[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 6, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36933-36935]
[FR Doc No: 2023-11930]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-0428; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01250-T;
Amendment 39-22442; AD 2023-10-06]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-06-
07, which applied to all Airbus SAS Model A330-200 Freighter, -200, and
-300 series airplanes; and A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series
airplanes. AD 2017-06-07 required identification of potentially
affected inboard flap parts, a one-time eddy current inspection to
identify which material the parts are made of, and, depending on
findings, replacement with serviceable parts. This AD was prompted by a
determination that, even if affected inboard flaps were not installed
on airplanes during production, affected inboard flaps could be
installed on airplanes as spare parts. This AD continues to require the
actions in AD 2017-06-07, as specified in a European Union Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference. This AD
also reduces the allowance for the installation of affected parts under
certain conditions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective July 11, 2023.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 11,
2023.

ADDRESSES:
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-0428; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this final rule, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For material incorporated by reference in this AD, contact
EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
8999 000; email [email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You may
find this material on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
     You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in the AD docket at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-0428.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, International Validation Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue,
Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2017-06-07, Amendment 39-18831 (82 FR
17107, April 10, 2017) (AD 2017-06-07). AD 2017-06-07 applied to all
Airbus SAS Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes; A330-201, -202, -203, -
223, and -243 airplanes; A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341,
-342, and -343 airplanes; A340-211, -212, and -213 airplanes; A340-311,
-312, and -313 airplanes; A340-541 airplanes; and A340-642 airplanes.
AD 2017-06-07 was prompted by an MCAI originated by EASA, which is the
Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA
issued AD 2016-0231, dated November 22, 2016 (EASA AD 2016-0231), which
superseded EASA AD 2016-0082, dated April 27, 2016, to correct an
unsafe condition. AD 2017-06-07 required identification of potentially
affected inboard flap parts, a one-time eddy current inspection to
identify which material the parts are made of, and, depending on
findings, replacement with serviceable parts. The FAA issued AD 2017-
06-07 to detect and correct structural parts of inboard flaps made of
nonconforming aluminum alloy, which could result in reduced structural
integrity of the airplane.
    The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 8, 2023 (88 FR
14303). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2022-0189, dated September 19,
2022, issued by EASA (EASA AD 2022-0189) (also referred to as the
MCAI), which superseded EASA AD 2016-0231. The MCAI states that since
EASA AD 2016-0231 was issued, it was determined that, even if affected

inboard flaps were not installed on airplanes during production,
affected inboard flaps could be installed on airplanes as spare parts.
The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in reduced
structural integrity of the airplane.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-0428.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require the actions in
AD 2017-06-07, as specified in EASA AD 2022-0189. The NPRM also
proposed to reduce the allowance for the installation of affected parts
under certain conditions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received one comment from Air Line Pilots Association,
International (ALPA), who supported the NPRM without change.

Conclusion

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the
comment received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this
AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes,
this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will
increase the economic burden on any operator.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2022-0189 specifies procedures for identification of
potentially affected inboard flap parts, a one-time special detailed
inspection (eddy current) to identify which material the parts are made
of, and, depending on findings, replacement with serviceable parts. The
MCAI also reduces the allowance for the installation of affected parts
under certain conditions. This material is reasonably available because
the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 36 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
               Action                        Labor cost           Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retained actions from AD 2017-06-07.  10 work-hours x $85 per              $0             $850          $30,600
                                       hour = $850.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition action that would be required based on the results of any
required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need this on-condition action:

                 Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Labor cost                 Parts cost      Cost per product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
60 work-hours x $85 per hour =          $1,345,000           $1,350,100
 $5,100...........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this AD
may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for
affected individuals. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs
in the cost estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. 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.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-06-07, Amendment 39-18831
(82 FR 17107, April 10, 2017); and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

2023-10-06 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-22442; Docket No. FAA-2023-0428;
Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01250-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective July 11, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2017-06-07, Amendment 39-18831 (82 FR 17107,
April 10, 2017) (AD 2017-06-07).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus SAS Model A330-223F and -243F
airplanes; A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes; A330-301,
-302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes; A340-
211, -212, and -213 airplanes; A340-311, -312, and -313 airplanes;
A340-541 airplanes; and A340-642 airplanes; certificated in any
category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports that nonconforming aluminum
alloy was used to manufacture structural parts on the inboard flap.
The FAA is issuing this AD to detect and correct structural parts of
inboard flaps made of nonconforming aluminum alloy. The unsafe
condition, if not addressed, could result in reduced structural
integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD: Comply
with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2022-0189, dated September 19, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0189).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2022-0189

    (1) Where EASA AD 2022-0189 refers to May 11, 2016 (the
effective date of EASA AD 2016-0082, dated April 27, 2016), this AD
requires using May 15, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-06-07).
    (2) Where EASA AD 2022-0189 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (3) This AD does not adopt the ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD
2022-0189.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2022-0189
specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.

(j) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the International
Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified
in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected].
    (i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2017-06-07 are approved as
AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of EASA AD 2022-0189 that are
required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (j)(2) of this AD, if any service information contains
procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and
tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests
that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and
tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using
accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or
inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided
the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the
airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any
substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC
require approval of an AMOC.

(k) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir Ulyanov,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, International Validation Branch, 1600
Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 206-231-
3229; email [email protected].

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2022-0189,
dated September 19, 2022.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2022-0189, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
[email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You may find this EASA
AD on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on May 22, 2023.
Ross Landes,
Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-11930 Filed 6-5-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 58 (Wednesday, March 25, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16974-16977]
[FR Doc No: 2020-06187]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88422; File No. SR-FINRA-2020-007]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change to FINRA's
Suitability, Non-Cash Compensation and Capital Acquisition Broker (CAB)
Rules in Response to Regulation Best Interest

March 19, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 12, 2020, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    FINRA is proposing amendments to FINRA Rules 2111 (Suitability),
2310 (Direct Participation Programs), 2320 (Variable Contracts of an
Insurance Company), 2341 (Investment Company Securities), and 5110
(Corporate Financing Rule--Underwriting Terms and Arrangements), and
Capital Acquisition Broker (CAB) Rule 211 (Suitability). The proposed
rule change would: (1) Amend the FINRA and CAB suitability rules to
state that the rules do not apply to recommendations subject to
Regulation Best Interest (``Reg BI''),\3\ and to remove the element of
control from the quantitative suitability obligation; and (2) conform
the rules governing non-cash compensation to Reg BI's limitations on
sales contests, sales quotas, bonuses and non-cash compensation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 17 CFR 240.15l-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's
website at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA 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, FINRA 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. FINRA 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
Background
    On June 5, 2019, the SEC adopted Reg BI, a new rule under the
Exchange Act, which establishes a standard of conduct for broker-
dealers and natural persons who are associated persons of a broker-
dealer (unless otherwise indicated, together referred to as ``broker-
dealer'') when they make a recommendation to a retail customer of any
securities transaction or investment strategy involving securities.\4\
The SEC stated that Reg BI will improve investor protection by
enhancing the obligations that apply when a broker-dealer makes a
recommendation to a retail customer, and reducing the potential harm to
retail customers from conflicts of interest that may affect the
recommendation.\5\ The date by which broker-dealers must comply with
Reg BI is June 30, 2020.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86031 (June 5,
2019), 84 FR 33318 (July 12, 2019) (Final Rule; Regulation Best
Interest: The Broker-Dealer Standard of Conduct) (the ``Release'').
    \5\ See Release, 84 FR at 33318-33319.
    \6\ See Release, 84 FR at 33400.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA proposes to amend the suitability and non-cash compensation
rules to provide clarity on which standard applies and to address
inconsistencies with Reg BI. The changes would amend the FINRA
suitability rule (Rule 2111) to state that it will not apply to
recommendations subject to Reg BI, and to remove the element of control
from the quantitative suitability obligation. In addition, the proposed
rule change would conform the CAB suitability rule, CAB Rule 211, to
the proposed amendments to Rule 2111, and would conform FINRA's rules
governing non-cash compensation to Reg BI's limitations on sales
contests, sales quotas, bonuses, and non-cash compensation.
    As noted below, Reg BI addresses the same conduct that is addressed
by Rule 2111, but employs a best interest, rather than a suitability,
standard. Absent action by FINRA, a broker-dealer would be required to
comply with both Reg BI and Rule 2111 regarding recommendations to
retail customers. In such circumstances, FINRA believes that compliance
with Reg BI would result in compliance with Rule 2111 because a broker-
dealer that meets the best interest standard would necessarily meet the
suitability standard. Accordingly, in order to reduce the potential for
confusion, FINRA is proposing limiting the application of Rule 2111 to
circumstances in which Reg BI does not apply. To do so, FINRA would add
new paragraph .08 to the FINRA Rule 2111 Supplementary Material and new
paragraph .03 to the CAB Rule 211 Supplementary Material that states
that those rules shall not apply to recommendations subject to Reg BI.

Suitability
    FINRA Rule 2111 requires that a broker-dealer ``have a reasonable
basis to believe that a recommended transaction or investment strategy
involving a security or securities is suitable for the customer, based
on the information obtained through the reasonable diligence of the
member or associated person to ascertain the customer's investment
profile.'' The rule further explains that a ``customer's investment
profile includes, but is not limited to, the customer's age, other
investments, financial situation and needs, tax status, investment
objectives, investment experience, investment time horizon, liquidity
needs, risk tolerance, and any other information the customer may
disclose to the member or associated person in connection with such
recommendation.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See FINRA Rule 2111(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 2111 imposes three main suitability obligations: Reasonable
basis suitability, customer-specific suitability and quantitative
suitability. Reasonable basis suitability requires a member or
associated person to have a reasonable basis to believe, based on
reasonable diligence, that the recommendation is suitable for at least
some investors. Customer-specific suitability requires that a member or
associated person have a reasonable basis to believe that the
recommendation is suitable for a particular customer based on that
customer's investment profile. Quantitative suitability requires a
member or associated person who has actual or de facto control over a
customer account to have a reasonable basis for believing that a series
of recommended transactions, even if suitable when viewed in isolation,
are not excessive and unsuitable for the customer when taken together
in light of the customer's investment profile.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See FINRA Rule 2111.05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 2111(b) provides an exemption to customer-specific suitability
for recommendations to institutional customers under specified
circumstances. In order for this exemption to apply, three criteria
must be satisfied. First, the account must meet the definition of
institutional account as defined in FINRA Rule 4512(c).\9\ Second, the
broker-dealer must have a reasonable basis to believe that the
institutional customer is capable of evaluating investment risks
independently, both in general and with regard to particular
transactions and investment strategies involving a security or
securities. Third, the institutional customer must affirmatively
indicate that it is exercising independent judgment in evaluating the
member's or associated person's recommendations. Where an institutional
customer has delegated decision making authority to an agent, such as
an investment adviser or a bank trust department, these factors are
applied to the agent.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Rule 4512(c) defines ``institutional account'' to mean the
account of: (1) A bank, savings and loan association, insurance
company or registered investment company; (2) an investment adviser
registered either with the SEC or with a state securities
commission; or (3) any other person (whether a natural person,
corporation, partnership, trust or otherwise) with total assets of
at least $50 million.
    \10\ See FINRA Rule 2111(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reg BI's ``best interest'' standard requires firms to satisfy four
component obligations: Disclosure, Care, Conflict of Interest and
Compliance. Reg BI's Care Obligation incorporates and enhances
principles that are also found in Rule 2111. Two key enhancements are
that Reg BI explicitly imposes a best interest standard and explicitly
requires a consideration of costs. In addition, Reg BI places greater
emphasis than the suitability rule on consideration of reasonably
available alternatives.\11\ Moreover, Reg BI explicitly applies to
recommendations of types of accounts (e.g., broker-dealer or investment
adviser, or among broker-dealer accounts, including recommendations of
IRA rollovers). Reg BI also eliminates the ``control'' element of the
quantitative suitability obligation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Release, 84 FR at 33381 (``It is our view that such a
consideration [of reasonably available alternatives offered by the
broker-dealer] is an inherent aspect of making a `best interest'
recommendation, and is a key enhancement over existing broker-dealer
suitability obligations, which do not necessarily require such a
comparative assessment among such alternatives'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of these enhancements and to provide clarity on which
standard applies, FINRA proposes that its suitability rule state that
it will not apply to recommendations subject to Reg BI.\12\ FINRA does
not propose to eliminate the suitability rule because it applies
broadly to all recommendations to customers whereas Reg BI applies only
to recommendations to ``retail customers,'' which Reg BI defines as a
natural person, or the legal representative of such natural person, who
receives a recommendation of any securities transaction or investment
strategy involving securities from a broker-dealer and uses the
recommendation primarily for personal, family, or household
purposes.\13\ Thus, FINRA's suitability rule is still needed for
entities and institutions (e.g., pension funds), and natural persons
who will not use recommendations primarily for personal, family, or
household purposes (e.g., small business owners and charitable trusts).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See proposed FINRA Rule 2111.08.
    \13\ See 17 CFR 240.15l-1(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposal would modify the quantitative suitability
obligation under FINRA Rule 2111.05(c) to remove the element of control
that currently must be proved to demonstrate a violation.\14\ This
change is consistent with Reg BI, which eliminates the control element
from its Care obligation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See proposed FINRA Rule 2111.05(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the proposed rule change would amend CAB Rule 211 to state
that it will not apply to recommendations subject to Reg BI.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See proposed CAB Rule 211.03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-Cash Compensation
    FINRA Rules 2310 (Direct Participation Programs), 2320 (Variable
Contracts of an Insurance Company), 2341 (Investment Company
Securities), and 5110 (Corporate Financing Rule--Underwriting Terms and
Arrangements) each includes provisions restricting the payment and
receipt of non-cash compensation in connection with the sale and
distribution of securities governed by those rules. As a general
matter, these rules limit non-cash compensation arrangements to:
     Gifts that do not exceed $100 in value and that are not
preconditioned on the achievement of a sales target;
     An occasional meal, a ticket to a sporting event or the
theater, or other comparable entertainment that does not raise any
question of propriety and is not preconditioned on the achievement of a
sales target;
     Payment or receipt by ``offerors'' (generally product
sponsors and their affiliates) in connection with training or education
meetings, subject to specified conditions, including that the payment
of such compensation is not conditioned on achieving a sales target;
and
     Internal non-cash compensation arrangements between a
member and its associated persons, subject to specified conditions. If
the internal non-cash compensation arrangement is in the form of a
sales contest, the contest must be based on the total production of
associated persons with respect to all securities within the rule's
product category, and credit for those sales must be equally
weighted.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See FINRA Rules 2310(c), 2320(g), 2341(l)(5), and 5110(h).
Rules 2310(c) and 5110(h) do not require internal non-cash
compensation arrangements to be based on total production and equal
weighting of securities sales.

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

    Reg BI's Conflict of Interest Obligation requires broker-dealers to
establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to identify and eliminate any sales contests, sales
quotas, bonuses, and non-cash compensation that are based on the sales
of specific securities or specific types of securities within a limited
time period.\17\ As discussed above, FINRA's current non-cash
compensation rules permit internal firm sales contests that may not
meet this standard, since they permit contests based on sales of
specific types of securities (such as mutual funds or variable
annuities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See 17 CFR 240.15l-1(a)(2)(iii)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA proposes to modify its rules governing non-cash compensation
arrangements to specify that any non-cash compensation arrangement
permitted by those rules must be consistent with the requirements of
Reg BI. FINRA also proposes to eliminate provisions in Rules 2320 and
2341 that require internal non-cash compensation arrangements to be
based on total production and equal weighting of securities sales.\18\
Thus, firms generally would no longer be permitted to sponsor or
maintain internal sales contests based on sales of securities within a
product category within a limited time, even if they are based on total
production and equal weighting. This requirement also would apply to
the non-cash compensation provisions governing gifts, business
entertainment and training or education meetings. As discussed above,
these forms of non-cash compensation may not be preconditioned on
achievement of a sales target. Nevertheless, FINRA believes that it
must make clear that these provisions do not permit arrangements that
conflict with Reg BI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See proposed amendments to FINRA Rules 2310(c), 2320(g),
2341(l)(5), and 5110(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the Commission approves the proposed rule change, FINRA will
announce the approval of the proposed rule change in a Regulatory
Notice to be published no later than 60 days following Commission
approval. The effective date will be the compliance date of Reg BI.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\19\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. The proposed changes to FINRA's suitability rules will
clarify when Reg BI versus the suitability rules apply, eliminating
confusion and allowing firms to focus on compliance with the higher
standards in Reg BI, when applicable. At the same time, the change will
provide continued protection for customers that are not retail
customers covered by Reg BI. Moreover, the removal of the element of
control from the quantitative suitability obligation will align this
standard with the corresponding quantitative component of the Care
Obligation under Reg BI. Finally, the proposed amendments to FINRA's
rules on non-cash compensation arrangements will eliminate any
potential inconsistency with the requirements of Reg BI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. FINRA has undertaken an
economic impact assessment, as set forth below, to analyze the
regulatory need for the proposed rulemaking, its potential economic
impacts, including anticipated costs and benefits, and the alternatives
FINRA considered in assessing how to best meet its regulatory
objectives.
Economic Impact Assessment
    Reg BI imposes new obligations on broker-dealers and associated
persons. As such, FINRA is proposing to modify existing FINRA rules to
better align them with the new obligations. The alignment of FINRA
rules to Reg BI requirements is expected to provide greater protections
to customers against investor abuse from firms and their associated
persons. It also reduces uncertainty for firms about which standard
applies, thus potentially avoiding unintentional rule violations and
reducing compliance costs on the margin. The Economic Impact Assessment
analyzes only the impacts directly attributable to the proposed rule
change. The impacts attributable to Reg BI are assumed to have been
evaluated by the SEC during the adoption process.
    The proposed rule changes would better align the existing FINRA
suitability rule with Reg BI's obligations. The proposed rule change
would provide that the suitability rule does not apply to any
recommendation that is subject to Reg BI. The benefits of this approach
are that it would reduce regulatory uncertainty for firms and clarify
to retail customers that Reg BI's ``best interest'' standard applies to
recommendations they receive from their broker-dealer and its
associated persons. FINRA does not believe that this change will
negatively impact firms in any material way, since in almost all cases,
retail customer recommendations would be governed by Reg BI, making the
application of the suitability rule in these contexts superfluous.
Firms also would benefit by focusing their regulatory review of
recommendations to retail customers solely on Reg BI, thus increasing
the efficiency of such reviews.
    The proposed rule change also would eliminate the control element
from the quantitative suitability obligation in the suitability rule.
This change is consistent with Reg BI, which similarly does not require
a showing of control. FINRA had previously analyzed the economic impact
of this change when it proposed it in Regulatory Notice 18-13.
Potential economic impacts are even less significant at this time, as
the SEC has since adopted Reg BI, which expressly excludes the control
element and will now apply to a large portion of recommendations (i.e.,
recommendations to retail customers).
    The proposed change is expected to provide greater protections to
customers against investor abuse from firms and their associated
persons. In cases where excessive trading is alleged, customers would
benefit from the reduced burden on FINRA of not having to prove control
while firms and associated persons engaged in excessive trading could
experience a higher number of findings of violations. FINRA believes
the proposed change would impose minimal, if any, additional compliance
burdens on members because FINRA staff understands firms generally
perform compliance reviews for excessive trading activity without
consideration of whether a broker controls the account.
    Lastly, the proposed rule change would align FINRA's non-cash
compensation rules with Reg BI's Conflict of Interest Obligation. Reg
BI requires broker-dealers to establish, maintain and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify and eliminate
any sales contests, sales quotas, bonuses, and non-cash compensation
that are based on the sales of specific securities or specific types of
securities within a limited time period, whereas current FINRA non-cash
compensation rules permit sales contests for specific types of
securities. FINRA believes that this proposed rule change will benefit
firms by eliminating regulatory uncertainty

created by existing FINRA non-cash compensation rules. To the extent
that sales contests and other non-cash compensation arrangements lead
brokers to recommend suboptimal investments for customers, banning
these practices may benefit customers. However, as for-profit entities,
firms may be more limited in their ability to create incentives for
their brokers to generate sales.

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

    Comments were neither solicited nor received on this proposed rule
change. However, in April 2018, FINRA published Regulatory Notice 18-
13, soliciting comment on a proposal to remove the control element from
the quantitative suitability obligation in FINRA Rule 2111, consistent
with the then-proposed Reg BI. Eleven comments were received in
response to the Notice. A copy of the Notice is attached [sic] as
Exhibit 2a. Copies of the comment letters received in response to the
Notice are attached [sic] as Exhibit 2c.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Exhibit 2b for a list of abbreviations assigned to
commenters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the publication of Regulatory Notice 18-13, the SEC has
adopted Reg BI, which applies to recommendations to retail customers as
defined in Reg BI. With the proposed changes to FINRA Rule 2111.08, as
discussed above, the suitability rule, including the quantitative
suitability obligation, will no longer apply to recommendations to
retail customers. As a result, the impact of the removal of the control
element of the quantitative suitability obligation is significantly
less than when originally proposed. Nevertheless, a majority of
commenters to Regulatory Notice 18-13 indicated general support for the
proposal to remove the control element from the quantitative
suitability obligation of FINRA Rule 2111.\21\ In general, these
commenters expressed that the proposed rule change was a reasonable and
effective approach to improving the rule,\22\ and believe it would
heighten investor protection.\23\ Some commenters raised questions with
particular aspects of the proposal or potential unintended
consequences.\24\ Several commenters were not supportive and raised
concerns with the proposal.\25\ Many of the comments have been rendered
moot by the SEC's adoption of Reg BI or the concerns raised have become
less relevant given that Reg BI is now the governing standard that
applies to recommendations to retail customers. For example, while some
commenters supported FINRA's proposal to remove the control element
from the quantitative suitability obligation because it was consistent
with the approach set forth in the proposed Reg BI,\26\ several
commenters indicated that FINRA's proposal was premature and that FINRA
should await the outcome of the SEC's proposed rulemaking.\27\ FINRA
did hold off in filing with the Commission the rule change proposed in
Regulatory Notice 18-13. With the final adoption of Reg BI, however,
the time is ripe to finalize this change. As a result, for
recommendations that remain subject to FINRA Rule 2111 (i.e.,
recommendations that are not covered by Reg BI), this aspect of the
proposed rule change will enable FINRA to more effectively address
instances of excessive trading by removing the element of control that
currently must be proved to demonstrate a violation and will align this
integral element of FINRA's suitability rule with corresponding
provision of Reg BI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Cornell; FSI; NASAA; Pace; PIABA; SEC OIA.
    \22\ See NASAA.
    \23\ See Cornell; FSI; NASAA; Pace; PIABA.
    \24\ See FSI; PIABA; SER.
    \25\ See Cambridge; Capital Forensics; Keesal; SIFMA.
    \26\ See FSI.
    \27\ See Cambridge; Keesal; SIFMA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Within 45 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 self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove 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 is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2020-007 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2020-007. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of FINRA. All comments received will be
posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that
we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
FINRA-2020-007 and should be submitted on or before April 15, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-06187 Filed 3-24-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 83 (Tuesday, April 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18296-18297]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08698]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2019-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1920]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the
supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek
general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and
where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. 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). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to
calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings
and the contents of those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before July 29, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location https://www.fema.gov/preliminary floodhazarddata and the
respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1920, to
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email) [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
[email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed 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. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and are used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM
and FIS report become effective.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of

experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences
established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and
provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be
exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a
collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a
mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information
regarding the SRP process can be found online at https://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_overview.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location
https://www.fema.gov/preliminary floodhazarddata and the respective
Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities
with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be
identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date
listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

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

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   City and Borough of Juneau, Alaska
Project: 15-10-0411S Preliminary Dates: August 25, 2017 and November 30,
                                  2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City and Borough of Juneau.............  Marine View Building, 230 South
                                          Franklin Street, Juneau, AK
                                          99801.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Bannock County, Idaho and Incorporated Areas
          Project: 16-10-0563S Preliminary Date: June 29, 2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Pocatello......................  City Hall, 911 North 7th
                                          Avenue, Pocatello, ID 83201.
Unincorporated Areas of Bannock County.  Bannock County Planning and
                                          Development, 5500 South 5th
                                          Avenue, Pocatello, ID 83204.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Burt County, Nebraska and Incorporated Areas
         Project: 16-07-2331S Preliminary Date: October 24, 2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Lyons..........................  City Office, 335 Main Street,
                                          Lyons, NE 68038.
City of Oakland........................  City Auditorium, 401 North
                                          Oakland Avenue, Oakland, NE
                                          68045.
City of Tekamah........................  Tekamah Auditorium, 1315 K
                                          Street, Tekamah, NE 68061.
Omaha Tribe of Nebraska................  Omaha Indian Tribe, 100 Main
                                          Street, Macy, NE 68039.
Unincorporated Areas of Burt County....  Burt County Courthouse, 111
                                          North 13th Street, Tekamah, NE
                                          68061.
Village of Craig.......................  Village Office, 196 North Main
                                          Street, Craig, NE 68019.
Village of Decatur.....................  Village Office, 913 South
                                          Broadway, Decatur, NE 68020.
Village of Herman......................  Village Office, 504 Main
                                          Street, Herman, NE 68029.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Grays Harbor County, Washington and Incorporated Areas
 Project: 13-10-0367S Preliminary Dates: August 31, 2018 and January 11,
                                  2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Elma...........................  Elma City Hall, 202 West Main
                                          Street, Elma, WA 98541.
City of Montesano......................  City Hall, 112 North Main
                                          Street, Montesano, WA 98563.
City of Oakville.......................  City Hall, 204 East Main
                                          Street, Oakville, WA 98568.
Confederated Tribes of Chehalis          Chehalis Tribal Center, 420
 Reservation.                             Howanut Road, Oakville, WA
                                          98568.
Unincorporated Areas of Grays Harbor     Grays Harbor Administration
 County.                                  Building, 100 West Broadway,
                                          Suite 31, Montesano, WA 98563.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2019-08698 Filed 4-29-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register: July 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 130)]
[Notices]
[Page 38443-38444]
[DOCID:fr07jy08-81]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP05-119-004 and CP05-121-003]

Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Application To Amend
Certificate

June 27, 2008.
    Take notice that on June 20, 2008, Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC
(Cameron Pipeline) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
an application under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act to amend its
existing certificate of public convenience and necessity. The
application seeks authority for Cameron Pipeline to increase the
maximum authorized certificated capacity of its facilities and to
revise its transportation rates, all as more fully set forth in the
application which is on file with the Commission and open to the public
for inspection.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The authorized contact person for Cameron Pipeline is William Rapp,
101 Ash Street, San Diego, CA 92101. The telephone number is (619) 699-
5050.

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either complete
its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's
public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of
Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    In this application, Cameron Pipeline seeks (i) to increase the
maximum authorized firm capacity of Cameron Pipeline's facilities to
2.35 Bcf per day from the currently-authorized level of 1.5 Bcf per
day; and (ii) approval of revised maximum transportation rates that
reflect both the proposed new level of authorized capacity and updated
construction costs. The estimated cost of construction of Cameron
Pipeline's facilities, (36.5 miles of 42-inch pipeline,
interconnections, metering and appurtenant facilities) and is now about
$195 million, an increase of $80 million from the estimate provided in
its previous amendment in 2006. Cameron Pipeline says that its request
for an increase in authorized capacity will align the maximum
authorized capacity with the actual firm capacity of Cameron Pipeline's
facilities, when they are completed and placed into service. Cameron
Pipeline proposes that its maximum interruptible and firm
transportation rates be decreased from the levels previously approved
by the Commission. Specifically, Cameron Pipeline proposes that the
maximum interruptible rate will decrease from $.0528 to $.0447, and the
maximum firm rate will decrease from $1.6056 to $1.3607.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant. On or before the comment date, it is
not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons
other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on July 18, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-15215 Filed 7-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 174 (Friday, September 9, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55285-55287]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19387]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2022-0671]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Steve Hemberger Wedding Fireworks, Bay Harbor, MI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
navigable waters within a 500-foot radius of a fireworks display in Bay
Harbor, MI. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels,
and the marine environment from potential hazards created by repair
work on the bridge. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is
prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port
Sault Sainte Marie.

DATES: This rule is effective from 11 p.m. on October 1, 2022 through
12 a.m. on October 2, 2022.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2022-0671 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type

column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LT. Deaven Palenzuela, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Sault
Sainte Marie Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 906-635-
3223, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The
Coast Guard did not receive sufficient notice of this event to undergo
notice and comment and this safety zone must be established by October
1, 2022 in order to protect the public from the dangers associated with
a fireworks display.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable because action is needed to ensure
that the potential safety hazards associated with the fireworks display
are effectively mitigated.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Sault Sainte
Marie (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with a
fireworks display on October 1, 2022 will be a safety concern for
anyone within a 500-foot radius of the navigable waters surrounding the
fireworks launch site. This rule is needed to protect personnel,
vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the
safety zone during the fireworks display.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 11 p.m. on October 1, 2022
until 12 a.m. on October 2, 2022. The safety zone will cover all
navigable waters within 500-feet of a fireworks display center in
position 45[deg]21'58.80'' N 85[deg]01'54.38'' W in Bay Harbor, MI. The
duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the
marine environment in these navigable waters while the bridge is being
repaired. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety
zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on size, location,
duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be
able to safely transit around this safety zone which would impact a
small designated area of Bay Harbor. Moreover, the Coast Guard will
issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about
the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter
the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes,

or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
safety zone lasting only 1 hour that will prohibit entry within a 500-
foot radius of a fireworks display center in position 45[deg]21'58.80''
N 85[deg]01'54.38'' W in Bay Harbor, MI. It is categorically excluded
from further review under paragraph L[60(a)] of Appendix A, Table 1 of
DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of
this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record
keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165-- REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0671 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0671  Safety Zone; Steve Hemberger Wedding Fireworks, Bay
Harbor, MI.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
water within 500-feet of the fireworks launching location in position
45[deg]21'58.80'' N 85[deg]01'54.38'' W (NAD 83).
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie (COTP) in the enforcement of the
safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety
zone described in paragraph (a) is prohibited unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port, Sault Sainte Marie or his designated
representative.
    (2) Before a vessel operator may enter or operate within the safety
zone, they must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port, Sault
Sainte Marie, or his designated representative via VHF Channel 16 or
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Vessel operators given permission to enter
or operate in the safety zone must comply with all orders given to them
by the Captain of the Port, Sault Sainte Marie or his designated
representative.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 11 p.m.
on October 1, 2022 until 12 a.m. on October 2, 2022.

    Dated: September 1, 2022.
A.R. Jones,
Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie.
[FR Doc. 2022-19387 Filed 9-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 87 (Thursday, May 5, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25686-25688]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11001]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-ORD-2011-0418; FRL-9302-4]

Human Studies Review Board (HSRB); Notification of a Public
Teleconference

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of the
Science Advisor (OSA) announces a public teleconference of the HSRB to
discuss its draft report from the April 13-14, 2011 HSRB meeting, and
consider a draft letter from an HSRB workgroup on providing research
participants with individualized study results measuring the amount of
antimicrobial cleaning products on participants' skin and the amount
they breathe in while mopping floors.

DATES: The teleconference will be held on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 from
approximately 1 p.m. to approximately 3 p.m. Eastern Time.

ADDRESSES: Submit your written comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-ORD-2011-0418, by one of the following methods:
    Internet: http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the Web site
instructions for submitting comments.
    E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
ORD Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460.
    Hand Delivery: The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is located in the EPA
Headquarters Library, Room Number 3334 in the EPA West Building,
located at 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. The
hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Please
call<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail the ORD Docket at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for
instructions. Updates to Public Reading Room access are available
online at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2011-0418. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comments includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comments and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any members of the public who wish to
receive further information should contact Jim Downing at telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Lu-Ann Kleibacker at telephone number: (202)
564-7189; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>mailing address: Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of the Science Advisor, 8105R, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460. General information concerning the EPA HSRB can be found on
the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Location: The meeting will take place via telephone only.
    Meeting access: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, please contact Lu-Ann Kleibacker at
least ten business days prior to the meeting using the information
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, so that appropriate arrangements
can be made.
    Procedures for providing public input: Interested members of the
public may submit relevant written or oral comments for the HSRB to
consider during the advisory process. Additional information concerning
submission of relevant written or oral comments is provided in section
I, ``Public Meeting,'' under subsection D, ``How May I Participate in
this Meeting?'' of this notice.

I. Public Meeting

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of particular interest to persons who conduct or assess
human studies, especially studies on substances regulated by EPA, or to
persons who are, or may be required to conduct testing of chemical
substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) or
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Since
other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to
describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to
a particular entity, consult Jim Downing or Lu-Ann Kleibacker listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How can I access electronic copies of this document and other
related information?

    In addition to using http://www.regulations.gov, you may access
this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet
under the ``Federal Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the ORD Docket, EPA/DC
Public Reading Room. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is located in the
EPA Headquarters Library, Room Number 3334 in the EPA West Building,
located at 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. The
hours of operation are 8:30 a.m to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday
through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Please call<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or e-mail the ORD Docket at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for instructions.
Updates to the Public Reading Room access are available on the Web site
(http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm).

C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you use
that support your views.
    4. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    5. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page
of your response. You may also provide the name, date and Federal
Register citation.

D. How may I participate in this meeting?

    You may participate in this meeting by following the instructions
in this section. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that
you identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-ORD-2011-0418 in the subject line
on the first page of your request.
    1. Oral comments. Requests to present oral comments will be
accepted up to Tuesday, May 17, 2011. To the extent that time permits,
interested persons who have not pre-registered may be permitted by the
Chair of the HSRB to present oral comments during the meeting. Each
individual or group wishing to make brief oral comments to the HSRB is
strongly advised to submit their request (preferably via e-mail) to Jim
Downing or Lu-Ann Kleibacker under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT no
later than noon, Eastern Time, Tuesday, May 17, 2011, in order to be
included on the meeting agenda and to provide sufficient time for the
HSRB Chair and HSRB Designated Federal Official (DFO) to review the
meeting agenda to provide an appropriate public comment period. The
request should identify the name of

the individual making the presentation and the organization (if any)
the individual will represent. Oral comments before the HSRB are
generally limited to five minutes per individual or organization.
Please note that this includes all individuals appearing either as part
of, or on behalf of, an organization. While it is our intent to hear a
full range of oral comments on the science and ethics issues under
discussion, it is not our intent to permit organizations to expand the
time limitations by having numerous individuals sign up separately to
speak on their behalf. If additional time is available, further public
comments may be possible.
    2. Written comments. Submit written comments prior to the meeting.
For the HSRB to have the best opportunity to review and consider your
comments as it deliberates on its report, you should submit your
comments at least five business days prior to the beginning of this
teleconference. If you submit comments after this date, those comments
will be provided to the Board members, but you should recognize that
the Board members may not have adequate time to consider those comments
prior to making a decision. Thus, if you plan to submit written
comments, the Agency strongly encourages you to submit such comments no
later than noon, Eastern Time, Tuesday, May 17, 2011. You should submit
your comments using the instructions in section I, under subsection C,
``What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?'' In
addition, the Agency also requests that persons submitting comments
directly to the docket also provide a copy of their comments to Jim
Downing or Lu-Ann Kleibacker listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT. There is no limit on the length of written comments for
consideration by the HSRB.

E. Background

    The HSRB is a Federal advisory committee operating in accordance
with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) 5 U.S.C. App.2 section
9. The HSRB provides advice, information, and recommendations to EPA on
issues related to scientific and ethical aspects of human subjects
research. The major objectives of the HSRB are to provide advice and
recommendations on: (1) Research proposals and protocols; (2) reports
of completed research with human subjects; and (3) how to strengthen
EPA's programs for protection of human subjects of research. The HSRB
reports to the EPA Administrator through the EPA Science Advisor.
    1. Topics for Discussion. The HSRB will be reviewing its draft
report from the April 13-14, 2011 HSRB meeting. The Board may also
discuss planning for future HSRB meetings. Background on the April 13-
14, 2011 HSRB meeting can be found at Federal Register Volume 76,
Number 59 (Monday, March 28, 2011), pages 17121-17123) and at the HSRB
Web site http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/. The April 13-14, 2011 meeting
draft report is now available. You may obtain electronic copies of this
document and certain other related documents that might be available
electronically from the http://www.regulations.gov Web site and the
HSRB Internet home page at http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb. The HSRB will
also review and consider a draft letter providing participants with
individualized study results that was provided at a previous HSRB
meeting. The HSRB was asked to provide feedback on the letter that will
be sent to the participants from the Antimicrobial Exposure Assessment
Task Force II that measured the amount of antimicrobial cleaning
products on participants' skin and the amount they breathe in while
mopping floors.
    For questions on document availability or if you do not have access
to the Internet, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: April 29, 2011.
Paul T. Anastas,
EPA Science Advisor.
[FR Doc. 2011-11001 Filed 5-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 20, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 203)]
[Notices]
[Page 62303]
[DOCID:fr20oc08-74]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1799-DR]

New Hampshire; 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 Hampshire (FEMA-1799-DR), dated October
3, 2008, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: October 3, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated October 3, 2008, the President declared a major disaster under
the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of New Hampshire resulting from severe storms and flooding during
the period of September 6-7, 2008, 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.
5121-5207 (the Stafford Act). Therefore, I declare that such a major
disaster exists in the State of New Hampshire.
    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 areas, Hazard Mitigation throughout the State, and any
other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act that you deem
appropriate. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance
be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act
for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs, except for any particular projects that are eligible
for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the FEMA Public
Assistance Pilot Program instituted pursuant to 6 U.S.C. 777. If
Other Needs Assistance under Section 408 of the Stafford Act is
later requested and warranted, Federal funding under that program
also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
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, Mark H. Landry, of FEMA is appointed
to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.
    The following areas of the State of New Hampshire have been
designated as adversely affected by this declared major disaster:

    Hillsborough County for Public Assistance.
    All counties within the State of New Hampshire 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.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
 [FR Doc. E8-24791 Filed 10-17-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P