[Federal Register: July 3, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 127)]
[Notices]
[Page 36440-36441]
[DOCID:fr03jy07-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP07-398-000, CP07-399-000, CP07-400-000, CP07-401-000,
CP07-402-000 and CP07-403-000]

Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC; Gulf South Pipeline Company,
LP; Enogex Inc.; Notice of Application

June 26, 2007.
    Take notice that on June 19, 2007, Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company
LLC (Gulf Crossing) and Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP (Gulf South), 9
East Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046, filed in Docket
Nos. CP07-398-000, CP07-399-000, CP07-400-000, CP07-401-000 and CP07-
402-000, a joint application pursuant to section 7 of the Natural Gas
Act (NGA) to authorize Gulf Crossing to site, construct, and operate
certain facilities, and Gulf South to abandon capacity by lease and to
site, construct, and operate certain facilities. In Docket No. CP07-
398-000, Gulf Crossing seeks authorization to construct a 353.2 mile
pipeline and associated compression facilities extending from Sherman,
Texas to an interconnect with Gulf South at Gulf South's Tallulah
Compressor Station in Madison Parish, Louisiana. In that filing, Gulf
Crossing also seeks authorization to lease up to 165,000 Dth/d of
upstream capacity on the intrastate pipeline system of Enogex and up to
1.4 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of natural gas per day from Gulf South
from Tallulah to Transco's Station 85 located at the terminus of Gulf
South's Southeast Expansion Project. In Docket Nos. CP07-399-000 and
CP07-400-000, Gulf Crossing seeks blanket certificates under Part 157,
Subpart F and under Part 284, Subpart G, respectively, of the
Commission's regulations. Gulf South seeks authorization pursuant to
section 7 of the NGA in Docket Nos. CP07-401-000 and CP07-402-000,
respectively, to construct approximately 17.8 miles of pipeline loop
between Gulf South's Tallulah Compressor Station and its Harrisville
Compressor Station located in Simpson County, Mississippi, and as
described above, to abandon by lease up to 1.4 Bcf/d of natural gas
capacity to Gulf Crossing. In a related application filed on June 20,
2007 in Docket No. CP07-403-000, Enogex seeks a limited jurisdiction
certificate to lease up to 165,000 Dth/d of natural gas on its
intrastate system from Bennington, Oklahoma to the new pipeline
facilities of Gulf Crossing, all as more fully set forth in the
applications which are on file with the Commission and open to

public inspection. The instant filings may be also viewed on the Web at
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket

number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY, (202)
502-8659.
    Any questions regarding this application may be directed to J. Kyle
Stephens, Director of Certificates, 9 East Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800,
Houston, Texas 77046 or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or telecopy to
713-479-1846 or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    On November 30, 2006, the Commission staff granted Gulf Crossing's
request to utilize the Commission's Pre-Filing Process for its Gulf
Crossing Project and assigned Docket No. PF07-1-000 to staff activities
involved therein. Now, as of the filing of Gulf Crossing's application
on June 19, 2007, the Commission's Pre-Filing Process for this project
has ended. From this time forward, Gulf Crossing's proceeding will be
conducted in Docket No. CP07-398-000, et. al, as noted in the caption
of this Notice.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the below listed comment date, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    Motions to intervene, protests and comments 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 ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on July 17, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-12803 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 90 (Friday, May 8, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27546-27547]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10024]

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

UNIFIED CARRIER REGISTRATION PLAN

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice; Unified Carrier Registration Plan
Board Subcommittee Meeting

TIME AND DATE: May 14, 2020, from Noon to 3:00 p.m., Eastern time.

PLACE:  This meeting will be accessible via conference call and via
Zoom Meeting and Screenshare. Any interested person may call (i) 1-929-
205-6099 (US Toll), (ii) 1-669-900-6833 (US Toll), (iii) 1-877-853-5247
(US Toll Free), or (iv) 1-888-788-0099 (US Toll Free), Meeting ID: 964
7431 9506, to listen and participate in this meeting. The website to
participate via Zoom Meeting and Screenshare is https://kellen.zoom.us/j/96474319506.

STATUS:  This meeting will be open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:  The Unified Carrier Registration Plan
Education and Training Subcommittee (the ``Subcommittee'') will
continue its work in developing and implementing the Unified Carrier
Registration Plan and Agreement. The subject matter of this meeting
will include:

Proposed Agenda

I. Call to Order--UCR Subcommittee Chair

    The Subcommittee Chair will welcome attendees, call the meeting to
order, call roll for the Subcommittee, confirm whether a quorum is
present, and facilitate self-introductions.

II. Verification of Publication of Meeting Notice--UCR Executive
Director

    The UCR Executive Director will verify the publication of the
meeting notice on the UCR website and distribution to the UCR contact
list via email followed by the subsequent publication of the notice in
the Federal Register.

III. Review and Approval of Subcommittee Agenda and Setting of Ground
Rules--Subcommittee Chair

For Discussion and Possible Subcommittee Action
    The Subcommittee Agenda will be reviewed, and the Subcommittee will
consider adoption.
Ground Rules
[rtarr8] Subcommittee action only to be taken in designated areas on
agenda

IV. Approval of Minutes from April 16, 2020 Meetings--UCR Operations
Manager

     Draft minutes from the April 16, 2020 Education and
Training Subcommittee meeting via teleconference will be reviewed. The
Subcommittee will consider action to approve.

V. Update on Education and Training Modules--UCR Technology Director

    The UCR Technology Director will review the development of each of
the three education and training modules (Enforcement, UCR 101, and
National Registration System), including format and budget. The
Subcommittee will discuss and provide comments on the education and
training modules.

VI. Role of Subcommittee in Development of Modules--UCR Technology
Director

    The UCR Technology Director will lead a discussion on the need for
assistance and guidance from the Subcommittee in the development of the
modules.

VII. Planning for Education and Training Sessions at June 8, 2020
Meeting--Subcommittee Chair

    The Subcommittee Chair will lead a discussion on the latest plans
for UCR to host several live education and training sessions currently
scheduled for June 8, 2020 in Portland, Oregon.

VIII. Other Items--Subcommittee Chair

    The Subcommittee Chair will call for any other items the
Subcommittee members would like to discuss.

IX. Adjournment--Subcommittee Chair

    The Subcommittee Chair will adjourn the meeting.
    The agenda will be available no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern time,
May 6, 2020 at: https://plan.ucr.gov.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:  Elizabeth Leaman, Chair, Unified
Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Alex B. Leath,
Chief Legal Officer, Unified Carrier Registration Plan.
[FR Doc. 2020-10024 Filed 5-6-20; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 4910-YL-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13660-13663]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5515]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 29974; 812-13879]

Fidus Investment Corporation, et al.; Notice of Application

March 1, 2012.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of an application for an order under sections 6(c),
12(d)(1)(J), and 57(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Act'')
granting exemptions from sections 12(d)(1)(A), 18(a), 21(b), 57(a)(1)-
(a)(3), and 61(a) of the Act; under section 57(i) of the Act and rule
17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise
prohibited by section 57(a)(4) of the Act; and under section 12(h) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') granting an
exemption from section 13(a) of the Exchange Act.

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

Applicants: Fidus Investment Corporation (``Company''), Fidus Mezzanine
Capital, L.P. (``Fidus SBIC''), Fidus Investment GP, LLC (``New General
Partner''), and Fidus Investment Advisors, LLC (``Fidus Advisors'').

Summary of Application: Applicants request an order permitting the
Company, a business development company (``BDC'') and Fidus SBIC, its
wholly-owned small business investment company (``SBIC'') subsidiary
that is also a BDC, to operate effectively as one company, specifically
allowing them to (1) engage in certain transactions with each other;
(2) invest in securities in which the other is or proposes to be an
investor; (3) be subject to modified asset coverage requirement for
senior securities issued by a BDC and its SBIC subsidiary; and (4) file
certain reports with the Commission on a consolidated basis.

DATES: Filing Dates: The application was filed on March 15, 2011, and
amended on August 9, 2011, and February 28, 2012.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the application
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary
and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by
mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5.30
p.m. on March 26, 2012, and should be accompanied by proof of service
on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues
contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request
notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants, c/o Edward H. Ross,
Fidus Investment Corporation, 1603 Orrington Avenue, Suite 820,
Evanston, Illinois 60201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara T. Heussler, Senior Counsel,
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Jennifer L. Sawin, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-
6821 (Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company
Regulation).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant
using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or
by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicants' Representations

    1. The Company, a Maryland corporation, is an externally-managed,
non-diversified, closed-end management investment company that has
elected to be regulated as a BDC under the Act.\1\ On June 16, 2011,
the Company filed a registration statement to register its common stock
under Section 12 of the Exchange Act.\2\ In addition, the Company
intends to elect to be treated as a regulated investment company
(``RIC'') as defined under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended and intends to continue to make such election in the
future. The Company provides customized mezzanine debt and equity
financing solutions to lower middle market companies that have revenues
between $10 and $150 million. The Company's board of directors
(``Board''), consists of five members, three of whom are not
``interested persons'' of the Company within the meaning of section
2(a)(19) of the Act. The Company's investment objective is to provide
attractive risk-adjusted returns by generating both current income from
debt investments and capital appreciation from equity related
investments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 2(a)(48) of the Act defines a BDC to be any closed-
end investment company that operates for the purpose of making
investments in securities described in sections 55(a)(1) through
55(a)(3) of the Act and makes available significant managerial
assistance with respect to the issuers of such securities.
    \2\ The Company completed the initial public offering (``IPO'')
of its shares of common stock on June 24, 2011. The Company's common
stock is traded on the NASDAQ Global Market under the symbol
``FDUS''. Prior to the closing of the IPO, through a series of
transactions (``Formation Transactions''), the Company acquired all
of the limited partnership interests in Fidus SBIC and all of the
membership interests in the New General Partner, and each of these
entities operates as a subsidiary of the Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Fidus SBIC, a Delaware limited partnership, is an SBIC licensed
by the Small Business Administration (``SBA'') to operate under the
Small Business Investment Act of 1958. On June 20, 2011, Fidus SBIC
filed an election to be regulated as a BDC within the meaning of
Section 2(a)(48) on Form N-54A under the Act in connection with the
effectiveness of its registration statement on Form N-5. On June 16,
2011, Fidus SBIC also filed a registration statement on Form 8-A to
register its common stock under Section 12 of the Exchange Act. Fidus
SBIC has the same investment objectives and strategies as the Company.
The Company owns a 99.99% limited partnership interest in Fidus SBIC;
the New General Partner, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, owns
a 0.01% general partnership interest in Fidus SBIC. Fidus SBIC,
therefore, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, because the
Company and the New General Partner own all of the partnership and
voting interests in Fidus SBIC. Fidus SBIC is and will remain, at all
times, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company and consolidated with
the Company for financial reporting purposes. Fidus SBIC has a board of
directors (``Fidus SBIC Board'') consisting of three persons who are
not ``interested persons'' of Fidus SBIC within the meaning of section
2(a)(19) of the Act and two persons who are ``interested persons'' of
Fidus SBIC. The members of Fidus SBIC Board are appointed each year by
the equity owners of Fidus SBIC. The New General Partner has
irrevocably delegated the authority to manage the business affairs of
Fidus SBIC to the Fidus SBIC Board. The SBA has approved the members of
the Fidus SBIC Board pursuant to SBA regulations. No person who is not
also a member of the Board of the Company can serve as a member of the
Fidus SBIC Board.
    3. Fidus Advisors is a Delaware limited liability company and
serves as the investment adviser to the Company and Fidus SBIC. Fidus
Advisors is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940. Pursuant to an investment management agreement
with the Company that satisfies the requirements

under Sections 15(a) and (c), Fidus Advisors manages the consolidated
assets of the Company and Fidus SBIC. The investment professionals of
Fidus Advisors are responsible for sourcing potential investments,
conducting research and diligence on potential investments and equity
sponsors, analyzing investment opportunities, structuring investments
and monitoring the investments and portfolio companies of the Company
and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, including Fidus SBIC.
    4. The New General Partner is a limited liability company organized
under the laws of the state of Delaware. The New General Partner is the
sole general partner of Fidus SBIC and its only role is to perform
ministerial functions that result from decisions made by Fidus
Advisors; the New General Partner is not able to prevent Fidus Advisors
from acting independently.

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Applicants request an order under sections 6(c), 12(d)(1)(J),
57(c) and 57(i) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act granting
exemptions from sections 12(d)(1)(A), 18(a), 21(b), 57(a)(1), 57(a)(2),
57(a)(3), and 61(a) of the Act and permitting certain joint
transactions otherwise prohibited by section 57(a)(4) of the Act to
permit the Company and Fidus SBIC to operate effectively as one
company, specifically to: (a) Engage in certain transactions with each
other; (b) invest in securities in which the other is or proposes to be
an investor; and (c) be subject to modified consolidated asset coverage
requirements for senior securities issued by a BDC and its subsidiary
SBIC. Applicants also request an order under section 12(h) of the
Exchange Act for an exemption for Fidus SBIC from section 13(a) of the
Exchange Act, so as to allow filing of consolidated reports with the
Commission.
    2. Section 12 of the Act is made applicable to BDCs by section 60
of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(A) makes it unlawful for any registered
investment company to purchase or otherwise acquire the securities of
another investment company, except to the extent permitted by sections
12(d)(1)(A)(i), (ii) and (iii). Rule 60a-1 exempts the acquisition by a
BDC of the securities of an SBIC that is operated as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the BDC from section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act. Accordingly,
since the Company has elected BDC status and since Fidus SBIC is, and
will at all times be, operated as a wholly owned subsidiary of the
Company, the transfer of assets from the Company to Fidus SBIC should
be exempt from the provisions of section 12(d)(1)(A) by virtue of rule
60a-1. However, the provisions of section 12(d)(1) also apply to the
activities of Fidus SBIC since Fidus SBIC has elected BDC status under
the Act. Any loans or advances by Fidus SBIC to the Company might be
deemed to violate section 12(d)(1)(A)(ii) or (iii) if the loans or
advances are construed as purchases of the securities of the Company by
Fidus SBIC.
    3. Applicants request an exemption under section 12(d)(1)(J) from
section 12(d)(1)(ii) and (iii) of the Act to permit the acquisition by
Fidus SBIC of any securities of the Company representing indebtedness.
Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
persons or transactions from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if and
to the extent such exception is consistent with the public interest and
the protection of investors. Applicants state that the requested relief
meets this standard because Fidus SBIC's wholly owned subsidiary status
and consolidated financial reporting with the Company will both
eliminate the possibility of overreaching and prevent confusion as to
the financial status of the Company to the Company's stockholders, who
are the investors that the Act is intended to protect.
    4. Section 18(a) prohibits a registered closed-end investment
company from issuing any class of senior security or selling any such
security of which it is the issuer unless the company complies with the
asset coverage requirements set forth in that section. Section 61(a)
applies section 18 to a BDC to the same extent as if the BDC were a
registered closed-end investment company, subject to certain
exceptions. Section 18(k), however, provides an exemption from sections
18(a)(1)(A) and (B) (relating to senior securities representing
indebtedness) for SBICs.
    5. Applicants state that a question exists as to whether the
Company must comply with the asset coverage requirements of section
18(a) on a consolidated basis because the Company may be an indirect
issuer of senior securities with respect to Fidus SBIC indebtedness. To
do so would mean that the Company would treat as its own all assets
held directly by the Company and Fidus SBIC and would also treat as its
own any liabilities of Fidus SBIC, including liabilities of Fidus SBIC
with respect to senior securities as to which Fidus SBIC is exempt from
the provisions of sections 18(a)(1)(A) and (B) by virtue of section
18(k). Accordingly, applicants request relief under section 6(c) of the
Act from sections 18(a) and 61(a) of the Act to permit the Company to
exclude from its consolidated asset coverage ratio any senior security
representing indebtedness that is issued by Fidus SBIC.
    6. Section 6(c) of the Act, in relevant part, permits the
Commission to exempt any transaction or class of transactions from any
provision of the Act if, and to the extent that, such exemption is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the
protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy
and provisions of the Act. Applicants state that, without the requested
relief from sections 18(a) and 61(a), the ability of Fidus SBIC to
obtain the kind of financing that would be available to the Company if
it were to conduct the SBIC operations itself would be restricted.
Applicants state that applying section 18(k) to the Company with
respect to any senior security representing indebtedness that is issued
by Fidus SBIC would not harm the public interest by exposing investors
to risks of unconstrained leverage, because the SBA regulates the
capital structure of Fidus SBIC.
    7. Sections 57(a)(1) and (2) of the Act generally prohibit, with
certain exceptions, sales or purchases of any security or other
property between BDCs and certain of their affiliates as described in
section 57(b) of the Act. Section 57(b) includes any person, directly
or indirectly, who controls, is controlled by, or is under common
control with the BDC. Applicants state that the Company is an
affiliated person of Fidus SBIC by reason of its direct ownership of
all of the limited partnership interests in Fidus SBIC and its indirect
ownership of all the general partnership interests in Fidus SBIC
through its 100% ownership of the New General Partner. Fidus SBIC is an
affiliated person of the Company because it is deemed to be under the
control of the Company. Accordingly, the Company and Fidus SBIC are
related to each other in the manner set forth in section 57(b).
    8. Applicants state that there may be circumstances when it is in
the interests of the Company and its stockholders that Fidus SBIC
invest in securities of an issuer that may be deemed to be a controlled
portfolio affiliate of the Company or that the Company invest in
securities of an issuer that may be deemed to be a controlled portfolio
affiliate of Fidus SBIC. Applicants therefore request an exemption from
sections 57(a)(1) and 57(a)(2) of the Act to permit any transaction
solely between the Company and Fidus SBIC with

respect to the purchase or sale of securities or other property.
Applicants also seek an exemption from the provisions 57(a)(1) and (2)
to allow any transaction involving the Company and/or Fidus SBIC and
portfolio affiliates of either or both of the Company and/or Fidus
SBIC, but only to the extent that the transaction would not be
prohibited if the Company and Fidus SBIC were one company.
    9. Section 57(c) provides that the Commission will exempt a
proposed transaction from the provisions of sections 57(a)(1), (2), and
(3) of the Act if the terms of the proposed transaction, including the
consideration to be paid or received, are reasonable and fair and do
not involve overreaching of any person concerned, and the proposed
transaction is consistent with the policy of the BDC concerned and the
general purposes of the Act.
    10. Applicants submit that the requested relief from sections
57(a)(1) and (2) meets this standard. Applicants represent that the
proposed operations as one company will enhance the efficient
operations of the Company and its wholly owned subsidiary, Fidus SBIC,
and allow them to deal with portfolio companies as if the Company and
Fidus SBIC were one company. Applicants contend that the terms of the
proposed transactions are reasonable and fair and do not involve
overreaching of the Company or its stockholders by any person, and that
the requested order would permit the Company and Fidus SBIC to carry
out more effectively their purposes and objectives of investing
primarily in small business concerns. Applicants also state that since
Fidus SBIC will be a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company and since
no officers or directors of the Company or Fidus SBIC (or any
controlling persons or other ``upstream affiliates'' of the Company)
will have any prohibited financial interest in the transactions
described, there can be no overreaching on the part of any persons and
no harm to the public interest in transactions solely between the
Company and Fidus SBIC. Finally, applicants note that the proposed
transactions are consistent with the policy of the Company and Fidus
SBIC as specified in filings with the Commission and reports to
stockholders, as well as consistent with the policies and provisions of
the Act.
    11. Section 57(a)(3) of the Act makes it unlawful for certain
affiliated persons of a BDC, and certain affiliated persons of those
persons, set out in section 57(b) to borrow money or other property
from such BDC or from any company controlled by the BDC, except as
permitted by section 21(b) or section 62. Section 21(b) of the Act
(made applicable to BDCs by section 62) provides that it shall be
unlawful for a BDC to lend any money or property, directly or
indirectly, to any person that controls or is under common control with
the BDC, except to any company that owns all of the outstanding
securities of the BDC other than directors' qualifying shares.
    12. The Company is an affiliated person of Fidus SBIC by reason of
its direct ownership of all of the limited partnership interests in
Fidus SBIC and its indirect ownership of all of the general partnership
interests in Fidus SBIC through its 100% ownership of the New General
Partner. The Company does not directly own all of the outstanding
securities of Fidus SBIC because the New General Partner holds a 0.01%
general partnership interest in Fidus SBIC and Fidus SBIC has issued
SBA guaranteed debentures and, in the future, may have other
outstanding securities in the form of indebtedness. Fidus SBIC is an
affiliated person of the Company because it is deemed to be under the
control of the Company. Accordingly, the Company is related to Fidus
SBIC in the manner set forth in section 57(b) and Fidus SBIC is related
to the Company in the manner set forth in section 57(b).
    13. Applicants state that there may be instances when it would be
in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders for the
Company to make loans to Fidus SBIC or for Fidus SBIC to make loans to
the Company. Applicants note that, in the case of loans from Fidus SBIC
to the Company, the loans would be prohibited by section 21(b) and
section 57(a)(3) because the borrower controls the lender and the
lender may have outstanding securities not owned by the borrower.
Accordingly, applicants request an order under section 6(c) exempting
from the provisions of section 21(b) the lending of money or other
property by Fidus SBIC to the Company. Applicants argue that because
these transactions are solely between the Company and Fidus SBIC, its
wholly-owned subsidiary, they will have no substantive economic effect
and there is be no basis for overreaching or harm to the public
interest. Applicants also request an order under section 57(c)
exempting from the provisions of section 57(a)(3) the borrowing of
money or property by the Company from Fidus SBIC.\3\ Applicants submit
that the requested relief meets the standards of section 57(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Applicants state that they are not seeking relief from
Section 57(a)(3) for loans from the Company to Fidus SBIC because
under the existing control structure, no such relief is necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. Section 57(a)(4) of the Act generally prohibits joint
transactions involving any BDC or a company it controls and certain
persons related to the BDC as specified in section 57(b) of the Act,
acting as principal in contravention of such rules and regulations as
the Commission may prescribe for the purpose of limiting or preventing
participation by the BDC or controlled company on a basis less
advantageous than that of the other participant. Section 57(i) of the
Act provides that rules and regulations under section 17(d) of the Act,
such as rule 17d-1, will apply to transactions subject to section
57(a)(4) in the absence of rules under that section. The Commission has
not adopted rules under section 57(a)(4) with respect to joint
transactions and, accordingly, the standards set forth in rule 17d-1
govern applicants' request for relief. Rule 17d-1 under the Act (made
applicable to BDCs by section 57(i)) prohibits affiliated persons of a
registered investment company, or an affiliated person of such person,
or, when applying rule 17d-1 to implement section 57(a)(4), a person
related to a BDC in a manner described in Section 57(b), acting as
principal, from participating in any joint transaction or arrangement
in which the BDC or a company it controls is a participant, unless the
Commission has issued an order authorizing the arrangement.
    15. Applicants request relief under section 57(i) and rule 17d-1to
permit any joint transaction that would otherwise be prohibited by
section 57(a)(4) between the Company and Fidus SBIC with respect to any
transaction involving investments by the Company or Fidus SBIC in
portfolio companies in which either is or is proposed to become an
investor, but only to the extent that the transaction would not be
prohibited if Fidus SBIC (and all of its assets and liabilities) were
deemed to be part of the Company, and not a separate company.
    16. In determining whether to grant an order under section 57(i)
and rule 17d-1, the Commission considers whether the participation of
the BDC in the joint transaction is consistent with the provisions,
policies, and purposes of the Act, and the extent to which such
participation is on a basis different from or less advantageous than
that of other participants. Applicants state that the proposed
transactions are consistent with the policy and provisions of the

Act and will enhance the interests of the Company's stockholders while
retaining for them the important protections afforded by the Act. In
addition, because the joint participants will conduct their operations
as though they comprise one company, the participation of one will not
be on a basis different from or less advantageous than the others.
Accordingly, applicants submit that the standard for relief under
section 57(i) and rule 17d-1 is satisfied.
    17. Section 54 of the Act provides that a closed-end company may
elect BDC treatment under the Act if the company has either a class of
equity securities registered under section 12 of the Exchange Act or
has filed a registration statement pursuant to section 12 of the
Exchange Act for a class of its equity securities. Section 12(g) of the
Exchange Act requires issuers with specified assets and a specified
number of security holders to register under the Exchange Act. As a
BDC, the Company has registered its common stock under section 12(b) of
the Exchange Act. In order to elect BDC treatment under the Act, Fidus
SBIC voluntarily registered its securities under the Exchange Act even
though it is not required to do so by section 12(g) of the Exchange
Act.
    18. By filing a registration statement under section 12 of the
Exchange Act, absent an exemption, Fidus SBIC would be required to make
periodic filings with the Commission, even though Fidus SBIC will have
only one equity holder. Section 13 of the Exchange Act is the primary
section requiring such filings. Accordingly, applicants request an
order under section 12(h) of the Exchange Act exempting Fidus SBIC from
the reporting requirements of section 13(a) of the Exchange Act.
    19. Section 12(h) of the Exchange Act provides that the Commission
may exempt an issuer from section 13 of the Exchange Act if the
Commission finds that by reason of the number of public investors,
amount of trading interest in the securities, the nature and extent of
the activities of the issuer, income or assets of the issuer, or
otherwise, that such action is not inconsistent with the public
interest or the protection of investors. Fidus SBIC has only one
investor, which is itself a reporting company, and no public investors.
There will be no trading in Fidus SBIC securities, so no public
interest or investor protective purpose will be served by separate
Fidus SBIC reporting. Further, applicants state that the nature and
extent of Fidus SBIC's activities are such that its activities will be
fully reported through consolidated reporting in accordance with normal
accounting rules. Accordingly, applicants believe that the requested
exemption meets the standards of section 12(h) of the Exchange Act.

Applicants' Conditions

    Applicants agree that the requested order will be subject to the
following conditions:
    1. The Company will at all times own and hold, beneficially and of
record, all of the outstanding limited partnership interests in Fidus
SBIC and all of the outstanding membership interests in the New General
Partner, or otherwise own and hold beneficially all of the outstanding
voting securities and equity interests of Fidus SBIC.
    2. Fidus SBIC will have investment policies not inconsistent with
those of the Company, as set forth in the Company's registration
statement.
    3. No person shall serve as a member of the Fidus SBIC Board unless
such person shall also be a member of the Company's Board. The Fidus
SBIC Board will be appointed by the equity owners of Fidus SBIC.
    4. The Company will not itself issue or sell any senior security
and the Company will not cause or permit Fidus SBIC to issue or sell
any senior security of which the Company or Fidus SBIC is the issuer
except to the extent permitted by section 18 (as modified for BDCs by
section 61); provided that immediately after the issuance or sale of
any such senior security by either the Company or Fidus SBIC, the
Company and Fidus SBIC on a consolidated basis, and the Company
individually, shall have the asset coverage required by section 18(a)
(as modified by section 61(a)). In determining whether the Company and
Fidus SBIC on a consolidated basis have the asset coverage required by
section 18, as modified by section 61(a), any senior securities
representing indebtedness of Fidus SBIC shall not be considered senior
securities, and for purposes of the definition of ``asset coverage'' in
section 18(h), shall be treated as indebtedness not represented by
senior securities.
    5. The Company will acquire securities of Fidus SBIC representing
indebtedness only if, in each case, the prior approval of the SBA has
been obtained. In addition, the Company and Fidus SBIC will purchase
and sell portfolio securities between themselves only if, in each case,
the prior approval of the SBA has been obtained.
    6. No person shall serve or act as investment adviser to Fidus SBIC
unless the Board and the stockholders of the Company shall have taken
such action with respect thereto that is required to be taken pursuant
to the Act by the functional equivalent of the Fidus SBIC Board and the
equity holders of Fidus SBIC.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-5515 Filed 3-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 10 (Wednesday, January 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2748-2750]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00442]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0167]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 24 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for
various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to
operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without
meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. The Agency has
concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained
without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.

DATES: The exemptions are effective January 15, 2014. The exemptions
expire on January 15, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-
224, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5
p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgement that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on January
17, 2008 (73 FR 3316).

Background

    On October 28, 2013, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications from certain individuals, and requested comments
from the public (78 FR 64271). That notice listed 24 applicants' case
histories. The 24 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 24 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.

Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
    A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor
vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40
(Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity
separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective
lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least

20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field
of vision of at least 70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye,
and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices
showing requirement red, green, and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision
requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision
limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 24
exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They
are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various
reasons, including traumatic corneal necrosis, macular hole, amblyopia,
prosthetic eye, central retinal vein occlusion, retinal detachment,
mature mixed cataract, central opacity, optic neuropathy, complete loss
of vision, refractive amblyopia, and vascular occlusion. In most cases,
their eye conditions were not recently developed. Seventeen of the
applicants were either born with their vision impairments or have had
them since childhood.
    The seven individuals that sustained their vision conditions as
adults have had it for a period of 1 to 23 years.
    Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected
vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient
vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors'
opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before
issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests
designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
    All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for
their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the
applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their
limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
    While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 24 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have
driven CMVs with their limited vision for careers ranging from 1 to 33
years. In the past 3 years, two of the drivers were involved in crashes
and three were convicted of moving violations in a CMV.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the October 28, 2013
notice (78 FR 64271).

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants
will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the
exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our
analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is
likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in
intrastate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as
their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3
years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several research studies designed to
correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies
support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by
a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations.
Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
    We believe we can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance
of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of
all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996).
The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving
records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other
monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those
required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to
their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years
of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with
their experiences in the final year.
    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the 24 applicants, two of the drivers were involved in crashes and
three were convicted of moving violations in a CMV. All the applicants
achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision impairment,
demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving
skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving
histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future
performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be
projected into the future.
    We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and
history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive
safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate
operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate
system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster
reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because
distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual
capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving
conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs
safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much
longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that
each applicant is capable of operating in

interstate commerce as safely as he/she has been performing in
intrastate commerce. Consequently, FMCSA finds that exempting these
applicants from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is
likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption. For this reason, the Agency is granting the exemptions for
the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to the 24
applicants listed in the notice of October 28, 2013 (78 FR 64271).
    We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a
condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements
on the 24 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions
applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver
program.
    Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year
(a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in
the better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the
individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2)
that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or
optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual
medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the
annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the
driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's
qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must have a
copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly
authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 24 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts Larry Adams, Jr. (FL), Juan R. Andrade (TX), Ronald C. Ashley
(GA), Michael A. Bagwell (TX), Lester E. Burnes (NM), Miguel A.
Calderon (CA), Terry L. Cliffe (IL), Herman R. Dahmer, Jr. (MD), Andrew
S. Durward (IL), James P. Fitzgerald (MA), Vashion E. Hammond (FL),
Louis E. Henry, Jr. (KY), Adam S. Larson (CO), Sally A. Leavitt (NV),
Glenn H. Lewis, Jr. (OH), Leonardo Lopez (NE), Larry P. Magrath (MN),
Gilberto D. Miramontes (TX), Richard J. Pauxtis (OR), Johnny L. Powell
(MD), Jacques W. Rainville (VT), Jeffrey T. Skaggs (IA), Roy A.
Whitaker (TX), and Sammy D. Wynn (GA) from the vision requirement in 49
CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above (49 CFR
391.64(b)).
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
    If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year
period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in
effect at that time.

    Issued on: December 30, 2013.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-00442 Filed 1-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 17, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2393-2394]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00683]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 101

[Docket No. FDA-2017-N-0763]
RIN 0910-AH43

Food Labeling: Health Claims; Soy Protein and Coronary Heart
Disease; Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is extending the
comment period for the proposed rule that appeared in the Federal
Register of October 31, 2017. We are taking this action in response to
requests for an extension to allow interested persons additional time
to submit comments.

DATES: FDA is extending the comment period on the proposed rule
published on October 31, 2017 (82 FR 50324). Submit either electronic
or written comments by March 19, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments
must be submitted on or before March 19, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
midnight Eastern Time at the end of March 19, 2018. Comments received
by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be
considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service
acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any

confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be
posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social
Security number, or confidential business information, such as a
manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name,
contact information, or other information that identifies you in the
body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2017-N-0763 for ``Food Labeling: Health Claims; Soy Protein and
Coronary Heart Disease.'' Received comments, those filed in a timely
manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for
those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at
https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between
9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' We will review
this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in our
consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed
confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for
public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both
copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name
and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide
this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your
comments and you must identify this information as ``confidential.''
Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not be disclosed except
in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law.
For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets,
see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Crystal Rivers, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-830), Food and Drug Administration, 5001
Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of October 31, 2017,
FDA published a proposed rule to revoke our regulation authorizing the
use of health claims on the relationship between soy protein and
coronary heart disease on the label or in the labeling of foods. We
proposed this action based on our review of the totality of publicly
available scientific evidence currently available and our tentative
conclusion that such evidence does not support our previous
determination that there is significant scientific agreement among
qualified experts for a health claim regarding the relationship between
soy protein and reduced risk of coronary heart disease. We provided a
75-day comment period for the proposed rule.
    We have received requests for a 60-day extension of the comment
period for the proposed rule. Each request conveyed concern that the
current comment period does not allow sufficient time to develop a
meaningful or thoughtful response to the proposed rule.
    FDA has considered the requests and is extending the comment period
for the proposed rule until March 19, 2018. We believe that this
extension allows adequate time for interested persons to submit
comments without significantly delaying rulemaking on these important
issues.

    Dated: January 11, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-00683 Filed 1-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 203 (Wednesday, October 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63802-63804]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26637]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-N-3454]

Manufacturing Site Change Supplements: Content and Submission;
Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff;
Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of the draft guidance entitled ``Manufacturing Site Change
Supplements: Content and Submission''. This draft guidance describes
the decision-making steps that FDA recommends to determine whether a
premarket approval application (PMA) supplement should be submitted
when a manufacturer intends to change the manufacturing site (including
a change to the processing, packaging, or sterilization site) of its
legally marketed PMA-approved device. This guidance also discusses the
general factors FDA intends to consider to determine whether a
preapproval inspection is necessary before approval of the PMA
supplement. This draft guidance is not final nor is it in effect at
this time.

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment of this
draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by January 19, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2015-N-3454 for ``Manufacturing Site Change Supplements: Content
and Submission.'' Received comments will be placed in the docket and,
except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly
viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets
Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION''. The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not
wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available,
you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body
of your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for
download from the Internet. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
for information on electronic access to the guidance. Submit written
requests for a single hard copy of the draft guidance document entitled
``Manufacturing Site Change Supplements: Content and Submission'' to
the Office of the Center Director, Guidance and Policy Development,
Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5431, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002; or to the Office of Communication, Outreach, and
Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), 10903
New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3103, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002.
Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in
processing your request, or fax your request to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William MacFarland, Center for Devices
and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>;
or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food
and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301,
Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under section 515(d)(6) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360e(d)(6)), a PMA supplement must be
submitted for review and approval by FDA before making a change that
affects the device's safety or effectiveness, unless such change is a
modification in a manufacturing procedure or method of manufacture,
which would be eligible for a 30-day notice. The PMA regulations
provide general criteria in Sec.  814. 39 (21 CFR 814.39) for
determining when PMA holders are required to submit a PMA supplement or
are eligible to submit a 30-day notice. Pursuant to Sec.  814.39(a)(3),
a PMA holder must submit a PMA supplement for review and approval by
FDA concerning the ``use of a different facility or establishment to
manufacture, process, or package the device'' that affects the safety
or effectiveness of a device before implementing the change. With
respect to establishment inspections, section 510(h) of the FD&C Act
(21 U.S.C. 360(h)) requires every registered establishment to be
subject to inspections pursuant to section 704 of the FD&C Act (21
U.S.C. 374) and to be inspected at least once in the 2-year period
after registration and at least once in every successive 2-year period
thereafter.
    In March 1996, CDRH sent a letter to the medical device industry
that announced a 1-year pilot program to improve the processing of PMA
supplements for changes in manufacturing sites. The letter discussed
the need to improve the speed and efficiency of CDRH review and
approval of manufacturing site change supplements, and stated that CDRH
did not require preapproval inspection for all site changes. CDRH later
developed the draft guidance entitled ``Likelihood of Facilities
Inspections When Modifying Devices Subject to Premarket Approval,''
which was issued on August 5, 1999. This guidance was never finalized.
    The PMA supplements described in the March 1996 letter and the 1999
draft guidance were called ``site change supplements'' or, if no
preapproval inspection was required, they were termed ``express
supplements.'' FDA now identifies all such submissions as ``site change
supplements'' with a designation of whether or not an inspection is
needed before the change can be implemented. Based on feedback from
industry and the Agency's experience over many years, FDA has made
substantial revisions and updates to the 1999 draft guidance and is
reissuing it for comment as this Level 1 draft guidance.
    This guidance document explains: (1) What constitutes a
manufacturing site change and when a manufacturer should submit a PMA
supplement for a site change; (2) what documentation a manufacturer
should submit in the site change supplement; and (3) the general
factors that FDA intends to consider when determining whether to
conduct an establishment inspection prior to approval of a site change
supplement. This guidance is intended to help industry decide when a
change in manufacturing site should be submitted in a PMA site change
supplement. The guidance is also intended to help industry predict when
a preapproval inspection in connection with a PMA supplement for a
manufacturing site change will likely be needed to evaluate the firm's
implementation of Quality System regulation requirements, 21 CFR part
820. As a result, this guidance should help manufacturers manage the
timeframes associated with implementing the changes in the
manufacturing site and any processes, methods, procedures,
qualifications, and validations.
    Please note that this guidance only applies to a manufacturer of a
device with an approved PMA, a product development protocol, or a
humanitarian device exemption. This guidance does not address
manufacturing site changes for devices cleared under premarket
notification (510(k)) submissions.

II. Significance of Guidance

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on manufacturing
site change supplements' content and submission. It does not establish
any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You
can use an alternative

approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes
and regulations.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do
so by downloading an electronic copy from the Internet. A search
capability for all CDRH guidance documents is available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm. Guidance documents are also available at
http://www.regulations.gov or from CBER at http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/default.htm. Persons unable to download an electronic copy of
``Manufacturing Site Change Supplements: Content and Submission'' may
send an email request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to receive an
electronic copy of the document. Please use the document number 1269 to
identify the guidance you are requesting.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts B and E have
been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of
information in 21 CFR part 814, subpart H have been approved under OMB
control number 0910-0332; and the collections of information in 21 CFR
part 820 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073.

    Dated: October 15, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-26637 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


"John Poole"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 07/01/2008 03:59 AM

To

Dave Godwin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject

SNAP LISTINGS FOR RS-44 & RS-45

Hello Dave,

You may recall that EPA accepted RS-44 (R424A) and RS-45 (R434A) on to the SNAP list in 2003 and 2007 respectively.

I have just been advised by a company in the US, which is involved in the bus and train business, that in order for them to consider using RS-44 and RS-45 they need to be SNAP approved for the category “Bus and Train Air Conditioning”. I must say that I was unaware of this use category when applying for a SNAP listing, so mine is the error in the first place.

Is it possible to get approval for this category of use and, if so, how is this done?

Most grateful for your comments here.

Best regards

John

John Poole

Refrigerant Solutions Ltd.

8 Murieston Road,

Hale,

Altrincham,

Cheshire, WA15 9ST

Tel: (+44) (0)161 926 9876

Fax: (+44) (0)161 926 9875

Email:   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Web:   HYPERLINK "http://www.refsols.com/"  www.refsols.com

----- Forwarded by Dave Godwin/DC/USEPA/US on 11/12/2008 03:21 PM -----

"Mougharbel, Marwan"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 07/02/2008 10:48 AM

To

Dave Godwin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

"Schwab, Robert"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Monica Shimamura/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, <EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject

RE: RS-44 and RS-45

Dave,

Thank you for the quick and detailed answer.

Is it possible to put LTK (Bob Schwab and myself) on the list of

interested customers to receive the letter you mentioned that indicates

the acceptability finding?

Regards,

Marwan Mougharbel, MSME

Staff Consultant

LTK Engineering Services

100 West Butler Avenue

Ambler, PA 19002

Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

-----Original Message-----

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 6:56 PM

To: Mougharbel, Marwan

Cc: Schwab, Robert<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: Re: RS-44 and RS-45

Thanks Marwan,

Yes, John contacted me submitting these two refrigerants for use in what

we usually refer to as "motor vehicle air conditioning (buses and

passenger trains)."  I've forwarded that on to Monica, who is

coordinating our SNAP process.

The SNAP regulations stipulate that it is legal to sell the alternative

90 days after the complete submission is received by EPA.  We've added

these refrigerants / end-use to our list for our next SNAP Notice, which

we will publish in the Federal Register.  Once the Notice is published

in the Federal Register, we usually update our website accordingly in a

week or two.  Given the publication process we need to follow, however,

I can't predict when we will have something officially published in the

Federal Register.  Regardless, once the decision is made we would send a

letter to John and interested customers to indicate the acceptability

finding.

In the meantime, the SNAP regulations allow you to pursue "research and

development" without an official determination under SNAP.  So, feel

free to work with John to obtain samples to test in your applications.

-- Dave

David S. Godwin, P.E.

Acting Branch Chief

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

  Office of Air and Radiation

    Office of Atmospheric Programs

      Stratospheric Protection Division

        Alternatives and Emissions Reduction Branch Mailing Address:

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Mail Code 6205J, Washington, D.C. 20460,

USA Deliveries / Office Location: 1310 L Street, NW, Room 1005D,

Washington, D.C. 20005, USA

Phone: +1-202-343-9324

Fax: +1-202-343-2363

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

             "Mougharbel,

             Marwan"

             <MMougharbel@ltk                                        To

             .com>                    Dave Godwin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

                                                                     cc

             07/01/2008 03:11         "Schwab, Robert"

             PM<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

                                                                Subject

                                      RS-44 and RS-45

Dave,

I'm sorry I missed your call yesterday afternoon. Since I was not able

to get a hold of you on the phone, I think e-mailing would be a better

way of communication.

We had a phone meeting with John Poole from Refrigerant Solutions Ltd.

on Monday June 30, 2008, and he confirmed that refrigerants RS-44 and

RS-45 are actually valid as R-22 substitutes for "Bus & Passenger

Railcar" HVAC systems even though this was not specified on the SNAP

application.

I believe he will be contacting you, if he already did not, about

modifying the specific end use section of the application to add those

refrigerants in the "Bus & Passenger Railcar" SNAP category for class II

ODS.

On behalf of LTK Engineering Services, I would like to express our

interest in accommodating RS-44 and RS-45 on EPA's SNAP list for "Bus &

Passenger Railcar AC" end usage for class II ODS.

Can you give us an estimate on the time that it takes to update the SNAP

list if/when the addition is approved?

Best Regards,

Marwan Mougharbel, MSME

Staff Consultant

LTK Engineering Services

100 West Butler Avenue

Ambler, PA 19002

Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 149 (Wednesday, August 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46824-46826]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19610]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2011-0710]

Information Collection Requests to Office of Management and
Budget

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit Information Collection Requests
(ICRs) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of
revisions to the following collections of information: 1625-0001,
Marine Casualty Information & Periodic Chemical Drug and Alcohol
Testing of Commercial Vessel Personnel; 1625-0013, Plan Approval and
Records for Load Lines--Title 46 CFR Subchapter E; 1625-0097, Plan
Approval and Records for Marine Engineering Systems--46 CFR subchapter
F; and 1625-0101, Periodic Gauging and Engineering Analyses for Certain
Tank Vessels Over 30 Years Old. Our ICRs describe the information we
seek to collect from the public. Before submitting these ICRs to OIRA,
the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before October 3,
2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2011-0710] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). To avoid duplicate
submissions, please use only one of the following means:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: DMF (M-30), DOT, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-
140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. To ensure your comments are received in a
timely manner, mark the fax, to attention Desk Officer for the Coast
Guard.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at Room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Copies of the ICRs are available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
COMMANDANT (CG-611), ATTN: PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT MANAGER, U.S. COAST
GUARD, 2100 2ND ST. SW., STOP 7101, WASHINGTON, DC 20593-7101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Ms. Kenlinishia Tyler, Office
of Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collections. There is
one ICR for each Collection.

    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether these ICRs should be
granted based on the Collections being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the
Collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
information subject to the Collections; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of the Collections on respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology. In response to your comments, we may revise these ICRs or
decide not to seek approval for the Collections. We will consider all
comments and material received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2011-0710], and
must be received by October 3, 2011. We will post all comments
received, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will
include any personal information you provide. We have an agreement with
DOT to use their DMF. Please see the ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-
2011-0710], indicate the specific section of the document to which each
comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. You may submit
your comments and material online (via http://www.regulations.gov), by
fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If
you submit a comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be
considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit
the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be
considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is
received at the DMF. We recommend you include your name, mailing
address, an e-mail address, or other contact information in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
    You may submit your comments and material by electronic means,
mail, fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES; but
please submit them by only one means. To submit your comment online, go
to http://www.regulations.gov, and type ``USCG-2011-0710'' in the
``Keyword'' box. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery,
submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\; by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by
mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period
and will address them accordingly.
    Viewing comments and documents: To view comments, as well as
documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the docket, go
to http://www.regulations.gov, click on the ``read comments'' box,
which will then become highlighted in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box
insert ``USCG-2011-0710'' and click ``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket
Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column. You may also visit the DMF in Room
W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act statement
regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of
the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Information Collection Requests

    1. Title: Marine Casualty Information & Periodic Chemical Drug and
Alcohol Testing of Commercial Vessel Personnel.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0001.
    Summary: Marine casualty information is needed for CG
investigations of commercial vessel casualties involving death, vessel
damage, etc., as mandated by Congress. Chemical testing information is
needed to improve CG detection/reduction of drug use by mariners.
    Need: Section 6101 of 46 U.S.C., as delegated by the Secretary of
Homeland Security to the Commandant, authorizes the Coast Guard to
prescribe regulations for the reporting of marine casualties involving
death, serious injury, material loss of property, material damage
affecting the seaworthiness of a vessel, or significant harm to the
environment. It also requires information on the use of alcohol be
included in a marine casualty report. Section 7503 of 46 U.S.C.
authorizes the Coast Guard to deny the issuance of licenses,
certificates of registry, and merchant mariner's documents (seaman's
papers) to users of dangerous drugs. Similarly, 46 U.S.C. 7704 requires
the Coast Guard to revoke such papers when a holder of the same has
been shown to be a drug user unless the holder provides satisfactory
proof that the holder is cured.
    Forms: CG-2692, CG-2692A, CG-2692B.
    Respondents: Vessel owners and operators.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 15,753
hours to 16,194 hours a year.
    2. Title: Plan Approval and Records for Load Lines--Title 46 CFR
Subchapter E.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0013.
    Summary: This information collection is required to ensure that
certain vessels are not overloaded--as evidenced by the submerging of
their assigned load line. In general, vessels over 150 gross tons or 24
meters (79 feet) in length engaged in commerce on international or
coastwise voyages by sea are required to obtain a Load Line
Certificate.
    Need: Title 46 U.S.C. 5101 to 5116 provides the Coast Guard with
the authority to enforce provisions of the International Load Line
Convention, 1966. Title 46 CFR chapter I, subchapter E--Load Lines,
contain the relevant regulations.
    Forms: Not applicable.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of vessels.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 1,699
hours to 1,761 hours a year.
    3. Title: Plan Approval and Records for Marine Engineering
Systems--46 CFR Subchapter F.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0097.
    Summary: This collection of information requires an owner or
builder of a commercial vessel to submit to the U.S. Coast Guard for
review and approval, plans pertaining to marine engineering systems to
ensure that the vessel will meet regulatory standards.
    Need: Under 46 U.S.C. 3306, the Coast Guard is authorized to
prescribe vessel safety regulations including those related to marine
engineering systems. Title 46 CFR Subchapter F prescribes those
requirements. The rules provide the specifications, standards and
requirements for strength and adequacy of design, construction,
installation, inspection, and choice of materials for machinery,
boilers, pressure vessels, safety valves, and piping systems upon which
safety of life is dependent.

    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Owners and builders of commercial vessels.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 3,312
hours to 3,695 hours a year.
    4. Title: Periodic Gauging and Engineering Analyses for Certain
Tank Vessels Over 30 Years Old.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0101.
    Summary: The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 required the issuance of
regulations related to the structural integrity of tank vessels,
including periodic gauging of the plating thickness of tank vessels
over 30 years old. This collection of information is used to verify the
structural integrity of older tank vessels.
    Need: Title 46 USC 3703 authorizes the Coast Guard to prescribe
regulations related to tank vessels, including design, construction,
alteration, repair, and maintenance. Title 46 CFR 31.10-21a prescribes
the regulations related to periodic gauging and engineering analyses of
certain tank vessels over 30 years old.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of certain tank vessels.
    Frequency: Every 5 years.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 9,918
hours to 7,946 hours a year.

    Dated: July 28, 2011.
R.E. Day,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Command,
Control, Communications, Computers and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. 2011-19610 Filed 8-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: November 3, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 212)]
[Notices]
[Page 66824]
[DOCID:fr03no05-32]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-46-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Proposed Changes
in FERC Gas Tariff

October 27, 2005.
    Take notice that on October 24, 2005, Columbia Gas Transmission
Corporation (Columbia) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff
sheets with a proposed effective date of November 23, 2005:

Fifth Revised Sheet No. 123
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 124
Third Revised Sheet No. 170
Eighth Revised Sheet No. 171
First Revised Sheet No. 244
First Revised Sheet No. 245
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 390

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-6077 Filed 11-2-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 134)]
[Notices]
[Page 40818]
[DOCID:fr14jy10-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL10-76-000]

Green Energy Express LLC; 21st Century Transmission Holdings,
LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order

July 8, 2010.
    Take notice that on July 2, 2010, Green Energy Express LLC and 21st
Century Transmission Holdings, LLC, pursuant to Rule 207 of the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207 (2010), filed a Petition for Declaratory
Order requesting the Commission to clarify the appropriate
interpretation of provisions in the California Independent System
Operator Corp's (CAISO) Tariff, specifically provisions in the Larger
Generator Interconnection Agreement in Appendix V to the Tariff and
provisions in section 24 of the Tariff relating to Location Constrained
Resource Interconnection facilities.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on July 23, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-17158 Filed 7-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P