[Federal Register: March 30, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 61)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 15045-15046]
[DOCID:fr30mr07-6]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0545; FRL-8292-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio; Volatile
Organic Compound Emission Control Measures for Cincinnati and Dayton

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving several volatile organic compound (VOC)
rules, that were submitted on May 9, 2006, into the Ohio State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These rules would partially replace the VOC
reductions from Ohio's vehicle inspection and maintenance (E-Check)
program (which ended on December 31, 2005) in the Cincinnati and Dayton
areas. These rules include a provision requiring the use of lower
emitting solvents in cold cleaner degreasers, the use of more efficient
auto refinishing painting application techniques and a rule requiring
the use of lower emitting portable fuel containers. These rules are
approvable because they contain more stringent requirements than Ohio's
existing rules and they are enforceable. Ohio has correctly calculated
their VOC emission reduction impact. EPA is also approving several
other rule revisions, all of which meet EPA requirements, including an
exemption for Ohio's printing rules, a site-specific rule for an
aerosol can filling facility, elimination of the fluid catalytic
cracking unit limitations for a Marathon Petroleum LLC facility, and an
alternative leak detection and repair program for the Premcor Lima
Refinery. These rules were proposed for approval on December 6, 2006,
and no adverse comments were received.

DATES: This final rule is effective on April 30, 2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0545. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Steven Rosenthal,
Environmental Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Rosenthal, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What Public Comments Were Received on the Proposed Approval and
What Is EPA's Response.
II. What Action Is EPA Taking?
III. What Is the Purpose of This Action?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.

I. What Public Comments Were Received on the Proposed Approval and What
Is EPA's Response?

    No adverse comments were received. The Sherwin-Williams Company
submitted a comment supporting approval of paragraph 3745-21-09 (RR)
pertaining to the site specific reasonably available control technology
requirements for the Sherwin-Williams aerosol can filling facility in
Bedford Heights, Ohio.
    Since this comment was supportive of the action being taken there
is no need to respond to it.

II. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is approving several VOC rules into the Ohio SIP. These include
more stringent solvent degreasing rules, an exemption for its printing
rules, a site-specific rule for an aerosol can filling facility,
elimination of the fluid catalytic cracking unit limitations for a
Marathon Petroleum Company LLC facility, an alternative leak detection
and repair program for the Premcor Lima Refinery, a rule requiring the
marketing and sale of only low-emitting portable fuel containers, and a
rule including the use of high efficiency paint application equipment
at auto body refinishing operations.

III. What Is the Purpose of This Action?

    The primary purpose of the rules that Ohio submitted is to obtain
VOC emission reductions. These reductions would partially offset the
increase in VOC emissions resulting from elimination of its E-Check
program in the Cincinnati and Dayton areas. Ohio EPA has submitted
additional VOC and nitrogen oxide emission reduction measures to fully
compensate for the resulting increase in emissions. These additional
emission reduction measures, as well as other demonstrations needed to
remove the E-Check program from the Ohio SIP, will be the subject of
future rulemaking actions. This notice also approves several site-
specific rule revisions that have been requested by emission sources in
Ohio.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant regulatory action,'' this
action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This action merely approves state law as meeting federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state
law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that
required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments

    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more

Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a
federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air
Act.

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks

    This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).

Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 29, 2007. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See Section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: March 6, 2007.
Mary A. Gade,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, of title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart KK--Ohio

0
2. Section 52.1870 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(135) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1870  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (135) On May 9, 2006, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
submitted several volatile organic compound rules for approval into the
Ohio State Implementation Plan.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 3745-21-01 Definitions:
Paragraphs (D) and (Z), adopted 1/31/2006, effective 2/10/2006.
    (B) Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 3745-21-04 Attainment dates
and compliance time schedules: Paragraph (C)(16)(c), adopted 1/31/2006,
effective 2/10/2006.
    (C) Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 3745-21-09 Control of
emissions of volatile organic compounds from stationary sources and
perchloroethylene from dry cleaning facilities: Paragraphs
(O)(2)(e),(O)(6)(b),(T)(4),(Y), (HH), (RR), and (VV), adopted 3/2/2006,
effective 3/12/2006.
    (D) Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 3745-21-17: Portable Fuel
Containers, adopted 1/31/2006, effective 2/10/2006.
    (E) Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 3745-21-18: Commercial Motor
Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Refinishing Operations, adopted 1/31/2006,
effective 2/10/2006.

 [FR Doc. E7-5800 Filed 3-29-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 144 (Friday, July 30, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40957-40959]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15986]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2020-0034]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Chicago River, Chicago, IL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is revising the operating schedule that
governs the Amtrak Railroad Bridge, mile 3.77, across the South Branch
of the Chicago River, at Chicago, Illinois to be operated remotely and
establish an intermediate opening position.

DATES: This rule is effective August 30, 2021.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov. Type USCG-
2020-0034 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Lee D. Soule, Bridge Management Specialist, Ninth
Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
IGLD85 International Great Lakes Datum of 1985
LWD Low Water Datum based on IGLD85
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Advance, Supplemental)
OMB Office of Management and Budget
Sec.  Section
TD Temporary Deviation with Request for comments
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On April 8, 2020 the Coast Guard published a TD in the Federal
Register (85 FR 19659) to test the proposed rule and allow mariners to
provide comments from June 1, 2020 through September 1, 2020. We
received one unrelated comment.
    On May 4, 2021, the Coast Guard published a NPRM in the Federal
Register (86 FR 23639). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and
invited comments on proposed regulatory action. During the comment
period that ended on June 3, 2021, we received zero (0) comments.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.
    The Amtrak Railroad Bridge, mile 3.77, over the South Branch of the
Chicago River provides a vertical clearance of 10 feet in the down
position and 65 feet in the open position above LWD and a horizontal
clearance of 156 feet. The bridge crosses the river on a slight skew on
an ``S'' curve in the

river requiring longer vessels to use most of the horizontal clearance
for maneuvering. The South Branch of the Chicago River is part of a
network of waterways that allow vessels to travel from Chicago, IL to
New Orleans, LA. Cook County described the Chicago River as the 5th
largest port in the United States, hosting commercial vessels over 300
tons, recreational power and sailing vessels, several passenger
vessels, water taxies, paddle boats and various paddle craft. Most
vessels can pass under all of the bridges in the Chicago metropolitan
area without an opening, with the exception of the Amtrak Bridge.
During an average weekday, 150,000 commuters travel over the Amtrak
Bridge.
    In accordance with general bridge regulations a drawbridge must
open promptly and fully when signaled to open. Lifting the bridge to 65
feet for every vessel when most vessels only need an additional 10 feet
of clearance increases the delay experienced by all modes of
transportation.
    The Amtrak Bridge has been operating remotely for several years
without any concerns for the mariners.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    We received one comment to the TD that was unrelated to the bridge
or proposed regulatory action. We did not receive any comments to the
NPRM, and do not intend to change anything from the published NPRM.

V. Discussion of Final Rule

    The Coast Guard is including in the regulations that the AMTRAK
Bridge is authorized to operate remotely.
    The Coast Guard is authorizing the bridge to open to an
intermediate position that will provide a vertical clearance of 34 feet
above LWD. A yellow light at the center of the bridge, visible to
vessels approaching the bridge from both upriver and downriver sides
will verify the bridge has met the intermediate height. At any time a
vessel with greater air draft can radio the drawtender and request a
full opening. This rule is expected to increase bridge availability to
all users by 50%.

VII. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protesters.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has
not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that
vessels can still transit the bridge without changing the bridge
schedule and it keeps the maximum advertised clearance available for
vessels as needed.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V. A
above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01, Rev.1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1
(series) which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The
Coast Guard has determined that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on

the human environment. This rule promulgates the operating regulations
or procedures for drawbridges and is categorically excluded from
further review, under paragraph L49, of Chapter 3, Table3-1 of the U.S.
Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementation Procedures.
    Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum
for the Record are required for this rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

Sec.  117.391  [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  117.391 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  117.391  Chicago River.

* * * * *
    (d) The Amtrak Bridge, mile 3.77, is authorized to operate remotely
and open to the intermediate position on signal, unless a request for a
full opening is received by the drawtender. The bridge is required to
operate a marine radio.
* * * * *

M.J. Johnston,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2021-15986 Filed 7-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: September 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 175)]
[Notices]
[Page 53483]
[DOCID:fr11se06-122]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC
20549.

Extension:
    Rule 27e-1 and Form N-27E-1; SEC File No. 270-486; OMB Control
No. 3235-0545.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') a request for extension of the
previously approved collection of information discussed below.
    Section 27(e) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') (15
U.S.C. 80a-27(e)) provides that a registered investment company issuing
a periodic payment plan certificate, or any depositor or underwriter
for such company, must notify in writing ``each certificate holder who
has missed three payments or more, within thirty days following the
expiration of fifteen months after the issuance of the certificate, or,
if any such holder has missed one payment or more after such period of
fifteen months but prior to the expiration of eighteen months after the
issuance of the certificate, at any time prior to the expiration of
such eighteen month period, of his right to surrender his certificate *
* * and inform the certificate holder of (A) the value of the holder's
account * * *, and (B) the amount to which he is entitled * * *.''
    Section 27(e) authorizes the Commission to ``make rules specifying
the method, form, and contents of the notice required by this
subsection.'' Rule 27e-1 (17 CFR 270.27e-1) under the Act, entitled
``Requirements for Notice to Be Mailed to Certain Purchasers of
Periodic Payment Plan Certificates Sold Subject to Section 27(d) of the
Act,'' provides instructions for the delivery of the notice required by
section 27(e).
    Rule 27e-1(f) prescribes Form N-27E-1 (17 CFR 274.127e-1), which
sets forth the language the issuing registered investment company or
its depositor or underwriter must use ``to inform certificate holders
of their right to surrender their certificates pursuant to Section
27(d).'' The instructions to the form require that a notice containing
the language on the form be sent to certificate holders on the sender's
letterhead. The issuer is not required to file with the Commission a
copy of the Form N-27E-1 notice.
    The Form N-27E-1 notice to certificate holders who have missed
certain payments is intended to encourage certificate holders, in light
of the potential for further missed payments, to weigh the anticipated
costs and benefits associated with continuing to hold their
certificates. The disclosure assists certificate holders in making
careful and fully informed decisions about whether to continue
investing in periodic payment plan certificates.
    The frequency with which each of these issuers or their
representatives must file the Form N-27E-1 notice varies with the
number of periodic payment plans sold and the number of certificate
holders who miss payments. The staff spoke with representatives of a
number of firms in the industry that currently have periodic payment
plan accounts. Based upon these conversations, the staff estimates that
3 respondents send out an aggregate of approximately 5054 notices per
year through completely automated processes. The staff further
estimates that all the issuers that send Form N-27E-1 notices use
outside contractors to print and distribute the notice, and incur no
hourly burden. The estimate of annual burden hours is made solely for
the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a
comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of
Commission rules and forms.
    Complying with the collection of information requirements of rule
27e-1 is mandatory for issuers of periodic payment plans or their
depositors or underwriters in the event holders of plan certificates
miss certain payments within eighteen months after issuance. The
information provided pursuant to rule 27e-1 will be provided to third
parties and, therefore, will not be kept confidential. The Commission
is seeking OMB approval, because an agency may not conduct or sponsor,
and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid control number.
    General comments regarding the above information should be directed
to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503 or by e-mail to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief

Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312, or by e-
mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within
30 days after this notice.

    Dated: September 1, 2006.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-14948 Filed 9-8-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P