                             SUPPORTING STATEMENT
                  FOR AN INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST (ICR)

1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

      1(a)  Title:

      Plant-Incorporated Protectants; CBI Substantiation and Adverse Effects Reporting

      OMB No.: 2070-0142              EPA ICR No.: 1693.09

      1(b)  Short Characterization/Abstract

      The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for the regulation of pesticides as authorized by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Prior to EPA granting a registration, the manufacturer of the pesticide must demonstrate to the Agency that the use of the pesticide product will not result in any unreasonable adverse effects to humans or the environment. EPA is also responsible under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) for establishing a tolerance or exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for pesticide residues on food or feed.

      The Agency promulgated a final rule (codified at 40 CFR part 174) that addresses the regulatory status of pesticidal substances that are produced by plants (plant-incorporated protectants). A plant-incorporated protectant (PIP) is defined in the final rule as "the pesticidal substance that is intended to be produced and used in a living plant and the genetic material necessary for the production of such a substance." The rule (Attachment A) exempts a wide range of PIPs from registration requirements under FIFRA, and it imposes two requirements on manufacturers of some PIPs. This Information Collection Request (ICR) covers the two information collections related provisions contained in the rule, i.e., the provision that requires registrants that make Confidential Business Information (CBI) claims to substantiate such claims when they are made, and the provision that requires manufacturers of PIPs exempted from registration requirements to report adverse effects to the Agency.

      The current CBI regulations at 40 CFR part 2 require that claimants substantiate their CBI claims for their own records when the claim is made, and subsequently provide the substantiation to EPA only if requested.  The substantiation, however, is not required to be included with the submission to EPA in which the CBI claims are made. The burden associated with the existing requirement for CBI claims pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 is already approved by OMB under OMB Control No. 2020-0003. While most pesticide registrations do not require CBI substantiations to be submitted at the time the CBI claim is made, under 40 CFR part 174, CBI substantiations for PIP registrations must be submitted with the claim. Although CBI substantiations are required for PIP-related submissions, it is difficult to identify any additional burden that such a requirement might actually impose. Nevertheless, the Agency has chosen the conservative approach of including potential burden and costs for preparing and submitting the CBI substantiation at the time of submission of the information containing the CBI claim as required by the rule.
      The provisions of 40 CFR 174 that are related to information collection activities which are part of registration activities, e.g., data requirements for pesticide registrations, are already approved by OMB under the PRA, and that approval is not impacted by the clarification provided in the final rule.  Information collection activities related to pesticide registration are approved under OMB Control Nos. 2070-0060 (Application for New or Amended Pesticide Registration), 2070-0024 (Tolerance Petitions for Pesticides on Food/Feed Crops and New Inert Ingredients), and 2070-0040 (Experimental Use Permits (EUPs) for Pesticides).  This ICR, therefore, discusses the paperwork burdens associated with the requirement for registrants to substantiate CBI claims when they are made, and the requirement for manufacturers of PIPs exempted from registration requirements to report adverse effects to the Agency within 30 days.

2. 	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

      2(a)  Need/Authority for the Collection

	Although FIFRA requires the registration of pesticides, it also authorizes the Agency's regulation of unregistered pesticides. FIFRA section 3(a) provides that, to the extent necessary to prevent unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, the Administrator may limit the distribution, sale, or use of any pesticide that is not registered under section 3 of FIFRA, or subject to an experimental use permit under section 5 of FIFRA, or subject to an emergency exemption under section 18 of FIFRA. Pesticides that are "not registered" include pesticides that are exempt from FIFRA requirements under section 25(b) (Attachment B).

      FIFRA section 2(bb) defines the term "unreasonable adverse effects on the environment" to mean: "(1) any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide, or (2) a human dietary risk from residues that result from a use of a pesticide in or on any food inconsistent with the standard under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act" (7 U.S.C. 136(bb)).

      Section 25(b)(2) of FIFRA allows EPA to exempt, by regulation, any pesticide from some or all of the requirements of FIFRA, if the pesticide is of a character which is unnecessary to be subject to FIFRA in order to carry out the purposes of that Act (7 U.S.C. 136w(b)(2)). EPA interprets FIFRA section 25(b)(2) to authorize EPA to exempt a pesticide or category of pesticides that EPA determines poses a low probability of risk to the environment, and that is not likely to cause unreasonable adverse effects to the environment even in the absence of regulatory oversight under FIFRA.

      To determine whether a pesticide qualifies for an exemption under section 25(b)(2), EPA evaluates both the potential risks and benefits of the use of the pesticide. In evaluating a pesticide under the first exemption criterion, whether use of the pesticide poses a low probability of risk to the environment, EPA considers the extent of the potential risks caused by use of the pesticide to the environment, including humans and other animals, plants, water, air and land. Potential risks to humans include dietary risks as well as non-dietary risks such as those resulting from occupational or residential exposure to the pesticide. EPA uses the FFDCA section 408 standard in evaluating dietary risks. EPA will not exempt pesticides under section 25(b)(2) that fail the low probability of risk criterion.

      In evaluating a pesticide under the second exemption criterion, whether the use of the pesticide is likely to cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment even in the absence of regulatory oversight under FIFRA, EPA balances all the potential risks to human health, including any dietary risks, and risks to the remainder of the environment from use of the pesticide against the potential benefits associated with its use. In balancing risks and benefits, EPA considers the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of the pesticide. If the pesticide meets both exemption criteria, EPA may exempt the pesticide from regulation under FIFRA section 25(b)(2).

      Under FFDCA section 408(a) (Attachment C), a pesticide chemical residue in or on food is not safe unless EPA has issued either: a tolerance for the residue and the residue is within the tolerance limits, or an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for the residue (21 U.S.C. 346a(a)(1)). FFDCA section 408 authorizes EPA to determine a residue is safe and exempt from the requirement of a tolerance if the Administrator ". . . has determined that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information" (21 U.S.C. 346a(c)(2)(A)). Section 408 of the FFDCA also directs EPA to specifically consider harm that may result to infants and children as a result of pesticide chemical residues.

 	A determination that a pesticide chemical meets the safety standard of section 408(a) of the FFDCA may also be relevant to whether a pesticide qualifies for a FIFRA section 25(b)(2) exemption with respect to human health risks arising from other routes of exposure. However, FIFRA does not provide for exemption of a pesticide in food based solely upon consistency with the FFDCA section 408 exemption standard. At a minimum, EPA also must evaluate risks arising from occupational exposure to humans and determine that such risks meet both exemption criteria. In addition, EPA must evaluate the risks to the environment from the pesticide and determine both that the pesticide poses only a low probability of environmental risks, and that use of the pesticide is not likely to cause any unreasonable adverse effects on the remainder of the environment in the absence of regulation under FIFRA.

      2(b)  Practical Utility/Users of the Data

      EPA believes that requiring the substantiation of CBI claims for PIPs at the time of submission to the Agency will help ensure a timely EPA response to submissions for PIPs, protect the public's right to access information consistent with FIFRA, and ensure that information qualifying as CBI is properly protected from unauthorized disclosures. Since registrants are already required to ensure that CBI claims are proper prior to asserting the CBI protection for information submitted to EPA, this requirement simply affects the time at which the substantiation is submitted to the Agency, i.e., it requires the inclusion of this substantiation with the submission.

      The Agency's analysis of the potential risks and benefits of PIPs has led it to conclude that the categories of PIPs described in 40 CFR part 174, subpart B warrant exemption.  However, it is possible that there may be unforeseeable adverse effects to human health or the environment from the testing and use of otherwise exempted PIPs, as the exemptions at subpart B are broad and cover literally thousands of potential substances, some of which under certain use conditions have the potential to be toxic. The Agency therefore included, as a condition of exemption, a requirement to report to EPA within 30 days any factual adverse effects associated with these otherwise exempt PIPs. These reporting requirements are similar to reporting requirements imposed on registrants under FIFRA section 6(a)(2) for registered pesticides. However, since the 6(a)(2) reporting requirement applies to registrants and many PIPs are exempted from registration requirements, the separate reporting requirement is necessary in order to obtain any information on unforeseen adverse effects from the exempted PIPs.

      The information supplied to substantiate claims of confidentiality will be used by the Agency to determine whether CBI claims comply with the confidentiality provisions of FIFRA. Early substantiation of CBI claims will enable the Agency to promptly release information supporting PIPs registration decisions, without delaying registrations in order to obtain CBI substantiation once a decision has been made to register a PIP, while still protecting legitimate CBI.

      The adverse effects reports on exempted PIPs will be utilized by the Agency to evaluate adverse effects to determine if any additional regulatory actions are warranted. These reports will also enable the Agency to report to appropriate oversight bodies and the public its evaluation of such adverse effects and will help support any additional decision on regulatory oversight.

3. 	NON DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

         3(a)  Non duplication

      In fulfilling its mission as the Federal agency primarily responsible for the regulation of pesticides, EPA works closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) which has responsibilities under the Federal Plant Protection Act (FPPA), and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which has responsibilities under the FFDCA. EPA, USDA and FDA consult and exchange information when such consultation is helpful in resolving safety questions. The three agencies also strive for consistency between programs, adopting consistent approaches, to the extent permitted by the respective statutory authorities. A consistent approach between agencies is easier for the regulated community to understand. It is also more likely to conserve resources, as submitters would more likely be able to use data developed for one agency to meet requirements posed by another agency for the same or similar products.

      Generally, respondents are not required to submit applications or any other related data or information regarding testing to any other federal agency or to any other EPA program office. However, there may be requirements under the FPPA for plants that produce PIPs. Under the FPPA, the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) regulates field testing of genetically altered plants, while EPA will have regulatory oversight of the pesticide substances produced by those plants. In instances where review under the FPPA may be triggered, the respondent will need to contact APHIS for a determination of whether the plant containing a PIP is a plant pest that will need a permit.  In addition, registrants may be required to obtain an EUP for PIPs-related field trials.  In such cases, registrants would be expected to comply with the applicable EUP requirements.  As described in section 1(b) of this supporting statement, the paperwork activities associated with EUPs are addressed in a separate ICR.  In any case, there is no known duplication related to the requirements covered in this ICR, i.e., the up-front CBI substantiation or the submission of adverse effects reports for exempted PIPs. Each respondent must submit information unique to his/her product application, or allegation received, and will do so only once on occasion.

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

 	As part of the renewal process, EPA will publish a notice in the Federal Register prior to submitting the ICR to OMB. Pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d), any public comments received will be placed in the EPA docket, EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0440, for this action.

      3(c)  Consultations

 	As required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), the Agency will consult with stakeholders who actively interact with the Agency through the use of this collection instrument and will solicit stakeholder assessment of the regulatory burden estimates expressed by the Agency in this ICR. A record of the consultations will be placed in the EPA docket for this action

      3(d)  Effects of Less Frequent Collection

      Not applicable. The information is submitted either in conjunction with the application or when an adverse effect occurs for an exempted PIP. This activity is conducted only once per "event," and therefore, there are no available means by which the Agency can reduce the frequency.

      3(e)  General Guidelines

      The collection activities covered by this ICR comply with the guidelines provided under the PRA and the implementing regulations issued by OMB.

      In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iii)(E), federal agencies are required to indicate whether the proposed collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses, and an explanation of the decision. In September 2015, OPP debuted a new electronic system for pesticide applications, the Pesticide Submission Portal (PSP). The electronic submission process is a combination of document file uploads and providing information online that is equivalent to existing OMB approved forms that would otherwise be filled out, printed, and mailed to EPA. The paperwork burdens associated with the submissions of pesticide registration applications through the PSP will be covered under the "Application for New and Amended Pesticide Registration" ICR, OMB No 2070-0060. Additionally, the current PSP leverages the Agency's existing Central Data Exchange (CDX) to provide a secure method of submitting these documents and information within a secure online environment. CDX does require initial user registration for which the paperwork burden estimate is covered under "Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule" ICR,OMB No. 2025-0003.

      PIP registrants who wish to make CBI claims can now submit their CBI substantiations through the PSP as part of their electronic registration package. EPA continues to accept paper applications but encourages applicants to take advantage of this new, more efficient option and forego the courier costs to send to EPA. Additional benefits of using the Portal include a status indicator that allows registrants to track the movement of their submissions and automatically generated MRID numbers. Guidance for electronic submission through the PSP is available to applicants.

      Additionally, should a manufacturer of an exempted PIP under 40 CFR Part 174, subpart B be required to submit an adverse effect report per 40 CFR 174.71, the manufacturer now has the option to submit the adverse effects report either by paper or electronically. Though not required to submit these reports electronically, any adverse effects report submitted electronically must comply with the Cross Media Electronic Reporting (CROMER) regulations (40 CFR part 3).

      Although it is too early to be able to quantify any change in burden given how infrequent CBI substantiations and adverse effects reports are submitted to EPA, the Agency's pesticide program, along with the pesticide industry, recognizes the advantages in terms of accuracy, speed, cost and personnel from electronic data transfer technologies. In addition, OPP continues to consult with industry associations and other federal agencies and is participating in an Agency-wide workgroup to develop electronic reporting standards intended to facilitate the submission and use of information about pesticides.

      3(f)  Confidentiality

      Although the EPA urges submitters to minimize the amount of information that is claimed as CBI, any data and/or information submitted to the Agency may be claimed as trade secret, or commercial or financial information and will be protected from disclosure by the EPA under FIFRA section 10 and the associated regulations as contained in 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B. When information that is claimed as trade secret or CBI is provided to the Agency, such information is subject to the protections and procedures set forth in FIFRA Section 10. Nothing in this rule affects those protections.

      Even if a registrant fails to include the required substantiation for any CBI claims made in the PIP application when that application is submitted to EPA, the Agency intends to still handle such claims in accordance with the FIFRA Confidential Business Information Security Manual. This manual contains instructions relative to all contact with confidential documents, including responsibility of EPA employees, physical security measures, CBI materials within EPA, CBI typing procedures (documents typed internally or by contract), and interdivisional routing procedures. The manual dictates all CBI must be marked or flagged as such, that it must be kept in secure, i.e., double-locked areas, and that all CBI to be destroyed must be cleared by a document control officer and placed in EPA's paper shredder.

      3(g)  Sensitive Questions

      Not applicable. No information of a sensitive or private nature is requested in conjunction with this collection activity. Further, this information collection activity complies with the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 and OMB circular A-108.

4.	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

      4(a)  Respondents/NAICS Codes

      The respondents for the information collection activities contained in this ICR include producers and importers of PIPs. These entities may be classified under the following North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes:

32532
Pesticides and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing

54171
Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life
Sciences

325414
Biological Products (except Diagnostic) Manufacturing

611310
Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools

422910
Farm Supplies Wholesalers

422930
Flower, Nursery Stock, and Florists' Supplies (Wholesalers)

      4(b)  Information Requested

      4(b)(i)  Data items, including record keeping requirements

      Registrants must continue to review the regulations regarding CBI, review the materials in their submission for which claims are being made; and ensure that CBI claims are properly made. Pursuant to 40 CFR 174, registrants must submit substantiation for any CBI claim made for information for PIPs submitted to EPA. The Agency is not imposing any new requirements regarding the basis for making a CBI claim, or the points that must be addressed to substantiate any CBI claim that is made. These requirements already exist in 40 CFR part 2. In addition, EPA is not imposing any specific form or format for these substantiations. (See 40 CFR 174.9)

      Manufacturers of PIPs exempted from registration requirements must submit to EPA any information they subsequently obtain regarding adverse effects on human health or the environment alleged to have been caused by the exempted PIP. The Agency anticipates that the entities will obtain adverse effects information during the normal course of business, and then will make a report to the Agency with adequate background information for the Agency to be able to make a decision to either ask for additional information or to act on the information presented. The Agency does not foresee any extra data collection effort to find adverse effects beyond the normal course of business but rather envisions these effects being discovered from ongoing studies of various PIPs or customer complaints. Although EPA specifies the content of all adverse effects report submitted to EPA, EPA is not imposing any specific form or format for these reports. (See 40 CFR 174.71)

      In addition, entities may also be asked to respond to Agency questions that arise based on the submission, whether it be the CBI substantiation, or the adverse effects report. Such follow-up activities are assumed as part of the initial burden estimates. Should further information be necessary, e.g., should the adverse effect information reported to EPA indicate the need for a study or other additional information, any additional Agency requirement would come in the form of a data call-in covered under the existing regulations and a separate ICR approved by OMB under Control No. 2070-0174. This ICR is not intended to address such activities.

         4(b)(ii) Respondent Activities

      The requirements for up-front CBI substantiation and adverse effects reporting are separate requirements that only occur on occasion. The CBI substantiation occurs when an entity is submitting PIP related information to EPA that contains CBI claims pursuant to 40 CFR part 2. The adverse effects reporting occurs when an entity obtains information regarding adverse effects on human health or the environment alleged to have been caused by the exempted PIP.

      Although each activity is distinct, a typical respondent for each activity is expected to engage in the following activities:

Activity
Explanation
Read Regulations
The respondent needs to become familiar with the regulations governing CBI substantiation or adverse effects reporting as they pertain to PIPs.

Plan Activities
The respondent must develop/amend and implement a plan to ensure compliance with these requirements. The registrant is also encouraged to consult with the Agency.

Gather Information
The information necessary to provide the required substantiation or any information obtained on adverse effects must be assembled.

Review Information
The respondent must check the CBI substantiation for accuracy and completeness, or verify that the adverse effects report accurately reflects the information they have obtained.

Complete Paperwork
The information must be compiled into a document(s) or report(s) and prepared for submission to EPA.

Submit Information
The respondent must submit the information to OPP as required using their preferred method (paper or electronic submission).

Store, Maintain, and File
I -  - nformation
This information collection does not contain any recordkeeping requirements. Please note however that FIFRA section 8, and the related regulations in 40 CFR part 169, require registrants to store and maintain certain information related to their pesticide products.

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

      5(a)  Agency Activities  -

      The Agency must evaluate the CBI substantiations when submitted, and process any adverse effect reports for exempted PIPs when received. Although these activities are distinct and separate, the Agency is expected to engage in the following activities:

Activity
Explanation
Consult with the registrant
The Agency will respond to any questions either in writing, or verbally via meetings or by telephone, and provide any other assistance or guidance requested.

Record submissions
Whether the submission involves an application package for the registration of a PIP, or an adverse effects report for allegations related to an exempted PIP, the submission is recorded or logged in by the Agency to document its receipt. The Agency will create an electronic record of the necessary information for routing and tracking purposes.

Review submissions
The Agency will review the incoming materials with CBI claims to evaluate the CBI substantiations for completeness and appropriateness, and will review the incoming adverse effects reports to determine what, if any, substantive review or action might be necessary as follow-up to the alleged adverse effects.

Store the information
The Agency will maintain the information contained in the submitted application package, including the CBI substantiation that was submitted, and will maintain any adverse effects report(s) submitted.

      5(b)  Collection Methodology and Management

	Respondents to this ICR providing substantiation of CBI claims at the time the claims are made must necessarily submit the information as part of their larger package for registration of a pesticide product, since components of that package are claimed as CBI. Components of registration packages with CBI claims can either be submitted by mail or uploaded into the PSP using the secure CDX online environment.

      All information received by the Agency pertaining to CBI substantiation or adverse effects for exempted PIPs will be routed to the Biopesticide and Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) in OPP.  It will be pin-punched by date, screened, and entered into the Office of Pesticide Programs Information Network (OPPIN).

      For registration packages involving PIPs, a file will be created and the application package will be forwarded to the appropriate Manager within BPPD. The Manager assures that the initial OPPIN entry is correct, reviews the information, and if necessary, routes the submitted data through scientific and/or administrative review. If the scientific information indicates that the submission is deficient in any manner, the submitter has the option of attempting to correct the deficiency. If the submission indicates that information claimed as CBI warrants said claim, the applicant is notified and the information is marked as such. The Agency will continue current practice of treating information claimed as CBI as such, until a CBI determination is made. If a determination is made that a CBI claim is not warranted or the claim is not substantiated, the registrant will be notified that the information claimed as CBI, does not qualify as CBI because it does not meet the regulatory requirements. They will be given an opportunity to respond as provided in the existing regulations. The package will then be processed accordingly.

      For adverse effects reports related to exempted PIPs, a file will be created and the report will be forwarded to the appropriate product Manager within BPPD. The Manager assures that the initial OPPIN entry is correct, reviews the information, and determines the appropriate review and next steps based on the contents of the report, routing the report through scientific and/or administrative review, as appropriate. If an adverse effect report indicates that additional action is warranted or necessary, the Agency will take appropriate action.

      5(c)  Small Entity Flexibility

      In promulgating the requirements codified at 40 CFR 174, the Agency considered potential small entity impacts, and has taken steps to minimize potential impacts to the extent permitted. EPA believes that the CBI substantiation is fairly easy to provide for information which warrants CBI claims. The entity, regardless of size, is already required to make the CBI determination prior to submitting its registration application to EPA. The rule simply requires that the information be provided with the submission to substantiate the CBI claim. This is reflected in the relatively low cost estimate for CBI substantiation for a PIP submission. This relatively small cost represents a reasonable step to ensure the public has access to all non-confidential information on PIPs once they are registered.

      In addition, the Agency has taken steps to ensure that only the person who produces the exempted PIP for sale and distribution is responsible for adverse effects reporting, and only if they obtain the adverse effects information. The Agency has designed such reporting to be minimal and has placed the burden on the Agency to take additional action beyond the entity making the report.

      5(d)  Collection Schedule

      The CBI substantiation occurs only upon submission of claims of confidentiality and the adverse effects reporting only occurs on occasion. There is no collection schedule per se associated with these collection activities. These activities are conducted once per submission.

6.	ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

      6(a)  Estimating per Respondent Burden and Cost

      Burdens for this analysis consist primarily of the administrative burden associated with the drafting and submission of the CBI substantiation and the adverse effects reports. The burden estimates are based on the Agency's experience regarding existing burden estimates related to CBI substantiation and adverse effects reporting for PIPs, and provide reasonable estimates for the average time necessary to perform each activity for each submission.

 	Consistent with recent ICR renewals, OPP is using labor cost estimates from Agency economists with respect to wages, benefits and overhead for all labor categories for affected industries and EPA employees.  This approach uses a transparent and consistent methodology employing publicly-available data to provide more accurate estimates and allow easy replication of the calculations.

 	Methodology:	The methodology uses data on each sector and labor type for an Unloaded wage rate (hourly wage rate), and calculates the Loaded wage rate (unloaded wage rate + benefits), and the Fully loaded wage rate (loaded wage rate + overhead).  Fully loaded wage rates are used to calculate the Agency's staffing costs.

 	Unloaded Wage Rate:  Wages are estimated for labor types (management, technical, and clerical) within applicable sectors. The Agency uses average wage data for the relevant sectors available in the National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm.

 	Sectors: The specific North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and website for each sector is included in that sector's wage rate table.  Within each sector, the wage data are provided by Standard Occupational Classification (SOC).  The SOC system is used by Federal statistical agencies to classify workers into occupational categories for the purpose of collecting, calculating, or disseminating data (see http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_stru.htm ).

 	Loaded Wage Rate: Unless stated otherwise, all benefits represent 44% of unloaded wage rates, based on benefits for all civilian non-farm workers, from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t01.htm. However, if other sectors are listed for which 44% is not applicable; the applicable percentage will be stated.

 	Fully Loaded Wage Rate: We multiply the loaded wage rate by 50% (EPA guidelines 20-70%) to get overhead costs.  Attachment D contains worksheets providing the breakout of these costs.  Costs are indexed to 2015 data.

      To derive the labor rates for this ICR, Agency economists estimated the wages for the management, technical, and clerical labor categories using the methodology described in Attachment D.  The respondent costs for this renewal for managerial, technical and clerical rates are estimated at $125.56, $71.69, and $42.97 per hour, respectively.  These labor rates are fully loaded (include benefits and overhead costs).

      Since CBI substantiations are simply added to the registration application package and are not submitted separately, there are no additional costs related to the transmittal of this information to the Agency. The costs for submitting the registration application package are already included under other existing ICRs.

      For this renewal, the Agency continues to assume that all CBI substantiations will be submitted via paper given that it is too early to quantify any change in burden as a result of the electronic submission option. These respondent burden and cost estimates may also represent an upper bound because the analysis assumes that all PIP-related registration applications may include information that the registrants will claim as CBI which will need to be substantiated. In fact, over the last three years, only 8 of the 39 PIP actions had claimed CBI. It is likely that registrants will recognize, over time, that it is in their interest to make all information on PIPs publicly available to improve the transparency of the regulatory process.

      For purposes of this ICR, EPA is assuming that no more than 72 PIP-related registration applications with associated CBI substantiations will be submitted over the three-year approval period for this ICR, or 24 per year.  This estimate is based on EPA's recent experience with PIP registration actions.  Over the last two years (2015  -  2016) there have been an average of 2 tolerance exemptions finalized, and four EUP applications.  There has been an average of 14 applications for new PIP products, but this number has been trending up. Thus, instead of using the average for this ICR, the calculation uses the maximum, which was 18 applications in 2016.  The annual estimate of submissions that may require CBI substantiation (24) is sum of the estimates of tolerance exemptions, EUP applications, and applications for new PIP products.

Table 1  -  Average Respondent Burden and Cost Estimates per Submission for Substantiation of CBI Claims Made in a Plant-Incorporated Protectant Registration Application

                           Burden and Cost Estimates
                                    Totals
                                  Activities
                                     Mgmt.
                                     Tech.
                                   Clerical
                                    Burden
                                     Costs

                                 ($125.56/hr)
                                  ($71.69/hr)
                                  ($42.97/hr)
                                     (hrs)
                                      ($)
Read Regulations
                                       1
                                       2
                                       0
                                       3
                                      269
Plan Activities
                                       2
                                       4
                                       0
                                       6
                                      538
Gather Information
                                       0
                                       4
                                       0
                                       4
                                      287
Review Information
                                       2
                                       1
                                       1
                                       4
                                      366
Complete Paperwork
                                       0
                                       1
                                       2
                                       3
                                      158
Submit Information
                                      0.5
                                      0.5
                                      0.5
                                      1.5
                                      120
Totals
                                      5.5
                                     12.5
                                      3.5
                                     21.5
                                     1,738
Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden: 24 events x 21.5 hours = 516 hours
Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: 24 events x $1,738 = $41,712

      Although the Agency has not received any adverse effects reports for exempted PIPs over the course of the previous ICR nor anticipates any adverse effects reports to be submitted over the course of the next three years, this renewal ICR includes an estimate of one such report being submitted over the three-year approval period for this ICR. The per-submission estimate is therefore divided by 3 to provide an average annual burden and cost to include in the total annual estimates for this ICR. Additionally, while a respondent has the option to submit an adverse effect report electronically, the Agency is basing its estimates on paper submissions in order to account for the highest potential burden. The total annual average burden and costs for the adverse effects report is calculated as follows:

Table 2 - Average Respondent Burden and Cost Estimates per Submission for Submitting an Adverse Effects Report for an Exempt Plant-Incorporated Protectant

      Burden and Cost Estimates
      Totals
                                  Activities
                                     Mgmt.
                                     Tech.
                                   Clerical
                                    Burden
                                     (hrs)
                                     Costs

                                 ($125.56/hr)
                                  ($71.69/hr)
                                  ($42.97/hr)

                                      ($)
Read Regulations
                                      0.5
                                       1
                                       0
                                      1.5
                                      134
Plan Activities
                                      0.5
                                      0.5
                                       0
                                       1
                                      99
Gather Information
                                       0
                                       1
                                       0
                                       1
                                      72
Review Information
                                      0.5
                                      0.5
                                       0
                                       1
                                      99
Complete Paperwork
                                       0
                                      0.5
                                       1
                                      1.5
                                      79
Submit Information
                                       0
                                      0.5
                                      0.5
                                       1
                                      57
Cost for Mailing
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       1
Totals
                                      1.5
                                      4.0
                                      1.5
                                      7.0
                                      541
Assuming a single adverse effects report submitted over three-year period:
Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden: (1 event x 7 hours) / 3 = 2.3 hours
Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: (1 event x $541) / 3 = $180

      6(b)  Total Annual Respondent Burden and Costs

Table 3  -  Total Annual Respondent Burden/Cost

                           Per Submission Estimates
                               Total Submissions
                              Expected each year
                                    Totals

                                    Burden
                                     (hrs)
                                    Costs
                                      ($)

                                    Burden
                                     (hrs)
                                   Costs ($)
CBI Substantiation
                                     21.5
                                     1,738
                                      24
                                      516
                                    41,712
Adverse Effects Reporting
                                       7
                                      541
                                      1/3
                                      2.3
                                      180
Totals

                                     518.3
                                    41,892

      6(c)  Estimating Agency Burden and Costs

      The Agency will incur burden and costs while performing the various activities necessary to review CBI substantiation submissions and any adverse effects reports submitted for exempted plant-incorporated protectants. These activities are described in Section 5 of this ICR and may include the tracking and review of submissions, requests for additional information, or consultations with applicants.  Tables 4 and 5 provide the average EPA burden and cost estimates for performing these activities.

Table 4 - Average Agency Burden and Cost Estimates per Submission for EPA Activities related to CBI Substantiation

                                 Burden Hours
                                     Total
Activities
                                     Mgmt.
                                 ($124.89/hr)
                                     Tech.
                                  ($81.37/hr)
                                   Clerical
                                  ($46.41/hr)
                                 Burden (hrs)
                                     Costs
                                      ($)
Consult with Registrant
                                       1
                                       3
                                      0.5
                                      4.5
                                      392
Record Submissions
                                       0
                                      0.5
                                       1
                                      1.5
                                      87
Review Submissions
                                       1
                                       2
                                       0
                                       3
                                      288
Store the Information
                                       0
                                      0.5
                                       1
                                      1.5
                                      87
Totals
                                       2
                                       6
                                      2.5
                                     10.5
                                      854
Estimated Total Annual Agency Burden: 24 events x 10.5 = 252 hours
Estimated Total Annual Agency Cost: 24 events x $854 = $20,496

Table 5  -  Average Agency Burden and Cost Estimates per Submission for EPA Activities related to an Adverse Effects Report Submitted for an Exempt Plant-Incorporated Protectant
Activities
                                 Burden Hours
                                    Totals

                                     Mgmt.
                                 ($124.89/hr)
                                     Tech.
                                  ($81.37/hr)
                                   Clerical
                                  ($46.41/hr)
                                    Burden
                                     (hrs)
                                     Costs
                                      ($)
Consult with Registrant
                                      0.5
                                       1
                                      0.5
                                       2
                                     $167
Record Submissions
                                       0
                                      0.5
                                       1
                                      1.5
                                      $87
Review Submissions
                                       1
                                       1
                                       0
                                       2
                                     $206
Store the Information
                                       0
                                      0.5
                                      0.5
                                       1
                                      $64
Totals
                                      1.5
                                       3
                                       2
                                      6.5
                                     $524

 	Assuming a single adverse effects report might be submitted over the 3-year approval period for the ICR, the total annual average burden and costs for EPA activities related to the adverse effects report is calculated as follows:

Estimated Total Annual Agency Burden: (1 event x 6.5 hours) / 3 = 2.2 hours
Estimated Total Annual Agency Cost: (1 event x $524) / 3 = $175

      In addition, the Agency may determine that additional follow-up action is necessary for either type of submission and will be providing necessary guidance for these requirements.

Table 6  -  Total Annual Agency Burden/Cost

                           Per Submission Estimates
                               Total Submissions
                              Expected each year
                                    Totals

                                    Burden
                                     (hrs)
                                     Costs
                                      ($)

                                    Burden
                                     (hrs)
                                     Costs
                                      ($)
CBI Substantiation
                                     10.50
                                     $854
                                      24
                                      252
                                    $20,496
Adverse Effects Reporting
                                     6.50
                                     $524
                                      1/3
                                      2.2
                                     $175
Totals

                                                                            254
                                                                       $20,671

      6(d)  Bottom Line Burden and Cost Table

      The following table presents the total estimated annual burden and costs for this ICR:

Table 7  -  Total Annual Respondent and Agency Burden and Cost Estimates

                                  Respondent
                                    Agency
Activities
Burden (hrs)
                                   Costs ($)
Burden (hrs)
                                   Costs ($)
CBI Substantiations
                                      516
                                    41,712
                                      252
                                    20,496
Adverse Effects Reports
                                       2
                                      180
                                       2
                                      175
Totals
                                      518
                                    41,892
                                      254
                                    20,671
Columns and rows may not add due to rounding

      6(e)  Reasons for Change in Burden

 	There is an increase of 86 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This increase reflects EPA's updating of burden estimates for this collection based upon historical information on the number of CBI substantiations per year. Based upon revised estimates, the number of CBI substantiations per year has increased from 20 to 24, with a corresponding increase in the associated burden. The estimated number of adverse effect reporting submissions remains the same. The increase in the expected number of responses is primarily driven by an expected increase in the number of applications for registration requiring CBI substantiation. This change is an adjustment.

 	The total burden hours per response has not changed for this ICR renewal. However, because of the increase in potential CBI substantiations, the total annual burden estimate for registrants has increased by 86 hours from 432 to 518 hours, with a resultant increase in the annual costs for registrants from $31,371 to $41,892.

      6(f)  Burden Statement

      The total annual "respondent" (applicant) burden for the collection of information in this renewal is estimated to be 518 hours. The annual respondent burden for the collection of information associated with the substantiation at the time of submission for CBI claims related to a PIP registration application is estimated to average 21.5 hours per submission, and the annual respondent burden for the collection of information associated with the reporting of adverse effects for exempted PIPs is estimated to average 7 hours per submission.

      "Burden" is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b). The Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information subject to the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB control numbers for certain regulations in Title 40, after initial display in the Federal Register, are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and may appear on the information collection instrument as applicable, i.e., form or instructions, and in the Federal Register.

      The Agency has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0440, which is available for online viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the EPA Docket Center-Public Reading Room, William Jefferson Clinton (WJC) West Building, in Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays.  The docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  You may submit comments regarding 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.

      Comments may be submitted to EPA electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or by mail addressed to Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460.  Include Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0440 and OMB control number 2070-0142 in any correspondence.

7.	ATTACHMENTS TO THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT

Attachments to the supporting statement are available in the public docket established for this ICR under docket identification number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0440.  These attachments are available for online viewing at http://www.regulations.gov or otherwise accessed as described in section 6(f) of the supporting statement.

Attachment A:
40 CFR part 174 - Procedures And Requirements For Plant- Incorporated Protectants. Also available online at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2013-title40-vol25/pdf/CFR-2013-title40-vol25-part174.pdf

Attachment B
7 USC 136w(b) - FIFRA Section 25(b). Available online at
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title7/pdf/USCODE-2012-title7-chap6-subchapII-sec136w.pdf

Attachment C:
7 USC 346a(a) - FFDCA Section 408(a).  Also available online at
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title21/pdf/USCODE-2012-title21-chap9-subchapIV-sec346a.pdf

Attachment D:
Worksheets Used to Calculate Labor Costs


             Antidegradation and Variances discussion with ASIWPCA
                   Wednesday, November 17, 2:00  -  3:30 pm
                      EPA Headquarters (conference call)

Attendees:
   * EPA OW-OST - Grace Robiou, Shari Barash, Christina Christensen, Fred Leutner, Chelsea Morris, Heather Goss
   * States:   [get full list from Sean (?)]

Topics covered:
   * Regulatory revision possibilities for antidegradation - possible effects on states, and state feedback
   * Regulatory revision possibilities for variances - possible effects on states, and state feedback


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 20 (Wednesday, January 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6378-6379]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01929]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68712; File No. SR-OCC-2012-23]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Accommodate Certain Physically-
Settled Options on U.S. Treasury Securities

January 23, 2013.

I. Introduction

    On November 30, 2012, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change SR-OCC-2012-23 pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\2\ The proposed rule change was published
for comment in the Federal Register on December 17, 2012.\3\ The
Commission received no comment letters. This order approves the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68403 (December 11,
2012), 77 FR 74705 (December 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to accommodate the
clearing of physically-settled options on certain U.S. Treasury notes
and U.S. Treasury bonds (``Treasury Options'') traded by NASDAQ OMX
PHLX, LLC (``PHLX'').\4\ OCC's current By-Laws and Rules (collectively,
``Rules'') accommodate options on Treasury securities, but the options
on Treasury securities contemplated by the Rules are no longer traded
and are different from the Treasury Options that PHLX intends to trade
in certain respects. Accordingly, OCC is amending the Rules, as
described below, to accommodate such Treasury Options as well as to
streamline Chapter XIV of its rulebook by re-numbering certain rules
and deleting unused and ``reserved'' rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67976 (October 4,
2012), 77 FR 61794 (October 11, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-105)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since PHLX Treasury Options are limited to European-style options
on Treasury notes and bonds with a unit of trading of $10,000, OCC is
removing provisions and references within Chapter XIV of the Rules to
American-style options on Treasury securities, Treasury bills as an
eligible underlying interest for options on Treasury securities, and
``mini options'' on Treasury securities. In addition, OCC is removing
from the Rules the defined term ``adjusted exercise price,'' which
related only to options on Treasury bills and consequently is no longer
needed, and is updating other definitions within the Rules to reflect
the limiting of the underlying interests for Treasury Options to
Treasury bonds and notes. Furthermore, since OCC is not currently
permitting escrow deposits to be made in connection with the clearing
of Treasury Options, it is removing related provisions in Section 2 of
Article XIII.
    OCC generally will apply current expiration date exercise
procedures to Treasury Options, and will require delivery settlement
for exercised and assigned Treasury Options to be effected on a broker-
to-broker basis through the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation
(``FICC'').\5\ As not all OCC clearing members are participants of the
Government Securities Division (``GSD'') of FICC, OCC is permitting
clearing members to designate, with proper advance notice to OCC, a
representative that is a GSD participant who would be responsible for
inputting trade information into FICC's systems for delivery settlement
purposes.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Clearing members interested in Treasury Options have advised
OCC that it would be operationally more efficient for them if
delivery settlement were effected in this manner.
    \6\ OCC has no obligation to such designated representative and
is harmless against any claims based on the designated
representative's actions or delays in acting or failures to act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the expiration date for a Treasury Option, OCC will produce an
exercise and assignment report identifying the delivering and receiving
clearing members and other relevant delivery information. Clearing
members that are obligated to purchase or sell Treasury securities as a
result of the exercise or assignment of positions in Treasury Options
will be required to submit the terms of such trades to FICC's real time
trade matching system. If the trade information submitted by the
delivering and receiving clearing member matches within FICC's system,
FICC becomes obligated to guarantee settlement of the trade pursuant to
FICC's rules, at the point in time at which FICC makes available to the
delivering and receiving clearing members a report indicating the trade
has been compared. At that time, OCC's obligation to guarantee delivery
settlement will be terminated. Delivery settlement through FICC
includes delivery of the underlying securities against payment of the
aggregate purchase price increased by the amount of accrued interest.
If a trade does not match, the delivering and receiving OCC clearing
members will be required to notify OCC within such time as OCC may
specify of such failure on the first business day after the expiration
date. If no such notification is made within the deadline, pursuant to
proposed Rule 1403(d), OCC's obligation to guarantee settlement will be
extinguished as of such deadline, regardless of whether settlement was
actually completed.
    In the event OCC is given timely notification of a failure to match
on the first business day after the expiration date, the clearing
members would be required to attempt to resolve the failure such that
settlement could occur through FICC by a deadline specified by OCC on
the second business day following the expiration date. If the failure
is not resolved and the trade has not matched by the deadline on the
second business day after the expiration date, the delivering and
receiving OCC clearing members will be required to notify OCC within
such time as OCC may specify of such failure. If no such notification
is made within the deadline, pursuant to proposed Rule 1404(a), OCC's
obligation to guarantee settlement will be extinguished as of such
deadline, regardless of whether settlement was actually completed.
    If OCC receives timely notification, pursuant to proposed Rule
1404(a), that the second submission attempt at FICC failed to result in
a match, OCC will assess and pay damages, if any, incurred by the
delivering or receiving clearing member, as applicable, in connection
with the failure to match. OCC will also be authorized to debit the
amount of such damages from the account of the delivering or receiving
clearing member, as applicable.
    Under Rule 1404, in the event the non-defaulting clearing member
buys or sells the underlying Treasury security, the non-defaulting
clearing member will be required to promptly notify OCC of the price
paid or received, as applicable, and OCC will take this information
into account in assessing damages. However, OCC will not be bound to
accept these prices in assessing damages, and will be able to make an
independent determination of damages. Proposed Rule 1404 provides that
OCC's determination of damages is at OCC's sole discretion, final, and
binding on all parties. Such ``failure to match'' procedures will limit
OCC's liability in the event of a default by one of its clearing
members.
    OCC will collect and hold margin from clearing members with
Treasury Option delivery or receipt obligations until the exercise
settlement date, unless OCC receives notification of a failure to
match, in which case OCC will

continue to hold margin until either the trade is deemed settled or
damages have been assessed and paid to the non-defaulting clearing
member.
    Rule 1405 clarifies that OCC may pursue disciplinary action against
clearing members who fail to discharge the delivery, payment, and
notification obligations as set forth in Rules 1403 and 1404.
    In addition to the above changes relating to the terms of and
settlement process for Treasury Options, OCC is revising Section 5 of
Article XIII of the By-Laws regarding the handling of shortages of
Treasury Securities. These revisions provide OCC with broader
discretion in determining whether a shortage exists and simplify the
procedures to be used in this situation.

III. Discussion

    Section 17A(b)(3) (F) of the Act \7\ requires that, among other
things, that the rules of a clearing agency are designed to promote the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions, and to the extent applicable derivative agreements,
contracts, and transactions, to safeguard securities and funds in its
custody or control or for which it is responsible, and to protect
investors and the public interest. The proposed rule change
accomplishes these purposes, by among other things, updating OCC's
existing rule provisions to accommodate Treasury Options, as proposed
for trading by PHLX, and implementing a settlement process designed to
minimize the risks of settlement failures for investors. Furthermore,
Section17A(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act \8\ directs the Commission to
facilitate the establishment of linked and coordinated facilities for
clearance and settlement of transactions in securities and securities
options. The proposed rule change accomplishes this end by utilizing
the existing infrastructure of two clearing agencies (OCC and FICC) to
create a more operationally efficient exercise settlement process for
Treasury Options, traded by PHLX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F)
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(a)(2)(ii)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in
particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \9\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\10\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-OCC-2012-23) be and
hereby is approved.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \11\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-01929 Filed 1-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 32)]
[Notices]
[Page 8921-8922]
[DOCID:fr15fe08-119]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57298; File No. SR-DTC-2007-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the
Foreign Currency Payment Option

February 8, 2007.

I. Introduction

    On September 26, 2007, The Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') proposed
rule change SR-DTC-2007-13 pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'').\1\ Notice of the proposal
was published in the Federal Register on December 3, 2007.\2\ No
comment letters were received. For the reasons discussed below, the
Commission is granting approval of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56840 (November 27,
2007), 72 FR 67987.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    The proposed rule change provides that DTC's Foreign Currency
Payment Option (``FCP Option'') may be used (1) in relation to
securities denominated in U.S. dollars and (2) regardless of whether
the terms of the issue originally contemplated the option of payment in
one or more currencies. Currently, DTC offers the FCP Option in order
for participants to elect to receive dividend, interest, principal,
redemption, or maturity payments either in foreign currency outside of
DTC or in U.S. dollars within DTC with respect to a foreign denominated
issue when the foreign currency option is included in the initial
offering terms of the DTC-eligible issue.

U.S. Denominated Securities

    The rule change clarifies that the FCP Option will be made
available for U.S. denominated securities as well as foreign
denominated securities. When

DTC initially filed to implement the FCP Option, the issues providing
for multiple currencies payments were foreign denominated.\3\ The
wording of the filing inadvertently put participants holding U.S.
denominated securities at a disadvantage with respect to the FCP
Option. This rule change remedies this unintentional result by allowing
the FCP Option to be used with respect to U.S. denominated securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 33597 (February 8,
1994), 59 FR 7272 (February 15, 1994) (File No. SR-DTC-93-10) and
29144 (April 30, 1991), 56 FR 21182 (May 7, 1991) (File No. SR-DTC-
90-09).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Designation of Payment Option After Initial Issuance

    The rule change allows for the use of the FCP Option for DTC-
eligible securities that were not initially issued with the option of
payment in multiple currencies. Additionally, DTC is amending its rules
to allow an issuer or its agent to use the FCP Option to add an
additional currency to the payment options originally offered in
relation to a DTC-eligible security.\4\ In such a case, the issuer or
its agent would instruct DTC within prescribed time frames and in a
form satisfactory to DTC to send out a notice to participants holding
positions in the subject security to inform them of the payment options
for a particular payment event. Such a notice would contain all
necessary information for a participant to be able to elect a
particular currency option. The method of payment (U.S. dollars within
DTC or foreign currency outside of DTC) and the election process would
remain the same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For example, payment in a different currency than that
offered when a security was initially issued might be desirable in
the event of a change in tax withholding legislation subsequent to
the initial issuance which might make it more attractive for
investors from a particular country to hold position in a security.
It would in turn be helpful for such investors to have the ability
to receive payments in relation to the subject security in their
home country currency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires that the rules of a
clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions. In the 1994 order
approving DTC's original rule allowing the foreign currency payment
option, the Commission found that the FCP Option facilitates the
immobilization of certificates at DTC and therefore reduces the costs
to secondary market participants by increasing the use of book-entry
settlement.\5\ Similarly, we find that the proposed rule change by
extending the FCP Option to U.S. denominated securities and to
securities not originally issued with the option of receiving payments
in multiple currencies should achieve the same result. As a result of
the proposed rule change, DTC participants holding these securities
will no longer have to withdraw their shares from DTC in order to
receive payments in foreign currencies offered by an issuer or its
agent. The proposed rule change should, therefore, provide cost savings
and should expand the efficiencies related to book-entry transfer for
DTC participants. For these reasons we find that the proposed rule
change is designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of securities transactions consistent with DTC obligations
under section 17A(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 29144 (April 30, 1991),
56 FR 21182 (May 7, 1991) (File No. SR-DTC-90-09).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
in particular section 17A of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-DTC-2007-13) be and hereby
is approved.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-2823 Filed 2-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 69 (Monday, April 11, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21008-21009]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07592]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-1148; Airspace Docket No. 21-AGL-38]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Springfield, OH

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the Class E airspace at Springfield, OH.
This action is due to an airspace review conducted as part of the
decommissioning of the Springfield very high frequency (VHF)
omnidirectional range (VOR) as part of the VOR Minimal Operational
Network (MON) Program.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, July 14, 2022. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR
part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and
publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order JO 7400.11F, 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; 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 amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Springfield-Beckley Municipal Airport, Springfield, OH,
to support instrument flight rule operations at this airport.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (86 FR 73717; December 28, 2021) for Docket No. FAA-2021-1148
to amend the Class E airspace at Springfield, OH. 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 JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15,
2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F lists Class
A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 amends the Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Springfield-Beckley
Municipal Airport, Springfield, OH, by removing the Clark County NDB
and associated extension from the airspace legal description as they
are no longer needed.
    This action is due to an airspace review conducted as part of the
decommissioning of the Springfield VOR, which provided navigation
information for the instrument procedures at this airport, as part of
the VOR MON Program.
    FAA Order JO 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 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 5-6.5.a. 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.

71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10,
2021, and effective September 15, 2021, is amended as follows:

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

* * * * *

AGL OH E5 Springfield, OH [Amended]

Springfield-Beckley Municipal Airport, OH
    (Lat. 39[deg]50'25'' N, long. 83[deg]50'25'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.9-mile

radius of Springfield-Beckley Municipal Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on April 5, 2022.
Martin A. Skinner,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2022-07592 Filed 4-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P