[Federal Register: September 26, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 188)]
[Notices]
[Page 55832]
[DOCID:fr26se08-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. PH08-24-001; PH08-25-001]

Horizon Asset Management, Inc.; Order Tolling 60-Day Period for
Action To Allow for Further Consideration

September 19, 2008.
    To afford additional time for further consideration of the matters
at issue in the above-captioned proceeding, the 60-day period for
action is hereby tolled. 18 CFR 366.4(b)(1), 366.4(c)(1). The temporary
exemption or waiver provided by the regulations will remain in effect
until such time as the Commission has determined whether to grant or
deny the requested exemption or waiver. Id.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-22614 Filed 9-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 40)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 10698-10701]
[DOCID:fr28fe08-26]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-28389; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-171-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and
-300ER Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive
(AD) for certain Boeing Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and -300ER series
airplanes. The original NPRM would have required revising the
Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) section of the Instructions for
Continued Airworthiness by incorporating new limitations for fuel tank
systems to satisfy Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88
requirements. The original NPRM would also have required the initial
performance of certain repetitive inspections specified in the AWLs to
phase in those inspections, and repair if necessary. The original NPRM
resulted from a design review of the fuel tank systems. This action
revises the original NPRM by reducing the initial compliance time of
certain repetitive inspections, adding more airplanes, and referring to
new service information. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM to
prevent the potential for ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by
latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which,
in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank
explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by March 19,
2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathrine Rask, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 917-6505; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2007-
28389; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-171-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (the ``original
NPRM'') to amend 14 CFR part 39 to

include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to certain
Boeing Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and -300ER series airplanes. That
original NPRM was published in the Federal Register on July 3, 2007 (72
FR 36373). That original NPRM proposed to require revising the
Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) section of the Instructions for
Continued Airworthiness by incorporating new limitations for fuel tank
systems to satisfy Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88
requirements. That original NPRM also proposed to require the initial
performance of certain repetitive inspections specified in the AWLs to
phase in those inspections, and repair if necessary.

Actions Since Original NPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued the original NPRM, Boeing has issued Revision
October 2007 of section 9 of the 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD)
Document, D622W001-9 (hereafter referred to as ``Revision October 2007
of the MPD''). The original NPRM referred to Revision March 2006 of the
MPD as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing
the proposed actions. Among other actions, Revision October 2007 of the
MPD revises the task description for AWL No. 28-AWL-01 and increases
the repetitive interval for AWL No. 28-AWL-18. (AWL No. 28-AWL-18 was
introduced in Revision September 2007 of the MPD). We have revised
paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of this supplemental NPRM to refer to
Revision October 2007 of the MPD.
    We have also determined that more airplanes would be affected by
this supplemental NPRM. All Model 777 airplanes with an original
standard airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of
airworthiness issued before December 5, 2007, are affected by this
supplemental NPRM. Accordingly, we have revised paragraph (c) of this
supplemental NPRM. We have also updated the ``Costs of Compliance''
section of this supplemental NPRM to account for the additional
airplanes.
    In paragraphs (h)(1)(i) and (h)(2)(i) of the original NPRM, we
inadvertently specified the compliance time as ``* * * before the
accumulation of 36,000 total flight cycles or within 120 months. * *
*'' The correct compliance time is 16,000 total flight cycles or within
3,000 days, as specified in Revision October 2007 of the MPD. We have
revised this supplemental NPRM accordingly.

Changes Made to This Supplemental NPRM

    For standardization purposes, we have revised this supplemental
NPRM in the following ways:
     We have added a new paragraph (i) to this supplemental
NPRM to specify that no alternative inspections, inspection intervals,
or CDCCLs may be used unless they are part of a later approved revision
of Revision October 2007 of the MPD, or unless they are approved as an
alternative method of compliance (AMOC). Inclusion of this paragraph in
the AD is intended to ensure that the AD-mandated airworthiness
limitations changes are treated the same as the airworthiness
limitations issued with the original type certificate.
     We have revised Note 2 of this AD to clarify that an
operator must request approval for an AMOC if the operator cannot
accomplish the proposed inspections because an airplane has been
previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by the
proposed inspections.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing the
original NPRM. We addressed certain comments received in this
supplemental NPRM. The remaining comments are being evaluated and will
be addressed in the final rule.

Request To Allow Inspections Done According to a Maintenance Program

    Japan Airlines (JAL) requests that we revise paragraph (h) of the
original NPRM to allow an operator to update its FAA-approved
maintenance program to include the initial inspections and repair for
certain AWLs. JAL states that the original NPRM would require
accomplishing the initial inspection and repair of certain AWLs, which
would require JAL to establish a special inspection and special
recordkeeping for the proposed requirement.
    We agree and have revised paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this
supplemental NPRM to specify that accomplishing the applicable AWL as
part of an FAA-approved maintenance program before the applicable
compliance time constitutes compliance with the applicable requirements
of those paragraphs.

Request To Harmonize Task Descriptions

    JAL states that, in Revision March 2006 of the MPD, the task
descriptions defining the applicable area are different for AWLs Nos.
28-AWL-01 and 28-AWL-02. (AWL No. 28-AWL-01 is a repetitive inspection
of the external wires over the center fuel tank, and AWL No. 28-AWL-02
is a CDCCL to maintain the original design features for the external
wires over the center fuel tank). JAL believes that the task
descriptions for these AWLs should match. JAL presumes that, if one
purpose for the inspection is to prevent a spark in the fuel vapor over
the center fuel tank, then the applicable area should have a certain
tolerance instead of defining the area by exact station number. JAL
also requests that ``Sta. 1045'' be revised to ``Sta. 1245'' for AWL
No. 28-AWL-01.
    We agree that the task descriptions for AWL Nos. 28-AWL-01 and 28-
AWL-02 should be harmonized, and that there is an error in the station
number in the task description for AWL No. 28-AWL-01. Revision October
2007 of the MPD includes a revised task description of AWL No. 28-AWL-
01, which addresses JAL's comments. As stated previously, we have
revised this supplemental NPRM to refer to Revision October 2007 of the
MPD.

Request To Add Additional References to Appendix 1

    Boeing requests that we revise Appendix 1 of the original NPRM to
reflect the correct airplane maintenance manual (AMM) task titles and
numbers for AWLs No. 28-AWL-02, No. 28-AWL-05, No. 28-AWL-06, No. 28-
AWL-08, No. 28-AWL-10, No. 28-AWL-12, No. 28-AWL-15, No. 28-AWL-16, No.
28-AWL-17, and No. 28-AWL-19.
    JAL requests that we update Appendix 1 of the original NPRM to
include all AWLs specified in the MPD, and that we indicate how to
maintain the latest version of Appendix 1. JAL also requests that we
correct the following errors in Appendix 1 of the original NPRM: (1)
For AWL No. 28-AWL-04, change ``SWPM 20-10-15'' to ``SWPM 20-10-13,''
and (2) for AWL No. 28-AWL-15, change ``28-41-05-404-801'' to ``28-41-
05-400-801.''
    We disagree with revising the AMM references, since we have deleted
Appendix 1 from this supplemental NPRM. The purpose of Appendix 1 was
to assist operators in identifying the AMM tasks that could affect
compliance with a CDCCL. However, we have also received several similar
comments regarding the appendixes in other NPRMs that address the same
unsafe condition on other Boeing airplanes. Those comments indicate
that including non-required information in those NPRMs has caused
confusion. Further, Revision October 2007 of the MPD contains most of
the updated

information that is listed in Appendix 1 of the original NPRM.
Therefore, we have removed Appendix 1 from this supplemental NPRM.

Request To Revise Note 2

    Boeing requests that we revise Note 2 of the original NPRM to
clarify the need for an AMOC. Boeing states that the current wording is
difficult to follow, and that the note is meant to inform operators
that an AMOC to the required MPD AWLs may be required if an operator
has previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by
limitations. Boeing requests that we revise Note 2 as follows:
     Add the words ``according to paragraph (g)'' at the end of
the first sentence.
     Replace the words ``revision to'' with ``deviation from''
in the last sentence.
     Delete the words ``(g) or'' and ``as applicable'' from the
last sentence.
    As stated previously, we have simplified the language in Note 2 of
this supplemental NPRM for standardization with other similar ADs. The
language the commenter requests that we change does not appear in the
revised note. Therefore, no additional change to this supplemental NPRM
is necessary in this regard.

FAA's Determination and Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM

    We are proposing this supplemental NPRM because we evaluated all
pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is
likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
Certain changes described above expand the scope of the original NPRM.
As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the
comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to
comment on this supplemental NPRM.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this supplemental NPRM would affect 127 airplanes
of U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs, at
an average labor rate of $80 per work hour, for U.S. operators to
comply with this supplemental NPRM.

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of U.S.-
                Action                   Work         Parts          Cost per       registered      Fleet cost
                                        hours                        airplane        airplanes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance program revision.........        8  None............            $640             127         $81,280
Inspection...........................        8  None............             640             127          81,280
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 above, 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), and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Boeing: Docket No. FAA-2007-28389; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-
171-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by March 19, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and -
300ER series airplanes; certificated in any category; with an
original standard airworthiness certificate or original export
certificate of airworthiness issued before December 5, 2007.

    Note 1: Airplanes with an original standard airworthiness
certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness issued
on or after December 5, 2007, must be already in compliance with the
airworthiness limitations (AWLs) specified in this AD because those
limitations were applicable as part of the airworthiness
certification of those airplanes.

    Note 2: This AD requires revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with
these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes
that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the
areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able
to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must
request approval for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC)
according to paragraph (j) of this AD. The request should include a
description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure
the continued operational safety of the airplane.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from a design review of the fuel tank
systems. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential for
ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures,
alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination
with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and
consequent loss of the airplane.

Compliance

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

Service Information

    (f) The term ``Revision October 2007 of the MPD,'' as used in
this AD, means Section 9 of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning
Document (MPD) Document, D622W001-9, Revision October 2007.

Revision of Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) Section

    (g) Before December 16, 2008, revise the AWLs section of the
Instructions for Continued Airworthiness by incorporating the
information in the sections specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and
(g)(2) of this AD into the MPD; except that the initial inspections
specified in paragraph (h) of this AD must be done at the compliance
times specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.
    (1) Subsection D, ``AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS--SYSTEMS, FUEL
SYSTEMS AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS,'' of Revision October 2007 of the
MPD.
    (2) Subsection E, ``PAGE FORMAT: SYSTEMS AIRWORTHINESS
LIMITATIONS,'' of Revision October 2007 of the MPD.

Initial Inspections and Repair

    (h) Do the inspections required by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2)
of this AD at the compliance times specified in paragraphs (h)(1)
and (h)(2), in accordance with the applicable AWLs described in
Subsection E, ``PAGE FORMAT: SYSTEMS AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS,'' of
Revision October 2007 of the MPD. If any discrepancy is found during
these inspections, repair the discrepancy before further flight in
accordance with Revision October 2007 of the MPD.
    (1) At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i)
and (h)(1)(ii) of this AD, do a detailed inspection of external
wires over the center fuel tank for damaged clamps, wire chafing,
and wire bundles in contact with the surface of the center fuel
tank, and repair any discrepancy, in accordance with AWL No. 28-AWL-
01. Accomplishing AWL No. 28-AWL-01 as part of an FAA-approved
maintenance program before the applicable compliance time specified
in paragraph (h)(1)(i) or (h)(1)(ii) of this AD constitutes
compliance with the requirements of this paragraph.
    (i) Before the accumulation of 16,000 total flight cycles, or
within 3,000 days since the date of issuance of the original
standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the
original export certificate of airworthiness, whichever occurs
first.
    (ii) Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD.

    Note 3: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is:
``An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or
assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available
lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good
lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as
mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning
and elaborate procedures may be required.''

    (2) At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(2)(i)
and (h)(2)(ii) of this AD, do a special detailed inspection
(resistance test) of the lightning shield-to-ground termination of
the out tank wiring of the fuel quantity indicating system (FQIS)
and, as applicable, repair (restore) the bond to ensure the shield-
to-ground termination meets specified resistance values, in
accordance with AWL No. 28-AWL-03. Accomplishing AWL No. 28-AWL-03
as part of an FAA-approved maintenance program before the applicable
compliance time specified in paragraph (h)(2)(i) or (h)(2)(ii) of
this AD constitutes compliance with the requirements of this
paragraph.
    (i) Before the accumulation of 16,000 total flight cycles, or
within 3,000 days since the date of issuance of the original
standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the
original export certificate of airworthiness, whichever occurs
first.
    (ii) Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD.

    Note 4: For the purposes of this AD, a special detailed
inspection is: ``An intensive examination of a specific item,
installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or
irregularity. The examination is likely to make extensive use of
specialized inspection techniques and/or equipment. Intricate
cleaning and substantial access or disassembly procedure may be
required.''

No Alternative Inspections, Inspection Intervals, or Critical Design
Configuration Control Limitation (CDCCLs)

    (i) After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraphs (g)
and (h) of this AD, no alternative inspections, inspection
intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless the inspections, intervals,
or CDCCLs are part of a later revision of Revision October 2007 of
the MPD that is approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO); or unless the inspections, intervals, or
CDCCLs are approved as an AMOC in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (j)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, ATTN: Kathrine Rask,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, 1601 Lind Avenue,
SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(425) 917-6590; has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 20, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-3765 Filed 2-27-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 31, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 146)]
[Notices]
[Page 43139]
[DOCID:fr31jy06-50]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR06-18-000]

Acadian Gas Pipeline System; Notice of Petition for Rate Approval

July 21, 2006.
    Take notice that on July 11, 2006, Acadian Gas Pipeline System
(Acadian) filed a petition for rate approval for NGPA Section 311
maximum interruptible transportation rates, pursuant to section
284.123(b)(2) of the Commission's regulations. Acadian requests that
the Commission approve an increase in its maximum rate for
interruptible transportation from $0.1659 per MMBtu to $0.25 per MMBtu
for gas transported under section. 311.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must
file a motion to intervene or to protest this filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

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

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

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time August 14, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-12238 Filed 7-28-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 27, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 102)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 30299-30301]
[DOCID:fr27my08-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 101

[Docket No. FDA-2006-P-0404] (Formerly Docket No. 2006P-0487)

Food Labeling: Health Claims; Dietary Noncariogenic Carbohydrate
Sweeteners and Dental Caries

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is adopting as a final
rule, without change, the provisions of the interim final rule that
amended the regulation authorizing a health claim on noncariogenic
carbohydrate sweeteners and dental caries, i.e., tooth decay, to
include isomaltulose as a substance eligible for the health claim. FDA
is taking this action to complete the rulemaking initiated with the
interim final rule.

DATES: This rule is effective May 27, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jillonne Kevala, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-830), Food and Drug Administration,
5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740-3835,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of September 17, 2007 (72 FR 52783), FDA
published an interim final rule to amend the regulation in part 101 (21
CFR part 101) that authorizes a health claim on the relationship
between noncariogenic carbohydrate sweeteners and dental caries (Sec.
101.80) to include the noncariogenic sugar isomaltulose. Under section
403(r)(3)(B)(i) and section 403(r)(7) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 343(r)(3)(B)(i) and 343(r)(7)), FDA
issued this interim final rule in response to a petition filed under
section 403(r)(4) of the act. Section 403(r)(3)(B)(i) of the act states
that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (and, by delegation,
FDA) shall issue a

regulation authorizing a health claim if he or she ``determines, based
on the totality of publicly available scientific evidence (including
evidence from well-designed studies conducted in a manner which is
consistent with generally recognized scientific procedures and
principles), that there is significant scientific agreement, among
experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate
such claims, that the claim is supported by such evidence'' (see also
Sec.  101.14(c)). Section 403(r)(4) of the act sets out the procedures
that FDA is to follow upon receiving a health claim petition. Section
403(r)(7) of the act permits FDA to make a proposed regulation issued
under section 403(r) effective upon publication pending consideration
of public comment and publication of a final regulation if the agency
determines that such action is necessary for public health reasons.
    On August 31, 2006, Cargill, Inc. (petitioner), submitted a health
claim petition to FDA requesting that the agency amend the ``dietary
noncariogenic carbohydrate sweeteners and dental caries'' claim at
Sec.  101.80 to authorize a noncariogenic dental health claim for
isomaltulose. FDA filed the petition for comprehensive review in
accordance with section 403(r)(4) of the act on December 8, 2006. The
petitioner requested that FDA grant an interim final rule by which
foods containing isomaltulose could bear the health claim prior to
publication of the final rule. FDA and the petitioner mutually agreed
to extend the deadline for the agency's decision on the petition to
September 5, 2007.
    As part of its review of the scientific literature on isomaltulose
and dental caries, FDA considered the scientific evidence presented in
the petition as well as information previously considered by the agency
on the etiology of dental caries and the effects of slowly fermentable
carbohydrates. The agency summarized this evidence in the interim final
rule (72 FR 52783 at 52784 to 52786). Based on the available evidence,
FDA concluded that isomaltulose, like other noncariogenic carbohydrate
sweeteners listed in Sec.  101.80(c)(2)(ii), does not promote dental
caries. Consequently, FDA amended Sec.  101.80(c)(2)(ii) to broaden the
health claim to include isomaltulose as an additional substance
eligible for the health claim.

II. Summary of Comments and the Agency's Response

    FDA solicited comments on the interim final rule. The comment
period closed on December 3, 2007. The agency received four letters of
response, three from consumers and one from a manufacturer. The
manufacturer supported the interim rule. Two of the consumers' comments
addressed issues that are outside the scope of this rulemaking and will
not be addressed here. The remaining comment suggested that there had
been insufficient testing to demonstrate the safety of isomaltulose,
but did not provide any information or analysis to support revision of
the agency's conclusion.
    Given the absence of contrary evidence on the agency's decisions
announced in the interim final rule, FDA is adopting as a final rule,
without change, the interim final rule that amended Sec.  101.80 to
include isomaltulose as a substance eligible for the dental caries
health claim.

III. Analysis of Impacts

    FDA has examined the impacts of the final rule under Executive
Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). Executive
Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of
available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to
select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The agency believes that
this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the
Executive order.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to analyze
regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule
on small entities. Because this final rule allows new voluntary
behavior and imposes no additional restrictions on current practices,
the agency certifies that the final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires
that agencies prepare a written statement which includes an assessment
of anticipated costs and benefits before proposing ``any rule that
includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for
inflation) in any one year.'' The current threshold after adjustment
for inflation is $127,000,000, using the most current (2006) Implicit
Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. FDA does not expect this
final rule to result in any one-year expenditure that would meet or
exceed this amount.
    FDA received no comments relevant to economic impact. The costs and
benefits of available regulatory alternatives analyzed in the interim
final rule (72 FR 52783 at 52787 to 52788) are adopted without change
in this final rule. By now affirming that interim final rule, FDA has
not imposed any new requirements. Therefore, there are no additional
costs and benefits associated with this final rule.

IV. Environmental Impact

    The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.32(p) that this action is
of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

V. Paperwork Reduction Act

    FDA concludes that the labeling provisions of this final rule are
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget because
they do not constitute a ``collection of information'' under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Rather, the food
labeling health claim on the association between consumption of
isomaltulose and the nonpromotion of dental caries is a ``public
disclosure of information originally supplied by the Federal Government
to the recipient for the purpose of disclosure to the public'' (5 CFR
1320.3(c)(2)).

VI. Federalism

    FDA has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles
set forth in Executive Order 13132. FDA has determined that the rule
will have a preemptive effect on State law. Section 4(a) of the
Executive order requires agencies to ``construe * * * a Federal statute
to preempt State law only where the statute contains an express
preemption provision or there is some other clear evidence that the
Congress intended preemption of State law, or where the exercise of
State authority conflicts with the exercise of Federal authority under
the Federal statute.'' Section 403A of the act (21 U.S.C. 343-1) is an
express preemption provision. Section 403A(a)(5) of the act provides
that:
    * * * no State or political subdivision of a State may directly
or indirectly establish under any authority or continue in effect as
to any food in interstate commerce--* * *(5) any requirement
respecting any claim of the type described in section 403(r)(1) made
in the label or labeling of food that is not

identical to the requirement of section 403(r) * * *
    On September 17, 2007, FDA published an interim final rule which
imposed requirements under section 403(r) of the act. This final rule
affirms the September 17, 2007, amendment to the existing food labeling
regulations to add isomaltulose to the authorized health claim for
noncariogenic carbohydrate sweeteners and dental caries. Although this
rule has a preemptive effect in that it precludes States from issuing
any health claim labeling requirements for isomaltulose and the
nonpromotion of dental caries that are not identical to those required
by this final rule, this preemptive effect is consistent with what
Congress set forth in section 403A of the act. Section 403A(a)(5) of
the act displaces both State legislative requirements and State common
law duties. Riegel v. Medtronic, 128 S. Ct. 999 (2008).
    FDA believes that the preemptive effect of this final rule is
consistent with Executive Order 13132. Section 4(e) of the Executive
order provides that ``when an agency proposes to act through
adjudication or rulemaking to preempt State law, the agency shall
provide all affected State and local officials notice and an
opportunity for appropriate participation in the proceedings.'' On
August 1, 2007, FDA's Division of Federal and State Relations provided
notice via fax and e-mail transmission to State health commissioners,
State agriculture commissioners, food program directors, and drug
program directors, as well as FDA field personnel, of FDA's intent to
amend the health claim regulation authorizing health claims for
noncariogenic carbohydrate sweeteners and dental caries (Sec.  101.80).
FDA received no comments from any States in response to this notice.
    In addition, the agency sought input from all stakeholders through
publication of the interim final rule in the Federal Register on
September 17, 2007 (72 FR 52783). FDA received no comments from any
States on the interim final rule.
    In conclusion, the agency believes that it has complied with all of
the applicable requirements of Executive Order 13132 and has determined
that the preemptive effects of this rule are consistent with the
Executive order.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 101

    Food labeling, Nutrition, Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements.

0
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part
101 is amended as follows:

PART 101--FOOD LABELING

0
Accordingly, the interim final rule amending Sec.  101.80 that was
published in the Federal Register of September 17, 2007 (72 FR 52783),
is adopted as a final rule without change.

    Dated: May 19, 2008.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E8-11802 Filed 5-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register: February 20, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 34)]
[Notices]
[Page 9375-9377]
[DOCID:fr20fe08-126]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57325; File No. SR-Amex-2008-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Related to Index Dissemination
Requirements for Index-Linked Securities

February 13, 2008.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 30, 2008, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend sections 107D(i) and 107D(h)(3)(ii)
of the Amex Company Guide (``Company Guide'') to provide that the value
of an index or composite value of the indexes underlying an issuance of
Index-Linked Securities must be widely disseminated on at least a 15-
second basis with respect to an index or indexes containing only
securities listed on a national securities exchange, or on at least a
60-second basis with respect to an index or indexes containing foreign
country securities.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at http://www.amex.com
, at the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference

Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend sections 107D(i) and section
107D(h)(3)(ii) of the Company Guide for the purpose of conforming the
index dissemination requirements relating to Index-Linked Securities to
that of Index Fund Shares (``IFSs'') and Portfolio Depository Receipts
(``PDRs'') (collectively, exchange-traded funds or ``ETFs''). Section
107D(i)(iii) of the Company Guide provides that the current value of an
index will be widely disseminated at least every 15 seconds. Similarly,
section 107D(i)(iv) provides that if the value of an Index-Linked
Security is based on more than one index, then the composite value of
such indexes must be widely disseminated at least every 15 seconds.
    As proposed, section 107D(i) of the Company Guide would be revised
as follows:

    (iii) The current value of an index or composite value of more
than one (1) index will be widely disseminated at least every 15
seconds with respect to indexes containing only securities listed on
a national securities exchange, or on at least a 60-second basis
with respect to indexes containing foreign country securities,
provided, however, that if the official index value does not change
during some or all of the period when trading is occurring on the
Exchange (for example, for indexes of foreign country securities
because of time zone differences or holidays in countries where such
indexes' component stocks trade) then the last calculated official
index value must remain available throughout Exchange trading hours.

    Accordingly current subparagraph (iv) to section 107D(i) of the
Company Guide would be eliminated.
    In addition, the delisting requirements set forth in section
107D(h)(3)(ii) of the Company Guide relating to Index-Linked Securities
would similarly need revision due to

the proposed change to the index dissemination requirement. The
Exchange proposes to amend section 107D(h)(3)(ii) of the Company Guide
to distinguish the dissemination requirements of an index consisting
solely of securities listed on a national securities exchange and those
indexes that may contain components that are foreign country
securities. Section 107D(h)(3)(ii) of the Company Guide reads: ``(3)
The Exchange will also commence delisting or removal proceedings
(unless the Commission has approved the continued trading of the
subject index-linked security), under any of the following
circumstances: * * * (ii) if the value of the index or composite value
of the indexes is no longer calculated or widely disseminated on at
least a 15-second basis; * * * ''
    As proposed, section 107D(h)(3)(ii) of the Company Guide would be
revised as follows:

    (ii) if the value of the index or composite value of the indexes
is no longer calculated or widely disseminated on at least a 15-
second basis with respect to indexes containing only securities
listed on a national securities exchange, or on at least a 60-second
basis with respect to indexes containing foreign country securities,
provided, however, that if the official index value does not change
during some or all of the period when trading is occurring on the
Exchange (for example, for indexes of foreign country securities
because of time zone differences or holidays in countries where such
indexes' component stocks trade) then the last calculated official
index value must remain available throughout Exchange trading
hours;* * *

    This proposal would conform the index dissemination requirements
for Index-Linked Securities to those for ETFs as set forth in
Commentary .03(b)(ii) to Rule 1000--AEMI (PDRs) and Commentary
.02(b)(ii) to Rule 1000A--AEMI (IFSs). Both ETF Commentaries noted
above provide that an index value for an ETF based on an underlying
international or global index be widely disseminated by one or more
major market data vendors at least every 60 seconds during the time
such ETFs are traded on the Exchange. This contrasts with the
requirement for an index underlying an ETF based on a domestic index
where the underlying index must be updated at least every 15 seconds.
If the index value does not change during some or all of the period
when trading is occurring on the Exchange, the last official calculated
index value must remain available through Exchange trading hours. This
60-second standard reflects limitations, in some instances, on the
frequency of intra-day trading information with respect to foreign
country securities and the fact that in many cases, trading hours for
overseas markets overly only in part, or not at all, with Exchange
trading hours.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a
national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of
section 6(b) of the Act.\3\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of section
6(b)(5) Act \4\ that the rules of an exchange be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding, or (ii) as to
which Amex consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve such proposed rule change; or
    B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.
    The Exchange has requested accelerated approval of this proposed
rule change prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of the
notice of the filing thereof. The Commission has determined that a 15-
day comment period is appropriate in this case.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File Number SR-Amex-2008-04 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2008-04. 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, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2008-04 and should be
submitted on or before March 6, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-3088 Filed 2-19-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Nathalie Simon/DC/USEPA/US

03/11/2008 05:32 PM

To

"Schwab, Margo"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Johansson, Robert" <EMAIL_ADDRESS>Janet Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Darryl Weatherhead/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, <EMAIL_ADDRESS>Bryan Hubbell, Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

Al McGartland/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ronn Dexter/DC/USEPA/US, Elizabeth Kopits/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Cynthia Morgan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Thomas Gillis/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

UVB Appendix

Attached please find the UVB Appendix including a brief introduction, the contractor's draft report (the pre-peer review version) as well as the individual peer reviewer reports as we discussed.  Note that one peer reviewer attached a scanned marked up pdf of the report.  I have no way of incorporating this into the document itself and suggest we add it to the docket for reference.

Please let me know if you have any suggested changes.

Cheers!

Nathalie

***************************************************************

Nathalie B. Simon,  PhD

Associate Director

National Center for Environmental Economics

USEPA, Mail Code 1809T

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC  20460

ph:<PHONE_NUMBER>  fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

**************************************************************


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 84 (Monday, May 4, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 20478]
[FR Doc No: E9-10102]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-747-000]

Robbins Energy LLC; Notice of Filing

April 23, 2009.
    Take notice that on April 20, 2009, Robbins Energy LLC filed a
supplement to revise its filing in the above captioned docket with
information required under the Commission's regulations. Such filing
served to reset the filing date in this proceeding.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 11, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-10102 Filed 5-1-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 15, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 13832]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05169]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4304-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

Kansas; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Kansas (FEMA-4304-DR), dated February 24,
2017, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective February 24, 2017.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated February 24, 2017, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Kansas resulting from a severe winter storm during the period of
January 13-16, 2017, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to
warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.
(the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major
disaster exists in the State of Kansas.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the
eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage
under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for
Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford
Act.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

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

    Barton, Clark, Comanche, Edwards, Ellsworth, Ford, Hodgeman,
Jewell, Kiowa, Meade, Ness, Pawnee, Pratt, Rush, Seward, Sheridan,
Stafford, and Trego Counties for Public Assistance.
    All areas within the State of Kansas are eligible for assistance
under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

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

Robert J. Fenton,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-05169 Filed 3-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P