[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 144 (Thursday, July 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45319-45323]
[FR Doc No: 2022-16171]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2022-N-1592]

Food Safety Modernization Act Third-Party Certification Program
User Fee Rate for Fiscal Year 2023

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
fiscal year (FY) 2023 annual fee rate for recognized accreditation
bodies and accredited certification bodies, and the initial and renewal
fee rate for accreditation bodies applying to be recognized in the
third-party certification program that is authorized by the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), as amended by the FDA Food
Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). We are also announcing the fee rate
for certification bodies that

are applying to be directly accredited by FDA.

DATES: This fee is effective on October 1, 2022, and will remain in
effect through September 30, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Prater, Office of Food Policy
and Response, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Bldg. 1, Rm. 3202, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 307 of FSMA (Pub. L. 111-353), Accreditation of Third-Party
Auditors, amended the FD&C Act to create a new provision, section 808,
under the same name. Section 808 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 384d)
directs FDA to establish a program for accreditation of third-party
certification bodies \1\ conducting food safety audits and issuing food
and facility certifications to eligible foreign entities (including
registered foreign food facilities) that meet our applicable
requirements. Under this provision, we established a system for FDA to
recognize accreditation bodies to accredit certification bodies, except
for limited circumstances in which we may directly accredit
certification bodies to participate in the third-party certification
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For the reasons explained in the third-party certification
final rule (80 FR 74570 at 74578-74579, November 27, 2015), and for
consistency with the implementing regulations for the third-party
certification program in 21 CFR parts 1, 11, and 16, this notice
uses the term ``third-party certification body'' rather than the
term ``third-party auditor'' used in section 808(a)(3) of the FD&C
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 808(c)(8) of the FD&C Act directs FDA to establish a
reimbursement (user fee) program by which FDA assesses fees and
requires reimbursement for the work FDA performs to establish and
administer the third-party certification program under section 808 of
the FD&C Act. The user fee program for the third-party certification
program was established by a final rule entitled ``Amendments to
Accreditation of Third-Party Certification Bodies To Conduct Food
Safety Audits and To Issue Certifications To Provide for the User Fee
Program'' (81 FR 90186, December 14, 2016).
    The FSMA FY 2023 third-party certification program user fee rate
announced in this notice is effective on October 1, 2022, and will
remain in effect through September 30, 2023.

II. Estimating the Average Cost of a Supported Direct FDA Work Hour for
FY 2023

    FDA must estimate its costs for each activity in order to establish
fee rates for FY 2023. In each year, the costs of salary (or personnel
compensation) and benefits for FDA employees account for between 50 and
60 percent of the funds available to, and used by, FDA. Almost all the
remaining funds (operating funds) available to FDA are used to support
FDA employees for paying rent, travel, utility, information technology,
and other operating costs.

A. Estimating the Full Cost per Direct Work Hour in FY 2023

    Full-time Equivalent (FTE) reflects the total number of regular
straight-time hours (not including overtime or holiday hours) worked by
employees, divided by the number of compensable hours applicable to
each fiscal year. Annual leave, sick leave, compensatory time off, and
other approved leave categories are considered ``hours worked'' for
purposes of defining FTE employment.
    In general, the starting point for estimating the full cost per
direct work hour is to estimate the cost of an FTE or paid staff year.
Calculating an Agency-wide total cost per FTE requires three primary
cost elements: payroll, non-payroll, and rent.
    We have used an average of past year cost elements to predict the
FY 2023 cost. The FY 2023 FDA-wide average cost for payroll (salaries
and benefits) is $173,393; non-payroll (including equipment, supplies,
information technology, general and administrative overhead) is
$103,078; and rent (including cost allocation analysis and adjustments
for other rent and rent-related costs) is $23,944 per paid staff year,
excluding travel costs.
    Summing the average cost of an FTE for payroll, non-payroll, and
rent, brings the FY 2023 average fully supported cost to $300,416 \2\
per FTE, excluding travel costs. FDA will use this base unit fee in
determining the hourly fee rate for third-party certification user fees
for FY 2023 prior to including travel costs as applicable for the
activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Total includes rounding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To calculate an hourly rate, FDA must divide the FY 2023 average
fully supported cost of $300,416 per FTE by the average number of
supported direct FDA work hours in FY 2021 (the last FY for which data
are available). See table 1.

Table 1--Supported Direct FDA Work Hours in a Paid Staff Year in FY 2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total number of hours in a paid staff year......................   2,080
Less:
  11 paid holidays..............................................     -88
  20 days of annual leave.......................................    -160
  10 days of sick leave.........................................     -80
  12.5 days of training.........................................    -100
  22 days of general administration.............................    -176
  26.5 days of travel...........................................    -212
  2 hours of meetings per week..................................    -104
                                                                 -------
Net Supported Direct FDA Work Hours Available for Assignments...   1,160
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dividing the average fully supported FTE cost in FY 2023 ($300,416)
by the total number of supported direct work hours available for
assignment in FY 2021 (1,160) results in an average fully supported
cost of $259 (rounded to the nearest dollar), excluding travel costs,
per supported direct work hour in FY 2023.

B. Adjusting FY 2021 Travel Costs for Inflation To Estimate FY 2023
Travel Costs

    To adjust the hourly rate for FY 2023, FDA must estimate the cost
of inflation in each year for FY 2022 and FY 2023. FDA uses the method
prescribed for estimating inflationary costs under the Prescription
Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) provisions of the FD&C Act (section 736(c)(1)
(21 U.S.C. 379h(c)(1))), the statutory method for inflation adjustment
in the FD&C Act that FDA has used consistently. FDA previously
determined the FY 2022 inflation rate to be 2.2013 percent: this rate
was published in the FY 2022 PDUFA user fee rates notice in the Federal
Register (August 16, 2021, 86 FR 45732). Utilizing the method set forth
in section 736(c)(1) of the FD&C Act, FDA has calculated an inflation
rate of 2.2013 percent for FY 2022 and 1.6404 percent for FY 2023. FDA
intends to use this inflation rate to make inflation adjustments for FY
2023; the derivation of this rate will be published in the Federal
Register in the FY 2023 notice for the PDUFA user fee rates. The
compounded inflation rate for FYs 2022 and 2023 is 1.038778 (or 3.8778
percent) (calculated as 1 plus 2.2013 percent times 1 plus 1.6404
percent).
    The average fully supported cost per supported direct FDA work
hour, excluding travel costs, of $259 already takes into account
inflation as the calculation above is based on FY 2023 predicted costs.
FDA will use this base unit fee in determining the hourly fee rate for
third-party certification program fees for FY 2023 prior to including
travel costs as applicable for the activity. For the purpose of
estimating

the fee, we are using the travel cost rate for foreign travel because
we anticipate that the vast majority of onsite assessments made by FDA
under this program will require foreign travel. In FY 2020,\3\ the
Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA) spent a total of $1,449,058 on 171
foreign inspection trips related to FDA's Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition and Center for Veterinary Medicine field activities
programs, which averaged a total of $8,474 per foreign inspection trip.
These trips averaged 3 weeks (or 120 paid hours) per trip. Dividing
$8,474 per trip by 120 hours per trip results in an additional cost of
$71 (rounded to the nearest dollar) per paid hour spent for foreign
inspection travel costs in FY 2020. To adjust $71 for inflationary
increases in FY 2021, FY 2022, and FY 2023, FDA must multiply it by the
same inflation factor mentioned previously in this document (1.038778
or 3.8778 percent) and the inflation factor for FY 2021 \4\ (1.013493),
which results in an estimated cost of $75 (rounded to the nearest
dollar) per paid hour in addition to $259 for a total of $334 per paid
hour ($259 plus $75) for each direct hour of work requiring foreign
inspection travel. FDA will use this rate in charging fees in FY 2023
when travel is required for the third-party certification program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ FDA will be using FY 2020 numbers for the foreign inspection
travel costs due to the limited number of inspections done in FY
2021 due to travel restrictions caused by the COVID-19 Pandemic.
    \4\ FDA previously determined the FY 2021 inflation rate to be
1.3493 percent; this rate was published in the FY 2021 PDUFA user
fee rates notice in the Federal Register (August 3, 2020, 85 FR
46651).

                 Table 2--FSMA Fee Schedule for FY 2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Fee rates
                        Fee category                            for FY
                                                                 2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hourly rate without travel..................................        $259
Hourly rate if travel is required...........................         334
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Fees for Accreditation Bodies and Certification Bodies in the
Third-Party Certification Program Under Section 808(c)(8) of the FD&C
Act

    The third-party certification program assesses application fees and
annual fees. In FY 2023, the only fees that could be collected by FDA
under section 808(c)(8) of the FD&C Act are the initial application fee
for accreditation bodies seeking recognition, the annual fee for
recognized accreditation bodies, the annual fee for certification
bodies accredited by a recognized accreditation body, the initial
application fee for a certification body seeking direct accreditation
from FDA, and the renewal application fee for recognized accreditation
bodies. Table 3 provides an overview of the fees for FY 2023.

Table 3--FSMA Third-Party Certification Program User Fee Schedule for FY
                                  2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Fee rates
                        Fee category                            for FY
                                                                 2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Application Fee for Accreditation Body Seeking           $45,040
 Recognition................................................
Annual Fee for Recognized Accreditation Body................       2,088
Annual Fee for Accredited Certification Body................       2,611
Initial Application Fee for a Certification Body Seeking          45,040
 Direct Accreditation from FDA..............................
Renewal Application Fee for Recognized Accreditation Body...      27,441
------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Application Fee for Accreditation Bodies Applying for Recognition in
the Third-Party Certification Program Under Section 808(c)(8) of the
FD&C Act

    Section 1.705(a)(1) (21 CFR 1.705(a)(1)) establishes an application
fee for accreditation bodies applying for initial recognition that
represents the estimated average cost of the work FDA performs in
reviewing and evaluating initial applications for recognition of
accreditation bodies.
    The fee is based on the fully supported FTE hourly rates and
estimates of the number of hours it would take FDA to perform relevant
activities. These estimates represent FDA's current thinking, and as
the program evolves, FDA will continue to reconsider the estimated
hours. Based on data we have acquired since starting the program, we
estimate that it would take, on average, 80 person-hours to review an
accreditation body's submitted application, 48 person-hours for an
onsite performance evaluation of the applicant (including travel and
other steps necessary for a fully supported FTE to complete an onsite
assessment), and 32 person-hours to prepare a written report
documenting the onsite assessment.
    FDA employees review applications and prepare reports from their
worksites, so we use the fully supported FTE hourly rate excluding
travel, $259 per hour, to calculate the portion of the user fee
attributable to those activities: $259 per hour multiplied by (80 hours
(application review) plus 32 hours (written report)) equals $29,008.
FDA employees will likely travel to foreign countries for the onsite
performance evaluations because most accreditation bodies are
anticipated to be located in foreign countries. For this portion of the
fee, we use the fully supported FTE hourly rate for work requiring
travel, $334 per hour, to calculate the portion of the user fee
attributable to those activities: $334 per hour multiplied by 48 hours
(i.e., two fully supported FTEs per trip ((2 travel days multiplied by
8 hours) plus (1 day onsite multiplied by 8 hours))) equaling $16,032.
The estimated average cost of the work FDA performs in total for
reviewing an initial application for recognition for an accreditation
body based on these figures would be $29,008 plus $16,032 equals
$45,040. Therefore, the application fee for accreditation bodies
applying for recognition in FY 2023 will be $45,040.

B. Annual Fee for Accreditation Bodies Participating in the Third-Party
Certification Program Under Section 808(c)(8) of the FD&C Act

    To calculate the annual fee for each recognized accreditation body,
FDA takes the estimated average cost of work FDA performs to monitor
performance of a single recognized accreditation body and annualizes
that over the average term of recognition. At this time, we assume an
average term of recognition of 5 years. We also assume that FDA will
monitor 10 percent of recognized accreditation bodies onsite. As the
program proceeds, we will adjust the term of recognition as
appropriate. We estimate that for one performance evaluation of a
recognized accreditation body, it would take, on average (taking into
account that not all recognized accreditation bodies would be monitored
onsite), 22 hours for FDA to conduct records review, 8 hours to prepare
a report detailing the records review and onsite performance
evaluation, and 8 hours of onsite performance evaluation. Using the
fully supported FTE hourly rates in table 2, the estimated average cost
of the work FDA performs to monitor performance of a single recognized
accreditation body would be $7,770 ($259 per hour multiplied by (22
hours (records review) plus 8 hours (written report))) plus $2,672
($334 per hour multiplied by 8 hours (onsite evaluation)), which is
$10,442. Annualizing this amount over 5 years would lead to an annual
fee for recognized accreditation bodies of $2,088 for FY 2023.

C. Annual Fee for Certification Bodies Accredited by a Recognized
Accreditation Body in the Third-Party Certification Program Under
Section 808(c)(8) of the FD&C Act

    To calculate the annual fee for a certification body accredited by
a recognized accreditation body, FDA takes the estimated average cost
of work FDA performs to monitor performance of a single certification
body accredited by a recognized accreditation body and annualizes that
over the average term of accreditation. At this time, we assume an
average term of accreditation of 4 years. This fee is based on the
fully supported FTE hourly rates and estimates of the number of hours
it would take FDA to perform relevant activities. We estimate that FDA
would conduct, on average, the same activities, for the same amount of
time to monitor certification bodies accredited by a recognized
accreditation body as we would to monitor an accreditation body
recognized by FDA. Using the fully supported FTE hourly rates in table
2, the estimated average cost of the work FDA performs to monitor
performance of a single accredited certification body would be $7,770
($259 per hour multiplied by (22 hours (records review) plus 8 hours
(written report))) plus $2,672 ($334 per hour multiplied by 8 hours
(onsite evaluation)), which is $10,442. Annualizing this amount over 4
years would lead to an annual fee for accredited certification bodies
of $2,611 for FY 2023.

D. Initial Application Fee for Certification Bodies Seeking Direct
Accreditation From FDA in the Third-Party Certification Program Under
Section 808(c)(8) of the FD&C Act

    Section 1.705(a)(3) establishes an application fee for
certification bodies applying for direct accreditation from FDA that
represents the estimated average cost of the work FDA performs in
reviewing and evaluating initial applications for direct accreditation
of certification bodies.
    The fee is based on the fully supported FTE hourly rates and
estimates of the number of hours it would take FDA to perform relevant
activities. These estimates represent FDA's current thinking, and as
the program evolves, FDA will reconsider the estimated hours. We
estimate that it would take, on average, 80 person-hours to review a
certification body's submitted application, 48 person-hours for an
onsite performance evaluation of the applicant (including travel and
other steps necessary for a fully supported FTE to complete an onsite
assessment), and 32 person-hours to prepare a written report
documenting the onsite assessment.
    FDA employees are likely to review applications and prepare reports
from their worksites, so we use the fully supported FTE hourly rate
excluding travel, $259 per hour, to calculate the portion of the user
fee attributable to those activities: $259 per hour multiplied by (80
hours (application review) plus 32 hours (written report)) equals
$29,008. FDA employees will likely travel to foreign countries for the
onsite performance evaluations because most certification bodies are
anticipated to be located in foreign countries. For this portion of the
fee we use the fully supported FTE hourly rate for work requiring
travel, $334 per hour, to calculate the portion of the user fee
attributable to those activities: $334 per hour multiplied by 48 hours
(i.e., two fully supported FTEs for travel ((2 travel days of 8 hours
each) plus (1 day onsite for 8 hours))) equaling $16,032. The estimated
average cost of the work FDA performs in total for reviewing an initial
application for direct accreditation of a certification body based on
these figures would be $29,008 plus $16,032 equaling $45,040.
Therefore, the application fee for certification bodies applying for
direct accreditation from FDA in FY 2023 will be $45,040.

E. Renewal Fee for Accreditation Bodies Participating in the Third-
Party Certification Program Under Section 808(c)(8) of the FD&C Act

    Section 1.705(a)(2) establishes a renewal application fee for
recognized accreditation bodies that represents the estimated average
cost of the work FDA performs in reviewing and evaluating renewal
applications for recognition of accreditation bodies.
    The fee is based on the fully supported FTE hourly rates and
estimates of the number of hours it would take FDA to perform relevant
activities. These estimates represent FDA's current thinking, and as
the program evolves, FDA will reconsider the estimated hours. We
estimate that it would take, on average, 43 person-hours to review an
accreditation body's submitted renewal application, 24 person-hours for
an onsite performance evaluation of the applicant (including travel and
other steps necessary for a fully supported FTE to complete an onsite
assessment), and 32 person-hours to prepare a written report
documenting the onsite assessment.
    FDA employees are likely to review renewal applications and prepare
reports from their worksites, so we use the fully supported FTE hourly
rate excluding travel, $259 per hour, to calculate the portion of the
user fee attributable to those activities: $259 per hour multiplied by
(43 hours (application review) plus 32 hours (written report)) equaling
$19,425. FDA employees will likely travel to foreign countries for the
onsite performance evaluations because most certification bodies are
anticipated to be located in foreign countries. For this portion of the
fee we use the fully supported FTE hourly rate for work requiring
travel, $334 per hour, to calculate the portion of the user fee
attributable to those activities: $334 per hour multiplied by 24 hours
(i.e., fully supported FTE multiplied by travel ((2 travel days for 8
hours each) plus (1 day onsite for 8 hours))) equaling $8,016. The
estimated average cost of the work FDA performs in total for reviewing
a renewal application for recognition of an accreditation body based on
these figures would be $19,425 plus $8,016 equals $27,441. Therefore,
the renewal application fee for recognized accreditation bodies in FY
2023 will be $27,441.

IV. Estimated Fees for Accreditation Bodies and Certification Bodies in
Other Fee Categories for FY 2023

    Section 1.705(a) also establishes application fees for
certification bodies applying for renewal of direct accreditation.
Section 1.705(b) also establishes annual fees for certification bodies
directly accredited by FDA.
    Although we will not be collecting these other fees in FY 2023, for
transparency and planning purposes, we have provided an estimate of
what these fees would be for FY 2023 based on the fully supported FTE
hourly rates for FY 2023 and estimates of the number of hours it would
take FDA to perform relevant activities as outlined in the Final
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Third-Party Certification
Regulation. Table 4 provides an overview of the estimated fees for
other fee categories.

  Table 4--Estimated Fee Rates for Other Fee Categories Under the FSMA
                    Third-Party Certification Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Estimated
                                                               fee rates
                        Fee category                            for FY
                                                                 2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Renewal application fee for directly accredited                  $27,441
 certification body.........................................
Annual fee for certification body directly accredited by FDA      21,648
------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. How must the fee be paid?

    Accreditation bodies seeking initial recognition must submit the
application fee with the application. For recognized accreditation
bodies and accredited certification bodies, an invoice will be sent
annually. Payment must be made within 30 days of the receipt invoice
date. The payment must be made in U.S. currency from a U.S. bank by one
of the following methods: wire transfer, electronically, check, bank
draft, or U.S. postal money order made payable to the Food and Drug
Administration. The preferred payment method is online using an
electronic check (Automated Clearing House (ACH), also known as eCheck)
or credit card (Discover, VISA, MasterCard, American Express). Secure
electronic payments can be submitted using the User Fees Payment Portal
(Pay.gov) at https://userfees.fda.gov/pay. (Note: only full payments
are accepted. No partial payments can be made online.) Once you have
found your invoice, select ``Pay Now'' to be redirected to Pay.gov.
Electronic payment options are based on the balance due. Payment by
credit card is available only for balances less than $25,000. If the
balance exceeds this amount, only the ACH option is available. Payments
must be made using U.S. bank accounts as well as U.S. credit cards.
When paying by check, bank draft, or U.S. postal money order, please
include the invoice number. Also write the FDA post office box number
(P.O. Box 979108) on the enclosed check, bank draft, or money order.
Mail the payment including the invoice number on the check stub to:
Food and Drug Administration, P.O. Box 979108, St. Louis, MO 63197-
9000.
    When paying by wire transfer, it is required that the invoice
number is included; without the invoice number, the payment may not be
applied. The originating financial institution may charge a wire
transfer fee. If the financial institution charges a wire transfer fee,
it is required to add that amount to the payment to ensure that the
invoice is paid in full. For international wire transfers, please
inquire with the financial institutions prior to submitting the
payment. Use the following account information when sending a wire
transfer: U.S. Department of the Treasury, TREAS NYC, 33 Liberty St.,
New York, NY 10045, Account Name: Food and Drug Administration, Account
No.: 75060099, Routing No.: 021030004, Swift No.: FRNYUS33.
    To send a check by a courier such as Federal Express, the courier
must deliver the check to: U.S. Bank, Attn: Government Lockbox 979108,
1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. (Note: this address is for
courier delivery only. If you have any questions concerning courier
delivery, contact U.S. Bank at<PHONE_NUMBER>. This phone number is only
for questions about courier delivery.) The tax identification number of
FDA is 53-0196965. (Note: invoice copies do not need to be submitted to
FDA with the payments.)

VI. What are the consequences of not paying this fee?

    The consequences of not paying these fees are outlined in 21 CFR
1.725. If FDA does not receive an application fee with an application
for recognition, the application will be considered incomplete and FDA
will not review the application. If a recognized accreditation body
fails to submit its annual user fee within 30 days of the due date, we
will suspend its recognition. If the recognized accreditation body
fails to submit its annual user fee within 90 days of the due date, we
will revoke its recognition. If an accredited certification body fails
to pay its annual fee within 30 days of the due date, we will suspend
its accreditation. If the accredited certification body fails to pay
its annual fee within 90 days of the due date, we will withdraw its
accreditation.

    Dated: July 22, 2022.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-16171 Filed 7-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 121 (Wednesday, June 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36386-36388]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15453]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75245; File No. SR-CBOE-2015-026]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Order Instituting Proceedings to Determine Whether to
Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Rules 6.74A
and 6.74B

June 18, 2015.

I. Introduction

    On March 6, 2015, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend its rules regarding the
solicitation of Market-Makers as the contra party to an agency order
entered into the Exchange's Automated Improvement Mechanism (``AIM'')
and Solicitation Auction Mechanism (``SAM'') auctions. The proposed
rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on March
23, 2015.\3\ On May 4, 2015, the Commission extended the time period
within which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the
proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove the proposed rule change, to June 21, 2015.\4\ The
Commission received no comment letters on the proposed rule change.
This order institutes proceedings under section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
\5\ to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74519 (March 17,
2015), 80 FR 15264 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74862 (May 4, 2015),
80 FR 26599 (May 8, 2015).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    A CBOE Trading Permit Holder (``Initiating TPH'') may
electronically execute an order it represents as agent (``Agency
Order'') against principal interest or against a solicited order, by
submitting the Agency Order for electronic execution into the AIM
pursuant to CBOE Rule 6.74A. Also, an Initiating TPH may electronically
execute certain Agency Orders against solicited orders, by submitting
the Agency Order for electronic execution into the SAM pursuant to CBOE
Rule 6.74B. CBOE rules currently require that any solicited orders
submitted by an Initiating TPH into the AIM \6\ or SAM \7\ (together,
the ``Auctions'') to trade against an Agency Order may not be for the
account of a Market-Maker assigned to the option class.\8\ The Exchange
proposes to eliminate from its rules the restriction against soliciting
Market-Makers assigned to an options class as the contra party in the
Auctions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See CBOE Rule 6.74A.
    \7\ See CBOE Rule 6.74B. The Exchange notes that the SAM Auction
is currently deactivated. See CBOE Regulatory Circular RG14-076--
Deactivation of the Solicitation Auction Mechanism (SAM) (May 16,
2014).
    \8\ See Interpretation and Policy .04 to CBOE Rule 6.74A and
Interpretation and Policy .03 to CBOE Rule 6.74B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchange, the current rules act to limit an
Initiating TPH from access to liquidity that the Exchange believes
should otherwise be available.\9\ Because a TPH initiating an AIM or
SAM auction in an option class cannot solicit contra orders from
Market-Makers assigned to the option class, the Exchange proposes to
delete the rule language imposing this prohibition, which it believes
will allow the TPH to access the additional liquidity that these market
making firms can provide.\10\ The Exchange believes the proposed rule
change is a reasonable modification designed to provide additional
flexibility for the Exchange's TPHs to obtain executions on behalf of
their customers and to provide CBOE Market-Makers assigned to a given
option class with the same opportunity as other solicited parties to
participate in the auction process through means of solicited orders
submitted by the Initiating TPH.\11\ Additionally, the Exchange does
not believe the proposed rule change will deplete the liquidity
available through Auctions. Instead, the Exchange believes that by
allowing more individuals to participate in the Auction process (i.e.,
through solicitation), liquidity will increase.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange argues that the current rules effectively
prohibit small market making firms from providing liquidity in the
form of contra orders, whereas the current rules neither prohibit
the proprietary arm of a global firm from submitting a contra order
in these Auctions nor prohibit a global firm's market making
operation from responding to an Auction in which the proprietary
desk has submitted a contra order. Additionally, CBOE states that if
two Market-Makers are nominees of the same firm--one appointed to a
class on CBOE and the other appointed in the same class on another
exchange (PHLX for example)--the current rules allow the PHLX
Market-Maker to be solicited to participate on an AIM order and the
CBOE Market-Maker to respond to the AIM auction. See Notice, supra
note 3, at 15265.
    \10\ See id.
    \11\ If CBOE Market-Makers assigned to a given option class
cannot be solicited, they will not be able to obtain the favorable
priority status when trading against Agency Orders executed through
the Auctions, while all other parties solicited by the Initiating
TPH may have such priority status.
    \12\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 15265.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further notes that a Market-Maker that is solicited to
trade against an Agency Order in a class in which the Market-Maker is
appointed would be required to abide by Exchange Rules 4.1 (Just and
Equitable Principles of Trade), 4.18 (Prevention of the Misuse of
Material, Nonpublic Information), and 6.9 (Solicited Transactions) (as
well as all other Exchange rules). The Exchange states that a Market-
Maker would still be prohibited from, for example, learning (via
solicitation) that a large order is being sent to the Exchange and
therefore widening its quotes. Moreover, the Exchange argues that
because upon entry an Auction order is ``stopped'' for its full
quantity at the contra order's price, the price of the trade would not
be impacted if a Market-Maker were to widen its quotes. The Exchange
also believes that because many classes on the Exchange have a number
of Market-Makers appointed, the widening of quotes by one Market-Maker
would likely have limited impact on the NBBO.\13\ Additionally, the
Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would have an
adverse effect on quoting because in order to execute against order
flow outside of the Auctions or on other exchanges, Market Makers will
have to continue to quote aggressively.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See id.
    \14\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change also would provide that ``a Market-Maker
submitting a solicited order to execute against a particular Agency
Order may not modify its pre-programmed response to Request for
Responses based on information regarding the particular Agency Order or
solicited order.'' \15\ The Exchange believes that this rule language
would prohibit a Market-Maker from using any information regarding a
particular Agency Order or the Market-Maker's solicited order for
purposes of modifying the Market-Maker's response to an Auction Request
for Responses.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See id. at 15266.
    \16\ However, the Exchange states that a Market-Maker's quotes
may change for many reasons other than an Agency Order or the
Market-Maker's solicited order (e.g., a non-exclusive list of
reasons that a Market-Maker may choose to adjust the size and/or
price of quotes, irrespective of an Agency Order or a Market-Maker's
solicited order, is a change in the price of the underlying, the
Market-Maker's inventory, or interest rates), and according to the
Exchange those unrelated changes would not be prohibited under the
proposed rule change. The Exchange also notes that this language is
not intended to prohibit a Market-Maker from providing multiple
responses to a Request for Responses. See id.

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

III. Proceedings to Determine Whether to Approve or Disapprove SR-CBOE-
2015-026 and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \17\ to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be approved or disapproved. Institution of such
proceedings is appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy
issues raised by the proposed rule change, as discussed below.
Institution of proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has
reached any conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved.
Rather, as described in greater detail below, the Commission seeks and
encourages interested persons to provide additional comment on the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the Exchange proposes to amend CBOE Rules 6.74A
and 6.74B, in order to permit a Market-Maker assigned to an option
class to be solicited as the contra party to an Agency Order in that
class on the Exchange's Auctions. The Commission believes that the
proposal raises important issues that warrant further public comment
and Commission consideration. Specifically, the Commission believes
that proceedings are appropriate to consider, among other matters, the
impact of the proposal on competition in the Auctions, incentives for
Market-Makers to continue to quote aggressively, and CBOE's ability to
deter potential abuses involving the non-public information obtained
through the solicitation process.
    The prohibition on the solicitation of Market-Makers assigned to an
option class as the contra party to an Agency Order in the Auctions has
been in place on CBOE since the AIM was adopted in 2006 \18\ and the
SAM was adopted in 2008.\19\ In addition, the Commission has noted that
the same prohibition, contained in the rules of another SRO, was
designed to permit the price improvement auction and solicitation
mechanism to remain mechanisms for exposing solicited transactions to
the competition of the marketplace.\20\ Because the current proposal
would remove this prohibition, it raises questions as to whether the
proposal may undermine the quality of competition in the Auctions. For
example, the Commission notes that responses to an AIM Request for
Responses (``RFR'') broadcast may only be submitted by Market-Makers
with an appointment in the relevant option class and TPH's acting as
agent for orders resting at the top of the Exchange's book opposite the
Agency Order.\21\ The proposed rule change thus raises concerns that
the quality of the Auctions may degrade to the extent the number of
potential responders is reduced because one of the responders is now
the solicited party. Although the Exchange argues that its proposal
will lead to increased liquidity in the Auctions,\22\ the Exchange has
not provided any data to support its arguments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53222 (February 3,
2006), 71 FR 7089 (February 10, 2006) (SR-CBOE-2005-60) (``CBOE AIM
Approval Order'').
    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57610 (April 3,
2008), 73 FR 19535 (April 10, 2008) (SR-CBOE-2008-14).
    \20\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54644 (October 23,
2006), 71 FR 63374, 63375 (October 30, 2006) (SR-ISE-2004-17).
    \21\ See CBOE Rule 6.74A(b)(1)(D)-(E).
    \22\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 15265.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, because solicited Market-Makers may receive material
non-public information regarding an Agency Order as part of the
solicitation process, the proposed rule change raises concerns that
Market-Makers may alter their quoting behavior by, for example,
widening their quotes when learning (i.e., through solicitation) that a
large order is being sent to the Exchange. In the CBOE AIM Approval
Order, the Commission noted that the prohibition against soliciting
Market-Makers in the class to be the contra party to the Agency Order,
as well as CBOE Rules limiting solicitation from members or nonmember
customers or broker-dealers \23\ and prohibiting members from engaging
in acts or practices inconsistent with just and equitable principles of
trade,\24\ ``should permit members to solicit, in advance, the other
side of an order, while providing for adequate disclosure of such
orders to limit manipulation and abuse.'' \25\ The Commission believes
that proceedings are appropriate to consider whether the proposed rule
that would prohibit a solicited Market-Maker from modifying its pre-
programmed response to an RFR based on information regarding the
particular Agency Order or solicited order is sufficient, in
conjunction with other Exchange rules, to address concerns about the
potential misuse of non-public information obtained through the
solicitation process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See CBOE Rule 6.9.
    \24\ See CBOE Rule 4.1.
    \25\ See CBOE AIM Approval Order, supra note 21, at 7091.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\26\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration.
The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
analysis of, and input from commenters with respect to, the proposed
rule change's consistency with section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\27\ which
requires that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed,
among other things, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. The Commission is also instituting proceedings to
allow for additional analysis of, and input from commenters with
respect to, the proposed rule change's consistency with section 6(b)(8)
of the Act,\28\ which requires that the rules of a national securities
exchange do not impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange
Act also provides that proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove a proposed rule change must be concluded within 180 days
of the date of publication of notice of the filing of the proposed
rule change. See id. The time for conclusion of the proceedings may
be extended for up to 60 days if the Commission finds good cause for
such extension and publishes its reasons for so finding. See id.
    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data and arguments with respect to the
concerns identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the proposed rule change. In particular, the Commission invites
the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal
is inconsistent with sections 6(b)(5) \29\ and 6(b)(8) \30\ or any
other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder.
Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or
disapproval which would be facilitated by an oral presentation of
views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to
Rule 19b-4 under the Act,\31\ any request for an

opportunity to make an oral presentation.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \31\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \32\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, as amended by the Securities
Act Amendments of 1975, Pub. L. 94-29 (June 4, 1975), grants to the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by a self-regulatory
organization. See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Senate Comm. on
Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st
Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or
disapproved by July 15, 2015. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal
to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by July 29,
2015. In light of the concerns raised by the proposed rule change, as
discussed above, the Commission invites additional comment on the
proposed rule change as the Commission continues its analysis of the
proposed rule change's consistency with sections 6(b)(5) and
6(b)(8),\33\ or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and
regulations thereunder. The Commission asks that commenters address the
sufficiency and merit of the Exchange's statements in support of the
proposed rule change, in addition to any other comments they may wish
to submit about the proposed rule change. In particular, the Commission
invites comment on the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5), (b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. What are commenters' views on how CBOE's proposal could impact
the quality of the Auctions, internalization rates, liquidity, and
competition, within or outside of the Auctions?
    2. What are commenters' views on the potential impact of CBOE's
proposal on the quoting behavior of Market-Makers?
    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-CBOE-2015-026 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-CBOE-2015-026. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2015-026 and should be
submitted by July 15, 2015. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by
July 29, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-15453 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 29, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31608-31609]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12891]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1556-005.
    Applicants: Longview Power.
    Description: Supplement to Notice of Change in Status of Longview
Power, LLC.
    Filed Date: 5/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120518-5085.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2564-001; ER10-2600-001; ER10-2289-001.
    Applicants: Tucson Electric Power Company, UNS Electric, Inc.,
UniSource Energy Development Company.
    Description: Change in Status Filing Tucson Electric Power Company,
et al.
    Filed Date: 5/17/12.
    Accession Number: 20120517-5025.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-667-000.
    Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC.
    Description: Filing of a Refund Report to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 5/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120518-5132.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1531-001.
    Applicants: AEP Texas Central Company.
    Description: 20120518 TCC OATT Conc to be effective 1/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120518-5135.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1532-001.
    Applicants: AEP Texas North Company.
    Description: 20120518 TNC OATT Conc to be effective 1/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120518-5158.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1533-001.
    Applicants: Indiana Michigan Power Company.
    Description: 20120518 I&M OATT Conc to be effective 1/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120518-5159.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1534-001.
    Applicants: Kentucky Power Company.
    Description: 20120518 OATT Conc to be effective 1/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120518-5163.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1535-001.
    Applicants: Kingsport Power Company.
    Description: 20120518 OATT Conc to be effective 1/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120518-5160.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1536-001.
    Applicants: Ohio Power Company.
    Description: 20120518 OPCo OATT Conc to be effective 1/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120518-5166.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1537-001.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Oklahoma.
    Description: 20120518 PSO OATT Conc to be effective 1/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120518-5169.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1538-001.
    Applicants: Southwestern Electric Power Company.
    Description: 20120518 SWEPCO OATT Conc to be effective 1/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120518-5172.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1539-001.
    Applicants: Wheeling Power Company.
    Description: 20120518 WPCo OATT Conc to be effective 1/1/2012 under
ER12-1539 Filing Type: 130.
    Filed Date: 5/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120518-5137.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1540-001.
    Applicants: Indiana Michigan Power Company.
    Description: 20120518 I&M MBR Conc to be effective 1/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120518-5144.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1541-001.
    Applicants: Kentucky Power Company.
    Description: 20120518 KPCo MBR Conc to be effective 1/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120518-5149.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1542-001.
    Applicants: Kingsport Power Company.
    Description: 20120518 KgPCo MBR Conc to be effective 1/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120518-5152.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1543-001.
    Applicants: Ohio Power Company.
    Description: 20120518 OPCo MBR Conc to be effective 1/1/2012.

    Filed Date: 5/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120518-5154.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1544-001.
    Applicants: Wheeling Power Company.
    Description: 20120518 WPCo MBR Conc to be effective 1/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120518-5156.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1666-000.
    Applicants: Longview Power, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to April 30, 2012 filing to be effective N/
A.
    Filed Date: 5/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120518-5063.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1816-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Amended E&P Agreement for PG&E's Schindler 3 Project
to be effective 5/21/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120518-5177.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1817-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.
    Description: FPL and Orlando Utilities Commission Service Agreement
No. 307 to be effective 7/17/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120518-5188.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1818-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.
    Description: FPL and Orlando Utilities Commission Service Agreement
No. 308 to be effective 7/17/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120518-5189.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/12.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES12-34-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Electric Company.
    Description: Submission of El Paso Electric Company of substitute
page 5 to its April 13, 2012 filed application.
    Filed Date: 5/17/12.
    Accession Number: 20120517-5077.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/29/12.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 21, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-12891 Filed 5-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 36)]
[Notices]
[Page 8388]
[DOCID:fr24fe10-117]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2009-0001]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request, OMB No. 1660-NEW; FEMA's Grants Reporting Tool
(GRT)

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice; 30-day notice and request for comments; new information
collection; OMB No. 1660-NEW; FEMA Form--None.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has submitted
the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management
and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission describes the
nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents,
the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by
respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection
instruments FEMA will use.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before March 26, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk
Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director, Office
of Records Management, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA 20598-
3005, facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail address FEMA-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Collection of Information

    Title: FEMA's Grants Reporting Tool (GRT).
    Type of information collection: New information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-NEW.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form--None.
    Abstract: The Grants Reporting Tool (GRT) is a Web-based reporting
system designed to help State Administrative Agencies (SAAs) meet all
reporting requirements as identified in the grant guidance of FEMA's
portfolio of preparedness grants sponsored by FEMA's Grant Programs
Directorate (GPD). The information enables FEMA to evaluate
applications and make award decisions, monitor ongoing performance and
manage the flow of federal funds, and to appropriately close out grants
or cooperative agreements. GRT supports the information collection
needs of each grant program processed in the system.
    Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 56.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Average Hour Burden per Respondent: 29.25 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,492 hours.
    Estimated Cost: There are no annual reporting or recordkeeping
costs associated with this collection.

Larry Gray,
Director, Office of Records Management, Office of Management, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2010-3601 Filed 2-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-78-P