[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 145 (Tuesday, July 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44076-44078]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17748]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72658; File No. S7-08-14]

Notice of Proposed Exemptive Order Granting Permanent Exemptions
Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 From the Confirmation
Requirements of Exchange Act Rule 10b-10 for Certain Money Market Funds

July 23, 2014.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Exemptive Order; Request for Comment.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 36 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'') and Exchange Act Rule 10b-10(f), the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') is proposing to grant
exemptive relief, subject to certain conditions, from the immediate
confirmation delivery requirements of Exchange Act Rule 10b-10 for
transactions effected in shares of any open-end management investment
company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940
(``Investment Company Act'') that holds itself out as a money market
fund operating in accordance with Rule 2a-7(c)(1)(ii) of the Investment
Company Act.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 19, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number S7-08-14 on the subject line; or
     Use the Federal Rulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov). Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number S7-08-14. This file number
should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help us
process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one
method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's
Internet Web site (http://www.sec/gov/rules/other.shtml). Comments are
also available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's
Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington DC 20549, on
official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.
All comments received will be posted without charge; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should only submit information that you wish to make publicly
available.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Natasha Vij Greiner, Branch Chief,
Jonathan C. Shapiro, Attorney-Adviser, George Makris, Attorney-Adviser,
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, Division of Trading and Markets, Securities and
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-7010.

I. Background

    Exchange Act Rule 10b-10 addresses broker-dealers' obligations to
confirm their customers' securities transactions.\1\ Under Rule 10b-
10(a), a broker-dealer generally must provide customers with
information relating to their investment decisions at or before the
completion of a securities transaction.\2\ Rule 10b-10(b), however,
provides an exception for certain transactions in money market funds
that attempt to maintain a stable net asset value (``NAV'') and where
no sales load or redemption fee is charged.\3\ The exception permits
broker-dealers to provide transaction information to money market fund
shareholders on a monthly basis (subject to certain conditions set
forth in Rule 10b-10(b)(2) and (3)) in lieu of immediate confirmations
for all purchases and redemptions of shares of such funds.\4\

Accordingly, customers historically have received information for their
transactions in shares of money market funds on a monthly basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 17 CFR 240.10b-10.
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.10b-10(a).
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.10b-10(b).
    \4\ With respect to such money market funds, Exchange Act Rule
10b-10(b)(2) requires a broker-dealer to give or send to a customer
within five business days after the end of each monthly period a
written statement disclosing, each purchase or redemption, effected
for or with, and each dividend or distribution credited to or
reinvested for, the account of such customer during the month; the
date of such transaction; the identity, number, and price of any
securities purchased or redeemed by such customer in each such
transaction; the total number of shares of such securities in such
customer's account; any remuneration received or to be received by
the broker or dealer in connection therewith; and that any other
information required by Rule 10b-10(a) will be furnished upon
written request: Provided, however, that the written statement may
be delivered to some other person designated by the customer for
distribution to the customer. 17 CFR 240.10b-10(b)(2). Exchange Act
Rule 10b-10(b)(3) requires that such customer is provided with prior
notification in writing disclosing the intention to send the written
information referred to in Rule 10b-10(b)(1) in lieu of an immediate
confirmation. 17 CFR 240.10b-10(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, the Commission adopted amendments to Rule 2a-7 of the
Investment Company Act. Among other things, the amendments require
institutional prime money market funds, which, under the prior rule,
were permitted to maintain a stable net asset value, to sell and redeem
shares based on the current market-based value of the securities held
in their portfolios, i.e., transact at a ``floating'' NAV.\5\ As a
result, institutional prime money market funds, like other mutual
funds, will now be required to value their portfolio securities using
market-based factors (rather than amortized cost) and sell and redeem
shares at prices rounded to the fourth decimal place (rather than
rounded to the nearest penny).\6\ However, institutional prime money
market funds will continue to be subject to the ``risk limiting''
provisions of Rule 2a-7 and therefore will continue to be limited to
investing in short-term, high-quality, dollar-denominated
instruments.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Money Market Fund Reform; Amendments to Form PF,
Securities Act Release No. 9616, Investment Advisers Act Release No.
3879, Investment Company Act Release No. 31166, at section III.B
(July 23, 2014) (``Money Market Fund Reform Adopting Release'').
    \6\ Id.; Investment Company Act Rule 2a-7(c)(1)(ii), 17 CFR
270.2a-7(c)(1)(ii).
    \7\ Money Market Fund Reform Adopting Release, at 143; see also
Investment Company Act Rule 2a-7(d), 17 CFR 270.2a-7(d) (risk-
limiting conditions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given that share prices of such institutional prime money market
funds likely will fluctuate under the amended rule, absent exemptive
relief, broker-dealers will not be able to continue to rely on the
current exception under Rule 10b-10(b) for transactions in money market
funds operating in accordance with Rule 2a-7(c)(1)(ii).\8\ Instead,
broker-dealers will be required to provide immediate confirmations for
all such transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See generally Money Market Fund Reform; Amendments to Form
PF, Securities Act Release No. 9408, Investment Advisers Act Release
No. 3616, Investment Company Act Release No. 30551 (June 5, 2013),
78 FR 36834, 36934 (June 19, 2013); see also Exchange Act Rule 10b-
10(b)(1), 17 CFR 240.10b-10(b)(1) (limiting alternative monthly
reporting to money market funds that attempt to maintain a stable
net asset value).
    As adopted, government and retail money market funds are exempt
from the Investment Company Act Rule 2a-7(c)(1)(ii) floating NAV
requirement, and therefore, will continue to maintain a stable NAV.
See Money Market Fund Reform Adopting Release, at sections III.C.1
and III.C.2. Accordingly, for investor transactions in such exempt
funds, broker-dealers would continue to qualify under the exception
under Rule 10b-10 and be permitted to send monthly transaction
reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the money market fund reform proposing release,\9\ the
Commission requested comment on whether, if the Commission adopted the
floating NAV requirement, broker-dealers should be required to provide
immediate confirmations to all institutional prime money market fund
investors. Commenters generally urged the Commission not to impose such
a requirement, arguing that there would be significant costs associated
with broker-dealers providing immediate confirmations.\10\ Such costs
are expected to include both (1) the ongoing costs of creating and
sending trade-by-trade confirmations and (2) the costs of implementing
new systems to generate confirmations.\11\ The Commission recognizes
that there may be costs associated with requiring immediate
confirmations for such transactions,\12\ and is aware that such costs
may be passed on to investors in funds subject to the floating NAV
requirements.\13\ Nonetheless, given that institutional prime money
market funds likely will fluctuate in price, some investors may find
value in receiving information relating to their investment decisions
at or before the completion of a securities transaction. The Commission
requests comments regarding these potential benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Money Market Fund Reform; Amendments to Form PF, 78 FR
36934.
    \10\ See Letter from Paul Schott Stevens, President and CEO,
Investment Company Institute, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
Commission, dated September 17, 2013 (``Investment Company Institute
Letter''), at 37, available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-03-13/s70313-200.pdf; Letter from Timothy W. Cameron, Managing Director,
SIFMA Asset Management Group, John Maurello, Managing Director,
SIFMA Private Client Group, Matthew J. Nevins, Managing Director and
Associate General Counsel, SIFMA Asset Management Group, dated Sept.
17, 2013 (``9/17/13 SIFMA Letter''), at Appendices 1 and 2,
available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-03-13/s70313-199.pdf;
Letter from J. Charles Cardona, President, The Dreyfus Corporation,
to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated September 17,
2013 (``Dreyfus Letter''), at 35, available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-03-13/s70313-167.pdf; Letter from John D. Hawke, Jr.,
Arnold & Porter, on behalf of Federated Investors, Inc. and its
subsidiaries, to Chair Mary Jo White, Commission, dated September
17, 2013 (``Federated Letter''), at 22, available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-03-13/s70313-225.pdf; Letter from Anthony J.
Carfang, Partner, Cathryn R. Gregg, Partner, Paul LaRock, Principal,
Steven Wiley, Manager, Treasury Strategies, Inc., to Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated September 12, 2013 (``Treasury
Strategies Letter''), available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-03-13/s70313-118.pdf.
    \11\ See, e.g., Federated Letter, at 22.
    \12\ Money Market Fund Reform Adopting Release, at section
III.B.7.
    \13\ See, e.g., Dreyfus Letter, at 35 (``Confirming transactions
in [variable net asset value money market mutual funds] on a
transaction basis will increase costs, which will be passed on to
[money market mutual fund] investors or underwriters.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion of Proposed Relief

    After careful consideration, the Commission is proposing to grant
exemptive relief pursuant to Section 36 of the Exchange Act \14\ and
Exchange Act Rule 10b-10(f) \15\ that would allow broker-dealers,
subject to certain conditions, to provide transaction information to
investors in any money market fund operating pursuant to Rule 2a-
7(c)(1)(ii) on a monthly basis in lieu of providing immediate
confirmations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Section 36 of the Exchange Act authorizes the Commission to
conditionally or unconditionally exempt any person, security, or
transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities, or
transactions, from certain provisions of the Exchange Act or certain
rules or regulations thereunder, by rule, regulation, or order, to
the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest, and is consistent with the protection of investors.
15 U.S.C. 78mm.
    \15\ Exchange Act Rule 10b-10(f) specifies the Commission may
conditionally or unconditionally exempt any broker or dealer from
the requirements of Rule 10b-10(a) and Rule 10b-10(b) with regard to
specific transactions or specific classes of transactions for which
the broker or dealer will provide alternative procedures to effect
the purposes of the rule. 17 CFR 240.10b-10(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The floating NAV requirement, as adopted, only applies to
institutional prime money market funds--not to government or retail
money market funds.\16\ Shareholders that invest in institutional prime
money market funds will continue to have extensive investor protections
separate and apart from the protections provided under Exchange Act
Rule 10b-10. For example, as stated above, funds subject to the
floating NAV requirement will continue to be subject to the ``risk
limiting'' conditions of Rule 2a-7.\17\ These conditions limit the risk
in a money market fund's portfolio by governing the credit quality,
liquidity, diversification, and maturity of money market investments.
Accordingly, mutual funds that hold themselves out as money market
funds--including institutional prime money market funds--may acquire
only investments that are short-term, high-quality, dollar-denominated
instruments.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Investment Company Act Rule 2a-7(c)(1)(ii), 17 CFR
270.2a-7(c)(1)(ii). As defined in Investment Company Act Rule 2a-
7(a)(25), as amended, a retail money market fund is defined as a
money market fund that has policies and procedures reasonably
designed to limit all beneficial owners of the fund to natural
persons. 17 CFR 270.2a-7(a)(25). Under Rule 2a-7(a)(16), a
government money market fund is defined as a money market fund that
invests 99.5 percent or more of its total assets in cash, government
securities, and/or repurchase agreements that are collateralized
fully. 17 CFR 270.2a-7(a)(16).
    \17\ See Investment Company Act Rule 2a-7(d), 17 CFR 270.2a-7(d)
(risk-limiting conditions).
    \18\ Id.; see also Money Market Fund Reform Adopting Release, at
143.

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

    While institutional prime money market fund shares will fluctuate,
they are not likely to fluctuate daily, primarily due to the high
quality and short duration of such funds' underlying portfolio
securities.\19\ In addition, the Commission anticipates that
information on prices will be available through other means.\20\ For
example, under the new fund disclosure requirements of Investment
Company Act Rule 2a-7(h)(10)(iii), investors--including institutional
investors--will be able to access a fund's daily mark-to-market NAV per
share on a money market fund's Web site.\21\ Moreover, as previously
noted, commenters raised concerns about the costs associated with
requiring immediate confirmation for such transactions, which, to some
extent, may be passed on to investors.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id., at 155 n.491. Based on staff analysis of Form N-MFP
data between November 2010 and November 2013, 53% of money market
funds would have fluctuated in price over a twelve-month period with
an NAV priced using basis point rounding, compared with less than 5%
of money market funds that would have fluctuated in price using 10
basis point rounding. Id., at 158-59.
    \20\ Id., at section III.E.9.c.
    \21\ 17 CFR 270.2a-7(h)(10)(iii).
    \22\ Another commenter stated that institutions and
intermediaries can demand more frequent confirmations through
independent negotiations with money market fund providers. See
Dreyfus Letter, at 35. Such an option, however, would not
necessarily be available for retail investors in institutional prime
money market funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Exchange Act Rule 10b-10(b), the exemption from providing
immediate confirmations consistent with the written notification
requirements under Rule 10b-10(a) is subject to certain conditions.\23\
The Commission preliminarily believes that these conditions are also
appropriate for institutional prime money market funds subject to the
floating NAV requirement under Rule 2a-7(c)(1)(ii) in order to provide
customers with consistent information for all money market fund
transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See 17 CFR 240.10b-10(b); see also supra, Note 4, citing
certain specific relevant conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given that there will be price fluctuations in institutional prime
money market funds, the Commission preliminarily believes that it may
be necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with
the protection of investors to also require that broker-dealers provide
immediate confirmations upon a customer's request. Accordingly, to be
eligible for the exemption from Rule 10b-10(a), the Commission proposes
an additional condition beyond those in place pursuant to Rule 10b-
10(b). Specifically, the Commission proposes that, to be exempt from
the immediate confirmation requirements of Rule 10b-10(a), the broker-
dealer must (1) notify the customer of its ability to request delivery
of an immediate confirmation, consistent with the written notification
requirements of Exchange Act Rule 10b-10(a), and (2) not receive any
such request from the customer. This condition would provide investors
with an option to receive confirmation information regarding a
transaction at or before the completion of a securities transaction,
while also providing relief to broker-dealers in circumstances where
customers would not view this additional information as beneficial.
    Taking all of these factors into consideration, and consistent with
the exemptions and related conditions applicable to money market funds
that attempt to maintain a stable NAV, the Commission preliminarily
believes that a conditional exemption is necessary and appropriate in
the public interest, and consistent with the protection of investors.
Therefore, the Commission proposes to exempt broker-dealers from the
written notification requirements under Exchange Act Rule 10b-10(a)
when effecting transactions in money market funds operating in
accordance with Investment Company Act Rule 2a-7(c)(1)(ii), for or with
the account of a customer, where: (i) No sales load is deducted upon
the purchase or redemption of shares in the money market fund, (ii) the
broker-dealer complies with the provisions of Rule 10b-10(b)(2) and
Rule 10b-10(b)(3) that are applicable to money market funds that
attempt to maintain a stable NAV referenced in Rule 10b-10(b)(1),\24\
and (iii) the broker-dealer has notified the customer of its ability to
request delivery of an immediate confirmation consistent with the
written notification requirements of Exchange Act Rule 10b-10(a) and
has not received such request from the customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The proposed conditions under ``(i)'' and ``(ii)'' above
are consistent with the confirmation delivery requirements provided
in Exchange Act Rule 10b-10(b) for all transactions in investment
companies that attempt to maintain a constant NAV where no sales
load or redemption fee is charged. 17 CFR 240.10b-10(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Solicitation of Comment

    The Commission requests comment on all aspects of this proposed
exemptive order, including, but not limited to, the following
questions:
     Do the monthly statements and other requirements under
Rule 10b-10(b)(2) and (3) provide an appropriate alternative to
immediate confirmations for transactions in floating NAV money market
funds? What are the advantages and disadvantages to various market
participants (including broker-dealers, shareholders, and funds) of
permitting broker-dealers to provide fund shareholders of floating NAV
money market funds with monthly confirmation statements?
     What are the reasons why shareholders might prefer to
receive confirmation information immediately for floating NAV money
market funds? What are the costs to broker-dealers associated with
providing immediate confirmations? In particular, what are the nature
and magnitude of such costs associated with providing immediate
confirmations, and what, if any, costs would be passed along to
investors?
     Should the Commission consider any alternatives other than
the proposed exemption to the Exchange Act Rule 10b-10 requirements in
the context of a floating NAV fund outlined above, such as requiring
the provision of confirmations to shareholders at some different time
interval (e.g., weekly statements)? Should broker-dealers be required
to provide immediate confirmations upon request by an investor? Rather
than requiring immediate confirmations upon request by an investor,
should the Commission consider any alternatives (e.g., requiring next-
day delivery upon investor request)? What benefits and costs would be
associated with any alternative approach?
     Should the Commission give investors the option to request
delivery of an immediate confirmation statement for floating NAV money
market funds? If investors should have that option, should the
Commission require that broker-dealers notify the customer of its
ability to request delivery of an immediate confirmation? What are the
advantages and disadvantages of providing investors with the ability to
request immediate confirmations? What are the potential effects on
broker-dealers, investors, or other market participants? Should the
Commission consider an alternative approach, such as requiring
immediate confirmations unless the customer opts out?
     Would providing an exemption from the immediate
confirmation delivery requirements of Exchange Act Rule 10b-10, as
proposed, provide appropriate relief to broker-dealers and, at the same
time, provide sufficient information to investors?

By the Commission.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-17748 Filed 7-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 81 (Thursday, April 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18311-18312]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08766]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2018-N-1439]

Pediatric Advisory Committee and the Endocrinologic and Metabolic
Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public
Docket; Request for Comments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming
public advisory committee meeting of the Pediatric Advisory Committee
(PAC) and the Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee
(EMDAC). At least one portion of the meeting will be closed to the
public. The general function of the committees is to provide advice and
recommendations to FDA on regulatory issues. FDA is establishing a
docket for public comments on this document.

DATES: The meeting will be held on May 11, 2018, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
This is a reschedule of a postponed meeting announced in the Federal
Register of January 23, 2018 (83 FR 3156), originally scheduled for
March 22, 2018. An amendment to the Federal Register notice was
published on March 16, 2018 (83 FR 11755).

ADDRESSES: Tommy Douglas Conference Center, 10000 New Hampshire Ave.,
Silver Spring, MD 20903. Answers to commonly asked questions about FDA
Advisory Committee meetings may be accessed at: https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm. Information
about the Tommy Douglas Conference Center can be accessed at https://www.tommydouglascenter.com.
    FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting.
The docket number is FDA-2018-N-1439. The docket will close on May 10,
2018. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public
meeting by that date. Please note that late, untimely filed comments
will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or
before May 10, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing
system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of
May 10, 2018. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for
written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are
postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before
that date.
    Comments received on or before May 4, 2018, will be provided to the
committee. Comments received after that date will be taken into
consideration by FDA.
    You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

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

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include Docket No. FDA-
2018-N-1439 for ``Pediatric Advisory Committee and the Endocrinologic
and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting;
Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments.'' Received
comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be
placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential
Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at
the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' FDA will review
this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its
consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed
confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for
public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both
copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name
and contact information be made publicly available, you can provide
this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your
comments and you must identify the information as ``confidential.'' Any
information marked as ``confidential'' will not be disclosed except in
accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For
more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see
80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marieann Brill, Office of the
Commissioner, Food and Drug

Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5154, Silver
Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email: [email protected], or
FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER>
in the Washington, DC area). A notice in the Federal Register about
last minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory
committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide
timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the Agency's website
at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down
to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link, or call the
advisory committee information line to learn about possible
modifications before coming to the meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Agenda: On Friday, May 11, 2018, the PAC and EMDAC will meet to
discuss drug development for the treatment of children with
achondroplasia. The following topics should be considered for
discussion: Evidence required to establish dose-response, study design,
study duration, intended population, and endpoints. In the open
session, the committee does not intend to discuss any individual
research programs.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's website after the meeting. Background material is
available at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting
link.
    Procedure: On May 11, 2018, from 12 p.m. to 6 p.m., the meeting is
open to the public. Interested persons may present data, information,
or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before May
4, 2018. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between
approximately 1 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. Those individuals interested in
making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and
submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or
arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed
participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to
make their presentation on or before May 4, 2018. Time allotted for
each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants
requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated
during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a
lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing
session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding
their request to speak by May 7, 2018.
    Closed Committee Deliberations: On May 11, 2018, from 8 a.m. to 11
a.m., the meeting will be closed to permit discussion and review of
trade secret and/or confidential commercial information (5 U.S.C.
552b(c)(4)). During this session, the committees will discuss the
premarketing drug development program of an investigational product.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that FDA is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Marieann Brill (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 7
days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: April 20, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-08766 Filed 4-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 143 (Thursday, July 27, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34885-34888]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15558]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0710; Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-019-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Airbus Model A300 B4-600R series airplanes; Model A300 B4-603,
B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes; Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes;
and Model A300 F4-605R airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a
determination that the top stringer joints at rib 18 are an area of
uniform stress distribution, which indicates that cracks may develop in
adjacent stringers at the same time. This proposed AD would require an
inspection of the upper wing skin and top stringer joints, and
modification of the stringer joint couplings if necessary. We are
proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 11,
2017.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus
SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44
51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0710; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2017-0710;
Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-019-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or structural
design details, or globally, in widespread areas. Multiple-site damage
is widespread damage that occurs in a large structural element such as
a single rivet line of a lap splice joining two large skin panels.
Widespread damage can also occur in multiple elements such as adjacent
frames or stringers. Multiple-site damage and multiple-element damage
cracks are typically too small initially to be reliably detected with
normal inspection methods. Without intervention, these cracks will
grow, and eventually compromise the structural integrity of the
airplane. This condition is known as widespread fatigue damage (WFD).
It is associated with general degradation of large areas of structure
with similar structural details and stress levels. As an airplane ages,
WFD will likely occur, and will certainly occur if the airplane is
operated long enough without any intervention.
    The FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became
effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to
prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life
of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these
airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and
future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that DAHs
establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that
support the structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the
WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV
is approved.
    The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require
identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show
that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane
reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of
future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance
actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness
directives through separate rulemaking actions.
    In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to
propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for
their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This
approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides
flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information
development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with
certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2017-0023, dated February 10, 2017 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model
A300 B4-600R series airplanes; Model A300 B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622
airplanes; Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes; and Model A300 F4-
605R airplanes. The MCAI states:

    In response to the FAA Part 26 rule change concerning Widespread
Fatigue Damage (WFD), all wing structural items of the A300-600
design deemed potentially susceptible to WFD were assessed. The top
stringer joints at Rib 18 were highlighted as an area of uniform
stress distribution, indicating that cracks may develop in adjacent
stringers at the same time which is known as Multi Element Damage
(MED). Each affected stringer joint consists of three main load
transferring parts: An overlapping flange, two straps attached
through the stringer web and a strap on the top flange. All the
components of the joint are attached with fasteners. The fastener
holes were the subject of a MED WFD analysis, which showed that
cracking could occur from a number of the holes in the joint on
stringers 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could reduce the
structural integrity of the wing.
    Prompted by the conclusion of the WFD analysis, Airbus issued
Service Bulletin (SB) A300-57-6118 to provide modification
instructions. The modification will both re-life via oversizing and
inspect via non-destructive test a defined number of stringer joint
fastener holes at Rib 18. This modification will delay the onset of
cracking at the stringer joint, providing it is completed at the
specified time and will delay the requirement for subsequent
inspection.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a
detailed visual inspection (DVI) [for damage, including cracking] of
the upper wing skin and the top stringer joints at Rib 18, [and
corrective action if necessary] and modification of the stringer
joint couplings at Rib 18, on both wings [as applicable].

    The modification includes a related investigative action, i.e., a
special detailed (roto-probe) inspection for damage, including
cracking, of the fastener holes in the upper wing skin, and corrective
action if necessary. Corrective actions include repairing any damage.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0710.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A300-57-6118, Revision 01, dated
January 31, 2017. This service information describes procedures for an
inspection of the upper wing skin and top stringer joints at rib 18,
and modification of the stringer joint couplings. This service
information is reasonably available because the interested parties have
access to it through their normal course of business or by the means
identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 65 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections and modification..........  37 work-hours x $85 per           $4,770          $7,915        $514,475
                                         hour = $3,145.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2017-0710; Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-
019-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by September 11, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B4-605R, B4-622R, B4-603,
C4-605R Variant F, B4-620, B4-622, and F4-605R airplanes,
certificated in any category, all serial numbers except Model A300
F4-605R airplanes that have embodied Airbus modification 12699 in
production.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that the top stringer
joints at rib 18 are an area of uniform stress distribution, which
indicates that cracks may develop in adjacent stringers at the same
time. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct damage (including
cracking) at the stringer joints, which could reduce the structural
integrity of the wing.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Definitions

    For the purposes of this AD, the definitions in paragraphs
(g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD apply.
    (1) Group 1 airplanes are defined as Airbus Model A300 B4-603,
B4-605R, B4-620, B4-622, and B4-622R airplanes.
    (2) Group 2 airplanes are defined as Airbus Model A300 C4-605
Variant F and F4-605R (if in pre-modification 12699 configuration)
airplanes.
    (3) Short range (SR) is defined as airplanes with an average
flight time of less than 1.5 flight hours per flight cycle.
    (4) Long range (LR) is defined as airplanes with an average
flight time equal to or higher than 1.5 flight hours per flight
cycle.
    (5) For determining the ``short range'' and ``long range''
airplanes, the average flight time is the total accumulated flight
hours, counted from take-off to touch-down, divided by the total
accumulated flight cycles at the effective date of this AD.

(h) Inspection and Modification

    Not before exceeding the applicable lower thresholds as
specified in table 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD, and within the
compliance times specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), and
(h)(4) of this AD, as applicable: Accomplish a detailed visual

inspection for damage (including cracking) of the upper wing skin
and top stringer joints at rib 18 on both wings, do all applicable
corrective actions, and do the applicable modification, including
related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6118,
Revision 01, dated January 31, 2017, except as required by paragraph
(i) of this AD. Do all applicable modifications, related
investigative actions, and corrective actions before further flight.
    (1) For Group 1, LR airplanes: Inspect at the time specified in
paragraph (h)(1)(i) or (h)(1)(ii) of this AD, whichever occurs
later.
    (i) Before exceeding 32,500 flight cycles or 70,300 flight
hours, whichever occurs first since first flight of the airplane.
    (ii) Within 700 flight cycles, 1,500 flight hours, or 12 months,
whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) For Group 1, SR airplanes: Inspect at the time specified in
paragraphs (h)(2)(i) or (h)(2)(ii) of this AD, whichever occurs
later.
    (i) Before exceeding 35,100 flight cycles or 52,600 flight
hours, whichever occurs first since the first flight of the
airplane.
    (ii) Within 700 flight cycles or 1,000 flight hours, or 12
months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD.
    (3) For Group 2, LR airplanes: Inspect before exceeding 35,000
flight cycles or 75,700 flight hours, whichever occurs first since
the first flight of the airplane.
    (4) For Group 2, SR airplanes: Inspect before exceeding 37,800
flight cycles or 56,700 flight hours, whichever occurs first since
the first flight of the airplane.

  Table 1 to Paragraph (h) of This AD--Compliance Time Lower Thresholds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Compliance time flight cycles (FC)
                                       or flight hours (FH), whichever
       Applicable  airplanes         occurs first since first flight of
                                                the airplane
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group 1, LR.......................  Not before exceeding 30,900 FC or
                                     66,700 FH.
Group 1, SR.......................  Not before exceeding 28,700 FC or
                                     43,000 FH.
Group 2, LR.......................  Not before exceeding 28,600 FC or
                                     61,700 FH.
Group 2, SR.......................  Not before exceeding 34,400 FC or
                                     51,600 FH.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(i) Service Information Exception

    Where Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6118, Revision 01, dated
January 31, 2017, specifies to contact Airbus for appropriate
action, and specifies that action as ``RC'' (Required for
Compliance): Before further flight, accomplish corrective actions in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k)(2) of this
AD.

(j) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6118, dated
June 30, 2015.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
International Branch, send it to the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (l)(2) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): If any service information
contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0023, dated February 10,
2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0710.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 18, 2017.
Victor Wicklund,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-15558 Filed 7-26-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 72 (Thursday, April 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 22207]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07982]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 15261-000]

Nevada Hydro, Inc.; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

    On February 8, 2022, Nevada Hydro Company, Inc. filed an
application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Lake
Elsinore Advanced Pumped Storage Project to be located on Lake Elsinore
and San Juan Creek near the city of Lake Elsinore in Riverside and San
Diego Counties, California. The project would occupy about 845 acres of
federal land administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service.
    The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant
the permit holder priority to file a license application during the
permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder
to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands
or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) A new upper reservoir
(Decker Canyon) with a gross storage volume of 5,750 acre-feet and a
surface area of approximately 70 acres at a normal reservoir surface
elevation of 2,790 feet above mean sea level (msl); (2) a 262-foot-high
main dam located on the southwest side of the upper reservoir; (3) a
water conduit system consisting of a 1,248-foot-long, 25-foot-diameter
concrete-lined power shaft and a 8,247-foot-long, 15-foot-diameter
power tunnel transitioning to two, 250-foot-long, 12-foot-diameter
steel penstocks; (4) an underground powerhouse with two, reversible
Francis-type pump-turbine units with a total installed capacity of 500
megawatts; (5) the existing Lake Elsinore, to be used as a lower
reservoir, with a surface area of about 3,412 acres at a normal
reservoir surface elevation of 1,249 feet above msl; (6) two 2,450-
foot-long, 25-foot-wide, and 25-foot-high concrete-lined tailrace
tunnels; (7) about 32 miles of 500-kilovolt transmission line
connecting the project to an existing transmission line owned by
Southern California Edison that is located north of the proposed
project and to an existing San Diego Gas and Electric Company
transmission line located to the south; and (8) appurtenant facilities.
The estimated annual generation of the project would be 1,560 gigawatt-
hours.
    Applicant Contacts: Mr. Michael Swiger, Van Ness Feldman LLP, 1050
Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Washington, DC 20007;<PHONE_NUMBER>;
[email protected]; and Mr. Paul Anderson, Nevada Hydro Company, Inc., 2416
Cades Way, Vista, California 92081;<PHONE_NUMBER>; [email protected].
    FERC Contact: Tim Konnert,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/QuickComment.aspx. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper copy.
Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via
any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville,
Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should include docket
number P-15261-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed, or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the
Commission's website at https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/search.
Enter the docket number (P-15261) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: April 8, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-07982 Filed 4-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 68 (Monday, April 12, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18927-18929]
[FR Doc No: 2021-07430]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2020-0658]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Indian Creek, Miami Beach, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating schedule that
governs the 63rd Street Bridge, across Indian Creek, mile 4.0, at Miami
Beach, Florida. A request was made to place the drawbridge on a weekend
operating schedule to alleviate vehicle congestion due to on-demand
bridge openings. This proposed change would place the bridge on an
operating schedule during the weekend at specified times. The Coast
Guard is seeking comments from the public regarding this proposed
change.

DATES: Comments and relate material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before May 27, 2021.

ADDRESSES:  You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2020-0658 using Federal e-Rulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email LT Samuel Rodriguez-Gonzalez, U.S. Coast Guard,
Sector Miami Waterways Management Division; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
OMB Office of Management and Budget
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking (Advance, Supplemental)
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code
FL Florida
FDOT Florida Department of Transportation
LNM Local Notice to Mariners

II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis

    The 63rd Street Bridge across Indian Creek, mile 4.0, at Miami
Beach, Florida is a double-leaf bascule bridge with an 11 foot vertical
clearance at mean high water in the closed position. Navigation on the
waterway is commercial and recreational.
    A private citizen, with the support from the bridge owner, Florida
Departement of Transportation (FDOT), requested the Coast Guard
consider changing the drawbridge schedule due to an increase in vehicle
traffic during the weekends. The operating schedule for the bridge is
set forth in 33 CFR 117.293.
    On December 3, 2020, the Coast Guard published a Test Deviation
entitled ``Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Indian Creek, Miami Beach,
FL'' in the Federal Register (85 FR 77994). We received 31 comments.
    Twenty-two comments were in favor of the proposed changes. The
majority of commenters felt that placing the bridge on a specified
operating schedule during the weekend eased vehicle traffic in a
congested area and allowed for residents to plan outings accordingly.
One commenter was in favor of the proposed weekend schedule but asked
if the bridge opened all hours of the day and night. All bridges
operate 24 hours a day, either on-demand or on a published schedule.
One commenter in support of the proposed change stated the Coast Guard
should monitor the no wake situation in Indian Creek during the
weekends. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC)
is responsible for enforcing state boating rules and regulations. One
commenter was in favor of the proposed schedule but felt that Federal
holidays and the weekday curfew should not be included. The proposed
change does not include Federal holidays nor will a curfew be added
during the weekend.
    Six comments were in favor of the proposed change but requested
additional weekend restrictions be placed on the operation of the
bridge. The additional restrictions included adding the weekday curfew,
opening once an hour for vessels, adding a toll for vessels, extending
the hours of the proposed schedule and removing the on-demand openings
completely. The Coast Guard made the determination that adding
additional restrictions on the bridge does not meet the reasonable
needs of navigation for this area. Vessels have only one way to transit
through Indian Creek at this location. Other modes of transportation
have alternate routes to travel around this waterway.
    One commenter submitted comments in favor of the proposed changes
but is not in favor of including the weekday curfew during the weekend.
This commenter was traversing the waterway after the Test Deviation was
implemented and was unreasonably delayed by the draw tender. The draw
tender was not following the Coast Guard approved Test Deviation. This
error was corrected without further incident.
    One commenter stated they needed to know the schedule of the
bridge. The schedule for the bridge is published in 33 CFR 117.293 and
the Test Deviation for the proposed changes was published in the
regulation they were commenting on as well as in the Local Notice to
Mariners (LNM).

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The proposed rule will allow the drawbridge to operate on a more
predictable weekend schedule. Under this proposed regulation change,
the draw of the 63rd Street Bridge would provide twice an hour openings
from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays, while maintaining
the weekday schedule and curfew hours. On Federal holidays and at all
other times not designated, the bridge will operate on-demand. These
proposed changes will improve the flow of vehicle traffic while meeting
the reasonable needs of navigation.
    This proposed change would still allow vessels that are capable of
transiting under the bridge, without an opening, to do so at any time
while taking into account the reasonable needs of other modes of
transportation. Vessels in distress and public vessels of the United
States must be allowed to pass at any time.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss
First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the the fact that
vessels can continue to transit the bridge at designated times
throughout the day and vessels that can transit under the bridge
without an opening may do so at any time.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. 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
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A
above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact
on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments) because it would 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. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. 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 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this
proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01, Rev.1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1
(series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The
Coast Guard has determined that this action is one of a category of
actions that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule promulgates the
operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally such
actions are categorically excluded from further review, under paragraph
L49, of Chapter 3, Table 3-1 of the U.S. Coast Guard Environmental
Planning Implementation Procedures.
    Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum
for the Record are required for this rule. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System
of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in this docket
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 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; and Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Amend Sec.  117.293 by revising the introductory text and paragraph
(a) to read as follows:

Sec.  117.293   Indian Creek.

    The draw of the 63rd Street Bridge across Indian Creek, mile 4.0 at
Miami Beach, shall open on signal except that:
    (a) From 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., except Federal holidays, the draw
need open only on the hour and half-hour.
* * * * *

    Dated: March 25, 2021.
Eric C. Jones,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander Seventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2021-07430 Filed 4-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 20044]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7926]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4057-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2012-0002]

Kentucky; Amendment No. 3 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 Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-4057-DR), dated March 6, 2012,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: March 13, 2012.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the Commonwealth of Kentucky is hereby amended to include the
following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely
affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of March 6, 2012.

Grayson, Larue, Ohio, Russell, and Trimble Counties for Individual
Assistance

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

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-7926 Filed 4-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P