[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 75 (Friday, April 17, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21504-21506]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08114]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0132; Notice 1]

Hankook Tire America Corporation, Receipt of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Hankook Tire America Corporation (Hankook) has determined that
certain Hankook Ventus V2 Concept 2 tires manufactured by Hankook's
indirect subsidiary, Hankook Tire Manufacturing Tennessee, LP, do not
fully comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No.
139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. Hankook filed a
noncompliance report dated November 19, 2019, and subsequently
petitioned NHTSA on December 5, 2019, for a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
This notice announces receipt of Hankook's petition.

DATES: Send comments on or before May 18, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and may be
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
except for Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the fullest extent possible.

    When the petitions are granted or denied, notice of the decisions
will also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the
authority indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: Hankook has determined that certain Hankook Ventus V2
Concept 2 tires, do not fully comply with paragraph S5.5.1(b) of FMVSS
No. 139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light Vehicles (49 CFR
571.139).
    Hankook filed a noncompliance report dated November 19, 2019,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports, and subsequently petitioned NHTSA on December 5, 2019, for
an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as
it relates to motor vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or
Noncompliance.
    This notice of receipt of the Hankook's petition is published under
49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    II. Tires Involved: Approximately 467 Hankook Ventus V2 Concept 2
tires, size 235/45R17V XL H457, manufactured between October 7, 2019,
and October 12, 2019, are potentially involved.
    III. Noncompliance: Hankook explains that the noncompliance is due
to a mold error in which the subject tires, were marked with the date-
code in the Tire Identification Number (TIN) inverted and; therefore,
they do not meet the requirements of paragraph S5.5.1 (b) of FMVSS No.
139. Specifically, the date code was printed upside down.
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S5.5.1(b) of FMVSS No. 139,
includes the requirements relevant to this petition. Each tire must be
marked on each sidewall with the information specified in paragraph
S5.5.1(b) and the tire size designation as listed in the documents and
publications specified in paragraph S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 139.
    V. Summary of Hankook's Petition: The following views and arguments
presented in this section, V. Summary of Hankook's petition, are the
views and arguments provided by Hankook. They have not been evaluated
by the Agency and do not reflect the views of the Agency. The
petitioner described the subject noncompliance and stated their belief
that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, Hankook submitted the following
reasoning:
    1. Under the Safety Act, each FMVSS promulgated by the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) must be ``practicable,
meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and be stated in objective
terms.'' 49 U.S.C. 3011l(a). The Safety Act defines ``motor vehicle
safety'' as: the performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle
equipment in a way that protects the public against unreasonable risk
of accidents occurring because of the design, construction, or
performance of a motor vehicle, and against unreasonable risk of death
or injury in an accident, and includes nonoperational safety of a motor
vehicle.
    2. 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(9).
    The Safety Act exempts manufacturers from the Safety Act's notice
and remedy requirements when NHTSA determines that noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. See 49 U.S.C.
30118(d) and 30120(h). Sections 30118(d) and 30120(h) demonstrate
Congress's acknowledgment that there are cases where a vehicle fails to
meet the requirements of a safety standard, yet the impact on motor
vehicle safety is so slight that an exemption from the notice and
remedy requirements of the Safety Act is justified. Hankook quoted the
following text from BMW of North America, LLC; Jaguar Land Rover North
America, LLC; and Autolive, Inc., 84 FR 19994 (May 7, 2019), Decision
of Petitions for Inconsequential Noncompliance.
    Neither the Safety Act nor Part 556 defines the term
``inconsequential.'' Rather, the agency determines whether particular
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety based upon the
specific facts before it in a particular petition. In some instances,
NHTSA has determined that a manufacturer met its burden of
demonstrating that a noncompliance is inconsequential to safety. For
example, a label intended to provide safety advice to an owner or
occupant may have a misspelled word, or it may be printed in the wrong
format or the wrong type size. Where a manufacturer has shown that the
discrepancy with the safety requirement is unlikely to lead to any
misunderstanding, NHTSA has granted an inconsequentiality exemption,
especially where other sources of correct information are available.
    3. The noncompliance involves new pneumatic radial tires used on
passenger vehicles. Such tires must comply with the labeling and
performance requirements of FMVSS 139, which specifies that ``each tire
must be labeled with the tire identification number required by 49 CFR
part 573.4 on the intended outboard sidewall of the tire.'' FMVSS 139
S5.5.1(b). Part 574(a) states that ``[e]ach new tire manufacturer must
conspicuously label on one sidewall of each tire it manufactures . . .
a TIN [tire identification number] consisting of 13 symbols and
containing the information set forth in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(b)(3) of this section.'' Subparagraph (b)(3) requires a date code
``consisting of four numerical symbols. . . [that] must identify the
week and year of manufacture.'' 574.5(b)(3.)
    4. The purpose of the labeling requirements in Part 574 is to
``facilitate notification to purchasers of defective or nonconforming
tires.'' Part 574.2. The date code portion of the TIN is required so
that purchasers can identify the week and year of the tire's
manufacture in the event the tire is subject to a safety recall.
    5. The date-code characters reflect the correct week and year of
the tires' manufacture, but the date code is technically out of
compliance because the characters are inverted. Despite the inversion,
the date code meets the character height requirements of Part 574 and
is readily identifiable, permitting tire owners to easily determine the
week and year of manufacture.
    6. NHTSA has previously granted a petition for inconsequential
noncompliance for a similar issue. In granting a petition from Cooper
Tire & Rubber Company, 81 FR 43708 (July 5, 2016) the Agency explained:
    The Agency believes that in the case of a tire labeling
noncompliance, one measure of its inconsequentiality to motor vehicle
safety is whether the mislabeling would affect the manufacturer's or
consumer's ability to identify the mislabeled tires properly, should
the tires be recalled for performance related noncompliance. In this
case, the nature of the labeling error does not prevent the correct
identification of the affected tires. 49

CFR 574.5 requires the date code portion of the tire identification
number to be placed in the last or correct position. In Cooper's case,
it is in the right-most position, however, the manufacture date code is
upside down. Because the label is located on the tire sidewall, it is
not likely to be misidentified. A reader will be able to read the date
code, by spinning the tire, and therefore inverting the date code will
allow it to easily be read.
    As with the Cooper tires, the date code on the subject tires is
located on the sidewall, is not likely to be misidentified, and a
reader will be able to read and understand the date code. The subject
tires otherwise meet the marking and performance requirements of FMVSS
No. 139.
    7. The labeling noncompliance at issue here is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety: the relevant information remains readily
identifiable, the Agency has granted a similar petition in the past,
the subject tires otherwise meet the marking and performance
requirements of FMVSS No. 139, and Hankook is not aware of any
complaints, claims or incidents related to the subject noncompliance.
    Hankook concluded by expressing its belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject tires that Hankook no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, any decision on this petition does not relieve equipment
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant tires under their control after Hankook
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8

Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2020-08114 Filed 4-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 244 (Thursday, December 19, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69747-69749]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27351]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0403]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Protection of Human
Subjects; Informed Consent; and Institutional Review Boards

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 January
21, 2020.

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 0910-0130.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Domini Bean, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<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.

Protection of Human Subjects; Informed Consent; and Institutional
Review Boards--21 CFR Parts 50 and 56

OMB Control Numbers 0910-0755 and 0910-0130--Revision

    This information collection supports Agency regulations pertaining
to the protection of human subjects, informed consent, and
responsibilities of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) as set forth in
parts 50 and 56 (21 CFR parts 50 and 56). Parts 50 and 56 apply to all
clinical investigations regulated by FDA under sections 505(i) and
520(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21
U.S.C. 355(i) and 360j(g), respectively), as well as clinical
investigations that support applications for research or marketing
permits for products regulated by FDA. The regulations in parts 50 and
56 are intended to protect the rights and safety of subjects involved
in such investigations. The regulations also contain the standards for
composition, operation, and responsibilities of IRBs that review
clinical investigations regulated by FDA.

21 CFR Part 50--Protection of Human Subjects

    Provisions in 21 CFR part 50 provide for the protection of human
subjects involved in FDA-regulated clinical investigations. With few
exceptions, no investigator may involve a human being as a subject in
FDA-regulated research unless the investigator has obtained the legally
effective informed consent of the subject or the subject's legally
authorized representative.
    Basic elements of informed consent are set forth in Sec.  50.25 and
include, among other things, a statement of the purpose and duration of
a subject's participation in the research; a description of the
procedures to be followed; identification of any experimental
procedures; a description of risks, benefits, and appropriate
alternative procedures or treatments; a description of extent to which
confidentiality of records identifying the subject will be maintained;
certain contact information; and a statement that participation is
voluntary and may be discontinued at any time. Additional elements set
forth in Sec.  50.25 are required in the informed consent as
appropriate. Exceptions to these requirements are governed by Sec.
50.23, which requires both investigator and physician to certify in
writing that necessary elements for exception from general requirements
have been satisfied; and Sec.  50.24, which covers exception from
informed consent requirements for emergency research. In accordance
with Sec.  50.27, informed consent must be documented, except as
provided in Sec.  56.109(c), which provides for an IRB to waive
documentation of informed consent in certain circumstances. Informed
consent must be documented using a written consent form approved by the
IRB and signed and dated by the subject or the subject's legally
authorized representative at the time of consent. For each clinical
investigation reviewed by an IRB, we believe there will typically be
one associated written consent form developed by an investigator. In
some cases, investigators will seek IRB approval of changes in the
research and/or consent form after initial IRB approval. For some
multi-institutional clinical investigations, the IRB of each
institution involved may separately conduct initial and continuing
review of the research, including review of the written consent form to
determine

whether it is in accordance with Sec.  50.25. However, in cases where a
multi-institutional clinical investigation uses a single IRB review
process, there may only be one IRB conducting such reviews.
    Finally, additional safeguards are required for children, as
prescribed in subpart D (21 CFR parts 50.50 through 50.56) of the
regulations.

21 CFR Part 56--Institutional Review Boards

    The general standards for the composition, operation, and
responsibilities of an IRB are set forth in 21 CFR part 56. IRBs serve
in an oversight capacity by reviewing, among other things, informed
consent documents and protocols for FDA-regulated studies, to make
findings required to approve research and document IRB actions. Part 56
also regulates the administrative activities of IRBs reviewing FDA-
regulated research including, among other things, identification of
types of IRB records that must be prepared and maintained. Required
recordkeeping includes documentation pertaining to written procedures,
proposals reviewed, committee membership, meeting minutes, actions
taken by the IRB, correspondence, as well as other functional and
operational aspects of the IRB. Finally, the regulations describe
administrative actions for non-compliance, including both
disqualification of IRBs or IRB parent institutions, as well as
reinstatement and alternative and additional actions.

Consolidation of Information Collection Requests

    On our own initiative, we are revising the information collection
under OMB control number 0910-0130 to include information collection
under OMB control number 0910-0755 pertaining to the protection of
human subjects, including informed consent and certain IRB
requirements. Because of the related nature of the information
collections and the applicable regulations in parts 50 and 56, we
believe taking this action will improve our operational efficiency.
    Description of Respondents: Respondents to the information
collection are IRBs that review and approve clinical investigations
regulated by the FDA and clinical investigators of such research who
obtain informed consent of human subjects prior to research
participation.
    In the Federal Register of August 14, 2019 (84 FR 40421), we
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received. Upon our own
review, however, we have reorganized and added detail to the notice to
describe more clearly the information collection and associated burden.
We continue to invite comment.
    We estimate the annual burden for the collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Number of
        21 CFR section            Number of     disclosures per    Total annual   Average burden    Total hours
                                 respondents       respondent       disclosures   per disclosure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
56.113; suspension or                   2,520                  1           2,520           * 0.5           1,260
 termination of research.....
56.120(a); IRB response to                  7                  1               7              10              70
 lesser administration
 actions for noncompliance...
56.123; reinstatement of an                 1                  1               1               5               5
 IRB or an institution.......
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total....................  ..............  .................  ..............  ..............           1,335
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.
* (30 minutes).

    Based on a review of data, there are currently 2,520 IRBs
overseeing FDA-regulated clinical research. After reorganizing the
table summarizing estimated annual reporting burden to list only one
requirement per row as discussed in the 60-day notice (84 FR 40421), we
recognized that some of those regulatory provisions are more
appropriately characterized as having associated recordkeeping or
third-party disclosure burdens. Therefore, we have revised Tables 1, 2,
and 3 accordingly in this notice. We request comments on this estimate.

                               Table 2--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of
         21 CFR section              Number of     responses per   Total annual   Average burden    Total hours
                                    respondents     respondent       responses     per response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50.24; exceptions from informed                8               3              24               1              24
 consent for emergency research.
50.27; documentation of informed           2,520              40         100,800           * 0.5          50,400
 consent........................
56.115; IRB records                        2,520            14.6          36,792              40       1,471,680
 (documentation of IRB
 activities)....................
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............       1,626,759
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.
* (30 minutes).

    As discussed above, we have reorganized the table to characterize
our estimate of burden associated with 50.24 and 50.27 as recordkeeping
burdens. We assume each of the 2,520 IRBs meets an average of 14.6
times annually and that approximately 40 hours of person-time per
meeting are required to meet the IRB recordkeeping requirements of 21
CFR 56.115. We have reduced the estimate of average burden per response
from 100 hours to 40 hours because we believe the original estimate of
100 hours has decreased with the use of electronic recordkeeping and
new technologies available to maintain records. We estimate burden
associated with recordkeeping responsibilities

under 21 CFR parts 50 and 56 cumulatively, however we have itemized
burden associated with certain of the regulatory provisions for
purposes of providing a more detailed estimate. We invite comment on
burden associated with these information collection requirements.

                           Table 3--Estimated Annual Third-Party Disclosure Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Number of
        21 CFR section            Number of     disclosures per    Total annual   Average burden    Total hours
                                 respondents       respondent       disclosures   per disclosure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50.25; elements of informed             2,520                 40         100,800           * 0.5          50,400
 consent.....................
56.109(d); written statement            2,520                  2           5,040           * 0.5           2,520
 about minimal risk research
 when documentation of
 informed consent is waived..
56.109(e); written                      2,520                 40         100,800           * 0.5          50,400
 notification to approve or
 disapprove research.........
56.109(g) IRB written                       8                  2              16               1              16
 statement about public
 disclosures to sponsor of
 emergency research under
 50.24.......................
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total....................  ..............  .................  ..............  ..............         103,336
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.
* (30 minutes).

    As discussed above, we have reorganized the table to characterize
our estimates of burden associated with 21 CFR 50.25, 56.109(d) and
56.109(e) as disclosure burdens. We estimate that eight IRBs per year
will receive a request to review emergency research under Sec.  50.24,
thus requiring written notification under 21 CFR 56.109(g) from the IRB
to the sponsor. We estimate that it will take an IRB approximately 1
hour to prepare each written statement, for a total of 2 hours per
study. The total annual third-party disclosure burden for IRBs to
fulfill this requirement is estimated at 16 hours.

    Dated: December 11, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-27351 Filed 12-18-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: May 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 94)]
[Notices]
[Page 27887-27888]
[DOCID:fr14my08-129]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Crewmember Demand Oxygen Mask

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of Technical Standard
Order (TSO) C-78a, Crewmember Demand Oxygen Mask. This TSO tells
persons seeking a TSO authorization (TSOA) or letter of design approval
(LODA) what minimum performance standards (MPS) their crewmember demand
oxygen mask must meet to be identified with the appropriate TSO
marking. This TSO has been revised to address a general requirement for
oxygen masks to be supplied with an oxygen supply tube.

DATES: TSO-C78a will be available on or before June 13, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John Petrakis, AIR-120, Room 815,
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591. Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    TSO C-78a addresses crewmember demand oxygen masks and breathing
valves that use either panel mounted or mask mounted demand and
pressure-demand oxygen regulators.
    This ``a'' revision to TSO-C78, became effective on February 13,
2008. Shortly after its release, we determined that the general
requirement to provide an oxygen supply tube for Type II and Type IV
oxygen masks needed to be revised. While an oxygen supply tube is a
required component of the Type II and Type IV oxygen mask, the original
TSO C-78 manufacturers are approved to provide oxygen supply tubes of
different lengths. The lengths of those oxygen tubes provided by the
manufacturer are aircraft specific. As is the case with all FAA
approved TSO articles, which are only design and production approvals,
the installation of a TSO C-78 or C-78a approved crewmember demand
oxygen mask requires a separate installation approval. Therefore, to
eliminate any confusion, we revised appendix 1 of TSO C-78a by removing
changes we made to paragraph 3.9, Oxygen Supply Tube, regarding the
length of the oxygen supply tube.

How to Obtain Copies

    You can view or download TSO C-78a from its online location at:
http://

www.faa.gov/regulations--policies/orders--notices/. At this Web page,
select Technical Standard Orders (TSO) Database. At the TSO page,
select ``Current.'' For a paper copy, contact the person listed in For
Further Information Contact. Note that referenced SAE International
documents are copyrighted and may not be reproduced without the written
consent of SAE International. You may purchase copies of SAE
International documents from: SAE International, 400 Commonwealth
Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001, or directly from their Web site:
http://www.sae.org/.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 7, 2008.
Susan J. M. Cabler,
Assistant Manager, Aircraft Engineering Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E8-10555 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 22 (Friday, February 3, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9210-9211]
[FR Doc No: 2017-02329]

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

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: EC17-72-000.
    Applicants: Great Western Wind Energy, LLC.
    Description: Application under Section 203 of the FPA of Great
Western Wind Energy, LLC.
    Filed Date: 1/30/17.
    Accession Number: 20170130-5154.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/17.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER17-305-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Ameren
Illinois Company, Ameren Transmission Company of Illinois, Northern
States Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2017-01-30_Compliance filing re
AIC_ATXI_NSP Attachment O ADIT revisions to be effective 1/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 1/30/17.
    Accession Number: 20170130-5140.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-469-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Report Filing: Supplement to ER17-469--Midwest Energy
Formula Rate Revisions to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 1/27/17.
    Accession Number: 20170127-5091.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/17/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-482-001.
    Applicants: BREG Aggregator LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Supplement to Application for Market
Based Rate Authority to be effective 1/31/2017.
    Filed Date: 1/27/17.
    Accession Number: 20170127-5216
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/17/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-637-001.
    Applicants: Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission, LLC, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Penelec and MAIT Submit Amendment to
Agency Agreement No. 4555 to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 1/30/17.
    Accession Number: 20170130-5110.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-885-000.
    Applicants: GridLiance West Transco LLC.
    Description: Initial rate filing: GWT Western Mead IA to be
effective 3/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 1/30/17.
    Accession Number: 20170130-5111.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-886-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: SWE (SMEPA) NITSA Amendment
Filing (To Remove Leaf River and Southern Pines DPs) to be effective 1/
1/2017.
    Filed Date: 1/30/17.
    Accession Number: 20170130-5145.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-887-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: SMEPA NITSA Amendment Filing
(To Add Leaf River and Southern Pines DPs) to be effective 1/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 1/30/17.
    Accession Number: 20170130-5149.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-888-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Queue Position #AB1-125,
Original Service Agreement No. 4617 to be effective 12/29/2016.
    Filed Date: 1/30/17.
    Accession Number: 20170130-5153.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-889-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2646R3 Kansas Municipal
Energy Agency NITSA NOA to be effective 1/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 1/30/17.
    Accession Number: 20170130-5163.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-890-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 1636R17 Kansas Electric
Power Cooperative, Inc. NITSA and NOA to be effective 1/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 1/30/17.
    Accession Number: 20170130-5167.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-891-000.
    Applicants: Louisville Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: IMEA-IMPA Revised PTP
Service Agreements to be effective 2/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 1/30/17.
    Accession Number: 20170130-5219.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-892-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2017-01-30_Compliance filing
regarding calculations for SRIC and SREC to be effective 2/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 1/30/17.
    Accession Number: 20170130-5243.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/17.

    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: January 30, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-02329 Filed 2-2-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 126 (Wednesday, July 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37690-37692]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16084]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75295; File No. SR-BOX-2015-23]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Rule 7260 To Extend, Through June 30, 2016, the Pilot Program
That Permits Certain Classes To Be Quoted in Penny Increments

June 25, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 17, 2015, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7260 to extend, through June
30, 2016, the pilot program that permits certain classes to be quoted
in penny increments (``Penny Pilot Program''). The text of the proposed
rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at
the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's
Internet Web site at http://boxexchange.com.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at

the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to extend the effective time period of the
Penny Pilot Program that is currently scheduled to expire on June 30,
2015, for an additional year, through June 30, 2016.\3\ The Penny Pilot
Program permits certain classes to be quoted in penny increments. The
minimum price variation for all classes included in the Penny Pilot
Program, except for PowerShares QQQ Trust (``QQQQ'')[supreg], SPDR S&P
500 Exchange Traded Funds (``SPY''), and iShares Russell 2000 Index
Funds (``IWM''), will continue to be $0.01 for all quotations in
options series that are quoted at less than $3 per contract and $0.05
for all quotations in options series that are quoted at $3 per contract
or greater. QQQQ, SPY, and IWM will continue to be quoted in $0.01
increments for all options series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Penny Pilot Program has been in effect on the Exchange
since its inception in May 2012. See Securities Exchange Act Release
Nos. 66871 (April 27, 2012), 77 FR 26323 (May 3, 2012) (File No.10-
206, In the Matter of the Application of BOX Options Exchange LLC
for Registration as a National Securities Exchange Findings,
Opinion, and Order of the Commission), 67328 (June 29, 2012), 77 FR
40123 (July 6, 2012) (SR-BOX-2012-007), 68425 (December 13, 2012),
77 FR 75234 (December 19, 2013) (SR-BOX-2012-021), 69789 (June 18,
2013), 78 FR 37854 (June 24, 2013) (SR-BOX-2013-31), 71056 (December
12, 2013), 78 FR 76691 (December 18, 2013) (SR-BOX-2013-56), 72348
(June 9, 2014), 79 FR 33976 (June 13, 2014) (SR-BOX-2014-17), 73822
(December 11, 2014), 79 FR 75606 (December 18, 2014) (SR-BOX-2014-
29). The extension of the effective date and the revision of the
dates to replace issues that have been delisted are the only changes
to the Penny Pilot Program being proposed at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange may replace, on a semi-annual basis, any Pilot Program
classes that have been delisted on the second trading day following
July 1, 2015 and January 1, 2016. The Exchange notes that the
replacement classes will be selected based on trading activity for the
six month period beginning December 1, 2014 and ending May 31, 2015 for
the July 2015 replacements, and the six month period beginning June 1,
2015 and ending November 30, 2015 for the January 2016 replacements.
The Exchange will employ the same parameters to prospective replacement
classes as approved and applicable under the Pilot Program, including
excluding high-priced underlying securities. The Exchange will
distribute Regulatory Circulars notifying Participants which
replacement classes shall be included in the Penny Pilot Program.
    BOX is specifically authorized to act jointly with the other
options exchanges participating in the Pilot Program in identifying any
replacement class.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\4\ in general, and Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general protect investors
and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In particular, the proposed rule change, which extends the Penny
Pilot for an additional year through June 30, 2016 and changes the
dates for replacing Penny Pilot issues that were delisted to the second
trading day following July 1, 2015 and January 1, 2016, will enable
public customers and other market participants to express their true
prices to buy and sell options for the benefit of all market
participants. This is consistent with the Act.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, this proposal
is pro-competitive because it allows Penny Pilot issues to continue
trading on the Exchange. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change will allow for further analysis of the Pilot and a
determination of how the Pilot should be structured in the future; and
will serve to promote regulatory clarity and consistency, thereby
reducing burdens on the marketplace and facilitating investor
protection. The Pilot is an industry wide initiative supported by all
other option exchanges. The Exchange believes that extending the Pilot
will allow for continued competition between market participants on the
Exchange trading similar products as their counterparts on other
exchanges, while at the same time allowing the Exchange to continue to
compete for order flow with other exchanges in option issues trading as
part of the Pilot.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \6\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\7\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \8\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing.\9\ However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because doing so will
allow the Pilot Program to continue without interruption in a manner
that is consistent with the Commission's prior approval of the
extension and expansion of the Pilot Program and will allow the
Exchange and the Commission

additional time to analyze the impact of the Pilot Program.
Accordingly, the Commission designates the proposed rule change as
operative upon filing with the Commission.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this pre-filing requirement.
    \10\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BOX-2015-23 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2015-23. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090 on official business days between the hours
of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2015-23 and should be
submitted on or before July 22, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-16084 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 2 Supporting Statement for a Request for OMB Review
under

The Paperwork Reduction Act

1.	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

	1(a)	Title and Number of the Information Collection

	Title:	Request for Contractor Access to TSCA Confidential Business
Information

		EPA ICR No.:  1250.098	OMB Control No.:  2070-0075

	1(b)	Short Characterization

EPA procures contract support to facilitate the performance of certain
duties.  EPA may require contractors to handle Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA) Confidential Business Information (CBI).  Each contractor
employee who will use TSCA CBI in the performance of his or her duties
must be authorized for access to TSCA CBI through a multi-step process.
The TSCA CBI Protection Manual (EPA Publication 7700 A2, revised October
2003; see Attachment C) provides Federal and contractor employees with
guidelines and operating procedures for handling TSCA CBI while
performing their official duties, as well as the procedures to obtain
authorization for access to TSCA CBI.

Specifically, for purposes of this information collection, contractor
personnel must submit to EPA the EPA form titled “TSCA CBI Access
Request, Agreement, and Approval” (EPA Form 7740-6) (Attachment A).
The Information Management Division (IMD), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), uses EPA Form 7740-6 to collect
information about contractor personnel so that the Agency can evaluate
their suitability for access to TSCA CBI.  EPA stores the information on
the OPPT Confidential Business Information Tracking System (CBITS).

2.	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

	2(a)	Need/Authority for the Collection

	This information collection request is necessary to protect information
under provisions of TSCA section 14 (Attachment B).  It is necessary for
EPA to provide guidance to its employees, other Federal agencies and
contractors on the proper handling of CBI submitted to EPA under TSCA.

	This information collection activity is necessary to protect
confidential information submitted to the Agency as mandated by TSCA
section 14 and is consistent with 5 CFR 1320.6.  The consequences of not
collecting these data could be monumental to private industry.  Under
TSCA, industry is required to submit data that may be deemed to be
confidential, such as formulas and financial information related to
chemicals companies plan to produce.  EPA is obligated to protect these
data as outlined by TSCA section 14.  In addition, the Agency could
possibly harm businesses if these data were released to competitors.

	The information collected by this request will be used to evaluate
contractor personnel who will be authorized for access to TSCA CBI.
Therefore the collection of information is necessary to provide the
protection mandated by TSCA.

	2(b)	Use/Users of the Data

	The information will be maintained within OPPT in paper copy files and
in an automated security access tracking system (CBITS, AXCON module)
with access limited to the OPPT TSCA Security Officer and Document
Control Officers (DCOs) in OPPT, other parts of EPA, in Regional Offices
and at contractor firms.

	The information will also be used to generate a monthly TSCA Authorized
Access List for distribution to DCOs for verification of Federal and
contractor employees authorized access to TSCA CBI.  The information
provided by contractor employees will not be released to sources who do
not have a valid “need to know.”  Information submitted by one
contractor will not be shared with another EPA contractor.  If this
information is not collected by the Agency, EPA will not be able to
evaluate the suitability of its contractor employees for TSCA CBI
access.

3.	NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

	3(a)	Non-Duplication

	No other Federal agency or department could provide the information
necessary for EPA to authorize contractor personnel for access to TSCA
CBI.  The data being collected are not available from any other sources
and can only be collected from individuals themselves.

	3(b)	Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Prior to submission to OMB, this ICR will be made
available to the public for comment through a Federal Register notice.
The public will have 60 days to provide comments.  Any comments received
will be given consideration when completing the supporting statement
that is submitted to OMBIn proposing to renew this ICR, EPA provided a
60-day public notice and comment period that ended on January 8, 2007
(71 FR 65809, November 9, 2006).  EPA received no comments during the
comment period.

	3(c)	Consultations

		  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Under 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1) OMB requires agencies
to consult with potential ICR respondents and data users about specific
aspects of ICRs before submitting an original or renewal ICR to OMB for
review and approval.  In accordance with this regulation, EPA will
pursue additional consultations with interested parties during the
development of the renewal of this collection.

Under 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), OMB requires agencies to consult with
potential ICR respondents and data users about specific aspects of ICRs
before submitting an ICR to OMB for review and approval.  Accordingly,
EPA solicited the feedback of nine potential respondents via email.  The
individuals contacted were:

Vincent J. Brown

Battelle

505 King Avenue

Columbus, Ohio 43201

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>James Buchert

Versar Inc.

6850 Versar Center

Springfield, VA  22151

E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

	Jeff Cantin

Eastern Research Group

110 Hartwell Avenue

Lexington, MA  02173-3198

E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Dyon Lane

Optimus Corporation

7926 Jones Branch Drive, Suite 900

McLean, VA 22102

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

	Laura Morlacci

Syracuse Research Corp.

2451 Crystal Drive, Suite 804

Arlington, VA  22202

E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Deena W. Vann

ASRC Aerospace Corporation

1201 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.

Washington, DC  20460

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

	Linda Stender

Computer Sciences Corp.

79 Alexander Drive (N127-02)

Building 4201

RTP, NC  27711

E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Karen Smalarz

Chemical Abstracts Service

2540 Olentangy River Road

P.O. Box 3012

Columbus, OH  43210

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

	Kristina Watts

Abt Associates Inc.

4800 Montgomery Lane, Suite 600

Bethesda, MD  20814

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 EPA received five responses to its solicitation
for consultations, none of which were of a nature, in EPA’s opinion,
that warranted revisions to the draft information collection.  A copy of
EPA’s consultations e-mail to the potential respondents, and copies of
the responses that EPA received, are found in Attachment D.

	3(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection

	This is a one-time information collection, if the clearance is renewed
annually.  When a clearance lapses, then a repeat of the initial
collection is required.

	3(e)	General Guidelines

	This information collection complies with the general guidelines found
at 5 CFR 1320.5.

	3(f)	Confidentiality

	The information collected is stored at EPA Headquarters in paper files
and in a secured local area network, the Confidential Business
Information Tracking System (CBITS) AXCON module.  Any hard-copy
information that is discarded from the system is shredded.  The EPA form
used to collect these data contains a Privacy Act statement that
complies with the Privacy Act and OMB Circular 108.

	3(g)	Sensitive Questions

	There are no sensitive questions contained in this information
collection.

4.	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

	4(a)	Respondents and NAICS Codes

	Respondents affected by this activity are found mainly under NAICS
codes 514 (Information Services) and 561 (Administrative and Support
Services).

	4(b)	Information Requested

	(i)	Data Items

	To complete the form, the contractor employee must: describe why access
to TSCA CBI is necessary for the successful performance of his or her
duties under the contract; identify, by section of TSCA, the types of
CBI to which access is needed; and provide personal identification
information.  Justification statements are provided on the form and the
employee only has to designate which statement (A, B, C, D or Other) is
applicable.

	In addition, the contractor must appoint an employee to serve as a
liaison (DCO) between EPA and the contractor to handle issues relating
to employee access to TSCA CBI.  Contractor responsibilities for
maintaining the access list are explained under Chapter 2.D.l.f of the
TSCA Confidential Business Information Security Manual.  Contractor DCOs
must ensure that contractor employees read the security manual and
attend a security briefing.  The DCO is responsible for conducting a
review, on a monthly basis, of the TSCA CBI Authorized Access List to
determine whether any names should be added to or deleted from the list
or whether any employee’s access authority should be broadened or
narrowed.  Any changes to the list require approval by the EPA Project
Officer and the OPPT DCO.

	(ii)	Respondent Activities

	The process that contractor employees must go through in order to be
authorized access to TSCA CBI entails the following:

	(1)	Read EPA Form 7740-6.

(2)	Gather required information and complete the form.

	(3)	Submit the form to the contractor DCO for processing, compilation
and review.

(4)	The contractor DCO files an in-house reference copy of the form.

(5)	The contractor DCO forwards the form to the EPA Project Officer (or
Delivery Order Project Officer) for signature and to forward on to the
OPPT DCO for further review and processing.

(6)	The contractor employee views the TSCA CBI security video.

5.	THE INFORMATION COLLECTED - AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

5(a)	Agency Activities -- Inventory

	The contractor DCO forwards the EPA Form 7740-6 submitted by a
contractor employee to the EPA Project Officer.  The Project Officer
then signs the form (Section V) and forwards the form to the OPPT DCO.
OPPT DCO staff review the form for completeness.  The form is processed
by the DCO staff and appropriate authorizing signatures are obtained;
the OPPT DCO is the final approval authority.  The information on the
form is then entered into the CBITS AXCON module.

	The information is retained within OPPT in paper copy files.  The
information is entered into CBITS with access limited to the OPPT
Security Staff and other Agency and Regional Office DCOs.  Current plus
one year of contractor information is maintained in the paper files.
Paper files are destroyed by shredding after a contractor employee has
relinquished his/her access.

	5(b)	Collection Methodology and Management

	Once processed within OPPT, each EPA Form 7740-6 is reviewed by an EPA
Project Officer and the OPPT DCO, and the data are entered into CBITS.
The monthly TSCA CBI Access List, which acts as a quality check on data
entry accuracy, is produced, published and distributed to TSCA DCOs.
There is no public access to the TSCA CBI Authorized Access List, nor to
any of the information stored in the CBITS AXCON module.

	CBITS is housed on a secured Local Area Network with OPPT internal
access only.  The system is available to CBI-cleared users exclusively.

	5(c)	Small Entity Flexibility

	All contractors regardless of company size are treated in the same
manner.  The collection process is simple and straightforward and can be
completed quickly.

	5(d)	Collection Schedule

	The information is collected once per each individual contractor
employee requesting access authorization to TSCA CBI, provided there is
no lapse in clearance and the individual does not relinquish his or her
TSCA CBI access authorization.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 6.	Estimating the Burden and Cost of the
Collection

	6(a)	Estimating Respondent Burden

	Eligible contractors were directly contacted in the development of
earlier versions of this ICR to determine the amount of time that would
be required by them to complete the tasks outlined in section 3 of this
ICR.  Because the requirements for this ICR have not changed from the
time the earlier estimates were made, the same estimates are used in
this analysis.  Currently 30 companies are under contract to EPA and
have a need to clear employees for access to TSCA CBI.  Those firms have
a total of 375 such employees cleared for access for an average of 12.5
CBI cleared employees per firm.

	The per-employee burdens are given in table 6.1 and the total annual
respondent burden is shown in table 6.2.  In previous ICRs, the
breakdown of employees among managerial, technical and clerical
employees was approximately 33%, 58% and 9% respectively.  This same
breakdown was used in this analysis resulting in an estimate of 124
managerial, 217 technical, and 34 clerical employees.  The total annual
burden for all firms is estimated to be 601 hours.Eligible contractors
were directly contacted in the development of earlier versions of this
ICR to determine the amount of time that would be required by them to
complete the tasks outlined in section 3 of this ICR.  Because the
requirements for this ICR have not changed from the time the earlier
estimates were made, the same estimates are used in this analysis.
During the past three years, 28 companies under contract to EPA had a
need to clear employees for access to TSCA CBI.  Those firms had a total
of 280 such employees cleared for access for an average of 10 employees
per firm.

	The per-employee burdens are given in table 6.1.  In previous ICRs, the
breakdown of employees among managerial, technical and clerical
employees was approximately 33%, 58% and 9% respectively.  This same
breakdown was used in this analysis resulting in an estimate of 92
managerial, 163 technical, and 25 clerical employees.  The total annual
burden for all firms is 446 hours.

Table 6.1:  EMPLOYEE BURDEN ESTIMATES

Collection Activities	Per Employee Burden Hours

	Management	Technical	Clerical

1.Contractor employee can either view the TSCA CBI security video;
complete the TSCA CBI On-line Briefing via the EPA Intranet; or use the
supplied CD-ROM for those the cannot access the intranet1.Contractor
employee can either view the TSCA CBI security video; complete the TSCA
CBI On-line Briefing via the EPA Intranet; or use the supplied CD-ROM
for those the cannot access the intranet	0.5000

	0.5000

	0.5000

2. Read EPA Form 7740-6	0.1630	0.1630	0.1630

3. Gather required information and complete form.	0.2240	0.1975	0.5280

4. Contractor Document Control Officer processes, compiles and reviews
form.	0.0961	0.0367	1.5480

5. Store, file, or maintain copy of form for in-house reference.	0.1089
0.0086	3.0190

6. Complete written form, obtain signatures, forward to EPA Information
Management Division	0.2275	0.0558	0.971

Table 6.2: TOTAL ANNUAL RESPONDENT (CONTRACTOR) BURDEN ESTIMATES

Collection Activities	Burden Hours (per year)	Total Hours

	Management	Technical	Clerical

	1.Contractor employee can either view the TSCA CBI security video;
complete the TSCA CBI On-line Briefing via the EPA Intranet; or use the
supplied CD-ROM for those the cannot access the intranet.1.Contractor
employee can either view the TSCA CBI security video; complete the TSCA
CBI On-line Briefing via the EPA Intranet; or use the supplied CD-ROM
for those the cannot access the intranet.	4662.0	81108.5	12.517.0
140.0187.5

2. Read EPA Form 7740-6	15.020.2	26.635.4	  4.15.5	45.761.1

3. Gather required information and complete form.	20.627.8	32.42.92
13.218.0	66.088.7

4. Contractor Document Control Officer processes, compiles and reviews
form.	8.811.9	6.08.0	38.752.6	53.572.5

5. Store, file, or maintain copy of form for in-house reference.
10.013.5	1.41.9	75.5102.6	86.9118.0

6. Complete written form, obtain signatures, forward to EPA Information
Management Division.	20.928.2	9.112.1	24.333.0	54.373.3

Totals	121.3163.6	156.8208.8	168.3228.7	446.4601.1

6(b)	Estimating Respondent Costs

	Respondent hourly costs in this ICR have been updated using the data
sources that have been used for this purpose in the past. The underlying
data come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Employer Costs for
Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables: Historical Data December
2006 – December 2008, US Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 12 2009.
These hourly cost estimates include wages, fringe benefits, and
overhead.   The wage and fringe benefit numbers are from the BLS data,
and the overhead allowance is calculated at 17% of the hourly wage.

Costs in this ICR have been updated using recent unpublished data from
the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the year 2005.  These wages include
fringe benefits and overhead.   Current labor rates are the following:

Category	Hourly wage	Fringe benefits	Overhead	Total hourly cost

Managerial	$43.22	$19.46	$7.35	$70.03

Technical	$35.29	$17.55	$6.00	$58.84

Clerical	$17.22	$8.33	$2.93	$28.48

	Labor Category		Hourly Rate

	Managerial			$63.61

	Technical			$53.02

	Clerical			$26.37

	Estimated total annual costs to the respondents are equal to $30,253
and are presented in table 6.3.  There are no capital costs for the
contractors associated with this collection.Estimated total annual costs
to the respondents are equal to $20,466 and are presented in table 6.3,
by activity and labor category.  There are no capital costs for the
contractors associated with this collection.

Table 6.3: ANNUAL RESPONDENT (CONTRACTOR) COST ESTIMATES

Labor category	Hourly cost	Number of clearances	Labor hours	Labor Cost
Total

Managerial	$70.03	124	163.6	$11,457

Technical	$58.84	217	208.7	$12,280

Clerical	$28.48	34	228.8	$  6,516

Totals                	601.1	$30,253

	6(c) 	Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

	The costs and burdens to the Federal Government are presented in the
table 6.4.  The Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics bases its
burden hour estimates on prior experience in gathering and processing
information associated with other information collections.  Hourly wages
for clerical support are based upon the salary for a GS-7, step1
($19.75).  Hourly costs for managerial and technical support are based
upon the salary for GS-15, step 1 ($57.90) and GS-12, step 1 ($35.03),
respectively.  The hourly rates were taken from the U.S. Office of
Personnel Management’s 2009 General Schedule for workers with the
Washington DC locality payment.  These hourly estimates were then
multiplied by 1.6 to account for benefits (EPA Instructions for
Preparing Information Collection Requests, 1992).  The hourly cost
estimates adjusted for benefits are $92.64 for managers, $56.05 for
technical workers, and $31.60 for clerical workers. Also included is an
estimated $6,500 cost for equipment.  The total cost to the Agency to
maintain the collection system is $57,604 per annum and the total Agency
burden is estimated at 1172 hours.

Table 6.4:  ANNUAL AGENCY BURDEN/COST ESTIMATES

Collection Activities	Burden Hours (per year)	Total Hours	Total Cost

	Management @ $92.64 	Technical

@ $56.05	Clerical

@ $31.60

1.  Read EPA Form 7740-6	35.5	40.0	18.5	94.0	$6,115

2.  Gather required information and complete form.	16.5	44.5	122.0	162.5
$7,878

3. EPA Document Control Officer processes, compiles and reviews form.
19.0	44.5	175.0	238.5	$9,784

4. Complete written form and obtain appropriate signatures.	18.0	12.5
47.0	77.5	$3,853

5. Store, file or maintain copy of form for in-house reference.	5.0	30.5
160.5	196.0	$7,245

6. DCO forwards form to Information Management Division	2.5	0.0	50.5
53.0	$1,827

7. Systems operations	5.0	150.0	175.0	330.0	$14,401 (labor), $6,500
(equipment)

Totals	101.5	322.0	748.5	1,172.0	$57,604

The costs and burdens to the Federal Government are presented in the
table 6.4.  The Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics bases its
burden hour estimates on prior experience in gathering and processing
information associated with other information collections.  Hourly wages
for clerical support are based upon the salary for a GS-7, step1
($17.57).  Hourly costs for managerial and technical support are based
upon the salary for GS-15, step 1 ($51.52) and GS-12, step 1 ($31.17),
respectively.  The hourly rates were taken from the U.S. Office of
Personnel Management’s 2006 General Schedule.  These hourly estimates
were then multiplied by 1.6 to account for benefits (EPA Instructions
for Preparing Information Collection Requests, 1992).  The inflated
hourly estimates yielded: $82.43 for managers, $49.87 for technical
workers, and $28.11 for clerical workers.  The total cost to the Agency
to maintain the collection system is $51,965 per annum and the total
burden was 1172 hours.

	6(d) 	Total Burden Estimates

	Table 6.5 displays the annual burdens and costs borne by respondents
and EPA, respectively, associated with preparing, filing and reviewing a
reporting form resulting from this information collection.

	6(e) 	Reasons for Change in Burden

The estimated annual burden to contractors has increased by 31 hours
(from 415 hours to 446 hours) in the total estimated respondent burden
compared with that identified in the information collection most
recently approved by OMB.  This reflects an increase in the number of
contractor employees that needed clearance.  This increase represents an
adjustment. Also, the costs to the industry respondents increased by
$4,978, because more employees needed clearance and because of increases
in wage rates.

Table 6.3: ANNUAL RESPONDENT (CONTRACTOR) COST ESTIMATES

Table 6.4:  ANNUAL AGENCY BURDEN/COST ESTIMATES

Table 6.5.  TOTAL COST AND BURDEN SUMMARY

	Annual Burden Hours	Annual Costs

Industry	   446.4601.1	$30,25220,4636

Agency	  1,172.0	$57,60451,965

	6(e) 	Reasons for Change in Burden

The estimated annual burden to contractors has increased by 155 hours
(from 446 hours to 601 hours) in total estimated respondent burden
compared with that identified in the information collection most
recently approved by OMB.  This reflects an increase in the number of
contractor employees that needed clearance.  This increase represents an
adjustment. Also, the costs to the industry respondents increased by
$9,786, because more employees needed clearance and because of increases
in wage rates.

	6(f) 	Burden Statement

	The annual public burden for this collection of information is
estimated to average 1.6 hours per response.  According to the Paperwork
Reduction Act, “burden” means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
or provide information to or for a Federal agency.  For this collection
it includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to
a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review
the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the
information.  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.  The OMB control number for this
information collection appears on page 1 of this document.  The OMB
control numbers for EPA’s regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after
appearing in the Federal Register, are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and
included on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable.

To comment on the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OPPT-20069-0929807.  The docket, which is available for public
viewing at the Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket in the EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC).  The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is located in the), EPA
West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.
The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number
for the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
 An electronic version of the public docket is available through the
Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov .  Use the federal
government-wide electronic docket and comment system at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov  to submit or view
public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public
docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are
available electronically. Once in the system, select “advance
search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you
can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC
20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA.  Use FDMS to submit or view
public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public
docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are
available electronically.  Once in the system, select “search,” then
key in the docket ID number identified above.  Also, you can send
comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503,
Attention: Desk Office for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0929 2006-0807 and OMB control number 2070-0075 in any
correspondence.

ATTACHMENTS TO THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT

Attachments to the supporting statement are available in the public
docket established for this ICR under docket identification number
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2006-0807.  These attachments are available for online
viewing at   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov
 or otherwise accessed as described in section 6(f) of the supporting
statement.

Attachment A:	Section 14 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C.
2613) – Disclosure of data. Also available electronically at
HYPERLINK
"http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title15/chapter53_subchapteri_.html"
http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title15/chapter53_subchapteri_.html

Attachment B:Attachment A:	EPA Form EPA Form 7740-6 - TSCA CBI Access
Request, Agreement, and Approval.

Attachment B:	Section 14 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C.
2613) – Disclosure of data. Also available electronically at
HYPERLINK
"http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title15/chapter53_subchapteri_.html"
http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title15/chapter53_subchapteri_.html

Attachment C:	TSCA Confidential Business Information Security Manual.
Also, available electronically at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/oppt/pubs/tsca-cbi-protection-manual.pdf"
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/pubs/tsca-cbi-protection-manual.pdf

Attachment D:	Record of Consultations between the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and Respondents to the Information Collection Request:
 “Request for Contractor Access to TSCA Confidential Business
Information”

August 13, 2007

 PAGE

 PAGE   1

Page   PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  10

August 13, 2007

Page   PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  10

  PAGE  10