[Federal Register: November 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 221)]
[Notices]
[Page 64603-64604]
[DOCID:fr16no07-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12667-003]

City of Hamilton, OH; Notice of Application Ready for
Environmental Analysis and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Terms
and Conditions, and Prescriptions

November 8, 2007.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Original Major License.
    b. Project No.: 12667-003.
    c. Date filed: October 6, 2006.
    d. Applicant: City of Hamilton, Ohio.
    e. Name of Project: Meldahl Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Ohio River, near the City of Augusta, Bracken
County, Kentucky. The existing dam is owned and operated by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The project would occupy approximately
81 acres of United States lands administered by the Corps.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Michael Perry, Director of Electric, City
of Hamilton, Ohio, 345 High Street, Hamilton, OH 45011,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Peter Leitzke at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Deadline for filing comments, recommendations, terms and
conditions, and prescriptions: 60 days from the issuance date of this
notice; reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this
notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    Comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions
may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site
(http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``eFiling'' link.

    k. This application has been accepted, and is ready for
environmental analysis at this time.
    l. The proposed project would utilize the existing U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers' Captain Anthony Meldahl Locks and Dam, and would consist
of: (1) An intake approach channel; (2) an intake structure, (3) a 248-
foot-long by 210-foot-wide powerhouse containing three generating units
having a total installed capacity of 105 megawatts, (4) a tailrace
channel; (5) a 5-mile-long, 138-kilovolt transmission line; and (6)
appurtenant facilities. The City of Hamilton (Hamilton) is a municipal

entity that owns and operates an electrical system. The project would
have an estimated annual generation of 489 gigawatt-hours, which would
be used to serve the needs of the customers of Hamilton's electric
system.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''

link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for
inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.
    All filings must: (1) Bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS'', ``REPLY COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS'', ``TERMS AND
CONDITIONS'', or ``PRESCRIPTIONS''; (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, or prescriptions must
set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be
accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service
list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with
18 CFR 4.34(b), and 385.2010.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp
 to be notified via e-mail of new filings and

issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    n. Procedural schedule: The Commission staff proposes to issue a
single Environmental Assessment (EA) rather than issuing a draft and
final EA. Staff intends to allow at least 30 days for entities to
comment on the EA. The Commission will take into consideration all
comments received on the EA before taking final action on the license
application. The application will be processed according to the
following schedule, but revisions to the schedule may be made as
appropriate:
    Issue Notice of Availability of the EA: April 2008.
    o. The license applicant must file no later than 60 days following
the date of issuance of this notice: (1) A copy of the water quality
certification; (2) a copy of the request for certification, including
proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the request;
or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality certification.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-22396 Filed 11-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 13, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 197)]
[Notices]
[Page 62807-62808]
[DOCID:fr13oc10-46]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP10-468-000]

Northern Border Pipeline Company; Notice of Availability of the
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Princeton Lateral Project

October 5, 2010.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the
Princeton Lateral Project proposed by Northern Border Pipeline Company
(Northern Border) in the above referenced docket. Northern Border
requests authorization to construct pipeline facilities to transport
natural gas from Northern Border's existing pipeline system in Bureau
County, Illinois to an interconnection with Central Illinois Light
Company d/b/a/AmerenCILCO (CILCO) near Princeton, Illinois.
    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the Princeton Lateral Project in
accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy
Act. The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed project,
with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major
federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment.
    The proposed Princeton Lateral Project includes the following
facilities:
     8.65 miles of 16-inch-diameter natural gas lateral \1\
pipeline;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A lateral is a segment of pipeline that is usually of
smaller diameter which branches off the mainline to connect with or
serve a specific customer or group of customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     a pig \2\ launcher assembly located adjacent to the
Northern Border Kasbeer side valve site; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A ``pig'' is a tool that is inserted into and moves through
the pipeline, and is used for cleaning the pipeline, internal
inspections, or other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     metering and associated facilities at the CILCO delivery
location.
    The EA has been placed in the public files of the FERC and is
available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov using the

eLibrary link. A limited number of copies of the EA are available for
distribution and public inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Copies of the EA have been mailed to Federal, State, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes;
potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and
groups; newspapers and libraries in the project area; and parties to
this proceeding.
    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments
should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable
alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts.
The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To
ensure that your comments are properly recorded and considered prior to
a Commission decision on the proposal, it is important that the FERC
receives your comments in Washington, DC on or before November 4, 2010.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the
project docket number (CP10-468-000) with your submission. The
Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has dedicated
eFiling expert staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. An eComment is an
easy method for interested persons to submit brief, text-only comments
on a project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling you
can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a
file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an
account by clicking on ``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the
type of filing you are making. A comment on a particular project is
considered a ``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You may file a paper copy of your comments at the following
address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
    Although your comments will be considered by the Commission, simply
filing comments will not serve to make the commenter a party to the
proceeding. Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must
file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).\3\ Only intervenors
have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Interventions may also be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. See the previous discussion on filing
comments electronically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be
granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they
have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be
adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor
status to have your comments considered.
    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC or on the
FERC Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on
the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field
(i.e., CP10-468). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range.
For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-25672 Filed 10-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 185 (Friday, September 23, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65658-65660]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22937]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket Nos. FDA-2012-E-1231; FDA-2012-E-1232; and FDA-2012-E-1247]

Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent
Extension; BELVIQ

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the
regulatory review period for BELVIQ and is publishing this notice of
that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination
because of the submission of applications to the Director of the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the
extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.

DATES: Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section) are incorrect may submit either
electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination by
November 22, 2016. Furthermore, any interested person may

petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for
extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period
by March 22, 2017. See ``Petitions'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section for more information.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to http://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 http://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): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, 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 Nos.
FDA-2012-E-1231; FDA-2012-E-1232; and FDA-2012-E-1247, for
``Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent
Extension; BELVIQ.'' Received comments will be placed in the docket
and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,''
publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of
Dockets Management 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 http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. 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: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://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 Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory
Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984
(Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term
Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may
be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item
(human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food
additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA
before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory
review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension
an applicant may receive.
    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A
testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the
testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical
investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the
approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial
submission of an application to market the human drug product and
continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product.
Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward
the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award
(for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any
time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's
determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human
drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase
as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
    FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product, BELVIQ
(lorcaserin hydrochloride hemihydrate). BELVIQ is indicated as an
adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity for
chronic weight management in adults. Subsequent to this approval, the
USPTO received patent term restoration applications for BELVIQ (U.S.
Patent Nos. 6,953,787; 7,514,422; and 7,977,329) from Arena
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in
determining the patents' eligibility for patent term restoration. In a
letter dated February 13, 2013, FDA advised the USPTO that this human
drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the
approval of BELVIQ represented the first permitted commercial marketing
or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA
determine the product's regulatory review period.

II. Determination of Regulatory Review Period

    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for
BELVIQ is 2,928 days. Of this time, 2,009 days occurred during the
testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 919 days occurred
during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the
following dates:
    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food,
Drug,

and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective:
June 23, 2004. FDA has verified the Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. claim
that June 23, 2004, is the date the investigational new drug
application became effective.
    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to
the human drug product under section 505(b) of the FD&C Act: December
22, 2009. The applicant claims December 18, 2009, as the date the NDA
for BELVIQ was initially submitted. However, FDA records indicate that
NDA 22-529 was submitted on December 22, 2009.
    3. The date the application was approved: June 27, 2012. FDA has
verified the applicant's claim that NDA 22-529 was approved on June 27,
2012. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 22-529 was
approved on June 27, 2012.
    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the
maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO
applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual
period for patent extension. In its applications for patent extension,
this applicant seeks 1,174 days; 1,051 days; or 352 days of patent term
extension, respectively.

III. Petitions

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are
incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and ask for
a redetermination (see DATES). Furthermore, any interested person may
petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for
extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period.
To meet its burden, the petition must be timely (see DATES) and contain
sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept. 857, part
1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the
format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.
    Submit petitions electronically to http://www.regulations.gov at
Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Submit written petitions (two copies are
required) to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and
Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Dated: September 19, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-22937 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 185 (Friday, September 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59143-59144]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24532]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0002]

Joint Meeting of the Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health
Drugs and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee;
Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committees: Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health
Drugs and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committees: To provide advice and
recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on December 8, 2011, from 8
a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: The Marriott Inn and Conference Center, University of
Maryland University College, The Ballroom, 3501 University Blvd. East,
Adelphi, MD. The conference center telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Contact Person: Kalyani Bhatt, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
31, rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax: 301-847-
8533, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee Information
Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area), and
follow the prompts to the desired center or product area. Please call
the Information Line for up-to-date information on this meeting. A
notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that
impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always
be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you
should always check the Agency's Web site and call the appropriate
advisory committee hot line/phone line to learn about possible
modifications before coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: On December 8, 2011, the committees will discuss the
benefits and risks of drospirenone-containing oral contraceptives in
light of the emerging safety concern that the risk of venous
thromboembolism (blood clots that can break loose and move within the
circulatory system) associated with use of these products may be higher
compared to oral contraceptives that contain the progestin,
levonorgestrel. Drospirenone-containing oral contraceptives for the
primary indication of pregnancy prevention include: YASMIN, YAZ
(drospirenone/ethinyl estradiol tablets), BEYAZ, SAFYRAL (drospirenone/
ethinyl estradiol/levomefolate calcium tablets and levomefolate calcium
tablets), Bayer HealthCare, and the generic equivalents for these
products.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the

meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the
location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material
will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material
is available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
November 23, 2011. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Those individuals interested in
making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and
submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or
arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed
participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to
make their presentation on or before November 15, 2011. Time allotted
for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants
requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated
during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a
lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing
session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding
their request to speak by November 16, 2011.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Kalyani Bhatt at
least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: September 20, 2011.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2011-24532 Filed 9-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


Michelle Bell<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 12/15/2004 11:20 AM

To

Jee-Young Kim/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject

Attachment with ozone/mortality estimates

Young,

I'm resending the attachment. Did it come through this time?

I am sending the betas and stderrs as you requested. Note that all values

have been multiplied by 1000 (I find them easier to read, and also is an

excellent approximation of the percent increase in mortality for a 10 ppb

increase in ozone).

If you divide by 1000, the beta is for 1 ppb increase in daily ozone (over

the past week - these are the constrained distributed lag model estimates).

Michelle

At 08:24 AM 12/15/2004 -0500, you wrote:

>Hello Michelle,

>

>The spreadsheet mentioned below has not been sent along with your

>e-mail.  Would you please e-mail it to us again?

>

>Thanks, Young

>

>

>

>

>

>Michelle Bell<EMAIL_ADDRESS>  To:  Jee-Young Kim/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

>12/14/2004  04:08 PM                      cc:  David Svendsgaard/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Dennis Kotchmar/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

>                                          Subject:  Re: Figure 2 of your JAMA paper

>

>

>Hi Young,

>

>Here are answers to your questions.

>

>1) The constrained distributed lag model provides an estimate for the

>exposure over the previous week (same day (lag 0) and lags from 1 to 6

>days). In our model, this is not either structured as either the 7-day

>average exposure or the sum of 7 effect estimates. You can see the model

>structure in the paper, I believe. If you still have questions, let me know

>and I'd be glad to answer.

>

>Our unconstrained distributed lag model does sum 7 effect estimates (one

>for each day of exposure). Ideally we would have liked to look at these

>effect estimates separately to see the different effect by days, however

>the individual estimates are unstable due to their high collinearity. The

>sum, however, is stable. You may notice that the constrained and

>unconstrained versions of the distributed lag model provide very similar

>results.

>

>2) Figure 2 provides the Bayesian (posterior) estimates. I am attaching a

>spreadsheet that includes the data that was used to generate the numbers

>for Figure 2. As you know, my colleagues and I are also very interested in

>the possible heterogeneity across cities.

>

>Please let me know if you have any further questions.

>

>Best regards,

>Michelle

>

>

>At 10:23 AM 12/13/2004 -0500<EMAIL_ADDRESS>wrote:

> >Hello Michelle,

> >

> >For the current draft of the ozone criteria document, we have been

> >studying all aspects of your ozone-mortality paper published in JAMA.

> >We had one question regarding your constrained distributed lag model.

> >The estimate of 0.52% per 10 ppb increase in previous week's 24-h avg

> >ozone level, does this refer to the effect estimate for the 7-day

> >average exposure, or the sum of the effect estimates for each single day

> >lag?

> >

> >Also, we would like to examine further the heterogeneity of effects

> >expressed in the 95 communities.  Would you please send us the

> >quantitative data used to plot Figure 2 of the JAMA paper?

> >Specifically, please send us the numerical values of the mean effect

> >estimate and standard error (or preferably, the beta and standard error)

> >for each of the 95 communities.

> >

> >Thank you.  We look forward to your response,

> >

> >Best,

> >Young


[Federal Register: January 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 16)]
[Notices]
[Page 4252-4253]
[DOCID:fr24ja08-97]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket No. FEMA-2008-0002]

National Advisory Council

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the date, time, location and agenda for
the next meeting of the National Advisory Council (NAC). At the
meeting, new members will be introduced and sworn in. The meeting will
be open to the public.

DATES: Meeting Dates: Tuesday, February 12, 2008, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
and Wednesday, February 13, 2008, 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. A public
comment period will take place on the afternoon of February 13, 2008
between 2:15 p.m. and 2:45 p.m.
    Comment Date: Written comments or requests to make oral
presentations must be received by February 5, 2008.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Washington Marriott Hotel,
1221 22nd Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037 in the Georgetown I/II
meeting rooms. Persons wishing to make an oral presentation or who are
unable to attend or speak at the meeting may submit written comments.
Written comments and requests to make oral presentations at the meeting
should be provided to the Designated Federal Officer, Alyson Price, at
the address listed below and must be received by February 5, 2008. All
submissions received must include the docket number: FEMA-2008-0002 and
may be submitted by any one of the following methods:
    Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow

instructions for submitting comments on the Web site.
    E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include docket number in the subject
line of the message.
    Facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Mail: Alyson Price, Designated Federal Officer, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., (E Street, 3rd Floor),
Washington, DC 20472.
    Hand Delivery/Courier: National Advisory Council, DFO c/o Rules
Docket Clerk, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Room 835, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the docket
number: FEMA-2008-0002. Comments received will also be posted without
alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal

information provided.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received by the National Advisory Council, go to http://www.regulations.gov
.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alyson Price, Designated Federal
Officer, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., (E
Street, 3rd Floor), Washington, DC 20472, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax
202-646-3061, and e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463, as amended (5
U.S.C. App. 1 et seq.). The NAC will be holding this meeting on Tuesday
and Wednesday, February 12 and 13, 2008 in Georgetown I/II of the
Washington Marriott Hotel, 1221 22nd Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037.

Tentative Agenda of Council Meeting, February 12-13, 2008

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

    (1) Introduction and swearing-in of new members;
    (2) Highlights/Updates from FEMA Headquarters;
    (3) NAC Operations Overview;
    (4) FEMA Administrator's remarks; and
    (5) Council Discussion.

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

    (1) Summary of previous day;
    (2) Council Discussion;
    (3) Public comment period; and
    (4) Closing remarks/Next steps.
    A final agenda will be posted on the NAC Web site prior to the
meeting at http://www.fema.gov/about/nac/.

    A public comment period will take place on February 13, 2008,
between 2:15 p.m. and 2:45 p.m.
    Public Attendance: The meeting is open to the public. Persons with
disabilities who require special assistance should advise the
Designated Federal Officer of their anticipated special needs as early
as possible. Members of the public who wish to make comments on the
afternoon of

Wednesday, February 13, 2008 are requested to register in advance. In
order to allow as many people as possible to speak, speakers are
requested to limit their remarks to three minutes. For those wishing to
submit written comments, please follow the procedure noted above.

    Dated: January 17, 2008.
R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-1220 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-21-P


summarize where we are.  We hate meeting like this, but we understand
the budgetary issues, and in order to fulfill our obligations, we will
have to work on a second meeting for the year, looking at Dr. Michael
and Dr. Howard's schedules.  So, hopefully, we can set this meeting as
quickly as possible.

	Let me ask some help from staff.  I don't know.  To me, again, the
farther ahead we set the meeting, the better chance we have of good
attendance.  So when do you think we can look at their schedules and do
an e-mail thing about meeting times?  Assuming that we're going to do a
call -- I mean, at this point, I think the safest thing for us to assume
is that we're going to have to have a call again.

	MS. EDENS:  This is Mandy.

	Last time, it was in the November time frame, so we can shoot for that,
and we can quickly check Dr. Michael's and Dr. Howard's schedule and
send out potential days and then let people sort of -- you know, maybe
by some kind of poll or see how those match up with the committee's
availability as a starting point.

	MS. SOIZA:  This is Anne Soiza.

	Can I ask a question or a request, please?

	MS. EDENS:  Sure.

	MS. SOIZA:  Because of the timing of this NACOSH meeting, I was absent
from a very critical portion of the OSHPA meeting, which is I'm in a
hotel in Connecticut to attend.  I would really hope that the November
meeting, which would also coincide with potential OSHPA meeting, please
consider at least other OSHA-sponsored events when you are calendaring
these things.  I would really appreciate it, because I tend to attend a
lot of them.

	MS. EDENS:  Well, we certainly take that into consideration.  We'll try
to match that up as much as possible, but with everybody's schedules and
all the meetings, it's sometimes very challenging to get 100 percent
participation, but we will do our very best to make sure it doesn't
conflict.  But, you know, I can't promise that --

	MR. SOIZA:  No, I know.  I'm not asking you to promise.  I'm just
saying that if there's a -- the OSHPA meeting is a pretty major federal
OSHA event.

	MS. EDENS:  Yes, as is NACOSH.

	MS. SHORTALL:  Anne, if you could please get the information when the
next OSHPA meeting is going to be to Liz and Mandy and Gretta as soon as
possible, that will also help.

	MS. EDENS:  Sarah, we can -- I know the people that did OSHPA.  I do
work for OSHA, so I think I can figure that one out.

	MS. SHORTALL:  But it's a little bit different, you know, travel days,
et cetera.

	MS. EDENS:  But I will definitely -- when they complete this one, I
will go directly to Doug Kalinowski and his staff and figure out when
they're scheduling the next meeting, and we will try as best as possible
not to have it overlap with other major OSHA-sponsored meetings at the
very least, if possible.

	MS. SOIZA:  That would be very -- I'd

really appreciate that.  Thank you.

	MR. DOOLEY:  This is Peter Dooley.

	On one of the fairly recent e-mails, there was the notion that the next
meeting would be in person.  Has that been determined?

	MS. EDENS:  I wasn't aware of that motion.

	MR. DOOLEY:  Mandy, that e-mail was from you, I believe.

	MS. EDENS:  Well, I just said that in my e-mail that, you know, we'll
have to look at this situation that arises.

	We appreciate the value of a face-to-face meeting, but we'll have to
look at our budgetary limitations and do the best we can to have an
effective meeting.

	ACCSH, the last time around, they did a teleconference.  They had a
2-day meeting.  It was like 3 hours one day and 3 hours the next.  So
there are different ways we could do it if we have to rely on a
teleconference.  There are different ways of doing it, so that you don't
have to feel like you've got one shot, to best replicate a multi-day
meeting that we had in the past.  We can think about the best way to do
it next time, if we have the funding.  It's possible we can hopefully do
it that way.  I just don't know right now what the situation will be.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Again, I'm assuming, maybe because I work for
government -- I'm assuming that we may be stuck with a teleconference
call.

	Unless we know we have funding, I think the first request I'm going to
make of staff is that we plan a teleconference call.  That is not my
preference, but it's sort of hard to plan an in-person meeting if we
don't know we have funding.

	MS. EDENS:  Well, the availability becomes somewhat easier when people
don't have to travel for people who are out of town, so it might open up
more days.  If you're talking about being available one day for 3 hours
as opposed to traveling a half a day, staying here a day and a half, so
-- I mean, we can try to poll people for both situations and see what
their availabilities are both ways and then, you know, kind of plan
around both and see what happens as the new fiscal year starts.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  That is October 1, right?

	MS. EDENS:  Exactly.  Well, the fiscal year starts.  Whether or not we
have a budget or not is the issue.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Again, let me speculate that we may not have a
budget.

	Personally, I'm not interested in holding 7 days for this meeting on
all these various possibilities.  I don't know what people think the
likelihood of us having money to travel in this calendar year.  I don't
expect the budget to pass by September 30th.  I don't know about you
all.

	MS. EDENS:  Well, it's not that a budget won't pass.  I mean, we will
have -- generally, there is some continuing resolution.  We will have
some funds.  It's just a matter of sometimes you know more than you know
closer to the fiscal year starting than you do now.

	If you want to just plan on the teleconference, that's up to the
committee.  I'm just suggesting just to look and see what dates are even
out there.  If everybody just says, "I don't have any dates," it's a
closed deal.  I'm just suggesting let's think about it, and then as we
move through the summer, we can do some e-mails and say let's just
forget about the full day and focus on the teleconference.  I'm just
suggesting to poll people about what the availabilities are now.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  I don't want to be specific on the dates right now,
but for me, it's better to know months ahead of time what I have to do,
whether it's an in-person meeting or a conference call.  So let me be
blunt with that.  I don't know what other people think.

	I'm not interested in August in trying to figure out when in November I
might could meet.  Personally, I think the longer the lead time, the
more attendance we're going to get, and since I think we're talking
about a really iffy situation for an in-person meeting --

	Now, the other thing we could do is plan an in-person meeting and block
out that amount of time, and if it has to be a teleconference, that is
an easier thing to contract, but I don't want to try to have two --

	MS. EDENS:  Okay, that's a good idea.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Does anyone object to doing that?  We will plan on
an in-person meeting, which I am pretty confident won't happen, but
we'll plan on that, and then should that not happen because of the lack
of funds, then we'll be able to contract to a shorter meeting, because
the other thing I don't want to do is sit on the phone for 4 hours.

	So we can look to looking for dates in the next week or so.  Mandy?

	MS. EDENS:  Well, in order to take into consideration Anne's request, I
don't know if OSHPA will be planned next week.  So I need to sort of
figure out when they plan on setting their next date.  They are fairly
regular about meeting quarterly, so they may have it.

	Also, the further we plan out -- you guys were upset with me last time
because David didn't show up.  Now, I can say David, his schedule is
clear.  If you want to know within the next few weeks that we're going
to have a meeting, I'll tell you I can't promise that David will be
here.  The further out you plan on him, his schedule gets filled with
things that are sometimes out of his control that he has to go to.
There's just different things -- I mean, I think within the next few
weeks, I think OSHPA will know the next time they're meeting.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Can we have this done by July 4th?  Is that
possible?

	MS. EDENS:  It's probably possible.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Committee members, is that adequate time for you
that we would try to decide by July 4th when our next meeting will be?

	AGTTENDEES:  Yes.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  And we will plan -- at this point, we will plan on
an in-person meeting framework, knowing that we can always cut back if
we have to.  Is that okay?

	ATTENDEES:  Yes.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  All right.

	Are there any other matters before this committee?

	MR. JOHNSON:  This is Jim Johnson.

	One other matter.  Peter had sent an e-mail to the committee.
Distribution may have been broader than that, and it asked the question
whether we should resubmit the I2P2 recommendations.  Personally, I
think the one on the national symposium is very important, so I bring
that to the committee.

	Peter, I don't know if you want to add any comments to that.

	MR. DOOLEY: Well, just with the thought that whatever we recommend, my
understanding is that it has to be in the context of a resolution that
we pass, and I had that question, Linda, even in regards to our sort of
asking NIOSH to do more survey work.

	I believe that we should probably move that in the form of a
resolution.  Otherwise, it's not official.

	The I2P2 resolutions that we have passed in the past still can be
updated in the sense that we could reemphasize that this recommendation
has been made in the past, is still current, and we could basically move
that again.

	MS. EDENS:  Well, Peter, this is Mandy.

	I can't stop you from doing that, but just so you know, the
recommendations are before the agency, so really no further action by
the committee is necessary.

	We realize the recommendations you have.  David and the Acting
Secretary of Labor knows them.  So you don't really need to do that.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Someone can make a motion that we reaffirm or
reiterate or we're pissed because you haven't answered us, whatever,
however you want to frame it, about this recommendation for a workgroup
to plan a national symposium.  That's the recommendation you're talking
about.

	MS. EDENS:  Well, you have reaffirmed it the last time.  You had a
committee.  You had the recommendation one time meeting away ago, and
then last meeting, you reaffirmed it.  So, I mean, I guess you can
reaffirm again --

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  I'm aware.  I'm aware.

	MS. EDENS:  -- but I don't know what real point it's going to make at
this point.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  It just makes us feel better if we do it.  That's
all, so let me come back to this.

	MS. EDENS:  Okay.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  I wanted to ask this question of the committee
before we decide.  No one has made a motion yet.

	Again, to me, we should have some sense of priority here, and we can
reaffirm this.  Again, I won't comment on what I think our chances are
of having this happen.

	What we are really saying is that this really becomes critical for the
work that this work group has been discussing.

	Having said that, let me just ask if Peter or anyone else wants to --
and I think, Peter, this can be a short resolution.  We can pull the
same language -- the language is already there -- that we reaffirm or
reiterate the urgency of this particular recommendation.

	MR. JOHNSON:  Mm-hmm.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Would someone like to frame that in the point of a
resolution?

	MR. DOOLEY:  Yeah.  This is Peter Dooley.  I would like to.  I would
like to affirm that and move that we basically pass the same resolution
that we passed last time, and the reason is because the agencies haven't
acted on the recommendation.  I believe the recommendation is current,
and we should reaffirm it.

	MS. SHORTALL:  I should remind -- well, I'm sure you understand this,
Mr. Dooley.  The agency is not required to act on your recommendation.

	MR. DOOLEY:  Correct, I know that.

	MS. SHORTALL:  But you're giving them advice, and they can choose to
adhere to it or not.  Mr. Borwegen said that excellently earlier in the
meeting.

	MR. BORWEGEN:  What did I say?

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  All right.  So Peter has made a motion that -- if I
can sort of paraphrase it.  Whereas, the agencies have not acted on our
previous recommendation; therefore, we wish to reaffirm this
recommendation.  It's urgent.  I mean, that's really all we're saying.
Is there a second to this motion?

	MR. BORWEGEN:  Linda, this is Bill Borwegen.

	We may want to add a sentence and say we would like a courtesy of a
response this time.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Again, if someone could just frame it, then we can
get it seconded and vote it up or down.

	MR. BORWEGEN:  We would like to reaffirm and are requesting as an
advisory group an official response from OSHA to our request to blah,
blah, blah, whatever else the letter says, whatever the resolution says.

	MS. SHORTALL:  I think we need a little bit more than blah, blah, blah.
 This is pertaining to the symposium.

	MR. BORWEGEN:  This is Bill Borwegen.

	We are resubmitting the identical letter with an additional sentence
that simply says we are requesting an official response.

	MS. SHORTALL:  This is the letter on the national symposium on Injury
and Illness Prevention Programs.

	MR. BORWEGEN:  I'll let Peter Dooley respond to the exact letter that
we want to convey.  Peter?

	MR. DOOLEY:  Yes.  Can I read the resolution that we passed last time?

	NACOSH has previously recommended that OSHA and NIOSH convene a
workgroup for planning an Injury and Illness Prevention Program national
symposium in order to be prepared to execute the plan based on best
timing according to the SBREFA process.  Therefore, NACOSH recommends
that OSHA and NIOSH create a workgroup at this time and schedule the
first meeting as soon as possible.

	Next paragraph.	NACOSH has previously recommended that OSHA maintain
Injury and Illness Prevention Programs as the number-one priority of the
agency and that they progress with the standard-setting process with a
high sense of urgency.  Given the importance of leading indicators to an
effective Injury and Illness Prevention Program, NACOSH recommends that
NIOSH consider a participative research project that would seek to
identify leading indicators and better understand their relationship to
outcome measures of injury and illness focused on what indicators are
most predictive of improved outcomes, including what indicators are most
effective when working together.

	MS. EDENS:  Peter, just for the record, because you were breaking up,
rather than have you read that whole thing back, were you reading from
the recommendations from the November 14th-15th, 2012, meeting or the --

	MR. DOOLEY:  Yes.

	MS. EDENS:  Okay.  So I can give that recommendation on the rulemaking
to the transcriber, and they will be able to --

	MR. DOOLEY:  Yes.

	MS. EDENS:  Okay.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  All right.  Is there a second to that motion?

	MR. JOHNSON:  Second.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Are you ready for the question?

	MR. VAN HOUTEN:  I have discussion.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Okay, go right ahead.

	MR. VAN HOUTEN:  This is Joe Van Houten.

	I just want to get -- kind of take the pulse of the committee regarding
reemphasizing this recommendation when we're operating under sequester.
I am reflecting on Peg's e-mail when we were talking about the need for
an in-person meeting or the preference for an in-person meeting and the
fact that the agency needs to make some decisions regarding maintaining
strong enforcement as opposed to sponsoring in-person committee
meetings.

	Are we in the same situation here?  Should we be recommending a
conference at this time when the funding is limited?  I just ask for the
opinion of the committee.

	MR. JOHNSON:  This is Jim Johnson.

	I am sensitive to and appreciate the budgetary challenges and
prioritization of what's most important.

	OSHA has stated that I2P2 is their number-one priority, and so,
therefore, I think it is important to convene a national symposium so
you can have further discussion in support of that rulemaking.

	MS. EDENS:  Just so the committee is aware, I mean, I don't know how
familiar everyone is with the rulemaking process.  We have had five
public stakeholder meetings on I2P2.

	I think that in the workgroup meetings and when Jordan was here the
last time before the committee, it's not that we don't find any value in
the symposium as the timing of it, and that until a proposal is on the
table, that people don't have a lot of new things to react.  And our
concern is having a symposium before we have a proposal out is not going
to tell us something we haven't already heard in the five previous
stakeholder meetings.

	You know, if you want to have a workgroup to plan it, so that when the
timing comes right, it's not that we don't disagree with it, but we will
have to look at that.  I think it's a good point to make about where
we're going to spend the money when we go into a rulemaking process
because it is not a cheap endeavor to hold a -- pull off a symposium,
and if we want to use those funds to actually support the rulemaking in
other ways, we have to make some choices about where we're going to --
if we have limited funds, where we're going to put it.

	You guys should feel free to advise us on where you think we ought to
spend our money, but we do at the end of the day only have a certain
amount of money.

	It's not that I2P2 is not our -- not a priority.  I think David has
made that clear to the committee on several situations, is how is he
going to make that priority come into effect or make it be realized and
where he's going to spend his money.  At this time, we reiterated, but
in case you can reaffirm that you want us to do it, and we will take it
under advisement as we have the other two times you recommended it.

	MR. JOHNSON:  Jim Johnson.

	Just one point of clarification.  We did make a change the last
iteration of the recommendation, which was that there be a -- I forget
the same language -- workgroup or committee brought together in order to
discuss the nature of the symposium, the extent to which we would add
value to the rulemaking process; if it was going to happen, how would
you do it, what would the expenses be, et cetera.

	So it had the in-between step to at least convene some folks to talk
about it.

	MS. EDENS:  So would this workgroup exclude OSHA staff?

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  I don't want to re-discuss -- I'm trying to help us
here.  What we're trying to do, we have a motion on the floor -- it
hasn't been seconded yet -- to reaffirm our previous recommendation
which, as many people are reminding folks, included the recommendation
for convening a workgroup.

	And I think people have raised perfectly legitimate issues, and that
should help determine how people vote.

	Now let me ask.  We have the motion.  Do we have a second to the
motion?

	MS. SHORTALL:  Well, I'd like to ask a quick question about that.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  I'm going to be more formal here.  Why don't we --

	MS. SHORTALL:  No.  I'd like to know.  You've had Pete Dooley read the
recommendation from last time.  Is he going to be considered the maker
of the motion, or are we going back to Bill Borwegen who also added a
sentence on the end of it?

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  We'll decide right now.  One of these gentlemen
will make the motion, and then I'll ask for a second.

	MS. SHORTALL:  We have a motion and a second down.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Okay.  Then we don't have to ask for a second.

	Is there any more discussion?

	MS. SHORTALL:  Which motion are you going to take, the one that Pete
Dooley did or the one --

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  I want to save time here because we can get rid of
all of this and start over again.

	Bill, you're right, made a motion and he asked for Pete to read the
exact language.  That's in fact what happened.  He asked for Peter to
read the language, which Peter had in front of him.  So I'm going to
just take that as Bill's motion, and I'm going to ask for a second to
that motion.

	MR. JOHNSON:  Once again, I'll second that.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Excellent.

	Now, we've had a lot of discussion.  Does anyone else on the committee
wish to discuss this motion before we vote?

	[No audible response.]

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Okay.  Hearing no discussion, can we take a roll
call?

	MS. GROSSMAN:  Bill Borwegen.

	MR. BORWEGEN:  Yes.

	MS. GROSSMAN:  Peg Seminario.

	MS. SEMINARIO:  Yes.

	MS. GROSSMAN:  Linda Rae Murray.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Yes.

	MS. GROSSMAN:  Lida Orta-Anes.

	MS. ORTA-ANES:  Yes.

	MS. GROSSMAN:  Mark Carleson.

	MR. CARLESON:  Yes.

	MS. GROSSMAN:  Anne Soiza.

	[No audible response.]

	MS. GROSSMAN:  Not responding.

	Joe Van Houten.

	MR. VAN HOUTEN:  Yes.

	MS. GROSSMAN:  James Johnson.

	MR. JOHNSON:  Yes.

	MS. GROSSMAN:  Jacquie Agnew.

	MS. AGNEW:  Yes.

	MS. GROSSMAN:  Bill Bunn.

	MR. BUNN:  Yes.

	MS. GROSSMAN:  Peter Dooley.

	MR. DOOLEY:  Yes.

	MS. GROSSMAN:  Rixio Medina.

	[No audible response.]

	MS. GROSSMAN:  Didn't come back on.

	So that's 10 yeses and 2 not responding.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Thank you.

	Is there any other business before this committee?

	MR. BORWEGEN:  This is Bill Borwegen.

	I just want to clarify that as SEIU, you never really leave.  Even
though I am retiring as the health and safety director, I've been asked
to stay on as the senior health and safety advisor, so just to clarify
that.

	MS. SHORTALL:  I have already entered the letter from SEIU into the
record to make sure that they've designated you as well, so we're all
perfectly fine with that.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  All right.  I'll stop being jealous then, Bill.

	Is there any other business before the committee?

	[No audible response.]

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  I want to thank everybody for their patience on
this phone call.  I know it's difficult.  I really appreciate people's
efforts to get them going.

	So we've reaffirmed some of our old business.  We've redirected one of
our workgroups to look at -- to expand our temporary worker discussion,
and we re-passed a funding letter, which you should expect to see from
me in a PDF format before the end of the week.

	Can I have a motion to adjourn?

	MS. SEMINARIO:  Peg Seminario moves to adjourn.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Second?  Any discussion?

	ATTENDEE:  Second.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  All right.  Have a great week, everybody, and those
of you in D.C., you have our sympathy.  Bye-bye.

	[Whereupon, at 3:59 p.m., the NACOSH meeting concluded.]

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  1

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington:<PHONE_NUMBER> • Baltimore:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Toll Free:<PHONE_NUMBER>


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 134 (Friday, July 14, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32514-32515]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14771]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Chapter I

46 CFR Chapters I and III

49 CFR Chapter IV

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0664]

National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee--Input To Support
Regulatory Reform of Coast Guard Regulations--New Task

AGENCY: U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Announcement of new task assignment for the National Offshore
Safety Advisory Committee (NOSAC); notice of teleconference meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Coast Guard is issuing a new task to the National
Offshore Safety Advisory Committee (NOSAC). The U.S. Coast Guard is
asking NOSAC to help the agency identify existing regulations,
guidance, and collections of information (that fall within the scope of
the Committee's charter) for possible repeal, replacement, or
modification. This tasking is in response to the issuance of Executive
Orders 13771, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs;
13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda;'' and 13783,
``Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth.'' The full
Committee is scheduled to meet by teleconference on August 3, 2017, to
discuss this tasking. This teleconference will be open to the public.
The U.S. Coast Guard will consider NOSAC recommendations as part of the
process of identifying regulations, guidance, and collections of
information to be repealed, replaced, or modified pursuant to the three
Executive Orders discussed above.

DATES: The full Committee is scheduled to meet by teleconference on
August 3, 2017, from 10:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. EDT. Please note that
this teleconference may adjourn early if the Committee has completed
its business.

ADDRESSES: To join the teleconference or to request special
accommodations, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section no later than 1 p.m. on July 31, 2017. The
number of teleconference lines is limited and will be available on a
first-come, first-served basis.
    Instructions: Submit comments on the task statement at any time,
including orally at the teleconference, but if you want Committee
members to review your comments before the teleconference, please
submit your comments no later than July 31, 2017.
    You must include the words ``Department of Homeland Security'' and
the docket number for this action. Written comments may also be
submitted using the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If you encounter technical difficulties with
comment submission, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. Comments received will be
posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. You may review Regulations.gov's Privacy
and Security Notice at https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
    Docket Search: For access to the docket or to read documents or
comments related to this notice, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
insert ``USCG-2017-0664'' in the Search box, press Enter, and then
click on the item you wish to view.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Patrick Clark, Alternate
Designated Federal Officer of the National Offshore Safety Advisory
Committee, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

New Task to the Committee

    The U.S. Coast Guard is issuing a new task to NOSAC to provide
recommendations on whether existing regulations, guidance, and
information collections (that fall within the scope of the Committee's
charter) should be repealed, replaced, or modified. NOSAC will then
provide advice and recommendations on the assigned task and submit a
final recommendation report to the U.S. Coast Guard.

Background

    On January 30, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13771,
``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.'' Under that
Executive

Order, for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior
regulations must be identified for elimination, and the cost of planned
regulations must be prudently managed and controlled through a
budgeting process. On February 24, 2017, the President issued Executive
Order 13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.'' That Executive
Order directs agencies to take specific steps to identify and alleviate
unnecessary regulatory burdens placed on the American people. On March
28, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13783, ``Promoting
Energy Independence and Economic Growth.'' Executive Order 13783
promotes the clean and safe development of our Nation's vast energy
resources, while at the same time avoiding agency actions that
unnecessarily encumber energy production.
    When implementing the regulatory offsets required by Executive
Order 13771, each agency head is directed to prioritize, to the extent
permitted by law, those regulations that the agency's Regulatory Reform
Task Force identifies as outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective in
accordance with Executive Order 13777. As part of this process to
comply with all three Executive Orders, the U.S. Coast Guard is
reaching out through multiple avenues to interested individuals to
gather their input about what regulations, guidance, and information
collections, they believe may need to be repealed, replaced, or
modified. On June 8, 2017, the U.S. Coast Guard issued a general notice
in the Federal Register requesting comments from interested individuals
regarding their recommendations, 82 FR 26632. In addition to this
general solicitation, the U.S. Coast Guard also wants to leverage the
expertise of its Federal Advisory Committees and is issuing similar
tasks to each of its Committees. A detailed discussion of each of the
Executive orders and information on where U.S. Coast Guard regulations,
guidance, and information collections are found is in the June 8th
notice.

The Task

    NOSAC is tasked to:

    Provide input to the U.S. Coast Guard on all existing
regulations, guidance, and information collections that fall within
the scope of the Committee's charter.
    1. One or more subcommittees/working groups, as needed, will be
established to work on this tasking in accordance with the Committee
charter and bylaws. The subcommittee(s) shall terminate upon the
approval and submission of a final recommendation to the U.S. Coast
Guard from the parent Committee.
    2. Review regulations, guidance, and information collections and
provide recommendations whether an existing rule, guidance, or
information collection should be repealed, replaced or modified. If
the Committee recommends modification, please provide specific
recommendations for how the regulation, guidance, or information
collection should be modified. Recommendations should include an
explanation on how and to what extent repeal, replacement or
modification will reduce costs or burdens to industry and the extent
to which risks to health or safety would likely increase.
    a. Identify regulations, guidance, or information collections
that potentially impose the following types of burden on the
industry:
    i. Regulations, guidance, or information collections imposing
administrative burdens on the industry.
    ii. Regulations, guidance, or information collections imposing
burdens in the development or use of domestically produced energy
resources. ``Burden,'' for the purposes of compliance with Executive
Order 13783, means ``to unnecessarily obstruct, delay, curtail, or
otherwise impose significant costs on the siting, permitting,
production, utilization, transmission, or delivery of energy
resources.''
    b. Identify regulations, guidance, or information collections
that potentially impose the following types of costs on the
industry:
    i. Regulations, guidance, or information collections imposing
costs that are outdated (such as due to technological advancement),
or are no longer necessary.
    ii. Regulations, guidance, or information collections imposing
costs which are no longer enforced as written or which are
ineffective.
    iii. Regulations, guidance, or information collections imposing
costs tied to reporting or recordkeeping requirements that impose
burdens that exceed benefits. Explain why the reporting or
recordkeeping requirement is overly burdensome, unnecessary, or how
it could be modified.
    c. Identify regulations, guidance, and information collections
that the Committee believes have led to the elimination of jobs or
inhibits job creation within a particular industry.
    3. All regulations, guidance, and information collections, or
parts thereof, recommended by the Committee should be described in
sufficient detail (by section, paragraph, sentence, clause, etc.) so
that it can readily be identified. Data (quantitative or
qualitative) should be provided to support and illustrate the
impact, cost, or burden, as applicable, for each recommendation. If
the data is not readily available, the Committee should include
information as to how such information can be obtained either by the
Committee or directly by the Coast Guard.

Public Participation

    All meetings associated with this tasking, both full Committee
meetings and subcommittee/working groups, are open to the public. A
public oral comment period will be held during the August 3, 2017,
teleconference. Public comments or questions will be taken at the
discretion of the Designated Federal Officer; commenters are requested
to limit their comments to 3 minutes. Please contact the individual
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, to register as a
commenter. Subcommittee meetings held in association with this tasking
will be announced as they are scheduled through notices posted to
http://homeport.uscg.mil/nosac and uploaded as supporting documents in
the electronic docket for this action, [USCG-2017-0664], at
Regulations.gov.

J.G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2017-14771 Filed 7-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P