[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 227 (Wednesday, November 25, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73870-73871]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29949]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee; Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC)
meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of the ARAC.

DATES: The meeting will be held on December 17, 2015, starting at 1:00
p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Arrange oral presentations by December 10,
2015.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place at the Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, 10th
floor, MacCracken Conference Room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Renee Pocius, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591,
telephone (202) 267- 5093; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), we are giving notice of a
meeting of the ARAC taking place on December 17, 2015, at the Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC
20591.
    The Agenda includes:

1. Request for Clarification
    a. Avionics Systems Harmonization Working Group--Phase 2 Low
Airspeed Alerting
2. Materials Flammability Working Group Recommendation Report
3. Status Reports From Active Working Groups

    a. Airman Certification Systems Working Group
    b. Aircraft Systems Information Security/Protection Working Group
    c. Air Traffic Controller Training Working Group
    d. Rotorcraft Occupant Protection Working Group
    e. Airworthiness Assurance Working Group
    f. Engine Harmonization Working Group- Engine Endurance Testing
Requirements--Revision of Section 33.87
    g. Flight Test Harmonization Working Group--Phase 2 Tasking
    h. Transport Airplane Metallic and Composite Structures Working
Group--Transport Airplane Damage-Tolerance and Fatigue Evaluation
    i. Transport Airplane Crashworthiness and Ditching Evaluation
Working Group
4. New Tasks
    a. Rotorcraft Bird Strike Working Group
    b. Additional Tasking for the Airman Certification Systems Working
Group
    c. Load Master Certification Working Group
5. Status Report from the FAA
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to the
space available. Please confirm your attendance with the person listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section no later than December
10, 2015. Please provide the following information: full legal name,
country of citizenship, and name of your industry association, or
applicable affiliation. If you are attending as a public citizen,
please indicate so.
    For persons participating by telephone, please contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by email or phone
for the teleconference call-in number and passcode. Callers outside the
Washington metropolitan area are responsible for paying long-distance
charges.
    The public must arrange by December 10, 2015 to present oral
statements at the meeting. The public may present written statements to
the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee by providing 25 copies to
the Designated Federal Officer, or by bringing the copies to the
meeting.
    If you are in need of assistance or require a reasonable
accommodation for this meeting, please contact the person listed under
the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Sign and oral
interpretation, as well as a listening device, can be made available if
requested 10 calendar days before the meeting.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 19, 2015.
Lirio Liu,
Designated Federal Officer, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2015-29949 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


SF 83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NSPS for Beverage Can Surface Coating  40 CFR Part 60, Subpart WW 1. Identification of the Information Collection 1( a) Title of the Information Collection NSPS for Beverage Can Surface Coating  40 CFR Part 60, Subpart WW 1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract The New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS) for the regulations published at 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart WW were proposed on November 26, 1980 and promulgated on August 25, 1983. These regulations apply to the following surface coating lines in the beverage can surface coating industry: each exterior base coat operation, each overvarnished coating operation, and each inside spray coating operation. These standards apply to beverage can surface coating facilities commencing construction, modification or reconstruction after November 26, 1980. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart WW.

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

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

Approximately forty six ( 46) sources are currently subject to the regulation, and it is estimated that an additional two ( 2) sources per year will become subject to the regulation in the next three years. These numbers are based on previous experience with the industry and a recent search of the Agency's AIRS ( Aerometric Information Retrieval System) Facility Subsystem ( AFS) database.

This Information Collection Request ( ICR) was approved for three years. Before resubmission of this ICR for extension, the Agency was advised to revisit the estimate of the number of respondents and demonstrate to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) that the estimates are consistent with Agency experience. In addition, the Agency was reminded to revise wage estimates to reflect guidance provided by EPA and/ or OMB, especially with respect to appropriate calculation of wage overhead. Each of these revisions was taken into account and is explained in this Supporting Statement and attached Tables. 2 2. Need for and Use of the Collection 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection The EPA is charged under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act ( CAA), as amended, to establish standards of performance for new stationary sources that reflect:

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

The Agency refers to this charge as selecting the best demonstrated technology ( BDT). Section 111 also requires that the Administrator review and, if appropriate, revise such standards every four years. In addition, Section 114( a) states that the Administrator may require any owner or operator subject to any requirement of this Act to:

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

In the Administrator's judgment, volatile organic compound ( VOC) emissions from beverage can surface coating facilities cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Therefore, NSPS were promulgated for this source category at 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart WW.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The control of emissions of VOCs from beverage can surface coating facilities requires not only the installation of properly designed equipment, but also the operation and maintenance of that equipment. Emissions of VOCs from beverage can surface coating facilities are the result of operation of the affected facilities. The subject standards are achieved by the capture of VOC emissions using an incinerator or calculating the VOC content of the coatings using formulation data. The notifications required in the applicable regulations are used to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the requirements of the regulations. The reviewing authority may then inspect the source to check if the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated and/ or coating standards of the regulations are being met. Performance test reports are needed as these are the Agency's record of a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standards, and serve as a record of the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved. The semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations. The information generated by the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements described in this ICR is 3 used by the Agency to ensure that facilities affected by the NSPS continue to operate the control equipment and achieve compliance with the regulation. Adequate monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting are necessary to ensure compliance with the applicable regulations, as required by the Clean Air Act. The information collected from recordkeeping and reporting requirements is also used for targeting inspections, and is of sufficient quality to be used as evidence in court.

3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria The recordkeeping and reporting requested are required under 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart WW.

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

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR was published in the Federal Register on June 20, 2002.

3( c) Consultations No comments were received on the burden published in the Federal Register.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of assurance that facilities are continuing to meet the standards. Requirements for information gathering and recordkeeping are useful techniques to ensure that good operation and maintenance practices are applied and emission limitations are met. If the information required by these standards was collected less frequently, the likelihood of detecting poor operation and maintenance of control equipment and noncompliance would decrease.

3( e) General Guidelines None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of the regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR 1320.6.

3( f) Confidentiality The required information consists of emissions data and other information that have been determined not to be private. However, any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B  Confidentiality of Business Information ( see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979). 3( g) Sensitive Questions 4 None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contain sensitive questions.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested 4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are facilities which conduct surface coating of beverage cans. The United States Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) code for the respondents affected by the standards is SIC 3411 which corresponds to the North American Industry Classification System ( NAICS) 332431 for metal can manufacturing.

4( b) Information Requested ( i) Data Items All data in this ICR that is recorded and/ or reported is required by Subpart WW  Standards of Performance for the Beverage Can Surface Coating Industry, 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart WW.

A source must make the following reports:

Reports for 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart WW Construction/ reconstruction 60.7( a)( 1)

Anticipated startup 60.7( a)( 2)

Actual startup 60.7( a)( 3)

Initial performance test results 60.8 ( a), 60.495( a)

Initial performance test 60.8( d)

Demonstration of continuous monitoring system 60.7( a)( 5)

Physical or operational change 60.7( a)( 4)

Excess emissions report 60.7( c), 60.495( c) 5 A source must maintain the following records:

Recordkeeping for 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart WW Startups, shutdowns, malfunctions, periods where the continuous monitoring system is inoperative 60.7( b)

Monthly performance test 60.493( b)

Records are required to be retained for two years. The first two years of records must be retained at the facility. 60.495( d)

Maintain a file of all measurements including the monitoring device, and performance testing measurements, and monitoring device calibrations, checks, adjustments and maintenance performed on these devices. 60.7( e)

Maintain daily records of incinerator combustion temperature, or amounts of solvent recovered. 60.494( c)

( ii) Respondent Activities Respondent Activities Read instructions.

Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a device that continuously records the combustion temperature of any effluent gases incinerated to achieve compliance.

Perform initial performance test, Reference Method 24 or Reference Method 25 test, and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Write the notifications and reports listed above.

Enter information required to be recorded above.

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

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

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

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

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

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information. 6 5. The Information Collected: Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management 5( a) Agency Activities EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the required information.

Agency Activities Observe initial performance tests and repeat performance tests if necessary.

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

Audit facility records.

Input, analyze, and maintain data in the AIRS ( Aerometric Information Retrieval System) Facility Subsystem ( AFS) database.

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

Information contained in the reports is entered into AFS which is operated and maintained by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. AFS is EPA's database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance and annual emission inventory data for over 100,000 industrial and government owned facilities. EPA uses AFS for tracking air pollution compliance and enforcement by local and State regulatory agencies, EPA Regional Offices and EPA Headquarters. EPA and its delegated Authorities can edit, store, retrieve and analyze the data.

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

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility A majority of the affected facilities are large entities with more than 500 employees ( e. g., large businesses). However, the impact on small entities ( i. e., small businesses) was taken into consideration during the development of the regulation. Due to technical considerations involving the process operations and the types of control equipment employed, the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are the same for both small and large entities. The Agency considers these requirements the minimum needed to ensure compliance and, therefore, cannot reduce them further for small entities. To the extent that larger businesses can use economies of scale to reduce their burden, the overall burden will be reduced. 5( d) Collection Schedule 7 The specific frequency for each information collection activity within this request is shown in Table 2: Industry Burden.

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection Table 2 documents the computation of individual burdens for the recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry for the subpart included in this ICR. The individual burdens are expressed under standardized headings believed to be consistent with the concept of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Where appropriate, specific tasks and major assumptions have been identified. Responses to this information collection are mandatory.

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

6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated to be 4642 ( Total Labor Hours from Table 2). These hours are based on Agency studies and background documents from the development of the regulation, Agency knowledge and experience with the NSPS program, the previously approved ICR, and any comments received.

6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs ( i) Estimating Labor Costs This ICR uses a Technical Labor Rate of $ 57.12 per hour. This rate is from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 2001, " Table 10. Private industry, by occupational and industry group." The rate is from column 1, " Total compensation." The wage rate has been increased by 110% to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in NSPS Subpart WW were designed to be performed by technical staff.

( ii) Estimating Capital/ Startup and Operation and Maintenance Costs The type of industry costs associated with the information collection activity in the regulations are labor and Continuous Emission Monitors ( CEMS). The capital/ start up costs are one time costs when a facility becomes subject to the regulation. The annual operation and maintenance costs are the ongoing costs to maintain the monitor and other costs such as photocopying and postage.

( iii) Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs ( A) Continuous Monitoring Device ( B) Startup Cost ($) for One Affected Facility ( C) Number of New Affected Facilities to Startup ( D) Total Startup ( B X C) ( E) Annual O& M Costs ($) for One Affected Facility ( F) Number of Affected Facilities with O& M ( G) Total O& M ( E X F)

Temperature 7,000 2 14,000 1,800 46 82,800 The total capital/ startup costs for this ICR are $ 14,000. This is the total of column D in the above table. These costs are shown in block 14( a), Total annualized capital/ startup costs, on 8 the OMB 83 I form. It should be noted that the numbers in block 14 of the OMB 83 I form are rounded to show the cost in thousands of dollars.

The total operation and maintenance ( O& M) costs for this ICR are $ 82,800. This is the total of column G. These costs are shown in block 14( b), Total annual costs ( O& M), on the OMB 83 I form.

The total respondent non labor costs in block 14 have been calculated as the addition of the capital/ startup costs, and the annual operation and maintenance costs. The average annual cost for capital/ startup and operation and maintenance costs to industry over the next three years of the ICR is estimated to be $ 96,800. This cost is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( c), Total annualized cost requested. The numbers in block 14 of the OMB 83 I form are rounded to show the cost in thousands of dollars.

6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost The only costs to the Agency are those costs associated with analysis of the reported information. Publication and distribution of the information are part of the AFS program. Examination of records to be maintained by the respondents will occur as part of the periodic inspection of sources, which is part of EPA's overall compliance and enforcement program.

The average annual Agency cost during the 3 years of the ICR is estimated to be $ 19,018 [ see Table 1 in Section 6( e)]. This cost is based on the average hourly labor rate at a GS 12, Step 1, times a 1.6 benefits multiplication factor to account for government overhead expenses for a total of $ 38.35. This rate is from the Office of Planning and Management's ( OPM) " 2002 General Schedule" which excludes locality rates of pay. Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Table 1, below.

6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs Respondent Universe and Number of Responses/ Year Regulation Citation ( A) Number of New Sources/ Year ( B) Number of Reports for New Sources ( C) Number of Existing Sources ( D) Number of Reports for Existing Sources ( F) Number of Recordkeepers that do not submit reports ( E) Total Annual Responses = ( AxB)+( CxD)+ F 2 4 46 2.5 0 123 The number of total respondents is 48. This number is the sum of Column A and Column C of the Respondent Universe table. This represents the number of existing sources plus the number of new sources averaged over the three year period. It is shown in block 13( a), Number of respondents, on the OMB 83 I form.

The number of Total Annual Responses is 123. This is the number in column E of the Respondent Universe table. It is shown in block 13( b), Total annual responses, on the OMB 83 I form. The total annual labor costs are $ 265,151. This number is not shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( c), Total hours requested. Only the burden hours are reflected in block 13( c). Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Table 2. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost. The total annual capital and O& M costs to the regulated entity are $ 96,800. This number 9 is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14 ( c), Total annualized cost requested. These costs are detailed in Section 6( b)( iii), Capital/ Startup vs. Operating and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs.

6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables The bottom line burden hours and cost tables for both the Agency and the respondents are attached.

6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden The increase in burden from the most recently approved ICR is due to an adjustment. The adjustment increase in burden is due to more accurate estimates of existing and anticipated new sources. Additional increases are due to the newer wage rates used for industry and the Agency.

6( g) Burden Statement Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Numbers for EPA's standards are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Ms. Susan Auby, Collection Strategies Division ( Mail Code 2822T), Office of Environmental Information, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W., Washington, D. C. 20460 0001; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include the EPA ICR Number 0663.08 and OMB Control Number 2060 0001 in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in collecting this information. 10 TABLE 1 ANNUAL AGENCY BURDEN AND COST  NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARD ( NSPS) FOR BEVERAGE CAN SURFACE COATING, 40 CFR PART 60, SUBPART WW REPORTING/ RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENT EPA Hours/ Occurrence ( A) Occurrences / Plant/ Year ( B) EPA Hours/ Year ( C= A* B) ( C) Plants/ Year ( D) EPA Hours/ Year ( E= C* D) ( E)

INITIAL PERFORMANCE TESTS New Plant 24 1 24 2 48 REPEAT PERFORMANCE TEST New Plant 24 0.2 4.8 2 9.6 REPORT REVIEW New Plant Notification of Construction 2 1 2 2 4 Notification of Initial Startup 0.5 1 0.5 2 1 Notification of Actual Startup 0.5 1 0.5 2 1 Notification of Initial Test 0.5 1.2 0.6 2 1.2 Review Test Results 8 1.2 9.6 2 19.2 Existing Plant VOC Emissions Reports 2 2.5 5 46 230 Temperature Reports 2 2 4 37 148 TOTAL ANNUAL HOURS 462 ANNUAL TRAVEL EXPENSES ( 1 person x 2 plants/ year x 3 d/ plant x $ 100 per diem) + ($ 350 round trip/ plant x 2 plant/ yr) = $ 1,300.00 SALARY BURDEN ( per year)

1 person x 462 h/ yr x $ 38.35/ h = $ 17,718.00 TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN $ 19,018.00 11 Assumptions Rate of failed performance tests 20%

Number of new plants ( per year) 2 Percentage of sources that use incineration. 80%

Time required to participate with performance test ( hours per plant) 24 Time require to review construction notification ( hours) 2 Time required to review startup and initial test notifications ( hours) 0.5 Time required to review performance test results ( hours) 8 EPA labor rate ( GS 12 Step 1 x 1.6 overhead) $ 38.35 Round trip airfare to visit plant $ 350 12 TABLE 2 ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST  NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARD ( NSPS) FOR BEVERAGE CAN SURFACE COATING, 40 CFR PART 60, SUBPART WW REPORTING/ RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENT Hours/ Occu rrence ( A) Occurren ce/ Year ( B) Respondents/ Year ( C) Hours/ Year ( D) Costs/ Year ( E) 1. APPLICATIONS N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 2. SURVEY AND STUDIES N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 3. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS a. Read Instructions 1 1 2 2 $ 114.24 b. Required Activities Initial Performance Tests 60 1 2 120 $ 6,854.40 Repeat of Performance Tests 60 0.2 2 24 $ 1,370.88 c. Gather Existing Information  Included in 3b d. Write Report Notification of Construction/ Reconstructi on 2 1 2 4 $ 228.48 Notification of Anticipated Startup 2 1 2 4 $ 228.48 Notification of Initial Performance Test 2 1 2 4 $ 228.48 Notification of Actual Startup 2 1 2 4 $ 228.48 Report of Performance Test  Included in 3b Emissions Report 5 2.5 48 600 $ 34,272.00 Temperature Variance Report 4 2 38 304 $ 17,364.48 4. RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS a. Read Instructions  Included in 3a b. Plan Activities  Included in3b c. Implement Activities ( Monthly Perf. Test) 1 12 48 576 $ 32,901.42 d. Develop Record System N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A e. Time to Enter Information Records of Operating Parameter 0.25 250 48 3,000 $ 171,360.00 TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN 4642 $ 265,151.00 13 Assumptions Number of facilities reporting ( per year). With 2 new facilities over three years, the average number of facilities reporting will be 48. 48 Rate of failed performance tests 20%

Percentage of facilities that use incineration. 80%

Number of new facilities ( per year) 2 Each plant will file an excess emission report every other year and a no exceedence report twice a year. Assume operation 250 days per year as specified in the NSPS review document. Technical labor rate ( Bureau of Labor Statistics) $ 57.12


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 244 (Monday, December 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79390-79392]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31931]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76644; File No. SR-NFA-2015-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Futures Association;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Change to the
Interpretive Notice to NFA Compliance Rules 2-7 and 2-24 and
Registration Rule 401: Proficiency Requirements for SFPs

December 15, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(7) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-7 under the Exchange Act,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on December 3, 2015, National Futures Association
(``NFA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change described in Items I, II, and
III below, which Items have been prepared by NFA. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons. NFA also filed this proposed rule change on
December 3, 2015 with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
(``CFTC'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(7).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NFA, on December 3, 2015, requested that the CFTC make a
determination that review of the proposed rule change of NFA is not
necessary.
    The CFTC has not yet made such a determination.

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

    The amendments to the Interpretive Notice entitled ``NFA Compliance
Rules 2-7 and 2-24 and Registration Rule 401: Proficiency Requirements
for Security Futures Products'' (``Notice'') make permanent the
provision permitting registrants to qualify to engage in securities
futures activities by completing a training program.
    The text of the Interpretive Notice is available on NFA's Web site
at www.nfa.futures.org, the Commission's Web site at www.sec.gov, the
self-regulatory organization's office, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, NFA included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. NFA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Section 15A(k) of the Exchange Act \3\ makes NFA a national
securities association for the limited purpose of regulating the
activities of NFA Members (``Members'') who are registered as brokers
or dealers under Section 15(b)(11) of the Exchange Act.\4\ NFA's Notice
entitled: ``NFA Compliance Rules 2-7 and 2-24 and Registration Rule
401: Proficiency Requirements for Security Futures Products'' applies
to all Members who meet the criteria in the Interpretive Notice and
could apply to Members registered under Section 15(b)(11) of the
Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(k).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78o(b)(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 amended the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require NFA to ``have rules that
ensure that members and natural persons associated with members meet
such standards of training, experience and competence necessary to
effect transactions in security futures products and are tested for
their knowledge of securities and securities futures products.'' In
2001, NFA and FINRA (then NASD) adopted temporary relief allowing
registrants to qualify to engage in security futures activities by
completing a training program rather than taking a proficiency exam,
which NFA codified in the Notice. That relief has been extended four
times and is currently set to expire on December 31, 2015.
    NFA and FINRA proposed the four prior extensions, and the CFTC and
SEC agreed to them, because of the relatively low trading volume in
security futures products (``SFP'') and the relatively few registrants
engaging in security futures activities. These characteristics made the
imposition of a qualifications exam an inefficient option, and the same
reasons are equally compelling today.
    In 2002 NFA, FINRA and the Institute for Financial Markets
partnered together to develop a free web-based training program
consisting of a series of modules intended to satisfy the training
requirement (``SRO Training Modules''). From 2002 through May 2015,
15,216 individuals have completed the SRO Training Modules. Of this
number, 10,108 individuals are registered with FINRA (including joint
registrants) and 5,108 individuals are registered only with the CFTC.
Most of these individuals took the SRO Training Modules in the first
couple of years after SFPs began trading, and traffic has decreased
since then. In 2014, only 180 registered individuals completed the SRO
Training Modules (162 CFTC-only registrants). This compares with the
approximately 4,000 people who took the Series 3 exam last year.
    Additionally, SFP volume is low. In 2014, U.S. futures exchanges
traded approximately 3.9 billion contracts, while SFP volume was just
over 8 million--approximately 0.21% of the total. Given the limited
interest in these products, NFA believes that implementing a testing
requirement does not appear to be the most practical solution at this
time.
    Given the continued low number of registrants engaging in
securities futures activities and the low SFP volume, NFA's Board of
Directors at its August 20, 2015 meeting authorized NFA's Executive
Committee to approve amendments to NFA's Interpretive Notice regarding
proficiency requirements for SFPs to make permanent the provision
permitting registrants to satisfy their proficiency requirement through
training and eliminating the sunset provision. NFA's Executive
Committee, as authorized by the Board of Directors, approved the
amendments on October 15, 2015. NFA's Board of Directors ratified the
Executive Committee's action at it November 19, 2015 meeting. The
amendments also emphasize that the training must be completed before
any individual registrant engages in activities involving SFPs. NFA, in
coordination with FINRA, will continue to monitor the security futures
volume and the number of persons taking the SRO Training modules, as
well as any disciplinary matters involving SFPs, in considering whether
a proficiency test should be developed at a later date.
    Amendments to the Interpretive Notice regarding NFA Compliance
Rules 2-7 and 2-24 and Registration Rule 401: Proficiency Requirements
for Security Futures Products were previously filed with the SEC in SR-
NFA-2002-04, Exchange Act Release No. 34-46502 (Sep. 16, 2002), 67 FR
59587 (Sep. 23, 2002); SR-NFA-2003-03, Exchange Act Release No. 34-
47825 (May 9, 2003), 68 FR 27128 (Mar. 19, 2002); SR-NFA-2003-04,
Exchange Act Release No. 34-49054 (Jan. 12, 2004), 69 FR 2806, (Jan.
20, 2004); SR-NFA-2007-07, Exchange Act Release 34-57142 (Jan. 14,
2008), 73 FR 3502 (Jan. 18, 2008); SR-NFA-2009-02, Exchange Act Release
34-61284 (Jan. 4, 2010), 75 FR 1431 (Jan. 11, 2010) and SR-NFA-2014-01,
Exchange Act Release No. 34-71976 (April 21, 2014), 79 FR 23028 (April
25, 2014).
2. Statutory Basis
    The rule change is authorized by, and consistent with, Section
15A(k)(2)(D) of the Exchange Act.\5\ That Section requires NFA to
``have rules that ensure that members and natural persons associated
with members meet such standards of training, experience, and
competence necessary to effect transactions in SFPs and are tested for
their knowledge of securities and securities futures products.''
Although the proposal makes permanent the relief from having to take an
exam to engage in securities futures activities, the proposal still
requires individual registrants to complete training before entering
into any activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(k)(2)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change will have little or no impact on
competition. The proposed Interpretive Notice does not impose new
requirements on Members, but rather makes permanent the provision
permitting registrants to qualify to engage in security futures

activities by completing a training program.

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

    NFA did not publish the rule change to the membership for comment.
NFA did not receive comment letters concerning the rule change.

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

    The proposed rule change is not effective because the CFTC has not
yet determined that review of the proposed rule change is not
necessary.
    At any time within 60 days of the date of effectiveness of the
proposed rule change, the Commission, after consultation with the CFTC,
may summarily temporarily suspend the proposed rule change and require
that the proposed rule change be refiled in accordance with the
provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Exchange Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NFA-2015-01 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NFA-2015-01. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of NFA. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NFA-2015-01, and should be
submitted on or before January 11, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-31931 Filed 12-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


protect consumers. While transmission infrastructure can provide a
broad spectrum of benefits, it is itself a significant investment that
represents a major component of customers' electric bills. The
Commission must vigorously oversee the rules governing how transmission
projects are planned and paid for if we are to satisfy our
responsibility to protect customers from excessive rates and
charges.\17\ The potential bases for invigorating our oversight of
transmission spending contemplated in today's order have the potential
to go a long way toward ensuring that we fulfill that function.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Cf., e.g., California ex rel. Lockyer v. FERC, 383 F.3d
1006, 1017 (9th Cir. 2004) (rejecting ``an interpretation [that]
comports neither with the statutory text nor with the Act's `primary
purpose' of protecting consumers''); City of Chicago v. FPC, 458
F.2d 731, 751 (D.C. Cir. 1971) (``[T]he primary purpose of the
Natural Gas Act is to protect consumers.'' (citing, inter alia, City
of Detroit v. FPC, 230 F.2d 810, 815 (D.C. Cir. 1955)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. Today's action plants the seeds for addressing the concerns
outlined above. A forward-looking, holistic approach to transmission
planning has the potential to identify the more efficient or cost-
effective solutions for meeting the transmission needs of the changing
resource mix, including those resources that are not yet under
development. Such an approach would allow transmission planners to
proactively identify the areas of the transmission grid that will have
significant transmission needs and select the more efficient or cost-
effective solution to meet those needs, including needs driven by
resources that are not yet in operation or even under development.
Doing so has the potential to address the transmission needs of the
future generation mix while costing customers considerably less than
they would pay to meet those same needs under the status quo. That, in
our view, is what is necessary to ensure that the rates for
transmission service remain just and reasonable as the resource mix
changes.
    13. We anticipate that this effort will be the Commission's
principal focus in the months to come. In addition to reviewing the
record assembled in response to today's order, we intend to explore
technical conferences and other avenues for augmenting that record--
including through the joint federal-state task force \18\--before
proceeding to reform our rules and regulations. We recognize that the
issues addressed herein are highly technical, complex problems that do
not lend themselves to easy solutions. That being said, we also
recognize the urgent need to address the transmission needs of the
changing resource mix and appreciate that we do not have the luxury of
sitting back and debating these issues ad nauseum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra n.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    14. The electricity sector is at a pivotal moment. With the clean
energy transition gaining steam, we can either continue with the status
quo, trying to meet the transmission needs of the future by building
out the grid in a myopic, piecemeal fashion, or we can start
holistically and proactively planning for those future transmission
needs. We believe that today's advance notice of proposed rulemaking
represents an important and essential first step in the right direction
and toward the type of transmission planning and cost allocation
paradigm that is necessary to protect customers, support reliability,
and ensure just and reasonable rates.
    For these reasons, we respectfully concur.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Glick,

Chairman.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Allison Clements,

Commissioner.

Department of Energy

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Building for the Future Through Electric Regional Transmission Planning
and Cost Allocation and Generator Interconnection

Docket No. RM21-17-000
(Issued July 15, 2021)
DANLY, Commissioner, concurring:

    1. I concur with the issuance of this Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANOPR) because the Commission is always entitled to solicit
comments on possible changes to existing rules and a number of the
questions raised here are worthy of consideration.
    2. I write separately to highlight one overarching concern. The
ANOPR poses several questions where the answer is ``no.'' Many of the
contemplated proposals would exceed or cede our jurisdictional
authority, violate cost causation principles, create stifling layers of
oversight and ``coordination,'' trample transmission owners' rights,
force neighboring states' ratepayers to shoulder the costs of other
states' public policy choices, treat renewables as a new favored class
of generation with line-jumping privileges, and perhaps inadvertently
lead to much less transmission being built and at much greater all-in
cost to ratepayers.
    3. There are obviously problems with the existing transmission
regime. I, for example, have long been troubled by interconnection
logjams and have wondered whether we are needlessly propping up fantasy
projects while viable projects get lost in the crowd.\1\ This is but
one example; there are any number of other critical transmission
planning reforms that bear investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See, e.g., PacifiCorp, 171 FERC ] 61,112 (2020) (Danly,
Comm'r, concurring).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. My hope therefore is that commenters will supply us with a full
record on each issue raised in the ANOPR: Whether and why the existing
rule works or not, and whether and why the possible reform may work or
not. With every proposed change, I specifically solicit comments on two
subjects. First: Is the contemplated reform a proper exercise of the
Commission's authority, i.e., is it within our jurisdiction? That is
always the threshold question before we turn to policy. Second: what
will be the ultimate effect on ratepayers? I fear that in the
enthusiasm to build transmission, many may tout the benefits of new
transmission while overlooking the costs that will eventually be borne
by ratepayers. No proposed policy,

however worthy, can evade our statutory duty to ensure that rates are
just and reasonable.
    5. I encourage everyone with an interest to file. I look forward to
learning from the parties that submit comments and to engaging with my
colleagues to consider whether there are legally durable, economically
sound reforms that we might consider to improve the reliability of the
transmission system at just and reasonable rates.
    For these reasons, I respectfully concur.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
James P. Danly,

Commissioner.

Department of Energy

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Building for the Future Through Electric Regional Transmission Planning
and Cost Allocation and Generator Interconnection

Docket No. RM21-17-000
(Issued July 15, 2021)
CHRISTIE, Commissioner, concurring:

    1. I concur with today's ANOPR because approximately ten years
after the Commission issued Order No. 1000, it is appropriate to review
the implementation of that order, assess the successes and problems
that have become evident over the past decade, and consider reforms and
revisions to existing regulations governing regional transmission
planning and cost allocation. This consideration of potential reforms
is especially timely as the transmission system faces the challenge of
maintaining reliability through the changing generation mix and efforts
to reduce carbon emissions.
    2. The broad goal of the Commission's regulation of our nation's
power grid under the Federal Power Act (FPA) is to ensure a reliable
power supply to consumers, which includes residential customers as well
as the businesses providing jobs for tens of millions of Americans, at
just and reasonable rates. Transmission is one of the three essential
elements of a reliable power system, along with generation and
distribution, so continually working to make America's transmission
system more reliable, more efficient, and more cost-effective is our
job at FERC.
    3. As with Order No. 1000, the statutory framework governing our
potential actions in this proceeding remains section 206 of the FPA,
which requires us to ensure that all transmission planning processes
and cost allocation mechanisms subject to our jurisdiction result in
jurisdictional services being provided at rates, terms and conditions
that are just, reasonable, and not unduly discriminatory or
preferential. Any proposals ultimately adopted by this Commission for
reforms or revisions to existing regulations must be consistent with
this authority.
    4. As Paragraph 4 of the ANOPR makes clear,\1\ we have not
predetermined that any specific proposal in this ANOPR has already been
or will ultimately be approved. Rather, we seek comment from all
interested persons and organizations on the wide range of proposals
contained herein, as well as the submission of alternative proposals.
Today is the beginning of a long process and I look forward to hearing
from all concerned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ANOPR at P 4 (``We note that the Commission has not
predetermined that any specific proposal discussed herein shall or
should be made or in what final form; rather, we seek comment from
the public on those proposals and welcome commenters to offer
additional or alternative proposals for consideration.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Similarly, my concurrence to issue today's ANOPR does not
represent an endorsement at this point in the process of any one or
more of the proposals included in the order. This ANOPR contains a
number of good proposals, some potentially good proposals (depending on
how they are fleshed out), and frankly, some proposals that are not--
and may never be--ready for prime time, or could potentially cause
massive increases in consumers' bills for little to no commensurate
benefit or inappropriately expand the role of federal regulation over
local utility regulation. Given the early stage of this process,
however, I agree it is worthwhile to submit a broad range of proposals
to the public for comment in the hope that the final result will be a
more reliable, more efficient, and more cost-effective transmission
system.
    For these reasons, I respectfully concur.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark C. Christie,

Commissioner.

[FR Doc. 2021-15512 Filed 7-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 108 (Wednesday, June 7, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26492-26494]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11818]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2017-N-2734]

Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting;
Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) announces a
forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Oncologic Drugs
Advisory Committee. The general function of the committee is to provide
advice and recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
The meeting will be open to the public. FDA is establishing a docket
for public comment on this document.

DATES: The public meeting will be held on July 12, 2017, from 8 a.m. to
5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Building 31
Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-
0002. Answers to commonly asked questions including information
regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking,
and transportation may be accessed at: https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm.
    FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting.
The docket number is FDA-2017-N-2734. The docket will close on July 10,
2017. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public
meeting by July 10, 2017. Late, untimely filed comments will not be
considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before July 10,
2017. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will
accept comments until midnight eastern time, July 10, 2017. 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.
    Comments received on or before June 26, 2017, will be provided to
the committee. Comments received after that date will be taken into
consideration by the Agency.
    You may submit comments as follows:

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): 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-2017-N-2734 for ``Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of
Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments.''
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 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 https://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: 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 Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Shepherd, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-9001, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory
Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the
Washington, DC area). A notice in the Federal Register about last
minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory
committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide
timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the Agency's Web site
at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down
to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link, or call the
advisory committee information line to learn about possible
modifications before coming to the meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Agenda: The committee will discuss biologics license application
(BLA) 125646, for tisagenlecleucel-T suspension for intravenous use.
The application was submitted by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. The
proposed indication (use) for this product is for the treatment of
pediatric and young adult patients 3 to 25 years of age with relapsed/
refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
All electronic and written submissions submitted to the Docket (see the
ADDRESSES section) on or before June 26, 2017, will be provided to the
committee. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between
approximately 10:30 a.m. to 11 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 4 p.m. Those
individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should
notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general
nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and
addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the
approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before June
16, 2017. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the
number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be
reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing
session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the
scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify
interested persons regarding their request to speak by June 19, 2017.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
disabilities. If you require special accommodations due to a
disability, please contact Jennifer Shepherd at least 7 days in advance
of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on

public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: June 1, 2017.
Anna K. Abram,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2017-11818 Filed 6-6-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 149 (Monday, August 3, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46620-46621]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16726]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[R01-OW-2020; FRL-10012-96-Region 1]

Program Requirement Revisions Related to the Public Water System
Supervision Programs for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the State
of Connecticut and the State of New Hampshire

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
the State of Connecticut and the State of New Hampshire are revising
their respective approved Public Water System Supervision (PWSS)
programs to meet the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA).

DATES: All interested parties may request a public hearing for any of
the above EPA determinations. A request for a public hearing must be
submitted by September 2, 2020, to the Regional Administrator at the
address shown below. Frivolous or insubstantial requests for a hearing
may be denied by the Regional Administrator.
    However, if a substantial request for a public hearing is made by
this date, a public hearing will be held. If no timely and appropriate
request for a hearing is received, and the Regional Administrator does
not elect to hold a hearing on his/her own motion, this determination
shall become final and effective September 2, 2020.
    Any request for a public hearing shall include the following
information: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the
individual organization, or other entity requesting a hearing; (2) a
brief statement of the requesting person's interest in the Regional
Administrator's determination; (3) information that the requesting
person intends to submit at such hearing; and (4) the signature of the
individual making the request, or if the request is made on behalf of
an organization or other entity, the signature of a responsible
official of the organization or other entity.

ADDRESSES: All documents relating to this determination are available
for inspection between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, at the following office(s): U.S. Environmental
Protection, Water Division, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA
02109-3912.
    For state-specific documents:

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Drinking Water, One Winter Street,
Boston, MA 02108

Connecticut Department of Public Health, Drinking Water Section, 410
Capital Avenue, Hartford, CT 06134
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Drinking Water and
Groundwater Bureau, 29 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03302-0095

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeri Weiss, U.S. EPA-New England,
Water Division, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has
adopted a drinking water regulation for the Arsenic Rule (66 FR 6976)
promulgated on January 22, 2001. After review of documentation
submitted by the Commonwealth, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has determined that the Commonwealth's Arsenic Rule is no less
stringent than the corresponding federal regulation, with the
understanding that the Commonwealth's regulation includes a
typographical error that the Commonwealth has agreed to correct. EPA
considers this issue to be minor and believes it should not preclude
granting the Commonwealth primacy for the reasons detailed below.
    The Commonwealth of Massachusetts revised its Drinking Water
Regulations for Arsenic promulgated at 310 CMR 22.06, 310 CMR 22.07A,
and 310 CMR 22.07B effective December 6, 2002. Under federal
regulations, the arsenic Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) is 0.01 mg/l.
The Commonwealth's regulation contains the correct value for the
arsenic MCL. However, there is a typographical error in the
Commonwealth's public notice requirements at 310 CMR 22.16 Table 7.C.,
Standard Health Effects Language for Public Notification. In that
table, the Commonwealth erroneously lists the MCL for arsenic as 0.05
mg/l when it should read 0.01 mg/l. MCL. Despite the typographical
error, the Commonwealth issues reports based on exceedances of the
correct value for the arsenic MCL. The Commonwealth has indicated that
it will correct the typographical error in its upcoming regulatory
revision later this year. Therefore, EPA intends to approve the
Commonwealth's PWSS program revision for its Arsenic rule.
    The State of Connecticut has adopted a drinking water regulation
for the Consumer Confidence Report Rule (63 FR 44511) promulgated on
August 19, 1998, the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (63
FR 69478-69521) promulgated on December 16, 1998, and the Long Term 1
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (67 FR 1812) promulgated on
January 14, 2002. After review of the documentation submitted by the
State, EPA has determined that the State of Connecticut's regulation
for these three drinking water rules is no less stringent than the
corresponding federal regulations. EPA intends to approve Connecticut's
PWSS program revision for these three rules.
    The State of New Hampshire has adopted a drinking water regulation
for the Arsenic Rule (66 FR 6976) promulgated on January 22, 2001.
After review of the documentation submitted by the State, EPA has
determined that the state of New Hampshire's rule is no less stringent
than the corresponding federal regulation. EPA's primary enforcement
responsibility regulations require states that accept electronic
documents from public water systems to have adopted regulations
consistent with 40 CFR part 3 (electronic reporting). New Hampshire
accepts electronic documents and is in the process of completing
elements of its electronic reporting program that will supplement the
State's already existing legal authority under the State's Uniform
Electronic Transactions Act. Therefore, EPA intends to approve New
Hampshire's PWSS program revision for its Arsenic rule.

(Authority: Section 1401 (42 U.S.C 300f) and Section 1413 (42 U.S.C
300g-2) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended (1996), and (40
CFR 142.10) of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations)

    Dated: July 27, 2020.
Dennis Deziel,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1--New England.
[FR Doc. 2020-16726 Filed 7-31-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 227 (Monday, November 26, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60340-60341]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25576]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0194; Airspace Docket No. 18-AGL-6]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Madison, MN

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies Class E airspace extending up to 700 feet
above the surface at Lac Qui Parle County Airport, Madison, MN, to
accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures for instrument
flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport. The FAA is taking this
action due to the decommissioning of the Madison non-directional radio
beacon (NDB) and cancellation of the associated approach. This enhances
the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, February 28, 2019. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11C at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to https://

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Walter Tweedy, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend controlled airspace in Class E airspace, at Lac Qui
Parle County Airport, Madison, MN, to support instrument flight rules
(IFR) operations at the airport.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (83 FR 44248; August 30, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2018-0194 to
amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
at Lac Qui Parle County Airport, Madison, MN. Interested parties were
invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written
comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15,
2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15,
2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface within a 6.4-mile radius (increased from a 6.3-mile radius)
at Lac Qui Parle County Airport, Madison, MN. The segment 7.4 miles
southeast of the airport will be removed due to the decommissioning of
the Madison NDB and cancellation of the associated approach. This
action enhances the safety and management of the standard instrument
approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11C,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and
effective September 15, 2018, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AGL MN E5 Madison, MN [Amended]

Madison-Lac Qui Parle Airport, MN
    (Lat. 44[deg]59'11'' N, long. 96[deg]10'40'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of the Madison-Lac Qui Parle Airport, MN.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 14, 2018.
Anthony Schneider,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2018-25576 Filed 11-23-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 32 (Thursday, February 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 9230]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3637]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 14181-000; 14195-000]

Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XLIII; FFP Project 53, LLC; Notice
Announcing Preliminary Permit Drawing

    The Commission has received two preliminary permit applications
deemed filed on May 3, 2011, at 8:30 a.m.,\1\ for proposed projects to
be located on the Tombigbee River, in Greene and Sumter counties,
Alabama. The applications were filed by Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XLIII
for Project No. 14181-000, and FFP Project 53, LLC for Project No.
14195-000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, any
document received after regular business hours is considered filed
at 8:30 a.m. on the next regular business day. 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(2)
(2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 22, 2012, at 9 a.m. (Eastern Time), the Secretary of
the Commission, or her designee, will conduct a random drawing to
determine the filing priority of the applicants identified in this
notice. The Commission will select among competing permit applications
as provided in section 4.37 of its regulations.\2\ The priority
established by this drawing will be used to determine which applicant,
among those with identical filing times, will be considered to have the
first-filed application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR 4.37 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The drawing is open to the public and will be held in Room 2C, the
Commission Meeting Room, located at 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC
20426. A subsequent notice will be issued by the Secretary announcing
the results of the drawing.

    Dated: February 10, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-3637 Filed 2-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P