[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 184 (Monday, September 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44633-44634]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20468]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2017-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1744

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the
supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek
general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and
where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and
FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the
community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in
effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to
calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings
and the contents of those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before December 26, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in
the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1744, to
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM
and FIS report become effective.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at http://floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_fact_sheet.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location and
the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables.
For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies
can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM
date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and
FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA
Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: August 25, 2017.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department
of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    I. Non-watershed-based studies:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Kankakee County, Illinois and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata preliminaryfloodhazarddata
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Project: 14-05-4560S Preliminary Date: February 1, 2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorporated Areas of Kankakee County  Administration Building, 189
                                          East Court Street, Kankakee,
                                          IL 60901.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Shelby County, Indiana and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata preliminaryfloodhazarddata
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Project: 16-05-6727S Preliminary Dates: July 30, 2014 and December 2,
                                  2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Shelbyville....................  Shelbyville Planning
                                          Commission, Shelbyville City
                                          Hall, 44 West Washington
                                          Street, Shelbyville, IN 46176.
Town of Edinburgh......................  Edinburgh Town Hall, 107 South
                                          Holland Street, Edinburgh, IN
                                          46124.
Unincorporated Areas of Shelby County..  Shelby County Plan Commission,
                                          25 West Polk Street,
                                          Shelbyville, IN 46176.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Bergen County, New Jersey (All Jurisdictions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata preliminaryfloodhazarddata
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Project: 16-02-0443S Preliminary Date: May 5, 2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Borough of Allendale...................  Borough Hall, 500 West Crescent
                                          Avenue, Allendale, NJ 07401.
Borough of Fair Lawn...................  Borough Hall, 8-01 Fair Lawn
                                          Avenue, Fair Lawn, NJ 07410.
Borough of Franklin Lakes..............  Borough Hall, 480 De Korte
                                          Drive, Franklin Lakes, NJ
                                          07417.
Borough of Glen Rock...................  Municipal Building, 1 Harding
                                          Plaza, Glen Rock, NJ 07452.
Borough of Hillsdale...................  Borough Hall, 380 Hillsdale
                                          Avenue, Hillsdale, NJ 07642.
Borough of Ho-Ho-Kus...................  Borough Hall, 333 Warren
                                          Avenue, Ho-Ho-Kus, NJ 07423.
Borough of Lodi........................  Borough Hall, 1 Memorial Drive,
                                          Lodi, NJ 07644.
Borough of New Milford.................  Borough Hall, 930 River Road,
                                          New Milford, NJ 07646.
Borough of Oakland.....................  Borough Hall, 1 Municipal
                                          Plaza, Oakland, NJ 07436.
Borough of Oradell.....................  Borough Hall, 355 Kinderkamack
                                          Road, Oradell, NJ 07649.
Borough of Paramus.....................  Borough Hall, 1 Jockish Square,
                                          Paramus, NJ 07652.
Borough of Ramsey......................  Borough Hall, 33 North Central
                                          Avenue, Ramsey, NJ 07446.
Borough of Saddle River................  Borough Hall, 100 East
                                          Allendale Road, Saddle River,
                                          NJ 07458.
Borough of Upper Saddle River..........  Borough Hall, 376 West Saddle
                                          River Road, Upper Saddle
                                          River, NJ 07458.
Borough of Waldwick....................  Borough Hall, 63 Franklin
                                          Turnpike, Waldwick, NJ 07463.
Borough of Wallington..................  Municipal Building, 54 Union
                                          Boulevard, Wallington, NJ
                                          07057.
City of Garfield.......................  City Hall, 111 Outwater Lane,
                                          Garfield, NJ 07026.
Township of Mahwah.....................  Municipal Building, 475
                                          Corporate Drive, Mahwah, NJ
                                          07430.
Township of Rochelle Park..............  Town Hall, 151 West Passaic
                                          Street, Rochelle Park, NJ
                                          07662.
Township of Saddle Brook...............  Town Hall, 93 Market Street,
                                          Saddle Brook, NJ 07663.
Township of South Hackensack...........  Town Hall, 227 Phillips Avenue,
                                          South Hackensack, NJ 07606.
Township of Teaneck....................  Municipal Building, 818 Teaneck
                                          Road, Teaneck, NJ 07666.
Township of Wyckoff....................  Memorial Town Hall, 340
                                          Franklin Avenue, Scott Plaza,
                                          Wyckoff, NJ 07481.
Village of Ridgewood...................  Village Hall, 131 North Maple
                                          Avenue, Ridgewood, NJ 07451.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2017-20468 Filed 9-22-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 188 (Friday, October 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 54446]
[FR Doc No: 2021-21423]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14513-003]

Idaho Irrigation District, New Sweden Irrigation District; Notice
of Waiver Period for Water Quality Certification Application

    On September 2, 2021, Idaho Irrigation District and New Sweden
Irrigation District submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission a copy of their application for a Clean Water Act section
401(a)(1) water quality certification filed with the Idaho Department
of Environmental Quality (Idaho DEQ), in conjunction with the above
captioned project. Pursuant to 40 CFR 121.6, we hereby notify the Idaho
DEQ of the following:
    Date of Receipt of the Certification Request: September 2, 2021.
    Reasonable Period of Time to Act on the Certification Request: One
year.
    Date Waiver Occurs for Failure to Act: September 2, 2022.
    If the Idaho DEQ fails or refuses to act on the water quality
certification request by the above waiver date, then the agency's
certifying authority is deemed waived pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of
the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).

    Dated: September 27, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-21423 Filed 9-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 151)]
[Notices]
[Page 47585-47586]
[DOCID:fr06au10-61]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13381-001]

Jonathan and Jayne Chase; Notice of Application Tendered for
Filing With the Commission and Soliciting Additional Study Requests

July 30, 2010.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Exemption From Licensing.
    b. Project No.: 13381-001.
    c. Date filed: July 23, 2010.
    d. Applicant: Jonathan and Jayne Chase.
    e. Name of Project: Troy Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Missisquoi River, in the Town of Troy, Orleans
County, Vermont. The project would not occupy lands of the United
States.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of
1978, 16 U.S.C. 2705, 2708.
    h. Applicant Contact: Jonathan and Jayne Chase, 361 Goodall Road,
Derby Line, VT 05830,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Tom Dean,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See, 94 FERC ]
61,076 (2001).
    k. Pursuant to Section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's
regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes
that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to
form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the
application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person
must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60
days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of
the request on the applicant.
    l. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for
cooperating agency status: September 21, 2010.
    All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ferconline.asp) under the
``eFiling'' link. For a simpler method of submitting text only
comments, click on ``Quick Comment.'' For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>call toll-free at
(866) 208-3676; or, for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing, documents may also be
paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an original and eight copies to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    m. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    n. The Troy Project would consist of: (1) The existing 180-foot-
long, 55.7-foot-high Bakers Fall dam with a 134-foot-long spillway and
a 3.33-foot-wide, 4.0-foot-high wastegate located below the spillway;
(2) an existing 6.9-acre impoundment with a normal water surface
elevation of 739.4 feet above mean sea level; (3) an existing intake
structure equipped with two 3.33-foot-wide, 4.0-foot-high headgates;
(4) an existing forebay with a 2.0-foot-wide, 2.0-foot-high wastegate;
(5) an existing 250-foot-long, 6.5-foot-diameter penstock; (6) an
existing powerhouse containing one inoperable 600-kilowatt (kW)
generating unit; and (7) an existing 90-foot-long, 12.47-kilovolt
transmission line.
    The applicant proposes to: (1) Rehabilitate and increase the
capacity of the inoperable generating unit to 850 kW; and (2) replace
the existing transmission line with new transmission line. The proposed
project is estimated to generate an average of 1,500 megawatt-hours
annually.
    o. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site 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 Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.

    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    p. With this notice, we are initiating consultation with the
Vermont State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), as required by
Sec.  106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the regulations of
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 36, CFR, at 800.4.
    q. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule
will be made as appropriate (i.e. if scoping is waived, the schedule
would be shortened).

    Issue Deficiency Letter--October 2010
    Issue Acceptance letter--January 2011
    Issue Scoping Document--February 2011
    Notice of application is ready for environmental analysis--April
2011
    Notice of the availability of the EA--November 2011

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-19381 Filed 8-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 208)]
[Notices]
[Page 66423-66424]
[DOCID:fr28oc10-88]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-1998-3637; FMCSA-1999-6156; FMCSA-2000-7006; FMCSA-
2000-7165; FMCSA-2000-8203; FMCSA-2002-12294; FMCSA-2004-18885; FMCSA-
2007-27897; FMCSA-2008-0106; FMCSA-2008-0266]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for
13 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals
from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not
compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these
exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent
to, or greater than, the level of safety maintained without the
exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

DATES: This decision is effective November 9, 2010. Comments must be
received on or before November 29, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-1998-3637; FMCSA-1999-6156;
FMCSA-2000-7006; FMCSA-2000-7165; FMCSA-2000-8203; FMCSA-2002-12294;
FMCSA-2004-18885; FMCSA-2007-27897; FMCSA-2008-0106; FMCSA-2008-0266,
using any of the following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: 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.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments
received without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act
heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement

page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the FDMS published in
the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption
from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it
finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent
such exemption.'' The procedures for requesting an exemption (including
renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.

Exemption Decision

    This notice addresses 13 individuals who have requested renewal of
their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has
evaluated these 13 applications for renewal on their merits and decided
to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:

Jack E. Benjamin
Todd A. Chapman
Gerald L. Culverwell
Richard B. Eckert
Gary R. Evans
Harlan L. Gunter
Steven H. Heidorn
Danny E. Hillier
Gary L. Killian
Elvis E. Rogers, Jr.
Gary R. Setters
Jimmy E. Settle
Hubert Whittenburg
    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) That each individual has a physical examination every year, (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and
(b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise
physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual
provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the
medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3)
that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification
to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file and
retains a copy of the certification on his/her person while driving for
presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement
official. Each exemption will be valid for two years unless rescinded
earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person
fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315.

Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 13 applicants has satisfied the
entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision
requirements (63 FR 30285; 63 FR 196; 64 FR 54948; 65 FR 159; 67 67234;
69 FR 62741; 71 FR 62147; 73 FR 74565; 65 FR 20245; 65 FR 57230; 67 FR
57266; 67 FR 67234; 65 FR 33406; 65 FR 57234; 65 FR 66293; 67 FR 46016;
67 FR 57267; 69 FR 53493; 69 FR 62742; 71 FR 62148; 72 FR 39879; 72 FR
52419; 73 FR 75194; 73 FR 48273; 73 FR 51689; 73 FR 63047). Each of
these 13 applicants has requested renewal of the exemption and has
submitted evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues
to meet the standard specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the
vision impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of
safety while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the
past two years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision
exemption standards. These factors provide an adequate basis for
predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in
interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the
exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of two years is
likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

Request for Comments

    FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a
particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of
the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with
specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit
comments by November 29, 2010.
    FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption
under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially
granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed,
subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated
above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition
announcing its decision to exempt these 13 individuals from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final decision to grant an
exemption to each of these individuals was made on the merits of each
case and made only after careful consideration of the comments received
to its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in
detail the qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant for an exemption from the vision requirements. That
information is available by consulting the above cited Federal Register
publications.
    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

    Issued on: October 22, 2010.
Charles A. Horan, III,
Office Director, Bus and Truck Standards and Operation.
[FR Doc. 2010-27293 Filed 10-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: July 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 145)]
[Notices]
[Page 42889-42890]
[DOCID:fr28jy06-115]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of Andover Apparel Group, Inc., Applied Computer
Technology, Inc., Country World Casinos, Inc., Digital Transmission
Systems, Inc., EWRX Internet Systems, Inc., Go Online Networks Corp.,
Integrated Communication Networks, Inc., Keystone Energy Services,
Inc., Microbest, Inc., Midway Airlines Corp., Mobilemedia Corp.,
Neometrix Technology Group, Inc., Photran Corp., Scottsdale
Technologies, Inc., Sienna Broadcasting Corp., Triton Network Systems,
Inc., and Western Pacific Airlines, Inc.; Order of Suspension of
Trading

July 26, 2006.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Andover Apparel Group, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended November 30, 1998.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Applied Computer Technology, Inc. (n/k/a Amigula, Inc.) because it has
not filed any periodic reports since the period ended June 30, 1998.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Country World Casinos, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended March 31, 2001.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Digital Transmission Systems, Inc. because it has not filed any
periodic reports since the period ended March 31, 2002.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
EWRX Internet Systems, Inc. (n/k/a iMusic International, Inc.) because
it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended September
30, 2000.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Go Online Networks Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended September 30, 2004.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Integrated Communication Networks, Inc. because it has not filed any
periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 2000.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Keystone Energy Services, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since December 3, 1999.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Microbest, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended September 30, 2002.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Midway Airlines Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended June 30, 2001.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Mobilemedia Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports since
the period ended September 30, 1996.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Neometrix Technology Group, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended July 31, 2004.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Photran Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended September 30, 1998.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Scottsdale Technologies, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since December 11, 1997.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Sienna Broadcasting Corp. (n/k/a Contemporary Solutions, Inc.) because
it has not filed any periodic reports since September 30, 2002.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Triton Network Systems, Inc. because it has

not filed any periodic reports since the period ended March 31, 2002.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Western Pacific Airlines, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended September 30, 1997.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above-listed
companies, including trading in the debt securities of Country World
Casinos, Inc., Midway Airlines Corp., and Mobilemedia Corp., is
suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on July 26, 2006, through
11:59 p.m. EDT on August 8, 2006.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-6573 Filed 7-26-06; 11:29 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 119 (Thursday, June 20, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28878-28879]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13056]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Rule 302, SEC File No. 270-453, OMB Control No. 3235-0510

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
existing collection of information provided for in Rule 302 (17 CFR
242.302) of Regulation ATS (17 CFR 242.300 et seq.) under the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).
The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information
to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and
approval.
    Regulation ATS sets forth a regulatory regime for ``alternative
trading systems'' (``ATSs''). An entity that meets the definition of an
exchange must register, pursuant to Section 5 of the Exchange Act, as a
national securities exchange under Section 6 of the Exchange Act \1\ or
operate pursuant to an appropriate exemption.\2\ One of the available
exemptions is for ATSs.\3\ Exchange Act Rule 3a1-1(a)(2) exempts from
the definition of ``exchange'' under Section 3(a)(1) an organization,
association, or group of persons that complies with Regulation ATS.\4\
Regulation ATS requires an ATS to, among other things, register as a
broker-dealer with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''),
file a Form ATS with the Commission to notice its operations, and
establish written safeguards and procedures to protect subscribers'
confidential trading information. An ATS that complies with Regulation
ATS and operates pursuant to the Rule 3a1-1(a)(2) exemption would not
be required by Section 5 to register as a national securities exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 15 U.S.C. 78e and 78f. A ``national securities
exchange'' is an exchange registered as such under Section 6 of the
Exchange Act.
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.
    \3\ Rule 300(a) of Regulation ATS provides that an ATS is ``any
organization, association, person, group of persons, or system: (1)
[t]hat constitutes, maintains, or provides a market place or
facilities for bringing together purchasers and sellers of
securities or for otherwise performing with respect to securities
the functions commonly performed by a stock exchange within the
meaning of [Exchange Act Rule 3b-16]; and (2) [t]hat does not: (i)
[s]et rules governing the conduct of subscribers other than the
conduct of subscribers' trading on such [ATS]; or (ii) [d]iscipline
subscribers other than by exclusion from trading.''
    \4\ See 17 CFR 240.3a1-1(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 302 of Regulation ATS (17 CFR 242.302) describes the
recordkeeping requirements for ATSs. Under Rule 302,

ATSs are required to, among other things, make a record of subscribers
to the ATS, daily summaries of trading in the ATS, and time-sequenced
records of order information in the ATS.
    The information required to be collected under Rule 302 should
increase the abilities of the Commission, state securities regulatory
authorities, and the self-regulatory organizations to ensure that ATSs
are in compliance with Regulation ATS as well as other applicable rules
and regulations. If the information is not collected or collected less
frequently, the regulators would be limited in their ability to comply
with their statutory obligations, provide for the protection of
investors, and promote the maintenance of fair and orderly markets.
    Respondents consist of ATSs that choose to operate pursuant to the
exemption provided by Regulation ATS from registration as national
securities exchanges. There are currently 83 respondents. These
respondents will spend approximately 3,735 hours per year (83
respondents at 45 burden hours/respondent) to comply with the
recordkeeping requirements of Rule 302. At an average cost per burden
hour of $73, the resultant total related internal cost of compliance
for these respondents is $272,655 per year (3,735 burden hours
multiplied by $73/hour).
    Written comments are invited on (a) whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the Commission, including whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of
the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Charles Riddle, Acting
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o Candace Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: June 14, 2019.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-13056 Filed 6-19-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 227 (Monday, November 25, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64906-64909]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25551]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2019-D-3592]

Certificates of Confidentiality; Draft Guidance for Sponsors,
Sponsor-Investigators, Researchers, Industry, and Food and Drug
Administration Staff; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a draft guidance entitled ``Certificates of
Confidentiality; Guidance for Sponsors, Sponsor-Investigators,
Researchers, Industry, and Food and Drug Administration Staff.'' This
draft guidance is intended to explain FDA implementation of the revised
statutory provisions applicable to the request for, and issuance of, a
Certificate of Confidentiality (CoC). The 21st Century Cures Act (Cures
Act) amended the statutory provisions relating to the issuance of CoCs.
A CoC is intended to help protect the privacy of human subject research
participants from whom sensitive and identifiable information is being
collected or used in furtherance of the research. Historically, a CoC
generally protected a researcher from being compelled in a legal
proceeding to disclose identifiable sensitive information about the
research participant, created or compiled for the research. As amended,
a CoC prohibits a researcher from disclosing such information unless a
specified exception applies.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by January 9, 2020 to ensure that the Agency considers your
comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final
version of the guidance. Submit electronic or written comments on the
proposed information collection burden in the draft guidance by January
24, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit either electronic or written comments on any
guidance at any time as follows:

Electronic Submissions

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

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2019-D-3592 for ``Certificates of Confidentiality; Guidance for
Sponsors, Sponsor-Investigators, Researchers, Industry, and Food and
Drug Administration Staff.'' Received comments will be placed in the
docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,''
publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets
Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
    Submit written requests for single copies of this draft guidance to
the Office of Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 4248, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. See the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft
guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    With regard to the draft guidance: Jarilyn Dupont, Office of
Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
32, Rm. 4248, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    With regard to the proposed collection of information: Domini Bean,
Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint
North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-
5733<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance to explain
FDA's proposed implementation of the revised provisions applicable to
the request for, and issuance of, a discretionary CoC. The Cures Act
(Pub. L. 114-255, section 2012) amended the Public Health Service Act,
section 301(d) (42 U.S.C. 241(d)), relating to the issuance of CoCs. A
CoC is intended to help protect the privacy of human subject research
participants from whom identifiable, sensitive information is being
collected or used in furtherance of the research. Historically, a CoC
generally protected a researcher from being compelled in a legal
proceeding (such as by subpoena or court order) to disclose
identifiable and sensitive information about the research participant,
created or compiled for purposes of the human subject research. The
Cures Act broadened the protections of the statutory provision by
affirmatively prohibiting holders of CoCs from disclosing such
information unless a specific exception applies.
    The Cures Act simplified certain aspects of the issuance of CoCs by
requiring that CoCs be issued for federally funded human subject
research that collects or uses identifiable, sensitive information
(referred to in the draft guidance as mandatory CoCs). For non-
federally funded research, issuance of CoCs is not required but may be
issued at the discretion of FDA (referred to in the draft guidance as
discretionary CoCs) when the study involves a product subject to FDA's
jurisdiction and regulatory authority. FDA intends to continue
receiving such requests and will issue discretionary CoCs as
appropriate. This draft guidance is intended to provide information on
how to request a discretionary CoC, the statutory requirements for
requesting such a CoC, and the statutory responsibilities associated
with possessing a CoC. Although the mandatory CoC and the discretionary
CoC are issued under different processes, the protections afforded by
the issuance of either CoC are identical and the statutory
responsibilities are applicable to both.
    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance
represents the current thinking of FDA on ``Certificates of
Confidentiality; Guidance for Sponsors, Sponsor-Investigators,
Researchers, Industry, and Food and Drug Administration Staff.'' It
does not establish any rights for any person and

is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative
approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes
and regulations.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3521), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they
conduct or sponsor. ``Collection of information'' is defined in 44
U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or
requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records,
or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the
PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a
60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed
collection of information before submitting the collection to OMB for
approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of
the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Protection of Human Subjects

OMB Control Number 0910-0755--Revision

    CoCs are intended to help protect the privacy of human subject
research participants from whom identifiable, sensitive information is
being collected in furtherance of the research. A CoC generally
protects a researcher from being compelled to disclose identifiable
sensitive information about the research participant, created or
compiled for purposes of the human subject research. The holder of the
CoC may not disclose such information unless a specified exception
applies. For non-federally funded research, issuance of CoCs is not
required but may be issued at the discretion of FDA (discretionary
CoCs) when the study involves a product subject to FDA's jurisdiction
and regulatory authority. The draft guidance is intended to provide
information on how to request a discretionary CoC, the statutory
requirements for requesting such a CoC, and the statutory
responsibilities associated with possessing a CoC. We already receive
such CoC requests and will issue discretionary CoCs as appropriate. As
discussed in the draft guidance, to help ensure that discretionary CoCs
are issued to those entities who can comply with the requirements of
the statutory provision, we recommend that only sponsors or sponsor-
investigators submit requests for discretionary CoCs (as defined in 21
CFR 50.3, 312.3, and 812.3) (i.e., the individual who takes
responsibility for or initiates the clinical investigation). This will
help eliminate duplicative requests to FDA for the same human subject
research. Accordingly, we are revising the information collection
approved under OMB control number 0910-0755 (Protection of Human
Subjects) to include the additional information collection elements
recommended in the draft guidance.

A. Descriptive Information

    To facilitate our review and expedite consideration of a
discretionary CoC request, sponsors, sponsor-investigators, or the
authorized representative should include descriptive information in
their submission. The information is listed below and in ``Section IV.
Request for Discretionary CoCs From FDA'' of the draft guidance.
     Sponsor or Sponsor-Investigator Name or authorized
representative (e.g., the individual who takes responsibility for or
initiates the clinical investigation).
     Sponsor or Sponsor-Investigator or authorized
representative Address (same as on file with FDA).
     Sponsor or Sponsor-Investigator or authorized
representative email address.
     FDA Application Number, as available (e.g., IND/NDA/BLA/
IDE/HDE/PMA/PMTA/ITP).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Investigational New Drug Application/New Drug Application/
Biologics License Application/Investigational Device Exemption/
Humanitarian Device Exemption/Premarket Application/Premarket
Tobacco Product Application/Investigational Tobacco Product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ClinicalTrials.gov numerical identifier (if applicable)
(number provided upon registration on www.ClinicalTrials.gov).
     Title of research.
     If conducting human subject research that is subject to
FDA's jurisdiction but the sponsor or sponsor-investigator is exempt
from submitting an application (e.g., IND/IDE), submit all of the above
information, with the exception of the FDA application number.
     Signature of Sponsor, Sponsor-Investigator, or authorized
representative who submits the CoC request.

B. Assurances

    Sponsors, sponsor-investigators, and authorized representatives who
receive a CoC must also comply with the statutory provisions for CoCs
to protect the confidentiality of identifiable, sensitive information
that is collected or used for purposes of the research. Such requestors
of a CoC should include the following assurances in their submission as
described in detail in ``Section IV. Request for Discretionary CoCs
From FDA'' of the draft guidance.
     The requestor is engaged in biomedical, behavioral,
clinical, or other research, in which identifiable, sensitive
information is collected or used.
     The research involves a product subject to FDA's
jurisdiction and regulatory authority.
     The requestor will be responsible for complying with the
requirements to protect the confidentiality of identifiable, sensitive
information collected or used in biomedical, behavioral, clinical, or
other research.
     The requestor will not disclose in any legal proceeding or
to any other individual unless the requestor has the individual's
consent or provide the name of an individual or any such information,
document, or biospecimen that contains identifiable, sensitive
information about the individual and that was created or compiled for
purposes of the research.
    The requestor understands and agrees that disclosure is permitted
by the recipient of a CoC only when required by Federal, State, or
local laws, or it is:
    [cir] Necessary for the medical treatment of the individual to whom
the information, document, or biospecimen pertains and made with the
consent of such individual;
    [cir] Made with the consent of the individual to whom the
information, document, or biospecimen pertains; or
    [cir] Made for the purposes of other scientific research that
complies with applicable Federal regulations governing the protection
of human subjects in research.
     The requestor understands that the identifiable sensitive
information collected by a researcher to whom a certificate is issued
and all copies thereof, shall be subject to the

protections afforded by this section for perpetuity.
    Based on the number of CoC requests we have received prior to the
Cures Act, we estimate receiving approximately 150 discretionary CoC
requests annually. We estimate that approximately 150 sponsors,
sponsor-investigators, or authorized representatives will submit
requests. Preparing and sending each request would take approximately 2
hours.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
  Draft guidance for sponsors, sponsor-investigators, researchers,      Number of      responses per     Total annual   Average  burden    Total hours
                  industry, and FDA staff on CoCs                      respondents       respondent       responses      per  response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submissions of CoC Requests From Sponsors, Sponsor-Investigators,               150                1              150                2              300
 or Authorized Representatives.....................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance
at either https://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: November 20, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-25551 Filed 11-22-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


Rev. 3/ 3 1/ 01 TUNING PROWDER APPLICATION BOOKLET Department of Health Environmental Hertlh Administration Lead Based Paint Abatement Program DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATE LEAD ACCREDITATION PROGRAM FOR TRAINING PROVIDERSKOURSES  District of Columbia Government Department of Health Risk Assessment, Remediation and CertTJicationDivision December 2000 *** GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLtJMBIA Department of Health Environmental Health Administration  Kish \ ssessnient, Remediation tiid ( ei titication Program December 1, 2000 Dear Training Provider:

Thank you for your interest in becoming an approved lead based training provider for the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia Act 11 438 of 1996,   The Lead Based Paint Abatement and Control Act  became effective November 20, 1996. On January 2, 1998, Act 11438 became D. C. Law 11 221. All lead training courses given in the District of Columbia must be accredited and in compliance with D. C. Law 11 221 which regulates the work practice standards for conducting lead based paint activities in the District of Columbia. Training courses given outside of the District must meet District reciprocity requirements to be accredited based upon another state s accreditation. Accreditation and course fees for any state, local government or nonprofit training provider are exempt as long as their employees actually perform the lead based paint training activities.

The District of Columbia s State Lead Certificationand Training Program includes all disciplines: Inspectors, Risk Assessors, Supervisors, Project Designers and Abatement Workers.

The Department of Health is currently reviewing and approving training courses as they are submitted. The conditions and requirements for training course approval are outlined below. Please submit the required application and materials to:

Department of Health Environmental Health Administration Bureau of Hazardous Material and Toxic Substances RiskAssessment, Remediationand CertificationProgram 51 N Street, N. E., 3rdFloor Washington, D. C. 20002 Attn: Mr. George Siaway Individuals, businesses, agencies or institutions wishing to provide training courses to prepare applicants to meet accreditation requirement shall submit the following information for review. Please submit the following information to the above referenced address as soon as possible:

1. Provider s Name, Address, and Phone Number 2. Fee ( See Fee Schedule on application)

51 N Street, S. E., Third Floor, \ Iaslungton, D. C . 20002 FEI, ( 202) 535 2690 F.\ S( 202) 535 1423 3. 4.

5.

6.

7.

8. 9.

10. 11.

12. 13. 14. The course curriculum and agenda A Statementsigned by the training manager that clearly indicates how the training program meets the requirements established by the District of Columbia. The statement should include: a Examinations( length, format, piusing score and course test blueprint for both initial and refresher comes) b. Topics covered in the courses c. Assurances as to test security and how exams are administered d. Public outreach and publicity efforts to recruit students e. Proficiency testing methods, if applicable f. Handson skills assessment methods, if applicable A copy of all course materials ( student manuals, instructor notebooks, handouts, etc. A detailed statement about the development of the examination used in the course. Course exams are necessary for refresher courses Names, qualifications( include education andor experience) and subject areas that each instructor will teach Teacher student ratio. Classroom facility dimensions. Hands on dimensions Description and example of numberedcertificates that will be issued to students who successWy complete the course Apposed course date forauditing purposes All academic branscripts, resumes and educational certificates for the Wg manager All informationinvolving proficiency testing, if applicable All information involving hands on skills, assessment, if applicable Quality control plan All courses approved by the Department of Health shall include a final Written examination, which will include a practical component to test the skill in lead abatement techniques. Successful completion of the examination will be a minimum of 70%. Training providers shall retain all students' grades for a period of three ( 3) years. Ail Wg course providers must notify the Department at least five ( 5) days prior to the start of all training courses.

It is imperative that all of the above items and the required fee be included with your application. The Department of Health will review your application and notifj, you of its decision(@ to approve or deny with 30 days. An on site audit will be conducted at the discretion of the Director and in accordance with Region I11 states' Memorandum of Understanding and shall be performed to confirm full compliance with all requirements.

Certificate of CourseApproval Upon approval of complete application, a formal " Certificateof accreditation'' will be issued. A fully completed and signed application must be submitted to and approved by the Department of Health before a course can be accredited. Failure to cbmplete the application or submit the appropriate idonnation will result in the rejection of the application. Refresher Course Approval Refksher courses shall be eight ( 8) hours in length for Inspectors, Risk Assessors, Supervisorsand Abatement Workers. Refresher courses shall be four ( 4) hours in length for Project Designers. The refiesher course will be a review of key aspects of the initial training course, developments in state of the art procedures, and a review and discussion of changes in Federal and District of Columbia regulations and include a course test.

Changes to an Approved Training Course Upon approval of a training course, changes in course content, materials, instructors, methods, location, dates or language shall be submitted to the Department of Health for review and approval at least ten ( 10) days prior to implementation.

ProspectiveTrainee Certificates The Department of Health requests the assistance of training providers to insurethat training certificatesare issued to the proper individual. This may require additional effort by your staff tocheck driver's licensesor social security cards to verify the name and social security number of each student. Thisrequest is made to insure that information is not altered on the training certificate issued to the student. Incorrect or altered information on training certificates may result in delays in certification for the prospective trainee.

Renewal of All Courses All course accreditation shall be renewed annually by reaffirming the address and course information on the training course application and describing any course changes since the last accreditation or re accreditation application. A fee is required withthe annualre accreditation application.

Suspension or Revocation of Approval of a Training Course Approval of any lead training course may be withdrawn for any of the following reasons:

a. The school, instructors or courses no longer meet the standards established by the Department of Health. b. Field inspectors indicate an approved individual, business, agency, institution or sponsor is not conducting the training that meets the requirements as set forth in the District of Columbia's regulations or the EPA Model Accreditation Plan. Training course providers shall permit Department of Health and Industry Representatives to attend, evaluate and monitor any training course. Prior notice of attendance by agency representative may or may not be given. c. Training course providers who do not notify the Department of Health at least five ( 5) days prior to the start of all training courses. d. Fraudulently obtaining accreditation. e. Failure to pay the fee. f. If the approval of a training course is revoked or suspended, the DepOartment will promptly notify the individual business, agency, institution, or sponsor of the reason for suspensionor revocation.

Please include the dates and locations of the scheduled training course( s) and the training manager's name and phone number when submittingtraining course informationto the Department of Health.

I am looking forward to receiving your application and lead training course information for review. If you have any questions, please contact our LEAD HOTLINE on ( 202) 535 2637.

Sincerely,

L

Program Manager Enclosure Lnstructionsfor Completing the Lead Training Provider Application Disclosure Notice As a prospectiveD. C. accredited training provider, you are required by D. C. Law to provide accurate information in seeking lead training accreditation in the District of Columbia. False or inaccurate information could jeopardize your training provider accreditation.

I. GeneralApplicant Information Please supply the official name of your company as it appears in your Articles of Incorporation, official documents or public telephone directory, etc. Your mailing address should include a physical site where your business is housed, conducted and where you receive your official mail. Please indicate by a check mark the type of company or business you re classified as: corporate, individual or partnership. If there is a different address thanindicated in the initial mailing address, please supply an alternatelocation, which includes the city, state and zip code. Ifyou have corporate designation, please provide number included in Articles.

H. Training Manager Inforrmation A training manager s experience and training should conform to the requirementsfor training managers as outlined in federal rules and regulations governing lead certification and training.

IIL Application Informution ( as identifled in Section I above)

Information requested pertains to information you supplied in Section I. You are also requested to provide information as to whether you have been accredited in other states or governmentmunicipalitiesto conduct lead training or whether you retain affiliationwith other organizationsthat have been accredited to perform lead training. You should list courses you have been accredited to provide training.

N. Applicant s Ristory of Legal Actions If anyone identified in this appIicationhas been the subject of or has pending disciplinaryor inegal actions against them, this includes suspensions, citations, violations incurred by an administrative, governmentalor regulatory agency. These agencies include OSHA, EPA, DCDOL, DCDEP, DCDCA and DCDOH and other established regulatory/ governmententities. You should provide accurate requested information.

K Applicant Statement and Signature You, as applicants, are affirming that information requested and supplied by you is true and accurate to the best of your knowledge. Ifyou have exercised deceit, you are liable for punishment and/ or fines as delineated in the rules and regulations governing certificationapplication in the District of CoIumbia. In addition, false information could trigger an accreditationdenial in the District of Columbia, as stipulated in the initial disclosurenotice.

Mail applications to: Department of Health Environmental Health Administration Lead Poisoning Prevention Division State Lead Certification and Training Program 51 N Street, N. E., 3& Floor Washington, D. C. 20002 Attention: Mr. George Siaway .. ! 3 c 3 Q U 0 YU 00000 ! 2 w v1 FACJSHEET Vol. 2 No. 2 November 1998 DOCo LAW 11 221   LEAD BASED PAINT ABATEMENT AND CONTROL ACT OF 1996

SUMMARY Workerflraining discipline The Environmental Health fees Administration, State Lead Certification and Training Program are Abatement Project permit announcing the D. C. Law I 1 22I fees.   Lead Based PaintAbatement and ControlAct of I996.* This law 0 Work Practice standards and Housing constructed after i978 PENALTIES/ FINES Entities in violation of the law will be fined and/ or imeoned pursuant to the Act.

FOR MORE INFORMATION Please contact:

D. C Department of Health Environmental Health Administration Lead Poisoning Prevention Division, State Lead Cert; ficationand Training Program on 202 442 5828.

Pr the regulates the removal of lead in the Districtof Columbia and requires person( s) contracted to lead hazard reducbon services and related training procedures for conducting lead based paint hazard redudon and related consumer outreachleducation activities.

ENTITIES EXEMPT FROM THE LAW Individuals who perform lead based paint activities at residences which they own unless the residence is occupied by a non owner or non immediate family member( s) or a child resides or frequently visits subject propertywho is younger than eight years old.

Housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities; unless any child under the age of eight years resides, is expected to reside in or regularly visits such housing. be trained, certified and/ or accredited.

EFFECTIVE DATE DC Law I 1 22I became final on january 2, 1998.

WHAT IS REQUIRED? . Person( s) engaged to remove, remodel, or renovate lead painted structures must be trained, certified and/ or accredited.

A lead abatement permit must be obtained at least IO days prior to any lead reduction activities.

. Liability insurance must be obtained by businesses and Risk Assessors . Any zero bedroom unit, such as an efficiency apartment D d.

z *

YQ n w v) rD 3 0+ D 2


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 192 (Thursday, October 5, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46583-46586]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21412]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81777; File No. SR-BatsBZX-2017-63]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend
the Implementation Date for Certain Changes to Exchange Rules 14.11 and
14.12

September 29, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 28, 2017, Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or
``BZX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
has designated this proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with
the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).

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

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to extend the date on which certain
changes to Exchange Rules 14.11 and 14.12 would be implemented.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.bats.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    On November 18, 2016 the Exchange filed a proposed rule change, as
subsequently amended by Amendments No. 1 and 2 thereto (as amended, the
``Proposed Rule Change''), to adopt certain changes to Exchange Rules
14.11 and 14.12 to add additional continued listing standards for
exchange-traded products (``ETP'') as well as clarify the procedures
that the Exchange will undertake when an ETP is noncompliant with
applicable rules. Given the scope of the amendments specified in the
Proposed Rule Change, the Exchange proposed that such amendments not be
implemented until October 1, 2017. On March 7, 2017, the Commission
granted approval of the Proposed Rule Change, including the October 1,
2017 implementation date. On September 20, 2017, the Exchange submitted
an interpretive filing (the ``Interpretive Filing'') \5\ and on
September 21, 2017 published a document that answers a series of
frequently asked questions (the ``FAQs'').\6\ The Interpretive Filing
and FAQs are intended to provide guidance as it relates to ETP issuers
complying with the Proposed Rule Change upon implementation. The
Exchange continues to engage with issuers about the Proposed Rule
Change and will update the FAQs as needed based on those conversations.
The Exchange now proposes to extend the implementation date of the
amendments specified in the Proposed Rule Change to January 1, 2018.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See SR-BatsBZX-2017-61, available at: http://cdn.batstrading.com/resources/regulation/rule_filings/approved/2017/SR-BatsBZX-2017-61.pdf.
    \6\ The FAQs are available at: http://cdn.batstrading.com/resources/listings/FAQs%20-%20New%20Cont%20List%20Standards%20FINAL.pdf.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80169 (March 7,
2017), 82 FR 13536 (March 13, 2017) (SR-BatsBZX-2016-80).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the Proposed Rule Change was approved, the Exchange has
engaged in extensive conversations with issuers of listed ETPs,
industry advocacy groups and index providers to discuss the new rule
requirements and offer guidance on rule interpretation and application,
and, as noted above, the Exchange recently submitted the Interpretive
Filing and distributed the FAQs. As part of these conversations, the
Exchange has learned that many issuers have already engaged in building
and testing the necessary compliance systems, but that they have been
unable to finalize implementation without this additional guidance. As
such, ETP issuers have expressed concern about their ability to have in
place well-tested systems and procedures to ensure compliance by the
current October 1, 2017 implementation date. ETP issuers, and industry
advocacy groups on their behalf, have explained that issuers will
require time to design and test new compliance systems as well as
engage in discussions with third-party providers to source and track
new data elements required for rule compliance.\8\ An additional three
months prior to implementation will allow ETP issuers to finish
building, more thoroughly test, and enhance the systems and procedures
that they've already developed in advance of the current October 1,
2017 implementation date. Further, the additional time prior to
implementation will further facilitate the ongoing discussion, which
will include progress updates, between the Exchange, ETP issuers, and
index providers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See, for example, Letter, dated July 11, 2017, from Dorothy
Donohue, Acting General Counsel, Investment Company Institute to
Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission,
available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nasdaq-2016-135/nasdaq2016135-1846208-155175.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is appropriate to extend the
implementation date of the Proposed Rule Change to January 1, 2018 to
provide ETP issuers with the time needed to finish developing and test
their compliance procedures. In support of its proposal, the Exchange
notes that the Proposed Rule Change imposes significant new compliance
requirements on issuers that they have not been subject to previously.
To meet these new compliance requirements, issuers must develop
internal systems as well as coordinate with third-party service
providers, such as index providers, to develop procedures by which they
can obtain essential data, which includes the form, timing, and means
by which such data is conveyed. Listed issuers have informed the
Exchange that they are unable to complete and sufficiently test this
extensive project by the pending October 1, 2017 implementation date.
The Exchange believes that it is critical for ETP issuers to have the
appropriate procedures and systems in place to monitor and evidence ETP
compliance with the new continued listing rules before such rules are
implemented in order to ensure meaningful compliance upon initial
implementation, which could help avoid trading disruption in the ETPs.
Therefore, the Exchange proposes to extend the implementation date for
the Proposed Rule Change until January 1, 2018.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \9\ in general and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \10\ in
particular in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed amendment is consistent
with the protection of investors because it will provide additional
time for issuers to finish building, more thoroughly test, and enhance
the systems and procedures prior to the initial implementation of the
Proposed Rule Change which will help ensure compliance upon initial
implementation which will further promote the policy goals underlying
the Proposed Rule Change and would help avoid trading disruption in the
ETPs. Since the Proposed Rule Change was approved, the Exchange has
engaged in extensive

conversations with issuers of listed ETPs, industry advocacy groups and
index providers to discuss the new rule requirements and offer guidance
on rule interpretation and application, and, as noted above, the
Exchange recently submitted the Interpretive Filing and distributed the
FAQs. As a result of these conversations and the recent distribution of
interpretive guidance, ETP issuers have expressed concern about their
ability to have in place well-tested systems and procedures to ensure
compliance by the current October 1, 2017 implementation date. ETP
issuers, and industry advocacy groups on their behalf, have explained
that issuers will require time to design and test new compliance
systems as well as engage in discussions with third-party providers to
source and track new data elements required for rule compliance.\11\ An
additional three months prior to implementation will allow ETP issuers
to more thoroughly test and enhance the systems and procedures that
they've already developed in advance of the current October 1, 2017
implementation date. Further, the additional time prior to
implementation will further facilitate the ongoing dialogue between the
Exchange, ETP issuers, and index providers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, for example, Letter, dated July 11, 2017, from Dorothy
Donohue, Acting General Counsel, Investment Company Institute to
Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission,
available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nasdaq-2016-135/nasdaq2016135-1846208-155175.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Providing listed issuers with additional time before the
implementation of the Proposed Rule Change furthers the protection of
investors and the public interest because it will enhance investor
confidence that listed issuers are complying with Exchange rules by
providing sufficient time to finish building, more thoroughly test, and
enhance the systems and procedures prior to the initial implementation,
which could help avoid trading disruption in the ETPs.
    For the above reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The Exchange notes that the
proposed rule change will facilitate ETP issuers' ability to monitor
and evidence compliance with approved continued listing rules by
providing issuers with additional time to finish developing and testing
their internal systems and procedures prior to the implementation date.

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

    The Exchange received a copy of a letter from the Investment
Company Institute, on behalf of ETP issuers, to the Securities [sic]
Exchange Commission.\12\ As described in Item 3 [sic], above, the
Investment Company Institute detailed challenges that ETP issuers are
facing in developing compliance systems to address the amendments
contained in the Proposed Rule Change and have requested that the
implementation date for such amendments be extended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Footnote 5, infra [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \14\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \15\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The
Commission notes that waiver of the operative delay will allow the
Exchange to immediately extend the implementation date of the Proposed
Rule Change, and avoid the potential confusion and disruption that
could result if the extension did not become operative until after
October 1, 2017. The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day
operative delay and designates the proposal operative upon filing.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \16\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BatsBZX-2017-63 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BatsBZX-2017-63. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and

printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BatsBZX-2017-63 and should
be submitted on or before October 26, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-21412 Filed 10-4-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 249)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 79420-79421]
[DOCID:fr29de08-23]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 35

[Docket No. RM05-35-000]

Standard of Review for Modifications to Jurisdictional Agreements

Issued December 18, 2008.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Withdrawal of notice of proposed rulemaking and termination of
rulemaking proceeding.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking,
which proposed that, in the absence of specific contractual language
enabling Commission review of proposed contractual modifications not
agreed to by the signatories (or their successors) under a ``just and
reasonable'' standard, the Commission would review such modifications
under a ``public interest'' standard.

DATES: Effective Date: This withdrawal published at 71 FR 303, January
4, 2006, will become effective January 28, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hadas Kozlowski (Legal Information),
Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    125 FERC ] 61,310.
United States of America, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Before Commissioners: Joseph T. Kelliher, Chairman; Suedeen G.
Kelly, Marc Spitzer, Philip D. Moeller, and Jon Wellinghoff.

Standard of Review for Modifications to Jurisdictional Agreements;
Withdrawal of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Termination of
Rulemaking Proceeding.

Docket No. RM05-35-000

(Issued December 18, 2008.)

    1. On December 27, 2005, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NOPR) in this proceeding.\1\ For the reasons set forth
below, we are exercising our discretion to withdraw the NOPR and
terminate this rulemaking proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Standard of Review for Modifications to Jurisdictional
Agreements, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 71 FR 303 (Jan. 4, 2006),
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,596 (2005) (NOPR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

    2. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to repeal its regulation at
18 CFR 35.1(d) and, in its place,

promulgate a general rule regarding the standard of review that must be
met to justify proposed modifications to Commission-jurisdictional
agreements under the Federal Power Act (FPA) and Natural Gas Act (NGA)
that are not agreed to by the signatories (or their successors). The
Commission noted that courts were divided as to whether, in the face of
contractual silence, the Commission was required to apply the ``public
interest'' standard of review or the ``just and reasonable'' standard
of review to proposed modifications.\2\ The NOPR thus focused on the
standard of review applicable to proposed changes in contracts in the
absence of contractual language specifying the standard of review
preferred by the parties. The NOPR did not address other issues such as
the showing needed to satisfy the ``Mobile-Sierra presumption.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,596 at P 8 (citing Boston
Edison Co. v. FERC, 233 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2000)). The Boston Edison
court stated that these issues would remain in a state of confusion
until the Commission ``squarely confronted the underlying issues.''
Boston Edison, 233 F.3d at 68.
    \3\ Morgan Stanley Capital Group, Inc. v. Public Utility
District No. 1 of Snohomish County, 128 S. Ct. 2733, 2739 (2008)
(Morgan Stanley) (referring to United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Mobile
Gas Serv. Corp., 350 U.S. 332 (1956); FPC v. Sierra Pacific Power
Co., 350 U.S. 348 (1956) (Mobile-Sierra)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. The Commission, in the NOPR, proposed a regulation which
provided that, in the absence of prescribed contractual language
enabling the Commission to review proposed modifications to agreements
that are not agreed to by the signatories (or their successors) under a
``just and reasonable'' standard of review, the Commission will review
such proposed modifications under a ``public interest'' standard of
review. The Commission concluded that the weight of court precedent
supported application of the ``public interest'' standard when
evaluating proposed changes to such contracts, unless the contract
language expressly invokes the ``just and reasonable'' standard. The
Commission stated that this standard would promote contract certainty.
Additionally, the Commission recognized the importance of providing
certainty and stability in competitive electric energy markets.

II. Discussion

    4. There is no longer a need for a rulemaking regarding the default
standard of review, as the Supreme Court has addressed the law in this
area. Since issuance of the NOPR, the United States Supreme Court has
addressed the Mobile-Sierra doctrine in Morgan Stanley. The Court held
that the Mobile-Sierra doctrine is a presumption that rates initially
set in a freely negotiated contract meet the statutory just and
reasonable requirement of the FPA.\4\ The Court explained that
``parties could contract out of the Mobile-Sierra presumption by
specifying in their contracts that a new rate filed with the Commission
would supersede the contract rate,'' but otherwise ``the Mobile-Sierra
presumption remains the default rule.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Id. at 2737; accord id. at 2746.
    \5\ Id. at 2739; cf. Public Util. Dist. No. 1 v. FERC, 471 F.3d
1053, 1075 (9th Cir. 2006),aff'd and remanded sub nom., Morgan
Stanley Capital Group, Inc. v. Public Utility District No. 1 of
Snohomish County, 128 S. Ct. 2733 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Because the Supreme Court in Morgan Stanley has since addressed
the default standard, the Commission concludes that it is no longer
necessary to adopt the regulation proposed in the NOPR. The Commission
therefore withdraws the NOPR and terminates this rulemaking proceeding.
    The Commission orders:
    The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby withdrawn and Docket
No. RM05-35-000 is hereby terminated.

    By the Commission. Commissioners Kelly and Wellinghoff
concurring with a separate joint statement attached.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.

    United States of America, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Standard of Review for Modifications to Jurisdictional Agreements

Docket No. RM05-35-000

(Issued December 18, 2008.)

    Kelly and Wellinghoff, Commissioners, concurring:
    This order terminates the rulemaking proceeding on the standard of
review for modifications to jurisdictional agreements, withdrawing the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) that the Commission issued in
2005. This order states that, since the issuance of the NOPR, the
United States Supreme Court addressed the Mobile-Sierra doctrine,
including the default standard of review, in Morgan Stanley.\6\ As a
result, the majority finds that there is no longer a need for a
rulemaking regarding the default standard of review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Morgan Stanley Capital Group, Inc. v. Public Utility
District No. 1 of Snohomish County, 128 S. Ct. 2733 (2008) (Morgan
Stanley).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We agree that the rulemaking proceeding on the standard of review
for modifications to jurisdictional agreements should be terminated.
However, we believe that in reaching that conclusion, it is appropriate
to recognize not only the Morgan Stanley decision, but also the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's recent decision
in Maine Public Utilities Commission v. FERC.\7\ Because the Commission
is bound by the rulings in Morgan Stanley and Maine PUC, we conclude
that there is no longer a need for a rulemaking regarding the default
standard of review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Maine Public Utilities Commission v. FERC, 520 F.3d 464,
petition for reh'g denied, No. 06-1403, slip op. (D.C. Cir. Oct. 6,
2008) (Maine PUC) (discussing, among other issues, the circumstances
in which it is appropriate to apply the Mobile-Sierra presumption).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this reason, we concur with this order.
Suedeen G. Kelly,
Commissioner.
Jon Wellinghoff,
Commissioner.

 [FR Doc. E8-30622 Filed 12-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P