Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices 51061 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region II, Office of Regional Counsel, 

New York/Caribbean Superfund Branch, 

290 Broadway, 17th Floor, New York, 

NY 10007–1866. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before September 28, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: The proposed PPA and 

additional background information 

relating to the settlement are available 

for public inspection at the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region II, Office of Regional Counsel, 

New York/Caribbean Superfund Branch, 

290 Broadway, 17th Floor, New York, 

NY 10007–1866. A copy of the proposed 

PPA may be obtained from the 

individual listed below. Comments 

should reference the Circuitron 

Corporation Superfund Site, East 

Farmingdale, Suffolk County, New York 

and EPA Index No. CERCLA–02–2005–

2018, and should be addressed to the 

individual listed below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl 

P. Garvey, Assistant Regional Counsel, 

New York/Caribbean Superfund Branch, 

Office of Regional Counsel, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 290 

Broadway, 17th Floor, New York, NY 

10007–1866, Telephone: (212) 637–

3181. 

Dated: August 19, 2005. 

Dore LaPosta, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region II. 

[FR Doc. 05–17188 Filed 8–26–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–7962–1] 

Proposed CERCLA Administrative 

Cost Recovery Settlement; The Vega 

Alta Public Supply Wells Superfund 

Site, Vega Alta, PR 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Notice; request for public 

comment. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 

122(h) of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act as 

amended (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 

9622(h), notice is hereby given of a 

proposed administrative settlement for 

recovery of past response costs 

concerning the Vega Alta Public Supply 

Wells Superfund Site located in Vega 

Alta, Puerto Rico with the settling 

parties, Caribe General Electric 

Products, Inc. and Unisys Corporation. 

The settlement requires the settling 

parties to pay $858,433.41, plus an 

additional sum for Interest on that 

amount calculated from January 28, 

2004 through the date of payment to the 

Vega Alta Public Supply Wells 

Superfund Site Special Account within 

the EPA Hazardous Substance 

Superfund in reimbursement of EPA’s 

past response costs incurred with 

respect to the Site. The settlement 

includes a covenant not to sue the 

settling party pursuant to Section 107(a) 

of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a) for past 

response costs. For thirty (30) days 

following the date of publication of this 

notice, the Agency will receive written 

comments relating to the settlement. 

The Agency will consider all comments 

received and may modify or withdraw 

its consent to the settlement if 

comments received disclose facts or 

considerations which indicate that the 

settlement is inappropriate, improper, 

or inadequate. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before September 28, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement is 

available for public inspection at 

USEPA, 290 Broadway, 17th Floor, New 

York, New York 10007–1866. A copy of 

the proposed settlement may be 

obtained from Marla E. Wieder, 

Assistant Regional Counsel, USEPA, 290 

Broadway, 17th Floor, New York, New 

York 10007–1866, (212) 637–3184. 

Comments should reference the Vega 

Alta Public Supply Wells Superfund 

Site, CERCLA Docket No. 02–2005–

2029. To request a copy of the proposed 

settlement agreement, please contact the 

individual identified below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marla E. Wieder, Assistant Regional 

Counsel, USEPA, 290 Broadway, New 

York, New York 10007–1866, (212) 637–

3184. 

Dated: August 18, 2005. 

Kathleen Callahan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Region II. 

[FR Doc. 05–17189 Filed 8–26–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[OPPT–2005–0032; FRL–7730–7] 

TSCA Section 21 Petition; Response to 

Citizen’s Petition 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: On May 13, 2005, the Ecology 

Center of Ann Arbor, Michigan, 

petitioned EPA under section 21 of the 

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to 

establish regulations prohibiting the 

manufacture, processing, distribution in 

commerce, use, and improper disposal 

of lead wheel balancing weights. For the 

reasons set forth in this notice, EPA has 

denied the petition to initiate 

rulemaking. In this notice, the Agency 

elaborates the reasons for its denial and 

the type of information it may need. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general information contact: Colby 

Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, 

Environmental Assistance Division 

(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (202) 554–1401; e-mail address: 

TSCAHotline@epa.gov. 

For technical information contact: 

Dave Topping, National Program 

Chemicals Division (7404T), Office of 

Pollution Prevention and Toxics, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(202) 566–1974; e-mail 

address:topping.dave@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

You may potentially be affected by 

this action if you manufacture, import, 

process, use, distribute, or dispose of 

lead wheel balancing weights or are an 

automobile tire retailer. Since other 

entities may also be interested, the 

Agency has not attempted to describe all 

the specific entities that may be affected 

by this action. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the 

technical person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

B. How Can I Get Copies of this 

Document and Other Related 

Information? 

1. Docket. EPA has established an 

official public docket for this action 

under docket identification (ID) number 

OPPT–2005–0032. The official public 

docket consists of the documents 

specifically referenced in this action, 

any public comments received, and 

other information related to this action. 

Although a part of the official docket, 

the public docket does not include 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. The official public 

docket is the collection of materials that 

is available for public viewing at the 

EPA Docket Center, Rm. B102–Reading 

Room, EPA West, 1301 Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA 

Docket Center is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

51062 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The EPA 

Docket Center Reading Room telephone 

number is (202) 566–1744, and the 

telephone number for the OPPT Docket, 

which is located in the EPA Docket 

Center, is (202) 566–0280. 

2. Electronic access. You may access 

this Federal Register document 

electronically through the EPA Internet 

under the‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. 

An electronic version of the public 

docket is available through EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA 

Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ 

to submit or view public comments, to 

access the index listing of the contents 

of the official public docket, and to 

access those documents in the public 

docket that are available electronically. 

Although not all docket materials may 

be available electronically, you may still 

access any of the publicly available 

docket materials through the docket 

facility identified in Unit I.B.1. Once in 

the system, select ‘‘search,’’ then key in 

the appropriate docket ID number. 

Certain types of information will not 

be placed in the EPA Dockets. 

Information claimed as CBI and other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute, which is not 

included in the official public docket, 

will not be available for public viewing 

in EPA’s electronic public docket. EPA’s 

policy is that copyrighted material will 

not be placed in EPA’s electronic public 

docket but will be available only in 

printed, paper form in the official public 

docket. To the extent feasible, publicly 

available docket materials will be made 

available in EPA’s electronic public 

docket. When a document is selected 

from the index list in EPA Dockets, the 

system will identify whether the 

document is available for viewing in 

EPA’s electronic public docket. 

Although not all docket materials may 

be available electronically, you may still 

access any of the publicly available 

docket materials through the docket 

facility identified in Unit I.B.1. EPA 

intends to work toward providing 

electronic access to all of the publicly 

available docket materials through 

EPA’s electronic public docket. 

II. Background 

A. What is a TSCA Section 21 Petition? 

Section 21 of TSCA allows citizens to 

petition EPA to initiate a proceeding for 

the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a 

rule under TSCA section 4, 6, or 8 or an 

order under section 5(e) or 6(b)(2). A 

TSCA section 21 petition must set forth 

facts that the petitioner believes 

establish the need for the action 

requested. EPA is required to grant or 

deny the petition within 90 days of its 

filing. If EPA grants the petition, the 

Agency must promptly commence an 

appropriate proceeding. If EPA denies 

the petition, the Agency must publish 

its reasons for the denial in the Federal 

Register. Within 60 days of denial, or 

the expiration of the 90–day period, if 

no action is taken, the petitioners may 

commence a civil action in a U.S. 

District Court to compel initiation of the 

requested rulemaking proceeding. 

B. What Action is Requested Under This 

TSCA Section 21 Petition? 

On May 13, 2005, EPA received a 

petition under TSCA section 21 from 

the Ecology Center of Ann Arbor, 

Michigan. The petition requests that 

EPA initiate a rulemaking under TSCA 

section 6(a)(1)(A) to prohibit the 

manufacture, processing, distribution in 

commerce, use, and improper disposal 

of lead wheel balancing weights. 

To promulgate a rule under TSCA 

section 6(a), EPA must find that there is 

a ‘‘reasonable basis to conclude’’ that 

activities involving a chemical 

substance or mixture present or will 

present ‘‘an unreasonable risk of injury 

to health or the environment.’’ It is 

important to note that TSCA section 6 

does not require a factual certainty, but 

only a ‘‘reasonable basis to conclude’’

that a risk is unreasonable. The 

legislative history of TSCA makes it 

clear that EPA may take regulatory 

action to prevent harm even though 

there are uncertainties as to the 

threshold levels of risk. Congress 

recognized that ‘‘such action must be 

based not only on consideration of facts 

but also on consideration of scientific 

theories, projections of trends from 

currently available data, modeling using 

reasonable assumptions, and 

extrapolations from limited data.’’ (H.R. 

Rep. No. 1341, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 32 

(1976).) 

Although TSCA uses unreasonable 

risk as its basic standard for deciding on 

appropriate action regarding the 

manufacture, processing, distribution in 

commerce, use, or disposal of a 

chemical substance or mixture, TSCA 

does not define the term ‘‘unreasonable 

risk.’’ Guidance is provided by section 

6(c), which requires certain 

considerations in promulgating a rule 

under section 6(a). EPA must consider 

the following: (1) The effects of the 

chemical on health and the magnitude 

of human exposure; (2) the effects of the 

chemical on the environment and the 

magnitude of environmental exposure; 

(3) the benefits of the chemical for 

various uses and the availability of 

substitutes for such uses; and (4) the 

reasonably ascertainable economic 

consequences of the rule, after 

consideration of the effect on the 

national economy, small business, 

technological innovation, the 

environment, and public health. 

Section 6(c) offers no further guidance 

to decision-makers. In particular, it does 

not discuss how each of these factors is 

to be weighed in relationship to each 

other. However, the House Report on 

TSCA (H.R. Rep. No. 1341, 94th Cong., 

2d Sess. 13-15 (1976)) provides a useful 

pertinent explanation. The House 

Report describes the finding of 

unreasonable risk as involving a 

balancing of the probability that harm 

will occur, and the magnitude and 

severity of that harm, against the 

adverse effects (social and economic) on 

society of the proposed Agency action to 

reduce the harm. 

III. Disposition of Petition 

EPA finds that there are insufficient 

data available for the Agency to initiate 

a TSCA section 6 rulemaking at this 

time. EPA has reviewed the supporting 

information included with the petition, 

as well as other available information on 

lead wheel balancing weights. The 

petition contains very limited, uncertain 

evidence on the potential environmental 

releases from lead wheel balancing 

weights to the air, surface water, ground 

water, and soil (particularly regarding 

potential releases in the proximity of 

roadways and potential releases to 

particularly sensitive environments or 

human and ecological populations). 

Some estimates of potential releases of 

lead from lead wheel balancing weights 

to the environment are available within 

references noted within the petition, or 

within other sources available in the 

literature. However, EPA needs 

additional, verifiable data in order to 

develop an adequate understanding of 

the environmental and human exposure 

associated with releases to the 

environment from lead wheel balancing 

weights. 

While the hazard of lead and the fate 

and transport of lead in the environment 

are well-characterized, without 

additional information EPA cannot 

adequately estimate potential exposures 

and, thus, potential risks. A literature 

search conducted by the Agency 

identified little data beyond that cited 

by the petitioner. In particular, EPA is 

interested in the following data: 

• The number of sites and number of 

workers involved in the manufacture, 

processing, recycling, use, and disposal 

of lead wheel balancing weights, and 

any associated exposure of workers to 

lead. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices 51063 

• Quantities and releases of lead from 

the point of manufacture of lead wheel 

weights to the point of deposition on 

roadways. 

• Whether abrasion of lead wheel 

balancing weights occurs on the road, 

and if so, the extent of the abrasion and 

the mass of lead lost from the abrasion. 

• The contribution of lead from wheel 

balancing weights to the overall levels 

of lead near roadways. 

• The quantity of lead from lead 

wheel balancing weights deposited on 

roadways that subsequently enters 

various environmental pathways. 

• The percentage of deposited lead 

that enters each pathway (to determine 

which pathways are of concern). 

• The number of salvage yards, 

automobile shredders, steel mills, and 

secondary smelting sites and the 

quantities of lead that are released from 

recycling and disposal of lead wheel 

weights. 

• Exposures to hobbyists who melt 

lead wheel weights to manufacture 

other items such as fishing sinkers, toy 

soldiers, and bullets. 

While the Agency does not believe 

information in all of these areas would 

be necessary, the data currently 

available are not adequate in any of 

these areas to support granting the 

petition or initiating the requested 

rulemaking; there is insufficient 

information to adequately estimate 

potential risks for any one exposure 

pathway. 

In evaluating the petition, the Agency 

assessed a number of plausible exposure 

scenarios and associated releases of lead 

from lead wheel balancing weights in 

order to identify specific data gaps that 

should be filled in order to allow a 

meaningful, realistic assessment of risk. 

The data gaps are summarized above 

and the details are presented in the 

following documents, which are found 

in the public docket for today’s notice: 

• Preliminary Exposure Assessment 

Support Document for the TSCA Section 

21 Petition on Lead Wheel-Balancing 

Weights, Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

• Occupational Exposures and 

Environmental Releases of Lead WheelBalancing Weights, Office of Pollution 

Prevention and Toxics, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

In addition, the data that are available 

have significant uncertainties and 

limitations. The analyses provided by 

the petitioner in support of statements 

regarding potential exposure raise 

several concerns, including: (1) 

Limitations in scope, both 

geographically and temporally; (2) 

potential limitations in the calculated 

lead wheel balancing weight releases 

during the weekly surveys that 

supported these analyses; (3) lack of 

data on potential routes of exposure 

from roadways to humans and the 

environment; and (4) lack of data on 

lead in soil, dust, and water near the test 

area to help establish a link between 

lead wheel balancing weights and 

measured lead in the environment. 

Consequently, the Agency concludes 

that there are currently not enough data 

on human or environmental exposures 

to adequately assess the risks from the 

manufacturing, processing, distribution 

in commerce, use, or improper disposal 

of lead wheel balancing weights, and to 

initiate a TSCA section 6 rulemaking to 

prohibit these activities, as requested by 

the petitioner. In addition, due to the 

data limitations, the Agency has no 

basis to determine how significant the 

contribution of lead to the environment 

from wheel weights is and whether a 

rulemaking to address lead wheel 

weights would be an effective use of 

Agency resources. 

However, while EPA cannot at 

present initiate a rulemaking under 

TSCA section 6, the Agency is 

concerned about the potential 

contribution of lead wheel weights and 

other products that contain lead to 

elevated blood lead levels in children. 

Nationally, the primary source of 

elevated blood lead levels in children is 

lead-based paint used before the 

product was banned in 1978. There are 

other sources, however, which may 

contribute to elevated blood lead levels, 

perhaps significantly. These sources 

include certain products that contain 

lead (such as wheel weights), historical 

contamination of soil, certain foods and 

folk remedies that contain lead, and 

releases from stationary sources. (For 

more information, seehttp:// 

www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/faq/about.htm.) 

As part of the Federal Government’s 

effort to meet its goal to eliminate lead 

poisoning in children by 2010, EPA is 

working with the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention and other 

Federal Partners to characterize and 

address these other sources of lead 

exposure in children. As part of its 

focus on children’s exposure to lead, 

EPA is developing an approach to 

prioritize for further analysis and action 

the variety of products containing lead, 

that would be subject to TSCA and/or 

voluntary initiatives, including lead 

wheel weights. 

IV. Comments Received 

EPA received nine comments in 

response to the Federal Register notice 

published June 21, 2005 (70 FR 35667) 

(FRL–7720–5), announcing EPA’s 

receipt of this TSCA section 21 petition. 

Three comments were received from 

members of the public and one from an 

environmental organization (The 

Department of the Planet Earth) 

supporting the petition. These 

commenters cited the toxicity of lead. 

None provided any technical data 

regarding exposure to lead from wheel 

balancing weights. 

Two States (Maine and Minnesota) 

submitted comments and supported the 

petition. The State of Maine noted that 

State water quality data indicate many 

locations where lead in road and 

parking lot runoff exceed Ambient 

Water Quality Standards. This 

commenter stated that lead is a 

persistent, bioaccumulative toxic 

chemical and that a transition to nonlead wheel weights would be a good 

practical step if less-toxic alternatives 

are cost effective and available. 

However, the comment provided no 

basis for attributing the lead in road and 

parking lot runoff to wheel weights. The 

Minnesota Office of Environmental 

Assistance noted that their State fleet of 

vehicles had participated in a pilot 

project to evaluate alternative wheel 

balancing weights and believes that the 

lead weights could be replaced with 

alternatives. They also noted their 

concern with exposures to people who 

make products from used lead wheel 

balancing weights and problems with 

lead in the waste streams from electric 

arc furnaces that recycle scrap 

automobiles. 

Three trade associations submitted 

comments. The Association of Battery 

Recyclers (ABR) and the Tire Industry 

Association opposed the petition on the 

basis that no information is available to 

demonstrate any exposure to lead from 

wheel balancing weights. The Steel 

Manufacturers Association supports the 

petition, noting that a prohibition would 

reduce the contamination of scrap metal 

feedstock with lead, which contributes 

to the hazardous waste stream from 

electric arc furnaces that process scrap 

automobiles. They provided no 

information on lead exposure from 

wheel balancing weights. 

BFS Retail Commercial Operations, 

LLC, which operates more than 2,200 

consumer and commercial vehicle 

service and tire locations across the 

United States and Canada, commented 

that it did not support a ban on lead 

wheel balancing weights at this time. 

The commenter opined that there is a 

lack of substitute materials readily 

available in the marketplace, a lack of 

manufacturing capacity for such 

substitutes, and a lack of consensus in 

the industry on substitute materials that 

51064 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices 

would be likely to lead to confusion and 

additional costs in the marketplace. 

Further, the commenter noted a lack of 

basic research on the environmental 

consequences of substitute materials 

and their effectiveness as a replacement 

for lead in wheel balancing weights. 

ABR initially requested an extension 

of the comment period but later timely 

submitted its comments. EPA has 

considered these comments in 

responding to the petition. 

List of Subjects 

Environmental protection. 

Dated: August 10, 2005. 

Susan B. Hazen, 

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 

[FR Doc. 05–17129 Filed 8–26–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

Proposed Agency Information 

Collection Activities; Comment 

Request 

AGENCY: Board of Governors of the 

Federal Reserve System. 

SUMMARY 

Background 

On June 15, 1984, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

delegated to the Board of Governors of 

the Federal Reserve System (Board) its 

approval authority under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, as per 5 CFR 1320.16, to 

approve of and assign OMB control 

numbers to collection of information 

requests and requirements conducted or 

sponsored by the Board under 

conditions set forth in 5 CFR 1320 

Appendix A.1. Board-approved 

collections of information are 

incorporated into the official OMB 

inventory of currently approved 

collections of information. Copies of the 

OMB 83-Is and supporting statements 

and approved collection of information 

instruments are placed into OMB’s 

public docket files. The Federal Reserve 

may not conduct or sponsor, and the 

respondent is not required to respond 

to, an information collection that has 

been extended, revised, or implemented 

on or after October 1, 1995, unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

Request for Comment on Information 

Collection Proposal 

The following information collection, 

which is being handled under this 

delegated authority, has received initial 

Board approval and is hereby published 

for comment. At the end of the comment 

period, the proposed information 

collection, along with an analysis of 

comments and recommendations 

received, will be submitted to the Board 

for final approval under OMB delegated 

authority. Comments are invited on the 

following: 

a. Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the Federal Reserve’s 

functions; including whether the 

information has practical utility; 

b. The accuracy of the Federal 

Reserve’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed information collection, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

c. Ways to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; and 

d. Ways to minimize the burden of 

information collection on respondents, 

including through the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before October 28, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by unnum Regulation M, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Agency Web site: http:// 

www.federalreserve.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments at 

http://www.federalreserve.gov/ 

generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: 

regs.comments@federalreserve.gov. 

Include docket number in the subject 

line of the message. 

• FAX: 202/452–3819 or 202/452–

3102. 

• Mail: Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary, 

Board of Governors of the Federal 

Reserve System, 20th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20551. 

All public comments are available 

from the Board’s Web site at http:// 

www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/ 

foia/ProposedRegs.cfm as submitted, 

unless modified for technical reasons. 

Accordingly, your comments will not be 

edited to remove any identifying or 

contact information. Public comments 

may also be viewed electronically or in 

paper in Room MP–500 of the Board’s 

Martin Building (20th and C Streets, 

NW.), between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on 

weekdays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A 

copy of the proposed form and 

instructions, the Paperwork Reduction 

Act Submission (OMB 83–I), supporting 

statement, and other documents that 

will be placed into OMB’s public docket 

files once approved may be requested 

from the agency clearance officer, whose 

name appears below. 

Michelle Long, Federal Reserve Board 

Clearance Officer (202–452–3829), 

Division of Research and Statistics, 

Board of Governors of the Federal 

Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551. 

Telecommunications Device for the Deaf 

(TDD) users may contact (202–263–

4869), Board of Governors of the Federal 

Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551. 

Proposal to approve under OMB 

delegated authority the extension for 

three years, without revision, of the 

following report: 

Report title: The Recordkeeping and 

Disclosure Requirements in Connection 

with Regulation M (Consumer Leasing). 

Agency form number: Reg M. 

OMB control number: 7100–0202. 

Frequency: On occasion. 

Reporters: Consumer lessors. 

Annual reporting hours: Disclosures, 

3,509 hours; and advertising, 25 hours. 

Estimated average hours per response: 

Disclosures, 6.5 minutes; and 

advertising, 25 minutes. 

Number of respondents: 270. 

General description of report: This 

information collection is mandatory 

sections 105(a) and 187 of TILA (15 

U.S.C. 1604(a) and 1667(f)) is not given 

confidential treatment. 

Abstract: The Consumer Leasing Act 

and Regulation M are intended to 

provide consumers with meaningful 

disclosures about the costs and terms of 

leases for personal property. The 

disclosures enable consumers to 

compare the terms for a particular lease 

with those for other leases and, when 

appropriate, to compare lease terms 

with those for credit transactions. The 

act and regulation also contain rules 

about advertising consumer leases and 

limit the size of balloon payments in 

consumer lease transactions. The 

information collection pursuant to 

Regulation M is triggered by specific 

events. All disclosures must be 

provided to the lessee prior to the 

consummation of the lease and when 

the availability of consumer leases on 

particular terms is advertised. 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System, August 24, 2005. 

Jennifer J. Johnson, 

Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 05–17134 Filed 8–26–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210–01–P