MEMORANDUM

To: Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket id: OAR-2013-0602

From: Region 5, EPA

Summary: The following questions were submitted to EPA prior to a 7/21/14 conference call between EPA and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency about the proposed carbon power plan for existing power plants.

Questions for EPA, July 21, 2014

   1. Will EPA consider comments on proposals that can better account for early action?

As we have pointed out to EPA in the past, Minnesota embarked on a CO2 reduction program awhile ago.  NGCC plants Xcel Energy were built with the expectation that Minnesota would be better positioned for upcoming carbon regulation. These actions are not credited in EPA's proposed rule due to the 2012 baseline. Further, the NGCCs installed under this program, which is cited in EPA's rule as a success, also give MN a more stringent target due to the effect of Block 2. Overall, the treatment of these NGCCs under the proposal is a potential double penalty for proactive actions by the MN Legislature, MN Public Utility Commission, and Xcel Energy to seek out coal plants for retirement and replace them with much lower-emitting NGCCs.

Beyond this, the NGCCs have also had lower capacity factors due to the integration of wind and use of DSM programs in Minnesota. A simple back-of-the-envelope calculation illustrates this impact. Minnesota had about 2733 MW of wind at the end of 2011, which would have generated about 7,900,000 MWH in 2012.  If Minnesota had not built this wind, and half of that generation were instead sourced from the state's existing NGCCs (which may be a conservative assumption), then Minnesota's NGCCs might have operated at about a 40% capacity factor rather than 23.5% in 2012. Our utilities are looking further at this question and also at whether and how much DSM may have further decreased NGCC capacity factors.

How can Minnesota account for customer conservation improvements that occurred before 2012 if EPA chooses to not set the baseline used for determining State targets at a date early enough to credit early action?

   2. Is EPA open to comment concerning methods to fix anomalous data for specific units such as Sherco 3?

Sherburne County Generating Station Unit 3 was down for all of 2012 due to an unplanned outage, making the starting point of Minnesota's goal calculation atypical. This should be corrected, as Minnesota will continue to rely on this generating unit (approximately 900 MW) for the duration of the planning period, and likely beyond.

This points to the broader issue that basing state goals on a single base year cannot capture all sorts of variability of outages, fuel prices, weather, etc. that may affect generation and emissions. Would EPA consider a multi-year baseline period as the starting point for goal computation?

What is the preferred reference period, 2012 or June 2, 2014?  EPA suggested that only those measures implemented after the proposed Clean Power Plan was released would count as "new" renewables or otherwise as new activity.  Yet, EPA has determined EPA targets for a State while giving reference to 2012 State generation and emissions statistics, including the use of renewable generation.  What is EPA's reference point for separating new from existing action?

   3. How can hydro power be accounted for in a state plan?

Minnesota utilities are entering into agreements with hydro generation in Manitoba or other parts of Canada as a means to reduce their emissions or replace other, more carbon-intensive forms of generation. EPA is clear that existing (pre-2012) hydro was not included in the denominator when setting state goals. However,
   * Under what conditions would EPA consider counting generation from hydro installed pre-2012 (or pre-proposal) toward goal compliance after 2020?
   * We understand new hydro acquired after 2012 (or after date of proposal) does in general count toward goal compliance. However could EPA please clarify whether a state that increases its RE generation portfolio by adding new hydro in Canada may count this toward goal compliance?
   * What if a utility adds hydro to its generation portfolio by signing a new (post-proposal) power purchase agreement, but this does not represent newly built hydro capacity, only a new PPA with existing facilities. Do the incremental MW count toward goal compliance?

   4. Will EPA consider adjusting downwards Minnesota's EE assumptions due to the age of the current program?

EPA's proposal uses a final goal of 1.5% per year annual growth rate in new energy efficiency (aka DSM aka Conservation Improvement Program) measures.  Minnesota has achieved similar levels of DSM performance in recent years.  However, DSM programs face challenges in achieving similar levels of performance as ever-more efficient technologies enter the marketplace, or are required by federal standards, and thus become part of normal activities and not eligible for participation in a DSM program. We further note that EPA recognizes Minnesota's ongoing achievements in DSM in Table 5-4 of the GHG Abatement Measures TSD, page 5-18, where Minnesota ranks fourth nationally in cumulative DSM performance at 13.10%. This achievement is based on significant DSM program activity since the 1980s in Minnesota.

What evidence does EPA offer that a state like Minnesota, which has been driving the DSM market for so long, can continue to achieve 1.5% per year performance on a sustained level from 2020-2030?

   5. Minnesota is very interested in receiving proper credit for its generation located in North Dakota.
EPA has included the renewables in other States that the Minnesota RPS "counts" as counting in EPA's tally of those other State Clean Power Plan emission rate targets.

How, specifically, can a Minnesota based RPS get incorporated into an EPA enforceable SIP?

How can Minnesota exercise "claims" to renewables built for Minnesota RPS requirements if EPA has structured that doing so will increase the burden for renewables in those other States?  Shouldn't EPA be giving relief to States by allowing recalculation of State targets if EPA's basis for target setting is being modified by such matters?

Minnesota's 2012 renewable percentage is 18% according to Table 6 in the proposed rule, and its target is 15% for the purposes of emissions reduction targets per the same table. We believe that the state received a target based on the 15% target.
   * Can you please confirm that all of the existing and planned renewables are eligible toward compliance?
   * Also, can you confirm that Minnesota's above-target renewables help the state for compliance even beyond the target levels?
   * Can you explain how this compliance step works in the rule?
   * Do entities or generators that are used to reduce fossil generation meet the same provisions as those defined as "affected units"?  That is, do they have to be 25 MW and provide 1/3 power to the grid, for example, can we use landfill gas-to-energy plants as part of our RE?

Credit for out-of-state renewable generation
   * Assuming for the moment that states do not collaborate and submit regional plans, which state would be allowed to count newly built (post-proposal) renewable generation towards its compliance demonstration  -  the state where the renewable generation is located, or the state where the load it serves is located?
   * The State Plan Considerations TSD indicates that a "state that implements the measure  -   i.e., end-use energy efficiency and renewable energy regulations or programs, or an emission limit that addresses out-of-state generation  -  claims the avoided CO2 emissions, regardless of where they occur."  What happens if two states disagree on who gets to claim the emissions reductions benefits of a particular state action?

   6. Are RECs like that provided by M-RETs going to be good enough to track renewable generation?

   7. Minnesota is interested in accepting EPA's offer to host a discussion focused solely on converting the rate-based goals to their equivalent mass-based goals.

We look forward to a discussion with EPA as soon as EPA is able to schedule it.

   8. At-Risk Nuclear Power Capacity:

We are unclear about how EPA's approach of accounting for at risk nuclear either improves or impedes overall CO2 reductions in the United States.  Minnesota has two nuclear generating stations which have recently received approvals for uprates and operation extensions until 2030, at which time they are scheduled for shutdown.  Can U.S. EPA provide a sample calculation of how preserved nuclear generation is accounted for in back-end compliance calculations?

   9. State Plan preparation

What type of documentation is necessary for supporting a state's projection of future CO2 emissions?  Should we choose to use a mass based approach, can this mass be adjusted to account for changes in generation/demand?

If Minnesota was to create an in-state type of trading program between EGUs, are we able to include in the plan more EGUs than are currently defined in the rule as affected units (e.g. opt-in provisions).

   10.  Will EPA consider releasing a NODA?

Minnesota believes it would be really useful if EPA were to prepare a NODA that contains the state's final goal and possibly a rate to mass conversion method prior to rule finalization. This is similar to how EPA acted with CSAPR.


[Federal Register: May 13, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 93)]
[Notices]
[Page 27607]
[DOCID:fr13my08-114]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

13th Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 206/EUROCAE WG 76 Plenary

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 206 meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 206: Aeronautical Information
Services Data Link

DATES: The meeting will be held June 9-13, 2008 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at St. Petersburg University of
Aerospace Instrumentation (SUAI) 67, Bolshaya Morskaya, St. Petersburg,
190000 Russia, http://suari.ru.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Oksana Muhina, International co-
operation Department; telephone (+7 812) 3 12-09-37; E-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice
is hereby given for a Special Committee 206 meeting/EUROCE WG 76. The
agenda will include:

 June 9

     Open Plenary (Chairman's Remarks and Introductions, Review
and Approve Meeting Agenda and Minutes, Discussion)
     Coordination with WG78/SC214
     Action Item Review
     Schedule for this week
     Schedule for next meetings

Presentations

     To be determined
     SPR and INTEROP

June 10

     AIS Subgroup meeting--Meteorology Subgroup meetings
     Meteorology Subgroup meeting

June 11

     Subgroup 1 and Subgroup 2 Meetings

June 12

     Subgroup 1 and Subgroup 2 Meetings

June 13

     Subgroup 1 and Subgroup 2 Meetings
     Plenary Session (Other Business, Meeting Plans and Dates,
Closing Remarks, Adjourn)
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 5, 2008.
Francisco Estrada C.,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
 [FR Doc. E8-10412 Filed 5-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 86 (Thursday, May 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26292-26294]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10646]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0408]

Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy Assessments: Social
Science Methodologies to Assess Goals Related to Knowledge; Public
Workshop; Issue Paper

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public workshop; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a public
workshop entitled ``Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy
Assessments: Social Science Methodologies to Assess Goals Related to
Knowledge.'' The purpose of the public workshop is to initiate
constructive dialogue and information-sharing among regulators,
researchers, the pharmaceutical industry, health care organizations,
health care providers, and others from the general public about survey
methodologies and instruments that can be used to evaluate patients'
and health care providers' knowledge about the risks of drugs marketed
with an approved Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS). The
input from this workshop will be used to develop guidance for industry
describing the best practices for conducting an assessment of a REMS
goal regarding patient and/or health care provider knowledge about a
drug's risk(s). To assist in the workshop discussion and the ultimate
development of the guidance, FDA is making available an issue paper
that discusses our experience with knowledge assessments for REMS and
contains specific questions we hope to receive input on. FDA is also
opening a public docket to receive written comments.
    Date and Time: The public workshop will be held on June 7, 2012,
from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: The public workshop will be held at FDA's White Oak
Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Building 31 Conference Center, the
Great Room (rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Entrance for the
public workshop participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1,
where routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking
and security information, please refer to http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WorkingatFDA/BuildingsandFacilities/WhiteOakCampusInformation/ucm241740.htm. Participants are encouraged to arrive early to ensure
time for parking and security screening before the workshop.
    Contact Person: Colleen O'Malley, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
22, Rm. 4305, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX: 301-796-
9832, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Registration and Requests for Oral Presentations: There is no fee
to attend the workshop, and attendees who do not wish to make a formal
presentation do not need to register. Seating will be on a first-come,
first-served basis. Individuals who wish to make a presentation at the
public workshop must register and provide an abstract of your
presentation by 5 p.m. on May 21, 2012.
    Submit electronic registration requests to make a presentation to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Submit written registration
requests to make a presentation to Colleen O'Malley (see Contact
Person). Please provide your name, title, business affiliation (if
applicable), address, telephone, FAX number, and email address.
Identify the Panel number(s) for the question(s) you will discuss in
your presentation (see section IV of this document).
    FDA will do its best to accommodate requests to speak. Individuals
and organizations with common interests are urged to consolidate or
coordinate their presentations and request time for a joint
presentation. FDA will determine the amount of time allotted to each
presenter and the approximate time that each oral presentation is
scheduled to begin. Persons registered to make a formal presentation
should check in before the workshop. Time will be allowed during the
scheduled agenda for attendees to ask questions of the panelists. In
addition, we strongly

encourage electronic or written comments to the docket.
    FDA has developed an issue paper entitled ``Risk Evaluation and
Mitigation Strategy Assessments: Social Science Methodologies to Assess
Goals Related to Knowledge'' that discusses our experience with
knowledge assessments for REMS. The issue paper also contains a number
of specific questions that we hope to receive input on. The issue paper
can be found on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/NewsEvents/ucm292337.htm.
    Background information on the public workshop, registration
information, the agenda, and other relevant information will be posted
on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/NewsEvents/ucm132703.htm as
it becomes available.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Colleen O'Malley (see Contact Person) at least 7 days before
the workshop.
    Comments: FDA is opening a docket to allow for public comments to
be submitted to the Agency on the issues and questions presented in the
issue paper or at the workshop. Regardless of attendance at the public
workshop, interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets
Management either electronic or written comments by July 7, 2012, to
receive consideration. Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. It is only necessary to send one set of
comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in
the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the
Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Title IX, Subtitle A, section 901 of the Food and Drug
Administration Amendments Act (FDAAA) (Pub. L. 110-85) \1\ created new
section 505-1 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act)
(21 U.S.C. 355-1), which authorizes FDA to require persons submitting
new drug applications (NDAs) or abbreviated new drug applications
(ANDAs) for prescription products, or biologics license applications
(BLAs), to submit and implement a REMS if FDA determines that a REMS is
necessary to ensure the benefits of a drug outweigh the risks of the
drug. To require a REMS for an already approved drug, FDA must have
become aware of new safety information as defined in the statute.
Elements for REMS approved for NDAs and BLAs may include a Medication
Guide, a communication plan, and/or elements to assure safe use
(ETASU), and an implementation system, if specific statutory criteria
are met. All approved REMS for products approved under an NDA or BLA
must include a timetable for submission of assessments of the REMS.
FDAAA contains provisions that are specifically directed to REMS for
ANDAs, and these REMS may include only a Medication Guide and/or ETASU
and an implementation system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ85/pdf/PLAW-110publ85.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because most REMS include a goal related to knowledge, such as to
inform or educate patients and/or health care providers about the
serious risks associated with and safe use of a drug, assessments for a
drug subject to a REMS frequently include assessments of patients' and
providers' knowledge. To conduct this assessment, most applicants have
undertaken cross-sectional surveys of patients who have taken the drug
and health care providers who have prescribed or dispensed the drug.
    As a result of FDA's review of the surveys that are included as
components of a REMS assessment, the Agency has identified certain
challenges to conducting these types of studies. FDA has specific
questions about the methodology for obtaining survey data and
presenting the results, including about appropriate sample size;
methods to ensure representativeness; how to determine endpoints;
questionnaire design and analyses; and presentation of survey results.
    To date, FDA has worked with individual applicants to attempt to
introduce and sustain some measure of consistency in methods and
expectations. Although absolute uniformity is not possible, the Agency
seeks to solicit information and feedback about valid survey methods
that can improve the quality and consistency of REMS assessment
surveys. In addition, FDA seeks feedback on whether methodologies other
than surveys could be used to obtain this information. Finally, FDA
seeks to solicit information about using surveys other than knowledge
assessment surveys as a tool to assess whether the elements of a REMS
are meeting its goals including: (1) Changes in behavior for both
patients and prescribers such as whether a drug is used to a large
degree in patients at higher risk of an adverse reaction; (2) burden on
the health care system, which could include the time required to
accomplish REMS-related activities; and (3) adverse effects on patient
access to the drug, such as substantial delays between the time of
presentation of a prescription and the time of drug dispensing or
prescribers choosing not to prescribe the drug anymore.

II. Why are we holding this public workshop?

    FDA is soliciting information and feedback to optimize the
assessment of REMS goals related to knowledge. Because we have received
only surveys that assess knowledge, the workshop will invest
considerable time in identifying best methodological practices for
conducting REMS assessment surveys. However, FDA is also encouraging
discussion of alternatives to surveys, given the issues we have
observed, as discussed in the issue paper. Feedback received in the
docket and resulting from this workshop will assist the Agency in
developing guidance for industry.
    The workshop objectives are as follows: (1) Initiate constructive
dialogue and information-sharing about survey methodologies and
instruments used to evaluate patients' and healthcare providers'
knowledge about drugs' risks; (2) share current FDA experience
regarding social science assessments of surveys as a component of REMS
Assessment Plans; (3) obtain information that will be used to develop
standardized survey methodologies for evaluating patient and health
care provider knowledge under a REMS; (4) discuss alternative
methodologies to surveys to assess knowledge; and (5) discuss the use
of surveys as a tool to assess patient and prescriber behavior changes,
burden on the health care system, and patient access to the drug under
a REMS.

III. Who is the target audience and who should attend this public
workshop?

    Although the workshop is open to all interested parties, the target
audience includes social science professionals; statisticians;
regulators; researchers; and representatives from academia, the
pharmaceutical industry, and the scientific community who may be
interested in improving the quality and consistency of methodology for
evaluating REMS goals related to knowledge.

IV. What are the topics we intend to discuss at the public workshop?

    The workshop will include panel discussions and individual and/or
joint presentations. The key issues to be addressed are: (1) How should

assessments of knowledge be structured to achieve valid, reliable, and
informative results; (2) how can surveys be used to assess changes in
patient and prescriber behavior, burden to the health care system, and
patient access to the drug; and (3) what are appropriate alternatives
to surveys to assess educational components of REMS? Two panel
discussions will focus on areas in which the Agency requests specific
input.
     Panel 1 will focus on using surveys to assess knowledge.
Topics will include, but are not limited to, recruiting a
representative sample, sample size, question design, process, and
endpoints.
     Panel 2 will focus on alternatives to surveys and the use
of surveys to assess patient and prescriber behavior changes, burden on
the health care system, and patient access to the drug. Topics will
include, but are not limited to, recruiting a representative sample,
question design, interpretation of results, and specific pros and cons
of the alternatives.

V. Transcripts

    Please be advised that as soon as a transcript of the workshop is
available, it will be accessible at http://www.regulations.gov. It may
be viewed at the Division of Dockets Management (see Comments). A
transcript will also be available in either hardcopy or on CD-ROM,
after submission of a Freedom of Information request. Written requests
are to be sent to the Division of Freedom of Information (ELEM-1029),
Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Element Bldg.,
Rockville, MD 20857.

    Dated: April 27, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-10646 Filed 5-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 7, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 74956-74959]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26488]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0826; Airspace Docket No. 21-AEA-21]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment and Establishment of Area Navigation (RNAV) Routes;
Northeast United States

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends two low altitude Area Navigation (RNAV)
routes

(T-routes), and establishes one T-route, in support of the VHF
Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program.
The purpose is to enhance the efficiency of the National Airspace
System (NAS) by transitioning from ground-based navigation aids to a
satellite-based navigation system.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, February 23, 2023. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11
and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it modifies the route structure as necessary to preserve
the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the NAS.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No.
FAA-2022-0826, in the Federal Register (87 FR 42395; July 15, 2022).
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were
received.
    United States RNAV T-routes are published in paragraph 6011, and
Canadian T-routes are published in paragraph 6013, respectively, of FAA
Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15,
2022 which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The RNAV routes
listed in this document will be subsequently published in FAA Order JO
7400.11.

Differences From the NPRM

    The United States RNAV routes T-287 and T-318 are removed from this
docket for additional planning and coordination. These routes will be
placed in subsequent dockets at a later date.
    The NPRM proposed to extend T-358 from the AVALO, NJ, Fix to the
Augusta, ME (AUG), VHF Omnidirectional Range/Distance Measuring
Equipment (VOR/DME). The proposed route extension after the AVALO Fix
(from MANTA, NJ to Augusta, ME) was based on replacing various VORs
scheduled for decommissioning under the VOR MON plan. Fixes or
Waypoints (WPs) were to be added to T-358 in place of the VORs,
however, the decommissioning of the associated VORs is not scheduled
until later dates. Since the VORs are still available for navigation,
it is premature to amend the routing at this time. As amended, T-358
extends from the Martinsburg, WV (MRB), VHF Omnidirectional Range and
Tactical Air Navigational System (VORTAC) to the AVALO, NJ, Fix.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September
15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class
A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending two low altitude RNAV
T-routes, designated T-358, and T-608, and establishing one T-route,
designated T-320, in the northeast United States. This action supports
the VOR MON Program, and the transition of the NAS from ground-based
navigation aids to satellite-based navigation.
    T-320: T-320 is a new route that extends between the GILFF, VA, WP
and the Gardner, MA (GDM), VOR/DME. T-320 overlays portions of airway
V-308 from the BILIT, MD, Fix, to the CHOPS, MD, Fix, and from the
WNSTN, NJ, WP to the YANCT, CT, WP.
    T-358: T-358 extends between the Martinsburg, WV (MRB), VORTAC, and
the AVALO, NJ, Fix. The HOGZZ, MD, WP name is changed to the TWIRK, MD,
WP per request from air traffic control (ATC). The latitude/longitude
coordinates of the WP remain unchanged. The GOLDA, MD, Fix; the BROSS,
MD, Fix; and the LEEAH, NJ, Fix are removed from the route description
because they don't denote turn points on the route. However, the fixes
will remain on aeronautical charts for ATC purposes.
    T-608: T-608 is an existing Canadian T route that extends into U.S.
airspace between the HOCKE, MI, WP, and the YANTC, CT, WP. This action
modifies the eastern end of the route by removing the segments between
the Gardner, MA (GDM), VOR/DME, and the YANCT, CT, WP. Instead, the
route is realigned to proceed eastward from the Gardner VOR/DME through
the BRONC, MA; LOBBY, MA; and SOSYO, MA, Fixes; to terminate at the
REVER, MA, Fix (located 5 nautical miles north of the Boston, MA (BOS),
VOR/DME). The new route T-320 (described above) incorporates the
segments between the YANCT WP and the Gardner VOR/DME that are being
removed from T-608.
    In addition, the following points are removed from the T-608 legal
description because they do not denote a turn point on the route:
MONCK, NY, WP; LORTH, NY, Fix; MAGEN, NY, WP; KONDO, NY, WP; WIFFY, NY,
WP; STODA, NY, WP; VASTS, NY, Fix; NORSE, NY, WP; MARIA, NY, WP; WARUV,
NY, WP; GRISY, MA, WP; WARIC, MA, WP; HURLY, MA, Fix; GRAYM, MA, WP;
BLATT, CT, WP; MOGUL, CT, WP; and YANCT, CT, WP.
    Full route descriptions of the above T routes are listed in the
amendments to part 71 set forth below.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic

procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when
promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action of amending two, and
establishing one low altitude Area Navigation (RNAV) T routes, as
described above, in support of efforts transitioning the NAS from
ground-based to satellite-based navigation, qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq.) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further
environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify
classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see
14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas;
Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points); and paragraph 5-
6.5b, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact
review ``Actions regarding establishment of jet routes and Federal
airways (see 14 CFR 71.15, Designation of jet routes and VOR Federal
airways) . . .''. As such, this action is not expected to result in any
potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA
Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the
FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a
normally categorically excluded action may have a significant
environmental impact requiring further analysis. Accordingly, the FAA
has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant
preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact
study.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

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

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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19,
2022, and effective September 15, 2022, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6011 United States Area Navigation Routes.

* * * * *

T-320 GILFF, VA to Gardner, MA (GDM) [New]

GILFF, VA                       WP                 (Lat. 38[deg]21'44.86'' N, long. 077[deg]26'05.38'' W)
HIGPO, VA                       WP                 (Lat. 38[deg]22'16.09'' N, long. 077[deg]22'19.97'' W)
CAVDI, MD                       WP                 (Lat. 38[deg]25'33.43'' N, long. 076[deg]54'43.49'' W)
DAILY, MD                       FIX                (Lat. 38[deg]33'37.83'' N, long. 076[deg]43'31.05'' W)
VAALI, MD                       WP                 (Lat. 38[deg]44'00.85'' N, long. 076[deg]26'38.26'' W)
BILIT, MD                       FIX                (Lat. 38[deg]45'15.82'' N, long. 076[deg]03'57.59'' W)
CHOPS, MD                       FIX                (Lat. 38[deg]45'41.81'' N, long. 075[deg]57'36.18'' W)
EGGRS, DE                       WP                 (Lat. 38[deg]53'30.52'' N, long. 075[deg]30'49.95'' W)
JILLI, NJ                       WP                 (Lat. 39[deg]00'42.22'' N, long. 075[deg]05'46.21'' W)
WNSTN, NJ                       WP                 (Lat. 39[deg]05'43.81'' N, long. 074[deg]48'01.20'' W)
MANTA, NJ                       FIX                (Lat. 39[deg]54'07.01'' N, long. 073[deg]32'31.63'' W)
BEADS, NY                       FIX                (Lat. 40[deg]44'04.51'' N, long. 072[deg]32'34.21'' W)
ORCHA, NY                       WP                 (Lat. 40[deg]54'55.46'' N, long. 072[deg]18'43.64'' W)
BOROS, NY                       FIX                (Lat. 41[deg]09'24.45'' N, long. 072[deg]09'50.96'' W)
Groton, CT (GON)                VOR/DME            (Lat. 41[deg]19'49.45'' N, long. 072[deg]03'07.14'' W)
YANTC, CT                       WP                 (Lat. 41[deg]33'22.81'' N, long. 071[deg]59'56.95'' W)
Gardner, MA (GDM)               VOR/DME            (Lat. 42[deg]32'45.31'' N, long. 072[deg]03'29.48'' W)

                                                  * * * * * * *
T-358 Martinsburg, WV (MRB) to AVALO, NJ [Amended]

Martinsburg, WV (MRB)           VORTAC             (Lat. 39[deg]23'08.06'' N, long. 077[deg]50'54.08'' W)
CPTAL, MD                       WP                 (Lat. 39[deg]32'16.02'' N, long. 077[deg]41'55.65'' W)
TWIRK, MD                       WP                 (Lat. 39[deg]34'36.70'' N, long. 077[deg]12'44.75'' W)
MOYRR, MD                       WP                 (Lat. 39[deg]30'03.42'' N, long. 076[deg]56'10.84'' W)
DANII, MD                       WP                 (Lat. 39[deg]17'46.42'' N, long. 076[deg]42'19.36'' W)
OBWON, MD                       WP                 (Lat. 39[deg]11'54.69'' N, long. 076[deg]32'04.84'' W)
SWANN, MD                       FIX                (Lat. 39[deg]09'05.28'' N, long. 076[deg]13'43.94'' W)
Smyrna, DE (ENO)                VORTAC             (Lat. 39[deg]13'53.93'' N, long. 075[deg]30'57.49'' W)
AVALO, NJ                       FIX                (Lat. 39[deg]16'54.52'' N, long. 074[deg]30'50.75'' W)

* * * * *

Paragraph 6013 Canadian Area Navigation Routes.

* * * * *

T-608 HOCKE, MI to REVER, MA [Amended]

HOCKE, MI                       WP                 (Lat. 43[deg]15'43.38'' N, long. 082[deg]42'38.27'' W)
KATNO, Canada                   WP                 (Lat. 43[deg]10'34.00'' N, long. 082[deg]19'32.00'' W)
UKNIX, NY                       WP                 (Lat. 42[deg]56'44.51'' N, long. 078[deg]55'05.60'' W)
WOZEE, NY                       WP                 (Lat. 42[deg]56'01.65'' N, long. 078[deg]44'19.64'' W)
CLUNG, NY                       WP                 (Lat. 43[deg]03'17.17'' N, long. 078[deg]00'13.38'' W)
Rochester, NY (ROC)             VOR/DME            (Lat. 43[deg]07'04.65'' N, long. 077[deg]40'22.06'' W)
Syracuse, NY (SYR)              VORTAC             (Lat. 43[deg]09'37.87'' N, long. 076[deg]12'16.41'' W)
LAMMS, NY                       WP                 (Lat. 43[deg]01'35.30'' N, long. 075[deg]09'51.50'' W)
Albany, NY (ALB)                VORTAC             (Lat. 42[deg]44'50.20'' N, long. 073[deg]48'11.47'' W)
GRAVE, NY                       WP                 (Lat. 42[deg]46'47.34'' N, long. 073[deg]22'20.91'' W)
Gardner, MA (GDM)               VOR/DME            (Lat. 42[deg]32'45.31'' N, long. 072[deg]03'29.48'' W)

BRONC, MA                       FIX                (Lat. 42[deg]30'53.93'' N, long. 071[deg]43'21.61'' W)
LOBBY, MA                       FIX                (Lat. 42[deg]30'15.53'' N, long. 071[deg]36'34.04'' W)
SOSYO, MA                       FIX                (Lat. 42[deg]29'14.45'' N, long. 071[deg]25'55.75'' W)
REVER, MA                       FIX                (Lat. 42[deg]26'27.48'' N, long. 070[deg]57'41.31'' W)
Excluding the airspace within Canada.

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 1, 2022.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Manager, Airspace Rules and Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2022-26488 Filed 12-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 229 (Wednesday, November 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70938-70941]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28507]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0579; FRL-9394-7]

Draft Guidelines; Product Environmental Performance Standards and
Ecolabels for Voluntary Use in Federal Procurement; Notice of
Availability and Request for Comments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing for public review and comment draft
Guidelines intended to provide a transparent, fair, and consistent
approach to using non-governmental product environmental performance
standards and ecolabels in Federal purchasing, consistent with Federal
standards policy and sustainable acquisition mandates. These draft
Guidelines have been developed in response to requests via a wide
variety of stakeholder engagement channels from suppliers,
manufacturers, environmental organizations, Federal purchasers, and
other stakeholders over the last several years. Voluntary guidelines
for standards and ecolabels would help agencies implement sustainable
acquisition requirements of Executive Order 13514 and the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 23.103 which requires 95% of the
government's applicable contract actions to be sustainable.
Specifically, the Guidelines for standards and ecolabels could provide
clarity regarding the term ``environmentally preferable'' for purposes
of the Executive Order. In addition to seeking input on the draft
Guidelines themselves, EPA is seeking input on how standards and
ecolabels should be assessed for conformance to such guidelines. The
proposed draft Guidelines and supplementary information can be found in
the docket and at http://www.epa.gov/epp/draftGuidelines.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 25, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0579, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), William
Jefferson Clinton (WJC) East Bldg., Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave.
NW., Washington, DC. ATTN: Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0579. The
DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the DCO is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the DCO's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
     Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0579. EPA's policy is that all comments received will
be included in the docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
regulations.gov or email. The regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid

the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
     Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
docket index available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT
Docket is located in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, WJC
West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC
Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number
of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the OPPT Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Docket visitors are
required to show photographic identification, pass through a metal
detector, and sign the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processed
through an X-ray machine and subject to search. Visitors will be
provided an EPA/DC badge that must be visible at all times in the
building and returned upon departure.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding
environmentally preferable purchasing, contact: Alison Kinn Bennett,
Senior Advisor, Pollution Prevention Division (7409M), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Office of Chemical Safety and
Pollution Prevention, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-8859; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For information regarding standards policy, contact: Mary McKiel,
Standards Executive, International Staff (7101M), Office of Chemical
Safety and Pollution Prevention, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-0532; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. Although this
action may be of particular interest to those persons who purchase or
provide products and services for Federal agencies, developers of
standards and ecolabels, and the manufacturers of products, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the
technical contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

II. Background

A. What action is the agency taking?

    EPA is announcing for public review and comment draft Guidelines
intended to assist the Federal workforce in more consistently utilizing
non-governmental product environmental performance standards and
ecolabels in the Federal procurement process, consistent with Federal
standards policy and sustainable acquisition mandates.
    Federal agencies must comply with the following sustainability-
related purchasing mandates: section 2(h) of Executive Order 13514
(Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy and Economic Performance),
section 6002 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, section
9002 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, The Energy
Policy Act, section 2(d) of Executive Order 13423 (Strengthening
Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management) (72 FR
3919, January 26, 2007), and the FAR, including FAR Part 23
(Environment, Energy and Water Efficiency, Renewable Energy
Technologies, Occupational Safety, and Drug-Free Workplace) (see http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/procurement_index_green).
    Section 2(h) of Executive Order 13514 states that:

    The Head of each Agency shall . . . advance sustainable
acquisition to ensure that 95 percent of new contract actions
including task and delivery orders, for products and services with
the exception of acquisition of weapon systems, are . . . energy-
efficient (Energy Star or Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP)
designated), water-efficient, biobased, environmentally preferable
(e.g., Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT)
certified), non-ozone depleting, contain recycled content, or are
non-toxic or less toxic alternatives, where such products and
services meet agency performance requirements.

    In addition, via the ``National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995'' (Pub. L. 104-113; hereinafter ``the NTTAA''), Congress
required Federal agencies to ``use technical standards that are
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using
such technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or
activities,'' except when an agency determines that such use ``is
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.'' Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119 (titled ``Federal
Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus
Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities'') reaffirms Federal
agency use of non-governmental standards in procurement.
    While Federal purchasing policy is clear for the several standards
and ecolabels that are listed in statute, regulation, or Executive
Order, the lack of guidance on using other product environmental
performance standards and ecolabels often results in an inconsistent
approach by Federal purchasers and confusion and uncertainty for
vendors and manufacturers.
    Therefore, in accordance with Federal obligations under the NTTAA
and OMB Circular A-119 (see http://www.standards.gov), EPA is
requesting comments on draft Guidelines that could be used to select
non-governmental product environmental performance standards and
ecolabels for voluntary use in Federal procurement. Additionally, the
Guidelines could provide clarity regarding the term ``environmentally
preferable'' for purposes of Executive Order 13514, building upon EPA's
``1999 Final Guidance on Environmentally Preferable Purchasing'' (see
http://www.epa.gov/epp/pubs/guidance/finalguidance.htm) which defines
``environmentally preferable'' to mean products or services that ``have
a lesser or reduced effect on human health and the environment when
compared with competing products or services that serve the same
purpose. This comparison may consider raw materials acquisition,
production, manufacturing, packaging, distribution, reuse, operation,
maintenance or disposal of the product or service''.
    As envisioned by EPA, guidelines for standards and ecolabels that
would be used by the Federal government would not be applied to
products directly or to government standards and ecolabels or to non-
governmental standards and ecolabels that are already mandated for
procurement via statute or Executive Order. Moreover, these draft
Guidelines are not intended to discontinue or diminish procurement of
products conforming to government standards and ecolabels. Existing
mandates and government standards and ecolabels were influential in
framing the draft Guidelines, especially guidelines regarding the
environmental effectiveness of a standard's criteria. These standards
and ecolabels were

later assessed for conformance with the draft Guidelines and found to
align in principle (e.g., participatory process, transparency),
considering the differences in administrative procedures of the
government and of standards development organizations.
    Rather, EPA envisions that non-governmental standards and ecolabels
determined to be in conformance with the Guidelines would supplement
existing mandates and government standards and ecolabels. [For
illustration purposes, ``product category x'' has a recovered content
minimum of 20% per the EPA Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines (CPG)
(section 6002 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act). A multi-
attribute environmental performance standard for ``product category x''
is determined to conform to the Guidelines. Depending on the standard,
Federal procurement officials could be informed that either (1) the
non-governmental standard facilitates meeting the mandate (e.g., the
standard includes the CPG requirement as a prerequisite) or (2) the
non-governmental standard addresses important environmental
considerations, but does not necessarily fully address the CPG
requirement, so the standard could be specified in addition to the CPG
requirement.]

B. How were these draft guidelines developed?

    In 2011 and 2012, EPA and the General Services Administration (GSA)
convened several listening sessions to solicit input regarding the
Federal Government's role in sustainability. A number of sessions were
held following the release of the National Academy of Sciences report
``Sustainability and the U.S. EPA.'' Other sessions were held under the
auspices of the Interagency Workgroup established by GSA per section 13
of Executive Order 13514: Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy,
and Economic Performance (74 FR 52117, October 8, 2009).
    EPA heard some common themes from suppliers, manufacturers,
environmental organizations, multi-stakeholder bodies, regulatory
partners, and others. Key points included: (1) The desire for greater
clarity in the marketplace regarding standards and ecolabels and (2)
the opportunity to leverage the Federal Government's purchasing power
toward sustainability goals.
    The Interagency Workgroup developed an initial set of draft
Guidelines and contracted with Big Room Inc. (developers of
www.EcoLabelIndex.com) to test the feasibility and appropriateness of
the draft Guidelines. Big Room Inc. conducted a survey of a subset of
government and non-governmental environmental performance standards and
ecolabel developers. Based on the results of the study and external
stakeholder input, the Interagency workgroup revised the draft
Guidelines.

C. Authorities

    EPA is issuing this notice pursuant to the authority in the
Pollution Prevention Act [42 U.S.C.A. Sec.  13103(b)(11)] which
requires EPA to ``Identify opportunities to use Federal procurement to
encourage source reduction'' and Section 12(d) of the NTTAA, which
requires Federal agencies to ``use technical standards that are
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using
such technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or
activities.''

III. Draft Guidelines

    The draft Guidelines are organized into the following four
sections:
     Section I, ``Guidelines for the Process for Developing
Standards'' addresses the procedures used to develop, maintain, and
update a product environmental performance standard.
     Section II, ``Guidelines for the Environmental
Effectiveness of Standards'' addresses the criteria in the standard or
ecolabel that support the claim of environmental preferability.
     Section III, ``Guidelines for Conformity Assessment''
addresses the procedures and practices by which products are assessed
for conformity to the criteria specified by standards and ecolabeling
programs.
     Section IV, ``Guidelines for Management of Ecolabeling
Programs'' addresses the organizational and management practices of an
ecolabeling program.
    EPA recognizes that the level to which sustainability practices
have been incorporated varies by industry sector and even from product
category to product category. Therefore, a single, one-size-fits-all
approach to assessing standards and ecolabels would not be appropriate
or useful. To address differences among sectors, EPA is requesting
comment on an approach that provides flexibility. For example, each
draft Guideline has been designated either as ``baseline'' or
``leadership.'' Based on initial analysis, draft ``baseline''
Guidelines align with Federal goals and requirements, are relatively
straightforward to evaluate, and are applicable across industry
sectors. Draft ``leadership'' Guidelines represent best practices and
are currently achievable by some standards and ecolabels.
    Another example of the flexibilities EPA has considered arises with
respect to the draft Guidelines sections addressing Conformity
Assessment and Management of Ecolabeling Programs. Specifically, there
may not be a marketplace need for a second or third-party conformity
assessment program depending upon, among other factors, the degree of
risk associated with a product's nonconformity to the standard. In
those cases, a supplier's self-declaration of conformity would suffice.
Similarly, there may not be a marketplace need for an ecolabel,
depending upon the type of product and/or how it is procured. In those
cases, the Guidelines for Management of Ecolabeling Programs would not
apply.
    The proposed draft Guidelines and supplementary information can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/epp/draftGuidelines.

IV. Pilot Program Under Consideration

    In addition to seeking input on the draft Guidelines themselves,
EPA is seeking input on how standards and ecolabels should be assessed
for conformance to the Guidelines if they are finalized and
implemented. Based on discussions with stakeholders, EPA anticipates
that a number of organizations may be positioned to respond to the need
for assessment of standards and ecolabels for conformity with the
Guidelines. Taking this into account, EPA is considering a limited
pilot project, assuming sufficient appropriations are available, to
test an assessment approach, especially with respect to Guidelines
addressing the ``environmental effectiveness'' of a standard or
ecolabel's criteria. During this pilot, EPA expects that an external
entity (or entities) would convene and work with a multi-stakeholder
panel (or panels) to develop product category-specific programs to
assess conformity of standards and ecolabels with the Guidelines. The
entity (or entities) would then conduct the assessments for selected
product categories in a manner consistent with the International
Organization for Standardization's Guides on conformity assessment, and
develop a list of standards and ecolabels that conform to the
Guidelines. The results from the pilot project would be made publicly
available and EPA would evaluate the results to inform any future
action such as making available a list of conforming standards and
ecolabels for voluntary use by Federal agencies in procurement
activities.

    The external entity (or entities) would not perform any inherently
governmental functions such as procurement policy, procurement
decisions, or strategic implementation decisions.

V. Request for Comments

    EPA is seeking public input on the draft Guidelines and the concept
of assessing non-governmental standards and ecolabels for voluntary use
in Federal procurement. Recognizing that implementation of these draft
Guidelines will call for additional stakeholder engagement and
assessment processes, EPA also welcomes comment on the overall
approach, including the potential pilot project. In particular:
    1. How might the Guidelines benefit the broader marketplace?
    2. Are there any draft Guidelines that should be removed or
modified? Are there gaps in the draft Guidelines that could be
addressed by a new Guideline(s)?
    3. Are the designations of ``baseline'' and ``leadership'' in the
draft Guidelines understandable? Can the designations be easily
implemented? Do they appropriately reflect varying approaches in the
marketplace today?
    4. How should the leadership Guidelines be applied to standards and
ecolabels in different product categories (e.g., different weightings
in an overall conformity assessment scheme)?
    5. What processes, approaches, measures, and mechanisms should be
used to determine conformance with the Guidelines, if they are
finalized and implemented?
    6. Under what circumstances and under what authorities, if any,
should the Federal Government require a particular type of conformity
assessment to provide adequate confidence that the products have met a
particular environmental performance standard or ecolabel?
    7. Are there alternatives to the pilot project that EPA should
consider?
    8. If EPA were to move forward with a pilot project to test the
proposed standards and ecolabels assessment approach, which product
categories should be prioritized?
    9. What challenges need to be addressed/resolved in implementing
the proposed Guidelines in order to be a transparent, fair, and
consistent process?

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, government procurement, standards,
ecolabels, Guidelines.

    Dated: November 15, 2013.
James Jones,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2013-28507 Filed 11-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 74 (Thursday, April 16, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21249-21250]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08008]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2017-N-0366]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Advisory Committee
Nomination Applications

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

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

DATES: Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the
collection of information by May 18, 2020.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under Review--Open for Public
Comments'' or by using the search function. The OMB control number for
this information collection is 0910-0833. Also include the FDA docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amber Sanford, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

FDA Advisory Committee Membership Nominations

OMB Control Number 0910-0833

    FDA chooses to select advisory committee members through a
nomination process. (Appendix A to Subpart C of 41 CFR 102-3, the
Federal Advisory Committee Management regulations note that the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA, 5 U.S.C. App. 2) does not specify the
manner in which advisory committee members and staff must be
appointed.) A person can self-nominate or be nominated by another
individual. In order to identify and select qualified individuals to
serve on its advisory committees, FDA has established an online portal,
the FDA Advisory Committee Membership Application, to accept
nominations of potential advisory committee members.
    The FDA Advisory Committee Membership Application accepts
nominations for Academician/Practitioner, Consumer Representative, and
Industry Representative membership types. Nominees who are nominated as
scientific members should be technically qualified experts in the field
(e.g., clinical medicine, engineering, biological and physical
sciences, biostatistics, food sciences) and have experience
interpreting complex data. Candidates must be able to analyze detailed
scientific data and understand its public health significance. The
nomination process has recently been made electronic and is available
at http://accessdata.test.fda.gov/scripts/FACTRSPortal/FACTRS/index.cfm. To submit a nomination, nominators or prospective nominees
should upload the following documents in PDF format (see 21 CFR
14.82(c)): (1) Curriculum vitae (CV); (2) a written confirmation that
the nominee(s) is (are) aware of the nomination (unless self-
nominated); and (3) letters of recommendation are also suggested. For
Consumer Representative nominations, a cover letter that lists consumer
or community organizations for which the candidate can demonstrate
active participation is also recommended.
    These documents are collected in order to determine if the nominee
has the expertise in the subject matter with which the committee is
concerned and has diverse professional education, training, and
experience so that the committee will reflect a balanced composition of
sufficient scientific expertise to handle the problems that come before
it (21 CFR 14.80(b)(1)(i)). In the case of Industry and Consumer
Representatives, information is collected to assess the candidate's
ability to represent all interested persons within the class which the
member is selected to represent (21 CFR 14.86).
    Each nominee should be sure to review the Agency website for
information on:
     Vacancies, qualifications, and experience for more details
concerning vacancies on each committee and the qualifications and
experience common for nominees. Vacancies are updated periodically;
therefore, one or more vacancies listed may be in the nomination
process or a final appointment may have been made.
     Potential conflicts of interest such as financial
holdings, employment, and research grants and/or contracts in order to
permit evaluation of possible sources of conflict of interest.
    Also, FDA asks that prospective nominees inform us of how they
heard about the FDA Advisory Committees (e.g., attendance at a
professional meeting, an article in a publication, our website, while
speaking with a friend or colleague).
    To further the Agency's goals of promoting transparency regarding
the advisory committee process, FDA will also require that nominees to
serve on advisory committees submit a consent form authorizing FDA to
post, without removing or redacting any information, to FDA's public
website (http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees) the CV submitted as
part of their nomination materials if the nominee is selected to serve
on an advisory committee. The consent form requires that the nominee
affirm that the CV does not include any confidential information,
including information pertaining to third parties, that the nominee is
not permitted to disclose. A nominee will be required to submit a
signed consent form as a part of the nomination package for the
nomination to be considered complete.
    All nominations for new advisory committee members will be required
to be submitted through FDA's website at http://accessdata.test.fda.gov/scripts/FACTRSPortal/FACTRS/index.cfm, or any
successor system, and the submission will be required to be accompanied
by the consent form, on or after the date of OMB approval for this
information collection.
    In the Federal Register of January 7, 2020 (85 FR 718), we
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. Two comments were received but were not
responsive to the information collection topics solicited under the
PRA.

    We therefore estimate the burden of the information collection as
follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Number of
 21 CFR part 14; subpart e--members of advisory committees     Number of     responses per   Total annual    Average burden per response    Total hours
                                                              respondents     respondent       responses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advisory Committee Membership Nominations.................             391               1             391                          0.25              98
                                                                                (15 minutes)
Representative Member Submission of Updated Information...              54               1              54                          0.25              14
                                                                                (15 minutes)
                                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.................................................  ..............  ..............             445  ............................             112
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this information collection.

    Based on a review of data, we received 354 nominations for
membership to FDA advisory committees in fiscal year (FY) 2015; we
received 510 nominations in FY 2016; we received 500 nominations in FY
2017; we received 258 nominations in FY 2018; and we received 333
nominations in FY 2019. By averaging the number of nominations received
annually over the past 5 years, we estimate there are approximately 391
respondents to the information collection. We estimate it takes
respondents 15 minutes to complete an initial nomination, where
accompanying documentation is already available or has been prepared in
advance by respondents. Multiplying 15 minutes (0.25) by the number of
respondents to the information collection (391) equals 97.75 (98
rounded) annual burden hours.
    We have also included a burden estimate for members who currently
serve on FDA advisory committees who are not Special Government and
Regular Government Employees and who must submit an updated CV and an
executed/completed consent form annually. Currently there are 54
authorized positions for these Representative members, mostly Industry
Representatives. While some positions are vacant, we anticipate the
positions will be filled during the year. The request for the updated
CV and consent form will be made through email communications by the
Designated Federal Officer of the committee. We anticipate that the
burden to the respondent will be the same as that for new nominations.
We estimate each response will require 15 minutes (0.25) for a total of
13.5 (14 rounded) annual hours.

    Dated: April 3, 2020.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-08008 Filed 4-15-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment: Table of Contents to the Propecia Citizen Petition submitted September 18, 2017


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 28083]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12759]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2017-0024; OMB No. 1660-0137]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Emergency Notification System (ENS)

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity
to comment on an extension, without change, of a currently approved
information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the Emergency
Notification System (ENS).

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 21, 2017.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use
only one of the following means to submit comments:
    (1) Online. Submit comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID
FEMA-2017-0024. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Docket Manager, Office of
Chief Counsel, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street SW., 8NE, Washington, DC 20472-
3100.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act
notice that is available via the link in the footer of
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melton Roland, ENS Program Manager,
FEMA/ORR<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. You
may contact the Records Management Division for copies of the proposed
collection of information at email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA's Office of Response & Recovery (ORR)
owns and operates the Emergency Notification System (ENS). The ENS,
designated by FEMA Directive 262-3 as the agency solution for all
notification and alerts activities, sends electronic notifications and
relays messages, whether critical in nature, routine, or for testing
purposes with appropriate authorization, to DHS employees and
contractors, as well as emergency response personnel. In accordance
with Executive Order 12656, as amended, Presidential Policy Directive
40, and Federal Continuity Directive (FCD)-1, all DHS organizational
components must have in place a viable Continuity of Operations
Planning (COOP) capability and plan that ensures the performance of
their essential functions during any emergency or situation that could
disrupt normal operations. An effective ENS solution is a critical part
of this plan.

Collection of Information

    Title: Emergency Notification System (ENS).
    Type of Information Collection: Extension, without change, of a
currently approved information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0137.
    FEMA Forms: None.
    Abstract: The ENS contains contact information for FEMA emergency
team members, and for certain DHS HQ teams as well as USCIS and FLETC
teams. The ENS uses this information to send email, call cell, home,
work phones and SMS devices to inform team members they have been
activated. Teams include FEMA HQ COOP, Hurricane Liaison Team (HLT),
Urban Search & Rescue (US&R), Emergency Response Group (ERG), etc. The
system can only be accessed via DHS OneNet.
    Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal Government; Federal
Government.
    Number of Respondents: 700.
    Number of Responses: 14,000.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 500.
    Estimated Cost: The estimated annual cost to respondents for the
hour burden is $14,410. There are no annual costs to respondents
operations and maintenance costs for technical services. There are no
annual start-up or capital costs. The cost to the Federal Government is
$173,350.96.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Dated: June 14, 2017.
Richard W. Mattison,
Records Management Program Chief, Mission Support, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2017-12759 Filed 6-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 157 (Friday, August 14, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48852-48853]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20067]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC15-167-000.
    Applicants: Sky River LLC, Sky River Asset Holdings, LLC,
Sagebrush, a California partnership, Sagebrush Partner Fifteen, Inc.
    Description: Clarification to July 13, 2015 Application of Sky
River LLC, et al. for Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal
Power Act and Request for Expedited Action.
    Filed Date: 8/6/15.
    Accession Number: 20150806-5161.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: EC15-184-000.
    Applicants: Lakeswind Power Partners, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Pursuant to Section 203
of the Federal Power Act of Lakeswind Power Partners, LLC.
    Filed Date: 8/7/15.
    Accession Number: 20150807-5235.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/15.

    Docket Numbers: EC15-185-000.
    Applicants: Southwestern Public Service Company, Golden Spread
Electric Cooperative.
    Description: Southwestern Application for Authorization to Acquire
Jurisdictional Battery Assets of Southwestern Public Service Company
and Golden Spread Electric Cooperative.
    Filed Date: 8/7/15.
    Accession Number: 20150807-5237.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/15.

    Docket Numbers: EC15-186-000.
    Applicants: Aircraft Services Corporation, Cogen Technologies
Linden Venture, L.P., East Coast Power Linden Holding, L.L.C., AEIF
Linden SPV, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act and Request for Waivers, Confidential Treatment,
Expedited Consideration and Shortened Comment Period of Aircraft
Services Corporation, et al.
    Filed Date: 8/7/15.
    Accession Number: 20150807-5251.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/15.

    Docket Numbers: EC15-187-000.
    Applicants: MACH Gen, LLC, Millennium Power Partners, L.P., New
Athens Generating Company, LLC, New Harquahala Generating Company, LLC,
Talen Energy Supply, LLC.
    Description: Joint Application for Approval Pursuant to Section 203
of the Federal Power Act of MACH Gen, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 8/10/15.
    Accession Number: 20150810-5079.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER10-2265-008; ER12-21-018; ER11-2211-007; ER11-
2209-007; ER11-2210-007; ER11-2207-007; ER11-2206-007; ER13-1150-005;
ER13-1151-005; ER11-2855-018; ER14-1818-008; ER10-2260-005; ER10-2261-
005; ER10-2339-010; ER10-2338-010; ER10-2340-010; ER11-3727-013; ER10-
2262-004; ER11-2062-017; ER10-1291-018; ER11-2508-016; ER11-4307-017;
ER12-1711-013; ER12-261-016; ER10-2264-005; ER10-1581-015; ER10-2354-
007; ER11-2107-008; ER11-2108-008; ER10-2888-017; ER13-1803-009; ER13-
1790-009; ER13-1746-010; ER12-1525-013; ER10-2266-004; ER12-2398-012;
ER11-3459-012; ER11-4308-017; ER11-2805-016; ER11-2856-018; ER13-2107-
008; ER13-2020-008; ER13-2050-008; ER11-2857-018; ER10-2359-006; ER10-
2381-006; ER10-2575-006.
    Applicants: NRG Power Marketing LLC, Agua Caliente Solar, LLC, Alta
Wind I, LLC, Alta Wind II, LLC, Alta Wind III, LLC, Alta Wind IV, LLC,
Alta Wind V, LLC, Alta Wind X, LLC, Alta Wind XI, LLC, Avenal Park LLC,
Boston Energy Trading and Marketing LLC, Cabrillo Power I LLC, Cabrillo
Power II LLC, CP Power Sales Seventeen, L.L.C., CP Power Sales
Nineteen, L.L.C, CP Power Sales Twenty, L.L.C., El Segundo Energy
Center LLC, El Segundo Power, LLC, Energy Plus Holdings LLC, GenConn
Energy LLC, GenOn Energy Management, LLC, Green Mountain Energy
Company, High Plains Ranch II, LLC, Independence Energy Group LLC, Long
Beach Generation LLC, Long Beach Peakers LLC, Midway-Sunset
Cogeneration Company, North Community Turbines LLC, North Wind Turbines
LLC, Norwalk Power LLC, NRG California South LP, NRG Delta LLC, NRG
Marsh Landing LLC, NRG Solar Alpine LLC, NRG Solar Blythe

LLC, NRG Solar Borrego I LLC, NRG Solar Roadrunner LLC, Reliant Energy
Northeast LLC, RRI Energy Services, LLC, Sand Drag LLC, Solar Partners
I, LLC Solar Partners II, LLC, Solar Partners VIII, LLC, Sun City
Project LLC, Sunrise Power Company, LLC, Walnut Creek Energy, LLC,
Watson Cogeneration Company.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of the NRG CAISO MBR
Sellers.
    Filed Date: 8/7/15.
    Accession Number: 20150807-5260.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-225-003.
    Applicants: New Brunswick Energy Marketing Corporation.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status and Compliance
Filing of New Brunswick Energy Marketing Corporation.
    Filed Date: 8/7/15.
    Accession Number: 20150807-5233.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2260-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Compliance Filing
submitted on 7/23/15 under Docket No. ER15-2260 to be effective 3/31/
2016.
    Filed Date: 8/7/15.
    Accession Number: 20150807-5203.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2402-000.
    Applicants: Calpine Greenleaf, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation to be
effective 8/8/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/7/15.
    Accession Number: 20150807-5201.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2403-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Lathrop Irrigation
District Procurement Agreement to be effective 7/10/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/10/15.
    Accession Number: 20150810-5003.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2404-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool
Participants Committee.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: FCM Sloped Demand Curve:
Reconfiguration Auctions and CSO Bilaterals to be effective 10/12/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/10/15.
    Accession Number: 20150810-5084.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2405-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: White Oak Solar LGIA
Filing to be effective 7/27/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/10/15.
    Accession Number: 20150810-5127.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2406-000.
    Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of Joint Use Pole
Agreement with Clarke Electric Cooperative to be effective 10/9/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/10/15.
    Accession Number: 20150810-5140.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2407-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-08-10_SA 2826 ATC-
Dairyland Ownership and Cost-Sharing Agreement to be effective 8/11/
2015.
    Filed Date: 8/10/15.
    Accession Number: 20150810-5155.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2408-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-08-10_SA 2827 ATC-
Dairyland Attachment Agreement to be effective 8/11/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/10/15.
    Accession Number: 20150810-5158.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES15-38-000.
    Applicants: MDU Resources Group, Inc.
    Description: Amendment to July 9, 2015 Application of MDU Resources
Group, Inc. for authorization is issue short-term securities in the
form of promissory notes and/or commercial paper.
    Filed Date: 8/7/15.
    Accession Number: 20150807-5248.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 10, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-20067 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P