[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 1, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37538-37541]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16419]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83713; File No. SR-MSRB-2018-06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule
Change To Amend MSRB Rule A-13 to Temporarily Reduce the Rate of
Assessment for the MSRB's Underwriting, Transaction and Technology Fees
on Brokers, Dealers and Municipal Securities Dealers

July 26, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'' or ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\
notice is hereby given that on July 23, 2018 the Municipal Securities
Rulemaking Board (the ``MSRB'' or ``Board'') filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
by the MSRB. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The MSRB filed with the Commission a proposed rule change to amend
MSRB Rule A-13 to temporarily reduce the rate of assessment for the
MSRB's underwriting, transaction and technology fees on brokers,
dealers and municipal securities dealers (``dealers'') with respect to
assessible activity that occurs during the months of October, November
and December 2018 (the ``proposed rule change''). The MSRB has
designated the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's
website at www.msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/SEC-Filings/2018-Filings.aspx, at the MSRB's principal office, 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 MSRB included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The MSRB has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections
A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to temporarily reduce
the rate of assessment for the MSRB's underwriting, transaction and
technology fees for dealers under Rule A-13, with respect to assessible
activity that occurs during the months of October, November and
December 2018. The proposed rule change is designed to reduce, in a
carefully considered and strategic manner, excess MSRB reserves in a
way that achieves a fair and equitable balance of fees across regulated
entities.
    The MSRB discharges its statutory mandate under the Exchange Act
through the establishment of rules for dealers and municipal advisors
(together with dealers, ``regulated entities''); the collection and
dissemination of market information; and market leadership, outreach
and education. As a self-regulatory organization, the MSRB must
maintain sufficient reserves to discharge its responsibilities and
operate without interruption, even in an economic downturn. Reserves
are necessary to mitigate fluctuations in the MSRB's revenue stream,
which is primarily market-driven, and provide a backstop for funding
services essential to the efficiency of the market. However, as current
reserves exceed the target thresholds that have been established by its
Board of Directors, the MSRB is now seeking to temporarily reduce its
three largest sources of revenue, which collectively, make up
approximately 80% of the MSRB's FY 2018 budgeted revenue. The proposed
rule change is projected to reduce the MSRB's excess reserves by
approximately $2.6 million and will help align reserve levels with
target levels.
    Pursuant to Rule A-13, each dealer must pay to the Board
underwriting, transaction and technology fees based upon the rates
specified in that rule. The proposed rule change would add a new
section (h) setting forth revised temporary assessment rates for these
three types of assessments, generally reducing by one-third the fees
for activity that occurs during the months of October, November and
December 2018. New Rule A-13(h)(i) would provide that the underwriting
assessment for certain primary offerings for this time period would be
.00185% of the par value ($0.0185 per $1,000), a reduction from .00275%
of the par value ($.0275 per $1,000). New Rule A-13(h)(ii) would
provide that the transaction assessment would be .00067% of the par
value ($0.0067 per $1,000), a reduction from .001% ($.01 per $1,000).
And, new Rule A-13(h)(iii) would provide that the technology assessment
would be $0.67 per transaction (a reduction from $1.00 per
transaction). Rates of assessment would revert to current levels
effective January 1, 2019.
    Importantly, the temporary reduced rates are for activity that
occurs during this three-month period. Dealers are typically billed for
these fees after the relevant month end. Specifically, the underwriting
fee is billed immediately after the respective month end, while the
transaction and technology fees are billed thirty days in arrears.
Financial Reserves and the Board's Holistic Review of MSRB Fees
    In 2010, after several years of heavy investment in the
technological infrastructure needed to launch the MSRB's Electronic
Municipal Market Access (EMMA[supreg]) website, the MSRB's financial
reserve levels had dropped below the target of 12 months of operating
expenses excluding depreciation expense, plus three-times annual
capital needs. As a result, replenishing the MSRB's reserves became a
priority. The following year, the MSRB increased the transaction fee
under Rule A-13 and began assessing a new technology fee for dealers
under the same rule.\3\ By 2014, revenue from the technology fee had
generated sufficient resources to stabilize the technology reserve and
allowed the MSRB to rebate $3.6 million in technology fees to eligible
dealers. The Board's technology fee rebate decision

and analysis of reserve levels prompted it in 2015 to conduct a
holistic review of fees from dealer assessments, municipal advisors and
other sources to determine whether further changes to the funding
structure were warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Release No. 34-63621 (Dec. 29, 2010), 76 FR 604 (Jan. 5,
2011) (File No. SR-MSRB-2010-10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board evaluated the assessment of MSRB fees on regulated
entities with the goal of better aligning revenue sources with
operating expenses and all capital needs. The Board strives to
diversify funding sources among regulated entities and other entities
that fund MSRB services in a manner that ensures long-term
sustainability, while continuing to strike an equitable balance in fees
among regulated entities and a fair allocation of the cost of operating
and administering the MSRB, including regulatory activities, systems
development and operational activities. The Board, as it has
historically, strives to continually refine its fee structure to ensure
it is balanced and fair and provides for reasonable cost allocation.
    The first outcome of the holistic review was to substantially
reduce (by 8.3%) the fee assessed on municipal securities underwriters.
At the same time, the MSRB raised initial registration fees (which had
not been adjusted since 1975) and annual fees (which had not been
adjusted since 2009)--fees that are paid by all regulated entities--to
better align with the cost of administering registrants and ensure that
all registrants more fairly contributed to defraying the costs and
expenses of operating and administering the MSRB. With the extension of
the MSRB's jurisdiction to regulate municipal advisors, this class of
regulated entity began contributing to the cost of MSRB regulation in
2014.\4\ To further the objective of appropriately and equitably
assessing fees across all regulated activities, in 2018, the MSRB
introduced a new fee on underwriters of 529 plans, as underwriters to
529 plans had not previously paid a fee in this capacity.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Release No. 34-72019 (Apr. 25, 2014), 79 FR 24798 (May
1, 2014) (File No. SR-MSRB-2014-03).
    \5\ See Release No. 34-81264 (Jul 31, 2017), 82 FR 36472 (Aug.
4, 2017) (File No. SR-MSRB-2017-05).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current fees assessed on regulated entities are:
    1. Municipal advisor professional fee (Rule A-11). $500 for each
person associated with the municipal advisor who is qualified as a
municipal advisor representative in accordance with Rule G-3 and for
whom the municipal advisor has on file with the SEC a Form MA-I as of
January 31 of each year;
    2. Initial registration fee (Rule A-12). $1,000 one-time
registration fee to be paid by each dealer to register with the MSRB
before engaging in municipal securities activities and by each
municipal advisor to register with the MSRB before engaging in
municipal advisory activities;
    3. Annual registration fee (Rule A-12). $1,000 annual fee to be
paid by each dealer and municipal advisor registered with the MSRB;
    4. Late fee (Rule A-11 and Rule A-12). $25 monthly late fee and a
late fee on the overdue balance (computed according to the prime rate)
until paid on balances not paid within 30 days of the invoice date by
the dealer or municipal advisor;
    5. Underwriting fee (Rule A-13). $.0275 per $1,000 of the par value
paid by a dealer, on all municipal securities purchased from an issuer
by or through such dealer, whether acting as principal or agent as part
of a primary offering; and in the case of an underwriter (as defined in
Rule G-45) of a primary offering of certain municipal fund securities,
$.005 per $1,000 of the total aggregate assets for the reporting
period;
    6. Transaction fee (Rule A-13). .001% ($.01 per $1,000) of the
total par value to be paid by a dealer, except in limited
circumstances, for inter-dealer sales and customer sales reported to
the MSRB pursuant to Rule G-14(b), on transaction reporting
requirements;
    7. Technology fee (Rule A-13). $1.00 paid by a dealer per
transaction for each inter-dealer sale and for each sale to customers
reported to the MSRB pursuant to Rule G-14(b); and
    8. Examination fee (Rule A-16). $150 test development fee assessed
per candidate for each MSRB examination.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In addition, the MSRB charges data subscription service fees
for subscribers, including dealers and municipal advisors, seeking
direct electronic delivery of municipal trade data and disclosure
documents associated with municipal bond issues. However, this
information is available without direct electronic delivery on the
EMMA website without charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notably, while all regulated entities contribute to the MSRB's
revenue base, the three fees that are the subject of the proposed rule
change (underwriting, transaction and technology fees) constitute
approximately 80% of the MSRB's FY 2018 budgeted revenue. As the most
significant contributors to MSRB funding, as well as being market based
and historically contributing more than budgeted, these three fees are
the primary drivers for the excess reserves.\7\ While the fees
generated from municipal advisors contribute to the MSRB's budget, the
fees charged for this newly regulated category of professionals remain
relatively modest and do not yet meet target revenues.\8\ Accordingly,
the Board determined that these three fees exclusively should be
temporarily reduced for the designated period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Reserves also grew due to fine revenue, a new revenue source
first provided in 2010 under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act. See 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(c)(9).
    \8\ See Release No. 34-81841 (Oct. 10, 2017), 82 FR 48135, 48138
(Oct. 16, 2017) (File No. SR-MSRB-2017-07) (noting that the target
revenue to be generated from the municipal advisor fee under Rule A-
11 was approximately $2 million, or approximately 5% of the total
MSRB revenues). At present, the municipal advisor professional fee
generates approximately $1.5 million, or 4% of the MSRB's Fiscal
Year 2018 budgeted revenues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the initiation of the Board's holistic review of fees, MSRB
reserves continued to grow due to strong revenue results compared to
budget, as well as expense savings, and bolstered reserve levels to the
point where another rebate was warranted in 2016. That year, the MSRB
rebated $5.5 million of excess reserves to dealers who were assessed
underwriting, transaction and technology fees during the first nine
months of the fiscal year. In total, $9.1 million was returned to
dealers in fee rebates since 2014. However, the fee rebates were not
without their operational challenges. Industry feedback suggested that
underwriting fee rebates can be problematic due to inherent
complications of processing and potentially redistributing pro rata
shares to syndicate members. Moreover, the MSRB believes that the
approach taken in the proposed rule change (i.e., a temporary reduction
in dealer fees) would be fairer than another alternative approach, such
as a fee holiday. For a fee holiday, the MSRB would forego charging
fees for one month--but, because of the difficulties in selecting a
single month that is representative of dealer activity for all dealers
subject to the relevant fees, the MSRB believes that a temporary fee
reduction that occurs over the course of several months is more likely
to lead to a fair and equitable fee reduction across dealers.
Accordingly, the Board has determined that a temporary three-month fee
reduction, rather than a fee rebate or fee holiday, is a preferable
mode of reducing its reserves.
    The Board strives to be fiscally responsible. Since approximately
80% of the Board's revenue sources are market based, which is
inherently unpredictable and largely has exceeded budget, and the Board
has a historical track record of managing expenses to below budget,
reserves continue to grow. The Board seeks to strike the right balance
in fee assessments to maintain sufficient reserves to ensure fiscal
sustainability, while providing relief to regulated entities that have
contributed

to the excess reserves position. The temporary three-month fee
reduction continues these ongoing efforts.

2. Statutory Basis

    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 15B(b)(2)(J) of the Act \9\ which states that the MSRB's rules
shall:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(J).

provide that each municipal securities broker, municipal securities
dealer, and municipal advisor shall pay to the Board such reasonable
fees and charges as may be necessary or appropriate to defray the
costs and expenses of operating and administering the Board. Such
rules shall specify the amount of such fees and charges, which may
include charges for failure to submit to the Board, or to any
information system operated by the Board, within the prescribed
timeframes, any items of information or documents required to be
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
submitted under any rule issued by the Board.

    The MSRB believes that its rules provide for reasonable dues, fees,
and other charges among regulated entities. The MSRB believes that the
proposed rule change is necessary and appropriate to fund the operation
and administration of the Board and satisfies the requirements of
Section 15B(b)(2)(J),\10\ achieving a more equitable balance of fees
among regulated entities and a fairer allocation of the expenses of the
regulatory activities, system development, and operational activities
undertaken by the MSRB because it temporarily decreases fees for the
regulated entities that financially contribute the greatest to the cost
of MSRB activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, current reserve levels exceed targets, but
looking forward to FY 2020, the MSRB's pro formas project reserves to
fall modestly below targeted levels with the temporary fee reduction.
As a result, the MSRB believes that it is preferable to temporarily
reduce fees rather than take an alternative approach, such as a
permanent fee reduction. Also, the MSRB believes a temporary fee
reduction is preferable to a fee rebate because it would be
operationally easier for dealers as dealers would be able to
incorporate temporarily reduced fee rates into their business processes
in advance rather than receive a rebate associated with past activity
that may need to be redistributed through or across organizations.
Finally, the MSRB believes that the proposed rule change would achieve
a more equitable balance among regulated entities and a fairer
allocation of the MSRB's expenses because the three fees that are the
subject of the proposed rule change, representing approximately 80% of
the MSRB's FY 2018 revenue budget, have contributed most to funding
operations of the MSRB and concurrently contributed the most to the
current reserve levels.
    While the MSRB has progressively budgeted for municipal advisor
fees to defray a greater portion of the cost of the MSRB's municipal
advisor-related activity,\11\ municipal advisor fees have comprised a
very small portion of the MSRB's revenues and have not contributed to
the MSRB's excess reserves position. For these same reasons, the
beneficiaries of the proposed rule change are generally the same group
of regulated entities that received the fee rebates in 2014 and 2016,
as described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See supra n. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act \12\ requires that MSRB rules not
be designed to impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board's policy on the use of economic analysis limits its
applications regarding those rules for which the Board seeks immediate
effectiveness.\13\ However, an internal analysis is still conducted to
gauge the economic impact, with an emphasis on the burden on
competition involving regulated entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The scope of the Board's policy on the use of economic
analysis in rulemaking provides that:
     [t]his Policy addresses rulemaking activities of the MSRB that
culminate, or are expected to culminate, in a filing of a proposed
rule change with the SEC under Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act,
other than a proposed rule change that the MSRB reasonably believes
would qualify for immediate effectiveness under Section 19(b)(3)(A)
of the Exchange Act if filed as such or as otherwise provided under
the exception process of this Policy.
    Policy on the Use of Economic Analysis in MSRB Rulemaking,
available at http://msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/Economic-Analysis-Policy.aspx. For those rule changes which the MSRB seeks
immediate effectiveness, the MSRB usually focuses exclusively its
examination on the burden of competition on regulated entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this regard, the Board believes the proposed rule change is
necessary and appropriate to promote fairness in funding the operation
and administration of the Board and would achieve a more equitable
balance among regulated entities and a more balanced allocation of the
expenses of the regulatory activities, system development, and
operational activities undertaken by the MSRB. Because the three fees
that are the subject of the proposed rule change (underwriting,
transaction and technology fees) are the primary drivers for the MSRB's
excess reserves, the Board believes that it is appropriate to
temporarily reduce these fees for the designated period.
    The MSRB does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as it would temporarily
decrease by the same percentage the underwriting, transaction and
technology fees for all dealers subject to these fees.
    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change would not impose an
unnecessary or inappropriate regulatory burden on small regulated
entities, as smaller dealers would benefit from the temporary fee
reduction in the same proportion as larger dealers in relation to the
assessible activity during the relevant three-month period.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)\15\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please
include File Number SR-MSRB-2018-06 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2018-06. 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 website (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 website 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 MSRB. All comments received
will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2018-06 and should be submitted on
or before August 22, 2018.

    For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-16419 Filed 7-31-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 245 (Wednesday, December 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79236-79238]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32569]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65958; File No. SR-ISE-2011-81]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to Fees for Certain Complex Orders Executed on the
Exchange

December 15, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Exchange Act'' or the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\
notice is hereby given that, on November 30, 2011, the International
Securities Exchange, LLC (the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The ISE is proposing to amend fees for certain complex orders
executed on the Exchange. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.ise.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 these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange currently assesses a per contract transaction fee to
market participants that add or remove liquidity in the Complex Order
Book (``maker/taker fees'') in symbols that are in the Penny Pilot
program. Included therein is a subset of 103 symbols that are assessed
a slightly higher taker fee (the ``Select Symbols'').\3\ Specifically,
the Exchange charges ISE market maker orders,\4\ firm proprietary
orders and Customer (Professional Orders) \5\ $0.10 per contract for
providing liquidity on the Complex Order Book and $0.30 per contract
($0.32 per contract in the Select Symbols) for taking liquidity from
the Complex Order Book. ISE market makers who take liquidity from the
Complex Order Book by trading with orders that are preferenced to them
are charged $0.28 per contract ($0.30 per contract in the Select
Symbols). Non-ISE Market Makers \6\ are currently charged $0.20 per
contract for providing liquidity and $0.35 per contract ($0.36 per
contract in the Select Symbols) for taking liquidity from the Complex
Order Book. Priority Customer orders are not charged a fee for trading
in the Complex Order Book and receive a rebate of $0.25 per contract
($0.30 per contract in the Select Symbols) when those orders trade with
non-customer orders in the Complex Order Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Select Symbols are identified by their ticker symbol on
the Exchange's Schedule of Fees.
    \4\ The term ``market makers'' refers to ``Competitive Market
Makers'' and ``Primary Market Makers'' collectively. See ISE Rule
100(a)(25).
    \5\ The term ``Professional Order'' means an order that is for
the account of a person or entity that is not a Priority Customer.
See ISR Rule 100(a)(37C).
    \6\ The term ``Non-ISE Market Maker'' means a market maker as
defined in Section 3(a)(38) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') [sic] registered in the same options class on another
options exchange. See Schedule of Fees, page 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange recently received approval to allow market makers to
enter quotations for complex order strategies in the Complex Order
Book.\7\ Given this enhancement to the complex order functionality, and
in order to maintain a competitive fee and rebate structure for
Priority Customer orders, the Exchange now proposes to amend the fees
that apply to transactions in the Complex Order Book in the following
three symbols: XOP, XLB and EFA.\8\ Specifically, the Exchange proposes
to amend its maker fee for complex orders in these three symbols when
these orders interact with Priority Customers.\9\ The Exchange proposes
to increase its maker fee from $0.10 per contract to $0.30 per contract
in XOP ($0.32 per contract in XLB and EFA) for ISE market maker orders,
firm proprietary orders, and Customer (Professional Orders) when these
orders interact with Priority Customer orders. The Exchange proposes to
increase its maker fee from $0.20 per contract to $0.30 per contract in
XOP ($0.32 per contract in XLB and EFA) for Non-ISE Market Makers
orders when these orders interact with Priority Customer orders. The
Exchange is not proposing any change to fees for Priority Customer
orders that trade in the Complex Order Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65548 (October 13,
2011), 76 FR 64980 (October 19, 2011) (SR-ISE-2011-39).
    \8\ The Exchange notes that XOP is currently in the Penny Pilot
program and XLB and EFA are currently Select Symbols.
    \9\ The term ``Priority Customer'' means a person or entity that
(i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) does not place
more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial account. See ISE Rule
100(a)(37A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, for Priority Customer complex orders in symbols that are
in the Penny Pilot program, the Exchange currently provides a rebate of
$0.25 per contract ($0.30 per contract for Select Symbols) when these
orders trade with non-customer orders in the Complex Order Book. The
Exchange proposes to continue this rebate incentive. As such, Priority
Customer complex orders in XOP will continue to receive a rebate of
$0.25 per contract when these orders trade with non-customer orders in
the Complex Order Book, while Priority Customer complex orders in XLB
and EFA will continue to receive a rebate of $0.30 per contract when
these orders trade with non-customer orders in the Complex Order Book.
    Additionally, to incentivize members to trade in the Exchange's
various auction mechanisms, the Exchange currently provides a per
contract rebate to those contracts that do not trade with the contra
order in the Exchange's Facilitation Mechanism,\10\ Price Improvement
Mechanism \11\ and Solicited Order Mechanism.\12\ This rebate currently
applies to all complex orders in symbols that are subject to the
Exchange's maker/taker fees. To clarify the applicability of this
rebate, the Exchange proposes to add footnote 2 to the Complex Order
Maker Fee (Each Leg) for Select Symbols column and the Complex Order
Taker Fee (Each Leg) for Select Symbols column on the Exchange's
Schedule of Fees. For the Facilitation and Solicited Order

Mechanisms, the rebate is currently $0.15 per contract. For the Price
Improvement Mechanism, the rebate is currently $0.25 per contract. The
Exchange proposes to continue this rebate incentive also. As such, a
per contract rebate at the current levels will continue to apply to
those contracts in XOP, XLB, and EFA that do not trade with the contra
order in the Exchange's Facilitation Mechanism, Price Improvement
Mechanism and Solicited Order Mechanism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Exchange Act Release No. 61869 (April 7, 2010), 75 FR
19449 (April 14, 2010) (SR-ISE-2010-25).
    \11\ See Exchange Act Release No. 62048 (May 6, 2010), 75 FR
26830 (May 12, 2010) (SR-ISE-2010-43). The Exchange subsequently
increased this rebate to $0.25 per contract. See Exchange Act
Release No. 63283 (November 9, 2010), 75 FR 70059 (November 16,
2010) (SR-ISE-2010-106).
    \12\ See Exchange Act Release No. 63283 (November 9, 2010), 75
FR 70059 (November 16, 2010) (SR-ISE-2010-106).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to continue providing ISE market makers
with a two cent discount when trading against orders that are
preferenced to them. Currently, this discount is only applicable when
ISE Market Makers remove liquidity from the Complex Order Book. The
Exchange now proposes to provide this fee discount when ISE Market
Makers add or remove liquidity from the Complex Order Book in XOP, XLB
and EFA. Accordingly, ISE market makers that add or remove liquidity in
XLB and EFA in the Complex Order Book will be charged $0.30 per
contract ($0.28 per contract in XOP) when trading with orders that are
preferenced to them.
    The Exchange proposes to make these fee changes operative on
December 1, 2011.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Schedule of
Fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \13\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \14\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among Exchange members and other persons using
its facilities. The impact of the proposal upon the net fees paid by a
particular market participant will depend on a number of variables,
most important of which will be its propensity to add or remove
liquidity in options overlying the Penny Pilot Symbols and the Select
Symbols in the Complex Order Book, as applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that increasing the fees applicable to orders
executed in the Complex Order Book when trading against Priority
Customers in XOP, XLB and EFA is appropriate given the new
functionality that allows market makers to quote in the Complex Order
Book. Additionally, the Exchange's fees remain competitive with fees
charged by other exchanges and are therefore reasonable and equitably
allocated to those members that opt to direct orders to the Exchange
rather than to a competing exchange. Specifically, the Exchange
believes that its proposal to assess a make fee of $0.30 per contract
for XOP and $0.32 for XLB and EFA when orders in these symbols interact
with Priority Customers is reasonable and equitable because the fee is
within the range of fees assessed by other exchanges employing similar
pricing schemes.
    The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable and equitable to
provide a two cent discount to ISE market makers on preferenced orders
because this will provide an incentive for market makers to quote in
the Complex Order Book. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and
equitable to continue to provide rebates for Priority Customer complex
orders because paying a rebate will continue to attract additional
order flow to the Exchange and thereby create liquidity that ultimately
will benefit all market participants who trade on the Exchange.
    Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are fair,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed fees are
consistent with price differentiation that exists today at other
options exchanges. Additionally, the Exchange believes it remains an
attractive venue for market participants to trade complex orders
despite its proposed fee change as its fees remain competitive with
those charged by other exchanges for similar trading strategies. The
Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market
participants can readily direct order flow to another exchange if they
deem fee levels at a particular exchange to be excessive. For the
reasons noted above, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are
fair, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory.

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

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

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act.\15\ 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 Exchange Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-ISE-2011-81 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-ISE-2011-81. 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 a.m. and 3 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-ISE-2011-81 and should be submitted on or before January
11, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-32569 Filed 12-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 92 (Tuesday, May 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27293-27295]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10879]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC14-83-000.
    Applicants: Nevada Power Company, Nevada Sun-Peak Limited
Partnership.
    Description: Nevada Power Company and Nevada Sun-Peak Limited
Partnership Section 203 Application.
    Filed Date: 5/2/14.
    Accession Number: 20140502-5246.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/14.

    Docket Numbers: EC14-84-000.
    Applicants: Nevada Power Company, Las Vegas Cogeneration LP, Las
Vegas Cogeneration II, LLC.
    Description: Nevada Power Company, Las Vegas Cogeneration Limited
Partnership, et al Section 203 Application.
    Filed Date: 5/2/14.
    Accession Number: 20140502-5253.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/14.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1569-009; ER10-2361-002; ER10-2575-002; ER10-
2381-002; ER10-2947-008; ER10-2369-002; ER10-2360-002; ER10-2359-002;
ER11-2857-013; ER10-2358-002; ER13-2050-004; ER13-2020-004; ER13-2107-
004; ER10-2357-002; ER10-2356-002; ER11-2856-013; ER10-2382-002; ER10-
1580-011; ER10-3143-011; ER12-21-014; ER10-2783-008; ER10-2784-008;
ER11-2855-013; ER10-2791-009; ER10-2333-002; ER14-1865-001; ER10-2792-
009; ER14-1818-001; ER12-1238-00; ER10-1564-009; ER10-1565-009; ER10-
2337-003; ER10-2795-008; ER10-2798-008; ER10-1575-007; ER10-2339-003;
ER10-2338-003; ER10-2340-003; ER12-1239-002; ER10-2336-002; ER10-2335-
002; ER10-2799-008; ER10-2801-008; ER10-2385-002; ER11-3727-009; ER10-
1566-009; ER12-2413-007; ER11-2062-010; ER10-2346-002; ER10-2812-007;
ER10-1291-011; ER10-2843-006; ER11-2508-009; ER11-2683-001; ER11-2805-
009; ER11-4308-010; ER11-4351-003; ER10-2969-008; ER13-1965-004; ER10-
2931-009; ER11-3459-008; ER11-4307-010; ER10-2347-002; ER10-2348-002;
ER12-1711-009; ER10-2350-002; ER10-2846-008; ER12-261-009; ER10-2871-
006; ER10-2351-002; ER10-2875-008; ER12-2398-008; ER10-1582-008; ER12-
2019-008; ER12-1525-009; ER10-2915-008; ER10-2916-008; ER13-1802-003;
ER13-1801-003; ER13-1799-003; ER10-2368-002; ER10-2352-002; ER10-1568-
009; ER10-1581-011; ER10-2353-002; ER10-2876-009; ER10-2878-008; ER10-
2354-003; ER10-2355-003; ER10-2914-010; ER13-1746-006; ER13-1791-003;
ER10-2913-008; ER10-2896-008; ER13-1790-005; ER13-1789-003; ER10-2879-
008; ER10-2384-003; ER10-2383-003; ER10-2880-008.
    Applicants: NRG Power Marketing LLC, Agua Caliente Solar, LLC,
Arthur Kill Power LLC, Astoria Gas Turbine Power LLC, Avenal Park LLC,
Bayou Cove Peaking Power, LLC, Bendwind, LLC, BETM Solutions LLC, Big
Cajun I Peaking Power LLC, Boston Energy Trading and Marketing LLC,
Broken Bow Wind, LLC, Cabrillo Power I LLC, Cabrillo Power II LLC, CL
Power Sales Eight, L.L.C., Conemaugh Power LLC,

Connecticut Jet Power LLC, Cottonwood Energy Company LP, CP Power Sales
Seventeen, L.L.C., CP Power Sales Nineteen, L.L.C., CP Power Sales
Twenty, L.L.C., Crofton Bluffs Wind, LLC, DeGreeff DP, LLC, DeGreeffpa,
LLC, Devon Power LLC, Dunkirk Power LLC, Elkhorn Ridge Wind, LLC, El
Segundo Energy Center LLC, El Segundo Power, LLC, Energy Alternatives
Wholesale, LLC, Energy Plus Holdings LLC, Forward WindPower, LLC,
GenConn Devon LLC, GenConn Energy LLC, GenConn Middletown LLC, GenOn
Energy Management, LLC, GenOn Mid-Atlantic, LLC, Green Mountain Energy
Company, Groen Wind, LLC, High Lonesome Mesa, LLC, High Plains Ranch
II, LLC, Hillcrest Wind, LLC, Huntley Power LLC, Independence Energy
Group LLC, Indian River Power LLC, Jeffers Wind 20, LLC, Keystone Power
LLC, Laredo Ridge Wind, LLC, Larswind, LLC, Long Beach Generation LLC,
Long Beach Peakers LLC, Lookout WindPower, LLC, Louisiana Generating
LLC, Middletown Power LLC, Midway-Sunset Cogeneration Company, Midwest
Generation LLC, Montville Power LLC, Mountain Wind Power, LLC, Mountain
Wind Power II, LLC, NEO Freehold-Gen LLC, North Community Turbines LLC,
North Wind Turbines LLC, Norwalk Power LLC, NRG Bowline, LLC, NRG
California South LP, NRG Canal LLC, NRG Chalk Point LLC, NRG Delta LLC,
NRG Energy Center Dover LLC, NRG Energy Center Paxton LLC, NRG Florida
LP, NRG Marsh Landing LLC, NRG New Jersey Energy Sales LLC, NRG Potomac
River LLC, NRG Power Midwest LP, NRG REMA LLC, NRG Rockford LLC, NRG
Rockford II LLC, NRG Solar Alpine LLC, NRG Solar Avra Valley LLC, NRG
Solar Blythe LLC, NRG Solar Borrego I LLC, NRG Solar Roadrunner LLC,
NRG Sterlington Power LLC, NRG Wholesale Generation LP, Oswego Harbor
Power LLC, Pinnacle Wind, LLC, Reliant Energy Northeast LLC, RRI Energy
Services, LLC, Sabine Cogen, LP, Saguaro Power Company, a Limited
Partnership, San Juan Mesa Wind Project, LLC, Sand Drag LLC, Sierra
Wind, LLC, Sleeping Bear, LLC, Solar Partners I, LLC, Solar Partners
II, LLC, Solar Partners VIII, LLC, Storm Lake Power Partners I LLC, Sun
City Project, Sunrise Power Company, LLC, TAIR Windfarm, LLC, Taloga
Wind, LLC, Vienna Power LLC, Walnut Creek Energy, LLC, Watson
Cogeneration Company, Wildorado Wind, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of NRG MBR
Entities.
    Filed Date: 5/1/14.
    Accession Number: 20140501-5439.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1851-003, ER10-1976-004; ER10-1966-004; ER10-
1985-004; ER11-4462-006; ER10-1971-013; ER10-1930-003; ER10-1931-004;
ER12-2225-003; ER12-2226-003.
    Applicants: ESI Vansycle Partners, L.P., FPL Energy Stateline II,
Inc., FPL Energy Vansycle, L.L.C., Limon Wind, LLC, Limon Wind II, LLC,
Logan Wind Energy LLC, Northern Colorado Wind Energy, Peetz Table Wind
Energy, LLC, NextEra Energy Power Marketing, NEPM II, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to December 23, 2013 Triennial Market Power
Update for Northwest Region of the NextEra Companies.
    Filed Date: 5/1/14.
    Accession Number: 20140501-5405.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3376-002; ER11-3377-002; ER11-3378-002.
    Applicants: North Hurlburt Wind, LLC, Horseshoe Bend Wind, LLC,
South Hurlburt Wind, LLC.
    Description: Amendment to March 7, 2014 Trienniel Updated Market
Power Analysis of Horseshoe Bend Wind, LLC, North Hurlburt Wind, LLC
and South Hurlburt Wind, LLC and Request for Shortened Comment Period.
    Filed Date: 4/21/14.
    Accession Number: 20140421-5124.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/12/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1865-000.
    Applicants: BETM Solutions LLC.
    Description: Notice of Succession and Revisions to Market-Based
Rate Tariff to be effective 5/3/2014.
    Filed Date: 5/2/14.
    Accession Number: 20140502-5212.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1866-000.
    Applicants: CL Power Sales Eight, L.L.C.
    Description: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 5/3/
2014.
    Filed Date: 5/2/14.
    Accession Number: 20140502-5213.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1867-000.
    Applicants: Larswind, LLC.
    Description: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 5/3/
2014.
    Filed Date: 5/2/14.
    Accession Number: 20140502-5214.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1868-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: NYISO 205 OATT revisions re: M2M coordination process
when NY is in storm watch to be effective 6/11/2014.
    Filed Date: 5/2/14.
    Accession Number: 20140502-5217.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1869-000.
    Applicants: Lookout WindPower LLC.
    Description: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 5/3/
2014.
    Filed Date: 5/2/14.
    Accession Number: 20140502-5218.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1870-000.
    Applicants: Pinnacle Wind, LLC.
    Description: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 5/3/
2014.
    Filed Date: 5/2/14.
    Accession Number: 20140502-5224.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1871-000.
    Applicants: Sierra Wind, LLC.
    Description: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 5/3/
2014.
    Filed Date: 5/2/14.
    Accession Number: 20140502-5225.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1872-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 2014-05-02--SA 2650 METC E&P Agreement to be effective
5/3/2014.
    Filed Date: 5/2/14.
    Accession Number: 20140502-5232.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1873-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Energy Marketing, Inc.
    Description: Compliance Filing--DEMI et al. MBR Tariff BD Waiver to
be effective 5/3/2014.
    Filed Date: 5/2/14.
    Accession Number: 20140502-5236.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1874-000.
    Applicants: NedPower Mount Storm, LLC.
    Description: Compliance Filing--NedPower MBR Tariff Bus.
Development Waiver to be effective 5/3/2014.
    Filed Date: 5/5/14.
    Accession Number: 20140505-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1875-000.
    Applicants: Fowler Ridge Wind Farm LLC.
    Description: Compliance Filing--Fowler MBR Tariff Bus. Development
Waiver to be effective 5/3/2014.
    Filed Date: 5/5/14.
    Accession Number: 20140505-5001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/14.

    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 5, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-10879 Filed 5-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 150 (Monday, August 7, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36795-36796]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16580]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0222]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Guidance for
Industry--User Fee Waivers, Reductions, and Refunds for Drug and
Biological Products

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency or we) is
announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by
September 6, 2017.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0693.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Domini Bean, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A63, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Guidance for Industry--User Fee Waivers, Reductions, and Refunds for
Drug and Biological Products OMB Control Number 0910-0693--Extension

    The guidance provides recommendations for applicants planning to
request waivers or reductions in prescription drug user fees assessed
under sections 735 and 736 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(21 U.S.C. 379g and 21 U.S.C. 379h) (the FD&C Act). The guidance
describes the types of waivers and reductions permitted under the
prescription drug

user fee provisions of the FD&C Act, and the procedures for submitting
requests for waivers or reductions. It also includes recommendations
for submitting information for requests for reconsideration of denials
of waiver or reduction requests, and for requests for appeals. The
guidance also provides clarification on related issues such as user fee
exemptions for orphan drugs.
    Based on Agency records, we estimate that the total annual number
of waiver requests submitted for all of these categories will be 150,
submitted by 115 different applicants. We estimate that the average
burden hours for preparation of a submission will total 16 hours.
Because FDA may request additional information from the applicant
during the review period, we have also included in this estimate time
to prepare any additional information. We have included in the burden
estimate the preparation and submission of application fee waivers for
small businesses, because small businesses requesting a waiver must
submit documentation to FDA on the number of their employees and must
include the information that the application is the first human drug
application, within the meaning of the FD&C Act, to be submitted to the
Agency for approval.
    Previously, after receipt of a small business waiver request, FDA
would request a small business size determination from the Small
Business Administration (SBA). Waiver applicants would submit their
supporting documentation directly to SBA for evaluation and after
completing their review, SBA provided FDA with a determination whether
a waiver applicant qualified as a small business for purposes of
evaluating user fee waivers. The burden for submission of this
information to SBA is approved under OMB control number 3245-0101.
    Beginning fiscal year 2015, the SBA declined to conduct further
size determinations for evaluation of small business user fee waivers
and as a result, a processing change at FDA occurred. The new FDA
process requires waiver applicants to submit documentation directly to
FDA. In addition, fewer supporting documents than previously requested
by SBA are required. As a result, we estimate that the 4 burden hours
per small business waiver previously attributed to SBA and approved
under OMB control number 3245-0101, should now be attributed to FDA
because SBA is no longer conducting size determinations for FDA. Also,
because FDA is asking that applicants submit fewer supporting
documents, we estimate that these burden hours should be reduced to 2
hours instead of 4 hours. We understand that SBA plans to submit a
revised burden estimate to OMB control number 3245-0101 to account for
this redistribution.
    The reconsideration and appeal requests are not addressed in the
FD&C Act, but are discussed in the guidance. We estimate that we will
receive seven requests for reconsideration annually, and that the total
average burden hours for a reconsideration request will be 24 hours. In
addition, we estimate that we will receive one request annually for an
appeal of a user fee waiver determination, and that the time needed to
prepare an appeal would be approximately 12 hours. We have included in
this estimate both the time needed to prepare the request for appeal to
the Chief Scientist, User Fee Appeals Officer, Office of the
Commissioner, and the time needed to create and send a copy of the
request for an appeal to the Director, Division of User Fee Management,
Office of Management, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
    The burden for completing and submitting Form FDA 3397
(Prescription Drug User Fee Coversheet) is not included in this
analysis as the burden is included under OMB control number 0910-0297.
The collections of information associated with submission of a new drug
application or biologics license application are approved under OMB
control numbers 0910-0001 and 0910-0338, respectively.
    In the Federal Register of May 23, 2017 (82 FR 23581), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
extension of this collection of information. No comments were received.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
User fee waivers, reductions, &                     Number of                         Average
 refunds for  drug & biological     Number of     responses per    Total annual     burden per      Total hours
            products               respondents      respondent       responses       response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FD&C Act sections 735 and 736..             115              1.3             150              16           2,400
FD&C Act section                             25                1              25               2              50
 736(d)(1)(D)(4)...............
Reconsideration requests.......               7                1               7              24             168
Appeal requests................               1                1               1              12              12
                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..........................  ..............  ...............  ..............  ..............           2,630
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    Dated: August 2, 2017.
Anna K. Abram,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2017-16580 Filed 8-4-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 200 (Monday, October 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64172-64173]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26592]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA 2011-001-N-13]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and its
implementing regulations, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
hereby announces that it is seeking renewal of the following currently
approved information collection activities. Before submitting these
information collection requirements for clearance by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), FRA is soliciting public comment on
specific aspects of the activities identified below.

DATES: Comments must be received no later than December 16, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on any or all of the following
proposed activities by mail to either: Mr. Robert Brogan, Office of
Safety, Planning and Evaluation Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Mail Stop 17, Washington, DC
20590, or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20,
Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Mail Stop
35, Washington, DC 20590. Commenters requesting FRA to acknowledge
receipt of their respective comments must include a self-addressed
stamped postcard stating, ``Comments on OMB control number 2130-0556
.'' Alternatively, comments may be transmitted via facsimile to (202)
493-

6216 or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or via e-mail to Mr. Brogan at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or to Ms. Toone at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
refer to the assigned OMB control number in any correspondence
submitted. FRA will summarize comments received in response to this
notice in a subsequent notice and include them in its information
collection submission to OMB for approval.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Brogan, Office of Planning
and Evaluation Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200
New Jersey Ave., SE., Mail Stop 17, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:
(202) 493-6292) or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Office of Information
Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Ave., SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-
6132). (These telephone numbers are not toll-free.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Public Law No. 104-13, Sec.  2, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as
revised at 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and its implementing regulations, 5
CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to provide 60-days notice to
the public for comment on information collection activities before
seeking approval for reinstatement or renewal by OMB. 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(A); 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), 1320.10(e)(1), 1320.12(a).
Specifically, FRA invites interested respondents to comment on the
following summary of proposed information collection activities
regarding (i) Whether the information collection activities are
necessary for FRA to properly execute its functions, including whether
the activities will have practical utility; (ii) the accuracy of FRA's
estimates of the burden of the information collection activities,
including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used to
determine the estimates; (iii) ways for FRA to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information being collected; and (iv) ways
for FRA to minimize the burden of information collection activities on
the public by automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of information technology (e.g.,
permitting electronic submission of responses). See 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(A)(I)-(iv); 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1)(I)-(iv). FRA believes that
soliciting public comment will promote its efforts to reduce the
administrative and paperwork burdens associated with the collection of
information mandated by Federal regulations. In summary, FRA reasons
that comments received will advance three objectives: (i) Reduce
reporting burdens; (ii) ensure that it organizes information collection
requirements in a ``user friendly'' format to improve the use of such
information; and (iii) accurately assess the resources expended to
retrieve and produce information requested. See 44 U.S.C. 3501.
    Below is a brief summary of the currently approved ICR that FRA
will submit for clearance by OMB as required under the PRA:
    Title: U.S. Locational Requirement for Dispatching U.S. Rail
Operations.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0556.
    Abstract: Part 241 requires, in the absence of a waiver, that all
dispatching of railroad operations that occurs in the United States be
performed in this country, with a minor exception. A railroad is
allowed to conduct extraterritorial dispatching from Mexico or Canada
in emergency situations, but only for the duration of the emergency. A
railroad relying on the exception must provide written notification of
its action to the FRA Regional Administrator of each FRA region in
which the railroad operation occurs; such notification is not required
before addressing the emergency situation. The information collected
under this rule will be used as part of FRA's oversight function to
ensure that extraterritorial dispatchers comply with applicable safety
regulations. FRA estimates that approximately one (1) Notification per
year will be sent to the appropriate FRA Regional Administrators
regarding dispatching under the circumstances described above. It is
estimated that it will take the dispatching railroad approximately
eight (8) hours to prepare each notification letter and send it to the
appropriate FRA Regional Administrator.
    Affected Public: Railroads.
    Respondent Universe: 4 Railroads.
    Frequency of Submission: On Occasion.

                                                                    Reporting Burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Average time per
              CFR section                 Respondent universe     Total annual responses          response               Total annual burden hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
241.9--Prohibition against              4 railroads............  1 notification.........  8 hours................  8 hours.
 extraterritorial dispatching;
 exceptions--Notification.
241.11--Prohibition against conducting  4 railroads............  Included under Sec.      Included under Sec.      Included under Sec.   241.9.
 a railroad operation dispatched by an                            241.9.                   241.9.
 extraterritorial dispatcher;
 exceptions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
241.13--Prohibitions against track    4 railroads..........  Included under Sec.   Included under Sec.   Included under Sec.   Included under Sec.
 owner's requiring or permitting use                           241.9.                241.9.                241.9.               241.9.
 of its line for a railroad
 operation dispatched by an
 extraterritorial dispatcher;
 exceptions.
241.15--Penalties--False Reports/     $628.................  None................  N/A.................  N/A.................  N/A.
 Records.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Responses: 1.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 8 hours.
    Status: Extension of a Currently Approved Collection.
    Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b),
1320.8(b)(3)(vi), FRA informs all interested parties that it may not
conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 6, 2011.
Kimberly Coronel,
Director, Office of Financial Management, Federal Railroad
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-26592 Filed 10-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 98 (Monday, May 21, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29920-29921]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12159]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0391; Airspace Docket No. 12-AGL-2]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Lemmon, SD

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E airspace at Lemmon, SD.
Additional controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP) at Lemmon Municipal Airport. The
FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for SIAPs at the airport.
Geographic coordinates of the airport also would be updated.

DATES: 0901 UTC. Comments must be received on or before July 5, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You
must identify the docket number FAA-2012-0391/Airspace Docket No. 12-
AGL-2, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments
through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the
public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any
final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office
(telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at
the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: 817-321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2012-0391/
Airspace Docket No. 12-AGL-2.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Central Service Center, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort
Worth, TX 76137.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), Part 71 by amending Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface to accommodate new standard instrument
approach procedures at Lemmon Municipal Airport, Lemmon, SD. Controlled
airspace is needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at
the airport. The airport's geographic coordinates also would be updated
to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9V, dated August 9, 2011 and effective September 15, 2011, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would

amend controlled airspace at Lemmon Municipal Airport, Lemmon, SD.

Environmental Review

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order
7400.9V, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 9,
2011, and effective September 15, 2011, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

AGL SD E5 Lemmon, SD [Amended]

Lemmon Municipal Airport, SD
    (Lat. 45[deg]55'06'' N., long. 102[deg]06'20'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Lemmon Municipal Airport; and that
airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface bounded
on the north by lat. 46[deg]10'00'' N, on the east by V-169, on the
south by lat. 45[deg]33'00'' N, and on the west by V-491, northbound
to lat. 45[deg]45'00'', thence eastbound to lat. 45[deg]45'00'' N,
long. 102[deg]09'00'' W, thence northwest bound to lat.
46[deg]10'00'' N, long. 102[deg]34'00'' W, and within a 30 mile
radius of lat. 45[deg]47'29'' N, long. 101[deg]51'13'' W.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on May 10, 2012.
Walter L. Tweedy,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2012-12159 Filed 5-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52648-52649]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21450]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14069-000]

Konohiki Hydro Power, Inc.; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, Protests,
Recommendations, and Terms and Conditions

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Conduit Exemption.
    b. Project No.: 14069-000.
    c. Date filed: May 9, 2011, and supplemented August 4, 2011.
    d. Applicant: Konohiki Hydro Power, Inc.
    e. Name of Project: Puu Lua Hydropower Project.
    f. Location: The proposed Puu Lua Hydropower Project would be
located on the Koke'e ditch irrigation system in Kaua'i County, Hawaii.
The land on which all the project structures are located is owned by
the applicant.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mrs. Pamela Miller, Konohiki Hydro Power,
Inc., P.O. Box 261, Anahola, HI 96703, phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Robert Bell,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Competing Application: This application competes with Project
No. 13875-000 filed October 22, 2010.
    k. Status of Environmental Analysis: This application is ready for
environmental analysis at this time, and the Commission is requesting
comments, reply comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and
prescriptions.
    l. Deadline for filing responsive documents: Due to the small size
of the proposed project, as well as the resource agency consultation
letters filed with the application, the 60-day timeframe specified in
18 CFR 4.34(b) for filing all comments, motions to intervene, protests,
recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions is shortened
to 30 days from the issuance date of this notice. All reply comments
filed in response to comments submitted by any resource agency, Indian
tribe, or person, must be filed with the Commission within 45 days from
the issuance date of this notice.
    Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. The Commission strongly
encourages electronic filings.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in 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.
    m. Description of Project: The Puu Lua Hydropower Project has two
developments that would consist of:

Upper Puu Lua Development

    (1) A proposed powerhouse containing one proposed generating unit
with an installed capacity of 2 megawatts; and (2) appurtenant
facilities.

Lower Puu Lua Development

    (1) A proposed powerhouse containing one proposed generating unit
with an installed capacity of 3.3 megawatts; and (2) appurtenant
facilities.

    The applicant estimates the project would have an average annual
generation of 32.49 gigawatt-hours.
    n. This filing is available for review and reproduction at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room, Room 2A, 888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number, P-14069, in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy
is also available for review and reproduction at the address in item h
above.
    o. Protests or Motions to Intervene--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.
    p. All filings must (1) Bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST'', ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', ``COMMENTS'', ``REPLY COMMENTS,''
``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``TERMS AND CONDITIONS,'' or ``PRESCRIPTIONS;''
(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. All comments, recommendations, terms and
conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and
otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may
obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. Any of
these documents must be filed by providing the original and seven
copies to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be
sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance,
Office of Energy Projects, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the
above address. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be
served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the
particular application. A copy of all other filings in reference to
this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons
listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this
proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: August 16, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-21450 Filed 8-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 125 (Tuesday, June 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 37247]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16036]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0098; FRL-9929-18-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Nine Metal Fabrication and
Finishing Sources (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``NESHAP for Nine Metal
Fabrication and Finishing Sources (40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXXXX)
(Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 2298.04, OMB Control No. 2060-0622), to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved
through June 30, 2015. Public comments were previously requested via
the Federal Register (79 FR 30117) on May 27, 2014 during a 60-day
comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public
comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its
estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may neither conduct
nor sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection
of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 30, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2014-0098, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The regulation applies to nine metal fabrication and
finishing area source categories: (1) Electrical and Electronic
Equipment Finishing Operations; (2) Fabricated Metal Products; (3)
Fabricated Plate Work (Boiler Shops); (4) Fabricated Structural Metal
Manufacturing; (5) Heating Equipment, except Electric; (6) Industrial
Machinery and Equipment Finishing Operations; (7) Iron and Steel
Forging; (8) Primary Metal Products Manufacturing; and (9) Valves and
Pipe Fittings. The final rule establishes emission standards in the
form of management practices and equipment standards for new and
existing operations of dry abrasive blasting, machining, dry grinding
and dry polishing with machines, spray painting and other spray
coating, and welding operations. These standards reflect EPA's
determination regarding the generally achievable control technology
and/or management practices for the nine area source categories.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners and operators of facilities
in the nine metal fabrication and finishing source categories.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart XXXXXX).
    Estimated number of respondents: 5,800 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally and annually.
    Total estimated burden: 35,700 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $3,600,000 (per year), which includes $0 for
both annualized capital and operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment increase in the
estimated burden as currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved Burdens. The previous ICR incorrectly carried over burdens and
costs from initial activities and divided the total number of
respondents by three. This ICR is corrected to reflect the annual, on-
going burden and costs for existing facilities. In addition, the use of
more updated labor rates results in an increase in total labor costs.
The overall result is an increase in burden hours and costs.

Courtney Kerwin,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2015-16036 Filed 6-29-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P