[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 5 (Friday, January 7, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1121-1126]
[FR Doc No: 2011-132]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2010-0003; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1170]

Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on the proposed Base (1% annual-chance)
Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed BFE modifications for the
communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to
seek general information and comment regarding the proposed regulatory
flood elevations for the reach described by the downstream and upstream
locations in the table below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are a part of
the floodplain management measures that the community is required
either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to

qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, these elevations, once
finalized, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate
appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the
contents in those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before April 7, 2011.

ADDRESSES: The corresponding preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) for the proposed BFEs for each community is available for
inspection at the community's map repository. The respective addresses
are listed in the table below.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1170, to
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500
C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (e-mail)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for
each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR
67.4(a).
    These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are
required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must
change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their
floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by
other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations
are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and
also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium
rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final,
and for the contents in those buildings.
    Comments on any aspect of the Flood Insurance Study and FIRM, other
than the proposed BFEs, will be considered. A letter acknowledging
receipt of any comments will not be sent.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This proposed rule is
categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10,
Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not
been prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are
not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. This
proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria
of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This proposed rule involves no
policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule
meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67

    Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 67--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.

Sec.  67.4  [Amended]

    2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  67.4 are
proposed to be amended as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  * Elevation in feet
                                                                (NGVD)  + Elevation in
                                                                feet (NAVD)
                                                                  Depth in feet above
         Flooding source(s)            Location of referenced       ground  [caret]        Communities affected
                                            elevation **          Elevation in meters
                                                                         (MSL)
                                                              --------------------------
                                                                Effective     Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Redwood County, Minnesota, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cottonwood River....................  Approximately 0.93 mile         None       +1,042  City of Sanborn,
                                       downstream of U.S.                                 Unincorporated Areas
                                       Route 71.                                          of Redwood County
                                      Approximately 2.1 miles         None       +1,105
                                       upstream of County
                                       Road 57.
Crow Creek..........................  Approximately 900 feet          None         +840  City of Redwood Falls,
                                       downstream of                                      Unincorporated Areas
                                       Minnesota Prairie                                  of Redwood County.
                                       Railroad.
                                      Approximately 0.45 mile         None       +1,009
                                       upstream of County
                                       Highway 1.
Minnesota River.....................  Approximately 2.54              +823         +825  City of Redwood Falls,
                                       miles downstream of                                Unincorporated Areas
                                       County Highway 11.                                 of Redwood County.
                                      Approximately 1.09              +874         +877
                                       miles upstream of
                                       County Highway 7.
Ramsey Creek........................  At the Redwood River            None         +884  City of Redwood Falls,
                                       confluence.                                        Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of Redwood County.
                                      Approximately 245 feet          None       +1,016
                                       upstream of Kenwood
                                       Avenue.

Redwood River.......................  At the Minnesota River          +842         +843  City of Redwood Falls,
                                       confluence.                                        City of Seaforth, City
                                                                                of Vesta,
                                                                                Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of Redwood County.
                                      Approximately 0.88 mile         None       +1,067
                                       upstream of County
                                       Road 51.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES

City of Redwood Falls
Maps are available for inspection at 333 South Washington Street, Redwood Falls, MN 56283.

City of Sanborn
Maps are available for inspection at 171 North Main Street, Sanborn, MN 56083.

City of Seaforth
Maps are available for inspection at 205 Oak Street, Seaforth, MN 56287.

City of Vesta
Maps are available for inspection at 150 Front Street West, Vesta, MN 56292.

                                     Unincorporated Areas of Redwood County
Maps are available for inspection at 403 South Mill Street, Redwood Falls, MN 56283.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Clark County, Missouri, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Branch (backwater effects from    From the Honey Creek            None         +497  Unincorporated Areas of
 Mississippi River).                   confluence to                                      Clark County.
                                       approximately 0.5 mile
                                       downstream of State
                                       Highway H.
Buck Run (overflow effects from       At the Lewis County             +496         +495  Unincorporated Areas of
 Mississippi River).                   boundary.                                          Clark County.
                                      Approximately 0.6 mile          None         +496
                                       downstream of Avenue
                                       of the Saints.
Doe Run (backwater effects from       From the Lewis County           None         +496  Unincorporated Areas of
 Mississippi River).                   boundary to                                        Clark County.
                                       approximately 1,290
                                       feet downstream of
                                       Avenue of the Saints.
Mississippi River...................  Approximately 2.5 miles         +496         +495  City of Alexandria,
                                       downstream of the Fox                              Unincorporated Areas
                                       River confluence.                                  of Clark County.
                                      At the Des Moines River         +500         +499
                                       confluence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES

City of Alexandria
Maps are available for inspection at the Community Center, 109 Market Street, Alexandria, MO 63430.

                                      Unincorporated Areas of Clark County
Maps are available for inspection at the Clark County Courthouse, 111 East Court Street, Suite 4, Kahoka, MO
 63445.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Lewis County, Missouri, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Artesian Branch (backwater effects    From approximately              None         +493  Unincorporated Areas of
 from Mississippi River).              1,000 feet downstream                              Lewis County.
                                       of the Artesian Branch
                                       Tributary 1 confluence
                                       to approximately 270
                                       feet downstream of
                                       U.S. Route 61.

Artesian Branch Tributary 1           From the Artesian               None         +493  Unincorporated Areas of
 (backwater water effects from         Branch confluence to                               Lewis County.
 Mississippi River).                   approximately 240 feet
                                       downstream of U.S.
                                       Route 61.
Doe Run (overflow effects from        Approximately 475 feet          None         +494  Unincorporated Areas of
 Mississippi River).                   downstream of the Doe                              Lewis County.
                                       Run Tributary 4
                                       confluence.
                                      Approximately 1.0 mile          None         +495
                                       upstream of County
                                       Road 494.
Doe Run Tributary 4 (backwater        From the Doe Run                None         +494  Unincorporated Areas of
 effects from Mississippi River).      confluence to                                      Lewis County.
                                       approximately 360 feet
                                       downstream of U.S.
                                       Route 61.
Durgens Creek (backwater effects      From the Mississippi            None         +488  Unincorporated Areas of
 from Mississippi River).              River confluence to                                Lewis County.
                                       approximately 0.4 mile
                                       downstream of U.S.
                                       Route 61.
Mississippi River...................  Approximately 3.0 miles         None         +487  City of Canton, City of
                                       downstream of the                                  La Grange,
                                       Durgens Creek                                      Unincorporated Areas
                                       confluence.                                        of Lewis County.
                                      At the Clark County             None         +495
                                       boundary.
Oyster Branch (backwater effects      From the Mississippi            None         +489  Unincorporated Areas of
 from Mississippi River).              River confluence to                                Lewis County.
                                       approximately 630 feet
                                       downstream of U.S.
                                       Route 61 Business.
Wyaconda River (backwater effects     From the Mississippi            None         +489  City of La Grange,
 from Mississippi River).              River confluence to                                Unincorporated Areas
                                       approximately 410 feet                             of Lewis County.
                                       upstream of U.S. Route
                                       61 Business.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES

City of Canton
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 106 North 5th Street, Canton, MO 63435.

City of La Grange
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 118 South Main Street, La Grange, MO 63448.

                                      Unincorporated Areas of Lewis County
Maps are available for inspection at the Lewis County Courthouse, 100 East Lafayette Street, Monticello, MO
 63457.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Madison County, Missouri, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tollar Branch.......................  Approximately 775 feet          +738         +740  Village of Cobalt.
                                       downstream of Marvin
                                       Avenue.
                                      Approximately 1,310             None         +788
                                       feet upstream of Mine
                                       LaMotte Street.
Village Creek.......................  At the upstream side of         +708         +707  City of Junction City.
                                       Catherine Mine Road.
                                      Approximately 550 feet          None         +710
                                       upstream of Catherine
                                       Mine Road.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES

City of Junction City
Maps are available for inspection at 1 Court Square, Fredericktown, MO 63645.

Village of Cobalt
Maps are available for inspection at 1 Court Square, Fredericktown, MO 63645.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  Taylor County, Texas, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elm Creek...........................  Just west of the                None       +1,668  Town of Impact,
                                       intersection of Impact                             Unincorporated Areas
                                       Drive and Clinton                                  of Taylor County.
                                       Street.
                                      Approximately 717 feet          None       +1,673
                                       northeast of the
                                       intersection of Impact
                                       Drive and FM Road 2404.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES

Town of Impact
Maps are available for inspection at 555 Walnut Street, Abilene, TX 79602.

                                      Unincorporated Areas of Taylor County
Maps are available for inspection at 400 Oak Street, Suite 107, Abilene, TX 79602.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Snohomish County, Washington, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haskel Slough.......................  Approximately 0.7 mile          None          +56  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       downstream of State                                Snohomish County.
                                       Highway 203.
                                      Approximately 1.4 miles         None          +67
                                       upstream of State
                                       Highway 203.
North Fork Skykomish River..........  Approximately 308 feet          +465         +461  Town of Index,
                                       upstream of the South                              Unincorporated Areas
                                       Fork Skykomish River                               of Snohomish County.
                                       confluence.
                                      Approximately 2.7 miles         +675         +673
                                       upstream of 5th Street.
Riley Slough........................  Approximately 1.2 miles         None          +49  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       upstream of the                                    Snohomish County.
                                       Snoqualmie River
                                       confluence.
                                      Approximately 2.2 miles         None          +72
                                       upstream of State
                                       Highway 203.
Skykomish River.....................  Approximately 4.6 miles          +91          +90  City of Gold Bar, City
                                       downstream of Mann                                 of Sultan,
                                       Road.                                              Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of Snohomish County.
                                      Approximately 216 feet          +359         +351
                                       downstream of
                                       Burlington Northern
                                       Santa Fe Railway.
Snohomish River.....................  Approximately 528 feet           +27          +26  City of Monroe, City of
                                       downstream of the                                  Snohomish,
                                       Marshland Diversion                                Unincorporated Areas
                                       Channel confluence                                 of Snohomish County.
                                       (Storage Area 2).
                                      Approximately 0.5 mile           +28          +29
                                       downstream of State
                                       Highway 9 (Storage
                                       Area 4).
Sultan River........................  At the upstream side of         +118         +117  City of Sultan,
                                       State Highway 2.                                   Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of Snohomish County.
                                      Approximately 3.2 miles         +180         +183
                                       upstream of State
                                       Highway 2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES

City of Gold Bar
Maps are available for inspection at 107 5th Street, Gold Bar, WA 98251.

City of Monroe
Maps are available for inspection at 806 West Main Street, Monroe, WA 98272.

City of Snohomish
Maps are available for inspection at 116 Union Avenue, Snohomish, WA 98290.

City of Sultan
Maps are available for inspection at 319 Main Street, Sultan, WA 98294.

Town of Index
Maps are available for inspection at 511 Avenue A, Index, WA 98256.

                                    Unincorporated Areas of Snohomish County
Maps are available for inspection at 3000 Rockefeller Avenue, Everett, WA 98201.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Dated: December 27, 2010.
Sandra K. Knight,
Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administrator, Mitigation,
Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-132 Filed 1-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 60 (Wednesday, March 28, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18804-18806]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7367]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OA-2008-0701; FRL- 9514-3]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Focus Groups as Used By EPA for
Economics Projects (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)(44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the
nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before April 27,
2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-
2008-0701, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB by mail to:
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nathalie Simon, National Center for
Environmental Economics, Office of Policy, (1809T), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On October 7, 2011 (76 FR 62400), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any
additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB
within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA EPA-HQ-OA-2008-0701, which is available for online viewing at
www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Office of
Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/
DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC.
The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number
for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at www.regulations.gov as EPA receives
them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted
material, confidential business information (CBI), or other information
whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further
information about the electronic docket, go to www.regulations.gov.
    Title: Focus Groups as Used by EPA for Economics Projects
(Renewal).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 2205.07, OMB Control No. 2090-0028.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on March 31, 2012.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The EPA is seeking renewal of a generic information
collection request (ICR) for the conduct of focus groups and one-on-one
interviews primarily related to survey development for economics
projects. Focus groups are groups of individuals brought together for
moderated discussions on a specific topic or issue. These groups are
typically formed to gain insight and understanding of attitudes and
perceptions held by the public surrounding a particular issue. One-on-
one interviews, as the term implies, are individual interviews in which
a respondent is generally asked to review materials and provide
feedback on their content and design as well as the thought processes
that the materials invoke.
    Focus groups and one-on-one interviews (hereafter referred to
collectively as ``focus groups'') used as a qualitative research tool
have three major purposes:
     To better understand respondents' attitudes, perceptions
and emotions in response to specific topics and concepts;
     To obtain respondent information useful for better
defining variables and measures in later quantitative studies; and
     To further explore findings obtained from quantitative
studies.
    Through these focus groups, the Agency will be able to gain a more
in-depth understanding of the public's attitudes, beliefs, motivations
and feelings regarding specific issues and will provide invaluable
information regarding the quality of draft survey instruments. Focus
group discussions are necessary and important steps in the design of a
quality survey. The target population for the focus group discussions
will vary by project, but will generally include members of the general
public. Participation in the focus groups will be completely voluntary.
Each focus group will fully conform to federal regulations--
specifically the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), the Hawkins-
Stafford Amendments of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-297), and the Computer
Security Act of 1987.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2
hours per response. Burden means 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. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Individuals.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,066 over three years or 689 per
year.
    Frequency of Response: 1.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 1,359.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $41,394, includes $0 annualized
capital or O&M costs. Changes in the Estimates:

There is an increase of 573 hours in the total estimated burden
currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This
increase is based on new estimates provided by the program offices at
EPA on their projected use of focus groups.

John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2012-7367 Filed 3-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 85 (Thursday, May 2, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18837-18839]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08901]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC19-81-000.
    Applicants: Alta Oak Realty, LLC, Oak Creek Wind Power, LLC, ON
Wind Energy, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act, et al. of Alta Oak Realty, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 4/25/19.
    Accession Number: 20190425-5180.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/19.

    Docket Numbers: EC19-82-000.
    Applicants: Utah Red Hills Renewable Park, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the

Federal Power Act, et al. of Utah Red Hills Renewable Park, LLC.
    Filed Date: 4/25/19.
    Accession Number: 20190425-5186.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/19.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER19-81-000.
    Applicants: Athens Energy, LLC.
    Description: Report Filing: Response Regarding Refunds to be
effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 4/26/19.
    Accession Number: 20190426-5003.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/17/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-915-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2019-04-26_Compliance to RAN Outage
Coordination Filing to be effective 4/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 4/26/19.
    Accession Number: 20190426-5138.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/17/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1137-002.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amended Filing in ER19-1137--East
Texas Cooperatives Stated Rate Revisions to be effective 6/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 4/26/19.
    Accession Number: 20190426-5199.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/6/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1364-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2019-04-25_SA 3267_Astoria
Substation Sub MPFCA (J493 J510) OTP to be effective 3/19/2019.
    Filed Date: 4/25/19.
    Accession Number: 20190425-5145.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/6/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1634-001; ER13-1141-004; ER13-1142-004; ER17-
1849-004; ER16-918-003; ER19-1633-001; ER15-1657-009; ER19-1638-001.
    Applicants: Bridgeport Energy LLC, Essential Power Massachusetts,
LLC, Essential Power Newington, LLC, Nautilus Power, LLC, Rhode Island
State Energy Center, LP, Rumford Power LLC, SEPG Energy Marketing
Services, LLC, Tiverton Power LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Bridgeport
Energy LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 4/25/19.
    Accession Number: 20190425-5179.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1678-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 205 re: locational operating
reserves region for NYC (Load Zone J) to be effective 6/26/2019.
    Filed Date: 4/26/19.
    Accession Number: 20190426-5001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/17/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1679-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Joint OATT Power Losses
(DEF) 2019 to be effective 5/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 4/26/19.
    Accession Number: 20190426-5005.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/17/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1680-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2236R11 Golden Spread
Electric Cooperative, Inc. NITSA NOA to be effective 4/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 4/26/19.
    Accession Number: 20190426-5006.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/17/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1681-000.
    Applicants: New England Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Related Facilities Agreement
with Calpine Fore River Energy Center to be effective 3/28/2019.
    Filed Date: 4/26/19.
    Accession Number: 20190426-5042.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/17/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1682-000.
    Applicants: American Transmission Systems, Incorporated, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: ATSI submits an ECSA,
Service Agreement No. 5269 with The Ohio Edison Company to be effective
6/25/2019.
    Filed Date: 4/26/19.
    Accession Number: 20190426-5074.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/17/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1683-000; TS19-3-000.
    Applicants: Southern Power Company, Wildhorse Wind Energy, LLC.
    Description: Petition for Waiver of the requirement of Order Nos.
888, et al. of Wildhorse Wind Energy, LLC.
    Filed Date: 4/26/19.
    Accession Number: 20190426-5140.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/17/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1684-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Ameren
Illinois Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2019-04-26_SA 2005 Ameren-
Hoosier WDS Agreement to be effective 7/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 4/26/19.
    Accession Number: 20190426-5139.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/17/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1685-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 607R35 Westar Energy, Inc.
NITSA NOA to be effective 4/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 4/26/19.
    Accession Number: 20190426-5159.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/17/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1686-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2019-04-26_SA 2240 ITC-
Sumpter Energy 1st Rev GIA (J043 J646) to be effective 4/10/2019.
    Filed Date: 4/26/19.
    Accession Number: 20190426-5160.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/17/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1687-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: SPS Formula Rate Revisions
to Incorporate Changes Accepted in ER18-2410 to be effective 1/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 4/26/19.
    Accession Number: 20190426-5188.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/17/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1688-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Ameren
Illinois Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2019-04-26_SA 1951 Ameren-
IMEA WDS Agreement to be effective 7/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 4/26/19.
    Accession Number: 20190426-5207.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/17/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1689-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Initial rate filing: 20190426_Non-Conforming Market-
Based Rate Agreements to be effective 7/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 4/26/19.
    Accession Number: 20190426-5214.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/17/19.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing

requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 26, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-08901 Filed 5-1-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 222 (Monday, November 18, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63661-63662]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24921]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2019-N-4992]

Pan American Laboratories, LLC, et al.; Proposal To Withdraw
Approval of Four New Drug Applications; Opportunity for a Hearing

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA or Agency) Center for
Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) is proposing to withdraw approval
of four new drug applications (NDAs) from multiple NDA holders and is
announcing an opportunity for the NDA holders to request a hearing on
this proposal. The basis for the proposal is that the NDA holders have
repeatedly failed to file required annual reports for these NDAs.

DATES: The NDA holders may submit a request for a hearing by December
18, 2019. Submit all data, information, and analyses upon which the
request for a hearing relies January 17, 2020. Submit electronic or
written comments by January 17, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The request for a hearing may be submitted by the NDA
holders by either of the following methods:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments to submit your request
for a hearing. Comments submitted electronically to https://www.regulations.gov, including any attachments to the request for a
hearing, will be posted to the docket unchanged.

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.
     Because your request for a hearing will be made public,
you are solely responsible for ensuring that your request 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. The request for a hearing must include the
Docket No. FDA-2019-N-4992 for ``Pan American Laboratories, LLC, et
al.; Proposal To Withdraw Approval of Four New Drug Applications;
Opportunity for a Hearing.'' The request for a hearing will be placed
in the docket and publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or
at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
    The NDA holders may submit all data and analyses upon which the
request for a hearing relies in the same manner as the request for a
hearing except as follows:
     Confidential Submissions--To submit any data analyses with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your data and analyses only as a written/paper
submission. You should submit two copies total of all data and
analyses. 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
any decisions on this matter. 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
or available at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management
Staff. Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not be disclosed
except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure
law.
    Comments Submitted by Other Interested Parties: For all comments
submitted by other interested parties, 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-2019-N-4992 for ``Pan American Laboratories, LLC, et al.; Proposal
To Withdraw Approval of Four New Drug Applications; Opportunity for a
Hearing.'' Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see DATE
), 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberly S. Lehrfeld, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6226, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-3137.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The holders of approved applications to
market new drugs for human use are required to submit annual reports to
FDA concerning each of their approved applications in accordance with
Sec.  314.81 (21 CFR 314.81). The NDA holders listed in table 1 have
failed to submit the required annual reports and have not responded to
the Agency's request for submission of the reports.

     Table 1--Approved NDAs for Which Required Reports Have Not Been
                                Submitted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Application No.               Drug                 NDA holder
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NDA 014217..............  MAOLATE (chlorphenesin  Pan American
                           carbamate) Tablet,      Laboratories, LLC,
                           400 milligrams (mg).    4099 Highway 190,
                                                   Covington, LA 70433.
NDA 018663..............  CHYMODIACTIN            Chart Medical, Inc., c/
                           (chymopapain) for       o Renascent Medical,
                           Injection, 4,000        Inc., 9600 Great
                           Units/vial and 10,000   Hills Trail, Suite
                           Units/vial.             150 West, Austin, TX
                                                   78759.
NDA 020530..............  IONTOCAINE              Iomed, Inc., 2441
                           (epinephrine and        South 3850 West,
                           lidocaine               Suite A, Salt Lake
                           hydrochloride (HCl))    City, UT 84120-9941.
                           Topical Solution,
                           0.01 mg/milliliter;
                           2%.
NDA 021504..............  LIDOSITE TOPICAL        Vyteris, Inc., 13-01
                           SYSTEM: LidoSite        Pollitt Dr., Fair
                           Patch (lidocaine HCl    Lawn, NJ 07410.
                           and epinephrine
                           topical iontophoretic
                           patch) 10%/0.1% and
                           LidoSite Controller.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, notice is given to the NDA holders listed in table 1 and
to all other interested persons that the Director of CDER proposes to
issue an order under section 505(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(e)), withdrawing approval of the
applications and all amendments and supplements thereto on the grounds
that the NDA holders have failed to submit reports required under Sec.
314.81.
    In accordance with section 505 of the FD&C Act and 21 CFR part 314,
the NDA holders are hereby provided an opportunity for a hearing to
show why the approval of the applications listed previously should not
be withdrawn and an opportunity to raise, for administrative
determination, all issues relating to the legal status of the drug
products covered by these applications.
    An NDA holder who decides to seek a hearing must file the
following: (1) A written notice of participation and request for a
hearing (see DATES and ADDRESSES) and (2) the data, information, and
analyses relied on to demonstrate that there is a genuine and
substantial issue of fact that requires a hearing (see DATES and
ADDRESSES). Any other interested person may also submit comments on
this notice. The procedures and requirements governing this notice of
opportunity for a hearing, notice of participation and request for a
hearing, information and analyses to justify a hearing, other comments,
and a grant or denial of a hearing are contained in Sec.  314.200 (21
CFR 314.200) and in 21 CFR part 12.
    The failure of an NDA holder to file a timely written notice of
participation and request for a hearing, as required by Sec.  314.200,
constitutes an election by that NDA holder not to avail itself of the
opportunity for a hearing concerning CDER's proposal to withdraw
approval of the applications and constitutes a waiver of any
contentions concerning the legal status of the drug products. FDA will
then withdraw approval of the applications, and the drug products may
not thereafter be lawfully introduced or delivered for introduction
into interstate commerce. Any new drug product introduced or delivered
for introduction into interstate commerce without an approved
application is subject to regulatory action at any time.
    A request for a hearing may not rest upon mere allegations or
denials, but must present specific facts showing that there is a
genuine and substantial issue of fact that requires a hearing. If a
request for a hearing is not complete or is not supported, the
Commissioner of Food and Drugs will enter summary judgment against the
person who requests the hearing, making findings and conclusions, and
denying a hearing.
    All submissions under this notice of opportunity for a hearing must
be filed in four copies. Except for data and information prohibited
from public disclosure under 21 U.S.C. 331(j) or 18 U.S.C. 1905, the
submissions may be seen at the Dockets Management Staff (see ADDRESSES)
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to
the docket at https://www.regulations.gov.
    This notice is issued under section 505(e) of the FD&C Act and
under authority delegated to the Director of CDER by the Commissioner
of Food and Drugs.

    Dated: November 12, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-24921 Filed 11-15-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 216 (Friday, November 6, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 71108]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24728]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2020-0003]

Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH):
Charter Renewal

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Renewal of the ACCSH charter.

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

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Labor (Secretary) has renewed the charter for
ACCSH.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For press inquiries: Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office of
Communications, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information about ACCSH: Mr. Damon Bonneau, OSHA,
Directorate of Construction, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone (202)
693-2183; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Secretary has renewed the ACCSH charter.
The new ACCSH charter will be available to read or download at http://www.regulations.gov (Docket No. OSHA-2020-0003), the federal rulemaking
portal. The charter will also be available on the ACCSH page on OSHA's
web page at http://www.osha.gov and through the OSHA Docket Office, N-
3653, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please note: While OSHA's Docket
Office is continuing to accept and process requests, due to the COVID-
19 pandemic, the Docket Office is closed to the public. In addition,
the charter is available for viewing or download at the Federal
Advisory Committee Database at http://www.facadatabase.gov. The new
charter will expire two years from the filing date.
    Congress established ACCSH in Section 107 of the Contract Work
Hours and Safety Standards Act (Construction Safety Act (CSA)) (40
U.S.C. 3704(d)(4)), to advise the Secretary in the formulation of
construction safety and health standards as well as on policy matters
arising under the CSA and the Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.).
    ACCSH operates in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (FACA), as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2), and the implementing
regulations (41 CFR 102-3 et seq.); and Department of Labor Manual
Series Chapter 1-900 (8/31/2020). Pursuant to FACA (5 U.S.C. App. 2,
14(b)(2)), the ACCSH charter must be renewed every two years.
    The new charter clarifies the procedures for the formulation of
meeting agendas and the creation of Committee subcommittees and work
groups.

Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this
notice under the authority granted by 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(1) and 656(b),
40 U.S.C. 3704(a)(2), 5 U.S.C. App. 2, Secretary of Labor's Order No.
8-2020 (85 FR 58393), and 29 CFR part 1912.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on November 3, 2020.
Loren Sweatt,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety
and Health.
[FR Doc. 2020-24728 Filed 11-5-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 121 (Tuesday, June 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 35748]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14697]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP14-964-001.
    Applicants: Gulf Shore Energy Partners, LP.
    Description: Gulf Shore Energy Show Cause Compliance filing.
    Filed Date: 6/10/14.
    Accession Number: 20140610-5175.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-964-002.
    Applicants: Gulf Shore Energy Partners, LP.
    Description: Gulf Shore Energy Show Cause Compliance filing-Refile.
    Filed Date: 6/10/14.
    Accession Number: 20140610-5231.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/14.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 11, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-14697 Filed 6-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Reviewer:
Charles M. Farmer, Ph.D.
Director of Statistical Services
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
Arlington, VA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>703-247-1590
703-247-1587 FAX

January 4, 2011

Summary of Results

NHTSA analyses in 1997 and 2003 estimated the effects on fatality risk of historical changes in the average size and weight of the vehicle fleet.  As size and weight tended to change concurrently (and proportionally), it made sense to model the effects of only one of these parameters, namely vehicle curb weight.  It was argued that any attempt to estimate the individual effects of size and weight would be confounded by the high correlation between the two parameters (i.e., multicollinearity).

However, the processes of design and manufacture have evolved such that vehicle weight now can be reduced with little or no change to vehicle size.  The relevant question, then, is how fatality risk would be affected by a change in vehicle weight while holding size essentially constant.  The latest NHTSA analysis tackled this question.

The data used were similar to those from the 2003 analysis: crashes occurring during the years 1995-2000 and involving 1991-1999 model passenger vehicles.  Logistic regression analyses were conducted to predict the effect on fatality risk of a 100-pound weight reduction while maintaining the vehicle footprint (wheelbase times track width).  For cars weighing less than 2950 pounds the effect was an estimated 2.21 percent increase in fatalities (301/13608).  For cars weighing at least 2950 pounds the effect was a 0.90 percent increase in fatalities (98/10884).  For light trucks and vans (LTVs) weighing less than 3870 pounds the effect was a 0.17 percent increase in fatalities (14/8057).  For LTVs weighing at least 3870 pounds the effect was a 1.90 percent decrease in fatalities (280/14705).

Fatality Increase (%) per 100-Pound Mass Reduction While Maintaining Footprint

                       Actual Regression Result Scenario
                            Upper-Estimate Scenario
                            Lower-Estimate Scenario
Cars < 2,950 pounds
                                                                           2.21
                                                                           2.21
                                                                           1.02
Cars > 2,950 pounds
                                                                           0.90
                                                                           0.90
                                                                           0.44
LTVs < 3,870 pounds
                                                                           0.17
                                                                           0.55
                                                                           0.41
LTVs > 3,870 pounds
                                                                          -1.90
                                                                          -0.62
                                                                          -0.73

Summary of Methodology

For each vehicle make/model/body style/model year in each calendar year the national count of registered vehicles was divided into categories corresponding to combinations of driver gender, driver age (4 groups), night/day, rural road/urban, and high speed road/other.  These divisions mirrored the distribution of gender, age, and roadway categories of drivers involved in two-vehicle police-reported crashes for which the other driver was judged to be solely at fault.  Thus the exposure of vehicles in the study was estimated not only for the various vehicle characteristics, but also for driver and roadway characteristics.  Based on odometer readings from NHTSA-investigated crashes, annual mileage of LTVs seems to be higher for bigger vehicles.  The registration counts for LTVs were further adjusted to account for these estimated mileage differences.

Fatal crash involvements for each make/model/body style/model year in each calendar year were classified according to 6 mutually exclusive crash types: first-event rollovers, collisions with fixed objects, collisions with pedestrians/bicycles/motorcycles, collisions with heavy trucks, collisions with cars, and collisions with LTVs.

Fatal crash involvement records were combined with the not-at-fault records to produce the data set for analyses.  Logistic regressions were used to estimate the odds that a record was from a fatal crash based on driver gender, driver age, night/day, rural road/urban, high speed road/other, presence of a driver airbag, presence of antilock brakes (ABS), the curb weight of the vehicle, and the footprint.  Fatal crash involvements were weighted in the regression by the number of fatalities in the crash and not-at-fault involvements were weighted by the registration counts.  Odds ratios from the regression therefore approximated differences in the fatality rate per vehicle (or per mile) per year.

General Comments

The only difference between this analysis and that of the 2003 study is the addition of vehicle footprint to the logistic regressions.  Earlier analyses have avoided adding size measures to the statistical models because of concerns about multicollinearity.  These concerns still exist (as evidenced by the relatively high correlation between weight and footprint), but the analysis proceeds anyway.  Researchers should look for a better way to lessen the effects of multicollinearity.

One suggestion would be to use more recent data in the hope that curb weight and footprint are less correlated than they used to be.  I realize that building this data set is a major undertaking, but it is possible now to study fatal crashes of 2001-2008 model passenger vehicles during the years 2005-2009.  Such a future analysis is mentioned on page 533 of the report.  I encourage NHTSA to pursue it.

The stated purpose of the analysis was to develop parameters for the Volpe model, i.e., the percentage change in crash fatalities per 100 pound weight reduction while maintaining footprint.  Much of the text, however, is devoted to a comparison of the NHTSA methodology to that presented by Dynamic Research Inc. (DRI).  Section 2.3 of the report demonstrates that breaking the regression analysis into two stages (as DRI does) causes parameter estimates for curb weight to change from negative to positive.  For example, the parameter estimate for curb weight of relatively heavy cars colliding with LTVs was -0.0114 when using a single-stage logistic regression of fatality risk.  However, when estimation was broken into fatalities per crash followed by crashes per vehicle, the combined curb weight parameter was 0.0292.

The latest NHTSA analysis has a believability advantage over the DRI analyses because the results are consistent with those predicted by the laws of physics.  That is, to the extent that other factors are adequately controlled, increased size should reduce peak forces on occupants for any given crash delta velocity by increasing crush distance over which the delta velocity occurs; in analogous manner, increased mass (i.e,, momentum/inertia) should reduce peak forces for a given amount of crush distance by lessening the delta velocity in crashes with movable/deformable objects.  Analyses that find otherwise need to explain how these physical effects have been overcome or masked.

Also, the NHTSA analysis is self consistent.  The analysis that estimates the two separate parameters for size and weight yields estimated fatal crash effects (when statistically recombined) that are consistent with the overall effect associated with the original logistic regression for size/weight combined.

Despite these advantages, I find myself wondering why the DRI analysis did not yield similar results.  Theoretically, it should have.  NHTSA suggests that part of the genuine effect of mass is momentarily "lost" when fatality rates are analyzed per 1,000 reported crash involvements or per 1,000 reported induced-exposure involvements, because that effect is "hidden" in the rate of reported involvements per 1,000 registration years.  Heavier cars have fewer reported crash involvements per registration year.  Reported crash rates decrease by about 2 percent reduction per 100-pound increase.  Because log-linear effects are additive across the two regression steps, this 2-percent effect is basically "lost" from the analysis of fatalities per 1,000 induced-exposure crashes.

This demonstrates how the NHTSA and DRI analyses can produce contradictory results, but it does not clearly explain how these differences come about.  Both methods are logical.  In fact, if a data set existed containing all crashes and vehicle travel miles for each combination of driver gender, driver age, night/day, rural road/urban, high speed road/other, presence of a driver airbag, presence of antilock brakes (ABS), curb weight of the vehicle, and footprint, then parameter estimates from a two-stage regression should sum exactly to that from a single-stage regression.  Why does the two-stage method applied here yield different results?  Is it due to aggregating the data by make, model, body type, model year, state, and calendar year and employing average values for driver characteristics?  Is it due to differences in the independent variables included for the first-stage and second-stage regression models?

I am somewhat concerned that dropping driver age from the second-stage regression model shifts the results back in line with those of NHTSA (see Table 2-8).  (It would be helpful if the parameter estimates from each stage were reported rather than just the sum.)  The decile results (Section 2.4) also ignore driver age, and also agree with NHTSA's logistic regressions.  Is driver age the confounding factor?

One should keep in mind that these effects are being estimated without a clear understanding of why different vehicles of the same size have different weights.  Weights might vary because of variations in engine size.  More horsepower per weight tends to increase crash risk  -  this would be one way  that increased weight might increase fatal crash risk, counteracting the momentum exchange relationship.  Excluding muscle and sporty cars did not significantly change the estimates in this report.  However, trends toward greater horsepower have extended beyond these vehicle segments.

The model years 1991-1999 saw large improvements in occupant protection driven largely by structural improvements and safety equipment like side airbags.  These improvements would increase vehicle mass (and hence reduce fatality rates) but they also might account for some of the lower fatality rates directly.

Results are given separately for the four vehicle classes: passenger cars weighing less than 2950 pounds, passenger cars weighing at least 2950 pounds, LTVs weighing less than 3870 pounds, and LTVs weighing at least 3870 pounds.  However, CAFE regulations affect all four classes simultaneously.  It would be nice to know the effect of a 100-pound weight reduction in all vehicles.  Given the double counting of some fatalities, I'm not sure how to accomplish this from Tables 4-1 through 4-4.  Do the fatality changes and baseline fatalities simply combine for an estimated 0.28 percent overall increase in fatalities (133/47254)?

According to Table 2-15, the effect of reducing footprints by 0.65 square feet while maintaining weight is a 3.64 percent increase in fatalities for passenger cars weighing less than 2950 pounds (496/13608) and a 6.84 percent increase for passenger cars weighing at least 2950 pounds (745/10884).  According to Table 3-2, the effect of reducing footprints by 0.975 square feet while maintaining weight is a 2.26 percent increase in fatalities for LTVs weighing less than 3870 pounds (182/8057) and a 2.14 percent increase for LTVs weighing at least 3870 pounds (315/14705).  Conversely, increasing the vehicle footprint while maintaining weight should be beneficial.  I think it's important to determine how much footprint increase would be necessary to counteract the negative effect of a 100-pound weight reduction.  That is, how can designers reduce vehicle weight without harming society?

Finally, it would be helpful if NHTSA made available on its web site the complete set of data used to produce the main results.  This would make it easier for other researchers to understand the methodology and to try out suggested improvements to the analysis.  It also would make it easier for NHTSA to respond to these suggestions.

Specific Comments (quotes from the study are in italics)

   1. (p. 486, bullet 2) Although substituting footprint for track width and wheelbase produces similar or at best marginally lower VIF scores (the test for curb weight, track width, and wheelbase produced VIF scores of 6.4, 3.0, and 6.5, whereas the test for curb weight and footprint produced scores of 6.1 and 5.8), the literature suggests that combining parameters is generally advisable for alleviating multicollinearity. Would it not make sense to go further and combine curb weight with footprint?  A combined measure of curb weight per square foot would solve the problem of multicollinearity and still allow for testing the effect of reducing weight while maintaining footprint.
   2. (p. 496, para. 2) Should increases the chance of coefficients in the lighter <--> fatalities direction for mass because the effect of mass is essentially split between the two regressions instead read increases the chance of coefficients in the lighter <--> fewer fatalities direction for mass because the effect of mass is essentially split between the two regressions?
   3.  (p. 529, Table 3-5) Should the heading NUMBER OF FOOTPRINT DECILES WHERE FOOTPRINT HAS NEGATIVE CORRELATION WITH THE FATAL-CRASH RATE instead read NUMBER OF CURB WEIGHT DECILES WHERE FOOTPRINT HAS NEGATIVE CORRELATION WITH THE FATAL-CRASH RATE?
   4. Peer reviewers were charged with deciding whether the analytical methods were appropriate and whether the material was presented in a clear and concise manner.  I believe the methods are appropriate, but they are not definitive.  Although the current NHTSA analysis yields results that are internally consistent and consistent with expectations from the physics of car crashes, alternative methods to estimate the separate effects of size and weight can and should be considered in the future.  Thinking of this as a work in progress is some justification for the length of the report.  It was very clearly written, but I would not call it concise.

Peer Review Recommendation

Acceptable with minor revisions (as indicated)