[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 100 (Thursday, May 25, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24022-24025]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10339]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9438; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-109-AD;
Amendment 39-18873; AD 2017-09-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. This AD was prompted
by reports of interruptions in the airstair door operation. This AD
requires repetitive inspections and modification of the handrail
hardware. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: This AD is effective June 29, 2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 29,
2017.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt
Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2016-9438.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
9438; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility,

U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cesar A. Gomez, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury,
NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc.
Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on December 16, 2016 (81 FR 91058) (``the NPRM''). The NPRM
was prompted by reports of interruptions in the airstair door
operation. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections and
modification of the handrail hardware. We are issuing this AD to ensure
the ability to evacuate passengers through the airstair door in the
event of an emergency.
    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2015-02, dated January 27, 2015 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ''the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-
400, -401, and -402 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    A number of airstair door operation interruptions have been
reported. In one case, the airstair door could not be opened. It was
found that the airstair door handrail holder bracket was deformed
and became lodged into the adjacent wardrobe bulkhead, which
prevented the door from opening.
    On airstair doors with Jetway Compatible option, a deformed
handrail holder bracket or a failure of the pin retainer bracket can
interfere with the operation of the airstair door and prevent it
from opening.
    The airstair door is classified as an emergency exit. The
inability to open an emergency exit could impede evacuation in the
event of an emergency.
    This [Canadian] AD mandates the repetitive inspection of
airstair door handrail hardware, and the modification of the
handrail stowage hardware.

    Required actions include applicable corrective actions (replacing
or removing brackets, installing lanyards, adjusting pins, and
adjusting affected parts of the assembly). You may examine the MCAI in
the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9438.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comment received. The Air Line Pilots
Association, International supported the NPRM.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have
determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier, Inc. issued Service Bulletin 84-52-79, Revision C,
dated February 2, 2016. This service information describes procedures
for a general visual inspection to detect deformities and cracks of the
forward and aft handle holder brackets on the airstair handrail; a
detailed visual inspection of the forward and aft pin retainer brackets
for the condition of the lanyards and the pins; a check for
unobstructed movement of the pin retainer brackets; and rework of the
airstair door handrail to prevent damage to the bulkhead and to prevent
the door from jamming once the handrails are stowed. This service
information is reasonably available because the interested parties have
access to it through their normal course of business or by the means
identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 82 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                      Labor cost          Parts cost    Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repetitive inspections..........  1 work-hour x $85 per              $0  $85 per inspection   $6,970 per
                                   hour = $85 per                         cycle.               inspection cycle.
                                   inspection cycle.
Modification....................  3 work-hours x $85 per          1,556  $1,811.............  $148,502.
                                   hour = $255.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that will enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative,

on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2017-09-11 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-18873; Docket No. FAA-
2016-9438; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-109-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective June 29, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -
402 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 4001
through 4473 inclusive, equipped with Bombardier ModSum 4-422100 or
ModSum 4-458687 (Jetway Compatible Passenger Airstair Door).

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of interruptions in the airstair
door operation, including one case where the door would not open.
The airstair door is classified as an emergency exit. We are issuing
this AD to ensure the ability to evacuate passengers through the
airstair door in the event of an emergency.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Repetitive Inspections of the Forward and Aft Handle Holder
Brackets and Forward and Aft Pin Retainer Brackets, Repetitive Checks,
and Corrective Actions

    Within 600 flight hours after the effective date of this AD,
perform a general visual inspection of the forward and aft handle
holder brackets for damage, such as visible cracks and deformation;
a detailed visual inspection of the forward and aft pin retainer
brackets to make sure that both lanyards are installed and to make
sure that the head of each pin is installed correctly; a check of
the pin retainer brackets for unobstructed movement; an operational
check of the forward passenger door; and all applicable corrective
actions; in accordance with PART A1 and PART A2 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-79,
Revision C, dated February 2, 2016, except as required by paragraphs
(g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective
actions before further flight. Repeat the inspections and checks
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 600 flight hours until the
terminating action required by paragraph (h) of this AD is
accomplished.
    (1) If one or both lanyards are missing, before further flight,
install lanyards as specified in, and in accordance with PART A1 of
the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-
52-79, Revision C, dated February 2, 2016.
    (2) If a pin is not installed correctly, as specified in PART A1
of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin
84-52-79, Revision C, dated February 2, 2016, before further flight,
adjust the affected pin until it is installed correctly as specified
in, and in accordance with, PART A1 of the Accomplishment
Instructions Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-79, Revision C, dated
February 2, 2016.
    (3) If a pin retainer bracket does not rotate freely, before
further flight, adjust affected parts of the assembly until the pin
retainer bracket rotates freely as specified in, and in accordance
with, PART A1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 84-52-79, Revision C, dated February 2, 2016.

(h) Terminating Action

    Within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months, whichever occurs first,
after the effective date of this AD: Incorporate Bombardier ModSum
4-903234 to modify the installed jetway compatible handrail stowage
bracket, in accordance with PART A3 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-79, Revision C,
dated February 2, 2016. Incorporating Bombardier ModSum 4-903234
terminates the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using the service information identified in
paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), or (i)(3) of this AD.
    (1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-79, dated May 1, 2014.
    (2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-79, Revision A, dated
November 18, 2014.
    (3) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-79, Revision B, dated
April 8, 2015.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD. Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO,
ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or
Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian A D CF-2015-02, dated January 27, 2015, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2016-9438.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact the Program
Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600
Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-
7300; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (l)(3) and (l)(4) of this AD.

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-79, Revision C, dated
February 2, 2016.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt
Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
http://www.bombardier.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 27, 2017.
Paul Bernado,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-10339 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Science Applications International Corporation An Employee Owned Company MEMORANDUM DATE: October 20th, 2002 TO: 316b Administrative Record FROM: Todd Doley, SAIC SUBJECT: SAIC Memorandum to the 316b Record regarding Development of Power Plant Intake Maintenance Personnel Hourly Compensation Rate.

This memorandum provides estimates of the fully loaded compensation rates for power plant intake maintenance personnel, along with a description of the methodology used to derive them.

Data Sources for Wage Rates The available data on wage and compensation data provide different rates by location and by source. Two major sources of wage rate data that provide national scale data as well as by location and source are:

Occupational Employment Survey, an annual Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS) survey that provides hourly wage estimates by occupation and industry ( BLS, 2001a); and

National Compensation Survey, an annual BLS survey that provides hourly wage and nonwage benefit estimates by occupation, region, and size of establishment ( BLS, 2002a).

The two BLS surveys use stratified random samples of employers nationwide. EPA believes that the rates derived from the BLS surveys are most likely to be unbiased estimates.

Occupational Employment Survey The BLS' Occupational Employment Survey ( OES) is an annual mail survey of occupational employment and wage rates for nonfarm establishments. The OES reports industry specific occupational employment and wages, based on over 700 occupational categories classified by OMB's Standard Occupational Classification ( SOC), and over 400 industries classified by Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) 2 and 3 digit categories.

The OES contacts 400,000 establishments each year. The OES is designed to produce wage estimates using three years of sample data, but the 2000 OES estimates use data from only two years because of a change in occupational classifications in 1999. We reviewed the SOC's within the relevant industry classification, ( SIC 491  Electric Services) to identify the best occupational matches for two labor categories: technical, and managerial. We assigned the following SOC classifications to these labor categories based on SOC descriptions and the relative proportions of SOC occupations within SIC 491:

technical labor: SOC 49 2095 Electrical and Electronics Repairers, Powerhouse, Substation, and Relay, which comprises persons who " Inspect, test, repair, or maintain electrical equipment in generating stations, substations, and in service relays.

managerial labor: SOC 11 1021, General and Operations Managers, which is employees who " plan, direct, or coordinate the operations of public and private sector operations."

Some managerial employees in the industry may instead be classified in SOC 51 1011, First Line Supervisors and Managers of Production and Operating Workers. Persons in this occupation " supervise and coordinate the activities of production and operating workers, such as ... plant and system operators." Nevertheless, we used the hourly wage estimate for General and Operations Managers because they are a larger occupational category within SIC 491. Because the hourly mean wage for the selected occupation is greater than that for SOC 51 1011.

Exhibit 1 shows employment and wage statistics from the 2000 OES for each of the occupational categories we considered for technical, and managerial labor. The median wages are consistently close to the mean wages, with a lower median value than the mean value which indicates that more than 50% of the people in the Managerial sector earn wages that are less than the mean wage and the opposite is true for the service technical maintenance sector where the median is higher than the mean. Nevertheless, we used the mean hourly wage over the median for analytical purposes because it is directly comparable to the other major BLS data source ( the National Compensation Survey, which reports mean wages but not median or other quantiles). Using means is also methodologically consistent with the intent of regulatory cost analysis, which is to project an expected mean cost of compliance.

Exhibit  1. Employment and Wages by Occupation and Industry Labor Category SOC Code Occupation SIC 491  Electric Services Employment ( percent of total SIC employment) Mean Hourly Wage Median Hourly Wage Technical 49 2095 Electrical and Electronics Repairers, Powerhouse, Substation, and Relay 10,880 ( 3%) $ 23.29 $ 23.86 Managerial 11 1021 General and Operations Managers 4,880 ( 1.35%) $ 39.69 $ 38.73 Source: BLS, 2001a.

Using the quantiles of occupational wage rates, we attempted to make conclusions about wages by establishment size. However, the variation in quantiles may depend on differences not only in size of establishment, but also by other industry factors such as fuel type, security needs, geography, or some other factor. Therefore, it is impossible to determine from the OES alone which factors explain the most variation. However, if deemed necessary, we can make assumptions based on the distribution presented below. This distribution coupled with other information that might provide evidence of variation in wage rates across the criteria by which power facilities differ ( e. g., system size, fuel type etc.). Exhibit  2. Presents employment and percentile wages by occupation.

Exhibit  2. Employment and Percentile Wages by Occupation Labor Category SOC Code Occupation Employment ( across all industries) Hourly Wage Rate 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Technical 49 2095 Electrical and Electronics Repairers, Powerhouse, Substation, and Relay 19,300 $ 14.79 $ 19.07 $ 23.34 $ 26.21 $ 29.00 Managerial 11 1021 General and Operations Managers 2,221,590 $ 14.16 $ 19.65 $ 29.41 $ 45.01 >$ 70.00 Source: BLS, 2001b.

Fringe Benefit Rates Fringe benefits are employee benefits paid by employers that include paid leave, health insurance, retirement savings, and other legally required benefits. EPA's labor rates need to include the costs of fringe benefits because these represent real costs when employee labor is increased. Other costs often associated with employees are " overhead costs." These include expenses for office space, furniture, equipment and computers, and supplies. Such costs are usually included in other analyses of direct and indirect labor costs, therefore we limit our labor costs to a consideration of the fringe benefits mentioned above.

The BLS Employer Costs for Employee Compensation ( ECEC) report, which is part of the National Compensation Survey, contains employer costs per hour worked for wages, fringe benefits, and total employee compensation, which is the sum of wages and fringe benefits. Some fringe benefit obligations, such as payroll taxes, accrue on an hourly basis; others, such as health insurance premiums, are converted to an average cost per hour. We divide total compensation estimates by mean hourly wage to obtain " load factors," which differ by employer status ( public or private sector), occupation, and industry.

Exhibit 3 summarizes load factors by the occupation and industry classifications that most closely match those discussed above. BLS provides relatively little industry resolution, and the best match is a load factor for white collar occupations and all blue collar workers. BLS private sector results are available for SIC 49 ( Electric, Gas, and Sanitary Services), which includes electric services. Load factors are available separately for white and blue collar workers within this industry.

Exhibit 3. Load Factor by Employee Type, Occupation, and Industry Employee Category Wage Rate Total Compensation Load Factor Electric, gas, and sanitary services ( SIC 49) White collar Blue collar 24.72 22.31 37.52 34.32 1.52 1.54 Source: BLS, 2002.

Conclusion Based on the above, the hourly rate burden for maintaining fish screens and pertinant equipment and structures are presented in Exhibit 4. The BLS Employment Cost Index ( ECI) was used to derive inflation factors for updating the hourly rate to June of 2002 ( BLS, 2002b). We believe that these wage estimates are valid for use in national cost analyses.

Exhibit 4. Summary of Average Wage Rates Labor Category OES1 SIC 491 Benefits Factor Mean Hourly Rate Inflation Factor Adjusted Hourly Rate2 Technical/ Blue collar $ 23.29 1.54 $ 35.87 1.074 $ 38.52 Managerial/ white collar $ 39.69 1.52 $ 60.33 1.074 $ 64.79 1. The OES estimates are mean wage rates reported in Exhibit 1 for the electric service industry ( SIC 491). 2. The adjusted hourly rate is based on ECI estimates for the Electric, Gas and Sanitary Services from the end of 2000 to the second quarter of 2002 ( BLS, 2002b).

References:

 U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS). 2002a. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, March 2002. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Labor. Online at http:// www. bls. gov/ ncs/ ect/ home. htm.

 U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS). 2002b. Employer Costs Index, June 2002. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Labor. Online at ftp:/ ftp. bls. gov/ pub/ suppl/ ECI. ECIHISTRY. TXT  U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS). 2001a. National Compensation Survey: Occupational Wages in the United States, 2000. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Labor. Bulletin 2548.

 U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS). 2001b. Occupational Employment Statistics: 2000 National Industry Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Labor. Online at http:// www. bls. gov/ oes.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 369-370]
[FR Doc No: 2017-28319]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER18-518-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: SA 290 9th Rev--NITSA with
Oldcastle Materials Cement Holdings to be effective 3/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/22/17.
    Accession Number: 20171222-5187.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-519-000.
    Applicants: ALLETE Clean Energy, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to market-based
rate tariff to be effective 12/23/2017.
    Filed Date: 12/22/17.
    Accession Number: 20171222-5204.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-520-000.
    Applicants: Entergy New Orleans, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Notice of Succession to be
effective 12/22/2017.
    Filed Date: 12/22/17.
    Accession Number: 20171222-5205.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-521-000.
    Applicants: ALLETE, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to market-based
rate tariff to be effective 12/23/2017.
    Filed Date: 12/22/17.
    Accession Number: 20171222-5206.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-522-000.
    Applicants: Armenia Mountain Wind, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to market-based
rate tariff to be effective 12/23/2017.
    Filed Date: 12/22/17.
    Accession Number: 20171222-5207.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-523-000.
    Applicants: Chanarambie Power Partners, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to market-based
rate tariff to be effective 12/23/2017.
    Filed Date: 12/22/17.
    Accession Number: 20171222-5211.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-524-000.
    Applicants: New York State Reliability Council, L.L.C.
    Description: Informational Filing of the Revised Installed Capacity
Requirement for the New York Control Area by the New York State
Reliability Council, L.L.C.
    Filed Date: 12/22/17.
    Accession Number: 20171222-5213.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-525-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: ER 304 11th Rev--NITSA with
Barretts Minerals to be effective 3/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/22/17.
    Accession Number: 20171222-5212.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-526-000.
    Applicants: Lake Benton Power Partners LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to market-based
rate tariff to be effective 12/23/2017.
    Filed Date: 12/22/17.
    Accession Number: 20171222-5214.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-527-000.
    Applicants: Storm Lake Power Partners I LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to market-based
rate tariff to be effective 12/23/2017.
    Filed Date: 12/22/17.
    Accession Number: 20171222-5215.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-528-000.
    Applicants: Storm Lake Power Partners II, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to market-based
rate tariff to be effective 12/23/2017.
    Filed Date: 12/22/17.
    Accession Number: 20171222-5216.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-529-000.
    Applicants: Condon Wind Power, LLC.

    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to market-based
rate tariff to be effective 12/23/2017.
    Filed Date: 12/22/17.
    Accession Number: 20171222-5217.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-530-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: SA 35 5th Rev--NITSA with
the Town of Philipsburg MT to be effective 3/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/22/17.
    Accession Number: 20171222-5234.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/12/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 22, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-28319 Filed 1-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 151)]
[Notices]
[Page 47603-47604]
[DOCID:fr06au10-84]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-D-0395]

Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration
Staff; Recommendations for Premarket Notifications for Lamotrigine and
Zonisamide Assays; Availability

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of the draft guidance entitled ``Draft Guidance for
Industry and FDA Staff; Recommendations for Premarket Notifications for
Lamotrigine and Zonisamide Assays.'' This draft guidance document
discusses information to be included in premarket notifications for
lamotrigine or zonisamide assays. This draft guidance is not final nor
is it in effect at this time.

DATES:  Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21
CFR 10.115 (g)(5)), to ensure that the agency considers your comment on
this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by November 4, 2010.

ADDRESSES:  Submit written requests for single copies of the draft
guidance document entitled ``Recommendations for Premarket
Notifications for Lamotrigine and Zonisamide Assays'' to the Division
of Small Manufacturers, International, and Consumer Assistance, Center
for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 4613, Silver Spring, MD 20993-
0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in
processing your request, or fax your request to<PHONE_NUMBER>. See the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on electronic access
to the guidance.
    Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to http://
www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Avis Danishefsky, Center for Devices
and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 5620, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-6142.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is issuing this draft guidance document to describe its current
thinking concerning issues that should be addressed in premarket
notifications for assays intended to quantitate the anti-seizure drugs
lamotrigine and zonisamide in serum. The Therapeutic Drug Monitoring
(TDM) Roundtable of the American Association of Clinical Chemists
(AACC) submitted to FDA recommendations for lamotrigine assays. Many of
the recommendations in this draft guidance document are consistent with
the AACC TDM Roundtable recommendations. Some of the general concepts
in this guidance may also be helpful in preparing 510(k) submissions
for other therapeutic drug assays previously cleared by FDA and
classified within 21 CFR part 862, subpart D.

II. Significance of Guidance

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance

practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the agency's current thinking on therapeutic
drug assays that measure lamotrigine or zonisamide. It does not create
or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind
FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach
satisfies the requirements of the applicable statute and regulations.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do
so by using the Internet. To receive ``Recommendations for Premarket
Notifications for Lamotrigine and Zonisamide Assays,'' you may either
send an e-mail request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to receive an electronic
copy of the document or send a fax request to<PHONE_NUMBER> to receive a
hard copy. Please use the document number 1654 to identify the guidance
you are requesting. A search capability for all CDRH guidance documents
is available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/
DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm. Guidance
documents are also available at http://www.regulations.gov.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E, have been
approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of
information in 21 CFR 809.10 have been approved under OMB control
number 0910-0485.

V. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES), either electronic or written comments regarding this
document. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. It is no
longer necessary to send two copies of mailed comments. Identify
comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets
Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Dated: August 2, 2010.
Nancy Stade,
Acting Associate Director for Regulations and Policy, Center for
Devices and Radiological Health.
[FR Doc. 2010-19419 Filed 8-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 220 (Thursday, November 18, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64561-64566]
[FR Doc No: 2021-25125]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93563; File No. SR-NYSE-2021-67]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the New York Stock Exchange Price List Regarding Colocation
Services

November 12, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that on November 3, 2021, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend the New York Stock Exchange Price
List (``Price List'') regarding colocation services and fees to provide
Users with wireless connectivity to CME Group market data. The proposed
rule change is available on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at
the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Price List regarding colocation
services and fees to provide Users \4\ with wireless connectivity to
CME Group market data.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For purposes of the Exchange's co-location services, a
``User'' means any market participant that requests to receive co-
location services directly from the Exchange. Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 76008 (September 29, 2015), 80 FR 60190 (October 5,
2015) (SR-NYSE-2015-40). As specified in the Price List, a User that
incurs co-location fees for a particular co-location service
pursuant thereto would not be subject to co-location fees for the
same co-location service charged by the Exchange's affiliates NYSE
American LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., NYSE Chicago, Inc., and NYSE
National, Inc. (together, the ``Affiliate SROs''). Each Affiliate
SRO has submitted substantially the same proposed rule change to
propose the changes described herein. See SR-NYSEAMER-2021-43, SR-
NYSEArca-2021-97, SR-NYSECHX-2021-17, and SR-NYSENAT-2021-23.
    \5\ The Exchange initially filed rule changes relating to its
co-location services with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') in 2010. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
62960 (September 21, 2010), 75 FR 59310 (September 27, 2010) (SR-
NYSE-2010-56).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange currently provides Users with wireless connections to
eight market data feeds or combinations of feeds from third party
markets (the

``Existing Third Party Data''),\6\ and wired connections to 43 market
data feeds.\7\ The Exchange now proposes to add to its Price List
wireless connections to CME Group, Inc. (``CME Group'') market data
(such data, ``CME Group Data'' and, together with the Existing Third
Party Data, the ``Third Party Data''). Users would be offered the
proposed wireless connection to the CME Group Data through connections
into the colocation center in the Mahwah, New Jersey data center
(``Data Center'').\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 76748 (December 23,
2015), 80 FR 81609 (December 30, 2015) (SR-NYSE-2015-52); 78378
(July 21, 2016), 81 FR 49315 (July 27, 2016) (SR-NYSE-2016-49); and
80215 (February 28, 2017), 82 FR 12658 (March 6, 2017) (SR-NYSE-
2017-05).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80311 (March 24,
2017), 82 FR 15741 (March 30, 2017) (SR-NYSE-2016-45).
    \8\ Through its ICE Data Services (``IDS'') business,
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (``ICE'') operates the Data Center
in Mahwah, New Jersey. The Exchange and the Affiliate SROs are
indirect subsidiaries of ICE. The proposed service would be provided
by IDS pursuant to an agreement with a non-ICE entity. IDS does not
own the wireless network that would be used to provide the service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange expects that the proposed rule change would become
operative no later than March 31, 2022. The Exchange will announce the
date that the wireless connection to the CME Group Data will be
available through a customer notice.
    To receive CME Group Data, the User would enter into an agreement
with a non-Exchange affiliated party for permission to receive the
data, if required. The User would pay this third party any fees for the
data content.
    For each wireless connection to CME Group Data, a User would be
charged a $5,000 non-recurring initial charge and a monthly recurring
charge of $6,000. The Exchange proposes to revise its Price List to
reflect fees related to the wireless connection to CME Group Data.
    The CME Group Data would not include all possible CME Group data
feeds. There is limited bandwidth available on the wireless network to
co-location, and there are currently dozens of CME Group data feeds. To
provide connectivity to all of them would use a large amount of
bandwidth.
    Accordingly, rather than provide connectivity to all possible
symbols included in the CME Group data feeds, the wireless connection
would only provide connectivity to a selection of CME Group market data
for which IDS determines there is User demand. IDS similarly provides
connectivity to a selection of data, rather than entire feeds, over a
wireless connection to the Markham, Canada third party data center.\9\
The User would then determine the symbols for which it would receive
data, which could include data regarding some or all of the symbols for
which IDS provides connectivity.\10\ The Exchange would not have
visibility into which portion of the CME Group Data a given User
receives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88237 (February 19,
2020), 85 FR 10752 (February 25, 2020) (SR-NYSE-2020-11), at 10756.
See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90209 (October 15,
2020), 85 FR 67044 (October 21, 2020) (SR-NYSE-2020-05, SR-NYSEAMER-
2020-05, SR-NYSEArca-2020-08, SR-NYSECHX-2020-02, SR-NYSENAT-2020-
03, SR-NYSE-2020-11, SR-NYSEAMER-2020-10, SR-NYSEArca-2020-15, SR-
NYSECHX-2020-05, SR-NYSENAT-2020-08).
    \10\ The Exchange understands that the third parties that
provide wireless connectivity to CME Group market data to the Data
Center and other data centers in New Jersey follow a substantially
similar model, offering connectivity to a selection of market data
rather than entire feeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with the Existing Third Party Data, if a User purchased two
wireless connections, it would pay two non-recurring initial charges.
Each wireless connection would include the use of one port for
connectivity to CME Group Data. A User would not pay a fee for the use
of such port. If a User also connects to Existing Third Party Data, it
would not be able to use the same port that it uses for connectivity to
CME Group Data to connect to such Existing Third Party Data.
Accordingly, a User that connects to both CME Group Data and Existing
Third Party Data would have at least two ports, and would not be
separately charged for two ports.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ If a User purchased a wireless connection to CME Group
Data, that connection would include the use of one port for
connectivity to CME Group Data. If the same User connected to
Existing Third Party Data, it would receive the use of one port for
connectivity to the Existing Third Party Data. It would not be
separately charged for such ports. A User may purchase additional
ports. See 80 FR 81609, supra note 6 at 81610.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Application and Impact of the Proposed Changes
    The proposed changes would not apply differently to distinct types
or sizes of market participants. Rather, they would apply to all Users
equally.
    As is currently the case, the purchase of any co-location service,
including connectivity to Third Party Data, is completely voluntary and
the Price List is applied uniformly to all Users.
Competitive Environment
    Users that do not opt to utilize the Exchange's proposed wireless
connection would still be able to obtain CME Group market data using
other methods: From another User, a third party wireless connection, or
through an IDS or third party fiber connection.
    Based on the information available to it, the Exchange believes
that at least one market participant provides wireless connectivity to
CME Group market data in the Data Center. The Exchange believes that
the wireless connection offered by this third party entity provides
connectivity at the same or similar speed as the proposed connection to
CME Group Data, and at the same or similar cost.\12\ The proposed
connection to CME Group Data and the existing third party wireless
connection to CME Group Data would follow the same route within the
Data Center: They would both enter through a meet-me-room, connect to
equipment in co-location, and then connect to any Users that are
customers. Because of this, the Exchange does not believe that IDS has
an advantage over the third party in providing the connectivity. The
proposed wireless connection would lead to a pole, from where a fiber
connection would lead into the Data Center. The pole is owned by a
third party and is not on the grounds of the Data Center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Because the third party is not a regulated entity, it is
not obligated to make its latency figures or fees publicly available
or the same for all entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IDS already offers fiber connections to CME Group market data to
Users.\13\ The Exchange also believes that at least two third party
market participants offer such fiber connections to CME Group market
data. In addition to these options, a User may create a proprietary
wireless connection or connect through another User in order to connect
to CME Group market data. The Exchange believes that at least two
market participants already provide wireless connectivity to CME Group
market data to other data centers in New Jersey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81014 (June 23,
2017), 82 FR 29615 (June 29, 2017) (SR-NYSE-2017-25).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Wireless connections involve beaming signals through the air
between antennas that are within line of sight of one another. Because
the signals travel a straight, unimpeded line, and because light waves
travel faster through air than through glass (fiber optics), wireless
messages have lower latency than messages travelling through fiber
optics. At the same time, as a general rule wireless networks have less
uptime than fiber networks. Wireless networks are directly and
immediately affected by adverse weather conditions, which can cause
message loss and outage periods. Wireless networks cannot be configured
with redundancy in the same way that fiber networks can. As a result,
an equipment or weather issue at any one location on the network will
cause the entire network to have an outage. In addition, maintenance
can take longer than it would with a fiber based

network, as the relevant tower may be in a hard to reach location, or
weather conditions may present safety issues, delaying technicians
servicing equipment. Even under normal conditions, a wireless network
will have a higher error rate than a fiber network of the same length.
    The latency of a wireless network depends on several factors.
Variables include the wireless equipment utilized; the route of, and
number of towers or buildings in, the network; their proximity to the
data centers on either end; and the fiber equipment used at either end
of the connection. Moreover, latency is not the only consideration that
a customer may have in selecting a wireless network to connect to CME
Group market data. Other considerations may include the amount of
network uptime; the equipment that the network uses; the cost of the
connection; and the applicable contractual provisions. Indeed, fiber
network connections may be more attractive to some market participants
as they are more reliable and less susceptible to weather conditions.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which
exchanges and other vendors (e.g., Hosting Users) offer co-location
services as a means to facilitate the trading and other market
activities of those market participants who believe that co-location
enhances the efficiency of their operations. The Commission has
repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory
intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the
securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission
highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and
SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the
market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting market
competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors
and listed companies.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other
issues relating to co-location services and/or related fees, and the
Exchange is not aware of any problems that Users would have in
complying with the proposed change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\15\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\16\ in particular, because it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, 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
and because it is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. The Exchange further believes
that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the
Act,\17\ because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other
persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Change Is Reasonable
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable.
    The wireless connection would provide Users with an alternative
means of connectivity to CME Group Data. The proposed change would
provide Users with an additional choice with respect to the form and
optimal latency of the connectivity they use to receive CME Group
market data, allowing a User to select the connectivity that better
suits its needs, helping it tailor its colocation operations to the
requirements of its business operations. Users that do not opt to
utilize the Exchange's proposed wireless connection would still be able
to obtain CME Group market data using other methods: from another User,
a third party wireless connection, or through an IDS or third party
fiber connection.
    Based on the information available to it, the Exchange believes
that at least one market participant provides wireless connectivity to
CME Group market data in the Data Center. The Exchange believes that
the wireless connection offered by this third party entity provides
connectivity at the same or similar speed as the proposed connection to
CME Group Data, and at the same or similar cost. The proposed
connection to CME Group Data and the existing third party wireless
connection to CME Group Data would follow the same route within the
Data Center: They would both enter through a meet-me-room, connect to
equipment in co-location, and then connect to any Users that are
customers. Because of this, the Exchange does not believe that IDS has
an advantage over the third party in providing the connectivity. The
proposed wireless connection would lead to a pole, from where a fiber
connection would lead into the Data Center. The pole is owned by a
third party and is not on the grounds of the Data Center.
    IDS already offers fiber connections to CME Group market data to
Users.\18\ The Exchange also believes that at least two third party
market participants offer such fiber connections to CME Group. In
addition to these options, a User may create a proprietary wireless
connection or connect through another User in order to connect to CME
Group market data. The Exchange believes that at least two market
participants already provide wireless connectivity to CME Group market
data to other data centers in New Jersey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See 82 FR 29615, supra note 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Market participants' considerations in determining what
connectivity to purchase may include latency; the amount of network
uptime; the equipment that the network uses; the cost of the
connection; and the applicable contractual provisions. Indeed, fiber
network connections may be more attractive to some market participants
as they are more reliable and less susceptible to weather conditions.
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to not transport
information for all of the symbols included in CME Group data feeds to
the Data Center, but rather to transport a subset of that data. There
is limited bandwidth available on the wireless network to co-location,
and there are a number of CME Group data feeds. Limiting the feeds to
the selection of CME Group market data regarding securities for which
IDS determines there is demand would allow Users to receive the
relevant CME Group Data over a wireless network, which could include
data regarding some or all of the symbols for which IDS provides
connectivity. The User would then determine those symbols for which it
will receive data.
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable that a User that has
already purchased wireless connections to other Third Party Data would
be charged a non-recurring charge when it purchases a wireless
connection to the CME Group Data, because it would allow the Exchange
to defray or cover certain costs it incurs in installing the wireless
connection to the CME Group Data, which costs it incurs irrespective of

whether the User has existing wireless connections to Third Party Data,
while providing the User the benefit of the installation, which would
allow it to receive CME Group Data within co-location and with a lower
latency over the fiber optics option. To do the initial installation,
the Exchange must provide the personnel required for initial
installation and testing. The costs associated with installing wireless
connections are incrementally higher than those associated with
installing fiber optics-based solutions.
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable that a User that
connects to both CME Group Data and Existing Third Party Data may not
use the same port for connectivity to both, and so would have at least
two ports, because the proposed wireless connection would include the
use of one port for connectivity to CME Group Data and connectivity to
the Existing Third Party Data includes the use of one port for
connectivity to Existing Third Party Data. A User would not pay a
separate fee for using such ports.
    The Exchange believes the proposed pricing for the wireless
connection to CME Group Data is reasonable because it would allow the
Exchange to defray or cover the costs associated with offering Users a
wireless connection to CME Group Data while providing Users the benefit
of receiving CME Group Data within co-location and with a lower latency
over the fiber optics option. The wireless connection for CME Group
Data would allow Users to select the CME Group Data connectivity option
that better suits their needs.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed pricing is reasonable
because the Exchange proposes to offer the wireless connection to CME
Group Data described herein as a convenience to Users, but in order to
do so must provide, maintain and operate the Data Center facility
hardware and technology infrastructure. The Exchange must handle the
installation, administration, monitoring, support and maintenance of
such services, including by responding to any production issues. Since
the inception of co-location, the Exchange has made numerous
improvements to the network hardware and technology infrastructure and
has established additional administrative controls. The Exchange has
expanded the network infrastructure to keep pace with the increased
number of services available to Users. Specifically, in order to offer
wireless connections, the Exchange must install, test, maintain and
operate the wireless equipment.
The Proposed Change Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is not unfairly
discriminatory for the following reasons.
    Without this proposed rule change, Users would have fewer options
for connectivity to CME Group Data. The proposed change would provide
Users with an additional choice with respect to the form and optimal
latency of the connectivity they use to receive CME Group market data,
allowing a User to select the connectivity that better suits its needs,
helping it tailor its colocation operations to the requirements of its
business operations. Users that do not opt to utilize the Exchange's
proposed wireless connection would still be able to obtain CME Group
market data using other methods: From another User, a third party
wireless connection, or through an IDS or third party fiber connection.
    The Exchange believes that it is not unfairly discriminatory to not
transport information for all of the symbols included in CME Group data
feeds to the Data Center, but rather to transport a subset of that
data. There is limited bandwidth available on the wireless network to
co-location, and there are a number of CME Group data feeds. Limiting
the feeds to the selection of CME Group market data regarding
securities for which IDS determines there is demand would allow Users
to receive the relevant CME Group Data over a wireless network. The
User would then determine those symbols for which it will receive data,
which could include data regarding some or all of the symbols for which
IDS provides connectivity.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed pricing is not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange proposes to offer the wireless
connection to CME Group Data described herein as a convenience to
Users, but in order to do so must provide, maintain and operate the
Data Center facility hardware and technology infrastructure. The
Exchange must handle the installation, administration, monitoring,
support and maintenance of such services, including by responding to
any production issues. Since the inception of co-location, the Exchange
has made numerous improvements to the network hardware and technology
infrastructure and has established additional administrative controls.
The Exchange has expanded the network infrastructure to keep pace with
the increased number of services available to Users. Specifically, in
order to offer wireless connections, the Exchange must install, test,
maintain and operate the wireless equipment.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change is not unfairly
discriminatory because it will result in fees being charged only to
Users that voluntarily select to receive the corresponding services and
because those services will be available to all Users. Furthermore, the
Exchange believes that the services and fees proposed herein are not
unfairly discriminatory because, in addition to the services being
completely voluntary, they are available to all Users on an equal basis
(i.e., the same products and services are available to all Users). All
Users that voluntarily select wireless connections to CME Group Data
would be charged the same amount for the same services.
    Users that opt to use wireless connections to CME Group Data would
receive the CME Group Data that is available to all Users, as all
market participants that contract with CME Group or its affiliate for
CME Group Data, as required, may receive it.
The Proposed Change Is an Equitable Allocation of Fees and Credits
    The Exchange believes that its proposal equitably allocates its
fees among Users.
    Without this proposed rule change, Users would have fewer options
for connectivity to CME Group Data. The proposed change would provide
Users with an additional choice with respect to the form and optimal
latency of the connectivity they use to receive CME Group market data,
allowing a User to select the connectivity that better suits its needs,
helping it tailor its colocation operations to the requirements of its
business operations. Users that do not opt to utilize the Exchange's
proposed wireless connection would still be able to obtain CME Group
market data using other methods: From another User, a third party
wireless connection, or through an IDS or third party fiber connection.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable because
it will result in fees being charged only to Users that voluntarily
select to receive the corresponding services and because those services
will be available to all Users. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that
the services and fees proposed herein are equitably allocated because,
in addition to the services being completely voluntary, they are
available to all Users on an equal basis (i.e., the same products and
services are available to all Users). All Users that voluntarily select
wireless connections

to CME Group Data would be charged the same amount for the same
services.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which
exchanges offer co-location services as a means to facilitate the
trading and other market activities of those market participants who
believe that co-location enhances the efficiency of their operations.
Accordingly, fees charged for co-location services are constrained by
the active competition for the order flow of, and other business from,
such market participants. If a particular exchange charges excessive
fees for co-location services, affected market participants will opt to
terminate their co-location arrangements with that exchange, and adopt
a possible range of alternative strategies, including placing their
servers in a physically proximate location outside the exchange's data
center (which could be a competing exchange), or pursuing strategies
less dependent upon the lower exchange-to-participant latency
associated with co-location. Accordingly, the exchange charging
excessive fees would stand to lose not only co-location revenues but
also the liquidity of the formerly co-located trading firms, which
could have additional follow-on effects on the market share and revenue
of the affected exchange.
    For the reasons above, the proposed changes do not unfairly
discriminate between or among market participants that are otherwise
capable of satisfying any applicable co-location fees, requirements,
terms and conditions established from time to time by the Exchange.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange believes that the proposal will not impose any burden
on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of Section 6(b)(8) of the Act.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change does not affect competition among national
securities exchanges or among members of the Exchange, but rather
between IDS and its commercial competitors.
    The wireless connection would provide Users with an alternative
means of connectivity to CME Group Data. The proposed change would
provide Users with an additional choice with respect to the form and
optimal latency of the connectivity they use to receive CME Group
market data, allowing a User to select the connectivity that better
suits its needs, helping it tailor its colocation operations to the
requirements of its business operations.
    Users that do not opt to utilize the Exchange's proposed wireless
connection would still be able to obtain CME Group market data using
other methods: From another User, a third party wireless connection, or
through an IDS or third party fiber connection. Based on the
information available to it, the Exchange believes that at least one
market participant provides wireless connectivity to CME Group market
data in the Data Center. The Exchange believes that the wireless
connection offered by this third party entity provides connectivity at
the same or similar latency as the proposed connection to CME Group
Data, and at the same or similar cost. The proposed connection to CME
Group Data and the existing third party wireless connection to CME
Group Data would follow the same route within the Data Center: They
would both enter through a meet-me-room, connect to equipment in co-
location, and then connect to any Users that are customers. Because of
this, the Exchange does not believe that IDS has an advantage over the
third party in providing the connectivity. The proposed wireless
connection would lead to a pole, from where a fiber connection would
lead into the Data Center. The pole is owned by a third party and is
not on the grounds of the Data Center.
    IDS already offers fiber connections to CME Group market data to
Users.\20\ The Exchange also believes that at least two third party
market participants offer such fiber connections to CME Group. In
addition to these options, a User may create a proprietary wireless
connection or connect through another User in order to connect to CME
Group market data. The Exchange believes that at least two market
participants already provide wireless connectivity to CME Group market
data to other data centers in New Jersey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See 82 FR 29615, supra note 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the proposed wireless connection would
compete not just with other wireless connections to CME Group market
data, but also with fiber network connections, which may be more
attractive to some market participants as they are more reliable and
less susceptible to weather conditions. Market participants'
considerations in determining what connectivity to purchase may include
latency; the amount of network uptime; the equipment that the network
uses; the cost of the connection; and the applicable contractual
provisions. As noted above, a User may purchase a fiber connection to
CME Group market data from at least three providers, including IDS.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which
exchanges and other vendors (e.g., Hosting Users) offer co-location
services as a means to facilitate the trading and other market
activities of those market participants who believe that co-location
enhances the efficiency of their operations. The Commission has
repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory
intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the
securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission
highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and
SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the
market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting market
competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors
and listed companies.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \22\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings

to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2021-67 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2021-67. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2021-67, and should be submitted on
or before December 9, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-25125 Filed 11-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 61 (Friday, March 29, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 19164]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07261]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0088; FRL-9783-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Ohio; Particulate Matter Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to convert a conditional approval of
specified provisions of the Ohio state implementation plan (SIP) to a
full approval. Ohio submitted a request to approve a section of its
particulate matter (PM) rules on February 23, 2012. The PM rule
revisions being approved establish work practices for coating
operations, add a section clarifying that sources can be subject to
both stationary source and fugitive source PM restrictions, and add a
PM emission limitation exemption for jet engine testing. Pursuant to a
state commitment underlying a previous conditional approval of this
rule, the revised rule provides that any exemption from the work
practice requirements that the state grants to large coating sources
must be submitted to EPA for approval.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 29, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2012-0088, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Pamela Blakely, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakely, Chief, Control Strategies
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer,
Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the state's SIP submittal as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no
further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the
direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received
will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed
rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For
additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in
the Rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: February 11, 2013.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2013-07261 Filed 3-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


                                  APPENDIX J                              AGENCY BURDEN GRAPHS                                         It is important note that the numbers in all burden graphs part of this attachment may not sum due to rounding and that the collection activities vary from each information collection (IC). The ICs are grouped based off the previously approved ICR from which they were a part of for the purpose of this consolidation.

OMB No. 2070-0040; Experimental Use Permits (EUPs) for Pesticides

                                                                  ICs 1 and 2: Annual Burden                                         Labor categories  Burden Hours Wage Rate Management  215 $132.14 Technical 1,631 $87.24 Clerical 76 $48.83 Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,922

Total Annual Costs: $174,410

OMB No. 2070-0142; Plant-Incorporated Protectants; CBI Substantiation and Adverse Effects Reporting

IC 3: Average Agency Burden Estimates per Submission for EPA Activities related to CBI Substantiation     Burden Hours Total Activities Mgmt. Tech. Clerical Burden (hrs) Costs

$132.14  $87.24  $48.83

($) Consult with Registrant  1 3 0.5 4.5 $418  Record Submissions 0 0.5 1 1.5 $92  Review Submissions 1 2 0 3 $307  Store the Information 0 0.5 1 1.5 $92  Totals 2 6 2.5 10.5 $910

                                            IC 3: Annual Agency Burden EPA Activities related to CBI Substantiation Number of Submissions Burden per Event

Total

Hours Costs

24                                      10.5

252 hours 24                                         $910 $21,835

IC 4: Agency Burden per Submission for EPA Activities related to an Adverse Effects Report Submitted for an Exempt Plant-Incorporated Protectant                                         Activities                                  Burden Hours                                     Totals   Mgmt. Tech. Clerical Burden Costs                                                                          $132.14                                                                          $87.24                                                                          $48.83  (hrs) ($) Consult with Registrant                                                                             0.5                                                                               1                                                                             0.5                                                                               2                                                                           $178  Record Submissions                                                                               0                                                                             0.5                                                                               1                                                                             1.5                                                                            $92  Review Submissions                                                                               1                                                                               1                                                                               0                                                                               2                                                                           $219  Store the Information                                                                               0                                                                             0.5                                                                             0.5                                                                               1                                                                            $68  Totals                                                                             1.5                                                                               3                                                                               2                                                                             6.5                                                                           $558

                                        IC 4: Annual Agency Burden Activities related to an Adverse Effects Report Submitted for an Exempt Plant-Incorporated Protectant

Number of Submissions Burden per Event

Divided over a three-year-period Total

Hours Costs

1                                       6.5

/3 2.2 hours 1                                         $524 /3 $186

                                                               ICs 3 and 4: Annual Agency Burden                                                                      Per Submission Estimates                                Total Submissions                                     Totals

                                    Burden                                      Costs                               Expected each year                                     Burden                                      Costs

                                     (hrs)                                       ($)                                        (hrs)                                       ($) CBI Substantiation                                      10.5                                      $910                                        24                                       252                                    $21,835  Adverse Effects Reporting                                       6.5                                      $558                                        0.3                                       2.2                                      $186  Totals                                                                                254.2                                                                        $22,021    OMB No. 2070-0060; Application for New and Amended Pesticide Registration

ICs 5, 6, and 7: Distribution of Agency FTEs Supporting FIFRA Section 3 Registration Activities

 Labor categories BEAD RD EFED HED AD BPPD Total FTEs Hourly wage Total Annual Cost[1] Managerial 1.8 8.7 3.7 5.3 3.2 1.6 24 $132.14  $6,680,257  Technical 8.9 49.3 14.7 28.5 20.9 24.1 146 $87.24  $26,560,884  Clerical 0.5 2.4 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.7 7 $48.83  $688,839  Total 11.2 60.4 19.4 34.9 25.2 26.4 177   $33,929,979

                     IC 8: Estimated Annual Hours and Cost   Annual Total

Responses Hours Costs Data Generation 790 1,440,754 108,099,000 New AIs 28 863,910 $64,424,000  New Products 762 576,844 $43,675,000  TOTAL AGENCY BURDEN   369,127 $33,929,979

OMB No. 2070-0182; Pesticide Program Public Sector Collections (FIFRA §18/24(c))

         IC 9: Total Annual Agency Burden for Section 24(c) Activities

Labor categories  FTEs Hours / FTE  Total burden hours Fully loaded wage rates ($/hr.)  Annual per FTE cost Total Cost Managerial 1 2080 2,080 $132.14  $274,842  $264,306  Technical 2 2080 4,160 $87.24  $181,454  $362,909  Clerical 1 2080 2,080 $48.83  $101,576  $98,051  Totals 4 2080 8,320     $725,266

             IC 10: Annual Agency Burden for Section 18 Activities

Labor categories  FTEs  Hours / FTE  Total burden hours Fully loaded wage rates ($/hr.)  Annual per FTE cost Total Cost Managerial 1 2,080 2,080 $132.14  $274,842  $264,306  Technical 5 2,080 10,400 $87.24  $181,454  $907,271  Clerical 1 2,080 2,080 $48.83  $101,576  $98,051  OPP totals 7 2,080 14,560     $1,269,628

OMB No. 2070-0039; Submission of Unreasonable Adverse Effects Information Under FIFRA 6(a)(2)

                IC 11: Agency Burden per Submission - INCIDENTS Collection Activities Burden Hours per Submission by Labor Category Total

Managerial Technical Clerical  Hours Costs ($)

$132.14  $87.24  $48.83

Screen Submitted Information 0 0.135 0 0.135 $11.78  Record, File and Track Submissions 0 0.023 0.033 0.056 $3.62  Communications, Guidance 0 0.025 0 0.191 $2.18  Total (per incident) 0 0.183 0.033 0.216 $17.58

               IC 11: Annual Agency Burden Estimates - INCIDENTS Labor Category Burden Hours per Request Number of Submissions Total Annual Hours Labor Rate ($/hr) Costs ($) Managerial 0 107,798 0 $132.14  $0  Technical 0.183 107,798 19,727 $87.24  $1,720,940  Clerical 0.033 107,798 3,557 $48.83  $173,721  TOTAL (per year) 0.216 107,798 23,284   $1,894,661

            IC 12: Agency Burden Estimates per Submission - STUDIES Collection Activities Burden Hours per Submission by Labor Category Total

Managerial Technical Clerical  Hours Costs ($)

$132.14  $87.24  $48.83

Screen submitted information 0 2 0 2 $174.48  Record, file, and track submissions 0 3.6 0.9 4.5 $358.01  Total (per study) 0 5.6 0.9 6.5 $532.48

                IC 12: Annual Agency Burden Estimates - STUDIES Labor Category Burden Hours per Request Number of Submissions Total Annual Hours Labor Rate ($/hr) Costs ($) Managerial 0 237 0 $132.14  $0  Technical 5.6 237 1327.2 $87.24  $115,782  Clerical 0.9 237 213.3 $48.83  $10,416  TOTAL (per year) 6.5 237 1,541   $126,198

            ICs 11 and 12: Annual Agency Burden and Cost Estimates                              Per Submission Estimates                       Total Submissions Expected per Year                                     Totals                                        Hours                                    Costs ($)

                                 Burden Hours                                    Costs ($) Studies                                       6.5                                    $532.48                                        237                                      1,541                                    $126,198  Incidents                                      0.216                                     $16.82                                      107,798                                     23,284                                   $1,894,661  TOTAL (per year)                                                                                108,035                                     24,825                                   $2,020,859

OMB No. 2070-0052; Compliance Requirement for Child Resistant Packaging

                                                                                IC 14: Agency Burden by Response Type                                          Collection activities  CRP certification with data CRP certification without data  Exemption Request

Tech. $/hr Admin $/hr Tech. $/hr Admin $/hr Tech. $/hr Admin $/hr

  $87.24  $48.83  $87.24  $48.83  $87.24  $48.83  Hours per response, by labor type  8 3 1.5 0.5 40 3 Cost per response, by labor type $698  $147  $131  $24  $3,490  $147  Annual number of responses 17 13 1 Cost per response, by response type $844  $155  $3,636  TOTAL ANNUAL COST $14,355  $2,019  $3,636

                          IC 14: Total Annual Burden

Agency Burden Total Burden Hours Total Cost ($) CRP certification with data 187 $14,355  CRP certification without data 26 $2,019  CRP Exemption Request 43 $3,636  TOTAL Agency Burden and Cost 256 $20,009

OMB No. 2070-0044; Notice of Supplemental Distribution of a Registered Pesticide Product

   IC 15: Estimated Agency Burden per Supplemental Distribution Application

AGENCY HOURS, RATES * TOTAL Collection Activities Mgmt, $/hr Technical, $/hr Clerical, $/hr Hours Costs

$132.14  $87.24  $48.83

If necessary, assign an EPA company number to the supplemental distributor.[1]     0.08 0.08 $3.91  Verify, acknowledge receipt2       0.03 0.03 $1.47  ::         Initial product screening[3]   0.36   0.36 $31.41  ::         Product review meeting[3] 0.63     0.63 $83.25  ::         Process disapproved product distribution information[3]   0.42   0.42 $36.64  Process: Enter form information into electronic file in OPPIN   0.5   0.5 $43.62  File and maintain information   0.02   0.02 $1.74  Total 0.63 1.3 0.11 2.04 $63.26

                       IC 15: Total Annual Agency Burden                                      Total                                      Hours                                      Costs                                      1260                                    $119,245

OMB No. 2070-0024; Tolerance Petitions for Pesticides on Food/Feed Crops and New Inert Ingredients

                                                                IC 16 and 17: Cost per Employee                                                                                Labor categories  Burden Hours Wage Rate Total Management  2,080 $132.14 $274.842 Technical 2,080 $82.54 $171,674 Clerical 2,080 $45.14 $93,889

                       IC 16 and 17: Total Agency Costs

Labor categories  Burden Hours Cost per Labor Category  Management  1.572 x $432,052 Technical 14.256 x $2,447,387 Clerical 0.432 x $40,560 Total: $2,920,000

                    IC 16 and 17: Total Agency Burden hours

Labor categories  Burden Hours Total Burden Hours Management  1.572 x 2,080 Technical 14.256 x 2,080 Clerical 0.432 x 2,080 Total: 33,821