[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 141 (Monday, July 23, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43137-43141]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15908]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Aviation Environmental and Energy Policy Statement

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Policy Statement.

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

SUMMARY: This is a statement affirming the FAA's environmental and
energy policy for U.S. civil aviation. This policy statement outlines
guiding principles, establishes initial high level performance goals,
and describes strategies to achieve the goals.

DATES: July 23, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Marks, Office of Environment and
Energy (AEE), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave.
SW., Washington, DC 20591; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Policy Statement

Introduction

    This policy statement affirms environmental and energy policy for
U.S. civil aviation. The Next Generation Air Transportation System,
commonly called NextGen, is the transformation of the U.S. aviation
system by employing technological, operational, and infrastructure
advances to provide improved safety, security, mobility, environmental
performance, and quality of service.\1\ The overarching environmental
performance goal for NextGen is environmental protection that allows
sustained \2\ aviation growth.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Public Law 108-176, title VII, Sec.  709, Dec. 12, 2003,
117 Stat. 2582.
    \2\ Sustainability means developing aviation in a manner that
enhances and promotes the Nation's economic, environmental, and
social initiatives.
    \3\ See the NextGen Integrated Plan (December 2004) Sections
5.1.6 and 7.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The primary environmental and energy issues that significantly
influence the capacity and flexibility of the national aviation system
are aircraft noise, air quality, climate, energy, and water quality.
These issues are being addressed under a range of environmental laws
and regulations, and by governmental and industry initiatives. Major
strides in lessening the environmental effects of aviation have been
made over the past several decades. However, aircraft noise continues
to be the public's primary objection to near term aviation growth.
Aircraft emissions contribute to air quality-related health effects, as
do emissions from all combustion processes, and are causing heightened

concerns locally and globally. The potential effects of aircraft
emissions on the climate of our planet may pose the most serious long
term environmental consequences facing aviation. Noise and emissions
will be the principal environmental constraints on the capacity and
flexibility of the national aviation system unless they are effectively
managed and mitigated. It is important to build on current efforts and
develop new strategies as the system is transformed with NextGen. In
addition, energy supply, its cost, and the relationship between the
burning of fossil fuels and climate change are driving increased
emphasis on the need for energy conservation and sustainable
alternative fuels. Finally, the nation's water quality requires
continued protection from potential contamination from airport-related
discharges.
    These combined environmental and energy challenges must be
successfully managed and mitigated for NextGen to realize its full
potential and for the U.S. to meet the aviation transportation needs of
the 21st century.

Environmental and Energy Policy Framework and Principles

    This policy statement outlines guiding principles, establishes
initial high level performance goals, and describes strategies to
achieve the goals. The main guiding principles are (1) to limit and
reduce future aviation environmental impacts to levels that protect
public health and welfare and (2) to ensure energy availability and
sustainability.
    Two supporting principles are:
    (1) Appropriate environmental protection measures combined with
effective and efficient environmental reviews must be an integral part
of strategies for future growth in air transportation. The
implementation of a strategic Environmental Management System (EMS)
approach should provide a foundation for improving the integration of
environmental and energy assessment and performance into the planning,
decision-making, and operation of the national aviation system.\4\ The
NextGen EMS approach, featuring collaboration across stakeholders, is a
strategic concept that requires development, maturation and a robust
implementation plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ http://www.jpdo.gov/library/20101123_JPDOPaper_EMS_Strategy_v3.0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Aviation must have reliable and sustainable sources of energy
and must use that energy efficiently and in a manner that is consistent
with environmental protection. Continuing progress in energy efficiency
and pioneering advances in sustainable alternative aviation fuels will
be key components of NextGen.
    Based on these guiding principles, this policy statement is
intended to be a living document. The initial high level goals
presented below will serve as the guide for setting of specific
quantitative performance targets. We will periodically review the
goals, targets, and strategies to achieve them and refine them over
time based on better scientific knowledge, changing environmental
protection and energy needs, and improved technological and operational
capabilities. They are additionally subject to review and revision
based on Administration policy guidance, particularly with respect to
energy, climate, and sustainability. New goals, targets, and strategies
may be defined based on these same factors.

Key Aviation Environmental and Energy Goals

    Each of the following initial goals is presented by impact area--
noise, air quality, climate, energy, and water quality. These goals are
established at levels intended to reduce future aviation environmental
and energy impacts sufficiently to protect public health and welfare
while allowing sustained air transportation growth. They are high level
goals at the aviation system-wide level, and are intended to be common
to all individual organizational EMSs.
    Each goal will have quantitative targets that are actionable and
can be used to measure progress. Initial targets, some of which have
been established, will be based upon currently available scientific
knowledge of aviation's impacts and will take into account near term
operational and technological improvements.
    Noise Goal: Reduce the number of people exposed to significant
noise around U.S. airports in absolute terms, notwithstanding aviation
growth, and provide additional measures to protect public health and
welfare and our national resources.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See the 2004 FAA Report to Congress on Aviation and
Environment at www.faa.gov/library/reports/media/congrept_aviation_envirn.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number of people in the U.S. exposed to significant aircraft
noise since 1975 has dropped by 90 percent, an impressive reduction
primarily due to reductions in aircraft source noise and phase outs of
Stage 1 and 2 aircraft over 75,000 pounds. Yet noise remains a
predominant aviation environmental concern of the public, one of the
principal environmental obstacles to expanding airport and airspace
capacity, and the one that has used the most mitigation resources--
including funding from the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) and
Passenger Facility Charges (PFC). The persistence of significant levels
of aircraft noise in communities around airports is the major impact,
but not the only one. There are increasing concerns in areas of
moderate noise exposure and public complaints from suburban and rural
areas where ambient noise is lower. At noise exposure levels below
those involving health and welfare concerns, there are also
sensitivities with respect to national resources such as national
parks. While techniques and tools for measuring and modeling noise
exposure provide a reliable means of assessing the levels of aircraft
noise to which people are exposed, focused research could improve our
scientific knowledge base of the extent of impacts and appropriate
mitigation below historically-defined significant noise levels.
    Air Quality Goal: Achieve an absolute reduction of significant air
quality health and welfare impacts attributable to aviation,
notwithstanding aviation growth.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See the 2004 FAA Report to Congress on Aviation and
Environment at www.faa.gov/library/reports/media/congrept_aviation_envirn.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Aviation's impact on air quality, through emissions of specific
pollutants, is a growing concern.\7\ Emissions of criteria pollutants
\8\ contribute to surface air quality deterioration, resulting in human
health and welfare impacts.\9\ The focus for commercial aviation and
airport infrastructure is on reducing emissions of Nitrogen Oxides
(NOX), Particulate Matter (PM), Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2), and Hydrocarbons (HC). Lead (Pb) is an issue for
general aviation since more than 200,000 piston-engine aircraft rely on
leaded AvGas for safe operation and produce about half of all lead
emissions in the U.S. At the airport level, about 30 percent of U.S.
commercial service airports are in non-attainment areas that do not
meet national air quality standards or in maintenance areas. For these
airports, emissions issues add to the complexity and uncertainty of
expansion proposals. An increasing number of airports have invested in
low emission vehicular

fleets and ground support equipment to reduce emissions. The national
air quality standards are expected to become more stringent in the
future, placing more pressure on aviation to reduce emissions despite
growth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 2009 Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and
Emissions Reduction (PARTNER) Center of Excellence (COE) Report
titled Aircraft Impacts on Local and Regional Air Quality in the
United States at http://web.mit.edu/aeroastro/partner/reports/proj15/proj15finalreport.pdf.
    \8\ There are six criteria pollutants identified in the Clean
Air Act: Ozone; Lead; Nitrogen Oxides; Carbon Monoxide; Sulfur
Dioxide; and Particulate Matter.
    \9\ Includes health impacts such as increased risks of mortality
or morbidity as well as impacts that influence psychological well-
being and happiness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Climate Goal: Limit the impact of aircraft CO2 emissions
on the global climate by achieving carbon neutral growth \10\ by 2020
compared to 2005, and net reductions of the climate impact from all
aviation emissions over the longer term (by 2050).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Carbon neutral growth is no higher carbon dioxide emissions
in 2020 than is reported in 2005.
    \11\ Goal unveiled by U.S. at COP/15 and documented in Canada,
Mexico, U.S. Position presented at ICAO's 37th Assembly. See Working
Paper titled A More Ambitious, Collective Approach to International
Aviation Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Section 2.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The potential effects of aircraft emissions on the global climate
may be the most serious long-term environmental and energy issues
facing aviation. Aircraft account for about 3 percent of both national
and worldwide carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Aircraft have
been projected to contribute a larger portion of greenhouse gas
emissions in the future--perhaps 5 percent by 2050--based on projected
aviation growth assumptions and the prospect of easier transition to
alternative technologies and fuels for land transport modes.\12\ There
are additional concerns specific to aircraft as the majority of
emissions from a given flight are directly released into the chemically
complex and sensitive region of the upper troposphere and lower
stratosphere. While CO2--accounting for the bulk of aviation
greenhouse gas emissions--has the same effects regardless of where it
is emitted, certain emissions may have greater effects when released at
altitude. In addition, aircraft emissions of water vapor and aerosols
lead to the formation of contrails and modification of cirrus cloud
distribution, both of which can impact earth's climate. There is not
yet sufficient scientific knowledge about aircraft contrails to
determine their impact on climate or to adopt measures to deal with
them. There are multiple, interrelated impacts due to aircraft
emissions with varying degrees of understanding, with CO2
being the best understood and quantified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth
Assessment Report, ``Working Group 1: The Physical Science Basis,''
2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Energy Goal: Improve National Airspace System (NAS) energy
efficiency by at least two percent per year, and develop and deploy
alternative jet fuels for commercial aviation.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See ICAO Assembly Resolution A37-19: Consolidated statement
of Continuing ICAO policies and practices related to environmental
protection--Climate change, Section 23.g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Aircraft engine and airframe advances, together with improved air
traffic management and operating procedures, have dramatically improved
aircraft fuel efficiency. The aircraft energy efficiency improvement
over the last 20 years has outpaced other forms of transportation in
the U.S. Notwithstanding this success, there is renewed emphasis on
improving the fuel efficiency of the aviation system. Fuel currently
represents the largest operating cost for U.S. airlines, and this cost
category has grown dramatically in recent years. The air traffic
modernization planned under NextGen should further improve efficiency
by reducing delays and enabling more direct routings. Sustainable
practices by airport operators can conserve energy, make use of
renewable resources (solar, wind, geothermal), and deploy low emission
vehicles and ground support equipment.
    Moreover, advances in the development of sustainable alternative
fuels offer great promise for emissions reduction. Nearly 100 percent
of the fuel used in aviation operations is petroleum based--raising
issues of energy supply, energy security, and fossil fuel emissions
affecting air quality and climate. In response to these multiple
concerns, government and the aviation industry have a strong interest
in ``drop in'' alternative aviation fuels that can be blended with or
replace petroleum jet fuel with no changes to existing engines,
aircraft, ground infrastructure, and supply equipment.
    Alternative fuel options that use plant oils, sugars, or cellulose
from plants have the potential to dramatically reduce CO2
emissions, if produced in a sustainable manner. Generally, all
alternative aviation fuel options appear to reduce particulate matter
emissions in engine exhausts--a cause of respiratory ailments, although
not unique to aviation as a source.
    Water Quality Goal: Limit the adverse aviation discharges to U.S.
waters and reduce aviation's contribution to significant water quality
impacts.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ This goal is consistent with Sections 401, 402, and 404 of
the Federal Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended (now the Clean
Water Act) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many U.S. airports are located near waterways and wetlands because,
when airports were originally built, the best available land suitable
for an airport (flat and inexpensive) was often found near water. As a
result, aviation has the potential to adversely affect surface water
and groundwater biologically, chemically, and physically. Runoff
containing sediments, fluids, fuel, construction materials, and other
waste products can cause adverse water quality and biotic community
impacts during airport construction. Apart from construction, an
airport's storm water discharges, aircraft and pavement deicing
activities, and aircraft fueling and maintenance procedures can
contribute further to water quality impacts. As an example, biological
and chemical breakdown of deicing chemicals in airport runoff can cause
severe dissolved oxygen demands on receiving waters. Additives in
deicing chemicals may be toxic to aquatic life. The Nation's water
quality is controlled by legislation and regulations, permit programs,
spill control prevention planning, and best management practices. It is
important for aviation to continue efforts to minimize discharges that
adversely affect water quality.

Aviation Environmental and Energy Strategies

    The environmental and energy challenges confronting aviation are
not amenable to a single solution; rather, they will require multiple
solutions involving innovations in technology, operations, planning,
and sustainability. A five-pillar comprehensive and integrated approach
to achieving aviation environmental and energy goals, based on
aviation's traditional strengths of technological and operational
innovation, is outlined below with examples provided under each
strategy.
    Improved Scientific Knowledge and Integrated Modeling. Aviation
environmental analyses, impact determinations, and mitigation decisions
for NextGen activities must continue to be based on a solid scientific
foundation. This will require continued investments in research to
improve our scientific understanding of the impacts of aviation. This
is particularly important with respect to aviation's effects on
climate. It is also germane to gaining a more nuanced and multi-faceted
understanding of noise impacts, given community concerns with aircraft
noise and public pressures to mitigate noise at levels lower than
current Federal guidelines. In addition, the development and use of
advanced decision-support tools that account for interdependencies of
impacts and cost-benefit analyses of potential solutions will
facilitate more informed decision-making. Prospective solutions and

combinations of solutions have different impacts, benefits, and costs.
Some solutions have the ability to optimize for one area of
environmental protection at the expense of another, and trade-offs
should be as transparent as possible.
    Air Traffic Management Modernization. The development and
integration of advanced operational procedures and infrastructure
improvements will foster National Airspace System (NAS) operational
capabilities that will function more efficiently and contribute to
mitigating environmental impacts and improving energy efficiency.
NextGen will increase the efficiency of aircraft operations, both in
the air and on the airport surface. Improving efficiency saves time and
fuel. Reducing fuel consumption reduces CO2 emissions that
affect climate and other emissions that adversely affect air quality.
Fuel burn, emissions, and flight times can be cut by Performance Based
Navigation (RNAV/RNP) routes. Optimized Profile Descents can reduce
noise, emissions, and fuel consumption. NextGen technology and
procedures that optimize gate-to-gate operations are being demonstrated
with international partners in Europe and Asia-Pacific to reduce fuel
burn, emissions, and noise.
    New Aircraft Technologies. Historically, new technologies have
offered the greatest success in reducing aviation's impacts. New
engine/airframe technologies will need to play key roles in achieving
aviation environment and energy goals. The U.S. will support advances
in engine technology and airframe configurations to lay the foundation
for the next generation of aircraft. Our technological strategy
envisions a fleet of quieter, cleaner aircraft that operate more
efficiently with less energy. The FAA and NASA, along with the
Department of Defense, closely coordinate efforts on aeronautics
technology research through the President's National Science and
Technology Council's multi-agency National Aeronautics Research and
Development Plan. Each agency focuses on different elements but they
share the same national goals. The FAA's focus is on maturing
technologies for near term application, while NASA focuses on a broader
range of time frames of technology development. This includes future
concepts such as electric aircraft.
    Sustainable Alternative Aviation Fuels. Sustainable alternative
aviation fuels development and deployment offer prospects for enabling
environmental improvements, energy security and economic stability for
aviation. The aviation industry has made a commitment to convert its
fuel supply to alternative fuels.\15\ Government and industry are
working cooperatively with coordinating mechanisms such as the
Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI) and are
supporting alternative fuels research. Near term efforts include adding
new classes of fuels to the approved alternative jet fuel standard by
ASTM International, conducting aircraft flight tests using alternative
fuels and ascertaining their emissions characteristics, lifecycle
greenhouse gases, and sustainability. A number of challenges remain to
sustainable alternative fuel deployment, including financing for
commercial production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See 2011 The Future of Aviation Advisory Committee (FAAC)
Final Report; http://www.dot.gov/faac/environment.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Policies, Environmental Standards, and Market-based Measures.
Development and implementation of appropriate policies, programs,
regulations, and mechanisms are critical to support advantageous
technology and operational innovations and accelerate their integration
into the commercial fleet, the airport environment, and entire national
aviation system. The NextGen EMS approach will integrate environmental
protection objectives into NextGen and facilitate National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews. Cooperative partnerships
between government and industry can focus and leverage funding in ways
that are beneficial for aviation and good for the environment. There is
a need for continued and enhanced exploration of the most effective
means to address residual aircraft noise impacts that cannot be reduced
through technologies to guide capital investments in noise mitigation
such as sound insulation, to encourage adequate land use planning, and
to support other methods. Internationally, the U.S. is leading efforts
at the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to limit and
reduce international aviation emissions, including development of a
CO2 standard for aircraft, and a new particulate matter (PM)
certification requirement for engines. ICAO has additionally agreed to
explore more ambitious goals for the aviation sector, including carbon
neutral growth in the mid-term and reductions in the long term. The
U.S. is exploring the effectiveness of various policies, including
economic incentives to limit and reduce CO2 emissions. The
U.S. is also supporting studies to investigate the need, cost and
trade-offs, and the technological feasibility of more stringent noise
standards. Additionally, if we are to achieve environmental and energy
goals beyond the near term, policies may be needed to accelerate the
integration of new technologies into the civil fleet compared to the
normal rate of introduction and replacement.

Roles, Responsibilities, and Harmonization

    Developing the future air transportation system is a shared
responsibility among U.S. government agencies and the aviation industry
that involves effective planning, research and development, resource
deployment, performance, and collaboration. The Federal government is
responsible for national policy and regulations including aircraft
noise and emissions, aviation safety, airspace management and air
traffic control, research and development, and managing Federal
investments in the NAS. Airport proprietors are responsible for
managing their airports, including planning and implementing actions to
mitigate the adverse effects of airport operations and development on
community noise, air quality, and water quality consistent with Federal
regulations. Manufacturers of airframes and engines engage in research
and development and produce the new technologies that are so critical
to reducing the environmental footprint of aviation. Air carriers, air
freight operators, and other aircraft operators make product purchase
decisions that affect fleetwide environmental performance and fly and
service aircraft in ways that affect fuel use and environmental
impacts. The use of EMSs by aviation stakeholders contributing to
NextGen will play an important role in achieving the environmentally
sustainable growth of air transportation.
    It is also important to recognize that civil aviation is an
inherently global endeavor. We are committed to a sustainable national
aviation system that is seamlessly integrated with the larger
international system. This will require harmonization with
international standards, recommended practices, and guidance through
ICAO. This aviation environmental and energy policy statement is
intended to be implemented constructively within the larger
international system.

Conclusion

    Aviation has features that distinguish it from other transportation
modes and industries that must be factored into the application of
environmental and energy strategies. A high premium on safety demands
the incorporation of only proven and technically sound technologies to
reduce environmental impacts. Aircraft are high cost and have

a long life span, requiring long lead times for new technologies to be
widely incorporated in the fleet and close attention to financial
feasibility. Airborne systems must be lightweight and fuel-efficient.
Airlines and other aircraft operators will need to invest the capital
to purchase aircraft with new technologies for aviation to realize the
environmental and operational benefits. Airport infrastructure requires
substantial planning and construction effort, as well as public and
financial support. Noise, air quality, and climate effects of aviation
result from an interdependent set of technologies and operations, so
that action to reduce impacts in one area (e.g., aircraft engine noise)
can increase impacts in another area (e.g., nitrogen oxides emissions).
Efforts to protect water quality by reducing deicing fluid discharge
could affect safety and efficiency of operations. Such considerations
increase the challenge of achieving ambitious environmental and energy
goals. Nevertheless, aviation's impressive record of creativity and
innovation can rise to these challenges.
    This policy statement is intended to outline strategies and
approaches necessary to meet the environmental and energy challenges
that confront the U.S. civil aviation system. There is a shared
commitment to moving the aviation sector to environmental performance
that will reduce aviation's noise, air quality, climate, energy, and
water quality impacts notwithstanding the anticipated growth in
aviation. Through broad inclusion and sustained commitment among all
stakeholders, the U.S. will be a global leader in researching,
developing, and implementing technological, operational and policy
initiatives that address mobility and environmental needs.

Lourdes Q. Maurice,
Executive Director, Office of Environment and Energy.
[FR Doc. 2012-15908 Filed 7-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: November 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 215)]
[Notices]
[Page 65903-65904]
[DOCID:fr05no08-102]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58868; File No. SR-ISE-2008-79]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to Fee Changes

October 28, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on October 21, 2008, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') 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 self-regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The ISE is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees to establish
fees for transactions in options on 4 Premium Products.\3\ The text of
the proposed rule change is available on the ISE's Web site (http://
www.ise.com), at the principal office of the ISE, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Premium Products is defined in the Schedule of Fees as the
products enumerated therein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 self-regulatory organization
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 self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

    1. Purpose--The Exchange is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees
to establish fees for transactions in options on the iShares Dow Jones
U.S. Medical Devices Index Fund (``IHI''), the iShares Dow Jones U.S.
Oil & Gas Exploration & Production Index Fund (``IEO''), the iShares
Dow Jones U.S. Regional Banks Index Fund (``IAT''),\4\ and the
SPDR[supreg] S&P Oil & Gas Exploration & Production ETF (``XOP'').\5\
The Exchange represents that IHI, IEO, IAT, and XOP are eligible for
options trading because they constitute ``Exchange-Traded Fund
Shares,'' as defined by ISE Rule 502(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ iShares[supreg] is a registered trademark of Barclays Global
Investors, N.A. (``BGI''), a wholly owned subsidiary of Barclays
Bank PLC. ``Dow Jones,'' ``Dow Jones U.S. Select Medical Equipment
Index,'' ``Dow Jones U.S. Select Oil Exploration & Production
Index,'' and ``Dow Jones U.S. Select Regional Banks Index'' are
service marks of Dow Jones & Company, Inc. (``Dow Jones'') and have
been licensed for use for certain purposes by BGI. All other
trademarks and service marks are the property of their respective
owners. The iShares Dow Jones U.S. Medical Devices Index Fund
(``IHI''), the iShares Dow Jones U.S. Oil & Gas Exploration &
Production Index Fund (``IEO''), and the iShares Dow Jones U.S.
Regional Banks Index Fund (``IAT'') are not sponsored, endorsed,
sold, or promoted by Dow Jones. BGI and Dow Jones have not licensed
or authorized ISE to (i) engage in the creation, listing, provision
of a market for trading, marketing, and promotion of options on IHI,
IEO, and IAT or (ii) to use and refer to any of their trademarks or
service marks in connection with the listing, provision of a market
for trading, marketing, and promotion of options on IHI, IEO, and
IAT or with making disclosures concerning options on IHI, IEO, and
IAT under any applicable federal or state laws, rules or
regulations. BGI and Dow Jones do not sponsor, endorse, or promote
such activity by ISE, and are not affiliated in any manner with ISE.
    \5\ ``Standard & Poor's[supreg],'' ``S&P[supreg],'' ``S&P
500[supreg],'' ``Select Sector SPDR[supreg],'' ``Select Sector
SPDRs[supreg],'' and ``the S&P[supreg] Oil & Gas Exploration &
Production Select Industry Index'' are trademarks of The McGraw-Hill
Companies, Inc. (``McGraw-Hill''), and have been licensed for use by
State Street Bank and Trust Company (``State Street'') in connection
with the listing and trading of SPDR[supreg] S&P Oil & Gas
Exploration & Production ETF (``XOP''). State Street and Standard &
Poor's, (``S&P''), a division of McGraw-Hill, do not sponsor,
endorse, or promote XOP. State Street, McGraw-Hill, and S&P have not
licensed or authorized ISE to (i) engage in the creation, listing,
provision of a market for trading, marketing, and promotion of
options on XOP or (ii) to use and refer to any of their trademarks
or service marks in connection with the listing, provision of a
market for trading, marketing, and promotion of options on XOP or
with making disclosures concerning options on XOP under any
applicable federal or state laws, rules or regulations. State
Street, McGraw-Hill, and S&P do not sponsor, endorse, or promote
such activity by ISE and are not affiliated in any manner with ISE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All of the applicable fees covered by this filing are identical to
fees charged by the Exchange for all other Premium Products.
Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to adopt an execution fee for
all transactions in options on IHI, IEO, IAT, and XOP.\6\ The amount of
the execution fee for products covered by this filing shall be $0.18
per contract for all Public Customer Orders \7\ and $0.20 per contract
for all Firm Proprietary orders. The amount of the execution fee for
all ISE Market Maker transactions shall be equal to the execution fee
currently charged by the Exchange for ISE Market Maker transactions in
equity options.\8\ Finally, the amount of the execution fee for all
non-ISE Market Maker transactions shall be $0.45 per contract.\9\
Further, since options on IHI, IEO, IAT, and XOP are multiply-listed,
the Exchange's Payment for Order Flow fee shall apply to all these
products. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will further
the Exchange's goal of introducing new products to the marketplace that
are competitively priced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ These fees will be charged only to Exchange members. Under a
pilot program that is set to expire on July 31, 2009, these fees
will also be charged to Linkage Principal Orders (``Linkage P
Orders'') and Linkage Principal Acting as Agent Orders (``Linkage P/
A Orders''). The amount of the execution fee charged by the Exchange
for Linkage P Orders and Linkage P/A Orders is $0.24 per contract
side and $0.15 per contract side, respectively. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 58143 (July 11, 2008), 73 FR 41388 (July
18, 2008) (SR-ISE-2008-52).
    \7\ Public Customer Order is defined in Exchange Rule 100(a)(39)
as an order for the account of a Public Customer. Public Customer is
defined in Exchange Rule 100(a)(38) as a person or entity that is
not a broker or dealer in securities.
    \8\ The Exchange applies a sliding scale, between $0.01 and
$0.18 per contract side, based on the number of contracts an ISE
market maker trades in a month.
    \9\ The amount of the execution fee for non-ISE Market Maker
transactions executed in the Exchange's Facilitation and
Solicitation Mechanisms is $0.19 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Basis--The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\10\ in general,
and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\11\ in particular, in
that 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

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 unsolicited 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 \12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \13\ thereunder. At
any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the
Commission may summarily abrogate 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2008-79 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-ISE-2008-79. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the ISE. 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-ISE-2008-79 and should be
submitted on or before November 26, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-26277 Filed 11-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 9, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30675-30677]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12062]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2008-0355; FMCSA-2010-0203; FMCSA-2015-0115; FMCSA-
2015-0323; FMCSA-2016-0313; FMCSA-2016-0315; FMCSA-2018-0056; FMCSA-
2018-0057; FMCSA-2019-0027; FMCSA-2019-0029]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department
of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 11
individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV)
drivers have ``no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of
epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of
consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.'' The exemptions
enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are
taking anti-seizure medication to continue to operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.

DATES: Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates
stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in
the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before July 9,
2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2008-0355, Docket No. FMCSA-
2010-0203, Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0115, Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0323,
Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0313, Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0315, Docket No.
FMCSA-2018-0056, Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0057, Docket No. FMCSA-2019-
0027, or Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0029 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov/,
insert the docket number, FMCSA-2008-0355, FMCSA-2010-0203, FMCSA-2015-
0115, FMCSA-2015-0323, FMCSA-2016-0313, FMCSA-2016-0315, FMCSA-2018-
0056, FMCSA-2018-0057, FMCSA-2019-0027, or FMCSA-2019-0029 in the
keyword box, and click ``Search.'' Next, sort the results by ``Posted
(Newer-Older),'' choose the first notice listed, and click on the
``Comment'' button. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Dockets Operations; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-
0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., ET, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions regarding
viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Dockets
Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2008-0355, Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0203, Docket
No. FMCSA-2015-0115, Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0323, Docket No. FMCSA-2016-
0313, Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0315, Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0056, Docket
No. FMCSA-2018-0057, Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0027, or Docket No. FMCSA-
2019-0029), indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by
fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means.
FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an
email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that
FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to www.regulations.gov/, insert
the docket number, FMCSA-2008-0355, FMCSA-2010-0203, FMCSA-2015-0115,
FMCSA-2015-0323, FMCSA-2016-0313, FMCSA-2016-0315, FMCSA-2018-0056,
FMCSA-2018-0057, FMCSA-2019-0027, or FMCSA-2019-0029 in the keyword
box, and click ``Search.'' Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-
Older),'' choose the first notice listed, click the ``Comment'' button,
and type your comment into the text box on the following screen. Choose
whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf
of a third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.

B. Viewing Comments

    To view comments go to www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket
number, FMCSA-2008-0355, FMCSA-2010-0203, FMCSA-2015-0115, FMCSA-2015-
0323, FMCSA-2016-0313, FMCSA-2016-0315, FMCSA-2018-0056, FMCSA-2018-
0057, FMCSA-2019-0027, or FMCSA-2019-0029 in the keyword box, and click
``Search.'' Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),'' choose
the first notice listed, and click ``Browse Comments.'' If you do not
have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting
Dockets Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
To be sure someone is there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or
(202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.

C. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.transportation.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption. The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at
the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the
FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a
driver's medical certification.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which
is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to
control a CMV.
    In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory
criteria \1\ to assist Medical Examiners in determining whether drivers
with certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These criteria may be found in APPENDIX A TO PART 391--
MEDICAL ADVISORY CRITERIA, section H. Epilepsy: Sec.  391.41(b)(8),
paragraphs 3, 4, and 5, which is available on the internet at
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2015-title49-vol5/pdf/CFR-2015-title49-vol5-part391-appA.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 11 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of
their exemptions from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in
Sec.  391.41(b)(8), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly,
FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and
decided to extend each exemption for a renewable 2-year period.

III. Request for Comments

    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

IV. Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each of the 11
applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an
exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition. The 11
drivers in this notice remain in good standing with the Agency, have
maintained their medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical
issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV
during the previous 2-year exemption period. In addition, for
Commercial Driver's License (CDL) holders, the Commercial Driver's
License Information System and the Motor Carrier Management Information
System are searched for crash and violation data. For non-CDL holders,
the Agency reviews the driving records from the State Driver's
Licensing Agency. These factors provide an adequate basis for
predicting each driver's ability to continue to safely operate a CMV in
interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the
exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of 2 years is likely
to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following
groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of June and
are discussed below. As of June 10, 2021, and in accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following 10 individuals have
satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the
epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate
CMV drivers:

John D. Archer (MO)
Brian Brown (PA)
Richard Conway Jr. (MO)
Daniel Gast (KS)
Stephen Harmon (WV)
Denton Hineline (WA)
Steve Hunsaker (ID)
Bryan R. Jones (PA)
Jason Lewis (CA)
Elvin Paul Morgan (CA)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2008-0355, FMCSA-
2010-0203, FMCSA-2015-0115, FMCSA-2015-0323, FMCSA-2016-0313, FMCSA-
2016-0315, FMCSA-2018-0056, FMCSA-2018-0057, or FMCSA-2019-0027. Their
exemptions are applicable as of June 10, 2021, and will expire on June
10, 2023.
    As of June 18, 2021, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b), Alan Finlayson (AL) has satisfied the renewal conditions for
obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders
prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers.
    This driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2019-0029. The
exemption is applicable as of June 18, 2021, and will expire on June
18, 2023.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) Each driver must remain seizure-free and maintain a stable
treatment during the 2-year exemption period; (2) each driver must
submit annual reports from their treating physicians attesting to the
stability of treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free;
(3) each driver must undergo an annual medical examination by a
certified ME, as defined by Sec.  390.5; and (4) each driver must
provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for
retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy of his/her
driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must
also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a
duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. The
exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).

VI. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VII. Conclusion

    Based on its evaluation of the 11 exemption applications, FMCSA
renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the epilepsy
and seizure disorders prohibition in Sec.  391.41(b)(8). In accordance
with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each exemption will be

valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-12062 Filed 6-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


Posted:  February 26, 2003

              9:00 a.m.

	             UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

               OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                        WASHINGTON, D.C.

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

In the Matter of

Application for Approval of Agreement by the

International Air Transport Association

Docket OST-2003-14480

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

NOTICE

On February 7, 2003, the International Air Transport Association (IATA)
filed an agreement in the above-captioned docket for approval.  Comments
would normally be due 21 days from filing, i.e., on February 28, 2003.

On February 13, 2003, the High Tech Airfreight Shippers Coalition (the
Coalition) submitted a letter seeking extension for a minimum of 90 days
beyond the normal 21-day comment period.1/ Answers to the Coalition’s
request would have been due on February 26, 2003.  We shortened the
answer date on the Coalition’s request to 3 p.m. February 24, 2003.

IATA answered the Coalition's request and stated that while IATA did not
object to an extension of 60 days beyond the normal period for comments,
the requested 90-day extension was excessive and unnecessary.

We received answers supporting the full 90-day extension from the
Coalition from the Health & Personal Care Logistics Conference, Inc.,
the National Small Shipments Traffic Conference, Inc, and from the
National Industrial Transportation League.

In light of the potentially complex analytical issues raised by the IATA
application we view it as particularly important to develop an adequate
record for decision.  In this regard we find it consistent with the
public interest to ensure that all interested parties have sufficient
time to submit comments.  We therefore have decided to extend the
comment period on IATA's application for 90 days beyond the date on
which comments otherwise would have been due.

__________________

1/ We also received a comparable request from the Health & Personal Care
Logistics Conference, Inc. and the National Small Shipments Traffic
Conference, Inc.

Therefore, acting under authority assigned to the Director, Office of
International Aviation, 14 CFR 385, we are extending the period for
comment on the agreement in the above-captioned docket to May 29, 2003.

We will serve this notice on all interested parties who have filed
pleadings in the docket, as well as on those who were served by IATA
with its application.

By:

PAUL L. GRETCH

Director

Office of International Aviation

(SEAL)

Dated:  February 25, 2003

An electronic version of this notice is available on the World Wide Web
at

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 165 (Monday, August 30, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48466-48468]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18768]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0067]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: High Density
Traffic Airports; Slot Allocation and Transfer Methods.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on March 16, 2021. The FAA collects information from U.S. and
foreign air carriers holding or requesting a slot at Ronald Reagan
Washington National Airport (DCA), John F. Kennedy International
Airport (JFK), and LaGuardia Airport (LGA); operating or requesting
scheduled flights at Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR), Los
Angeles International Airport (LAX), O'Hare International Airport
(ORD), and San Francisco International Airport (SFO); and conducting
unscheduled operations at DCA and LGA. The information collected is
necessary to support the advance management of air traffic demand by
the FAA Slot Administration in an effort to reduce potential delays.
The FAA proposes renaming this information collection to ``FAA Runway
Slot Administration and Schedule Analysis'' to more accurately reflect
the collection of information related to multiple airports subject to
different FAA regulatory and voluntary processes under this program.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by September 29, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of
this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular
information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--
Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Gonabe, FAA Slot
Administration, by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone: (609) 485-
9554.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0524.
    Title: High Density Traffic Airports; Slot Allocation and Transfer
Methods.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on the following collection of information
was published on March 16, 2021 (86 FR 14515). The FAA has implemented
several initiatives to address air traffic congestion and delay at
certain airports within the National Airspace System (NAS). DCA slot
rules are established under 14 CFR part 93, subparts K and S. The FAA
has issued Orders limiting operations at JFK and LGA.\1\ These Orders
resulted from increasing congestion and delays at the airports
requiring the FAA to allocate arrival and departure slots at JFK and
LGA. In addition, the FAA has designated EWR, LAX, ORD, and SFO as
Level 2 schedule-facilitated airports under the IATA Worldwide Slot
Guidelines (WSG) now known as the Worldwide Airport Slot Guidelines
(WASG).\2\ At Level 2 airports, the FAA seeks the cooperation of all
carriers planning operations, on a voluntary basis, to maintain close
communications on runway schedules and facilitate adjustments, as
needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Operating Limitations at John F. Kennedy International
Airport, 73 FR 3510 (Jan. 18, 2008), as most recently amended 85 FR
58258 (Sep. 18, 2020); Operating Limitations at New York LaGuardia
Airport, 71 FR 77854 (Dec. 27, 2006), as most recently amended 85 FR
58255 (Sep. 18, 2020).
    \2\ Notice of Submission Deadline for Schedule Information for
O'Hare International, John F. Kennedy International, and Newark
Liberty International Airports for the Summer 2009 Scheduling
Season, 73 FR 54659 (Sept. 22, 2008); Notice of Submission Deadline
for Schedule Information for San Francisco International Airport for
the Summer 2012 Scheduling Season, 76 FR 64163 (Oct. 17, 2011);
Notice of Submission Deadline for Schedule Information for Los
Angeles International Airport for the Summer 2015 Scheduling Season
80 FR 12253 (Mar. 6, 2015); Notice of Change of Newark Liberty
International Airport Designation, 81 FR 19861 (Apr. 6, 2016). The
FAA most recently reaffirmed the Level 2 designations by 86 FR 24428
(May 6, 2021). These designations remain effective until the FAA
announces a change in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At DCA, U.S. and foreign air carriers, including commuter
operators, must notify the FAA of: (1) Written consent and requests for
confirmation of slot transfers; (2) slots required to be returned and
slots voluntarily returned; (3) requests to be included in a lottery
for the permanent allocation of available slots; (4) reports on usage
of slots on a bi-monthly basis; and (5) requests for slots in low-
demand hours or other temporary allocations. Operators must obtain a
reservation from the FAA prior to conducting an unscheduled operation.
At LGA, U.S. and foreign air carriers must notify the FAA of: (1)
Written consent and requests for confirmation of slot transfers; (2)
slots required to be returned and slots voluntarily returned; (3)
requests to be included in a lottery for the permanent allocation of
available slots; and (4) reports usage of slots on a bi-monthly basis.
Carriers must also request and obtain a reservation from the FAA prior
to conducting an unscheduled operation. At JFK, U.S. and foreign air
carriers must notify the FAA of: (1) Written consent and requests for
confirmation of slot transfers; (2) requests for seasonal allocation of
historic and additional available slots; (3) reports on usage of slots
on a seasonal basis; (4) the return of slots; and (5) changes to
allocated slots. At EWR, LAX, ORD, and SFO, all carriers are asked to
notify the FAA of their intended operating schedules during

designated hours on a semiannual basis (for each winter and summer
scheduling season) based on the IATA WASG Calendar of Coordination
Activities and provide updates throughout the year when there are
significant schedule changes.
    The FAA estimates that all information from carriers is submitted
electronically from data stored in carrier scheduling and operational
databases. Requests for unscheduled flight reservations are submitted
electronically via the internet. The FAA also proposes to re-name the
collection to ``FAA Runway Slot Administration and Schedule Analysis''
to more accurately reflect the collection of information related to
multiple airports subject to different FAA regulatory and voluntary
processes.
    Summary of Comments: On April 5, 2021, the FAA received an email
from Airlines for America (A4A) requesting further supporting
information for the FAA's March 16, 2021, 60-day notice. Specifically
A4A requested the estimates used to derive the total annual burden of
5602.6 hours expressed in the March 16, 2021, notice. In response, the
FAA placed a summary of communication and draft detailed annual hourly
burden tables to the docket.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See FAA-2021-0067-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA received three comments during the 60-day comment period
from Exhaustless Inc., Eastern Airlines, LLC (Eastern), and A4A.
Exhaustless, Inc. objects to this information collection and questions
the FAA's legal authority to manage slots and schedules at constrained
airports in the United States. Comments submitted by Exhaustless, Inc.
are outside the scope of this Paperwork Reduction Act proceeding. The
purpose of this proceeding is to update the Agency's estimates of the
information collection burden associated with established FAA rules,
regulations, orders, policy and processes associated with the FAA's
administration of runway slots and schedule review at affected airports
in the United States. However, the FAA nevertheless reiterates that the
FAA Administrator is required to ``develop plans and policy for the use
of the navigable airspace and assign by regulation or order the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace,'' and to issue regulations for ``using the
navigable airspace efficiently.'' 49 U.S.C. 40103(b). The FAA's
administration of the runway slot program, including the establishment
of runway schedule limits and facilitation of schedules at Level 2
airports, is adopted under the Administrator's mandate to efficiently
manage the NAS.
    Eastern supports the information collection and ``provides its
recommendations to maximize the public benefit including: (1)
Collecting information about the size of aircraft used in each slot;
(2) collecting additional information on slot trades and transfers
including consideration provided; (3) publishing slot administration
reports in a machine-readable format; and (4) harmonizing slot
administration data collection and reporting on a bi-monthly basis.''
    Eastern's recommendations for collecting the size of the aircraft
used in each slot, collecting additional information on slot trades and
transfers including consideration provided, and harmonizing slot
administration data collection and reporting among all the FAA slot
controlled airports on a bi-monthly basis are suggestions that are also
outside the scope of this Paperwork Reduction Act proceeding. These
recommendations do not relate to the burden associated with existing
rules and policy in effect and instead, would require changes to the
existing rules, orders and policies currently in effect. Eastern's
recommendation that FAA should publish slot administration reports in a
machine-readable format is valuable feedback, though unrelated to the
collection of information. The FAA currently publishes slot holder and
operator reports, and uneven transfer reports in a PDF file format at
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/systemops/perf_analysis/slot_administration/data/ and
intends to review options for publishing additional data in a more
accessible format for data analysis by interested stakeholders.
    A4A's comment ``requests a different and simplified information
collection process for managing the slot holdings of carriers with
combined inventory and marketing control to drastically reduce
information collection burdens.'' Essentially, A4A proposes
programmatic changes to allow mainline and regional carriers to
transfer slots among one another without requiring notification of each
individual transfer to the FAA. A4A also asserts that FAA has
underestimated the burden associated with transfers and provided data
that they believe more accurately reflects the volume of transfers and
associated burden. A4A indicates it ``conducted a survey of members to
determine the actual number of slot transfers between operating and
marketing carriers at DCA, LGA, and JFK for the month of July 2019, and
found there were 36,180 such slot transfers. There were 14,125 slot
transfers at DCA, 14,897 slot transfers at LGA, and 7,158 slot
transfers at JFK, this is aggregated data, not estimates.'' Using the
FAA's estimate of 6 minutes per slot transfer, A4A comments ``this
results in 3,618 hours for the month of July 2019 or an annual burden
of 43,416 hours or more than 770% of FAA's burden estimate.'' A4A
asserts that this data further supports a change in the process for how
transfers are managed because both FAA and carriers could benefit from
reduced burden.
    The FAA has reviewed the data presented by A4A as aggregated from
information on actual transfers provided by its members. For July 2019,
the data is generally consistent with the number of FAA slot transfers
in effect during that month between carriers with combined inventory
and marketing control. The A4A data is also generally consistent with
published flight schedules when looking at the breakdown between the
marketing and operating carriers. The large disparity between the FAA
and A4A estimates appears to be a result of A4A using a different
methodology for determining the volume of transfer requests submitted
to the FAA.
    The A4A calculations appear to consider each day that a slot
transfer is in effect as a unique transfer that creates a unique
burden-producing event with associated costs. Under the methodology
used by A4A, the transfer of a daily slot for the entire month of July
2019 at a single airport would create 31 unique burdens. The transfer
of the daily slot extrapolated on an annual basis would have created
365 unique burdens in 2019. The FAA does not agree with the methodology
or burden estimates as proposed by A4A as it does not reflect how slot
transfers between carriers under combined inventory and marketing
control or those between other carriers are typically submitted to the
FAA. Most slot transfers are not submitted by carriers to the FAA for
single effective dates but rather for longer periods. The most common
effective dates are for several weeks, months, or for all or most of a
scheduling season. The FAA considers each slot transfer request from
carriers, as well as the FAA reply, as a burden-producing event rather
than the number of days in which a transfer is effective.
    A4A's requested change for a different and simplified information
collection process for managing the slot holdings of carriers with
combined inventory and marketing control is outside the scope of

this Paperwork Reduction Act proceeding. Rather, as the FAA has
previously stated, implementing such a change would require rulemaking
at DCA and a substantive change to the Orders Limiting Operations, in
effect at JFK and LGA.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See FAA's January 29, 2018 Response to Delta Air Lines
Request for Transfer Process Change, a copy has been included in the
docket for this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Respondents: 119 unique carriers; unknown number of operators
conducting unscheduled operations at LGA and DCA.
    Frequency: Information is collected as needed; some reporting on
bimonthly or semiannual basis.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 6 minutes per slot
transaction per respondent (i.e. transferor and transferee); 6 minutes
per slot return; 6 minutes per schedule update; 6 minutes per request
for inclusion in a lottery; 2 minutes per unscheduled slot request; 1.5
hours per schedule submission; and 1 hour per slot usage report.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 5,602.6 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC on August 26, 2021.
Matthew S. Gonabe,
Program Specialist, FAA Slot Administration.
[FR Doc. 2021-18768 Filed 8-26-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68495-68496]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23911]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 32293; 812-14538]

Virtus Alternative Solutions Trust, et al.; Notice of Application

September 28, 2016.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from section 15(a) of
the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act, as well as from certain
disclosure requirements in rule 20a-1 under the Act, Item 19(a)(3) of
Form N-1A, Items 22(c)(1)(ii), 22(c)(1)(iii), 22(c)(8) and 22(c)(9) of
Schedule 14A under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Sections 6-
07(2)(a), (b), and (c) of Regulation S-X (``Disclosure Requirements'').
The requested exemption would permit an investment adviser to hire and
replace certain sub-advisers without shareholder approval and grant
relief from the Disclosure Requirements as they relate to fees paid to
the sub-advisers. The order would also supersede prior orders.\1\

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

    \1\ Virtus Alternative Solutions Trust et al., Investment
Company Act Release Nos. 30986 (March 19, 2014) (notice) and 31014
(April 15, 2014) (order); Phoenix Equity Trust et al., Investment
Company Act Release Nos. 28375 (September 3, 2008) (notice) and
28410 (September 29, 2008) (order).

Applicants: Virtus Alternative Solutions Trust, Virtus Equity Trust,
Virtus Insight Trust, Virtus Opportunities Trust, Virtus Retirement
Trust and Virtus Variable Insurance Trust (each, a ``Trust''), each
registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company
with multiple series (each, a ``Series'') and each a Delaware statutory
trust, except Virtus Insight Trust, a Massachusetts business trust, and
Virtus Alternative Investment Advisers, Inc., a Connecticut

corporation, Virtus Investment Advisers, Inc., a Massachusetts
corporation, and Virtus Retirement Investment Advisers, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, each registered as an investment adviser
under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (each, an ``Advisor,'' and,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
collectively with the Trusts, the ``Applicants'').

Filing Dates: The application was filed August 21, 2015, and amended
February 12, 2016, August 9, 2016, and September 9, 2016.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the application
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary
and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by
mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30
p.m. on October 24, 2016, and should be accompanied by proof of service
on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing
requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts
bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason
for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be
notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the
Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES:  Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: c/o James E. Thomas,
Esq., Ropes & Gray LLP, Prudential Tower, 800 Boylston Street, Boston,
MA 02199.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Kaitlin C. Bottock, Senior Counsel,
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Daniele Marchesani, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-
6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant
using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or
by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Summary of the Application

    1. An Advisor will serve as the investment adviser to the
Subadvised Series pursuant to an investment advisory agreement with the
Trust (each, an ``Investment Management Agreement'').\2\ The Advisor
will provide the Subadvised Series with continuous and comprehensive
investment management services subject to the supervision of, and
policies established by, each Subadvised Series' board of trustees (the
``Board''). Each Investment Management Agreement permits the Advisor,
subject to the approval of the Board, to delegate to one or more Sub-
Advisors the responsibility to provide the day-to-day portfolio
investment management of each Subadvised Series, subject to the
supervision and direction of the Advisor.\3\ The primary responsibility
for managing the Subadvised Series will remain vested in the Advisor.
The Advisor will hire, evaluate, allocate assets to and oversee the
Sub-Advisors, including determining whether a Sub-Advisor should be
terminated, at all times subject to the authority of the Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Applicants request that the relief sought herein apply to
the named Applicants, as well as to any future Series and any other
existing or future registered open-end management investment company
or series thereof that intends to rely on the requested order in the
future and that (i) is advised by an Advisor, its successors, and
any entity controlling, controlled by or under common control with
an Advisor or its successors (included in the term ``Advisor''),
(ii) uses the multi-manager structure described in this application,
and (iii) complies with the terms and conditions of this application
(each, a ``Subadvised Series''). For the purposes of the requested
order, ``successor'' is limited to an entity resulting from a
reorganization into another jurisdiction or a change in the type of
business organization.
    \3\ A ``Sub-Advisor'' for a Series is (1) an indirect or direct
``wholly-owned subsidiary'' (as such term is defined in the Act) of
the Advisor for that Series, or (2) a sister company of the Advisor
for that Series that is an indirect or direct ``wholly-owned
subsidiary'' (as such term is defined in the Act) of the same
company that, indirectly or directly, wholly owns the Advisor (each
of (1) and (2) a ``Wholly-Owned Sub-Advisor''), or (3) an investment
sub-adviser for that Series that is not an ``affiliated person'' (as
such term is defined in Section 2(a)(3) of the Act) of the Series or
the Advisor, except to the extent that an affiliation arises solely
because the Sub-Advisor serves as a sub-adviser to one or more
Series (each a ``Non-Affiliated Sub-Advisor'') .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Applicants request an exemption to permit the Advisor, subject
to Board approval, to hire a Non-Affiliated Sub-Advisor or a Wholly-
Owned Sub-Advisor, pursuant to Sub-Advisory Agreements and materially
amend Sub-Advisory Agreements with Non-Affiliated Sub-Advisors and
Wholly-Owned Sub-Advisors without obtaining the shareholder approval
required under section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the
Act.\4\ Applicants also seek an exemption from the Disclosure
Requirements to permit a Subadvised Series to disclose (as both a
dollar amount and a percentage of the Subadvised Series' net assets):
(a) The aggregate fees paid to the Advisor and any Wholly-Owned Sub-
Advisors; (b) the aggregate fees paid to Non-Affiliated Sub-Advisors;
and (c) the fee paid to each Affiliated Sub-Advisor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The requested relief will not extend to any sub-adviser,
other than a Wholly-Owned Sub-Advisor, who is an affiliated person,
as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act, of the Subadvised Series
or the Manager, other than by reason of serving as a sub-adviser to
one or more of the Subadvised Series (``Affiliated Sub-Advisor'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief
will be subject to the terms and conditions stated in the application.
Such terms and conditions provide for, among other safeguards,
appropriate disclosure to Subadvised Series' shareholders and
notification about sub-advisory changes and enhanced Board oversight to
protect the interests of the Subadvised Series' shareholders.
    4. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security, or transaction or any class or classes of
persons, securities, or transactions from any provisions of the Act, or
any rule thereunder, if such relief is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and
purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
Applicants believe that the requested relief meets this standard
because, as further explained in the application, the Investment
Management Agreements will remain subject to shareholder approval,
while the role of the Sub-Advisors is substantially equivalent to that
of individual portfolio managers, so that requiring shareholder
approval of Sub-Advisory Agreements would impose unnecessary delays and
expenses on the Subadvised Series. Applicants believe that the
requested relief from the Disclosure Requirements meets this standard
because it will improve the Advisor's ability to negotiate fees paid to
the Sub-Advisors that are more advantageous for the Subadvised Series.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-23911 Filed 10-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request U. S. EPA, CCSMD 2. OMB control number b. G None a_ 2060  0335 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. X Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title MACT Subpart KK, National Emission Standards for the Printing and Publishing Industry 8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) 1739.03 9. Keywords Air Pollution Control, Environmental Protection 10. Abstract Respondents are owners or operators of rotogravure and wide web flexographic printing presses located at major sources of hazardous air pollutants. Respondents must submit reports and perform record keeping activities required by 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A, and maintain records of specific information needed by EP to determine if compliance has been achieved.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 135 b. Total annual responses 273 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 10 % c. Total hours requested 52495 d. Current OMB inventory 51464 e. Difference 1031 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 2. Adjustment 1031 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 7 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 396 c. Total annualized cost requested 403 d. Current OMB inventory 29 e. Difference 374 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 2. Adjustment 374 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. P__ Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. X On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. X Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. Q Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Ginger Gotliffe Phone: 202 564 7072 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Joseph Retzer, Director Regulatory Information Division Office of Regulatory Management and Evaluation ( OPPE) Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads " As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency ( through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify ( and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information

"( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility;

"( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency;

"( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C § 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as:

"( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

"( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

"( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

"( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified;

"( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8( b)( 3); [ see below]

"( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

"( I) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public."

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information:

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of: "( I) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number."

OMB 83 I ( Instructions) 10/ 95