Multi emissions Proposal Minnesota Issues August 24, 2004 M. Cashin 8/ 24/ 04 Air Emission Considerations Minnesota ° NAAQS attainment state ° Low SO2 emission rate compared to national average ° Burns low sulfur, low mercury coal ° Majority of coal generation already scrubbed ° Emissions not significantly impacting nonattainment areas   USEPA modeling questions winter NOx transport ° Focus is preserve air quality standard attainment,

regional haze improvements, mercury reduction   Clean Air Minnesota ( voluntary program, established 2002)

  Minnesota Voluntary Mercury Reduction Initiative Minnesota and neighboring north central states best match western state air quality issues MP Electric Power Trend 0 10 1980 1990 2000 MP MN Unit Generation ( Million MWHs)

Emission Rate ( lbs Criteria Pollutant/ MBtu)

Annual Emissions ( 10,000' s Tons) MP Generation Emission rate Annual Emissions 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 Lbs./ mmBTU Minnesota Power's Plant Emission Rates are Low PM 0.17 0.06 0.29 NOx 0.76 0.39 0.42 SO2 1.18 0.46 2.62 MP 1980 actual MP 2000 actual MP Permitted Emissions SO2 NOx PM Minnesota Power's coal plants have about a 70% compliance margin for maintaining local air quality attainment All Minnesota Power plants are operated with environmental controls that enable them to outperform emission limits established to support local air quality standard attainment.

Allowed Actual Minnesota air quality has improved significantly over the last three decades and is in attainment with all the NAAQS. Multi Emission Program Goals ° Certainty   Planning: coordinated and reinforcing objectives ° Environmental controls and related fuel/ operating needs ° New capacity, future energy procurement needs ° Fair and equitable   Cost effective action ( avoid technology forcing)

  Flexibility, with market based incentives   Credit for early action & " baseline" protection ° Support national energy policy objectives   e. g. Fuel diversity, energy independence, economic growth ° Sound science must guide environmental quality objectives Diminishing Returns from SO2 Emission Controls Measures North Central States are in air quality standard attainment.

Attainment Designation Expected Acid Rain: A residual concern in the Northeast US < 4.7 pH?

MN is " OK" for acid deposition High Emissions Density Matches Problem Area Hg Annual Deposition ( µ g/ m2 y) 2004 Base Simulation Minnesota Mercury Deposition 10 to 15 ug/ m2 y, about a third that of eastern states.

US electric utilities contribute up to 7% ( ref. EPRI) U. S. Mercury Deposition from Non U. S.

Sources % contribution by non U. S. sources,

2004 Three quarters of Minnesota Mercury Deposition Sources from Non US Sources ( ref. EPRI) Wind transport of emissions to problem areas,

need a multi state solution Ozone Change if No Manmade Emissions in MN, IA, NE, SD, ND Benefits are local, in areas already in ozone attainment.

Twin Cities is VOC limited, need VOC reductions to preserve ozone attainment margin. Minnesota monitored visibility ( haze) degradation does not exceed Grid 2. Haze is not a major public concern in Minnesota. ( graphics, USEPA)

Grid 1, < 12 dV ( near natural background) Grid 4, < 40 dV Grid 3, < 30 dV Grid 2, < 20 dV Wide Disparities Exist Between Company Average Emission Rates Equitable allocation should assure low emitters are not allowance short or technology forced Mix, higher sulfur coal or no scrubbers ALLETE ( Minnesota Power)

( 80+ % scrubbed, low sulfur coal)

Reference: Benchmarking Air Emissions of the 100 Largest Electric Generation Owners in the U. S.  2000 March 2002, NRDC, PSEG, CERES EPA's Transport Rule Proposal ° MN utility emissions not a significant PM2.5 or ozone nonattainment contributor   Utility NOx < 0.1 ug/ m3 nonattainment area impact ( estimate from EPA data), 20% of the MN NOx inventory,

  Utility NOx plus SO2 < 0.15 ug/ m3 modeled impact.

  Minnesota emissions ( all sources) under 2 ppb ozone impact ° EPA calculates health benefits as if all fine particulate components have similar impacts, ARIES interim findings not considered   Fine Particulate, statistically significant health impacts ( ARIES)

° Yes, carbon/ organic fine particulates health impacts ° No, sulfates fine particulates health impacts ° Models not suitable for assigning transport culpability at less than 1 ug/ m3 significance ° Clean Air Minnesota voluntary reductions were not modeled so MN emissions influence is overstated. 1999 Ozone Precursor Inventory ( 13 county MN WI CMSA metro area)

NOx Contribution Point 35%

Area 6%

Mobile 57% Biogenic 2% VOC Contributions Point 9% Area 38%

Mobile 42% Biogenic 11%

Based on 1999 data from Sonoma Technology Report at MPCA website: http:// www. pca. state. mn. us/ publications/ reports/ ozonestudy2002. pdf Twin Cities area emissions are dominated by mobile sources Summary ° A 25 to 30% reduction in NOx will likely be achieved ° A 15 to 20 % reduction in VOC will likely be achieved ° Mandated federal fuel and car changes and Stage 1 vapor control will provide 90 t/ day NOx & 72 t/ day VOC reductions by 2010 ° Current CAM commitments will provide 8 t/ day VOC and 106 t/ day NOx reductions by 2010 or earlier ° CAM will set a goal to meet 30% NOx reduction and a 22% VOC reduction ° Additional modeling, monitoring and data collection are needed to refine the goals in the future. Plant Pollutant Before ( tpy) After ( tpy) Change ( tpy) (%)

King SO2 26,000 2,400 23,600 91 NOx 18,700 2,000 16,700 89 High Bridge SO2 3,100 0 3,100 100 NOx 4,500 100 4,400 99 Riverside SO2 12,000 0 12,000 100 NOx 13,200 100 13,100 Metropolitan Emission Reduction Program Targets Twin Cities Area Reductions To Reduce SO2 about 40,000 tons per year To Reduce NOx about 34,000 tons per year Capital Cost Estimate Exceeds $ 1 Billion ( Ref. Rick Rosvold Xcel Energy  Environmental Services Department)

Plant Project Cost King $ 385 million ( 2001 dollars)

High Bridge $ 394 million ( 2001 dollars)

Riverside $ 226 million ( 2001 dollars) All Tachyarrhythmic Events Days ( Lag 0)

Provisional Results Organic/ Carbon Particulates ARIES: Health impact correlation 2020 Clear Skies Control Case PM2.5 Species 0 5 10 15 20 Chicago ug/

m3 Unattributed Crustal Elemental Carbon Primary Organics Biogenic Secondary Organics Anthropogenic Secondary Organics Ammonium Nitrate Ammonium Sulfate Clear Skies and Transport Rule proposals provide for SO2 and NOx emission reductions. Organic/ carbon emissions are primarily sourced from motor vehicles.

Interim study findings ( ARIES, Metzger et. al.) show it is the organic/ carbon particulates that exert statistically significant health impacts.

15.93 Ammonium Sulfate and Nitrate post CSA Phase 2 ARIES: No statistically significant health impacts Ref. USEPA, July 28, 2003 Ref. CMAQ Model Performance Evaluation Conducted by USEPA, OAQPS 7/ 17/ 04 Annual Average Particulate Nitrate Performance 1: 1 correlation line Better fit ? 1.5: 1 +/ 3/ 4 ug/ m3 CMAQ modeling vs. IMPROVE Monitor Observations Ref. CMAQ Model Performance Evaluation Conducted by USEPA, OAQPS 7/ 17/ 04 Seasonal Average Particulate Nitrate Performance 1: 1 correlation line Better fit ? 1.5: 1 +/ 1.5 ug/ m3 CMAQ modeling vs. IMPROVE Monitor Observations Ref. CMAQ Model Performance Evaluation Conducted by USEPA, OAQPS 7/ 17/ 04 Annual Average Particulate Nitrate Performance 1: 1 correlation line Better fit ? 1.5: 1 +/ 2 ug/ m3 CMAQ modeling vs. STN Monitor Observations Ref. CMAQ Model Performance Evaluation Conducted by USEPA, OAQPS 7/ 17/ 04 Seasonal Average Particulate Nitrate Performance 1: 1 correlation line Better fit ? 1.5: 1 +/ 4 ug/ m3 CMAQ modeling vs. STN Monitor Observations Seasonal Average Particulate Nitrate Performance REMSAD v7.01 REMSAD v7.06 ( CSA)

Seasonal Average Nitrate IMPROVE Annual REMSAD 1996 Modeling ( nrd96)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Improve Observations ( ug/ m3)

REMSAD Predictions (

ug/

m3) Summer Fall Spring Winter Seasonal Average Nitrate IMPROVE Annual REMSAD( v7.06) 1996 Modeling ( CSA2003)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Improve Observations ( ug/ m3)

REMSAD Predictions (

ug/

m3) Summer Fall Spring Winter 1: 1 correlation line Correlation between model predicted nitrate and Improve measurements is skewed, modeling overstates nitrate Better fit ? 3: 1 Better fit ? 3: 1 +/ 2 ug/ m3 Seasonal Average Organic Aerosols Performance REMSAD v7.01 REMSAD v7.06 ( CSA)

Seasonal Average Organic Aerosols IMPROVE Annual REMSAD 1996 Modeling ( nrd96)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Improve Observations ( ug/ m3)

REMSAD Predictions (

ug/

m3) Summer Fall Spring Winter Seasonal Average Organic Aerosols IMPROVE Annual REMSAD( v7.06) 1996 Modeling ( CSA2003)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IMPROVE Observations ( ug/ m3)

REMSAD Predictions (

ug/

m3) Summer Fall Spring Winter 1: 1 correlation line Correlation model predicted organics vs. Improve measurements.

Skewed & highly variable. Model understates organic particulates.

Better fit ? 1: 2 +/ 2 ug/ m3 Fit ? 1: 1 +/ 2 ug/ m3 Seasonal Average Sulfate Performance REMSAD v7.01 REMSAD v7.06 ( CSA)

Seasonal Average Sulfate IMPROVE Annual REMSAD 1996 Modeling ( nrd96)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Improve Observations ( ug/ m3)

REMSAD Predictions (

ug/

m3) Summer Fall Spring Winter Seasonal Average Sulfate IMPROVE Annual REMSAD( v7.06) 1996 Modeling ( CSA2003)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Improve Observations ( ug/ m3)

REMSAD Predictions (

ug/

m3) Summer Fall Spring Winter Correlation between model predicted sulfate and Improve measurements is good to about +/ 2 ug/ m3 1: 1 correlation line +/ 2 ug/ m3 Summary of Impacts on 2010 PM2.5/ nitrate/ sulfate based on zeroout of all SO2+ NOx emissions in MN  Of the 66 nonattainment receptors:

+ MN impacts PM2.5 at 24 receptors by 0.10 ug/ m3 or more + MN impacts PM2.5 at 4 receptors by 0.25 ug/ m3 or more  Example impacts of MN SO2+ NOx emissions on Chicago ( Cook Co site 170310052) and St. Louis ( Madison Co, IL site 171191007) [ note, sulfate+ nitrate impacts don't equal PM2.5 impacts b/ c there is also a slight impact on organics from NOx reductions]

+ Chicago 2010 Base DV at this site is 18.14 ug/ m3 + impact of MN on annual avg PM2.5 at this site is 0.38 + impact on annual avg ammonium sulfate is 0.09 + impact on annual avg ammonium nitrate is 0.28 + max quarterly avg impact on nitrate is 0.52 ( 1st qtr)

+ St. Louis 2010 Base DV at this site is 16.38 ug/ m3 + impact of MN on annual avg PM2.5 at this site is 0.27 + impact on annual avg ammonium sulfate is 0.08 + impact on annual avg ammonium nitrate is 0.18 + max quarterly avg impact on nitrate is 0.42 ( 1st qtr)

Impacts on 2010 8 Hr ozone based on CAMx Source Attribution Technique  Max impact on 8 hr ozone nonattainment is 1 ppb in Chicago Minnesota Impact on Annual Average PM2.5 ( SO2 + NOx) in 2010 PM2.5: Regional Reductions Region 1 Region 3 Region 5 Region 1 Region 3 Region 5  60% SOx and NOx: Summer  60% SOx and NOx: Winter Modeled Region 1 particulate benefits are local, not transporting east.

1 3 5 Regional Source Emissions under Clear Skies CSA 2020 Modeled Emission Reductions in Minnesota:

° 14% reduction in SO2 emissions ° 70% reduction in NOx emissions ° 3% reduction in mercury emissions EPA assesses CSA emission reductions in Minnesota based on control retrofit costs vs. projected price to buy allowances from other states.

The best modeled MN economic for SO2 and mercury is to help pay for controls in high emissions states through allowance purchases.


[Federal Register: July 31, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 146)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 43071-43073]
[DOCID:fr31jy06-13]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1987-0002; FRL-8204-2]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of partial deletion of the Rocky Mountain Arsenal
National Priorities List Site from the National Priorities List.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 announces
the deletion of the Internal Parcel of the Rocky Mountain Arsenal
National Priorities List (RMA/NPL) Site from the National Priorities
List (NPL). All areas originally proposed for deletion (71 FR 24627),
except for a three-acre area which encompasses the Rail Yard Treatment
System, are being deleted (see map). The Rail Yard Treatment System is
excluded from the Internal Parcel due to a delay in developing the
Interim Construction Completion Report. With the Rail Yard area
excluded, the Internal Parcel consists of 7,396 acres (11.5 square
miles) of the On-Post Operable Unit of RMA. The NPL constitutes
Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated
pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended. EPA and the State
of Colorado, through the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment (CDPHE), have determined that the Internal Parcel of the
RMA/NPL Site poses no significant threat to public health or the
environment and, therefore, no further remedial measures pursuant to
CERCLA are appropriate.
    This partial deletion pertains to the surface media (soil, surface
water, sediment), structures, and groundwater of the Internal Parcel of
the On-Post OU of the RMA/NPL Site. The Internal Parcel includes
groundwater that is east of E Street with the exception of a small area
in the northwest corner of Section 6. The Rail Yard Treatment System
and the rest of the On-Post OU, including groundwater below RMA that is
west of E Street and the small area in the northwest corner of Section
6, as well as the Off-Post OU will remain on the NPL. This partial
deletion of the Internal Parcel will not change Appendix B of 40 CFR
part 300, which was previously amended in January 2003 (68 FR 2699) to
reflect that a partial deletion of 1.5 square miles from the RMA/NPL
Site had occurred.

DATES: This partial deletion of the Internal Parcel is effective on
July 31, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jennifer Chergo, Community
Involvement Coordinator (8OC), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466;

telephone number: 1-800-227-8917 or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: 303-
312-6961; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Rocky Mountain Arsenal National
Priorities List (RMA/NPL) Site is located in southern Adams County,
Colorado and is comprised of two operable units (OU), the On-Post and
Off-Post. The On-Post OU of the RMA/NPL Site encompasses 17.2 square
miles (11,007 acres) approximately eight miles northeast of downtown
Denver, Colorado. The Off-Post OU addresses contamination north and
northwest of the RMA proper boundaries. The Internal Parcel consists of
approximately 11.5 square miles (7,396 acres) of the On-Post OU of RMA
in Commerce City, Colorado.
    This partial deletion pertains to the surface media (soil, surface
water, sediment), structures, and groundwater of the Internal Parcel of
the On-Post OU of the RMA/NPL Site. The Internal Parcel includes
groundwater that is east of E Street with the exception of a small area
in the northwest corner of Section 6. The rest of the On-Post OU,
including groundwater below RMA that is west of E Street and the small
area in the northwest corner of Section 6, and the Off-Post OU will
remain on the NPL.
    On April 26, 2006, EPA published a Notice of Intent for Partial
Deletion (NOIDp) in the Federal Register (71 FR 24627) and local
newspapers which proposed to delete the Internal Parcel from the RMA/
NPL Site. EPA received comment letters from ninety-four organizations/
entities and individuals. Authors of six letters were opposed to the
proposed partial deletion of the Internal Parcel. One of these letters
requested postponement of the deletion stating that the 60-day review
time was insufficient to review and resolve questions regarding
characterization of the eastern portion of the Internal Parcel and
their perception of unnecessary risk posed by deletion of the western
portion of the Internal Parcel. Several commenters also questioned the
``piece-meal'' approach to the Internal Parcel deletion.
    In our Responsiveness Summary, EPA described the CERCLA
investigation process and how various areas of the Internal Parcel,
including the eastern portion which includes the groundwater aquifer
below a demolition range, were characterized. This process included
file searches, ``desktop'' information (e.g., aerial photographs)
searches, site reconnaissance, and collection of both soil and
groundwater samples during the Remedial Investigation (RI). Soil
samples were collected from burn pits and ordnance disposal areas,
specific areas of concern to the commenters, during the RI. Explosive
residue and Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)-metals
were addressed during pre-design studies for the Burial Trenches and
Munitions (Testing) Soil Remediation Project. These studies showed that
explosive residue and TCLP-metal concentrations were below risk-based
regulatory levels. Considering these studies, the geology of the area,
as well as the history of the disposal areas, there is no evidence of
explosive or TCLP-metal soil contamination that could act as a source
of groundwater contamination. The discovery of limited additional
contamination at one area subsequent to the original excavation being
completed demonstrates the multiple, sometimes overlapping, elements of
the selected remedy that protect human health and the environment.
These elements include excavation of known contaminated soil, further
evaluation of ecological risks, and collection of confirmatory samples.
    EPA ensures that human health is protected from on-going remedial
activities on the remaining NPL areas through effective control of
project emissions, restricting visitor access, and implementation of
the Site-Wide Air Quality Monitoring Program Plan, including monitoring
of air emissions. There are two major project areas that involve
disturbance of contaminated soil remaining in the NPL area. Visitors to
the Refuge are restricted to areas located approximately one mile from
the Lime Basin slurry wall project and approximately two miles from the
Basin F projects. Air emissions are measured at the current fenceline
and near the Visitor Center to verify that potential risks to visitors
and the nearby communities are minimized. These requirements to protect
human health will remain in place irrespective of the deletion of the
Internal Parcel.
    EPA's responsiveness summary further explained how only areas which
met the criteria of ``Responsible parties or other persons have
implemented all appropriate response actions required'' (40 CFR
300.425(e)(1)(i)) were considered for deletion. EPA's Partial Deletions
Rule, published November 1, 1995, was intended to allow portions of a
site or an OU that have been cleaned up to be available for productive
use, especially where total site cleanup may take many years. This
description accurately reflects the ongoing cleanup at the RMA/NPL
Site, which is over 50 percent complete, i.e., ten years of the
fifteen-year schedule have passed and 16 of the 31 remedy projects have
been completed. Partial deletion of the Internal Parcel communicates to
the public the successful implementation of the remedy and progress
toward final cleanup. In addition, it helps the Army achieve its goal
of transferring property and furthers the purposes of the RMA National
Wildlife Refuge Act (1992). The Internal Parcel deletion, though
described as ``piece-meal'' by the commenters, is consistent with other
partial deletions that leave islands of an NPL site surrounded or
abutted by deleted lands, e.g., Cecil Field, (68 FR 27746).
    The remaining eighty-eight letters supported proceeding with the
Internal Parcel deletion based upon their confidence in the
thoroughness of the cleanup activities conducted by the Department of
the Army (Army) and Shell Oil Company (Shell). EPA agrees that
completion of the remedy requirements as well as recent, site-wide
studies adequately demonstrate that the Internal Parcel does not
present a threat to the environment or human health and deletion of the
Internal Parcel from the RMA/NPL Site is appropriate.
    EPA identifies sites that appear to present a significant risk to
public health, welfare, or the environment and maintains the NPL as the
list of those sites. Any site deleted from the NPL remains eligible for
Fund-financed actions in the unlikely event that conditions at the site
warrant such action. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that Fund-
financed actions may be taken at sites deleted from the NPL. Deletion
of a site from the NPL does not affect responsible party liability or
impede Agency efforts to recover costs associated with response
efforts.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31JY06.000

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: July 24, 2006.
Robert E. Roberts,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 06-6572 Filed 7-28-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 29, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41035-41038]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18222]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2016-N-4119]

Food Safety Modernization Act Third-Party Certification Program
User Fee Rate for Fiscal Year 2018

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
fiscal year (FY) 2018 annual fee rate for recognized accreditation
bodies and accredited certification bodies, and the fee rate for
accreditation bodies applying to be recognized in the third-party
certification program that is authorized by the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as amended by the FDA Food Safety
Modernization Act (FSMA).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Prater, Office of Foods and
Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm. 3234, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

DATES: This fee is effective October 1, 2017.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 307 of FSMA, Accreditation of Third-Party Auditors, amended
the FD&C Act to create a new provision, section 808, under the same
name. Section 808 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 384d) directs FDA to
establish a program for accreditation of third-party certification
bodies \1\ conducting food safety audits and issuing food and facility
certifications to eligible foreign entities (including registered
foreign food facilities) that meet our applicable requirements. Under
this provision, we established a system for FDA to recognize
accreditation bodies to accredit certification bodies, except for
limited circumstances in which we may directly accredit certification
bodies to participate in the third-party certification program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For the reasons explained in the third-party certification
final rule (80 FR 74570 at 74578-74579, November 27, 2015), and for
consistency with the implementing regulations for the third-party
certification program in 21 CFR parts 1, 11, and 16, this notice
uses the term ``third-party certification body'' rather than the
term ``third-party auditor'' used in section 808(a)(3) of the FD&C
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 808(c)(8) of the FD&C Act directs FDA to establish a
reimbursement (user fee) program by which we assess fees and require
reimbursement for the work FDA performs to establish and administer the
third-party certification program under section 808 of the FD&C Act.
The user fee program for the third-party certification program was
established by a final rule entitled ``Amendments to Accreditation of
Third-Party Certification Bodies to Conduct Food Safety Audits and To
Issue Certifications to Provide for the User Fee Program'' (81 FR
90186, December 14, 2016).
    The FSMA FY 2018 third-party certification program user fee rate
announced in this notice is effective on October 1, 2017, and will
remain in effect through September 30, 2018.

II. Estimating the Average Cost of a Supported Direct FDA Work Hour for
FY 2018

    In each year, the costs of salary (or personnel compensation) and
benefits for FDA employees account for between 50 and 60 percent of the
funds available to, and used by, FDA. Almost all of the remaining funds
(operating funds) available to FDA are used to support FDA employees
for paying rent, travel, utility, information technology, and other
operating costs.

A. Estimating the Full Cost per Direct Work Hour in FY 2018

    Full-time Equivalent (FTE) reflects the total number of regular
straight-time hours--not including overtime or holiday hours--worked by
employees,

divided by the number of compensable hours applicable to each fiscal
year. Annual leave, sick leave, compensatory time off, and other
approved leave categories are considered ``hours worked'' for purposes
of defining FTE employment.
    In general, the starting point for estimating the full cost per
direct work hour is to estimate the cost of an FTE or paid staff year.
Calculating an Agency-wide total cost per FTE requires three primary
cost elements: Payroll, non-payroll, and rent.
    We have used an average of past year cost elements to predict the
FY 2018 cost. The FY 2018 FDA-wide average cost for payroll (salaries
and benefits) is $154,638; non-payroll--including equipment, supplies,
IT, general and administrative overhead--is $89,224; and rent,
including cost allocation analysis and adjustments for other rent and
rent-related costs, is $23,922 per paid staff year, excluding travel
costs.
    Summing the average cost of an FTE for payroll, non-payroll, and
rent, brings the FY 2018 average fully supported cost to $267,783 per
FTE, excluding travel costs. FDA will use this base unit fee in
determining the hourly fee rate for third party certification user fees
for FY 2018 prior to including travel costs as applicable for the
activity.
    To calculate an hourly rate, FDA must divide the FY 2018 average
fully supported cost of $267,783 per FTE by the average number of
supported direct FDA work hours in FY 2016--the last FY for which data
are available. See table 1.

Table 1--Supported Direct FDA Work Hours in a Paid Staff Year in FY 2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Number of Hours in a Paid Staff Year...................      2,080
Less:
    10 paid holidays.........................................        -80
    20 days of annual leave..................................       -160
    10 days of sick leave....................................        -80
    12.5 days of training....................................       -100
    26.5 days of general administration......................       -184
    26.5 days of travel......................................       -212
    2 hours of meetings per week.............................       -104
                                                              ----------
        Net Supported Direct FDA Work Hours Available for         =1,160
         Assignments.........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dividing the average fully supported FTE cost in FY 2018 ($267,783)
by the total number of supported direct work hours available for
assignment in FY 2016 (1,160) results in an average fully supported
cost of $231 (rounded to the nearest dollar), excluding travel costs,
per supported direct work hour in FY 2018.

B. Adjusting FY 2016 Travel Costs for Inflation To Estimate FY 2018
Travel Costs

    To adjust the hourly rate for FY 2018, FDA must estimate the cost
of inflation in each year for FY 2017 and FY 2018. FDA uses the method
prescribed for estimating inflationary costs under the Prescription
Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) provisions of the FD&C Act (section 736(c)(1)
(21 U.S.C. 379h(c)(1)), the statutory method for inflation adjustment
in the FD&C Act that FDA has used consistently. FDA previously
determined the FY 2017 inflation rate to be 1.5468 percent; this rate
was published in the FY2017 PDUFA user fee rates notice in the Federal
Register. Utilizing the method set forth in section 736(c)(1) of the
FD&C Act, FDA has calculated an inflation rate of 1.5468 percent for FY
2017 and 1.6868 percent for FY 2018 and FDA intends to use this
inflation rate to make inflation adjustments for FY 2018 for several of
its user fee programs; the derivation of this rate will be published in
the Federal Register in the FY 2018 notice for the PDUFA user fee
rates. The compounded inflation rate for FYs 2017 and 2018, therefore,
is 1.032597 (or 3.2597 percent) (1 plus 1.5468 percent times 1 plus
1.6868 percent).
    The average fully supported cost per supported direct FDA work
hour, excluding travel costs, of $231 already takes into account
inflation as the calculation above is based on FY 2018 predicted costs.
FDA will use this base unit fee in determining the hourly fee rate for
third-party certification program fees for FY 2018 prior to including
travel costs as applicable for the activity. For the purpose of
estimating the fee, we are using the travel cost rate for foreign
travel because we anticipate that the vast majority of onsite
assessments made by FDA under this program will require foreign travel.
In FY 2016, the Office of Regulatory Affairs spent a total of
$2,166,592 on 344.31 foreign inspection trips related to FDA's Center
for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and Center for Veterinary
Medicine field activities programs, which averaged a total of $6,293
per foreign inspection trip. These trips averaged 3 weeks (or 120 paid
hours) per trip. Dividing $6,293 per trip by 120 hours per trip results
in a total and an additional cost of $52 (rounded to the nearest
dollar) per paid hour spent for foreign inspection travel costs in FY
2016. To adjust $52 for inflationary increases in FY 2017 and FY 2018,
FDA must multiply it by the same inflation factor mentioned previously
in this document (1.032597 or 3.2597 percent), which results in an
estimated cost of $54 (rounded to the nearest dollar) per paid hour in
addition to $231 for a total of $285 per paid hour ($231 plus $54) for
each direct hour of work requiring foreign inspection travel. FDA will
use these rates in charging fees in FY 2018 when travel is required for
the third-party certification program.

                 Table 2--FSMA Fee Schedule for FY 2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Fee rates for
                      Fee category                            FY 2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hourly rate without travel..............................            $231
Hourly rate if travel is required.......................             285
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Fees for Accreditation Bodies and Certification Bodies in the
Third-Party Certification Program Under Section 808(c)(8) of the FD&C
Act

    The third-party certification program assesses application fees and
annual fees. In FY18, the only fees that will be collected by FDA under
section 808(c)(8) of the FD&C Act are the initial application fee for
accreditation bodies seeking recognition, the annual fee for recognized
accreditation bodies, and the annual fee for certification bodies
accredited by a recognized accreditation body. Table 3 provides an
overview of the fees for FY 2018.

Table 3--FSMA Third-Party Certification Program User Fee Schedule for FY
                                  2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Fee rates for
                      Fee category                            FY 2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Application Fee for Accreditation Body Seeking           $37,935
 Recognition............................................
Annual Fee for Recognized Accreditation Body............           1,752
Annual Fee for Accredited Certification Body............           2,190
------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Application Fee for Accreditation Bodies Applying for Recognition in
the Third-Party Certification Program Under Section 808(c)(8) of the
FD&C Act

    Section 1.705(a)(1) (21 CFR 1.705(a)(1)) establishes an application
fee for accreditation bodies applying for initial recognition that
represents the estimated average cost of the work FDA performs in
reviewing and evaluating initial applications for recognition of
accreditation bodies.
    The fee is based on the fully supported FTE hourly rates and
estimates of the number of hours it

would take FDA to perform relevant activities. These estimates
represent FDA's current thinking, and as the program evolves, FDA will
reconsider the estimated hours. We estimate that it would take, on
average, 60 person-hours to review an accreditation body's submitted
application, 48 person-hours for an onsite performance evaluation of
the applicant (including travel and other steps necessary for a fully
supported FTE to complete an onsite assessment), and 45 person-hours to
prepare a written report documenting the onsite assessment.
    FDA employees are likely to review applications and prepare reports
from their worksites, so we use the fully supported FTE hourly rate
excluding travel, $231/hour, to calculate the portion of the user fee
attributable to those activities: $231/hour x (60 hours + 45 hours) =
$24,255. FDA employees will likely travel to foreign countries for the
onsite performance evaluations because most accreditation bodies are
located in foreign countries. For this portion of the fee we use the
fully supported FTE hourly rate for work requiring travel, $285/hour,
to calculate the portion of the user fee attributable to those
activities: $285/hour x 48 hours (i.e., 2 fully supported FTEs x (2
travel days + 1 day onsite)) = $13,680. The estimated average cost of
the work FDA performs in total for reviewing an initial application for
recognition for an accreditation body based on these figures would be
$24,255 + $13,680 = $37,935. Therefore the application fee for
accreditation bodies applying for recognition in FY 2018 will be
$37,935.

B. Annual Fee for Accreditation Bodies Participating in the Third-Party
Certification Program Under Section 808(c)(8) of the FD&C Act

    To calculate the annual fee for each recognized accreditation body,
FDA takes the estimated average cost of work FDA performs to monitor
performance of a single recognized accreditation body and annualizes
that over the average term of recognition. At this time we assume an
average term of recognition of 5 years. We also assume that FDA will
monitor 10 percent of recognized accreditation bodies onsite. As the
program proceeds, we will adjust the term of recognition as
appropriate. We estimate that for one performance evaluation of a
recognized accreditation body, it would take, on average (taking into
account that not all recognized accreditation bodies would be monitored
onsite), 24 hours for FDA to conduct records review, 8 hours to prepare
a report detailing the records review and onsite performance
evaluation, and 4.8 hours of onsite performance evaluation (i.e., 10
percent x 2 fully supported FTEs x (2 travel days + 2 day onsite)).
Using the fully supported FTE hourly rates in table 2, the estimated
average cost of the work FDA performs to monitor performance of a
single recognized accreditation body would be $7,392 ($231/hour x (24
hours + 8 hours)) plus $1,368 ($285/hour x 4.8 hours), which is $8,760.
Annualizing this amount over 5 years would lead to an annual fee for
recognized accreditation bodies of $1,752 for FY 2018.

C. Annual Fee for Certification Bodies Accredited by a Recognized
Accreditation Body in the Third-Party Certification Program Under
Section 808(c)(8) of the FD&C Act

    To calculate the annual fee for a certification body accredited by
a recognized accreditation body, FDA takes the estimated average cost
of work FDA performs to monitor performance of a single certification
body accredited by a recognized accreditation body and annualizes that
over the average term of accreditation. At this time we assume an
average term of accreditation of 4 years. This fee is based on the
fully supported FTE hourly rates and estimates of the number of hours
it would take FDA to perform relevant activities. We estimate that FDA
would conduct, on average, the same activities, for the same amount of
time to monitor certification bodies accredited by a recognized
accreditation body as we would to monitor an accreditation body
recognized by FDA. Using the fully supported FTE hourly rates in table
2, the estimated average cost of the work FDA performs to monitor
performance of a single accredited certification body would be $7,392
($231/hour x (24 hours + 8 hours)) plus $1,368 ($285/hour x 4.8 hours),
which is $8,760. Annualizing this amount over 4 years would lead to an
annual fee for accredited certification bodies of $2,190 for FY 2018.

IV. Estimated Fees for Accreditation Bodies and Certification Bodies in
Other Fee Categories for FY 2018

    Section 1.705(a) also establishes application fees for recognized
accreditation bodies submitting renewal applications, certification
bodies applying for direct accreditation, and certification bodies
applying for renewal of direct accreditation. Section 1.705(b)
establishes annual fees for recognized accreditation bodies,
certification bodies directly accredited by FDA, and certification
bodies accredited by recognized accreditation bodies.
    Although we will not be collecting all of these other fees in FY
2018, for transparency and planning purposes, we have provided an
estimate of what these fees would be for FY 2018 based on the fully
supported FTE hourly rates for FY 2018 and estimates of the number of
hours it would take FDA to perform relevant activities as outlined in
the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Third-Party Certification
Regulation. Table 4 provides an overview of the estimated fees for
other fee categories.

  Table 4--Estimated Fee Rates for Other Fee Categories Under the FSMA
                    Third-Party Certification Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Estimated fee
                      Fee category                         rates for FY
                                                               2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Renewal application fee for recognized accreditation             $21,049
 body...................................................
Initial application fee for certification body seeking            37,935
 direct-accreditation from FDA..........................
Renewal application fee for directly-accredited                   28,755
 certification body.....................................
Annual fee for certification body directly-accredited by          21,072
 FDA....................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. How must the fee be paid?

    Accreditation bodies seeking initial recognition must submit the
application fee with the application.
    For recognized accreditation bodies and accredited certification
bodies, an invoice will be sent annually. Payment must be made within
30 days of the invoice date. Detailed payment information will be
included with the invoice when it is issued.

VI. What are the consequences of not paying this fee?

    The consequences of not paying these fees are outlined in Sec.
1.725. If FDA does not receive an application fee with an application
for recognition, the application will be considered incomplete and FDA
will not review the application. If a recognized accreditation body
fails to submit its annual user fee within 30 days of the due date, we
will suspend its recognition. If the recognized accreditation body
fails to submit its annual user fee within 90 days of the due date, we
will revoke its recognition. If an accredited certification body fails
to pay its annual fee within 30 days of the due date, we will suspend
its accreditation. If the accredited certification body fails to pay
its annual

fee within 90 days of the due date, we will withdraw its accreditation.

    Dated: August 23, 2017.
Anna K. Abram,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2017-18222 Filed 8-28-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 13, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 40044]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17294]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER19-2534-000]

Citizens Energy Corporation; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced Citizens
Energy Corporation's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is August 26, 2019.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website 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 email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 6, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-17294 Filed 8-12-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 49)]
[Notices]
[Page 11158-11159]
[DOCID:fr16mr09-110]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59545; File No. SR-Phlx-2009-20]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. Relating
to Elimination of Sector Index Options From Monthly Firm Cap

March 9, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''), \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on February 25, 2009, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to eliminate the sector index options from
the Monthly Firm Cap.\3\ Additionally, the Exchange proposes minor
amendments to its fee schedule to clean up the formatting of its fee
schedule and correct a typographical error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Firm Proprietary Options Transaction Charges for equity and
sector index options, in the aggregate, for one billing month can
not exceed $75,000 per month, per member organization, except for
orders of joint back-office participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXRulefilings,
at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to no longer include the
options transaction charge associated with the sector index options in
the $75,000 Firm-Related Equity Option and Index Option Cap
calculation. The Exchange believes that it can continue to attract this
business without offering the cap, which should also help to raise
revenue. Specifically, ``firm-related'' charges include equity option
firm proprietary transaction charges and index option firm proprietary
transaction charges (``Monthly Firm Cap''). Currently, such firm-
related charges for equity option and index options, in the aggregate
for one billing month, would not exceed $75,000 per month per member
organization. The Monthly Firm Cap excludes orders of joint back-office
participants.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59393 (February 11,
2009), 74 FR 7721 (February 19, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-12) (increasing
the Firm-Related Equity Option and Index Option Cap to $75,000 and
exclude JBO participants).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange proposes the following clean-up
amendments to its Fee Schedule: (1) Removal of the date from the first
page of the Fee Schedule; (2) removal of page numbers from the Table of
Contents to be replaced by section numbers; and (3) removal of
underlining from all section headers on each page of the Fee
Schedule.\5\ The Exchange believes that these amendments will provide
for ease of motion in amending the Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59402 (February 13,
2009), 74 FR 8134 (February 23, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-08) (a proposal
to create a more user-friendly fee schedule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend a typographical error related
to its Examinations Fee. In filing SR-Phlx-2009-08 \6\, the Exchange
inadvertently indicated that the Examinations Fee for the number of
Off-Floor Traders, in the same Member Organization, that exceeded 200
in number is $12,000 per month.\7\ This fourth tier should have stated
that the Examinations Fee for the number of Off-Floor Traders, in the
same Member Organization, that exceeded 200 in number is $12,500 per
month. The Exchange proposes to amend this tier of the Examinations Fee

to properly reflect the amount previously filed with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54941 (December 14,
2006), 71 FR 77079 (December 22, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2006-70) (adopting a
tiered Examinations Fee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its schedule of
fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \8\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \9\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members. The Exchange believes that
the amendment to the Monthly Firm Cap is equitable in that it proposes
to eliminate all section index options. Additionally, the proposed
amendments to the formatting of the fee schedule will create a more
user friendly fee schedule. The proposal to correct the typographical
error in the Examination Fee should eliminate confusion among members
as to the amount of the fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \10\ and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 \11\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if
it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-Phlx-2009-20 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-2009-20. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 changes 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 inspection and copying in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of Phlx. 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 No. SR-Phlx-2009-20 and should be submitted on or
before April 6, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-5571 Filed 3-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 247 (Friday, December 23, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 94370]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31036]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9957-34-OA]

Meetings of the Local Government Advisory Committee and the Small
Communities Advisory Subcommittee (SCAS)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Small Communities Advisory Subcommittee (SCAS) will meet
via teleconference on Friday, January 13, 2017, at 11:30 a.m.-12:30
p.m. (ET). The Subcommittee will discuss the LGAC Biannual Report, and
other environmental and public health issues affecting small
communities. This is an open meeting and all interested persons are
invited to participate. The Subcommittee will hear comments from the
public between 11:40 a.m.-11:55 a.m. on January 13, 2017. Individuals
or organizations wishing to address the Subcommittee will be allowed a
maximum of five minutes to present their point of view. Also, written
comments should be submitted electronically to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Please contact the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at the number
listed below to schedule a time on the agenda. Time will be allotted on
a first-come first-serve basis, and the total period for comments may
be extended if the number of requests for presentations requires it.
    The Local Government Advisory Committee (LGAC) will meet via
teleconference on Friday, January 13, 2017, 12:30 p.m.-1:30 p.m. (ET).
The Committee will discuss recommendations of the subcommittee and LGAC
workgroups including a draft LGAC Biannual Report; and environmental
and public health issues. This is an open meeting and all interested
persons are invited to participate. The Committee will hear comments
from the public between 12:45 p.m.-1:00 p.m. (ET) on Friday, January
13, 2017. Individuals or organizations wishing to address the Committee
will be allowed a maximum of five minutes to present their point of
view. Also, written comments should be submitted electronically to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please contact the Designated Federal Officer
(DFO) at the number listed below to schedule a time on the agenda. Time
will be allotted on a first-come first-serve basis, and the total
period for comments may be extended if the number of requests for
presentations requires it.

ADDRESSES: EPA's Local Government Advisory Committee meetings will be
held via teleconference. Meeting summaries will be available after the
meeting online at www.epa.gov/ocir/scas_lgac/lgac_index.htm and can be
obtained by written request to the DFO.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Local Government Advisory Committee
(LGAC) contact Frances Eargle at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Information Services for Those with Disabilities: For information
on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact
Frances Eargle at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To request
accommodation of a disability, please request it 10 days prior to the
meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: December 16, 2016.
Jack Bowles,
Director, State and Local Relations, EPA's Office of Congressional and
Intergovernmental Relations.
[FR Doc. 2016-31036 Filed 12-22-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P