95782 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 3, 2024 / Notices 

materials (e.g., SACC members and 

consultants participating in this meeting 

and the meeting agenda) in the docket 

and through links on the SACC website 

at https://www.epa.gov/tsca-peerreview. 

D. How can I provide comments? 

To ensure proper receipt of 

comments, it is imperative that you 

identify docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT– 

2024–0425 in the subject line on the 

first page of your comments and follow 

the instructions in this document. 

1. Written comments. Submit written 

comments by the deadlines set in the 

DATES section of this document and as 

described in the ADDRESSES section of 

this document. 

2. Oral comments. To request time to 

present oral comments during one of the 

virtual public meetings, you must 

register online by the deadlines set in 

the DATES section of this document. Oral 

comments during the virtual public 

meetings are limited to 5 minutes. In 

addition, each speaker should submit a 

written copy of their oral comments and 

any supporting materials (e.g., 

presentation slides) to the DFO prior to 

the meetings for distribution to the 

SACC. 

E. What happens after the SACC 

meeting(s)? 

After the SACC public meeting, the 

SACC will prepare the meeting minutes 

and final report document summarizing 

its recommendations to the EPA, which 

will also be available in the docket and 

through the SACC website. EPA will 

consider the SACC recommendations 

and public comments to complete the 

risk evaluation and unreasonable risk 

determination under TSCA for this 

chemical substance. Under TSCA, EPA 

must then initiate risk management 

actions to address the unreasonable risk 

it identified. 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2625(o); 5 U.S.C. 

10. 

Dated: November 26, 2024. 

Michal Freedhoff, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical 

Safety and Pollution Prevention. 

[FR Doc. 2024–28286 Filed 12–2–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2024–0551; FRL–12418– 

01–OCSPP] 

Benzyl Butyl Phthalate (BBP), Dibutyl 

Phthalate (DBP), Di(2-ethylhexyl) 

Phthalate (DEHP), Diisobutyl Phthalate 

(DIBP), and Dicyclohexyl Phthalate 

(DCHP); Technical Support 

Documents; Science Advisory 

Committee on Chemicals (SACC) Peer 

Review; Request for Nominations of 

Ad Hoc Reviewers 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA or Agency) is seeking 

public nominations of scientific and 

technical experts that EPA can consider 

for service as ad hoc reviewers assisting 

the Science Advisory Committee on 

Chemicals (SACC) with the peer review 

of the Agency’s technical support 

documents for benzyl butyl phthalate 

(BBP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), di(2- 

ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), 

diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP), and 

dicyclohexyl phthalate (DCHP) and the 

cross-phthalate technical support 

documents for human health benchmark 

dose (BMD) analysis, cancer analysis, 

and cumulative risk analysis. To 

facilitate nominations, this document 

provides information about the SACC, 

the intended topic for the planned peer 

review, the expertise sought for this 

peer review, instructions for submitting 

nominations to EPA, and the Agency’s 

plan for selecting the ad hoc reviewers 

for this peer review. EPA is planning to 

convene a virtual public meeting of the 

SACC in the spring of 2025 to review 

the technical support documents. 

DATES: Submit your nominations on or 

before January 2, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your nominations to 

SACC@epa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Designated Federal Official (DFO) for 

the SACC is Dr. Alaa Kamel, Mission 

Support Division (7602M), Office of 

Program Support, Office of Chemical 

Safety and Pollution Prevention, 

Environmental Protection Agency; 

telephone number: (202) 564–5336 or 

call the SACC main office at (202) 564– 

8450; email address: kamel.alaa@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. What action is the Agency taking? 

The Agency is seeking public 

nominations of scientific and technical 

experts that EPA can consider for 

service as ad hoc reviewers assisting the 

SACC with the peer review of the 

Agency’s technical support documents 

for the evaluation of the risks from BBP, 

DBP, DEHP, DIBP and DCHP to inform 

risk management decisions under 

TSCA. EPA is planning to hold a virtual 

public meeting in the spring of 2025 for 

the SACC to consider and review 

technical support documents. At that 

time, EPA will solicit comments from 

the SACC on the critical inputs and 

novel approaches for a variety of charge 

questions related to individual, draft 

chemical risk evaluations and the draft 

cumulative risk analysis. 

To facilitate nominations, this 

document provides information about 

the SACC, the intended topic for the 

planned peer review, the expertise 

sought for this peer review, instructions 

for submitting nominations to EPA, and 

the Agency’s plan for selecting the ad 

hoc reviewers for this peer review. 

B. What is the Agency’s authority for 

taking this action? 

TSCA section 6(b) requires that EPA 

conduct risk evaluations on existing 

chemical substances and identifies the 

minimum components EPA must 

include in all chemical substance risk 

evaluations (15 U.S.C. 2605(b)). The risk 

evaluation must not consider costs or 

other non-risk factors (15 U.S.C. 

2605(b)(4)(F)(iii)). The specific risk 

evaluation process is addressed in 40 

CFR part 702 and summarized on EPA’s 

website at https://www.epa.gov/ 

assessing-and-managing-chemicalsunder-tsca/risk-evaluations-existingchemicals-under-tsca. 

The SACC was established by EPA in 

2016 in accordance with TSCA, 15 

U.S.C. 2625(o), to provide independent 

advice and expert consultation with 

respect to the scientific and technical 

aspects of issues relating to the 

implementation of TSCA. The SACC 

operates in accordance with the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 

U.S.C. 10, and supports activities under 

TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., the 

Pollution Prevention Act (PPA), 42 

U.S.C. 13101 et seq., and other 

applicable statutes. 

C. Does this action apply to me? 

This action is directed to the public 

in general. This action may, however, be 

of particular interest to those involved 

in the manufacture, processing, 

distribution, and disposal of chemical 

substances and mixtures, and/or those 

interested in the assessment of risks 

involving chemical substances and 

mixtures regulated under TSCA. 

Members of at-risk communities, nonVerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Dec 02, 2024 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 3, 2024 / Notices 95783 

governmental organizations (NGOs) 

(particularly those with an interest in 

protecting health for at-risk 

communities), and Federal, State and 

local officials may also be interested. 

Since other entities may also be 

interested, the Agency has not 

attempted to describe all the specific 

entities to which this action may apply. 

D. How can I stay informed about SACC 

activities? 

You may subscribe to the following 

listserv for alerts regarding this and 

other SACC-related activities: https://

public.govdelivery.com/accounts/ 

USAEPAOPPT/subscriber/new?topic_

id=USAEPAOPPT_101. 

II. Background 

A. What is the purpose of the SACC? 

The SACC provides independent 

advice and recommendations to the EPA 

on the scientific and technical aspects of 

risk assessments, methodologies, and 

pollution prevention measures and 

approaches for chemicals regulated 

under TSCA. The SACC is comprised of 

experts in toxicology; environmental 

risk assessment; exposure assessment; 

and related sciences (e.g., synthetic 

biology, pharmacology, biotechnology, 

nanotechnology, biochemistry, 

biostatistics, physiologically based 

pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling, 

computational toxicology, 

epidemiology, environmental fate, 

environmental engineering and 

sustainability). The SACC currently 

consists of 20 members. When needed, 

the committee will be assisted by ad hoc 

reviewers with specific expertise in the 

topics under consideration. 

B. Why is EPA conducting these risk 

evaluations? 

TSCA requires EPA to conduct risk 

evaluations on high-priority chemical 

substances and identifies the minimum 

components EPA must include in all 

chemical substance risk evaluations. 

The purpose of conducting risk 

evaluations is to determine whether a 

chemical substance presents an 

unreasonable risk to human health or 

the environment under the Conditions 

of Use (COUs). These evaluations 

include assessing unreasonable risks to 

relevant potentially exposed or 

susceptible subpopulations. As part of 

this process, EPA: (1) Integrates hazard 

and exposure assessments using the best 

available science that is reasonably 

available to assure decisions are based 

on the weight of the scientific evidence, 

and (2) Conducts peer review for risk 

evaluation approaches that have not 

been previously peer reviewed. For 

more information about the three stages 

of EPA’s process for ensuring the safety 

of existing chemicals (i.e., prioritization, 

risk evaluation, and risk management), 

go to https://www.epa.gov/assessingand-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/ 

how-epa-evaluates-safety-existingchemicals. 

C. Why did EPA develop these 

documents? 

EPA designated the following 

chemicals as High-Priority Substances 

for risk evaluation under TSCA in 

December 2019: BBP (Butyl Benzyl 

Phthalate, CASRN 85–68–7), DBP 

(Dibutyl Phthalate, CASRN 84–74–2), 

DEHP (Di(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate, 

CASRN 117–81–7), DIBP (Diisobutyl 

Phthalate, CASRN 84–69–5), and DCHP 

(Dicyclohexyl Phthalate, CASRN 84–61– 

7). For these chemicals, EPA published 

draft and final scope documents in 

April and August 2020, respectively 

and, is currently in the risk evaluation 

process. The scope documents outlined 

the hazards, exposures, conditions of 

use, and the potentially exposed or 

susceptible subpopulations the Agency 

expected to consider in its risk 

evaluations. Although there are some 

differences in conditions of use and 

exposures, these chemical substances 

are primarily used as plasticizers in 

polyvinyl chloride (PVC) products and 

in adhesives, sealants, paints, coatings, 

rubbers, and other applications. Because 

of the significant similarities in 

exposure and physical chemical 

properties of these phthalates, EPA is 

developing these risk evaluations and 

the cumulative risk assessment in 

parallel. DIDP and DINP were reviewed 

previously by the SACC (July 30–August 

1, 2024); the draft risk evaluations for 

BBP, DBP, DEHP, DIBP and DCHP are 

incorporating many of the SACC 

recommendations from this previous 

peer review. 

EPA is soliciting comments from the 

SACC on a variety of charge questions 

related to the data, methods, models, 

approaches for these draft chemical risk 

evaluations, including the supporting 

draft cumulative risk assessment 

analysis. Many of the methods and 

analyses used in these evaluations are 

not novel and have been reviewed in the 

development of the tools used in 

various agency work products or in 

previous TSCA assessments. EPA is 

focusing peer review on the critical 

inputs and novel approaches. 

The draft risk evaluations for BBP, 

DBP, DEHP, DIBP and DCHP include 

analyses of physical chemical 

properties, fate and transport in the 

environment, exposure to workers, 

consumers and general population 

including potentially exposed 

susceptible subpopulations, releases to 

the environment, environmental hazard 

and risk characterization for terrestrial 

and aquatic species, and human health 

hazard and risk characterization for 

workers, consumers, and the general 

population. The draft cumulative risk 

assessment analysis was developed 

based on the Proposed Approach for 

Cumulative Risk Assessment under 

TSCA including recommendations from 

the May 2023 SACC review. 

Specifically, the cumulative risk 

assessment analysis technical support 

document calculates relative potency 

factors for phthalate syndrome for each 

of the six chemical substances based on 

a pooled dataset for assessing fetal 

testicular testosterone health endpoint 

and estimates cumulative nonattributable exposures from NHANES 

urinary biomonitoring data. 

D. What is the topic of the planned 

SACC peer review? 

EPA anticipates soliciting peer review 

from the SACC on the following draft 

documents: 

• Physical and chemical and 

environmental fate technical support 

documents for BBP, DBP, DEHP, DIBP 

and DCHP. 

• Ecological hazard technical support 

documents for BBP, DBP, DEHP, DIBP 

and DCHP. 

• Non-cancer human health hazard 

technical support documents for BBP, 

DBP, DEHP, DIBP and DCHP. 

• Cancer technical support document 

(a single document that includes BBP, 

DBP, DEHP, DIBP and DCHP). 

• Environmental Releases and 

Occupational Exposure technical 

support documents for BBP, DBP, 

DEHP, DIBP and DCHP. 

• Environmental and General 

Population Exposures to Environmental 

Releases technical support documents 

for BBP, DBP, DEHP, DIBP and DCHP. 

• Consumer and Indoor Air Exposure 

technical support documents for BBP, 

DBP, DEHP, DIBP and DCHP. 

• Meta-analysis and benchmark dose 

technical support document developed 

for the draft cumulative risk assessment. 

• Technical support document for the 

Cumulative Risk Analysis of Di(2- 

ethylhexyl) Phthalate (DEHP), Dibutyl 

Phthalate (DBP), Butyl Benzyl Phthalate 

(BBP), Diisobutyl Phthalate (DIBP), 

Dicyclohexyl Phthalate (DCHP), and 

Diisononyl Phthalate (DINP) under 

TSCA. 

• Aspects of the risk evaluation for 

DCHP, including risk characterization 

and application of the cumulative risk 

analysis. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
95784 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 3, 2024 / Notices 

EPA expects to solicit feedback on the 

following scientific issues: 

• Physical-chemical properties and 

environmental fate technical support 

documents. EPA expects to solicit 

feedback on the data and methods used 

to characterize physical-chemical 

properties and environmental fate of 

BBP, DBP, DEHP, DIBP and DCHP. Of 

particular importance are the n-octanol/ 

water partition coefficients (Kow), 

organic carbon-water partition 

coefficients (Koc), n-octanol/air partition 

coefficients (Koa), bioaccumulation 

factors (BAF), and bioconcentration 

factors (BCF). For DCHP specifically, 

EPA expects to solicit specific feedback 

on the weight of the scientific evidence 

approach to describe the water 

solubility range for DCHP and the use of 

a single value as input to exposure 

models. 

• Ecological hazard technical support 

documents. EPA expects to solicit 

feedback on the data and methods used 

to characterize ecological hazards of 

BBP, DBP, DEHP, DIBP and DCHP. 

• Non-cancer human health hazard 

technical support documents. EPA 

expects to solicit feedback on multiple 

scientific areas including the selection 

of non-cancer points of departure used 

to characterize non-cancer risks from 

acute, intermediate, and chronic 

durations for BBP, DBP, DEHP, DIBP 

and DCHP. For DEHP there are 

additional hazards for which EPA will 

solicit input; specifically, female 

reproductive tract, inhalation, and 

glucose homeostasis/lipid metabolism. 

• Cancer hazard technical support 

document. EPA has developed a single 

document evaluating cancer hazard 

potential for these phthalates. EPA 

expects to solicit feedback on the 

following: draft cancer classifications 

for DEHP, BBP, and DBP; tumor triad 

(liver, pancreatic, and testicular tumors) 

and PPARa mode of action information 

relevant to DEHP; and the application of 

Rethinking Carcinogenicity Assessment 

for Agrochemicals Project (ReCAAP) 

weight of evidence framework for DCHP 

and DIBP. 

• Meta-analysis and benchmark dose 

modeling technical support document 

and the cumulative risk assessment 

technical support documents. EPA 

expects to solicit input on the methods 

and data used to calculate background 

exposure levels from the NHANES data 

set, derive relative potency factors, 

index chemical selection, and methods 

and application of background 

exposures. The draft risk evaluation of 

DCHP will contain an example of the 

application of cumulative risk 

assessment analysis for an individual 

chemical. EPA anticipates requesting 

input on the integration of the 

cumulative approaches within the 

individual chemical risk 

characterization. 

• Technical support documents for 

environmental and general population, 

consumer and indoor air, and 

occupational exposures. EPA expects to 

request feedback and guidance on the 

data and methods used in the draft 

exposure assessments. Included in this 

request for input will be issues related 

to dermal absorption, such as the 

interpretation of in vitro and in vivo 

studies and the use of flux-based 

calculations for occupational exposures. 

Of specific importance are the data and 

methods used to calculate dermal 

absorption and exposures in the 

occupational exposure and the 

consumer and indoor air exposure 

technical support documents. 

Given the large volume of material 

across the five HPS phthalates, EPA will 

be releasing chemical-specific technical 

support documents in batches ahead of 

the draft risk evaluations. The formal 

60-day public comment period for each 

chemical risk evaluation will begin 

when the Agency publishes a notice of 

availability in the Federal Register and 

the chemical’s full risk evaluation, 

including the risk characterization and 

risk determination, are posted to the 

chemical specific docket. Most 

immediately, the Agency anticipates 

that the DCHP risk evaluation, and its 

associated supporting documents, is 

expected to be released to the public at 

the end of December, and a notice of 

availability will begin the public 

comment period for the DCHP draft risk 

evaluation. Over the next several 

months, EPA expects to release all the 

technical support documents for BBP, 

DBP, DEHP, and DIBP into their 

respective chemical specific dockets as 

they are available, and their dockets will 

be open for submission of comments. 

Nonetheless, these TSDs will be 

formally available for a 60-day public 

comment period with the release of each 

chemical risk evaluation to follow. 

In the first quarter of 2025, OPPT will 

publish a notice of availability in the 

Federal Register for the draft charge 

questions and to begin an additional 

public comment period in this docket 

(EPA–HQ–OPPT–2024–0551) 

specifically for the peer review by the 

SACC. At that time, all of the risk 

evaluation documents (e.g., technical 

support documents, supplemental files, 

etc.) relevant to peer review will also be 

made available in this docket for a 

targeted peer review. EPA anticipates 

requesting SACC peer review of the 

questions pertaining to critical inputs 

and novel approaches contained in 

these documents to constitute full peer 

review of the phthalate risk evaluations. 

The SACC peer review will be focused 

on the DCHP risk evaluation and 

associated supporting documents, and 

the technical support documents that 

describe the data and analyses of 

physical chemistry and fate, hazards, 

exposures, and releases for BBP, DBP, 

DEHP, and DIBP. 

In total, EPA anticipates six 

opportunities for public comment; five 

dockets and comment periods 

associated with each chemical (BBP, 

DBP, DEHP, DIBP and DCHP) and one 

docket focused on the SACC peer 

review. 

III. Nominations for ad hoc Reviewers 

A. Why is EPA seeking nominations for 

ad hoc reviewers? 

As part of a broader process for 

developing a pool of candidates for 

SACC peer reviews, EPA is asking the 

public and stakeholders for nominations 

of scientific and technical experts that 

EPA can consider as prospective 

candidates for service as ad hoc 

reviewers assisting the SACC with the 

peer reviews. Any interested person or 

organization may nominate qualified 

individuals for consideration as 

prospective candidates for this review 

by following the instructions provided 

in this document. Individuals may also 

self-nominate. 

Those who are selected from the pool 

of prospective candidates will be 

invited to attend the public meeting and 

to participate in the discussion of key 

issues and assumptions at the meeting. 

In addition, they will be asked to review 

and to help finalize the meeting minutes 

and final report. 

B. What expertise is sought for this peer 

review? 

Individuals nominated for this SACC 

peer review should have expertise in 

one or more of the following areas: 

Physical and chemical properties of 

phthalates including water solubility, 

bioconcentration and bioaccumulation, 

analytical chemistry, modeling and field 

derived data; Ecological hazard 

identification including general 

ecological hazard identification and use 

of read-across and new alternative 

methods; Environmental releases 

including methods for modeling and 

considerations for use of monitoring 

data; General population exposure 

including use of screening methods and 

refinements; Occupational exposure 

including dermal exposure modeling 

with consideration of empirical 

absorption data; Consumer exposure 

and indoor air exposure including 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 3, 2024 / Notices 95785 

modeling data selection and 

interpretation and use of monitoring 

data; Human health toxicology 

including inhalation hazard, glucose 

metabolism, liver toxicity, phthalate 

syndrome, mode of action for cancer 

and non-cancer, benchmark dose 

modeling and dose response analysis; 

Cumulative and mixtures risk 

assessment for human health including 

index chemical selection and relative 

potency factor derivations; Biostatistics 

including analysis of NHANES 

biomonitoring data and derivation of 

occupational exposure limits; 

Epidemiology related to individual 

chemicals and phthalate mixtures for 

use in risk assessments. 

Nominees should be scientists who 

have sufficient professional 

qualifications, including training and 

experience, to be capable of providing 

expert comments on the scientific issues 

for this review. 

C. How do I make a nomination? 

Submit your nomination as directed 

under ADDRESSES by the deadline 

indicated under DATES. Each 

nomination should include the 

following information: Contact 

information for the person making the 

nomination; name, affiliation, and 

contact information for the nominee; 

and the disciplinary and specific areas 

of expertise of the nominee. 

Do not submit confidential business 

information (CBI) or other sensitive 

information to EPA through email. If 

your nomination contains any 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected, please contact 

the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT to obtain special 

instructions before submitting that 

information. 

D. Will ad hoc reviewers be subjected to 

an ethics review? 

SACC members and ad hoc reviewers 

are subject to the provisions of the 

Standards of Ethical Conduct for 

Employees of the Executive Branch at 5 

CFR part 2635, conflict of interest 

statutes in Title 18 of the United States 

Code and related regulations. In 

anticipation of this requirement, 

prospective candidates for service on 

the SACC will be asked to submit 

confidential financial information 

which shall fully disclose, among other 

financial interests, the candidate’s 

employment, stocks, and bonds, and 

where applicable, sources of research 

support. EPA will evaluate the 

candidates’ financial disclosure forms to 

assess whether there are financial 

conflicts of interest, appearance of a loss 

of impartiality, or any prior involvement 

with the development of the documents 

under consideration (including previous 

scientific peer review) before the 

candidate is considered further for 

service on the SACC. Selected 

candidates are required to complete an 

ethics training prior to conducting their 

reviews. 

E. How will EPA select the ad hoc 

reviewers? 

The selection of scientists to serve as 

ad hoc reviewers for the SACC is based 

on the function of the Committee and 

the expertise needed to address the 

Agency’s charge to the Committee. No 

interested scientists shall be ineligible 

to serve by reason of their membership 

on any other advisory committee to a 

federal department or agency or their 

employment by a federal department or 

agency, except EPA. Other factors 

considered during the selection process 

include availability of the prospective 

candidate to fully participate in the 

Committee’s reviews, ability to be hired 

as an EPA Special Government 

Employee (SGE), absence of any 

conflicts of interest or appearance of 

loss of impartiality, independence with 

respect to the matters under review, and 

lack of bias. Although financial conflicts 

of interest, the appearance of loss of 

impartiality, lack of independence, and 

bias may result in non-selection, the 

absence of such concerns does not 

assure that a candidate will be selected 

to serve on the SACC. 

Numerous qualified candidates are 

often identified for SACC reviews. 

Therefore, selection decisions involve 

carefully weighing several factors 

including the candidates’ areas of 

expertise and professional qualifications 

and achieving an overall balance of 

different scientific perspectives across 

reviewers. The Agency will consider all 

nominations of prospective candidates 

for service as ad hoc reviewers for the 

SACC that are received by the deadline 

listed under DATES. However, the final 

selection of ad hoc reviewers is a 

discretionary function of the Agency. 

EPA anticipates selecting 

approximately ten (10) ad hoc reviewers 

to assist the SACC in their review of the 

designated topic. EPA plans to make a 

list of candidates under consideration as 

prospective ad hoc reviewers for this 

review available for public comment by 

the winter of 2025. The list will be 

available in the docket at https://

www.regulations.gov (docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2024–0551) and 

through the SACC website at https://

www.epa.gov/tsca-peer-review. 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2625(o); 5 U.S.C. 

10. 

Dated: November 26, 2024. 

Michal Freedhoff, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical 

Safety and Pollution Prevention. 

[FR Doc. 2024–28287 Filed 12–2–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

[OMB 3060–0748; FR ID 263023] 

Information Collection Being Reviewed 

by the Federal Communications 

Commission 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effort 

to reduce paperwork burdens, and as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC or 

Commission) invites the general public 

and other Federal agencies to take this 

opportunity to comment on the 

following information collections. 

Comments are requested concerning: 

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; 

the accuracy of the Commission’s 

burden estimate; ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information collected; 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 ways to 

further reduce the information 

collection burden on 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 OMB control 

number. No person shall be subject to 

any penalty for failing to comply with 

a collection of information subject to the 

PRA that does not display a valid OMB 

control number. 

DATES: Written PRA comments should 

be submitted on or before February 3, 

2025. If you anticipate that you will be 

submitting comments but find it 

difficult to do so within the period of 

time allowed by this notice, you should 

advise the contact listed below as soon 

as possible. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to 

Cathy Williams, FCC, via email to PRA@

fcc.gov and to Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1