[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 65 (Thursday, April 4, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20331-20332]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07812]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2013-0002: Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1302]

Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice lists communities where the addition or
modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths,
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or
the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard
determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and
where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS)
reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for
each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical
data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have
been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through
issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Title
44, Part 65 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR part 65). The
LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate
appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the
contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently
effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used
for all new policies and renewals.

DATES: These flood hazard determinations will become effective on the
dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS
report in effect prior to this determination for the listed
communities.
    From the date of the second publication of notification of these
changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has ninety (90)
days in which to request through the community that the Deputy
Associate Administrator for Mitigation reconsider the changes. The
flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day
period.

ADDRESSES: The affected communities are listed in the table below.
Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for
inspection at both the online location and the respective community map
repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current
effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of
the community as listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The specific flood hazard determinations are
not described for each community in this notice. However, the online
location and local community map repository address where the flood
hazard determination information is available for inspection is
provided.
    Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must
be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed
in the table below.
    The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance
with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.,
and with 44 CFR part 65.
    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management
measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show
evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified
for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
    These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are
required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must
change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their
floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by
other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard
determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
    The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood
hazard determination information for each community is available for
inspection at both the online location and the respective community map
repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current
effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Chief executive                         Online location of
        State and county           Location and case       officer of         Community map        letter of map        Effective date of     Community
                                          No.               community          repository             revision             modification          No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Mexico:
    Santa Fe....................  City of Santa Fe     The Honorable       200 Lincoln         http://www.rampp-      May 23, 2013.........       350070
                                   (12-06-1488P).       David Coss,         Avenue, Santa Fe,   team.com/lomrs.htm.
                                                        Mayor, City of      NM 87501.
                                                        Santa Fe, 200
                                                        Lincoln Avenue,
                                                        Santa Fe, NM
                                                        87501.
Oklahoma:
    Tulsa.......................  City of Tulsa (12-   The Honorable       Stormwater Design   http://www.rampp-      May 28, 2013.........       405381
                                   06-1019P).           Dewey F.            Office, 2317        team.com/lomrs.htm.
                                                        Bartlett, Jr.,      South Jackson,
                                                        Mayor, City of      Suite 302, Tulsa,
                                                        Tulsa, 175 East     OK 74107.
                                                        2nd Street, Suite
                                                        690, Tulsa, OK
                                                        74103.
Texas:
    Bexar.......................  City of San Antonio  The Honorable       Municipal Plaza,    http://www.rampp-      May 16, 2013.........       480045
                                   (12-06-2711P).       Julian Castro,      114 West Commerce   team.com/lomrs.htm.
                                                        Mayor, City of      Street, 7th
                                                        San Antonio, 100    Floor, San
                                                        Military Plaza,     Antonio, TX 78205.
                                                        San Antonio, TX
                                                        78205.

    Bexar.......................  Unincorporated       The Honorable       Bexar County        http://www.rampp-      May 28, 2013.........       480035
                                   areas of Bexar       Nelson W. Wolff,    Department of       team.com/lomrs.htm.
                                   County (12-06-       Bexar County        Public Works, 233
                                   1791P).              Judge, Paul         North Pecos La-
                                                        Elizondo Tower,     Trinidad, Suite
                                                        101 West Nueva      420, San Antonio,
                                                        Street, 10th        TX 78207.
                                                        Floor, San
                                                        Antonio, TX
                                                        78205..
    Denton......................  Town of Trophy Club  The Honorable       100 Municipal       http://www.rampp-      May 6, 2013..........       481606
                                   (12-06-3169P).       Connie White,       Drive, Trophy       team.com/lomrs.htm.
                                                        Mayor, Town of      Club, TX 76262.
                                                        Trophy Club, 100
                                                        Municipal Drive,
                                                        Trophy Club, TX
                                                        76262.
    Harris......................  Unincorporated       The Honorable Ed    Harris County,      http://www.rampp-      May 20, 2013.........       480287
                                   areas of Harris      M. Emmett, Harris   10555 Northwest     team.com/lomrs.htm.
                                   County (13-06-       County Judge,       Freeway, Houston,
                                   0262P).              1001 Preston        TX 77092.
                                                        Street, Suite
                                                        911, Houston, TX
                                                        77002.
    Tarrant.....................  City of Fort Worth   The Honorable       Department of       http://www.rampp-      May 20, 2013.........       480596
                                   (12-06-3303P).       Betsy Price,        Transportation      team.com/lomrs.htm.
                                                        Mayor, City of      and Public Works,
                                                        Fort Worth, 1000    1000 Throckmorton
                                                        Throckmorton        Street, Fort
                                                        Street, Fort        Worth, TX 76102.
                                                        Worth, TX 76102.
    Travis......................  Unincorporated       The Honorable       Travis County       http://www.rampp-      March 25, 2013.......       481026
                                   areas of Travis      Samuel T. Biscoe,   Permit Center,      team.com/lomrs.htm.
                                   County (12-06-       Travis County       411 West 13th
                                   2557P).              Judge, 700 Lavaca   Street, 8th
                                                        Street, Suite       Floor, Austin, TX
                                                        2700, Austin, TX    78701.
                                                        78701.
Wisconsin:
    Waukesha....................  City of New Berlin   The Honorable Jack  City Hall, 3805     http://www.starr-      May 10, 2013.........       550487
                                   (12-05-4601P).       Chiovatero,         South Casper        team.com/starr/LOMR/
                                                        Mayor, City of      Drive, New          Pages/RegionV.aspx.
                                                        New Berlin, 3805    Berlin, WI 53151.
                                                        South Casper
                                                        Drive, New
                                                        Berlin, WI 53151.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-07812 Filed 4-3-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 156 (Friday, August 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50281-50283]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20579]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65055; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2011-106]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Adopt a Limited Category of Principal Registration for Proprietary
Traders

August 8, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'')\1\, and Rule 19b-4\2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given that
on August 1, 2011, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NASDAQ'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\4\ 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NASDAQ is filing with the Commission a proposal to amend NASDAQ
Rule 1022, Categories of Principal Registration, to adopt a new limited
category of principal registration for proprietary traders, as
described further below. NASDAQ will implement the proposal upon notice
to its membership.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com/, at NASDAQ's principal office, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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 aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to recognize a new
category of limited principal registration. Specifically, NASDAQ
proposes to recognize the new Proprietary Trader Principal category as
a limited principal category in Rule 1022(h). Currently, NASDAQ Rule
1021 requires all persons engaged or to be engaged in the investment
banking or securities business of a member who are to function as
principals shall be registered as such with NASDAQ in the category of
registration appropriate to the function to be performed as specified
in Rule 1022. Before their registration can become effective, they
shall pass a Qualification Examination for Principals appropriate to
the category of registration as specified by the NASDAQ Board. Pursuant
to Rule 1021(b), persons associated with a member, enumerated in
subparagraphs (1) through (5) hereafter, who are actively engaged in
the management of

the member's investment banking or securities business, including
supervision, solicitation, conduct of business or the training of
persons associated with a member for any of these functions are
designated as principals. Such persons shall include: (1) Sole
Proprietors; (2) Officers; (3) Partners; (4) Managers of Offices of
Supervisory Jurisdiction; and (5) Directors of Corporations.
    Rule 1021(e), Requirement of Two Registered Principals for Members,
spells out that a NASDAQ member, except a sole proprietorship, shall
have at least two officers or partners who are registered as principals
with respect to each aspect of the member's investment banking and
securities business pursuant to the applicable provisions of Rule 1022;
provided, however, that a proprietary trading firm with 25 or fewer
registered representatives shall only be required to have one officer
or partner who is registered as a principal.
    Rule 1022 lists the categories of principal registration. In
addition to ``General Securities Principal,'' which is the broadest
category, there are three [sic] limited categories of principal
registration: Financial and Operations, Introducing Broker/Dealer
Financial and Operations, Investment Company and Variable Contracts
Products, and General Securities Sales Supervisor.
    NASDAQ proposes to add another category of limited principal. The
new Proprietary Trader Principal category would be available for
persons whose supervisory responsibilities in the investment banking
and securities business are limited solely to the activities of a
member that involve proprietary trading. Furthermore, it would require
that he or she be registered pursuant to NASDAQ rules as a Proprietary
Trader,\5\ be qualified to be so registered by passing the Series 24
examination, and not function in a principal capacity with
responsibility over any area of business activity other than
proprietary trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See NASDAQ Rule 1032(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ has been working with other exchanges and the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority (``FINRA'') to develop this registration
category. This category is in lieu of registration as a General
Securities Principal, for which the prerequisite qualification
examination is the Series 7. The appropriate qualification examination
for the proposed new registration category of Proprietary Trader
Principal is the Series 24, which is the same qualification required
for registration as a General Securities Principal; no new examination
has been developed. However, the prerequisite examination for the new
Proprietary Trader Principal category is the new Series 56.
Accordingly, a person who has passed the Series 56 can register as a
Proprietary Trader Principal and take the Series 24 examination, under
this proposal, but cannot register as a General Securities Principal
without first qualifying as a General Securities Representative and
passing the Series 7. Thus, although the Series 24 will now be the
appropriate qualification examination for both categories (General
Securities Principal and Proprietary Trader Principal), different
prerequisites apply and different registration categories result.
    NASDAQ believes that the new principal registration category is an
appropriate corollary to the new Proprietary Trader representative
registration category, filed separately, and reflects a substantial
joint-exchange effort to develop a registration framework specific to
principals supervising persons engaged in proprietary trading, market
making and effecting transactions on behalf of broker-dealers.
Furthermore, NASDAQ believes that the Series 24 is the appropriate
examination for Proprietary Trader Principals, because it tests
knowledge and understanding of supervision-related rules.
    The Proprietary Trader Principal registration counts towards the
two principal requirements in Rule 1021(e). The Exchange believes that
this is appropriate because the same comprehensive qualification
examination, the Series 24, is required.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of: (1)
Section 6(c)(3)(B) of the Act,\7\ pursuant to which a national
securities exchange prescribes standards of training, experience and
competence for members and their associated persons; and (2) Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in that it is designed, among other things, to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, 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, by
offering a new, limited principal registration category to NASDAQ
members. NASDAQ believes that the requirements of this new category
should help ensure that principals who supervise proprietary traders
and proprietary trading are, and will continue to be, properly trained
and qualified to perform their functions, because the new Proprietary
Trader Principal category is limited and tailored to persons
supervising proprietary trading functions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78(c)(3)(B) [sic].
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act\9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
\10\ thereunder, the Exchange has designated this proposal as one that
effects a change that: (i) Does not significantly affect the protection
of investors or the public interest; (ii) does not impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) by its terms, does not
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \11\
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission written
notice of its intent to file 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) of the Act,\12\ a proposal does not become
operative for 30 days after the date of its filing, or such shorter
time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest. NASDAQ requests a waiver of the
30-day operative delay in order to make the new registration available
near the same time as other exchanges. The Commission is waiving the
30-day operative period for this filing so that it

will become operative upon filing.\13\ The Commission believes waiving
the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest as the waiver will allow the Exchange
to make the new registration category available near the same time as
other exchanges. The Commission, therefore, designates the proposed
rule change to be operative upon filing with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.
    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay of this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f). See also 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2011-106 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 SR-NASDAQ-2011-106. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 the 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 Number SR-NASDAQ-2011-106 and
should be submitted on or before September 2, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-20579 Filed 8-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 125 (Wednesday, June 29, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38053-38058]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15969]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 173

[Docket No. PHMSA-2010-0353; Notice No. 10-9]

Clarification of the Fireworks Approvals Policy

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

ACTION: Clarification.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, PHMSA is responding to comments received
from its initial Notice No. 10-9 clarifying PHMSA's policy regarding
the fireworks approvals program. Furthermore, in this document PHMSA is
restating our policy clarification in that we will issue firework
classification approvals only to fireworks manufacturers, and accept
firework classification applications only from fireworks manufacturers
or their designated agents. This policy clarification is intended to
enhance safety by ensuring accountability of the manufacture of the
device, and reducing the number of duplicate applications and approvals
being issued for identical fireworks devices.

DATES: The policy clarification discussed in this document is effective
June 29, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ryan Paquet, Director, Approvals
and Permits Division, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, (202) 366-
4512, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Background
III. List of Commenters, Beyond-the-Scope Comments, and General
Comments
IV. Summary of Policy Clarification

I. Introduction

    With regard to fireworks approvals, the Hazardous Materials
Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180), Section 173.56(j)(3) states
that ``[t]he manufacturer applies in writing to the Associate
Administrator following the applicable requirements in APA Standard 87-
1, and is notified in writing by the Associate Administrator that the
fireworks have been classed, approved, and assigned an EX number.''
    On December 17, 2010, PHMSA published the initial Notice No. 10-9
(75 FR 79085) clarifying its policy, consistent with the HMR, to issue
firework classification approvals only to fireworks manufacturers, and
accept firework classification applications only from fireworks
manufacturers or their designated agents. The Notice also sought
comment on that clarification. In today's document, PHMSA is responding
to those comments and restating its policy clarification on the
fireworks approval program.
    The comments received covered various topics, including the
economic impact, language barrier issues, jurisdictional issues,
implementation time, and the legal issues associated with the Notice
itself. Furthermore, commenters also expressed concern on how the
policy would affect the EX application volume, the control and
distribution of fireworks designs, PHMSA's ability to ensure compliance
with and to enforce the clarification, and the relationship with other
Federal regulations.

II. Background

    The pyrotechnic industry is a global logistics supply chain
comprised of mostly foreign fireworks manufacturers and domestic
importers, retailers, distributors, and consumers. The transportation
of an explosive (fireworks device) requires an EX classification
approval issued by PHMSA, commonly referred to as an EX number. The EX
number is a unique identifier that indicates the device has been
classed and approved for transportation in the U.S., and is specific to
a particular device as specified in 49 CFR 173.56(j) and the APA
Standard 87-1.
    PHMSA understands that it is a common industry practice for
fireworks devices produced by one manufacturer to be marketed and sold
under different trade names. Further, each retailer, importer or
distributor, in addition to the manufacturer, applies for and receives
an EX classification approval for the identical firework device. This
practice has resulted in PHMSA processing multiple applications and
issuing multiple approvals for the same firework device.
    For some time, PHMSA has accepted fireworks applications from
manufacturers, importers, retailers and distributors, and has issued
the classification approvals to those stakeholders in the pyrotechnic
industry. This redundant and burdensome process does not promote the
safe transportation of explosives (fireworks devices); instead, it
impedes the conduct of business for both the fireworks industry and
PHMSA.
    In this document, PHMSA is responding to comments on its policy
clarification to issue fireworks classification approvals only to
fireworks manufacturers. PHMSA believes that this policy will enhance
safety by ensuring accountability of the manufacture of the device and
reducing the number of duplicate applications and approvals being
issued for identical fireworks devices. The manufacturer of the device
is the only entity that can ensure the approved formulation is the
actual formulation used to create the device.

III. List of Commenters, Beyond-the-Scope Comments, and General
Comments

    PHMSA received 18 comments in response to the initial Notice No.
10-9. Some of the commenters requested that we expedite the issuance of
this document to finalize the clarification of the policy. We recognize
their concerns and have made every effort to publish this document in
an expeditious manner. While a minority of the commenters supported the
clarification to the fireworks policy in initial Notice 10-9, a
majority of the commenters had reservations about it. The comments, as
submitted to the docket for the initial Notice No. 10-9 (Docket No.
PHMSA-2010-0353), may be accessed via  http://www.regulations.gov and
were submitted by the following individuals, companies and
associations:

(1) Ms. Elizabeth Knauss; PHMSA-2010-0353-0002
(2) Huisky Trading Co., Ltd.; PHMSA-2010-0353-0003
(3) Extreme Pyrotechnics LLC; PHMSA-2010-0353-0004
(4) Rozzi's Famous Fireworks; PHMSA-2010-0353-0005
(5) Dangerous Goods Advisory Council (DGAC); PHMSA-2010-0353-0006
(6) Kellner's Fireworks Inc.; PHMSA-2010-0353-0007
(7) B.J. Alan Company; PHMSA-2010-0353-0008
(8) DG Advisor, LLC; PHMSA-2010-0353-0009
(9) International Fireworks Shippers Alliance (IFSA); PHMSA-2010-0353-
0010
(10) Law Office of Douglas Mawhorr; PHMSA-2010-0353-0011
(11) Pyrotechnics Guild International; PHMSA-2010-0353-0012
(12) Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME); PHMSA-2010-0353-0013
(13) National Fireworks Association; PHMSA-2010-0353-0014
(14) Galaxy Fireworks, Inc.; PHMSA-2010-0353-0017
(15) American Pyrotechnics Association (APA); PHMSA-2010-0353-0018
(16) Alliance of Special Effects & Pyrotechnic Operators, Inc. (ASEPO);
PHMSA-2010-0353-0019
(17) Fireworks Over America; PHMSA-2010-0353-0021
(18) American Promotional Events Inc.; PHMSA-2010-0353-0023

Beyond-the-Scope Comments

    PHMSA received ten comments beyond the scope of this document. One
commenter requests PHMSA consider waste management of used or defective
fireworks when proposing any amendments to regulations related to

the transport of fireworks. This document does not propose any
regulatory amendments; rather, we are clarifying existing policy. While
PHMSA agrees environmental impacts should be considered when proposing
amendments to regulations, no regulatory changes were proposed in the
Notice, and therefore, waste management of fireworks is beyond the
scope of this document.
    PHMSA received nine comments suggesting alternative approaches
aimed at improving the current fireworks approvals process. These
alternative approaches ranged from small modifications and improvements
to the current system, to the complete elimination of the requirement
for EX numbers for consumer fireworks. PHMSA values input from the
stakeholders involved in the fireworks approval process; however, the
alternative approaches suggested are beyond the scope of this document
and will not be addressed here. The scope of this document is limited
to PHMSA's issuance of fireworks approvals only to fireworks
manufacturers. While we agree that certain alternative approaches to
fireworks approvals merit PHMSA's consideration, we urge those
commenters who submitted these beyond-the-scope approaches to request a
change in the regulations by filing the recommendations as petitions
for rulemakings in accordance with 49 CFR 106.95 and 106.100.

General Comments

Implementation Concerns

    PHMSA received comments both in support of and in opposition to the
policy clarification in the initial Notice No. 10-9. A number of these
concerns dealt specifically with how PHMSA's implementation of the
clarification would affect the pyrotechnics industry. These comments
are discussed in detail below.
    Implementation. Commenters suggested that if the clarification
presented in the initial Notice No. 10-9 were adopted, there would need
to be a substantial implementation time. PHMSA received two comments
concerned with the amount of time for implementing the clarification
and the effect on industry.
    PHMSA understands the concerns the fireworks industry has expressed
about the ramifications of implementing this action. In response to
these concerns PHMSA has devised an implementation plan that addresses
these concerns (see section: IV. Summary of Policy Clarification). As
of the date of the publication of this document in the Federal
Register, classification approval applications will be issued only to
the manufacturer. Fireworks approvals applications submitted on behalf
of entities other than the manufacturer to PHMSA prior to the
publication date of this document in the Federal Register (i.e. already
accepted by PHMSA) will continue to be reviewed, processed, and if
approved, issued to the applicant.
    Impact on Fireworks EX Application Volume. Specifically, PHMSA
received comments regarding what impact the clarification would have on
the actual volume of fireworks EX applications received. PHMSA received
comments from seven companies opposing the policy clarification
asserting that there will be an increase in the volume of applications
that PHMSA will have to process. However, one company supported the
policy clarification indicating that it is an ``effort to reduce
redundancy and increase process efficiency.''
    PHMSA does not agree with the commenters' concerns pertaining to
application volume. We believe that this is a safety and data
management issue. Furthermore, we do not make policy decisions of this
type based on the potential volume of applications. Nonetheless, PHMSA
believes that there would not be an appreciable increase to the number
of firework applications received. However, if such an increase occurs,
it will be temporary and over time application volume will decrease.
    One commenter asserted that an EX approval allows multiple
manufacturers to use the same EX number. This is incorrect. The use of
the same EX number by multiple manufacturers constitutes a violation of
the HMR. Only the manufacturer identified in the approval application
is authorized to use the assigned EX number. PHMSA does not issue the
same EX approval number to more than one holder/manufacturer.
    Language Barriers. A majority of fireworks manufacturers are
located outside the U.S. where English is not a first language. Several
commenters expressed concern that implementing the policy clarification
could be complicated by language barriers present between PHMSA
officials and foreign fireworks manufacturers. Commenters cited
examples of Chinese companies not understanding why an application is
rejected and not being able to correct errors when re-applying.
    PHMSA does not agree with the commenters' concerns pertaining to a
language barrier. All companies based outside of the U.S. are required
to have a U.S. designated agent (see Sec.  105.40) to support the
company in various issues, including language translation. PHMSA has
issued many approvals to foreign companies without any confusion or
misunderstanding as a result of language barriers. When language
barriers arise, it is the U.S. designated agent's responsibility to
resolve any communication problems and technical issues.
    Control and Distribution of Fireworks Designs. Three commenters
addressed the effect of initial Notice No. 10-9 on the control and
distribution of fireworks design types. U.S. fireworks distributors
expressed their concern that they will no longer have exclusive control
over their firework products if the clarification presented in the
initial Notice No. 10-9 were implemented. These commenters oppose the
policy clarification based on possible trademark infringement. The
commenters who addressed this issue indicated that, if adopted, the
policy clarification would deprive them of their ability ``to trademark
private label products that are proprietary to U.S. companies.''
    PHMSA does not agree with the commenters that the policy
clarification would result in trademark infringement. The holder of the
EX approval for a firework device bears no relevance to a company's
protected trademark. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office defines a
trademark as ``a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination
thereof, that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of
one party from those of others.'' Trademark infringement occurs when a
competitor uses a mark that is identical or confusingly similar to the
protected trademark. An EX approval number is assigned by the Associate
Administrator to an explosive device that has been evaluated under 49
CFR 173.56. Fireworks EX approval applications are reviewed by
transportation specialists who evaluate the composition and safety of
the firework device. Thus, a protected trademark and an EX approval
number are issued separately by different U.S. agencies for distinctly
separate purposes, which are mutually exclusive.
    Ability to Ensure Compliance/Enforce. Various commenters suggested
that the policy clarification in the initial Notice No. 10-9 could
prove difficult for PHMSA to enforce. In addition, commenters suggested
that the policy clarification could decrease regulatory clarity and
make it more difficult for the regulated entities to comply with the
HMR.
    One commenter opposed the policy clarification expressing concern
that by placing the maintenance of the EX

number wholly in the hands of the manufacturer, the U.S. user or seller
has no capacity to assure that the numbers are being administered and
applied correctly. They state: ``it is the importers and end users who
are transporting the products in the U.S., not the manufacturers. The
importers and end users are the ones who must demonstrate compliance.''
    While firework classification approvals will only be issued to
fireworks manufacturers, PHMSA will accept fireworks approval
applications from the manufacturer's U.S. designated agent on behalf of
the manufacturer, as well as the manufacturer itself. PHMSA disagrees
that the burden to follow the requirements of the approval falls solely
on the importer or end user once it becomes part of the U.S.
transportation system. In fact, at that point it is too late to correct
a defect with the firework device or any improper use of an EX number.
While it is incumbent upon the manufacturer and the importer to ensure
the fireworks device meets the EX approval requirements, it is not
PHMSA's intent to regulate the relationship between these two entities.
All participants throughout the supply chain will be held accountable
for their regulatory responsibility. Furthermore, Sec.  171.2(b)
provides that ``each offeror is responsible only for the specific pre-
transportation functions that it performs or is required to perform,
and each offeror may rely on information provided by another offeror,
unless that offeror knows or, a reasonable person, acting in the
circumstances and exercising reasonable care, would have knowledge that
the information provided by the other offeror is incorrect.''
    One commenter opposed the policy clarification because it is
unclear how PHMSA will obtain new resources to be able to conduct a
``fitness review'' on each factory in China.
    PHMSA currently conducts fitness reviews on foreign entities for
many types of approval applications. Our standard procedure, after we
determine that an application is complete, is to evaluate the
application to determine whether the Applicant is qualified to hold the
type of approval for which it has applied, in this case, a fireworks
approval. During the review, PHMSA checks the application to determine
whether the Applicant followed the requirements of the HMR. While we do
not typically conduct an onsite inspection of the Applicant's
facilities prior to granting or denying an approval application for
fireworks, we may conduct an inspection if necessary to determine the
Applicant's fitness. Furthermore, the Associate Administrator may
modify, suspend, or terminate an approval in accordance with 49 CFR
107.121 if necessary to avoid a risk of significant harm to persons or
property.
    One commenter opposed the policy clarification because it is likely
to divert PHMSA's scarce resources and PHMSA does not have the means to
develop a global investigative capability. The commenter claimed this
would allow for ``front'' or ``shell'' companies to exploit the policy
clarification.
    PHMSA does not agree with the commenter about its global
investigative capability. Part of PHMSA's mission is to implement the
best course of action to support the safety of the products produced
through shared responsibility and focused accountability. PHMSA
currently conducts international as well as domestic inspections. If a
company is found to be noncompliant with the HMR, PHMSA may impose
civil penalties or seek criminal prosecution for knowing, willful, or
reckless violations of the HMR.
    One commenter opposed the policy clarification because it would
potentially complicate the approvals process.
    PHMSA does not agree that the policy clarification would complicate
the approvals process. Rather, we believe that the policy clarification
simplifies the process. By issuing one EX number for each type of
firework device, as opposed to issuing multiple EX numbers for the same
fireworks device, we will reduce redundancy of approvals for the same
device and increase the overall efficiency of the approvals process.
Additionally, by ensuring uniform classification of fireworks devices
and eliminating application duplicity, we will reduce the potential
risks of the shipment of unapproved fireworks, thereby enhancing the
safe transport of fireworks devices.
    Regulatory Clarity. PHMSA received several comments concerning
regulatory clarity. Commenters are concerned about the definition of
manufacturer being different between regulatory areas. One commenter
suggested that PHMSA would have a different definition of
``manufacturer'' for entities who construct packages than that used to
define a fireworks device maker. One commenter states ``PHMSA would be
creating inconsistencies where a firework approval obtained through
Sec.  173.56(f) could only be held by the person who formulates or
produces the firework while no such limit would apply for fireworks
approved through the process used for other explosives.''
    PHMSA disagrees with the commenters because it is within the
agency's discretion to interpret its own regulations and clarify our
policies. However, we may in the future consider adding a definition
for manufacturer through notice and comment rulemaking.

Economic and Transportation Effects

    Several commenters expressed concern about the possible economic
ramifications caused by the implementation of the fireworks approval
policy clarification. Although most of the comments received addressed
economic impacts indirectly, five commenters explicitly addressed the
economic impact of the policy clarification.
    Economic Impact. PHMSA received several comments claiming that if
PHMSA issues approvals only to manufacturers, it will increase costs,
discourage competition, and interfere with trade and commerce.
Commenters expressed specific concerns that companies could go out of
business and proprietary information could be revealed.
    PHMSA does not believe the policy clarification pertaining to the
fireworks approvals process will affect costs, competition, or
interfere with trade and commerce because we are not changing the
regulations pertaining to fireworks approvals. Rather, we are
clarifying the existing regulations by advising the public that a
manufacturer, or its designated U.S. agent, may submit an approvals
application. After review and approval, PHMSA will issue an EX number
to the manufacturer specified in the approval application. Despite not
being the approval holder, importers and end users may still offer and
transport fireworks devices under the EX approval issued to the
manufacturer.
    Commenters also expressed concern that proprietary information may
be released to the public. To determine whether records are releasable,
PHMSA complies with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C.
section 552, and any other applicable laws. Should PHMSA receive a FOIA
request for information marked ``confidential commercial'' or where
PHMSA has some other reason to believe that confidential commercial
information may be contained in the record, Departmental regulations in
49 CFR Sec.  7.17 require that PHMSA consults with the submitter of the
information to provide an opportunity to submit any written objections
and specific grounds for non-disclosure before PHMSA determines whether
to release the information.

    Transportation Safety. Four commenters objected to the initial
Notice No. 10-9 on the grounds that no safety benefit would be realized
from the policy clarification in the application process. One commenter
stated ``because it is required to identify the product manufacturer on
all applications, the Agency has access to manufacturer information
regardless of whether the approval is issued to an importer, exporter
and/or distributor.'' PHMSA disagrees with the commenter's assertion.
Issuing EX numbers exclusively to manufacturers will provide greater
accountability on the part of the manufacturer.
    One commenter stated ``we are not aware of any situations where
there was a safety or transportation problem attributable to the fact
that the EX approval was obtained by the entity that worked with the
factory and was responsible for the fireworks once they arrived in the
United States.'' While PHMSA agrees with the commenter about the safety
record of fireworks in transportation, we believe that this policy
clarification will nonetheless make fireworks device transportation
safer. The manufacturer of the device is the only entity that can
ensure the formulation that is approved is the actual formulation used
to create the device. Furthermore, eliminating redundant applications
for the same fireworks device will reduce the potential risk of
unapproved fireworks being transported, thereby enhancing the overall
safety of the fireworks devices in transport.

Administrative Issues

    Several commenters expressed concern over the manner in which PHMSA
is clarifying its fireworks approvals policy. Other commenters raised
concerns regarding the effect the policy clarification would have on
other sections of the HMR. A couple of commenters expressed legal
concerns regarding the policy clarification. These comments are
discussed in detail below.
    Manner in which the Clarification was Presented. Three commenters
expressed concern with how we presented our policy clarification.
Specifically, these commenters suggested that the policy clarification
presented in that Notice may be better addressed in a rulemaking action
where comments can be addressed in a more substantive manner.
Commenters claimed that PHMSA is indicating a regulatory change through
that Notice, and thus, should conduct notice and comment rulemaking.
    PHMSA is not required under the Administrative Procedure Act to
initiate informal rulemaking to clarify a policy. Section 173.56(j)
specifically states that the manufacturer applies in writing and is
notified by the Associate Administrator that the fireworks have been
classed, approved, and assigned an EX-number. It is the responsibility
of the manufacturer to sign the application and certify that the device
conforms to the APA Standard 87-1, which PHMSA has incorporated by
reference in the HMR. In this document, we are clarifying our policy to
issue EX approvals to manufacturers only to coincide with the plain
language of Sec.  173.56(j).
    Effects on the HMR. While, as cited above, some commenters were
concerned that the clarification would result in ambiguity in the
regulations pertaining to the definition of different types of
manufacturers, (e.g., fiberboard box manufacturers and fireworks
manufacturers), commenters also raised concern regarding the potential
precedent set by the policy clarification in the initial Notice No. 10-
9. Specifically, commenters maintained that the clarification presented
in the initial Notice No. 10-9 could affect the definition of
``manufacturer'' in other parts of the HMR. In addition, concern was
raised that this could set a precedent for how explosives, other than
fireworks, are treated. One commenter, for example, is concerned that
this policy may affect requirements for package manufacturers.
    PHMSA does not agree with the commenters that this document would
affect other provisions of the HMR. In this document we are clarifying
our policy with respect to fireworks approvals only.
    Legal Issues. PHMSA received a comment opposing the policy
clarification based on the doctrine of laches. The commenter indicated
that PHMSA's ``neglect to assert a right, the lapse of time associated
therewith and resultant disadvantage to another bars the neglecting
party from asserting the right.''
    PHMSA does not agree with the commenter's application of the
doctrine of laches. Laches is the equitable counterpart to the statute
of limitations that bars a claim when a delay in bringing the claim is
unreasonable and results in prejudice to the opposing party. In
general, laches cannot be imputed to the Federal government and is not
applicable to an agency's determination to clarify policy.
    Another commenter opposed the policy clarification asserting
because PHMSA has not thoroughly explained its reasons for changing the
policy.
    PHMSA agrees that we should provide a reasoned basis for the policy
clarification, but disagrees that we have failed to do so. As stated in
the initial Notice No. 10-9, we believe issuing fireworks approvals
only to manufacturers will enhance safety by ensuring uniform
classification of fireworks devices, eliminating application duplicity,
and minimizing the potential risks of the shipment of unapproved
fireworks.
    PHMSA received multiple comments opposing the policy clarification
based on our lack of jurisdiction over foreign manufacturers.
    PHMSA agrees that we lack jurisdiction over foreign manufacturers
who manufacture fireworks, but do not offer them for transportation in
commerce. However, the Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Law
(49 U.S.C. 5101, et. seq.) provides the authority to regulate the safe
transportation of hazardous materials in interstate, intrastate, and
foreign commerce. If a foreign manufacturer does not merely manufacture
the fireworks, but is also an offeror and offers fireworks for
transportation in commerce within the U.S., then our regulations would
apply and the foreign manufacturer may be held accountable for
violations of the HMR. Furthermore, foreign manufacturers may have an
economic incentive to obtain EX approvals given the market in the U.S.
for foreign fireworks.
    One commenter opposed the policy clarification based on Executive
Order No. 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, dated
January 18, 2011. The commenter indicated that, if adopted the policy
clarification would not support the spirit of the Executive Order and
would create more burdens on both the regulated industry and
government.
    PHMSA does not agree that the policy clarification would contradict
the spirit of the Executive Order, which addresses an agency's adoption
of new regulations and does not restrict the agency's ability to
interpret its existing regulations or to make policy clarifications.

IV. Summary of Policy Clarification

    Based on the comments received and our responses to those comments,
PHMSA will proceed to implement the policy clarification discussed in
this document. The implementation strategy is detailed below:
    1. All EX numbers issued prior to June 29, 2011 will continue to
remain in effect.
    2. All pending fireworks approval applications submitted to PHMSA
prior to June 29, 2011 will continue to be

reviewed, processed, and if approved, issued to the applicant.
    3. All fireworks approval applications submitted to PHMSA after
June 29, 2011 will only be accepted from manufacturers or their
designated agents. Designated agents, as specified in Sec.  105.40, may
submit applications on behalf of the manufacturer as long as the agent
or the manufacturer signs the application and certifies that the device
for which approval is requested conforms to APA Standard 87-1, and that
the descriptions and technical information contained in the application
are complete and accurate, in accordance with Sec.  173.56(j)(3). PHMSA
will review and process each application, and if approved, will issue
an EX approval number only to the manufacturer specified in the
application.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 21, 2011 under authority
delegated in 49 CFR part 1.
Magdy El-Sibaie,
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-15969 Filed 6-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 19 (Wednesday, January 29, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5176-5177]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01475]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2019-1069; Airspace Docket No. 19-ANM-12]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Bryce Canyon, UT

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend the Class E airspace, designated
as a surface area, at the Bryce Canyon Airport, Bryce Canyon, UT. The
proposal would extend the surface area by adding a small amount of
airspace to the northeast of the airport. Also, this action proposes to
amend the Class E airspace by adding an area, designated as an
extension to a surface area, to the southwest of the airport.
Additionally, this action proposes to amend the Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface by reducing the area
to the east and southeast of the airport. Further, the actions proposes
to remove Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the
surface. This airspace is wholly contained within Class E en route
airspace and duplication is not necessary. Lastly, this action proposes
an administrative update to the surface airspace's legal descriptions.
These changes are necessary to accommodate airspace redesign for the
safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at
the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 16, 2020.

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-2019-1069; Airspace Docket No. 19-ANM-12, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order 7400.11D, 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 7400.11D at NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Van Der Wal, 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 amend Class E airspace at Bryce Canyon Airport, Bryce
Canyon, UT, to ensure the safety and management of Instrument Flight
Rules (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-2019-1069;
Airspace Docket No. 19-ANM-12''. 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 7400.11D, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective
September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed
in the Proposal section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D 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 Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by amending Class E airspace at Bryce
Canyon Airport, Bryce Canyon, UT. This action proposes to amend the
Class E airspace area, designated as a surface area, by adding a small
amount of airspace to the northeast of the airport. The additional
surface airspace is designed to contain IFR aircraft descending below
1,000 feet above the surface. The proposed surface area is described as
follows: That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.2-
mile radius of the

airport, and 1 mile each side of the 047[deg] bearing, extending from
the 4.2-mile radius to 5.4 miles northeast of the Bryce Canyon Airport.
    Also, this action proposes to amend the Class E airspace by adding
an area, designated as an extension to a surface area, to the southwest
of the airport. This area is also designed to contain IFR aircraft
descending below 1,000 feet above the surface and the proposed area is
described as follows: That airspace extending upward from the surface
within 1 mile each side of the 227[deg] bearing, extending from the 4.2
mile radius to 7.8 miles southwest of the Bryce Canyon Airport.
    Additionally, this action proposes to amend the Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface. The proposal reduces
the area to the east and southeast of the airport. This area is
designed to contain IFR arrivals descending below 1,500 feet above the
surface and IFR departures until they reach 1,200 feet above the
surface. This proposed area is described as follows: That airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within 8 miles north
and 4.2 miles south of the 227[deg] bearing from the airport, extending
from the airport to 16 miles southwest of the airport, and within 8
miles north and 4.2 miles south of the 047[deg] bearing from the
airport, extending from the airport to 16 miles northeast of the Bryce
Canyon Airport.
    Further, the actions proposes to remove Class E airspace extending
upward from 1,200 feet above the surface. This airspace is wholly
contained within Class E en route airspace and duplication is not
necessary.
    Lastly, this action proposes an administrative update to the Class
E surface airspace's legal descriptions. The surface airspace should be
in effect full time. The following two sentences do not accurately
reflect the time of use and should be removed. ``This Class E airspace
area is effective during specific dates and times established in
advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will
thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility
Directory.''
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 6002,
6004 and 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11D, dated August 8, 2019, and
effective September 15, 2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document
will be published subsequently in the Order. FAA Order 7400.11,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and
effective on September 15.
    FAA Order 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 7400.11D,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and
effective September 15, 2019, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as a Surface Area.

* * * * *

ANM UT E2 Bryce Canyon, UT [Amended]

Bryce Canyon Airport, UT
    (Lat. 37[deg]42'23'' N, long. 112[deg]08'45'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.2-
mile radius of the airport, and 1 mile each side of the 047[deg]
bearing extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 5.4 miles northeast of
the Bryce Canyon Airport.

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

* * * * *

ANM UT E4 Bryce Canyon, UT [New]

Bryce Canyon Airport, UT
    (Lat. 37[deg]42'23'' N, long. 112[deg]08'45'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1 mile
each side of the 227[deg] bearing extending from the 4.2 mile radius
to 7.8 miles southwest of the Bryce Canyon Airport.

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

* * * * *

ANM UT E5 Bryce Canyon, UT [Amended]

Bryce Canyon Airport, UT
    (Lat. 37[deg]42'23'' N, long. 112[deg]08'45'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within 8 miles north and 4.2 miles south of the 227[deg] bearing
from the airport, extending from the airport to 16 miles southwest
of the airport, and within 8 miles north and 4.2 miles south of the
047[deg] bearing from the airport, extending from the airport to 16
miles northeast of the Bryce Canyon Airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on January 22, 2020.
Shawn M. Kozica,
Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2020-01475 Filed 1-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 102 (Tuesday, May 28, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 24501]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11161]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
    Filings Instituting Proceedings
    Docket Numbers: RP19-888-000.
    Applicants: Trailblazer Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Report Filing: 2019-05-15 2019 Refund Report RP19-888.
    Filed Date: 5/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20190515-5215.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/28/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1229-000.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Volume No.2--Neg Rate Agmt--
Macquarie Energy SP348769 & SP348770 to be effective 6/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 5/20/19.
    Accession Number: 20190520-5058.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1230-000.
    Applicants: Bear Creek Storage Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 2019 Settlement Filing to be
effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 5/20/19.
    Accession Number: 20190520-5116.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/19.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 21, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-11161 Filed 5-24-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 2, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 190)]
[Notices]
[Page 58032-58034]
[DOCID:fr02oc06-140]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54491; File No. SR-NYSE-2005-09]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (n/
k/a New York Stock Exchange LLC); Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule
Change and Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto Relating to Rule 409
Regarding Statements of Accounts to Customers and Proposed New Rule
409A Regarding SIPC Disclosure

September 22, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby
given that on January 14, 2005, the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (n/k/
a New York Stock Exchange LLC) (``Exchange'' or ``NYSE'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. On December 13, 2005, the
Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\3\ On
September 19, 2006, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed
rule change.\4\ 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.
    \3\ In Amendment No. 1, NYSE withdrew its proposal to amend NYSE
Rule 409(a), which would have permitted institutional customers
conducting a Delivery versus Payment and Receive versus Payment
(``DVP/RVP'') business to opt out of receiving customer account
statements. NYSE refiled this proposal in File No. SR-NYSE-2005-90.
    \4\ In Amendment No. 2, NYSE proposed additional changes to NYSE
Rule 409(a) and proposed new NYSE Rule 409A, which are discussed
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is proposing to amend NYSE Rule 409(e) to require that
each statement of account sent to a customer include a legend advising
the customer to promptly report any inaccuracy or discrepancy in that
person's account to his or her brokerage firm. If the account is
subject to a clearing agreement pursuant to NYSE Rule 382, amended NYSE
Rule 409(e) would require the legend to advise that the customer's
notification be sent to both the introducing firm and the clearing
firm. The legend also would need to advise the customer that he or she
should re-confirm any oral communications with either the clearing or
introducing firm in writing to further protect the customer's rights,
including rights under the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA).
The Exchange is also proposing to adopt a new rule, NYSE Rule 409A,
which would require member organizations to advise each customer in
writing, upon the opening of an account and at least annually
thereafter, that he or she may obtain information from the Securities
Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC). Proposed Rule 409A would
require the written advisories to include SIPC's Web site address and
telephone number, and, if the account is subject to a clearing
agreement pursuant to NYSE Rule 382, the rule would permit its
requirements to be delegated to either the introducing firm or the
clearing firm.
    The text of the proposed rule change is set forth below. Additions
are italicized. Deletions are [bracketed].
Rule 409
Statements of Accounts to Customers
    (a) through (d)--No change.
    (e) Each statement of account sent to a customer pursuant to this
rule shall include the following:
    (1) [bear a] A legend [as follows] that reads: ``A financial
statement of this organization is available for your personal
inspection at its offices, or a copy of it will be mailed upon your
written request.''
    (2) A legend that advises customers to report promptly any
inaccuracy or discrepancy in that person's account to

his or her brokerage firm. If a customer's account is subject to a
clearing agreement pursuant to Rule 382, the legend must advise that
such notification be sent to both the introducing firm and the clearing
firm. The legend must also advise the customer that any oral
communications with either the introducing firm or the clearing firm
should be re-confirmed in writing in order to further protect the
customer's rights, including its rights under the Securities Investor
Protection Act (SIPA).
    (f) through (g)--No change.
    Supplementary Material--No change.

Rule 409A

SIPC Disclosures

    Member organizations must advise each customer in writing, upon the
opening of an account and at least annually thereafter, that they may
obtain information about the Securities Investor Protection Corporation
(SIPC), including the SIPC Brochure, by contacting SIPC, and shall
provide the Web site address and telephone number of SIPC. If a
clearing agreement pursuant to Rule 382 exists, the requirements of
this rule may be delegated to either the introducing firm or the
clearing firm.

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

    In filing the proposed rule change, the Exchange included
statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule
change, as amended. 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
aspects of such statements.

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

(1) Purpose
Amendments to Rule 409(e)
    In response to recommendations by the U.S. General Accounting
Office (the ``GAO''), the Exchange proposes amendments to Rule 409(e)
that would require customer account statements to bear a legend that
advises customers to promptly notify their brokerage firm of any
inaccuracy or discrepancy in the account statement.\5\ The legend must
also advise the customer that any oral communications with either the
introducing firm or the clearing firm should be re-confirmed in writing
in order to further protect the customer's rights, including its rights
under the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA). This requirement
is included to create a written record for the purpose of protecting
customer interests.\6\ In addition to heightening customer awareness
regarding information reflected on their statements, the advisory will
encourage customers to submit a written record of any possible
unauthorized trading activity, unrecorded dividend payments, and
unaccounted cash positions. The GAO deems this to be important because,
in the event a firm goes into a liquidation administered by SIPC, SIPC
and the trustee generally will assume that the firm's records are
accurate unless the customer is able to prove otherwise. The Commission
has approved a substantially similar rule change proposed by NASD.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See GAO, Securities Investor Protection: Steps Needed to
Better Disclose SIPC Policies to Investors, GAO-01-653 (May 25,
2001). See also GAO-03-811 (July 11, 2003); GAO-04-848R Follow-Up on
SIPC (July 9, 2004). GAO has since been renamed the Government
Accountability Office.
    \6\ NYSE Information Memo No. 98-16, dated April 4, 1998,states
that oral complaints are reportable under Rule 351(d) (Reporting
Requirements). The Exchange expects that oral customer complaints
will be investigated and treated in the same manner as written
complaints.
    \7\ See Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to Rule
2340 Concerning Customer Account Statements, Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 54411 (Sept. 7, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed New Rule 409A
    Also, in response to the GAO's recommendations, and to further
promote investor awareness, the Exchange proposes new Rule 409A, which
would require member organizations to advise customers in writing, upon
the opening of an account and at least annually thereafter, that they
may obtain information from SIPC, including the SIPC Brochure, by
contacting SIPC via its Web site or by telephone. The proposed rule
would also require the written advisories to include the SIPC Web site
address and telephone number. If a clearing agreement pursuant to Rule
382 exists, the requirements of this rule could be delegated to either
the introducing firm or the clearing firm.
(2) Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange, and in
particular, with the requirements of Sections 6(b)(5) of the Exchange
Act.\8\ Section 6(b)(5) requires, among other things, that the rules of
an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of
trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market and national market system, and in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes the proposed
rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of
trade, perfect the mechanism of a free and open market, and protect
investors because it will help investors understand procedures for
preserving their rights in the event of erroneous or unauthorized
transactions in their accounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposal does not impose any burden
on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Exchange Act.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received written comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange is proposing an effective date of 180 days after SEC
approval of the proposed amendments to Rule 409(e) and proposed new
Rule 409A. This will give member organizations time to make necessary
changes to their customer documentation and systems.
    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    (a) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (b) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule

change, as amended, is consistent with the Exchange 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NYSE-2005-09 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2005-09. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the NYSE. 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
submission should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2005-09 and should be
submitted on or before October 23, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-16112 Filed 9-29-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 91 (Friday, May 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27414-27415]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11116]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4111-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2013-0001]

New York; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of New York (FEMA-4111-DR), dated April 23,
2013, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: April 23, 2013.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated April 23, 2013, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of New York resulting from a severe winter storm and snowstorm
during the period of February 8-9, 2013, is of sufficient severity
and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare
that such a major disaster exists in the State of New York.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated area and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. You are
further authorized to provide snow assistance under the Public
Assistance program for a limited period of time during or proximate
to the incident period. Consistent with the requirement that Federal
assistance is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the
Stafford Act for Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be
limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Michael F. Byrne, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following area of the State of New York has been designated as
adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Suffolk County for Public Assistance.
    Suffolk County for snow assistance under the Public Assistance
program for any continuous 48-hour period during or proximate to the
incident period.
    All counties within the State of New York are eligible to apply
for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

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

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-11116 Filed 5-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 127 (Tuesday, July 2, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31587-31588]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14020]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0060; FRL-9995-65-OAR]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request;
Certification and Compliance Requirements for Nonroad Spark-Ignition
Engines (Renewal), ICR 1695.11, OMB 2060-0338

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to
submit an information collection request (ICR), ``Certification and
Compliance Requirements for Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines (Renewal)'',
ICR 1695.11, OMB 2060-0338 to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects
of the proposed information collection request as described below. This
notice is a proposed extension of the Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines
ICR, which is currently approved through October 31, 2019. An Agency
may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 3, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing the Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2004-0060, to the EPA: Online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential

Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julian Davis, Attorney Adviser,
Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, Michigan
48105; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  Supporting documents which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting will be
available in the public docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0060, for this ICR. The
docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the
EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW,
Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-
1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit
http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA
will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate.
The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and
approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice
to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to
submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: This information collection is requested under the
authority of Title II of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521 et seq.)
Under this Title, EPA is charged with issuing certificates of
conformity for those engines which comply with applicable emission
standards. Such a certificate must be issued before engines may be
legally introduced into commerce. To apply for a certificate of
conformity, manufacturers are required to submit descriptions of their
planned production line, including detailed descriptions of the
emission control system, and test data. This information is organized
by ``engine family'' groups expected to have similar emission
characteristics. The emission values achieved during certification
testing may also be used in the Averaging, Banking, and Trading (ABT)
Program. The program allows manufacturers to bank credits for engine
families that emit below the standard and use the credits for families
that emit above the standard. They may also trade banked credits with
other manufacturers. Participation in the ABT program is voluntary.
Different categories of spark-ignition engines may also be required to
comply with production-line testing (PLT) and in-use testing. There are
also recordkeeping and labeling requirements. This information is
collected electronically by the Gasoline Engine Compliance Center
(GECC), Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality
(OTAQ), Office of Air and Radiation of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. GECC uses this information to ensure that
manufacturers comply with applicable regulations and the Clean Air Act
(CAA). It may also be used by the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance (OECA) and the Department of Justice for enforcement
purposes. Non- CBI may be disclosed on OTAQ's website or upon request
under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to trade associations,
environmental groups, and the public. Any information submitted for
which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to
EPA regulations at 40 CFR 2.201 et seq.
    Form numbers: The EPA has developed forms, some of which are Excel-
based, for the compliance programs in this ICR, such as ABT, PLT and
In-use Testing, as well as for production reporting. Manufacturers may
download these forms from EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/vehicle-and-engine-certification/compliance-reporting-nonroad-spark-ignition-si-engines and submit these forms through the EPA's engine and vehicle
compliance information system's (EV-CIS) document module. All of these
forms are available for review in the Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0060.
    Respondents/affected entities: Respondents are manufacturers of
nonroad engines within the following North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) code:

333618 Other Engine Equipment Manufacturing
336312 Gasoline Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing
336999 Other Transportation Equipment Manufacturing
336991 Motorcycle, Bicycle and Parts Manufacturing
333112 Lawn & Garden Tractor and Home Lawn & Garden Equipment
Manufacturing
335312 Motor and Generator Manufacturing

    Estimated number of respondents: 620 (total).
    Frequency of response: yearly for certification, production, ABT,
and warranty reports.
    Total estimated burden: 249.3 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b)
    Total estimated cost: $38,530.31 (per year), includes $17,666.82
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is a decrease of 16,141 hours (from
265,475 hours to 249,334) in the total estimated burden in this
collection from the burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved ICRs. This reduction is primarily due to an adjustment in the
hours required to file a complete application for certification and
conduct compliance activities throughout a calendar year.

    Dated: June 19, 2019.
Byron J. Bunker,
Director, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air
Quality, US Environmental Protection Agency.
[FR Doc. 2019-14020 Filed 7-1-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P