43522 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 142 / Monday, July 26, 2010 / Notices 

of the 2005 National-Scale Air Toxics 

Assessment/National Emissions 

Inventory (NATA/NEI) data sets and 

more specific information needed for 

further rulemaking would be derived 

from the ICR. Information collected 

directly from companies owning or 

operating secondary aluminum 

production facilities will have the 

greatest practical utility for purposes of 

performing the RTR as information from 

the affected industry will contain the 

most up-to-date, accurate, and reliable 

equipment and operational data for each 

facility. 

It is essential for the EPA to have an 

updated database reflecting the postMACT configurations of secondary 

aluminum manufacturing affected 

sources and air pollution control 

systems to use in the regulatory analyses 

required under CAA sections 112(d) and 

(f). 

The data collected will be used to 

update facility information and 

equipment configuration, develop new 

estimates of the population of affected 

units, and identify the control measures 

and emission limits being used for 

compliance with the existing NESHAP. 

This information, along with existing 

permitted emission limits will be used 

to establish a baseline for purposes of 

the regulatory reviews. The emissions 

test data collected will be used to verify 

the performance of existing control 

measures, examine variability in 

emissions, evaluate emission limits, and 

to determine the performance of 

superior control measures that may be 

considered for purposes of reducing 

residual risk. Emissions data may also 

be used along with process and 

emission unit details to consider 

subcategories for further regulation and 

to estimate the environmental and cost 

impacts associated with any regulatory 

options considered. 

In addition to informing the RTR 

regulatory analyses for the secondary 

aluminum production industry, it is 

EPA’s intent that the NATA/NEI 

updates supplied through this 

information collection be used in future 

versions of the NATA/NEI and its 

successor, the Emissions Inventory 

System. The NEI is used by EPA, States, 

and the public for a variety of purposes 

including tracking of national trends in 

emissions of criteria and hazardous air 

pollutants. More information in the NEI 

can be found at http://www.epa.gov/air/ 

data/neidb.html. 

This collection of information is 

mandatory under CAA section 114 (42 

U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted 

to EPA pursuant to this ICR for which 

a claim of confidentiality is made is 

safeguarded according to Agency 

policies in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. 

Burden Statement: The projected cost 

and hour burden for industry for this 

one-time collection of information is 

$3,430,000 and 36,248 hours. This 

burden is based on an estimated 400 

respondents to the survey. This ICR 

does not include any requirements that 

would cause the respondents to incur 

either capital or start-up costs. 

Operation and maintenance costs of 

$1200 are estimated for postage to mail 

in the survey response to EPA. 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. This 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 which have subsequently 

changed; 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. 

The ICR provides a detailed 

explanation of the Agency’s estimate, 

which is only briefly summarized here. 

Estimated total number of potential 

respondents: 400. 

Frequency of response: One time. 

Estimated total average number of 

responses for each respondent: 1. 

Estimated total annual burden hours: 

36,248. 

Estimated total annual burden costs: 

$3,430,000. 

What is the next step in the process for 

this ICR? 

EPA will consider the comments 

received and amend the ICR as 

appropriate. The final ICR package will 

then be submitted to OMB for review 

and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 

1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue 

another Federal Register notice 

pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to 

announce the submission of the ICR to 

OMB and the opportunity to submit 

additional comments to OMB. 

If you have any questions about this 

ICR or the approval process, please 

contact the technical person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Dated: July 6, 2010. 

Peter Tsirigotis, 

Director, Sector Policies and Programs 

Division. 

[FR Doc. 2010–18232 Filed 7–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0133; FRL–9178–3] 

Notice of Supplemental Determination 

for Renewable Fuels Produced Under 

the Final RFS2 Program From Canola 

Oil 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of Data Availability 

(NODA). 

SUMMARY: On March 26, 2010, the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

published changes to the Renewable 

Fuel Standard (RFS) program as 

required by the Energy Independence 

and Security Act (EISA) of 2007. EISA 

increased the volume of renewable fuel 

required to be blended into 

transportation fuel to 36 billion gallons 

by 2022. Furthermore, the Act 

established new eligibility requirements 

for four types of renewable fuel, each 

with their own annual volume 

mandates. The eligibility requirements 

include minimum lifecycle greenhouse 

gas (GHG) reduction thresholds for each 

type of renewable fuel. EPA conducted 

lifecycle GHG analyses for a number of 

biofuel feedstocks and production 

pathways as part of its March 26, 2010 

final rule but, as indicated in the final 

rule, we did not have time to complete 

all the planned lifecycle GHG 

assessments for several specific 

renewable fuel pathways. Since the final 

rule, we have completed an assessment 

for an additional renewable fuel 

pathway, canola oil biodiesel. This 

Notice of Data Availability provides 

interested parties with information and 

an opportunity to comment on our 

proposed lifecycle analysis of canola oil 

biodiesel. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 25, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0133, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: asdinfo@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 142 / Monday, July 26, 2010 / Notices 43523 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation 

Docket and Information Center, EPA/ 

DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington DC 

20004. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Docket’s normal 

hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR–2010– 

0133. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or 

asdinfo@epa.gov. The http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

• Docket: All documents in the 

docket are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC 20004. The 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 Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the Air Docket is (202) 566– 

1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Doris Wu, Office of Transportation and 

Air Quality, Transportation and Climate 

Division, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann 

Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: 

734–214–4923; fax number: 734–214– 

4958; e-mail address: wu.doris@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Entities potentially affected by this 

action are those involved with the 

production, distribution, and sale of 

transportation fuels, including gasoline 

and diesel fuel or renewable fuels such 

as ethanol and biodiesel. Regulated 

categories include: 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by the RFS2 program. This 

table lists the types of entities that EPA 

is now aware of that could potentially 

be regulated under the program. To 

determine whether your activities 

would be regulated, you should 

carefully examine the applicability 

criteria in 40 CFR part 80, Subpart M. 

If you have any questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the preceding section. 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD ROM the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

• Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background on Lifecycle GHG 

Threshold Determinations 

A. Methodology 

1. Scope of Analysis 

On March 26, 2010, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

published changes to the Renewable 

Fuel Standard program as required by 

the Energy Independence and Security 

Act (EISA) of 2007. This rulemaking is 

commonly referred to as the ‘‘RFS2’’ 

final rule. As part of the RFS2 final rule 

we analyzed various categories of 

biofuels to determine if the complete 

lifecycle emissions associated with the 

production, distribution, and use of 

those fuels met minimum lifecycle 

greenhouse gas reduction thresholds as 

specified by EISA (i.e., 60% for 

cellulosic biofuel, 50% for biomassbased diesel and advanced biofuel, and 

20% for other renewable fuels). Our 

final rule had focused our lifecycle 

analyses on fuels that were anticipated 

to contribute relatively large volumes of 

renewable fuel by 2022, and thus did 

not cover all fuels that either are 

contributing or could potentially 

contribute to the program. In the final 

RFS2 rule we indicated that we did not 

have enough time to complete a 

lifecycle analysis for several specific 

pathways but would do so this year as 

a supplemental to the final rule. Since 

the final rule was issued, we have 

continued to examine several additional 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
43524 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 142 / Monday, July 26, 2010 / Notices 

pathways not analyzed for the final rule 

released in March. This Notice of Data 

Availability (‘‘NODA’’) focuses on our 

recent modeling of the canola oil 

biodiesel pathway. The modeling 

approach EPA used in this effort is the 

same approach used in the final RFS2 

rule for lifecycle analyses of other 

biofuels. Refer to the RFS2 final rule 

preamble and Regulatory Impact 

Analysis (RIA) for further discussion on 

our approach. 

2. Models Used 

The proposed analysis EPA has 

prepared for canola oil biodiesel uses 

the same set of models that was used for 

the final RFS2 rule: the Forestry and 

Agricultural Sector Optimization Model 

(FASOM) developed by Texas A&M 

University and others and the Food and 

Agricultural Policy and Research 

Institute international models as 

maintained by the Center for 

Agricultural and Rural Development 

(FAPRI-CARD) at Iowa State University. 

For details on the models used refer to 

the RFS2 final rule preamble or 

Regulatory Impact Analysis. These 

documents are available in the docket or 

online at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ 

fuels/renewablefuels/regulations.htm. 

The models require a number of inputs 

that are specific to the pathway being 

analyzed, including projected yield of 

feedstock per acre planted, projected 

fertilizer use, energy use in feedstock 

processing and energy use in fuel 

production. The docket includes 

detailed information on model inputs, 

assumptions, calculations, and the 

results of our proposed modeling for 

canola oil biodiesel. 

3. Scenarios Modeled 

To assess the impacts of an increase 

in renewable fuel volume from 

business-as-usual (what is likely to have 

occurred without EISA), we established 

reference and control cases for the RFS2 

final rulemaking published in March 

2010. The reference cases are 

projections of renewable fuel volumes 

without the enactment of EISA. The 

control cases are projections of the 

volumes of renewable fuel that might be 

used in the future to comply with the 

EISA volume mandates. The final rule 

reference case volumes were based on 

the Energy Information Administration’s 

(EIA) Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 

2007 reference case projections. Our 

control case volumes were based on our 

projections of a feasible set of fuel types 

and feedstocks. Although actual 

volumes could be different, we believe 

the projections made for our control 

cases allow for a reasonable assessment 

of the potential GHG impacts per gallon 

of fuel for volumes of renewable fuel 

likely resulting from implementation of 

the RFS2 program. 

For a number of fuel pathways such 

as ethanol from corn starch or biodiesel 

from soybean oil our reference case 

projected the business as usual volumes 

from EIA projections for that pathway 

which we were then able to compare to 

the control case volumes estimated to 

increase due to the EISA mandates. This 

incremental volume increase in 

renewable fuel volume was used to 

calculate lifecycle emissions per gallon 

or million British Thermal Units 

(mmBTU) of renewable fuel. Since our 

analysis normalizes the greenhouse gas 

emissions impacts on a per BTU basis, 

the effect of using different incremental 

volumes in our calculations is 

minimized. 

We based our control case projection 

of 200 million gallons of biodiesel from 

canola per year in 2022 on a few factors, 

including historical volumes, potential 

feedstock availability and competitive 

uses (e.g., for food or export instead of 

for domestic fuel), potential increases in 

crop acreage, and potential increases in 

crop and conversion yields. Our 

assessment is described further in the 

inputs and assumptions document that 

is available through the docket. Based in 

part on consultation with experts at the 

United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) and industry representatives, 

we believe that these volumes are 

realistic for the purpose of evaluating 

the impacts of producing biodiesel from 

canola oil. For biodiesel from canola oil, 

we do not have reference case 

predictions of business as usual 

volumes from EIA like we did for other 

fuels. We modeled the impact of an 

increase of 200 million gallons of 

biodiesel from canola per year by 2022 

compared to the final RFS2 control case 

(from the March 2010 analysis) which 

assumed no biodiesel from canola oil. 

While we recognize that some canola oil 

has historically been used to make 

biodiesel for domestic use, this range of 

production (zero to 200 million gallons) 

covers the range of production likely by 

2022. We believe that this modeled 

change in canola oil production for 

biodiesel provides an assessment of 

lifecycle GHG emissions per gallon of 

canola biodiesel which reasonably 

represents the per gallon impact over 

the likely range of canola biodiesel 

volumes expected through 2022. 

B. Results of Lifecycle Analysis for 

Biodiesel From Canola Oil 

As with other EPA analyses of fuel 

pathways with a significant land use 

impact, the proposed analysis for canola 

oil biodiesel includes a best estimate as 

well as a range of possible lifecycle 

greenhouse gas emission results based 

on formal uncertainty analysis 

conducted by the Agency. 

EPA believes that its analysis of 

canola oil biodiesel represents the most 

up to date information currently 

available on the GHG emissions 

associated with each element of the full 

fuel lifecycle. Notably the analysis 

includes an assessment of uncertainty 

for key parameters. The graph included 

in the discussion below depicts the 

results of our analysis (including the 

uncertainty in the modeling) for a 

typical pathway for canola oil biodiesel. 

We analyzed the lifecycle GHG 

emission impacts of producing biodiesel 

using canola oil as a feedstock assuming 

the same biodiesel production facility 

designs and conversion efficiencies as 

modeled for biodiesel produced from 

soybean oil. Canola oil biodiesel is 

produced using the same methods as 

soybean oil biodiesel, therefore plant 

designs are assumed to not significantly 

differ between these two feedstocks. 

Refer to the docket for more details on 

our key model inputs and assumptions, 

e.g., crop yields, biofuel conversion 

yields, and agricultural energy use. 

These inputs and assumptions are based 

on our analysis of peer-reviewed 

literature and reflect our consideration 

of recommendations of experts within 

the canola and biodiesel industries and 

those from USDA as well as the experts 

at Texas A&M and Iowa State 

Universities who have designed the 

FASOM and FAPRI models. 

As was the case for soybean oil 

biodiesel, production technology for 

canola oil biodiesel is mature and we 

have not projected in our assessment of 

canola oil biodiesel any significant 

improvements in plant technology; 

unanticipated energy saving 

improvements would further improve 

GHG performance of the fuel pathway. 

Additionally, similar to soybean oil 

biodiesel production, we assumed that 

the co-product glycerin would displace 

residual oil as a fuel source on an 

energy equivalent basis. This is based 

on the assumption that the glycerin 

market would be saturated in 2022 and 

that glycerin produced from biodiesel 

would not displace any additional 

petroleum glycerin production. 

However, the biodiesel glycerin would 

not be a waste and a low value use 

would be to use the glycerin as a fuel 

source. The fuel source assumed to be 

replaced by the glycerin is residual oil. 

Figure II–1 shows the results of our 

proposed modeling. It shows the 

percent difference between lifecycle 

GHG emissions for the typical 2022 

canola oil biodiesel as compared to the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 142 / Monday, July 26, 2010 / Notices 43525 

petroleum diesel fuel 2005 baseline. 

Lifecycle GHG emissions equivalent to 

the diesel fuel baseline are represented 

on the graph by the zero on the X-axis. 

The results for canola biodiesel are that 

the midpoint of the range of results is 

a 50% reduction in GHG emissions 

compared to the diesel fuel baseline. 

The 95% confidence interval around 

that midpoint results in range of a 20% 

reduction to a 75% reduction compared 

to the diesel fuel 2005 baseline. These 

results, if finalized, would justify 

authorizing the generation of biomassbased diesel RINs for fuel produced by 

the canola oil biodiesel pathway 

modeled, assuming that the fuel meets 

the other definitional criteria for 

renewable fuel (e.g., produced from 

renewable biomass, and used to reduce 

or replace transportation fuel) specified 

in EISA. 

The material in the docket includes 

detailed information on the assumptions 

and modeling inputs used. As was the 

case for analyses of other crop-based 

biofuels, EPA projected increases in 

canola crop yield based on long term 

trends. Yield improvement rates 

recommended by industry were higher 

and were based on recent shorter term 

trends. While we have not modeled 

what specific impact a higher crop yield 

assumption would have on the resulting 

lifecycle GHG assessment, higher 

projected yields would tend to reduce 

land use impacts which could result in 

some improvement in projected GHG 

performance of canola biodiesel. EPA 

invites comment on all aspects of its 

proposed modeling of the canola oil 

biodiesel pathway, including all 

assumptions made and modeling inputs. 

Table II–1 breaks down by stage the 

lifecycle GHG emissions for canola oil 

biodiesel and the 2005 diesel baseline. 

The biodiesel production process 

reflected in this table assumes that 

natural gas is used for process energy 

and accounts for co-product glycerin 

displacing residual oil. This table 

demonstrates the contribution of each 

stage and its relative significance. The 

docket also includes pathway analyses 

assuming coal or biomass is used 

instead of natural gas for process energy. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICESEN26JY10.081</GPH>
43526 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 142 / Monday, July 26, 2010 / Notices 

1The comment must be accompanied by an 

explicit request for confidential treatment, 

including the factual and legal basis for the request, 

and must identify the specific portions of the 

comment to be withheld from the public record. 

The request will be granted or denied by the 

Commission’s General Counsel, consistent with 

applicable law and the public interest. See FTC 

Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). 

TABLE II–1—LIFECYCLE GHG EMISSIONS FOR CANOLA OIL BIODIESEL, 2022 

[kgCO2e/mmBTU] 

Fuel type Canola oil biodiesel 

2005 Diesel 

baseline 

Net Domestic Agriculture (w/o land use change) ............................................................................................ 8 

Net International Agriculture (w/o land use change) ....................................................................................... 0 

Domestic Land Use Change ........................................................................................................................... 3 

International Land Use Change, Mean (Low/High) ......................................................................................... 31 (7/61) 

Fuel Production ................................................................................................................................................ 3 18 

Fuel and Feedstock Transport ........................................................................................................................ 2 * 

Tailpipe Emissions ........................................................................................................................................... 1 79 

Total Emissions, Mean (Low/High) .......................................................................................................... 48 (25/78) 97 

* Emissions included in fuel production stage. 

Refer to the docket for more detailed 

outputs from our proposed lifecycle 

modeling. The docket includes a useful 

memorandum which summarizes 

relevant materials used for the canola 

biodiesel pathways analysis. Described 

in the memorandum, for example, are 

the input and assumptions document 

and detailed results spreadsheets (e.g., 

foreign agricultural impacts, foreign 

agricultural energy use, FASOM and 

FAPRI model results) used to generate 

the results presented above. These 

additional materials are also available 

through the docket. 

Dated: July 13, 2010. 

Margo T. Oge, 

Director, Office of Transportation & Air 

Quality. 

[FR Doc. 2010–18227 Filed 7–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Proposed Collection; 

Comment Request 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission 

(‘‘FTC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The information collection 

requirements described below will be 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) for review, as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (‘‘PRA’’). The FTC seeks public 

comments on its proposal to extend 

through December 31, 2013 the current 

OMB clearance for information 

collection requirements contained in its 

Affiliate Marketing Rule (or ‘‘Rule’’). 

That clearance expires on December 31, 

2010. 

DATES: Comments must be filed by 

September 24, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are 

invited to submit written comments 

electronically or in paper form by 

following the instructions in the 

Request for Comments part of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below. Comments in electronic form 

should be submitted by using the 

following weblink: (https:// 

ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ 

AffiliateMarketingPRA) (and following 

the instructions on the web-based form). 

Comments filed in paper form should be 

mailed or delivered to the following 

address: Federal Trade Commission, 

Office of the Secretary, Room H-135 

(Annex J), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

N.W., Washington, DC 20580, in the 

manner detailed in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information 

should be addressed to Anthony 

Rodriguez, Attorney, Division of Privacy 

and Identity Protection, Bureau of 

Consumer Protection, Federal Trade 

Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

N.W., Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326- 

2757. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Request for Comments 

Interested parties are invited to 

submit written comments. Comments 

should refer to ‘‘Affiliate Marketing 

Rule: FTC File No. P105411’’ to facilitate 

the organization of comments. Please 

note that your comment – including 

your name and your state – will be 

placed on the public record of this 

proceeding, including on the publicly 

accessible FTC website, at (http:// 

www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm). 

Because comments will be made 

public, they should not include any 

sensitive personal information, such as 

any individual’s Social Security 

Number; date of birth; driver’s license 

number or other state identification 

number, or foreign country equivalent; 

passport number; financial account 

number; or credit or debit card number. 

Comments also should not include any 

sensitive health information, such as 

medical records or other individually 

identifiable health information. In 

addition, comments should not include 

‘‘[t]rade secret or any commercial or 

financial information which is obtained 

from any person and which is privileged 

or confidential’’ as provided in Section 

6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission 

Act (‘‘FTC Act’’), 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and 

FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). 

Comments containing matter for which 

confidential treatment is requested must 

be filed in paper form, must be clearly 

labeled ‘‘Confidential,’’ and must 

comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c).1

Because paper mail addressed to the 

FTC is subject to delay due to 

heightened security screening, please 

consider submitting your comments in 

electronic form. Comments filed in 

electronic form should be submitted 

using the following weblink (https:// 

ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ 

AffiliateMarketingPRA) (and following 

the instructions on the web-based form). 

To ensure that the Commission 

considers an electronic comment, you 

must file it on the web-based form at the 

weblink (https:// 

ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ 

AffiliateMarketingPRA). If this Notice 

appears at (www.regulations.gov/search/ 

index.jsp), you may also file an 

electronic comment through that 

website. The Commission will consider 

all comments that regulations.gov 

forwards to it. 

The FTC Act and other laws that the 

Commission administers permit the 

collection of public comments to 

consider and use in this proceeding as 

appropriate. The Commission will 

consider all timely and responsive 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES