[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 10, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21400-21402]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7003]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1342; Directorate Identifier 2011-CE-038-AD;
Amendment 39-16996; AD 2012-06-15]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Sailplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for DG
Flugzeugbau GmbH Models DG-500 Elan Orion, DG-500 Elan Trainer, DG-500/
20 Elan, and DG-500/22 Elan sailplanes and Models DG-500M and DG-500MB
powered sailplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as incorrect
re-installation of the rear cockpit securing rope for the headrest of
the rear seat during maintenance, which could cause the rear seat to
interfere with the control stick of the sailplane. We are issuing this
AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD is effective May 15, 2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of May 15, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at Document Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC
20590.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact DG
Flugzeugbau GmbH, Otto-Lilienthal-Weg 2, 76646 Bruchsal, Federal
Republic of Germany; telephone: +49 (0) 7251 3020140; fax: +49 (0) 7251
3020149; Internet: http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/tech-mitteilungen-e.html; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate,
901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to
amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified
products. That SNPRM was published in the Federal Register on January
17, 2012 (77 FR 2236). That SNPRM proposed to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    Several occurrences have been reported of incorrect re-
installation of rear cockpit securing rope for the headrest of the
rear seat during maintenance. In one of these occurrences, the
aeroplane suffered an accident. The technical investigations
following this accident have revealed that the rear cockpit headrest
securing rope was too long, which caused the rear seat to interfere
with the control stick of the aeroplane.
    This condition if not detected and corrected, could lead to loss
of control of the aeroplane.
    To address this unsafe condition, DG Flugzeugbau have developed
a modification to be accomplished in accordance with the Working
Instruction No. 1 for Technical Note (TN) 348/20 in issue 3, dated
13 September 2011, for the English language version and in issue 2,
dated 22 October 2008, for the German language version (English
version revised at issue 3 to correct a translation discrepancy),
which aims to prevent wrong re-installation of the headrest securing
rope. TN 500/05 embodies this Working Instruction.
    For the reasons described above, this AD requires a one-time
inspection of the length of the rear cockpit headrest securing rope
and, in case of discrepancy, readjustment of the length. In
addition, this AD requires the installation of a modified headrest
securing rope with snap hook.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the SNPRM (77 FR 2236, January 17,
2012) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
SNPRM (77 FR 2236, January 17, 2012) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the SNPRM (77 FR 2236, January 17, 2012).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 16 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 2.5 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $1,088 per
product.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S.
operators to be $20,808, or $1,300.50 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will
take about 0.5 work-hour, for a cost of $42.50 per product. We have no
way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

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 AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    (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, 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.

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 the SNPRM (77 FR 2236, January 17,
2012), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800)
647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in
the AD docket shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2012-06-15 DG Flugzeugbau GmbH: Amendment 39-16996; Docket No. FAA-
2011-1342; Directorate Identifier 2011-CE-038-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective May 15,
2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Models DG-500 Elan Orion,
DG-500 Elan Trainer, DG-500/20 Elan, and DG-500/22 Elan sailplanes
and Models DG-500M and DG-500MB powered sailplanes, all serial
numbers, that are:
    (i) Equipped with a headrest on the rear seat; and
    (ii) Certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 25: Equipment/
Furnishing

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as incorrect re-
installation of the rear cockpit securing rope for the headrest of
the rear seat during maintenance. We are issuing this AD to correct
the length of the rear cockpit headrest securing rope, which if too
long, could cause the rear seat to interfere with the control stick
of the sailplane and could result in loss of control of the
sailplane.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) Within the next 30 days after May 15, 2012 (the effective
date of this AD), inspect the rear cockpit headrest securing rope to
determine the length. Do the inspection as specified in Instruction
No. 2 of DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical Note No. 500/05, dated
September 19, 2011.
    (i) If the length of the rear cockpit headrest securing rope is
more than 450 millimeters (mm) or less than 400 mm, before further
flight after the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD,
adjust the length of the rear cockpit headrest securing rope to a
length between 400 mm and 450 mm as shown in Sketch 2 of DG
Flugzeugbau GmbH Working Instruction No. 1 for TN348/20, Issue 3,
dated September 13, 2011. After doing the adjustment, do the action
required in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD.
    (ii) If the length of the rear cockpit headrest securing rope is
between 400 mm and 450 mm, do the action required in paragraph
(f)(2) of this AD.
    (2) Within 3 months after May 15, 2012 (the effective date of
this AD), replace the rear cockpit headrest securing rope with a
rear cockpit headrest securing rope with a snap hook. Do the
replacement following DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Working Instruction No. 1
for TN348/20, Issue 3, dated September 13, 2011, as specified in
Instruction No. 3 of DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical Note No. 500/05,
dated September 19, 2011.
    (3) Replacement of the rear cockpit headrest securing rope with
a rear cockpit headrest securing rope with a snap hook done before
May 15, 2012 (the effective date of this AD) following DG
Flugzeugbau GmbH Working Instruction No. 1 for TN348/20, Issue 2, is
considered acceptable for compliance with paragraph (f)(2) of this
AD.
    (4) Although the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) MCAI and
DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical Note No. 500/05, dated September 19,
2011, allows the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD
to be done by a pilot-owner, the U.S. regulatory system requires all
actions required by this AD be done by a certified mechanic.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on any
sailplane 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.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person
is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information
subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless
that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is
estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this
burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI EASA AD No.: 2011-0191, dated September 30, 2011;
DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical Note No. 500/05, dated September 19,
2011; and DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Working Instruction No. 1 for TN348/
20, Issue 3, dated September 13, 2011, for related information.

 (i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) You must use the following service information to do the
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The
Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference (IBR) under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (i) DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical Note No. 500/05, dated
September 19, 2011, and
    (ii) DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Working Instruction No. 1 for TN348/20,
Issue 3, dated September 13, 2011.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact DG
Flugzeugbau GmbH, Otto-Lilienthal-Weg 2, 76646 Bruchsal, Federal
Republic of Germany; telephone: +49 (0) 7251 3020140; fax: +49 (0)
7251 3020149; Internet: http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/tech-mitteilungen-e.html; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at an NARA facility, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 19, 2012.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-7003 Filed 4-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48675-48678]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20885]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84236; File No. SR-FICC-2018-006]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change To Codify the
Processing of Conditional Prepayment Rate Claims in the MBSD Rules and
Make Other Changes

September 20, 2018.
    On July 26, 2018, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'')
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'')
proposed rule change SR-FICC-2018-006 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\2\ The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on August 8, 2018.\3\ The Commission did not
receive any comment letters on the proposed rule change. For the
reasons discussed below, the Commission approves the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83767 (August 2, 2018),
83 FR 39143 (August 8, 2018) (SR-FICC-2018-006) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change would make amendments to FICC's Mortgage-
Backed Securities Division (``MBSD'') Clearing Rules (``MBSD Rules'')
\4\ in order to (i) add terms governing MBSD's current processing of
conditional prepayment rate (``CPR'') claims to the MBSD Rules, and
(ii) make certain clarifications and corrections in the MBSD Rules, as
described below.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Available at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures.
    \5\ Notice, 83 FR, at 39144.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. CPR Claims

    Mortgage pools \6\ are often traded in To-Be-Announced (``TBA'')
trades, which are trades for which the actual identities of and/or the
number of pools underlying each trade are unknown at the time of trade
execution.\7\ MBSD guidelines provide that two business days prior to
the established settlement date of the TBA settlement obligations, the
FICC MBSD clearing member (``Clearing Member'') that has an obligation
to deliver pools for the TBA transaction (i.e., the ``seller'') must
allocate the pools to be delivered.\8\ FICC states that pursuant to the
MBSD Rules, Clearing Members may substitute an underlying pool after it
has been allocated with respect to a pool deliver obligation by
providing instructions to FICC.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A mortgage pool is a collection of mortgage loans or other
collateral assembled by an originator or master services as
collateral for a mortgaged-back security. Id.
    \7\ Notice, 83 FR, at 39144.
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CPR is the percentage of the outstanding loan balance for a pool
that is expected to be repaid over a one-year period.\10\ A CPR claim
arises when an underlying TBA pool is allocated or substituted with a
pool that pays down at a faster rate (i.e., has a higher CPR) than the
average pay down rate for pools of the same type as the underlying pool
being replaced.\11\ The result is that the buyer is receiving a pool
with less value than anticipated based on the TBA terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Notice, 83 FR, at 39144.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As provided in the SIFMA Guidelines,\12\ the industry currently has
a process pursuant to which a buyer may make a CPR claim against the
seller. The CPR claim process is intended to compensate the buyer for
the excess amount that it is paying for the pool being delivered.\13\
Pursuant to SIFMA Guidelines, an entity is entitled to make a CPR claim
if (i) the allocation or substitution giving rise to the CPR claim
occurred after the factor release date \14\ following the scheduled
contractual settlement date relating to the trade; (ii) the pools
involved in the claim meet the criteria for fast paying pools in
accordance with SIFMA Guidelines; (iii) the amount of the CPR claim is
$10,000 or greater, or, in the

case that an entity is submitting a re-transmittal \15\ of a CPR claim,
the CPR claim is $500 or greater; and (iv) 90 percent of the buyer's
claimable unit has settled.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Available at https://www.sifma.org/resources/general/tba-market-governance/ under ``Uniform Practices Manual.'' The SIFMA
Guidelines are trading, clearing and settlement guidelines prepared
by SIFMA intended to reflect common industry practices relating to
confirming, comparing and settling mortgage-backed securities.
    \13\ Notice, 83 FR, at 39144.
    \14\ The term ``factor release date'' means, with respect to a
pool, the date on which the Federal National Mortgage Association
(``Fannie Mae''), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
(``Freddie Mac'') or the Government National Mortgage Association
(``Ginnie Mae''), as applicable, release the ``factor'' that
represents the percentage of the agency's original balance of the
pool that remains outstanding as of such date. Id.
    \15\ A re-transmittal of a CPR claim occurs when a party with
the pool deliver obligation passes the CPR claims it received to the
entities that sent it the pools it used for delivery. Id.
    \16\ Notice, 83 FR, at 39144.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would codify FICC's existing CPR claims
process in the MBSD Rules, including adding a provision providing that
a Clearing Member's cash settlement obligations would include the
positive or negative amount of any valid CPR claim.\17\ FICC states
that the proposed MBSD CPR claims process would generally follow the
CPR claims process set forth in the SIFMA Guidelines and MBSD's current
CPR claims process, with the following exceptions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Definition of Claimable Unit
    The proposed rule change would add to the MBSD Rules two
definitions of ``claimable unit,'' the use of which would depend on the
type of transaction.\18\ According to SIFMA Guidelines and FICC's
current process, CPR claims are based on a ``claimable unit'' which
defines the pool or group of pools that are included in a particular
CPR claim.\19\ Also according to SIFMA Guidelines, a claimable unit is
based on all pools allocated for a trade between factor release dates
that have the same underlying TBA characteristics, such as product,
coupon, trade date, settlement date and price.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id.
    \19\ Id.
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC states that it currently processes CPR claims using a
different definition of claimable unit than the SIFMA definition. FICC
states that its CPR claims process currently uses a definition of
claimable unit based on characteristics of pools after MBSD Pool
Netting \21\ takes place rather than based on underlying TBA
characteristics. The Pool Netting process generally reduces the number
of pool settlements by aggregating and matching offsetting allocated
pools submitted by Clearing Members to arrive at a single net position
per counterparty in a particular pool number.\22\ FICC states that if a
pool obligation is a result of Pool Netting, FICC is unable to track
the pool obligation to an original TBA trade or trades and would be
unable to group pool obligations for CPR claims based on TBA
characteristics as provided in SIFMA Guidelines.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Pursuant to the MBSD Rules, the term ``Pool Netting'' means
the service provided to Clearing Members, as applicable, and the
operations carried out by FICC in the course of providing such
service in accordance with MBSD Rule 8.
    \22\ Notice, 83 FR, at 39145.
    \23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC proposes to use the same definition of claimable unit for CPR
claims as SIFMA Guidelines if the pool obligations upon which the CPR
claims are based have not been through MBSD Pool Netting. FICC states
that this definition would be used for pool allocations or
substitutions for pool obligations that have been allocated after the
factor release date because pool obligations allocated after the factor
release date do not go through the Pool Netting process.\24\ As a
result, FICC states that it would be able to track the pool obligation
to an original TBA trade, which would allow FICC to group the pool
obligation with other pool obligations based on TBA
characteristics.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id.
    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC proposes to use a different definition of a claimable unit
from the SIFMA Guidelines definition for CPR claims based on pool
obligations that are a result of Pool Netting.\26\ FICC proposes to
define a claimable unit for such pool obligations based on pool
characteristics after Pool Netting, rather than based on the original
TBA pool characteristics.\27\ FICC states that this definition would be
used for substitutions for pool obligations that are a result of Pool
Netting because FICC would be unable to track the pool obligation to an
original TBA trade and thus unable to group such pool obligation with
other pool obligations based on TBA characteristics.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Id.
    \27\ Id.
    \28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Re-Transmittal Threshold
    The minimum threshold for a re-transmittal of a CPR claim under
SIFMA Guidelines is $500.\29\ FICC's current process provides that the
minimum threshold for re-transmittals is $5,000.\30\ FICC proposes to
use the $500 re-transmittal minimum threshold for allocations (and
related substitutions), where the allocations were made after the
applicable factor release date, in order to be more consistent with
SIFMA Guidelines and established industry practice.\31\ Meanwhile, FICC
proposes to use a $5,000 re-transmittal threshold for substitutions
relating to allocations that were made prior to the factor release date
following the contractual settlement date to avoid having to process
multiple smaller transactions, which FICC believes would likely be
administratively burdensome.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Id.
    \30\ Id.
    \31\ Id.
    \32\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Proposed MBSD Rule Changes

    To codify the CPR claims process as described above, the proposed
rule change would add a description of the CPR claim process in a new
Section 10 of MBSD Rule 9, including a defined term for ``CPR Claim.''
\33\ In addition, the proposed rule change would specify the validation
process for CPR claims, which, as described above, would codify
existing FICC practices relating to CPR claims and provide that the
process for CPR claims is consistent with SIFMA Guidelines, in each
case, with the exceptions noted above.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Id.
    \34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the proposed rule change would specify that CPR
claims submitted would be reviewed by FICC to validate the following:
(i) The claimable unit with respect to the CPR claim meets the criteria
for fast paying pools as set forth in SIFMA Guidelines; (ii) the CPR
claim amount is $10,000 or greater, unless the CPR claim is a re-
transmittal of a CPR claim, in which case, (a) if the CPR claim relates
to an allocation of a pool effected after the factor release date
following the contractual settlement date and/or substitution of
related pools, the amount is $500 or greater, or (b) if the CPR claim
relates to a substitution of a pool that was allocated prior to the
factor release date following the contractual settlement date, the
amount is $5,000 or greater; and (iii) 90 percent of the Clearing
Member's claimable unit has settled.
    Consistent with FICC's current CPR claims process, the proposed
rule change would also specify that (1) FICC maintains the right to
process CPR claims with no minimum denomination, (2) CPR claims may be
apportioned to more than one participant, (3) CPR claims may be
comprised of both debits and credits, (4) FICC would process all CPR
claims on the Class ``B'' settlement date in the month following the
transmittal month, and (5) FICC would notify the Clearing Member that
the CPR claim has been rejected if the CPR claim is determined to be
invalid.
    In addition, that the proposed rule change would specify that FICC
shall not guaranty CPR claim payments, and any credit to be received
with respect to a CPR claim would be reduced to the extent the
corresponding debit in

connection with a CPR claim is not paid.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC states that to ensure that Clearing Members understand the
potential credits and debits relating to CPR claims, the proposed rule
change would add credits and debits relating to CPR claims in Section 7
of MBSD Rule 11 as items for end of day cash balance computations.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC states that to further describe the CPR claims process as set
forth above, a cross-reference for the defined term ``CPR Claim'' and
new defined terms ``Claimable Unit'' and ``Factor Release Date'' would
be added to MBSD Rule 1, which are consistent with existing FICC
practices relating to CPR claims and with SIFMA Guidelines, in each
case, with the exceptions noted above.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC states that the definitions for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and
Ginnie Mae would be corrected in MBSD Rule 1 to be consistent with
industry practice and with their usage throughout the MBSD Rules.\38\
In addition, the definition of ``SIFMA Guidelines'' would be clarified
by adding a link identifying the location of the SIFMA Guidelines on
the SIFMA website.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Id.
    \39\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \40\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it
finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and rules and regulations thereunder applicable
to such organization. The Commission believes the proposal is
consistent with the Act, specifically Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
and Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(i) under the Act, as discussed below.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \41\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F); 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Consistency With Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \42\ requires, inter alia, that the
rules of the clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, FICC proposes to codify its existing CPR claims
process and to specify the validation process for CPR claims. First,
FICC proposes to specify that CPR claims submitted would be reviewed by
FICC to validate (i) the claimable unit with respect to the CPR claim
meets the criteria for fast paying pools as set forth in SIFMA
Guidelines; (ii) the CPR claim amount is $10,000 or greater, unless the
CPR claim is a re-transmittal of a CPR claim, in which case, (a) if the
CPR claim relates to an allocation of a pool effected after the factor
release date following the contractual settlement date and/or
substitution of related pools, the amount is $500 or greater, or (b) if
the CPR claim relates to a substitution of a pool that was allocated
prior to the factor release date following the contractual settlement
date, the amount is $5,000 or greater; and (iii) 90 percent of the
Clearing Member's claimable unit has settled.
    Consistent with FICC's current CPR claims process, FICC also
proposes to specify that (1) FICC maintains the right to process CPR
claims with no minimum denomination, (2) CPR claims may be apportioned
to more than one participant, (3) CPR claims may be comprised of both
debits and credits, (4) FICC would process all CPR claims on the Class
``B'' settlement date in the month following the transmittal month, and
(5) FICC would notify the Clearing Member that the CPR claim has been
rejected if the CPR claim is determined to be invalid.
    In addition, FICC proposes to specify that FICC shall not guaranty
CPR claim payments, and any credit to be received with respect to a CPR
claim would be reduced to the extent the corresponding debit in
connection with a CPR claim is not paid.
    These proposed changes would codify FICC's existing processes
surrounding CPR claims and make the CPR claims process more consistent
with SIFMA Guidelines. The Commission believes that the codification
would enable Clearing Members to better understand how CPR claims would
be validated and processed through FICC's facilities and how FICC's CPR
claims process would differ from SIFMA Guidelines with respect to the
definition of claimable unit and the re-transmittal minimum threshold,
as set forth above. By enabling Clearing Members to better understand
the CPR claims process, the proposal is designed to help ensure that
CPR claims are submitted and processed correctly and thus promote the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of such securities
transactions.
    Additionally, FICC proposes to make several clarifying changes.
First, as described above, the proposed rule change would add credits
and debits relating to CPR claims in Section 7 of MBSD Rule 11 as items
for end of day cash balance computations. In Second, a cross-reference
for the defined term ``CPR Claim'' and new defined terms ``Claimable
Unit'' and ``Factor Release Date'' would be added to MBSD Rule 1, which
are consistent with existing FICC practices relating to CPR claims and
with SIFMA Guidelines, in each case, with the exceptions noted above.
Third, the proposed rule change would correct the definitions for
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae in MBSD Rule 1 to be consistent
with industry practice and with their usage throughout the MBSD Rules.
Fourth, FICC proposes to add a description of the CPR claim process in
a new Section 10 of MBSD Rule 9, including a defined term for ``CPR
Claim.'' Finally, the definition of ``SIFMA Guidelines'' would be
clarified by adding a link identifying the location of the SIFMA
Guidelines on the SIFMA website.
    By proposing these clarifying changes to the CPR claims rules, the
Commission believes that the proposed changes are designed to help
Clearing Members better understand and remain compliant with the CPR
claims rules to help ensure that CPR claims are submitted and processed
correctly, and thus promoting the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of such securities transactions.
    As each of the aforementioned changes are designed to promote the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with
the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F).

B. Consistency with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(i)

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(i) under the Act requires a covered clearing
agency \43\ to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide for publicly
disclosing all relevant rules and material procedures.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ A ``covered clearing agency'' means, among other things, a
clearing agency registered with the Commission under Section 17A of
the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78q-1 et seq.) that is designated
systemically important by the Financial Stability Oversight Counsel
(``FSOC'') pursuant to the Clearing Supervision Act (12 U.S.C. 5461
et seq.). See 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(a)(5)-(6). On July 18, 2012, FSOC
designated FICC as systemically important. U.S. Department of the
Treasury, ``FSOC Makes First Designations in Effort to Protect
Against Future Financial Crises,'' available at https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/tg1645.aspx.
Therefore, FICC is a covered clearing agency.
    \44\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(23)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the proposed rule changes would (1) codify
FICC's existing CPR claims process and (2) make clarifications to the
existing CPR claims process. The Commission

believes these proposed changes to codify and clarify FICC's existing
practices in regards to the CPR claims process would assist in publicly
disclosing all relevant and material procedures regarding the CPR
claims process. Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposal is
consistent Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(i) under the Act.

III. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act, in particular
the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \45\ and the rules and
regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that proposed rule change SR-FICC-2018-006 be, and hereby is,
approved.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-20885 Filed 9-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Janet Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US

03/05/2008 03:23 PM

To

"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rosalina Rodriguez/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

schedule for upcoming interagency briefings

Heidi,

We have about 7 days before the deadline for the O3 RIA (not that anyone's counting) and we have a few briefings we might want to get on the calendar.  We have yet to brief the interagency group on the extrapolated cost method and results of that analysis.  We would also be happy to brief the interagency group on total costs, total benefits, and net benefits (executive summary level RIA results).  Of these two briefings, would you like for us to give both of them?  Another possibility is to skip the details on cost, and go straight for the high-level executive summary with details in an appendix for reference.  Which would be your preference?

-Janet

 _______________________________________

Janet F. Cakir, Ph.D.

Environmental Protection Specialist

Air Benefits Cost Group

109 TW Alexander Dr., (C439-02)

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 135 (Thursday, July 14, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45461-45462]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16652]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1494-433]

Grand River Dam Authority; Notice of Application for Amendment of
License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Amendment of Article 401 reservoir elevation
rule curve in order to keep reservoir levels in the Grand Lake O' the
Cherokees (Grand Lake) higher than normal from August 16 through
October 31. As explained in (k) below, this notice only seeks comments,
motions to intervene, and protests on a temporary variance from the
rule curve, for the period from August 16 through October 31, 2016.
    b. Project No.: 1494-433.
    c. Date Filed: May 6, 2016; supplemented June 2, 2016 and June 30,
2016.
    d. Applicant: Grand River Dam Authority (GRDA).
    e. Name of Project: Pensacola Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Grand River in Craig,
Delaware, Mayes, and Ottawa Counties, Oklahoma.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Tamara E. Jahnke, Assistant General Counsel,
Grand River Dam Authority, P.O. Box 409, Vinita, OK 74301-0409;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Linda Stewart, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or B. Peter Yarrington, telephone (202) 502-
6129, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests
is 14 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission.
    All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail a copy to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please include
the project number (P-1494-433) on any comments or motions filed.
    k. Description of Request: In its application, GRDA requests a
permanent amendment of the project's Article 401 reservoir elevation
rule curve to go into effect August 16, 2016, and remain in effect
through the remaining term of the project license. GRDA requests, if a
permanent amendment cannot be reviewed by the Commission by August 16,
2016, that a temporary variance for August 16 through October 31, 2016
only be considered while the Commission continues to process its
request for a permanent amendment. This notice only seeks comments,
motions to intervene, and protests on GRDA's request for a temporary
variance for the period from August 16 through October 31, 2016.
    GRDA indicates that it seeks the rule curve change to reduce the
risk of vessel groundings at Grand Lake in late summer, improve
recreation during a peak recreation season, better balance competing
stakeholder interests, and provide additional water storage so that, in
the event of drought, water would be available for release to aid in
maintaining water quality in the river downstream.
    Under GRDA's proposal, between August 16 and September 15, the
reservoir would be maintained at elevation 743 feet Pensacola Datum
(PD), which is up to two feet higher than the current rule curve.
Between September 16 and September 30, the elevation would be lowered
from 743 to 742 feet PD. Between October 1 and October 31, the
reservoir would be maintained at elevation 742 feet PD, which is up to
one foot higher than the current rule curve. After October 31,
reservoir elevations would follow the project's current rule curve.
With its application, GRDA includes a Storm Adaptive Management Plan
that would be followed to address high water conditions upstream and
downstream of Grand Lake during major precipitation events in the river
basin. GRDA also includes a Drought Adaptive Management Plan that would
be followed to determine project operation, including deviations from
the rule curve elevations, to allow releases for maintenance of
downstream water quality and reliable operation of GRDA's downstream
Salina Pumped Storage Project if certain drought conditions occur.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits
in the docket number field to access the document. A copy is also
available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h)
above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. 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.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate
to project works which are the subject of the amendment application.
Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the
applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served
upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular
application. If an intervener 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 document on that resource agency. A copy of all other
filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof
of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and
385.2010.

    Dated: July 8, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-16652 Filed 7-13-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 129 (Monday, July 6, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40113-40116]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13015]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Parts 153 and 157

[Docket No. RM20-15-000; Order No. 871]

Limiting Authorizations To Proceed With Construction Activities
Pending Rehearing

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) issues
this final rule to amend its regulations to preclude the issuance of
authorizations to proceed with construction activities with respect to
natural gas facilities authorized by order issued pursuant to section 3
or section 7 of the Natural Gas Act until either the time for filing a
request for rehearing of such order has passed with no rehearing
request being filed or the Commission has acted on the merits of any
rehearing request.

DATES: This rule is effective August 5, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tara DiJohn, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    1. By this final rule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission or agency) is revising its regulations to preclude the
issuance of authorizations to proceed with construction activities with
respect to a Natural Gas Act (NGA) section 3 authorization or section
7(c) certificate order until the Commission acts on the merits of any
timely-filed request for rehearing or the time for filing such a
request has passed. This rule ensures that construction of an approved
natural gas project will not commence until the Commission has acted
upon the merits of any request for rehearing. The rule imposes no new
obligations on the public.

II. Background

    2. The NGA vests the Commission with jurisdiction over the
transportation and wholesale sale of natural gas in interstate
commerce.\1\ To meet these aims, the NGA declares that ``the business
of transporting and selling natural gas for ultimate distribution to
the public is affected with [the] public interest.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 717(a).
    \2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Before a company can construct a natural gas pipeline, it must
obtain approval from the Commission under NGA section 7(e), which
provides that the Commission ``shall'' issue a certificate if it
determines that a proposed pipeline ``is or will be required by the
present or future public convenience and necessity.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Id. 717f(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. If the Commission grants a certificate of public convenience and
necessity, the NGA authorizes the certificate holder to exercise
eminent domain authority if it ``cannot acquire by contract, or is
unable to agree with the owner of property to the compensation to be
paid for, the necessary right-of-way to construct, operate, and
maintain a pipe line or pipe lines for the transportation of natural
gas[.]'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Id. 717f(h). The NGA specifies that any such condemnation
proceedings shall take place in the federal court for the district
in which the property is located or in the relevant state court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Separately, NGA section 3 prohibits the import or export of
natural gas between the United States and a foreign nation without
``first having secured an order of the Commission authorizing it to do
so.'' \5\ NGA section 3 authority is divided between the Department of
Energy, which oversees the import or export of the natural gas
commodity,\6\ and the Commission, which oversees the siting,
construction, and operation of import or export facilities.\7\ The
Commission ``shall'' authorize proposed import or export facilities
unless it finds that construction and operation of the proposed
facilities ``will not be consistent with the public interest.'' \8\
Unlike section 7, section 3 does not provide for the acquisition of
lands through eminent domain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 717b.
    \6\ Id. 717b(a)-(c). In 1977, Congress transferred the
regulatory functions of NGA section 3 from the Federal Power
Commission to the Department of Energy. 42 U.S.C. 7151(b)
(Department of Energy Organization Act). The Department of Energy
delegated back to the newly created Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission the limited authority under NGA section 3(e) to approve
the physical facilities. 15 U.S.C. 717b(e).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 717b(e). See DOE Delegation Order No. 00-004.00A
(effective May 16, 2006) (renewing delegation to the Commission
authority over the construction and operation of LNG facilities);
see also 43 FR 47,769, 47,772 (Oct. 17, 1978) (1978 delegation); 42
U.S.C. 7172(e) (Commission authority includes any matter assigned by
the Department).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 717b(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Pursuant to the NGA, the Commission can approve a proposed

project subject to ``such reasonable terms and conditions as the public
convenience and necessity may require.'' \9\ The certificate orders
typically include conditions a company must meet before construction or
operation of the project may begin, and typically provide that a
company must receive written authorization from the Director of the
Office of Energy Projects (or the Director's designee) before
commencing construction of any project facilities.\10\ The purpose of
requiring a written request for authorization to commence with
construction activities (often referred to as a notice to proceed) is
not to reexamine the underlying Commission order; rather, it is to
ensure that the Commission's preconstruction requirements have been
met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id. 717f(e).
    \10\ See, e.g., Florida Gas Transmission Co., LLC, 170 FERC ]
61,200, 62,335 (2020) (Environmental Condition 9 requires Florida
Gas to ``receive written authorization from the Director of OEP
before commencing construction of any project facilities. To obtain
such authorization, Florida Gas must file with the Secretary
documentation that it has received all applicable authorizations
required under federal law (or evidence of waiver thereof)''); Gulf
South Pipeline Co., LP, 170 FERC ] 61,201, 62,348 (2020) (same).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    7. In recent years, the Commission's NGA sections 3 and 7
proceedings have seen increased interest and participation by
stakeholders, such as landowners, community members, non-governmental
organizations, property rights advocates, and governmental entities,
who have raised concerns about proposed projects. The Commission's
order granting an authorization under section 3 and/or section 7 fully
considers all stakeholder concerns raised during the proceeding.
    8. If a party is dissatisfied with the Commission's NGA section 3
authorization or section 7 certificate determination, it may apply for
rehearing.\11\ The application must ``set forth specifically'' the
grounds for rehearing.\12\ On rehearing, the Commission is authorized
to ``grant or deny'' the request, ``or to abrogate or modify its
order[.]'' \13\ ``Unless the Commission acts upon the application for
rehearing within thirty days after it is filed, such application may be
deemed to have been denied.'' \14\ Often, because of the complex nature
of the matters raised, the Commission issues an order (known as a
tolling order) by the thirtieth day following the filing of a rehearing
request, in order to allow additional time for the Commission to
provide thoughtful, well-considered attention to the issues raised on
rehearing.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 717r(a).
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ Id.
    \15\ See, e.g., Cal. Co. v. FPC, 411 F.2d 720, 721 (DC Cir.
1969); Kokajko v. FERC, 837 F.2d 524, 525 (1st Cir. 1988) (``The
statutory language, . . . although requiring FERC to `act' upon the
application for rehearing within thirty days after filing, lest the
application is deemed denied, does not state . . . that FERC must
`act on the merits' within that time lest the application is deemed
denied.''); Gen. Am. Oil Co. of Tex. v. FPC, 409 F.2d 597, 599 (5th
Cir. 1969); Berkley v. Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, 896 F.3d 624,
631 (4th Cir. 2018); see also Del. Riverkeeper Network v. FERC, 895
F.3d 102, 113 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (rejecting a due process challenge to
Commission tolling orders).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. The rehearing process serves as a mechanism for the Commission
to carefully consider the arguments presented, in order to resolve
disputes or bring its expertise to bear on complex, technical matters
before they are potentially presented to the courts. The Commission
balances the interests of numerous stakeholders and renders decisions
that address challenging technical, economic, and environmental
matters, as well as complex legal issues. This takes time. Only after
resolving these ``difficult problems'' \16\ does the Commission issue
an order on the merits of a rehearing request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ FPC v. Colo. Interstate Gas Co., 348 U.S. 492, 501 (1955).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. Once the Commission issues an order on the merits of a
rehearing request, a party may seek judicial review of the Commission's
order. An application for agency rehearing is a prerequisite to
judicial review, and only those objections raised on rehearing may be
presented to the court of appeals.\17\ Congress specified that an
application for rehearing ``shall not, unless specifically ordered by
the Commission, operate as a stay of the Commission's order.'' \18\
Thus, following issuance of an NGA section 7 certificate or section 3
authorization, a project sponsor may request that the Commission
authorize construction while rehearing is pending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 717r(b).
    \18\ Id. 717r(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. In order to balance our commitment to expeditiously respond to
parties' concerns in comprehensive orders on rehearing and the serious
concerns posed by the possibility of construction proceeding prior to
the completion of Commission review, we are exercising our discretion
to adopt a new regulation that precludes the issuance of authorizations
to proceed with construction of projects authorized under NGA sections
3 and 7 while rehearing of the initial orders is pending. This rule
ensures that construction of an approved natural gas project will not
commence until the Commission has acted upon the merits of any request
for rehearing, regardless of land ownership.
    12. This final rule adds to our regulations new Sec.  157.23, which
provides that:
    With respect to orders issued pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 717b or 15
U.S.C. 717f(c) authorizing the construction of new natural gas
transportation, export, or import facilities, no authorization to
proceed with construction activities will be issued:
    (a) Until the time for the filing of a request for rehearing under
15 U.S.C. 717r(a) has expired with no such request being filed, or
    (b) if a timely request for rehearing is filed, until the
Commission has acted upon the merits of that request.
    13. In addition, we are revising Sec.  153.4 of our regulations to
incorporate a cross-reference to new Sec.  157.23.

IV. Information Collection Statement

    14. The Paperwork Reduction Act \19\ requires each federal agency
to seek and obtain the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval
before undertaking a collection of information (i.e., reporting,
recordkeeping, or public disclosure requirements) directed to ten or
more persons or contained in a rule of general applicability. OMB
regulations require approval of certain information collection
requirements contained in final rules published in the Federal
Register.\20\ This final rule does not contain any information
collection requirements. The Commission is therefore not required to
submit this rule to OMB for review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.
    \20\ See 5 CFR 1320.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Environmental Analysis

    15. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may
have a significant effect on the human environment.\21\ The Commission
has categorically excluded certain actions from this requirement as not
having a significant effect on the human environment, including the
promulgation of rules that are clarifying, corrective, or procedural,
or that do not substantially change the effect of legislation or the
regulations being amended.\22\ This final rule disallows the issuance
of authorizations to proceed with construction activities until the
Commission acts on the merits of any

request for rehearing of an NGA section 3 authorization or section 7(c)
certificate order. Because this final rule is procedural in nature,
preparation of an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact
Statement is not required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, Order No. 486, 41 FERC ] 61,284 (1987).
    \22\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    16. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \23\ generally
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
However, final rules promulgated without the publication of a general
notice of proposed rulemaking under section 553 of the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA) are exempt from the RFA's requirements.\24\
Pursuant to section 553(b)(3)(A) of the APA, ``rules of agency
organization, procedure, or practice'' may be published without general
notice of proposed rulemaking.\25\ Because this rule concerns only
matters of agency procedure--specifically, the Commission's internal
processes and procedure for issuing authorizations to proceed with
construction activities under an NGA section 3 authorization or an NGA
section 7(c) certificate order, the APA's public notice and comment
procedures do not apply. Accordingly, this final rule is exempt from
the requirements of the RFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
    \24\ Id. 604(a).
    \25\ Id. 553(b)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Document Availability

    17. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov). At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room due to the President's March 13, 2020 proclamation
declaring a National Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease
(COVID-19).
    18. From FERC's Home Page on the internet, this information is
available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on
eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or
downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket
number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket
number field.
    19. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's
website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-
502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371. Email the Public Reference Room at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
VIII. Effective Date

    20. The Commission is issuing this rule as a final rule without a
period for public comment. Public notice and comment, otherwise
required by 5 U.S.C. 553, do not apply to ``rules of agency
organization, procedure, or practice.'' \26\ This rule concerns only
matters of agency procedure, and will not significantly affect
regulated entities or the general public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. This rule is effective August 5, 2020. As a matter of policy,
however, the Commission will not authorize construction to proceed
pending rehearing during the period before this rule becomes effective.

List of Subjects

18 CFR Part 153

    Exports, Natural gas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

18 CFR Part 157

    Administrative practice and procedure, Natural gas, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    By the Commission. Commissioner Glick is concurring in part and
dissenting in part with a separate statement attached.

    Issued June 9, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission is amending parts
153 and 157, chapter I, title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as
follows:

PART 153--APPLICATIONS FOR AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, OR
MODIFY FACILITIES USED FOR THE EXPORT OR IMPORT OF NATURAL GAS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 153 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717b, 717o; E.O. 10485; 3 CFR, 1949-1953
Comp., p. 970, as amended by E.O. 12038, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 136,
DOE Delegation Order No. 0204-112, 49 FR 6684 (February 22, 1984).

0
2. Revise Sec.  153.4 to read as follows:

Sec.  153.4  General requirements.

    The procedures in Sec. Sec.  157.5, 157.6, 157.8, 157.9, 157.10,
157.11, 157.12, and 157.23 of this chapter are applicable to the
applications described in this subpart.

PART 157--APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY AND FOR ORDERS PERMITTING AND APPROVING ABANDONMENT UNDER
SECTION 7 OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT

0
3. The authority citation for Part 157 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.

0
4. Add Sec.  157.23 to subpart A to read as follows:

Sec.  157.23  Authorizations to Proceed with Construction Activities.

    With respect to orders issued pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 717b or 15
U.S.C. 717f(c) authorizing the construction of new natural gas
transportation, export, or import facilities, no authorization to
proceed with construction activities will be issued:
    (a) Until the time for the filing of a request for rehearing under
15 U.S.C. 717r(a) has expired with no such request being filed, or
    (b) If a timely request for rehearing is filed, until the
Commission has acted upon the merits of that request.

The following will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Limiting Authorizations to Proceed with Construction Activities Pending
Rehearing

Docket No. RM20-15-000

GLICK, Commissioner, concurring in part and dissenting in part:

    1. It is readily apparent that today's final rule attempts to
address some of the concerns raised in the Allegheny Defense Project v.
FERC proceeding before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit). In that proceeding, numerous groups
have objected to the Commission's practice of ``tolling'' for months,
or even years, requests for rehearing of certificates issued pursuant
to Sec.  7 of the Natural Gas Act,\1\ thereby preventing landowners
from seeking judicial review, even while pipeline developers are
permitted to condemn their land and start constructing a pipeline. In
her concurring opinion in Allegheny Defense Project, Judge Millett
correctly characterized the Commission's practice as a ``Kafkaesque
regime''--one that allows ``the Commission [to] keep homeowners in

seemingly endless administrative limbo while energy companies plow
ahead seizing land and constructing the very pipeline that the
procedurally handcuffed homeowners seek to stop.'' \2\ Now that the en
banc D.C. Circuit has heard oral argument on the legality of this
Kafkaesque regime, the Commission is finally deciding to stop allowing
developers to begin constructing a pipeline before the Commission's
rehearing process is complete. That is a step in the right direction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 717f(c).
    \2\ Allegheny Def. Project v. FERC, 932 F.3d 940, 948 (D.C.
Cir.) (Millett, J., concurring), reh'g en banc granted, judgment
vacated, 943 F.3d 496 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Nevertheless, I dissent in part from this final rule because it
does nothing to address the concern, articulated clearly in Judge
Millett's concurrence, that a pipeline developer should not be able to
begin the process of condemning private land before the owners of that
land can go to court to challenge the certificate. Eminent domain is
among the most significant actions that a government may take with
regard to an individual's private property.\3\ And the harm to an
individual from having his or her land condemned is one that may never
be fully remedied, even in the event they receive their
constitutionally required compensation.\4\ Bearing those basic facts in
mind, there is something fundamentally unfair about a regulatory regime
that allows a private entity to start the process of condemning an
individual's land before the landowner can go to court to contest the
basis for that condemnation action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Cf. Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 384 (1994)
(observing that government action that provides for ``public access
[to private property] would deprive [the owner] of the right to
exclude others, `one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of
rights that are commonly characterized as property.''') (quoting
Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164, 176 (1979)); Loretto v.
Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 426 (1982) (``[W]e
have long considered a physical intrusion by government to be a
property restriction of an unusually serious character for purposes
of the Takings Clause.''); Hendler v. United States, 952 F.2d 1364,
1374 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (``In the bundle of rights we call property,
one of the most valued is the right to sole and exclusive
possession--the right to exclude strangers, or for that matter
friends, but especially the Government.'' (emphasis in the
original)).
    \4\ See Kimball Laundry Co. v. United States, 338 U.S. 1, 5
(1949) (``The value of property springs from subjective needs and
attitudes; its value to the owner may therefore differ widely from
its value to the taker.''); United Church of the Med. Ctr. v. Med.
Ctr. Comm'n, 689 F.2d 693, 701 (7th Cir. 1982) (``It is settled
beyond the need for citation . . . that a given piece of property is
considered to be unique, and its loss is always an irreparable
injury.''); accord Richardson v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 124 F.3d
1150, 1168 (9th Cir. 1997) (O'Scannlain, J., concurring in part and
dissenting in part) (``Whether because of a sentimental attachment
to his property or a conviction that the property is actually worth
more than what the market will currently bear, a landlord might
choose not to sell, even at the `fair market value.''').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. That concern was central to Judge Millett's concurrence in
Allegheny Defense Project. Throughout her opinion, she touched on the
profound inequity of allowing a developer to condemn land and construct
a pipeline while the opponents of that pipeline are stuck in
``administrative limbo'' before the Commission.\5\ I see nothing in her
opinion that suggests that the problem created by the Commission's
abuse of tolling orders is limited to the actual construction of a
pipeline. To the contrary, Judge Millett pointed repeatedly to the
exercise of eminent domain prior to rehearing as an example of how the
Commission's use of tolling orders ``runs roughshod over basic
principles of fair process.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Allegheny Def. Project, 932 F.3d at 948, 950, 952-53, 956
(Millett, J., concurring).
    \6\ Id. at 950 (Millett, J., concurring).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. And yet this final rule deals only with construction without
making any effort to address the exercise of eminent domain during that
period when the courthouse doors are closed to landowners seeking to
challenge the certificate. That is a shame. And the failure to do
anything in that regard is a striking contrast to the Commission's
supposed concern for landowners. Rather than remaining silent on this
situation, we ought to do everything in our power to address it and
ensure that certificate holders are not permitted to go to court before
landowners.
    5. To that end, I believe that we should adopt a practice of
presumptively staying Sec.  7 certificates \7\ pending Commission
action on the merits of any timely filed requests for rehearing.\8\ A
practice along those lines would help protect landowners from an action
seeking to condemn their property by delaying the issuance of the
condition precedent for a condemnation action pursuant to the NGA.\9\
Only then will we have addressed the most glaring due process
shortcomings associated with the Commission's use of tolling orders in
NGA certificate proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Unlike Sec.  7 of the NGA, Sec.  3 does not convey eminent
domain authority. See Limiting Authorizations to Proceed with
Construction Activities Pending Rehearing, 171 FERC ] 61,201, P 5
(2020). Accordingly, I do not believe it is necessary to
presumptively stay the Commission's Sec.  3 determinations. I do,
however, agree with my colleagues that it is appropriate to refrain
from issuing any notices to proceed with construction under both
Sec.  3 and Sec.  7 given the potential for irreparable harm due to
construction pursuant to either provision of the NGA. See id. P 11.
    \8\ Under such an approach, the Commission could, in its
discretion, lift the stay in response to a showing from the pipeline
developer that it is necessary or appropriate to commence
condemnation proceedings prior to the Commission acting on
rehearing.
    \9\ Multiple courts have contemplated a stay having an effect
along those lines. See, e.g., Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC v. An
Easement to Construct, Operate & Maintain a 42-inch Gas Transmission
Line, No. 2:17-CV-04214, 2018 WL 1004745, at *5 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 21,
2018) (``The landowners insist that the various challenges that
Mountain Valley faces before FERC and the courts of appeals counsel
against the granting of partial summary judgment. As explained
earlier, a FERC order remains in effect unless FERC or a court of
appeals issues a stay and no such stay has been issued here.''
(internal citations omitted)); In re Algonquin Nat. Gas Pipeline
Eminent Domain Cases, No. 15-CV-5076, 2015 WL 10793423, at *7
(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2015) (``Here, various interested parties have
filed Requests for Rehearing with FERC but, absent a stay by FERC,
those Requests for Rehearing neither prohibit these proceedings from
going forward nor affect Algonquin's substantive right to condemn or
the need for immediate possession.''); Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co. v. 104
Acres of Land More or Less, in Providence Cty. of State of R.I., 749
F. Supp. 427, 431 (D.R.I. 1990) (``Because in this case the
Commission's order has not been stayed, condemnation pursuant to
that order may proceed.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. During my time at the Commission, I have had the opportunity to
meet with many landowners who lost their property rights through
eminent domain proceedings authorized by the NGA. It is heartbreaking
to hear their stories of watching their land be condemned while the
Commission sat on rehearing requests, leaving them helpless to
challenge the certificate, even as it was used to seize their land. We
should be doing everything in our power to prevent such a patently
unfair result.
    For these reasons, I respectfully concur in part and dissent in
part.

Richard Glick, Commissioner.

[FR Doc. 2020-13015 Filed 7-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 10, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 7095]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02739]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL 9942-20-OARM]

Request for Nominations to the National and Governmental Advisory
Committees to the U.S. Representative to the Commission for
Environmental Cooperation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Request for Nominations.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is inviting
nominations from a diverse range of qualified candidates to be
considered for appointment to fill vacancies on the National Advisory
Committee (NAC) and the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) to the
U.S. Representative to the Commission for Environmental Cooperation
(CEC). Vacancies on these two committees are expected to be selected by
the spring of 2016. Please submit nominations by March 4, 2016.
Additional sources may be utilized in the solicitation of nominees.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Advisory Committee and the
Governmental Advisory Committee advise the EPA Administrator in her
capacity as the U.S. Representative to the CEC Council. The Committees
are authorized under Articles 17 and 18 of the North American Agreement
on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) Implementation Act, Public Law 103-182, and as
directed by Executive Order 12915, entitled ``Federal Implementation of
the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation.'' The
Committees are responsible for providing advice to the United States
Representative on a wide range of strategic, scientific, technological,
regulatory and economic issues related to implementation and further
elaboration of the NAAEC. The National Advisory Committee consists of
15 representatives from environmental non-profit groups, business and
industry, and educational institutions. The Governmental Advisory
Committee consists of 14 representatives from state, local, and tribal
governments. Members are appointed by the EPA Administrator for a two-
year term. The committees usually meet 3 times per year and the average
workload for committee members is approximately 10 to 15 hours per
month. Members serve on the committees in a voluntary capacity.
Although we are unable to provide compensation or an honorarium for
your services, you may receive travel and per diem allowances,
according to applicable federal travel regulations. EPA is seeking
nominations from various sectors, i.e., for the NAC we are seeking
nominees from academia, business and industry, and non-governmental
organizations; for the GAC we are seeking nominees from state, local
and tribal government sectors. Nominees will be considered according to
the mandates of FACA, which requires committees to maintain diversity
across a broad range of constituencies, sectors, and groups. EPA values
and welcomes diversity. In an effort obtain nominations of diverse
candidates, EPA encourages nominations of women and men of all racial
and ethnic groups. The following criteria will be used to evaluate
nominees:
     Professional knowledge of the subjects examined by the
committees, including trade and environment issues, the NAFTA, the
NAAEC, and the CEC.
     Represent a sector or group involved in trilateral
environmental policy issues.
     Senior-level experience in the sectors represented on both
committees.
     A demonstrated ability to work in a consensus building
process with a wide range of representatives from diverse
constituencies.
    Nominations must include a resume and a short biography describing
the professional and educational qualifications of the nominee, as well
as the nominee's current business address, email address, and daytime
telephone number. Interested candidates may self-nominate. Anyone
interested in being considered for nomination is encouraged to submit
their application materials by March 4, 2016. To help the Agency in
evaluating the effectiveness of its outreach efforts, please tell us
how you learned of this opportunity. Please be aware that EPA's policy
is that, unless otherwise prescribed by statute, members generally are
appointed for two-year terms.
ADDRESSES: Submit nominations to: Oscar Carrillo, Designated Federal
Officer, Office of Diversity, Advisory Committee Management and
Outreach, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1601-M), 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. You may also email
nominations with subject line COMMITTEE RESUME 2016 to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Oscar Carrillo, Designated Federal
Officer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1601-M), Washington, DC
20460; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: February 2, 2016.
Oscar Carrillo,
Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. 2016-02739 Filed 2-9-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 149 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 46104]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18863]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4070-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2012-0002]

New Jersey; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of New Jersey (FEMA-4070-DR), dated July 19,
2012, and related determinations.

DATES:  Effective Date: July 19, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, 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 July 19, 2012, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of New Jersey resulting from severe storms and straight-line winds
on June 30, 2012, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant
a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster
exists in the State of New Jersey.
    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 is
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

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

    Atlantic, Cumberland, and Salem Counties for Public Assistance.
    All counties within the State of New Jersey are eligible to
apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

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

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-18863 Filed 8-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P