Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 8, 2010 / Notices 54631 

corm vegetable subgroup 1C at 0.02 

ppm. Independently validated 

analytical methods have been submitted 

for analyzing parent metconazole 

residues with appropriate sensitivity for 

crops and processed commodities for 

which a tolerance is being requested. 

Contact: Andrew Ertman, (703) 308– 

9367, e-mail address: 

ertman.andrew@epa.gov. 

4. PP 0F7711. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2010– 

0425). Bayer CropScience, 2 T.W. 

Alexander Drive, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27709, proposes to establish 

tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for 

residues of the insecticide penflufen, 

(1H-pyrazole-4-carboxamide, N-[2-(1,3- 

dimethylbutyl)phenyl]-5-fluoro-1,3- 

dimethyl-), in or on alfalfa, forage and 

hay at 0.01 ppm; cotton, gin byproducts 

at 0.01 ppm; canola, borage, crambe, 

cuphea, echium, flax seed, gold of 

pleasure, hare’s ear mustard, 

lesquerella, lunaria. meadowfoam, 

milkweed, mustard seed, oil radish, 

poppy seed, rapeseed, sesame, sweet 

rocket, calendula, castor oil plant, 

Chinese tallowtree, cottonseed, 

euphorbia, evening primrose, jojoba, 

niger seed, rose hip, safflower, stokes 

aster, sunflower, tallowwood, tea oil 

plant, and vernonia at 0.01 ppm; grain, 

cereal, group 15 at 0.01 ppm; grain, 

cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group 

16 at 0.01 ppm; vegetable, legume, 

group 06 at 0.01 ppm; vegetable, foliage 

of legume, group 07 at 0.01 ppm; and 

vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 

01C at 0.01 ppm. Tolerances are being 

proposed in primary crops solely for 

penflufen. The analytical method 

involves solvent extraction, filtration, 

and addition of an isotopically labeled 

internal standard followed by acid 

hydrolysis. Quantitation is by high 

performance liquid chromatographyelectrospray ionization/tandem mass 

spectrometry (LC/MS/MS). Contact: 

Marianne Lewis, (703) 308–8043, e-mail 

address: lewis.marianne@epa.gov. 

Amended Tolerance 

PP 0E7735. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2010– 

0583). Interregional Research Project 

Number 4 (IR-4) Project Headquarters, 

Rutgers, The State University of New 

Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 

W, Princeton, NJ 08450, proposes to 

delete the existing tolerance in 40 CFR 

180.557 for residues of the fungicide 

tetraconazole, 1-[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)- 

3-(1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethoxyl)propyl]-1 

H-1,2,4-triazole, in or on grape at 0.20 

ppm since grape is included in the 

proposed subgroup 13-07F in 2. under 

‘‘New Tolerance’’. Contact: Sidney 

Jackson, (703) 305–7610, e-mail address: 

jackson.sidney@epa.gov. 

New Tolerance Exemption 

PP 0F7687. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2004– 

0144). Stehekin, LLC, 1012 Good Lander 

Drive, WA 98942, proposes to amend 40 

CFR 180.920 to establish an exemption 

from the requirement of a tolerance for 

residues of 1-naphthaleneacetic acid, 

potassium and sodium salts (NAA) in or 

on potato. The analytical method for 

NAA was submitted to the Agency 

under EPA MRID number 445554–03 for 

the detection and measurement of the 

pesticide residues. Contact: Janet 

Whitehurst, (703) 305–6129, e-mail 

address: whitehurst.janet@epa.gov. 

List of Subjects 

Environmental protection, 

Agricultural commodities, Feed 

additives, Food additives, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: August 30, 2010. 

G. Jeffrey Herndon, 

Acting Director, Registration Division, Office 

of Pesticide Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22331 Filed 9–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0711; FRL–9198–5] 

Proposed Approval of the Central 

Characterization Project’s Transuranic 

Waste Characterization Program at the 

Hanford Site 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Notice of availability; opening 

of public comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA or the Agency) is 

announcing the availability of, and 

soliciting public comments for 45 days 

on, the proposed approval of the 

radioactive contact-handled (CH) 

transuranic (TRU) waste 

characterization program implemented 

by the Central Characterization Project 

(CCP) at the Hanford Site in Richland, 

Washington. This waste is intended for 

disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot 

Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico. 

In accordance with the WIPP 

Compliance Criteria, EPA evaluated the 

characterization of TRU debris waste 

from Hanford-CCP during an inspection 

conducted on April 27–29, 2010. Using 

the systems and processes developed as 

part of the U.S. Department of Energy’s 

(DOE’s) Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) 

program, EPA verified whether DOE 

could adequately characterize CH TRU 

debris waste, consistent with the 

Compliance Criteria. The results of 

EPA’s evaluation of Hanford-CCP’s 

waste characterization program and its 

proposed approval are described in the 

Agency’s inspection report, which is 

available for review in the public 

dockets listed in ADDRESSES. We will 

consider public comments received on 

or before the due date mentioned in 

DATES. 

This notice summarizes the waste 

characterization processes evaluated by 

EPA and EPA’s proposed approval. As 

required by the 40 CFR 194.8, at the end 

of a 45-day comment period EPA will 

evaluate public comments received, and 

if appropriate, finalize the reports 

responding to the relevant public 

comments and issue a final report and 

approval letter to DOE. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 25, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0711, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: to a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: 202–566–1741. 

• Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Attn: Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0711. The Agency’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 e-mail. 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
54632 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 8, 2010 / Notices 

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 at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. As provided in 

EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part 2, and 

in accordance with normal EPA docket 

procedures, if copies of any docket 

materials are requested, a reasonable fee 

may be charged for photocopying. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rajani Joglekar or Ed Feltcorn, Radiation 

Protection Division, Center for Waste 

Management and Regulations, Mail 

Code 6608J, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, Washington, DC 20460; 

telephone number: 202–343–9601; fax 

number: 202–343–2305; e-mail address: 

joglekar.rajani@epa.gov or 

feltcorn.ed@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. 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 

DOE is developing the WIPP, near 

Carlsbad in southeastern New Mexico, 

as a deep geologic repository for 

disposal of TRU radioactive waste. As 

defined by the WIPP Land Withdrawal 

Act (LWA) of 1992 (Pub. L. No. 102– 

579), as amended (Pub. L. No. 104–201), 

TRU waste consists of materials with 

radionuclides that have atomic numbers 

greater than 92 (with half-lives greater 

than twenty years), in concentrations 

greater than 100 nanocuries of alphaemitting TRU isotopes per gram of 

waste. Much of the existing TRU waste 

consists of items contaminated during 

the production of nuclear weapons, 

such as rags, equipment, tools, and 

sludges. 

TRU waste is itself divided into two 

categories, based on its level of 

radioactivity. Contact-handled TRU 

waste accounts for about 97 percent of 

the volume of TRU waste currently 

destined for the WIPP. It is packaged in 

55-gallon metal drums or in metal boxes 

and can be handled under controlled 

conditions without any shielding 

beyond the container itself. The 

maximum radiation dose at the surface 

of a CH TRU waste container is 200 

millirems per hour. CH waste primarily 

emits alpha particles that are easily 

shielded by a sheet of paper or the outer 

layer of a person’s skin. 

Remote-handled (RH) TRU waste 

emits more radiation than CH TRU 

waste and must therefore be both 

handled and transported in specially 

shielded containers. Surface radiation 

levels of unshielded containers of 

remote-handled transuranic waste 

exceed 200 millirems per hour. RH 

waste primarily emits gamma radiation, 

which is very penetrating and requires 

concrete, lead, or steel to block it. 

On May 13, 1998, EPA issued a final 

certification of compliance for the WIPP 

facility. The final rule was published in 

the Federal Register on May 18, 1998 

(63 FR 27354). EPA officially recertified 

WIPP on March 29, 2006 (71 FR 18015). 

Both the certification and recertification 

determined that WIPP complies with 

the Agency’s radioactive waste disposal 

regulations at 40 CFR part 191, subparts 

B and C, and is therefore safe to contain 

TRU waste. 

The final WIPP certification decision 

includes conditions that (1) prohibit 

shipment of TRU waste for disposal at 

WIPP from any site other than the Los 

Alamos National Laboratories (LANL) 

until the EPA determines that the site 

has established and executed a quality 

assurance program, in accordance with 

194.22(a)(2)(i), 194.24(c)(3), and 

194.24(c)(5) for waste characterization 

activities and assumptions (Condition 2 

of appendix A to 40 CFR part 194); and 

(2) (with the exception of specific, 

limited waste streams and equipment at 

LANL) prohibit shipment of TRU waste 

for disposal at WIPP (from LANL or any 

other site) until EPA has approved the 

procedures developed to comply with 

the waste characterization requirements 

of 194.22(c)(4) (Condition 3 of appendix 

A to 40 CFR part 194). The EPA’s 

approval process for waste generator 

sites is described in 194.8 (revised July 

2004). 

Condition 3 of the WIPP Certification 

Decision requires EPA to conduct 

independent inspections at DOE’s waste 

generator/storage sites of their TRU 

waste characterization capabilities 

before approving their program and the 

waste for disposal at the WIPP. EPA’s 

inspection and approval process gives 

EPA (a) Discretion in establishing 

technical priorities, (b) the ability to 

accommodate variation in the site’s 

waste characterization capabilities, and 

(c) flexibility in scheduling site waste 

characterization inspections. 

As described in Section 194.8(b), 

EPA’s baseline inspections evaluate 

each waste characterization process 

component (equipment, procedures, and 

personnel training/experience) for its 

adequacy and appropriateness in 

characterizing TRU waste destined for 

disposal at WIPP. During an inspection, 

the site demonstrates its capabilities to 

characterize TRU waste(s) and its ability 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 8, 2010 / Notices 54633 

to comply with the regulatory limits and 

tracking requirements under 194.24. A 

baseline inspection may describe any 

limitations on approved waste streams 

or waste characterization processes 

[§ 194.8(b)(2)(iii)]. In addition, a 

baseline inspection approval must 

specify what subsequent waste 

characterization program changes or 

expansion should be reported to EPA 

[§ 194.8(b)(4)]. The Agency is required 

to assign Tier 1 (T1) and Tier 2 (T2) 

designations to the reportable changes 

depending on their potential impact on 

data quality. A T1 designation requires 

that the site notify EPA of proposed 

changes to the approved components of 

an individual waste characterization 

process (such as radioassay equipment 

or personnel), and that EPA approve the 

change before it can be implemented. A 

waste characterization element with a 

T2 designation allows the site to 

implement changes to the approved 

components of individual waste 

characterization processes (such as 

visual examination procedures) but 

requires EPA notification. The Agency 

may choose to inspect the site to 

evaluate technical adequacy before 

approval. EPA inspections conducted to 

evaluate T1 or T2 changes are follow-up 

inspections under the authority of 

194.24(h). In addition to the follow-up 

inspections, if warranted, EPA may opt 

to conduct continued compliance 

inspections at TRU waste sites with a 

baseline approval under the authority of 

194.24(h). 

The site inspection and approval 

process outlined in 194.8 requires EPA 

to issue a Federal Register notice 

proposing the baseline compliance 

decision, docket the inspection report 

for public review, and seek public 

comment on the proposed decision for 

a period of 45 days. The report must 

describe the waste characterization 

processes EPA inspected at the site, as 

well as their compliance with 194.24 

requirements. 

III. Proposed Baseline Compliance 

Decision 

EPA conducted Baseline Inspection 

No. EPA–Hanford-CCP–CH–04.10–8 of 

the waste characterization program for 

CH TRU waste at the Hanford site on 

April 27–29, 2010. In accordance with 

the provisions of 40 CFR 194.8(b), EPA 

evaluated the site’s program to 

characterize wastes proposed for 

disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot 

Plant (WIPP). EPA is seeking public 

comment on the proposed approval 

which, when finalized, will allow the 

Hanford-CCP to characterize and 

dispose of CH TRU debris waste at the 

WIPP. 

The EPA inspection team identified 

five concerns, all of which required a 

response. EPA Inspection Issue Tracking 

Forms (see Attachments C.1 through C.4 

and C.6 of the accompanying inspection 

report) document these concerns. The 

EPA inspection team also identified one 

finding (Hanford-CCP–CH–VE–10–005F, 

Final, see Attachment C.5 of the 

accompanying inspection report). 

Personnel from Hanford-CCP and 

Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) provided 

information to resolve these concerns to 

EPA after the inspection. The 

information provided to EPA adequately 

addressed the finding and concerns. 

EPA considers the one finding and the 

five concerns related to Hanford-CCP to 

be resolved, and there are no open 

issues resulting from this inspection. 

The EPA inspection team determined 

that the Hanford-CCP waste 

characterization program for retrievablystored CH TRU debris waste was 

technically adequate. EPA, therefore, is 

proposing to approve the Hanford-CCP 

CH TRU waste characterization program 

in the configuration observed during 

this inspection and described in this 

report and the attached checklists 

(Attachments A.1 through A.5). This 

approval includes the following: 

(1) The acceptable knowledge (AK) 

process for CH retrievably-stored TRU 

debris wastes. 

(2) The Canberra Gamma Energy 

Analysis (GEA) systems (units GEA–A 

and GEA–B) for assaying CH TRU 

wastes. 

(3) The nondestructive examination 

(NDE) process of real-time radiography 

(RTR) for CH TRU debris wastes. 

(4) The NDE process of visual 

examination (VE) for CH TRU debris 

waste. 

(5) The WIPP Waste Data System 

(WDS) process for tracking waste 

contents of CH TRU wastes. 

As part of Item #3 above, when 

estimating observable, free liquid in a 

CH container, if a mathematical 

equation is used to calculate the 

quantities of liquid, the mathematical 

equation used and resulting calculation 

must be recorded. Auditable records 

thus are available to verify estimated 

quantities of liquid in a container. 

Hanford-CCP must report any Tier 1 

(T1) or Tier 2 (T2) changes to the 

Hanford-CCP waste characterization 

activities from the date of the baseline 

inspection according to Table 1, below. 

Reference to the specific section of this 

report where each T1 or T2 change is 

discussed is included in parentheses 

following the change. Table 1 in the 

accompanying inspection report closely 

follows the format used in previous CH 

baseline approval reports. Footnote b in 

Tables 1 and 10 specifies that 

‘‘substantive changes’’ are changes with 

the potential to impact the site’s waste 

characterization activities under 40 CFR 

194.24 or the documentation thereof, 

excluding changes that are solely related 

to environmental safety and health 

(ES&H), nuclear safety, or the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 

or that are editorial in nature. 

TABLE 1—TIERING OF CH TRU WC PROCESSES IMPLEMENTED BY HANFORD–CCP, BASED ON APRIL 27–29, 2010 

BASELINE INSPECTION

Process 

elements 

Hanford-CCP T1 changes needing EPA 

review and approval Hanford-CCP T2 changes a

Acceptable Knowledge (AK).Implementation of load management 

(AK 13).

Notification to EPA upon completion of new versions or updates/substantive 

changes b of the following: 

Implementation of AK for wastes other 

than retrievably-stored debris (i.e., retrievably-stored soil/gravel and/or solids) (AK 1).

—Modification of CCP–TP–005, Revision 18 (AK 4); 

—Availability of modifications to the AKSR (AK 5); 

—Availability of all final WSPF with related attachments (AK 9); 

—Availability of all AK Accuracy Reports (AK 12); 

—Availability of successful training records (AK 10); 

—Availability of the AK–NDA memorandum (AK 14). 

Non Destructive 

Assay (NDA).

New equipment or physical modifications to approved equipment c (NDA 

1).

Notification to EPA upon completion of changes to software for approved 

equipment, operating range(s), and site procedures that require CBFO approval (NDA 2). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
54634 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 8, 2010 / Notices 

TABLE 1—TIERING OF CH TRU WC PROCESSES IMPLEMENTED BY HANFORD–CCP, BASED ON APRIL 27–29, 2010 

BASELINE INSPECTION—Continued 

Process 

elements 

Hanford-CCP T1 changes needing EPA 

review and approval Hanford-CCP T2 changes a

Extension or changes to approved calibration range for approved equipment (NDA 2).

Real-Time Radiography (RTR).Implementation of a different type of 

RTR equipment (RTR 2).

Notification to EPA upon the following: 

—Modification c to approved equipment, RTR units A and B (RTR 2); 

—Completion of changes to site RTR procedures requiring CBFO approvals (RTR 2); 

—Addition of new SCG to the RTR processes that are subject to this approval (RTR 2). 

Visual Examination 

(VE).

Performance of VE by any method 

other than using two trained operators to perform actual VE at the time 

of packaging (VE 1).

Notification to EPA upon the following: 

—Completion of changes to site VE procedure(s) requiring CBFO approvals (VE 2); 

—Addition of new SCG to the VE processes that are subject to this approval (VE 2). 

Waste Data System 

(WDS).

There are no T1 changes at this time ... Notification to EPA upon the following: 

—Completion of changes to WDS procedure(s) requiring CBFO approvals 

(WDS 2); 

—Changes to the Excel spreadsheet titled WDS Master Template.xls, Revision 2, Addendum #2, SCO #1065 (WDS 2). 

a Upon receiving EPA approval, Hanford-CCP will report all T2 changes to EPA at the end of each fiscal quarter. 

b ‘‘Substantive changes’’ are changes with the potential to impact the site’s waste characterization activities or documentation thereof, excluding 

changes that are solely related to ES&H, nuclear safety, or RCRA, or that are editorial in nature. c Modifications to approved equipment include all changes with the potential to affect NDA data relative to waste isolation and exclude minor 

changes, such as the addition of safety-related equipment. 

IV. Availability of the Baseline 

Inspection Report for Public Comment 

EPA has placed the report discussing 

the results of the Agency’s inspection of 

Hanford-CCP in the public docket as 

described in ADDRESSES. In accordance 

with 40 CFR 194.8, EPA is providing the 

public 45 days to comment on these 

documents. The Agency requests 

comments on the proposed approval 

decision, as described in the inspection 

report. EPA will accept public comment 

on this notice and supplemental 

information as described in Section 1.B. 

above. EPA will not make a 

determination of compliance before the 

45-day comment period ends. At the 

end of the public comment period, EPA 

will evaluate all relevant public 

comments and revise the inspection 

report as necessary. If appropriate, the 

Agency will then issue a final approval 

letter and inspection report, both of 

which will be posted on the WIPP Web 

site. 

Information on the certification 

decision is filed in the official EPA Air 

Docket, Docket No. A–93–02 and is 

available for review in Washington, DC, 

and at the three EPA WIPP 

informational docket locations in 

Albuquerque, Carlsbad, and Santa Fe, 

New Mexico. The dockets in New 

Mexico contain only major items from 

the official Air Docket in Washington, 

DC, plus those documents added to the 

official Air Docket since the October 

1992 enactment of the WIPP LWA. 

Dated: September 1, 2010. 

Michael P. Flynn, 

Director, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22335 Filed 9–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

Notice of Public Information 

Collection(s) Being Reviewed by the 

Federal Communications Commission 

for Extension Under Delegated 

Authority, Comments Requested 

August 31, 2010. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications 

Commission, as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork burden 

invites the general public and other 

Federal agencies to take this 

opportunity to comment on the 

following information collection(s), as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA) of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 – 

3520. Comments are requested 

concerning: (a) whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the Commission, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

Commission’s burden estimate; (c) ways 

to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information collected; (d) 

ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on the 

respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

and (e) ways to further reduce the 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees. 

The FCC may not conduct or sponsor 

a collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid control 

number. No person shall be subject to 

any penalty for failing to comply with 

a collection of information subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that 

does not display a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

DATES: Written Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA) comments should be 

submitted on or before November 8, 

2010. If you anticipate that you will be 

submitting PRA comments, but find it 

difficult to do so within the period of 

time allowed by this notice, you should 

advise the FCC contact listed below as 

soon as possible. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to 

Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of 

Management and Budget, via fax at 202– 

395–5167 or via email to 

Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov and 

to the Federal Communications 

Commission via email to PRA@fcc.gov 

and Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cathy Williams on (202) 418–2918. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

OMB Control Number: 3060–0185. 

Title: Section 73.3613, Filing of 

Contracts. 

Form Number: N/A. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES