[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 156 (Wednesday, August 13, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47390-47393]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19158]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0530; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-062-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; ATR--GIE Avions de Transport
R[eacute]gional Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain ATR--GIE Avions de Transport R[eacute]gional Model ATR42-500
airplanes, and Model ATR72-212A airplanes. This proposed AD was
prompted by a report that during an inspection of an airplane on the
production line, interference was detected between the electrical
harness and a bonding lead due to an incorrect installation of the
affected bonding lead. This proposed AD would require a detailed
inspection for damage or incorrect routing of the bonding lead routing
above the 120VU shelf, and if any damage or incorrect routing is found,
modifying the bonding lead routing. We are proposing this AD to detect
and correct installation of the bonding lead, which could cause arcing
and chafing, and could possibly result in an uncontrolled fire.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 29,
2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
ATR--GIE Avions de Transport R[eacute]gional, 1, All[eacute]e Pierre
Nadot, 31712 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 (0) 5 62 21 62 21;

fax +33 (0) 5 62 21 67 18; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.aerochain.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0530; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2014-0530;
Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-062-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued
Airworthiness Directive 2014-0056, dated March 7, 2014 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for certain ATR--GIE
Avions de Transport R[eacute]gional Model ATR42-500 airplanes, and
Model ATR72-212A airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During inspection of an aeroplane on the production line,
interference was detected between electrical harnesses (2M-2S-6M)
and a bonding lead, located in zone 214, positioned above and
forward of the 120VU shelf. Subsequent investigation revealed that
the interference was a result of an incorrect installation of the
affected bonding lead.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
arcing and chafing, possibly resulting in an uncontrolled fire.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, ATR issued Service
Bulletin (SB) ATR42-92-0025 and SB ATR72-92-1034, as applicable to
aeroplane model, to provide inspection instructions.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-
time [detailed] inspection [for damage or incorrect routing of the
bonding lead routing above the 120VU shelf] of the electrical
harness 2M-2S-6M in zone 214 and, depending on findings,
accomplishment of corrective action(s).

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0530.

Relevant Service Information

    ATR--GIE Avions de Transport R[eacute]gional has issued ATR Service
Bulletin ATR42-92-0025, dated November 7, 2013; and ATR Service
Bulletin ATR72-92-1034, dated November 7, 2013. The actions described
in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe
condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these
same type designs.

``Contacting the Manufacturer'' Paragraph in This Proposed AD

    Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled
``Airworthy Product'' in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD
based on a foreign authority's AD.
    The MCAI or referenced service information in an FAA AD often
directs the owner/operator to contact the manufacturer for corrective
actions, such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy Product paragraph
allowed owners/operators to use corrective actions provided by the
manufacturer if those actions were FAA-approved. In addition, the
paragraph stated that any actions approved by the State of Design
Authority (or its delegated agent) are considered to be FAA-approved.
    In an NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR
78285, December 26, 2013), we proposed to prevent the use of repairs
that were not specifically developed to correct the unsafe condition,
by requiring that the repair approval provided by the State of Design
Authority or its delegated agent specifically refer to the FAA AD. This
change was intended to clarify the method of compliance and to provide
operators with better visibility of repairs that are specifically
developed and approved to correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we
proposed to change the phrase ``its delegated agent'' to include a
design approval holder (DAH) with State of Design Authority design
organization approval (DOA), as applicable, to refer to a DAH
authorized to approve required repairs for the proposed AD.
    One commenter to the NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-
101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013) stated the following: ``The
proposed wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the
interpretation that Airbus messages are acceptable for approving minor
deviations (corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of an AD
mandated Airbus service bulletin.''
    This comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have
misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to
allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer
as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated
action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or
other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the
requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product
paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer
for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not
cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-
required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request
the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required
actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

    To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the
Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed the paragraph and retitled
it ``Contacting the Manufacturer.'' This paragraph now clarifies that
for any requirement in this proposed AD to obtain corrective actions
from a manufacturer, the actions must be accomplished using a method
approved by the FAA, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), or
ATR--GIE Avions de Transport R[eacute]gional's EASA DOA.
    The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature. The DOA signature indicates that the data and information
contained in the document are EASA-approved, which is also FAA-
approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer
that do not contain the DOA-authorized signature approval are not EASA-
approved, unless EASA directly approves the manufacturer's message or
other information.
    This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded
by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA
policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This
is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness
Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase
flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in
manufacturers' service instructions that are ``Required for
Compliance'' with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to
implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is
required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an
alternative method of compliance.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 5 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per
product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed
AD on U.S. operators to be $850, or $170 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 2 work-hours and require parts costing $0, for a cost of
$170 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft
that might need this action.

Authority for this Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. 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.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

ATR--GIE Avions de Transport R[eacute]gional: Docket No. FAA-2014-
0530; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-062-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by September 29, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to ATR--GIE Avions de Transport R[eacute]gional
airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in paragraph
(c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Model ATR42-500 airplanes, manufacturer serial numbers 669
through 1005 inclusive.
    (2) Model ATR72-212A airplanes, manufacturer serial numbers 773,
774, 776 through 1094 inclusive, 1096 through 1099 inclusive, and
1101.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 92, Electrical
Routing.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report that during an inspection of an
airplane on the production line, interference was detected between
the electrical harness and a bonding lead due to an incorrect
installation of the affected bonding lead. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct installation of the bonding lead, which could
cause arcing and chafing, and could possibly result in an
uncontrolled fire.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Inspection

    Within 1,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD:
Do a detailed inspection of the bonding lead routing above the 120VU
shelf for damage (i.e., wire chaffing, evidence of burning) or
incorrect routing, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of ATR Service Bulletin ATR42-92-0025, dated November
7, 2013 (for Model ATR42-500 airplanes); or ATR Service Bulletin
ATR72-92-1034, dated November 7, 2013 (for Model ATR72-212A
airplanes).

(h) Corrective Action

    If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD,
any damage (i.e., wire chaffing, evidence of burning) or incorrect
routing is found: Before further flight, modify the bonding lead
routing above the 120VU shelf, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of ATR Service Bulletin ATR42-92-0025, dated November
7, 2013 (for Model ATR42-500 airplanes); or ATR Service Bulletin
ATR72-92-1034, dated November 7, 2013 (for Model ATR72-212A
airplanes).

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Tom
Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office. The
AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or ATR--GIE Avions de
Transport R[eacute]gional's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2014-
0056, dated March 7, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be
found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0530.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact ATR--
GIE Avions de Transport R[eacute]gional, 1, All[eacute]e Pierre
Nadot, 31712 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 (0) 5 62 21 62 21;
fax +33 (0) 5 62 21 67 18; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.aerochain.com. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 1, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-19158 Filed 8-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 12, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 3426]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02010]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP19-56-000]

Colorado Interstate Gas Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Request Under
Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on January 24, 2019, Colorado Interstate Gas
Company, L.L.C. (CIG), Post Office (P.O.) Box 1087, Colorado Springs,
Colorado 80944, filed in Docket No. CP19-56-000 a prior notice request
pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.208, and 157.210 of the Commission's
regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) to construct and operate
its High Plains Kiowa Lateral Expansion Project in Weld County,
Colorado in order to allow for transportation service from a new
natural gas processing plant located in the Denver-Julesburg (DJ) Basin
to an interconnect with CIG's High Plains pipeline system.
Specifically, CIG requests to construct, own, and operate: (i) The
Kiowa Lateral, an approximately 9.2 mile 24-inch-diameter natural gas
pipeline lateral; (ii) the Prairie Hound Meter Station, a new receipt
meter on the proposed Kiowa Lateral; (iii) the High Five Lateral, an
approximately 0.7 mile 24-inch diameter natural gas pipeline lateral;
and (iv) the High Five Meter Station, a new meter station at the
terminus of the proposed High Five Lateral. CIG states the proposed new
facilities would enable CIG to provide an additional 410,000 dekatherms
per day of firm transportation capacity from the DJ Basin to CIG's High
Plains and mainline system. CIG states the project would cost
approximately $26,600,000, all as more fully set forth in the
application, which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection.
    The filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website web at
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to
Francisco Tarin, Director, Regulatory Affairs, Colorado Interstate Gas
Company, L.L.C., P.O. Box 1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80944, by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by facsimile at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Mark
A. Minich, Assistant General Counsel, Colorado Interstate Gas Company,
L.L.C., P.O. Box 1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80944, by telephone
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by facsimile at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to section 157.205 of
the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and
not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's
public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of
Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and
state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary
reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations
within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list and will be
notified of any meetings associated with the Commission's environmental
review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve
copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party
commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other
parties or issued by the Commission and will not have the right to seek
court review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 3 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426.

    Dated: February 4, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-02010 Filed 2-11-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


peak shipping demand, helping to reduce delays caused by pilot
shortages.

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have
considered whether this rule will have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    For this rule, the Coast Guard reviewed recent company size and
ownership data for the vessels identified in the GLPMS, and we reviewed

business revenue and size data provided by publicly available sources
such as Manta \69\ and ReferenceUSA.\70\ As described in Section VIII.A
of this preamble, Regulatory Planning and Review, we found that a total
of 474 unique vessels used pilotage services from 2017 through 2019.
These vessels are owned by 49 entities. We found that of the 49
entities that own or operate vessels engaged in trade on the Great
Lakes that will be affected by this rule, 38 are foreign entities that
operate primarily outside the United States, and the remaining 11
entities are U.S. entities. We compared the revenue and employee data
found in the company search to the Small Business Administration's
(SBA) small business threshold as defined in the SBA's ``Table of Size
Standards'' for small businesses to determine how many of these
companies are considered small entities.\71\ Table 49 shows the North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes of the U.S.
entities and the small entity standard size established by the SBA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ See https://www.manta.com/.
    \70\ See http://resource.referenceusa.com/.
    \71\ See: https://www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards. SBA has established a ``Table of Size Standards'' for
small businesses that sets small business size standards by NAICS
code. A size standard, which is usually stated in number of
employees or average annual receipts (``revenues''), represents the
largest size that a business (including its subsidiaries and
affiliates) may be in order to remain classified as a small business
for SBA and Federal contracting programs.

         Table 49--NAICS Codes and Small Entities Size Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Small entity size
          NAICS                   Description              standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
211120...................  Crude Petroleum           1,250 employees
                            Extraction.
237990...................  Other Heavy and Civil     $39.5 million
                            Engineering
                            Construction.
238910...................  Site Preparation          $16.5 million
                            Contractors.
483212...................  Inland Water Passenger    500 employees
                            Transportation.
487210...................  Scenic and Sightseeing    $8.0 million
                            Transportation, Water.
488330...................  Navigational Services to  $41.5 million
                            Shipping.
523910...................  Miscellaneous             $41.5 million
                            Intermediation.
561599...................  All Other Travel          $22.0 million
                            Arrangement and
                            Reservation Services.
982100...................  National Security.......  Population of <=
                                                      50,000 People
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of the 11 U.S. entities, 8 exceed the SBA's small business
standards for small entities. To estimate the potential impact on the 3
small entities, the Coast Guard used their 2019 invoice data to
estimate their pilotage costs in 2021. We increased their 2019 costs to
account for the changes in pilotage rates resulting from this rule and
the Great Lakes Pilotage Rates--2020 Annual Review and Revisions to
Methodology final rule (85 FR 20088). We estimated the change in cost
to these entities resulting from this rule by subtracting their
estimated 2020 costs from their estimated 2021 costs, and found the
average costs to small firms will be approximately $2,146. We then
compared the estimated change in pilotage costs between 2020 and 2021
with each firm's annual revenue. In all cases, their estimated pilotage
expenses were below 1 percent of their annual revenue.
    In addition to the owners and operators discussed above, three U.S.
entities that receive revenue from pilotage services will be affected
by this rule. These are the three pilot associations that provide and
manage pilotage services within the Great Lakes districts. Two of the
associations operate as partnerships, and one operates as a
corporation. These associations are designated with the same NAICS code
and small-entity size standards described above, but have fewer than
500 employees. Combined, they have approximately 65 employees in total
and, therefore, are designated as small entities. The Coast Guard
expects no adverse effect on these entities from this rule because the
three pilot associations will receive enough revenue to balance the
projected expenses associated with the projected number of bridge hours
(time on task) and pilots.
    Finally, the Coast Guard did not find any small not-for-profit
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields that will be impacted by this rule. We did not
find any small governmental jurisdictions with populations of fewer
than 50,000 people that will be impacted by this rule. Based on this
analysis, we conclude this rule will not affect a substantial number of
small entities, nor have a significant economic impact on any of the
affected entities.
    Based on our analysis, this rule will have a less than 1 percent
annual impact on 3 small entities; therefore, the Coast Guard certifies
under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we offer to assist small
entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. The Coast Guard
will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain
about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247).

D. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and will not
alter or adjust any existing collection of information.

E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism) if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132
and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental

federalism principles and preemption requirements as described in
Executive Order 13132. Our analysis follows.
    Congress directed the Coast Guard to establish ``rates and charges
for pilotage services''. See 46 U.S.C. 9303(f). This regulation is
issued pursuant to that statute and is preemptive of State law as
specified in 46 U.S.C. 9306. Under 46 U.S.C. 9306, a ``State or
political subdivision of a State may not regulate or impose any
requirement on pilotage on the Great Lakes.'' As a result, States or
local governments are expressly prohibited from regulating within this
category. Therefore, this rule is consistent with the fundamental
federalism principles and preemption requirements described in
Executive Order 13132.
    While it is well settled that States may not regulate in categories
in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a
vessel's obligations, the Coast Guard recognizes the key role that
State and local governments may have in making regulatory
determinations. Additionally, for rules with implications and
preemptive effect, Executive Order 13132 specifically directs agencies
to consult with State and local governments during the rulemaking
process.

F. Unfunded Mandates

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538,
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Although this rule will not result
in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

G. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 (Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights).

H. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

I. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045 (Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks). This
rule is not an economically significant rule and will not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

J. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments),
because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

K. Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211 (Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use) and have determined that it is not a
``significant energy action'' under that order because it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.

L. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a
note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus
standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides
Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards
would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (specifications
of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling
procedures; and related management systems practices) that are
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this final rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01, Rev. 1 (DHS Directive 023-01),
associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning
COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying
with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4321-4370f), and have made a determination that this action is one of a
category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. A Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket
where indicated under the ADDRESSES portion of this preamble.
    This final rule meets the criteria for categorical exclusion
(CATEX) under paragraphs A3 and L54 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS
Instruction Manual 023-001-01, Rev. 1.\72\ Paragraph A3 pertains to the
promulgation of rules, issuance of rulings or interpretations, and the
development and publication of policies, orders, directives, notices,
procedures, manuals, advisory circulars, and other guidance documents
of the following nature: (a) Those of a strictly administrative or
procedural nature; (b) those that implement, without substantive
change, statutory or regulatory requirements; or (c) those that
implement, without substantive change, procedures, manuals, and other
guidance documents; and (d) those that interpret or amend an existing
regulation without changing its environmental effect. Paragraph L54
pertains to regulations, which are editorial or procedural.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/DHS_Instruction%20Manual%20023-01-001-01%20Rev%2001_508%20Admin%20Rev.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rule involves adjusting the pilotage rates to account for
changes in district operating expenses, an increase in the number of
pilots, and anticipated inflation. Additionally, this rule makes one
change to the ratemaking methodology to account for actual inflation
and excludes certain legal fees incurred in litigation against the
Coast Guard related to ratemaking and oversight requirements. All of
these changes are consistent with the Coast Guard's maritime safety
missions. We did not receive any comments related to the environmental
impact of this rule.

List of Subjects

46 CFR Part 401

    Administrative practice and procedure, Great Lakes; Navigation
(water), Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen.

46 CFR Part 404

    Great Lakes, Navigation (water), Seamen.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
46 CFR parts 401 and 404 as follows:

PART 401--GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 401 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 2104(a), 6101, 7701, 8105, 9303,
9304; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1(II)(92.a), (92.d), (92.e), (92.f).

0
2. Amend Sec.  401.405 by revising paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) to
read as follows:

Sec.  401.405  Pilotage Rates and Charges

    (a) * * *
    (1) The St. Lawrence River is $800;
    (2) Lake Ontario is $498;
    (3) Lake Erie is $566;
    (4) The navigable waters from Southeast Shoal to Port Huron, MI is
$580;
    (5) Lakes Huron, Michigan, and Superior is $337; and
    (6) The St. Marys River is $586.
* * * * *

PART 404--GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE RATEMAKING

0
3. The authority citation for part 404 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 2104(a), 9303, 9304; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1(II)(92.a), (92.f).

0
4. Amend Sec.  404.2 by adding paragraph (b)(6) to read as follows:

Sec.  404.2  Procedure and criteria for recognizing association
expenses.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (6) Legal Expenses. These association expenses are recognizable
except for any and all expenses associated with legal action against
the U.S. Coast Guard or its agents in relation to the ratemaking and
oversight requirements in 46 U.S.C. 9303, 9304 and 9305.
* * * * *

0
5. Amend Sec.  404.104 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  404.104  Ratemaking step 4: Determine target pilot compensation
benchmark.

* * * * *
    (b) In an interim year, the Director adjusts the previous year's
individual target pilot compensation level by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics' Employment Cost Index for the Transportation and Materials
sector, or if that is unavailable, the Director adjusts the previous
year's individual target pilot compensation level using a two-step
process:
    (1) First, the Director adjusts the previous year's individual
target pilot compensation by the difference between the previous year's
Bureau of Labor Statistics' Employment Cost Index for the
Transportation and Materials sector and the Federal Open Market
Committee median economic projections for Personal Consumption
Expenditures inflation value used to inflate the previous year's target
pilot compensation.
    (2) Second, the Director then adjusts that value by the Federal
Open Market Committee median economic projections for Personal
Consumption Expenditures inflation for the upcoming year.
* * * * *

    Dated: March 8, 2021.
R.V. Timme,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Prevention
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-05050 Filed 3-11-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69096-69097]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28424]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2010-0065]

Public Meetings of National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Reform
Effort

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Announcement of public meetings.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces two public meetings of the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Reform Effort. In performing its
mission, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) believes it is
important to continually update stakeholders on its programs and answer
any questions and listen to comments from them on how its programs can
be more efficient and effective at meeting the needs of the public. To
this end, FEMA has engaged in a comprehensive reform effort to address
the concerns of the wide array of stakeholders involved in the ongoing
debate about the NFIP. FEMA chose a participatory policy analysis
framework to guide the NFIP Reform effort. Policy analysis employs
systematic inquiry and evaluation to assess policy alternatives. The
participatory policy analysis process allows public decisions to be
made in a structured, defensible, and collaborative manner.
    The effort is comprised of three phases designed to engage the
greatest number of stakeholders and consider the largest breadth of
public policy options. Phase I focused on the capture and analysis of
stakeholder concerns and recommendations. During Phase II, FEMA
performed additional analysis of existing data and identified a set of
evaluation criteria. In Phase III, a portfolio of public policy
alternatives is being developed and will be analyzed using the
evaluation criteria. The resulting recommendations will be reported to
FEMA leadership. The purpose of the public meetings is to describe,
update, and explain straw man policy alternatives and to answer
questions and listen to comments from interested stakeholders.
Additional information on the straw man policy alternatives will be
made available prior to the meeting via the NFIP Reform Web site and
will be posted to Docket ID: FEMA-2010-0065.
    In addition, through these public meetings, FEMA will accept
stakeholder input of the policy evaluation process through the use of a
pair-wise comparison method. The pair-wise tool is also available via
the NFIP Reform Web site at http://www.fema.gov/business/nfip/nfip_reform.shtm.

DATES:
    Meeting Date: The first public meeting will be held on December 2,
2010, from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. EST. This meeting will be held in
Washington, DC. The second public meeting will be held on December 9,
2010, from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. MST. This meeting will be held in Denver,
CO.
    Comment Date: Written comments must be received by December 31,
2010.

ADDRESSES: All written comments must be received by Friday, December
31, 2010. All submissions received must include the Docket ID: FEMA-
2010-0065 and may be submitted by any one of the following methods:
    Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments on the Web site.
    E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include Docket ID: FEMA-2010-0065 in
the subject line of the message.
    Facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Mail: FEMA, Office of Chief Counsel, 500 C Street, SW., Room 840,
Washington, DC 20472-3100.
    Hand Delivery/Courier: FEMA, Office of Chief Counsel, 500 C Street,
SW., Room 840, Washington, DC 20472-3100.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID:
FEMA-2010-0065. Comments received will also be posted without
alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. You may want to read the Privacy Act Notice
located on the Privacy and Use Notice link on the Administration
Navigation Bar of the Web site http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read documents or comments
received by FEMA, go to http://www.regulations.gov. The straw man
policy alternatives will be posted to Docket ID: FEMA-2010-0065.
    Special Accommodations: For anyone attending the meeting who is
hearing or visually impaired, or who requires special assistance or
accommodations, please contact Jason ``Tommy'' Kennedy by November, 15,
2010 for the first meeting and by November 22, 2010 for the second
meeting. For further information, please contact Mr. Kennedy by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Meeting Locations: The first public meeting will be held in
Washington, DC, at the Washington Marriott at Metro Center, 775 12th
Street, NW., Washington, DC. The second public meeting will be held in
Denver, Colorado at the Denver Federal Center, Building 810--Entrance
W-5, Denver, CO.
    Meeting Accessibility: Due to space constraints of the facilities,
seating will

be limited to 200 participants. To reserve a seat in advance, please
provide a request via email or mail with the contact information of the
participant (including name, mailing address, and e-mail address), the
meeting(s) to be attended, and include the subject/attention line (or
on the envelope if by mail): Reservation Request for NFIP Reform
Meeting. Advance reservations must be received 3 business days prior to
the meeting to ensure processing. Unregistered participants will be
accepted after all participants with reservations have been
accommodated and will be admitted on a first-come, first-serve basis,
provided the 200 person capacity is not exceeded. To submit
reservations, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or send by mail to
the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT caption.
    Web Site: http://www.fema.gov/business/nfip/nfip_reform.shtm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Grimm, by telephone at 202-
646-2878 or by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Mailing Address: NFIP
Reform, 1800 South Bell Street, Room 970, Arlington, VA 20598-3030.
    Meeting Topics: Background information about these topics is
available on the NFIP Reform Web site. The straw man policy
alternatives will also be posted to Docket ID: FEMA-2010-0065.
    Procedure: This meeting is open to the public.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-28424 Filed 11-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 205 (Monday, October 24, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73120-73121]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25559]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4281-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2016-0001]

Iowa; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Iowa (FEMA-4281-DR), dated September 29,
2016, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 29, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated September 29, 2016, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Iowa resulting from severe storms, straight-line winds, and
flooding during the period of August 23-27, 2016, is of sufficient
severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act,
42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare
that such a major disaster exists in the State of Iowa.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal

assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the
Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of
the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford
Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the
total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the
eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage
under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for
Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford
Act.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, David G. Samaniego, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Iowa have been designated as
adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Allamakee, Chickasaw, Clayton, Fayette, Floyd, Howard, Mitchell,
and Winneshiek Counties for Public Assistance.
    All areas within the State of Iowa are eligible for assistance
under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2016-25559 Filed 10-21-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 5, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60391-60392]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21612]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: PR22-69-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  284.123 Rate Filing: COH SOC Rates effective
August 29 2022 to be effective 8/29/2022.
    Filed Date: 9/27/22.
    Accession Number: 20220927-5045.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/18/22.

    Docket Numbers: PR22-70-000.
    Applicants: BBT Bamagas Intrastate, LLC.
    Description: Pay fee; use etariff to file BBT Bamagas Intrastate,
LLC.
    Filed Date: 9/27/22.
    Accession Number: 20220927-5041.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/18/22.

    Docket Numbers: PR22-70-000.
    Applicants: BBT Bamagas Intrastate, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  284.123 Rate Filing: BBT Bamagas Intrastate Rate
Filing to be effective 9/27/2022.
    Filed Date: 9/27/22.
    Accession Number: 20220927-5109.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/18/22.

    Docket Numbers: PR22-71-000.
    Applicants: Boardwalk Texas Intrastate, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  284.123(g) Rate Filing: Petition for Section 311
Rate Approval to be effective 10/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 9/28/22.
    Accession Number: 20220928-5093.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/22.

    Docket Numbers: PR22-71-000.
    Applicants: Boardwalk Texas Intrastate, LLC.
    Description: Pay fee; use etariff to file Boardwalk Texas
Intrastate, LLC.
    Filed Date: 9/27/22.
    Accession Number: 20220927-5103.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/18/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-1253-000.
    Applicants: Trunkline Gas Company, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Annual Report of Flow Through filed
9-28-22 to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 9/28/22.
    Accession Number: 20220928-5054.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-1254-000.
    Applicants: Trunkline Gas Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Update to GT&C Section 22 to
be effective 10/28/2022.
    Filed Date: 9/28/22.
    Accession Number: 20220928-5061.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-1255-000.
    Applicants: Cimarron River Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel Tracker--2022 Winter
Season Rates to be effective 11/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 9/28/22.
    Accession Number: 20220928-5097.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-1256-000.
    Applicants: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Cash-Out Refund Tolerance to
be effective 11/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 9/28/22.
    Accession Number: 20220928-5119.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-1257-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Non-Conforming--CEC--VNG--
Emporia Facilities Surcharge to be effective 11/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 9/28/22.
    Accession Number: 20220928-5132.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/22.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5
p.m. eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 29, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-21612 Filed 10-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48989-48990]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19993]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-D-0849]

Draft Guidance for Industry on Suicidal Ideation and Behavior:
Prospective Assessment of Occurrence in Clinical Trials; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled ``Suicidal
Ideation and Behavior: Prospective Assessment of Occurrence in Clinical
Trials.'' The purpose of this guidance is to assist sponsors in
prospectively assessing the occurrence of treatment-emergent suicidal
ideation and behavior in clinical trials of drug and biological
products, including drugs for psychiatric and nonpsychiatric
indications. This guidance revises and replaces a previous draft
guidance

entitled ``Suicidality: Prospective Assessment of Occurrence in
Clinical Trials'' issued in September 2010.

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this
draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by October 15, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the draft
guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send
one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing
your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the draft guidance document.
    Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Laughren, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, rm. 4114, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-2260.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry
entitled ``Suicidal Ideation and Behavior: Prospective Assessment of
Occurrence in Clinical Trials.'' The purpose of this guidance is to
assist sponsors in prospectively assessing the occurrence of treatment-
emergent suicidal ideation and behavior in clinical trials of drug and
biological products. Specifically, this guidance addresses FDA's
current thinking regarding the importance of suicidal ideation and
behavior assessment in psychiatric and nonpsychiatric drug trials and
the general principles for how best to accomplish this assessment
during drug development.
    Prospective assessment of suicidal ideation and behavior involves
actively querying patients about the occurrence of suicidal thinking
and behavior, rather than relying on patients to report such
occurrences spontaneously, followed by retrospective classification of
events into appropriate categories. This guidance recommends a specific
suicidal ideation and behavior assessment instrument that can be used
to conduct such prospective assessments and offers guidance on the use
of alternative instruments.
    This guidance is intended to serve as a focus for continued
discussions among FDA, pharmaceutical sponsors, the academic community,
and the public. This guidance does not address the complex analytic
issues involved in the analysis of the suicidal ideation and behavior
data that will be derived from prospective assessments of suicidal
ideation and behavior; these issues will be addressed in separate
guidances.
    This guidance is a revision of the draft guidance for industry
entitled ``Suicidality: Prospective Assessment of Occurrence in
Clinical Trials'' issued September 9, 2010 (75 FR 54889). Comments we
received on the draft guidance have been considered and the guidance
has been revised. The revision: (1) Replaces the term ``suicidality''
with the terms ``suicidal ideation and behavior''; (2) provides an
expanded set of the Columbia Classification Algorithm for Suicide
Assessment (C-CASA) categories, along with definitions and
explanations; (3) revises the advice on which trials and patients would
need assessments of suicidal ideation and behavior and the timing of
such assessments; (4) addresses concerns about the time burden of
assessments; (5) addresses questions about the possible value of the
assessments providing protection for patients in the trials themselves;
(6) makes it clear that use of an assessment instrument that directly
classifies relevant thoughts and behaviors into C-CASA categories
eliminates the need for any additional coding; (7) provides multiple
additional references; and (8) revises advice on evaluation of
alternative instruments.
    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on prospective
assessment of occurrence of suicidal ideation and behavior in clinical
trials. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person
and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach
may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the
applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments regarding this
document. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. It is no
longer necessary to send two copies of mailed comments. Identify
comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets
Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
either http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: August 9, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-19993 Filed 8-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 4, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14471-14472]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06805]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4335-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2018-0001]

Virgin Islands; Amendment No. 6 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the
territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands (FEMA-4335-DR), dated September 7,
2017, and related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued March 15, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated March 15, 2018, the President amended the cost-sharing
arrangements regarding Federal funds provided under the authority of
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''), in a letter to Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of
Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in the territory of the U.S.
Virgin Islands resulting from Hurricane Irma during the period of
September 5-7, 2017, is of sufficient severity and magnitude that
special cost-sharing arrangements are warranted regarding Federal
funds provided under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.
    Therefore, I amend my declarations of September 7, 2017,
September 9, 2017, and September 26, 2017, to authorize a 60-day
extension of the period of 100 percent Federal funding for debris
removal and emergency protective measures, including direct Federal
assistance.
    (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to

Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster
Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster
Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and
Households--Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance
(Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation
Grant.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2018-06805 Filed 4-3-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 209 (Monday, October 29, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54356-54359]
[FR Doc No: 2018-23523]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2018-N-0821]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Investigation of
Consumer Perceptions of Expressed Modified Risk Claims

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is
announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by
November 28, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to [email protected]. All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-NEW and
title ``Investigation of Consumer Perceptions of Expressed Modified
Risk Claims.'' Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in
the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amber Sanford, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Investigation of Consumer Perceptions of Expressed Modified Risk Claims

OMB Control Number 0910--NEW

I. Background

    FDA's Center for Tobacco Products proposes to conduct a study to
develop generalizable scientific knowledge to help inform its
implementation of section 911 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 387k), wherein FDA will be evaluating
information submitted to the Agency about how consumers understand and
perceive modified risk tobacco products (MRTPs). Section 911 of the
FD&C Act authorizes FDA to grant orders to persons to allow the
marketing of MRTPs. The term ``modified risk tobacco product'' means
any tobacco product that is sold or distributed for use to reduce harm
or the risk of tobacco-related disease associated with commercially
marketed tobacco products. FDA can issue a risk modification order
under section 911(g)(1) of the FD&C Act authorizing the marketing of an
MRTP only if the Agency determines that the product, as it is used by
consumers, will significantly reduce harm and the risk of tobacco-
related disease to individual tobacco users and benefit the health of
the population as a whole, taking into account both users of tobacco
products and persons who do not currently use tobacco products (section
911(g)(1) of the FD&C Act). Alternatively, with respect to tobacco
products that may not be commercially marketed under section 911(g)(1)
of the FD&C Act, FDA may issue an exposure modification order under
section 911(g)(2) of the FD&C Act authorizing the marketing of an MRTP
if the Agency determines that the standard in section 911(g)(2) of the
FD&C Act is met, including, among other requirements, that: Any aspect
of the label, labeling, or advertising that would cause the product to
be an MRTP

is limited to an explicit or implicit representation that the tobacco
product or its smoke does not contain or is free of a substance or
contains a reduced level of a substance, or presents a reduced exposure
to a substance in tobacco smoke; the order would be appropriate to
promote the public health; the issuance of the order is expected to
benefit the population as a whole, taking into account both users and
nonusers of tobacco products; and the existing evidence demonstrates
that a measurable and substantial reduction in morbidity and mortality
among individual tobacco users is reasonably likely to be shown in
subsequent studies (section 911(g)(2) of the FD&C Act). In addition,
section 911 of the FD&C Act requires that any advertising or labeling
concerning modified risk products enable the public to comprehend the
information concerning modified risk and to understand the relative
significance of such information in the context of total health and in
relation to all the diseases and health-related conditions associated
with the use of tobacco products (section 911(h)(1) of the FD&C Act).
The proposed research will inform the Agency's efforts to implement the
provisions of the FD&C Act related to MRTPs.
    FDA proposes conducting a study to assist in determining
appropriate methods for gathering information about how consumers
perceive and understand modified risk information. The study would
develop and validate measures of consumer perceptions of health risk
from using tobacco products. Moreover, the study would test how
participants' responses on these measures are affected by viewing
modified risk labeling or advertising, participants' characteristics
such as prior beliefs about the harmfulness of tobacco products,
current use of tobacco products, and sociodemographic characteristics.
Finally, the study would examine factors that may influence the
effectiveness of debriefing at the end of a consumer perception study
to ensure that people read and recall key information about the study.
This research is significant because it will validate methods that can
be used in studies of the impact of labels, labeling, and advertising
on consumer perceptions and understanding of the risks of product use.
    Measures of consumer health risk perception will be developed and
validated by conducting a study on two product types: Moist snuff
smokeless tobacco products and electronic cigarette (e-cigarette)
products. For each product type, we will assess individual-level
factors that may moderate the impact of modified risk information on
consumer responses. Potential moderating factors under study include:
Beliefs (prior to viewing the modified risk information) about the
harmfulness of tobacco products, and the strength with which those
beliefs are held; current tobacco use behaviors; and sociodemographic
characteristics including age and educational attainment. For each
product type, participants will be randomized to view one of two
conditions: Tobacco product labeling and advertising that either does
or does not contain modified risk claims about a product. The labeling
will consist of a product package. The advertising will consist of a
print advertisement. The study will assess participants' perceptions of
various health risks from using the product, as well as their
perceptions of health risk from using the product compared to smoking
cigarettes, using nicotine replacement therapies, and quitting all
tobacco and nicotine products. The study will also assess participants'
intentions to use the product and their level of doubt about whether
tobacco products are harmful to users' health. Measures of intentions
and doubt will be used to help assess the validity of the measures of
health risk perception.
    In the Federal Register of May 21, 2018 (83 FR 23464), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. FDA received four comments that were PRA
related. Within those submissions, FDA received multiple comments which
the Agency has addressed.
    (Comment) Three of the comments were supportive of the usefulness
and importance of the proposed data collection. These comments stated
that validated measures of consumers' health risk perceptions could be
useful for FDA, researchers in the field, and industry--in particular,
sponsors of modified risk tobacco product applications (MRTPAs). One of
these comments expressed hope that the proposed study would be part of
a more general effort by FDA to establish methods and standards for
evaluating other aspects of MRTPAs.
    (Response) FDA agrees with these comments to the extent they relate
to this study.
    (Comment) One of the comments was unsupportive of the proposed data
collection, stating that it should not be undertaken for two reasons.
The comment stated that the data are unneeded because U.S. consumers
already understand the negative health effects of tobacco use and will
not use a tobacco product if they are concerned about their health.
    (Response) The proposed data collection focuses on consumer
perceptions of modified risk tobacco products, which are products that
are sold or distributed for use to reduce harm or the risk of tobacco-
related diseases associated with commercially marketed tobacco
products.
    (Comment) A comment stated that the proposed data collection should
not be undertaken because it would waste taxpayers' money.
    (Response) FDA believes this study will provide information
important to its implementation of The Family Smoking Prevention and
Tobacco Control Act. FDA also notes that the study is not funded by
taxpayers' money, but rather by industry user fees paid by regulated
tobacco companies.
    (Comment) One comment suggested that the proposed data collection
should be guided by a theoretical approach.
    (Response) The main objective of the data collection--developing
and validating measures of consumer perceptions of tobacco health
risks--is intentionally atheoretical. We intend for this aspect of the
research to be data-driven rather than theory-driven. To accomplish
this, we have created a large pool of risk perception items by
aggregating items from all of the multi-item measures we could find in
the published tobacco literature, putting them into the main categories
of tobacco health effects that have been identified in prior health
reviews, changing the wording of the items to put them in a common
format, eliminating redundant or poorly worded items by consulting
expert colleagues in medicine, epidemiology, and social science, and
adding items to fill remaining gaps in terms of the main categories of
tobacco health effects. When analyzing data from this proposed data
collection, we plan to use factor analysis to identify the main
dimensions underlying how U.S. consumers perceive tobacco product
risks. Thus, overall, the goal of the proposed measurement development
research is to comprehensively assess risk perceptions without
overlaying our own preconceptions about how people may perceive these
risks.
    (Comment) One comment stated that the findings from our proposed
analyses of moderation effects--in particular, the moderating effects
of prior beliefs and the certainty with which those beliefs are held--
should be considered exploratory, given that these effects are not well
established in prior literature. Relatedly, another comment pointed out
that the findings from these moderation

analyses may only apply to moist snuff smokeless tobacco and e-
cigarette products, given that these are the product types under study
in this proposed data collection.
    (Response) FDA agrees that the findings of these analyses will be
novel in the tobacco literature, and we plan to encourage others to
replicate and extend our findings. However, we also note that the
measures used in this part of the study were adapted from measures
developed and used previously in the attitude certainty literature, and
the hypotheses about the potential moderating effects of belief
certainty were developed based on prior studies of attitude certainty
(Refs. 1 and 2). Thus, there is related literature that will help us
interpret our findings on this topic.
    (Comment) A comment encouraged FDA to consider how to account for
participants' prior beliefs when the tobacco product under study has
not been previously marketed in the United States and is therefore
unknown to U.S. consumers.
    (Response) Our hypothesis would be that consumers may tend to be
less certain about their beliefs about such unknown products, and
therefore their beliefs about such products may be more susceptible to
influence by modified risk information--but this is a hypothesis that
has not been empirically tested. We agree that our findings from the
proposed analyses of the moderating effects of prior beliefs will
benefit from replication and extension by others.
    (Comment) One comment suggested that we should consider making four
changes to the proposed data collection methodology. First, this
comment suggested modifying the study design to change it from a
between-subjects design (i.e., in which participants are randomized to
conditions and complete a posttest) to a mixed factorial design (i.e.,
in which participants complete a pretest, are randomized to conditions,
and then complete a posttest). The comment stated that this modified
design, described as a pretest-posttest-control-group design, would
allow us to control for pretest scores, which would ``explicitly
minimize the potential threat to internal validity, namely, selection
bias.''
    (Response) There are advantages and disadvantages to this
alternative design type. Whereas the pretest-posttest-control-group
design may help determine whether there is anything unusual about the
sample that would reduce its representativeness of the target
population (i.e., caused by biased selection), using this design would
require participants to respond to the key measures twice within a
short period of time. This would significantly lengthen the study,
which is currently estimated to take approximately 20 minutes, and may
influence how participants respond on the posttest (e.g., because of
boredom or frustration with repetitive items, testing effects, or
demand characteristics). Instead, we propose to use the original,
between-subjects design and to conduct analyses to examine the
sociodemographic and other characteristics of the sample to understand
its representativeness of the U.S. population and to test the success
of the randomization procedure.
    (Comment) A comment suggested that we should consider using a newly
developed measure of participants' intentions to use tobacco products
rather than the currently proposed intention items. The comment noted
that the currently proposed items are based on prior research but
stated that the new measure was developed and validated following
procedures in FDA's (2009) guidance on patient-reported outcome
measures.
    (Response) We appreciate this comment and support the continued
development and validation of intention measures. However, at this
time, we cannot use this newly developed measure because the research
supporting its use has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed
journal.
    (Comment) A comment suggested that this proposed data collection
should assess many more of participants' pre-existing beliefs and
attitudes. As examples, the comment suggested assessing participants'
skepticism and perceived truthfulness of modified risk claims, stating
that this would allow us to more fully capture the key constructs that
explain why some people are more likely than others to recall and
comprehend the claims.
    (Response) As with the recommendations above, we appreciate this
suggestion but propose not to assess these additional constructs in
this data collection because of concerns about participant burden. The
proposed data collection is not intended to comprehensively assess
influences on consumer responses to modified risk claims. Rather, it is
intended to achieve several specific goals such as developing measures
and testing novel potential moderators of the effects of modified risk
information. The constructs proposed in this comment have been studied
in prior research, as have additional constructs such as brand loyalty
(November 19, 2014 (79 FR 68888)). Assessing such constructs may be
informative but is not required to achieve the goals of the current
proposed data collection.
    (Comment) To assist with this project's measurement validation
aims, this comment recommended that the study should collect two types
of evidence discussed in an FDA guidance on patient-reported outcome
measures (FDA, 2009): Evidence of the measures' content validity, such
as open-ended input from appropriate populations, and evidence of
reliability, other aspects of validity, and sensitivity to detect
change.
    (Response) The proposed data collection is consistent with both
these recommendations. As described above, to achieve content validity,
we developed our initial pool of items to be as comprehensive as
possible, consulting multi-item measures used previously in the tobacco
literature, literature on the objective health effects of tobacco use,
and expert colleagues. Additionally, we cognitively tested our pool of
items in individual, qualitative interviews with tobacco users and non-
users to evaluate their understanding of the items and beliefs about
product risks. These interviews included open-ended questions, as
recommended. Moreover, the proposed data collection is designed to test
the performance of our measures on the criteria discussed in the
comment, including internal consistency reliability, other aspects of
validity (e.g., known groups, convergent, and discriminant validity),
and sensitivity to detect changes (i.e., based on responsiveness to
viewing advertisements with vs. without modified risk information).
Other performance measures such as test-retest reliability must await
further study.
    (Comment) Lastly, one comment requested that we clarify how the
proposed data collection will assist in measuring consumers'
understanding of modified risk information, in addition to their
perceptions of health risk.
    (Response) In our conceptualization, risk perceptions are a
component of consumer understanding, which also includes other
components. The goal of the present study is to develop and validate
measures of understanding insofar as this construct includes people's
perceptions of absolute and relative health risks of using tobacco
products.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Number of
                 Activity                      Number of     responses per   Total annual           Average  burden per  response           Total hours
                                              respondents     respondent       responses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invitation: Young Adults (Ages 18-25).....          29,000               1          29,000  0.02 (1 minute).............................             580
Invitation: Adults (Ages 26+).............          29,000               1          29,000  0.02 (1 minute).............................             580
Consent and Screener: Young Adults (Ages            11,000               1          11,000  0.10 (6 minutes)............................           1,100
 18-25).
Consent and Screener: Adults (Ages 26+)...          16,500               1          16,500  0.10 (6 minutes)............................           1,650
Study: Young Adults (Ages 18-25)..........           3,300               1           3,300  0.33 (20 minutes)...........................           1,089
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Study: Adults (Ages 26+)..................           3,300               1           3,300  0.33 (20 minutes)...........................           1,089
    Total.................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ............................................           6,088
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    FDA's burden estimate is based on prior experience with research
that is similar to this proposed study. Approximately 58,000 people
will receive a study invitation, estimated to take 1 minute to read
(approximately 0.02 hour), for a total of 1,160 hours for invitations.
Approximately 27,500 people will complete the informed consent and
screener to determine eligibility for participation in the study,
estimated to take 6 minutes (0.10 hour), for a total of 2,750 hours for
informed consent and screening activities. Approximately 6,600 people
will complete the full study, estimated to take 20 minutes
(approximately 0.33 hour), for a total of 2,178 hours for study
completion activities. The estimated total hour burden of the
collection of information is 6,088 hours.

II. References

    The following references marked with an asterisk (*) are on display
at the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852) and
are available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday; they also are available electronically at
https://www.regulations.gov. References without asterisks are not on
public display at https://www.regulations.gov because they have
copyright restriction. Some may be available at the website address, if
listed. References without asterisks are available for viewing only at
the Dockets Management Staff. FDA has verified the website addresses,
as of the date this document publishes in the Federal Register, but
websites are subject to change over time.

1. Tormala, Z.L. and D.D. Rucker, ``Attitude Certainty: A Review of
Past Findings and Emerging Perspectives.'' Social and Personality
Psychology Compass, 1:469-492, 2007. doi:10.1111/j.1751-
9004.2007.00025.x.
2. Tormala, Z.L. and D.D. Rucker, ``Attitude Certainty: Antecedents,
Consequences, and New Directions.'' Consumer Psychology Review,
1:72-89, 2018. doi:10.1002/arcp.1004.*

    Dated: October 23, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-23523 Filed 10-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 58 (Monday, March 26, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17332-17333]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7130]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0153]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Pequonnock River, Bridgeport,
CT, Maintenance

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
Metro North (Peck) Bridge across the Pequonnock River, mile 0.3, at
Bridgeport, Connecticut. The deviation allows the bridge to remain in
the closed position to facilitate miter rail repair.

DATES: This deviation is effective from April 15, 2012 through June 30,
2012.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2012-0153 and are available online
at www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2012-0153 in the ``Keyword'' and
then clicking ``Search''. They are also available for inspection or
copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Ms. Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard
District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If
you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Metro North (Peck) Bridge, across the
Pequonnock River, mile 0.3, at Bridgeport, Connecticut, has a vertical
clearance in the closed position of 26 feet at mean high water and 32
feet at mean low water. The drawbridge operation regulations are listed
at 33 CFR 117.219(b).
    The operator of the bridge, Metro North Railroad, requested a
temporary deviation from the regulations to facilitate scheduled bridge
maintenance, miter rail repair, at the bridge.
    The waterway users are recreational vessels and commercial lobster
boats. The Metro North (Peck) Bridge rarely opens for vessel traffic.
The bridge has received no requests to open during the past three years
except for bridge testing and repairs.
    Under this temporary deviation the Metro North (Peck) Bridge may
remain in the closed position from April 15, 2012 through June 30,
2012. Vessels that can pass under the bridge in the closed position may
do so at all times.
    The waterway users were advised of the requested bridge closure and
offered no objection.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its
regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: March 1, 2012.
Gary Kassof,
Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2012-7130 Filed 3-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P