[Federal Register: April 11, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 69)]
[Notices]
[Page 18226]
[DOCID:fr11ap07-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-171-001]

Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Compliance
Filing

April 5, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 30, 2007, Columbia Gas Transmission
Corporation (Columbia) its compliance filing in response to the
Commission's March 15, 2007 order in the above-reference proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-6803 Filed 4-10-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 157)]
[Notices]
[Page 41414]
[DOCID:fr17au09-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13409-000]

Julian Griggs Dam Water Power Project, LLC; Notice of Preliminary
Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions
To Intervene, and Competing Applications

August 6, 2009.
    On March 25, 2009, Julian Griggs Dam Water Power Project, LLC filed
an application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act,
proposing to study the feasibility of the Julian Griggs Water Power
Project, to be located at the City of Columbus's Julian Griggs dam on
the Scioto River in Franklin County, Ohio.
    The proposed Julian Griggs Project would consist of: (1) The
existing 67.5-foot-high, 983-foot-long concrete dam; (2) the existing
385-acre reservoir with a 4,322 acre-foot storage capacity; (3) a new
70-foot-long intake structure; (4) two new 70-foot-long, 120-inch-
diameter penstocks; (5) a new powerhouse containing two proposed
generating units with a total installed capacity of 4.0 megawatts; (6)
a new 100-foot-long tailrace; (7) a new switchyard containing a single
three-phase step-up transformer; and (8) a new 1,100-foot-long, 34.5-
kilovolt overhead transmission line. The project would have an
estimated average annual generation of 12,000 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Alan Skelly, 8425 Beechmont Avenue,
Cincinnati, OH 45255, phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Michael Spencer,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13409) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-19608 Filed 8-14-09; 8:45 am]


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 82 (Tuesday, April 28, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 23592]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08952]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. 2020-04]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; American
Robotics, Inc.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice.

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

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

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before May 18, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2019-0775
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jake Troutman,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office
of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW, Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 22, 2020.
Brandon Roberts,
Acting Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2019-0775
    Petitioner: American Robotics, Inc.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Sec. Sec.  61.3(a)(1)(i);
91.9(b)(2); 91.119(c); 91.121; 91.151(b); & 91.203(a) & (b).
    Description of Relief Sought: The proposed exemption, if granted,
would allow the petitioner to operate its proprietary Scout quadcopter
unmanned aircraft system (UAS), with a maximum gross takeoff weight of
20 pounds, in rural agricultural settings in accordance with a Special
Airworthiness Certificate in the experimental category for the purposes
of: Research and development; crew training; and customer crew
training. The Scout UAS is a highly-automated industrial vertical
takeoff and landing electric multirotor that has been custom designed.
Operations under the requested exemption would only be conducted in
Class G airspace with areas having light air traffic, in daylight
visual meteorological conditions, and would be limited to 400 feet
above ground level. Individual missions will occur within the
boundaries of controlled access farmland (or similar rural, controlled
access environments) owned or controlled by the petitioner's customers.

[FR Doc. 2020-08952 Filed 4-27-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 29, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 81434]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32408]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Hazardous Materials: Notice of Application for Special Permits

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: List of Applications for Special Permits.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR part 107,
subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous
Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each
mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is
requested is indicated by a number in the ``Nature of Application''
portion of the table below as follows: 1--Motor vehicle, 2--Rail
freight, 3--Cargo vessel, 4--Cargo aircraft only, 5--Passenger-carrying
aircraft.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 28, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC 20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of
Hanrdous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Copies of the applications are available for
inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC or at http://regulations.gov.
    This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is
published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal hazardous
materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 7, 2015.
Don Burger,
Chief, General Approvals and Permits.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Nature of special permit
    Application No.       Docket No.         Applicant        Regulation(s) affected            thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               NEW SPECIAL PERMITS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16606-N................  ...........   5-State Helicopters    49 CFR 172.101          To authorize the
                                       Inc., Royse City, TX.   Hazardous Materials     transportation in
                                                               Table Column (9B),      commerce in the U.S. only
                                                               Subpart C of Part       of certain hazardous
                                                               172, 172.301(c),        materials by 14 CFR part
                                                               175.30.                 133 Rotorcraft External
                                                                                Load Operations
                                                                                transporting hazardous
                                                                                materials attached to or
                                                                                suspended from an
                                                                                aircraft. Such
                                                                                transportation is in
                                                                                support of construction
                                                                                operations when the use
                                                                                of cranes or other
                                                                                lifting devices is
                                                                                impracticable or
                                                                                unavailable or when
                                                                                aircraft is the only
                                                                                means of transportation,
                                                                                without being subject to
                                                                                certain hazard
                                                                                communication
                                                                                requirements, quantity
                                                                                limitations, packaging
                                                                                and loading and storage
                                                                                requirements. (mode 4)
16612-N................  ...........  Unipart North America,  49 CFR 172.102(c),      To authorize the
                                       Limited Oxford,         Special Provision       transportation in
                                       United Kingdom.         A54, ICAO TI Special    commerce of lithium ion
                                                               Provision A99.          batteries with a net
                                                                                weight exceeding 35 kg
                                                                                per package aboard cargo
                                                                                aircraft only. (mode 4)
16615-N................  ...........  Special Devices,        49 CFR 172.320,         To authorize the
                                       Incorporated, Simi      173.54(a), 173.54(j),   transportation in
                                       Valley, CA.             173.56(b), 173.57,      commerce of new
                                                               173.58.                 pyrotechnic articles as
                                                                                commercial samples
                                                                                without being examined,
                                                                                tested, and approved when
                                                                                conforming to the terms
                                                                                of this special permit.
                                                                                (modes 1, 4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               NEW SPECIAL PERMITS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16618-N................  ...........  Farmers Grain Company,  49 CFR                  To authorize the
                                       Pond Creek, OK.         173.315(m)(1)(iv),      transportation in
                                                               173.315(m)(1)(v),       commerce of anhydrous
                                                               173.315(m)(1)(vi).      ammonia in cargo tanks
                                                                                exceeding the authorized
                                                                                tank capacity and loaded
                                                                                to more than the
                                                                                authorized filling
                                                                                density percentage. (mode
                                                                                1)
16620-N................  ...........  Westeel Canada Inc.,    49 CFR 177.834(h),      To authorize the
                                       Winnipeg, Canada.       178.75(d).              manufacture, mark sale
                                                                                and use of Intermediate
                                                                                Bulk Containers (IBCs)
                                                                                each have a capacity less
                                                                                than 450 L for the
                                                                                transportation in
                                                                                commerce of certain Class
                                                                                3 hazardous materials.
                                                                                Additionally, the
                                                                                discharge of these
                                                                                hazardous materials from
                                                                                the IBCs without removing
                                                                                them from the motor
                                                                                vehicle on which they are
                                                                                transported is
                                                                                authorized. (mode 1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-32408 Filed 12-28-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4909-60-M


                Summary of Region 9 Public Listening Session on
                            111(d) for Power Plants

                    November 5, 2013  -  San Francisco, CA

On November 5, 2013, EPA Region 9 held a public listening session to obtain public input on how EPA can craft carbon pollution standards for existing power plants.  369 people participated in the listening session; 255 in-person and 114 via webinar.  We had 123 speakers, of which we noted the affiliations of 107. Over 90 percent of speakers were in favor of EPA's efforts to reduce carbon emissions from new and existing power plants.

Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld welcomed participants and gave remarks regarding the need for action.  Air Division Director Deborah Jordan, opened the session with the overview of Section 111(d), and ground rules and logistics were presented by Niloufar Glosson, the meeting moderator.

A high-level summary of the meeting is provided below.

Overview

Speakers included and represented people from state and local governments, industry, labor unions, environmental and health groups, faith-based organizations and the general public.

Support for EPA Action -- Participation was dominated by environmental/public health groups, concerned citizens, faith-based organizations and local governments urging climate action. Common themes included: need to set strong standards, use science-based approach that recognizes environmental need, support renewable energy development, end use of coal, understand external costs of coal usage, provide flexibility to states, moral obligation to act, no such thing as clean coal, strong public health case for setting stringent controls, we have enough scientific data to proceed, extraction of coal equally damaging, should regulate refineries as well, many strong energy efficiency opportunities available.

Planning & Compliance Flexibility - Industry representatives asked that EPA provide ample flexibility for state implementation plans, recognition of early actions and a gradual/phased compliance schedule.

Experience with programs that reduce CO2 emissions in the electric power sector

* Industry/Business
      o EPA should conduct targeted outreach to communities that are dependent on coal for energy and economic development.
      o EPA should use a collaborative process, similar to that used for NOx Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) determination for the Navajo Generating Station (NGS), when assessing carbon control strategies. One size does not fit all.
      o CA AB32 actions should serve as national model and relevant actions should be reflected in EPA rule compliance. CA electricity loading order prioritizes energy efficiency (EE), demand response (DR) and renewable energy (RE) before fossil generation.
      o Encourage EPA actions to set carbon pollution standards for existing plants. Company's technology = $15 CO2/ton captured, uses ~5% of plant energy generation capacity for carbon capture and storage (CCS) load.  Well suited for retrofit into existing coal and natural gas plants.
* California has significant experience with controlling carbon pollution through AB32 and many other programs.  EPA's guidelines should draw upon California's experience.
* Local air districts are applying greenhouse gas (GHG) Best Available Control Technology (BACT).

How to Set the Standard

* Industry/Business
      o Gradual, responsible implementation to maintain viability of the majority electrical fuel in US; coal is still half the cost of natural gas. Technological feasibility is a must, and CCS is not proven at a commercial, economical scale. CCS is not part of any planned power plant in the US. Liability of subsurface storage of GHGs is in question.
      o Set individual source standards with adequate technology flexibility; a system based approach will not be sufficient for source-based standards. EPA should identify all 111d sources and their compliance schedule for all relevant regulations. EPA needs to consult with Tribes
      o Support EPA action with flexible state programs that recognize benefits of EE for carbon pollution reduction.
      o Support EPA action with consideration of existing state and regional programs. Demand side EE investments will result in carbon emission reductions at power plants. EPA should standardize emissions reporting for EE measures nationally through the 111d program.
* Environment
      o Carbon intensity limit per unit of energy including any energy load for CCS/aftertreatment.
      o EPA must weigh its options for a fuel/technology neutral standard for CO2 and other GHGs versus a fuel specific performance standard (i.e., X lbs CO2e/MWh vs. natural gas = 1000 lbs CO2e/MWh & coal = 1500 lbs CO2e/MWh).
      o Performance standards based on climate science, aggressive action needed to control pollution sources. Maintain global CO2 concentrations at < 350 ppm.

Requirements state plans and flexibility for states

      o    State Government
            #          Considerations for 111(d) guidelines:
                  *                States will balance health needs (e.g., affordable electricity vs. public health & climate);
                  *                Assess cost of air pollution controls;
                  *                Assess economic impact of plans before federal approval;
                  *                Determine how states and EPA will achieve 111(d) and other public goals with existing and declining resources.
                  *                Provide tools for state planning;
                  *                Allow market based solutions;
                  *                Provide guidance on source performance standards;
                  *                Provide flexibility on outside the fence line measures;
                  *                Acknowledge early actions.
                  *                Harmonize with AB32 actions;
                  *                Take science based approach that considers environmental need.
      o    Industry/Business
            #          Considerations for 111(d) guidelines:
                  *                States have primary authority;
                  *                Provide guidance on best system of emission reduction (BSER) within fence line while incorporating capital cost and operational data;
                  *                Provide abundant flexibility for states (onsite EE, renewables, credit trading and offsite EE); credit for recent programs; facilitate growth
                  *                Maintain baseload generating units for remainder of planned useful life;
                  *                Don't force curtailment of coal plants
                  *                Address state specific economic needs.
                  *                BSER based on plant type (rate and mass based standards);
                  *                Allow source and system based approaches;
                  *                Consider remaining useful life of capital equipment;
                  *                All units within a source subcategory should be treated the same;
                  *                Reflect previous carbon reduction efforts in baseline and timeline for compliance (e.g., RPS & AB 32 in CA).
                  *                Set legally defensible standards;
                  *                Allow state planning flexibility;
                  *                State primacy for planning and enforcement;
                  *                Compliance obligations should reflect early actions in advance of 111(d) rule.
                  *                Prioritize loading order as: EE, DR, RE then fossil generation.
                  *                Determine sub-categories for BSER;
                  *                Incorporate remaining useful life of capital equipment;
                  *                Provide transparent guidance on the technology demonstration process;
                  *                Assess environmental impacts, capital cost and technical feasibility.
      o    Labor/Unions
            #          Considerations for 111(d) guidelines:
                  *                Assess impact on electrical cost and reliability;
                  *                Avoid job loss at plants that have already been retrofitted for EPA's mercury rule;
                  *                Plant by plant economic feasibility assessments.
      o    Environmental/public health groups, faith-based organizations and concerned citizens
            #          Considerations for 111(d) guidelines:
                  *                Allow compliance strategies for EE, DR and RE (centralized and distributed generation);
                  *                Price externalities in cost/benefit analyses of compliance impacts;
                  *                Provide transparent guidance for states;
                  *                Set useful life thresholds for generating units;
                  *                Ensure measurable, verifiable and enforceable emissions in 111(d) state implementation plants (SIPs);
                  *                Eliminate subsidies to fossil fuel industries;
                  *                Public disclosure of emissions w/ penalties for non-disclosure;
                  *                Limit false advertisement/misinformation capability of fossil fuel industry;
                  *                Guidance on methods for rewarding the cleanest facilities;
                  *                Timeline for closing the performance gap between new and existing plants;
                  *                Include power plants that are currently under construction in 111(d) SIPs.

State plan development and implementation

      * State Government
              * EPA does not have authority to regulate carbon under Clean Air Act (CAA) 111(d); express authority is given to states under this section. Program should reflect state primacy.  States need more time. States should have ability to disapprove federal plan.
              * CA leadership has shown model for flexible strategies to reduce GHG emissions. EPA should use AB32 as a model for national program development for the power sector.  Consider interstate benefits.

Additional Input

      * State Government/CARB  -  CA supports the President's Climate Action Plan.
      * Local Governments (CA cities and local air districts)  -  Support EPA action and look forward to working with EPA to implement guidelines and projects.
      * Industry/Business
              * Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2) - Supports EPA action on climate change because the energy sector must serve long-term national interests.
              * Advanced Energy Economy (AEE) - Supports EPA efforts with state flexibility for technology options due to the wide range of jobs, products and services that will be created from advanced energy projects.
              * Wind Energy Association - Supports EPA efforts as wind energy will help meet carbon reduction goals.
              * Sustainable Business Council  -  Supports EPA actions that reflect triple bottom line outcomes and rapid deployment of renewables.
              * Clean Fish (sustainable seafood company)  -  Supports EPA action because we need to reduce reliance on fossil fuel-based energy and develop clean energy technologies that create truly sustainable economic/job growth.
      * Labor/Communication Workers of America (CWA) - Supports EPA actions to reduce carbon pollution and look forward to the green jobs created as a result of program implementation.
      * Environmental/public health groups, faith-based organizations and concerned citizens - Strong support for rapid, aggressive action to address the anthropogenic drivers of global climate change.
      * Is Climate Change occurring? - Only one speaker challenged the factual/scientific basis behind the need to reduce carbon emissions.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 202 (Monday, October 19, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66217-66219]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22901]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 101

[Docket No. FDA-2019-D-0725]

The Declaration of Allulose and Calories From Allulose on
Nutrition and Supplement Facts Labels; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notification of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the
availability of a final guidance for industry entitled ``The

Declaration of Allulose and Calories from Allulose on Nutrition and
Supplement Facts Labels.'' The guidance describes FDA's views on the
declaration of allulose on Nutrition Facts and Supplement Facts labels
and the caloric content of allulose. The guidance also announces our
intent to exercise enforcement discretion for the exclusion of allulose
from the amount of Total Sugars and Added Sugars declared on the
Nutrition Facts and Supplement Facts label and use of a general factor
of 0.4 calories per gram (kcal/g) for allulose when calculating
declarations on Nutrition and Supplement Facts labels.

DATES: The announcement of the guidance is published in the Federal
Register on October 19, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit either electronic or written comments on FDA
guidances at any time 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-D-0725 for ``The Declaration of Allulose and Calories from
Allulose on Nutrition and Supplement Facts Labels.'' Received comments
will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as
``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     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.'' We will review
this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in our
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.govinfo.gov/content/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,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
    Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the
Office of Nutrition and Food Labeling, Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr.,
College Park, MD 20740. Send two self-addressed adhesive labels to
assist that office in processing your request. See the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for electronic access to the guidance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Blakeley Fitzpatrick, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus
Dr., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    We are announcing the availability of a guidance for industry
entitled ``The Declaration of Allulose and Calories from Allulose on
Nutrition and Supplement Facts Labels.'' We are issuing this guidance
consistent with our good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115).
The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on this topic. It
does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA
or the public. You can use an alternate approach if it satisfies the
requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
    In the Federal Register of April 18, 2019 (84 FR 16272), we
published a notice announcing the availability of a draft guidance for
industry entitled ``The Declaration of Allulose and Calories from
Allulose on Nutrition and Supplement Facts Labels.'' The draft
guidance: (1) Described our tentative views on the declaration of
allulose on Nutrition Facts and Supplement Facts labels and on the
caloric content of allulose; and (2) announced our tentative intent to
exercise enforcement discretion for the exclusion of allulose from the
amount of Total Sugars and Added Sugars declared on the label and use
of a general factor of 0.4 kcal/g for allulose when calculating
declarations on Nutrition and Supplement Facts labels pending review of
the issues in a rulemaking.
    The draft guidance gave interested parties an opportunity to submit
comments by June 17, 2019, for us to consider before beginning work on
the final version of the guidance. We received approximately 30
comments from industry, health professionals, consumer advocacy groups,
scientists, trade associations, and consumers. We are finalizing the
positions in the draft guidance and have made technical corrections and
editorial changes throughout the guidance to improve clarity. We also
added language clarifying that allulose must still be declared in the
ingredient statement

even if it is excluded from certain label declarations. Finally, we
reorganized the section detailing our consideration of allulose as a
sugar.
    The guidance announced in this notice finalizes the draft guidance
with respect to: (1) Our views on the declaration of allulose on
Nutrition Facts and Supplement Facts labels and on the caloric content
of allulose; and (2) our intent to exercise enforcement discretion for
the exclusion of allulose from the amount of Total Sugars and Added
Sugars declared on the label and use of a general factor of 0.4 kcal/g
for allulose when calculating declarations on Nutrition and Supplement
Facts labels pending review of the issues in a rulemaking.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance contains no collection of information. Therefore,
clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) is not
required.
    However, this guidance refers to previously approved FDA
collections of information. These collections of information are
subject to review by OMB under the PRA. The collections of information
in 21 CFR part 101 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-
0381.

II. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at
either https://www.fda.gov/FoodGuidances or https://www.regulations.gov. Use the FDA website listed in the previous
sentence to find the most current version of the guidance.

    Dated: October 9, 2020.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-22901 Filed 10-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 18 (Friday, January 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4387-4389]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1739]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66215; File No. SR-BX-2012-003]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend
the Pilot Period of the Trading Pause for NMS Stocks Other Than Rights
and Warrants

January 23, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 11, 2012, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot period of the trading
pause for individual NMS stocks other than rights and warrants, so that
the pilot will now expire on July 31, 2012.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is italicized; proposed deletions are in brackets.
* * * * *

IM-4120-3. Circuit Breaker Securities Pilot

    The provisions of paragraph (a)(11) of this Rule shall be in effect
during a pilot set to end on July 31, 2012[January 31, 2012]. During
the pilot, the term ``Circuit Breaker Securities'' shall mean all NMS
stocks except rights and warrants.
* * * * *

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    On June 10, 2010, the Commission granted accelerated approval, for
a pilot period to end December 10, 2010, for a proposed rule change
submitted by the Exchange, together with related rule changes of the
BATS Exchange, Inc., Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated,
Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc.,
International Securities Exchange LLC, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
(``NASDAQ''), New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''), NYSE Amex LLC
(``NYSE Amex''), NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''), and National Stock
Exchange, Inc. (collectively, the ``Exchanges''), to pause trading
during periods of extraordinary market volatility in S&P 500 stocks.\3\
The rules require the Listing Markets \4\ to issue five-minute trading
pauses for individual securities for which they are the primary Listing
Market if the transaction price of the security moves ten percent or
more from a price in the preceding five-minute period. The Listing
Markets are required to notify the other Exchanges and market
participants of the imposition of a trading pause by immediately
disseminating a special indicator over the consolidated tape. Under the
rules, once the Listing Market issues a trading pause, the other
Exchanges are required to pause trading in the security on their
markets. On September 10, 2010, the Commission approved the respective
rule filings of the Exchanges to expand application of the pilot to the
Russell 1000[supreg] Index and specified Exchange Traded Products.\5\
On December 7, 2010, the Exchange filed an immediately effective filing
to extend the existing pilot program for four months, so that the pilot
would expire on April 11, 2011.\6\ On March 31, 2011, the Exchange
filed an immediately effective filing to extend the pilot period

an additional four months, so that the pilot would expire on August 11,
2011 or the date on which a limit up/limit down mechanism to address
extraordinary market volatility, if adopted, applies.\7\ On June 23,
2011, the Commission approved the expansion of the pilot to all NMS
stocks, but with different pause-triggering thresholds.\8\ On August 8,
2011, the Exchange filed an immediately effective filing that removed
language from the rule that tied the expiration of the pilot to the
adoption of a limit up/limit down mechanism to address extraordinary
market volatility, and further extended the pilot period, so that the
pilot would expire on January 31, 2012.\9\ On November 18, 2011, the
Exchange filed an immediately effective filing that excluded rights and
warrants from the pilot.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62252 (June 10, 2010),
75 FR 34186 (June 16, 2010) (SR-BX-2010-037).
    \4\ The term ``Listing Markets'' refers collectively to NYSE,
NYSE Amex, NYSE Arca, and NASDAQ.
    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62884 (September 10,
2010), 75 FR 56618 (September 16, 2010) (SR-BX-2010-044).
    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63527 (December 10,
2010), 75 FR 78781 (December 16, 2010) (SR-BX-2010-088).
    \7\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64176 (April 4, 2011),
76 FR 19821 (April 8, 2011) (SR-BX-2011-018).
    \8\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64735 (June 23, 2011),
76 FR 38243 (June 29, 2011) (SR-BX-2011-025, et al.).
    \9\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65093 (August 10, 2011),
76 FR 50781 (August 16, 2011) (SR-BX-2011-055).
    \10\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65815 (November 23,
2011), 76 FR 74109 (November 30, 2011) (SR-BX-2011-079).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the pilot program has been successful in
reducing the negative impacts of sudden, unanticipated price movements
in the securities covered by the pilot. The Exchange also believes that
an additional extension of the pilot is warranted so that it may
continue to assess whether circuit breakers are the best means to
reduce the negative impacts of sudden, unanticipated price movements or
whether alternative mechanisms would be more effective in achieving
this goal.
2. Statutory Basis
    The statutory basis for the proposed rule change is Section 6(b)(5)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\11\ which
requires the rules of an exchange to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general,
to protect investors and the public interest. The proposed rule change
also is designed to support the principles of Section 11A(a)(1) \12\ of
the Act in that it seeks to assure fair competition among brokers and
dealers and among exchange markets. The Exchange believes that the
proposed rule meets these requirements in that it promotes transparency
and uniformity across markets concerning decisions to pause trading in
a security when there are significant price movements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\14\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \15\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \17\ normally
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \18\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, as
it will allow the pilot program to continue uninterrupted, thereby
avoiding the investor confusion that could result from a temporary
interruption in the pilot program. For this reason, the Commission
designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-BX-2012-003 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File No. SR-BX-2012-003. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be

available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File No. SR-BX-2012-003 and should be submitted on or before February
17, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-1739 Filed 1-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 187)]
[Notices]
[Page 56513]
[DOCID:fr27se06-78]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RR06-1-002]

North American Electric Reliability Council and North American
Electric Reliability Corporation; Notice of Compliance Filing

September 20, 2006.
    Take notice that on September 18, 2006, the North American Electric
Reliability Council and its affiliate, North American Electric
Reliability Corporation, (collectively, NERC) filed a compliance filing
addressing various governance issues identified in the Commission's
order certifying NERC as the Electric Reliability Organization.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 2, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-15805 Filed 9-26-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 246 (Thursday, December 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80866-80868]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32280]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63573; File No. 4-622]

Credit Rating Standardization Study

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission is requesting public
comment to help inform its study pursuant to Section 939(h) of the
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 on
the feasibility and desirability of: Standardizing credit ratings
terminology, so that all credit rating agencies issue credit ratings
using identical terms; standardizing the market stress conditions under
which ratings are evaluated; requiring a quantitative correspondence
between credit ratings and a range of default probabilities and loss
expectations under standardized conditions of economic stress; and
standardizing credit rating terminology across asset classes, so that
named ratings correspond to a standard range of default probabilities
and expected losses independent of asset class and issuing entity.

DATES: The Commission will accept comments regarding issues related to
the study on or before February 7, 2011.

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number 4-622 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number 4-622. This file number
should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us
process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one
method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's
Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov). Comments are also available for
Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference
Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business
days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. All comments received will
be posted without change; we do not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randall W. Roy, Assistant Director,
Division of Trading and Markets, at<PHONE_NUMBER>; Alan A. Dunetz,
Branch Chief, Division of Trading and Markets, at<PHONE_NUMBER>; Kevin
S. Davey, Securities Compliance Examiner, at<PHONE_NUMBER>; Kristin A.
Devitto, Securities Compliance Examiner, at<PHONE_NUMBER>; Mark M.
Attar, Branch Chief, Division of Trading and Markets, at (202) 551-
5889; or Raymond A. Lombardo, Branch Chief, Division of Trading and
Markets, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-7010.
    Discussion:
    On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the ``Dodd-Frank Act'')
into law. Under Section 939(h) of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') is required to study the
feasibility and desirability of: (A) Standardizing credit

ratings terminology, so that all credit rating agencies issue credit
ratings using identical terms; (B) standardizing the market stress
conditions under which ratings are evaluated; (C) requiring a
quantitative correspondence between credit ratings and a range of
default probabilities and loss expectations under standardized
conditions of economic stress; and (D) standardizing credit rating
terminology across asset classes, so that named ratings correspond to a
standard range of default probabilities and expected losses independent
of asset class and issuing entity. Not later than one year after the
date of enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Commission must submit to
Congress a report containing the findings of the study and the
recommendations, if any, of the Commission with respect to the study.
    Request for Comment:
    The Commission believes that submissions by interested parties with
a wide range of views, including those of investors who use credit
ratings, portfolio managers, credit rating agencies, investment firms,
underwriters, issuers, regulators and the academic community, will
provide valuable information as it conducts the study required by
Section 939(h) of the Dodd-Frank Act. Accordingly, the Commission
requests commenters' views on each of the topics to be addressed in the
Commission's study under Section 939(h) of the Dodd-Frank Act. In
particular, the Commission seeks commenters' views in response to the
following questions:
    (1) Is it feasible and desirable to standardize credit ratings
terminology, so that all credit rating agencies issue credit ratings
using identical terms?
    a. Do commenters agree that the term ``credit ratings terminology''
as used in Section 939(h) of the Dodd-Frank Act refers to the symbols
and numbers credit rating agencies use to denote credit ratings and the
definitions and meanings they promulgate for those symbols and numbers?
If not, what other (or additional) credit rating terminology should
this study focus on? Commenters who identify other terminologies should
indicate for all subsequent questions whether they are discussing the
other terminologies or ratings symbols and numbers and their
corresponding definitions and meanings.
    b. Are there credit rating terminologies used by different credit
rating agencies that are currently comparable? If so, please identify
and explain how they are comparable.
    c. Identify differences in the credit rating terminologies used by
credit rating agencies. What is the significance of these differences?
    d. What issues do commenters encounter when they seek to compare
ratings from different credit rating agencies?
    e. Some credit rating agencies employ multiple credit rating scales
designed to distinguish between different types of issues and/or
issuers. For example, a credit rating agency may employ different
credit rating symbols for ratings of long term securities, short term
securities, money market funds, claims paying abilities of insurance
companies, and issues and/or issuers in different jurisdictions. Do
commenters believe that some types of credit rating symbols used by
credit rating agencies are more or less suitable to standardization? Is
it feasible or desirable to use a single credit rating scale for all
types of issues and issuances? Should a standardized credit rating
scale include separate symbols for different types of credit ratings?
If so, what separate credit symbols should be included in the
standardized credit rating terminology? Alternatively, should credit
rating terminologies for some types of issues or issuers not be
standardized? If so, for which types of issuers or issuances?
    f. The credit ratings of some credit rating agencies address
probability of default while the ratings of other credit rating
agencies address expected loss. Other rating scales may address other
metrics such as, for example, distance to distress (e.g., with respect
to the public finance ratings of some credit rating agencies). Do
commenters believe that it is more or less desirable to have credit
ratings of different credit rating agencies address different risks?
Why?
    g. Some credit rating agencies employ credit rating modifiers
including, for example, ``credit watch'' and ``rating outlook'' to
indicate a view as to the likelihood that a credit rating may change.
Do commenters believe that it is feasible or desirable to include such
credit rating modifiers in a standardized credit rating terminology?
Why?
    h. If commenters believe that standardizing credit ratings
terminology is desirable and feasible:
    i. What level of detail should be included in the standardized
credit rating terminology?
    ii. What mix of quantitative and qualitative factors should be
referenced in each rating definition?
    iii. Should a standardized credit rating terminology address
likelihood of default, expected loss, or some other metric?
    iv. Some credit rating agencies issue a number of broad categories
of credit ratings that can be further delineated using identifiers
(e.g., pluses and minuses) to allow additional gradations of ratings.
How many gradations of credit quality should be included in a
standardized terminology for credit ratings?
    v. Should a standardized credit rating terminology employ a
separate terminology for certain asset classes (e.g., for structured
finance ratings)? Are there asset classes or types of ratings, such as
short term or financial strength ratings, where a separate terminology
should be considered?
    vi. What organizations or combination of organizations should be
responsible for developing and administering the standardized credit
rating terminology? For example, should the Commission develop and
administer the standardized terminology? Should an independent board or
organization be formed to develop and administer the standardized
terminology?
    vii. What time period should be allowed for credit rating agencies
to map their existing ratings to a new credit rating terminology, or
for private contracts and investment management agreements that
reference credit ratings to be changed to refer to the standardized
terminology?
    viii. Do commenters believe that it would be more desirable for
credit rating agencies to retain their existing credit rating
terminologies and make publicly available detailed information on how
each credit rating agency's ratings can be mapped to a standardized
terminology? Or would it be more desirable if the credit rating agency
used only the standardized terminology?
    (2) Is it feasible and desirable to standardize the market stress
conditions under which credit ratings are evaluated?
    a. Under what market stress conditions are credit ratings currently
evaluated?
    b. To what degree do commenters believe that credit rating agencies
currently identify the market stress conditions under which credit
ratings are evaluated? To the extent these market stress conditions are
identified by credit rating agencies, do commenters believe that the
market stress conditions used by different credit rating agencies at
comparable credit rating levels are similar? If so, how are they
similar? If not, how do they differ?
    c. Do commenters believe that market stress conditions can be
defined in a consistent manner across different industry sectors and
geographic regions?
    d. Do commenters believe that standardized market stress conditions

are equally relevant to the evaluation of all asset classes or issuers?
For example, are there some asset classes or issuers where the relative
degree of idiosyncratic risk versus systemic risk differs? If so, are
market stress conditions less relevant, for example, to asset classes
and issuers where there is a higher level of idiosyncratic risk?
    e. If commenters believe that it is feasible and desirable to
standardize the market stress conditions under which credit ratings are
evaluated:
    i. What parameters should be defined in these market stress
conditions? For example, unemployment rates, declines in GDP and
financial market declines are widely referenced indicators of market
stress. What other parameters do commenters believe should be defined?
    ii. How should market stress conditions differ across different
industry sectors and geographic regions?
    iii. Should these stress conditions reference specific historical
market stresses such as, for example, the Great Depression or the 2008
financial crisis?
    iv. Should each credit rating level have its own specifically
defined stress conditions?
    (3) Is it feasible and desirable to require a quantitative
correspondence between credit ratings and a range of default
probabilities and loss expectations under standardized conditions of
economic stress?
    a. To what extent do credit rating agencies or others assign a
quantitative correspondence between credit ratings and a range of
default probabilities and loss expectations?
    i. To what extent do commenters believe that the correspondence is
similar for comparable ratings from different credit rating agencies?
    ii. To what extent do commenters believe that the correspondence is
similar across industry sectors and geographical regions?
    iii. To what extent do commenters believe that the correspondence
is constant throughout the economic cycle?
    iv. To what extent do commenters believe that the correspondence
has been constant over time? For example, do commenters believe that
the range of default probabilities and loss expectations corresponding
to the credit ratings of different credit rating agencies have become
more or less conservative over time?
    b. Does the ability to assign a correspondence between credit
ratings and a range of default probabilities and loss expectations in a
sector vary depending on the degree to which a rating methodology for
that sector is more or less quantitative in nature? Are there other
factors, such as the quality or amount of historical performance data
or structural complexity that may make it more or less difficult to
assign a correspondence between credit ratings and a range of default
probabilities and loss expectations?
    c. Does the likelihood of rating transitions for similarly rated
assets vary among asset classes? If so, how should variation in the
likelihood of rating transitions be addressed when a quantitative
correspondence is assigned between credit ratings and a range of
default probabilities and loss expectations?
    d. Is there a role for market-based measures such as credit spreads
or option-based approaches (i.e., Merton-type models which provide a
distance to default measure based on equity prices) in determining a
correspondence between credit ratings and a range of default
probabilities and loss expectations?
    e. If commenters believe that requiring a quantitative
correspondence between credit ratings and a range of default
probabilities and loss expectations under standardized conditions of
economic stress is feasible and desirable:
    i. What factors should be considered in determining the range of
default probabilities and loss expectations associated with each
rating? Should specific time horizons be specified for each default
probability and loss expectation range? If so, how many different time
horizons should be specified for each credit rating, and what are
appropriate time horizons?
    ii. The ratings of some credit rating agencies primarily address
probability of default while others address expected loss. Should
credit rating agencies be allowed to choose whether their ratings
address one or the other? Should a single rating address both
probability of default and loss expectation or should default
probabilities and loss severity be addressed separately?
    iii. What are the views of commenters on how the accuracy of the
quantitative correspondence assigned by a given credit rating agency
between its credit ratings and a range of default probabilities and
loss expectations should be measured?
    (4) Is it feasible and desirable to standardize credit rating
terminology across asset classes, so that named credit ratings
correspond to a standard range of default probabilities and expected
losses independent of asset class and issuing entity?
    a. To what degree do commenters believe that credit ratings are
currently comparable across asset classes? For example, do commenters
believe that credit ratings of structured finance products or municipal
securities are comparable to credit ratings in other sectors?
    b. In cases where credit rating agencies currently use the same
credit rating terminology for multiple asset classes, what is the view
of commenters on the adequacy and transparency of the procedures credit
rating agencies use to achieve comparability?
    c. What mix of quantitative and qualitative factors should be
considered when standardizing credit rating terminology across asset
classes, so that named credit ratings correspond to a standard range of
default probabilities and expected losses?
    i. To what degree should standardization be based on quantitative
factors such as, for example, historical performance metrics including
rating transition and default studies? What other quantitative factors
should be considered?
    ii. To what degree should standardization be based on qualitative
factors such as, for example, analyst judgment regarding the
comparability of credits from different sectors? What other qualitative
factors should be considered?
    d. Are there asset classes where the risk characteristics of the
asset class, limitations on the quality of data, structural complexity,
limitations on historical performance data, or other factors make it
more difficult to apply to that asset class a standardized credit
rating terminology which applies to other asset classes and issuers so
that named ratings correspond to a standard range of default
probabilities and expected losses?
    All interested parties are invited to submit their views, in
writing, on these questions.

    By the Commission.

    Dated: December 17, 2010.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-32280 Filed 12-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 206 (Thursday, October 28, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59672-59674]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23217]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0816; Airspace Docket No. 21-AWP-27]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Modification of Class D and Class E Airspace, and
Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Southwest Oregon Regional
Airport, OR

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify the Class D and Class E surface
airspace at Southwest Oregon Regional Airport, North Bend, OR. It also
proposes to modify the Class E airspace by establishing an area that is
designated as an extension to a Class D or Class E surface area, and to
modify the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface. Lastly, this action proposes to remove navigational aids
(NAVAID) from the legal description of the Class E2 and Class E5 text
headers, and to update the Class D, Class E2, and Class E5 airspace
legal descriptions and establish Class E4 airspace. This action would
ensure the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR)
operations at the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 13, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
1-800-647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2021-0816; Airspace Docket No. 21-ANM-27, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order JO 7400.11F at NARA, email
[email protected] or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Healy, Federal Aviation
Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200
S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority,
as it would modify the Class D and Class E airspace at the Southwest
Oregon Regional Airport, North Bend, OR, to support IFR operations at
the airport.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2021-0816;
Airspace Docket No. 21-ANM-27''. The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA
98198.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective
September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F
lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service
routes, and reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by modifying
the Class D airspace at Southwest Oregon Regional Airport, North Bend,
OR. To properly contain departing IFR aircraft flying toward or over
rising terrain, the Class D should be extended to the east and
southeast of the airport.
    This action also proposes to modify the Class E airspace designated
as surface area. The proposed Class E surface area legal description
should be

coincident with the Class D legal description to properly contain
departing IFR aircraft flying toward or over rising terrain.
    Next, this action proposes to modify the Class E airspace by
establishing an area that is designated as an extension to a Class D or
Class E surface area. This airspace is needed to properly contain IFR
arrivals; therefore, an extension east and another southwest of the
airport should be established. The extensions are designed to contain
arriving IFR aircraft when descending below 1,000 feet above the
surface on the ILS or LOC Runway 5 and the VOR-B procedures.
    This action also proposes to modify the Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface. This airspace is designed to
contain departing IFR aircraft until reaching 1,200 feet above the
surface and arriving IFR aircraft descending below 1,500 feet above the
surface. The Class E radius should be modified, and extensions to the
northeast, east, southeast, south, southwest, and west of the airport
should be established to contain IFR departures.
    Additionally, this action proposes to remove the North Bend VORTAC
and Emire LOM/NDB from the Class E2 text header and the airspace
description. The navigational aids (NAVAID) are not required to
describe the airspace area. Removal of the NAVAIDs simplifies the
airspace's legal description.
    This action also proposes to remove the North Bend VORTAC from the
Class E5 text header and the airspace description and replace it with
the Southwest Oregon Regional Airport's Airport Reference Point
coordinates. The NAVAID is not required to describe the airspace area.
Removal of the NAVAID simplifies the airspace's legal description.
    Lastly, this action proposes an administrative update to replace
the term ``Airport/Facility Directory'' in the last line of the Class D
and Class E2 airspace descriptions with the term ``Chart Supplement.''
    Class D, Class E2, Class E4, and Class E5 airspace designations are
published in paragraphs 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of
FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class
D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be
published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11F.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial, and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10,
2021, and effective September 15, 2021, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ANM OR D North Bend, OR [Amended]

Southwest Oregon Regional Airport, OR
    (Lat. 43[deg]25'01'' N, long. 124[deg]14'49'' W)
Sunnyhill Airport, OR
    (Lat. 43[deg]28'59'' N, long. 124[deg]12'10'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,500 feet MSL within a 4.2-mile radius of the Southwest Oregon
Regional Airport, and within 1.8 miles each side of the 059[deg]
bearing from the airport, extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 5.9
miles northeast of the airport, and within 2.9 miles each side of
the 159[deg] bearing from the airport, extending from the 4.2-mile
radius to 6.4 miles south of the airport, excluding that airspace
within a 0.9-mile radius of Sunnyhill Airport below 1,300 feet MSL.
This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates
and times established, in advance, by a Notice to Airmen. The
effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in
the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as Surface Areas.

* * * * *

ANM OR E2 North Bend, OR [Amended]

Southwest Oregon Regional Airport, OR
    (Lat. 43[deg]25'01'' N, long. 124[deg]14'49'' W)
Sunnyhill Airport, OR
    (Lat. 43[deg]28'59'' N, long. 124[deg]12'10'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.2-
mile radius of the Southwest Oregon Regional Airport, and within 1.8
miles each side of the 059[deg] bearing from the airport, extending
from the 4.2-mile radius to 5.9 miles northeast of the airport, and
within 2.9 miles each side of the 159[deg] bearing from the airport,
extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 6.4 miles south of the
airport, excluding that airspace within a 0.9-mile radius of
Sunnyhill Airport below 1,300 feet MSL. This Class E airspace area
is effective during the specific dates and times established in
advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will
thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to
a Class D or Class E Surface Area.

* * * * *

ANM OR E4 North Bend, OR [New]

Southwest Oregon Regional Airport, OR
    (Lat. 43[deg]25'01'' N, long. 124[deg]14'49'' W)

    That airspace upward from the surface within 3.6 miles north and
3.5 miles south of the 092[deg] bearing from the airport, extending
from the Southwest Oregon Regional Airport Class D 4.2-mile radius
to 11.7 miles east of the airport, and within 2.0 miles southeast
and 2.1 miles northwest of the 242[deg] bearing from the airport,
extending from the Class D 4.2-mile radius to 9.4 miles southwest of
the airport.

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ANM OR E5 North Bend, OR [Amended]

Southwest Oregon Regional Airport, OR
    (Lat. 43[deg]25'01'' N, long. 124[deg]14'49'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 9-mile radius

of the airport, and within 2.0 miles northwest and 2.6 miles
southeast of the 058[deg] bearing from the airport, extending from
the 9-mile radius to 10.4 miles northeast of the airport, and within
3.8 miles north and 3.7 miles south of the 92[deg] bearing from the
airport, extending from the 9-mile radius to 12.7 miles east of the
airport, and within 1.9 miles each side of the 149[deg] bearing from
the airport, extending from the 9-mile radius to 12.1 miles
southeast of the airport, and within 3.0 miles each side of the
199[deg] bearing from the airport, extending from the 9-mile radius
to 15 miles south of the airport, and within 8.1 miles southeast and
3.9 miles northwest of the 241[deg] bearing from the airport,
extending from the 9-mile radius to 19.2 miles southwest of the
airport, and within 3.3 miles each side of the 275[deg] bearing from
the airport, extending from the 9-mile radius to 12.1 miles west of
the airport.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on October 12, 2021.
B.G. Chew,
Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2021-23217 Filed 10-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P