Supporting Statement for an Information Collection Request (ICR)
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Identification of the Information Collection  -  Title and Numbers
      Title: Assessment of Environmental Performance Standards and Ecolabels for Federal Procurement
	EPA ICR No.: 2516.04
	OMB Control No.: 2070-0199
	Docket ID No.: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0838
 Abstract
This is a reinstatement of a previously issued ICR entitled "Assessment of Environmental Performance Standards and Ecolabels for Federal Procurement" (EPA ICR No. 2516.04). This ICR is being reinstated to assess standards and ecolabels per EPA's Framework for the Assessment of Environmental Performance Standards and Ecolabels for Federal Purchasing (Framework), formerly referred to as the Guidelines. In addition, EPA is seeking volunteer standards development organizations and ecolabel programs to be assessed per the updated Framework.
EPA's goal in developing this Framework is to create a transparent, fair, and consistent approach to selecting product environmental performance standards and ecolabels to support the Agency's mission and federal sustainable acquisition goals and mandates. The fundamental aim of this Framework is to establish a cross-sector approach to be used in recognizing private sector environmental performance standards (and consequently, environmentally preferable products and services meeting these standards) for use in federal purchasing.
The Framework includes scoping questions and four sections:
       Criteria for the Process for Developing Standards refers to the procedures used to develop, maintain, and update an environmental standard.
       Criteria for the Environmental Effectiveness of the Standards refers to the criteria in the environmental standard or ecolabel that support the claim of environmental preferability.
       Criteria for Conformity Assessment refers to the procedures and practices by which products are assessed for conformity to the requirements specified by standards and ecolabeling programs.
       Criteria for Management of Ecolabeling Programs refers to the organizational and management practices of an ecolabeling program.

In 2016, EPA conducted a pilot to test the original set of criteria within the Framework against standards and ecolabels in the flooring, furniture, and paints/coatings categories. EPA has made several edits to the Framework based on lessons learned from the pilot and the desire to address a broader range of sectors with a more streamlined set of criteria. In this next phase of work, EPA intends to expand its recommendations by assessing standards and ecolabels in purchase categories that support Executive Order 14008 Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad and Executive Order 14057 on Catalyzing American Clean Energy Industries and Jobs through Federal Sustainability.
Summary Total Burden and Costs

                         Total Number
of Respondents
                           Responses per Respondent
                             Annual
Burden Hours
                                 Annual
Costs
                                  Respondents
                                      100
                                       2
                                    707.00
                                    $45,322
                                    Agency
                                       -
                                       -
                                    303.33
                                   $32,081

Supporting Statement
Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of information.
EPA is engaging in this collection pursuant to the authority in the Pollution Prevention Act (42 U.S.C.A. section 13103(b)(11); see Attachment 1) which requires EPA to "Identify opportunities to use Federal procurement to encourage source reduction" and section 12(d) of the "National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995" (15 U.S.C. 3701 note; hereinafter "the NTTAA;" see Attachment 2), which requires Federal agencies to "use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities." Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119 (titled "Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities") reaffirms Federal agency use of private sector standards in procurement and Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 23.703 (b) (1) directs Federal agencies to "Maximize the utilization of environmentally preferable products and services (based on EPA-issued guidance)".
Federal purchasers need this assessment per the Framework to determine which, among sometimes dozens of private sector standards within a single purchase category, are appropriate and effective in meeting federal procurement goals and mandates.
While Federal purchasing policy is clear for the several standards and ecolabels that are listed in statute, regulation, or Executive Order, the lack of independently assessed information about and federal guidance on using other private sector environmental performance standards and ecolabels often results in an inconsistent approach by Federal purchasers and confusion and uncertainty for vendors and manufacturers.
Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used.  Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the Agency has made of the information received from the current collection
As envisioned by EPA and supported by public comment, it would not be practical for individual procurement officers or even individual federal agencies to assess and make determinations regarding which private sector environmental performance standards and ecolabels are appropriate and effective in meeting federal procurement goals and mandates. Therefore, EPA serves government-wide interest in assessing and recommending standards and ecolabels to support the aforementioned environmentally preferable purchasing goals and mandates in a fair, transparent, and consistent manner based on agreed upon criteria and independent assessment.
The Framework to be used for assessing standards and ecolabels includes criteria for both the process by which standards and ecolabels are developed and managed and the effectiveness of the standards and ecolabels in protecting environmental and human health. Some of this information can be collected by reading the standard; other aspects need to be collected via written responses and supporting documentation provided by the ecolabel owner or standards development organization.
EPA will call for volunteer standard and ecolabel organizations to submit information and will phase assessments by purchase category based on Administration priorities and available resources over the next three years. Completed Framework Submission Templates  -  for those standards and ecolabels that meet minimum criteria and are incorporated into EPA's Recommendations of Specifications, Standards and Ecolabels  -  will be made available to interested parties upon request.
Describe whether, and to what extent, the 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 the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce burden.
Respondent standard, certification, and ecolabel organizations will provide written responses and supporting documentation within the Framework submission template via email.

Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes described in Item 2 above.
There has been no other effort to systematically collect such comprehensive information about private sector standards and ecolabels for use in federal purchasing. Additionally, where public sources of data are available, they will be consulted in lieu of asking respondents to do so. EPA has also reviewed and included standards and ecolabels assessed by other federal agencies to reduce burden on standards developers and ecolabel owners and harmonize federal sustainable procurement guidance and use previous federal assessments.
If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities, describe the methods used to minimize burden.
It is expected that some of the participants in the effort will be small standards development and ecolabel program entities. The information collection shall be designed to minimize respondent burden while obtaining sufficient and accurate information. In addition, given the voluntary nature of the collection, it is expected that respondents will participate only if the benefits of participation (greater access to the federal marketplace) outweigh the information collection burden.
Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.
This effort will inform the frequency of information collection appropriate for Federal procurement needs. It is likely that the frequency of information collection will be dependent upon 1) future business models for collection (e.g., if there is a greater reliance on the private sector's conformity assessment infrastructure versus federal sponsorship/funding of assessments), 2) the speed of market transformation toward sustainability in particular sectors, and 3) changes in standards and ecolabel trends in particular sectors.  Less frequent assessments may lead to less effective/useful Recommendations of Standards and Ecolabels for Federal Purchasing since it would result in missing available new and innovative standards and ecolabels to use in federal purchasing.
Explain any special circumstances that require the collection to be conducted in a manner:
   a)  requiring respondents to report information to the agency more often than quarterly;
   b)  requiring respondents to prepare a written response to a collection of information in fewer than 30 days after receipt of it;
   c)  requiring respondents to submit more than an original and two copies of any document;
   d)  requiring respondents to retain records, other than health, medical, government contract, grant-in-aid, or tax records, for more than three years;
   e)  in connection with a statistical survey, that is not designed to produce valid and reliable results that can be generalized to the universe of study;
   f)   requiring the use of a statistical data classification that has not been reviewed and approved by OMB;
   g)  that includes a pledge of confidentiality that is not supported by authority established in statute or regulation, that is not supported by disclosure and data security policies that are consistent with the pledge, or which unnecessarily impedes sharing of data with other agencies for compatible confidential use; or
   h)  requiring respondents to submit proprietary trade secrets, or other confidential information unless the agency can demonstrate that it has instituted procedures to protect the information's confidentiality to the extent permitted by law.
Not applicable.
If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publication in the Federal Register of the agency's notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken in response to the comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden.
   Describe efforts to consult with persons outside EPA to obtain their views on the availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instructions and recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting format (if any), and on the data elements to be recorded, disclosed, or reported.
Consultation with representatives of those from whom information is to be obtained or those who must compile records should occur at least once every 3 years - even if the collection of information activity is the same as in prior periods. There may be circumstances that may preclude consultation in a specific situation. These circumstances should be explained.
Pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d) in proposing to renew this ICR, EPA will publish a notice in the Federal Register that will provide a 60-day public comment period. The comments received and any additional public comment for this action will be posted in the docket.
As required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), in addition to the public notice in the Federal Register, EPA staff will contact appropriate stakeholders and ask them for their assessment of the regulatory burden estimates expressed by the Agency in this ICR. A summary of these consultations will be provided in the supporting statement during the second comment period.
Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than remuneration of contractors or grantees.
Not applicable.
Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy. If the collection requires a systems of records notice (SORN) or privacy impact assessment (PIA), those should be cited and described here.
It is not expected that any information collected in this ICR will involve confidential business or trade secret information.
Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. This justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.
The information collection activities discussed in this document do not involve any sensitive questions.
Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information. The statement should:
 Indicate the number of respondents, frequency of response, annual hour burden, and an explanation of how the burden was estimated. Unless directed to do so, agencies should not conduct special surveys to obtain information on which to base hour burden estimates. Consultation with a sample (fewer than 10) of potential respondents is desirable. If the hour burden on respondents is expected to vary widely because of differences in activity, size, or complexity, show the range of estimated hour burden, and explain the reasons for the variance. Generally, estimates should not include burden hours for customary and usual business practices.
 If this request for approval covers more than one form, provide separate hour burden estimates for each form and aggregate the hour burdens.
 Provide estimates of annualized cost to respondents for the hour burdens for collections of information, identifying and using appropriate wage rate categories. The cost of contracting out or paying outside parties for information collection activities should not be included here. Instead, this cost should be included under `Annual Cost to Federal Government'.
Respondents will be standards development organizations, ecolabel programs, and certification entities that manage product or service environmental performance standards and/or ecolabels that could be considered for use in United States federal sustainable procurement efforts. In particular, standards and ecolabels should cover purchase categories that meet some or all of the following criteria:
 Potentially significant climate, environmental, and/or human health impact
 Significant volume of federal purchases; and
 Current federal sustainable acquisition mandates in the category don't exist, don't address all key environmental impacts, are limited, out-of-date, and/or could be augmented with private sector standards/ecolabels.
EPA will prioritize assessment of responses per the Framework based on Administration priorities, how well a standard/ecolabel aligns with these criteria, and available resources to conduct assessment activities.
The need for and timing of future collection of information will be determined in consultation with other federal agencies.
EPA based its burden estimates on an initial survey of a subset of government and private sector (less than 9) environmental performance standards and ecolabel developers and then the 2016 pilot participants. The respondents were contacted following the survey and the completion of the pilot and were asked how long it had taken them to complete the process. For the initial survey, two respondents took as little as 30 minutes to complete the survey, seven respondents took 2-6 hours, two respondents took 16 hours, and one respondent (who covered three different ecolabels in its responses) took 50-60 hours. For the pilot, respondents were asked to respond to all criteria and provide a broader range of supporting documentation as evidence. The average time spent per ecolabel on completing the final pilot Framework in 2016 was 15 hours.
Given changes made to this new version of the Framework  -  to streamline criteria required for response and to limit supporting documentation for submission  -  the average burden is estimated to be 8.5 hours per response (average 12 hours for respondents that did not participate in the pilot; average 5 hours for respondents that did previously participate in the pilot). Only standard development and ecolabel organizations who volunteer for assessment will be included. EPA anticipates assessing no more than 200 standards and ecolabels over the next three years, including reassessments of those already included in the Recommendations. EPA does not know the exact number of assessments that will be conducted in each of the three years at this time, therefore they are assumed to be equally distributed across the three years in the ICR.
For this ICR, EPA assumes that nonprofit standards development organizations will be responding to the data collection. In order to estimate total respondent burden and cost associated with this ICR, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data on wages and fringe benefits (total compensation) are used. Note that BLS does not routinely collect wage data on nonprofit organizations, however, in a monthly labor review from January 2016, BLS identified total compensation hourly rates (2014) for nonprofit organizations in three general industry groups as follows:
 Professional and Business Services - $47.85 per hour
 Education and Health Services - $37.17 per hour
 Other Services - $24.79 per hour
EPA assumes that the professional and business services total compensation hourly rate best approximates the respondents to this data collection and further assumes that the total compensation rate of $47.85 per hour would be attributed to a managerial position. To account for labor expended by a professional staff person, EPA approximated a professional total compensation hourly rate by assuming that the professional rate would be about 93% of the managerial rate.
For both the managerial and professional positions, an additional loading factor of 20 percent is applied to total compensation to account for overhead (e.g., personnel services, office space, training, etc). This approach is recommended in recent EPA guidance titled: Handbook on Valuing Changes in Time Use Induced by Regulatory Requirements and Other EPA Actions (EPA-236-B-15-001, December 9, 2020). The overhead loading factor is added to total compensation to derive the fully loaded hourly wage. Next, because the nonprofit total compensation rate is from 2014, these estimates are updated to 2020 dollars using the Employee Cost Index (ECI). Table 1 presents the derived loaded hourly wage rates.
Table 1. Derivation of Nonprofit Loaded Hourly Wage Rates

                             Total Compensation[1]
                                  Overhead[2]
                           Employment Cost Index[3]
                        Loaded Hourly Wage Rate ($2020)
Managerial
                                                                         $47.85
                                                                            1.2
                                                                          1.157
                                                                         $66.46
Technical[4]
                                                                         $44.50
                                                                            1.2
                                                                          1.157
                                                                         $61.81
[1] John L. Bishow and Kristen Monaco, "Nonprofit pay and benefits: estimates from the National Compensation Survey," Monthly Labor Review, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, January 2016, https://doi.org/10.21916/mlr.2016.4.
[2] Handbook on Valuing Changes in Time Use Induced by Regulatory Requirements and Other EPA Actions (EPA-236-B-15-001, December 9, 2020)
3 https://www.bls.gov/web/eci/eci-current-nominal-dollar.pdf. Calculated by dividing the 4th quarter2020 ECI by the 1st quarter 2014 ECI.
[4] Calculated as 93% of the managerial total compensation rate. https://www.bls.gov/web/ecec/ecsuphst.pdf

Table 2. Estimated Burden and Cost to Respondents
                                Respondent Type
                        Estimated Number of Respondents
                              Estimated Responses
                                per respondent
                          (i.e., number of standards/
                      ecolabels submitted for assessment)
           Unit Burden and Loaded Hourly Wage Rate by Labor Category
                     Total Burden  Over ICR Period (Hours)
                     Total Cost Over ICR Period
($2020)[1]
                             Annual Burden (Hours)
                            Annual Cost
($2020)[2]

                                  Managerial
                                   Technical

                                     Hours
                                 Wage ($2020)
                                     Hours
                                 Wage ($2020)

Standard/Ecolabel Organizations previously assessed per EPA Framework
                                      20
                                       2
                                      2.5
                                    $66.46
                                      2.5
                                    $61.81
                                      200
                                    $12,827
                                     66.67
                                    $4,276
Standard/Ecolabel Organizations NOT previously assessed per EPA Framework
                                      80
                                       2
                                       6
                                    $66.46
                                       6
                                    $61.81
                                       1,920
                                   $123,139
                                      640
                                    $41,046
Total
                                      100
                                       2
                                      8.5
                                      --
                                      8.5
                                      --
                                       2,120
                                   $135,966
                                        707
                                    $45,322
[1]Total Cost is calculated by multiplying burden hours by the loaded hourly wage rate for each labor category and summing across labor categories, and then multiplying by total number of responses.
[2] Annual Cost is calculated by dividing the Total Cost over the three year ICR period by three to account for the fact that data collection activities will occur in each of the three years. Because EPA does not know the exact distribution over the three years, an even distribution of one third each year is assumed.

Provide an estimate for the total annual cost burden to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden already reflected on the burden worksheet).
 The cost estimate should be split into two components: (a) a total capital and start-up cost component (annualized over its expected useful life) and (b) a total operation and maintenance and purchase of services component. The estimates should take into account costs associated with generating, maintaining, and disclosing or providing the information. Include descriptions of methods used to estimate major cost factors including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, the discount rate(s), and the time period over which costs will be incurred. Capital and start-up costs include, among other items, preparations for collecting information such as purchasing computers and software; monitoring, sampling, drilling and testing equipment; and record storage facilities.
 If cost estimates are expected to vary widely, agencies should present ranges of cost burdens and explain the reasons for the variance. The cost of purchasing or contracting out information collections services should be a part of this cost burden estimate. In developing cost burden estimates, agencies may consult with a sample of respondents (fewer than 10), utilize the 60-day pre-OMB submission public comment process and use existing economic or regulatory impact analysis associated with the rulemaking containing the information collection, as appropriate.
 Generally, estimates should not include purchases of equipment or services, or portions thereof, made: (1) prior to October 1, 1995, (2) to achieve regulatory compliance with requirements not associated with the information collection, (3) for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the government, or (4) as part of customary and usual business or private practices.
There are no operation and maintenance costs associated with this collection.
Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Also, provide a description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of hours, operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), and any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information. Agencies may also aggregate cost estimates from Items 12, 13, and 14 in a single table.
To collect this information, EPA has developed a Framework Submission Template, which provides clear instructions and example sources of evidence.
Table 3 presents the estimated Agency annual burden hours and costs associated with the information collection activities under this ICR. EPA based its burden estimates on the pilot assessment effort. Similar to the respondent burden, EPA assumed that Agency burden will be equally distributed across the three years in the ICR.
Agency wage rate data used to calculate labor costs were gathered from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management Salary Table 2020-DCB, for a GS-14, step 5, employee in the Washington, D.C. area. A loading factor of 1.6 was applied to the base rate to arrive at the 2020 loaded salary of $219,986 per year. The hourly wage rate was computed by dividing the loaded wage by 2,080 hours, the hours associated with a full time employee. This loaded hourly wage rate of $105.76 was used in calculations of Agency cost.
Table 3.Estimated Burden and Cost to the Agency
Collection Activity
            Total EPA Burden Over the Three Year ICR Period (Hours)
            Total EPA Costs Over the Three Year ICR Period ($2020)
                           Annual EPA Burden (Hours)
                           Annual EPA Costs ($2020)
Issue Framework SUBMISSION TEMPLATE to applicant SDOs and ecolabel programs (respondents)
                                      10
                                    $1,058
                                     3.33
                                     $353
Follow up with respondents via email/phone
                                      100
                                   $10,576
                                     33.33
                                    $3,525
Prepare analysis and report of the assessment results
                                      800
                                   $84,608
                                    266.67
                                   $28,203
                                                                          Total
                                      910
                                   $96,242
                                    303.33
                                   $32,081

Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in hour or cost burden.
The 2016 pilot, under the previous ICR and Framework, required more time for respondents than had been estimated due to more interest from the potential respondent community and challenges in answering some of the questions. As a result, a number of changes to the criteria/questions, Framework submission template, and process have been made to streamline the effort for respondents. For a detailed explanation of changes made to the Framework, please see ADDENDUM: Changes in the 2022 Update of the United States Environmental Protection Agency's Framework for the Assessment of Environmental Performance Standards and Ecolabels for Federal Purchasing [https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-02/updated-framework-addendum_020222.pdf]. The average respondent burden is estimated to be 8.5 hours per response, based on an average 12 hours for respondents that did not previously participate in the pilot and an average 5 hours for respondents that did previously participate in pilot. In addition, the Framework development, testing, refinements, and significant Agency policy development and decision-making were part of the previous Agency cost and burden estimates. The proposed streamlined information collection (e.g., more opportunities for organizations to submit attestations in lieu of documentation) and pre-determined approaches based on the lessons learned from the pilot are anticipated to reduce the burden on respondents and the Agency.
For collections whose results will be published, outline the plans for tabulation and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions.
There will not be a statistical analysis of the results. Please see the general plan for information collection and public release per EPA's Recommendations of Specifications, Standards, and Ecolabels for Federal Purchasing under the description of Agency activities.
If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons why display would be inappropriate.
Not applicable.
Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in "Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions."
EPA does not request an exception to the certification of this information collection.
Supplemental Information
This collection of information is approved by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. (OMB Control No. 2070-0199). Responses to this collection of information are voluntary for certain persons, as specified at 42 U.S.C 13101 and 15 U.S.C.3701. 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 public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to be 8.5 hours per response on average. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the Regulatory Support Division Director, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2821T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Include the OMB control number in any correspondence. Do not send the completed form to this address.
List of Attachments
The attachments listed below can be found in the docket for this ICR or by using the hyperlink that is provided in the list below. The docket for this ICR is accessible electronically through http://www.regulations.gov using Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0838.
Ref.
Title
1.
Pollution Prevention Act, 42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq.
2.
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. 3701
3.
Information Collection Instrument  -  Submission Template for the Framework for the Assessment of Environmental Performance Standards and Ecolabels for Federal Purchasing (attached)
4.
Framework for the Assessment of Environmental Performance Standards and Ecolabels for Federal Purchasing
5.
ADDENDUM: Changes in the 2022 Update of the United States Environmental Protection Agency's Framework for the Assessment of Environmental Performance Standards and Ecolabels for Federal Purchasing
6.
Recommendations of Specifications, Standards, and Ecolabels for Federal Purchasing


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 6, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44076-44078]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15916]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78193; File No. SR-BatsBZX-2016-28]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Remove
Interpretation and Policy .01 From Rule 11.13, Order Execution and
Routing

 June 29, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on June 23, 2016, Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BZX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
has designated this proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to remove Interpretation & Policy .01
from Exchange Rule 11.13, as further described below.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
Introduction
    In 2011, the Exchange identified an inefficiency in its handling of
certain non-displayed orders resting on the Exchange at a price equal
to the Exchange's best displayed orders on the opposite side of the
market (``Locking Price'') (the non-displayed orders at the Locking
Price, ``Non-Displayed Orders''). Similarly, the Exchange identified an
inefficiency in its handling of certain displayed orders that were
ranked at the Locking Price and displayed at a permissible price one
minimum price variation away from the Locking Price (such orders
``Resting Order Subject to NMS Price Sliding''). In order to avoid an
apparent issue under its then-existing priority rule, the Exchange was
rejecting incoming orders that were otherwise marketable against the
Non-Displayed Orders or the Resting Orders Subject to NMS Price
Sliding. In order to optimize available liquidity for incoming orders
and to provide price improvement for market participants, the Exchange
proposed in May of 2011 to execute a resting Non-Displayed Order or
Resting Order Subject to NMS Price Sliding at one-half minimum price
variation less than the Locking Price in the case of a bid and one-half
minimum price variation more than the Locking Price in the case of an
offer.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64754 (May 12,
2011), 76 FR 28830 (May 18, 2011) (SR-BATS-2011-015) (``2011
Proposal''). The reference to the most ``aggressive'' price, as used
in that filing, means for bids the highest price the User is willing
to pay, and for offers the lowest price at which the User is willing
to sell.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To ease concerns that these new order-handling procedures could be
abused solely for the purpose of obtaining executions at one-half
minimum price variations--although there was no evidence to suggest
this might occur--the Exchange included Interpretation and Policy .01
to Rule 11.13 stating:

    The Exchange will consider it inconsistent with just and
equitable principles of trade to engage in a pattern or practice of
using Non-Displayed Orders or orders subject to price sliding solely
for the purpose of executing such orders at one-half minimum price
variation from the locking price. Evidence of such behavior may
include, but is not limited to, a User's pattern of entering orders
at a price that would lock or be ranked at the price of a displayed
quotation and cancelling orders when they no longer lock the
displayed quotation.

    The Exchange also stated in the 2011 Proposal that it would conduct
surveillance to monitor for such potential abuse.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 2011 Proposal, supra note 5, at 28833.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission approved the 2011 Proposal,\7\ and the Exchange has
conducted nearly five years of surveillance as it promised in the 2011
Proposal. After this lengthy period of surveillance, the Exchange has
determined that there is no evidence that market participants attempt
to use the Exchange's order handling procedures in Rule 11.13 solely to
obtain executions at one-half minimum price variations. Further, the
Exchange has found no way in which a market participant could abuse
these order handling procedures. It is the Exchange's position,
therefore, that Interpretation and Policy .01 and its corollary
surveillance is now unnecessary. The Exchange proposes to remove the
unnecessary Interpretation and Policy and to discontinue the corollary
surveillance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64754 (June 27,
2011), 76 FR 38712 (July 1, 2011) (SR-BATS-2011-015) (Order
Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Amend BATS Rule 11.9, Entitled
``Orders and Modifiers'' and BATS Rule 11.13, Entitled ``Order
Execution'') (``2011 Approval'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    Prior to the implementation of the 2011 Proposal, consistent with
the Exchange's rule regarding priority of orders, Rule 11.12, in order
to avoid an apparent priority issue under the Exchange's rules Non-
Displayed Orders and Resting Orders Subject to NMS Price Sliding were
not executed by the Exchange pursuant to Rule 11.13 when such orders
would be executed at a Locking Price. Specifically, if incoming orders
were allowed to execute against the resting Non-Displayed Order or the
Resting Order Subject to NMS Price Sliding at the Locking Price, such
orders would have received a perceived priority advantage over a
resting, displayed contra-side order at the Locking Price; accordingly,
such executions at the Locking Price were disallowed. As noted above,
however, the Exchange proposed functionality to optimize available
liquidity for incoming orders and to provide price improvement for
market participants, which was subsequently approved and implemented by
the Exchange.\8\ Below is an example that illustrates how the Exchange
has handled such orders following the implementation of functionality
described in the 2011 Proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See id.

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

    Assume the Exchange has a posted and displayed bid to buy 100
shares of a security priced at $10.10 per share, a resting Non-
Displayed Order bid to buy 100 shares of a security priced at $10.11
per share, and a posted and displayed offer to sell 100 shares also at
$10.11 per share. Assume the NBBO is also $10.10 by $10.11. The
Exchange's order book (``BZX Book'') in this situation can be depicted
as follows, with ``ND'' identifying the Non-Displayed Order:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Bid                  Offer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bats:                              $10.11 (ND)         X   $10.11
                                  $10.10
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If an incoming offer to sell 100 shares at $10.10 is entered into
the BZX Book, the resting Non-Displayed Order at the locking price will
be executed at $10.105 per share, thus providing the resting Non-
Displayed bid a half-penny of price improvement from its limit price of
$10.11 and the incoming offer a half-penny of price improvement from
its limit price of $10.10. The result would be the same for an incoming
market order to sell or any other incoming limit order offer priced at
$10.10 or below, which would execute against the Non-Displayed bid at a
price of $10.105 per share. An offer at the full price of the resting
and displayed $10.11 offer would not execute against the resting Non-
Displayed bid, but would instead either cancel or post to the BZX Book
behind the original $10.11 offer in priority. As described above, the
Exchange has adopted similar functionality with respect to Resting
Orders Subject to NMS Price Sliding.
Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule 11.13
    In proposing the 2011 Proposal, there was concern from Commission
staff that market participants may attempt to abuse the rule solely to
obtain executions at one-half minimum price variations. To assuage the
concern, the Exchange included Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule
11.13 to state explicitly that the Exchange will consider it
inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade to engage in a
pattern or practice of using Non-Displayed Orders or Resting Orders
Subject to NMS Price Sliding solely for the purpose of executing such
orders at one-half minimum price variations from the locking price. The
Exchange further explained that evidence of such behavior may include,
but is not limited to, a User's pattern of entering orders at a price
that would lock or be ranked at the price of a displayed quotation and
cancelling orders when they no longer lock the displayed quotation. The
Exchange stated in the 2011 Proposal it would ``conduct surveillance to
ensure that Users are not intentionally seeking to create an internally
locked Book for the purpose of obtaining an execution at one-half
minimum price variation.'' \9\ The Exchange notes that when proposed
the Exchange believed the functionality was a solution to a specific
situation that was a natural consequence of the Exchange's order
handling procedures, particularly due to offering Users the ability to
enter orders that instruct the Exchange not to remove liquidity (i.e.,
``Post Only Orders'') and to enter orders with non-displayed
prices.\10\ The Exchange still believes this to be the case and thus,
as further described below, seeks to eliminate surveillance focused on
orders and System functionality that are simply behaving as the
Exchange intends them to behave.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 2011 Proposal, supra note 5, at 28833.
    \10\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In approving the rule change, the Staff noted the proposed
Interpretation and Policy .01:

    The Exchange also proposes adding Interpretation and Policy .01
to BATS Rule 11.13 to state that the Exchange will consider it
inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade to engage
in a pattern or practice of using Non-Displayed Orders or orders
subject to price sliding solely for the purpose of executing such
orders at one-half minimum price variation from the locking price.
Evidence of such behavior may include, but is not limited to, a
User's pattern of entering orders at a price that would lock or be
ranked at the price of a displayed quotation and cancelling orders
when they no longer lock the displayed quotation. The Exchange has
also stated that it will conduct surveillance to ensure that users
are not intentionally seeking to create an internally locked book
for the purpose of obtaining an execution at a one-half minimum
price variation.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 2011 Approval, supra note 7 at 38713.

    The Commission stated in its approval order that it ``believes that
any potential abuses are mitigated by the Exchange's addition of
Interpretation and Policy .01 to BATS Rule 11.13 and its commitment to
monitor relevant trading on its market.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal To Remove Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule 11.13
    The Exchange designed and implemented a surveillance program to
monitor for abuse of the order handling procedures implemented by the
2011 Proposal and has conducted the surveillance for nearly five years.
The Exchange has found over this period no evidence to suggest that
market participants intentionally seek to create an internally locked
book solely for the purpose of obtaining an execution at one-half
minimum price variation. The evidence has shown that half-penny
executions appear to be the natural result of order interactions on the
Exchange. Further, since the change, market participants have received
price improvement on both sides of a trade when that trade would have
otherwise been prevented from occurring under the Exchange's prior
functionality. The Exchange, therefore, no longer believes
Interpretation and Policy .01 is necessary or appropriate.
    The purpose of Interpretation and Policy .01 and the associated
surveillance was to ensure that market participants would not find a
way to abuse the new order handling procedures by engaging in a pattern
or practice of entering non-displayed locking orders solely for the
purpose of obtaining an execution at one-half minimum price variation.
Since the Exchange has determined there is no evidence that such abuse
has occurred the Exchange believes that Interpretation and Policy and
corollary surveillance have served their purpose and are no longer
necessary. The Exchange believes that its regulatory program would be
better served by the removal of Interpretation and Policy .01 so that
the Exchange staff may retire the surveillance and focus its regulatory
efforts on activity that it has identified as having an impact on the
safety and quality of its market.
    Finally, Bats EDGX Exchange Inc. (``EDGX'') and Bats EDGA Exchange
Inc. (``EDGA'') have substantively identical order handling
functionality, but neither have the Interpretation and Policy this
proposal seeks to remove. The Exchange, therefore, believes that the
Interpretation and Policy is unnecessary and the Exchange proposes to
remove it from Rule 11.13. Although the Exchange is proposing to remove
Interpretation and Policy .01 from Rule 11.13, the Exchange notes that
all trading activity on the Exchange, including orders entered and
handled and executions resulting from the order handling procedures
implemented by the 2011 Proposal, is subject to the Exchange's overall
surveillance program, which monitors for potential violations of the
federal securities laws and the regulations thereunder as well as
Exchange Rules.
2. Statutory Basis
    The rule change proposed in this submission is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are

applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\13\ Specifically, the
proposed change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\14\
because it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to, and perfect
the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system.
The proposed change to remove Interpretation and Policy .01 from Rule
11.13 will permit the Exchange to focus its regulatory efforts on
conduct that more likely violates principles of just and equitable
trade rather than dedicating regulatory staff and efforts on a topic
which the Exchange has found no evidence of its existence. Since 2011,
the Exchange has dedicated resources to operate regulatory surveillance
and investigate potential abuse of the Exchange's functionality and has
found that there is no evidence of abuse of the relevant order handling
procedures solely for the purpose of obtaining one-half minimum price
variations. The Exchange believes the proposal will promote just and
equitable principles of trade and will help prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts by focusing regulatory efforts on activity that the
Exchange has identified as having an impact on the safety and quality
of its market rather than the hypothetical concern that Interpretation
and Policy .01 was implemented to monitor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed
rule change simply removes an interpretation and policy that the
Exchange does not believe is necessary, as described above, and should
have no effect on competition.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \15\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-BatsBZX-2016-28 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-BatsBZX-2016-28. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-BatsBZX-2016-28, and should be
submitted on or before July 27, 2016.

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

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

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-15916 Filed 7-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 48 (Tuesday, March 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 15718]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05625]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. NJ12-7-001]

United States Department of Energy, Bonneville Power
Administration; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on March 1, 2013, the Bonneville Power
Administration filed a proposed tariff amendment as a revision to the
Open Access Transmission Tariff.
    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.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    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 email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on March 26, 2013.

    Dated: March 5, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-05625 Filed 3-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 207 (Friday, October 29, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60031-60032]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23586]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0072; FRL-9150-01-OCSPP]

Issuance of an Experimental Use Permit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA issued an experimental use permit (EUP) to the pesticide
applicant described in Unit II. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. An
EUP permits use of a pesticide for experimental or research purposes
only in accordance with the limitations in the permit.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Smith, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. Although this
action may be of particular interest to those persons who conduct or
sponsor research on pesticides, EPA has not attempted to

describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0072, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The 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 Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room are closed to visitors with
limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer
service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status
information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. EUP

    EPA issued the following EUP:
    69553-EUP-2. Issuance. Andermatt Group AG, Stahlermatten 6, CH-6146
Grossdietwil, Switzerland (c/o Andermatt USA Corp., 107 Gilbreth
Parkway, Mullica Hill, NJ 08062). This EUP allows the use of 431 pounds
of the pesticide product CX-6485 (containing 0.29 pound of the
insecticide Cydia pomonella granulovirus isolate V45) on 400 acres of
pome fruit trees (apple and pear), stone fruit trees (peach, nectarine,
apricot, and hybrids of these), and walnut trees to evaluate the
control of codling moth and Oriental fruit moth. The program is
authorized only in the States of California, Colorado, Michigan, New
Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington. The EUP is
effective from October 6, 2021 to August 31, 2023. The United States
Department of Agriculture submitted a comment in response to the notice
of receipt published in the Federal Register of March 19, 2021 (86 FR
14906) (FRL-10021-43), and it conveyed support of issuance of this EUP
to allow testing of Cydia pomonella granulovirus isolate V45 at a
larger field-level scale in the United States.
    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: October 18, 2021.
Charles Smith,
Acting Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2021-23586 Filed 10-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24703-24705]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9898]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0034; FRL-9515-9]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Nine Metal Fabrication and
Finishing Area Sources

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request

to renew an existing approved collection. The ICR which is abstracted
below describes the nature of the collection and the estimated burden
and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 25, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2012-0034, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency,
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB
at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Learia Williams, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On February 8, 2012 (77 FR 6557), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any
additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to both EPA and OMB
within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0034, which is available for public viewing
online at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the
Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The
EPA Docket Center 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 Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index
listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in
the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system,
select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified
above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether
submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public
viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA receives them and without
change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidential
Business Information (CBI), or other information whose public
disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the
electronic docket, go to www.regulations.gov.
    Title: National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) for Nine Metal Fabrication and Finishing Area Sources
(Renewal)
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 2298.03, OMB Control Number 2060-0622
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on April 31, 2012.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
    Abstract: The affected entities are subject to the General
Provisions of the NESHAP at 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, and any changes,
or additions to the General Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 63,
subpart XXXXXX.
    These regulations apply to owners or operators of any existing or
new metal fabrication and finishing facility that is an area source of
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions and uses or has the potential
to emit metal fabrication or finishing metal HAP (MFHAP), defined to be
the compounds of cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel, or any
of these metals in the elemental form with the exception of lead.
    Owners or operators of the affected facilities must submit initial
notification, annual compliance certifications (which include annual
reports of exceedences if any have occurred.) Owners or operators are
also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any
startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected
facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is
inoperative. Reports, at a minimum, are required semiannually.
    All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority. In
the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are
sent directly to the EPA regional office. This information is being
collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXXXX, as
authorized in section 112 and 114(a) of the Clean Air Act. The required
information consists of emissions data and other information that have
been determined to be private.
    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 Numbers for the EPA
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are
identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 11
hours per response. ``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. This
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 which have subsequently changed; 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.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Owners or operators of nine metal
fabrication and finishing area sources.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,933.
    Frequency of Response: Initially, occasionally, and annually.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 20,562.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $1,972,260, which includes $1,972,260
in labor costs; there are no capital/startup or operating and
maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase in the total costs
as currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved Burdens. This
increase is not due to any program changes. The change in the cost
estimates occurred due to the most updated labor rates for both
respondents and the Agency. Despite the increase in burden costs, there
is a decrease in the labor hours in this ICR compared to the previous
ICR due to a mathematical error in

determining the person-hours per respondent.

John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2012-9898 Filed 4-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P