[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72135-72138]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25237]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79090; File No. SR-BatsEDGX-2016-55]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Fees
for Use of Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.

October 13, 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 September 30, 2016, Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange''
or ``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or
changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change 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)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable
to Members \5\ and non-members of the Exchange pursuant to EDGX Rules
15.1(a) and (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Member'' is defined as ``any registered broker or
dealer that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange.'' See
Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
    The Exchange proposes to modify its fee schedule in order to: (i)
Add the definition of OCC Customer Volume or OCV, to the Definitions
section of the fee schedule; and (ii) amend Footnote 1 to: (A) Modify
the criteria for the Cross-Asset Add Volume Tier to reflect the new
definition of OCV; and (B) establish a Single MPID Cross-Asset Tier.
OCC Customer Volume Definition
    The Exchange proposes to add the definition of ``OCC Customer
Volume'' or ``OCV'' to the definition section of its fee schedule. OCC
Customer Volume or OCV will be defined as the total equity and Exchange
Traded Fund (``ETF'') options volume that clears in the Customer \6\
range at the Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') for the month for
which the fees apply, excluding volume on any day that the Exchange
experiences an Exchange System Disruption \7\ and on any day with a
scheduled early market close, using the definition of Customer as
provided under the Exchange's fee schedule for EDGX Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As defined in the fee schedule for the Exchange's equity
options platform (``EDGX Options'') available at http://www.batsoptions.com/support/fee_schedule/edgx/.
    \7\ An ``Exchange System Disruption'' means ``any day that the
Exchange's system experiences a disruption that lasts for more than
60 minutes during Regular Trading Hours.'' See the Exchange's fee
schedule available at http://batstrading.com/support/fee_schedule/edgx/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnote One
    The Exchange determines the liquidity adding rebate that it will
provide to Members using the Exchange's tiered pricing structure.
Currently, the Exchange provides various rebates under Footnote 1 of
the fee schedule for a Member dependent on the Member's ADV \8\ as a
percentage of the TCV \9\ for orders that yield fee codes B, V, Y, 3, 4
and ZA. The Exchange currently has none Add Volume Tiers. Under such
pricing structure, a Member will receive a rebate of anywhere between
$0.0025 and $0.0033 per share executed, depending on the volume tier
for which such Member qualifies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ As defined in the Exchange's fee schedule available at
http://batstrading.com/support/fee_schedule/edgx/.
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cross-Asset Tier Amendments. Footnote 1 of the fee schedule
includes a Cross-Asset Tier under which Members may receive an enhanced
rebate of $0.0028 where they have on EDGX Options an ADV in Firm \10\
orders equal to or greater than 0.10% of average TCV and an ADAV \11\
equal to or greater than 0.12% of average TCV. The Exchange proposes to
replace the term TCV with the new defined term OCV (discussed above).
As amended, Members must have on EDGX Options an ADV in Firm orders
equal to or greater than 0.15% of average OCV. Because, OCV is a by
definition, a smaller amount than TCV, the Exchange proposes to
slightly increase the volume percentage required to attain the first
prong of the tier from 0.10% to 0.15%. Doing so will keep tier's
criteria relatively unchanged from its current requirements. Lastly,
the Exchange will continue to require Members to also have an ADAV
equal to or greater than 0.12% of average TCV on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ As defined in EDGX Option's fee schedule available at
http://www.batsoptions.com/support/fee_schedule/edgx/.
    \11\ Exchange's fee schedule available at http://batstrading.com/support/fee_schedule/edgx/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Single MPID Cross-Asset Investor Tier. The Exchange proposes to add
new tier to Footnote 1 to be called the Single MPID Cross-Asset Tier.
Under the proposed tier, a Member may would receive an enhanced rebate
of $0.0030 per share where that Member's: (i) Market Participant
Identifier (``MPID'') has on EDGX Options an ADAV in Market Maker \12\
orders equal to or greater than 0.12% of average OCV; and (ii) an ADAV
equal to or greater than 0.12% of average TCV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ As defined in EDGX Option's fee schedule available at
http://www.batsoptions.com/support/fee_schedule/edgx/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation Date
    The Exchange proposes to implement the amendments to its fee
schedule on October 3, 2016.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\13\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\14\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its Members and other persons using its
facilities. The Exchange also notes that it operates in a highly-
competitive market in which market participants can readily direct
order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular
venue to be excessive. The Exchange believes that the proposed rates
are equitable and non-discriminatory in that they apply uniformly to
all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed modifications to the tiered
pricing structure are reasonable, fair and equitable, and non-
discriminatory. The proposed fee structure remains intended to attract
order flow to the Exchange by offering market participants a
competitive pricing structure. The Exchange believes it is reasonable
to offer and incrementally modify incentives intended to help to
contribute to the growth of the Exchange. Volume-based rebates such as
that proposed herein have been widely adopted by exchanges, including
the Exchange, and are equitable because they are open to all Members on
an equal basis and provide additional benefits or discounts that are
reasonably related to: (i) The value to an exchange's market quality;
(ii) associated higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels
of liquidity provisions and/or growth patterns; and (iii) introduction
of higher volumes of orders into the price and volume discovery
processes.
    The Exchange believes adopting a definition of OCV and utilizing
OCV in lieu of TCV for its Cross-Asset Tier is reasonable, fair and
equitable, and non-discriminatory because the Exchange also proposed to
modify the tier's related criteria in order to maintain substantially
identical requirements to qualify for the tier. Competitors of the
Exchange also use similar calculations and the proposed qualifications
do not represent a significant departure from such pricing
structures.\15\ The Exchange believes that the proposed qualifications
are reasonable, fair and equitable, and non-discriminatory, and will
provide additional transparency to Members regarding the calculations
used to determine volume levels for purposes of the proposed tiered
pricing model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ NYSE Amex Options Customer volume tiers require a specific
``Customer Electronic ADV as a % of Industry Customer Equity and ETF
Options ADV''. https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/amex-options/NYSE_Amex_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf. Nasdaq NOM Options
Customer volume tiers require a specific percentage of ``total
industry customer equity and ETF option average daily volume
(''ADV'') contracts per day in a month.'' http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Micro.aspx?id=optionsPricing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed Single MIPID Cross-Asset
Tier is reasonable, fair and equitable, and non-discriminatory. The
increased liquidity from this proposed tier also

benefits all investors by deepening the EDGX Options and the Exchange's
liquidity pools, offering additional flexibility for all investors to
enjoy cost savings, supporting the quality of price discovery,
promoting market transparency and improving investor protection. Such
pricing programs thereby reward a Member's growth pattern on the
Exchange and such increased volume increases potential revenue to the
Exchange, and will allow the Exchange to continue to provide and
potentially expand the incentive programs operated by the Exchange. To
the extent a Member participates on EDGX Options and not EDGX Equities,
the Exchange believes that the proposal is still reasonable, equitably
allocated and non-discriminatory with respect to such Member based on
the overall benefit to the Exchange resulting from the success of EDGX
Options. As noted above, such success allows the Exchange to continue
to provide and potentially expand its existing incentive programs to
the benefit of all participants on the Exchange, whether they
participate on EDGX Options or not. The proposed tier is also fair and
equitable in that membership in EDGX Options is available to all market
participants which would provide them with access to the benefits on
EDGX Equities provided by the proposed changes, as described above,
even where a member of EDGX Equities is not necessarily eligible for
the proposed increased rebates on the Exchange. Further, the proposed
changes will result in Members receiving either the same or an
increased rebate than they would currently receive.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed addition of the
Single MPID Cross Asset Tier represents an equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among Members and other
persons using its facilities because it rewards Members with order flow
characteristics that contribute meaningfully to price discovery on the
Exchange. In other words, Members that post a substantial amount of
liquidity and primarily post liquidity are valuable Members to the EDGX
Options and EDGX Equities Exchanges and the marketplace in terms of
liquidity provision. By applying the tier on a single MPID rather than
across a Member's entire trading activity, the Exchange is also
allowing more Members to potentially receive the enhanced rebates for
their trading activity related to liquidity provision. The Single MPID
Cross Asset Tier also encourages Members to primarily add liquidity in
order to satisfy the ADAV as a percentage of OCV. Such increased volume
increases potential revenue to the Exchange, and would allow the
Exchange to spread its administrative and infrastructure costs over a
greater number of shares, leading to lower per share costs. These lower
per share costs would allow the Exchange to pass on the savings to
Members in the form of higher rebates. The increased liquidity also
benefits all investors by deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool,
offering additional flexibility for all investors to enjoy cost
savings, supporting the quality of price discovery, promoting market
transparency and improving investor protection. Volume-based rebates
such as the ones proposed herein have been widely adopted in the cash
equities markets, and are equitable because they are open to all
Members on an equal basis and provide discounts that are reasonably
related to the value to an exchange's market quality associated with
higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity
provision and introduction of higher volumes of orders into the price
and volume discovery processes.
    In addition, the rebate is also reasonable in that other exchanges
likewise employ similar pricing mechanisms based on a Member's
MPID.\16\ Finally, the Exchange also believes that the proposed Single
MPID Investor Tier is non-discriminatory in that it would apply equally
to all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. fee schedule available at
http://batstrading.com/support/fee_schedule/bzx/ (offering a Single
MPID Investor Tier with volume requirements based on MPID).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe its proposed amendment to its fee
schedule would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary
or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange
does not believe that the proposed changes represents a significant
departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or pricing
offered by the Exchange's competitors. Additionally, Members may opt to
disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer
them better value. The Exchange believes that its proposal would not
burden intramarket competition because the proposed rate would apply
uniformly to all Members. The Exchange does not believe that the
proposed new tiers and standard removal rates would burden competition,
but instead, enhances competition, as they are intended to increase the
competitiveness of and draw additional volume to the Exchange. As
stated above, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily direct
order flow to competing venues if they deem fee structures to be
unreasonable or excessive. The proposed changes are generally intended
to draw additional liquidity to the Exchange. The Exchange does not
believe the proposed tiers and standard rates would burden intramarket
competition as they would apply to all Members uniformly.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed new Single MPID
Cross-Asset Add Tier would burden competition, but instead, enhances
competition, as it is intended to increase the competitiveness of and
draw additional volume to the Exchange and EDGX Options. The Exchange
does not believe that its proposal would burden intramarket competition
because the proposed rebate would apply uniformly to all Members that
achieve the objective criteria of the Single MPID Investor Tier.
    Lastly, the Exchange believes that its proposal to amend the
qualification criteria for the Cross-Asset Tier to incorporate OCV
would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the
Exchange also proposed to modify the tier's related criteria in order
to maintain substantially identical requirements to qualify for the
tier.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any written comments from members or other interested parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \17\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\18\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments:

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BatsEDGX-2016-55 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BatsEDGX-2016-55. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BatsEDGX-2016-55, and should
be submitted on or before November 9, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-25237 Filed 10-18-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 127 (Friday, July 1, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38580-38581]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16587]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0087; Airspace Docket No. 11-ASO-12]

Proposed Amendment of Class D Airspace; Eglin AFB, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class D Airspace in the Eglin
Air Force Base (AFB), FL airspace area. The Destin Non-Directional
Beacon (NDB) has been decommissioned and new Standard Instrument
Approaches have been developed for Destin-Fort Walton Beach Airport
that would enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules
(IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 15, 2011. The
Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by
reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51,
subject to the annual revision of FAA, Order 7400.9 and publication of
conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001;
Telephone: 1-800-647-5527; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the
Docket Number FAA-2011-0087; Airspace Docket No. 11-ASO-12, at the
beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received
comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire.
Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and
suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned
regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited
on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and
energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2011-0087; Airspace Docket No. 11-ASO-12) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Annotators wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket
No. FAA-2011-0087; Airspace Docket No. 11-ASO-12.'' The postcard will
be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and
comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Recently
published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's
Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation
Administration, room 210, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia
30337.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class D airspace in the Eglin
AFB, FL area. The Destin NDB has been decommissioned, and the NDB
approach cancelled. New standard instrument approach procedures have
been developed for Destin-Fort Walton Beach Airport. The existing Class
D airspace extending upward from the surface would be modified for the
safety and management of IFR operations.
    Class D airspace designations are published in Paragraph 5000 of
FAA order 7400.9U, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15,
2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    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 proposed 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 proposed regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would amend Class D airspace in the Eglin AFB, FL area.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 18, 2010, effective September 15, 2010,
is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D airspace.

* * * * *

ASO FL D Eglin Air Force Base, FL [Amended]

Eglin Air Force Base, FL
    (Lat. 30[deg]28'59.59'' N., long. 86[deg]31'34'' W.)
Destin-Fort Walton Beach Airport
    (Lat. 30[deg]24'00'' N., long. 86[deg]28'17'' W.)
Duke Field
    (Lat. 30[deg]39'07'' N., long. 86[deg]31'23'' W.)
Hurlburt Field
    (Lat. 30[deg]25'44'' N., long. 86[deg]41'20'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface, to and
including 2,600 feet MSL within a 5.5-mile radius of Eglin AFB and
within a 4.4-mile radius of Destin-Fort Walton Beach Airport,
excluding the portion north of a line connecting the 2 points of
intersection within a 5.2-mile radius centered on Duke Field;
excluding the portion southwest of a line connecting the 2 points of
intersection within a 5.3-mile radius of Hurlburt Field; excluding a
portion east of a line beginning at lat. 30[deg]30'43'' N., long.
86[deg]26'21'' W. extending east to the 5.5-mile radius of Eglin
AFB.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on May 13, 2011.
Barry A. Knight,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2011-16587 Filed 6-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR

EPA INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST NUMBER 1736.04

(REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS UNDER EPA(S NATURAL GAS STAR PROGRAM(

November 15, 2004

	TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION	  1

1(a)	TITLE AND NUMBER OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION	1

1(b)	CHARACTERIZATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION	  1

1(c)	TERMS OF CLEARANCE OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 	1

2.	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION	 3

2(a)	NEED AND AUTHORITY FOR THE COLLECTION	 3

2(b)	PRACTICAL UTILITY/USERS OF THE DATA	 4

3.	NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA	 4

3(a)	NONDUPLICATION	 4

3(b)	CONSULTATIONS	 4

3(c)	PUBLIC NOTICE	 4

3(d)	EFFECTS OF LESS FREQUENT COLLECTION	 5

3(e)	GENERAL GUIDELINES	 5

3(f)	CONFIDENTIALITY	 5

3(g)	SENSITIVE QUESTIONS	 5

4.	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED	 5

4(a)	RESPONDENTS/SIC CODES	 5

4(b)	INFORMATION REQUESTED	 5

5.	THE INFORMATION COLLECTED--AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT	 9

5(a)	AGENCY ACTIVITIES	 9

5(b)	COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT	 10

5(c)	SMALL ENTITY FLEXIBILITY	 10

5(d)	COLLECTION SCHEDULE	10

6.	ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION	 10

6(a)	ESTIMATING RESPONDENT BURDEN	 10

6(b)	ESTIMATING RESPONDENT COSTS	 11

6(c)	ESTIMATING AGENCY BURDEN AND COST	 11

6(d)	ESTIMATING THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSE AND TOTAL BURDEN	15

              6(e)	BOTTOM LINE BURDEN HOURS AND COSTS	 16

6(f)	REASONS FOR CHANGE IN BURDEN	 16

6(g)	BURDEN STATEMENT	 16

1.	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

1(a)	Title and Number of the Information Collection

This ICR is entitled "Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under EPA's Natural Gas STAR Program," ICR number 1736.04.

1(b)	Characterization of the Information Collection

Natural Gas STAR is a voluntary program sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that encourages natural gas companies to adopt cost effective methods for reducing methane emissions.  The program works with natural gas production, processing, storage, transmission, and distribution companies to remove barriers that inhibit the implementation of various emission reduction opportunities. The Program effectively advances the adoption of emission reduction technologies by working with Natural Gas Star Partners to evaluate a set of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and various Partner Reported Opportunities (PROs) in the context of their current business operations, and implement them where cost effective. The program(s BMPs and PROs save participants money, improve operational efficiency, and enhance the protection of the environment.

Participation in the program begins with the completion and submittal of a one-page Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that outlines responsibilities of the Natural Gas STAR Partner and EPA.  The MOU commits a Natural Gas STAR Partner to reviewing all of its gas-related operations in the U.S. and considering a set of options that reduce emissions, increase profits and competitiveness, and maintain or enhance gas delivery service.  In addition, Partners agree to implement BMPs that pertain to the Partner's operation (production, transmission, processing, storage, and/or distribution).  Partners also agree that the BMPs are generally cost effective for the industry, but favorable economics are dependent upon site specific factors.

Natural Gas STAR Partners agree to submit an Implementation Plan within six to twelve months of signing the MOU.  In subsequent years, Partners must complete and submit an Annual Report that documents the implementation of BMPs and PROs and associated methane emission reduction accomplishments.  In return for their participation, Partners are allowed to advertise their membership and involvement in the program.  EPA helps Partners with their communication efforts and also provides program implementation assistance by analyzing emerging technologies and developing workshops and training courses.   This voluntary agreement can be terminated by the Natural Gas STAR Partner or EPA with no notice or penalties.

1(c)	Terms of Clearance of the Information Collection

When this collection was approved in 2001, OMB asked EPA to evaluate the extent to which the partners would have reduced their emissions in the absence of the program, and that EPA should not use these data to estimate aggregate emission reductions across the industry resulting from the Natural Gas STAR Program. In regard to the latter issue, EPA agrees with OMB and recognizes the analytical issues associated with such an extrapolation.  As a result, EPA does not use data reported through the Natural Gas STAR Program to estimate aggregate emission reductions across the industry.

The extent to which partners would have reduced their emissions in the absence of the Program is a challenging question, but one that EPA takes very seriously. As is described later in this Supporting Statement, Partners of the Natural Gas STAR Program are asked to submit Implementation Plans every three years describing the emissions reduction practices they plan to evaluate and implement. Partners are then asked to submit annual progress reports detailing emission reduction activities undertaken during the previous calendar year. The Natural Gas STAR Program asks that partners only include in their reports practices that were undertaken voluntarily; i.e. not to include reductions attributable to compliance with existing regulations.

The emission reductions reported by Partners include reductions associated with the implementation of traditional program Best Management Practices (BMPs) and reductions achieved through the adoption of Partner Reported Activities (PROs). PROs are activities identified by Gas STAR Partners, beyond the original BMPs, that result in methane emissions reductions. It is worthwhile to note that in 2003, 64% of reductions reported to Gas STAR were due to these Partner identified emissions reduction activities. A significant portion of Gas STAR’s efforts in recent years has been devoted to promoting these PROs through technical document development and hosting of specialized technology transfer workshops.

Emission reduction data submitted to EPA are used to measure the effectiveness of the Natural Gas STAR Program.  EPA, however, does not attribute all of these emissions reductions to Natural Gas STAR.  In particular, emission reduction data for Transmission and Distribution BMP 2, Pipeline Replacement, is largely considered regulatory driven and is not included when calculating program accomplishments.  In addition, for each annual report, a quality assurance/quality control check is performed on all data.  Unrealistic emissions reduction claims and any errors or inconsistencies are identified and resolved through direct correspondence with the appropriate company (ies).   If necessary, these data are omitted or adjusted prior to their inclusion in the accounting of Natural Gas STAR Program accomplishments.

In an effort to ensure that these data accurately reflect the impact of the Program, EPA has performed a scenario analysis.  As shown in Figure 1, a business as usual scenario was developed that displays projected methane emissions in the absence of the Natural Gas STAR Program. This emission scenario is calculated by multiplying emission factors by projected levels of production, processing and transmission/distribution as reported in the Energy Information Agency’s American Energy Outlook (AEO 2002).  The emission factors are assumed to decline 5% over 25 years to reflect increased efficiencies in the natural gas system.

In the same figure, an alternative emissions scenario is constructed that assumes all cost-effective mitigation options are implemented over the time period.  Cost-effective mitigation options are defined as those options where the cost savings or revenue is greater than the cost of the mitigation option over the lifetime of a given emission reduction project.  While these options are cost effective, they are not implemented in the no-action scenario because of information, policy and other non-cost barriers. The difference between this emission scenario and the no-action scenario represents the total potential emission reduction that would reasonably be achieved by the Natural Gas STAR Program if all barriers to implementation were removed.  Details on this analysis can be found at the following EPA website: http://www.epa.gov/methane/intlanalyses.html.

 Using this analysis as a guide, EPA is able to estimate the extent to which regulatory, information, and other barriers that often inhibit the implementation of these activities can be overcome by the Natural Gas Program. The Program overcomes these barriers this through a variety of activities including:

-	Development of technical fact sheets, reports and articles

-	Hosting technology transfer workshops

-	Providing analytical support to Partner companies

-	Supporting research activities

-	Publicizing achievements of Partner companies

-	Providing a mechanism for recording and storing information about emission reduction activities

In addition to benefiting Partner companies who report these reductions, these activities benefit non-Partner companies who are not reporting to the Program. For example, all the technical documents developed by the Program are made available to the public on the Gas STAR website, and workshop attendance is not restricted to Program Partners. Thus, it can be assumed that some of the close to 40% of the natural gas industry that is not participating in the Natural Gas STAR Program is also implementing some of the emission reduction activities that are encouraged by the Program. As noted above, Natural Gas STAR does not attempt to estimate the accomplishments of these companies, even though their activities are at least partially due to the existence of the Natural Gas STAR Program.

2.	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

2(a)	Need/Authority for the Collection

EPA has developed this ICR to obtain authorization to collect information from Natural Gas STAR Partners.  EPA needs to collect initial information in the MOU to formally establish participation in the Natural Gas STAR Program and to obtain general information on new Natural Gas STAR Partners.  EPA uses information obtained in the MOU to identify and initiate communication with the Partner(s  Natural Gas STAR Implementation Manager and Media Liaison.

By agreeing to participate in the Natural Gas STAR Program, the Partner commits to completing and submitting an Implementation Plan and an Annual Report.  The Implementation Plan and Annual Report are necessary to evaluate a Partner's progress and performance, and assess overall program results.  The information provided in these communications also allows EPA to identify the equipment, systems, maintenance methods, and implementation methods most commonly utilized, and to provide technical and other assistance to Partners in completing and enhancing their planned implementation of BMPs and PROs.

2(b)	Practical Utility/Users of the Data

EPA uses information submitted in the MOU to update its database/tracking system containing information on current and potential Natural Gas STAR Partners.  The database serves as a source of general information and a mailing list for both Partners and non-partner companies.  EPA uses information submitted in the Implementation Plan and Annual Report to document the progress of companies and organizations in implementing the program and reducing methane emissions.  EPA enters report information received from Partners into the tracking system.  EPA also aggregates these data and prepares various progress reports.  EPA uses these data to develop technical publications on specific economic emission reduction practices and case studies of successful implementation experiences.  These documents serve to demonstrate to current and potential Partners the cost savings that can be realized through various equipment upgrades and maintenance activities, and to provide technical and implementation assistance.

3.	NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

3(a)	Nonduplication

The information to be obtained under this ICR has not been collected by EPA or any other Federal agency.

3(b)	Consultations

EPA has consulted with not more than nine Natural Gas STAR Partners to obtain their views on this method of data collection and has obtained their input on the burden estimate.  Organizations consulted included:

Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company;

Baltimore Gas and Electric Company;

El Paso Natural Gas Company;

Bay State Gas Company;

PECO Energy Company;

ANR Pipeline Company;

Enron; and

Shell E & P Company.

EPA has followed up with some of these companies and a few others in order to determine the reduction of burden that has been experienced by companies utilizing the on-line reporting system (first available in 2002). Organizations consulted on this specific matter included:

Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company;

American Electric Power Company;

Atlanta Gas Light Company;

SCANA, Inc.;

PECO Energy Company;

Burlington Resources, Inc.;

CrossCountry Energy Company; and

Shell E & P Company.

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

In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, EPA solicited public comments on the ICR through an announcement in the Federal Register on June 29, 2004 (69 FR 38893).  No comments were received in response to the notice.

3(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection

The development of an MOU and Implementation Plan are one-time information submittals from companies that voluntarily choose to become Partners in the Natural Gas STAR Program.  Partners must also prepare and submit an Annual Report while participating in the program.  EPA believes that any reduction in the frequency of this information collection would impede efforts by EPA to evaluate results of the program.

3(e)	General Guidelines

None of these reporting or record keeping requirements violate any of the regulations established by OMB in 5 CFR 1320.5.

3(f)	Confidentiality

Participation in the Natural Gas STAR Program is voluntary.  Natural Gas STAR Partners may designate information submitted under this ICR as confidential business information.  EPA will treat all such information as confidential business information and will not make the company or agency-specific information collected under this ICR available to the general public.

3(g)	Sensitive Questions

No questions of a sensitive nature are asked in the MOU, Implementation Plan, or the Annual Report.

4. 	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

4(a)	Respondents/NAICS Codes

The following is a list of North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and associated industries that may be affected by information collection requirements covered under this ICR:

211111		Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction

48621		Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas

22121		Natural Gas Distribution

4(b)	Information Requested

EPA's Natural Gas STAR Program specifies requirements for Partners.  All Natural Gas STAR Partners must develop and submit a one-page Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Agency upon agreeing to participate in the program.  Partners also must complete and submit to EPA a Natural Gas STAR Program Implementation Plan within six months of signing the MOU.  The Implementation Plan is an outline of what will happen over the next three years, and serves as a plan for the Partner to follow.  Partners also submit an Annual Report to the Agency.  The Annual Report documents what has been accomplished in the past year, using the Implementation Plan as a guideline for comparison.

Memorandum of Understanding

Natural Gas STAR Partners are required to develop and submit to EPA an MOU that describes the terms of participation in the program.

(i)	Data items:

Partners must provide the following information in the MOU:

(	The name, title, address, telephone and facsimile number, and e-mail address of a Natural Gas STAR Program Implementation Manager and a Media Liaison;

(	The name, address, and telephone number of the Partners's CEO, President, or Chairman, if applicable;

(	A camera-ready version of the Partner's logo, or other emblem;

(ii)	Respondent activities:

In developing the MOU, Partners must perform the following activities:

(	Receive and review the MOU;

(	Gather information and fill out the MOU;

(	Sign the MOU and submit it to EPA.

Implementation Plan

Partners must complete and submit a Natural Gas STAR Implementation Plan within six to twelve months of signing the MOU.

(i)	Data items:

The Implementation Plan form requests the following information:

(	General company information (e.g., company name and contact, position, address, SIC code, telephone and facsimile numbers, etc.);

(	An Implementation Plan Summary; and

(	Information on applicable Best Management Practices, which are reported by BMP type:

-	Directed Inspection and Maintenance at Surface Facilities;

-	Identification and Rehabilitation of Leaky Distribution Pipe;

-	Directed Inspection and Maintenance programs at Compressor Stations;

-	Use of Turbines at Compressor Stations for New Installations or When Retiring Reciprocating Engines;

-	Identification and Replacement of High Bleed Pneumatic Devices;

-	Installation of Flash Tank Separators on Dehydrators;

-	Replace Gas Pneumatics with Instrument Air Systems; and

-	Implement Directed Inspection and Maintenance at Gas Plants and Booster Stations.

(	Information on applicable Partner Reported Opportunities that the company chooses to evaluate and implement

(ii)	Respondent activities:

Partners must conduct the following activities in preparing the Implementation Plan:

(	Review the instructions;

(	Gather the requested information and develop the Implementation Plan;

(	Complete the form(s);

(	Sign and submit the plan to EPA; and

              -	Update the plan, if necessary.

Annual Report

Partners must complete and submit a Natural Gas STAR Annual Report while participating in the program.

(i)	Data items:

The Annual Report form requests the following information:

(	General company information (e.g., company name and contact, position, address, period covered by report, SIC code, telephone and facsimile numbers, etc.);

(	An Annual Report Summary; and

(	Information on Best Management Practices executed, which are reported by BMP type:

-	Directed Inspection and Maintenance at Surface Facilities;

-	Identification and Rehabilitation of Leaky Distribution Pipe;

-	Directed Inspection and Maintenance programs at Compressor Stations;

-	Use of Turbines at Compressor Stations for New Installations or When Retiring Reciprocating Engines;

-	Identification and Replacement of High Bleed Pneumatic Devices;

-	Installation of Flash Tank Separators on Dehydrators;

-	Replace Gas Pneumatics with Instrument Air Systems; and

-	Implement Directed Inspection and Maintenance at Gas Plants and Booster Stations.

(	Information on applicable Partner Reported Opportunities that the company chooses to evaluate and implement

(ii)	Respondent activities:

Partners must conduct the following activities in preparing the Annual Report:

(	Review the instructions;

(	Gather the requested information for the initial report;

(	Complete the initial form(s);

(	Sign and date the initial report;

(	Submit the initial report to EPA; and

              -	Prepare and submit a subsequent Annual Report.

Use of EPA-Developed Materials

EPA will loan certain materials to Natural Gas STAR Partner's for the purpose of publicizing the program.  The Partner will reproduce and return the materials to the EPA within 30 days.

(i)	Data items:

Partner may request camera-ready negatives, mechanicals, and other directly reproducible material for the creation of the following:

(	Natural Gas STAR brochures;

(	Natural Gas STAR briefs;

(	Natural Gas STAR video; and

(	Other Natural Gas STAR materials.

(ii)	Respondent activities:

(	Make a request to the EPA to borrow materials; and

(	Return all borrowed materials within thirty (30) days of their receipt.

Additional Activities

During participation in the program, Partners may be required to notify EPA within two weeks of any change in Natural Gas STAR Program Implementation Manager responsibility.

(i)	 Data items:

Partner must provide EPA with the name of the new Implementation Manager.

(ii) 	Respondent activities:

Notify EPA within two weeks of any change in Natural Gas STAR Implementation Manager responsibility.

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

5(a)	Agency Activities

The Natural Gas STAR Program requires EPA to perform activities after a Partner submits the MOU, Implementation Plan, and Annual Report.

Memorandum of Understanding

EPA  must perform the following activities following the submittal of an MOU:

(	Review the MOU to ensure completeness and accuracy, and follow up, if necessary;

(	Sign the MOU;

(	Develop a cover letter;

(	Copy the cover letters and MOUs;

(	Send cover letter and original MOU back to Partner;

(	File copies of cover letters and MOUs; and

(	Enter MOU information into a database.

Implementation Plan

EPA  must perform the following activities after the submittal of an Implementation Plan:

(	Review the plan to ensure completeness and accuracy, and follow-up, if necessary;

(	Make copies of the plan;

(	File copies of the plan; and

(	Enter information into a database.

Annual Report

EPA must perform the following activities after the submittal of an Annual report:

(	Review the report to ensure completeness and accuracy, and follow-up, if necessary;

(	Make copies of the report;

(	File copies of the report; and

(	Enter information into a database.

Use of EPA-Developed Materials

EPA may perform the following activities after the receiving a request for materials:

(	Make record of request;

(	Ship materials to the Partner; and

(	Receive returned materials.

Additional Activities

EPA also may be required to perform the following additional activity:

(	Enter any changes in Partner's information into a database (e.g., Implementation Manager's responsibility, size of facility, newsletter mailing list, etc.).

5(b)	Collection Methodology and Management

In collecting and analyzing the information associated with this ICR, EPA uses a state-of-the-art telephone system, personal computers, and applicable database and word processing software.  In addition to traditional hard copy data collection methods, all information can be submitted to EPA electronically.  EPA has created the capability for companies to submit Annual Reports through a password protected website or by e-mailing an electronic reporting form.

EPA ensures the accuracy and completeness of collected information by reviewing each submittal.  EPA enters the information obtained from the MOU, Implementation Plan, and Annual Reports into a database and aggregates data obtained from the Implementation Plan and Annual Reports to track the progress of Partners in reducing methane emissions.

5(c)	Small Entity Flexibility

EPA expects that some Natural Gas STAR Partners may be small entities.  EPA has designed its plan and electronic reporting forms to minimize respondent burden while obtaining sufficient and accurate information.  In addition, the burden associated with the Natural Gas STAR Program is inherently reduced since the initial agreement to participate is voluntary.

5(d)	Collection Schedule

EPA collects initial information in the MOU, which is completed and submitted by each Partner upon agreement to participate in the program.  EPA collects information in the Implementation Plan six to twelve months after receiving a signed MOU.  Each Spring, EPA collects information in the Annual Report to monitor emission reduction progress.  Finally, EPA may collect other program information on a periodic basis or as the information is submitted; these items include notification of changes in Implementation Manager responsibility, and notification of changes in a Partner's gas system.

6.	ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

6(a)	Estimating Respondent Burden

In order to obtain accurate hourly burden and cost estimates, EPA consulted with fewer than nine members of the affected universe and reviewed comments received during the comment period.  Exhibit 1 presents the estimated annual respondent burden and costs for information collection activities associated with the Natural Gas STAR Program.

6(b)	Estimating Respondent Costs

EPA estimates an average hourly labor rate (hourly rate plus overhead) of $138 for legal staff, $112 for managerial staff, $80 for technical staff, and $42 for clerical staff.  In developing these estimates, EPA used U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data and consulted with Natural Gas STAR Partners.  To develop respondent capital and O & M cost estimates, EPA consulted with members of the oil and gas industry.  EPA believes that the capital or operations and maintenance costs of this program are not significant.  The only O & M costs expected are for postage.  A postage cost of $3.00 is attributed to all activities involving the sending of materials to account for the use of trackable mail.

6(c)	Estimating Agency Burden and Costs

Exhibit 2 presents the estimated Agency burden hours and costs for the information collection activities associated with this ICR.  EPA estimates an average hourly labor cost (labor plus overhead) of $67.04 for legal staff, $62.63 for managerial staff, $45.97 for technical staff, and $18.46 for clerical staff.  To derive these estimates, EPA used the 2004 Federal Pay Schedule salary figures.  For purposes of this ICR, EPA assigned staff the following government service levels:

Legal Staff			GS-15, Step 1

Managerial Staff			GS-14, Step 4

Technical Staff			GS-12, Step 5

Clerical Staff			GS-5, Step 1.

EXHIBIT 1:   ESTIMATED ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST

Hours and Costs Per Respondent/Activity

Total Hours and Costs

Number of

Leg.

Mgr.

Tech.

Cler.

Respon.

Labor

Capital/

Respon.

Total

Total

$137.68/

$112.42/

$79.58/

$41.68/

Hours/

Cost/

Startup

O & M

or

Hours/

Cost/

INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITY

Hour

Hour

Hour

Hour

Activity

Activity

Cost

Cost

Activities

Year

Year

Memorandum of Understanding

  Receive and review the MOU

1.00

8.00

0.00

0.00

9.00

$1,037

$0

$0

8

72

$8,296

  Gather information and fill out MOU data sheet

1.00

25.00

0.00

2.00

28.00

$3,032

$0

$0

8

224

$24,256

  Sign and submit MOU to EPA

0.00

0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

$77

$0

$3

8

8

$640

SUBTOTAL

304

$33,192

Implementation Plan

  Review instructions

0.00

2.00

0.00

0.00

2.00

$225

$0

$0

8

16

$1,800

  Gather information and develop the Implementation Plan

0.00

10.00

10.00

0.00

20.00

$1,920

$0

$0

8

160

$15,360

  Complete the form(s)

0.00

1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

$154

$0

$0

8

16

$1,232

  Sign and submit plan to EPA

0.00

0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

$77

$0

$3

8

8

$640

  Update Implementation Plan, as necessary

0.00

6.50

4.00

1.50

12.00

$1,112

$0

$3

35

420

$39,025

SUBTOTAL

620

$58,057

Annual Report

  Review instructions

0.00

7.00

0.00

0.00

7.00

$787

$0

$0

8

56

$6,296

  Gather the requested information for the initial report

0.00

10.00

37.00

0.00

47.00

$4,069

$0

$0

8

376

$32,552

  Complete the initial form(s)

0.00

4.00

0.00

1.00

5.00

$491

$0

$0

8

40

$3,928

  Sign and submit the initial report to EPA

0.00

0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

$77

$0

$3

8

8

$640

  Prepare and submit a subsequent Annual Report

0.00

10.00

18.50

1.50

30.00

$2,428

$0

$3

108

3,240

$262,548

SUBTOTAL

3,720

$305,964

Use of EPA Developed Materials

  Make request to EPA for materials

0.00

2.00

0.00

1.00

3.00

$267

$0

$0

11

33

$2,937

  Return borrowed materials within 30 days

0.00

0.00

0.00

1.00

1.00

$42

$0

$3

11

11

$495

SUBTOTAL

44

$3,432

Additional Activities

 Notify EPA within two weeks of any change in Natural Gas Star Implementation Manager responsibility

0.00

1.00

0.00

0.50

1.50

$133

$0

$3

11

17

$1,4962

SUBTOTAL

17

$1,496

TOTAL

$0

$21

4,705

$402,141

EXHIBIT 2:   ESTIMATED ANNUAL AGENCY BURDEN AND COST

Hours and Costs Per Respondent/Activity

Total Hours and Costs

Number of

Leg.

Mgr.

Tech.

Cler.

Respon.

Labor

Capital/

Respon.

Total

Total

$67.04/

$62.69/

$45.97/

$18.46/

Hours/

Cost/

Startup

O & M

or

Hours/

Cost/

INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITY

Hour

Hour

Hour

Hour

Activity

Activity

Cost

Cost

Activities

Year

Year

Memorandum of Understanding

Review MOU and follow up, if necessary

0.00

0.00

1.00

0.00

1.00

$46

$0

$0

8

8

$368

Sign the MOU

0.00

0.05

0.00

0.00

0.05

$3

$0

$0

8

ERR

$23

Develop a cover letter

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.10

0.10

$2

$0

$0

8

1

$14

Copy cover letters and MOUs

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.08

0.08

$1

$0

$0

8

1

$11

Send cover letters and original MOU back to partner

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.10

0.10

$2

$0

$3

8

1

$38

File copies of cover letters and MOUs

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.10

0.10

$2

$0

$0

8

1

$14

Enter MOU information into a data base

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.25

0.25

$4

$0

$0

8

2

$34

Subtotal

13

$500

Implementation Plan

Review plan and follow up, if necessary

0.00

0.00

2.00

0.00

2.00

$84

$0

$0

35

70

$2,942

Make copies of plan

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.08

0.08

$1

$0

$0

35

3

$47

File copies of plan

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.10

0.10

$2

$0

$0

35

4

$59

Enter information into data base

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.25

0.25

$4

$0

$0

35

9

$148

Subtotal

85

$3,196

Annual Report

Review report and follow up, if necessary

0.00

0.00

4.00

0.00

4.00

$168

$0

$0

116

464

$19,502

Make copies of report

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.08

0.08

$1

$0

$0

116

9

$157

File copies of report

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.10

0.10

$2

$0

$0

116

12

$196

Enter information into data base

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.50

0.50

$8

$0

$0

116

58

$979

Subtotal

543

$20,833

Use of EPA-Developed Materials

Make record of request

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.10

0.10

$2

$0

$0

9

1

$15

Ship materials to the partner

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.25

0.25

$4

$0

$3

9

2

$65

Receive returned materials

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.25

0.25

$4

$0

$0

9

2

$38

Subtotal

5

$118

Additional Activities

Enter updated information into data base

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.25

0.25

$4

$0

$0

49

12

$207

Subtotal

12

$207

TOTAL

$0	$

$6

659

$24,855

To derive hourly estimates, EPA divided annual compensation estimates by 2,080, which is the number of hours in the Federal work-year.  EPA then multiplied hourly rates by the standard government overhead factor of 1.6.

6(d)       Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

Currently, there are 108 Natural Gas STAR Program Partners, and EPA anticipates that an average of eight new Partners will join the program annually.  The average annual universe numbers are shown below in Table 1.

	TABLE 1

Estimated Number of Program Partners in Fiscal Years 2004-2006

	Type of Partner

	Fiscal Year '04

	Fiscal Year '05

	Fiscal Year '06

Average

New Partners Enrolled

9

8

8

8

Total Program Partners

108

116

124

116

Memorandum of Understanding

Each potential Partner must complete and submit an MOU to participate in the program.  EPA expects that eight new Partners will complete and submit an MOU each year.

Implementation Plan

Each Partner must complete and submit the Implementation Plan within six to twelve months of signing and submitting the MOU.  Thus, the Agency expects that all eight new Partners will prepare and submit the Implementation Plan each year.  Additionally, EPA estimates that each year, 30 percent of all existing Partners (35 facilities) will update the Implementation Plan and submit it to EPA.

Annual Report

All existing Partners must complete and submit an Annual Report.  EPA estimates that completing the initial Annual Report will take approximately twice as long as subsequent reports.  EPA also expects that the eight new Program Partners joining each year will complete and submit an initial report and all 108 other existing Partners (116 minus the eight new Partners) will complete and submit subsequent reports.

Use of EPA-Developed Materials

Each year, EPA estimates that 10 percent of all Partners will request the use of EPA-developed materials for promotional purposes.  Thus, EPA estimates that 11 Partners (108 x .1) will request materials from EPA each year.

Additional Activities

EPA expects that some additional information submittals may be required of some Partners.  EPA estimates that approximately 10 percent of all Partners experience changes in their Implementation Manager responsibilities each year.  Thus, EPA estimates that an average of 11 Partners (108 x .1) will notify EPA of changes in Implementation Manager responsibilities

6(e)	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs

Exhibits 1 and 2 show the aggregate annual burden and cost to respondents and the government, respectively, for the information collection activities covered under this ICR.  The bottom line burden for respondents is approximately 4,423 hours per year with an annual cost of approximately $402,141.  The annual bottom line burden to the Agency is approximately 659 hours, at a cost of approximately $24,854 per year.  Over the three-year period covered by this ICR, EPA estimates the burden of the program to be 13,269 hours and $1,261,998 for respondents, and 1,977 hours and $74,562 for EPA.

6(f)	Reasons for Change in Burden

The overall reporting burden for respondents has increased from the previous ICR.  Burden hours increased from 4,059 to 4,423 hours per year and annual costs increased from $321,844 to $402,141.  This change is largely the result of:

Higher hourly labor rates due to inflation; and

An increase in the number of program participants.

The increase, however, was tempered by a reduction in the estimate of time spent filling out and submitting the annual report due to the introduction of on-line reporting in 2002. Fifty-eight percent of reporting partners used the on-line system in 2004, and partners reported a subsequent decreased burden of 15% for this activity. This reduced the average labor cost of preparing and submitting an annual report from $2,782 to $2,540 (at constant 2004 labor rates.)

6(g)	Burden Statement

The average per facility reporting burden for information collection requirements associated with completing the MOU is estimated to be 3.06 hours.  The burden estimate includes time to receive, review, complete, sign, and submit the MOU.

The average per facility reporting burden for information collection requirements associated with completing the Implementation Plan is estimated to be 5.3 hours.  The burden estimate includes time to receive and review the plan form; gather the requested information; complete the form; sign and date the form; and submit the form to EPA.

The average per facility reporting burden for information collection requirements associated with completing the Annual Report for Program Partners is estimated to be 27.4 hours.  The burden estimate includes time to receive and review the report form; gather the requested information; complete the form; sign and date the form; and submit the form to EPA. This estimate includes a reduced estimate for those partners using the on-line reporting system, and a factor to account for the percentage of partners who are likely to use the on-line reporting system.

The average per facility reporting burden for information collection requirements associated with requesting the use of EPA-Developed materials is estimated to be .4 hours.  The burden estimate includes time to make the request to the EPA for the materials and to return the materials to the EPA within thirty days of receiving them.

For Natural Gas STAR Partners, the average per facility reporting burden for information collection requirements associated with additional activities is estimated to be .2 hours.  The reporting burden includes time to notify EPA of changes in Natural Gas STAR Program Implementation Manager responsibility.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number OAR-2004-0082, which is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 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 (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at http://www.epa.gov/edocket.  Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically.  When in the system, select “search,” then key in the Docket ID Number identified above.  Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number OAR-2004-0082 and OMB Control Number 2060-0328 in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement

	This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in collecting this information.

 PAGE  17


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD

ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105-2498

OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Heavy-Duty Hybrid Onboard Diagnostics

FROM:		Amy Kopin

TO:		The Docket

DATE:		July 19, 2011

	On June 14th, 2011 we held a conference call with Allison to discuss
concerns raised by Allison regarding heavy-duty onboard diagnostic (OBD)
requirements and timing. Specifically, they have requested a delay of
the application of HD OBD requirements for hybrid applications until
2020.  Concerns were raised during the comment period for the heavy-duty
greenhouse gas notice of proposed rulemaking that heavy-duty hybrid
applications may not be able to meet the 2013 heavy-duty OBD regulations
that were published in the 2009 OBD Final Rulemaking.,  Attendees from
the EPA and Allison are shown in the table below.

 U.S. EPA, NHTSA, and DOT, “Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Fuel
Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles,”
republished December 29, 2010.  Available here:
http://origin.www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-12-29/html/2010-32726.htm

 U.S. EPA, “Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles and New
Motor Vehicles Engines; Final Rule Regulations Requiring Onboard
Diagnostic Systems on 2010 and Later Heavy-Duty Engines Used in Highway
Applications Over 14,000 Pounds; Revisions to Onboard Diagnostic
Requirements for Diesel Highway Heavy-Duty Vehicles Under 14,000
Pounds,” published February 24, 2009.  Available here:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/im/obd/regtech/hd-obd-frm-02-24-09-notice-7
4-fr-8310.pdf


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 216 (Friday, November 12, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62758-62760]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24455]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0977; Airspace Docket No. 21-ASW-20]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment Class E Airspace; Hugo, OK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend the Class E airspace at Hugo,
OK. The FAA is proposing this action as the result of an airspace
review due to the decommissioning of the Hugo non-directional beacon
(NDB). The geographic coordinates of the airport would also be updated
to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 27, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone
(202) 366-9826, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2021-0977/Airspace Docket No. 21-ASW-20, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except federal holidays.
    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. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is also available for inspection at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of FAA Order JO 7400.11F at NARA, email:
[email protected] or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

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
would amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Stan Stamper Municipal Airport, Hugo, OK, to support
instrument flight rule operations at this airport.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2021-0977/
Airspace Docket No. 21-ASW-20.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic
Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend 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 Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by amending the
Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to
within a 6.4-mile (increased from a 6.3-mile) radius of Stan Stamper
Municipal Airport, Hugo, OK; removing the Hugo NDB and associated
extension from the airspace legal description; updating the geographic
coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical
database; and removing the exclusionary language as it is not required.
    This action is the result of an airspace review due to the
decommissioning of the Hugo NDB which provided guidance to instrument
procedures at this airport.
    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.
    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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 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.

* * * * *

ASW OK E5 Hugo, OK [Amended]

Stan Stamper Municipal Airport, OK
    (Lat. 34[deg]02'06'' N, long. 95[deg]32'31'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Stan Stamper Municipal Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 4, 2021.
Martin A. Skinner,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2021-24455 Filed 11-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 126 (Friday, June 29, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38801-38802]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16031]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9003-7]

Environmental Impacts Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 06/18/2012 Through 06/22/2012
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  EPA is seeking agencies to participate in
its e-NEPA electronic EIS submission pilot. Participating agencies can
fulfill all requirements for EIS filing, eliminating the need to submit
paper copies to EPA Headquarters, by filing documents online and
providing feedback on the process. To participate in the pilot,
register at: https://cdx.epa.gov.

EIS No. 20120197, Draft EIS, USFS, ID, Golden Hand No. 1 and No. 2 Lode
Mining Claims Project, Krassel Ranger District, Payette National
Forest, Valley and Idaho Counties, ID, Comment Period Ends: 08/13/2012,
Contact: Jeff Hunteman<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20120198, Draft EIS, FHWA, TX, Grand Parkway (State Highway 99)
Segment B, Construction, from SH-288 to IH-45, USACE Section 404
Permit, Brazoria and Galveston Counties, TX, Comment Period Ends: 09/
26/2012, Contact: Gregory Punske<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20120199, Final EIS, RUS, MS, ADOPTION--Kemper County
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Project, To Provide Financial
Assistance, Kemper County, MS, Review Period Ends: 07/30/2012, Contact:
Emily Orler<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20120200, Final EIS, USFS, MT, Stillwater Mining Reused Water
Management Plans and Boe Ranch LAD, USACE Section 404 Permit, Beartooth
Ranger District, Stillwater County, MT, Review Period Ends: 07/30/2012,
Contact: Pat Pierson<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20120201, Draft Supplement, USACE, IN, Indianapolis North Flood
Damage Reduction, Modifications to Project Features and Realignment of
the South Warfleigh Section, Marion County, IN, Comment Period Ends:
08/13/2012, Contact: Michael Turner<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20120202, Final EIS, FAA, NM, Taos Regional Airport Layout
Plan, Improvements, Construction and Operation of Various Improvements,
Town of Taos, Taos County, NM, Review Period Ends: 07/30/2012, Contact:
Dean McMath<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20120203, Final EIS, BLM, WY, Visual Resource Management (VRM)
Plan, Amendment, Class Designation, Carbon County, WY, Review Period
Ends: 07/30/2012, Contact: Pamela Murdock<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20120204, Final EIS, BLM, WY, Chokecherry and Sierra Madre Wind
Energy Project, Development of a Wind Farm, Carbon County, WY, Review
Period Ends: 07/30/2012, Contact: Pamela Murdock<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20120205, Draft EIS, BLM, CA, Alta East Wind Project,
Development of a 318-megawatt Wind Energy Facility, Kern County, CA,
Comment Period Ends: 09/26/2012, Contact: Jeffery Childers 951-697-
5308.
EIS No. 20120206, Final EIS, NPS, AK, Denali Park Road Final Vehicle
Management Plan, Implementation, Denali National Park and Preserve, AK,
Review Period Ends: 07/30/2012, Contact: Miriam Valentine<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20120207, Final EIS, USACE, LA, Mississippi River Gulf Outlet
Ecosystem Restoration, To Develop a Comprehensive Ecosystem Restoration
Plan to Restore the Lake Borgne Ecosystems, LA and MS, Review Period
Ends: 07/30/2012, Contact: Tammy Gilmore<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20120208, Final EIS, USFS, MT, Troy Mine Revised Reclamation
Plan, Approval of a Reclamation Plan and Permits, Kootenai National
Forest, Lincoln County, MT, Review Period Ends: 07/30/2012, Contact:
Bobbie Lacklen<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20120209, Draft EIS, USN, FL, Naval Air Station Key West
Airfield Operations, To Support and Conduct Aircraft Training
Operations, Florida Keys, Monroe County, FL, Comment Period Ends: 08/
13/2012, Contact: John Conway<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20120210, Final EIS, BIA, WI, Menominee Casino-Hotel 223-Acre
Fee-to-Trust Transfer and Casino Project, Implementation, NPDES Permit,
Kenosha County, WI, Review Period Ends: 07/30/2012, Contact: Scott Doig
612-725-4514 This document is available on the Internet at:
www.kenoshaeis.com.
EIS No. 20120211, Draft EIS, USFWS, OH, Proposed Habitat Conservation
Plan and Incidental Take Permit for the Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis)
for the Buckeye Wind Power Project, Application, Champaign County, OH,
Comment Period Ends: 09/27/2012, Contact: Megan Seymour<PHONE_NUMBER>,
ext. 16.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20120150, Draft EIS, FHWA, CA, Interchange 5/State Route 56
Interchange Project, Connection between southbound I-5 to eastbound SR-
56 and northbound SR 56 to northbound I-5, San Diego County, CA,
Comment Period Ends: 07/17/2012, Contact: Manuel E. Sanchez 619-699-
7336. Revision to FR Notice Published 05/18/2012, Extending Comment
Period from 07/02/2012 to 07/17/2012.
EIS No. 20120152, Draft EIS, FHWA, CA, San Diego Freeway (I-405)
Improvement Project, between State Route 73 and Interstate 605, USACE
Section 404 Permit, Orange and Los Angeles Counties, CA, Comment Period
Ends: 07/17/2012, Contact: Tay Dam<PHONE_NUMBER>. Revision to FR Notice
Published 5/15/2012; Comment Period Extended from 07/02/2012 to 07/17/
2012.
EIS No. 20120192, Final EIS, NMFS, CA, Authorization for Incidental
Take and Implementation of Fruit Growers

Supply Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan, Siskiyou County, CA,
Review Period Ends: 08/06/2012, Contact: Lisa Roberts,<PHONE_NUMBER>
NMFS, Yreka Office<PHONE_NUMBER> ext. 109 USFWS. Revision to FR Notice
Published 6/22/2012; Change Review Period from 7/23/2012 to 8/6/2012.

    Dated: June 26, 2012.
Cliff Rader,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2012-16031 Filed 6-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 160 (Friday, August 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49819-49820]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20206]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0876]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Pretesting of Tobacco Communications

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on pretesting of tobacco
communications.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by October 16, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Gittleson, Office of
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr.,
PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Pretesting of Tobacco Communications--(OMB Control Number 0910-0674)--
Extension

    In order to conduct educational and public information programs
relating to tobacco use, as authorized by section 903(d)(2)(D) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 393(d)(2)(D)) and to
develop stronger health warnings on tobacco packaging as authorized by
the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control
Act), it is beneficial for FDA to conduct research and studies relating
to the control and prevention of disease as authorized by section 301
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C 241(a)). In conducting such
research, FDA will employ formative pretests to assess the likely
effectiveness of tobacco communications with specific target audiences.
The information collected will serve two major purposes. First, as
formative research it will provide the critical knowledge needed about
target audiences. FDA must first understand critical influences on
people's decisionmaking process when choosing to use, not use, or quit
using tobacco products. In addition to understanding the decisionmaking
processes of adults, it is also critical to understand the
decisionmaking processes among adolescents (ages 13 to 17), where
communications will aim to discourage tobacco use before it starts.
Knowledge of these decisionmaking processes will be applied by FDA to
help design effective communication strategies, messages, and warning
labels. Second, as initial testing, it will allow FDA to assess the
potential effectiveness of messages and materials in reaching and
successfully communicating with their intended audiences. Pretesting
messages with a sample of the target audience will allow FDA to refine
messages while they are still in the developmental stage. By utilizing
appropriate qualitative and quantitative methodologies, FDA will be
able to: (1) Better understand characteristics of the target audience--
its attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors--and use risk communications; (2)
more efficiently and effectively design messages and select formats
that have the greatest potential to influence the target audience's
attitudes and behavior in a favorable way; (3) determine the best
promotion and distribution channels to reach the target audience with
appropriate messages; and (4) expend limited program resource dollars
wisely and effectively.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Number of
           Activity                Number of     responses per   Total annual    Average burden     Total hours
                                  respondents     respondent       responses      per  response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual In-Depth Interviews             360               1             360  0.75 (45                     270
                                                                                minutes).
General Public Focus Group                 144               1             144  1.5 hours.......             216
 Interviews.
Intercept Interviews: Central              600               1             600  0.25 (15                     150
 Location.                                                                       minutes).
Intercept Interviews:               \2\ 10,000               1          10,000  0.08 (5 minutes)             800
 Telephone.
Self-Administered Surveys.....           2,400               1           2,400  0.25 (15                     600
                                                                                minutes).
Gatekeeper Reviews............             400               1             400  0.50 (30                     200
                                                                                minutes).
Omnibus Surveys...............           2,400               1           2,400  0.17 (10                     408
                                                                                minutes).
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total (General Public)....          16,304  ..............  ..............  ................           2,644
Physician Focus Group                      144               1             144  1.5 hours.......             216
 Interviews.
    Total (Physician).........             144  ..............  ..............  ................             216
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total (Overall)...........          16,448  ..............  ..............  ................           2,860
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.
\2\ Brief interviews with callers to test message concepts and strategies following their call-in request to the
  FDA Center for Tobacco Products 1-800 number.

    The number of respondents to be included in each new pretest will
vary, depending on the nature of the material or message being tested
and the target audience. However, for illustrative purposes, table 1
provides examples of the types of studies that may be administered and
estimated burden levels that may be incurred during each year of the 3-
year period. Time to read, view, or listen to the message being tested
is built into the ``Hours per Response'' figures.

    Dated: August 13, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-20206 Filed 8-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P