56998 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2010 / Notices 

1 50 FR 15868–01 (April 23, 1985). 

2 Id. at 15883. 

3 68 FR 47221–01, 47223 (Aug. 8, 2003). 

4 68 FR 12622–02, 12626 (March 17, 2003). 

5 68 FR 47223. 

6 17 CFR 4.5(c)(2). 

7 17 CFR 13.2 (enumerating the process by which 

the Commission may be petitioned for the issuance, 

amendment or repeal of a rule). 

I. Background 

In 1985, the Commission adopted 

Rule 4.5, which provides an exclusion 

from the definition of ‘‘CPO’’ for certain 

otherwise regulated persons that 

operated certain qualifying entities.1 At 

the time of its adoption, any person 

seeking to claim the exclusion was 

required to file with the Commission a 

notice of eligibility that contained a 

representation that 

* * * such person will operate the 

qualifying entity specified therein in a 

manner such that the qualifying entity: (i) 

Will use commodity futures or commodity 

options contracts solely for bona fide hedging 

purposes within the meaning and intent of 

§ 1.3(z)(1) [subject to certain provisions] 

* * * (ii) Will not enter into commodity 

futures and commodity options contracts for 

which the aggregate initial margin and 

premiums exceed 5 percent of the fair market 

value of the entity’s assets, after taking into 

account unrealized profits and unrealized 

losses on any such contracts * * * and (iii) 

Will not be, and has not been, marketing 

participations to the public as or in a 

commodity pool or otherwise as or in a 

vehicle for trading in the commodity futures 

or commodity options markets.2

In 2003, the Commission amended 

Rule 4.5 by deleting the bona fide 

hedging requirement, the limitation on 

aggregate initial margin, and the 

prohibition on marketing.3 In proposing 

these amendments to Rule 4.5, the 

Commission explained that its decision 

to delete the hedging requirement and 

the limitation on aggregate initial 

margin was driven by the fact that 

persons and qualifying entities that are 

otherwise regulated ‘‘may not need to be 

subject to any commodity interest 

trading criteria to qualify for the 

exclusion afforded by Rule 4.5.’’ 4 The 

Commission further explained when 

adopting the final amendments that its 

decision to delete the prohibition on 

marketing was driven by comments 

claiming that ‘‘the ‘otherwise regulated’ 

nature of the qualifying entities * * * 

would provide adequate customer 

protection, and, further, that compliance 

with the subjective nature of the 

marketing restriction could give rise to 

the possibility of unequal enforcement 

where commodity interest trading was 

restricted.’’ 5

Rule 4.5 currently requires only that 

notices of eligibility include 

representations that 

* * * the qualifying entity: (i) Will 

disclose in writing to each participant, 

whether existing or prospective, that the 

qualifying entity is operated be a person who 

has claimed an exclusion from the definition 

of the term ‘commodity pool operator’ under 

the [Commodity Exchange] Act, and 

therefore, who is not subject to registration or 

regulation as a pool operator under the 

[Commodity Exchange] Act * * * and (ii) 

Will submit to special calls as the 

Commission may require.6

II. NFA’s Petition 

By letter dated August 18, 2010 

(‘‘Petition’’), NFA, a registered futures 

association, petitioned the Commission 

under Rule 13.2 7 to amend Rule 4.5. 

Specifically, NFA requested that, in 

addition to the two current 

representations required in a person’s 

notice of eligibility, Rule 4.5 should 

require the following representation: 

(iii) Furthermore, if the person claiming 

the exclusion is an investment company 

registered as such under the Investment 

Company Act of 1940, then the notice of 

eligibility must also contain representations 

that such person will operate the qualifying 

entity as described in [Rule] 4.5(b)(1) in a 

manner such that the qualifying entity: (a) 

Will use commodity futures or commodity 

options contracts solely for bona fide hedging 

purposes within the meaning and intent of 

[Rule] 1.3(z)(1); Provided however, That in 

addition, with respect to positions in 

commodity futures or commodity option 

contracts that may be held by a qualifying 

entity only which do not come within the 

meaning and intent of [Rule] 1.3(z)(1), a 

qualifying entity may represent that the 

aggregate initial margin and premiums 

required to establish such positions will not 

exceed five percent of the liquidation value 

of the qualifying entity’s portfolio, after 

taking into account unrealized profits and 

unrealized losses on any such contracts it has 

entered into; and, Provided further, That in 

the case of an option that is in-the-money at 

the time of purchase, the in-the-money 

amount as defined in [Rule] 190.01(x) may be 

excluded in computing such [five] percent; 

(b) Will not be, and has not been, marketing 

participations to the public as or in a 

commodity pool or otherwise as or in a 

vehicle for trading in (or otherwise seeking 

investment exposure to) the commodity 

futures or commodity options markets. 

III. Request for Comments 

The Commission requests public 

comment on any aspect of the Petition 

that commenters believe may raise 

issues under the Commodity Exchange 

Act or Commission regulations. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on September 

13, 2010 by the Commission. 

David A. Stawick, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23310 Filed 9–16–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. CPSC–2010–0046] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Submission for Office of 

Management and Budget Review; 

Comment Request; Consumer Focus 

Groups 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (‘‘CPSC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) 

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 October 18, 

2010. 

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: CPSC Desk Officer, FAX: 

202–395–6974, or e-mailed to 

oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. All 

comments should be identified with the 

OMB control number 3041–0136 and 

identified by Docket No. CPSC–2010– 

0046. In addition, written comments 

also should be submitted in http:// 

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

CPSC–2010–0046, or by mail/hand 

delivery/courier (for paper, disk, or CD– 

ROM submissions), preferably in five 

copies, to: Office of the Secretary, 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, 

Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 

504–7923. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Linda Glatz, Division of Policy and 

Planning, Office of Information 

Technology, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, 4330 East West Highway, 

Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504–7671, 

lglatz@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, the 

CPSC has submitted the following 

proposed collection of information to 

OMB for review and clearance: 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2010 / Notices 56999 

Consumer Focus Groups—(OMB 

Control Number 3041–0136–Extension). 

The Commission is authorized, under 

section 5(a) of the Consumer Product 

Safety Act (‘‘CPSA’’), 15 U.S.C. 2054(a), 

to collect information, conduct research, 

and perform studies and investigations 

relating to the causes and prevention of 

deaths, accidents, injuries, illnesses, 

other health impairments, and economic 

losses associated with consumer 

products. Section 5(b) of the CPSA, 15 

U.S.C. 2054(b), further provides that the 

Commission may conduct research, 

studies and investigations on the safety 

of consumer products or test consumer 

products and develop product safety 

test methods and testing devices. 

To better identify and evaluate the 

risks of product-related incidents, the 

Commission staff invites and obtains 

direct feedback from consumers on 

issues related to product safety such as 

recall effectiveness, product use, and 

perceptions regarding safety issues. 

Through participation in certain focus 

groups, consumers answer questions 

and provide information regarding their 

actual experiences, opinions and/or 

perceptions on the use or pattern of use 

of a specific product or type of product, 

including recalled products. The 

information collected from the 

Consumer Focus Groups will help 

inform the Commission’s evaluation of 

consumer products and product use by 

providing insight and information into 

consumer perceptions and usage 

patterns. Such information also may 

assist the Commission’s efforts to 

support voluntary standards activities 

and help identify areas regarding 

consumer safety issues that need 

additional research. In addition, the 

information will assist with forming 

new ways of providing user friendly 

data to consumers through CPSC’s Web 

site and information and education 

campaigns. 

If this information is not collected, the 

Commission may not have available 

certain useful information regarding 

consumer experiences, opinions, and 

perceptions related to specific product 

use in its ongoing efforts to improve the 

safety of consumer products and safety 

information on behalf of consumers. 

Currently, the Commission staff relies 

on its expert judgment about consumer 

behavior, perceptions, and similar 

information related to consumer 

products and product use. Not 

conducting the information collection 

activity, therefore, could reduce the 

quality of assessments currently 

completed by Commission staff. The 

information collection activity would 

likely provide the Commission staff 

with information that would focus the 

staff’s assessments, or could provide 

insight into consumer perceptions and 

usage patterns that could not be 

anticipated by Commission staff. 

In the Federal Register of June 7, 2010 

(75 FR 32161), the CPSC published a 60- 

day notice requesting public comment 

on the proposed collection of 

information. No comments were 

received. 

We estimate the burden of this 

collection of information as follows. We 

anticipate that, over the three year 

period of this request, we will conduct 

40 focus groups and 20 one-on-one 

interviews for a variety of projects. The 

total hours of burden to the respondents 

are: (4 hours per person × 400 

participants) + (30 minutes per person 

× 20 participants) = 1,610 hours (537 

hours budgeted per year for three years). 

The total annual cost is: 1,610 × $29.40 

(U.S. Department of Labor, Employer 

costs for Employee Compensation, 

September 2009) = $47,334 ($15,778 

budgeted per year for three years). 

The estimated annual cost of the 

information collection requirements to 

the Federal government is 

approximately $140,000 per year for 

three years. Salary and benefits costs for 

government personnel assigned to this 

study are estimated at $127,573 based 

on 9 months of staff time at an average 

level of GS–14 step 5 (($119,238 ÷ .701) 

÷ 12 months) × 21 months), using a 70.1 

percent ratio of wages and salary to total 

compensation from Table 1 of the 

December 2009 Employer Costs for 

Employee Compensation, published by 

the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This sum 

also includes travel costs expended for 

meeting with contractors ($40,000, 

estimated at $1,000 per focus group), 

and contracts for conducting focus 

groups and/or one-on-one interviews 

($250,000, estimated at $5,000 per focus 

group and $2,500 per one-on-one 

interview). 

Dated: September 14, 2010. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23280 Filed 9–16–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES 

SAFETY BOARD 

Senior Executive Service Performance 

Review Board 

AGENCY: Defense Nuclear Facilities 

Safety Board. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 

membership of the Defense Nuclear 

Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) Senior 

Executive Service (SES) Performance 

Review Board (PRB). 

DATES: Effective Date: September 17, 

2010. 

ADDRESS: Send comments concerning 

this notice to: Defense Nuclear Facilities 

Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue, NW., 

Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004–2001. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Deborah Biscieglia by telephone at (202) 

694–7041 or by e-mail at 

debbieb@dnfsb.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 5 U.S.C. 

4314 (c)(1) through (5) requires each 

agency to establish, in accordance with 

regulations prescribed by the Office of 

Personnel Management, one or more 

performance review boards. The PRB 

shall review and evaluate the initial 

summary rating of the senior executive’s 

performance, the executive’s response, 

and the higher level official’s comments 

on the initial summary rating. In 

addition, the PRB will review and 

recommend executive performance 

bonuses and pay increases. 

The DNFSB is a small, independent 

Federal agency; therefore, the members 

of the DNFSB SES Performance Review 

Board listed in this notice are drawn 

from the SES ranks of other agencies. 

The following persons comprise a 

standing roster to serve as members of 

the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety 

Board SES Performance Review Board: 

Christopher E. Aiello, Director of 

Human Resources, Federal Deposit 

Insurance Corporation 

David M. Capozzi, Director of Technical 

and Information Services, United 

States Access Board 

DeDe Greene, Executive Officer, Civil 

Rights Division, Department of Justice 

Christopher W. Warner, General 

Counsel, U.S. Chemical Safety and 

Hazard Investigation Board 

Dated: September 10, 2010. 

Brian Grosner, 

Chairman, Executive Resources Board. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23180 Filed 9–16–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3670–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Navy 

Meeting of the Independent Panel To 

Review the Judge Advocate 

Requirements of the Department of the 

Navy 

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice of Open Meetings. 

SUMMARY: The Independent Panel to 

Review the Judge Advocate 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1