[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 222 (Monday, November 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69159-69162]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27470]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70844; File No. SR-CBOE-2013-103]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change Relating to Obvious Error

November 12, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on October 28, 2013, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III 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\ 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 Rule 6.25 (Nullification and
Adjustment of Options Transactions). The text of the proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of
the Secretary, 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 Exchange 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 these 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 aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Exchange Rule 6.25 (Nullification and Adjustment of Options
Transactions) governs the nullification and adjustment of options
transactions. The Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 6.25(a)(1) to
modify how the Exchange will nullify or adjust an obvious error. The
Exchange believes this proposal will also harmonize its rules to more
closely align with other options exchanges.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See, e.g., International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE'')
Rule 720(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the current rule 6.25(a)(1)(i), the Exchange will adjust the
price of an erroneous transaction to the Theoretical Price when the
transaction is between two market-makers unless such parties agree to
adjust the transaction to a different price or bust the trade within
fifteen minutes of being notified by Exchange Trading Officials of the
error. Pursuant to current Exchange Rule 6.25(a)(1)(iv), transactions
involving at least one non-CBOE market-maker will be adjusted to the
Theoretical Price provided that the adjustment does not violate the
non-CBOE market-maker's limit price unless both parties agree to adjust
the transaction to a different price or agree to bust the trade within
thirty minutes of being notified by Trading Officials of the error.
    The Exchange is now proposing to amend Rule 6.25(a)(1) to modify
the Exchange obvious error procedures by nullifying trades for
transactions involving at least one non-broker-dealer customer and
adjusting all other trades between groups that do not fall into that
category including for example, a market maker or a broker-dealer.\4\
The Exchange believes that the proposal will eliminate some uncertainty
in the

current rule along with protect investors by eliminating confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange is also proposing to add text to Exchange Rule
1.1(fff) (Voluntary Professional) and Rule 1.1(ggg) (Professional)
to include a reference to Rule 6.25. These designations are done on
the Exchange on an order by order basis. Thus, through reference,
professional orders will be treated as broker-dealer orders. In
addition certain non-broker-dealer customers may have their orders
treated as broker-dealer orders rather than as public customer
orders for purposes of Rule 6.25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More specifically, the Exchange is first proposing to include all
transactions in which neither party is a non-broker-dealer customer in
the current Rule 6.25(a)(1)(i) instead of only including transactions
between CBOE market-makers. In addition, the Exchange is proposing to
limit the time in which these parties have to decide to adjust to a
price other than the Theoretical Price or nullify the trade to ten
minutes instead of the fifteen minutes that is currently allowed.\5\
Next, the Exchange is proposing to add a provision to nullify all
erroneous transactions where at least one party is a non-broker-dealer
customer unless both parties agree to an adjusted price within thirty
minutes. Finally, the Exchange is proposing to make cosmetic changes to
Rule 6.25 by renumbering current provisions in 6.25(a)(1)(ii) and
6.25(a)(1)(iii) to 6.25(a)(1)(iii) and 6.25(1)(iv), respectively, and
to make conforming changes to the references to these provisions in
current Rules 6.25(b)(1) and 6.25.05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Please note that that limiting the time frame to ten minutes
would also align the Exchange with C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``C2'') Rule 6.15(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposal will limit obvious error
trade nullification only to transactions involving non-broker-dealer
customers. The Exchange believes that this approach will limit the
number of nullifications while assuring that non-broker-dealer
customers will not have their erroneous trades adjusted through their
limit price forcing such customer to spend (receive) more (less) money
on erroneous transactions. In addition, the proposed changes to the
rule will allow any non-professional customer orders to be subject to
professional standards if that customer decides to designate an order
as such.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See note 4 supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Non-broker-dealer customers are typically far less familiar with
the day-to-day trading of the markets and are also less likely to be
watching trading activity in a particular option throughout the day.
Therefore, given the potential for drastic market swings, the Exchange
believes that it is fair and reasonable and consistent with statutory
standards to change the procedure for obvious errors involving at least
one non-broker-dealer customer, and not for other market participants
so as not to expose these customers to any additional risk. In
addition, as stated above, these customers have the option of
indicating they would like the treatment of their orders as if they
originated from a professional.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is a fair way to address the issue of a
trade executing through a non-broker-dealer customer's limit order
price while balancing the competing interest of certainty that trades
stand versus dealing with the true errors. The proposed rule change
would continue to entail specific and objective procedures.
Furthermore, the proposed rule change more fairly balances the
potential windfall to one market participant against the potential
reconsidering of a trading decision under the guise of an error. The
Exchange also believes it is fair and reasonable to treat all
professional market participants equally, e.g., market-makers, broker-
dealers, etc.
    As stated above, the Exchange believes that non-broker-dealer
customers are far less familiar with the day-to-day trading of the
markets and are also less likely to be watching trading activity in a
particular option throughout the day. Therefore, the Exchange believes
that it is fair and reasonable and consistent with statutory standards
to change the procedure for obvious errors involving non-broker-dealer
customers, and not for other market participants so as not to expose
these customers to any additional risk. In addition, as stated above,
these customers have the option of indicating they would like the
treatment of their orders as if they were from professionals.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposal to change the time
to ten minutes, instead of fifteen minutes, for professional parties to
agree to a different price or nullify the transaction under Exchange
Rule 6.25(a)(1)(i) not only gives ample time for review by the parties
to the trades, but it more closely aligns the Exchange's rule to other
options exchanges.\9\ The Exchange also believes that the
administrative re-numbering of the provisions in Rule 6.25 eliminate
further confusion in the current rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See note 3 supra. See also note 5 supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\10\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \11\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
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. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \12\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the proposal to nullify all erroneous transactions
in which at least one non-broker-dealer customer is a party to the
transaction and adjusting all other trades will help market
participants to better hedge risk associated with these potentially
erroneous transactions. By nullifying erroneous transactions which
involve a non-broker-dealer customer, the Exchange is assuring that
these non-professional customers will not receive a trade at a higher
(lower) price than a limit price placed upon the transaction. In
addition, the proposal is requiring trades in most circumstances to be
honored. The proposal also allows for all parties to nullify any
erroneous transaction as long as the two parties come to an agreement
within ten minutes. The Exchange believes that the shorten time will
require the agreement to be made more quickly, and thus a nullification
or adjustment to a different price create less of a disruption to the
overall market.
    The Exchange believes that adjusting all transactions that do not
involve a non-broker-dealer customer is just and equitable because
professional customers are more sophisticated and familiar with the day
to day trading swings. Though, as proposed, a professional that is not
a market-maker may be adjusted through its limit price, the Exchange
believes these professionals have adequate resources in place to manage
this adjustment and would prefer the certainty of the proposed changes
and to adjust these transactions (rather than nullify) to continue to
hedge their risk. In addition, the Exchange believes that market-makers
and other professionals are similarly situated, and, thus, it is

consistent to treat these groups in the same manner. Moreover, the
market benefits from the least amount of nullifications because parties
have more certainty about their executions. The Exchange also believes
that assessing an adjustment penalty will encourage professionals to
adjust and nullify a lesser amount of transactions which will benefit
the market as a whole. Thus, the Exchange believes that the treatment
of all professional orders in the same manner is consistent with the
Act as it will allow the market to suffer fewer disruptions, in the
form of adjustments or nullifications of trades after the fact, and
treats similarly situated groups, namely market-makers and other
professionals, in the same manner. The Exchange also notes that
aligning the Exchange with other options exchanges will ensure less
disruption to market participants as they will be treated consistently
across the markets.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See note 7 supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Though the proposal will treat groups of market participants
differently, the Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminating because it treats similarly situated groups in the same
manner. More specifically, all professionals will be treated in a
similar manner while non-professional customers will also be left with
the choice to designate an order as professional, under Exchange Rule
1.1(fff) and thus have the ability to be treated in the same manner as
a professional. With this choice, all groups may be treated in the same
manner. In addition, the proposal creates a safeguard for a non-
professional customer that may not be as familiar with the specifics of
every day trading (and does not choose to be treated as a professional)
by nullifying all erroneous transactions in which they are a party.
    The Exchange acknowledges that the proposal may allow for some
uncertainty to regarding whether a trade will be adjusted or nullified
depending upon the nature of the parties to the transaction. More
specifically, the contra party will not know the category of the other
party. Nonetheless, the Exchange believes the proposal continues to
promote just and equitable principles of trade and protect investors
and the public interest because it eliminates a more serious
uncertainty of price uncertainty which is inherent in the current
Exchange rule because the current rule takes the non-broker-dealer
customer's limit price into consideration while this proposal does not
as it will be nullified unless agreed upon by the two parties. The
Exchange also notes that this rule is substantially similar to another
option exchange.\14\ Thus, market participants will receive similar
treatment in the [sic] across the markets which eliminates confusion
and promotes just and equitable principles of trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See note 31 supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the proposal is
meant to eliminate market participant confusion along with help market
participants to better hedge the risk associated with erroneous options
trades. CBOE believes that the proposed rule change will relieve any
burden on, or otherwise promote, competition because it creates less
uncertainty about the treatment of erroneous trades which may encourage
market participants to trade on the Exchange.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on 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:
    A. Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
    C. 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 \15\ and
Rule 19b 4(f)(6) \16\ thereunder. 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 will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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_ADDRESS>Please include File
Number SR-CBOE-2013-113 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2013-103. 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 Web site (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 Web site 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; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2013-103 and should be
submitted on or before December 9, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-27470 Filed 11-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 149 (Friday, August 2, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46955-46958]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18619]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0007]

Animal Drug User Fee Rates and Payment Procedures for Fiscal Year
2014

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the rates
and payment procedures for fiscal year (FY) 2014 animal drug user fees.
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as amended by
the Animal Drug User Fee Amendments of 2013, which was signed by the
President on June 13, 2013 (ADUFA III), authorizes FDA to collect user
fees for certain animal drug applications and supplements, for certain
animal drug products, for certain establishments where such products
are made, and for certain sponsors of such animal drug applications
and/or investigational animal drug submissions. This notice establishes
the fee rates for FY 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Visit FDA's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/UserFees/AnimalDrugUserFeeActADUFA/default.htm
or contact Lisa Kable, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-10), Food
and Drug Administration, 7529 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-
276-9718. For general questions, you may also email the Center for
Veterinary Medicine (CVM) at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 740 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 379j-12) establishes four
different types of user fees: (1) Fees for certain types of animal drug
applications and supplements; (2) annual fees for certain animal drug
products; (3) annual fees for certain establishments where such
products are made; and (4) annual fees for certain sponsors of animal
drug applications and/or investigational animal drug submissions (21
U.S.C. 379j-12(a)). When certain conditions are met, FDA will waive or
reduce fees (21 U.S.C. 379j-12(d)).
    For FY 2014 through FY 2018, the FD&C Act establishes aggregate
yearly base revenue amounts for each fiscal year (21 U.S.C. 379j-
12(b)(1)). Base revenue amounts established for years after FY 2014 are
subject to adjustment

for inflation and workload (21 U.S.C. 379j-12(c)). Fees for
applications, establishments, products, and sponsors are to be
established each year by FDA so that the percentages of the total
revenue that is derived from each type of user fee will be as follows:
Revenue from application fees will be 20 percent of total fee revenue;
revenue from product fees will be 27 percent of total fee revenue;
revenue from establishment fees shall be 26 percent of total fee
revenue; and revenue from sponsor fees shall be 27 percent of total fee
revenue (21 U.S.C. 379j-12(b)(2)).
    For FY 2014, the animal drug user fee rates are: $396,600 for an
animal drug application; $198,300 for a supplemental animal drug
application for which safety or effectiveness data are required and for
an animal drug application subject to the criteria set forth in section
512(d)(4) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360b(d)(4)); $9,075 for an annual
product fee; $105,800 for an annual establishment fee; and $101,150 for
an annual sponsor fee. FDA will issue invoices for FY 2014 product,
establishment, and sponsor fees by December 31, 2013, and payment will
be due by January 31, 2014. The application fee rates are effective for
applications submitted on or after October 1, 2013, and will remain in
effect through September 30, 2014. Applications will not be accepted
for review until FDA has received full payment of application fees and
any other animal drug user fees owed under ADUFA.

II. Revenue Amount for FY 2014

A. Statutory Fee Revenue Amounts

    ADUFA III (Title I of Pub. L. 113-14) specifies that the aggregate
revenue amount for FY 2014 for all animal drug user fee categories is
$23,600,000. (21 U.S.C. 379j-12(b)(1)(A).)

B. Inflation Adjustment to Fee Revenue Amount

    The amount established in ADUFA III for FY 2014 includes an
inflation adjustment; therefore, no further inflation adjustment is
required for FY 2014. For FY 2015 and subsequent years an inflation
adjustment will be made (21 U.S.C. 379j-12(c)(2)).

C. Workload Adjustment to Inflation Adjusted Fee Revenue Amount

    The amount established in ADUFA III for FY 2014 is not to be
further adjusted for workload. For FY 2015 and subsequent years a
workload adjustment will be calculated (21 U.S.C. 379j-12(c)(3)).

D. FY 2014 Fee Revenue Amounts

    ADUFA III specifies a total revenue amount of $23,600,000 for FY
2014. Of this amount: 20 percent, or a total of $4,720,000, is to come
from application fees; 27 percent, or a total of $6,372,000, is to come
from product fees; 26 percent, or a total of $6,136,000, is to come
from establishment fees; and 27 percent, or a total of $6,372,000, is
to come from sponsor fees (21 U.S.C. 379j-12(b)).

III. Application Fee Calculations for FY 2014

    The terms ``animal drug application'' and ``supplemental animal
drug application'' are defined in section 739 of the FD&C Act (21
U.S.C. 379j-11(1) and (2)).

A. Application Fee Revenues and Numbers of Fee-Paying Applications

    The application fee must be paid for any animal drug application or
supplemental animal drug application that is subject to fees under
ADUFA and that is submitted on or after September 1, 2003. The
application fees are to be set so that they will generate $4,720,000 in
fee revenue for FY 2014. This is the amount derived in section II.D of
this document. The fee for a supplemental animal drug application for
which safety or effectiveness data are required and for an animal drug
application subject to criteria set forth in section 512(d)(4) of the
FD&C Act is to be set at 50 percent of the animal drug application fee
(21 U.S.C. 379j-12(a)(1)(A)(ii)).
    To set animal drug application fees and supplemental animal drug
application fees to realize $4,720,000 FDA must first make some
assumptions about the number of fee-paying applications and supplements
the Agency will receive in FY 2014.
    The Agency knows the number of applications that have been
submitted in previous years. That number fluctuates significantly from
year to year. In estimating the fee revenue to be generated by animal
drug application fees in FY 2014, FDA is assuming that the number of
applications that will pay fees in FY 2014 will equal the average
number of submissions over the 5 most recent completed years (FY 2008-
FY 2012). This may not fully account for possible year to year
fluctuations in numbers of fee-paying applications, but FDA believes
that this is a reasonable approach after 10 years of experience with
this program.
    Over the 5 most recent completed years, the average number of
animal drug applications that would have been subject to the full fee
was 7.2. Over this same period, the average number of supplemental
applications and applications subject to the criteria set forth in
section 512(d)(4) of the FD&C Act that would have been subject to half
of the full fee was 9.4.

B. Fee Rates for FY 2014

    FDA must set the fee rates for FY 2014 so that the estimated 7.2
applications that pay the full fee and the estimated 9.4 supplemental
applications and applications subject to the criteria set forth in
section 512(d)(4) of the FD&C Act that pay half of the full fee will
generate a total of $4,720,000. To generate this amount, the fee for an
animal drug application, rounded to the nearest $100, will have to be
$396,600, and the fee for a supplemental animal drug application for
which safety or effectiveness data are required and for applications
subject to the criteria set forth in section 512(d)(4) of the FD&C Act
will have to be $198,300.

IV. Product Fee Calculations for FY 2014

A. Product Fee Revenues and Numbers of Fee-Paying Products

    The animal drug product fee (also referred to as the product fee)
must be paid annually by the person named as the applicant in a new
animal drug application or supplemental new animal drug application for
an animal drug product submitted for listing under section 510 of the
FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360), and who had an animal drug application or
supplemental animal drug application pending at FDA after September 1,
2003. (See 21 U.S.C. 379j-12(a)(2).) The term ``animal drug product''
means each specific strength or potency of a particular active
ingredient or ingredients in final dosage form marketed by a particular
manufacturer or distributor, which is uniquely identified by the
labeler code and product code portions of the national drug code, and
for which an animal drug application or a supplemental animal drug
application has been approved (21 U.S.C. 379j-11(3)). The product fees
are to be set so that they will generate $6,372,000 in fee revenue for
FY 2014. This is the amount derived in section II.D of this document.
    To set animal drug product fees to realize $6,372,000, FDA must
make some assumptions about the number of products for which these fees
will be paid in FY 2014. FDA developed data on all animal drug products
that have been submitted for listing under section 510 of the FD&C Act
and matched this to the list of all persons who had an

animal drug application or supplement pending after September 1, 2003.
As of June 2013, FDA estimates that there are a total of 747 products
submitted for listing by persons who had an animal drug application or
supplemental animal drug application pending after September 1, 2003.
Based on this, FDA estimates that a total of 747 products will be
subject to this fee in FY 2014.
    In estimating the fee revenue to be generated by animal drug
product fees in FY 2014, FDA is assuming that 6 percent of the products
invoiced, or 45, will not pay fees in FY 2014 due to fee waivers and
reductions. FDA has reduced the estimate of the percentage of products
that will not pay fees from 10 percent to 6 percent this year, based on
historical data over the past 5 years. Based on experience with other
user fee programs and the first 10 years of ADUFA, FDA believes that
this is a reasonable basis for estimating the number of fee-paying
products in FY 2014.
    Accordingly, the Agency estimates that a total of 702 (747 minus
45) products will be subject to product fees in FY 2014.

B. Product Fee Rates for FY 2014

    FDA must set the fee rates for FY 2014 so that the estimated 702
products that pay fees will generate a total of $6,372,000. To generate
this amount will require the fee for an animal drug product, rounded to
the nearest $5, to be $9,075.

V. Establishment Fee Calculations for FY 2014

A. Establishment Fee Revenues and Numbers of Fee-Paying Establishments

    The animal drug establishment fee (also referred to as the
establishment fee) must be paid annually by the person who: (1) Owns or
operates, directly or through an affiliate, an animal drug
establishment; (2) is named as the applicant in an animal drug
application or supplemental animal drug application for an animal drug
product submitted for listing under section 510 of the FD&C Act; (3)
had an animal drug application or supplemental animal drug application
pending at FDA after September 1, 2003; and (4) whose establishment
engaged in the manufacture of the animal drug product during the fiscal
year. (See 21 U.S.C. 379j-12(a)(3).) An establishment subject to animal
drug establishment fees is assessed only one such fee per fiscal year.
(See 21 U.S.C. 379j-12(a)(3).) The term ``animal drug establishment''
is defined in 21 U.S.C. 379j-11(4). The establishment fees are to be
set so that they will generate $6,136,000 in fee revenue for FY 2014.
This is the amount derived in section II.D of this document.
    To set animal drug establishment fees to realize $6,136,000, FDA
must make some assumptions about the number of establishments for which
these fees will be paid in FY 2014. FDA developed data on all animal
drug establishments and matched this to the list of all persons who had
an animal drug application or supplement pending after September 1,
2003. As of June 2013, FDA estimates that there are a total of 66
establishments owned or operated by persons who had an animal drug
application or supplemental animal drug application pending after
September 1, 2003. Based on this, FDA believes that 66 establishments
will be subject to this fee in FY 2014.
    In estimating the fee revenue to be generated by animal drug
establishment fees in FY 2014, FDA is assuming that 12 percent of the
establishments invoiced, or 8, will not pay fees in FY 2014 due to fee
waivers and reductions. FDA has increased the estimate of the
percentage of establishments that will not pay fees from 10 percent to
12 percent this year, based on historical data over the past 5 years.
Based on experience with the first 10 years of ADUFA, FDA believes that
this is a reasonable basis for estimating the number of fee-paying
establishments in FY 2014.
    Accordingly, the Agency estimates that a total of 58 establishments
(66 minus 8) will be subject to establishment fees in FY 2014.

B. Establishment Fee Rates for FY 2014

    FDA must set the fee rates for FY 2014 so that the estimated 58
establishments that pay fees will generate a total of $6,136,000. To
generate this amount will require the fee for an animal drug
establishment, rounded to the nearest $50, to be $105,800.

VI. Sponsor Fee Calculations for FY 2014

A. Sponsor Fee Revenues and Numbers of Fee-Paying Sponsors

    The animal drug sponsor fee (also referred to as the sponsor fee)
must be paid annually by each person who: (1) Is named as the applicant
in an animal drug application, except for an approved application for
which all subject products have been removed from listing under section
510 of the FD&C Act, or has submitted an investigational animal drug
submission that has not been terminated or otherwise rendered inactive
and (2) had an animal drug application, supplemental animal drug
application, or investigational animal drug submission pending at FDA
after September 1, 2003. (See 21 U.S.C. 379j-11(6) and 379j-12(a)(4).)
An animal drug sponsor is subject to only one such fee each fiscal
year. (See 21 U.S.C. 379j-12(a)(4).) The sponsor fees are to be set so
that they will generate $6,372,000 in fee revenue for FY 2014. This is
the amount derived in section II.D of this document.
    To set animal drug sponsor fees to realize $6,372,000, FDA must
make some assumptions about the number of sponsors who will pay these
fees in FY 2014. Based on the number of firms that would have met this
definition in each of the past 10 years, FDA estimates that a total of
181 sponsors will meet this definition in FY 2014.
    Careful review indicates that about one third or 33 percent of all
of these sponsors will qualify for minor use/minor species waiver or
reduction (21 U.S.C. 379j-12(d)(1)(D)). Based on the Agency's
experience to date with sponsor fees, FDA's current best estimate is
that an additional 32 percent will qualify for other waivers or
reductions, for a total of 65 percent of the sponsors invoiced, or 118,
who will not pay fees in FY 2014 due to fee waivers and reductions. FDA
has increased the estimate of the percentage of sponsors that will not
pay fees from 60 percent to 65 percent this year, based on historical
data over the past 5 years. FDA believes that this is a reasonable
basis for estimating the number of fee-paying sponsors in FY 2014.
    Accordingly, the Agency estimates that a total of 63 sponsors (181
minus 118) will be subject to and pay sponsor fees in FY 2014.

B. Sponsor Fee Rates for FY 2014

    FDA must set the fee rates for FY 2014 so that the estimated 63
sponsors that pay fees will generate a total of $6,372,000. To generate
this amount will require the fee for an animal drug sponsor, rounded to
the nearest $50, to be $101,150.

VII. Fee Schedule for FY 2014

    The fee rates for FY 2014 are summarized in table 1 of this
document.

                       Table 1--FY 2014 Fee Rates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Fee rate for
              Animal drug user fee category                   FY 2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Animal Drug Application Fees:
  Animal Drug Application...............................        $396,600

  Supplemental Animal Drug Application for which Safety          198,300
   or Effectiveness Data are Required or Animal Drug
   Application Subject to the Criteria Set Forth in
   Section 512(d)(4) of the FD&C Act....................
Animal Drug Product Fee.................................           9,075
Animal Drug Establishment Fee \1\.......................         105,800
Animal Drug Sponsor Fee \2\.............................         101,150
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ An animal drug establishment is subject to only one such fee each
  fiscal year.
\2\An animal drug sponsor is subject to only one such fee each fiscal
  year.

VIII. Procedures for Paying the FY 2014 Fees

A. Application Fees and Payment Instructions

    The appropriate application fee established in the new fee schedule
must be paid for an animal drug application or supplement subject to
fees under ADUFA that is submitted after September 30, 2013. Payment
must be made in U.S. currency by check, bank draft, or U.S. postal
money order payable to the order of the Food and Drug Administration,
by wire transfer, or electronically using Pay.gov. (The Pay.gov payment
option is available to you after you submit a cover sheet. Click the
``Pay Now'' button.) On your check, bank draft, or U.S. postal money
order, please write your application's unique Payment Identification
Number (PIN), beginning with the letters AD, from the upper right-hand
corner of your completed Animal Drug User Fee Cover Sheet. Also write
the FDA post office box number (P.O. Box 953877) on the enclosed check,
bank draft, or money order. Your payment and a copy of the completed
Animal Drug User Fee Cover Sheet can be mailed to: Food and Drug
Administration, P.O. Box 953877, St. Louis, MO 63195-3877.
    If payment is made by wire transfer, send payment to: U.S.
Department of Treasury, TREAS NYC, 33 Liberty St., New York, NY 10045,
FDA Deposit Account Number: 75060099, U.S. Department of Treasury
routing/transit number: 021030004, SWIFT Number: FRNYUS33. You are
responsible for any administrative costs associated with the processing
of a wire transfer. Contact your bank or financial institution about
the fee and add it to your payment to ensure that your fee is fully
paid.
    If you prefer to send a check by a courier such as Federal Express
or United Parcel Service, the courier may deliver the check and printed
copy of the cover sheet to: U.S. Bank, Attn: Government Lockbox 953877,
1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. (Note: This address is for
courier delivery only. If you have any questions concerning courier
delivery contact the U.S. Bank at<PHONE_NUMBER>. This telephone number
is only for questions about courier delivery.)
    The tax identification number of FDA is 53-0196965. (Note: In no
case should the payment for the fee be submitted to FDA with the
application.)
    It is helpful if the fee arrives at the bank at least a day or two
before the application arrives at FDA's CVM. FDA records the official
application receipt date as the later of the following: The date the
application was received by FDA's CVM, or the date U.S. Bank notifies
FDA that your payment in the full amount has been received, or when the
U.S. Treasury notifies FDA of receipt of an electronic or wire transfer
payment. U.S. Bank and the U.S. Treasury are required to notify FDA
within 1 working day, using the PIN described previously.

B. Application Cover Sheet Procedures

    Step One--Create a user account and password. Log on to the ADUFA
Web site at http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/UserFees/AnimalDrugUserFeeActADUFA/default.htm and, under Tools and Resources,
click ``The Animal Drug User Fee Cover Sheet'' and then click ``Create
ADUFA User Fee Cover Sheet.'' For security reasons, each firm
submitting an application will be assigned an organization
identification number, and each user will also be required to set up a
user account and password the first time you use this site. Online
instructions will walk you through this process.
    Step Two--Create an Animal Drug User Cover Sheet, transmit it to
FDA, and print a copy. After logging into your account with your user
name and password, complete the steps required to create an Animal Drug
User Fee Cover Sheet. One cover sheet is needed for each animal drug
application or supplement. Once you are satisfied that the data on the
cover sheet is accurate and you have finalized the cover sheet, you
will be able to transmit it electronically to FDA and you will be able
to print a copy of your cover sheet showing your unique PIN.
    Step Three--Send the payment for your application as described in
section VIII.A of this document.
    Step Four--Please submit your application and a copy of the
completed Animal Drug User Fee Cover Sheet to the following address:
Food and Drug Administration, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Document
Control Unit (HFV-199), 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855.

C. Product, Establishment, and Sponsor Fees

    By December 31, 2013, FDA will issue invoices and payment
instructions for product, establishment, and sponsor fees for FY 2014
using this fee schedule. Payment will be due by January 31, 2014. FDA
will issue invoices in November 2014 for any products, establishments,
and sponsors subject to fees for FY 2014 that qualify for fees after
the December 2013 billing.

    Dated: July 29, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-18619 Filed 8-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 37 (Monday, February 27, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11813-11814]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03513]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9320; Airspace Docket No. 15-AWP-2]

Establishment of Class E Airspace, Weed, CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface at Weed Airport, Weed, CA, to support the
development of Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS)
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations under standard instrument
approach and departure procedures at the airport, and for the safety
and management of controlled airspace within the National Airspace
System.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, June 22, 2017. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
The Order is also available for inspection 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/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Clark, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes controlled airspace at Weed Airport, Weed, CA, to
support the development of RNAV GPS IFR operations under standard
instrument approach and departure procedures at the airport.

History

    On December 6, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register (81
FR 87856), Docket FAA-2016-9320, a notice of proposed rulemaking to
establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface at Weed Airport, Weed, CA. Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15,
2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class
E airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15,
2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface within a 4.3-mile radius of Weed Airport, with a
segment extending from the 4.3-mile radius to 6 miles north of the
airport. This airspace is established to accommodate new RNAV (GPS)
standard instrument approach and departure procedures developed for IFR
operations the airport.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and
effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AWP CA E5 Weed, CA [New]

Weed Airport, CA
    (Lat. 41[deg]28'51'' N., long. 122[deg]27'16'' W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 4.3-mile radius of Weed Airport, and within 2 miles each
side of the 348[deg] bearing from the airport 4.3-mile radius to 6
miles north of the airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on February 14, 2017.
Tracey Johnson,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-03513 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: March 19, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 52)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 11674-11677]
[DOCID:fr19mr09-13]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52 and 81

[EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0624; FRL-8777-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the Clearfield/Indiana 8-Hour Ozone
Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of the Maintenance Plan
and 2002 Base-Year Inventory

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) is requesting that the
Clearfield and Indiana Counties ozone nonattainment area (Clearfield/
Indiana Area) be redesignated as attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). EPA is approving the
ozone redesignation request for the Clearfield/Indiana Area. In
conjunction with its redesignation request, PADEP submitted a SIP
revision consisting of a maintenance plan for the Clearfield/Indiana
Area that provides for continued attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation. EPA is approving the
8-hour maintenance plan. PADEP also submitted a 2002 base year
inventory for the Clearfield/Indiana Area, which EPA is approving. In
addition, EPA is approving the adequacy determination for the motor
vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) that are identified in the Clearfield/
Indiana Area maintenance plan for purposes of transportation
conformity, and is approving those MVEBs. EPA is approving the
redesignation request, the maintenance plan, and the 2002 base year
emissions inventory as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP in accordance
with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on April 20, 2009.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0624. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State
submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environment
Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market
Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Becoat,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On July 23, 2008 (73 FR 43731), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The NPR proposed
approval of Pennsylvania's redesignation request and maintenance plan
SIP revisions for the Clearfield/Indiana Area that provide for
continued attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10
years

after redesignation. The NPR also proposed approval of a 2002 base year
emissions inventory for the Clearfield/Indiana Area. The formal SIP
revisions were submitted by PADEP on June 14, 2007, with two
significant changes submitted on May 23, 2008 that separated the MVEBs
for the Clearfield/Indiana Area into separate MVEBs for Clearfield
County and Indiana County and used a new methodology that projects
future emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) from electric
generating units (EGUs). Other specific requirements of Pennsylvania's
redesignation request and maintenance plan SIP revisions, and the
rationale for EPA's proposed actions, are explained in the NPR and will
not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR.
    The holdings in two lawsuits potentially impact this redesignation
action. As we explain below, we believe neither lawsuit precludes the
redesignation of the Clearfield/Indiana Area.
    However, on December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) vacated EPA's Phase 1
Implementation Rule for the 8-Hour Ozone Standard. (69 FR 23591, April
30, 2004). South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d
882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). On June 8, 2007, in South Coast Air Quality
Management Dist. v. EPA, Docket No. 04-1201, in response to several
petitions for rehearing, the D.C. Circuit clarified that the Phase 1
Rule was vacated only with regard to those parts of the rule that had
been successfully challenged. Therefore, the Phase 1 Rule provisions
related to classifications for areas currently classified under subpart
2 of Title I, part D of the Act as 8-hour nonattainment areas, the 8-
hour attainment dates, and the timing for emissions reductions needed
for attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS remain effective. The June 8,
2007 decision left intact the Court's rejection of EPA's reasons for
implementing the 8-hour standard in certain nonattainment areas under
subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2. By limiting the vacatur, the Court let
stand EPA's revocation of the 1-hour standard and those anti-
backsliding provisions of the Phase 1 Rule that had not been
successfully challenged. The June 8, 2007 decision reaffirmed the
December 22, 2006 decision that EPA had improperly failed to retain
measures required for 1-hour nonattainment areas under the anti-
backsliding provisions of the regulations: (1) Nonattainment area New
Source Review (NSR) requirements based on an area's 1-hour
nonattainment classification; (2) Section 185 penalty fees for the 1-
hour severe or extreme nonattainment areas; and (3) measures to be
implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the CAA, on
the contingency of an area not making reasonable further progress
toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for failure to attain NAAQS.
In addition, the June 8, 2007 decision clarified that the Court's
reference to conformity requirements for anti-backsliding purposes was
limited to requiring the continued use of the 1-hour motor vehicle
emissions budgets until 8-hour budgets were available for 8-hour
conformity determinations, which is already required under EPA's
conformity regulations. The Court thus clarified the 1-hour conformity
determinations are not required for anti-backsliding purposes.
    For the reasons set forth in the proposal, EPA does not believe
that the Court's rulings alter any requirements relevant to this
redesignation action so as to preclude redesignation, and do not
prevent EPA from finalizing this redesignation. EPA believes that the
Court's December 22, 2006 and June 8, 2007 decisions impose no
impediment to moving forward with redesignation of this area to
attainment, because even in the light of the Court's decisions,
redesignation is appropriate under the relevant redesignation
provisions of the CAA and longstanding policies regarding redesignation
requests.
    The second lawsuit relates to EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR). On July 11, 2008, the D.C. Circuit ruled on various challenges
to EPA's CAIR, and issued an order vacating CAIR in its entirety. 531
F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). This order did not become final before
December 23, 2008, when the Court granted partial rehearing as to the
remedy set forth in its July 11, 2008 decision and issued an opinion
remanding CAIR to EPA without vacating. During the pendency of the
remand, CAIR will remain in place. North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176
(D.C. Cir. 2008). The Court stated, however, in its December 23, 2008
opinion that EPA was still under an obligation to remedy what the Court
characterized as ``flaws'' with CAIR, though the Court declined to
impose a deadline for EPA to finalize that remedy.
    EPA believes that the maintenance plan for Clearfield and Indiana
Counties demonstrates that the NAAQS will be maintained for at least
120 months (ten years), and through 10 ozone seasons, as required by
section 175A(a) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7505a(a), whether or not CAIR and
its specific, associated emissions reductions from a subset of point
sources (electric generating units), continue in effect. Ten years of
maintenance of the NAAQS is demonstrated in Table 5 (and its associated
explanatory material) of the NPR (73 FR at 42739, July 23, 2008). As
the NPR indicates, emissions from area and non-road sources in the
Clearfield/Indiana Area are projected to have an overall decline from
2004 through the end of the 2018 ozone season. Thus, even if point
source projected emissions were to remain steady or even minimally
increase during this same time frame, the 1997 ozone NAAQS will be
maintained in the Clearfield/Indiana Area. However, point source
measures currently in place, such as the NOX SIP call, allow
EPA to conclude that NOX emissions from point source in the
Clearfield/Indiana Area are more likely to decline than increase or
hold steady through the end of the 2018 ozone season. Thus, even if EPA
could comply with the D.C. Circuit's CAIR opinions through a new or
revised program that did not achieve the same (or any) level of the
NOX reductions of the current CAIR program in the
Clearfield/Indiana Area, the projected emissions in the maintenance
plan indicate that the Clearfield/Indiana Area will continue to
maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS throughout the duration of the 120
month (from the effective date of this redesignation) and ten ozone
season (beginning of ozone season 2009 through end of ozone season
2018) maintenance period. EPA may therefore approve the redesignation
request.

II. Final Action

    EPA is approving the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's redesignation
request, maintenance plan, 2002 base-year inventory, and MVEBs SIP
revisions submitted on June 14, 2007, because they satisfy the
requirements of the CAA. EPA is also approving the two significant
changes that separated the MVEBs for the Clearfield/Indiana Area into
separate MVEBs for Clearfield County and Indiana County and used a new
methodology that projects future emissions of NOX from EGUs,
submitted on May 23, 2008 as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP. The
final approval of this redesignation request will change the
designation of the Clearfield/Indiana Area from nonattainment to
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
    In this final rulemaking, EPA is notifying the public that we have
found that the MVEBs for NOX and volatile organic compounds
(VOC) in the Clearfield/Indiana Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan are adequate and approved for conformity

purposes. As a result of our finding, the Clearfield/Indiana Area must
use the MVEBs from the submitted 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for
future conformity determinations. The Clearfield/Indiana Area contains
one Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) and one Rural Planning
Organizations (RPO) responsible for transportation planning within the
Clearfield/Indiana Area. The MPO is the Southwestern Pennsylvania
Commission for Indiana County, and the RPO is the North Central PA
Regional Planning and Development Commission for Clearfield County. The
adequate and approved MVEBs for the MPO and the RPO within the
Clearfield/Indiana Area are provided in the following tables:

   Table 1a--Clearfield/Indiana Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets, North
  Central Pennsylvania Regional Planning and Development Commission RPO
  (Clearfield County Portion of the Area), in Tons per Summer Day (TPD)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Year                             VOC      NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009..................................................     4.11    11.44
2018..................................................     2.71     5.14
------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Table 1b--Clearfield/Indiana Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
 Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission MPO (Indiana County Portion of the
                   Area), in Tons per Summer Day (TPD)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Year                             VOC      NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009..................................................     3.06     4.85
2018..................................................     1.92     2.40
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Clearfield/Indiana Area is subject to the CAA's requirement for
the basic nonattainment areas until and unless it is redesignated to
attainment.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical
area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on sources.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This final rule also
does not have tribal implications because it will not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Because this action affects the status of
a geographical area, does not impose any new requirements on sources,
or allows the state to avoid adopting or implementing other
requirements, this action also does not have Federalism implications
because it does not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing
a Federal requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This
rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Redesignation is an action that
affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new
requirements on sources. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by May 18, 2009. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
    This action, approving the redesignation of the Clearfield/Indiana
Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the associated
maintenance plan, the 2002 base year emission inventory, and the MVEBs
identified in the maintenance plan, may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, national parks, Wilderness areas.

    Dated: February 11, 2009.
James W. Newsom,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

0
40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart NN--Pennsylvania

0
2. In Sec.  52.2020, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding
an entry at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2020  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Applicable geographic
Name of non-regulatory SIP revision           area                     State submittal date              EPA approval date      Additional explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and    Clearfield/Indiana      06/14/07, 05/23/08......................  3/19/09 [Insert page   ..........................
 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory.  Area: Clearfield and                                              number where the
                                      Indiana Counties.                                                 document begins].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

PART 81--[AMENDED]

0
3. The authority citation for Part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
4. In Sec.  81.339, the table entitled ``Pennsylvania--Ozone (8-Hour
Standard)'' is amended by revising the entry for the Clearfield and
Indiana, PA, Clearfield County, Indiana County, to read as follows:

Sec.  81.339  Pennsylvania

* * * * *

                                                          Pennsylvania--Ozone (8-Hour Standard)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Designation a                                          Category/classification
        Designated area         ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Date\1\                           Type                      Date \1\                      Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Clearfield and Indiana, PA:      April 20, 2009......................  Attainment.
 Clearfield County, Indiana
 County, Northampton County.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Includes Indian County located in each county or area, except otherwise noted.
\1\ This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E9-5885 Filed 3-18-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 209 (Friday, October 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67011-67012]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27897]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65612; File No. SR-CME-2011-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Rules To Reflect the Change in Regulatory Status of Eris
Exchange, LLC From an EBOT to a DCM

October 24, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 18, 2011, Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (``CME'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change described in Items I, II and III below, which
items have been prepared primarily by CME. CME filed the proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \3\ of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(4)(ii) \4\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    CME proposes to adopt revisions to certain CME rules in connection
with its clearing of contracts listed by the Eris Exchange, LLC
(``Eris'') to reflect the pending change in regulatory status of Eris
from an ``EBOT'' to a designated contract market. CME is also at the
same time amending its Manual of Operations to reflect the proposed
rule changes related to Eris. The text of the proposed rule change in
the CME rulebook is available at the CME's Web site at http://www.cmegroup.com, at the principal office of CME, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

    CME proposes to adopt revisions to CME Rules 8F001 (Scope of
Chapter) and 8F004 (OTC Clearing Member Obligations and Qualifications)
and to the CME Clearing House Manual of Operations in connection with
its clearing of contracts listed by Eris Exchange, LLC (``Eris''). CME
began acting as the clearing house for Eris in 2010, at which time Eris
became an exempt board of trade (``EBOT''). Initially, with respect to
customer positions, Eris contracts were cleared in the Regulation 30.7/
secured origin, and since October 2010, they have been cleared in the
Cleared OTC Derivatives Account Class/sequestered origin. Because of
its status as an EBOT, Eris has been referenced in Chapter 8-F (Over-
the-Counter Derivative Clearing) of CME's rule book.
    After passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, Eris applied for registration
with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission as a designated contract
market (``DCM''). CME understands that Eris expects to begin operating
as a DCM in or around mid October, 2011. To reflect Eris's change in
regulatory status from an EBOT to a DCM, and the related requirement
that customer positions and collateral be maintained in the futures
account class/segregated origin, CME proposes to remove references to
Eris from Chapter 8-F of CME's rule book. CME also proposes to make
related revisions to the section on Eris in CME's Clearing House Manual
of Operations.
    All proposed revisions will become effective immediately but will
not become operational earlier than the date on which the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission grants Eris's DCM application. CME notes
that it has also certified the proposed rule changes that are the
subject of this filing to its primary regulator, the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission (``CFTC'').
    The proposed CME rule amendments are intended to facilitate CME's
activities as a derivatives clearing organization clearing the futures
transactions of a DCM. As such, the proposed CME rule amendments do not
significantly affect the security-based swap clearing operations of CME
or any related rights or obligations of CME security-based swap
clearing participants. The proposed rule change is therefore properly
filed under Section 19(b)(3)(A) and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(ii) thereunder
because it effects a change in an existing service of a registered
clearing agency that primarily affects the futures clearing operations
of the clearing agency with respect to futures that are not security
futures and does not significantly affect any securities clearing
operations of the clearing agency or any related rights or obligations
of the clearing agency or persons using such service.

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

    CME does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition.

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

    CME has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments
regarding this proposed rule change. CME has not received any
unsolicited written comments from interested parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change was filed pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
of the Act and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 and became effective on
filing. At any time within sixty days of the filing of such 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.

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 may be submitted by using the
Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml), or send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-CME-2011-13 on the subject line.
     Paper comments should be sent in triplicate to Elizabeth
M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CME-2011-13. 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 Web site (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 Web site 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 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of CME. All comments received will be posted without
change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information
from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to
make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CME-2011-13 and
should be submitted on or before November 18, 2011.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-27897 Filed 10-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 68 (Friday, April 8, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20855-20856]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07517]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0901; FRL-9592-01-OAR]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request;
Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source
Review (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an
information collection request (ICR), ``Prevention of Significant
Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source Review'' (EPA ICR No.
1230.34, OMB Control No. 2060-0003) to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA). Before doing so, the EPA is soliciting public
comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as
described below. This is a proposed renewal of the ICR, which is
currently approved through January 31, 2023. An Agency may not conduct
or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before June 7, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0901, online using

www.regulations.gov (our preferred method) by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben Garwood, Air Quality Policy
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, C504-03, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information
about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making
effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html. Out of an abundance of caution for members of the public
and our staff, the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room are closed to the
public, with limited exceptions, to reduce the risk of transmitting
COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will continue to provide remote
customer service via email, phone, and webform. We encourage the public
to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov/ or email, as there
may be a delay in processing mailand faxes. Hand deliveries and
couriers may be received by scheduled appointment only. For further
information on EPA Docket Center services and the current status,
please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. The
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval. At that time, the EPA will issue another Federal
Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: This ICR is for activities related to the implementation
of the EPA's New Source Review (NSR) program, for the time period
between January 1, 2022, and January 31, 2023, and renews the previous
ICR. Title I, part C of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act)--
``Prevention of Significant Deterioration,'' and part D--``Plan
Requirements for Nonattainment Areas,'' require all states to adopt
preconstruction review programs for new or modified stationary sources
of air pollution. In addition, the provisions of section 110 of the Act
include a requirement for states to have a preconstruction review
program to manage the emissions from the construction and modification
of any stationary source of air pollution to assure that the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards are achieved and maintained. Tribes may
choose to develop implementation plans to address these requirements.
    Implementing regulations for these three programs are promulgated
at 40 CFR 49.101 through 49.105; 40 CFR 49.151 through 49.173; 40 CFR
51.160 through 51.166; 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S; and 40 CFR 52.21 and
52.24. In order to receive a construction permit for a major new source
or major modification, the applicant must conduct the necessary
research, perform the appropriate analyses and prepare the permit
application with documentation to demonstrate that their project meets
all applicable statutory and regulatory NSR requirements. Specific
activities and requirements are listed and described in the Supporting
Statement for the ICR.
    State, local, tribal, or federal reviewing authorities review
permit applications and provide for public review of proposed projects
and issue permits based on their consideration of all technical factors
and public input. The EPA, more broadly, reviews a fraction of the
total applications and audits the state and local programs for their
effectiveness. Consequently, information prepared and submitted by
sources is essential for sources to receive permits, and for federal,
state, and local environmental agencies to adequately review the permit
applications and thereby properly administer and manage the NSR
programs.
    Information that is collected is handled according to EPA's
policies set forth in title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B--
Confidentiality of Business Information (see 40 CFR part 2). See also
section 114(c) of the Act.
    Form numbers: 5900-246, 5900-247, 5900-248, 5900-340, 5900-341,
5900-342, 5900-343, 5900-344, 5900-367, 5900-368, 5900-369, 5900-370,
5900-371, 5900-372, 5900-390, and 5900-391.
    Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by
this action are those which must apply for and obtain a preconstruction
permit under part C or D or section 110(a)(2)(C) of title I of the Act.
In addition, state, local, and tribal reviewing authorities that must
review permit applications and issue permits are affected entities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory [see 40 CFR part 49,
subpart C; 40 CFR part 51, subpart I; 40 CFR part 52, subpart A; 40 CFR
part 124, subparts A and C].
    Estimated number of respondents: 30,359 (total); 30,236 industrial
facilities and 123 state, local, and tribal reviewing authorities.
    Frequency of response: On occasion, as necessary.
    Total estimated burden: 2,970,503 hours (per year). Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $242,352,032 (per year). This includes
$3,772,240 annually in outsourced start-up costs for preconstruction
monitoring.
    Changes in estimates: There is no change in the hours in the total
estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by
OMB because the estimated number of permits of each type has not
changed. There is a slight increase in estimated costs as labor costs
have been updated from 2016 to 2019 labor rates.

Scott Mathias,
Acting Director, Air Quality Policy Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-07517 Filed 4-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P