[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 63 (Tuesday, April 4, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16449-16456]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06562]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80327; File No. SR-MSRB-2017-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule G-3, on
Professional Qualification Requirements, and Rule G-8, on Books and
Records, To Establish Continuing Education Requirements for Municipal
Advisors and Accompanying Recordkeeping Requirements

March 29, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Exchange Act'' or ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\
notice is hereby given that on March 22, 2017 the Municipal Securities
Rulemaking Board (the ``MSRB'' or ``Board'') filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the ``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items
have been prepared by the MSRB. 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 MSRB filed with the Commission a proposed rule change to amend
MSRB Rule G-3, on professional qualification requirements, to establish
continuing education requirements for municipal advisors; \3\ and
accompanying amendments to MSRB Rule G-8, on books and records to be
made by brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers (``dealers'')
and municipal advisors; and the proposed rule change also makes minor
technical changes to Rule G-3 to reflect the renumbering of sections
and updates to cross-referenced provisions (collectively the ``proposed
rule change''). The MSRB requests that the proposed rule change be
approved with an implementation date of January 1, 2018. Municipal
advisors would, therefore, have until December 31, 2018 to complete a
needs analysis, develop a written training plan and deliver the
appropriate training to comply with the annual training requirement for
calendar year 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Municipal advisor would have the same meaning as in Section
15B(e)(4) of the Act, 17 CFR 240.15Ba1-1(d)(1)-(4) and other rules
and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's Web
site at www.msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/SEC-Filings/2017-Filings.aspx, at the MSRB's principal office, 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 MSRB 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 MSRB 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
    Now that the MSRB has launched the Municipal Advisor Representative
Qualification Examination (Series 50),\4\ in connection with its
statutory mandate,\5\ the MSRB seeks to amend Rule G-3(i) to prescribe
continuing education requirements for municipal advisors. Section
15B(b) of the Act, as amended by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act (``Dodd-Frank Act''), specifically requires the
MSRB to provide professional standards and continuing education
requirements for municipal advisors. The goal of continuing education
is to ensure that certain associated persons of municipal advisors stay
abreast of issues that may affect their job responsibilities and of
product and regulatory developments. The proposed rule change also
would amend Rule G-8 to establish recordkeeping requirements related to
the administration of a municipal advisor's continuing education
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ On February 26, 2015, the MSRB received approval from the
SEC amending Rule G-3 to establish two new registration
classifications for municipal advisors: Municipal advisor
representatives and municipal advisor principals; and to require
each prospective municipal advisor representative and municipal
advisor principal to take and pass the municipal advisor
representative qualification examination. See Exchange Act Release
No. 74384 (February 26, 2015), 80 FR 11706 (March 4, 2015) (SR-MSRB-
2014-08).
    \5\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(L)(ii) and (iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposed rule change would make technical changes
to Rule G-3 to reflect the renumbering of sections and updates to
cross-referenced provisions.
Background
    In May 1993, due to the increasing complexity of the securities
industry, a self-regulatory organization (``SRO'') task force \6\ was
formed by the industry's SROs, to study and develop recommendations
regarding continuing education needs in the securities industry. In
September 1993, the task force issued a report recommending a formal
two-part continuing education program.\7\ The task force also
recommended that a permanent council on continuing education, composed
of broker-dealers and SRO representatives, be formed to develop the
content for the continuing education program and provide ongoing
maintenance of the program. Pursuant to this recommendation, the
Securities Industry/Regulatory Council on Continuing Education (``CE
Council'') was formed. \8\ The CE Council prepared

draft rules to implement the continuing education program, which the
SROs filed as proposed enabling rules with the Commission.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The SROs in the task force included the MSRB, American Stock
Exchange, Inc., the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., the
National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (n/k/a the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority), the New York Stock
Exchange, Inc., and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.
    \7\ Report and Recommendations of the Securities Industry Task
Force on Continuing Education (September 1993).
    \8\ The CE Council is currently composed of up to 20-industry
members from broker-dealers, representing a broad cross section of
securities industry firms, and representatives from the MSRB and
other SROs, as well as liaisons from the SEC and the North American
Securities Administrators Association.
    \9\ See Exchange Act Release No. 35341 (February 8, 1995), 60 FR
8426 (February 14, 1995) (SR-MSRB-94-17, SR-AMEX-94-59, SR-CBOE-94-
49, SR-CHX-94-27, SR-NASD-94-72, SR-NYSE-94-43, SR-PSE-94-35, and
SR-PHLX-94-52).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB was a member of the CE Council upon its formation and has
remained a member since. Consistent with the CE Council's
recommendation, the MSRB filed, and the SEC approved, amendments to
Rule G-3 establishing a formal two-part continuing education program
for registered persons, requiring uniform industry-wide periodic
training in regulatory matters, and ongoing training programs conducted
by firms to enhance their registered persons' securities knowledge and
skills. Hence, continuing education requirements for securities
industry participants are not a new regulatory development.
    Dealers are currently required, pursuant to Rule G-3(i), to
maintain a continuing education program for their ``covered registered
persons'' \10\ after their initial qualification and registration. Rule
G-3(i) also sets out the two-pronged approach to continuing education
requirements consisting of a Regulatory Element and a Firm Element
component. The Regulatory Element, which is developed by the CE
Council, is a computer-based training program that focuses on
compliance, regulatory, ethical and sales practice standards with the
content derived from common industry rules and regulations, as well as
widely accepted standards and practices within the industry. Under Rule
G-3(i)(i)(A), covered registered persons are required to complete
Regulatory Element training within 120 days of the second anniversary
of their registration approval date, and every three years
thereafter.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Under Rule G-3(i)(ii)(A), a ``covered registered person''
means ``any person registered with a broker, dealer or municipal
securities dealer and qualified as a representative or principal in
accordance with this rule or as a general securities principal and
who regularly engages in or supervises municipal securities
activities.''
    \11\ MSRB Rule G-3(i)(i)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Firm Element is a firm-administered training program that
requires dealers to annually evaluate and prioritize their training
needs. The documentation evidencing such annual evaluation is commonly
referred to as a needs analysis. A needs analysis generally reflects a
firm's assessment of its unique training needs based on various
factors, for example, the business activities the firm and its
associated persons engage in, the level of industry experience the
firm's associated persons have and any changes to applicable rules or
regulations. Upon completion of a needs analysis, a dealer is required
to develop a written training plan consistent with its analysis of the
training priorities identified. Dealers must maintain records
documenting the completion of the needs analysis, the content of the
training programs and completion of the training by each of the firm's
covered registered persons.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ MSRB Rule G-9(b)(viii)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Amendments to Rule G-3: Establishing Continuing Education
Requirements for Municipal Advisors
    As described in detail below, the MSRB is proposing amendments to
Rule G-3 to establish continuing education requirements for municipal
advisors. Like the Firm Element component for dealers, municipal
advisors would be required to, at least annually, conduct a needs
analysis that evaluates and prioritizes their specific training needs,
develop a written training plan based on the needs identified in the
analysis, and deliver training concerning municipal advisory activities
designed to meet those training needs. However, the proposed
requirements for municipal advisors would differ from the dealers' Firm
Element requirements with respect to identifying those that are subject
to the training and the content that must be covered in the training as
part of the minimum standards for the annual training.
    Under proposed Rule G-3(i)(ii), municipal advisors would be
required to implement a continuing education training program for those
individuals qualified as either a municipal advisor representative or
as a municipal advisor principal (collectively, ``covered
persons'').\13\ The establishment of continuing education requirements
for municipal advisors would assist in ensuring that all firms provide
a minimum-level standard of training that is appropriate in the public
interest and for the protection of investors and municipal entities or
obligated persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Under Rule G-3(d)(i)(A), ``municipal advisor
representative'' means ``a natural person associated with a
municipal advisor who engages in municipal advisory activities on
the municipal advisor's behalf.'' Under MSRB Rule G-3(e)(i),
``municipal advisor principal'' means ``a natural person associated
with a municipal advisor who is qualified as a municipal advisor
representative and is directly engaged in the management, direction
or supervision of the municipal advisory activities of the municipal
advisor and its associated persons.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to proposed Rule G-3(i)(ii)(B)(1), a municipal advisor
would be required to, at least annually, conduct a needs analysis that
evaluates and prioritizes its training needs, develop a written
training plan based on the needs analysis, and deliver training
applicable to its municipal advisory activities. Additionally, in
developing a written training plan, a municipal advisor must take into
consideration the firm's size, organizational structure, scope of
municipal advisory activities, as well as regulatory developments.
    Proposed Rule G-3(i)(ii)(B)(2) would prescribe the minimum
standards for continuing education training by requiring that each
municipal advisor's training include, at a minimum, training on the
applicable regulatory requirements and the fiduciary duty obligations
owed to municipal entity clients. The minimum training on the
applicable regulatory requirements would require a municipal advisor's
continuing education program to include training on the regulatory
requirements applicable to the municipal advisory activities its
covered persons engage in. However, training on the fiduciary duty
obligation owed to municipal entity clients is a minimum component of
the continuing education training for all covered persons, even those
that may not engage in municipal advisory activities on behalf of a
municipal entity client. The fiduciary duty obligation owed to a
municipal entity client is a keystone principal of the regulatory
framework for municipal advisors that the MSRB believes every covered
person engaged in municipal advisory activities should be familiar
with. A municipal advisor would, nonetheless, still have the
flexibility to determine the appropriate scope of training that its
covered persons need on the fiduciary duty obligation based on the
municipal advisory activities that its covered persons engage in.
    Recognizing that the nature of municipal advisory activities
engaged in by municipal advisors can be diverse, the proposed rule
change would provide municipal advisors with sufficient flexibility to
determine their firm-specific training needs and the content and scope
of the training appropriate for their covered persons. For example, a
municipal advisor that only provides advice to municipal entities on
swap transactions would be permitted to design its annual training plan
based upon the rules and practices applicable to its limited business
model, so long as such training plan included the applicable regulatory
requirements

applicable to that limited business and a component regarding the
fiduciary duty obligation owed to municipal entity clients. Moreover,
municipal advisors would be able to determine the method for delivering
such training. For example, a municipal advisor could determine that
the most effective manner for delivering the training would be to
require its covered persons to attend an applicable seminar by subject
matter experts and/or to utilize an on-line training resource.
    The MSRB notes that the minimum requirements for continuing
education training, outlined under the proposed rule change, should not
be viewed by municipal advisors as the full scope of the subject matter
appropriate for municipal advisors' training programs. The minimum
standard for training does not negate the need for each municipal
advisor to consider whether, based on its needs analysis, additional
training applicable to the municipal advisory activities it conducts
are appropriate.
    Proposed Rule G-3(i)(ii)(B)(3) would require a municipal advisor to
administer its continuing education program in accordance with the
annual evaluation and prioritization of its training needs and the
written training plan developed as consistent with its needs analysis.
Also, pursuant to this provision, a municipal advisor would be required
to maintain records documenting the content of its training programs
and a record that each of its covered persons identified completed the
applicable training.
    Under proposed Rule G-3(i)(ii)(C), a municipal advisor's covered
persons (those individuals qualified as a municipal advisor
representative or municipal advisor principal) would be required to
participate in the firm's continuing education training programs. If
consistent with its training plan, a municipal advisor could deliver
training appropriate for all covered persons. In addition, a municipal
advisor may determine that its training needs indicate that it should
also deliver particular training for certain covered persons, for
example, those covered persons that have been designated with
supervisory responsibilities under Rule G-44, or those covered persons
that have been engaged in municipal advisory activities for a short
period of time.
    Under proposed Rule G-3(i)(ii)(D), on specific training
requirements, the appropriate examining authority may require a
municipal advisor, individually or as part of a larger group, to
provide specific training to its covered persons in such areas the
appropriate examining authority deems appropriate.\14\ Such a
requirement may stipulate the class of covered persons for which it is
applicable, the time period in which the requirement must be satisfied
and, where appropriate, the actual training content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For purposes of Rule G-3(i)(ii)(D), ``appropriate examining
authority'' means ``a registered securities association with respect
to a municipal advisor that is a member of such association, or the
Commission, or the Commission's designee, with respect to any other
municipal advisor.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In an effort to reduce regulatory overlap for dealer-municipal
advisors,\15\ the proposed rule change would allow a dealer-municipal
advisor to deliver continuing education training that would satisfy its
training needs for the firm's dealer and municipal advisor activities.
More specifically, pursuant to Rule G-3(i)(ii)(E), as proposed, each
dealer-municipal advisor would be permitted to develop a single written
training plan, if that training plan is consistent with each needs
analysis that was conducted of the firm's municipal advisory activities
and municipal securities activities. In addition, the proposed rule
provision would allow a municipal advisor to conduct training for its
covered persons and covered registered persons, which would satisfy the
continuing education requirements under Rules G-3(i)(i)(B) and G-
3(i)(ii), if such training is consistent with the firm's written
training plan(s) and that training meets the minimum standards for the
training programs, as required under the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ A member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
that is a municipal securities dealer and municipal advisor is
commonly referred to as a ``dealer-municipal advisor.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Amendments to Rule G-8
    The proposed amendments to Rule G-8 address the books and records
that must be made and maintained by a municipal advisor to show
compliance with recordkeeping requirements related to the
administration of a municipal advisor's continuing education program.
The Board adopted the approach of specifying, in some detail, the
information to be reflected in various records. Specifically, the
proposed amendments to Rule G-8(h) would require each municipal advisor
to make and maintain records regarding the firm's completion of its
needs analysis and the development of its corresponding written
training plan. Moreover, with respect to each municipal advisor's
written training plan, municipal advisors would be required to make and
keep records documenting the content of the firm's training programs
and a record evidencing completion of the training programs by each
covered person.\16\ Recordkeeping requirements are an important element
of compliance and the proposed amendments to Rule G-8 are appropriately
tailored to facilitate the examination of a municipal advisor's
compliance with the continuing education requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Rule G-9(h) generally requires municipal advisors to
preserve the books and records described in Rule G-8(h) for a period
of not less than five years for purposes of consistency with SEC
Rule 15Ba1-8 of the Act on books and records to be made and
maintained by municipal advisors. See Exchange Act Release No. 73415
(October 23, 2014), 79 FR 64423 (October 29, 2014) (SR-MSRB-2014-
06).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Technical Amendments
    The MSRB is proposing minor technical amendments to add paragraph
headers, and renumber and update rule cross-references to Rule G-
3(i)(i) and Rule G-3(i)(ii). Rule G-3(i)(i) would be revised by adding
the paragraph header ``Continuing Education Requirements for Brokers,
Dealers, and Municipal Securities Dealers.'' Rule G-3(i)(i)(D) would be
revised by adding the paragraph header ``Reassociation'' and renumbered
Rule G-3(i)(i)(A)(4). Rule G-3(i)(i)(E) would be relocated to proposed
subparagraph Rule G-3(i)(i)(A)(4). Rule G-3(i)(ii) would be re-lettered
Rule G-3(i)(i)(B). Due to these changes, other paragraphs under Rule G-
3(i) would be renumbered and re-lettered.
    As noted above, the MSRB is seeking an implementation date for the
proposed rule change of January 1, 2018. To comply with the annual
training requirement for calendar year 2018, a municipal advisor would
need to complete a needs analysis, develop a written training plan and
deliver the appropriate training by December 31, 2018.
2. Statutory Basis
    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 15B(b)(2)(A) of the Act,\17\ which provides that the MSRB's
rules shall:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(A).

provide that no municipal securities broker or municipal securities
dealer shall effect any transaction in, or induce or attempt to
induce the purchase or sale of, any municipal security, and no
broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer, or municipal advisor
shall provide advice to or on behalf of a municipal entity or
obligated person with respect to municipal financial products or the
issuance of municipal securities, unless . . . such municipal
securities broker or municipal securities dealer and every natural
person associated with such municipal securities broker or municipal
securities dealer meet such standards of training, experience,
competence, and such other qualifications as

the Board finds necessary or appropriate in the public interest or
for the protection of investors and municipal entities or obligated
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
persons.

    This provision provides the MSRB with authority to establish
standards of training, experience, competence and other qualifications
as the MSRB finds necessary. The MSRB believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with this provision of the Act in that the
proposed rule change would provide for minimum levels of training for
persons engaged in municipal advisory activities, which is in the
public interest and for the protection of investors, municipal entities
and obligated persons. The SEC noted that ``[the] new registration
requirements and regulatory standards are intended to mitigate some of
the problems observed with the conduct of some municipal advisors,
including [. . .] advice rendered by financial advisors without
adequate training or qualifications, and failure to place the duty of
loyalty to their clients ahead of their own interests.'' \18\ Requiring
municipal advisors to provide continuing education, including minimum
training on the fiduciary duty obligations owed to municipal entities,
is consistent with and in furtherance of the stated objectives
articulated in the Municipal Advisor Registration Final Rule. In
addition, a continuing education requirement provides investors,
municipal entities and obligated persons with the confidence that
individuals who engage in municipal advisory activities and those who
supervise municipal advisory activities are kept informed of regulatory
developments that can occur after such individuals pass a qualification
examination to engage in municipal advisory activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Exchange Act Release No. 70462 (September 20, 2013), 78
FR 67467 at 67469 (November 12, 2013) (``Municipal Advisor
Registration Final Rule'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(L) of the Act,\19\ which provides
that the MSRB's rules shall, with respect to municipal advisors:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(L).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) Prescribe means reasonably designed to prevent acts, practices,
and courses of business as are not consistent with a municipal
advisor's fiduciary duty to its clients;
    (ii) provide continuing education requirements for municipal
advisors;
    (iii) provide professional standards; and
    (iv) not impose a regulatory burden on small municipal advisors
that is not necessary or appropriate in the public interest and for the
protection of investors, municipal entities, and obligated persons,
provided that there is robust protection of investors against fraud.
    As noted by the SEC in the Municipal Advisor Registration Final
Rule, ``the municipal advisor regulatory regime should continue to
enhance municipal entity and obligated person protections and
incentivize municipal advisors not to engage in misconduct.'' \20\ The
proposed rule change would establish continuing education program
requirements for municipal advisors. By establishing a formal, robust
continuing education program, municipal advisors would ensure their
covered persons are kept informed of issues that affect their job
responsibilities and of regulatory developments, which is in
furtherance of the protection of investors against fraud and
misconduct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Municipal Advisor Registration Final Rule, supra note
14, at 67611.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB believes that, while the proposed rule change would lead
to some associated costs, the costs would be a necessary and
appropriate regulatory burden to ensure that individuals engaging in
municipal advisory activities are adequately trained and maintain an
adequate level of industry knowledge. Specifically, the MSRB believes
that requiring municipal advisors to have a continuing education
program serves to maintain the integrity of the municipal securities
market and, specifically, preserve the public confidence, including the
confidence of municipal entities and obligated persons, that those
engaged in municipal advisory activities meet minimum standards of
training, experience, competence, and such other qualifications as the
Board finds necessary or appropriate. A discussion of the economic
analysis of the proposed rule change and its impact on municipal
advisors is provided below.
    Lastly, the MSRB also believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(G) of the Act,\21\ which provides
that the MSRB's rules shall prescribe records to be made and kept by
municipal securities brokers, municipal securities dealers, and
municipal advisors and the periods for which such records shall be
preserved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(G).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendments to Rule G-8 would assist in ensuring that
municipal advisors are complying with proposed Rule G-3 by extending
the existing recordkeeping requirements applicable to municipal
advisors to include making and maintaining records relating to their
continuing education program. Establishing a requirement for municipal
advisors to maintain records reflecting their continuing education
programs would allow the appropriate examining authority that examines
municipal advisors to better monitor and promote compliance with the
proposed rule change.

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

    Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act \22\ requires that MSRB rules not
be designed to impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The MSRB has
considered the economic impact associated with the proposed rule
change, including a comparison to reasonable alternative regulatory
approaches, relative to the baseline. The MSRB does not believe that
the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change would produce
benefits for users of municipal advisory services by ensuring
compliance, by municipal advisors, with existing regulations and
applicable laws that protect investors, municipal entities, and
obligated persons. The proposed rule change would keep covered persons
informed of issues and regulatory developments that affect their job
responsibilities with respect to helping protect investors and
municipal entities. Such requirements may reduce the risk that users of
municipal advisory services would receive advice that results in harm
or negative impact. Thus, the proposed rule change would help promote a
larger pool of qualified municipal advisor professionals available for
selection by users of municipal advisory services, resulting in the
possibility of greater meaningful competition between providers of
these services.
    The MSRB recognizes that municipal advisors would incur
programmatic costs associated with developing a continuing education
program, delivering training and maintaining records of compliance with
the continuing education requirements. These costs are likely to be
highest when the rule's requirements are initially being implemented,
but should diminish over time after these initial start-up costs are
incurred. The effect on competition between municipal advisors may be
impacted by these upfront costs as some firms, particularly

larger firms, may be better able to bear these costs than other firms.
    To mitigate these costs, the proposal was modified, based on public
comments, to offer flexibility to municipal advisors in how they
implement the requirements of the proposed rule change. The proposed
rule change allows flexibility for developing continuing education
training based on firm size, organizational structure, and scope of
business activities. In addition, the proposed rule change has been
modified to also allow for the development of a single training plan
that is consistent with each needs analysis conducted by a dealer-
municipal advisor. Moreover, dealer-municipal advisors can incorporate
identified, firm-specific training needs, with respect to their
municipal advisory activities, into their existing training programs,
as long as any offered training is consistent with the written training
plan(s).
    The MSRB understands that most small municipal advisors may not
employ full-time staff for the purpose of developing and implementing
continuing education training. However, the MSRB believes that the
proposed rule change, which provides sufficient flexibility regarding
how the requirement is met, does not demand that municipal advisors
hire additional staff. Moreover, third parties, including the MSRB, may
provide training resources that would be available to municipal
advisors at a relatively low cost. To the extent that the costs
associated with the proposed rule change may cause some municipal
advisors to exit the market or to consolidate with other firms, the
MSRB believes these effects are unlikely to materially impact
competition for the provision of municipal advisory services.
    The MSRB considered alternatives, including the development of a
mandatory training program, similar to the Regulatory Element
requirement for dealers, and a more prescriptive continuing education
requirement.\23\ However, at this time, the MSRB does not believe that
such proposals are necessary and that the current proposed rule change
achieves the proper balance between the likely benefits associated with
the proposed rule change and the likely costs associated with
implementing the requirements of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ MSRB Regulatory Notice 2016-24, Request for Comment on
Draft Provisions to Establish a Continuing Education Requirement for
Municipal Advisors (``draft amendments'') (September 30, 2016)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB considered the economic impact of the proposed rule change
and has addressed comments relevant to the impact in additional
sections of the filing.

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

    The MSRB solicited comment on establishing continuing education
requirements for municipal advisors in a Request for Comment \24\ and
received 11 comment letters in response to the draft amendments.\25\ A
copy of MSRB Notice 2016-24 is attached as Exhibit 2a; a list of the
comment letters received in response is attached as Exhibit 2b; and
copies of the comment letters are attached as Exhibit 2c. Below is a
summary of the comments and the MSRB's responses are provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See MSRB Regulatory Notice 2016-24, supra note 23.
    \25\ See Email from G. Letti, Breena LLC, dated September 30,
2016 (``Breena''); Email from Garth Schulz, Castle Advisory Company
LLC, dated September 30, 2016 (``Castle Advisory''); Letter from
Jeff White, Principal, Columbia Capital Management, LLC, dated
November 11, 2016 (``Columbia Capital''); Letter from David T.
Bellaire, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Financial
Services Institute, dated November 14, 2016 (``FSI''); Letter from
Robert A. Lamb, President, Lamont Financial Services Corporation,
dated October 21, 2016 (``Lamont Financial''); Email from Lawrence
Goldberg, dated September 30, 2016(``Goldberg''); Letter from Susan
Gaffney, Executive Director, National Association of Municipal
Advisors, dated November 14, 2016 (``NAMA''); Letter from Leo
Karwejna, Managing Director and Chief Compliance Officer, PFM Group,
dated November 14, 2016 (``PFM''); Letter from Marianne F. Edmonds,
Senior Managing Director, Public Resources Advisory Group, dated
November 14, 2016 (``PRAG''); Email from Jonathan Roberts, Roberts
Consulting, LLC, dated October 14, 2016 (``Roberts''); Letter from
Donna DiMaria, Chairman of the Board of Directors, Third Party
Marketers Association, dated November 17, 2016 (``3PM'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Support for the Proposed Rule Change
    In response to MSRB Notice 2016-24, commenters generally expressed
support for the establishment of continuing education requirements for
municipal advisors.\26\ PFM commented that they ``[welcome] the
implementation of continuing education requirements for municipal
advisors because [they] believe there are inherent benefits of ongoing
continuing education which would assist municipal advisors in expanding
their knowledge and promoting compliance with applicable regulations
necessary within the current regulatory environment.'' FSI stated that
it supports the proposed rule change because, as proposed, such
amendments would ``establish a flexible, principles-based rule that is
harmonized with current FINRA [continuing education] requirements.''
FSI also commended the MSRB for ``choosing a flexible and less
prescriptive approach to this rule making.'' PRAG commented that
``continuing education is a necessary part of the regulatory
framework.'' Similarly, NAMA commented ``[c]ontinuing education
requirements are imperative to ensuring that MAs are held to a
professional standard that strengthens their professional
responsibilities to municipal entities.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 3PM, Breena, Castle Advisory, Columbia Capital, FSI, Lamont
Financial, NAMA, PFM and PRAG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although supportive, a few commenters suggested the need for
clarification on aspects of the proposal and additional guidance with
respect to the implementation of any continuing education
requirements.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ NAMA, PFM and PRAG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation of the Proposed Rule Change
    Certain commenters asserted that the proposal is premature and
recommended that the MSRB delay implementing continuing education
requirements for municipal advisors.\28\ NAMA recommended that the MSRB
``step back and complete an analysis on the impact that the
implementation of all of the new rules and qualification standards have
on MAs, and then determine the scope of continuing education
standards.'' Lamont Financial noted that a phased in implementation
period ``would be the only appropriate way to make the rule
effective.'' According to PFM, the MSRB should consider ``[t]he
institution of a reasonable [phased] in period that considers
additional requirements for municipal advisor principals which more
likely consists of at least a two-year timeframe for implementing the
proposed continuing education requirements.'' PRAG expressed a similar
sentiment, stating that the ``implementation of continuing education
requirements [should] be delayed until the `grace period' for the
Series 50 exam has passed and implementation of the Series 54 exam has
occurred.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Lamont, NAMA and PRAG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB is supportive of a delayed implementation period. The MSRB
believes that implementing the continuing education requirements after
the one-year grace period for the Municipal Advisor Representative
Qualification Examination (Series 50) \29\

affords municipal advisors time to continue to more fully digest
current regulatory requirements and for municipal advisor professionals
to take and pass the Series 50 exam. The MSRB does not believe,
however, that it is necessary to delay the implementation of continuing
education requirements until the development of the Municipal Advisor
Principal Qualification Examination (Series 54), as any municipal
advisor must first be qualified as a municipal advisor representative.
Moreover, the goal of the continuing education requirement is to
enhance the knowledge, skill, and professionalism of covered persons by
ensuring that all covered persons receive regular training, and in an
acceptable depth, applicable to a firm's municipal advisory activities.
As noted earlier in the filing, the MSRB has requested an
implementation date of January 1, 2018. As a result, municipal advisors
would have until December 31, 2018, to conduct the first required
annual training in compliance with the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The one-year grace period for the Series 50 examination
ends on September 12, 2017. The one-year grace period allows
municipal advisor professionals to continue to engage in or
supervise municipal advisory activities, without having passed the
Series 50 examination, until the expiration of the grace period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commercial Training Materials
    Some commenters expressed concerns regarding the lack of
commercially available materials specifically designed to use in
delivering continuing education training for municipal advisors.\30\
Columbia Capital indicated, ``it is not likely that third-parties will
develop CE content that is broad enough to encompass the full breadth
of the MA's role with respect to governmental issuers and obligated
parties.'' Moreover, according to Columbia Capital, ``most MA firms
will be left to develop their own CE programs--an outcome that could be
onerous for small firms.'' PRAG noted it is ``not confident that
[third-party] providers will step into this space and have concern
[sic] about both the cost and time required for the development of
appropriate materials.'' Lamont Financial stated, ``the Board may be
out over its skis in considering [the] rule at this point because the
development of commercial training resources for municipal advisors has
not been significant to date.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Columbia Capital, Lamont Financial and PRAG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Conversely, 3PM stated that ``several of the industry's CE
providers began offering MA training modules as part of their firm-
element product offerings over a year ago.'' Columbia Capital noted,
``[w]e have historically provided ongoing continuing education for our
MA professionals in-house using a mix of formal and informal training/
education methods. We also leverage free and low-cost resources
provided by third-parties--state GFOA conferences, web-based seminars
from organizations like the Council of Development Finance Agencies,
etc.--to supplement our advisors' continuing education.'' Lamont
Financial acknowledged that the MSRB is a resource for training
materials and expressed that ``the Board should continue to develop
materials that will help educate professionals in the field.'' Lamont
Financial also added that ``[c]ertain national associations, such as
NAMA, may be a good source for providing continuing education to
municipal advisors.''
    As proposed, the continuing education requirements for municipal
advisors preserve flexibility as to the content and delivery method for
continuing education training. The proposed rule change does not
prescribe content requirements for the training that municipal advisors
must provide, beyond addressing the regulatory requirements and,
specifically, the fiduciary duty obligation to a firm's municipal
entity clients. Instead, the proposed rule change affords municipal
advisors the flexibility to identify and deliver continuing education
training in the most convenient and effective manner possible based on
their business model. A municipal advisor's training program may
utilize multiple methods of delivery, such as seminars, computer-based
training, webcasts, or dissemination of information requiring written
acknowledgement that the materials have been received and read.
Moreover, industry trade associations may be a good source of
continuing education training materials, in addition to podcasts,
webinars and educational materials developed by the MSRB. Accordingly,
the MSRB does not believe the lack of commercially-available content
would cause an undue burden on municipal advisors.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ For example, as suggested by Lamont Financial, continuing
education training would most likely occur through attendance at
conferences or committee conference calls from membership in
organizations like the National Society of Compliance Professionals
or participation in organizations related to the business of the
advisor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conducting a Needs Analysis and Developing a Written Training Plan
    Two commenters noted the proposal would benefit from additional
clarity and details regarding completing a needs analysis, including
the core subjects to be covered, and on developing a written training
plan.\32\ NAMA suggested that the MSRB could provide such details and
expectations, with respect to the development of a needs analysis, by
providing representative sample needs analyses or additional guidance.
NAMA also stated, more specifically, further guidance would benefit
municipal advisors with respect to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ NAMA and PFM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     How firms should identify and evaluate applicable training
needs, including those related to the fiduciary duty standard and
regulatory issues that arise with respect to current practices for
clients, as well as anticipated or forthcoming responsibilities for
clients;
     What content should be included in a written training
plan;
     Acceptable delivery mechanisms for meeting continuing
education requirements; and
     How to document that training was completed.
    PFM requested that the MSRB ``provid[e] more specific guidance on
required subjects with further interpretive guidance describing
information to be covered on core concepts within the municipal
industry.'' Additionally, PFM suggested that the MSRB publish core
competency subject requirements on a range of various topics for
purposes of ensuring ``a level of consistency in educational
information so as to enhance the quality and standard of training
received by all municipal advisors.''
    The MSRB recognizes that additional guidance on conducting a needs
analysis and how to implement a continuing education program may
benefit municipal advisors, especially non-dealer municipal advisors.
The MSRB intends, before the proposed rule change is implemented,\33\
whether in collaboration with industry associations, or otherwise, to
provide guidance to assist municipal advisors in understanding their
obligations to develop a continuing education program. The guidance
would not be designed to promote or establish a uniform training
program, but rather to provide a common approach to assist municipal
advisors in the development and implementation of a firm-specific
training program. Municipal advisors should be aware that any guidance
or approaches recommended for consideration would not create a safe
harbor and that each municipal advisor would need to decide what
measures

should be taken in fulfilling its continuing education obligations
based on the municipal advisory activities it engages in.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The MSRB notes, to assist broker-dealers in complying with
their continuing education program requirements, the CE Council
publishes a Guide to Firm Element Needs Analysis and Training Plan
Development that is available at http://www.cecouncil.com/media/232538/guide_to_firm_element.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional Compliance Burdens and Duplicative Documentation
Requirements
    3PM expressed concerns that the requirement for dealer-municipal
advisors to complete a separate needs analysis and separate written
training plan for both its municipal advisory activities and municipal
securities activities would be duplicative and did not sufficiently
reduce regulatory overlap. 3PM stated, ``by requiring firms to complete
separate needs analyses, written training plans and other documentation
for its municipal advisory and broker dealer activities, is in fact
creating, rather than reducing, regulatory overlap.'' According to 3PM,
given that dealer-municipal advisors are examined by FINRA, there is
``[no] benefit to examiners in segregating [the details of a firm's]
training that apply to [its] MA business from other areas being
evaluated by FINRA.''
    The MSRB acknowledges that, in some areas, additional regulatory
efficiencies could be achieved for dealer-municipal advisors. With
respect to dealer-municipal advisors conducting a separate needs
analysis, accounting for both their municipal advisory activities, as
well as, their dealer activities, the MSRB notes that, because firms'
municipal advisory and municipal securities lines of businesses are
subject to separate functions and regulatory regimes, such regulatory
burden is appropriate. Dealer-municipal advisors must evidence that a
separate needs analysis was conducted, by clearly delineating the needs
analysis, for the separate business lines, within the dealer-municipal
advisor's written training plan(s). However, the MSRB believes that
permitting dealer-municipal advisors to develop a single written
training plan that comprehensively details and satisfies the needs
analysis for both the firm's municipal advisory activities and dealer
activities could further reduce regulatory overlap. To that end, the
proposed rule change, which differs slightly from the draft amendments
initially proposed in the request for comment, would allow dealer-
municipal advisors engaged in diverse lines of business or with complex
organizational structures to choose to have separate plans coordinated
to cover appropriate areas or incorporate all training requirements
into a single plan.
Economic and Administrative Burdens
    Some commenters raised the concern that the requirements are likely
to be burdensome on small and single-person municipal advisors.\34\
Commenters also believe there could be considerable financial cost
related to the development of in-house training materials. PRAG stated,
``like other non-broker-dealer MA firms, [the firm] has had to develop
compliance procedures, hire compliance personnel and divert time of
existing personnel from other duties in order to document compliance
with MSRB rules. The transition has been burdensome for us as it has
been for all independent MA firms.'' Lamont Financial expressed, ``if
each firm then has to develop its own materials, the cost in lost
productive work time will be significant and the quality of any
training will be dependent on the municipal advisor preparing the
materials.'' Goldberg declared, the ``latest Request for Comments
suggest overregulation [and] increasing interference with [and]
restriction of business conduct.'' Similarly, NAMA stated, ``the MSRB
should recognize the multiple roles a principal in a small MA firm or a
sole-practitioner MA has to their clients and under the rulemaking
regime already imposed by the MSRB.'' NAMA further adds, ``[t]he
additional requirements of continuing education for all MAs and
especially sole practitioners and smaller firms, should be considered
along with the already existing regulatory burdens of the MSRB
rulebook, and not create an overwhelming economic or administrative
burden on these professionals.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Columbia Capital, Lamont Financial, NAMA and PRAG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an initial matter, the MSRB acknowledges that the proposed rule
change would require municipal advisors to devote some level of
resources to the development of its continuing education program.
However, requiring registration, testing and training of municipal
advisors should further strengthen compliance with securities laws,
rules and regulations. Moreover, the MSRB has considered whether the
regulation is appropriately tailored and needed in furtherance of the
protection of investors, municipal entities and the public interests.
It is important to note that the proposed rule change does not require
a municipal advisor to produce in-house training materials, but rather,
provides flexibility recognizing there are less costly alternatives to
developing in-house training materials, such as utilizing existing
content available or content subsequently developed by third-party
resources. Each municipal advisor also has the flexibility to determine
its firm-specific training needs and the content of its training for
its covered persons. Small municipal advisors and sole proprietorships
with a narrowly focused municipal advisory business may find
establishing a continuing education program is uniquely different and
significantly less complex and narrower in scope than that of full-
service firms. As the MSRB has noted in this filing, the content and
method for delivery of continuing education training is determined by
the municipal advisor.
Other Comments
    Roberts noted that the nature of its municipal advisory business
does not involve the engagement of municipal entity clients. That is,
the municipal advisor only provides municipal advisory services to
obligated person clients. Roberts expressed concerns regarding the
application of the requirement for municipal advisors to provide
continuing education training on a municipal advisor's fiduciary duty
obligations. The commenter recommended that the MSRB revise the
proposal to allow for an exception to the requirement, if it lacks
applicability to the respective municipal advisor. The proposed rule
change has been amended to reflect that the training is with respect to
the fiduciary duty obligations of municipal advisors to municipal
entity clients. The scope of municipal advisory business can be
diverse; therefore, a municipal advisor may or may not engage in
municipal advisory activities on behalf of a municipal entity client.
However, this does not negate the fact that a municipal advisor, at
some point, may pursue an undertaking that involves engaging in
municipal advisory activities on behalf of a municipal entity client.
Therefore, all municipal advisors are subject to the requirement to
provide training on the fiduciary duty obligation; however, municipal
advisors have the flexibility to determine the extent and scope of that
training.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period of up to 90 days (i) as
the Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:

    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MSRB-2017-02 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2017-02. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet 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 Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the MSRB. 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-MSRB-2017-02 and should be
submitted on or before April 25, 2017.

    For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-06562 Filed 4-3-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 13, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 90042-90043]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29760]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Twenty Seventh RTCA SC-225 Rechargeable Lithium Batteries and
Battery Systems Plenary

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

ACTION: Twenty Seventh RTCA SC-225 Rechargeable Lithium Batteries and
Battery Systems Plenary.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of Twenty Seventh RTCA SC-225 Rechargeable Lithium Batteries
and Battery Systems Plenary.

DATES: The meeting will be held February 07, 2017 09:00 a.m.-05:00 p.m.

ADDRESS: The meeting will be held at: Virtually at https://rtca.webex.com/rtca/j.php?MTID=mc6516c82ecf290e34b0f1e7cfaff2930, Join
by phone, 1-877-668-4493, Call-in toll-free number (US/Canada), 1-650-
479-3208 Call-in toll number (US/Canada), Access code: 636 235 216,
Meeting Password: bVxFZrm6.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Karan Hofmann at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
202-330-0680, or The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910,
Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax at (202)
833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of the Twenty Seventh RTCA SC-225 Plenary.
The agenda will include the following:

Tuesday, February 7, 2017--9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

1. Welcome and Administrative Remarks (including DFO & RTCA Statement)
2. Introductions
3. Agenda Review
4. Meeting-Minutes Review
5. Final Review and Comment (FRAC) Resolution Review
6. Approval of DO-311A for submission to RTCA PMC
7. Action Item Review

8. Any other Business
9. Adjourn

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC on December 7, 2016.
Mohannad Dawoud,
Management & Program Analyst, Partnership Contracts Branch, ANG-A17,
NextGen, Procurement Services Division, Federal Aviation
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-29760 Filed 12-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 146 (Friday, July 29, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45477-45478]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19164]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0756 Airspace Docket No. 11-AAL-09]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Allakaket, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to revise Class E airspace at Allakaket
AK. The amendment of one standard instrument approach procedure at the
Allakaket Airport has made this action necessary to enhance safety and
management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 12, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal to the Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-
0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2011-0756/Airspace Docket
No. 11-AAL-09 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit
comments on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review
the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and
any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket
Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527) is on the plaza level of the
Department of Transportation NASSIF Building at the above address.
    An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours at the office of the Manager, Safety, Alaska Flight Service
Operations, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box
14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha Dunn, Federal Aviation
Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587;
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet address: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/systemops/fs/alaskan/rulemaking/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2011-0756/
Airspace Docket No. 11-AAL-09.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    Additionally, any person may obtain a copy of this notice by
submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of
Air Traffic Airspace Management, ATA-400, 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591 or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Communications must
identify both docket numbers for this notice. Persons interested in
being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the
FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>, to request a copy of
Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution
System, which describes the application procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR) part 71 by revising Class E5 airspace at the Allakaket Airport
in Allakaket, AK, to accommodate the revision of the RNAV (GPS) Runway
23 instrument approach procedure at the Allakaket Airport. This Class E
airspace would provide adequate controlled airspace upward from the
surface (E2) to 700 feet and 1,200 feet (E5) above the surface, for the
safety and management of IFR operations at the Allakaket Airport.
    The Class E2 airspace designated as surface areas and the Class E5
airspace designated as 700/1200 foot transition areas are published in
paragraphs 6002 and 6005, respectively, in FAA Order 7400.9U, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 18, 2010, and
effective September 15, 2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The airspaces listed in this document would be subsequently
published in that Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Because this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs,

describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart 1, Section 40103, Sovereignty and use of
airspace. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing
regulations to ensure the safe and efficient use of the navigable
airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because
it proposes to revise Class E airspace at the Allakaket Airport,
Allakaket, AK, and represents the FAA's continuing effort to safely and
efficiently use the navigable airspace.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

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

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

* * * * *

AAL AK E5 Allakaket, AK [Revised]

Allakaket Airport, AK
    (Lat. 66[deg]33[min]07[sec] N., long. 152[deg]37[min]20[sec] W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 8.6-mile radius of the Allakaket Airport, AK and that
airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a
71-mile radius of the Allakaket Airport, AK.

    Issued in Anchorage, AK, on July 21, 2011.
Marshall G. Severson,
Acting Manager, Alaska Flight Services.
[FR Doc. 2011-19164 Filed 7-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on June 2, 2003

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 2002-12353

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  AERO VIREL, S.A. de C.V.
                                         Date Filed:  May 6, 2003

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the
applicant to continue to conduct passenger charter operations between
Mexico and the United States, and other passenger charters in accordance
with 14 CFR Part 212, using small equipment.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  June 10, 2002, in this
Docket.

Applicant representative:  Irwin P. Altschuler,<PHONE_NUMBER>      DOT
analyst:  Allen Brown,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved
                                               Action date:  June 2,
2003

Effective dates of authority granted:  June 2, 2003, through June 10,
2004

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  United
States-Mexico Air Transport Services Agreement of August 15, 1960, as
amended and extended (Agreement).

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

     X  Standard exemption conditions.

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:  In the conduct
of these operations, the carrier must adhere to all applicable
provisions of the U.S.-Mexico Agreement.  In the conduct of these
operations, the carrier may only use aircraft capable of carrying no
more than 60 passengers and having a maximum payload capacity of no more
than 18,000 pounds (small equipment).  The above grant includes
authority to conduct Third and Fourth Freedom charter operations.  While
we have subjected, consistent with the provisions of the Agreement,
Mexican carriers conducting charter operations with large aircraft to
prior approval or submission of notice for their Third and Fourth
Freedom charters, we determined that any such requirement was not
necessary on public interest grounds in this case, since the carrier
will be conducting these operations solely with small aircraft.  (Other
charter operations to/from the United States under this authority,
however, are subject to prior approval under 14 CFR Part 212.)  Further,
we are continuing to allow Mexican carriers conducting passenger
charters using small equipment to make stopovers in the United States in
the conduct of such operations.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a
petition映牯爠癥敩⁷楷汬渠瑯愠瑬牥猠捵晥敦瑣癩湥
獥⹳഍湁攠敬瑣潲楮敶獲潩景琠楨⁳潤畣敭瑮椠⁳
癡楡慬汢湯琠敨圠牯摬圠摩敗瑡ഺ瑨灴⼺搯獭搮
瑯朮癯⼯敲潰瑲⽳敲潰瑲彳癡慩楴湯愮灳


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 223 (Thursday, November 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72445-72446]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29574]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0691]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0099

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR),
abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of a
revision to the following collection of information: 1625-0099,
Requirements for the Use of Liquefied Petroleum Gas and Compressed
Natural Gas as Cooking Fuel on Passenger Vessels. Our ICR describes the
information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by
OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our
performance of duties.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before
December 21, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2015-0691] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, you
may submit comments to OIRA using one of the following means:
    (1) Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Mail: OIRA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503,
attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
    (3) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. To ensure your comments are received in a
timely manner, mark the fax, attention Desk Officer for the Coast
Guard.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
COMMANDANT (CG-612), ATTN: PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT MANAGER, U.S. COAST
GUARD, 2703 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. AVE SE., STOP 7710, WASHINGTON, DC
20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection. The Coast Guard invites comments on whether
this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for
the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the
Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical
utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of
the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These
comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred
to in this Notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request, [USCG-2015-0691], and must be received by December 21,
2015.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice
of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB
Control Number: 1625-0099.

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (80 FR 48555, August 13, 2015)
required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments.
Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collection.

Information Collection Request

    1. Title: Requirements for the Use of Liquefied Petroleum Gas and
Compressed Natural Gas as Cooking Fuel on Passenger Vessels.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0099.
    Summary: The collection of information requires passenger vessels
to post two placards that contain safety and operating instructions on
the use of cooking appliances that use liquefied gas or compressed
natural gas.
    Need: Title 46 U.S.C. 3306(a)(5) authorizes the Coast Guard to
prescribe regulations for the use of vessel stores of a dangerous
nature. These regulations are prescribed in both uninspected and
inspected passenger vessel regulations.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of passenger vessels. The annual

number of respondents is estimated at 6,429.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 5,948
hours to 6,429 hours a year due to an increase in the estimated number
of respondents.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: November 10, 2015.
Thomas P. Michelli,
U.S. Coast Guard, Deputy Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-29574 Filed 11-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 136 (Friday, July 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41788-41790]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17748]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[ Docket No. CP11-481-000]

Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.; Notice of Intent To
Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Alden Gas Storage
Field Expansion Project and Request for Comments on Environmental
Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Alden Gas Storage Field
Expansion Project, involving the expansion of the certificated boundary
and buffer zone of the existing Alden Gas Storage Field by Southern
Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. (Southern Star) in Rice County, Kansas.
This EA will be used by the Commission in its decision-making process
to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and
necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission

will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the
project. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what
issues need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that the scoping
period will close on August 8, 2011. Further details on how to submit
written comments are provided in the Public Participation section of
this notice.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives are asked to notify their constituents of this project
and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner or owner of mineral rights receiving this
notice, you may be contacted by a storage company representative about
the acquisition of mineral rights and an easement to convert, operate,
and maintain the proposed facilities. The company would seek to
negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the project is
approved by the Commission, that approval conveys with it the right of
eminent domain. Therefore, if negotiations to obtain an easement or
mineral rights fail to produce an agreement, the company could initiate
condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in
accordance with state or federal law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' was attached to the
project notice Southern Star provided to landowners and owners of
mineral rights. This fact sheet addresses a number of typically-asked
questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate
in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on
the FERC Web site (http://www.ferc.gov).

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Southern Star requests authorization to expand its existing
certificated boundary and buffer zone of its existing Alden Gas Storage
Field located in Rice County, Kansas to ensure the field's integrity
and protection. The certified storage boundary/buffer currently
encompasses 3,540 acres and operates with a maximum storage capacity of
14.7 billion cubic feet (Bcf) with a working capacity of 4.2 Bcf.
Southern Star proposes to expand the storage field boundary and buffer
zone by an additional 1,592 acres and convert one active oil/gas
production well within the planned expansion acreage, called the Rama
Wellman No. 1 Well, into a pressure observation well. Southern Star
states that converting the Rama Wellman No. 1 Well is required because
this well is currently producing gas from its storage formation, known
as the Misener Sandstone. Southern Star would also remove existing tank
battery facilities dedicated to the production well. Southern Star's
proposal would not change the current operational parameters or
capabilities of the storage field.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to
all those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
http://www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the proposed facilities would disturb about 0.9
acre of land for the temporary workspaces to convert the production
well to an observation well and to remove tank battery facilities.
Following construction, about 0.3 acre would be maintained for
permanent operation of the observation well; the remaining acreage
would be restored and allowed to revert to former uses. A permanent
access road is also needed for access to the observation well.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
\2\ to discover and address concerns the public may have about
proposals. This process is referred to as ``scoping''. The main goal of
the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public
comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. All comments
received will be considered during the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EA, we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the removal, conversion, and operation of those facilities related to
the proposed expansion of the storage field boundary and buffer zone
under these general headings:
     geology and soils;
     land use;
     water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     cultural resources;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     air quality and noise;
     endangered and threatened species; and
     public safety.
    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed
project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to
lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be presented in the EA.
The EA will be placed in the public record and, depending on the
comments received during the scoping process, may be published and
distributed to the public. A comment period will be allotted if the EA
is published for review. We will consider all comments on the EA before
we make our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure your comments
are considered, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public
Participation section beginning on page 4.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction and/or
special expertise with respect to environmental issues to formally
cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA. These agencies may
choose to participate once they have evaluated the proposal relative to
their responsibilities. Agencies that would like to request cooperating
agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments
provided under the Public Participation section of this notice.

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with the Kansas State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to
solicit its views and those of other government agencies, interested
Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on
historic properties.\3\ We will define the project-specific Area of
Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPO as the project is
further developed. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a
minimum encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples
include construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards,

compressor stations, and access roads). Our EA for this project will
document our findings on the impacts on historic properties and
summarize the status of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 800.
Historic properties are defined in those regulations as any
prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or
object included in or eligible for inclusion in the National
Register for Historic Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on
the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and
measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific
your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please send them so that
they will be received in Washington, DC, on or before August 8, 2011.
    For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to
submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please
reference the project docket number (CP11-481-000) with your
submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and
has expert eFiling staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. An eComment is an
easy method for interested persons to submit brief, text-only comments
on a project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling you
can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a
file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an
account by clicking on ``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the
type of filing you are making. A comment on a particular project is
considered a ``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You may file a paper copy of your comments at the following
address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property or
mineral rights may be used permanently or temporarily for project
purposes, and anyone who submits comments on the project. We will
update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to
ensure that we send the information related to this environmental
review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities
interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.
    If the EA is published for distribution, copies will be sent to the
environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would
prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD
version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please
return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an ``intervenor'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are
included in the User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the
Commission's Web site.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Click
on the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field
(i.e., CP11-481). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range.
For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.
    Any public meetings or additional site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: July 8, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-17748 Filed 7-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 188 (Thursday, September 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48850-48851]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21029]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3403-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2018-0001]

Virginia; Emergency and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an
emergency for the Commonwealth of Virginia (FEMA-3403-EM), dated
September 11, 2018, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued September 11, 2018.

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 September 11, 2018, the President issued an emergency declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as
follows:

    I have determined that the emergency conditions in the
Commonwealth of Virginia resulting from Hurricane Florence beginning
on September 8, 2018, and continuing, are of sufficient severity and
magnitude to warrant an emergency 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
an emergency exists in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
    You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for
required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the
Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public
health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a
catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are
authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures
(Category B), limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public
Assistance program.
    Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. 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 emergency
assistance and administrative expenses.
    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, Department
of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Donald
L. Keldsen, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating
Officer for this declared emergency.
    The following areas of the Commonwealth of Virginia have been
designated as adversely affected by this declared emergency:

    Emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct
Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program for the
entire Commonwealth of Virginia.

    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.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2018-21029 Filed 9-26-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-11-P