Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 32737

(Lat. 34°41′19′′N, long. 85°17′26′′W)

That airspace extending upward from 700

feet above the surface within a 6.2-mile

radius of Barwick LaFayette Airport,

excluding that airspace within the

Chattanooga, TN, Class E airspace area and

that airspace within the Fort Payne, AL, Class

E airspace area.

* * * * *

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on June 6,

2001.

Wade T. Carpenter,

Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division Southern

Region.

[FR Doc. 01–15336 Filed 6–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 01–AEA–04FR]

Establish Class E Airspace:

Lloydsville, PA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class

E airspace at Lloydsville, PA.

Development of an approach, based on

the Global Positioning System (GPS),

Helicopter Point in Space Approach

(GPS 349), Latrobe Hospital Heliport,

Lloydsville, PA has made this action

necessary. Controlled airspace

extending upward from 700 feet Above

Ground Level (AGL) is needed to protect

aircraft executing the approach to the

Latrobe Hospital Heliport.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC Sept 6, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Francis Jordan, Airspace Specialist,

Airspace Branch, AEA–520, Air Traffic

Division, Eastern Region, Federal

Aviation Administration, 1 Aviation

Plaza, Jamaica, New York 11434–4809,

telephone: (718) 553–4521.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

On April 4, 2001 a notice proposing

to amend Part 71 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) by

establishing Class E airspace extending

upward from 700 feet Above Ground

Level (AGL) for an GPS, Helicopter

Point in Space Approach to the Latrobe

Hospital Heliport, Lloydsville, PA was

published in the Federal Register (66

FR 17826–17827).

Interested parties were invited to

participate in this rulemaking

proceeding by submitting written

comments on the proposal to the FAA

on or before May 4, 2001. No comments

to the proposal were received. The rule

is adopted as proposed. The coordinates

for this airspace docket are based on

North American Datum 83.

Class E airspace areas designations for

airspace extending upward from 700

feet or more above the surface of the

earth are published in paragraph 6005 of

FAA Order 7400.9H, dated September 1,

2000 and effective September 16, 2000,

which is incorporated by reference in 14

CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace

designation listed in this document will

be amended in the order.

The Rule

This amendment to Part 71 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

Part 71) provides controlled Class E

airspace extending upward from 700

feet above the surface for aircraft

conducting Instrument Flight Rules

(IFR) operations at the Latrobe Hospital

Heliport, Lloydsville, PA.

The FAA has determined that this

regulation only involves an established

body of technical regulations for which

frequent and routine amendments are

necessary to keep them operationally

current. Therefore, this regulation: (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 will not have

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference,

Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Federal Aviation Administration

amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for 14 CFR

Part 71 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113,

40120; EO 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389.

§ 71.1 [Amended]

The incorporation by reference in 14

CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation

Administration Order 7400.9H,

Airspace Designations and Reporting

Points, dated September 1, 2000, and

effective September 16, 2000, is

amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas

extending upward from 700 feet or more

above the surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AEA PA E5 Lloydsville, PA (New)

Latrobe Hospital Heliport, Lloydsville, PA

Point in Space Coordinates

(Lat. 40°18′25.91′′N, long. 79°23′ 20.34′′W

That airspace extending upward from 700

feet above the surface within a 6 mile radius

of the Point in Space serving the Latrobe

Hospital Heliport.

* * * * *

Issued in Jamaica, New York on June 1,

2001.

F.D. Hatfield,

Manager, Air Traffic Division, Eastern Region.

[FR Doc. 01–15335 Filed 6–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING

COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 1

Fees for Reviews of the Rule

Enforcement Programs of Contract

Markets and Registered Futures

Association

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading

Commission.

ACTION: Establish a new schedule of

fees.

SUMMARY: The Commission charges fees

to designated contract markets and the

National Futures Association (NFA) to

recover the costs incurred by the

Commission in the operation of a

program which provides a service to

these entities. The fees are charged for

the Commission’s conduct of its

program of oversight of self-regulatory

rule enforcement programs (17 CFR part

1 appendix B) (NFA and the contract

markets are referred to as SROs).

The calculation of the fee amounts to

be charged for the upcoming year is

based on an average of actual program

costs incurred in the most recent three

full fiscal years, as explained below.

The new fee schedule is set forth in the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION and

information is provided on the effective

date of the fees and the due date for

payment.

EFFECTIVE DATES: The fees for

Commission oversight of each SRO rule

enforcement program must be paid by

each of the named SROs in the amount

specified by no later than August 17,

2001.

32738 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

1See Section 237 of the Futures Trading Act of

1982, 7 U.S.C. 16a and 31 U.S.C. 9701. For a

broader discussion of the history of Commission

fees, see 52 FR 46070 (Dec. 4, 1987).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donald L. Tendick, Acting Executive

Director, Office of the Executive

Director, Commodity Futures Trading

Commission, Three Lafayette Centre,

1155 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC

20581, (202) 418–5160.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General

This notice only relates to fees for the

Commission’s review of the rule

enforcement programs at the registered

futures associations and contract

markets regulated by the Commission.

Fees for designation will be set forth in

rules implementing the Commodity

Futures Modernization Act of 2000,

Appendix E of Pub. L. No. 106–554, 114

Stat. 2763, and the Commission’s new

regulatory framework. The Commission

has proposed rules to implement the

Commodity Futures Modernization Act

of 2000, Appendix E of Pub. L. No. 106–

554, 114 Stat. 2763, and the

Commission’s new regulatory

framework. The proposed rules (66 FR

14262, Mar. 9, 2001) establish three new

market categories, including exempt

markets and two categories of markets

subject to Commission regulatory

oversight—designated contract markets

and registered derivatives transaction

execution facilities. The Commission

proposed also to charge a fee for product

review where approval has been

requested by a designated contract

market or registered derivatives

transaction execution facility. See 66 FR

14262, 14286 (Mar. 9, 2001). No fee was

proposed for the initial designation of a

contract market or registration of a

derivatives transaction execution

facility. The new rules will amend the

Schedule of Fees found in appendix B

to part 5 of the Commission’s rules.

II. Schedule of Fees

Fees for the Commission’s review of

the rule enforcement programs at the

registered futures associations and

contract markets regulated by the

Commission:

Entity Fee amount

Chicago Board of Trade ......... $187,396

Chicago Mercantile Exchange 224,912

Entity Fee amount

New York Mercantile Exchange/COMEX .................. 173,156

New York Board of Trade ...... 73,730

Minneapolis Grain Exchange 3,269

National Futures Association .. 213,421

Total ................................. 889,738

III. Background Information

A. General

The Commission recalculates the fees

charged each year with the intention of

recovering the costs of operating this

Commission program.1 All costs are

accounted for by the Commission’s

Management Accounting Structure

Codes (MASC) system, which records

each employee’s time for each pay

period. The fees are set each year based

on direct program costs, plus an

overhead factor.

B. Overhead Rate

The fees charged by the Commission

to the SROs are designed to recover

program costs, including direct labor

costs and overhead. The overhead rate

is calculated by dividing total

Commission-wide direct program labor

costs into the total amount of the

Commission-wide overhead pool. For

this purpose, direct program labor costs

are the salary costs of personnel

working in all Commission programs.

Overhead costs consist generally of the

following Commission-wide costs:

Indirect personnel costs (leave and

benefits), rent, communications,

contract services, utilities, equipment,

and supplies. This formula has resulted

in the following overhead rates for the

most recent three years (rounded to the

nearest whole percent): 104 percent for

fiscal year 1998, 105 percent for fiscal

year 1999, and 105 percent for fiscal

year 2000. These overhead rates are

applied to the direct labor costs to

calculate the costs of oversight of SRO

rule enforcement programs.

C. Conduct of SRO Rule Enforcement

Reviews

Under the formula adopted in 1993

(58 FR 42643, Aug. 11, 1993) which

appears at 17 CFR part 1 appendix B,

the Commission calculates the fee to

recover the costs of its review of rule

enforcement programs, based on a threeyear average of the actual cost of

performing reviews at each SRO. The

cost of operation of the Commission’s

program of SRO oversight varies from

SRO to SRO, according to the size and

complexity of each SRO’s program. The

three-year averaging is intended to

smooth out year-to-year variations in

cost. Timing of reviews may affect

costs—a review may span two fiscal

years and reviews are not conducted at

each SRO each year. Adjustments to

actual costs may be made to relieve the

burden on an SRO with a

disproportionately large share of

program costs.

The Commission’s formula provides

for a reduction in the assessed fee if an

SRO has a smaller percentage of United

States industry contract volume than its

percentage of overall Commission

oversight program costs. This

adjustment reduces the costs so that as

a percentage of total Commission SRO

oversight program costs, they are in line

with the pro rata percentage for that

SRO of United States industry-wide

contract volume.

The calculation made is as follows:

The fee required to be paid to the

Commission by each contract market is

equal to the lesser of actual costs based

on the three-year historical average of

costs for that contract market or one-half

of average costs incurred by the

Commission for each contract market for

the most recent three years, plus a pro

rata share (based on average trading

volume for the most recent three years)

of the aggregate of average annual costs

of all contract markets for the most

recent three years. The formula for

calculating the second factor is: 0.5a +

0.5vt=current fee. In this formula, ‘‘a’’

equals the average annual costs, ‘‘v’’

equals the percentage of total volume

across exchanges over the last three

years, and ‘‘t’’ equals the average annual

cost for all exchanges. NFA, the only

registered futures association regulated

by the Commission, has no contracts

traded; hence its fee is based simply on

costs for the most recent three fiscal

years.

This table summarizes the data used

in the calculations and the resulting fee

for each entity:

Three-year

average actual

costs

Three-year

percentage of

volume

Average

year 2001 fee

Chicago Board of Trade .............................................................................................................. $187,396 43.3411 $187,396

Chicago Mercantile Exchange ..................................................................................................... 224,912 35.7562 224,912

NYMEX/COMEX .......................................................................................................................... 215,703 16.7928 173,156

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 32739

Three-year

average actual

costs

Three-year

percentage of

volume

Average

year 2001 fee

New York Board of Trade ............................................................................................................ 120,068 3.5220 73,730

Kansas City Board of Trade ........................................................................................................ 24,582 .4019 13,854

Minneapolis Grain Exchange ....................................................................................................... 5,102 .1845 3,269

Philadelphia Board of Trade ........................................................................................................ 0 .0004 0

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................. 777,760 100.0000 676,317

National Futures Association ....................................................................................................... 213,421 N/A 213,421

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 991,184 100.0000 889,738

An example of how the fee is

calculated for one exchange, the

Minneapolis Grain Exchange, is set forth

here:

a. Actual three-year average costs

equal $5,102.

b. The alternative computation is:

(.5)($5,102) + (.5)(.001845)($777,760) =

$3,269.

c. The fee is the lesser of a or b; in this

case $3,269.

As noted above, the alternative

calculation based on contracts traded, is

not applicable to the NFA because it is

not a contract market and has no

contracts traded. The Commission’s

average annual cost for conducting

oversight review of the NFA rule

enforcement program during fiscal years

1998 through 2000 was $213,421 (onethird of $640,263). The fee to be paid by

the NFA for the current fiscal year is

$213,421.

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5

U.S.C. 601, et seq., requires agencies to

consider the impact of rules on small

business. The fees implemented in this

release affect contract markets (also

referred to as exchanges) and registered

futures associations. The Commission

has previously determined that contract

markets and registered futures

associations are not ‘‘small entities’’ for

purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act. Accordingly, the Acting Chairman

on behalf of the Commission, certifies

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that the fees

implemented here will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Issued in Washington, DC on June 6, 2001

by the Commission.

Catherine D. Dixon,

Assistant Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 01–15272 Filed 6–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Parts 510 and 558

New Animal Drugs; Change of Sponsor

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,

HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) is amending the

animal drug regulations to reflect the

change of sponsor for three approved

new animal drug applications (NADAs)

for oxytetracycline premixes from

Pfizer, Inc., to Phibro Animal Health,

Inc. The drug labeler code for Phibro

Animal Health, Inc., is also being listed.

DATES: This rule is effective June 18,

2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Norman J. Turner, Center for Veterinary

Medicine (HFV–102), Food and Drug

Administration, 7500 Standish Pl.,

Rockville, MD 20855, 301–827–0214.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pfizer,

Inc., 235 East 42d St., New York, NY

10017–5755, has informed FDA that it

has transferred ownership of, and all

rights and interests in, NADA 8–804 for

Terramycin (oxytetracycline) Type A

medicated articles, NADA 38–439 for

Terramycin (oxytetracycline) for fish,

and NADA 95–143 for OXTC

(oxytetracycline) Type A medicated

articles to Phibro Animal Health, Inc.,

One Parker Plaza, Fort Lee, NJ 07024.

Accordingly, the agency is amending

the regulations in 21 CFR 558.450 to

reflect the transfer of ownership.

In addition, Phibro Animal Health,

Inc., has not been previously listed in

the animal drug regulations as a sponsor

of an approved application. At this time,

21 CFR 510.600(c)(1) and (c)(2) is being

amended to add entries for the firm.

This rule does not meet the definition

of ‘‘rule’’ in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because

it is a rule of ‘‘particular applicability.’’

Therefore, it is not subject to the

congressional review requirements in 5

U.S.C. 801–808.

List of Subjects

21 CFR Part 510

Administrative practice and

procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

21 CFR Part 558

Animal drugs, Animal feeds.

Therefore, under the Federal Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under

authority delegated to the Commissioner

of Food and Drugs and redelegated to

the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21

CFR parts 510 and 558 are amended as

follows:

PART 510—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS

1. The authority citation for 21 CFR

part 510 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352,

353, 360b, 371, 379e.

2. Section 510.600 is amended in the

table in paragraph (c)(1) by

alphabetically adding an entry for

‘‘Phibro Animal Health, Inc.’’ and in the

table in paragraph (c)(2) by numerically

adding an entry for ‘‘066104’’ to read as

follows:

§ 510.600 Names, addresses, and drug

labeler codes of sponsors of approved

applications.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(1) * * *

Firm name and address Drug labeler code

*******

Phibro Animal Health, Inc., One Parker Plaza, Fort Lee, NJ 07024 066104