
by the Coast Guard to a vessel owner. We estimate the recordkeeping
burden of 3 minutes per response. CODs were issued in the past, but not
accounted for under Information Collection 1625-0027. The reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and the methodology for calculating burden,
remain unchanged.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: April 29, 2016.
Thomas P. Michelli,
U.S. Coast Guard, Deputy Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2016-10896 Filed 5-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 26, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60921-60922]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27789]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 573

[Docket No. FDA-2017-F-4375]

Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry AB; Filing of Food Additive Petition
(Animal Use); Reopening of the Comment Period

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notification; petition for rulemaking; reopening of the comment
period.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is
reopening the comment period for the notice of petition, published in
the Federal Register of September 21, 2017, revising food additive
regulations to provide for the safe use of glyceryl polyethylene glycol
(200) ricinoleate as an emulsifier in animal food that does not include
food for cats, dogs, vitamin premixes, or aquaculture. FDA is reopening
the comment period to allow additional time for comments on
environmental impacts.

DATES: FDA is reopening the comment period on the notice of petition
published September 21, 2017 (82 FR 44129). Submit either electronic or
written comments by January 25, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments
must be submitted on or before January 25, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
midnight Eastern Time at the end of January 25, 2018. Comments received
by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be
considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service
acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2017-F-4375 for ``Food Additives Permitted in Feed and Drinking
Water of Animals; glyceryl polyethylene glycol (200) ricinoleate.''
Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will
be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as
``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at:https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chelsea Trull, Center for Veterinary
Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville,
MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of September 21,
2017, FDA gave notice that Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry AB had filed a
petition to amend Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations in part
573 Food Additives Permitted in Feed and Drinking Water of Animals (21
CFR part 573) to provide for the safe use of glyceryl polyethylene
glycol (200) ricinoleate as an emulsifier in animal

food that does not include food for cats, dogs, vitamin premixes, or
aquaculture.
    Interested persons were originally given until October 23, 2017, to
comment on the petitioner's environmental assessment. The environmental
assessment was not placed on public display until October 13, 2017. On
our own initiative, we are reopening the comment period to allow
potential respondents to thoroughly evaluate and address pertinent
environmental issues.

    Dated: December 20, 2017
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-27789 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P