[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 4, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53772-53773]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21560]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2012-0380; FRL- 9723-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Washington; Determination of Clean Data for the 2006 24-Hour Fine
Particulate Standard for the Tacoma, Pierce County Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is making a final determination that the Tacoma, Pierce
County nonattainment area (hereafter referred to as ``Tacoma, Pierce
County'' or ``the area'') has clean data for the 2006 24-hour fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS). This determination is based upon complete, quality-
assured, quality-controlled, and certified ambient air monitoring data
showing that the area has monitored attainment of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS based on the 2009-2011 data available in EPA's
Air Quality System (AQS) database. EPA's determination relieves the
area from the requirements to submit an attainment demonstration,
associated reasonably available control measures, a reasonable further
progress plan, contingency measures, and other planning State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) related to attainment of the standard for
so long as the area continues to meet the 24-hour 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on October 4, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R10-OAR-2012-0380. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy for public inspection during normal business hours at EPA Region
10, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle WA,
98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt at telephone number: (206)
553-0256, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the above EPA, Region 10
address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

I. What action is EPA taking?
II. What is the effect of this action?
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is making a final determination that the Tacoma, Pierce County
nonattainment area has clean data for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. This determination is based upon complete, quality-assured,
quality-controlled, and certified ambient air monitoring data showing
that the area has monitored attainment of the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS based on 2009-2011 monitoring data.
    On July 5, 2012 (77 FR 39657), EPA proposed a determination of
clean data for the Tacoma, Pierce County nonattainment area. A
discussion of the rationale behind this determination and the effect of
the determination were included in the notice of proposed rulemaking.
EPA received no comments on this notice of proposed rulemaking.

II. What is the effect of this action?

    Under the provisions of EPA's PM2.5 implementation rule
(See 40 CFR 51.1004(c)), the requirements for the Tacoma, Pierce County
nonattainment area to submit an attainment demonstration and associated
reasonably available control measures (including reasonably available
control technology), a reasonable further progress plan, contingency
measures, and any other planning SIPs related to attainment of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS are suspended for so long as the area continues
to meet the 24-hour 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. If EPA subsequently
determines that the area violates the 24-hour 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, the basis for the suspension of the specific requirements, set
forth at 40 CFR 51.1004(c), would no longer exist and the area would
thereafter have to address the pertinent requirements.
    This action does not constitute a redesignation of the area to
attainment for the 24-hour 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS under section
107(d)(3) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Further, this action does not
involve approving a maintenance plan for the area as required under
section 175A of the CAA, nor does it find that the area has met all
other requirements for redesignation. Even after this determination of
attainment by EPA, the designation status of the area is nonattainment
for the 24-hour 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS until such time as EPA

determines that the area meets the CAA requirements for redesignation
to attainment and takes action to redesignate the area.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    This action makes a determination of attainment based on air
quality, and will result in the suspension of certain Federal
requirements, and will not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    In addition, this rulemaking that the Tacoma, Pierce County
PM2.5 nonattainment area has clean data for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standard does not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by November 5, 2012. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action.
    This clean data determination for the 24-hour 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS for the Tacoma, Pierce County nonattainment area may not be
challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See
section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 20, 2012.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

     Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart WW--Washington

0
2. In Sec.  52.2475, paragraph (e)(4) is added to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2475  Approval of plans.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (4) Tacoma
    (i) Determination of Clean Data. EPA has determined, as of
September 4, 2012, that based on 2009 to 2011 ambient air quality data
the Tacoma, Pierce County nonattainment area has attained the 24-hour
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. This determination, in accordance with 40
CFR 51.1004(c), suspends the requirements for the area to submit an
attainment demonstration, associated reasonably available control
measures, a reasonable further progress plan, contingency measures, and
other planning SIPs related to attainment of the standard for as long
as the area continues to meet the 24-hour 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    (ii) [Reserved]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-21560 Filed 8-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 4, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14458-14459]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06798]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC18-10-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-921); Comment
Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved
information collection, FERC-921 (Ongoing Electronic Delivery of Data
from Regional Transmission Organization and Independent System
Operators).

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due June 4, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC18-10-
000) by either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's website: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance, contact FERC Online Support
by email at [email protected], or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
[email protected], telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and fax at (202)
273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-921, Ongoing Electronic Delivery of Data from Regional
Transmission Organization and Independent System Operators.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0257.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-921 information
collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting
requirements.
    Abstract: The collection of data in the FERC-921 is an effort by
the Commission to detect potential anti-competitive or manipulative
behavior or ineffective market rules by requiring Regional Transmission
Organizations (RTO) and Independent System Operators (ISO) to
electronically submit, on a continuous basis, data relating to physical
and virtual offers and bids, market awards, resource outputs, marginal
cost estimates, shift factors, financial transmission rights, internal
bilateral contracts, uplift, and interchange pricing. Individual
datasets that the Commission is requesting may be produced or retained
by the market monitoring units (MMUs). The Commission directed each RTO
and ISO either to: (1) Request such data from its MMU, so that the RTO
or ISO can deliver such data to the Commission; or (2) request its MMU
to deliver such data directly to the Commission. All data for this
collection has (and is expected to continue to) come from each RTO
orISO and not the MMUs. Therefore, any associated burden is counted as
burden on RTO andISO.
    Each RTO or ISO may make changes to their individual markets with
Commission approval. Each RTO or ISO may also change the data being
sent to the Commission to ensure compliance with Order No. 760. Such
changes typically require respondents to alter the ongoing delivery of
data under FERC-921. For this reason, the burden estimate has been
updated to reflect the incremental burden associated with such changes.
The burden associated with a changes varies considerably based on the
significance of the specific change, therefore, the estimate reflects
the incremental burden for an average change. Based on historical
patterns of change, staff estimates there to be about one and a half
changes per RTO or ISO per year.
    Type of Respondent: Regional transmission organizations and
independent system operators.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \1\ The Commission estimates the total
annual burden and cost \2\ for this information collection as follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Burden'' is the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. For further
explanation of what is included in the information collection
burden, refer to Title 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.
    \2\ Costs (for wages and benefits) are based on wage figures
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) for May 2016 (at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm) and benefits information (for
December 2017, issued March 20, 2018, at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm). The ongoing electronic delivery of data
requires a computer support specialist (code 15-1150), at an hourly
cost (wages plus benefits) of $47.30 (rounded).
    Changes to the delivered data require a database administrator
(code 15-1141), legal review (code 23-0000), and executive review
(code 11-1000). According to BLS, the hourly cost (wages plus
benefits) is $65.07, $143.68, and $96.68, respectively. We estimate
the fraction of time for each skill set for each response to be \3/
4\, \1/8\, and \1/8\ respectively, so the weighted hourly cost
(wages plus benefits) is $78.85 (rounded). We estimate the total
time required per change to be 320 hours. Because a response
encompasses one year where there are, on average, 1.5 changes, the
total time per response is 480 hours (1.5 x 320 hours).
    \3\ Each RTO/ISO electronically submits data daily. To match
with past filings, we are considering the collection of daily
responses to be a single response.
    \4\ Each RTO/ISO is estimated to make one and a half changes
yearly. To be consistent with the formulation that the submissions
over the course of a year constitute a single response, for the
purpose of this calculation, we are assuming that each response
requires one and a half changes over the course of the year and
estimating burden accordingly.

                 FERC-921--Ongoing Electronic Delivery of Data From Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Annual
                                                    number of      Total                                                                        Annual
              Category                 Number of    responses    number of     Average burden  and cost      Total annual burden hours and     cost per
                                      respondents      per       responses           per response                        cost                 respondent
                                                    respondent                                                                                ($)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              (1)          (2)  (1) * (2) =  (4).........................  (3) * (4) = (5).................    (5) / (1)
                                                                        (3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ongoing electronic delivery of data.            6            1        \3\ 6  52 hrs.;....................  312 hrs.;.......................       $2,460
                                                                             $2,460......................  $14,758.........................
Changes to the delivered data made              6            1        \4\ 6  480 hrs.:...................  2,880 hrs.:.....................       37,848
 by the RTO/ISO.                                                             $37,848.....................  $227,088........................
                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...........................            6            2           12  532 hrs.....................  3,192 hrs.......................       40,308
                                                                             $40,308.....................  $241,846........................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

    Dated: March 29, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-06798 Filed 4-3-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 80)]
[Notices]
[Page 22157-22159]
[DOCID:fr24ap08-54]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

Report on the Performance of Drug and Biologics Firms in
Conducting Postmarketing Commitment Studies; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is required, under the
Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (Modernization
Act), to report annually in the Federal Register on the status of
postmarketing study commitments made by applicants of approved drug and
biological products. This is the agency's report on the status of the
studies applicants have agreed to or are required to conduct.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cathryn C. Lee, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, rm. 6464, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-0700; or
    Robert Yetter, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-
25), Food and Drug Administration, 1400 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD
20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 130(a) of the Modernization Act (Public Law 105-115)
amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) by adding a
new provision requiring reports of certain postmarketing studies
(section 506B of the act (21 U.S.C. 356b)) for human drug and
biological products. Section 506B of the act provides FDA with
additional authority to monitor the progress of a postmarketing study
commitment that an applicant has been required or has agreed to conduct
by requiring the applicant to submit a report annually providing
information on the status of the postmarketing study commitment. This
report must also include reasons, if any, for failure to complete the
commitment. On December 1, 1999 (64 FR 67207), FDA published a proposed
rule providing a framework for the content and format of the annual
progress report. The proposed rule also clarified the scope of the
reporting requirement and the timing for submission of the annual
progress reports. The final rule, published on October 30, 2000 (65 FR
64607), modified annual report requirements for new drug applications
(NDAs) and abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) by revising Sec.
314.81(b)(2)(vii) (21 CFR 314.81(b)(2)(vii)). The rule also created a
new annual reporting requirement for biologics license applications
(BLAs) by establishing Sec.  601.70 (21 CFR 601.70). These regulations
became effective on April 30, 2001. The regulations apply only to human
drug and biological products. They do not apply to animal drug or to
biological products that also meet the definition of a medical device.
    On September 27, 2007, the President signed Public Law 110-85, the
Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA). Section
901, in Title IX of FDAAA, creates a new section 505(o) of the act
authorizing FDA to require certain studies and clinical trials for
prescription drugs and biological products approved under section 505
of the act or section 351 of the Public Health Service Act. This new
authority became effective on March 25, 2008. FDA is considering how
this new authority will be integrated with postmarketing commitments.
FDA expects that next year's report will reflect this integration.
    Sections 314.81(b)(2)(vii) and 601.70 apply to postmarketing
commitments made on or before enactment of the Modernization Act
(November 21, 1997) as well as those made after that date. Sections
314.81(b)(2)(vii) and 601.70 require applicants of approved drug and

biological products to submit annually a report on the status of each
clinical safety, clinical efficacy, clinical pharmacology, and
nonclinical toxicology study that is required by FDA (e.g., accelerated
approval clinical benefit studies) or that they have committed to
conduct either at the time of approval or after approval of their NDA,
ANDA, or BLA. The status of other types of postmarketing commitments
(e.g., those concerning chemistry, manufacturing, production controls,
and studies conducted on an applicant's own initiative) are not
required to be reported under Sec. Sec.  314.81(b)(2)(vii) and 601.70
and are not addressed in this report. It should be noted, however, that
applicants are required to report to FDA on these commitments made for
NDAs and ANDAs under Sec.  314.81(b)(2)(viii).
    According to the regulations, once a postmarketing study commitment
has been made, an applicant must report on the progress of the
commitment on the anniversary of the product's approval until the
postmarketing study commitment is completed or terminated and FDA
determines that the postmarketing study commitment has been fulfilled
or that the postmarketing study commitment is either no longer feasible
or would no longer provide useful information. The annual progress
report must include a description of the postmarketing study
commitment, a schedule for completing the study commitment, and a
characterization of the current status of the study commitment. The
report must also provide an explanation of the postmarketing study
commitment's status by describing briefly the postmarketing study
commitment's progress. A postmarketing study commitment schedule is
expected to include the actual or projected dates for the following:
(1) Submission of the study protocol to FDA, (2) completion of subject
accrual or initiation of an animal study, (3) completion of the study,
and (4) submission of the final study report to FDA. The postmarketing
study commitment status must be described in the annual report
according to the following definitions:
     Pending: The study has not been initiated (i.e., no
subjects have been enrolled or animals dosed), but does not meet the
criterion for delayed (i.e., the original projected date for initiation
of subject accrual or initiation of animal dosing has not passed);
     Ongoing: The study is proceeding according to or ahead of
the original schedule;
     Delayed: The study is behind the original schedule;
     Terminated: The study was ended before completion, but a
final study report has not been submitted to FDA;
    or
     Submitted: The study has been completed or terminated, and
a final study report has been submitted to FDA.
    Databases containing information on postmarketing study commitments
are maintained at the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER)
and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER).
Information in this report covers any postmarketing study commitment
that was made, in writing, at the time of approval or after approval of
an application or a supplement to an application, including those
required (e.g., to demonstrate clinical benefit of a product following
accelerated approval) and those agreed to with the applicant.
Information summarized in this report includes: (1) The number of
applicants with open (uncompleted) postmarketing commitments, (2) the
number of open postmarketing commitments, (3) the status of open
postmarketing commitments as reported in Sec.  314.81(b)(2)(vii) or
Sec.  601.70 annual reports, (4) the status of concluded postmarketing
studies as determined by FDA, and (5) the number of applications with
open postmarketing commitments for which applicants did not submit an
annual report within 60 days of the anniversary date of U.S. approval.
    Additional information about postmarketing study commitments made
by applicants to CDER and CBER is provided on FDA's Web site at http://
www.fda.gov/cder/pmc. Like this notice, the site does not list
postmarketing study commitments containing proprietary information. It
is FDA policy not to post information on the Web site until it has been
reviewed for accuracy. The numbers published in this notice cannot be
compared with the numbers resulting from searches of the Web site. This
notice incorporates totals for all postmarketing study commitments in
FDA databases, including those undergoing review for accuracy. The
report in this notice will be updated annually while the Web site is
updated quarterly (in January, April, July, and October).

II. Summary of Information From Postmarketing Study Progress Reports

    This report summarizes the status of postmarketing commitments as
of September 30, 2007. If a commitment did not have a schedule or a
postmarketing progress report was not received, the commitment is
categorized according to the most recent information available to the
agency.
    Data in table 1 are numerical summaries generated from FDA
databases. The data are broken out according to application type (NDAs/
ANDAs or BLAs).

             Table 1.--Summary of Postmarketing Study Commitments (numbers as of September 30, 2007)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            NDAs/ANDAs  (% of    BLAs\1\  (% of
                                                                                Total)             Total)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicants with open postmarketing commitments                                            136                 54
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
Number of open postmarketing commitments                                                1,281                401
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
Status of open postmarketing commitments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Pending                                                                911 (71%)          133 (33%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Postmarketing commitment created within the last year (FY07)              165 (18%)           41 (31%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Postmarketing commitment created within the past 2 years (FY06            361 (40%)           99 (74%)
           and FY07)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Postmarketing commitment created within the past 3 years (FY05,           489 (54%)          111 (83%)
           FY06, and FY07)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Ongoing                                                                173 (14%)           98 (24%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Delayed                                                                  39 (3%)           86 (22%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Terminated                                                              1 (0.1%)             3 (1%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Submitted                                                              157 (12%)           81 (20%)
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
Concluded studies                                                                         133                 26
(October 1, 2006--September 30, 2007)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Commitment met                                                         101 (76%)           21 (81%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Commitment not met                                                       1 (<1%)                  0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Study no longer needed or feasible                                      31 (23%)            5 (19%)
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
Applications with open postmarketing commitments with annual reports due,        115 (37%)\2\           41 (51%)
 but not submitted within 60 days of the anniversary date of U.S. approval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On October 1, 2003, FDA completed a consolidation of certain products formerly regulated by CBER into CDER.
  The previous association of BLA reviews only with CBER is no longer valid; BLAs are now received by both CBER
  and CDER. Fiscal year statistics for CDER BLA postmarketing study commitments will continue to be counted
  under BLA totals in this table.
\2\ Note that this statistic counts all annual reports submitted more than 60 days after the anniversary date of
  U.S. approval as overdue, including reports that may have been submitted on a modified reporting schedule in
  accordance with prior FDA agreement. Of the applications categorized as having overdue annual reports using
  this definition, annual reports were subsequently submitted in FY06 for 115/115 (100 percent) of NDAs/ANDAs
  and 20/41 (49 percent) of BLAs.

    Dated: April 15, 2008.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E8-9007 Filed 4-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register: June 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 108)]
[Notices]
[Page 31911]
[DOCID:fr04jn08-115]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) has received a request for a waiver of compliance with certain
requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is
described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory
provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the
petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority

(Modification to Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-1999-6254)

    As a modification to Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority's
(VTA) existing Vasona Corridor Light Rail (Vasona Line) Shared Use/
Temporal Separation waiver originally granted by FRA on September 26,
2005, VTA requests FRA to modify the original terms and conditions of
its permanent waiver of compliance from sections of Title 49 of the
CFR. This request is made due to changes that have recently occurred
along the Vasona Line, a light rail line that features ``limited
connections'' such as a shared corridor operation and an at-grade
diamond rail crossover of the VTA light rail track by a Union Pacific
Railroad Company (UPRR) freight spur within this shared corridor. See
Statement of Agency Policy Concerning Jurisdiction Over the Safety of
Railroad Passenger Operations and Waivers Related to Shared Use of the
Tracks of the General Railroad System by Light Rail and Conventional
Equipment, 65 FR 42529 (July 10, 2000). See also Joint Statement of
Agency Policy Concerning Shared Use of the Tracks of the General
Railroad System by Conventional Railroads and Light Rail Transit
Systems, 65 FR 42626 (July 10, 2000).
    On December 11, 2007, the spur and siding at Milepost (MP) 3.82
that served a wholesale flooring company were abandoned and removed by
UPRR, which operates a freight railroad in this corridor but on
separate track from the light rail system. This action rendered
obsolete the Lincoln/UPRR diamond crossover which allowed UPRR trains
the ability to cross the VTA light rail tracks to gain entry into the
spur and service the flooring business. With the removal of the spur
and siding, the trackage, switch, and diamond, as well as signal
equipment at the diamond, are no longer needed and can be removed from
service. With the exception of eliminating freight car movements across
the light rail tracks, there will be no other changes to VTA light rail
operations or UPRR freight rail operations at this location or
elsewhere along the Vasona Corridor.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-
1999-6254) and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
    Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
    Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
    Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice
will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments
received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All
written communications concerning these proceedings are available for
examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above
facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for
inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web
site at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78).

    Issued in Washington, DC on May 29, 2008.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program
Development.
 [FR Doc. E8-12405 Filed 6-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: June 27, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 125)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 36472]
[DOCID:fr27jn08-19]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket No. FEMA-B-7791]

Withdrawal of Final Flood Elevation Determination for the
District of Columbia, Washington, DC

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), DHS.

ACTION: Final rule; withdrawal.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) withdraws the
final flood elevation determinations for the District of Columbia,
published in the Federal Register on April 17, 2008, at 73 FR 20810,
20814-20815. Final flood elevation determinations will be made at a
later date.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective June 27, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering
Management Section, Mitigation Division, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 26, 2008, FEMA issued a letter to
the District of Columbia (``the District'') finalizing that community's
flood elevation determinations. The final flood elevation information
was published in the Federal Register on April 17, 2008, at 73 FR
20810, 20814-20815. The March 26, 2008 letter also established
September 26, 2008 as the anticipated effective date for the Flood
Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the
District. Pending further consideration, the finalization of the above
FIS and FIRM has been postponed. It is therefore necessary at this time
to rescind the final flood elevation determinations issued to the
District on March 26, 2008. Until FEMA determines that the District's
FIRM can be processed, the community's final flood elevation
determinations are hereby withdrawn in accordance with section 110 of
the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, codified at 42 U.S.C. 4104.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This rule is categorically
excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental
Consideration. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are
not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of Section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies
that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the
applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67

    Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

0
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:

PART 67--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.

Sec.  67.11  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  67.11 are amended
to withdraw the following:
    The final flood elevation determination published at 73 FR 20810,
20814-20815, April 17, 2008 for the District of Columbia.

    Dated: June 19, 2008.
Michael K. Buckley,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-14328 Filed 6-26-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13693-13696]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05178]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71651; File No. SR-BATS-2014-003]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Order
Approving a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1
Thereto, To Modify the BATS Options Opening Process

March 5, 2014.

I. Introduction

    On January 6, 2014, BATS Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``BATS'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'')
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
modify the BATS options opening process. On January 16, 2014, the
Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\3\ The
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, was published for
comment in the Federal Register on January 23, 2014.\4\ The Commission
received no comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed
rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange corrected a typographical
error contained in its original submission related to its
description of how the Exchange's Rule 20.6, governing Obvious
Errors, currently operates.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71327 (January 16,
2014), 79 FR 3897 (January 23, 2014) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules to allow the Exchange's
equity

options trading platform (``BATS Options'') to accept orders and quotes
in all options series, other than index options, prior to the first
transaction in the underlying security on the primary listing market
and during a halt, as well as to establish a process for matching such
orders immediately prior to the opening of trading in such options
series. According to the Exchange, BATS Options currently does not
accept any orders or quotes while trading is not open in an options
class, including both prior to the first transaction in the underlying
security on the primary listing market and during a trading halt in an
options class.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id. According to the Exchange, BATS Options currently opens
trading in options: (i) After the first transaction on the primary
listing market after 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time in the securities
underlying the options as reported on the first print disseminated
pursuant to an effective national market system plan; or (ii) any
time after 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time where the Exchange determines that
the interests of a fair and orderly market are best served by
opening trading in the options contracts. Id. During a trading halt
in an options class, the Exchange states that it currently cancels
all orders and quotes, and trading does not resume until the
Exchange determines that the conditions that led to the halt are no
longer present or that the interests of a fair and orderly market
are best served by a resumption of trading. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to begin accepting orders and quotes in all
series at 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time and immediately upon a regulatory
halt,\6\ and would continue to accept orders and quotes until such time
as the BATS Options opening process is initiated (``Order Entry
Period'').\7\ Under the proposal, such orders (i.e., those received
prior to the opening process or during a regulatory halt) will be
queued for participation in the opening process and will not be
eligible for execution until the opening process occurs.\8\ The
Exchange proposes that limit orders queued during this time would be
disseminated via the Options Price Reporting Authority (``OPRA'') as
non-firm quotes and via BATS Multicast PITCH, but that market orders
queued during this time would not be disseminated.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See proposed BATS Rule 21.7(a), defining ``Regulatory Halt''
as ``trading being halted in an option series due to the primary
listing market for the applicable underlying security declaring a
regulatory trading halt, suspension, or pause with respect to such
security.''
    \7\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 3897.
    \8\ Id. The Exchange also notes that ``Immediate or Cancel''
orders (``IOCs'') or ``WAIT'' orders will not be accepted for
queuing prior to completion of the opening process. Id. See also
BATS Rule 21.1(f)(2) and (4) (defining IOC and WAIT orders).
    \9\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 3897.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During a regulatory halt, the Exchange proposes that all orders
would be cancelled unless an exchange member has entered instructions
not to cancel its orders,\10\ which would cause such orders to queue as
part of the Order Entry Period.\11\ However, when trading is halted,
but it is not due to a regulatory halt, the Exchange proposes that
there would be no Order Entry Period, all orders would be canceled, and
trading would resume upon a determination by the Exchange that the
conditions which led to the halt are no longer present or that the
interests of a fair and orderly market are best served by a resumption
of trading.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes a method for determining the opening
price \13\ of an options series at the time of opening or after trading
resumes following a regulatory halt. Specifically, the Exchange
proposes that, where there are no contracts in a particular series that
would execute at any price at the time that the Exchange would
determine the opening price, the Exchange would open such options for
trading without determining an opening price.\14\ Where there is a
price at which at least one contract would execute, the Exchange
proposes that, within thirty seconds after the first listing market
transaction \15\ or the regulatory halt being lifted, the Exchange
would determine the opening price under proposed BATS Rule 21.7(a)(1)
as follows: (i) The midpoint of the national best bid (``NBB'') and the
national best offer (``NBO'' and, collectively, the ``NBBO Midpoint'');
\16\ (ii) where there is no NBBO Midpoint at a ``Valid Price'' (as
explained below), the last ``Print'' \17\ in the series; or (iii) where
there is neither a NBBO Midpoint nor a Print at a Valid Price, the
``Previous Close.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See proposed BATS Rule 21.7(a)(1) (defining ``Opening
Price'' as ``a single price at which a particular option series will
be opened'').
    \14\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 3897.
    \15\ See proposed BATS Rule 21.7(a) (defining ``First Listing
Market Transaction'' as ``the first transaction on the primary
listing market after 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time in the securities
underlying the options as reported on the first print disseminated
pursuant to an effective national market system plan'').
    \16\ The Exchange proposes that, where the NBBO Midpoint would
result in an opening price in a sub-penny increment, the Exchange
will use the next highest non sub-penny increment as the NBBO
Midpoint. See Notice, supra note 4, at 3898.
    \17\ See proposed BATS Rule 21.7(a)(1)(B) (defining ``Print'' as
``the last regular way print disseminated pursuant to the OPRA Plan
after 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time'').
    \18\ See proposed BATS Rule 21.7(a)(1)(C) (defining ``Previous
Close'' as ``the last regular way transaction from the previous
trading day as disseminated pursuant to the OPRA Plan'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes that the opening price of an options series
must be a Valid Price.\19\ The Exchange further proposes that a NBBO
Midpoint, a Print, and a Previous Close would constitute a Valid Price
under proposed BATS Rule 21.7(a)(2) where: (i) There is no NBB and no
NBO; (ii) there is either a NBB and no NBO or a NBO and no NBB and the
price is equal to or greater than the NBB or equal to or less than the
NBO; or (iii) there is both a NBB and NBO, the price is equal to or
within the NBBO, and the price is less than a prescribed ``Minimum
Amount'' away from the NBB or NBO for the series.\20\ The Exchange
proposes to establish the Minimum Amount thresholds based on the
standards set forth in BATS Rule 20.6 governing Obvious Errors.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See proposed BATS Rule 21.7(a)(1).
    \20\ The prescribed Minimum Amount away thresholds would vary
based on the price of the NBB. See proposed BATS Rule 21.7(a)(2)(C)
(laying out the applicable Minimum Amount thresholds). For example,
if the NBB for an option series is below $2.00, the applicable
Minimum Amount threshold would be $0.25. Id.
    \21\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 3898.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where there is no NBBO Midpoint, no Print, and no Previous Close at
a Valid Price, the Exchange proposes to have the discretion, depending
on the circumstances, to extend the Order Entry Period by 30 seconds or
less, or open the series for trading.\22\ Where the Exchange decides to
open the series for trading pursuant to this discretion and there is at
least one price level at which at least one contract of a limit order
could be executed, the Exchange proposes to cancel all orders that are
priced equal to or more aggressively than the midpoint of the most
aggressively priced bid and the most aggressively priced offer.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Id.
    \23\ Id. (providing an example of how this would operate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the Exchange determines that an opening price is also a Valid
Price, the Exchange proposes that orders and quotes that are priced
equal to or more aggressively than the Opening Price would be matched
based on price-time priority and in accordance with BATS Rule 21.8.\24\
Further, under the proposal, all orders and quotes or portions thereof
that are matched pursuant to the opening process would be executed at
the opening price.\25\ The Exchange also proposes that certain orders,
or portions thereof, that are not executed during the opening process
would be canceled.\26\ For all other orders and quotes that have not
been

executed or canceled, including where no orders are matched at the
opening price, the Exchange proposes that such orders will become
eligible for trading on BATS Options immediately following the
completion of the opening process.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id.
    \25\ Id.
    \26\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 3898. Under the proposal, this
provision would apply to: (i) limit orders that are priced equal to
or more aggressively than the opening price; and (ii) market orders.
Id.
    \27\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 3898-99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to add some additional clarity to how
trading will open and resume following a trading halt for index
options. First, the Exchange represents that it would open index
options in exactly the same manner as they open currently--at 9:30 a.m.
Eastern Time.\28\ Second, the Exchange proposes that, where trading in
index options is halted for any reason, BATS would open such options
for trading upon the determination by the Exchange that the conditions
which led to the halt are no longer present or that the interests of a
fair and orderly market are best served by a resumption of trading.\29\
According to the Exchange, this too is how index options open after a
trading halt under the current rules,\30\ and the purpose of this
change is to clarify that trading in index options is not subject to
the opening process, described above, under proposed BATS Rule
21.7(a).\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 3899.
    \29\ Id.
    \30\ Id. The Exchange also notes that the opening process for
index options is not being changed by this proposed rule change. Id.
    \31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to retain discretion to deviate from
its standard opening process, including adjusting the timing of the
opening process in any option class, when the Exchange believes it is
necessary in the interests of a fair and orderly market.\32\ Currently,
in the event the underlying security has not opened within a reasonable
time after 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time, the Exchange shall make an inquiry
to determine the cause of the delay, and the Exchange can open trading
in options contracts even if the underlying security has yet to open
for trading on the primary listing market for such security if the
Exchange determines that the interests of a fair and orderly market are
best served by opening trading in the options contracts.\33\ In
addition, the Exchange may delay the commencement of trading in any
class of options in the interests of a fair and orderly market.\34\
Under the proposal, the Exchange could open trading in options
contracts prior to the first listing market transaction and also delay
the commencement of trading in any class of options, so long as it is
in the interests of a fair and orderly market, and the Exchange would
have discretion to manage the Opening Process in the event of
unanticipated circumstances occurring around 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time or
a trading halt being lifted.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Id.
    \33\ See BATS Rule 21.7(b); Notice, supra note 4, at 3899.
    \34\ See BATS Rule 21.7(c); Notice, supra note 4, at 3899.
    \35\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 3899.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review of the proposal, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national
securities exchange.\36\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\37\
which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national
securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ In approving the proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the Exchange proposes, among other things, to
begin accepting orders and quotes for options series, other than index
options, prior to the first transaction in the underlying security on
the primary listing market and during certain trading halts. According
to the Exchange, this will provide all Exchange members with greater
control and flexibility with respect to entering orders and quotes by
allowing them to enter orders and quotes beginning at 8:00 a.m. Eastern
Time, rather than only after trading has opened for a particular
option. Under the proposal, orders entered during the opening process
or certain trading halts would queue, and all orders and quotes priced
more aggressively than the opening price will be matched based on
price-time priority and in accordance with existing BATS Rule 21.8.
Further, all orders and quotes or portions thereof that are matched
during the opening process will be executed at the opening price. The
Commission notes that limit orders queued during the opening process
would be disseminated via OPRA, which will contribute toward greater
price discovery by providing additional information to the options
market.
    The Commission believes that permitting BATS to accept orders and
quotes before 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time and during certain trading halts
should benefit investors by providing them certainty as to when their
orders and quotes can be submitted rather than having to monitor each
options class individually. By offering this additional functionality
to Exchange members, the Commission believes that the proposed rule
change is reasonably designed to remove impediments to a free and open
market. The Commission also notes that several other exchanges already
permit their members to submit orders and quotes prior to 9:30 a.m.
Eastern Time and during trading halts.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See, e.g., NASDAQ Options Market Chapter VI, Section 2(a);
NYSE Arca Rule 6.64; NYSE MKT Rule 952NY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the Exchange proposes to establish a method for
determining an opening price for options, other than index options, and
require that any opening price be a Valid Price. The opening price
would be: (i) The NBBO Midpoint; (ii) where there is no NBBO Midpoint
at a Valid Price, the Print; or (iii) where there is neither a NBBO
Midpoint nor a Print at a Valid Price, the Previous Close. Accordingly,
the Exchange will look to the most recently available market prices to
determine the opening price, but will, in no case, permit an opening
price that is not a Valid Price. To this end, the Exchange proposes to
adopt Minimum Amount thresholds derived from the Exchange's obvious
error rules to ensure that the opening price for an options series is,
in the Exchange's view, appropriately priced. The Exchange believes
that using these thresholds will prevent obvious error transactions by
ensuring that the opening price will be within the Minimum Amount from
either the NBB or NBO when there is both a NBB and NBO.\39\
Accordingly, the Commission believes that the Exchange's proposal is
reasonably designed to protect investors and the public interest by
establishing an opening process that should limit an opening price to a
price that should be related to the current market for an option. The
Commission notes that, if the Exchange determines to open an option
series for trading without determining an opening price and there is at
least one price level at which at least one contract of a limit order
could be executed, the Exchange would cancel all orders that are priced
equal to or more aggressively than the midpoint of

the most aggressively priced bid and the most aggressively priced
offer, which should allow the Exchange to effectively open the series
for trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 3899.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission further believes that the proposed opening process,
including the ability to deviate from such opening process in the
interests of a fair and orderly market, is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because it should help
BATS open trading in options contracts in a fair and orderly manner.
Specifically, the Commission believes that allowing members to enter
orders for queuing should create a more orderly opening and facilitate
price formation at the opening of trading because members will be able
to enter orders and quotes in advance, rather than submitting them to
the Exchange in a small amount of time. In addition, the Commission
believes that the dissemination of this information prior to the
opening of trading in options contracts should facilitate price
discovery and create a more orderly opening process because members
will have access to more information before their orders become
executable.
    Finally, the Commission believes that the Exchange's proposal
relating to the opening, and re-opening after a trading halt, of index
options is designed to protect investors and the public interest by
clarifying the Exchange's rules without affecting their functionality.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\40\ that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1
thereto (SR-BATS-2014-003), be, and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-05178 Filed 3-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 241 (Thursday, December 15, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 77939-77942]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31451]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 91, 121, 125, 129, and 135

Proposed Provision of Navigation Services for the Next Generation
Air Transportation System (NextGen) Transition to Performance-Based
Navigation (PBN)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed policy and request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) seeks comments on a
proposed transition of the U.S. National Airspace System (NAS)
navigation infrastructure to enable performance-based navigation (PBN)
as part of the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). The
FAA plans to transition from defining airways, routes and procedures
using VHF Omni-directional Range (VOR) and other legacy navigation aids
(NAVAIDs) \1\ towards a NAS based on Area Navigation (RNAV) everywhere
and Required Navigation Performance (RNP) where beneficial. Such
capabilities will be enabled largely by the Global Positioning System
(GPS) and the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS). The FAA plans to
retain an optimized network of Distance Measuring Equipment (DME)
stations and a minimum operational network (MON) of VOR stations to
ensure safety and continuous operations for high and low altitude en
route airspace over the conterminous US (CONUS) and terminal operations
at the Core 30 airports.\2\ The FAA is also conducting research on
Alternate Positioning, Navigation and Timing (APNT) solutions that
would enable further reduction of VORs below the MON.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Includes Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN) Azimuth, VOR/TACAN
(VORTAC), VOR/DME, Non-Directional Beacon (NDB) operated by the FAA.
    \2\ Core 30 airports are those with significant activity serving
major metropolitan areas and also serve as hubs for airline
operations, found at http://aspmhelp.faa.gov/index.php/Core_30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the FAA plans to satisfy any new requirements for
Category I instrument operations with WAAS localizer performance with
vertical guidance (LPV) procedures. A network of existing Instrument
Landing Systems (ILS) would be sustained to provide alternative
approach and landing capabilities to continue recovery and dispatch of
aircraft during GPS outages.
    This transition would be consistent with the FAA's NextGen
Implementation Plan (NGIP), NAS Enterprise Architecture (EA), and other
documentation. More information is available on the FAA's NextGen Web
site at http://www.faa.gov/nextgen and the EA Web site at https://nasea.faa.gov.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 7, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by Docket No. FAA-2011-1082 using
any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA dockets, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478) as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Greg Joyner, AJW-911, Navigation
Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Proposal

Purpose

    This notice announces the FAA's proposed strategy to meet
requirements for air navigation service in the United States. The FAA
is committed to maintaining the highest levels of safety, capacity, and
efficiency in the NAS while transitioning from the legacy station-
referenced system of airways, routes and procedures to a performance-
based system providing flexible point-to-point navigation enabled by
geospatial positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) infrastructure and
aircraft advanced navigation systems.

Transition to PBN for En Route, Terminal and Approach Operations in
CONUS

    Many NextGen benefits depend on PBN, specifically RNAV and RNP
routes, arrivals, departures, instrument approaches and other
procedures to increase capacity and efficiency, and reduce aircraft
noise and emissions while enhancing safety. All of these operations are
enabled primarily by GPS and WAAS.
    GPS provides a level of service that supports lateral navigation
for en route through non-precision instrument approaches. GPS is an
internationally accepted navigation system, standardized by the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), and has been approved
for use by many countries. Additional information concerning GPS can be
found at www.gps.gov and www.pnt.gov. The U.S. government has committed
to maintaining GPS services in accordance with the Standard Positioning
Service Performance Standard of September 2008. The U.S. is improving
GPS services by adding a second frequency which will make GPS more
resistant to unintentional radio frequency interference (RFI) sources.
    WAAS is a GPS augmentation system for aviation use that has been
operational since 2003 and is used to improve the accuracy, integrity,
and availability of GPS. WAAS also improves the availability of GPS to
support PBN operations, even if several GPS satellites were to go out
of service. WAAS is a satellite-based augmentation system (SBAS)
standardized by ICAO. Compatible systems are operational in Japan and
Europe, and other SBASs are in development in India and Russia.
    Even though basic and augmented GPS services enable all of the PBN
capabilities for NextGen, the signals are vulnerable to scheduled and
unscheduled outages. For example, the U.S. government regularly
conducts scheduled testing in the NAS that impacts GPS use in selected
regions. Unscheduled GPS outages have been caused by interference from
intentional or unintentional sources of RFI. The FAA will ensure
sufficient infrastructure is provided to mitigate the effects of
scheduled GPS outages in designated areas and unscheduled outages which
could otherwise significantly disrupt air commerce.
    The FAA also provides a network of distance measuring equipment
(DME) that enable aircraft with suitable RNAV avionics to fly RNAV
routes and terminal procedures where sufficient DME coverage exists.
(See FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 90-100A, U.S. Terminal and En Route
Area Navigation (RNAV) Operations.) In the near term, the FAA plans to
enhance DME facilities to provide unrestricted RNAV operations for DME/
DME and DME/DME/Inertial Reference Unit (IRU) equipped aircraft
operating in Class A airspace over the CONUS and in the vicinity of the
Core 30 airports. Over the longer term, the FAA is investigating other
APNT solutions to satisfy PNT requirements for all users in the event
of a loss of GPS.
    Since VORs do not enable RNAV, RNP, or Automatic Dependent
Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) operations, the FAA plans to reduce
costs by drawing down the number of FAA-provided VORs. Currently, over
80% of the 967 VORs in the NAS inventory are past their economic
service life and cost the FAA more than $110M per year to operate.
Likewise, replacement parts are becoming increasingly difficult to
obtain. The replacement of all of the VORs would cost over $1.0B.
Therefore, the FAA is planning a gradual discontinuance (removal from
service) of VOR facilities in CONUS to a minimum operational network
(MON). The MON would enable aircraft anywhere in the CONUS to proceed
safely to a destination with a GPS-independent approach within 100 nm.
MON coverage is planned to be provided at altitudes above 5,000 feet
above ground level (AGL). The FAA would also retain VORs to support
international arrival airways from the Atlantic, Pacific, Caribbean,
and at the Core 30 airports. The existing U.S. legacy navigation aids
outside CONUS will be retained until a longer-term solution can be
coordinated with users. The drawdown of VORs to a MON would be
completed no later than January 1, 2020.
    In considering VORs for discontinuance, each facility will be
evaluated on its own merits. The FAA will convene a working group that
will develop a candidate list of VORs for discontinuance using relevant
operational, safety, cost, and economic criteria. As part of the
process, this working group will engage aviation industry stakeholders
and other members of the public for input.
    Suitably equipped RNAV aircraft can continue to fly the existing
Victor Airways and Jet Routes, Standard Terminal Arrivals (STAR), and
Departure Procedures (DP) even if their associated VORs are not
operating, by the use of RNAV substitution as described in AC 90-108,
Use of Suitable Area Navigation (RNAV) Systems on Conventional Routes
and Procedures. Existing airways, routes, and procedures eventually
would be replaced by RNAV Q (high) and T (low) Routes, and RNAV STARs
and DPs. VORs are also used for the Hazardous In-flight Weather
Advisory Service (HIWAS) broadcast and voice communication with FAA
Flight Service Stations. These services are not planned to be impacted
by this proposal.
    WAAS supports vertically-guided approach operations, called
Localizer Performance with Vertical guidance (LPV). These approaches
are equivalent to Category I ILS, but do not require any radio
navigation equipment at or near the airport. WAAS provides LPV coverage
throughout CONUS, Alaska, and most of Canada and Mexico. By 2016, the
FAA expects to provide instrument approach procedures with LPV or
localizer performance (LP) non-precision lines of minima to all
qualified instrument runways in CONUS and Alaska (see Advisory Circular
AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design, Appendix 16). In order to maximize
operational benefits and take advantage of the cost savings associated
with WAAS, the FAA no longer intends to establish new Category I ILSs
using Facilities and Equipment (F&E) funding.
    ILSs that are funded by grants from the Airport Improvement Program
(AIP) will continue as an eligible project per the authorizing statute.
However, the FAA is considering programmatic changes under AIP that
would favor WAAS for new precision approaches at airports, rather than
ILS. The FAA Office of Airports will engage with airport stakeholders
and associations on these potential changes.
    Existing ILSs would provide an alternative approach and landing
capability in support of recovery and dispatch of aircraft during GPS
outages. ILSs would provide the precision approach and landing segment
for APNT.

    For all approach procedures, airports will continue to be required
to meet airfield design and infrastructure requirements appropriate for
the approach visibility levels set forth in AC 150/5300-13.

Future Plans

    Unaugmented GPS is capable of providing the accuracy and integrity
required by the FAA's ADS-B Out regulations (14 CFR 91.225 and 91.227)
that were effective August 31, 2010 and have a compliance date of
January 1, 2020. However, at this time, WAAS augmentation is the only
service that provides the 99.9 percent availability (equivalent to
radar) needed for ADS-B. Operators that equip with other position
sources, such as Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring (RAIM) based
GPS, may experience periods of unavailability that limit their access
to the airspace. The FAA expects that positioning from GPS combined
with future positioning sources such as the L5 GPS signal and/or other
GNSS signals, and GPS tightly integrated with inertial navigation
systems, will also provide 99.9 percent availability.
    The FAA is conducting research on APNT for service beyond 2020. The
FAA will consider, in consultation with the users, whether the MON may
be further reduced after an APNT solution is selected and available.
The FAA is also evaluating the use of the Ground-Based Augmentation
System (GBAS) in addition to ILS to provide Category II/III approach
services.

Review of Navigation Equipage Requirements

    FAA regulations addressing the operational requirements to carry
navigation equipment in aircraft are set forth in 14 CFR parts 91, 121,
125, 129, and 135. Operators should be familiar with their specific
requirements. The following paragraphs provide an overview of those
requirements to assist in understanding the context for the
radionavigation services described in this Notice.

Suitable Equipage for the Route To Be Flown

    The aircraft equipage rules are performance-based and the aircraft
must have equipment appropriate for the route to be flown, including en
route, departure, arrival, and instrument approach procedures.
Operators planning to fly a variety of different routes and procedures
must carry equipment suitable for the different routes and procedures.
    FAA guidance describing the navigation equipment ``suitable'' to
the route to be flown is provided in the Aeronautical Information
Manual and in a series of advisory circulars (see AC Nos. 90-100, 90-
101, 90-105, and 90-107). Equipment is considered suitable if it has
been demonstrated to provide the accuracy, integrity and reliability
for the operation and the necessary radionavigation service is provided
for the planned route of flight. For conventional ground-based routes
and procedures, suitable equipment can be directly inferred from the
type of procedure (e.g., a VOR receiver would be suitable for operation
on a Jet Route). RNAV systems, enabled by GPS, WAAS, or DME/DME/IRU
(DDI), are suitable for a variety of operations including:
    [cir] Operation on Victor Airways, Jet Routes, terminal arrivals,
departures, and approach procedures, including the initial and missed
approach portions of an ILS instrument approach (based on AC 90-108);
    [cir] Operation on RNAV routes (Q routes and T routes);
    [cir] Operation on RNAV arrivals and departures;
    [cir] Operation on RNAV (GPS) approaches (excluding DDI);
    [cir] Operation on RNAV (RNP) approaches (excluding DDI).
    Operators must ensure that performance requirements can be met for
the intended operations during flight planning. Due to integrity
limitations of unaugmented GPS, aircraft using unaugmented GPS
navigation equipment under IFR must be equipped with an approved and
operational alternate means of navigation so that the aircraft can
proceed safely to a landing at a suitable airport. This limitation also
applies to required alternates: When a planned alternate is required,
that alternate cannot be predicated on GPS in any way (as the primary
approach aid, or as the means to accomplish the initial, intermediate
or missed approach of an ILS, RNAV, or VOR approach).
    General aviation aircraft using WAAS equipment under IFR do not
require an alternate means of navigation, due to the improved
reliability of WAAS. However in non-normal conditions resulting in the
loss of WAAS services (for example catastrophic failure of the WAAS
satellites), the FAA will advise WAAS users that the GPS-only
restrictions should be applied until such time as WAAS service can be
restored. Aircraft equipped only with WAAS would be supported by air
traffic control in the event of a catastrophic failure of satellite
navigation.
    The planned use of GPS or WAAS during periods when GPS may be
unavailable (e.g., test events identified through NOTAM as areas in
which GPS may be unavailable) is not appropriate. In those areas and
during the test, aircraft must be equipped with other equipment
suitable for the planned operation (route of flight, altitude, etc.).
However, pilots may use GPS or WAAS during flight if onboard equipment
indicates service is available.
    RNAV systems using multiple DME signals are also suitable for many
of the same operations. DME has several limitations compared to GPS or
WAAS: the coverage of the service is not universal, so the operator
must verify that it is available over the planned route of flight; and
DME navigation is not currently capable of providing the more precise
accuracy that is needed for approach and departure operations.

Two Independent Systems

    FAA regulations applicable to domestic operations for commerce or
for hire require a second system capable of reversion or contingency
operations during non-normal conditions, including regional- or system-
wide effects that could reasonably occur. The rules applicable to those
operations require two independent navigation systems appropriate to
the route to be flown, or one system that is suitable and a second,
independent backup capability that allows the operator to proceed
safely and land at a different airport, and the aircraft must have
sufficient fuel (reference 14 CFR 121.349, 125.203, 129.17, and
135.165). These rules ensure the safety of the operation by preventing
a single point of failure.
    The requirements for a second system apply to the entire set of
equipment needed to achieve the navigation capability, not just the
individual components of the system such as the radionavigation
receiver. For example, in order to use two RNAV systems to comply with
the requirements, the aircraft must be equipped with two independent
radionavigation receivers and two independent navigation computers
(e.g., flight management systems). Alternatively, to comply with the
requirements using a single RNAV system with an installed and operable
VOR capability, the VOR capability must be independent of the FMS. The
MON described in this notice would continue to allow this equipage to
fulfill the above requirements for operating within U.S. airspace.
    To satisfy the requirement for two independent navigation systems,
if the primary navigation system is GPS-based, the second system must
be independent of GPS (e.g., VOR or DDI). This allows continued
navigation in case of failure of the GPS or WAAS

services. Recognizing that GPS interference and test events resulting
in the loss of GPS services have become more common, the FAA requires
operators conducting IFR operations under 14 CFR 121.349, 125.203,
129.17 and 135.165 to retain a non-GPS navigation capability consisting
of either DME/DME, IRU or VOR for en route and terminal operations, and
VOR and/or ILS for final approach. Since this system is to be used as a
reversionary capability, single equipage is sufficient.

Instructions for Submission of Comments

    Interested parties are invited to provide comments on the proposal.
Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and
suggestions presented would be particularly helpful in developing
reasoned decisions on the proposal.
    Communications should identify docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-
2011-1082 and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management
Facility (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number).
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposal.
The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this proposal will be filed in the docket.

Availability of Proposal

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, West
Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 1, 2011.
Phillip Leman,
Acting Manager, Navigation Services.
[FR Doc. 2011-31451 Filed 12-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 219 (Tuesday, November 15, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68510-68511]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24786]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0578]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and
Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0028

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of
its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0028,
Course Approval and Records for Merchant Mariner Training Schools;
without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect
from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is
inviting comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before January 17,
2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2022-0578] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public
participation and request for comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available
from: COMMANDANT (CG-6P), ATTN: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S.
Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave SE, Stop 7710, Washington,
DC 20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy
Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions
on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an
application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a
Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains
information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's
likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity
of the Collection, and other important information describing the
Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) the practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.
    In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not
to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider
all comments and material received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2022-0578], and
must be received by January 17, 2023.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System
of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

Information Collection Request

    Title: Course Approval and Records for Merchant Mariner Training
Schools.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0028.
    Summary: The information is needed to ensure that merchant marine
training schools meet minimal statutory requirements. The information
is used to approve the curriculum, facility and faculty for these
schools.
    Need: 46 U.S.C. 7315 authorizes an applicant for a Merchant Mariner
Credential to substitute the completion of an approved course for a
portion of the required sea service. 46 CFR 10.402 contains the Coast
Guard regulations for course approval.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Merchant marine training schools.
    Frequency: Five years for reporting; one year for recordkeeping.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden remains 145,917 hours a
year.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter
35, as amended.

    Dated: November 4, 2022.
Kathleen Claffie,
Chief, Office of Privacy Management, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2022-24786 Filed 11-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P