SUPPORTING STATEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NSPS for Sulfuric Acid Plants (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart H) (Renewal)

1.  Identification of the Information Collection

1(a)  Title of the Information Collection

NSPS for Sulfuric Acid Plants (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart H) (Renewal)

EPA ICR Number 1057.12, OMB Control Number 2060-0041

1(b)  Short Characterization/Abstract

The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Sulfuric Acid Plants (40
CFR Part 60, Subpart H), were proposed on August 17, 1971, promulgated
on December 23, 1971, and amended on: June 14, 1974 (39 FR 20794);
October 6, 1975 (40 FR 46258); May 25, 1983 (48 FR 23611); September 29,
1983 (48 FR 4700); October 20, 1983 (48 FR 48669); February 14, 1989 (54
FR 6666); and October 17, 2000 (65 FR 61753).  These regulations apply
to any sulfuric acid facility commencing construction, modification, or
reconstruction after the date of proposal.  A sulfuric acid plant is any
facility producing sulfuric acid (H2SO4) by the contact process by
burning elemental sulfur, alkylation acid, hydrogen sulfide, organic
sulfides and mercaptans, or acid sludge.  A sulfuric acid plant does not
include facilities where conversion to sulfuric acid is used primarily
as a means of preventing emissions to the atmosphere of sulfur dioxide
(SO2) or other sulfur compounds.

In general, all NSPS standards require initial notifications,
performance tests, and periodic reports.  Owners or operators are also
required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any
startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected
facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is
inoperative.  These notifications, reports, and records are essential in
determining compliance and are required of all affected facilities.

Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part will
maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least
two years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports,
and records.  All reports are sent to the delegated state or local
authority.  In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the
reports are sent directly to the United States Environmental Protection
Agency regional office.

Approximately 53 sources are currently subject to the regulation, and it
is estimated that no additional respondents per year will become subject
to the regulation in the next three years.

There are approximately 53 sulfuric acid plants in the United States,
which are owned and operated by the sulfuric acid industry (the
“Affected Public”).  None of the facilities in the United States are
owned by state, local, tribal or the Federal government; all are
privately, owned for-profit businesses.  The burden to the “Affected
Public” is listed in Table 1: Annual Industry Burden and Cost – NSPS
for Sulfuric Acid Plants (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart H) (Renewal).  The
Federal government burden associated with the review of reports
submitted by the respondent is shown in Table 2: Average Annual EPA
Burden – NSPS for Sulfuric Acid Plants (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart H)
(Renewal).

In the development of the Information Collection Request (ICR), we
addressed the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) “Terms of
Clearance (TOC)” on the active ICR.  The TOC are as follows:

This collection of information is approved for 3 years.  Before
resubmission of this ICR, the Agency should update wage estimates,
continuing to refer to most recently available data from Bureau of Labor
Statistics.  In addition, the agency should verify the number of
respondent entities.

EPA has addressed each item of concern in the TOC.  The updated labor
rates and the number of respondents have been thoroughly checked, and
all estimates have been updated.

2.  Need for and Use of the Collection

2(a)  Need/Authority for the Collection

The EPA is charged under section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as
amended, to establish standards of performance for new stationary
sources that reflect:

. . . application of the best technological system of continuous
emissions reduction which (taking into consideration the cost of
achieving such emissions reduction, or any non-air quality health and
environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator
determines has been adequately demonstrated.  Section 111(a)(l).

The Agency refers to this charge as selecting the best demonstrated
technology (BDT).  Section 111 also requires that the Administrator
review and, if appropriate, revise such standards every four years.

In addition, section 114(a) states that the Administrator may require
any owner or operator subject to any requirement of this Act to:

(A) Establish and maintain such records; (B) make such reports;    (C)
install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment, and use such audit
procedures, or methods; (D) sample such emissions (in accordance with
such procedures or methods, at such locations, at such intervals, during
such periods, and in such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe);
(E) keep records on control equipment parameters, production variables
or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is
impractical; (F) submit compliance certifications in accordance with
Section 114(a)(3); and (G) provide such other information as the
Administrator may reasonably require.

In the Administrator's judgment, SO2 emissions from sulfuric acid plants
cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated
to endanger public health or welfare.  Therefore, the NSPS was
promulgated for this source category at 40 CFR part 60, subpart H.

2(b)  Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the standard ensure
compliance with the applicable regulations which were promulgated in
accordance with the Clean Air Act.  In addition, the collected
information is used for targeting inspections and as evidence in legal
proceedings.

Performance tests are required in order to determine an affected
facility’s initial capability to comply with the emission standard.
Continuous emission monitors are used to ensure compliance with the
standard at all times.  During the performance tests, a record of the
operating parameters under which compliance was achieved may be recorded
and used to determine compliance in place of a continuous emission
monitor.

The notifications required in the standard are used to inform the Agency
or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the requirements
of the regulations.  The reviewing authority may then inspect the source
to ensure that the pollution control devices are properly installed and
operated, that leaks are being detected and repaired, and that the
standards are being met.  The performance test may also be observed.

The required semiannual reports are used to determine periods of excess
emissions, to identify problems at the facility, and to verify
operation/maintenance procedures and compliance.

3.  Non-duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

The requested recordkeeping and reporting are required under 40 CFR part
60, subpart H.

3(a)  Non-duplication

If the subject standards have not been delegated, the information is
sent directly to the appropriate EPA regional office.  Otherwise, the
information is sent directly to the delegated state or local agency.  If
a state or local agency has adopted their own similar standards to
implement the Federal standards, a copy of the report submitted to the
state or local agency can be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the
report required by the Federal standards.  Therefore, no duplication
exists.

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

An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR
was published in the Federal Register (76 FR 26900) on May 9, 2011.  No
comments were received on the burden published in the Federal Register.

3(c)  Consultations

The Agency’s industry experts have been consulted, and the Agency’s
internal data sources and projections of industry growth over the next
three years have been considered.  The primary source of information as
reported by industry, in compliance with the recordkeeping and reporting
provisions in the standard, is the Online Tracking Information System
(OTIS) which is operated and maintained by the EPA Office of Compliance.
 OTIS is the EPA database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval
of all compliance data.  The growth rate for the industry is based on
our consultations with the Agency’s internal industry experts.

Industry trade associations and other interested parties were provided
an opportunity to comment on the burden associated with the standard as
it was being developed.  In developing this ICR, we contacted the United
States Census Bureau, General Chemical at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and Sulfuric
Acid Today at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

It is our policy to respond after a thorough review of comments received
since the last ICR renewal as well as those submitted in response to the
first Federal Register notice.

3(d)  Effects of Less Frequent Collection

Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of
assurance that facilities are continuing to meet the standards.
Requirements for information gathering and recordkeeping are useful
techniques to ensure that good operation and maintenance practices are
applied and emission limitations are met.  If the information required
by these standards was collected less frequently, the proper operation
and maintenance of control equipment and the possibility of detecting
violations would be less likely.

3(e)  General Guidelines

These reporting or recordkeeping requirements do not violate any of the
regulations promulgated by OMB under 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.

These standards require the respondents to maintain all records,
including reports and notifications for at least five years.  This is
consistent with the General Provisions as applied to the standards.  EPA
believes that the five-year records retention requirement is consistent
with the part 70 permit program and the five-year statute of limitations
on which the permit program is based.  The retention of records for five
years allows the EPA to establish the compliance history of a source,
any pattern of non-compliance, and to determine the appropriate level of
enforcement action.  EPA has found that the most flagrant violators have
violations extending beyond the five years.  In addition, EPA would be
prevented from pursuing the violators due to the destruction or
nonexistence of essential records.

3(f)  Confidentiality

Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of
confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency
policies set forth in title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B -
Confidentiality of Business Information (CBI) (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR
36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43
FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

3(g)  Sensitive Questions

The reporting or recordkeeping requirements in the standard do not
include sensitive questions.

4.  The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(a)  Respondents/SIC Codes

The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are
sulfuric acid plants.  The United States Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) code for the respondents affected by the standards
is SIC 2819 which corresponds to the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) 325188 for Inorganic Chemical
Manufacturing.

4(b)  Information Requested

None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of the
regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.

(i)  Data Items

In this ICR, all the data that is recorded or reported is required by
NSPS for Sulfuric Acid Plants (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart H) (Renewal).

A source must make the following reports:

Notifications

Notification of construction/reconstruction	60.7(a)(1)

Notification of actual startup	60.7(a)(3)

Notification of physical or operational change	60.7(a)(4)

Notification of continuous monitoring system (CMS) demonstration
60.7(a)(5)

Initial performance test results	60.8(a)

Initial performance test	60.8(d)

Reference Test Method 9	60.11(b)

Reports

Semiannual report of excess emissions	60.7(c)

A source must keep the following records:

Recordkeeping

Maintain records of startup, shutdown, or malfunction period where the
continuous monitoring system is inoperative	60.7(b)

Maintain records for two years	60.7(f)

Maintain annual performance test, as required	60.7(f)

Electronic Reporting

Some of the respondents are using monitoring equipment that
automatically records parameter data.  Although personnel at the
affected facility must still evaluate the data, internal automation has
significantly reduced the burden associated with monitoring and
recordkeeping at a plant site.

Also, regulatory agencies in cooperation with the respondents continue
to create reporting systems to transmit data electronically.  However,
electronic reporting systems are not widely used.  At this time, it is
estimated that approximately 20 percent of the respondents use
electronic reporting.

Respondent Activities

Read instructions.

Perform initial performance test, Reference Method 9 test, and repeat
performance test if necessary.

Write the notifications and reports listed above.

Enter information required to be recorded above.

Submit the required reports developing, acquiring, installing, and
utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of collecting,
validating, and verifying information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purpose of processing and maintaining information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purpose of disclosing and providing information.

Adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements.

Train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information.

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information.

	Currently, sources are using monitoring equipment that provides
parameter data in an automated way (e.g., continuous parameter
monitoring system).  Although personnel at the source still need to
evaluate the data, this type of monitoring equipment has significantly
reduced the burden associated with monitoring and recordkeeping.

5.  The Information Collected: Agency Activities, Collection
Methodology, and Information Management

5(a)  Agency Activities

EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the
acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the required
information.

Agency Activities

Observe initial performance tests and repeat performance tests if
necessary.

Review notifications and reports, including performance test reports,
excess emissions reports, required to be submitted by industry.

Audit facility records.

Input, analyze, and maintain data in the Online tracking Information
system (OTIS).

5(b)  Collection Methodology and Management

Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority could inspect
the source to determine whether the pollution control devices are
properly installed and operational.  Performance test reports are used
by the Agency to discern a source’s initial capability to comply with
the emission standard, and to note the operating conditions under which
compliance was achieved.  Data and records maintained by the respondents
are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement
programs.  The semiannual reports are used for problem identification,
as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance
determinations.

Information contained in the reports is entered into OTIS which is
operated and maintained by the EPA Office of Compliance.  OTIS is the
EPA database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of
compliance data for approximately 125,000 industrial and
government-owned facilities.  EPA uses OTIS for tracking air pollution
compliance and enforcement by local and state regulatory agencies, EPA
regional offices, and EPA headquarters.  EPA delegated Authorities can
edit, store, retrieve, and analyze the data.

The records required by this regulation must be retained by the owner or
operator for two years.

5(c)  Small Entity Flexibility

The majority of the respondents are large entities (i.e., large
businesses).  However, the impact on small entities (i.e., small
businesses) was taken into consideration during the development of the
regulation.  Due to technical considerations involving the process
operations and the types of control equipment employed, the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are the same for both small and
large entities.  The Agency considers these to be the minimum
requirements needed to ensure compliance and, therefore, cannot reduce
them further for small entities.  To the extent that larger businesses
can use economies of scale to reduce their burden, the overall burden
will be reduced.

5(d)  Collection Schedule

The specific frequency for each information collection activity within
this request is shown in Table 1: Annual Industry Burden for NSPS for
Sulfuric Acid Plants (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart H) (Renewal).

6.  Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

Table 1 documents the computation of individual burdens for the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry for
the subpart included in this ICR.  The individual burdens are expressed
under standardized headings believed to be consistent with the concept
of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act.  Wherever appropriate,
specific tasks and major assumptions have been identified.  Responses to
this information collection are mandatory.

The Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB Control Number.

6(a)  Estimating Respondent Burden

The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from
these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated to be 8,594
(Total Labor Hours from Table 1).  These hours are based on Agency
studies and background documents from the development of the regulation,
Agency knowledge and experience with the NSPS program, the previously
approved ICR, and any comments received.

6(b)  Estimating Respondent Costs

(i)  Estimating Labor Costs

	This ICR uses the following labor rates:

Managerial	$119.36 ($56.84 + 110%)

Technical	$99.18 ($47.23 + 110%)

Clerical	$49.35 ($23.50 + 110%)

These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, March 2011, "Table 2. Civilian Workers, by
Occupational and Industry group."  The rates are from column 1, "Total
Compensation."  The rates have been increased by 110 percent to account
for the benefit packages available to those employed by private
industry.

(ii)  Estimating Capital/Startup and Operation and Maintenance Costs

The type of industry costs associated with the information collection
activities in the subject standard are both labor costs, which are
addressed elsewhere in this ICR, and the costs associated with
continuous monitoring.  The capital/startup costs are one-time costs
when a facility becomes subject to the regulation.  The annual operation
and maintenance costs are the ongoing costs to maintain the monitor and
other costs, such as photocopying and postage.

(iii)  Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

(A)

Continuous Monitoring Device	(B)

Capital/Startup Cost for One Respondent	(C)

Number of New Respondents 	(D)

Total Capital/Startup Cost

(B X C) 	(E)

Annual O&M Costs for One Respondent	(F)

Number of Respondents with O&M 	(G)

Total O&M,

(E X F)

CMS 	$120,000	0	$0	$4,500	53	$238,500

Total

	$0

	$238,500

The total capital/startup costs for this ICR are $0.  This is the total
of column D in the above table.

The total operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for this ICR are
$238,500.  This is the total of column G.

The average annual cost for capital/startup and operation and
maintenance costs to industry over the next three years of the ICR is
estimated to be $238,500.

6(c)  Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

The only costs to the Agency are those costs associated with analysis of
the reported information.  EPA’s overall compliance and enforcement
program includes activities such as: the examination of records
maintained by the respondents; periodic inspection of sources of
emissions; and the publication and distribution of collected
information.

The average annual Agency cost during the three years of the ICR is
estimated to be $21,974.

This cost is based on the average hourly labor rate as follows:

		Managerial	$62.27 (GS-13, Step 5, $38.92 + 60%)

		Technical	$46.21 (GS-12, Step 1, $28.88 + 60%)

		Clerical	$25.01 (GS-6, Step 3, $15.63 + 60%)

These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) “2011
General Schedule” which excludes locality rates of pay.  The rates
have been increased by 60 percent to account for the benefit packages
available to government employees.  Details upon which this estimate is
based appear in Table 2: Average Annual EPA Burden, NSPS for Sulfuric
Acid Plants (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart H) (Renewal).

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

	Based on our research for this ICR, on average over the next three
years, approximately 53 existing respondents will be subject to the
standard.  It is estimated that no additional respondent per year will
become subject to the standard.  The overall average number of
respondents, as shown in the table below, is 53 per year.

	The number of respondents is calculated using the following table that
addresses the three years covered by this ICR.

Number of Respondents

Year	(A)

Number of New Respondents 1	(B)

Number of Existing Respondents	(C)

Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records But Do Not Submit
Reports	(D)

Number of Existing Respondents That Are Also New Respondents	(E)

Number of Respondents

(E=A+B+C-D)

1	0	53	0	0	53

2	0	53	0	0	53

3	0	53	0	0	53

Average	0	53	0	0	53

1 New respondents include sources with constructed, reconstructed, and
modified affected facilities.

To avoid double-counting respondents, column D is subtracted.  As shown
above, the average Number of Respondents over the three-year period of
this ICR is 53.

The total number of annual responses per year is calculated using the
following table:

Total Annual Responses

(A)

Information Collection Activity	(B)

Number of Respondents	(C)

Number of Responses	(D)

Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records But Do Not Submit
Reports	(E)

Total Annual Responses

E=(BxC)+D

Notification of construction or modification	0	1	0	0

Notification of actual startup	0	1	0	0

Notification of  physical or operational change	0	1	0	0

Notification of demonstration of CMS	0	1	0	0

Notification of initial performance test	0	1	0	0

Semiannual report of excess emissions	53	2	0	106

	Total	106

The number of Total Annual Responses is 106.

The total annual labor costs are $822,650.  Details regarding these
estimates may be found in Table 1: Annual Industry Burden and Cost –
NSPS for Sulfuric Acid Plants (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart H) (Renewal).

6(e)  Bottom Line Burden Hours Burden Hours and Cost Tables

The detailed bottom line burden hours and cost calculations for the
respondents and the Agency are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively,
and summarized below.

(i)  Respondent Tally

The total annual labor hours are 8,594.  Details regarding these
estimates may be found in Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost:
NSPS for Sulfuric Acid Plants (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart H) (Renewal).

Furthermore, the annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for
this collection of information is estimated to average 81 hours per
response.

The total annual capital/startup and operation and maintenance (O&M)
costs to the regulated entity are $237,500.

(ii)  The Agency Tally

The average annual Agency burden and cost over the next three years is
estimated to be 488 labor hours at a cost of $21,974.  See Table 2:
Annual Agency Burden and Cost: NSPS for Sulfuric Acid Plants (40 CFR
Part 63, Subpart H) (Renewal).

6(f)  Reasons for Change in Burden

The adjustment decrease in burden from the most recently approved ICR is
due to a more accurate estimate of existing and anticipated new sources.
 After consulting the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS) and trade associations, our data indicates that there are
approximately fifty-three sources subject to the rule, as compared with
the active ICR that shows one hundred and three sources.  There are no
new facilities expected to be constructed over the next three years of
this ICR.  The decline in the number of sources is partially due to: 1)
plant closures, as the cost to retrofit aging facilities increased due
to the down turn in the economy; 2) corporate mergers; and 3) foreign
competition.  Therefore, there is a net decrease in the burden to
industry.

Because there are no new sources with reporting requirements, no
capital/startup costs are incurred.  The only cost that is incurred is
for the O&M of the monitoring equipment.

6(g)  Burden Statement

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection
of information is estimated to average 81 hours per response.  Burden
means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for
a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed to review instructions;
develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information,
processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing
information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to
respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete
and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB
Control Number.  The OMB Control Numbers for EPA’s regulations are
listed at 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0217.  An electronic version of the public docket is
available at   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov/"
http://www.regulations.gov/  which may be used to obtain a copy of the
draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access
the index listing of the content of the docket, and to access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically.  When
in the system, select “search” than key in the docket ID number
identified in this document.  The documents are also available for
public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information
Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.  The EPA Docket Center
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading
Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and
Compliance Docket and Information Center Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include
the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0217 and OMB Control Number
2060-0041 in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement

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

Table 1:  Annual Respondent Burden and Cost – NSPS for Sulfuric Acid
Plants (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart H) (Renewal)

Burden item	(A)

Person hours per occurrence	(B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year	(C)

Person hours per respondent per year

(C=AxB)	(D)

Respondents per year  a	(E)

Technical person- hours per year

(E=CxD)	(F)

Management person hours per year

(Ex0.05)	(G)

Clerical person hours per year

(Ex0.1)	(H)

Total Cost

Per year b

1.  Applications	N/A

	2.  Survey and Studies	N/A

	3.  Reporting requirements

     A.  Read instructions c	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	$0

     B.  Required activities

        Initial performance tests d	300	1	300	0	0	0	0	$0

        Reference Method 9 test e	4	1	4	0	0	0	0	$0

        Repeat of performance tests f	300	1	300	0	0	0	0	$0

     C.  Create information	See 3B

	     D.  Gather existing information	See 3B

	     E.  Write Report

        Application of construction or modification	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

        Notification of actual startup	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

        Notification of physical or operational change	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

        Notification of demonstration of CMS	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

        Notification of initial performance test	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

        Semiannual report of excess emissions g	40	2	80	53	4,240	212	424
$466,751.92

Subtotal  for Reporting  Requirements

4,876

4.  Recordkeeping requirements

     A.  Read instructions 	See 3A

	     B.  Plan activities	See 3A

	     C.  Implement Activities 	See 3A

	     D.  Develop record system	N/A

	     E.  Time to enter information

         Records of operating parameters h	0.25	350	8	53	424	21.2	42.4
$46,675.19

         Record of conversion factors/calculation i	0.05	1,050	53	53
2,809	140.45	280.9	$309,223.14

    F.  Time to train personnel 	N/A

	    G.  Time for audits	N/A

	Subtotal  for Recordkeeping Requirements

3,717.95

Subtotals: Labor Burden and costs

	7,473	373.65	747.3	$822,650.25

TOTAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST (rounded)

8,593.95

8,594

    (rounded)

$822,650

Assumptions:

  a 	 We have assumed that there are approximately 53 respondents, with
no additional new or reconstructed sources becoming subject to the rule
over the next three years.

  b  This ICR uses the following labor rates:  $119.36 per hour for
Executive, Administrative, and Managerial labor; $99.18 per hour for
Technical labor, and $49.35 per hour for Clerical labor.  These rates
are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, March 2011, Table 2. Civilian Workers, by Occupational and
Industry groups.  The rates are from column 1, Total Compensation.  The
rates have been increased by 110 percent to account for the benefit
packages available to those employed by private industry.

c  We have assumed that it will take one hour for each respondent to
read instructions.

d  We have assumed that it will take 300 hours for each respondent to
complete an initial performance test.

e  We have assumed that it will take four hours for each respondent to
complete a reference Method 9 test.

f  We have assumed that it will take 300 hours to repeat performance
test due to failures.

g  We have assumed that it will take 40 hours, twice a year, for each
respondent to write an excess emission report.

h  We have assumed that each respondent will enter information on
records of operating parameters 350 times per year.

i   We have assumed that all information is entered on a weekly basis.

j   We have assumed that records of conversion factors will be recorded
three times daily, at 350 days per year, for a total of 3x350=1,050
times per year.

Table 2:  Average Annual EPA Burden - NSPS for Sulfuric Acid Plants (40
CFR Part 60, Subpart H) (Renewal)

Activity	(A)

EPA person- hours per occurrence	(B)

No. of occurrences per plant per year	(C)

EPA person- hours per plant per year

(C=AxB)	(D)

Plants per year  a	(E)

Technical person- hours per year

(E=CxD)	(F)

Management person-hours per year

(Ex0.05)

	(G)

Clerical person-hours per year

(Ex0.1)	(H)

Cost, $ b

New facility

    Initial performance test c	50	1	50	0	0	0	0	$0

    Repeat performance test/observed d	24	1	24	0	0	0	0	$0

Review reports

   Notification of construction	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

   Notification of actual startup	0.5	1	0.5	0	0	0	0	$0

   Notification of initial test	0.5	1.2	0.6	0	0	0	0	$0

   Review test results	8	1.2	9.6	0	0	0	0	$0

   Notification of CMS demonstration	0.5	1	0.5	0	0	0	0	$0

   Existing facility	0.5	1	0.5	0	0	0	0	$0

   Excess emission reports e	4	2	8	53	424	21.2	42.4	$21,973.58

Subtotals Labor Burden and cost

	424	21.2	42.4	$21,973.58

TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN AND COST (rounded)

	487.6

488 (rounded)	$21,974

 	Assumptions:

    a  We have assumed that there are approximately 53 respondents, with
no additional new or reconstructed sources becoming subject to the rule
over the next

    three years.

b  This cost is based on the following hourly labor rates times a 1.6
benefits multiplication factor to account for government overhead
expenses: $62.27 for Managerial (GS-13, Step 5, $38.92 x 1.6), $46.21
for Technical (GS-12, Step 1, $28.88 x 1.6) and $25.01 Clerical (GS-6,
Step 3, $15.63 1.6).  These rates are from the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) (2011 General Schedule( which excludes locality rates
of pay.

c  We have assumed that it will take fifty hours for each respondent to
perform the initial performance test.

d  We have assumed that it will take twenty-four hours for each
respondent to repeat the performance test due to failure.

e  We have assumed that it will take four hours, twice per year, for
each respondent to review the excess emission reports.

 PAGE

 PAGE   2

 PAGE


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 234 (Thursday, December 5, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73211-73214]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29041]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70961; File No. SR-CBOE-2013-113]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Multi-Class Spread Orders

November 29, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 18, 2013, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    CBOE proposes to amend its rule related to Multi-Class Broad-Based
Index Option Spread Orders (referred to herein as ``Multi-Class Spread
Orders''). The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant 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 proposes to make changes regarding the trading of
Multi-Class Spread Orders. The proposed changes to the rule update the
definition of ``Broad-Based Index Option'' in Rule 24.19 in order to
reflect the Broad-Based Index Options currently eligible to be used in
Multi-Class Spread Orders under Rule 24.19.\3\ An updated definition of
``Broad-Based Index Option'' necessarily requires an update to the
definition of Multi-Class Spread Order to reflect the valid
combinations of Broad-Based Index Options to which the rule applies.\4\
The Exchange also proposes to update the definition of Multi-Class
Spread Order to more clearly and accurately reflect what such an order
is. Currently, the term Multi-Class Spread Order is defined as ``an
order or quote to buy a stated number of contracts of a Broad-Based
Index Option and to sell an equal number, or an equivalent number, of
contracts of a different Broad-Based Index Option.'' \5\ However, a
Multi-Class Spread Order can be effected without necessarily buying
contracts and selling other contracts. The key component of a Multi-
Class Spread Order is really the establishment of an appropriate hedge
between the two options classes. As such, a Multi-Class Spread Order
could be effected by buying contracts in two different classes, without
selling any contracts (or vice versa). For example, a market
participant could buy 100 SPX calls and buy 200 OEX puts, thereby
establishing an appropriate hedge (since the first leg creates a long
position and the second leg creates a short position). Therefore, the
Exchange proposes to amend this statement to replace the terms ``buy''
and ``sell'' with ``transact'', and to add the language regarding
establishing of an appropriate hedge. Also, the description of a Multi-
Class Spread Order being ``an order or quote'' is somewhat misleading,
as a quote cannot be submitted for a Multi-Class Spread Order unless
that quote is submitted in response to a Multi-Class Spread Order. As
such, the Exchange proposes to clarify that it is an ``order or quote
in response to an order . . .'' Going forward a Multi-Class Spread
Order shall be defined as an order or quote in response to an order to
transact a stated number of contracts of a Broad-Based Index Option and
to transact an equal number, or an equivalent number, of contracts of a
different Broad-Based Index Option to create an appropriate hedge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As such, the Exchange proposes to add options on the S&P 500
Index PM-Settled (SPXPM), Mini-SPX Index (XSP), CBOE Volatility
Index (VIX), CBOE Binary Options on the S&P 500 Index (BSZ), CBOE
Binary Options on the CBOE Volatility Index (BVZ), S&P 500 Range
Options (SRO), and Russell 2000 Index (RUT) to the definition of
``Broad-Based Index Option'' described in CBOE Rule 24.19(a)(1) as
well as clarify that the S&P 100 Index includes both the OEX and XEO
classes.
    \4\ As such, the Exchange proposes to amend CBOE Rule
24.19(a)(2) to state that Multi-Class Spread Orders may be composed
of (i) any combination of MNX, NDX, or QQQ; (ii) any combination of
OEF, OEX, XEO or SPX; (iii) any combination of SPX (including SPXW
and SPXQ), SPXPM, SPY, XSP, VIX, VXX, VXZ, BSZ, BVZ or SRO; (iv) any
combination of IWM and RUT; and (v) any other combination of related
Broad-Based Index Options as determined by the Exchange.
    \5\ See CBOE Rule 24.19(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, Multi-Class Spread Orders are manually created and
executed on the floor of the Exchange and may not be entered
electronically. The Exchange is in the process of modifying its
electronic order-entry systems to provide for the electronic entry and
routing of Multi-Class Spread Orders to the floor of the Exchange.
Accordingly, the Exchange is proposing changes to Rule 24.19(b) that
will state that Multi-Class Spread Orders may be entered from on or off
the CBOE floor. Consistent with the audit trail requirements that apply
to all orders (in accordance with Rule 6.24), the proposed rule will
require that all Multi-Class Spread Orders must be systematized as
Multi-Class Spread Orders prior to representation at a trading station.
An order is systematized if the order is sent electronically to the
Exchange or the order is sent to the Exchange non-electronically and
input electronically into the Exchange's systems contemporaneously upon
receipt on the Exchange.
    Because the rule applies only to Multi-Class Spread Orders composed
of certain combinations of Broad-Based Index Options, any Multi-Class
Spread Order received by CBOE that contains an invalid combination of
options will be rejected by the Exchange's systems. The market
participant who sends such an error will receive notice of such
rejection.
    Because the current order creation process is a manual, on-floor
process, the current language states that a Multi-Class Spread Order
may be represented at the trading station of either Broad-Based Index
Option involved, and also requires that the Trading Permit Holder
(``TPH'') initiating the order in the trading crowd to contact an Order
Book Official (``OBO''), Designated Primary Market-Maker (``DPM''), or
Exchange staff, as applicable, at the other trading station to have a
notice of such order disseminated to the other trading crowd. The
proposed rule change will require a Multi-Class Spread Order must [sic]
be represented at the primary trading station, and state that the TPH
representing the order must contact an OBO, DPM, or Exchange staff (as
applicable) at the other trading station in order to provide notice of
such order for dissemination to the other trading crowd. This ensures
that all market participants at both physical trading locations are
aware of the terms of the order being processed. The proposed change
recognizes that a Multi-Class Spread Order may be routed from off of
the Exchange floor. Furthermore, the proposed rule change also makes
minor changes to the text of the rule in order to enhance reader
clarity.
    The proposed rule change will simplify the process of creating and
executing Multi-Class Spread Orders on the floor of the Exchange, and
it will enhance the Exchange's audit trail with respect to such orders.
No later than 90 days following the effective date of the proposed rule
change, the Exchange will announce to TPHs via Regulatory Circular the
implementation date by which TPHs must be in compliance with the
changes described herein. The implementation date will be no later than
180 days following the effective date of the proposed rule change, and
will be at least 60 days following the release of the abovementioned
Regulatory Circular (in order to give TPHs ample time to come into
compliance with the changes described herein).
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\6\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \7\ requirements that the rules of
an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, 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.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the

proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \8\
requirement that the rules of an exchange not be designed to permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Automating the Multi-Class Spread Order creation process and
allowing such orders to be routed from on or off of the floor of the
Exchange serves to remove impediments to and to perfect the mechanism
for a free and open market and a national market system by providing
market participants the ability to route Multi-Class Spread Orders to
the Exchange electronically. More accurately defining the term ``Multi-
Class Spread Orders'' prevents confusion, thereby to [sic] removing
impediments to and perfecting the mechanism for a free and open market.
The Exchange believes the proposed changes, which include increasing
the explicit list of the number of securities that can be included in
Multi-Class Spread Orders, will increase opportunities for execution of
Multi-Class Spread Orders, which will benefit investors. Finally, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to not
permit unfair discrimination among market participants as all market
participants may participate in Multi-Class Spread Orders.
Additionally, enhancing the audit trail with respect to Multi-Class
Spread Orders promotes transparency and aids in surveillance, thereby
protecting investors. Further, updating the definitions of ``Broad-
Based Index Options'' and ``Multi-Class Spread Orders'' will reduce
possible confusion regarding what Multi-Class Spread Orders are and
which Broad-Based Index Options may be eligible for representation as a
Multi-Class Spread Order in accordance with Rule 24.19, thereby
removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism for a free and
open market and a national market system
    The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act,\9\ which provides that the Exchange be
organized and have the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes of
the Act and to enforce compliance by the Exchange's Trading Permit
Holders and persons associated with its Trading Permit Holders with the
Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the rules of the
Exchange. Enhancing the audit trail with respect to Multi-Class Spread
Orders will allow the Exchange to better enforce compliance by the
Exchange's TPHs and persons associated with its TPHs with the Act, the
rules and regulations thereunder, and the rules of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    The Exchange believes that automating the Multi-Class Spread Order
creation process and allowing such orders to be routed from on or off
of the floor of the Exchange promotes fair and orderly markets, as well
as assists the Exchange in its ability to effectively attract order
flow and liquidity to its market, and ultimately benefits all CBOE TPHs
and all investors.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because Multi-
Class Spread Orders are available to all market participants through
CBOE TPHs. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change
will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary
or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because,
again, Multi-Class Spread Orders are available to all market
participants through CBOE TPHs, which makes CBOE a more effective
marketplace. Further, the proposed changes only affect trading on CBOE.
To the extent that the proposed changes make CBOE more attractive to
market participants at other exchanges, such market participants may
elect to become CBOE market participants.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

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-CBOE-2013-113 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-CBOE-2013-113. 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 20549-1090 on official business days between the hours
of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal offices 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-2013-113, and should be submitted on or before December 26, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-29041 Filed 12-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 150)]
[Notices]
[Page 47344]
[DOCID:fr05au10-110]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary of Transportation

[DOT Docket No. DOT-OST-2010-0074]

The Future of Aviation Advisory Committee (FAAC) Subcommittee on
Financing; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary of
Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary of
Transportation, announces a meeting of the FAAC Subcommittee on
Financing, which will be held at the offices of the General Aviation
Manufacturers Association, in Washington, DC. This notice announces the
date, time, and location of the meeting, which will be open to the
public. The purpose of the FAAC is to provide advice and
recommendations to the Secretary of Transportation to ensure the
competitiveness of the U.S. aviation industry and its capability to
manage effectively the evolving transportation needs, challenges, and
opportunities of the global economy. The Subcommittee on Financing will
address the need for a stable, secure, and sufficient level of funding
for our aviation system and make recommendations to the Secretary for
action. This is the second meeting of the subcommittee.

DATES: The meeting will be held on August 17, 2010, from 9 a.m. to 4
p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the offices of the General
Aviation Manufacturers Association, 8th Floor, 1400 K Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20533.
    Public Access: The meeting is open to the public. (See below for
registration instructions.)
    Public Comments: Persons wishing to offer written comments and
suggestions concerning the activities of the advisory committee or
Subcommittee on Financing should file comments in the Public Docket
(Docket Number DOT-OST-2010-0074 at http://www.Regulations.Gov) or
alternatively through the<EMAIL_ADDRESS>e-mail. If comments and
suggestions are intended specifically for the Subcommittee on
Financing, the term ``Finance'' should be listed in the subject line of
the message. To ensure such comments can be considered by the
subcommittee before its August 17, 2010, meeting, public comments must
be filed by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on Friday, August 6, 2010.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. App. 2), we are giving notice of an FAAC Subcommittee on
Financing meeting taking place on August 17, 2010, from 9 a.m. to 4
p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, at the offices of the General Aviation
Manufacturers Association, 8th Floor, 1400 K Street, NW., Washington,
DC 20533. The agenda includes--
    1. Briefings on selected topics related to aviation financing and a
discussion of the briefing topics, and
    2. Preparation of the work plan template for the subcommittee's
future work.

Registration

    The meeting room can accommodate up to 20 members of the public.
Persons desiring to attend in person must pre-register by August 6,
2010, through e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The term ``Registration:
Financing'' should be listed in the subject line of the message, and
admission will be limited to the first 20 persons to pre-register and
receive a confirmation of their pre-registration. Persons wishing to
attend via Webinar must pre-register by visiting https://
www2.gotomeeting.com/register/663158267. Webinar attendance will be
limited to the first 150 persons to pre-register and receive a
confirmation of their pre-registration. Minutes of the meeting will be
taken and will be made available to the public.

Request for Special Accommodation

    The DOT is committed to providing equal access to this meeting for
all participants. If you need alternative formats or services because
of a disability, please send a request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>with the term
``Special Accommodations'' listed in the subject line of the message by
close of business on August 6, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Hennigan, Air Traffic
Organization, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue,
SW., Room 409, Washington, DC, 20591;<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 30, 2010.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Designated Federal Official, Future of Aviation Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2010-19261 Filed 8-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 249 (Monday, December 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72136-72137]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27943]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[DOT-OST-2018-0206]

Air Ambulance and Patient Billing Advisory Committee; Notice of
Public Meeting

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Air Ambulance and
Patient Billing Advisory Committee (AAPB Advisory Committee).

DATES: The meeting will be held on January 15, 2020, from 9:30 a.m. to
5:00 p.m., and on January 16, 2020, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Requests to speak during the meeting must be received by January 8,
2020. Requests to attend the meeting must be received by January 13,
2020. Requests for accommodations of a disability must be received by
January 13, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Gorman, Senior Trial Attorney,
Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>. Any
committee-related request should be sent to the person listed in this
section.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the DOT Headquarters at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Copies of the meeting minutes
will be available at https://www.regulations.gov. After entering the
docket number (DOT-OST-2018-0206), click on the link to ``Open Docket
Folder'' and choose the document to review. Written materials may be
submitted to this docket. If you do not have access to the internet,
you may view the docket by visiting the Docket Management Facility in
Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT's West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The AAPB Advisory Committee was created under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA), in accordance with Section 418 of the FAA
Reauthorization Act of 2018, to review options to improve the
disclosure of charges and fees for air medical services, better inform
consumers of insurance options for such services, and protect consumers
from balance billing.

II. Agenda

    The first meeting of the AAPB Advisory Committee is designed to
gather foundational background information on the air ambulance
industry, insurance and billing practices, and consumer issues such as
disclosure of fees and balance billing. At the meeting, the agenda will
cover the following topics:
     Overview of the air ambulance industry;
     Air ambulance costs and billing;
     Insurance and air ambulance payment systems; and
     Disclosure and separation of charges, cost shifting, and
balance billing.

III. Public Participation

    The meeting will be open to the public on a first-come, first
served basis. As space is limited and access to the DOT Headquarters
building is controlled for security purposes, members of the public who
wish to attend in person must RSVP to the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section with your name and affiliation. The
U.S. Department of Transportation is committed to providing equal
access to this meeting for all participants. If you need alternative
formats or services because of a disability, such as sign language,
interpretation, or other ancillary aids, please contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Oral comments from members of the public joining the meeting may be
allowed if time permits. The time for each commenter may be limited.
Individuals wishing to reserve speaking time during the meeting must
submit a request at the time of registration, as well as the name,
address, and organizational affiliation of the proposed speaker.
Speakers are requested to submit a written copy of their prepared
remarks for inclusion in the meeting records and for circulation to
AAPB Advisory Committee members. Any member of the public may submit a
written statement to the committee through the docket at any time.

    Issued this 19th day of December, 2019, in Washington, DC.
Blane A. Workie,
Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings,
U.S. Department of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2019-27943 Filed 12-27-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P