[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 168 (Thursday, August 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53465-53466]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21077]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2013-0032; OMB No. 1660-New]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity
to comment on a new information collection. In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning
the collection of qualitative data regarding preparedness message
framing. The goal of this qualitative research is to gain insights on
how best to frame preparedness messaging to effectively encourage and
motivate the public to prepare themselves and their families for a
disaster.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 28, 2013.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use
only one of the following means to submit comments:
    (1) Online. Submit comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID
FEMA-2013-0032. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Docket Manager, Office of
Chief Counsel, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Room 840, Washington, DC
20472-3100.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act
notice that is available via the link in the footer of
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathryn Pilman, Program Specialist,
Individual and Community Preparedness Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may
contact the Records Management Division for copies of the proposed
collection of information at facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER> or email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA)
Citizen Corps program acts under the authority of Executive Order No.
13254, ``Establishing the USA Freedom Corps.'' Citizen Corps' mission
is to bring together government and community leaders to involve
citizens in all-hazard emergency preparedness and resilience. FEMA's
Individual and Community Preparedness Division (ICPD) directs this
effort to support the policy to foster a culture of responsibility,
service and citizenship. FEMA will use this collection to ensure the
effectiveness and value of awareness and education campaigns, disaster
messaging and other associated outreach efforts.

Collection of Information

    Title: Preparedness Message Framing Research.
    Type of Information Collection: New information collection.
    FEMA Forms: 008-0-17, Focus Group Moderator's Guide; FEMA Form 008-
0-18, Recruit/Screener Phone Script; and FEMA Form 008-0-19, Post Event
Participant Survey.
    Abstract: FEMA's Individual and Community Preparedness Division
will engage in qualitative research involving the review of disaster
preparedness message frames for the purpose of determining the most
effective means for presenting disaster preparedness messages. Multiple
frames will be used to probe: (1) Overall Understanding of the terms
used in preparedness messaging (Disaster; Preparedness; Emergency); (2)
General concern and attitudes (Area specific hazards and risks; Concern
or worry about specific hazards and risks; plans for taking steps); (3)
Reactions to hazard specific message concepts; and (4) Effective
channels for communication.). This research will provide insights on
how to improve existing disaster preparedness messages to encourage the
public to engage in preparedness behaviors.
    Affected Public: Individuals and households.
    Number of Respondents: 3,840.
    Number of Responses: 3,840.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 940 hours.
    Estimated Cost: There are no capital or start-up costs associated
with this collection.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Dated: August 20, 2103.
Charlene D. Myrthil
Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support Bureau, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2013-21077 Filed 8-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-27-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 48613]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20970]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9984-49-OW]

Information Session; Implementation of the Water Infrastructure
Finance and Innovation Act of 2014

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is announcing plans to
hold an information session on Thursday, October 11, 2018 in Seattle,
Washington. The purpose of this session is to provide prospective
borrowers with a better understanding of the Water Infrastructure
Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program requirements, application
process, and to hear from WIFIA's first borrower, King County, about
their experience. More information sessions and webinars will be
announced soon.

DATES: The session in Seattle, Washington will be held on Thursday,
October 11, 2018 from 9:00 a.m.-3:30 p.m. (PT).

ADDRESSES: The session in Seattle, Washington will be held at 1200 6th
Ave., Seattle, Washington 98101. To Register: Registration information
for the information session is available at https://www.epa.gov/wifia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about this
notice, including registration information, contact Arielle Gerstein,
EPA Headquarters, Office of Water, Office of Wastewater Management at
tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email: [email protected].
    Members of the public are invited to participate in the session as
capacity allows.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under WIFIA, the EPA will provide loans and
loan guarantees for water infrastructure of national or regional
significance. WIFIA was signed into law on June 11, 2014 as Public Law
113-121. The EPA will provide an overview of the program's statutory
and eligibility requirements, application and selection process, and
creditworthiness assessment. The EPA will also explain the financial
benefits of WIFIA credit assistance and provide high-level information
about the benefits and flexibilities of closed loans. The intended
audience is prospective borrowers including municipal entities,
corporations, partnerships, and State Revolving Fund programs, as well
as the private and non-governmental organizations that support
prospective borrowers.

    Authority: Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, 33
U.S.C 3901 et seq.

    Dated: September 18, 2018.
Andrew D. Sawyers,
Director, Office of Wastewater Management.
[FR Doc. 2018-20970 Filed 9-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 26, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 185)]
[Notices]
[Page 56172]
[DOCID:fr26se05-39]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-3248-EM]

California; Emergency and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and
Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an
emergency for the State of California (FEMA-3248-EM), dated September
13, 2005, and related determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATES: September 13, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated September 13, 2005, the President declared an emergency
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford
Act), as follows:

    I have determined that the emergency conditions in the State of
California, resulting from the influx of evacuees from states
impacted by Hurricane Katrina beginning on August 29, 2005, and
continuing, is 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. 5121-5206 (the Stafford
Act). Therefore, I declare that such an emergency exists in the
State of California.
    You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for
required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the
Stafford Act to save lives and protect public health and safety, or
to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in the designated
areas. Specifically, you are authorized to provide emergency
protective measures (Category B), including direct Federal
assistance, under the Public Assistance program, at 100 percent
Federal funding. This assistance excludes regular time costs for
subgrantees' regular employees. In addition, you are authorized to
provide such other forms of assistance under Title V of the Stafford
Act as you may deem appropriate.
    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
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 Acting Under Secretary for
Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security,
under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Karen E. Armes, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared
emergency.
    I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of
California to have been affected adversely by this declared emergency:

    All 58 counties in the State of California for Public Assistance
Category B (emergency protective measures), including direct Federal
assistance, at 100 percent Federal funding.

(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 Program; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034,
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management
Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049,
Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050,
Individuals and Households Program-Other Needs; 97.036, Public
Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

R. David Paulison,
Acting Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department
of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 05-19113 Filed 9-23-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 181 (Friday, September 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56532-56534]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23433]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee--New Task

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of a new task assignment for the Aviation Rulemaking
Advisory Committee (ARAC).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA assigned the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee
(ARAC) a new task to provide recommendations on how the agency can
utilize external training providers for its new-hire air traffic
controller training program. The ongoing modernization of the air
traffic control system, NextGen, will continually introduce advanced
tools and procedures to enhance the safety and efficiency of the
National Airspace System. Controllers will continue to need to know
basic air traffic control skills but will also need to understand how
to operate in the future operational environment. The FAA seeks to
transform the air traffic controller training structure by shifting the
Agency's focus from basic air traffic control qualification training to
training the certified controller work force on advanced NextGen tools
and procedures. This would mirror the changes that were required in the
pilot community. The Agency is exploring alternative options to utilize
external training provider capabilities that would expose prospective
air traffic controllers to the profession. It would also provide a
level of training commensurate to the current Air Traffic Basic
Qualification Training, before or during the FAA controller hiring
process. This notice informs the public of the new ARAC

activity and solicits membership for the new Air Traffic Controller
Basic Qualification Training Working Group.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tony Price, Federal Aviation
Administration, Technical Training Policy and Requirements Specialist,
FAA Air Traffic Organization, AJI-232, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC, 20591, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone (202) 267-
1443.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

ARAC Acceptance of Task

    As a result of the June 18, 2015 ARAC meeting, the FAA assigned and
ARAC accepted this task establishing the Air Traffic Controller Basic
Qualification Training Working Group. The Air Traffic Controller Basic
Qualification Training Working Group will serve as staff to the ARAC
and provide advice and recommendations on the assigned task. The ARAC
will review and accept the recommendation report and will submit it to
the FAA.

Background

    The FAA established the ARAC to provide information, advice, and
recommendations on aviation related issues that could result in
rulemaking to the FAA Administrator, through the Associate
Administrator of Aviation Safety.
    The ongoing modernization of the air traffic control system,
NextGen, will continually introduce automation tools to enhance the
safety and efficiency of the National Airspace System. Fully certified
controllers are required to maintain proficiency while also completing
additional training to understand how to provide service as the
operational environment evolves. To achieve this required integration,
the FAA seeks to transform the air traffic controller basic
qualification training structure. The Agency is looking for
opportunities to utilize external training provider capabilities to
expose prospective air traffic controllers to the profession and to
provide a basic level of training commensurate with the current level
for Air Traffic Control Basic Qualification Training, before or during
the FAA controller hiring process. The FAA seeks feedback from external
stakeholders on how the agency can accomplish its goals.

The Task

    The Air Traffic Controller Basic Qualification Training Working
Group will provide to the ARAC an analysis on options for external
training provider solutions that restructure the FAA air traffic
controller candidate pipeline. Additional considerations include
whether a certificated external training program modeled after Part 141
or Part 142 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations is a way to
accomplish agency goals. The recommendations may propose additional
alternatives that result in a candidate pipeline with knowledge and
skills above the current basic qualification requirements. The Working
Group should provide an initial report summarizing the analysis. If the
FAA concurs with the recommendation, the tasking may be extended to
include a cost and benefit analysis and an evaluation of any necessary
rulemaking requirements for implementation.
    1. For background information on the topic, the Working Group
should review:
    a. Air traffic technical training and credentialing programs (for
example, FAA Order 3000.22, FAA Order 3120.4, FAA Order 7210.3, and FAA
Order 8000.90).
    b. Guidance on airman testing, airmen certification, designated
examiners, and the FAA Flight Standards Service covered in FAA Order
8900.1, to evaluate the concept of air traffic certified training
centers.
    c. Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (for example, Parts
61, 65, 141, and 142) for regulatory guidance on various aviation
licenses, to include air traffic controllers, flight dispatchers, and
pilots.
    d. Associated training guidance materials to include course
descriptions, lesson outlines, and training handbooks.
    e. FAA hiring regulations (for example, as covered in the FAA Human
Resources Policy Manual, Office of Personnel Management job standard
for Series 2152, and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidance)
as needed to integrate a proposed solution into the FAA hiring process.
    2. The Working Group is tasked to identify possible external
training provider solutions. At a minimum, students who complete the
program must meet the current standard for Air Traffic Control Basic
Qualification Training (solutions may contain options to train students
to a higher level of competency).
    3. The Working Group may consider rulemaking and/or advisory
materials as the solution.
    4. Provide initial qualitative and quantitative costs and benefits
for each recommendation.
    5. Develop an interim report containing recommendations on the
findings and results of the tasks explained above.
    a. The recommendation report should document both majority and
dissenting positions on the findings and the rationale for each
position.
    b. Any disagreements should be documented, including the rationale
for each position and the reasons for the disagreement.
    6. The Working Group may be reinstated to assist the ARAC by
responding to the FAA's questions or concerns after the interim
recommendation report has been submitted.

Schedule

    The output of the tasking will be to complete a FAA training
process review in order to identify possible external training provider
solutions and make a recommendation to the FAA. The interim report is
requested to be presented to the ARAC at its June 2016 meeting and
submitted to the FAA for review and acceptance no later than July 15,
2016. Should the FAA accept the recommendation of the ARAC, the Working
Group may be tasked to evaluate costs and benefits and rulemaking
requirements for implementation.

Working Group Activity

    The Air Traffic Controller Basic Qualification Training Working
Group must comply with the procedures adopted by the ARAC and are as
follows:
    1. Conduct a review and analysis of the assigned tasks and any
other related materials or documents.
    2. Draft and submit a work plan for completion of the task,
including the rationale supporting such a plan, for consideration by
the ARAC.
    3. Provide a status report at each ARAC meeting.
    4. Draft and submit the interim recommendation report based on the
review and analysis of the assigned tasks.
    5. Present the initial recommendation report at the ARAC meeting.
    6. If the Working Group is reinstated to answer questions the FAA
had regarding the recommendation report, present the findings in
response to the FAA's questions or concerns about the recommendation
report at the ARAC meeting.

Participation in the Working Group

    The Air Traffic Controller Basic Qualification Training Working
Group will be comprised of technical experts having an interest in the
assigned task. A Working Group member need not be a member
representative of the ARAC. The FAA would like a wide range of

members to ensure all aspects of the tasks are considered in
development of the recommendations. The provisions of the August 13,
2014, Office of Management and Budget guidance, ``Revised Guidance on
Appointment of Lobbyists to Federal Advisory Committees, Boards, and
Commissions'' (79 FR 47482), continues the ban on registered lobbyists
participating on Agency Boards and Commissions if participating in
their ``individual capacity.'' The revised guidance now allows
registered lobbyists to participate on Agency Boards and Commissions in
a ``representative capacity'' for the ``express purpose of providing a
committee with the views of a nongovernmental entity, a recognizable
group of persons or nongovernmental entities (an industry, sector,
labor unions, or environmental groups, etc.) or state or local
government.'' (For further information see Lobbying Disclosure Act of
1995 (LDA) as amended, 2 U.S.C 1603, 1604, and 1605.)
    If you wish to become a member of the Air Traffic Controller Basic
Qualification Training Working Group, write the person listed under the
caption FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT expressing that desire.
Describe your interest in the task and state the expertise you would
bring to the Working Group. The FAA must receive all requests by
October 19, 2015. The ARAC and the FAA will review the requests and
advise you whether or not your request is approved.
    If you are chosen for membership on the Working Group, you must
actively participate in the Working Group, attend all meetings, and
provide written comments when requested. You must devote the resources
necessary to support the Working Group in meeting any assigned
deadlines. You must keep your management and those you may represent
advised of working group activities and decisions to ensure the
proposed technical solutions do not conflict with the position of those
you represent. Once the Working Group has begun deliberations, members
will not be added or substituted without the approval of the ARAC
Chair, the FAA, including the Designated Federal Officer, and the
Working Group Chair.
    The Secretary of Transportation determined the formation and use of
the ARAC is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the
performance of duties imposed on the FAA by law.
    The ARAC meetings are open to the public. However, meetings of the
Air Traffic Controller Basic Qualification Training Working Group are
not open to the public, except to the extent individuals with an
interest and expertise are selected to participate. The FAA will make
no public announcement of Working Group meetings.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 14, 2015.
Lirio Liu,
Designated Federal Officer, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2015-23433 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 19, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58067-58072]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22973]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0713; FRL-9727-6]

Disapproval of Implementation Plan Revisions; State of
California; South Coast VMT Emissions Offset Demonstrations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to withdraw its final approvals of state
implementation plan revisions submitted by the State of California to
meet the vehicle-miles-traveled emissions offset requirement under the
Clean Air Act for the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin 1-hour and 8-
hour ozone nonattainment areas. EPA is also proposing to disapprove the
same plan revisions. EPA is proposing the withdrawal and disapproval
actions in response to a remand by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
in Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA. The effect of this
action, if finalized as proposed, would be to trigger deadlines by
which new plan revisions meeting the applicable requirements must be
submitted by the State of California and approved by EPA to avoid
sanctions and to avoid an obligation on EPA to promulgate a federal
implementation plan.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 19, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2012-0713, by one of the following methods:

     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail or deliver: Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Mailcode AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise
protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be
submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA
will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide
it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly
to EPA, your email address will be automatically captured and included
as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site and in hard
copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California,
94105. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location
(e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available at
either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please
schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Mail Code AIR-2, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Regulatory Context
    B. South Coast Ozone Designations and Classifications and
Related SIP Revisions
    C. Litigation on EPA's Final Action on 2003 South Coast 1-Hour
Ozone SIP
    D. Litigation on EPA's Final Action on 2007 South Coast 8-Hour
Ozone SIP
II. Proposed Withdrawal of Previous Approvals, and Proposed
Disapproval, of VMT Emissions Offset Demonstrations
III. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. Regulatory Context

    The Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requires EPA to establish national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or ``standards'') for certain
widespread pollutants that cause or contribute to air pollution that is
reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare (see
sections 108 and 109 of the CAA).
    In 1979, under section 109 of the CAA, EPA established a primary
health-based NAAQS for ozone \1\ at 0.12 parts per million (ppm)
averaged over a 1-hour period. See 44 FR 8202; (February 8, 1979). The
Act, as amended in 1990, required EPA to designate as nonattainment any
area that had been designated as nonattainment before the 1990
Amendments [section 107(d)(1)(C) of the Act; 56 FR 56694; (November 6,
1991)]. The Act further classified 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas,
based on the severity of their nonattainment problem, as Marginal,
Moderate, Serious, Severe, or Extreme.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Ground-level ozone or smog is formed when oxides of nitrogen
(NOX), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and oxygen react
in the presence of sunlight, generally at elevated temperatures.
Strategies for reducing smog typically require reductions in both
VOC and NOX emissions. Ozone causes serious health
problems by damaging lung tissue and sensitizing the lungs to other
irritants. When inhaled, even at very low levels, ozone can cause
acute respiratory problems, aggravate asthma, temporary decreases in
lung capacity of 15 to 20 percent in healthy adults, inflammation of
lung tissue, lead to hospital admissions and emergency room visits,
and impair the body's immune system defenses, making people more
susceptible to respiratory illnesses, including bronchitis and
pneumonia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The control requirements and date by which attainment of the 1-hour
ozone standard was to be achieved varied with an area's classification.
Marginal areas were subject to the fewest mandated control requirements
and had the earliest attainment date, November 15, 1993, while Extreme
areas were subject to the most stringent planning requirements and were
provided the most time to attain the standard, until November 15, 2010.
The various ozone planning requirements to which Extreme ozone
nonattainment areas are subject are set forth in section 172(c) and
section 182(a)-(e) of the CAA. Of particular importance for the
purposes of this proposed action, section 182(d)(1)(A) requires the
following:

    Within 2 years after November 15, 1992, the State shall submit a
revision that identifies and adopts specific enforceable
transportation control strategies and transportation control
measures to offset any growth in emissions from growth in vehicle
miles traveled or numbers of vehicle trips in such area and to
attain reduction in motor vehicle emissions as necessary, in
combination with other emission reduction requirements of this
subpart, to comply with the requirements of subsection (b)(2)(B) and
(c)(2)(B) of this section (pertaining to periodic emissions
reduction requirements). The State shall consider measures specified
in section 7408(f) of this title, and choose from among and
implement such measures as necessary to demonstrate attainment with
the national ambient air quality standards; in considering such
measures, the State should ensure adequate access to downtown, other
commercial, and residential areas and should avoid measures that
increase or related emissions and congestion rather than reduce
them.

    EPA believes that it is appropriate to treat the three required
elements of section 182(d)(1)(A) (i.e., offsetting emissions growth,
attainment of the rate-of-progress (ROP) reduction, and attainment of
the ozone NAAQS) as separable. As to the first element of CAA section
182(d)(1)(A) (i.e., offsetting emissions growth caused by growth in
vehicle miles travelled (VMT)), EPA had historically interpreted this
CAA provision to allow areas to meet the requirement by demonstrating
that emissions from motor vehicles decline each year through the
attainment year. See, e.g., 57 FR 13498, at 13521-15323; (April 16,
1992). This proposed rule relates only to the first element of section
182(d)(1)(A) (i.e., offsetting emissions growth caused by growth in
VMT). Herein, we refer to this element as the Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT) emissions offset requirement (``VMT emissions offset
requirement'') and the demonstration submitted to us to address this
requirement as the ``VMT emissions offset demonstration.''
    In 1997, EPA replaced the 1-hour ozone standard with an 8-hour
ozone standard of 0.08 ppm. See 62 FR 38856; (July 18, 1997).\2\ We
promulgated final rules to implement the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in
two phases. The ``Phase 1'' rule, which was issued on April 30, 2004
(69 FR 23951) establishes, among other things, the

classification structure and corresponding attainment deadlines, as
well as the anti-backsliding principles for the transition from the 1-
hour ozone standard to the 8-hour ozone standard. For an area that was
designated nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard at the time when
EPA designated it as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard
as part of the initial 8-hour ozone designations, most of the
requirements that had applied by virtue of the area's classification
for the 1-hour ozone standard continue to apply even after revocation
of the 1-hour ozone standard (which occurred in June 2005 for most
areas). See 40 CFR 51.905(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.900(f). Thus, for
example, an area that was designated nonattainment and classified as
Extreme for the 1-hour ozone standard at the time of an initial
designation of nonattainment for the 8-hour standard remains subject to
the VMT emissions offset requirement under CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) for
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS even if the area would not otherwise have been
subject to that particular requirement based on the area's
classification for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. See 40 CFR
51.905(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.900(f)(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In 2008, EPA tightened the 8-hour ozone NAAQS to 0.075 ppm,
see 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). Today's proposed action relates
only to SIP requirements arising from the classifications and
designations of the South Coast with respect to the 1979 1-hour
ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Phase 2 rule, which was issued on November 29, 2005 (70 FR
71612), addresses the SIP obligations for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. Under the Phase 2 rule, an area that is designated as
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, and classified under
subpart 2 (of part D of title I of the CAA), is subject to the
requirements of subpart 2 that apply for that classification. See 40
CFR 51.902(a). Among the requirements for areas classified as Severe or
Extreme for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard is the VMT emissions offset
requirement under CAA section 182(d)(1)(A).

B. South Coast Ozone Designations and Classifications and Related SIP
Revisions

    As noted above, the CAA, as amended in 1990, required EPA to
designate as nonattainment any area that had been designated as
nonattainment before the 1990 Amendments. The CAA also required EPA to
classify nonattainment areas as Marginal, Moderate, Serious, Severe, or
Extreme depending upon the design value of the area. On November 6,
1991, EPA designated the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin Area
(``South Coast'') \3\ as nonattainment and classified it as Extreme for
the 1-hour ozone standard; thus the area had an attainment date no
later than November 15, 2010 (56 FR 56694).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The South Coast includes Orange County, the southwestern
two-thirds of Los Angeles County, southwestern San Bernardino
County, and western Riverside County (see 40 CFR 81.305).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has submitted a number of
SIP revisions over the years for the South Coast Air Basin to address
1-hour ozone SIP planning requirements. Specifically, in 1994, CARB
submitted a 1-hour ozone SIP that, among other things, included for the
South Coast an attainment demonstration, ROP demonstrations, and
transportation control measures (TCMs). In 1997, EPA approved the 1994
Ozone SIP as it applied to the South Coast for the 1-hour standard. See
62 FR 1150; (January 8, 1997).
    In 1997 and 1999, CARB submitted revisions to the 1994 South Coast
1-Hour Ozone SIP, including revised ROP demonstrations, and a revised
attainment demonstration (``1997/1999 South Coast 1-Hour Ozone SIP'').
See 65 FR 18903; (April 10, 2000). In 2004, CARB submitted revisions to
the 1997/1999 South Coast 1-Hour Ozone SIP (``2003 South Coast 1-Hour
Ozone SIP''). In 2008, the 2003 South Coast 1-Hour Ozone SIP was
supplemented by submittal of a VMT emissions offset demonstration \4\
that was intended to comply with the VMT emissions offset requirement
by showing that there would be no upturn in emissions between the
area's base year for the SIP revision and the area's attainment year.
In 2009, EPA disapproved the revised ROP demonstrations and attainment
demonstration in the 2003 South Coast 1-Hour Ozone SIP, but approved
the VMT emissions offset demonstration that had been submitted in 2008.
74 FR 10176; (March 10, 2009).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Letter from Elaine Chang, Deputy Executive Officer, South
Coast Air Quality Management District, dated September 10, 2008,
approved at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(339)(ii)(B)(2).
    \5\ In response to comments on EPA's proposal to partially
approve and partially disapprove the 2003 South Coast 1-Hour Ozone
SIP, EPA indicated that the second and third elements of CAA section
182(d)(1)(A) were satisfied in 1997 when EPA approved the 1994 South
Coast 1-Hour Ozone SIP's transportation control strategies and TCMs,
such as TCM-1 (``Transportation Improvements''), which includes the
capital and non-capital facilities, projects, and programs contained
in the Regional Mobility Element and programmed through the Regional
Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) process to reduce
emissions, in the same action in which EPA approved the South Coast
ROP and attainment demonstrations. See 74 FR 10176, at 10179; (March
10, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the 1997 8-hour standard, EPA designated the South
Coast as nonattainment and classified the area as ``Severe-17,'' but
later approved a request by California to reclassify the South Coast to
``Extreme.'' See 69 FR 23858; (April 30, 2004) and 75 FR 24409; (May 5,
2010). In 2007, CARB submitted a SIP revision to address the 8-hour
ozone SIP planning requirements for the South Coast (``2007 South Coast
8-hour Ozone SIP''). The 2007 South Coast 8-Hour Ozone SIP included,
among many other elements, a VMT emissions offset demonstration
addressing the VMT emissions offset requirement under CAA section
182(d)(1)(A).\6\ Consistent with the approach used for the
demonstration submitted for 1-hour ozone purposes in 2008, the 2007
South Coast 8-Hour Ozone SIP showed compliance with the VMT emissions
offset requirement, as then interpreted by EPA, by showing that
aggregate motor vehicle emissions are projected to decrease each year
from the base year through the attainment year (2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See pages 6-23 and 6-27 (table 6-12) of the Final 2007 Air
Quality Management Plan, June 2007, prepared by the South Coast Air
Quality Management District.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In March 2012, EPA approved the 2007 South Coast 8-Hour Ozone SIP,
including the VMT emissions offset demonstration addressing the VMT
emissions offset requirement under CAA section 182(d)(1)(A). See 77 FR
12674; (March 1, 2012).

C. Litigation on EPA's Final Action on 2003 South Coast 1-Hour Ozone
SIP

    In approving the VMT emissions offset demonstration that was
submitted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District to
supplement the 2003 South Coast 1-Hour Ozone SIP, EPA applied its then-
longstanding interpretation of the VMT emissions offset requirement
under CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) that no TCMs are necessary if aggregate
motor vehicle emissions are projected to decline each year from the
base year of the plan to the attainment year. See 74 FR 10176, at
10179-10180; (March 10, 2009). EPA's 2009 approval was challenged in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and, in 2011, the
court ruled against EPA, determining that EPA incorrectly interpreted
the statutory phrase ``growth in emissions'' in section 182(d)(1)(A) as
meaning a growth in ``aggregate motor vehicle emissions.'' In other
words, the court ruled that additional transportation control
strategies and measures are required whenever vehicle emissions are
projected to be higher than they would have been had vehicle miles
traveled not increased, even when aggregate vehicle emissions are
actually decreasing. Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 632
F.3d 584, at 596-597 (9th Cir. 2011), reprinted as

amended on January 27, 2012, 686 F.3d 668, further amended February 13,
2012 (``AIR v. EPA'').
    Based on this reasoning, the court remanded the approval of the VMT
emissions offset demonstration back to EPA for further proceedings
consistent with the opinion. In May 2011, EPA filed a petition for
panel rehearing requesting the court to reconsider its decision as to
the VMT emissions offset requirement. In January 2012, the court denied
the request and issued the mandate shortly thereafter.

D. Litigation on EPA's Final Action on 2007 South Coast 8-Hour Ozone
SIP

    As of December 15, 2011, the time of signature on the final rule
approving the 2007 South Coast 8-hour Ozone SIP, the court had not yet
responded to our petition for panel rehearing in AIR v. EPA.
Notwithstanding adverse comments on the proposed approval of the VMT
emissions offset demonstration in the 2007 South Coast 8-Hour Ozone
SIP, EPA proceeded to approve the demonstration on the basis of the
same rationale that had been rejected by the Ninth Circuit in
connection with the VMT emissions offset demonstration submitted as
part of the 2003 South Coast 1-Hour Ozone SIP. The final rule was
ultimately published on March 1, 2012 (77 FR 12674). Shortly
thereafter, several environmental and community groups filed a lawsuit
in the Ninth Circuit challenging that approval. Communities for a
Better Environment, et al. v. EPA, No. 12-71340.

II. Proposed Withdrawal of Previous Approvals, and Proposed
Disapproval, of VMT Emissions Offset Demonstrations

    As noted above, the Ninth Circuit rejected EPA's long-standing
interpretation of the first element of section 182(d)(1)(A) that states
could demonstrate compliance with the VMT emissions offset requirement
through submittal of aggregate motor vehicle emissions estimates
showing year-over-year declines in such emissions. These demonstrations
formed the basis for our consideration and approval of the section
182(d)(1)(A) VMT emissions offset demonstrations submitted in
connection with the 2003 South Coast 1-Hour Ozone SIP and the 2007
South Coast 8-Hour Ozone SIP. In response to the court's rejection of
our interpretation of the Act and its remand of our action approving
the VMT emissions offset demonstration for the 1-hour ozone standard,
we are proposing the following two actions.
    First, we are proposing to withdraw our previous approval of the
VMT emissions offset demonstration in our March 8, 2009 final action on
the 2003 South Coast 1-Hour Ozone SIP. Second, we are proposing to
withdraw our March 1, 2012 approval of the portion of the 2007 South
Coast 8-Hour Ozone SIP that was submitted to address the VMT emissions
offset requirement of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A).
    Withdrawal of our approvals of the two section 182(d)(1)(A)
demonstrations would remove them from the California SIP and we would
be obligated to take action on them under section 110(k), unless the
State were to also withdraw the demonstrations from their submissions
to us. To date, the State has not withdrawn these demonstrations.
Therefore, in this action, we are proposing to disapprove them.
Specifically, we are proposing to disapprove the demonstrations
submitted by California to demonstrate compliance with the VMT
emissions offset requirement under CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) with
respect to the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone standards because they are
predicated on EPA's previous interpretation of section 182(d)(1)(A)
that has been rejected by the Ninth Circuit. The demonstrations are not
consistent with the court's ruling on the requirements of section
182(d)(1)(A) because they fail to identify, compared to a baseline
assuming no VMT growth, the level of increased emissions resulting
solely from VMT growth and to show how such increased emissions have
been offset through adoption and implementation of transportation
control strategies and transportation control measures.

III. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment

    EPA is proposing to withdraw and to disapprove our final approvals
of SIP revisions submitted by the State of California to demonstrate
compliance with the VMT emissions offset requirement under CAA section
182(d)(1)(A) with respect to the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone standards in
the South Coast nonattainment area. EPA is proposing this action in
response to a decision of the Ninth Circuit in AIR v. EPA. Under
section 110(k) of the Clean Air Act, we are proposing to disapprove
these same plan elements because they reflect an approach to showing
compliance with section 182(d)(1)(A) that was rejected by the court as
inconsistent with the CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) VMT emissions offset
requirement. Should we finalize the disapproval proposed here, the
offset sanction in CAA section 179(b)(2) would apply in the South Coast
ozone nonattainment area 18 months after the effective date of the
final disapproval. The highway funding sanctions in CAA section
179(b)(1) would apply in the area six months after the offset sanction
is imposed. These sanctions will apply unless we take final action
approving SIP revisions meeting the relevant requirements of the CAA
prior to the time the sanctions would take effect. If we propose
approval of a SIP revision meeting the relevant requirements of the CAA
and determine at that time that it is more likely than not the
deficiency has been corrected, sanctions would be deferred. See 40 CFR
52.31 which sets forth when sanctions apply and when they may be
stopped or deferred.
    In addition to the sanctions, CAA section 110(c) provides that EPA
must promulgate a federal implementation plan addressing the deficiency
that is the basis for this disapproval two years after the effective
date of the disapproval unless we have approved a revised SIP before
that date.
    We are soliciting comments on these proposed actions. Comments will
be accepted for 30 days following publication of this proposal in the
Federal Register. We will consider all comments in our final
rulemaking.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12988, Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 128665, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Reduction Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because SIP approvals or disapprovals under
section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create
any new requirements but simply approve or disapprove

requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the
proposed withdrawal of previous approvals of certain SIP revisions, and
proposed disapproval of the same, do not create any new requirements, I
certify that this proposed action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Moreover, due to the
nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act,
preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry
into the economic reasonableness of State action. The Clean Air Act
forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union
Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the proposed withdrawal and disapproval
action does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal
governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal
action proposes to withdraw previous approvals of certain SIP
revisions, and proposes disapproval of the same, and imposes no new
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this proposed
action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it
merely proposes to withdraw previous approvals of certain SIP revisions
implementing a Federal standard, and proposes disapproval of the same,
and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this
rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It
will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this proposed rule.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it proposes to
withdraw previous approvals of certain SIP revisions implementing a
federal standard, and proposes disapproval of the same.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it
is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this proposed action.
Today's proposed action does not require the public to perform
activities conducive to the use of VCS.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this

proposed rulemaking. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to
approve or disapprove state choices, based on the criteria of the Clean
Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to withdraw previous
approvals of certain SIP revisions, and proposes disapproval of the
same, and will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements.
Accordingly, it does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: August 30, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2012-22973 Filed 9-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 59 (Monday, March 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17346-17347]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06382]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94483; File No. SR-NYSE-2021-74]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Provisions of NYSE Rule 7.35B

March 22, 2022.

I. Introduction

    On December 14, 2021, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend NYSE Rule 7.35B relating to the
cancellation of MOC, LOC, and Closing IO Orders before the Closing
Auction. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on December 29, 2021.\3\ On February 8, 2022, pursuant
to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\ the Commission extended the time
period within which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the
proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
approve or disapprove the proposed change.\5\ The Commission has
received no comment letters on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93849 (Dec. 22,
2021), 86 FR 74204 (Dec. 29, 2021 (``Notice'').
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94181, (Feb. 8,
2022), 87 FR 8305 (Feb. 14, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This order institutes proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the
Act \6\ to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange proposes to modify NYSE Rule 7.35B(f)(2), which sets
forth rules pertaining to the cancellation of MOC, LOC, and Closing IO
Orders before the Closing Auction Imbalance Freeze, and to make
conforming changes to NYSE Rule 7.35B(j)(2)(B).
    NYSE Rule 7.35B(f) provides that the Auction Imbalance Freeze for
the Closing Auction will begin at the Closing Auction Imbalance Freeze
Time and specifies how order entry and cancellation will be processed
during the Closing Auction Imbalance Freeze.\7\ NYSE Rule
7.35B(f)(2)(A) currently provides that, between the beginning of the
Auction Imbalance Freeze and two minutes before the scheduled end of
the Core Trading Hours, MOC, LOC, and Closing IO Orders \8\ may be
canceled or reduced in size only to correct a Legitimate Error.\9\ NYSE
Rule 7.35B(f)(2)(B) currently specifies that, except as provided for in
NYSE Rule 7.35B(j)(2)(B),\10\ a request to cancel, cancel and replace,
or reduce in size a MOC, LOC, or Closing IO Order entered two minutes
or less before the scheduled end of the Core Trading Hours will be
rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The ``Auction Imbalance Freeze'' is the period that begins
before the scheduled time for an Auction. See NYSE Rule 7.35(a)(3).
``Auction'' means the process for the opening, reopening, or closing
of the trading of Auction-Eligible Securities on the Exchange, and
an ``Auction-Eligible Security'' is a security for which the
Exchange is the primary listing market. See NYSE Rules 7.35(a)(1)
and 7.35(a)(2). The ``Closing Auction'' is the Auction that closes
trading at the end of the Core Trading Session, and the ``Closing
Auction Imbalance Freeze Time'' is 10 minutes before the scheduled
end of Core Trading Hours. See NYSE Rules 7.35(a)(1)(C) and
7.35(a)(8).
    \8\ A ``MOC Order'' or ``Market-on-Close Order'' is a Market
Order that is to be traded only during a closing auction. See NYSE
Rule 7.31(c)(2)(B). A ``LOC Order'' or ``Limit-on-Close Order'' is a
Limit Order that is to be traded only during a closing auction. See
NYSE Rule 7.31(c)(2)(A). A ``Closing IO Order'' or ``Closing
Imbalance Offset Order'' is a Limit Order to buy (sell) an in an
Auction-Eligible Security that it to be traded only in a Closing
Auction. See NYSE Rule 7.31(c)(2)(D).
    \9\ ``Legitimate Error'' means an error in any term of an order,
such as price, number of shares, side of the transaction (buy or
sell), or identification of the security. See NYSE Rule 7.35(a)(13).
    \10\ NYSE Rule 7.35B(j)(2)(B) currently specifies the
circumstances under which the Exchange may temporarily suspend the
prohibition on canceling an MOC or LOC Order in connection with the
Closing Auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to modify NYSE Rule 7.35B(f)(2) to provide
that any requests to cancel, cancel and replace, or reduce in size a
MOC, LOC, or Closing IO Order that are entered between the beginning of
the Auction Imbalance Freeze and the scheduled end of Core Trading
Hours would be rejected. As proposed, requests to cancel, replace, and/
or reduce in size a MOC, LOC, or Closing IO Order must be received
prior to the beginning of the Auction Imbalance Freeze (i.e., 10
minutes prior to the scheduled end of Core Trading Hours), even in the
case of a Legitimate Error.
    Finally, NYSE proposes to make the following conforming changes to
make NYSE Rule 7.35B(j)(2)(B) consistent with the proposed changes
described above: (1) Replace the reference to ``two minutes before the
scheduled end of Core Trading Hours'' with ``the beginning of the
Auction Imbalance Freeze,'' and (2) replace the reference to
``paragraph (f)(2)(B)'' with ``paragraph (f)(2).'' Thus, NYSE Rule
7.35B(j)(2)(B), as amended, would provide that the Exchange may
temporarily suspend the prohibition on cancelling an MOC or LOC Order
after the beginning of the Auction Imbalance Freeze (as such
prohibition would be set forth in NYSE Rule 7.35B(f)(2), as amended).

III. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Disapprove SR-NYSE-2021-74 and
Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act to determine whether the proposal should be
approved or disapproved. Institution of such proceedings is appropriate
at this time in view of the legal and policy issues raised by the
proposal. Institution of disapproval proceedings does not indicate that
the Commission has reached any conclusions with respect to any of the
issues involved. Rather, the Commission encourages interested persons
to provide additional comment on the proposal.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act, the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration.
The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency with the Act \11\
and, in particular, with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires,
among other things, that the rules of a national securities exchanges
be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.\12\ In addition, Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \13\
prohibits the rules

of an exchange from being designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. Further, Section
6(b)(8) of the Act requires that the rules of an exchange not impose
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate under
the Act.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal would change how cancellation of MOC, LOC,
and Closing IO Orders would be handled under NYSE Rule 7.35(B)(f)(2)
with respect to the NYSE Closing Auction. The Commission notes that the
Exchange has separately proposed a different set of changes to its
Closing Auction process and that the other proposal is currently in
proceedings before the Commission.\15\ The Commission believes that it
is appropriate to institute proceedings to allow for additional
analysis and input concerning the instant proposed rule change's
consistency with requirements of the Act and to evaluate this proposed
rule change in light of other pending proposed changes to the Closing
Auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93037 (Sept. 16,
2021), 86 FR 52719 (Sept. 22, 2021) (SR-NYSE-2021-44) (Notice);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93809 (Dec. 17, 2021), 86 FR
73060 (Dec. 23, 2021) (Order Instituting Proceedings).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written
views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, or
the rules and regulation thereunder. Although there do not appear to be
any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be
facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the
Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Act,\16\ any
request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \17\ Rule 700(c)(2) of the Commission's Rules of Practice
provides that ``[t]he Commission, in its sole discretion, may
determine whether any issues relevant to approval or disapproval
would be facilitated by the opportunity for an oral presentation of
views.'' 17 CFR 201.700(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or
disapproved by April 18, 2022. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal
to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by May 2,
2022. The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of
the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal which are set
forth in the Notice, in addition to any other comments they may wish to
submit about the proposed change. 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2021-74 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2021-74. 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 website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposal that are filed with the
Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposal
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 website 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 such filings also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2021-74 and
should be submitted on or before April 18, 2022. Rebuttal comments
should be submitted by May 2, 2022.
    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-06382 Filed 3-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 230 (Friday, November 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71686-71688]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28723]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70937; File No. SR-NSCC-2013-11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Add a New
Service to the National Securities Clearing Corporation's Obligation
Warehouse (``OW'') Which Would Pair Off and Close Certain Open
Obligations, Reducing the Number of Open Obligations in OW

November 25, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 14, 2013, National Securities Clearing Corporation
(``NSCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared primarily by NSCC. 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). Defined terms that are not defined in
this notice are defined in Exhibit 5 of the proposed rule change
filing, available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/nscc.shtml under
File No. SR-NSCC-2013-02, Additional Materials.
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NSCC is proposing to modify its Rules & Procedures (``Rules'') to
add a new service to NSCC's Obligation Warehouse (``OW'') which would
pair off and close certain open obligations, reducing the number of
open obligations in OW, as more fully described below.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, NSCC 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. NSCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is for NSCC to modify its
Rules to add a new service to NSCC's Obligation Warehouse (``OW'')
which would pair off and close certain open obligations, reducing the
number of open obligations in OW. NSCC's Obligation Warehouse, or
``OW'', implemented in 2011, is a non-guaranteed, automated service
that tracks, stores, and maintains unsettled ex-clearing and failed
obligations, as well as obligations exited from NSCC's Continuous Net
Settlement (``CNS'') system, non-CNS Automated Customer Account
Transfer Service (``ACATS'') Receive and Deliver Instructions, Balance
Orders, and Special Trades, as defined in NSCC's Rules (collectively
``OW Obligations''). The service provides transparency, serves as a
central storage of open (i.e. failed or unsettled) broker-to-broker
obligations, and allows users to manage and resolve exceptions in an
efficient and timely manner.
    Simultaneously, OW provides on-going maintenance and servicing of
matched obligations that have not been marked by a Member as subject to
upcoming delivery, closure, or cancellation. Examples of this on-going
maintenance and servicing include adjustments for certain corporate
actions, daily review for CNS eligibility, and regular processing of
the Reconfirmation and Pricing Service (``RECAPS'') in the OW on days
announced by Important Notices. During the daily review for CNS
eligibility, OW Obligations that are eligible for CNS are exited from
the OW and forwarded to CNS. On days when RECAPS is run in the OW, OW
Obligations that are eligible for RECAPS \3\ are re-netted and, if
appropriate, are marked to the current market price,\4\ and are
provided with an updated settlement date of the next business day. NSCC
is proposing to add a new service to OW, the Pair Off function, which
would pair off and close certain open obligations, reducing the number
of open obligations in OW. The Pair Off function would run once a day,
immediately following the completion of the review for CNS
eligibility.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Obligations that are matched and have a settlement date of
at least two days prior to the date on which the RECAPS process
commences will be considered for inclusion in the RECAPS process,
and therefore, fail items not already in the OW and eligible for
RECAPS processing must be submitted by the Member prior to RECAPS
processing.
    \4\ In the event that the current market price for a security is
not available, the obligation's price details will be unchanged from
when it was previously matched.
    \5\ NSCC will announce by Important Notice days on which Pair
Off function will not run, which may include days on which the
RECAPS process is run in the OW.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OW stores and maintains OW Obligations until they are settled,
closed, or cancelled. Today, in order to reduce the number of
obligations that remain on their books and records, Members may take
actions away from NSCC to close out these open obligations. Those
Members would then close the obligations in OW. The proposed Pair Off
function would facilitate the close out of any OW Obligations that
Members designate as eligible for the service. By facilitating the
close out of these obligations in an automated manner within the OW,
the Pair Off function would add transparency to the life cycle of these
obligations that may otherwise be closed out away from NSCC. With
respect to obligations that are removed from the OW as a result of a
pair off, the function would also help Members to remove these
obligations from their books and records, and would reduce those
Members' administrative costs associated with maintaining these
obligations in OW.
    Under the proposed rule change, NSCC Members would have the
opportunity to designate certain OW Obligations that are in ``Open''
status in the OW to which they are a party to be eligible to be paired
off with other OW Obligations in the same CUSIP and ultimately
closed.\6\ NSCC may, in its discretion, exclude certain obligations
from the Pair Off function, and will announce by Important Notice which
obligations are excluded. Initially, the following obligations may be
excluded: (1) OW Obligations in which the underlying security is a
mutual fund, a when-issued security,\7\ or is part of a syndicate; (2)
OW Obligations that are identified in OW as an ACATS Receive and
Deliver Instruction; (3) obligations that, as of the time the Pair Off
function runs, are identified in the OW as being subject to a corporate
action; and (4) an obligation that is marked in the OW as being in
``Open'' status but has already been sent to The Depository Trust
Company's Inventory Management System (IMS) as a pending delivery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Members may either participate in the Pair Off function on
an account level, designating all OW Obligations in an ``Open''
status in the OW to which they are a party as eligible for the Pair
Off function, and then opt out of the function with respect to
certain OW Obligations; or they may designate only certain OW
Obligations as eligible for pair off.
    \7\ A transaction in a ``when issued'' security is made
conditionally because the underlying security has been authorized
but not yet issued, and will only settle after the security has been
issued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Pair Off function would use a matching methodology that would
pair off eligible OW Obligations based on the quantity of underlying
securities, the final money amount, and the settlement dates of the
underlying obligations. The Pair Off function would only match OW
Obligations that have been designated as eligible for pair off by both
Members that are party thereto, and that are in the same CUSIP and have
the same counterparties, where the counterparties have offsetting long
and short obligations. The methodology would pair off eligible OW
Obligations in order by first pairing off those obligations that have
the most criteria in common. For example, the methodology would first
pair off eligible OW Obligations where the quantity of underlying
securities, the settlement dates of the obligations, and the final
money amounts are identical. The methodology would continue to review
eligible OW Obligations subject to certain rules, beginning with
eligible OW Obligations with the oldest settlement date, and eligible
OW Obligations with the smallest number of underlying securities.
    Under the proposal, eligible OW Obligations would be paired off
where the quantity of underlying securities, the final money amount, or
the settlement dates of the underlying obligations may not be
identical, and, in certain cases, one OW Obligation would be paired off
against multiple OW Obligations. However, a pair off would never occur
if it would result in (1) a negative quantity of underlying securities
in either of the original obligations, (2) it [sic] a negative final
money amount, or (3) at least one of the obligations subject to the
pair off to remain open, with a reduced quantity of underlying
securities and have a final money amount of zero or less than zero.
Additionally, OW Obligations in municipal bonds would only be eligible
for pair off where the quantity of the underlying securities in the
obligations subject to the pair off is identical and no underlying
securities remain.
    Where the pair off criteria are met, the OW Obligations would
either be closed or, where the quantities of underlying securities are
not exactly matched between obligations being paired off, the pair off
would result in one or more of the obligations being reduced by the
quantity of securities that were paired off. Those obligations would
remain in ``Open'' status in OW and would be adjusted to reflect the
reduced number

of underlying securities. Where the underlying final money amounts are
not exactly matched between obligations being paired off, the pair off
would result in a cash adjustment, which would be reflected in the
Members' money settlement with NSCC on the following business day.
Implementation Timeframe
    Subject to approval of this filing, NSCC proposes to implement the
Pair Off function during the first quarter of 2014. Pending Commission
approval, Members will be advised of the implementation date through
issuance of an NSCC Important Notice.
Proposed Rule Changes
    NSCC is proposing to amend Rule 51 (Obligation Warehouse) and add a
new Section E to the existing Procedure IIA (Obligation Warehouse)
describing the Pair Off function.
2. Statutory Basis
    NSCC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to NSCC, in particular Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,\8\
which requires that NSCC's Rules be designed to promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions. By
providing for greater efficiency and transparency with respect to
obligations processed through the OW, the proposed rule change promotes
the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition.

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

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet
been solicited or received. NSCC will notify the Commission of any
written comments received by NSCC.

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 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 a 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 No. SR-NSCC-2013-11 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NSCC-2013-11. 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 such filings also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of NSCC and on
NSCC's Web site at http://dtcc.com/downloads/legal/rule_filings/2013/nscc/SR-NSCC-2013-02.pdf.
    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 No. SR-NSCC-2013-11 and
should be submitted on or before December 20, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2013-28723 Filed 11-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 13, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 69)]
[Notices]
[Page 16883]
[DOCID:fr13ap09-78]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3304-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]

Minnesota; 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 State of Minnesota (FEMA-3304-EM), dated March 26,
2009, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: March 26, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated March 26, 2009, 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 certain areas
of the State of Minnesota resulting from severe storms and flooding
beginning on March 16, 2009, 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. 5121-5207 (``the Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that
such an emergency exists in the State of Minnesota.
    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), including direct Federal assistance, under the Public
Assistance program. This assistance excludes regular time costs for
subgrantees' regular employees. In addition, you are authorized to
provide such other forms of assistance under Title V of the Stafford
Act as you may deem appropriate.
    Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is
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
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, Michael
H. Smith, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating
Officer for this declared emergency.
    The following areas of the State of Minnesota have been designated
as adversely affected by this declared emergency:

    Clay, Kittson, Marshall, Norman, Polk, Traverse, and Wilkin
Counties for emergency protective measures (Category B), including
direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.

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

Nancy Ward,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-8377 Filed 4-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 109 (Thursday, June 8, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 26700]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11849]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4314-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

Mississippi; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Mississippi (FEMA-4314-DR), dated May 22,
2017, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective May 22, 2017.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated May 22, 2017, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Mississippi resulting from severe storms, tornadoes, straight-
line winds, and flooding on April 30, 2017, is of sufficient
severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act,
42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare
that such a major disaster exists in the State of Mississippi.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the
eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage
under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for
Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford
Act.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

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

    Adams, Calhoun, Carroll, Claiborne, Holmes, Jefferson,
Montgomery, Webster, and Yazoo Counties for Public Assistance.
    All areas within the State of Mississippi are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

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

Robert J. Fenton,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-11849 Filed 6-7-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P