[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 75 (Friday, April 17, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21445-21446]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08167]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2020-N-0907]

Medical Device User Fee Amendments for Fiscal Years 2023 Through
2027; Public Meeting; Request for Comments; Postponement

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting; postponed.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that the
public meeting entitled ``Medical Device User Fee Amendments for Fiscal
Years 2023 Through 2027; Public Meeting; Request for Comments'' that
was scheduled in the Federal Register on April 3, 2020, to take place
on May 5, 2020, is postponed until further notice.

DATES: The public meeting will be rescheduled for a future date.
Information about the rescheduled meeting will be provided when
available. Submit either electronic or written comments on the medical
device user fee program and suggestions regarding the commitments FDA
should propose for the next reauthorized program.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Olson, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, Bldg. 66, Rm. 1664,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or 0f4c4b5d4722405f4a5e225c7b7d6e7b6a68666c4661667b666e7b66796a7c4f696b6e2167677c21686079.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The public meeting entitled ``Medical Device
User Fee Amendments for Fiscal Years 2023 Through 2027; Public Meeting;
Request for Comments'' was originally announced in the Federal Register
of March 6, 2020 (85 FR 13165), and was initially scheduled for April
7, 2020. On April 3, 2020, the meeting was postponed to May 5, 2020,
and was planned to take place by webcast only due to extenuating
circumstances (85 FR 18992). FDA continues to evaluate whether and how
to proceed with upcoming scheduled meetings while our day-to-day
operations are impacted by the COVID-19 public health emergency, and we
have decided to

postpone this public meeting until further notice. Information on the
rescheduled meeting will be provided in the future when available. The
web page for the ``Medical Device User Fee Amendments for Fiscal Years
2023 Through 2027; Public Meeting'' is available at https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/workshops-conferences-medical-devices/2020-medical-device-meetings-and-workshops. Interested persons may continue
to submit comments on the medical device user fee program and
suggestions regarding the commitments FDA should propose for the next
reauthorized program to the public docket.

    Dated: April 14, 2020.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-08167 Filed 4-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 23 (Thursday, February 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6177-6178]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2365]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Public Availability of the Department of Transportation FY 2010
Service Contract Inventory

AGENCY: Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of Public Availability of FY 2010 Service Contract
Inventories.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 743 of Division C of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-117, Department of
Transportation is publishing this notice to advise the public of the
availability of the FY 2010

Service Contract Inventory. This inventory provides information on
service contract actions over $25,000 that were made in FY 2010. The
information is organized by function to show how contracted resources
are distributed throughout the agency. The inventory has been developed
in accordance with guidance issued on November 5, 2010 by the Office of
Management and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP).
OFPP's guidance is available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/procurement/memo/service-contract-inventories-guidance-11052010.pdf. Department of Transportation has posted its
inventory and a summary of the inventory on the Department of
Transportation's homepage at the following link: http://www.dot.gov/ost/m60/serv_contract_inv.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding the service
contract inventory should be directed to Ames Owens in the Senior
Procurement Executive office at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: January 28, 2011.
Ames Owens,
Associate Director of Commercial Services.
[FR Doc. 2011-2365 Filed 2-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register: January 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 6)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 1495-1497]
[DOCID:fr09ja08-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. CGD07-07-107]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Mile
131.8, Clearwater, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is changing the operating regulations
governing the Belleair Beach Bridge, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, mile
131.8, Clearwater, Florida. This rule will allow the bridge to open on
signal, except that from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. this bridge will open on the
hour and half-hour. This action is necessary for workers' safety and
will assist in expediting the construction of the new bridge.

DATES: This rule is effective February 8, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket [Docket No. CGD07-07-107] and are available for
inspection or copying at Commander (dpb), Seventh Coast Guard District,
909 S.E. 1st Avenue, Room 432, Miami, Florida 33131-3028, between 8
a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael Lieberum, Seventh Coast
Guard District, Bridge Administration Branch, telephone number 305-415-
6744.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On June 18, 2007, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway, mile 131.8, Clearwater, FL in the Federal Register, 72 FR
33423-33425. We received no comments on the proposed rule. No public
meeting was requested, and none was held.

Background and Purpose

    The existing regulation of the draw requires that the Belleair
Beach Bridge, mile 131.8, Clearwater, FL shall open on signal; except
that, from 12 noon to 6 p.m., on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, the
draw need open only on the hour, quarter hour, half hour, and three-
quarter hour.
    Due to the construction of the new Belleair Beach high level fixed
bridge, ECDriver, representing the owner of the bridge, requested that
the Coast Guard change the current operation of the Belleair Beach
Bridge. The bridge will be required to open twice an hour from 7 a.m.
to 7 p.m. In addition, the waterway may be restricted or closed for
short periods to allow for construction of the new bridge. Exact times
and dates of any waterway restrictions and closures and bridge
restrictions will be published in the Local Notice to Mariners and
Broadcast Notice to Mariners. In cases of emergency, the bridge will be
opened as soon as possible. This regulation is necessary for workers
safety and will assist in expediting construction of the new bridge.
Once the new Belleair Beach high level fixed bridge is near completion,
we will propose to remove the regulation for the old drawbridge, as it
will no longer be necessary.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    The Coast Guard received no comments in response to the notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM). For this reason no changes were made to the
proposed regulation.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does
not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered

whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule would affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels needing to
transit the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway in the vicinity of the Belleair
Beach Bridge, persons intending to drive over the bridge, and nearby
business owners. The revision to the openings schedule would not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Although
bridge openings will be restricted, vessel traffic will still be able
to transit the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway pursuant to the revised
opening schedule.

Assistance for Small Entities

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

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD,
which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit
the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the
Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Revise Sec.  117.287(i) to read as follows:

Sec.  117.287  Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.

* * * * *

    (i) The draw of the Belleair Beach Drawbridge, mile 131.8,
Clearwater, FL shall open on signal, except that from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.,
the bridge shall open on the hour and half-hour.
* * * * *

    Dated: December 10, 2007.
William D. Lee,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, Seventh Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. E8-191 Filed 1-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/Publications/Freshwater/FMS1/3.asp

Newsletter and Technical Publications

Freshwater Management Series No. 1

Biosolids Management: An Environmentally Sound Approach

for Managing Sewage Treatment Plant Sludge

An Introductory Guide To Decision-Makers

Practices In Europe and North America: Waste Disposal Versus Resource Utilisation

Throughout North America and Europe, the application of biosolids to land is continuing to increase. As shown in Table 1, current biosolids applications to agricultural land in Europe and North America has become significant.

Although biosolids disposal in a landfill site is common, it should not be viewed as a long term solution. This option is considered to be environmentally beneficial only when such disposal includes methane gas recovery for application as a fuel. Modern landfills are complex and costly facilities to build and operate. They must be carefully engineered and monitored to ensure protection of both groundwater and surface water. In many locations, accessible, long-term landfill capacity is limited. Engineering and siting requirements can make the construction of new landfills prohibitively expensive. Most importantly, landfill disposal does not take advantage of the nutrient value and soil-building properties of biosolids, and takes up landfill space that can be better used for other materials. However, landfill is the unavoidable choice when municipal sludge is contaminated with industrial waste and municipal authorities are unable to monitor and control industrial discharges.

Table 1: Biosolids Management Method in European Nations and in the United States

Annual

Production

Mangagement method

(percentage of total)

(1,000 dry tons)

Agriculture

Landfill

Incineration

Other

Austria

320

13

56

31

0

Belgium

75

31

56

9

4

Denmark

130

37

33

28

2

France

700

50

50

0

0

Germany

2500

25

63

12

0

Greece

15

3

97

0

0

Ireland

24

28

18

0

54

Italy

800

34

55

11

0

Luxembourg

15

81

18

0

1

Holland

282

44

53

3

0

Portugal

200

80

13

0

7

Spain

280

10

50

10

30

Switzerland

50

30

20

0

50

UK

1075

51

16

5

28

US

5357

36

38

16

10

Total/Avg.

11988

38

43

10

9

Source: Chang, Page, and Asano, 1996

From an environmental point of view, incineration of biosolids is also a very limited disposal option. The ash produced in the incineration process must be treated as a hazardous waste because it contains high levels of heavy metals. Incinerators require significant capital investment and have relatively high operational costs. Because biosolids have a high percentage of water (70% - 98%), the energy costs can be significant, although some energy can be recovered by burning the organic material. Expensive and sophisticated air pollution control systems are needed to remove particulates and regulated gases from incinerator smokestacks. Like landfill disposal, incineration does not take advantage of the nutrients and soil-building qualities in biosolids. Incineration is occasionally used for biosolids disposal in urban areas where the population is large, suitable agricultural land is far away and transportation costs are prohibitively high.

Addressing Public Concerns about the Land Application of Biosolids

Opposition to land application has usually centred on local issues, such as resistance of rural communities to receiving shipments of urban biosolids. Apart from this, the most pervasive public concern about the land application of biosolids is the perception that toxic trace elements and pathogens may be released into soil and groundwater.

Biosolids often contain concentrations of trace elements greater than the concentrations found in typical soils; therefore, biosolids application may potentially increase the concentration of these elements. Most trace elements, however, are immobile and tend to concentrate in the soil only to the depth that biosolids are applied. The National Research Council in the United States has determined that where properly processed biosolids have been applied to soil according to specific guidelines and regulations, there has been no evidence of phytotoxicity or accumulation of trace elements in plants. If the agricultural use of biosolids follows appropriate regulations, including Ph requirements, no adverse effects should be expected or observed.

Communities are also concerned about the possibility of disease transmission since pathogens are present in the untreated sewage from which the biosolids are produced. In fact, pathogen populations are significantly reduced through the wastewater treatment and biosolids production processes, as well as through full compliance with regulated land application requirements. In the United States, for example, where biosolids utilisation accounts for more than half of the residual solids output, there have been no documented cases of diseases resulting from either treated wastewater reuse or agricultural use of this material. Furthermore, no adverse effects have been reported from ingestion of plants grown in biosolids-treated soils. It is essential, however, to have a fully functioning, environmentally sound biosolids management system in place to ensure public and environmental health protection.

In most communities, the land application of biosolids is usually limited to marginal or agricultural lands that are used for either animal feed or crops that are not ingested raw. For specialised commercial applications such as composting or horticultural uses, a higher degree of stabilisation is usually necessary.

A Range of Options for Biosolids Utilisation

The most successful and best-known biosolids utilisation practices are as follows:

 	• 	Agricultural cropland application, through liquid injection, or surface spreading followed by incorporation into the soil,

 	• 	Commercial sale as a fertiliser or soil conditioning material, particularly for horticultural and landscaping applications (although a higher degree of stabilisation is usually necessary),

 	• 	Rangeland and pasture application to improve available grazing,

 	• 	Remediation of contaminated areas such as mine sites,

 	• 	Soil amendment and recovery of marginal land,

 	• 	Land application in reforested areas, and

 	• 	Energy recovery.

In most cases, the option is determined by a careful cost-benefit analysis and the size and characteristics of the market for the product. Local markets usually need to be fostered through education, demonstration and training. When considering land applications of biosolids, it is important to ensure that concentrations of metals and complex organics do not exceed stringent regulatory limits. It is also essential to understand the soil properties and crop characteristics of those land areas being considered for land application of biosolids. To reduce risk, frequent, ongoing applications at the same site should be avoided.


[Federal Register: October 22, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 203)]
[Notices]
[Page 54592]
[DOCID:fr22oc09-82]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1858-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]

Georgia; Amendment No. 7 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Georgia (FEMA-1858-DR), dated September 24, 2009, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: October 8, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident
period for this disaster is closed effective October 8, 2009.

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

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-25388 Filed 10-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:		Derivation of E-Manifest Cost Savings Estimate of $75 Million/Year
			From the 2009 e-Manifest Alternatives Analysis Document

Date:			November 13, 2013
From:			Richard LaShier, Workgroup Chair
To:			e-Manifest Regulatory Docket

EPA has not prepared a detailed regulatory impact assessment for this regulation, as we have deferred the detailed evaluation of costs, burdens, savings, and other benefits until the later promulgation of the Fee Rule.  However, the final rule does include statements (consistent with EPA's 2012 testimony on e-Manifest legislation) indicating that when e-Manifest is implemented, we expect cost savings exceeding $75 million per year.  To support this statement, we are including in the docket this derivation of this cost savings estimate, which was prepared by EPA economist Chris McMinimy in the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery.

   * EPA expects e-Manifest will reduce RCRA hazardous waste manifest compliance burden
         o 2009 eManifest Alternatives Analysis estimates administrative costs of approximately $300 million
         o Estimates reduction in administrative costs of 25%
         o Estimates annual cost savings of approximately $75 million

   * EPA estimates reductions in administrative costs in 2009 eManifest Alternatives Analysis Document

         o Estimates three types of administrative costs

               1. Federal Manifest administrative costs
                     * Industry burden from complying with federal RCRA manifesting requirements
                     * 2,137,000 federal manifests generated annually
                     * Industry cost per manifest: $51
                     * Total cost: $108,987,000

               2. State Manifest administrative costs

                     * Industry burden from complying with state RCRA manifesting requirements
                           o More stringent than federal RCRA, only applicable to some states
                           o 2,947,000 state manifests generated annually
                           o Industry cost per manifest: $51
                           o Total cost: $150,297,000

                     * State government burden from administering RCRA manifest collection programs
                           o 2,947,000 state manifest generated annually
                           o Average per manifest cost: $5
                           o Total cost: $14,735,000

               3. RCRA Biennial Reporting Administrative Costs
                     * Burden from complying with RCRA hazardous waste biennial reporting requirements
                     * Costs included because e-Manifest will eventually incorporate biennial reporting
                     * Total cost: $22,988,000

         o Estimates reductions in administrative costs as 25% of all administrative costs
                     * Sum of federal manifest, state manifest, and RCRA biennial reporting administrative cost: $297,007,000
                     * 25% = $74,251,750


[Federal Register: August 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 164)]
[Notices]
[Page 49695-49696]
[DOCID:fr22au08-89]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0816]

Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee; Meetings

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee (MERPAC) will
meet in Nashville, TN, to discuss various issues relating to the
training and fitness of merchant marine personnel. These meetings will
be open to the public.

DATES: MERPAC will meet on Tuesday, September 23, 2008, and Wednesday,
September 24, 2008, from 8 a.m. until 4 p.m. These meetings may close
early if all business is finished. Written material and requests to
make oral presentations should reach the Coast Guard on or before
September 10, 2008. Requests to have a copy of your material
distributed to each member of the committee should reach the Coast
Guard on or before September 10, 2008.

ADDRESSES: The Committee will meet at the Innovation Center at
Vanderbilt University Center for Better Health, 3401 West End Avenue,
Suite 100, Nashville, TN. Send written material and requests to make
oral presentations to Captain Michael Blair, Designated Federal Officer
(DFO) of MERPAC, at Commandant (CG-5221), U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Second
St., SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001. This notice, as well as all task
statements discussed in this notice, may be viewed in our online
docket, USCG-2008-0816, at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mark Gould, Assistant to the DFO
of MERPAC, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of these meetings is given under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463).

Agenda of Meeting

    The agenda for the September 23, 2008, Committee meeting is as
follows:
    (1) The full committee will meet to discuss the objectives for the
meeting.
    (2) Working groups addressing the following task statements may
meet to deliberate--
    (a) Task Statement 30, concerning ``Utilizing Military Sea Service
for STCW Certifications'';
    (b) Task Statement 58, concerning ``Stakeholder Communications
During MLD Program Restructuring and Centralization''; and

    (c) Task Statement 64, concerning ``Recommendations on areas in the
STCW Convention and the STCW Code identified for comprehensive
review''.
    (3) New working groups may be formed to address issues proposed by
the Coast Guard, MERPAC members, or the public.
    (4) At the end of the day, the working groups will make a report to
the full committee on what has been accomplished in their meetings. No
action will be taken on these reports on this date.
    The agenda for the September 24, 2008, Committee meeting is as
follows:
    (1) Introduction;
    (2) Working Groups' Reports; and
    (3) Other items which may be discussed:
    (a) Standing Committee--Prevention Through People.
    (b) Briefings concerning ongoing projects of interest to MERPAC.
    (c) Other items brought up for discussion by the Committee or the
public.
    (4) At the end of the day, the working groups will make a report
and, if applicable, recommendations for the full committee to consider
for presentation to the Coast Guard. Official action on these
recommendations may be taken on this date.

Procedural

    These meetings will be open to the public. Please note that the
meetings may close early if all business is finished. At the Chair's
discretion, members of the public may make oral presentations during
the meetings. If you would like to make an oral presentation at a
meeting, please notify the DFO no later than September 10, 2008.
Written material for distribution at a meeting should reach the Coast
Guard no later than September 10, 2008. If you would like a copy of
your material distributed to each member of the committee in advance of
a meeting, please submit 25 copies to the DFO no later than September
10, 2008.

Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the meetings, contact
the DFO as soon as possible.

    Dated: August 7, 2008.
J. G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards.
 [FR Doc. E8-19524 Filed 8-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P