[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34534-34535]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15536]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2004-D-0369]

Animal Drug User Fees and Fee Waivers and Reductions; Revised
Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a guidance for industry (GFI) #170 entitled
``Animal Drug User Fees and Fee Waivers and Reductions.'' This revised
guidance document describes the types of fees that FDA is authorized to
collect under the Animal Drug User Fee Act of 2003, as amended, and how
to request waivers and reductions of these fees.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances
at any time.

ADDRESSES: 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 the Docket No.
FDA-2004-D-0369 for ``Animal Drug User Fees and Fee Waivers and
Reductions.'' Received comments will be placed in the docket and,
except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly
viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management
Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments

received, go to https://www.regulations.gov/ and insert the docket
number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the
``Search'' box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets
Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the
Policy and Regulations Staff (HFV-6), Center for Veterinary Medicine,
Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855.
Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in
processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
electronic access to the guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane Heinz, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (HFV-6), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of November 2, 2016 (81 FR 76360), FDA
published the notice of availability for a draft revised guidance
entitled ``Animal Drug User Fees and Fee Waivers and Reductions''
giving interested persons until January 3, 2017, to comment on the
draft revised guidance. FDA received no comments on the draft revised
guidance. The guidance announced in this notice finalizes the draft
guidance dated November 2016.

II. Significance of Guidance

    This level 1 guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents
the current thinking of FDA on Animal Drug User Fees and Fee Waivers
and Reductions. It does not establish any rights for any person and is
not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach
if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and
regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This revised guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520). The collections of information referred to in the guidance
entitled ``Animal Drug User Fees and Fee Waivers and Reductions'' have
been approved under OMB control number 0910-540.

IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at
either https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/default.htm or
https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: July 19, 2017.
Anna K. Abram,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2017-15536 Filed 7-24-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56713-56719]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22152]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2021-0024]

Request for Information on the National Flood Insurance Program's
Floodplain Management Standards for Land Management and Use, and an
Assessment of the Program's Impact on Threatened and Endangered Species
and Their Habitats

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: Notice and request for information.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is issuing this
Request for Information to receive the public's input on two topics.
First, FEMA seeks the public's input on revising the National Flood
Insurance Program's (NFIP) floodplain management standards for land
management and use regulations to better align with the current
understanding of flood risk and flood risk reduction approaches.
Specifically, FEMA is seeking input from the public on the floodplain
management standards that communities should adopt to result in safer,
stronger, and more resilient communities. Additionally, FEMA seeks
input on how the NFIP can better promote protection of and minimize any
adverse impact to threatened and endangered species, and their
habitats.

DATES: Written comments are requested on or before December 13, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket ID: FEMA-2021-
0024, through the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Sears, Supervisory Emergency
Management Specialist, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, [email protected],
202-646-4105.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this notice by
submitting written data, views, or arguments using the method
identified in the ADDRESSES section.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
Docket ID for this notice. All comments received will be posted without
change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal
information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes
it public. You may wish to read the Privacy and Security notice, which
can be viewed by clicking on the ``Privacy and Security Notice'' link
on the homepage of www.regulations.gov. Commenters are encouraged to
identify the number of the specific question or questions to which they
are responding.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to www.regulations.gov.

II. Background

    The NFIP is a program that makes flood insurance available in those
States and communities that agree to adopt and enforce floodplain
management ordinances to reduce future flood risk. The NFIP enables
property owners in participating communities to purchase flood
insurance to provide financial protection against flood losses. Joining
the NFIP is an important step toward reducing a community's risk from
flooding and making a faster, more sustained recovery should flooding
occur.\1\ Participation in the NFIP is voluntary and is contingent on
community compliance with NFIP floodplain management regulations. FEMA
does not regulate land use and does not haves authority over local
development. Rather, it requires participating communities to adopt the
minimum NFIP requirements through zoning codes, subdivision ordinances,
and/or building codes or adopt special purpose floodplain management
ordinances and encourages communities to exceed those requirements and
improve long-range land management and use of flood-prone areas. More
than 22,500 communities have agreed to adopt and enforce floodplain
management ordinances that meet minimum NFIP requirements and provide
building standards designed to reduce flood loss for new and existing
development.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See generally 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., 44 CFR parts 59-80.
    \2\ See generally The Community Status Book found at http://www.fema.gov/flood-insurance/work-with-nfip/community-status-book
(last accessed July 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NFIP minimum requirements apply to areas designated as Special
Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) by FEMA. The SFHA is the area that would be
flooded by the ``base flood'' (defined as the flood that has a 1
percent chance of occurring in any given year; also known as the ``100-
year flood''). The minimum NFIP requirements for participating
communities include, but are not limited to: (1) Requiring permits for
all proposed construction or other development in the community to
determine whether such construction or development will be placed in
flood-prone areas; (2) reviewing proposed development to assure that
all necessary permits have been received; (3) elevation of new and
substantially improved residential structures above the base flood
level; (4) elevation or dry floodproofing (made watertight) of new or
substantially improved non-residential structures in Zones A; \3\ (5)
with limited exception, the prohibition of encroachments, including
fill, new construction, substantial improvements, and other development
within the adopted regulatory floodway,\4\ the central portion of a
riverine floodplain needed to carry deeper and faster moving water; and
(6) additional requirements to protect buildings in coastal areas from
the impacts of waves, high velocity, and storm surge. These
requirements have proved to be an effective way to reduce the flood
risk to new buildings and infrastructure.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 44 CFR 64.3(a)(1). Zone A--area of special flood hazard
without water surface elevations determined.
    \4\ See 44 CFR 60.3(d)(3), which prohibits encroachments,
including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, and
other development within the adopted regulatory floodway unless it
has been demonstrated through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses
performed in accordance with standard engineering practice that the
proposed encroachment would not result in any increase in flood
levels within the community during the base flood discharge.
    \5\ Structures built to NFIP standards experience 65 percent
less damage than structures not built to these standards and have
resulted in $2.4 billion per year in reduced flood losses, saving
the nation more than $100 billion over the last 40 years. See
Individuals--Floodplain Management Resources, found at http://www.fema.gov/floodplain-management/manage-risk/individuals (last
accessed June 16, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to protecting new buildings, the NFIP has substantial
improvement and substantial damage requirements that ensure flood
protection measures are integrated in structures built before a
community adopted its first floodplain management requirements.
``Substantial improvement'' means any reconstruction, rehabilitation,
addition, or other improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals
or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the
``start of construction'' of the improvement.\6\ ``Substantial damage''
means damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of
restoring the structure to its before-damaged condition would equal or
exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the
damage occurred.\7\ When substantial improvement or substantial damage
occurs, the community, which makes the determination, must ensure that
the NFIP requirements, which the community has adopted, are applied to
these structures so that they are protected from future flood damage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 44 CFR 59.1.
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In January 2021, the Association of State Floodplain Managers
(ASFPM) and the Natural Resources Defense

Council (NRDC) submitted a rulemaking petition request to FEMA seeking,
among other things, revisions to the current FEMA floodplain management
standards for land management and use regulations.\8\ The petition
requested the agency consider adopting the higher minimum standards
contained in today's nationally applicable consensus model codes and
standards from the International Codes Council (I-Codes) and the
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Flood Resistant Design and
Construction standard (ASCE-24) as a minimum floodplain management
standard, and to develop forward-looking minimum construction and land-
use standards for flood-prone areas through regulatory revision. FEMA
has previously published excerpts and highlights of the flood resistant
provisions of the I-Codes and ASCE-24 which generally address siting,
design, construction, and elevation requirements for structures in
flood hazard areas to assist communities to understand the application
of consensus standards, but FEMA has not adopted these as the agency's
floodplain management standards.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See http://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/petition-fema-rulemaking-nfip-20210105.pdf (last accessed June 21, 2021).
    \9\ See FEMA's Flood Building Codes Resource Page at https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/risk-management/building-science/building-codes/flood (last accessed July 7, 2021). Note that FEMA's
Community Rating System is a voluntary incentive program that
recognizes and encourages community floodplain management practices
that exceed the minimum requirements of the NFIP for floodplain
management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FEMA is issuing this Request for Information to seek information
from the public on the agency's current floodplain management standards
to ensure the agency receives public input as part of the agency's
regular review of programs, regulations, and policies, and to inform
any action to revise the NFIP minimum floodplain management standards.
    FEMA also requests input from the public on what measures the NFIP
can take to further protect and minimize any adverse impacts to
threatened and endangered species and their habitat. The Endangered
Species Act (ESA) protects threatened and endangered species by
preserving the ecosystems in which they live and protecting the species
from harm.\10\ All persons, including individuals and local and state
jurisdictions, are required to comply with the ESA. Section 7(a)(2) of
the ESA creates a consultation process between a Federal agency that
will undertake an action, including implementing a program, and either
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service
(or both) to insure that the action does not jeopardize the continued
existence of endangered or threatened species, or result in the adverse
modification of critical habitat. Section 7(a)(1) mandates Federal
agencies to use their authorities to conserve threatened and endangered
species and minimize any adverse impact to them.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
    \11\ 16 U.S.C. 1536.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NFIP floodplain regulations are designed to encourage the
adoption of adequate State and local floodplain management measures for
land development.\12\ This creates an opportunity for the NFIP not only
to work towards its goal of reducing flood risk but simultaneously
works toward the conservation of federally threatened and endangered
(T&E) species and critical habitat. Conserving the natural and
beneficial functions of the floodplain and reducing flood risk can work
in tandem with the ESA requirement of conserving T&E species and
critical habitat. Often, measures taken to conserve T&E species and
their habitat in the floodplain benefit people by reducing the risk of
flooding and the harm that can result to their person and property,
while also conserving the natural and beneficial functions of the
floodplain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 42 U.S.C. 4102(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency is seeking input from the public on the floodplain
management standards that communities should adopt to result in safer,
stronger, and more resilient communities and also to promote protection
of T&E species and their habitats. Specifically, FEMA is seeking input
on opportunities for the agency to improve the minimum floodplain
management standards for land management and use which better align the
NFIP with the current understanding of flood risk and flood risk
reduction approaches. FEMA has not revised current floodplain
management standards for flood-prone area regulations since they were
implemented in 1976. The agency is considering revision to these
regulations based on its current understanding of flood risk and flood
risk reduction approaches and is now undertaking a thorough review of
the floodplain management standards, along with prior published studies
and reports, to determine how these standards can best meet FEMA and
stakeholder needs.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See generally ``National Flood Insurance Program:
Evaluation Studies'' found at http://www.fema.gov/flood-insurance/rules-legislation/2006-evaluation (last accessed July 8, 2021) and
``Building Codes Save: A Nationwide Study of Loss Prevention'' found
at http://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/risk-management/building-science/building-codes-save-study (last accessed July 8, 2021) among
others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FEMA also plans to re-evaluate the implementation of the NFIP under
the ESA at the national level to complete a revised Biological
Evaluation \14\ re-examining how NFIP actions influence land
development decisions; the potential for such actions to have adverse
effects on T&E species and critical habitats; and to identify program
changes that would prevent jeopardy to T&E species and/or destruction
or adverse modification of designated critical habitats as well as to
promote the survival and recovery of T&E species. Public feedback will
help FEMA with this process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Agencies may submit to the Services, an evaluation on the
likely effects of an action, if T&E species or critical habitat are
likely to be affected by Agency action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is important to note that FEMA continually evaluates its
programs and policies, as well as the regulatory program for
regulations that are candidates for modification, streamlining,
expansion, or repeal. FEMA does so through legally mandated review
requirements (e.g., Unified Agenda reviews and reviews under section
610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act \15\ ) and through other informal
and long-established mechanisms (e.g., use of Advisory Councils,
feedback from FEMA field personnel, input from internal working groups,
and outreach to regulated entities and the public). This Federal
Register notice supplements these existing extensive FEMA regulatory
and program review efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Request for Input

A. Importance of Public Feedback

    Because the impacts and effects of Federal regulations and policies
tend to be widely dispersed in society, members of the public are
likely to have useful information, data, and perspectives on the
benefits and burdens of FEMA's existing programs, regulations,
information collections, and policies. Given the importance of public
input, FEMA is seeking broad public feedback to facilitate FEMA's
review and revision of existing floodplain management regulations.

B. Maximizing the Value of Public Feedback

    This notice contains a list of questions, the answers to which will
assist FEMA in reviewing existing floodplain management standards and
also assessing the influence of NFIP implementation on local floodplain

development, which subsequently has the potential to impact threatened
and endangered species and their habitats. FEMA encourages public
comment on these questions and seeks any other data commenters believe
are relevant to FEMA's efforts. The type of feedback that is most
useful to the agency includes feedback that identifies specific
information that the agency should consider. For example, feedback that
simply states that a stakeholder feels strongly that FEMA should change
the floodplain management standards regulation but does not contain
specific information on how the proposed change would impact the costs
and benefits of the regulation, is much less useful to FEMA. FEMA is
looking for new and/or specific information, data, and perspectives to
support any proposed changes.
    Commenters should consider these principles as they answer and
respond to the questions in this notice.
     Commenters should identify, with specificity, appropriate
minimum floodplain management standards and/or measures for increased
flood risk reduction.
     Commenters should identify, with specificity, appropriate
measures the agency can take to promote the conservation of T&E species
and their habitats.
     Commenters should provide specific data that document the
costs, burdens, and benefits of existing requirements to the extent
they are available. Commenters might also address how FEMA can best
obtain and consider accurate, objective information and data about the
costs, burdens, and benefits of the minimum floodplain management
standards for increased flood risk reduction and increased species/
habitat protection and whether there are existing sources of data that
FEMA can use to evaluate the effects of the minimum floodplain
management standards and increased protection of T&E species and their
habitats over time.
     Particularly where comments relate to the costs or
benefits of minimum floodplain management standards and protection of
T&E species and their habitats, comments will be most useful when there
are data available and communities have experience utilizing the
minimum floodplain management standards and/or species/habitat
protection to ascertain the actual impact.

C. List of Questions for Commenters

    The below non-exhaustive list of questions is meant to assist
members of the public in the formulation of comments and is not
intended to restrict the issues that commenters may address:
    (1) FEMA has addressed risk to existing or non-conforming
construction (buildings not constructed to current minimum floodplain
management standards) in the regulations through the ``substantial
improvement/substantial damage'' requirements. These requirements have
largely been tied to the definitions of ``substantial improvement'' and
``substantial damage.'' Is ``substantial improvement/substantial
damage'' the best way to address risk for non-conforming buildings? If
so, should FEMA consider the use of cumulative ``substantial
improvement'' and/or ``substantial damage'' requirements over a given
time period as a requirement? Should ``substantial improvement'' and/or
``substantial damage'' use an assessment cost value or a replacement
cost value, or are there other valuation methods that may be more
appropriate? Should the regulations provide more detail on how the
``substantial improvement'' and/or ``substantial damage''
determinations should be made?
    (2) The elevation of structures above expected base flood levels,
called ``freeboard,'' is an important precept of floodplain management.
``Freeboard'' is usually expressed in feet above a base flood elevation
for purposes of floodplain management. NFIP communities must require
new, ``substantially improved,'' or ``substantially damaged''
structures in the SFHA to be elevated to the height of the one percent
annual chance flood level, also referred to as the Base Flood Elevation
or BFE. Some States and communities require newly constructed buildings
to be built higher than the base flood elevation to further reduce the
risk of flood damage with freeboard requirements set to a specific
height to provide the additional margin of risk reduction above the
BFE. The NFIP has strongly encouraged but not required higher elevation
standards, such as those included in the I-Codes and ASCE 24. Should
FEMA update flood elevation requirements for SFHAs by setting higher
freeboard levels? If so, what should FEMA consider for the higher
elevation levels for freeboard? What data exists to support higher
elevation levels for freeboard or methods that provide a more
consistent level of protection? Will freeboard elevation generally
raise the market value of properties in SFHAs and if so how would the
increase in market value compare to the cost of elevation? Are there
other technology advancements or building standards in design and
construction that should be considered beyond freeboard levels? If so,
do they address other floodplain management criteria (e.g., reasonably
safe from flooding; adequately anchored; methods and practices that
minimize or are resistant to flood damage; water load values; wind load
values; substantially impermeable)?
    (3) FEMA has not developed higher minimum floodplain management
standards for structures and facilities that perform critical actions
as defined in 44 CFR 9.4. These structures and facilities must
currently comply with the same minimum requirements as non-critical
structures and facilities except for structures and facilities that are
covered by Executive Order (E.O.) 11988, Floodplain Management.\16\
Should FEMA develop higher standards for these structures and
facilities? If so, why? Should FEMA consider differences between
certain structures and facilities, such as use, occupancy, operational
size, or public and private operators in developing higher standards?
Should FEMA consider differences such as use, occupancy, operational
size, or public and private operators in developing higher standards
for structures and facilities performing critical actions?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 42 FR 26951 (May 24, 1977). Facilities that perform
critical actions that are covered by Executive Order 11988 include,
but are not limited to, those facilities which produce, use, or
store highly volatile, flammable, explosive, toxic, or water-
reactive materials; hospitals and nursing homes, and housing for the
elderly; emergency operation and data storage centers; and power
generating facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) Recurring flooding events provide evidence that areas adjacent
to the SFHA experience significant flooding and unacceptable levels of
disaster suffering, yet the NFIP minimum floodplain management
standards do not extend to these locations. How can the NFIP take a
more risk-informed approach to defining flood hazard? Is there a need
for FEMA's NFIP minimum floodplain management standards to be extended
by establishing specific requirements for the areas immediately
adjacent to the SFHA? If so, what specific floodplain management
standards could be successful to reduce losses and hardship? What
approaches would be effective for identifying these areas for
communities to regulate? Would new zones or overlays depicted with the
SFHA via the National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) \17\ serve this need

or are there other tools that could be more effective? Should FEMA
expand the SFHA generally from the 1 percent annual chance flood area
to a 0.2 percent or a 0.1 percent area, and what decision rule should
FEMA use to choose the appropriate area? Should the SFHA be expanded
from a certain percent annual chance area to the flood of record (or
whichever is higher)? Similarly, what standards or restrictions should
be considered for high risk flood areas that are within the SFHA (e.g.,
flash flood, mudslide, erosion prone, high velocity)? Alternatively,
should FEMA be aware of and/or use a different metric to identify flood
risk?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) is a geospatial
database that contains current effective flood hazard data. This
information can be used to better understand the level of flood risk
and type of flooding in an area. See generally http://www.fema.gov/flood-maps/national-flood-hazard-layer (last accessed July 14,
2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (5) In the past 30 years, 1 of every 6 dollars paid out in NFIP
claims has gone to a building with a history of multiple floods.\18\
What steps should FEMA take to reduce the disproportionate financial
impact the multiple loss properties have on the NFIP? Should FEMA
consider regulatory changes for properties that have repetitive losses?
\19\ If so, what should the minimum NFIP floodplain management
standards be for those properties? Should these properties be targeted
for managed retreat? How should the NFIP consider issues of equity when
deciding how to address these properties?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ As of July 2019, approximately $10.9 billion in claims have
been paid on properties with two or more losses accounting for over
15 percent of FEMA's total of $70.6 billion paid claims during the
same period. See generally ``OpenFEMA Dataset: FIMA NFIP Redacted
Claims'' found at http://www.fema.gov/openfema-data-page/fima-nfip-redacted-claims (last accessed July 8, 2021).
    \19\ See 42 U.S.C. 4121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (6) FEMA must ensure that the implementation of the NFIP does not
jeopardize T&E species and does not result in the destruction or
adverse modification of their designated critical habitats. FEMA must
also ensure the NFIP is effective in meeting its goals of providing
flood insurance, mitigating flood loss, reducing flood risk, and
encouraging responsible development. What additional considerations
should FEMA incorporate into the NFIP minimum floodplain management
standards to promote the protection and conservation of T&E species and
their designated habitat? In what ways could the NFIP minimum
floodplain management standards be amended to more explicitly or
comprehensively protect the natural and beneficial functions of
floodplains to recognize their intrinsic value and benefits to
floodplain management, T&E species, and the environment generally? How
do current Federal environmental requirements and standards work within
NFIP participating State, local, Tribal, and territories to identify
and address impacts to T&E species and their habitats? If there are
State-specific environmental requirements and/or standards, how could
changes to the NFIP support or interfere with the current State
regulatory environment?
    (7) How could one or more of the following specific changes to the
NFIP minimum floodplain management standards benefit T&E species and
their habitats while furthering the goal of improving resilience to
flooding? What would the potential impact be on the NFIP participating
communities?:
    (a) Limiting construction in any identified riparian buffer zone;
    (b) Requiring compensatory storage to have no net increase in
projected flooding levels for all development in the SFHA;
    (c) Requiring a more restrictive regulatory floodway standard; \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See 44 CFR 59.1 defining a regulatory floodway and 44 CFR
60.3(d)(3) for the current standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (d) Requiring compensatory conservation credits/areas for all
development in portions of the SFHA that provide natural and beneficial
functions;
    (e) Requiring low impact development standards and/or permeable
surfaces that may benefit T&E species and habitat; and/or
    (f) Prohibiting or limiting construction in any portion of the
SFHA.
    How should the suggested changes listed above be prioritized to
best benefit T&E species while also furthering the goals of the NFIP?
Are there additional changes that should be considered and if so, what
are they and what is their prioritization in comparison to the changes
listed?
    (8) NFIP participating communities can also improve protection of
T&E species and their critical habitats through their floodplain
management activities. In what ways can NFIP participating communities
demonstrate to FEMA that permitted floodplain development does not
adversely impact T&E species and their habitats? What changes are
required to existing NFIP minimum floodplain management standards to
allow NFIP participating communities to better demonstrate no adverse
impact? What ways, such as technical assistance or other means, could
FEMA assist NFIP participating communities to help protect T&E species
and their habitats?
    (9) Local floodplain managers are often tasked with enforcement of
NFIP minimum floodplain management standards. In what ways can FEMA
strengthen the NFIP participation and increase enforcement of NFIP
minimum floodplain management standards to build community resilience?
How can FEMA better assist communities to mitigate flood loss and
reduce risk? In what ways could FEMA better support local floodplain
managers to effectively enforce the NFIP minimum floodplain management
standards?
    (10) While the NFIP minimum floodplain management standards are
broadly applicable nationwide and provide a sound basis from which
communities can improve their floodplain management programs, there may
be floodplain uses, occupancies, and flooding characteristics that call
for more specific regulatory initiatives. Are there any NFIP minimum
floodplain management standards that currently cause hardship,
conflict, confusion or create an economic or financial burden? If so,
what are they and how can they be modified to reduce the burdens while
still meeting the objectives of mitigating flood loss and reducing
risk? Some structures in a community may be exempted from the NFIP
minimum floodplain management standards through a variance. Are there
changes that can be made to variance requirements to help reduce the
burdens while still meeting the objectives of mitigating flood loss and
reducing risk? Are there specific types of development or uses that
should be considered for exemption from NFIP minimum floodplain
management standards or should different standards apply? If so, what
are they, why should specific types of development or uses be
considered for exemption, and what different standards should be
applicable?
    (11) There have been recent proposals regarding disclosure of flood
risk,\21\ recommending development of an affirmative obligation on the
part of sellers or lessors of residential properties to disclose
information about flood risk to prospective buyers or lessees. These
proposals would require States and communities to establish flood risk
reporting requirements for sellers and lessors as a condition of
participation in the NFIP. Should States and/or local governments be
required to establish minimum flood risk reporting requirements for
sellers and lessors as a condition for participation in the NFIP?
Should there be an affirmative obligation on the part of sellers and/or
lessors of residential properties to disclose information about flood
risk to prospective buyers or lessees? If so,

what is the most effective way to require this disclosure? Should the
process be modeled on requirements for sellers to disclose details on
environmental hazards, such as lead-based paint hazards? What details
should be included in the disclosure, such as knowledge of past floods
and/or flood damage, a requirement to maintain flood insurance,
knowledge the property is located in a SFHA at the time of offering,
and the cost of existing flood insurance?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See H.R. 2874 ``21st Century Flood Reform Act,'' 115th
Congress (2017-2018) at http://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2874 (last accessed July 8, 2021) among others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (12) The United States is experiencing increased flooding and flood
risk from climate change.\22\ Climate change may exacerbate the risk of
flooding to homeowners. Should FEMA base any NFIP minimum floodplain
management standard changes on future risk and specifically on
projections of climate change and associated impacts, such as sea level
rise? What equity considerations should be factored into such decisions
if climate change disproportionately harms underserved and vulnerable
areas? What other considerations should be factored into an analysis
involving climate change? Should the NFIP better distinguish NFIP
minimum floodplain management standards between riverine and coastal
communities? Should the NFIP minimum floodplain management standards
incorporate pluvial (surface/urban) flooding concerns? Are there
specific measures and standards that should be taken to ensure
structures can withstand the greater intensity, duration, frequency and
geographic distribution of flooding events? If so, what are they and
how can those measures and standards ensure structures and communities
can readily adapt and increase resilience to the impacts of climate
change?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Fourth National Climate Assessment, Chapter 3: Water
found at http://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/3/. Climate change
means that flood events are on the rise. Climate change is
increasing flood risk through (1) more ``extreme'' rainfall
events,'' caused by a warmer atmosphere holding more water vapor and
changes in regional precipitation patterns; and (2) sea-level rise.
See Rob Bailey, Claudio Saffioti, and Sumer Drall, Sunk Costs: The
Socioeconomic Impacts of Flooding 3 and 8, Marsh McLennan (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (13) The current NFIP minimum floodplain management standards can
be found at 44 CFR part 60 subpart A--Requirements for Floodplain
Management Regulations. As part of this Request for Information seeking
input on new and even transformative reforms to the NFIP minimum
floodplain management standards, FEMA also is exploring potential
revisions to current regulatory provisions that are unnecessarily
complicated, create unintended inequities or could be streamlined. Are
there current regulatory provisions that create duplication, overlap,
complexity, or inconsistent requirements or unintended inequities with
other FEMA or other Federal programs? Are there current regulatory
provisions that present recurring difficulties for local and State
officials implementing NFIP minimum floodplain management standards and
if so, what improvements should be made?
    (14) Are there technological advances, building standards, or
standards of practice that could help FEMA to modify, streamline, or
improve existing NFIP minimum floodplain management standards? If so,
what are they and how can FEMA leverage those technologies and
standards to achieve the agency's statutory and regulatory objectives?
    (15) FEMA recognizes the vital role that State, local, Tribal, and
territorial governments play in floodplain management and that they may
have innovative solutions to complex floodplain management challenges.
What successful mitigation policies, building design standards,
building construction standards, T&E species protections, and/or other
floodplain management approaches to mitigate flood loss and reduce risk
have been taken by State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments?
In what ways do the current NFIP minimum floodplain management
standards present barriers or opportunities to the successful
implementation of those approaches? What capabilities and capacity
impacts should FEMA address as it considers changes to the NFIP minimum
floodplain management standards and to strengthen NFIP protection of
T&E species and their habitats?
    (16) As FEMA undertakes an analysis of potential effects of the
NFIP on T&E species, the agency must consider the NFIP's effect on
floodplain development and the extent to which NFIP actions influence
land development decisions. ``Development'' means any man-made change
to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to
buildings or other structures; mining; dredging; filling; grading;
paving; excavation, or drilling operations; or storage of equipment or
materials.\23\ Is information available on the NFIP's influence on
floodplain development? If so, provide or identify any data or
materials identifying the NFIP's influence. How can FEMA measure the
NFIP's effect on floodplain development? Are there specific NFIP
regulations, policies and/or development standards that currently
influence State, local, Tribal, and/or territorial governments in their
development decisions that may have a positive or negative impact on
T&E species and their habitats? If so, what are they and how do they
influence development decisions that impact T&E species and their
habitats? Are there changes to those regulations, policies and/or
standards that, if made, would have a positive impact on T&E species
and their habitats? If so, what are those changes?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 44 CFR 59.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (17) FEMA is developing a national programmatic framework for
nationwide compliance with the ESA and is re-examining the extent to
which NFIP actions may have adverse effects on T&E species and their
habitats. Should FEMA reconsider its mapping practices, including the
issuance of Letters of Map Revision based on Fill (LOMR-Fs)? Should the
placement of fill material, defined as material used to raise a portion
of a property to or above the Base Flood Elevation within the SFHA, be
prohibited by NFIP minimum floodplain management standards? What would
the impact of this change be on T&E species and NFIP participating
communities?
    (18) Hazard mitigation planning reduces loss of life and property
by minimizing the impact of disasters, including floods. It begins with
State, local, and Tribal governments identifying natural disaster risks
and vulnerabilities that are common in the area and then developing
long-term strategies for protecting people and property from similar
events. Mitigation plans are key to breaking the cycle of disaster
damage and reconstruction. How should FEMA consider integrating
mitigation planning with other Federal, State, or local mitigation
planning such as community planning, economic planning, coastal zone
planning, and other types of planning activities to improve the overall
effectiveness of mitigation planning and floodplain management
activities? Are there planning best practices, processes, or data that
could better inform planning decision-making and the development and
implementation of floodplain management standards?
    FEMA notes that this notice is issued solely for information and
program-planning purposes. Responses to this

notice do not bind FEMA to any further actions related to the response.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-22152 Filed 10-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-47-P


February 12, 2015

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Vocational Vehicle Drive Cycle Data:  Draft Report produced by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory entitled "The Development of Vocational Vehicle Drive Cycles and Segmentation"

FROM:	Lauren Steele, Environmental Engineer, OTAQ/ASD

TO:	Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2 - Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827

Introduction

      Attached to this memo is a draft report produced under the direction of EPA by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) under Interagency Agreement IAG-14-1954 and Task Number WFGY.1000.  Also attached is a set of Powerpoint slides summarizing the progress of the NREL work and offering a brief overview of the vocational vehicle Phase 2 program as of December 2015.

      The report describes the methodology and results of NREL's vocational drive cycle analysis. The vehicles included in the Fleet DNA database have been grouped into representative segments via drive cycle analysis, and membership in segments has been correlated with vehicle chassis characteristics. In proposed rulemaking, the ARB Transient cycle was combined with the 55 mph cruise cycle with road grade, the 65 mph cruise cycle with road grade, and a 10-minute idle cycle to create a 4-part composite cycle.  As a part of NREL's work, for each segment of vocational vehicles appropriate weightings were assigned to each constituent test cycle to ensure that the overall (composite weighted) cycle reasonably represents the activity of most vehicles in each segment.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 3341]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01230]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application for Transfer of License and Soliciting
Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Project No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Indiana Public Service Company....................    12514-084
Northern Indiana Public Service Company LLC
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 3, 2018, Northern Indiana Public Service Company
(transferor) and Northern Indiana Public Service Company LLC
(transferee) filed an application for the transfer of license of the
Norway-Oakdale Hydroelectric Project No. 12514. The project is located
on the Tippecanoe River in Carroll and White counties, Indiana.
    The applicants seek Commission approval to transfer the license for
the Norway-Oakdale Hydroelectric Project from the transferor to the
transferee. This transfer of license reflects an internal corporate
reorganization. The transferor will be merged into newly created
transferee.
    Applicants Contact: Ms. Hallie Meushaw, Troutman Sanders LLP, 600
Peachtree Street NE, Suite 5200, Atlanta, GA 30308, Phone: 404-885-
3660, Email: [email protected] and Mr. M. Bryan Little,
Senior Counsel, NiSource Corporate Services, 150 West Market Street,
Ste. 600, Indianapolis, IN 46204, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email:
[email protected].
    FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests:
30 days from the date that the Commission issues this notice. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments,
motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling
system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. 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, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-12514-084.

    Dated: January 18, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-01230 Filed 1-23-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 128 (Wednesday, July 3, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39971-39973]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15970]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Part 774

[Docket No. 120806310-3555-02]
RIN 0694-AF76

Implementation of the Understandings Reached at the 2012
Australia Group (AG) Plenary Meeting and the 2012 AG Intersessional
Decisions; Changes to Select Agent Controls--Correction

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule; correcting amendment.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a final
rule in the Federal Register on Wednesday, June 5, 2013 (78 FR 33692),
that amended the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to implement
the understandings reached at the June 2012 plenary meeting of the
Australia Group (AG) and the 2012 AG intersessional decisions. That
final rule also amended the EAR to reflect recent changes to the
controls maintained by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS), U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC), U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, on the possession, use, and transfer of select biological
agents within the United States. The preamble of that final rule
contained an error in its description of the amendments to Export
Control Classification Number (ECCN) 1C351 that were based on the
understandings reached at the 2012 AG Plenary. The preamble also
contained an error in its description of the amendments to ECCN 2B352
that were based on the 2012 AG intersessional decisions. In addition,
that final rule contained errors affecting the control language in ECCN
2B352, which controls specified equipment capable of use in handling
biological materials. This document corrects these errors.

DATES: This rule is effective July 3, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Sangine, Director, Chemical
and Biological Controls Division, Office of Nonproliferation and Treaty
Compliance, Bureau of Industry and Security, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On June 5, 2013, the final rule ``Implementation of the
Understandings Reached at the 2012 Australia Group (AG) Plenary Meeting
and the 2012 AG Intersessional Decisions; Changes to Select Agent
Controls'' was published in the Federal Register (78 FR 33692). In the
preamble of that final rule, the discussion of the amendments to ECCN
1C351 erroneously indicated that the bacterium ``Coxiella burnetii''
was previously controlled under ECCN 1C351.c.11 when, in fact, this
bacterium was previously controlled under ECCN 1C351.c.10 and is now
controlled under 1C351.c.13, based on the amendments contained that
final rule. Instead, prior to the publication of that final rule, ECCN
1C351.c.11 controlled ``Enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli, serotype
O157 and other verotoxin producing serotypes.'' As a result of the

amendments made by that final rule, these bacteria are now controlled
under ECCN 1C351.c.17, with the control language having been clarified
to read ``Shiga toxin producing Escherichia coli (STEC) of serogroups
O26, O45, O103, O104, O111, O121, O145, O157, and other shiga toxin
producing serogroups.''
    The preamble of that final rule also contained an error in its
description of the amendments to ECCN 2B352. Specifically, in the
description of the technical characteristics of the spray-drying
equipment now controlled under ECCN 2B352.f, the preamble mistakenly
referred to ``a typical mean product particles size'' when it should
have said ``a typical mean product particle size,'' consistent with the
control language in ECCN 2B352.f.2.
    In addition, that final rule amended ECCN 2B352, under the
``Items'' paragraph in the List of Items Controlled, by redesignating
paragraphs f. through h. as paragraphs g. through i., respectively, and
adding a new paragraph f. to control specified spray drying equipment
capable of drying toxins or pathogenic microorganisms. However, that
final rule did not make the necessary conforming changes, in ECCN
2B352.i.3 and Technical Note 2 to ECCN 2B352, to reflect the
redesignation of 2B352.h (specified spraying or fogging systems and
components therefor) as 2B352.i.
    This rule makes these conforming changes, as follows. First, in
ECCN 2B352.i.3, the phrase ``as specified in paragraphs h.1 and h.2 of
this ECCN'' is revised to read, ``as specified in paragraphs i.1 and
i.2 of this ECCN.'' Second, in Technical Note 2 to ECCN 2B352, the
phrase ``as specified in 2B352.h'' is revised to read, ``as specified
in 2B352.i.'' These conforming changes do not affect either the scope
of the EAR controls that apply to equipment controlled under ECCN 2B352
or the specific equipment that is subject to these EAR controls.
    Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001,
the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR,
2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March
8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013), and as extended by the Notice of
August 15, 2012, 77 FR 49699 (August 16, 2012), has continued the EAR
in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. BIS
continues to carry out the provisions of the Export Administration Act,
as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to
Executive Order 13222.

Rulemaking Requirements

    1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently
valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This rule
contains a collection of information subject to the requirements of the
PRA. This collection has been approved by OMB under Control Number
0694-0088 (Multi-Purpose Application), which carries a burden hour
estimate of 58 minutes to prepare and submit form BIS-748. Send
comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the
burden, to Jasmeet Seehra, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and
to the Office of Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security,
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room
6622, Washington, DC 20230.
    3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications
as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
    4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for
public participation, and a delay in effective date, are inapplicable
because this regulation involves a military and foreign affairs
function of the United States (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). The changes
contained in this rule are non-substantive technical corrections of a
previously published rule that has already been exempted from notice
and comment and delay in effective date provisions, because the content
of the June 5, 2013, final rule involves a military and foreign affairs
function of the United States (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). The corrections
contained in this final rule are essential to ensuring the accurate and
complete implementation of the June 5, 2013, final rule.
    Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking
and an opportunity for public comment be given for this final rule.
Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public
comment are not required for this rule under the Administrative
Procedure Act or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) are not applicable.
Therefore, this regulation is issued in final form.

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 774

    Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 774 of the Export
Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) is amended as
follows:

PART 774--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for 15 CFR Part 774 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.;
10 U.S.C. 7420; 10 U.S.C. 7430(e); 22 U.S.C. 287c, 22 U.S.C. 3201 et
seq., 22 U.S.C. 6004; 30 U.S.C. 185(s), 185(u); 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 42
U.S.C. 6212; 43 U.S.C. 1354; 15 U.S.C. 1824a; 50 U.S.C. app. 5; 22
U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR,
1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p.
783; Notice of August 15, 2012, 77 FR 49699 (August 16, 2012).

Supplement No. 1 to Part 774--[Amended]

0
2. In Supplement No. 1 to Part 774 (the Commerce Control List),
Category 2--Materials Processing, ECCN 2B352 is amended under the
``Items'' paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section by revising
paragraph i.3 and Technical Note 2 that follows paragraph i. to read as
follows:

2B352 Equipment capable of use in handling biological materials, as
follows (see List of Items Controlled).

* * * * *

List of Items Controlled

Unit: * * *
Related Controls: * * *
Related Definitions: * * *
Items:
* * * * *
    i. * * *
    i.3. Aerosol generating units specially designed for fitting to
the systems as specified in paragraphs i.1 and i.2 of this ECCN.

Technical Notes:

    1. * * *
    2. This ECCN does not control spraying or fogging systems and
components, as specified in 2B352.i., that are demonstrated not to
be capable of delivering biological agents in the form of infectious
aerosols.
* * * * *

    Dated: June 27, 2013.
Bernard Kritzer,
Director, Office of Exporter Services.
[FR Doc. 2013-15970 Filed 7-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 118 (Monday, June 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 39997]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14452]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2016-75]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; BOSH
Precision Agriculture, LLC dba Digital Harvest

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's
awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process.
Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of
information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of
the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before July 11, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-6746
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Ngo,<PHONE_NUMBER>, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 13, 2016.
Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2015-6746.
    Petitioner: BOSH Precision Agriculture, LLC dba Digital Harvest.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: 21 and 137, and 14 CFR 61.113(a),
91.7(a), 91.103, 91.109, 91.119, 91.121, 91.151(b), 91.405(a),
91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), 91.417(a)(b), and 91.1501.
    Description of Relief Sought: The petitioner is requesting relief
in order to operate the RMAX helicopter for agricultural uses (202
pounds, including payload).

[FR Doc. 2016-14452 Filed 6-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 27 (Friday, February 8, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2846-2847]
[FR Doc No: 2019-01656]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC19-8-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-606, and FERC-
607); Consolidated Comment Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of information collections and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is soliciting public comment on the following information
collections: FERC-606, Notification of Request for Federal
Authorization and Requests for Further Information, and FERC-607,
Report on Decision or Action on Request for Federal Authorization.

DATES: Comments on the collections of information are due April 9,
2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC19-8-
000) by either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Website: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Please reference the specific collection number and/or title in
your comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and fax at (202)
273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-606, Notification of Request for Federal Authorization
and Requests for Further Information; FERC-607, Report on Decision or

Action on Request for Federal Authorization.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0241.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of these information
collection requirements for all collections described below with no
changes to the current reporting requirements. Please note that each
collection is distinct from the other.
    Abstract: FERC-606 requires agencies and officials responsible for
issuing, conditioning, or denying requests for federal authorizations
necessary for a proposed natural gas project to report to the
Commission regarding the status of an authorization request. This
reporting requirement is intended to allow agencies to assist the
Commission to make better informed decisions in establishing due dates
for agencies' decisions.
    FERC-607 requires agencies or officials to submit to the Commission
a copy of a decision or action on a request for federal authorization
and an accompanying index to the documents and materials relied on in
reaching a conclusion.
    The information collections can neither be discontinued nor
collected less frequently because of statutory requirements. The
consequences of not collecting this information are that the Commission
would be unable to fulfill its statutory mandate under the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 to:
     Establish a schedule for agencies to review requests for
federal authorizations required for a project, and
     Compile a record of each agency's decision, together with
the record of the Commission's decision, to serve as a consolidated
record for the purpose of appeal or review, including judicial review.
    Type of Respondent: Agencies with federal authorization
responsibilities.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: 1 The Commission estimates
the annual public reporting burden and cost \2\ (rounded) for the
information collection as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For
further explanation of what is included in the information
collection burden, refer to 5 CFR 1320.3.
    \2\ The estimates for cost per response are derived using the
formula: Average Burden Hours per Response * 79.00 per hour =
Average Cost per Response. The hourly cost figure comes from the
FERC average salary plus benefits of $164,820 per year (or $79.00/
hour). These estimates were updated in May 2018. This figure is
being used because the staff thinks industry is similarly situated
in terms of average hourly cost.

FERC-606 (Notification of Request for Federal Authorization and Requests for Further Information), and FERC-607 (Report on Decision or Action on Request
                                                               for Federal Authorization)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Annual number
                                 Number of     of responses    Total number     Average burden hours & cost    Total annual burden hours     Cost per
                                respondents   per respondent   of responses            per response               & total annual cost     respondent ($)
                                         (1)             (2)     (1) * (2) =  (4)...........................  (3) * (4) = (5)...........       (5) / (1)
                                                                         (3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-606....................               6               1               6  4 hrs.; $316..................  24 hrs.; $1,896...........            $316
FERC-607....................               1               1               1  1 hr.; $79....................  1 hr.; $79................              79
                             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...................               7  ..............               7  ..............................  25 hrs.; $1,975...........  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collections of
information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the Commission, including whether the information will have
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the
burden and cost of the collections of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance
the quality, utility and clarity of the information collections; and
(4) ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Issued: February 1, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-01656 Filed 2-7-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P