Supporting Statement for a Request for OMB Review under

the Paperwork Reduction Act

IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

1(a)	Title and Number of the Information Collection

Title:	TSCA Section 5(a)(2) Significant New Use Rules for Existing
Chemicals

EPA ICR No.:  1188.09	OMB Control No.:  2070-0038

1(b)	Short Characterization

Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2604
(see Attachment 1), authorizes EPA to determine that a use of a chemical
substance is a “significant new use.”  EPA must make this
determination by rule after considering all relevant factors, including
those listed in TSCA section 5(a)(2).  Once EPA determines that a use of
a chemical substance is a significant new use, TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B)
requires persons to submit a notice to EPA at least 90 days before they
manufacture, import or process the substance for that use.  Regulations
implementing significant new uses appear at 40 CFR part 721 (see
Attachment 2).

Once EPA receives a significant new use rule (SNUR) notice, EPA may take
regulatory action under TSCA sections 5(e), 5(f), 6 or 7 to control the
activities for which it has received a SNUR notice.  If EPA does not
take action, TSCA section 5(g) requires EPA to explain in the Federal
Register its reasons for not taking action.

Persons who intend to export a substance identified in a proposed or
final SNUR are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA
section 12(b).  The regulations that interpret TSCA section 12(b) appear
at 40 CFR part 707.

2.  NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

2(a)	Need/Authority for the Collection

TSCA section 5(a)(2) provides the Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics (OPPT) with the authority to monitor and control significant new
uses of existing chemical substances.  The factors considered by the
Administrator in determining a significant new use are:

1)	The projected volume of manufacturing and processing of a chemical
substance;

2)	The extent to which a use changes the type or form of exposure of
human beings or the environment to a chemical substance;

3)	The extent to which a use increases the magnitude and duration of
exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance; and

4)	The reasonably anticipated manner and methods of manufacturing,
processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of a chemical
substance.

Once the Administrator makes such a designation, the Agency proposes a
Significant New Use Rule (SNUR).  If a final rule is promulgated, a
person who intends to engage in a significant new use of a chemical
covered by a SNUR must notify EPA of his/her intentions.  This
notification, made via the Significant New Use Notice (SNUN), must occur
at least 90 days prior to commencing the new use of the identified
substance.  The required notice must be submitted on EPA’s
Premanufacture Notice (PMN) form.  The PMN form provides data on the
identity and use of, and possible exposures to, the chemical substance.
In addition, the PMN form provides test data plus descriptions of health
and environmental effects data based on the manufacture, processing,
use, distribution in commerce, and disposal of the chemical.

The Agency has 90 days to evaluate a SNUN once it has been received.
This evaluation focuses on the health and environmental effects of the
substance’s significant new use.  Should EPA find cause for concern,
the Agency can take regulatory action as per TSCA sections 5(e) and
5(f).  Likewise, the Agency may extend the evaluation period by up to 90
days with good cause.  If EPA takes no action at the end of the review
period, the submitter can engage in the intended new use without any
restrictions.

2(b)	Practical Utility/Users of the Data

EPA uses this information to evaluate the health and environmental
effects of the significant new use.  During the evaluation period EPA
can take further regulatory action pursuant to TSCA sections 5(e) and
5(f).  Under TSCA section 5(e), the Administrator may issue an order to
prohibit or limit the manufacture, import, processing, distribution in
commerce, use, or disposal of such substance.  TSCA section 5(f) allows
the Administrator to, among other things, prohibit or limit the
manufacture of the chemical substance, if the substance presents or will
present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.

To date EPA has promulgated SNURs on 352 existing chemicals.  Presented
in Attachment 6 are selected case history abstracts for some of these
substances.  These abstracts highlight the needs of a particular office
and the facts surrounding a substance.  This information when applied to
the Regulatory Selection Criteria has resulted in final SNURs.

NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

3(a)	Non-Duplication

EPA is the only Federal Agency that collects information on significant
new uses of chemical substances.  A notification of an intent to engage
in a significant new use serves two functions: as a notice, and as a
document that contains information about a chemical substance and
potential exposures to that substance.  The notification element is
unique to SNURs and therefore not obtainable elsewhere.  The chemical
information aspect will also contain unique information.  Only the
person who intends to commence a significant new use of a chemical
substance will know the potential for human and environmental exposures
to that substance, the quantity intended to be produced, imported, or
processed, and the manner in which the person will engage in the
significant new use.

A person submitting a significant new use notice is not required to
develop test data.  However, the person must submit data that are known
to or reasonably ascertainable by that person.  For published data the
submitter need only provide a literature citation (40 CFR
720.50(d)(3)(ii)).  For existing chemicals that are related to the
chemical substance that is the subject of the SNUR (e.g., impurities,
byproducts), neither the published data nor a literature citation need
be submitted.  Also, notices need not include information previously
submitted to EPA (unless the previously submitted information was
claimed confidential, in which case it must be resubmitted).

3(b)	Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 In proposing to renew this ICR, EPA provided a
60-day public notice and comment period that ended on August 18, 2008
(73 FR 34725, June 18, 2008).  EPA received no comments during the
comment period.

3(c)	Consultations

In addition to the public notice and comment period required by the OMB
regulations that implement the Paperwork Reduction Act (see section 3(b)
of this Supporting Statement), the OMB regulations, 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1),
also require agencies to consult with potential ICR respondents and data
users about specific aspects of an ICR before the agency submits the ICR
to OMB for review and approval.  In accordance with this regulation and
based on OPPTS Regulatory Coordination Staff guidance, EPA solicited
comments from the following potential respondents and data users with
respect to the renewal of this ICR:

William Allmond, Director of Regulatory and Public Affairs

The National Association of Chemical Distributors

1560 Wilson Blvd, Suite 12250

Arlington, VA 22209

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
D. Christopher Cathcart, President and Chief Operating Officer

Consumer Specialty Products Association

900 17th Street, NW, Suite 300

Washington, DC 20006

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Jim Cooper, Manager, Government Relations

Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association

1850 M Street, NW, Suite 700

Washington, DC 20036

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Donald K. Duncan, President

Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc.

1801 K Street, Suite 600

Washington, DC 20006

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Howard Feldman, Regulators Affairs

American Petroleum Institute

1220 L Street, NW

Washington, DC 2005

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Lee Fuller, Vice President of Government Relations

Independent Petroleum Association of America

1201 15th Street, NW, Suite 300

Washington, DC 20005

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
David L. Schutt, Director, Legislative and Governmental Affairs

American Chemical Society

1155 16th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20036

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Stephen R. Sides, Vice President, EHIA

National Paint and Coatings Association

1500 Rhode Island Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20005

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Gary L. Yingling

Enzyme Technical Association

Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP

1800 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 200

Washington, DC 20036

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 	EPA received no responses to its solicitation for
consultations.  A copy of EPA’s consultation e-mail to the above
potential respondents is included below as Attachment 7 to this
Supporting Statement.

3(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection

Whenever a person intends to engage in a significant new use, they must
notify EPA.  This is an explicit requirement of TSCA.  TSCA section
5(a)(1)(B) states, “... no person may ... manufacture or process any
chemical substance for a use which the Administrator has determined ...
is a significant new use ... unless such person submits to the
Administrator ...  a notice ...”  The consequence of  less frequent
collection of information (i.e., requiring only the first person who
intends to engage in a significant new use to submit notice) is a
violation of TSCA and would allow manufacturers, importers and
processors to use a substance in a manner that EPA has determined may
cause significant adverse exposures to the substance without prior
notification to EPA.

3(e)	General Guidelines

This information collection activity is necessary to implement the
statutory requirements of TSCA section 5(a)(2) and is consistent with
the requirements of 5 CFR 1320.6.

3(f)	Confidentiality

Information provided in a significant new use notice may receive
confidential treatment.  TSCA section 14 allows a manufacturer, importer
or processor to designate submitted information as confidential business
information (CBI).  The Agency has developed a comprehensive system to
prevent the unauthorized disclosure of CBI.  This system includes
procedures for logging CBI in and out of designated locked file
cabinets, for photocopying and transmitting CBI, and for restricting
confidential information only to personnel with CBI security clearance.
No one is allowed access to CBI until they have received instructions
for handling CBI.

Special procedures also restrict access to computerized CBI.  These
security measures apply to CBI submitted by manufacturers as well as CBI
generated by EPA staff in the course of their review.  A wrongful
disclosure of CBI may result in either a fine or imprisonment.

3(g)	Sensitive Questions

This section is not applicable.  The information requested is not
sensitive in nature.

4.  THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

4(a)	Respondent NAICS Codes

Respondents affected by this collection activity are mainly NAICS
categories 325 - Chemicals and Allied Products Manufacturers and 32411-
Petroleum Refining.

4(b)	Information Requested

 (i) Data items, including record keeping requirements

Information submitted under this collection must include, insofar as it
is known to or reasonably ascertainable by the submitter, information
described in TSCA section 8(a)(2) (i.e., chemical identity, use, and
exposure data), as well as test data, and descriptions of other data
related to the effects on health and the environment of the manufacture,
processing, use, distribution in commerce, and disposal of the chemical
substance (TSCA section 5(d)).  After a notice has been received, EPA
has 90 days (extendable to 180 days) to evaluate the notice’s content.

 (ii) Respondent Activities

Only those persons who intend to engage in a significant new use of a
chemical substance must submit notice of their intentions to EPA.
Submitters are required to use the Premanufacture Notice (PMN) form (EPA
Form 7710-25; see Attachment 3), which EPA developed to facilitate the
information collection process for new chemical substances.

5.  THE INFORMATION COLLECTED - AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

5(a)	Agency Activities

A significant new use rule (SNUR) on an existing chemical substance is
the product of a process that is designed to develop the appropriate
information-gathering collection for a substance.  This process has
three major steps: Chemical Referral, Regulatory Selection, and
Regulation Development.

Step 1.  Chemical Referral:  EPA offices that have identified
information-gathering or follow-up monitoring needs for a particular
chemical may refer the substance to OPPT.  A systematic process has been
developed for receiving and handling chemical referrals.  Offices
referring substances are asked to prepare concise summaries of relevant
data.  This information is used to select a regulatory approach and for
rulemaking activities.

Step 2.  The Regulatory Selection Process - Referral and Review:  Once
an office has detailed its need for information, an information
collection approach is determined that best satisfies that office’s
needs.  The rulemaking options are: a TSCA section 8(a) reporting rule,
a TSCA section 8(c) call-in, a TSCA section 8(d) health and safety data
reporting rule, a TSCA section 5(a)(2) SNUR, or any combination of the
above.  It may also be determined that an alternative approach is more
appropriate (e.g., use of existing data sources, no data-gathering at
the present time, TSCA section 4 or 6 action, or referral to another
office for information-gathering under a different statutory authority).

Step 3.  Regulatory Development:  Prior to the development of a rule,
the recommended rulemaking approach must be reviewed by the referring
office and approved by the Office Director of OPPT.  If the
recommendation is approved, then the rulemaking process begins.

A SNUR is drafted only if it is an appropriate approach for a particular
substance that has received approval prior to the development of the
rule.  The proposal then undergoes intra-agency review, OMB review and
public comment.  Once a decision has been made to promulgate an
information collection rule, the next decision is to determine whether a
TSCA section 8(a) rule or a TSCA section 5 SNUR is most appropriate.
Attachment 5 identifies the selection criteria that are applied in
determining whether a TSCA section 8(a) rule or SNUR is proposed.

5(b)	Collection Methodology and Management

EPA has not been able to identify a more efficient, less expensive or
more flexible means of obtaining the required data and remain within the
constraints of TSCA.  There is no new technology applicable to the
collection of this information that would minimize the collection
burden.

To aid persons subject to this information collection, OPPT has set up a
TSCA Hotline that provides information regarding TSCA section 5(a)(2)
reporting as well as other regulatory information.  When Hotline staff
are unable to answer questions regarding TSCA section 5(a)(2), the
questions are referred to the OPPT Chemical Control Division (CCD) staff
for resolution.

5(c)	Small Entity Flexibility

All business, regardless of size, must comply with the requirements of
TSCA section 5.  However, OPPT has taken a number of steps intended to
minimize the burden placed on small business.  For instance, TSCA
section 26(d) established an Assistance Office to provide technical and
other non-financial assistance to manufacturers, importers and
processors of chemical substances and mixtures.  This office has
established a toll-free hotline, performs on-site field visits and
consultations, and has hired a contractor to assist small businesses,
free of charge, in complying with TSCA requirements.

5(d)	Collection Schedule

Whenever any person intends to engage in a significant new use of a
chemical substance, they are required to submit a notice of their
intentions to EPA not less than 90 days before beginning to manufacture,
import or process the substance for the intended use.

6.  ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

This section presents estimates of the cost and burden associated with
the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for significant new use
rules for existing chemicals under TSCA section 5(a)(2). The methodology
used to estimate the recordkeeping costs, reporting costs, and burden
for this ICR renewal is largely based on previous experience with SNURs,
and is largely consistent with the analysis presented in the supporting
statement prepared for the previous ICR. A summary of the steps employed
in this analysis is shown below:

 Step 1:	The total number of SNURs promulgated and SNUNs to be
submitted, on an annual basis and for the three year period during which
this ICR will be in effect, was projected. The estimate is based on the
Agency's experience with SNURs and submission of SNUNs from past
experience as well as EPA’s expectations for future actions. This step
appears in section 4 of this analysis.

Step 2:	The average industry burden associated with recordkeeping,
reporting, and customer notification was estimated. The reporting burden
estimates used here are taken from an analysis performed in connection
with OPPT's amendments to its PMN program. This step appears in section
5 of this analysis.

Step 3:	The unit costs for the different activities associated with
section 5(a)(2) were estimated next (e.g., submitting a SNUN). The costs
were derived by multiplying current estimates of unit labor costs by the
burden estimates presented in Step 2. This step appears in section 6 of
this analysis.

Step 4:	Total industry costs and burden were computed by multiplying the
average burden and cost per activity by the expected number of
activities. This step appears in section 7 of this analysis.

Step 5:	The final step estimates the cost to EPA and appears in section
8 of this analysis.

NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT NEW USE NOTICES PROJECTED

During the years 2004-2007, EPA promulgated three existing chemical
SNURs under TSCA section 5(a)(2).   However, EPA expects this activity
to increase over the next three-year period as EPA initiates work under
its commitment under the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) to
complete risk characterizations and take necessary actions on over 6,750
chemicals by 2012.   Therefore, EPA is estimating it will promulgate an
average of five existing chemical SNURs per year under TSCA section
5(a)(2) during the time period covered by this ICR.

EPA may receive SNUNs as a result of SNURs   EPA develops SNURs for a
number of reasons, some based on findings from its new chemicals program
in order to bind manufacturers and processors of chemicals reviewed
under its Premanufacture Notice (PMN) review process to certain
requirements.  SNURs are also developed by EPA’s existing chemical
program under TSCA section 5(a)(2).  It is the latter SNURs that are
covered by this ICR, and therefore, only the SNUNs received based on
those SNURs are estimated here.

EPA’s experience is that in response to promulgation of well over
1,000 SNURs under both its new and existing chemicals programs, the
Agency receives on average only 10 SNUNs per year.  Of those SNUNs, only
a fraction is the result of SNURs promulgated under section 5(a)(2).
For this ICR, however, EPA is estimating 10 SNURs per year.

TABLE 1

	ANTICIPATED NUMBER OF SNURs AND SNUNs

Year

Anticipated Number of SNURs

Anticipated Number of SNUNS

First Year

5

10

Second Year

5

10

Third Year

5

10

Three Year Totals

15

30

Given the uncertainty in projecting possible new uses for existing
chemicals, it is not possible to determine if a large or small number of
firms would be affected by any given SNUR, or whether any one firm might
engage in more than one new use. Thus, this analysis makes the
assumption that no firm submits more than one SNUN. The total number of
firms engaging in new uses cannot be estimated.

 	6(a)	Estimating Respondent Burden

A. Alternative Responses

The burden associated with a SNUR could involve a number of possible
industry responses. That is, when a SNUR is promulgated, a firm seeking
to engage in a new use for a subject chemical has five options regarding
possible courses of action that may generate reporting burden:

1)	The company could submit a SNUN. This option would be chosen by any
company not intending to abide by the provisions of the SNUR.

2)	A company can request an equivalency determination. This option would
be chosen if a manufacturer/importer had reason to believe that there
may be alternative methods not considered by EPA that provide equivalent
or superior protection from exposure or release of the subject chemical.

3)	The company can comply with the SNUR, ensuring that all provisions of
the SNUR are implemented in connection with the planned use of the
subject chemical.

4)	The company can request review of the SNUR for possible modification
or revocation.

5)	The company may simply decide to forgo the new use, avoiding
regulatory compliance activities altogether.

Additionally, under current regulations at 40 CFR 721.5(a)(2), all
manufacturers, processors, and importers of chemicals subject to SNURs
are subject to certain requirements regardless of whether they engage in
a significant new use unless certain information can be documented.
However, without prior knowledge of chemicals which would be the subject
of future SNURs, estimating the number of potentially affected entities
subject to 40 CFR 721.5(a)(2) is not possible.

The following section estimates the cost of submitting a SNUN (option 1)
and then discusses the other options.

B. Burden Estimates

TSCA section 5(a)(2) imposes two requirements on industry. First,
manufacturers, processors, and importers of chemicals must choose among
the options mentioned above. This section presents estimates of
submitting SNUNs (i.e., the first option) and then briefly discusses the
other four options. Second, manufacturers, processors, and importers of
chemicals covered by SNURs will incur burden and costs to notify
customers of the hazards posed by the covered chemical.  Therefore, they
must first determine if their chemical is on the SNUR and then must
determine how to notify their customers.

Chemical Verification

When a SNUR is published, companies must review the rule to verify if
their chemical is subject to the rule.  During the 2004-2007 timeframe,
the majority of SNURs promulgated by the Agency under TSCA section 5(a)
applied to new chemicals submitted to the Agency under the
Premanufacture Notice Program.  Only three SNURs applying to existing
chemicals were promulgated during the same time period.  The Agency
typically notifies the manufacturer(s) of chemicals subject to a SNUR
prior to its issuance.  Therefore it is estimated that no more than
0.167 hours (10 minutes) of technical time per chemical is used to
verify that a chemical is

subject to the rule.  This is equivalent to 6.8 hours (0.167
hours/chemical x 41 chemicals/SNUR) per SNUR.

Submitting a SNUN

In submitting a SNUN, individuals at different occupational levels must
spend time on the required recordkeeping and reporting activities. In
estimating the burden required to prepare a SNUN, the analysis uses the
breakdown of activities and activity estimates as developed for the
premanufacture notification (PMN) baseline model in the Agency’s
“Regulatory Impact Analysis of Amendments to Regulations for TSCA
Section 5 Premanufacture Notifications” (OPPT, 1994). The PMN
reporting cost estimates were used because SNUNs would be filed on the
standard PMN form. Table 2 presents EPA's estimate of respondent
reporting burden associated with the filing of a SNUN.

When submitting an SNUN, manufacturers must maintain records associated
with the SNUN for five years.  In keeping with the conservative
assumptions already employed, the high end of the range of reporting
burden hours (i.e., 113.25 hours) will be used in subsequent cost
calculations (see section 6 below). The recordkeeping associated with
preparing and filing a SNUN is assumed to require five percent of the
time spent on reporting. Thus, 5.67 record keeping hours ([113.25
hours]*[5 percent]) will be spent in preparation of a SNUN. The average
industry burden per notice, then, is 118.92 hours (113.25 + 5.67).

The estimates shown in Table 2 are average burden levels. Thus, it is
entirely possible that certain respondents may incur burden greater or
lesser than the estimates noted above; nevertheless, EPA believes the
upper bound of the range of average burden hours to be an appropriate
estimate for the calculations performed in this analysis.

Alternative Options

Should a company choose to request an equivalency determination (i.e.,
the second option), or review for modification/revocation (i.e., the
fourth option), EPA estimates that a data collection and preparation
effort similar to that of a SNUN would be required, and thus the burden
is estimated to range up to 118.92 hours for these alternatives, the
same as for submitting a SNUN.

In complying with a SNUR, a company would incur costs to ensure all
provisions of the SNUR were implemented at the subject facility (i.e.,
the third option). Since the nature of such provisions will vary
depending on the significant new uses identified in each respective
SNUR, estimating burden at this time is not possible.

The final alternative for a company considering a significant new use of
a chemical which is the subject of a SNUR is to forgo the new use (i.e.,
the fifth option). In carrying out such a response, the company would
incur no direct regulatory burden or costs.

Customer Notification

 As noted above, unless manufacturers, processors, and importers of
chemicals subject to SNURs have either notified recipients of such
chemicals and all significant new uses, verified that knowledge of the
SNUR has been otherwise acquired by recipients, or verified that
recipients are unable to engage in significant new uses, manufacturers,
processors, and importers must file a SNUN. Since it is not expected
that all such entities will have complete knowledge of all uses of any
products subject to a SNUR, and because filing a SNUN could require
significantly more burden, it is assumed that manufacturers, processors,
and importers will most often choose to notify their customers of SNUR
regulatory activities. As this notification may be accomplished by
simply annotating an MSDS, EPA estimates the associated burden to be
about 1 hour of a technical employee's time per manufacturer, processor,
or importer per chemical.

TABLE 2

	UNIT REPORTING BURDEN ESTIMATES ASSOCIATED WITH FILING A SNUN,

	BY LABOR CATEGORY

Activity

Clerical Hours

Technical Hours

Managerial Hours

Total Hours

General information/ instructions

2 - 2.5

1.5 - 2

3 - 4

6.5 - 8.5

Chemical identity

1.5 - 2

3 - 6

1

5.5 - 9

Trade name ID

.25

.25

Byproducts/impurities identification

1

1

Production and marketing

data

1.5

2 - 3

3.5 - 4.5

Production volume

1

1

Category of use

3

3

Hazard information

3 - 4

3 - 4

Human exposure and

environmental release

2.5 - 3.5

6 - 7

8.5-10.5

Site information

14 - 16

14 - 16

Occupational exposure

13 - 14

13 - 14

Environmental release/ disposal

9 - 10

9 - 10

Sites controlled by others

2

10 - 12

2 - 2.5

14 - 16.5

List of attachments

2

6 - 8

1 - 1.5

9 - 11.5

Certification

.5

.5

Data submissions

.5

1.5 - 2

.5

2.5 - 3

Totals

12 - 14

66.25 - 79.25

16 - 20

94.25 - 113.25

Source: OPPT, 1994.

	6(b)	Estimating Respondent Costs

The unit costs of filing a SNUN are estimated by monetizing the labor
time spent preparing the SNUN and then adding any fixed costs associated
with filing a SNUN. This section derives these unit costs.

A. Wages

The basic methodology for estimating the industry wage rates used in
this analysis is presented in Appendix A.  Wage data used to develop the
basic industry wage rates are derived from the U.S. Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) for all goods-producing private
industries.  The annual salary estimates were adjusted to final-quarter
(December) 2003 dollars using the BLS Employment Cost Index (ECI) for
white-collar occupations for all private industries.

An overhead rate of 17 percent was applied to all wages based on
information provided by the chemical industry and chemical industry
trade associations.  Benefit rates were applied to wages as follows:
managerial, 47.7 percent; technical, 49.7 percent; and secretarial, 50.5
percent. Thus, total load factors are 64.7 percent for managerial labor,
66.7 percent for technical labor, and 67.5 percent for secretarial
labor. The estimated hourly wage rates are presented in Table 3. Details
on the calculation of the wage rates can be found in Appendix A.

	TABLE 3

	HOURLY WAGE AND LOAD RATES FOR INDUSTRY

Labor Category

Wage Rate

Managerial

$68.18

Technical

$55.44

Clerical

$27.47

			Note: Details on the calculation of these wages can be found in
Appendix A.

B. Summary of Unit Costs

Labor Costs

Chemical Verification

The Agency estimates that chemical verification will require 6.8 hours
per SNUR.    The total estimated cost per SNUR is estimated to be $377
(6.8 hours per SNUR x $55.44).

Costs for Submitting a SNUN

Using these labor wage rates and the burden estimates presented above,
EPA estimates that the labor cost associated with filing a SNUN ranges
from $5,094 to $6,143. In addition, SNUN filers must pay a $2,500 user
fee to EPA. Thus, the total cost of filing a SNUN ranges from $7,594 to
$8,643.

	TABLE 4

	UNIT REPORTING BURDEN ESTIMATES ASSOCIATED WITH FILING A SNUN,

	BY LABOR CATEGORY

Hours

Wage Rate

Total Cost

Clerical

12-14

$27.47

$330-$385

Technical

66.25-79.25

$55.44

$3,673-$4,394

Managerial

16-20

$68.18

$1,091-$1,364

Totals

94.25-113.25

-

$5,094-$6,143

	Costs for Record keeping

Record keeping requires 5.67 hours per SNUN.  Assuming that the record
keeping is performed by clerical staff, the costs for record keeping are
$156 [5.67 hours * $27.47 (clerical labor)

Alternative Responses

As noted in section 4, five alternative responses to any particular SNUR
could be chosen by firms planning to engage in significant new uses of
subject chemicals.  Although EPA has not projected or quantified how
frequently these alternatives might be selected, the unit costs
associated with each option are discussed briefly below.

The estimated burden of requesting an equivalency determination (the
second option) or review for modification/revocation (the fourth option)
was judged to be similar to filing the SNUN; thus, total costs including
the EPA user fee were estimated to range from between $7,594 and $8,643.
 However, the firm may incur additional costs in developing the data
necessary to justify the alternative.  This option will be preferable to
compliance with the SNUR if the total cost of obtaining EPA approval of
a request is less than the costs of SNUR compliance.

Customer Notification

EPA assumes that the customer notification requirement will be handled
by technical labor. Section 5 of this analysis assumed that one hour of
labor per chemical would be required to perform the notification, thus
the unit cost of notification is estimated to be $55.44 (i.e., the
hourly wage for technical labor).   EPA estimates that each SNUR will
cover approximately 20 chemicals.  Furthermore, EPA assumes that there
are two manufacturers, processors, or importers per chemical.
Therefore, the burden per SNUR is estimated to be 40 hours per SNUR ([20
chemicals per SNUR]*[1 hour per manufacturer, processor, or importer]*[2
manufacturers, processors, or importers per chemical]), and the cost per
SNUR is equal to $2,218 [($55.44 per hour)*(40 hours per SNUR)].

	TABLE 5

	SUMMARY OF UNIT COSTS

Unit Cost

Estimated Cost

Chemical Verification

$377 per SNUR

Submitting a SNUN

Between $7,594  and $8,643 per SNUN*

SNUN Record Keeping

$156 per SNUN

Notifying Customers

$2,218  per SNUR

* Includes $2,500 user fee per SNUN.

Summary

Table 4 summarizes the unit costs estimated in this section. Reviewing a
SNUR to verify that a chemical is included is estimated to cost $377 per
SNUR.  Submitting a SNUN is estimated to cost between $7,594 and $8,643
per SNUN and notifying customers is estimated to cost $2,218 per SNUR.
As noted above, the upper bound cost for filing a SNUN ($8,643) will be
used in subsequent calculations.

TOTAL BURDEN AND COSTS TO INDUSTRY

This section provides estimates of the total burden and costs imposed by
the TSCA section 5(a) requirements. These estimates can be divided into
three categories: chemical verification, submitting SNUNs and notifying
customers.

A. Verifying Chemicals

The total cost and burden imposed on industry by TSCA section 5(a)(2)
requirements can be calculated by multiplying the unit burden and cost
estimates by the expected number of SNURs. As noted above, this analysis
assumes that EPA will promulgate five SNURs per year.  Total burden and
costs for chemical verification are presented in Tables 6 and 7.

	TABLE 6

	TOTAL INDUSTRY BURDEN ASSOCIATED WITH CHEMICAL VERIFICATION

Activity

Hours Per SNUR

SNURs per Year

Total hours

Chemical Verification

6.8

5

34

	TABLE 7

	TOTAL INDUSTRY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH CHEMICAL VERIFICATION

SNURs Per Year

Cost Per SNUR

Total Annual Cost

Three Year Cost

5

$377

$1,885

$5,655

Note: Estimates may contain some rounding error caused by rounding
dollar values to the nearest whole dollar.

B. Submitting SNUNs

The total cost and burden imposed on industry by TSCA section 5(a)(2)
requirements can be calculated by multiplying the unit burden and cost
estimates by the expected number of SNURs and SNUNs. As noted above,
this analysis assumes that EPA will promulgate five SNURs and receive
ten SNUNs per year.

Table 8 presents the total burden of submitting SNUNs. Section 5 of this
analysis estimated that the reporting requirements for submitting SNUNs
would impose 113.25 hours for each SNUN. An additional 5.67 hours are
assumed to be required to satisfy recordkeeping requirements. Thus, a
total of 118.92 hours are required for each SNUN. From section 4 of this
analysis, EPA estimates that it will receive ten SNUNs per year. Thus,
the total burden imposed on industry is estimated to be 1,189.2 hours
annually, or 3,567.6 hours over a three year period.

	TABLE 8

	TOTAL INDUSTRY BURDEN ASSOCIATED WITH SUBMITTING SNUNs

Activity

Hours Per SNUN

SNUNs per Year

Total hours

Reporting

113.25

10

1,132.5

Recordkeeping

5.67

10

56.7

Total Annual Burden

118.92

10

1,189.2

Three Year Burden

-

-

3,567.6

The total cost of submitting SNUNs is presented in Table 9. Section 6 of
this analysis estimated that submitting SNUNs will cost affected parties
$8,643 per SNUN. Assuming 10 SNUNs per year (see section 4) implies a
total annual cost of $86,430 ([10 SNUNs]*[$86,430 per SNUN]) and a three
year cost of $259,290 ([$86,430 per year]*[3 years]).

	TABLE 9

	TOTAL INDUSTRY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH SUBMITTING SNUNs

SNUNs Per Year

Cost Per SNUN

Total Annual Cost

Three Year Cost

10

$8,643

$86,430

$259,290

Note: Estimates may contain some rounding error caused by rounding
dollar values to the nearest whole dollar.

	C. Customer Notification

Table 10 presents estimates of the customer notification burden and
costs. EPA estimates that burden for customer notification is 40 hours
per SNUR.  EPA estimates that 5

SNURs will be promulgated per year.  The annual burden associated with
customer notification is estimated to be 200 hours (40 hours/SNUR * 5
SNURs/year).  The three year burden is estimated to be 600 hours.

The cost of customer notification is estimated by multiplying the burden
hours by the unit cost of notification. Section 6 assumed that
notification would be accomplished using technical labor, valued at
$55.44 per hour. Thus, the total annual cost of customer notification is
$11,088 and the three year cost is $33,264.

	TABLE 10

	ESTIMATED BURDEN AND COST FOR CUSTOMER NOTIFICATION

Cost element

Value/Estimate

Burden

Chemicals per SNUR [a]

20

Hours per manufacturers/processors/importers [b]

1.0

Manufacturers/processors/importers per chemical [c]

2

SNURs per year [d]

5

Total annual burden [e] = [a]*[b]*[c]*[d]

200

Three year burden [f] = 3*[e]

600

Cost

Cost per hour [g]

$55.44

Total annual cost [h] = [e]*[g]

$11,088

Three year cost [j] = 3*[h]

$33,246

C. Summary of Industry Costs

The total estimated industry burden and cost associated with SNURs is
equal to the total of chemical verification burden and cost (34 hours /
$1,885 annually), reporting and record keeping burden and cost (1,189
hours / $86,430 annually) plus the total customer notification burden
and cost (200 hours / $11,088 annually) which is equal to 1,423 hours
annually with an associated estimated cost of $99,403 annually.  Over a
three-year period, the burden is estimated to be 4,269 hours and costs
are estimated to be $298,209.

	6(c)	Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

EPA will incur costs associated with the promulgation of SNURs and the
processing of SNUNs. The previous ICR estimated that the cost for
issuing a SNUR can be as high as $35,082 in 2003 dollars.  The Office of
Personnel Management reports that federal salaries increased by 11.57
percent (Washington, D.C. salary including locality adjustment) from
2003 to 2007 (Office of Personnel Management, 2008).   The annual salary
for EPA staff used for calculations of Agency costs is an average of the
OPM year 2007 annual salaries for GS-12 Steps 1 and 10 for Washington,
DC -- $66,767 and $86,801, respectively, or $76,784.  Multiplying by an
assumed loading factor of 1.6 to reflect fringe benefits and overhead
(Office of Policy Planning and Evaluation, 1992), the loaded annual
salary of EPA staff was calculated to be $122,854. Dividing the wage by
a 12 person-months/year results in $10,238/person-month.  Consistent
with the previous ICR, it is estimated that it will take 3.94
person-months of EPA staff time to develop a final SNUR.   Therefore,
the wage per person-month ($10,238) multiplied by a 3.94
person-months/SNUR yields an EPA cost per SNUR of $40,338.

EPA(s costs to review and process SNUNs are assumed to be the same as
EPA costs to review PMNs.  These costs are estimated at $4,778 per case.
 The Agency actions required, full-time equivalent (FTE) staff needs,
and extramural costs such as for contractor support are derived in
Appendix B from EPA(s analysis of the Agency costs of processing PMN
submissions (RIB, 1994), with updates to 2007 dollars.

Using the estimates of annual SNUR promulgation and SNUR notice
submissions presented above, EPA's estimated costs are presented in
Table 11. Promulgating SNURs and processing SNUNs are estimated to cost
the Agency $126,261 annually and $378,783 for three years. The Agency
may also incur a cost for modifying a SNUR if submitted data indicate a
need for such an action.  Costs to perform such a modification have not
been estimated.

	TABLE 11

	AGENCY COSTS

Activity

Number Per Year

Cost Per Action

Annual Cost

Three Year Cost

SNURs

5	$40,338	$201,690	$605,070

SNUNs	10	$4,778	$47,780	$143,340

Totals 	15	$45,116	$249,470	$748,410

Note: Estimates may contain some rounding error caused by rounding
dollar values to the nearest whole dollar.

6(d)	Reasons for Change in Burden

There is a net increase of 562 hours (from 861 hours to 1,423 hours) in
the total estimated respondent burden compared with that currently in
the OMB inventory. This increase   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 reflects EPA’s
updated estimates of an anticipated increase in the number of SNURs
promulgated from three to five per year and an increase in the estimated
number of SNUNs received from five to ten per year.  Additionally,
estimated number of chemicals per SNUR is estimated to fall from 41 to
20.  All of these changes are adjustments.

	Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

TSCA section 5(a)(c) affects new uses of chemicals and requires those
interested in engaging in such a use to notify the Agency of his/her
intentions.  Because the rule only covers uses which a small business
intends to undertake, a small business is not expected to immediately be
affected by the SNUR unless it is considering such a use in the future.
 Although there may be some small businesses that may decide to
participate in SNUR related activities associated with certain
chemicals, it is impossible to estimate the number at this time.
Additionally, the Agency has received few SNUNs related to existing
chemical SNURs in the past, suggesting that few, if any small businesses
would be affected.  This, coupled with the low unit costs associated
with filing a SNUN, suggests that the overall impact will be low for any
business which may choose to file a SNUN or notify customers of SNUR
activity.  These costs are not differentiated between small and large
businesses.

	6(e)	Burden Statement

The annual public burden for this collection of information, which is
approved under OMB Control No. 2070-0038, is estimated to be
approximately 71 hours per response.  According to the Paperwork
reduction Act, (burden( means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
or provide information to or for a Federal agency.  For this collection
it includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to
a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review
the collection of information ; and transmit or otherwise disclose the
information.  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.  The OMB control number for this
information collection appears above.  In addition, the OMB control
numbers for EPA’s regulation, after initial display in the final rule,
are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 To comment on the
Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy of the provided
burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent
burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has
established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0220.  The docket is available for public viewing at
the Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket in the EPA Docket Center
(EPA/DC).  The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is located in the EPA West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.  The
EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the
EPA/DC Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  An
electronic version of the public docket is available through the Federal
Docket Management System (FDMS) at     HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov .  Use FDMS to submit
or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the
public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that
are available electronically.  Once in the system, select “search,”
then key in the docket ID number identified above.  Also, you can send
comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503,
Attention: Desk Office for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0220 and OMB control number 2070-0038 in any
correspondence.
      REFERENCES

BLS, 2008a.  Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Employment Cost Index, Total
Compensation: White-Collar Occupations (Series ID: ECS11102I), ,
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/srgate, extracted February 29, 2008.

BLS, 2008b.  Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation - December 2003: Private industry, goods-producing workers
by occupational group, wages and total benefits (Series IDs
CCU420000112000D, CCU420000111000D, CCU420000114000D, CCU430000112000D,
CCU430000111000D, CCU430000114000D), http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/srgate,
extracted February 29, 2008.

EPAB, 1999.  Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules
for 41 Chemical

 Substances and  Background Support Document for Economic Analysis of
Significant New

 Use Rules.   Washington, DC: U.S.EPA/OPPT/EETD/EPAB, July 20, 1999. EPA
Docket

 Office of Personnel Management (OPM), 2008.  Salary Tables 2003-DCB,
2004-DCB, 2005-DCB, 2006-DCB, 2007-DCB.   www.opm.gov.

Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation (OPPE), 1992.  Instructions
for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs). Washington, DC:
U.S. EPA, June 1, 1992.

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), 1994. Regulatory
Impact Analysis of Amendments to Regulations for TSCA Section 5
Premanufacture Notifications.

RIB, 1994.  Regulatory Impacts Branch.  Regulatory Impact Analysis of
Amendments to Regulations for TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture
Notifications.  Washington, DC: U.S. EPA/OPPT/EETD/RIB, September 9,
1994.

Rice, 2002.  Cody Rice. Wage Rates for Economic Analysis of the Toxics
Release Inventory Program.  Washington, DC: U.S.EPA/OPPT/EETD/EPAB, June
10, 2002.

Shapiro, Michael, 1984. (Review of Agency SNUR Costs(, Memorandum to
Susan Hazen, Office of Toxic Substances, November 16.

USEPA, 1985. Response times and Labor Costs Final Data Element List
Comprehensive Assessment Information Rule, April 30, pp. 94-106.

      TSCA section 5(e) allows the Administrator to prohibit or limit
the manufacture, import, processing, distribution in commerce, use, or
disposal of the substance when the substance may present an unreasonable
risk.  TSCA section 5(f) allows the Administrator to use a TSCA section
6 regulation to prohibit or limit the manufacture of the substance when
the substance will present an unreasonable risk.

 Unless manufacturers, processors, and importers of chemicals subject to
SNURs have either notified recipients of such chemicals and all
significant new uses, verified that knowledge of the SNUR has been
otherwise acquired by recipients, or verified that recipients are unable
to engage in significant new uses, manufacturers, processors, and
importers must file a SNUN.

      The burden estimates presented in Table 2 differ from the PMN
Amendments analysis, which were based on a Chemical Manufacturers
Association survey, only in that burden for researching synonyms and
generic chemical names was not included in this analysis. This is
because subject chemicals would be existing chemicals, and such
information would already be known.

      The assumption that there are two manufacturers, processors, or
importers per chemical follows from previous ICRs for these
requirements.

      In deriving the totals for this analysis, EPA uses the upper bound
estimates for the number of hours and the cost of submitting SNUNs.

      This percentage increase is composed of four annual increases: a
4.42 percent increase in 2004, a 3.71 percent increase in 2005, a 3.44
percent increase in 2006, and a 3.44 percent increase in 2007. (Office
of Personnel Management, 2008).

      The 3.94 person-months estimate is from a memorandum from Michael
Shapiro, Economics and Technology Division, to Susan Hazen, Office of
Toxic Substances (Shapiro, 1984).

- PAGE  23 -


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 88898]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28440]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER24-672-000]

Moonshot Solar, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Moonshot Solar, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is January 8, 2024.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: December 19, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-28440 Filed 12-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 135)]
[Notices]
[Page 40335-40336]
[DOCID:fr14jy08-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL08-74-000]

Central Maine Power Company; Notice of Filing

July 7, 2008.
    Take notice that on July 1, 2008, Central Maine Power Company filed
a Petition for Declaratory Order Authorizing Incentive Rates for the
Maine Power Reliability Program, pursuant to Rule 207 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207, section
219 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824s, Order No. 679, and
section 35.35 of the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR 35.35.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214).

Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must
file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate.
Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the
comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to
serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the
Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll-free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on August 1, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-15880 Filed 7-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 193 (Friday, October 4, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53189-53192]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21594]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87167; File No. SR-PEARL-2019-23]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Suspension of and
Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or
Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To Modify the Options Regulatory Fee

September 30, 2019.

I. Introduction

    On August 1, 2019, MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX PEARL'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change
(File No. SR-PEARL-2019-23) to modify the amount

of its Options Regulatory Fee (``ORF'').\3\ The proposed rule change
was immediately effective upon filing with the Commission pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.\4\ The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on August 14, 2019.\5\
The Commission received one comment letter on the proposal.\6\ Pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act,\7\ the Commission is hereby: (1)
Temporarily suspending File No. SR-PEARL-2019-23; and (2) instituting
proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove File No. SR-
PEARL-2019-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86607 (August 8,
2019), 84 FR 40441 (August 14, 2019) (``Notice'').
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). A proposed rule change may take
effect upon filing with the Commission if it is designated by the
exchange as ``establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by the self-regulatory organization on any person, whether
or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory organization.''
15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \5\ See Notice, supra note 3.
    \6\ See Letter to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission,
from Ellen Greene, Managing Director, Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association (``SIFMA''), dated August 27, 2019
(``SIFMA Letter'').
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend the amount of its ORF from $0.0028
to $0.0020 per contract.\8\ The Exchange assesses the ORF to each MIAX
PEARL member for all options transactions that are cleared or
ultimately cleared by the member which are cleared by the Options
Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') in the ``customer'' range, regardless of
the exchange on which the transaction occurs.\9\ The Exchange noted
that its ORF is designed to recover a material portion, but not all, of
the Exchange's regulatory costs for the supervision and regulation of
members' customer option business.\10\ Noting that it adjusts the ORF
amount periodically to ensure that the revenue from the ORF in
combination with its other regulatory fees and fines does not exceed
its regulatory costs, the Exchange proposed to decrease the amount of
its ORF ``[i]n light of recent market volumes on the Exchange and
changes to the Exchange's regulatory costs.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 40441.
    \9\ See id. The ORF is collected by OCC on behalf of MIAX PEARL
from either (1) a member that was the ultimate clearing firm for the
transaction or (2) a non-member that was the ultimate clearing firm
where a member was the executing clearing firm for the transaction.
See id.
    \10\ Id. at 40442.
    \11\ See id. at 40443.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Suspension of the Proposed Rule Change

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act,\12\ at any time within
60 days of the date of filing of an immediately effective proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act,\13\ the Commission
summarily may temporarily suspend the change in the rules of a self-
regulatory organization (``SRO'') 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. As discussed below, the Commission believes a temporary
suspension of the proposed rule change is necessary and appropriate to
allow for additional analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency
with the Act and the rules thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When exchanges file their proposed rule changes with the
Commission, including fee filings like the Exchange's present proposal,
they are required to provide a statement supporting the proposal's
basis under the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable
to the exchange.\14\ The instructions to Form 19b-4, on which exchanges
file their proposed rule changes, specify that such statement ``should
be sufficiently detailed and specific to support a finding that the
proposed rule change is consistent with [those] requirements'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 17 CFR 240.19b-4 (Item 3 entitled ``Self-Regulatory
Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for,
the Proposed Rule Change'').
    \15\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 6 of the Act, including Sections 6(b)(4), (5), and (8),
require the rules of an exchange to: (1) Provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable fees among members, issuers, and other persons
using the exchange's facilities; \16\ (2) perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, protect investors
and the public interest, and not be designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers; \17\
and (3) not impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In justifying its proposal, the Exchange stated in its filing that
its proposal is reasonable because the proposed adjustment to the
amount of its ORF ``will serve to balance the Exchange's regulatory
revenue against the anticipated regulatory costs.'' \19\ In determining
the amount of the proposed ORF, the Exchange said that it considered:
(1) Historical and projected volume changes and shifts in the industry
and on the Exchange, and (2) changes to the Exchange's regulatory cost
structure.\20\ The Exchange also asserted that the ORF is equitably
allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because the fees are imposed
on ``all members on all their transactions that clear as customer at
OCC'' and therefore members are charged based on the amount of customer
business they conduct.\21\ In addition, the Exchange stated that the
regulatory costs relating to monitoring members with respect to
customer trading activity are generally higher than the regulatory
costs associated with monitoring members that do not engage in customer
trading activity, which tends to be more automated and less labor-
intensive.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 40443.
    \20\ See id. at 40441.
    \21\ See id. at 40443.
    \22\ See id. at 40443-44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the Commission received one comment letter on the
proposal, in which the commenter argued that the Exchange has not
provided sufficient information to satisfy the statutory requirements
under the Act.\23\ Specifically, the commenter stated that the Exchange
should ``include quantitative data showing anticipated revenues, costs
and profitability'' and describe the methodology used for any
estimations of baseline and expected costs and revenues to support the
Exchange's assertions that the proposed ORF is an equitable allocation
of reasonable fees among members.\24\ The commenter also stated that
the Exchange should provide support for its assertions that assessing
ORF only on transactions cleared at OCC in the ``customer'' range
represents an equitable allocation that is not unfairly
discriminatory.\25\ Lastly, the commenter argued that the Exchange
should not be permitted to charge ORF for trades occurring on other
exchanges unless the Exchange can support its assertion concerning its
``authority to act on activities occurring outside its own market.''
\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See SIFMA Letter, supra note 6, at 1-2.
    \24\ See id. at 2.
    \25\ See id.
    \26\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In temporarily suspending the Exchange's proposed rule change, the
Commission intends to further consider whether the proposal to modify
the amount of the ORF is consistent with

the statutory requirements applicable to a national securities exchange
under the Act. In particular, the Commission will consider whether the
proposed rule change satisfies the standards under the Act and the
rules thereunder requiring, among other things, that an exchange's
rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable fees among
members, issuers, and other persons using its facilities; not permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers;
and do not impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5), and (8), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Commission finds that it is appropriate in the
public interest, for the protection of investors, and otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, to temporarily suspend the
proposed rule change.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ For purposes of temporarily suspending the proposed rule
change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove the
Proposed Rule Change

    In addition to temporarily suspending the proposal, the Commission
also hereby institutes proceedings pursuant to Sections 19(b)(3)(C)
\29\ and 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \30\ to determine whether the
Exchange's proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Institution of proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has
reached any conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved.
Rather, the Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to
provide additional comment on the proposed rule change to inform the
Commission's analysis of whether to approve or disapprove the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). Once the Commission temporarily
suspends a proposed rule change, Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act
requires that the Commission institute proceedings under Section
19(b)(2)(B) to determine whether a proposed rule change should be
approved or disapproved.
    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\31\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for possible disapproval under
consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act also
provides that proceedings to determine whether to disapprove a
proposed rule change must be concluded within 180 days of the date
of publication of notice of the filing of the proposed rule change.
See id. The time for conclusion of the proceedings may be extended
for up to 60 days if the Commission finds good cause for such
extension and publishes its reasons for so finding, or if the
exchange consents to the longer period. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchange has demonstrated how its proposed fee
is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, which requires that the
rules of a national securities exchange ``provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members and issuers and other persons using its facilities;'' \32\
(emphasis added);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchange has demonstrated how its proposed fee
is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires, among
other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange not be
``designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers'' \33\ (emphasis added); and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchange has demonstrated how its proposed fee
is consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, which requires that the
rules of a national securities exchange ``not impose any burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of [the Act].'' \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the proposal purports to modify the amount of the
ORF in response to changes in options transaction volume in a manner
that is designed to recover a material portion, but not all, of the
Exchange's regulatory costs for the supervision and regulation of its
options participants. However, the Exchange's statements in support of
the proposed rule change are general in nature and lack detail and
specificity.\35\ For example, the Exchange provides only a broad
general statement regarding options transaction volume and does not
provide any information on the Exchange's historic or projected options
regulatory costs (including the costs of regulating activity that
clears in the ``customer'' range and the costs of regulating activity
that occurs away from the Exchange), the amount of regulatory revenue
it has generated and expects to generate from the ORF as well as other
sources, or the ``material portion'' of options regulatory expenses
that it seeks to recover from the ORF. Similarly, the Exchange has not
provided information to support its assertion that regulating customer
trading activity is ``much more labor-intensive'' and therefore, more
costly.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See, e.g., SIFMA Letter, supra note 6, at 2 (arguing that
the Exchange has ``not provided enough information . . . to satisfy
the Exchange Act standards'').
    \36\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 40444. See also SIFMA Letter,
supra note 6, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the commenter stated, without more information in the filing on
the Exchange's regulatory revenues attributable to ORF as well as
regulatory revenue from other sources, and more information on the
Exchange's regulatory costs to supervise and regulate members,
including, e.g., customer versus non-customer activity and on-exchange
versus off-exchange activity, the proposal lacks information that can
speak to whether the proposed ORF is reasonable, equitably allocated,
and not unfairly discriminatory, particularly given that the ORF is
assessed only on transactions that clear in the ``customer'' range and
regardless of the exchange on which the transaction occurs, and that
the ORF is designed to recover a material portion, but not all, of the
Exchange's regulatory costs for the supervision and regulation of
activity across all members.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See SIFMA Letter, supra note 6, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the ``burden to
demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the [Act]
and the rules and regulations issued thereunder. . .is on the [SRO]
that proposed the rule change.'' \38\ The description of a proposed
rule change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a legal
analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all be
sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative Commission
finding,\39\ and any failure of an SRO to provide this information may
result in the Commission not having a sufficient basis to make an
affirmative finding that a proposed rule change is consistent with the
Act and the applicable rules and regulations.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 17 CFR 201.700(b)(3).
    \39\ See id.
    \40\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
consideration and comment on the issues raised herein, including as to
whether the proposed fees are consistent with the Act, and
specifically, with its requirements that exchange fees be reasonable
and equitably allocated and not be unfairly discriminatory.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5), and (8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Commission's Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission requests written views, data, and arguments with
respect to the concerns identified above as well as any other relevant
concerns. Such comments should be submitted by October 25, 2019.
Rebuttal comments should be submitted by November 8,

2019. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to
approval or disapproval which would be facilitated by an oral
presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will
consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to
make an oral presentation.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). Section 19(b)(2) of the Act grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by an SRO. See Securities
Acts Amendments of 1975, Report of the Senate Committee on Banking,
Housing and Urban Affairs to Accompany S. 249, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th
Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency and
merit of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, in
addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the
proposed rule change.
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the proposed rule changes, 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 No. SR-PEARL-2019-23 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 No. SR-PEARL-2019-23. The 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 such 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 publicly available. All submissions
should refer to File No. SR-PEARL-2019-23 and should be submitted on or
before October 25, 2019. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by
November 8, 2019.

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the
Act,\43\ that File No. SR-PEARL-2019-23, be and hereby is, temporarily
suspended. In addition, the Commission is instituting proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57) and (58).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-21594 Filed 10-3-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 16, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 3413]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00743]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Meeting, Notice of Vote, Explanation of Action Closing
Meeting and List of Persons To Attend

    The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to Section
3(a) of the Government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409), 5 U.S.C.
552b:

AGENCY HOLDING MEETING:  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

DATE AND TIME:  January 17, 2013.
    * Note--The Closed meeting will follow the Open meeting.

PLACE:  Room 3M-2A&B, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

STATUS:  Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:  Non-Public Investigations and Inquiries,
Enforcement Related Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:  Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Chairman Wellinghoff and Commissioners Moeller, Norris, LaFleur,
and Clark voted to hold a closed meeting on January 17, 2013. The
certification of the General Counsel explaining the action closing the
meeting is available for public inspection in the Commission's Public
Reference Room at 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The Chairman and the Commissioners, their assistants, the
Commission's Secretary, the General Counsel and members of his staff,
and a stenographer are expected to attend the meeting. Other staff
members from the Commission's program offices who will advise the
Commissioners in the matters discussed will also be present.

    Issued: January 10, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-00743 Filed 1-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 135 (Monday, July 19, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37941-37942]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15220]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0170; Airspace Docket No. 21-AEA-4]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace and Proposed Amendment
of Class D Airspace; East Hampton, NY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E surface airspace for
East Hampton Airport, East Hampton, NY, to assist aircraft landing and
departing the airport when the air traffic control tower is closed. In
addition, this action would amend Class D airspace by replacing the
outdated term Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement
in the airport description and amend the radius and ceiling as the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) deemed the airspace adjustments
were necessary.
    Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of
instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in the area.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 2, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to: The U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the
Docket No. FAA-2021-0170; Airspace Docket No. 21-AEA-4 at the beginning
of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order 7400.11E Airspace Designations and Reporting Points and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://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: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11E at NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; 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 would establish Class E airspace and amend Class D airspace for
East Hampton Airport, East Hampton, NY, to support IFR operations in
the area.

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (Docket No. FAA-
2021-0170 and Airspace Docket No. 21-AEA-4) and be submitted in
triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see ADDRESSES section for the
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on
this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to FAA
Docket No. FAA-2021-0170; Airspace Docket No. 21-AEA-4.'' The postcard
will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this document may be changed in light of the
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the comment
closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays, at the
office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration,
Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace
Designations, and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective
September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA proposes an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to establish Class
E surface airspace for East Hampton Airport, East Hampton, NY,
providing the controlled airspace required to support aircraft landing
and departing in IFR conditions at this airport. In addition, this
action would amend Class D airspace by decreasing the radius to 4.2
miles (from 4.8) and the ceiling to 2,000 feet MSL (from 2,500) and
replacing the outdated term Airport/Facility Directory with the term
Chart Supplement in the airport description.
    Class D and E airspace designations are published in Paragraphs
5000 and 6002, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21,
2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations
listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
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
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures,'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 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 Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations, and Reporting
Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, is
amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

AEA NY D East Hampton, NY [Amended]

East Hampton Airport, NY
    (Lat. 40[deg]57'34'' N, long. 72[deg]15'06'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface up to and
including 2,000 feet MSL within a 4.2-mile radius of East Hampton
Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during specific
dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The
effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in
the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6002 Class E Surface Airspace.

* * * * *

AEA NY0522 E2 East Hampton, NY [New]

East Hampton Airport, NY
    (Lat. 40[deg]57'34'' N, long. 72[deg]15'06'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.2-
mile radius of East Hampton Airport. This Class E airspace area is
effective during specific dates and times established in advance by
a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be
continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on July 13, 2021.
Matthew N. Cathcart,
Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team North, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2021-15220 Filed 7-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P