[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 31, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6304-6306]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01886]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2023-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-2303]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

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).

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before May 1, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/prelimdownload 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-2303, 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 Mapping and Insurance
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.
    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://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/

prelimdownload 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, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Craighead County, Arkansas and Incorporated Areas
          Project: 18-06-0001S Preliminary Date: June 16, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Jonesboro......................  City Hall, 300 South Church
                                          Street, Jonesboro, AR 72401.
Unincorporated Areas of Craighead        Craighead County Annex, 511
 County.                                  Union, Room 119, Jonesboro, AR
                                          72401.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Black Hawk County, Iowa and Incorporated Areas
          Project: 17-07-0295S Preliminary Date: August 5, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Cedar Falls....................  City Hall, 220 Clay Street,
                                          Cedar Falls, IA 50613.
City of La Porte City..................  City Hall, 202 Main Street, La
                                          Porte City, IA 50651.
City of Waterloo.......................  City Hall, Planning and Zoning
                                          Department, 715 Mulberry
                                          Street, Waterloo, IA 50703.
Unincorporated Areas of Black Hawk       Black Hawk County Courthouse,
 County.                                  316 East 5th Street, Waterloo,
                                          IA 50703.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Roosevelt County, New Mexico and Incorporated Areas
          Project: 20-06-0114S Preliminary Date: August 9, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorporated Areas of Roosevelt        Roosevelt County Courthouse,
 County.                                  Planning Department, 109 West
                                          1st Street, Portales, NM
                                          88130.
Village of Causey......................  Roosevelt County Courthouse,
                                          Planning Department, 109 West
                                          1st Street, Portales, NM
                                          88130.
Village of Dora........................  Roosevelt County Courthouse,
                                          Planning Department, 109 West
                                          1st Street, Portales, NM
                                          88130.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Bertie County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas
        Project: 12-04-8614S Preliminary Date: September 30, 2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Town of Askewville.....................  Bertie County Inspection
                                          Department, 106 Dundee Street,
                                          Windsor, NC 27983.
Town of Colerain.......................  Town Hall, 101 B Winton Street,
                                          Colerain, NC 27924.
Town of Lewiston-Woodville.............  Town Hall, 103 West Church
                                          Street, Lewiston-Woodville, NC
                                          27849.
Town of Windsor........................  Building Inspections
                                          Department, 128 South King
                                          Street, Windsor, NC 27983.
Unincorporated Areas of Bertie County..  Bertie County Inspection
                                          Department, 106 Dundee Street,
                                          Windsor, NC 27983.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Martin County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas
        Project: 12-04-8614S Preliminary Date: September 30, 2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorporated Areas of Martin County..  Martin County Building
                                          Inspections Department, 205
                                          East Main Street, Williamston,
                                          NC 27892.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Pitt County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas
        Project: 12-04-8614S Preliminary Date: September 30, 2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorporated Areas of Pitt County....  Pitt County Planning
                                          Department, 1717 West 5th
                                          Street, Greenville, NC 27834.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Washington County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas
        Project: 12-04-8614S Preliminary Date: September 30, 2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Town of Creswell.......................  Town Hall, 104 South 6th
                                          Street, Suite 68, Creswell, NC
                                          27928.
Town of Plymouth.......................  Washington County Permits,
                                          Inspections, and Emergency
                                          Management Department, 205
                                          East Main Street, Plymouth, NC
                                          27962.
Town of Roper..........................  Mayor's Office, 301 West
                                          Buncombe Street, Roper, NC
                                          27970.
Unincorporated Areas of Washington       Washington County Permits,
 County.                                  Inspections, and Emergency
                                          Management Department, 205
                                          East Main Street, Plymouth, NC
                                          27962.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Tulsa County, Oklahoma and Incorporated Areas
         Project: 18-06-0010S Preliminary Date: August 26, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Bixby..........................  Public Works Dawes Building,
                                          113 West Dawes Avenue, Bixby,
                                          OK 74008.

City of Broken Arrow...................  Operations Building, 485 North
                                          Poplar Avenue, Broken Arrow,
                                          OK 74012.
City of Tulsa..........................  Stormwater Design Office, 2317
                                          South Jackson Avenue, Suite
                                          302, Tulsa, OK 74107.
Unincorporated Areas of Tulsa County...  Tulsa County Headquarters, 218
                                          West 6th Street, Suite 210,
                                          Tulsa, OK 74119.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Smith County, Tennessee and Incorporated Areas
          Project: 20-04-0039S Preliminary Date: July 28, 2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Town of Carthage.......................  Municipal Building, 314 Spring
                                          Street, Carthage, TN 37030.
Town of Gordonsville...................  City Hall, 63 East Main Street,
                                          Gordonsville, TN 38563.
Town of South Carthage.................  South Carthage Town Hall/
                                          Municipal Building, 106 South
                                          Main Street, Carthage, TN
                                          37030.
Unincorporated Areas of Smith County...  Smith County Planning
                                          Commission, 303 High Street
                                          North, Carthage, TN 37030.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Victoria County, Texas and Incorporated Areas
        Project: 15-06-0744S Preliminary Date: September 22, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Victoria.......................  700 Main Center--Development
                                          and Permitting Center, 702
                                          North Main Street, Suite 128,
                                          Victoria, TX 77901.
Unincorporated Areas of Victoria County  Victoria County, Dr. Pattie
                                          Dodson Public Health Center,
                                          2805 North Navarro Street,
                                          Suite 106, Victoria, TX 77901.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2023-01886 Filed 1-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


Proposed Amendments to the Zero Emission Vehicle Regulation March 27, 2003 April 24, 2003 2 Overview ° Recap of March Board meeting   Including testimony and proposed alternatives ° Additional staff analysis ° Summary of proposed regulation ° Staff recommendation 3 Recap of March Meeting ° What brought us to today ° Basic structure of proposed regulation ° Testimony and discussion ° Outstanding issues ° Board directives to staff 4 Amendments Needed ° To address legal challenges   ARB prohibited from enforcing regulation   2005 earliest practical restart date 5 Amendments Needed ° To align with technology status and market demand   No pure ZEV ready for mass deployment   Future ZEV development difficult to predict   Tremendous progress on PZEVs ( bronze)

and AT PZEVs ( silver)

providing new opportunities 6 Technology Status   140,000 PZEV sales expected in MY 2003 Graphic Courtesy Sacramento Bee 7 Preserving 2001 Compliance ° Some companies complied in good faith ° Built, marketed, placed ZEV products ° Earned legitimate credits ° Efforts should be recognized 8 Two Path Concept ° " Base Path"  for OEMs that invested early and have banked credits ° " Alternative Path"  smaller, fresh gold ( demonstration level), with higher silver option ( 4%), subject to review 9 March Testimony ° Few strong objections to " Base Path"

  Some concern about relaxation on changes related to later start date of 2005 vs. 2003 ° Significant opposition to " Alternative Path"

  Included initial target, out years, BEV role,

and timing and role of review panel 10 Staff's Sense of the Board ° Add future year targets for FCVs ° Explore all feasible means to bring BEVs back to the market place ° Fix plug in hybrid definition if that technology is moved to " gold" 11 Staff's Sense of the Board ° Draft resolution captures appropriate role of Independent Expert Review Panel  Board's discretion fully preserved ° 2011 sunset for travel provision addresses " leakage" concern for now 12 Still Unresolved ° 250 vs. 500 for initial FCV demo?

° Rationale, numbers for future FCVs?

° Incentivize or mandate BEVs?

 The latter by direct or indirect methods ° Call plug in HEVs " silver" or " gold"? 13 Directive to Staff ° Frame issues ° Discuss implications of alternatives ° Describe combined effects ° Clarify what Board is voting upon 14 The Big Picture ° Aiming for long term, mass market penetration ° Zero emissions still the goal ° Biggest hurdles are performance,

affordability, consumer acceptance, and ( for some vehicles) infrastructure 15 The Big Picture ° Bronze vehicles ( zero evaporative emission, extremely durable) and silver vehicles ( ZEV enabling) represent tremendous progress ° Pure ZEVs still elusive 16 The Big Picture ° Existing mandate has resulted in " work arounds," litigation, and intermittent product black outs ° OEMs are voting with their R& D dollars for fuel cell vehicles 17 The Big Picture ° Third party BEV manufacturers willing to enter, but only if price and/ or subsidies are sufficient and sustained 18 Issue by Issue Analysis ° 250 vs. 500 demonstration requirement ° Bringing BEVs back to market ° Future year FCV targets ° Plug in hybrids 19 Alternative Path  250 vs. 500 ° 250 based on stretch goal for FCVs ° 500 appears to be intended to indirectly leverage BEV production 20 Impact of Choosing 250 ° Manufacturers able to respond ° Base path OEMs may move to alternative path, increasing number of fresh ZEVs ° BEV substitution possible but unlikely 21 Impact of Choosing 500 ° Costs double from ~$ 250M to ~$ 500M ° Exceeds FCV developmental needs;

could slow advancement as OEMs seek lowest cost options ° BEV substitution more economically attractive but still unlikely 22 Impact of Choosing 500 ° Worst case outcome   OEMs avoid alternative path entirely   Seek banked credits   Delay action until 2008 hoping for change   Bottom line risk

Fewer fresh ZEVs No additional AT PZEVs 23 Alternative Path  250 vs. 500 ° Staff recommendation   Select 250 for 2001 2008 demonstration period   Allow BEV substitution   Retain 50% fresh FCV floor 24 Future FCV Targets ° Staff proposed " TBD," following input from Independent Expert Review Panel ° Several witnesses and Board Members sought specific targets now, even if revisions needed later 25 Basis for Targets °  Growth by Stages ( 10X)

  Progression of early production for unique vehicles, where units grow from tens to hundreds to thousands ° CalETC   Annual doubling ° UCS   DOE national goals, OEM public statements ° South Coast AQMD   2% gold plus 4% silver 26 2009 and Beyond 10X Cal ETC UCS SCAQMD 2009 2011 2500 2800 5000 32000 2012 2014 25000 22400 30000 55000 2015 2017 50000 71000 71000 73000 2018 2020 89000 89000 89000 91000 Cumulative Total 166500 185200 195000 251000 27 2009 and Beyond ° Implications   All approaches are similar in long term   All numbers are subject to Board review   Key point today is rationale 28 2009 and Beyond ° Staff recommendation in light of Board direction   Follow 10X rationale Consistent with DOE, scaled to CA Consistent with manufacturer discussions   Align with " red line" in 2018   Allow BEV substitution to continue 29 Concern About " Abandoning" BEVs ° Desire to keep existing BEVs rolling ° Desire to bring fresh BEVs to market by any feasible means 30 Incentives for Existing BEVs ° Staff recommendation   Increase credit for BEVs in use beyond three years   Remove battery warranty requirement 31 Incentives for New BEVs ° Staff recommendation   Provide 1.25 multiplier for City EVs ( Type I) and Full Function EVs ( Type II)

sold or leased with consumer option to purchase or re lease   Make effective in 2003 model year 32 BEV Substitution on Alternative Path ° Staff Recommendation   Allow BEVs to meet 50% of alternative path fresh credit requirement   Applies to 2003 and later new vehicles   Use cost based ratio, biased towards BEVs 20: 1 for Type 1 BEVs ( city cars)

10: 1 for Type 2 ( full function) 33 Incentives for BEVs ° Summary of BEV incentive impacts   Encourage continued availability of used BEVs   Encourage sale and open ended lease   Provide incentive for BEV production ( cost per credit is less than FCVs)

  No guarantee BEVs will be marketed; depends mostly on availability of financing for third party manufacturers   Higher BEV credits and BEV substitution would reduce total FCV numbers and reduce need for AT PZEVs 34 Plug in HEVs ° Current status   Plug in HEVs receive large silver credit 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Model Year Possible Credit Hydrogen Internal Combustion Hybrid Electric Vehicle Grid Hybrid with 60 miles range Indirect Methanol Fuel Cell Vehicle Hydrogen Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle Grid Hybrid with 20 miles range Compressed Natural Gas Hybrid Electric Vehicle Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle High Voltage, High Power Hybrid Electric Vehicle High Voltage Hybrid Electric Vehicle Low Voltage Hybrid Electric Vehicle HEV 20 HEV 60 HEV 0 35 Plug in HEVs ° Current status ( continued)

  OEMs have significant need for silver credits   Plug in HEVs more attractive than regular hybrids on cost per credit basis 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Plug in HEV 2,381 $ 2,381 $ 2,381 $ 2,381 $ 3,175 $

Level 2 HEV 5,500 $ 2,500 $ 2,500 $ 2,500 $ 2,000 $

Estimated Dollars Per ZEV Credit 36 Plug in HEVs ° Staff recommendation   If plug in HEVs become " gold," credit needs to be reduced to put plug ins on appropriate scale   Also, minimum range should be increased   Will add cost, possibly negating the change   Staff recommends leaving in " silver"

category 37 Summary of Proposal with Board Direction ° Major elements   Base and alternative paths   Credit calculations   Independent Expert Review Panel ° Total vehicles ( gold, silver, bronze)

° Air quality analysis 38 Base Path ° Preserve 2001 regulation structure ° Percentage ZEV requirements   2 % Gold   2 % Silver   6 % Bronze ° Allow use of banked credits 39 Alternative Compliance Path ° Requires market share of FCV totals:

° Allows:

  50% of FCV requirement to be met with BEVs   Rest of ZEV obligation to be met with AT PZEVs 2005 2008 250 2009 2011 2500 2012 2014 25000 2015 2017 50000 40 ZEV ( Gold) Credits ° Remove efficiency multiplier ° Extend credit incentive for early FCVs ° Create and weight ZEV categories:

  NEV, Type 0, Type I, Type II, Type III ° Adjust credits over time 41 AT PZEV ( Silver) Credits ° Remove efficiency multiplier and fuel economy references ° Modify credit calculations   Level 1, 2 and 3 HEVs   Zero emission range   Low fuel cycle emissions   CNG 42 Other Modifications ° Incentives for early PZEV production ° Reaffirm addition of LDT 2 to baseline ° Transportation system credit ° Placed in service deadline ° Banked NEV credit cap ° Severability clauses 43 Expert Review Panel ° Independent experts ° Assess ZEV and AT PZEV technologies   Fuel cell, battery, advanced componentry   Technology and market readiness   Provide Board with data to support review of future ZEV requirements 44 Number of Vehicles ° General effect of today's changes   Increases number of fresh ZEVs on alternative path by adding later year targets   Decreases AT PZEVs on alternative path since fewer offsets needed   No change to base path, 2001 2008 demonstration period, or PZEV requirements 45 Number of Vehicles ZEVs 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Model Year Number of Vehicles Gold Alternative path March version Gold Alternative path April version Gold Base path 46 Number of Vehicles AT PZEVs 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000 450000 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Model Year Number of Vehicles Silver Alternative path March version Silver Alternative path April version Silver Base path 47 Air Quality Analysis ° Emission reductions ° Response to environmental issues raised   Fleet turnover effect   Upstream emissions from hydrogen infrastructure 48 Emission Reductions ( Tons per day, South Coast Air Basin)

° Will also reduce CO and air toxics ROG NOx Net Change from March amendments 2010 0.06 0.00 2020 0.12 0.21 Net Change from 2001 amendments 2010 0.03  0.06 2020 0.08 0.04 Net Change from no ZEV program 2010  0.32  1.02 2020  3.16  2.02 49 Response to Environmental Issues Raised ( CEQA)

° Fleet turnover   Based on analysis to date, no reason to modify previous staff conclusion ° Emissions from hydrogen infrastructure   In near term, insignificant   Many options   Long term vision sustainable and renewable production 50 Staff Recommendation ° Approve the proposed amendments to the 2001 ZEV regulation   Maintains air quality benefit   Addresses litigation   Allows ZEV program to be implemented   Maintains progress towards transforming California's vehicle fleet to zero emissions


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 136 (Friday, July 15, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41725-41726]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17850]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 136 / Friday, July 15, 2011 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0515; Airspace Docket No. 11-ANM-11]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Miles City, MT

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify Class E airspace at Frank Wiley
Field, Miles City, MT, to accommodate aircraft using new Area
Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument
approach procedures at Frank Wiley Field. Additionally, the geographic
coordinates for Frank Wiley Field would be adjusted. The FAA is
proposing this action to enhance the safety and management of aircraft
operations at the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 29, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2011-
0515; Airspace Docket No. 11-ANM-11, at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 (FAA Docket No.
FAA 2011-0515 and Airspace Docket No. 11-ANM-11) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ``ADDRESSES'' section
for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to FAA
Docket No. FAA-2011-0515 and Airspace Docket No. 11-ANM-11''. The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. 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 http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/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 a.m. and 5 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, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA
98057.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Class E surface airspace and
Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at
Frank Wiley Field, Miles City, MT. Controlled airspace is necessary to
accommodate aircraft using new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach
procedures at the Airport, and would enhance the safety and management
of aircraft operations. This action would also adjust the geographic
coordinates for Frank Wiley Field to coincide with the FAA's
aeronautical database.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 and
6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9U, dated August 18, 2010, and
effective September 15, 2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will
be published subsequently in this Order.
    The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation: (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 this proposed 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.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority for 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 the
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 creates additional controlled airspace at Frank Wiley Field,
Miles City, MT.

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1 of the
Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September
15, 2010 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6002 Class E airspace Designated as Surface Areas.

* * * * *

ANM MT E2 Miles City, MT [Modified]

Miles City, Frank Wiley Field, MT
    (Lat. 46[deg]25'41'' N., long. 105[deg]53'11'' W.)

    Within a 4.9-mile radius of Frank Wiley Field, and within 3
miles each side of the 226[deg] bearing of Frank Wiley Field
extending from the 4.9-mile radius to 10.8 miles southwest of the
airport, and within 3 miles each side of the 253[deg] bearing of
Frank Wiley Field extending from the 4.9-mile radius to 9.4 miles
west of the airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during
the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously
published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ANM MT E5 Miles City, MT [Modified]

Miles City, Frank Wiley Field, MT
    (Lat. 46[deg]25'41'' N., long. 105[deg]53'11'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.4-mile radius of Frank Wiley Field, and within 3.1 miles
each side of the 047[deg] bearing from Frank Wiley Field extending
from the 7.4-mile radius to 15.5 miles northeast of the airport, and
within 3.5 miles each side of the 226[deg] bearing from Frank Wiley
Field, extending from the 7.4-mile radius to 15 miles southwest of
the airport, and within 4.5 miles each side of the 253[deg] bearing
from Frank Wiley Field, extending from the 7.4-mile radius to 12
miles west of the airport; that airspace extending upward from 1,200
feet above the surface within a 34.5-mile radius of Frank Wiley
Field.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on July 7, 2011.
John Warner,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2011-17850 Filed 7-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 414-415]
[FR Doc No: 2010-33146]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement for the Los Angeles to San
Luis Obispo (LOSSAN North) Rail Corridor Improvements Studies: Los
Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo counties, California

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: FRA is issuing this notice to advise the public that FRA with
the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) will jointly
prepare a Tier-1 environmental impact statement (EIS) and a program
environmental impact report (EIR) for rail corridor improvements to the
Los Angeles to San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN North) rail corridor (LOSSAN
North Program). FRA is also issuing this notice to solicit public and
agency input into the development of the scope of the EIR/EIS and to
advise the public that outreach activities conducted by Caltrans and
its representatives will be considered in the preparation of the EIR/
EIS. The objective of the Tier-1 EIR/EIS is to evaluate alternatives
and present thorough environmental analysis to help make corridor level
decisions regarding the level of intercity passenger rail service
provided in the corridor, including variations in train frequency, trip
time, and on-time performance.

DATES: Locations, dates, and start and end times for public meetings
involving the EIS are listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding the
Tier-1 environmental review, please contact: Ms. Lea Simpson, Manager,
California Department of Transportation, Division of Rail, MS 74, PO
Box 942874, Sacramento, CA 94274-0001, (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) or Ms.
Melissa Elefante DuMond, Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of
Railroad Policy and Development, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE. (Mail Stop 20), Washington, DC 20590, (telephone
202-493-6366).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose and Need

    FRA and Caltrans have determined that improvements to the existing
LOSSAN North rail corridor are necessary to meet the expected growth in
population and resulting increases in intercity travel demand between
Los Angeles and San Luis Obispo. As a result of this growth in travel
demand, their travel delays from the growing congestion on California's
highways and at airports will increase. In terms of passenger volume,
the LOSSAN corridor is the second-busiest intercity rail corridor in
the nation, after the Northeast Corridor connecting Washington DC, New
York, and Boston. However, rail capacity constraints result in rail
congestion and travel delays which is compounded by delays related to
weather conditions, accidents and other factors which collectively
result in unreliable rail service. In addition, in some cases rail
infrastructure has not been upgraded or improved in over one hundred
years. Goals of the project underlying the environmental review include
increasing the cost-effectiveness of State-supported intercity
passenger rail systems; increasing the rail capacity on existing
routes; reduction in running times to attract additional riders and to
provide a more attractive service; and improvement to the safety of
State-supported intercity rail service.

Rail Services Along Corridor

    Amtrak uses the LOSSAN rail corridor for the Pacific Surfliner
Service between Los Angeles and San Luis Obispo that is supported by
Caltrans. Amtrak's Coast Starlight (service between Los Angeles, the
Bay Area, and Portland/Seattle) also operates on the corridor. The
Southern California Regional Rail Authority also uses the LOSSAN rail
corridor for their Metrolink commuter rail service between Los Angeles
and Ventura. Union Pacific operates freight service along the corridor.

Environmental Review Process

    The EIS/EIR will be developed in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 and the Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR part 1500 et seq.)
implementing NEPA; the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
Division 13, Public Resources Code; and FRA's Procedures for
Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR 28545; May 26, 1999). The FRA
and the Caltrans will use a tiered process, as provided for in 40 CFR
1508.28 and in accordance with FRA Procedures for the completion of the
environmental review of the LOSSAN North Program.
    ``Tiering'' is a staged environmental review process often applied
to environmental reviews for complex transportation projects. The
initial phase (Tier-1 EIS) of this process will

address broad questions and likely environmental effects for the entire
corridor including, but not limited to, the type of service(s) being
proposed, including cities and stations served, route alternatives,
service levels, types of operations (speed, electric, or diesel
powered), ridership projections, major infrastructure components, and
identification of major terminal area or facility capacity constraints.
Subsequent phases or tiers will analyze, at a greater level of detail,
narrower site-specific proposals based on any decisions made in the
Tier-1 EIR/EIS.

Alternatives

    Alternatives to be evaluated and analyzed in the Program EIR/EIS
include a no-action (No-Project or No-Build) scenario and an
alternative with multiple options that considers the construction of
incremental, independent passenger rail improvements in the LOSSAN
North rail corridor. Possible environmental impacts include
displacement of commercial and residential properties; disproportionate
impacts to minority and low-income populations; community and
neighborhood disruption; increased noise and vibration along the rail
corridor; traffic impacts associated with stations; effects to historic
properties or archaeological sites; impacts to parks and recreation
resources; visual quality effects; exposure to seismic and flood
hazards; impacts to water resources, wetlands, and sensitive biological
species and habitat; land use compatibility impacts; energy use; and
impacts to agricultural lands.

No-Build Alternative

    The no action (No-Project or No-Build) alternative is defined to
serve as the baseline for comparison of all alternatives. The No-Build
Alternative represents the State's transportation system (highway, air,
and rail) as it exists, and as it would exist after completion of
programs or projects currently funded or being implemented. The No-
Build Alternative would draw upon the following sources of information:
     State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
     Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) for all modes of
travel.
     Airport plans.
     Passenger rail plans.

Passenger Rail Alternative and Options

    The LOSSAN North Program improvements are incremental, independent
rail upgrade projects to the LOSSAN corridor. The Passenger Rail
Alternative will have ``options'' that consider timing of the
improvements and logical groupings of improvements that reflect likely
funding scenarios. The upgrade of the LOSSAN rail corridor was
previously studied in the LOSSAN North Corridor Strategic Plan issued
in October 2007, which identified major improvements that could be
undertaken between the Los Angeles Union Station and the San Luis
Obispo Amtrak Station. The improvements to be discussed in the program
EIR/EIS may include:
     Track upgrades.
     Curve realignments.
     Siding extensions and upgrades.
     Addition of second main track.
     Grade separations.
     Station and platform upgrades.
     Track realignments.
     Run-through tracks.
     Pedestrian crossing upgrades.
     Installation of Centralized Traffic Control (CTC).

Scoping and Comments

    FRA encourages broad participation in the EIR/EIS process during
scoping and subsequent review of the resulting environmental document.
Letters describing the proposed project and soliciting comments were
sent to appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, and appropriate
railroads. Comments and suggestions are invited from all interested
agencies and the public at large to insure the full range of issues
related to the proposed action and all reasonable alternatives are
addressed and all significant issues are identified. In particular, FRA
is interested in determining whether there are areas of environmental
concern where there might be the potential for significant impacts
identifiable at a program level. Public agencies with jurisdiction are
requested to advise the FRA and Caltrans of the applicable permit and
environmental review requirements of each agency, and the scope and
content of the environmental information that is germane to the
agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed
improvements.
    Scoping meetings will be advertised locally and are planned for the
following major cities along the LOSSAN North rail corridor at the
dates and times indicated:
     Los Angeles: January 10, 2011; 5 through 7 PM; Los Angeles
County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Headquarters--
Board Room One Gateway Plaza, Los Angeles, CA.
     Ventura: January 11, 2011; 5 through 7 PM; Camarillo
Public Library, 4101 Las Posas Road, Camarillo, CA 93010.
     Santa Barbara: January 12, 2011; 5 through 7 PM; Louise
Lowry Davis Center, Lu Gilbert Room, 1232 De La Vina St., Santa
Barbara, CA, 93101.
     San Luis Obispo: January 13, 2011; 5 through 7 PM; San
Luis Obispo City/County Public Library, Community Room, 995 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401.
    Persons interested in providing comments on the scope of the Tier-1
EIR/EIS should do so by February 3, 2011. Comments can be sent in
writing to Ms. Melissa Elefante DuMond at the FRA address identified
above. Comments may also be addressed to Ms. Lea Simpson of Caltrans at
their address identified above. Information regarding the environmental
review process and technical studies will be made available through
Caltrans' rail services Internet site: http://www.amtrakcalifornia.com/.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 28, 2010.
Karen Rae,
Deputy Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-33146 Filed 1-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 23 (Friday, February 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5611-5613]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2396]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66279; File No. SR-FINRA-2011-059]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt FINRA
Rule 3230 (Telemarketing) in the FINRA Consolidated Rulebook

January 30, 2012.

I. Introduction

    On October 13, 2011, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'' or ``Act'') \1\ and
Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to adopt FINRA Rule
3230 (Telemarketing) in the FINRA Consolidated Rulebook. The proposed
rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on
November 2, 2011.\3\ The Commission received one comment letter, from
the Cornell Securities Law Clinic (the ``Clinic''), in response to the
proposal,\4\ and a response from FINRA to the Clinic's comments.\5\ The
text of the proposed rule change and FINRA's Response Letter are
available on FINRA's Web site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal
office of FINRA, on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov,
and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Exchange Act Release No. 65645 (November 2, 2011), 76 FR
67787 (November 4, 2011) (``Notice'').
    \4\ See comment letter submitted by William A. Jacobson,
Associate Clinical Professor and Director, Cornell Securities Law
Clinic, and Tamara Gavrilova, Cornell Law School, Class of 2013, to
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC, dated November 21, 2011
(``Cornell Letter'').
    \5\ See letter from Matthew E. Vitek, Counsel, FINRA, to
Elizabeth Murphy, Secretary, SEC, dated December 15, 2011
(``Response Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This order approves the proposed rule change.

II. Description of the Proposal

    As described in more detail in the Notice,\6\ FINRA proposed to
adopt FINRA Rule 3230 (Telemarketing) based largely on NASD Rule 2212.
FINRA also proposed to delete NYSE Rule 440A and its Interpretation,\7\
but to include certain of their provisions in Rule 3230. These include
caller identification rules based on Rule 440A(h) requiring members
engaging in telemarketing to transmit caller identification information
to persons they call and not to block the transmission of such
information. In addition, FINRA proposed to include provisions
substantially similar to those contained in rules of the Federal Trade
Commission (``FTC'') that prohibit deceptive and other abusive
telemarketing acts or practices. These include a provision requiring
members making outbound telephone calls to maintain a record of a
person's request not to receive such calls indefinitely rather than for
only five years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Notice, supra note 3.
    \7\ For convenience, the Notice referred to Incorporated NYSE
Rules as NYSE Rules, and this order follows that convention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA explained that NASD Rule 2212 and NYSE Rule 440A are similar
rules that require members to maintain do-not-call lists, limit the
hours of telephone solicitations and prohibit members from using
deceptive and abusive acts and practices in connection with
telemarketing. The Commission directed FINRA and NYSE to enact these
telemarketing rules in accordance with the Telemarketing Consumer Fraud
and Abuse Prevention Act of 1994 (``Prevention Act'').\8\ The
Prevention Act requires the Commission to promulgate or direct any
national securities exchange or registered securities association to
promulgate rules substantially similar to the FTC rules to prohibit
deceptive and other abusive telemarketing acts or practices.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 6101-6108.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 6102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2003, the FTC and the Federal Communications Commission
(``FCC'') established a national do-not-call registry, and, pursuant to
the Prevention

Act, the Commission requested that FINRA and NYSE amend their
telemarketing rules to require that their members participate. In 2004,
the Commission approved amendments to NASD Rule 2212 requiring member
firms to participate in the national do-not-call registry.\10\ The
following year, the Commission approved amendments to NYSE Rule 440A,
which were similar to the NASD rule amendments, but included additional
provisions regarding the use of caller identification information, pre-
recorded messages, telephone facsimiles and computer
advertisements.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Exchange Act Release No. 49055 (January 12, 2004), 69
FR 2801 (January 20, 2004).
    \11\ See Exchange Act Release No. 52579 (October 7, 2005), 70 FR
60119 (October 14, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Earlier this year, Commission staff directed FINRA to conduct a
review of its telemarketing rule and propose rule amendments that
provide protections at least as strong as those provided by the FTC's
telemarketing rules.\12\ Commission staff had expressed concerns to
FINRA and the other SROs that, overall, their telemarketing rules may
not have kept pace with the FTC's rules, for example by not requiring a
firm-specific opt out to be honored indefinitely as under the FTC's
rules, and thus may no longer meet the standards of the Prevention
Act.\13\ FINRA filed the proposed rule change in response to these
concerns.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See letter from Robert W. Cook, Director, Division of
Trading and Markets, SEC, to Richard G. Ketchum, Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, FINRA, dated May 10, 2011.
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ See Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA advised that it would announce the implementation date of the
proposed rule change in a Regulatory Notice to be published no later
than 90 days following Commission approval, and that the implementation
date would be no later than 180 days following Commission approval.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Comments

    In its comment letter,\16\ the Clinic generally supported the
proposed rule on the basis that it would comply with the Prevention Act
and expressed the belief that it would be ``an important step in
preventing members from using deceptive and abusive practices when
telemarketing.'' The Clinic did, however, make some proposed
recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Cornell Letter, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Clinic recommended that the proposed rule should incorporate
additional provisions in NYSE Rule 440A regarding prerecorded messages
and the use of telephone facsimile or computer advertisements. The
Clinic also recommended that FINRA revise its proposal to eliminate the
exception from proposed Rule 3230(k), which would permit prerecorded
messages the meet the conditions of the proposed ``safe harbor'' for
abandoned calls under proposed subparagraph (j)(2). In addition, the
Clinic opined that its proposed amendments to the proposed rule would
provide customers with additional protection against invasive and
abusive telemarketing techniques.
    In its Response Letter,\17\ FINRA stated that it did not believe it
should amend the proposed rule change to adopt the Clinic's proposed
amendments. FINRA stated that at the time the NYSE adopted Rule 440A's
provisions regarding prerecorded messages and the use of telephone
facsimile or computer advertisements, the NYSE stated that broker-
dealers were subject to the FCC's telemarketing rules, and,
accordingly, the NYSE modeled NYSE Rule 440A based on applicable FCC
telemarketing rules.\18\ Because broker-dealers remain subject to
substantially similar FCC provisions regarding prerecorded messages and
the use of telephone facsimile or computer advertisements, FINRA
believes that adding the additional provisions of Rule 440A to the
proposed rule is unnecessary.\19\ Moreover, the proposed rule, at
Supplementary Material .01, includes a reminder to member firms
regarding their obligation to comply with relevant federal and state
laws and rules, including FCC rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Response Letter, supra note 5.
    \18\ Id. (citing Exchange Act Release No. 52308 (August 19,
2005), 70 FR 49961, 49964 (August 25, 2005)).
    \19\ Id. (citing 47 CFR 64.1200 and 47 CFR 68.318).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA also stated that it did not believe it should eliminate the
exception from proposed Rule 3230(k), which would permit prerecorded
messages the meet the conditions of the proposed ``safe harbor'' for
abandoned calls under proposed subparagraph (j)(2). FINRA stated that
this exception would be substantially similar to FCC and FTC exemptions
for prerecorded messages complying with a ``safe harbor'' for abandoned
calls.\20\ In addition, FINRA's Response Letter cited to the FTC's
rationale that ``a total ban on abandoned calls would amount to a ban
on predictive dialers, and would not strike the proper balance between
addressing an abusive practice and allowing for a technology that
reduces costs for telemarketers.'' \21\ Further, FINRA restated the
FTC's and FCC's recognition that ``a prerecorded message that provides
identification information not only mitigates consumers' fears, but
also makes it easier for consumers to make a do-not-call request of a
company by calling the number provided in the message.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id. (citing 16 CFR 310.4(b)(1)(v)).
    \21\ Id. (citing FTC, Telemarketing Sales Rule, 68 FR 4580, 4642
(January 29, 2003)).
    \22\ Id. (citing 68 FR 4580, supra note 23, at 4644, and FCC,
Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, 68 FR 44144, 44164 (July 25, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    After careful review of the proposed rule change, the Cornell
Letter, and FINRA's Response Letter, the Commission finds 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 association.\23\ In particular, the Commission
finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section
15A(b)(6) of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.\24\
Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act requires, among other things, that FINRA
rules 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
rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, protect investors and the public interest, and promote just
and equitable principles of trade by strengthening protections against
deceptive and other abusive telemarketing acts or practices in the
securities industry. Accordingly, the Commission finds that good cause
exists to approve the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). Commenters did not raise concerns
about the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition and
capital formation.
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\25\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2011-059) be, and
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-2396 Filed 2-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P