[Federal Register: October 11, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 195)]
[Notices]
[Page 59066-59067]
[DOCID:fr11oc05-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application for Transfer of License and To Change Name
of Project and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

October 4, 2005.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed

with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Transfer of License and Change of Project
Name.
    b. Project No.: 539-006.
    c. Date Filed: September 27, 2005.
    d. Applicants: Kentucky Utilities Company (Transferor); Lock 7
Hydro Partners, LLC (Transferee).
    e. Name and Location of Project: The Lock No. 7 Hydroelectric
Project is located at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Kentucky River
Lock and Dam No. 7 in Mercer County, Kentucky.
    f. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    g. Applicants Contacts: For the transferor: John Wolfram, Kentucky
Utilities Company, c/o LG&E Services, 220 West Main Street, Louisville,
KY 40202,<PHONE_NUMBER>. For the transferee: David Brown Kinloch,
Shaker Landing Hydro Associates, Inc., 414 South Wenzel Street,
Louisville, KY 40204,<PHONE_NUMBER> and Larry Hicks, Salt River
Electric, 111 West Brashear Avenue, Bardstown, KY 40004, (502) 348-
3931.
    h. FERC Contact: James Hunter at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: November 7, 2005.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and
interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the
Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission
strongly encourages electronic filings. Please include the Project
Number on any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing a document with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the documents on that resource agency.
    j. Description of Application: The Applicants seek Commission
approval to transfer the license for the Lock No. 7 Hydroelectric
Project from the Transferor to the Transferee. The Transferee also
requests that the name of the project be changed to the Mother Ann Lee
Hydroelectric Station.
    k. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket

number (P-539) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is

also available for inspection and reproduction at the addresses in item
g. above.
    l. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    m. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    n. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', OR
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Project Number of the
particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-
named documents must be filed by providing the original and eight
copies to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to
intervene must also be served upon each representative of the
Applicants specified in the particular application.
    o. Agency Comments--Federal, State, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicants.
If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for
filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of
an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicants'
representatives.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-5555 Filed 10-7-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 137)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 40813]
[DOCID:fr16jy08-32]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2007-1105; FRL-8580-2]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Mojave
Desert Air Quality Management District and Ventura County Air Pollution
Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Mojave Desert Air
Quality Management District and Ventura County Air Pollution Control
District portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP).
These revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from
marine coating operations and wood coating products. We are proposing
to approve local rules to regulate these emission sources under the
Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by August 15, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2007-1105, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. 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.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region
IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents
in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI).
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment
during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia G. Allen, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4120<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal addresses the following local
rules: MDAQMD Rule 1106 and VCAPCD Rule 74.30. In the Rules and
Regulations section of this Federal Register, we are approving these
local rules in a direct final action without prior proposal because we
believe these SIP revisions are not controversial. If we receive
adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule and address the comments in subsequent action based
on this proposed rule. Please note that if we receive adverse comment
on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment.
    We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone
interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not
receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further
information, please see the direct final action.

    Dated: June 3, 2008.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E8-16019 Filed 7-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 224 (Monday, November 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 71182]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29295]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

RTCA Program Management Committee

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Program Management Committee meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of the RTCA Program Management Committee.

DATES: The meeting will be held December 8, 2010 from 8:30 a.m. to 1:30
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1828 L Street, NW.,
Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW.,
Suite 850, Washington, DC 20036; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (202)
833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice
is hereby given for a RTCA Program Management Committee meeting. The
agenda will include:
     Opening Plenary (Welcome and Introductions)
     Review/Approve Summary of September 15, 2010 PMC meeting,
RTCA Paper No. 198-10/PMC-826.
     Publication Consideration/Approval
      Final Draft, New Document, Safety, Performance and
Interoperability Requirements Document for ATSA-SURF Application, RTCA
Paper No. 197-10/PMC-825, prepared by SC-186.
      Final Draft, New Document, Safety, Performance and
Interoperability Requirements Document for ADS-B Airport Surface
Surveillance Application (ADS-B-APT), RTCA Paper No. 200-10/PMC-828,
prepared by SC-186.
      Final Draft, New Document, Safety, Performance and
Interoperability Requirements Document for Enhanced Traffic Situational
Awareness on the Airport Surface with Indications and Alerts, RTCA
Paper No. 194-10/PMC-824, prepared by SC-186.
      Final Draft, Revised DO-160F, Environmental Conditions
and Test Procedures for Airborne Equipment, RTCA Paper No. 201-10/PMC-
829, prepared by SC-135.
      Final Draft, New Document, Safety and Performance
Requirements (SPR) for Aeronautical Information Services (AIS) and
Meteorological (MET) Data Link Services, RTCA Paper No. 202-10/PMC-830,
prepared by SC-206.
      Final Draft, New Document, Airworthiness Security Process
Specification, RTCA Paper No. 203-10/PMC-831, prepared by SC-216.
      Final Draft, New Document, Minimum Operational
Performance Standards for Automatic Flight Guidance and Control Systems
and Equipment, RTCA Paper No. 204-10/PMC-832, prepared by SC-220.
     Integration and Coordination Committee (ICC)--Status
Report
     Action Item Review
      SC-206--Aeronautical Information Services (AIS) Data
Link--Review/Approve Revised Terms of Reference--Co-Chairman Review/
Approval
      MASPS/MOPS/SPR/Concepts--Discussion
     Discussion
      Rechargeable and Permanently Installed Lithium
Batteries--Small and Medium Size--Discussion--Possible New Special
Committee
      SC-222--Inmarsat AMS(R)S--Discussion--Review/Approve
Revised Terms of Reference
      SC-219--Attitude and Heading Reference Systems (AHRS)--
Discussion--Review/Approve Revised Terms of Reference
      SC-217/WG-44--Terrain and Airport Databases--Discussion--
Review/Approve Revised Terms of Reference
      SC-216--Aeronautical Systems Security--Discussion--
Review/Approve Revised Terms of Reference
      SC-214/WG-78--Standards for Air Traffic Data
Communications Services--Discussion--Review/Approve Revised Terms of
Reference
      SC-203--Unmanned Aircraft Systems--Co-Chairman Review/
Approval
      SC-135--Environmental Test--Discussion--Review/Approve
Revised Terms of Reference
      SC-159--Global Positioning System--Discussion--Committee
Status
      Trajectory Operations--Discussion--Status
      Special Committees--Chairmen's Reports SC-216--
Aeronautical Systems
     Closing Plenary (Other Business, Document Production and
PMC Meeting Schedule Meeting, Adjourned)
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Members of the public may present a written statement to the
committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 15, 2010.
Robert L. Bostiga,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2010-29295 Filed 11-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 186 (Friday, September 25, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57751-57753]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24148]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-3942; Directorate Identifier 2014-SW-064-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation
(Sikorsky) Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede airworthiness directive (AD) 2014-07-
04R1 for certain Sikorsky Model S-92A helicopters. AD 2014-07-04R1
currently requires repetitive inspections in the upper deck area for
incorrectly installed clamps and chafing between the electrical wires
and the hydraulic lines and replacing any unairworthy wires or
hydraulic lines. Since we issued AD 2014-07-04R1, the manufacturer has
developed an alteration that corrects the unsafe condition described in
AD 2014-07-04R1. This proposed AD would require altering the wiring
system in the upper deck area. These proposed actions are intended to
prevent a fire in an area of the helicopter without extinguishing
capability and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 24,
2015.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments 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 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
3942; or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the economic evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Customer Service Engineering, 124 Quarry
Road, Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1-800-Winged-S or<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may review service information at
the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, Texas 76177.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ian Lucas, Aviation Safety Engineer,
Boston Aircraft Certification Office, Engine & Propeller Directorate,
FAA, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to
the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might
result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as
a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this

proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Discussion

    On March 28, 2014, we issued AD 2014-07-04, Amendment 39-17818 (79
FR 21385, April 16, 2014), for certain serial-numbered Sikorsky Model
S92A helicopters. AD 2014-07-04 required repetitively inspecting the
upper deck area for incorrectly installed clamps and chafing between
the electrical wires and the hydraulic lines, replacing any unairworthy
wires or hydraulic lines, and correcting any clamps that were installed
incorrectly. Due to typographical errors when the AD was published, an
incorrect serial number and an incorrect reference to the service
information appeared in the text of the rule. On August 21, 2014, we
issued AD 2014-07-04R1, Amendment 39-17964 (79 FR 54893, September 15,
2014), to correct these errors.

Actions Since AD 2014-07-04R1 Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2014-07-04R1 (79 FR 54893, September 15, 2014),
Sikorsky has developed an alteration to correct the unsafe condition
described in AD 2014-07-04R1. The alteration creates separate engine
inlet and alternating current (AC) generator feeder lines, which were
previously combined as an assembly. The new engine inlet feeder lines
are rerouted through the cabin to the AC power distributors. The
alteration also involves removing certain hydraulic to electrical
clamps, which support the top deck main harnesses, and adding
independent electrical brackets to create greater separation from the
hydraulic lines. These proposed actions are intended to alter the
wiring installation in the upper deck to prevent chafing between the
electrical lines and hydraulic hoses. This condition, if not prevented,
could result in a fire in an area of the helicopter without
extinguishing capability and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of this same type design.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Sikorsky has issued Special Service Instructions SSI No. 92-070A,
Revision A, dated April 25, 2014 (SSI 92-070A), which contains
procedures to alter the wiring system in the upper deck area to prevent
chafing. This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by means identified in the Addresses Section of this
proposed AD.

Other Related Service Information

    We also reviewed Alert Service Bulletin ASB 92-20-003, Basic Issue,
dated May 5, 2014 (ASB 92-20-003). ASB 92-20-003 specifies a one-time
modification of the upper deck wiring harnesses to prevent possible
chafing by complying with SSI 92-070A.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require altering the wiring system in the
upper deck area.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    The service information provides a compliance date of November 5,
2015; the proposed AD would require a compliance time of 150 hours TIS.
Also, the service information requires submitting certain documentation
to the manufacturer, and the proposed AD would not.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 20 helicopters of
U.S. Registry.
    We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order
to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work hour.
Rerouting the upper deck wiring system and replacing and installing new
parts would take 58 work hours and $8,000 in required parts, for a
total cost of $12,930 per helicopter and $258,600 for the fleet.

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.
    We are 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

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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, I certify this proposed regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    4. 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.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2014-07-04R1, Amendment 39-17964 (79 FR 54893, September 15, 2014), and
adding the following new AD:

Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation: Docket No. FAA-2015-3942; Directorate
Identifier 2014-SW-064-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model S-92A helicopters, serial number 920006
through 920084, certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as an incorrectly installed
clamp that does not

provide adequate clearance to prevent chafing between the high
voltage electrical lines and the hydraulic hoses. This condition
could result in a fire in an area of the helicopter without
extinguishing capability and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter.

(c) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2014-07-04R1, Amendment 39-17964 (79 FR
54893, September 15, 2014).

(d) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by November 24, 2015.

(e) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(f) Required Actions

    Within 150 hours time-in-service, reroute the left hand and
right hand upper deck wiring system by complying with the
Instructions, paragraph B, of Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Special
Service Instructions SSI No. 92-070A, Revision A, dated April 25,
2014.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may
approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Ian Lucas,
Aviation Safety Engineer, Engine & Propeller Directorate, FAA, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(h) Additional Information

    Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Alert Service Bulletin ASB 92-20-
003, Basic Issue, dated May 5, 2014, which is not incorporated by
reference, contains additional information about the subject of this
AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Sikorsky
Aircraft Corporation, Customer Service Engineering, 124 Quarry Road,
Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1-800-Winged-S or<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    You may review the service information at the FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-
321, Fort Worth, Texas 76177.

(i) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2910 Main
Hydraulic System.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on September 17, 2015.
James A. Grigg,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-24148 Filed 9-24-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 7, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 194)]
[Notices]
[Page 58764-58770]
[DOCID:fr07oc05-145]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52544; File No. SR-NASD-2005-030]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1
Thereto and Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval to
Amendment No. 2 to the Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Proposed
Uniform Branch Office Registration Form (``Form BR'') and Amendments to
the Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or
Transfer (``Form U4'') and the Uniform Termination Notice for
Securities Industry Registration (``Form U5'')

September 30, 2005.

I. Introduction

    On March 11, 2005, the National Association of Securities Dealers,
Inc. (``NASD'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to adopt the Uniform Branch
Office Registration Form (``Form BR'') \3\ and to make conforming
changes to the Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration
or Transfer (``Form U4'') and the Uniform Termination Notice for
Securities Industry Registration (``Form U5''). On May 12, 2005, NASD
amended the proposed rule change (``Amendment No. 1'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ At the request of the NASD, the Commission staff has made
corrections to the title of the Form BR, which was inadvertently
shown in the initial filing and Amendment No. 2 to the filing, see
infra note 7, as ``Uniform Branch Office Form.'' Telephone
conversation between Richard Pullano, Associate Vice President/Chief
Counsel, Registration and Disclosure, NASD, Elizabeth Badawy,
Accountant, Division of Market Regulation (``Division''),
Commission, and Kate Robbins, Attorney, Division, Commission, on
September 20, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change, as amended by Amendment No. 1, was
published for comment in the Federal Register on June 2, 2005.\4\ The
Commission received six comment letters on the proposal, as amended.\5\
On August 17, 2005, NASD submitted a response to the comment
letters.\6\ On August 18, 2005, NASD amended the proposed rule change
(``Amendment No. 2'').\7\ This order approves the proposed rule change,
as amended by Amendment No. 1; grants accelerated approval to Amendment
No. 2; and solicits comments from interested persons on Amendment No.
2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51742 (May 25,
2005), 70 FR 32386. See also Correction, 70 FR 48802 (August 19,
2005) (including language inadvertently omitted from the first
sentence of footnote 3).
    \5\ See letters from Mario DiTrapani, President, Association of
Registration Management, dated June 22, 2005 (``ARM Letter'');
Michael Pagano, Chief Compliance Officer, 1st Global, dated June 23,
2005 (``1st Global Letter''); Sandra T. Masek Ray, CRCP, Executive
Vice President/Chief Compliance Officer, Rhodes Securities, Inc.,
dated June 23, 2005 (``Rhodes Letter''); Robert S. Rosenthal, Vice
President & Chief Legal Officer, MML Investors Services, Inc., dated
June 23, 2005 (``MML Letter''); Franklin L. Widmann, President and
Chief, New Jersey Bureau of Securities, North American Securities
Administrators Association, Inc., dated July 12, 2005 (``NASAA
Letter''); and Carl B. Wilkerson, Vice President & Chief Counsel,
Securities & Litigation, American Council of Life Insurers, dated
June 23, 2005 (``ACLI Letter''). In addition, the Commission
received a comment letter on SR-NASD-2005-012, a filing dealing with
the same substance but that had been rejected by the Commission. The
letter raised a number of technical concerns which have been
addressed by the NASD or will be addressed during the implementation
phase for Form BR.
    \6\ See letter from Shirley H. Weiss, Associate General Counsel,
NASD, to Katherine A. England, Assistant Director, Division,
Commission, dated August 17, 2005 (``NASD Response Letter'').
    \7\ See discussion of Amendment No. 2 in Section II, Description
of Proposed Rule Change, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of Proposed Rule Change

    NASD proposes to establish Form BR, a uniform branch office
registration form developed by a working group composed of
representatives from NASD, the New York Stock Exchange, Inc.
(``NYSE''), the North American Securities Administrators Association
(``NASAA'') and various states (hereinafter referred to as the
``Working Group'').\8\ The proposed Form BR would enable firms to
register branch offices electronically with NASD, the NYSE, other self-
regulatory organizations (``SROs''), and states, as applicable, through
a single filing with the Central Registration Depository
(``CRD[supreg],'' the ``CRD system,'' or ``Web CRD''). In addition, the
proposed Form BR eliminates the need for Schedule E of

the Uniform Application for Broker-Dealer Registration (``Form BD''),
the current NYSE Branch Office Application Form, and certain state
branch office forms.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The NYSE also filed a proposed rule change to adopt the Form
BR, which is substantially similar to NASD's proposal. The
Commission is simultaneously approving the NYSE's proposed rule
change. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52543 (September 30,
2005) (SR-NYSE-2005-13).
    \9\ Currently, broker-dealers register or report branch offices
or other business locations on Schedule E of the Form BD. NYSE
member firms are required to submit the NYSE Branch Office
Application Form to register a branch office with the NYSE. In
addition, Connecticut, Florida, Nevada and Vermont have separate
branch office forms that request similar information for firms
seeking to register a branch office in those states. Moreover, more
than 20 states require broker-dealers to submit a ``notice filing''
when a firm opens or closes a branch office.
    With the implementation of Form BR, the NYSE would retire the
current NYSE Branch Office Application Form. Seven states,
Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Nevada, Texas, Vermont and West
Virginia, also have indicated that they plan to use the Form BR.
Other jurisdictions that currently require ``notice filings'' for
branch openings and closings, including Alabama, Alaska, Hawaii,
Idaho, Indiana, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio, Rhode
Island, South Dakota, Tennessee and Wisconsin, have indicated that
they also expect to use the Form BR. Telephone conversation between
John Veator, Director, Regulatory User Liaison, NASD, Elizabeth
Badawy, Accountant, Division, Commission and Kate Robbins, Attorney,
Division, Commission, on September 20, 2005.
    The Division has granted no-action relief indicating that it
will not recommend enforcement action to the Commission under Rules
15b1-1, 15b3-1, 15Ba2-2, and 15Ca2-1 under the Act for broker-
dealers that file the Form BR, and do not complete Schedule E, or
file amendments to Schedule E, of the Form BD, as of the date on
which the transition to the Form BR begins and the CRD[reg] no
longer accepts Schedule E filings, which is currently anticipated to
be October 15, 2005. See letter from Catherine McGuire, Chief
Counsel, Division, Commission, to Patrice M. Gliniecki, Senior Vice
President and Deputy General Counsel, NASD, dated September 30,
2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Working Group derived the majority of questions on the proposed
Form BR from questions currently on one or more of the existing branch
office forms and added questions to elicit additional information that
it believed would be of regulatory value to SROs and states. To the
extent possible, the proposed Form BR uses the same terms as those used
in existing uniform forms.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The ``Explanation of Terms'' section of proposed Form BR
would include definitions of additional terms used in the context of
branch office registration and reporting, such as ``closing,''
``person-in-charge,'' ``regular branch,'' ``small branch,''
``supervisor,'' and ``withdrawal.'' The NYSE made slight
modifications to the definitions of ``small branch'' and ``regular
branch'' that were published in NASD's Notice to Members 04-55 to
conform to its interpretive materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Form BR is only one component of a broader project
regarding the registration of branch offices through the CRD system.
NASD is planning enhancements to the CRD system to coincide with the
implementation of Form BR that would enable firms to designate, and
users to identify, the branch office(s) in which a registered person
works. These enhancements would enable registered persons to submit the
name of the branch office(s) with which they are associated via the
Form U4. Firms would be able to obtain a report via Web CRD that would
list individuals who are currently associated with a branch or who were
associated with a branch during a specific time period. Regulators also
would be able to obtain reports that would list branch offices within a
firm as well as registered individuals in those branches. NASD also
proposes to make certain conforming and technical changes to the
current Form U4 and Form U5.

Highlights of the Proposed Form BR

    There are nine sections of the proposed Form BR, as described
below. The Form BR would permit applicants (i.e., firms) to: (1) Apply
for approval of or report a branch office (an ``initial'' filing); (2)
amend information previously reported (an ``amendment'' filing); (3)
terminate a branch office registration (a ``closing'' filing); or (4)
withdraw an initial filing before approval by a jurisdiction or SRO (a
``withdrawal'' filing).
Section 1--General Information
    Section 1 would report the applicant's CRD number, name, address,
billing code, branch address, and telephone number. NASD would pre-
populate the applicant's CRD number, name, and address.
Section 2--Registration/Notice Filing/Type of Office
    Section 2 would ask the applicant to state where the branch would
be registered (or notice filed), the type of branch office
registration, and whether it would be an NASD Office of Supervisory
Jurisdiction (``OSJ''). If it is not an OSJ, the applicant would be
required to provide the CRD branch number, or firm billing code, for
the OSJ that has supervisory responsibility over the branch and the CRD
number of the supervisor in charge of that OSJ. Consistent with the
concept of a uniform form, Section 2 of the proposed Form BR would give
applicants the opportunity to designate whether the branch office
filing is being made on behalf of a broker-dealer (``BD''), an
investment adviser (``IA''), or both. This feature would enable firms
to register or report IA branches in states that require such
registration and reporting. Section 2 also would ask for NYSE Small
Branch information.
Section 3--Types of Activities/Other Business Names/Websites
    Section 3 would collect information with respect to the types of
financial industry activities conducted by the applicant and any
investment-related activities conducted by associated persons at the
branch location. Section 3 also would ask for the names being used by
any associated person to conduct investment-related activities at the
branch office other than those names disclosed on the applicant's Form
BD or Uniform Application for Investment Adviser Registration (``Form
ADV''). Section 3 also would ask for the website addresses used by the
branch office other than the applicant's primary Web site address.
Section 4--Branch Office Arrangements
    Consistent with questions currently asked on Schedule E of the Form
BD, Section 4 of the proposed Form BR would elicit information on
branch office arrangements, including space sharing arrangements and
liability for expenses. Section 4 would not require applicants to
report insurance agency agreements with the main office pursuant to
which the branch operates.
Section 5--Associated Individuals \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ NASD notes that the title of Section 5--``Associated
Individuals''--refers to registered individuals who are associated
with the particular branch office. Applicants would not be required
to report the names of associated persons who are not registered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 5, which would have to be completed only for initial branch
office registration filings, would ask for the names and CRD numbers of
registered persons associated with a branch.\12\ Individuals identified
by the firm in this section would populate a dynamic ``branch roster''
of registered persons in Web CRD, which would be made available to
firms. Once the branch has been established, changes to the branch
roster would automatically be made through Web CRD when: (1) The
``Office of Employment Address'' question on the Form U4 is amended
when an individual leaves a branch for another branch; or (2) the Form
U5 is filed when an individual leaves a firm. Firms would be able to
print a report, among other reports, that would list registered
individuals who are currently associated with a branch, or who were
associated with the branch during a specific time period. This
functionality should facilitate firms' compliance with

one of the requirements contained in SEC Rule 17a-4(l).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Firms would be required to enter the CRD number, and then
the name would populate in the field.
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.17a-4(l). SEC Rule 17a-4(l) requires certain
records for the most recent two-year period to be maintained at the
office to which they relate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 6--NYSE Branch Information
    Only firms registered with the NYSE would be able to view and would
be required to complete Section 6. The proposed Form BR would
incorporate the information elicited on the NYSE's current Branch
Office Application Form and Office Space-Sharing Form. The CRD system
would interact with the NYSE's branch office system on NYSE branch
office registration filings.
    The NYSE's current protocol for requesting approval for new branch
offices would continue with the proposed Form BR. NYSE members would
use Form BR to request such approvals, and the information provided by
NYSE members would be transmitted to the NYSE, which, in turn, would
communicate its determinations (e.g., approvals) to the requesting NYSE
firms through the CRD system.
Section 7--Branch Closing
    Section 7 would be completed by a firm only upon the closing of a
branch office registered with a jurisdiction or an SRO. Information in
Section 7 would include the date operations ceased, or will cease, the
location of the branch's books and records, and the name and telephone
number of the contact person.
    Because branch offices located close to state borders often move
from one state to another, the proposed Form BR and the CRD system have
been designed to accommodate such moves through amendment filings.
Specifically, a firm would be able to file a single Form BR amendment
that would both close the branch in one state and register or notice
file the branch in another state that also has a registration or notice
filing requirement. The Specific Instructions and notifications (the
latter triggered by the state address change) in Section 1 (General
Information) and Section 2 (Registration/Notice Filing/Type of Office)
would advise applicants that the amendment has both changed the branch
address to another state and closed the branch in the first state. In
addition, the amendment would serve as a request to open a branch in
the state to which the branch has moved if it is a state that requires
registration or notice filing of branches.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ NASD states that it would view a change in location simply
as an amendment filing, not a request to open a new branch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 8--Branch Withdrawal
    Firms would be required to complete Section 8 only upon withdrawal
of a pending application. Information in this section would include the
date of withdrawal, the reason for withdrawal, and the name and
telephone number of the contact person.
Section 9--Signature
    Section 9 would be the signature page. The language on the
signature page would be consistent with the current attestations on the
Form U4 and the Form BD.

Conforming and Technical Changes to Forms U4 and U5

    NASD is proposing conforming changes to the Forms U4 and U5 to
fully integrate the branch office registration and reporting process
through the CRD system. First, NASD is proposing changes to the
``Office of Employment Address'' to parallel the information reported
on the Form BR, and to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the link
between registered representatives and their branches. When completing
the Form U4, the firm/individual would be asked to select the branch
office(s) from which the registered person will work based on the list
of branch offices identified by the firm (through the filing of Forms
BR). Once the registered locations are selected, CRD[supreg] would
populate the ``Office of Employment Address'' on the General
Information screen on the Form U4 for each registered person with the
following data elements based on information reported on the Form BR:
CRD Branch Number, NYSE Branch Code Number, address, and start and end
dates. The Form U5 would display the same information.\15\ If the
individual is not located at a registered branch office, the firm must
enter the business address of the location at which the individual is
employed and the location from which the individual is supervised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ NASD states that it would remove from the Forms U4 and U5
the Specific Instructions and form fields that currently require
reporting of information that would be provided via Form BR and
would pre-populate the appropriate fields on the Forms U4 and U5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASD is also proposing to add a question to the Form U4 to elicit
whether the individual has an independent contractor relationship with
the firm. Information regarding independent contractors currently is
elicited on Schedule E of Form BD. The Working Group initially proposed
to include this question on the Form BR but subsequently decided that
the independent contractor question would be more appropriately placed
on the Form U4.
    In addition, NASD is proposing changes to the Specific Instructions
on the Forms U4 and U5 to reflect the proposed changes to the forms.
NASD is proposing other technical changes to the Forms U4 and U5 as
well. Specifically, NASD proposes to: (1) Add to the Forms U4 and U5
registration categories that the Commission has previously approved;
\16\ (2) reorganize the electronic filing representations on the Form
U4, Section 6 (Regulatory Requests with Affiliated Firms) for
submitting a fingerprint for registration with an affiliated firm, so
that the representations would follow a more logical order (the content
of the representations would not change) and modify the Specific
Instructions regarding the same; (3) amend the Forms U4 and U5 to
reflect the change in name of the Cincinnati Stock Exchange (CSE) to
the National Stock Exchange (NSX); \17\ and (4) add new instructions on
the Form U5 explaining the circumstances under which the ``Office of
Employment Address'' would be pre-populated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 50162 (August 6,
2004), 69 FR 50406 (August 16, 2004) (SR-NASD-2004-078) (Research
Analyst (RS) and Research Principal (RP)) and 49922 (June 28, 2004),
69 FR 40701 (July 6, 2004) (SR-PCX-2003-51) (Pacific Exchange
positions Market Maker (44), Floor Broker (45), and Market Maker
acting as a Floor Broker (46)).
    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48774 (November 12,
2003), 68 FR 65332 (November 19, 2003) (SR-CSE-2003-12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Making the Transition to Form BR

    NASD expects that the effective date of the proposed rule change
will be October 31, 2005. NASD plans to announce the effective date of
the proposed rule change, along with a timetable for the transition to
the Form BR, in a Notice to Members to be published no later than 30
days following Commission approval.
    NASD has designated October 15, 2005 through October 30, 2005 as a
``lock-out'' period for the CRD system, during which time NASD would
help firms with branch offices in existence as of the close of business
on October 14, 2005 to register these offices. During the ``lock-out''
period, NASD would create a ``conversion'' Form BR on the CRD system
for all branch offices in existence as of the close of business on
October 14, 2005. NASD would assign a unique branch CRD number to each
of these branches and pre-populate the ``conversion'' Forms BR with
limited information for each of these

branches.\18\ During this ``lock-out'' period, the CRD system would not
accept any branch office forms or amendments via any of the current
forms or Form BR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ NASD noted that the conversion process would download the
following data in CRD[supreg] or the Investment Adviser Registration
Depository (IARDSM), as well as data provided from the
NYSE and participating states: Branch Address, CRD Branch Number,
NYSE Branch Code Number, NASD/NYSE Supervisor/Person-In-Charge Name
and CRD Number, Operational Status, and NYSE/Jurisdiction
Registration Status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Starting on October 31, 2005, the new branch office functionality
would be available in the CRD system. Beginning on that date, firms
with branch offices in existence before the close of business on
October 14, 2005 could: (1) Complete the data fields for each
``conversion'' Form BR created by NASD during the ``lock-out'' period;
and (2) file through CRD[supreg] the completed Forms BR.
    In addition, firms would be able to amend Forms U4 to assign each
registered person to a registered branch office. Firms could assign
registered persons to branches by means of either individual Form U4
filings or an electronic file transfer (i.e., a ``batch'' filing)
established exclusively for this purpose.
    Firms with branch offices in existence before the close of business
on October 14, 2005 would have until May 1, 2006 to comply with the
Form BR and Form U4 filing requirements for those branch offices.
Therefore, by May 1, 2006, these firms would have to have: (1)
Completed and filed the ``conversion'' Form BR for each such branch;
and (2) with respect to the registered persons employed by such
branches, amended all applicable Forms U4 to assign these registered
persons to the branch office(s) (or other locations) from which they
work.
    Starting on October 31, 2005, firms would have to file a Form BR to
register any new branch office opened on or after October 15, 2005.\19\
Once a firm has filed a Form BR, the new branch would be established on
the CRD system, and CRD[reg] would automatically populate the ``Office
of Employment Address'' of the Form U4 for each person identified in
Section 5 (Associated Individuals) of the Form BR. Individuals
identified in this section would populate a dynamic ``branch roster''
of registered persons in CRD[reg]. Thereafter, firms would be required
to submit amended Forms U4 to assign additional registered persons to
the branch, and CRD[reg] would automatically update the ``branch
roster'' of registered persons in Web CRD.\20\ The ``branch roster''
would be made available to firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Article IV, Section 8 of the NASD By-Laws requires firms to
report the opening of a branch office not later than 30 days after
the branch is opened.
    \20\ Article V, Section 2 of the NASD By-Laws requires
amendments to the Form U4 to be filed within 30 days after learning
of the facts or circumstances giving rise to the amendment. The
``Specific Instructions'' for completing the Form U4, as amended,
address procedures for updating the Form U4 to include all branch
office addresses at which the individual is employed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment No. 2

    In Amendment No. 2, NASD: (1) Indicated that it expects that
October 31, 2005 will be the effective date of the proposed rule
change, and that the Notice to Members announcing the effective date
(to be published no later than 30 days following Commission approval)
will provide the timetable for the transition to the Form BR; (2)
replaced the ``Making the Transition to Form BR'' subsection of the
``Purpose'' section in its entirety; (3) modified the ``Conforming
Changes to Forms U4 and U5'' discussion in the ``Purpose'' section with
respect to (i) Changes to the ``Office of Employment Address'' section
of the Form U4, (ii) reporting independent contractor relationships on
the Form U4, (iii) the procedures to be followed if an individual is
not located at a registered branch office, and (iv) the effective date
of the proposed rule change; (4) clarified in footnote 10 that the
referenced report concerns registered individuals; and (5) made other
minor edits to the proposal, including technical, non-substantive
changes to the proposed Form BR, modifications to Sections 1 and 6 and
related Specific Instructions on the Form U4 and modifications to
Sections 1 and 6 and related Specific Instructions and other technical,
non-substantive changes to the Form U5.

III. Comment Summary and NASD Response Letter

    As noted above, the Commission received 6 comment letters with
respect to the proposed rule change.\21\ NASD filed a response letter
to address concerns raised by the commenters.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See supra note 5.
    \22\ See NASD Response Letter, supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most of the commenters generally supported uniform electronic
registration of branch offices through the CRD system.\23\ The
commenters discussed many of the benefits of Form BR. Three commenters
indicated that the Form BR would eliminate duplicative or redundant
filings; \24\ one of these commenters noted that Form BR would still
provide regulators with pertinent information,\25\ and another noted
that it would promote efficiency.\26\ Another commenter also praised
the efficiencies that would result from Form BR, including
``registration of both state and NASD branch offices through CRD,
centralized fee collection and on-line work queues.'' \27\ Two
commenters indicated that the Form BR would improve data accuracy.\28\
One of these commenters felt that a single filing would reduce the
number of clerical oversights,\29\ while the other thought that the
cross-checks of filings in the CRD system would serve to improve the
accuracy of the data.\30\ The latter commenter also stated that Form BR
will assist regulators by allowing them to generate reports about
branch offices and, since it will link registered persons to branches,
will allow regulators to better track complaints to branches.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ One commenter stated that it ``strongly supports the
efforts of NASD and other working group members to integrate branch
office registration into the CRD in order to create efficiencies for
member firms,'' however, the commenter later stated that it ``cannot
support the Form BR as it is currently proposed.'' See MML Letter,
supra note 5. Another commenter noted that ``[w]e see no viable
explanation for how this initiative will result in any enhancement
to any objective related to customer protection,'' and indicated
that ``two things are necessary before this initiative becomes one
that it can support.'' See 1st Global Letter, supra note 5.
    \24\ See ARM Letter, Rhodes Letter and NASAA Letter, supra note
5.
    \25\ See ARM Letter, supra note 5.
    \26\ See NASAA Letter, supra note 5.
    \27\ See MML Letter, supra note 5.
    \28\ See ARM Letter and NASAA Letter, supra note 5.
    \29\ See ARM Letter, supra note 5.
    \30\ See NASAA Letter, supra note 5.
    \31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of the commenters who voiced support for the proposal, two of the
commenters supported the proposed rule change without
qualification.\32\ As discussed below, the other four commenters
expressed concerns about the proposed form.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Rhodes Letter and NASAA Letter, supra note 5.
    \33\ See ARM Letter, 1st Global Letter, MML Letter and ACLI
Letter, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One of the commenters' main concerns was the potential increase in
costs and administrative burden.\34\ A commenter stated that ``a more
reasonable amount of information should be included on the Form BR that
would result in less of an administrative burden for broker-dealers.''
\35\ Another commenter stated that ``the complexity of the proposed
Form BR is extremely burdensome and solicits information beyond that
necessary to register a branch office,'' and requested that

``more information be made available regarding the workflow and data
maintenance that would be required of firms before the Form BR is
finalized.'' \36\ One of the commenters stated that the proposed Form
BR is duplicative of Schedule E of Form BD and, ``[w]ithout a formal
SEC action eliminating Schedule E,'' the Form BR, ``would exacerbate
administrative burdens.'' \37\ NASD responded to comments regarding the
burdensome nature of the proposed Form BR by reiterating the benefits
of the Form BR and the enhancements to the CRD system, including making
the registration process more efficient and allowing regulators and
firms to obtain reports showing branch offices within a firm and the
registered individuals in each branch office.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See 1st Global Letter, MML Letter and ACLI Letter, supra
note 5.
    \35\ See 1st Global Letter, supra note 5.
    \36\ See MML Letter, supra note 5. NASD indicated that this
commenter is an insurance-affiliated broker-dealer. See NASD
Response Letter, supra note 6.
    \37\ See ACLI Letter, supra notes 5 and 9.
    \38\ See NASD Response Letter, supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two of the commenters were concerned about the effect of the
adoption of the proposed ``branch office'' definition \39\ on the
instant proposal, indicating that the new definition would greatly
increase the number of branch offices that had to be registered on Form
BR.\40\ One of these commenters indicated that NASD's proposed branch
office definition would have a ``significantly disproportionate impact
on broker-dealers affiliated with life insurers.'' \41\ The same
commenter also expressed concern that the NASD proposal ``does not
evaluate the burdensome economic impact'' of the proposed 30-day time
frame for amendments to the Form BR, and stated that, ``[t]he sheer
number of offices and filings that would need updates on a very short
time horizon is daunting * * *'' \42\ NASD responded to comments
regarding the proposed branch office definition by stating that ``the
proposed Form BR is not linked to NASD's proposed rule change regarding
the definition of branch office.'' \43\ However, the Commission notes
that, in fact, the Form BR is predicated upon a uniform branch office
definition and views the two rule filings to operate in concert.
Additionally, the NASD has delayed the effective date of the branch
office definition until early 2006 to allow firms a smooth transition
to the Form BR and associated filing protocols before making the new
definition effective.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ The Commission recently approved the NASD's and the NYSE's
proposed definition of ``branch office.'' See Securities Exchange
Act Release Nos. 52403 (September 9, 2005), 70 FR 54782 (September
16, 2005) (SR-NASD-2003-104) and 52402 (September 9, 2005), 70 FR
54788 (September 16, 2005) (SR-NYSE-2002-34).
    \40\ See 1st Global Letter and ACLI Letter, supra note 5. One of
these commenters also stated that it was ``premature'' to publish
Form BR for comment given the uncertainty surrounding the definition
of branch office. See ACLI Letter, supra note 5.
    \41\ See ACLI Letter, supra note 5. NASD indicated in its
response letter that both of these commenters were concerned about
the effect of the proposed Form BR on the insurance industry. The
Commission notes that, according to its review, only the ACLI Letter
specifically addressed the impact on the insurance industry.
    \42\ Id.
    \43\ See NASD Response Letter, supra note 6. NASD also indicated
that it was addressing the impact of the proposed branch office
definition in a separate rule filing, SR-NASD-2003-104. As noted
above, NASD's proposed branch office definition has been approved by
the Commission. See supra note 39.
    \44\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52403 (September 9,
2005), 70 FR 54782 (September 16, 2005) (SR-NASD-2003-104).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, some of the commenters voiced concerns about the
specific sections of the form. One of the commenters requested that the
fields requiring the branch telephone number and facsimile number be
removed because ``they are unnecessarily burdensome to enter and
maintain.'' \45\ Another commenter indicated a need for multiple firm
billing code fields to allow the entry of more than one billing code
per branch, noting that ``different supervisors (those running
different businesses in a single location) would likely possess
different `billing codes','' and that ``a scenario could exist wherein
a single office being managed by a single individual will have more
than one billing code.'' \46\ The commenter suggested that, if
necessary, this change be made as an enhancement after the Form BR is
initially implemented so that NASD can maintain its planned rollout
schedule. One of the commenters recommended that ``supervisor
information be limited to one person who would be the primary
supervisor * * *,'' \47\ while another commenter applauded the NASD for
allowing for multiple supervisors at a single office location.\48\ NASD
responded by indicating that it plans to maintain the current
implementation schedule but that it would ask the Working Group ``to
consider modifying the Form BR to permit a single branch office to
report multiple billing codes.'' \49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See MML Letter, supra note 5.
    \46\ See ARM Letter, supra note 5.
    \47\ See MML Letter, supra note 5. This commenter further noted
that, once the supervisor's CRD number is entered, the field for the
supervisor's name could be populated from the supervisor's Form U4.
Id.
    \48\ See ARM Letter, supra note 5.
    \49\ See NASD Response Letter, supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter suggested that Section 3 be eliminated in its
entirety ``since the information is beyond that needed to register a
branch office and because business activities at a branch location, use
of DBA names and websites are already subject to regulatory
compliance.'' \50\ Additionally, the commenter recommended that Section
4 be eliminated or changed to apply only to OSJs since ``requiring this
information for all locations where a registered representative is
located will cause an undue burden on firms to provide complete,
accurate information and to monitor any type of change to such
operations.'' \51\ NASD responded to these comments by indicating that
it believes that the information being elicited by these questions has
significant regulatory value and that the questions should be
retained.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See MML Letter, supra note 5.
    \51\ Id.
    \52\ Telephone conversation between Shirley Weiss, Associate
General Counsel, NASD, Elizabeth Badawy, Accountant, Division,
Commission, and Kate Robbins, Attorney, Division, Commission, on
September 22, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter firmly disagreed with the requirement that the Form
BR be signed, and noted that ``neither the current NYSE Branch Office
Application nor the amendment of Schedule E of Form BD require
signature. * * *'' \53\ The commenter stated that ``[r]equiring a
signature on Form BR is taking a step backwards and is tantamount to
suggesting that the person submitting the filing is not accountable for
the accuracy of the data contained in that filing.'' \54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See ARM Letter, supra note 5.
    \54\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASD responded that the Working Group ``believes that the integrity
of the data to be reported on the proposed Form BR requires an
attestation that the statements are `current, true and complete.' ''
\55\ NASD further indicated that the signature requirement on Form BR
is consistent with the signature requirements on the Forms U4 and
U5.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See NASD Response Letter, supra note 6.
    \56\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter discussed the placement of a question regarding an
individual's status as an independent contractor, which was added to
the Form U4 and removed from the originally proposed Form BR in
response to comments received in response to NASD's Notice to Members
04-55 published in August 2004.\57\ The commenter urged that ``the
independent contractor question be placed in a section of Form U4 that
does not require

a registered representative signature so as to avoid triggering a
[NASD] Rule 3080 notification,'' \58\ and that NASD should ``set a `no'
default to the response to that question'' so that, when the
independent contractor question is added to the Form U4, every
registered person will not immediately have an incomplete Form U4.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See ARM Letter, supra note 5.
    \58\ Id. NASD notes that ``NASD Rule 3080 requires certain
disclosures regarding the predispute arbitration clause contained in
the Form U4 to be made whenever an associated person is asked to
sign a new or amended Form U4.'' See NASD Response Letter, supra
note 6.
    \59\ See ARM Letter, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASD responded by confirming that the independent contractor
question will be located in a section of the Form U4 that does not
require a registered person's signature if amended.\60\ With regard to
the request for a ``no'' default response to the independent contractor
question, NASD indicated that it would not set a default response but
that it would allow member firms to provide the answers to the
independent contractor question as part of a ``batch'' data file that
firms will be able to submit to assign registered persons to
established branch offices.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See NASD Response Letter, supra note 6.
    \61\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning Amendment No. 2, including whether Amendment No. 2
is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the
following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NASD-2005-030 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-9303.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2005-030. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the NASD. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NASD-2005-030 and should be submitted on or before
October 28, 2005.

V. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    After careful consideration of the proposed rule change, the
comment letters, and NASD's responses to the comment letters, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
association.\62\ The Commission believes that the proposed rule change
is consistent with Section 15A(b) of the Act,\63\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 15A(b)(6),\64\ in particular, in
that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \63\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b).
    \64\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission supports NASD, the NYSE, and state securities
regulators' joint regulatory effort to develop a uniform branch office
registration form that will enable firms to register branch offices
electronically with NASD, the NYSE, other SROs and states. The
Commission believes that utilizing a single form, Form BR, will make
the branch office registration process more efficient by eliminating
duplicative forms and questions and reconciling inconsistencies among
existing forms, while retaining or adding questions that elicit
information that will be of regulatory value to SROs and states, as
well as the Commission. The conforming and technical changes to the
Form U4 and the Form U5 will also ensure that the information elicited
by such forms is of regulatory value to SROs and states. In this
regard, the Commission believes that, by significantly streamlining the
branch office registration process, such regulatory coordination and
cooperation should result in an effective and efficient regulation that
will serve the entire broker-dealer community.
    The Commission also supports NASD's planned enhancements to the CRD
system, which will coincide with the implementation of the Form BR,
that will enable registered persons to submit via the Form U4 the name
of the branch office(s) with which they are associated. From this
information, firms and regulators will be able to generate reports
showing, for example, the individuals who are currently associated with
a branch, or were associated with a branch during a specific time
period. The Commission believes that this is an important improvement
to the CRD[supreg] database and will allow regulators to gather
information and deploy examination resources more efficiently. The
enhancements to the CRD system also will serve to reconcile
inconsistencies in the CRD[supreg] database, thereby improving data
integrity, via cross-checks between the Form BR and the corresponding
sections of the Form U4.
    Finally, the Commission believes it is reasonable for NASD to
implement the proposed Form BR pursuant to the schedule set forth by
NASD. The creation of ``conversion'' Forms BR for branch offices
already in existence before the launch of the branch office
functionality in CRD[supreg] should allow for a smooth transition to
the new branch office registration system. In addition, the transition
will be facilitated by NASD's allowing firms to make ``batch'' filings
to assign registered persons to branch offices, thereby amending
multiple registered persons' Forms U4 with one filing. Furthermore, the
six-month period for firms to complete the Forms BR for such branch
offices and amend the Form U4 for each registered person should give
firms ample time to comply with their filing requirements.

Accelerated Approval of Amendment No. 2

    The Commission finds good cause for approving Amendment No. 2 to
the proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after the amendment
is published for comment in the Federal Register pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Act.\65\ Amendment No. 2 clarified: (1) The effective
date of the proposed rule change and the process for transitioning to
Form BR; (2) the description of conforming changes to be made to Forms
U4 and U5; and (3) the description of the reports that will be able to
be generated in the CRD system. Amendment No. 2 also included other
minor edits, including technical, non-substantive changes to the
proposed Form BR, modifications to Sections 1 and 6 and related
Specific Instructions on the Form U4, and modifications to Sections 1
and 6 and related Specific Instructions and other technical, non-
substantive changes to the Form U5. The Commission believes that
Amendment No. 2 provides for a clearer understanding of the
implementation schedule of the proposed Form BR, the proposed changes
to Forms U4 and U5, and the new functionality in the CRD system and
notes that the technical and clarifying changes made to the Form BR and
Forms U4 and U5 raise no new issues of regulatory concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Commission believes that accelerated approval of
Amendment No. 2 is appropriate.

VI. Conclusion

    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act
and rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities association, and, in particular, Section 15A(b)(6) of the
Act.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\67\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NASD-2005-030), as amended
by Amendment No. 1, is hereby approved and that Amendment No. 2 thereto
is hereby approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

 For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant
to delegated authority.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-5534 Filed 10-6-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: November 10, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 216)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 57974-57975]
[DOCID:fr10no09-25]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1910

RIN 1218-AC41

Combustible Dust

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice of stakeholder meetings.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA invites interested parties to participate in informal
stakeholder meetings on the workplace hazards of combustible dust. OSHA
plans to use the information gathered at these meetings in developing a
proposed standard for combustible dust.

DATES: Dates and locations for the stakeholder meetings are:
     December 14, 2009, at 9 a.m., in Washington, DC.
     December 14, 2009, at 1 p.m., in Washington, DC.
     Additional meetings are planned for early 2010, and will
be announced in one or more subsequent notices.

ADDRESSES:

I. Registration

    Submit your notice of intent to participate in one of the scheduled
or future stakeholder meetings by one of the following:
     Electronic. Register at https://www2.ergweb.com/projects/
conferences/osha/register-osha-stakeholder.htm (follow the instructions
online).
     Facsimile. Fax your request to:<PHONE_NUMBER>, and label
it ``Attention: OSHA Combustible Dust Stakeholder Meeting
Registration.''
     Regular mail, express delivery, hand (courier) delivery,
and messenger service. Send your request to: ERG, Inc., 110 Hartwell
Avenue, Lexington, MA 02421; Attention: OSHA Combustible Dust
Stakeholder Meeting Registration.

II. Meetings

    The December 14, 2009, meetings will be held at the Marriott at
Metro Center, 775 12th Street, NW., Washington, DC, 20005.
    The 2010 meeting dates and locations will be announced in one or
more subsequent notices.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
     Press inquiries. Contact Jennifer Ashley, Director, OSHA
Office of Communications, Room N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-
1999.
     General and technical information. Contact Don Pittenger,
Director, Office of Safety Systems, OSHA Directorate of Standards and
Guidance, Room N-3609, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Copies of this Federal Register notice. Electronic copies
are available at http://www.regulations.gov. This Federal Register
notice, as well as news releases and other relevant information, also
are available on the OSHA Web page at http://www.osha.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The hazards of combustible dust encompass a wide array of
materials, industries, and processes. Any combustible material can burn
rapidly when in a finely divided form. Materials that may form
combustible dust include, but are not limited to, wood, coal, plastics,
biosolids, candy, sugar, spice, starch, flour, feed, grain, fertilizer,
tobacco, paper, soap, rubber, drugs, dried blood, dyes, certain
textiles, and metals (such as aluminum and magnesium). Industries that
may have combustible dust hazards include, among others: Animal food
manufacturing, grain handling, food manufacturing, wood product
manufacturing, chemical manufacturing, textile manufacturing, furniture
manufacturing, metal processing, fabricated metal products and
machinery manufacturing, pesticide manufacturing, pharmaceutical
manufacturing, tire manufacturing, production of rubber and plastics,
plastics and rubber products manufacturing, recycling, wastewater
treatment, and coal handling.
    OSHA is developing a standard that will comprehensively address the
fire and explosion hazards of combustible dust. The Agency has issued
an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) (74 FR 54334)
requesting comments, including data and other information, on issues
related to the hazards of combustible dust in the workplace. OSHA plans
to use the information received in response to the ANPR and at the
stakeholder meetings in developing a proposed standard for combustible
dust.

II. Stakeholder Meetings

    The stakeholder meetings will be conducted as a group discussion on
views, concerns, and issues surrounding the hazards of combustible
dust. To facilitate as much group interaction as possible, formal
presentations will not be permitted. Formal input should be submitted
as indicated in the ANPR referenced earlier in this notice. OSHA
believes the stakeholder meeting discussion should center on major
issues such as:
     Possible regulatory approaches.
     Scope.
     Organization of a prospective standard.
     The role of consensus standards.
     Economic impacts.
     Additional topics as time permits.
    OSHA plans to hold additional meetings in the early part of 2010,
after the ANPR comment period has closed and the Agency has begun to
analyze the comments received. One or more additional notices will be
published with the information for those meetings. Stakeholders
interested in participating in a 2010 meeting may express their intent
through one of the methods specified in the ADDRESSES section of this
notice under Registration. You will be contacted regarding the dates
and locations of the future meetings.

III. Public Participation

    Approximately 35 participants will be accommodated in each meeting,
and three hours will be allotted for each meeting. Members of the
general public may observe, but not participate in, the meetings on a
first-come, first-served basis as space permits. OSHA staff will be
present to take part in the discussions. Logistics for the meetings are
being managed by Eastern Research Group, which will provide a
facilitator and compile notes summarizing the discussion; these notes
will not identify individual speakers. ERG also will make an audio
recording of each session to ensure that the summary notes are
accurate; these recordings will not be transcribed. The summary notes
will be posted on the docket for the Combustible Dust ANPR, Docket ID:
OSHA2009-0023, available at the Web site http://www.regulations.gov.
    The meetings are as follows:
     December 14, 2009, 9 a.m., Marriott at Metro Center, 775
12th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005.
     December 14, 2009, 1 p.m., Marriott at Metro Center, 775
12th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005.
     The 2010 meeting dates and locations will be announced in
one or more subsequent notices.
    You may submit notice of intent to participate in one of the
stakeholder meetings electronically, by facsimile, or by hard copy. See
the ADDRESSES section of this notice for the registration Web site,
facsimile number, and address. To register electronically, follow the
instructions provided on the Web site. To register by mail or
facsimile, please indicate the following:
     Name, address, phone, fax, and e-mail.
     First and second preferences of meeting time.
     Organization for which you work.
     Organization you represent (if different).
     Stakeholder category: government, industry, standards-
developing organization, research or testing agency, union, trade
association, insurance, fire protection equipment manufacturer,
consultant, or other (if other, please be specific).
     Industry sector (if applicable): metals, wood products,
grain or wet corn milling, food (including sugar), pharmaceutical or
chemical manufacturing, paper products, rubber or plastics, coal, or
other (if other, please be specific).
    Electronic copies of this Federal Register notice, as well as news
releases and other relevant documents, are available on the OSHA Web
page at: http://www.osha.gov.

IV. Authority and Signature

    This document was prepared under the direction of Jordan Barab,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health,
U.S. Department of Labor, pursuant to sections 4, 6, and 8 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657),
29 CFR part 1911, and Secretary's Order 5-2007 (72 FR 31160).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on November 5th, 2009.
Jordan Barab,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. E9-27003 Filed 11-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 83 (Friday, April 29, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25504-25505]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09261]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4489-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

Illinois; Amendment No. 10 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Illinois (FEMA-4489-DR), dated March 26, 2020, and
related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on March 28, 2022.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Thomas C.
Sivak, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer
for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Moises Dugan as Federal
Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    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.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-09261 Filed 4-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P