[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 119 (Friday, June 20, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 35402]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14558]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of AISystems, Inc. (a/k/a Airline Intelligence
Systems, Inc.), Baeta Corp., China Jianye Fuel, Inc., Cordex Pharma,
Inc., Diamondhead Casino Corporation, Emerald Dairy, Inc., and Kentucky
Energy, Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading

June 18, 2014.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
AISystems, Inc. (a/k/a Airline Intelligence Systems, Inc.) because it
has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended March 31,
2012.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Baeta Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended September 30, 2011.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
China Jianye Fuel, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended March 31, 2011.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Cordex Pharma, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since
the period ended September 30, 2009.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Diamondhead Casino Corporation because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended June 30, 2011.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Emerald Dairy, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since
the period ended June 30, 2011.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Kentucky Energy, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended March 31, 2011.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies. Therefore, it is ordered,
pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that
trading in the securities of the above-listed companies is suspended
for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on June 18, 2014, through 11:59 p.m.
EDT on July 1, 2014.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-14558 Filed 6-18-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 111 (Monday, June 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34681-34683]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13638]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69690; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2013-55]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE
Arca Options Fee Schedule to Change the Monthly Fees for Option Trading
Permits and Raise the Fee Cap that Applies to Certain Firm and Broker
Dealer Open Outcry Executions

June 4, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on May 21, 2013, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amending [sic] the NYSE Arca Options Fee
Schedule (``Fee Schedule'') to change the monthly fees for Option
Trading Permits (``OTPs'') and raise the fee cap that applies to
certain Firm and Broker Dealer open outcry executions. The Exchange
proposes to make the fee changes operative on June 1, 2013 [sic] The
text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to change the
monthly fees for OTPs and raise the fee cap that applies to certain
Firm and Broker Dealer open outcry executions. The Exchange proposes to
make the fee changes operative on June 1, 2013.
    The Exchange requires that a Market Maker have an OTP in order to
operate on the Exchange. For electronic Market Making, a Market Maker
must have four OTPs in order to submit electronic quotations in every
class on the Exchange. These four Market Maker OTPs also permit the
firm to have at least one trader on the Floor of the Exchange as a
Floor-based open outcry Market Maker. However, the manner in which
those OTPs are assigned to individual traders may reduce the
permissible number of issues in which electronic quotes are assigned.
For instance, two associated Market Makers may assign OTP 1, 2, and 3
to trader A, while the fourth is assigned to trader B. Trader A may now
only stream quotes electronically in 750 issues, while trader B may
submit quotes electronically in 100 issues. To retain the appointment
in more than 750 issues, all four OTPs must be in the same name, and to
have an additional individual Market Maker on the Floor, a fifth OTP
must be acquired.
    To tailor the recovery of costs more closely to the basic costs for
administration of an OTP Holder or OTP Firm, the Exchange is proposing
to introduce a new tiered pricing model for Market Maker OTPs. The
Exchange currently charges $4,000 per OTP per month for a Market Maker
firm that has between one and four Market Maker OTPs and $1,000 per
month for each additional Market Maker OTP. The Exchange proposes to
charge $6,000 per month for the first Market Maker OTP, $5,000 per
month for the second Market Maker OTP, $4,000 per month for the third
Market Maker OTP, and $3,000 per month for the fourth Market Maker OTP.
The Exchange would continue to charge

$1,000 per month for each additional Market Maker OTP. Thus, under the
proposed change, a firm would pay $2,000 more for the first OTP, $1,000
more for the second OTP, the same for the third OTP, $1,000 less for
the fourth OTP, and the same for each additional OTP thereafter. In
order to have the ability to make electronic markets in every class on
the Exchange, a Market Maker firm would pay $18,000 per month for four
Market Maker OTPs and $1,000 per month for each additional trader on
the Floor of the Exchange operating as an open outcry Market Maker.
This would be an increase of $2,000 over the current Fee Schedule. The
Exchange is proposing the tiered pricing model because the level of
support the Exchange must provide each Market Maker firm per Market
Maker OTP decreases as the number of Market Maker OTPs increases (i.e.,
the first Market Maker OTP requires the most support from the
Exchange), and the tiered model is consistent with the pricing
practices of other exchanges, as described below.
    The Exchange also proposes to raise the fee cap that applies to
certain Firm and Broker Dealer open outcry executions. Currently, the
Exchange imposes a $75,000 cap per month on Firm Proprietary fees and
Broker Dealer fees for transactions in standard option contracts
cleared in the customer range for open outcry executions, exclusive of
strategy executions, royalty fees and Firm trades executed via a joint
back office agreement. The Exchange has made recent changes to its Fee
Schedule to encourage Customer order flow.\4\ As a result, Firm and
Broker Dealer open outcry executions subject to this fee cap have
increased, and the Exchange believes that the current fee cap is too
low. As such, the Exchange proposes to raise the fee cap to $100,000,
which the Exchange believes is in line with current market activity and
would continue to encourage Firms and Broker Dealers to engage in a
high level of open outcry executions. The Exchange notes that it has
not raised the fee cap since it was introduced in 2010.\5\ The Exchange
also proposes to make a conforming change to endnote 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68898 (Feb.
11, 2013), 78 FR 11261 (Feb. 15, 2013) (SR-NYSEArca-2013-11).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 63471 (Dec. 8,
2010), 75 FR 77928 (Dec. 14, 2010) (SR-NYSEArca-2010-108) (adopting
$75,000 fee cap); 67419 (July 12, 2012), 77 FR 42343 (July 18, 2012)
(SR-NYSEArca-2012-71) (extending fee cap to Broker Dealers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any
other problem, and the Exchange is not aware of any significant problem
that the affected market participants would have in complying with the
proposed changes.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in
particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and
other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed Market Maker OTP pricing
tiers are reasonable because the level of support the Exchange must
provide each Market Maker firm per Market Maker OTP decreases as the
number of Market Maker OTPs increases. The Exchange's administrative
costs are higher to set up and maintain a Market Maker Firm, such as
the paperwork relating to having a Market Maker operation. There is a
marginal decrease in administrative costs as the number of Market Maker
OTPs increases. The Exchange also believes that a decreasing price
structure for successive OTPs may encourage Market Maker firms to
purchase additional OTPs and quote more issues, thereby enhancing
liquidity on the Exchange. At least two other exchanges also offer
similar tiered pricing models for their trading permits where the price
decreases with each successive permit. For example, the Exchange's
affiliate, NYSE Amex Options, has a sliding scale for market maker Amex
Trading Permits (``ATPs''). NYSE Amex Options charges $8,000 per month
for the first ATP, $6,000 per month for the second ATP, $5,000 per
month for the third ATP, $4,000 for the fourth ATP, $3,000 per month
for the fifth ATP, and $2,000 per month for each additional ATP.\8\ A
market maker must have five ATPs in order to trade all issues on NYSE
Amex Options, which cost $26,000. Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc.
(``CBOE'') also has a sliding scale for Trading Permit Holders
(``TPHs'') who are acting as market makers. The sliding scale is $5,500
per month for permits one to 10, $4,000 per month for permits 11 to 20,
and $2,500 per month for permits 21 and higher.\9\ The Exchange has
estimated that a CBOE market maker would need 34 permits to trade all
issues on CBOE, which cost $130,000, assuming the market maker
qualifies for the sliding scale permit rates. The Exchange notes that
its proposed fees of $18,000 for four Market Maker OTPs to cover all
issues on the Exchange will still be less than these other two
exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule, dated as of May 1, 2013,
available at https://globalderivatives.nyx.com/sites/globalderivatives.nyx.com/files/nyse_amex_options_fee_schedule_050113.pdf.
    \9\ The discounted permit rates of $4,000 and $2,500 are only
available to TPHs who commit to a full year of that number of
permits. See CBOE Fee Schedule, dated as of May 8, 2013, available
at http://www.cboe.com/framed/PDFframed.aspx?content=/publish/feeschedule/CBOEFeeSchedule.pdf§ion=SEC_RESOURCES&title=CBOE%20-%20CBOE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above, it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
for the Exchange to charge more for the first two OTPs and the same or
less for the successive OTPs because the level of support the Exchange
must provide for the initial OTPs decreases as the number of Market
Maker OTPs increases. The Exchange believes that it is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory to offer favorable pricing to Market Maker
firms that quote more issues on the Exchange because that activity
promotes liquidity on the Exchange, which benefits all market
participants.
    The Exchange believes that raising the fee cap for Firm and Broker
Dealer open outcry executions is reasonable because it will strike a
more appropriate balance between encouraging such executions and
generating adequate revenues in light of the Exchange's costs
associated with such trading activity. As noted above, the Exchange has
not increased the fee cap since it was introduced in 2010. In addition,
the proposed fee cap is similar to the fee cap imposed on at least one
other exchange.\10\ The Exchange further believes that the proposed
$100,000 fee cap is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
even at such increased level, it would continue to encourage Firms and
Broker Dealers to engage in a high level of open outcry executions,
which would increase liquidity on the Exchange and benefit all market
participants. The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to continue to offer the fee cap to Firms and
Broker Dealers, and not other market participants, because its purpose
is to attract large block order flow to the floor of the Exchange,
where such orders can be better handled in

comparison with electronic orders that are not negotiable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Under the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule, fees for Firm
Proprietary manual trades are aggregated and capped at $100,000 per
month for member firms, with certain exceptions. See n.6 of the NYSE
Amex Options Fee Schedule, supra n.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\11\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden
on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. The proposed Market Maker OTP fees will allow
the Exchange to remain competitive with other exchanges by offering a
sliding scale of OTP fees while keeping its fees less than certain of
its competitors. The Exchange believes that raising the fee cap for
Firm and Broker Dealers will promote competition because [sic] would
continue to encourage liquidity on the Exchange via open outcry
executions, which would benefit all market participants. The Exchange
notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market
participants can readily favor competing venues. In such an
environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider
adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other
exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change promotes a competitive environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \12\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \13\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \14\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2013-55 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2013-55. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2013-55 and should
be submitted on or before July 1, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-13638 Filed 6-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 133 (Friday, July 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 40097]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16200]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 619-158]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company and the City of Santa Clara;
Notice of Environmental Site Review

    On Monday, August 4, 2014, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) staff and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company and the
City of Santa Clara (licensees) will conduct an environmental site
review of the Bucks Creek Hydropower Project. The project is located on
Bucks, Grizzly, and Milk Ranch Creeks in Plumas County, California.
    The site review is open to the public and resource agencies and
will occur from 9:00 a.m. to about 4:00 p.m. (Pacific Daylight Time).
The following itinerary provides general guidance only and the specific
itinerary including approximate times may change.
9:00 a.m. Meet at Bucks Lakeshore Resort [16001 Bucks Lake Rd., Quincy,
CA 95971,<PHONE_NUMBER>]
     Safety briefing
     Project overview
9:30 a.m. Bucks Lake Recreation Features and Dam
     All recreation features in license
     Bucks storage dam
Noon Lunch (bring your own)
12:45 p.m. Lower Bucks Lake Recreation Features and Dam
     All recreation features in license, and view Lower Bucks
dam from nearest recreation facility
     At Grizzly intake tower, show pictures of Three Lakes, the
road to Three Lakes dam, and Milk Ranch conduit (not visiting these
sites due to long distance, treacherous road conditions without
specialized vehicle, and visitor safety)
2:00 p.m. Grizzly Forebay Features
     En route, stop at Grizzly powerhouse tunnel portal and
view Grizzly penstock
     All recreation features in license, and view Grizzly
forebay dam from nearest recreation facility
     Show pictures of Grizzly and Bucks powerhouses, Bucks
penstock and other features (not visiting these sites due to
specialized personal protective gear requirements and visitor safety)
4:00 p.m. Finish at Bucks Lakeshore Resort
    To better support the safety of the group, participants will be
requested to car pool in vehicles provided by the licensees.
Participants are asked not to attempt to join the site review after it
departs the initial meeting location. Participants must wear
appropriate footwear (i.e., no sandals or open-toed shoes). Some brief
walking over dirt trails may be needed.
    To appropriately accommodate persons interested in attending the
site tour, participants must contact Alan Mitchnick, FERC Team Leader,
at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>no later than Monday,
July 28, 2014.

    Dated: July 2, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-16200 Filed 7-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Supporting Statement for an Information Collection Request (ICR)
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Identification of the Information Collection  -  Title and Numbers
Title:
Foreign Purchaser Acknowledgment Statement of Unregistered Pesticides
EPA ICR No.:
0161.16
OMB Control No.:
2070-0027
Docket ID No.:
EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0749
Abstract
This information collection request (ICR) addresses the information collection activities associated with the requirement that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) receive notice from pesticide registrants that foreign purchasers of unregistered pesticides exported from the United States. This statement is to ascertain understanding that the pesticide product cannot be sold in the United States.  Section 17(a)(2) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (Attachment A) requires an exporter of any pesticide not registered under FIFRA section 3 or sold under FIFRA section 6(a)(1) to obtain a signed statement from the foreign purchaser acknowledging that the purchaser is aware that the pesticide is not registered for use in, and cannot be sold in, the United States. A copy of this statement, which is known as the Foreign Purchaser Acknowledgement Statement, or FPAS, must be transmitted, by EPA, to the Designated National Authority or appropriate official of the government in the importing country. This information is submitted via mail or electronically through the Central Data Exchange (CDX) in the form of annual or per-shipment statements to EPA, which maintains original records and transmits copies, along with an explanatory letter, via email to appropriate government officials of the countries that are importing the pesticide.
In addition to the export notification for unregistered pesticides, FIFRA requires that all exported pesticides include appropriate labeling. There are different requirements for registered and unregistered products.  For registered products, export labeling requirements alone meet the definition of third-party notification. In the interests of consolidating various related information collection requests, this ICR includes burden estimates for the FPAS requirement for unregistered pesticides, as well as the labeling requirement for all exported pesticides, both registered and unregistered. These burdens have been consolidated in this ICR since the implementation of the 1993 pesticide export policy governing the export of pesticides, devices, and active ingredients used in producing pesticides.
Summary Total Burden and Costs

		              TOTAL

Total Number of Respondents
                          Annual Number of Responses
                                   Burden in
                                     Hours
                                Burden in Cost
Total Respondent
                                     2,240
                                     5,014
                                    16,660
                                  $1,265,501
Total Agency

                                      945
                                    $87,148

SUPPORTING STATEMENT
    Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of information.
This information is required to be submitted to EPA pursuant to FIFRA section 17(a)(2).  Regulations pertaining to exporting pesticides are contained in 40 CFR part 168, subpart D (Attachment B)
    Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the Agency has made of the information received from the current collection.
Section 17(a)(2) of FIFRA requires all exporters of unregistered pesticides to obtain signed statements from their customers acknowledging that they are aware that their purchased products are not registered in the United States. Hence, one use of this collection activity is in assuring that foreign purchaser of pesticides produced in the U.S. are aware of the products' U.S. registration status. When such statements are submitted to EPA, the Agency is provided with a record of foreign destinations of domestically produced unregistered products. This enables the Agency to assure that such products, which are produced in the U.S. but cannot be legally sold for use in the U.S., have been legally distributed.
In addition, such statements are required by statute to be directed onward to the appropriate government officials in importing countries. Officials of foreign governments can use this information to verify that a specific pesticide product, that may or may not have an active ingredient that has been evaluated by EPA and approved for registration, has been exported to their country. The name and address of the purchaser in the importing country is included, enabling the government official to contact the purchaser directly, as appropriate. This information can be useful in countries which do not have the resources to maintain extensive import records or control systems.
    Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce burden.
EPA maintains a file of all submitted acknowledgment statements. This file includes the following for each submitted statement:
 Copy of the purchaser acknowledgment statement and certification that shipment did not occur before receipt of statement by exporter.

 The EPA Mailing, and the date that the statement was forwarded to the appropriate government official or agency of the importing country.

 Copy of the estimate summary of the number of shipments to be made in association with that statement.
    Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes described in Item 2 above.
For every export of an unregistered pesticide, the U.S. exporter is required to obtain the FPAS prior to export and certify to EPA that export did not occur prior to the exporter's receipt of the FPAS. The FPAS and the certification statement must then be transmitted to the governments of importing countries. EPA is not aware of any other collection requirements for this information.
EPA recognizes that repeated submissions of purchaser acknowledgment statements involving the same country, purchaser, and pesticide product would be duplicative and potentially burdensome. Individual submissions do, however, provide information on the total number of shipments to a specific purchaser. For this reason, EPA offers an option to exporters to either make individual submissions for every export, or to notify EPA upon the first export to the foreign purchaser and then provide an annual summary of all shipments no later than March 1 of the following calendar year. This reduces the redundancy that would be associated with the submission of identical acknowledgment statements by the same purchaser for the same product, while still providing EPA and foreign governments with information regarding the number of shipments in the previous calendar year.
    If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities, describe the methods used to minimize burden.
Under this reporting requirement, small entities must follow the same collection procedures as large companies. Both large and small entities may avail themselves of options which support alternative, flexible means of meeting specific requirements: 1. reporting options; 2. acquisition options, and 3. formatting options of required information. The Agency allows respondents the choice of reporting options; respondents can choose between annual estimates and summaries or per-shipment statements. Respondents are also allowed flexibility in determining the method of obtaining the foreign purchaser acknowledgment statement. Finally, EPA provides flexibility in the formatting of submissions; small entities and occasional submitters may find it easier to comply with the requirements since they do not have to adhere to a specific format.
    Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.
By offering the compliance option of annual reporting, EPA is offering a less frequent information submission to reduce the burden of per-shipment reporting. Further reduction, i.e., to a one-time submission for the life of the product or otherwise to a frequency of less than once a year could compromise the accuracy of the data on the number of shipments exported to a particular purchaser in another country. Less frequent submission could also make it difficult for foreign governments to determine the regulatory status of imported pesticides.
The annual summaries provide EPA with the ability to monitor compliance with the requirements of section 17(a). Currently, such records must be retained by exporters for only two years. Since the summaries are submitted after the applicable year, less frequent submissions could result in the unavailability of records necessary to validate submissions.
    Explain any special circumstances that require the collection to be conducted in a manner:
 requiring respondents to report information to the agency more often than quarterly;
 requiring respondents to prepare a written response to a collection of information in fewer than 30 days after receipt of it;
 requiring respondents to submit more than an original and two copies of any document;
 requiring respondents to retain records, other than health, medical, government contract, grant-in-aid, or tax records, for more than three years;
 in connection with a statistical survey, that is not designed to produce valid and reliable results that can be generalized to the universe of study;
 requiring the use of a statistical data classification that has not been reviewed and approved by OMB;
 that includes a pledge of confidentiality that is not supported by authority established in statute or regulation, that is not supported by disclosure and data security policies that are consistent with the pledge, or which unnecessarily impedes sharing of data with other agencies for compatible confidential use; or
 requiring respondents to submit proprietary trade secrets, or other confidential information unless the agency can demonstrate that it has instituted procedures to protect the information's confidentiality to the extent permitted by law.
In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(iii)(E), federal agencies are required to indicate whether the proposed collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses, and an explanation of the decision.
Information collected under this ICR is currently submitted to EPA by mail and electronically through EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX). The electronic option is a time limited change that the agency has made due to the restraints on mailing and mail room access during COVID-19. Currently this electronic exception is expected to be lifted at the end of the pandemic, however further considerations for an updated long-term electronic solution are being considered.
Beginning in 2012, EPA began transmitting the FPAS electronically to Designated National Authorities (DNAs) identified by the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade where a valid email address exists and through mail where one does not. EPA has determined that sending the FPAS, which may contain FIFRA sensitive information, through the mail or via electronic media to foreign governments pursuant to FIFRA section 17 is acceptable for the following reasons: 1) The transmission is a limited, non-public disclosure required by FIFRA; 2) Foreign recipients are not subject to FIFRA security procedures in the FIFRA Information Security Manual; 3) The specific recipient in the government of the importing country is often not known. For both electronic or mail transmissions, the transmission includes a cover with the following language: "This Purchaser Acknowledgement Statement may contain information claimed as confidential. Please treat the statement according to appropriate national confidentiality laws and regulations."
    If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publication in the Federal Register of the agency's notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken in response to the comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden.
   Describe efforts to consult with persons outside EPA to obtain their views on the availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instructions and recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting format (if any), and on the data elements to be recorded, disclosed, or reported.
   Consultation with representatives of those from whom information is to be obtained or those who must compile records should occur at least once every 3 years - even if the collection of information activity is the same as in prior periods. There may be circumstances that may preclude consultation in a specific situation. These circumstances should be explained.
Pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d), EPA will publish a notice in the Federal Register, announcing the planned renewal of this information collection activity, soliciting public comment on specific aspects of the ICR and providing a 60-day public comment period.
EPA staff will contact representatives to seek feedback on the burden estimates in the ICR and the clarity of guidance provided. A summary of comments received, and the consultation will be provided in Attachment C.
    Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than remuneration of contractors or grantees.
This question is not applicable to this ICR
    Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy. If the collection requires a system of records notice (SORN) or privacy impact assessment (PIA), those should be cited and described here.
EPA urges submitters to minimize the amount of claimed Confidential Business Information (CBI). All data and/or information submitted to the Agency under this information collection that may be claimed as trade secret, commercial or financial information will be protected from disclosure by EPA under FIFRA section 10.
Based on "Non-confidentiality of Certain Information Submitted under Sections 7 and 17(a)(2) of FIFRA", 55 FR 1261 (January 12, 1990) and "Class Determination 1-91, Identity of Importing Country Under FIFRA Section 17(A)(2),", 58 FR 9062 (February 18, 1993),the following information will generally not be considered confidential: (a) The fact that a producer makes a registered or unregistered pesticide product; (b) the fact that an acknowledgement statement or other notice of export has been filed by an exporter; (c) the identity of the unregistered exported product; and, if applicable, the identity of the active ingredients of the pesticide; and (d) the identity of the importing country and the country or countries of final destination. According to statute, this same information must be reported to the government of the importing country.
Exported research and development substances that fit the criteria set out in 40 CFR 168.75(b)(5) are not subject to the FPAS requirement but are subject to the labeling requirement. Confidential business information may be required to be submitted in the case where a business wishes to export an unregistered research pesticide product that does not fit the criteria of 168.75(b)(5). EPA recognizes that the chemical identity of the research product may require protection as confidential business information but believes that it is essential that the Agency nevertheless be able to accurately identify the nature of the product. The identity of a product under research and development may be identified by use of identification codes which protect proprietary information
    Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. This justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.
No information of a sensitive or private nature is requested in conjunction with these information collection activities, and these information collection activities comply with the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 and OMB Circular A-108, as amended, "Responsibilities for the Maintenance of Records about Individuals by Federal Agencies."
    Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information. The statement should:
 Indicate the number of respondents, frequency of response, annual hour burden, and an explanation of how the burden was estimated. Unless directed to do so, agencies should not conduct special surveys to obtain information on which to base hour burden estimates. Consultation with a sample (fewer than 10) of potential respondents is desirable. If the hour burden on respondents is expected to vary widely because of differences in activity, size, or complexity, show the range of estimated hour burden, and explain the reasons for the variance. Generally, estimates should not include burden hours for customary and usual business practices.
 If this request for approval covers more than one form, provide separate hour burden estimates for each form and aggregate the hour burdens.
 Provide estimates of annualized cost to respondents for the hour burdens for collections of information, identifying and using appropriate wage rate categories. The cost of contracting out or paying outside parties for information collection activities should not be included here. Instead, this cost should be included under `Annual Cost to Federal Government'.
There are no forms for this activity. The EPA does not currently provide a template nor mandate the use of a common form. Therefore, the exporter must develop and use their own FPAS. In preparing the statement, the exporter is free to format the document in any manner as long as it includes all of the required information, outlined in 4(b)(i)(A). The exporter must obtain the signed statement from the foreign purchaser before the pesticide can be shipped.
While the EPA does not currently provide a form, the Agency is planning to develop an electronic submission template which would include required fields for the information listed in 4(b)(i)(A). While this system is not yet available, EPA does not intend to make use of the template for mailing, and exporters may continue to choose to develop an alternative format.

      (i)	Data items, including record keeping requirements
       Foreign Purchaser Acknowledgment Statement (FPAS)

After determining that the product is subject to this requirement, the exporter must obtain a statement of the type described in item 4(b)(i) from the foreign purchaser of the pesticide product. This will normally require that the exporter provide the purchaser with a prepared statement for signature or with instructions that are adequate to ensure that the purchaser can prepare the statement.
If the exporter anticipates making more than one shipment of the product to the purchaser in a given year, the exporter may elect to notify EPA only at the time of the first shipment and to choose to comply with the annual reporting option, which requires the submission of an annual summary of shipments of pesticides shipped to each purchaser.
The FPAS must contain the following information:
    Name and address of exporter.
    Name and address of foreign purchaser.
    Name of product and active ingredient.
    Statement that foreign purchaser is aware that the product is not registered for use in the United States and cannot be sold for use in the United States.
    If known, country of final destination of the exported shipment if different from country of import.
    Signature of foreign purchaser.
    Date that purchaser acknowledgment statement is signed by foreign purchaser.
    Certification that shipment did not occur prior to receipt of Purchaser Acknowledgment Statement.
    Exporter's signature.

Information required to be collected must be maintained pursuant to 40 CFR 168.85.
       Third Party Notification Requirements; Export Labeling

All exported registered pesticides must bear the EPA approved label and supplemental labeling options made to accommodate the importing country's requirements. For unregistered pesticides, the following information must be included on the labels or labeling:
    EPA pesticide producing establishment number.
    Warning or caution statements.
    The statement "Not Registered for Use in the United States of America." The labels of all pesticides, devices, and active ingredients which are not registered for use in the United States under FIFRA section 3 must include the "Not Registered for Use in the United States of America" statement.
    The ingredient statement.
    Identity of parties.
    Weight or measure.
    Additional warning for highly toxic pesticides.
    Use classification statement.

       Multilingual labeling requirement

For both registered and unregistered products, the following labeling information must be multilingual:
    Warning and caution statements.
    Where applicable, the statement "Not registered for use in the United States of America."
    Ingredient statement.
    If the pesticide, device, or active ingredient is highly toxic to humans, the skull and crossbones, the word "Poison," and a statement of practical treatment must appear on the label. The word "Poison" and the statement of practical treatment shall be in English and in an acceptable language of the country of import, and in an acceptable language in the country of final destination, if known or reasonably ascertainable.

      (ii)	Respondent Activities
      A. 	Submission of Foreign Purchaser Acknowledgment Statement
The exporter is required to send a copy of the purchaser acknowledgment statement to EPA within 7 days of having shipped the pesticide, along with a signed statement that the shipment did not occur prior to receipt of the purchaser acknowledgment statement. In addition, if the exporter chooses the annual reporting option, he or she must include a statement that the FPAS submitted is for the first shipment of a pesticide to a particular purchaser in a specific country for the calendar year, and that the exporter will report this information annually as required under the annual summary reporting option. Where an exporter chooses to comply with the annual summary reporting option, a summary must be sent after the end of the calendar year which lists all shipments of a particular pesticide shipped to a particular foreign purchaser.  It is not required for the statement to be submitted to EPA in time to enable EPA to notify the importing country prior to arrival of the pesticide.
Submission of a purchaser acknowledgment statement does not require the maintenance of any records unique to this section. All records needed to ensure and verify compliance with this requirement are required under section 8 of FIFRA. The recordkeeping burden related to this requirement is covered under another ICR.
      B.	Exemption of research and development pesticides
Records supporting research and development status must include information regarding research intent of the shipment as well as information indicating knowledge that the quantity being shipped is consistent with research intent, as specified in 40 CFR 168.75 (b)(5). Persons claiming an exemption from the FPAS requirement for the export of research and development products must maintain records which support the R&D claim for each shipment so claimed. In its policy, EPA has limited research claims only to shipments where the quantity shipped would be unlikely to support a commercial use. Thus, the company's records must be sufficient to support the claim that the quantity shipped is only sufficient for use within the limits of the policy. This can be done either in the form of communications received from the purchaser before or on the date of export or in the form of instructions sent to the purchaser before or on the date of export.
Alternatively, the exporter may retain records which indicate that the quantity shipped is compatible with the claim that the amount can only be used as provided in the policy. Such information could include test results, literature citations, or other information which supports the claim.
At the time of shipment, the exporter must maintain a record of the identity, amount, and date that the pesticide was shipped, the destination and purchaser, and the intended research use.  Most of this information is typically reflected on invoice/shipping records normally maintained for such products; records of pesticide shipments are already required to be maintained under FIFRA section 8. Other documentation supporting research use is generally available as typical business practice and should not impose additional burdens. Records of shipment and confirmation of research intent must be maintained and made available for inspection and copying by EPA for two years following the exportation of the pesticide.
       Export labeling

Every exported pesticide, device, and active ingredient used in producing a pesticide must bear a label or labeling which meets the requirements of FIFRA section 17(a)(1). This requirement applies to all such pesticides, devices, or active ingredients, regardless of whether the export is for commercial or research and development use. The specific requirements for the labeling of exported pesticides are described above. The required label statements may be met through either immediate container labels, or accompanying supplemental labeling, or through a combination of the two.
EPA included supplemental labeling as an option to ease the compliance burden of this requirement. Supplemental labeling used to meet pesticide export label requirements must be attached to each smallest divisible shipping container of a given pesticide product. In the case that cartons or drums are secured to a pallet such that they will not be separated from the pallet during shipment, it is permissible to attach supplemental labeling to the pallet load. An example would be where a pallet of cartons has a wrapper (e.g., shrink-wrap) which contains all of the cartons on the pallet. However, if cartons or drums are loosely stacked on a pallet so that they could be separated during shipment, each drum or carton must be labeled.
Exporters are also required to keep records of the product labeling, including the EPA registered labeling, any foreign labeling on or attached to the product when shipped, and as applicable, any supplemental labeling. The records are to be maintained in a manner that shows exactly which labels and labeling accompanied each shipment of a pesticide product to a foreign country.
The overall respondent burden hours associated with this collection total 16,660 hours per year.  This is the same as the previous ICR. Due to the ongoing COVID 19 public health emergency EPA has had limited access to the mail since March 2020. A temporary COVID 19 flexibility has been put into place as of August 2021 to allow for secure electronic submissions. Due to this, EPA cannot yet make an estimate of annual changes in submissions, and/or changes in burden since the previous ICR. Instead, this ICR will rely on previous estimates of which the numbers have largely remained steady over the past years.
The requirements to be fulfilled under this ICR consist of two parts: submission of the Foreign Purchaser Acknowledgment Statements (FPAS); and the third-party notification export labeling requirement. The third-party labeling requirement is further subdivided into labeling requirements for unregistered exported pesticide products and multilingual labeling requirements for registered exported pesticide products.
      (ii)	Estimating the Respondent Burden and Cost of the FPAS Requirement
There are 2,240 respondents affected by the collection activities under this ICR are individuals or entities that either manufacture and export pesticides, or that reformulate or repackage and export pesticides. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code assigned to the parties responding to this information is as follows:
                                   Category
                                  NAICS code
                           Examples of potentially
                               affected entities
Chemical Manufacturing (3251, 3252, 3253, and 3259 only)
                                    3250A1
Individuals or entities engaged in activities related to the registration of a pesticide product.

This ICR renewal includes a respondent burden estimate of 2,940 hours for the FPAS requirement. This figure is based on the average of 2,774 notices received annually from 2015-2017. Table 1 presents the calculations for total annual costs, a breakdown of the FPAS collection activities per respondent, and the expected labor mix required for each activity. Hourly wage rates for firms in NAICS 3250A1 were used to calculate respondent burden. The fully loaded hourly wage rates for management, technical, and clerical occupations for NAICS 3250A1 are $148.16, $77.54, and $50.19, respectively. See Attachment D for labor wage calculations. The total management, technical, and clerical hours are multiplied by the annual number of requests and by the fully loaded wage rates to get a total annual respondent cost of $212,540 for submitting FPAS forms.
All records submitted under this information collection are either required to be kept under FIFRA Section 8 or are maintained in the normal course of business. Exporters who feel that per-shipment submissions represent undue burden may choose to report annually. The per-shipment notification and annual summary requirements of this option are based on records of production and shipment records already required by regulations under FIFRA Section 8, so such information will be readily available to exporters, who may submit it without reformatting or special preparation. These annual submissions may be included as part of the annual submission of acknowledgment statements and thus would result in minimal burden.
Table 1.	Respondent Burden/Cost: Submission of FPAS
                              Collection Activity
                            Burden Hours (per year)
                                     Total

                                     Mgmt
                                  $148.16/hr
                                   Technical
                                   $77.54/hr
                                   Clerical
                                   $50.19/hr
                                     Hours
                                   Cost ($)
Read Regulations
                                     0.08
                                     0.00
                                     0.00
                                     0.08
                                                                          11.85
Plan Activities
                                     0.00
                                     0.08
                                     0.00
                                     0.08
                                                                           6.20
Gather Information
                                     0.00
                                     0.08
                                     0.00
                                     0.08
                                                                           6.20
Process, compile and reveal information
                                     0.00
                                     0.16
                                     0.00
                                     0.16
                                                                          12.41
Complete paperwork
                                     0.00
                                     0.25
                                     0.25
                                     0.50
                                                                          31.93
Record, disclose & display information
                                     0.00
                                     0.00
                                     0.08
                                     0.08
                                                                           4.02
Store, maintain and file information
                                     0.00
                                     0.00
                                     0.08
                                     0.08
                                                                           4.02
TOTAL
                                     0.08
                                     0.57
                                     0.41
                                     1.06
                                                                          76.63
ANNUAL BURDEN:	1.06 hours (64 minutes) x 2,774 statements = 2,940 hours per year
ANNUAL COSTS: 	$76.63 x 2,774 responses = $212,540 per year
[1] Hourly wages rates are fully loaded wage rates based on NAICS 3250A1  -  Chemical Manufacturing (3251, 3252, 3253, and 3259 only) from U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2020. See Attachment D for wage calculations.
[2] Totals may not sum due to rounding.
      (ii)	Estimating the Respondent Burden of the Third-Party Notification Export Labeling Requirement
As discussed above, certain information must be included on the labels or labeling of exported pesticides. The labeling requirements may be met by supplemental labeling attached to either the product container or the shipping container.
Tables 2 and 3 present the estimated respondent burden for product labeling of unregistered and registered exported pesticide products. The Agency has estimated that on average between 2015 and 2017, 560 unregistered pesticide products and 1,680 registered pesticide products were exported annually. The number of unregistered pesticides exported is based on counting the number of unique products per year identified in the foreign purchaser acknowledgement statements.
Product labeling for unregistered exported products accounts for a total of eight burden hours, at a cost of $641.94, for each unregistered product. This equates to a total annual burden of 4,480 hours and a total annual cost of $359,486 across all unregistered products.
Table 2.	Respondent Burden/Cost: Unregistered Exported Pesticide Product Labeling
                              Collection Activity
                            Burden Hours (per year)
                                     Total

                                     Mgmt
                                  $148.16/hr
                                   Technical
                                   $77.54/hr
                                   Clerical
                                   $50.19/hr
                                     Hours
                                   Cost ($)
Read Regulations
                                     0.50
                                     0.00
                                     0.00
                                     0.50
                                                                          74.08
Design Labels
                                     0.00
                                     2.00
                                     0.00
                                     2.00
                                                                         155.07
Translate Labels
                                     0.00
                                     5.00
                                     0.00
                                     5.00
                                                                         387.69
Complete Paperwork and Store Information
                                     0.00
                                     0.00
                                     0.50
                                     0.50
                                                                          25.10
TOTAL
                                     0.50
                                     7.00
                                     0.50
                                     8.00
                                                                         641.94
ANNUAL BURDEN:	8 hours x 560 unregistered products = 4,480 hours
ANNUAL COSTS: 	$641.94 x 560 unregistered products = $359,486
[1] Hourly wages rates are fully loaded wage rates based on NAICS 3250A1  -  Chemical Manufacturing (3251, 3252, 3253, and 3259 only) from U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2020. See Attachment D for wage calculations.
[2] Totals may not sum due to rounding.
Certain information must be provided in the languages of the country or countries of final destination. Table 3 presents the estimated respondent burden for multilingual product labeling of registered exported pesticide products. The labeling requirements may be met by supplemental labeling attached to either the product container or the shipping container. EPA estimates that it will take respondents approximately 5.5 hours at a cost of $412.78 to meet the multilingual labeling requirement for each product. This estimation is based on the estimate that to prepare one label in one language would take approximately one hour, and that, on average, exporters prepare a label for each of the major destinations of export shipments. In reviewing the major destinations of export shipments, EPA estimates that most labels would be in one or more of the following languages: French, Spanish, German, Taiwanese, and Portuguese.
Historically, in order to estimate the number of registered exported pesticide products, the Agency has assumed that one-quarter of the pesticides exported from the U.S. are not registered for use in the U.S., while the remaining three-quarters are registered pesticide products. Therefore, EPA has assumed that there are three times as many registered products exported than unregistered. Using this assumption and the estimated number of exported unregistered products (560), EPA estimates the total number of registered products exported to be 1,680 per year. This equates to a total annual burden of 9,240 hours and a total annual burden of $693,475 across all respondents.
Table 3.  Respondent Burden/Cost: Multilingual Product Labeling, Registered Pesticide Product Exports
                              Collection Activity
                            Burden Hours (per year)
                                     Total

                                     Mgmt
                                  $148.16/hr
                                   Technical
                                   $77.54/hr
                                   Clerical
                                   $50.19/hr
                                     Hours
                                   Cost ($)
Translate Labels
                                     0.00
                                     5.00
                                     0.00
                                     5.00
                                                                         387.69
Complete Paperwork and Store Information
                                     0.00
                                     0.00
                                     0.50
                                     0.50
                                                                          25.10
TOTAL
                                     0.00
                                     5.00
                                     0.50
                                     5.50
                                                                         412.78
ANNUAL BURDEN:	5.5 hours x 1,680 exported registered products = 9,240 hours
ANNUAL COSTS:  	$412.78 x 1,680 exported registered products = $693,475
[1] Hourly wages rate are fully loaded wage rates based on NAICS 3250A1  -  Chemical Manufacturing (3251, 3252, 3253, and 3259 only) from U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2020. See Attachment D for wage calculations.
[2] Totals may not sum due to rounding.
    Provide an estimate for the total annual cost burden to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden already reflected on the burden worksheet).
 The cost estimate should be split into two components: (a) a total capital and start-up cost component (annualized over its expected useful life) and (b) a total operation and maintenance and purchase of services component. The estimates should take into account costs associated with generating, maintaining, and disclosing or providing the information. Include descriptions of methods used to estimate major cost factors including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, the discount rate(s), and the time period over which costs will be incurred. Capital and start-up costs include, among other items, preparations for collecting information such as purchasing computers and software; monitoring, sampling, drilling and testing equipment; and record storage facilities.
 If cost estimates are expected to vary widely, agencies should present ranges of cost burdens and explain the reasons for the variance. The cost of purchasing or contracting out information collections services should be a part of this cost burden estimate. In developing cost burden estimates, agencies may consult with a sample of respondents (fewer than 10), utilize the 60-day pre-OMB submission public comment process and use existing economic or regulatory impact analysis associated with the rulemaking containing the information collection, as appropriate.
 Generally, estimates should not include purchases of equipment or services, or portions thereof, made: (1) prior to October 1, 1995, (2) to achieve regulatory compliance with requirements not associated with the information collection, (3) for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the government, or (4) as part of customary and usual business or private practices.
There are no operational and/or maintenance costs.
    Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Also, provide a description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of hours, operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), and any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information. Agencies may also aggregate cost estimates from Items 12, 13, and 14 in a single table.
Agency costs for this information collection consist mainly of FTE time spent, the majority of which is due to record keeping associated with the receipt of the acknowledgment statements, review of transmissions to be sent to foreign governments, and costs associated with the transmittal of acknowledgment statements to the appropriate government official in the importing country. EPA estimated hourly burden at 0.33 hours (around 20 minutes) per statement. Based on this estimate, annual costs are determined by multiplying hourly burden by the wage rate for technical labor.
Table 4.	Agency Processing Burden for FPAS Requirement
	Collection Activity
                                     Hours
                                Annual Cost ($)

                                   Technical
                                   $91.30/hr

Receive, review acknowledgment statements for completeness, and scan to make digital copies
                                     0.12
                                    $10.65
Data entry of information in acknowledgment statements
                                     0.07
                                    $6.09
Make necessary copies and transmit submission to appropriate government officials of importing countries
                                     0.05
                                    $4.56
Review of prepared submission by OCSPP/OPS/ICRB international team, and transmission of the documentation to the appropriate government authority
                                     0.05
                                    $4.56
Maintain a file of all submissions
                                     0.05
                                    $4.56
Respond to inquiries: EPA receives 30 inquiries per year, spends 1 hour to respond to each inquiry.
                                      30

TOTAL
                                     0.33
                                    $30.43
ANNUAL BURDEN:	(2,774 statements x 0.33 hours) + 30 hours for inquiries = 945 hours
ANNUAL COSTS: 	2,774 statements x $30.43 = $87,148
[1]Hourly wages rates are fully loaded wage rates based on NAICS code 999100 - Federal Executive Branch from U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2020. See Attachment E for wage calculations.
[2] Totals may not sum due to rounding.
    Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in hour or cost burden.
There were program changes affecting the Agency burden estimate. Due to the ongoing COVID 19 public health emergency, EPA has had limited access to the mail since March 2020. Therefore, a temporary COVID 19 flexibility has been put into place as of August 2021 to allow for secure electronic submissions. Due to this, EPA cannot yet make an estimate of annual changes in submissions, and/or changes in burden since the previous ICR. Instead, this ICR will rely on previous estimates of which the numbers have largely remained steady over the past years.
The total annual respondent burden hours for this ICR are estimated at 16,660 hours.  This accounts for 2,940 hours for the FPAS requirement, 4,480 hours for the labeling of unregistered pesticides, and 9,240 hours for the labeling of registered pesticides. There was no change in the estimated average response time for respondents. There is no change in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB.
The total annual respondent cost for this ICR is estimated to be $1,265,501. This estimate is composed of the following costs: $212,540 for the FPAS requirement, $359,486 for the labeling of unregistered pesticides, and $693,475 for the labeling of registered pesticides. Total labor costs for respondents increased by $178,400 due to changes in the wage rates made to reflect current wage rates. This change qualifies as an adjustment.
    For collections whose results will be published, outline the plans for tabulation and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions.
The information collected by these activities are only conducted only as purchaser acknowledgment statements are received. There is no set schedule for the collection of this information.
    If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons why display would be inappropriate.
This question not applicable to this ICR.
    Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in "Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions."
EPA does not request an exception to the certification of this information collection.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Annual respondent burden for this collection of FPAS information requirements is estimated to average 1.06 hours (around 65 minutes) per response and has not changed since the last renewal. The annual respondent burden for meeting labeling requirements for unregistered and registered exported pesticide products is estimated to average 8.0 hours and 5.5 hours, respectively. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions, gathering, and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Under PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0749, which is available at http://www.regulations.gov. This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. When in the system, select "search," then key in the Docket ID Number identified above.
All comments received by EPA will be included in the docket without change, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Please note that due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is open to visitors by appointment only. The staff continues to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
The attachments listed below can be found in the docket for this ICR or by using the hyperlink that is provided in the list below. The docket for this ICR is accessible electronically through http://www.regulations.gov using Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0749.
Attachment:
                                       A
7 U.S.C. 136o - Section 17 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Also available online at the United States GPO website.
                                       B
     40 CFR 168.75 - Procedures for exporting unregistered pesticides  -  purchaser acknowledgement statements. Also available online at the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations website.
                                       C
     (Reserved for Consultation)
                                       D
Work Sheets used to Calculate Industry Labor Costs
                                       E
Work Sheets used to Calculate EPA and Federal Government Labor Costs
                                       F
Display Related to OMB Control #2070-0027


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 6, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 54588]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19121]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property
at the Colorado Springs Airport, Colorado Springs, Colorado

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of request to release airport property.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the
release and sale of a 100.74-acre parcel of land at the Colorado
Springs Airport.

DATES: Comments are due within 30 days of the date of the publication
of this notice in the Federal Register. Emailed comments can be
provided to Mr. Michael Matz, Project Manager/Compliance Specialist,
Denver Airports District Office, [email protected], (303) 342-
1251.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Troy Stover, Assistant Director of
Aviation for Economic Development, Colorado Springs Airport, 7770
Milton E. Proby Parkway Suite 50, Colorado Springs, CO 80916,
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Michael Matz,
Project Manager/Compliance Specialist, Denver Airports District Office,
26805 E 68th Ave. Suite 224, Denver, CO 80249, [email protected],
(303) 342-1251. Documents reflecting this FAA action may be reviewed at
the above locations.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the
request to release property at the Colorado Springs Airport under the
provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2). The proposal consists of 100.74
acres of land located on the South side of the airport, shown as
Parcels 10-A, 10-B, 19A-A, and 19A-B on the Airport Layout Plan. The
parcel lies partially inside the Peak Innovation Business Park, North
of Milton E. Proby Parkway. The FAA concurs that the parcel is no
longer needed for airport purposes. The proposed use of this property
is compatible with existing airport operations in accordance with FAA's
Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue, as
published in the Federal Register on February 16, 1999.

    Issued in Denver, Colorado on August 30, 2022.
Marc Miller,
Acting Manager, Denver Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2022-19121 Filed 9-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 169 (Tuesday, September 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51989-51991]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20761]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13704-002]

FFP Missouri 2, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing,
Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests, and Other Agency
Authorizations

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed

with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Original Major License--Existing Dam.
    b. Project No.: 13704-002.
    c. Date filed: November 13, 2013.
    d. Applicant: FFP Missouri 2, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Arkabutla Lake Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The proposed project would be located at the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' (Corps) existing Arkabutla Lake Dam, on the
Coldwater River in Tate and DeSoto Counties, Mississippi. The proposed
project would occupy approximately 48.2 acres of federal lands
administered by the Corps.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Thomas Feldman, Vice President, Project
Development, Free Flow Power Corporation, 239 Causeway Street, Suite
300, Boston, MA 02114;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contacts: Jeanne Edwards at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Patti Leppert at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. The deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests is 60
days from the issuance date of this notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene and protests and requests for cooperating agency
status using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to
6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-13704-002.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    k. This application has been accepted, but is not ready for
environmental analysis at this time.
    l. The proposed project would utilize the Corps' existing Arkabutla
Lake Dam outlet works, consisting of a concrete conduit outlet tunnel,
regulating gates, and a stilling basin. The project would operate
consistent with the Corps' current operation policy.
    The proposed project would consist of the following new facilities:
(1) A 325-foot-long, 15.5-foot-diameter steel liner installed within
the Corps' existing concrete conduit outlet tunnel; (2) a 50-foot-long,
25-foot-wide steel-lined reinforced concrete bifurcation at the end of
the Corps' existing conduit outlet tunnel to divide the flows between
the Corps' existing stilling basin and the project new powerhouse; (3)
a 272-foot-long, 12-foot-diameter steel penstock; (4) an 83-foot high
by 60-foot wide by 50-foot-deep forebay; (5) an 80-foot-long, 46-foot-
wide concrete powerhouse with two vertical Kaplan generating units with
a total installed capacity of 5.1 megawatts; (6) a 200-foot-long, 85-
foot-wide tailrace channel; (7) a substation; (8) a 4,286-foot-long
transmission line consisting of a 1,574-foot-long, 4.16 kilovolts (kV)
buried line from the powerhouse to the substation and a 2,712-foot-
long, 12.5 kV overhead line from the substation to an existing utility-
owned distribution line; and (9) appurtenant facilities. The project
would have an estimated average annual generation of 19.0 gigawatt-
hours.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.FERC.gov, using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field, to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Any qualified applicant desiring to file a competing application
must submit to the Commission, on or before the specified intervention
deadline date, a competing development application, or a notice of
intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of
intent allows an interested person to file the competing development
application no later than 120 days after the specified intervention
deadline date. Applications for preliminary permits will not be
accepted in response to this notice.
    A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address,
and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an
unequivocal statement of intent to submit a development application. A
notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this
public notice.
    o. Anyone may submit a protest, or a motion to intervene in
accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18
CFR 385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In determining the appropriate
action to take, the Commission will consider all protests filed, but
only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any protests
or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
deadline date for the particular application.
    All filings must: (1) Bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST,'' or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE,'' ``NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE
COMPETING APPLICATION,'' or ``COMPETING APPLICATION;'' (2) set forth in
the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the
application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name,
address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening;
and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001
through 385.2005. Agencies may obtain copies of the application
directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to
intervene must be served upon the representative of the applicant.
    p. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule
will be made as appropriate.

Issue Notice of Acceptance--August 2014.
Issue Scoping Document 1 for comments--October 2014.
Comments on Scoping Document 1--November 2014.
Issue Scoping Document 2 (if necessary)--December 2014.
Issue notice of ready for environmental analysis--December 2014.
Commission issues EA or draft EA--September 2015.
Comments on EA or draft EA--October 2015.
Commission issues final EA (if necessary)--April 2016.

    q. Other Agency Authorizations: Pursuant to section 401 of the
Clean Water Act, the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality
(Mississippi DEQ) must certify that discharge from the construction and
operation of this

proposed project will comply with the Clean Water Act. The Mississippi
DEQ is also reviewing the project application under Title 11 Miss.
Admin. Code, Pt. 6, Ch.1, Subch.3, which establishes the review of
water quality certification applications. Based on an understanding
between the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the
Mississippi DEQ, this public notice is also issued for the purpose of
advising all interested persons that there is a decision pending before
the Mississippi Environmental Quality Permit Board on the request for
section 401 water quality certification for this FERC license
application. Any comments concerning the water quality certification
request may be submitted to the Mississippi Department of Environmental
Quality, Office of Pollution Control at Post Office Box 2261, Jackson,
Mississippi 39225-2261. The public comment period on the water quality
certification extends 30 days from the date of publication of this
notice. A copy of the public notice with a description of the project
construction and operation is available for review at the Mississippi
DEQ's Jackson office. The complete application may be reviewed at the
address listed in paragraph h.

    Dated: August 25, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-20761 Filed 8-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Please see attachment: Codeshare Notice (DL-KLM-Cityhopper) 11 16 07.pdf