Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 1998 / Proposed Rules 24143

business day after written notice of such

a change is received by the Commission

if:

(i) The change is not inconsistent with

any provision of the Act or the

Commission’s regulations;

(ii) For a change that permits trading

anytime between 6 p.m. and 7 a.m. local

time in the city where the contract

market is located, the contract market

has previously received Commission

approval for trading between such hours

in at least one of its designated

contracts; and

(iii) The contract market labels the

written notice as being submitted

pursuant to paragraph (k) of this section.

* * * * *

Issued in Washington D.C. on April 28,

1998, by the Commission.

Jean A. Webb,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 98–11655 Filed 4–30–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6351–01–M

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

44 CFR Part 206

RIN 3067–AC69

Disaster Assistance; Hazard Mitigation

Grant Program

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would

revise the categories of projects

currently eligible for funding under the

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program

(HMGP) by defining eligible mitigation

activities under the HMGP to include

nonstructural flood hazard mitigation

measures and minor flood control

projects that do not duplicate the efforts

and authorities of other Federal

agencies.

DATES: We invite comments on this

proposed rule, which may be submitted

on or before June 30, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Please send any comments

to the Rules Docket Clerk, Office of the

General Counsel, Federal Emergency

Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,

room 840, Washington, DC 20472,

(facsimile) (202) 646–4536, or (email)

rules@fema.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert F. Shea, Mitigation Directorate,

Federal Emergency Management

Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington,

DC 20472, (202) 646–3619, (facsimile)

(202) 646–3104.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In December 1993, the President

signed the Hazard Mitigation and

Relocation Assistance Act, which

amended § 404 of the Robert T. Stafford

Disaster Relief and Emergency

Assistance Act (Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C.

5170c. This amendment provides

legislative authority to use the majority

of mitigation funding available from

flood disasters to undertake

nonstructural floodplain management

measures.

Nonstructural Measures

Authorized by § 404 of the Stafford

Act, the HMGP provides States and

local governments financial assistance

to implement measures that

permanently reduce or eliminate future

damages and losses from natural

hazards. In response nonstructural

measures are FEMA’s first priority when

grantees use Hazard Mitigation Grant

Program funds to address a flood

hazard. Our experience with the use of

nonstructural flood hazard mitigation

measures by acquiring, elevating, and

floodproofing high-risk structures

sharply reduces the number of

structures in harm’s way. Advantages of

this approach include substantial

environmental and hydrologic benefits.

This proposed rule would modify the

list of eligible types of projects and

clarify types of activities that are eligible

under the program, and would reflect

FEMA’s multi-hazard program

objectives and priorities. FEMA would

include development and initial

implementation of vegetation

management programs for wildfire

hazard mitigation and erosion hazard

mitigation in the list of eligible

activities. Routine maintenance and

landscaping activities would not be

eligible. Vegetation management can

reduce the volume and continuity of

flammable vegetation in order to slow or

prevent the spread of wildfire from

vegetation to developed properties and

to improve the potential effectiveness of

wildfire suppression activities.

Vegetation management can also reduce

costs associated with erosion from

floods and severe storms.

Vegetation management programs

often require significant regular

maintenance in order to preserve their

hazard mitigation benefits. Such

maintenance would be the

responsibility of the subgrantee. Before

approving a grant FEMA or the State

may require a maintenance plan and

commitment by the subgrantee

accepting responsibility for the

maintenance.

The list of eligible HMGP projects

provided for under subsection (c) is not

all-inclusive, but provides a general

overview of potential project categories

and clarifies that major structural flood

control projects would not be

considered for funding under the

HMGP. Applicants may propose project

types not listed for funding

consideration.

Warning Systems

While ‘‘Development or improvement

of warning systems’’ has been removed

from the list of eligible project type

examples in the rule, FEMA will

continue to entertain applications for

such projects under the Five Percent

Initiative. The five percent initiative

provides the State greater flexibility

over the approval of HMGP projects up

to five percent of the available program

funding. FEMA’s guidance for

implementing the initiative specifically

indicates that warning systems, which

are difficult to evaluate against HMGP

eligibility criteria, are appropriately

funded within the five percent

initiative.

Structural Assistance

FEMA recognizes that dikes, levees,

dams, channelization, channel

widening, stream realignment, seawalls,

groins, and jetties continue to serve as

a means to minimize vulnerability to

hazards under certain circumstances.

These structures fall traditionally under

the water resources design and

construction authorities of the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers and the

Natural Resources Conservation Service

of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Both of those agencies have extensive

experience assisting in the planning,

design, and construction of major

structural projects. FEMA has limited

experience with major structural flood

control projects. Rather than duplicate

assistance available from other Federal

agencies, FEMA limits its flood control

assistance to minor flood control

projects and localized protection of

critical facilities that generally do not

fall under the authority of other Federal

agencies.

Minor Flood Control Projects

The most common activities under

the minor flood control project category

include modification of existing culverts

and bridges; upgrades of storm drainage

systems; installation of floodgates; and

creation of small retention or detention

basins. Based on these types of projects,

the term ‘‘minor flood control projects’’

refers to the limited scope of a project’s

impact upon the floodplain that would

lessen the frequency or severity of
24144 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 1998 / Proposed Rules

flooding and decrease predicted flood

damage. For example, minor physical

changes, such as a modification to a

culvert, that can reduce flooding and

losses for whole groups of homes or

neighborhoods may be more costeffective than an individual mitigation

measure applied to every home in that

area.

Finally, the language in this proposed

rule mirrors project eligibility

descriptions included in § 553 of the

National Flood Insurance Reform Act of

1994, Pub. L. 103–325, which authorizes

the new Flood Mitigation Assistance

program. This proposed rule would

provide a consistent approach

throughout FEMA’s mitigation grant

programs in the funding flood

mitigation projects.

Correction to General, Allowable Open

Space, Recreational, and Wetlands

Management Uses

44 CFR 206.434(d)(2) would be

corrected to read ‘‘permeable’’ in place

of ‘‘previous’’. This change is to allow

unimproved, unpaved short-term

parking areas such as visitors parking

areas at an acquired property to be used

as a park or recreational area. The

change would acknowledge the present

misspelling of ‘‘pervious’’ as ‘‘previous’’

in § 206.434(d)(2) and would substitute

the equivalent, more familiar term

‘‘permeable’’ for ‘‘pervious’’.

Removal of Language Regarding

Inapplicability of the Uniform

Relocation Act

This proposed rule would delete 44

CFR 206.434(e), Inapplicability of the

Uniform Relocation Act, which exempts

projects that meet certain criteria from

meeting the requirements of the

Uniform Relocation Act. This

exemption was created by amendment

to the Stafford Act in 1993 and applied

only to disaster assistance for 9 major

disasters declared during the Great

Midwestern Flood of 1993. Project

funding under those 9 disasters is nearly

complete; paragraph 206.434(e) is no

longer applicable to the program.

FEMA’s voluntary open space

acquisition projects continue to be

exempt from most provisions of the

Uniform Relocation Act under 49 CFR

24.101(a).

National Environmental Policy Act

This proposed rule is categorically

excluded under 44 CFR 10.8. FEMA has

not prepared an environmental

assessment.

Executive Order 12898, Environmental

Justice

FEMA reviewed the socioeconomic

conditions relating to this proposed rule

and made a finding that no

disproportionately high and adverse

effect on minority or low-income

populations will result from

implementation of this program.

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory

Planning and Review

This proposed rule is not a significant

regulatory action within the meaning of

§ 2(f) of E.O. 12866 of September 30,

1993, 58 FR 51735, but attempts to

adhere to the regulatory principles set

forth in E.O. 12866. The rule has not

been reviewed by the Office of

Management and Budget under E.O.

12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Director certifies that this rule is

not a major rule under Executive Order

12291. It will not have significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities within the meaning of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, and is not

expected (1) to affect adversely the

availability of disaster assistance

funding to small entities, (2) to have

significant secondary or incidental

effects on a substantial number of small

entities, or (3) to create any additional

burden on small entities. FEMA has not

prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis

of this proposed rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This proposed rule does not involve

any collection of information for the

purposes of the Paperwork Reduction

Act.

Executive Order 12612, Federalism

This proposed rule would involve no

policies that have federalism

implications under E.O. 12612,

Federalism, dated October 26, 1987.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 206

Administrative practice and

procedure, Grant programs, Hazard

mitigation.

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 206 is

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 206—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 206

continues to read as follows:

Authority: The Robert T. Stafford Disaster

Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42

U.S.C. 5121 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No.

3 of 1978, 43 FR 41943, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.,

p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979

Comp., p.376; E.O. 12148, 44 FR 43239, 3

CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 412; and E.O. 12673, 54

FR 12571, 3 CFR, 1989 Comp., p. 214.

2. Section 206.434(c) is revised to

read as follows:

§ 206.434 Eligibility.

* * * * *

(c) Types of projects. Projects may be

of any nature that will result in

protection of public or private property.

Eligible projects include, but are not

limited to:

(1) Property acquisition or relocation,

as defined in § 206.434(d);

(2) Retrofitting structures and

facilities to strengthen against high

winds, earthquake, flood, wildfire, or

other natural hazards;

(3) Elevation of floodprone structures;

(4) Development and initial

implementation of vegetation

management programs for wildfire and

erosion hazard mitigation, with the

subgrantee accepting responsibility for

continuing maintenance required to

preserve hazard mitigation benefits;

(5) Minor flood control projects that

do not duplicate the flood prevention

activities of other Federal agencies, that

lessen the frequency or severity of

flooding, and that decrease predicted

flood damages in localized flood

problem areas. They include

modification of existing culverts and

bridges, installation or modification of

floodgates, stream bank stabilization,

and creation of small retention and

detention basins. Minor flood control

projects shall not include major flood

control projects such as dikes, levees,

seawalls, groins, jetties, dams, and

stream channelization.

(6) Localized flood control projects,

such as ring levees and floodwall

systems, which serve to protect critical

facilities.

(7) Development and implementation

(for example, training for building

officials) of State or local mitigation

standards;

(8) Development of comprehensive

hazard mitigation programs with

implementation as an essential

component.

* * * * *

3. Section 206.434(d)(2) is revised to

read as follows:

§ 206.434 Eligibility.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(2) In general, allowable open space,

recreational, and wetland management

uses include parks for outdoor

recreational activities, nature reserves,

cultivation, grazing, camping (except

where adequate warning time is not

available to allow evacuation),

temporary storage in the open of

wheeled vehicles that are easily

movable (except mobile homes),
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 1998 / Proposed Rules 24145

unimproved, permeable parking lots,

and buffer zones.

* * * * *

4. Section 206.434 is amended by

deleting paragraph (e) and redesignating

paragraphs (f) and (g) as paragraphs (e)

and (f).

Dated: April 24, 1998.

James L. Witt,

Director.

[FR Doc. 98–11641 Filed 4–30–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718–02–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 76

[CS Docket No. 98–54; FCC 98–68]

1998 Biennial Regulatory Review

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: In the Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (‘‘NPRM‘‘), the Commission

seeks comment or ways to simplify and

make more uniform the Cable

Television Service pleading and

complaint process rules. This

proceeding is initiated in conjunction

with the Commission’s 1998 biennial

regulatory review. The intended effect

of this proceeding is to reduce the

regulatory burden on franchising

authorities, cable operators, and other

interested persons making filings under

the rules.

DATES: Comments are due on or before

June 22, 1998. Reply comments are due

on or before July 7, 1998. Public

Information requirements are due June

30, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 1919 M Street, NW., Room

222, Washington, D.C. 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas Horan, Consumer Protection

and Competition Division, Cable

Services Bureau, at (202) 418–7200.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking in CS Docket No. 98–54,

FCC 98–68 which was adopted on April

13, 1998 and released on April 22, 1998.

A copy of the complete item is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC

Reference Center, Room 239, 1919 M

Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 20554.

The complete text may be purchased

from the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW.,

Washington, D.C. 20036, (202) 857–

3800. The complete Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking also is available on the

Commission’s Internet home page

(http://www.fcc.gov).

Summary of Action:

I. Background

1. On April 13, 1998, the Federal

Communications Commission

(‘‘Commission’’) adopted a Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking which sought

comment or ways to simplify and make

more uniform the Cable Television

Service pleading and complaint process

rules, 47 CFR 76. The NPRM is

summarized below.

A. Introduction

2. Under the Commission’s current

part 76 rules, the procedures for

initiating Commission action on a cable

television service issue vary depending

on the rules upon which the pleading or

complaint is based. Although there are

practical and legal reasons for the

different pleading procedures, there

may be some common elements to every

pleading or complaint that could be

made uniform across the broad

spectrum of issues raised under part 76.

The Commission thus seeks comment

on whether we can or should institute

some uniform pleading process and, if

so, what form it should take.

B. Discussion

3. The Commission is initiating this

proceeding in conjunction with the

Commission’s 1998 biennial regulatory

review pursuant to section 11 of the

1996 Telecommunications Act, 47

U.S.C. 161. Pursuant to section 11,

Congress instructed the Commission to

conduct a biennial review of regulations

that apply to operations and activities of

any provider of telecommunications

service and to repeal or modify any

regulation it determines to be no longer

in the public interest. Although section

11 does not specifically refer to cable

operators, the Commission has

determined that the first biennial review

presents an opportunity for a thorough

examination of all of the Commission’s

regulations. The Commission believes

that, where possible, simplification of

the complaint processes for part 76 rules

by instituting a uniform system would

likely serve the public interest by

lessening confusion and reducing the

regulatory burden on franchising

authorities, cable operators, and other

interested persons making filings under

the part 76 rules.

4. At least thirteen different types of

petitions or complaints could be filed to

initiate Commission action related to

the part 76 rules. Each type of petition

or complaint has particular

requirements regarding the conditions

that must be satisfied before a filing can

be made, who must be served with the

filing, and the deadline time for a

response. One reason for this variation

is that our rules have been adopted over

a period of time in response to changes

in the Communications Act and, more

specifically, for changes with respect to

cable issues passed in 1984, 1992, and

1996. The rules adopted to implement

changes in the law may have adopted a

complaint process with its own unique

procedures when an existing complaint

process would have been sufficient. For

example, following the filing of a

petition for special relief, interested

persons may submit comments or

oppositions within twenty days after the

date of public notice of the filing of such

petition. In contrast, with respect to a

petition for an issuance of an order to

show cause, interested persons may

submit comments or oppositions within

thirty days after the petition has been

filed. In this proceeding, the

Commission seeks comment on whether

these types of differences should be

maintained or whether in circumstances

of similar pleadings, the procedural

rules associated with those pleadings

should be the same.

5. The rules associated with each

different pleading type are designed to

establish fair and expeditious

procedures for receiving, considering,

and resolving issues related to the cable

television service rules. The

Commission believes that there are

some aspects of the pleading

requirements in part 76 rules that could

be made uniform. The Commission

seeks comment on which aspects of the

pleading processes can be made

consistent regardless of the part 76 rule

under which the complaint is being

filed; or alternatively, which pleading

processes are similar and should have

similar procedures. Specifically, is it

appropriate to have the same or

different (1) periods of time to formulate

and file a complaint; (2) service

requirements; (3) pleading cycles; (4)

affidavit and evidentiary requirements;

and (5) burdens of proof? The

Commission also seek proposals on how

to achieve a more streamlined

complaint process for part 76 pleadings.

Specifically,the Commission seeks

comment on those filing requirements,

now unique to a particular type of

pleading or complaint, that are

beneficial and should be applied

universally to all part 76 pleadings; and

conversely, which filing requirements

are not useful and should be eliminated.

II. Procedural Matters

A. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

6. As required by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 603, the

Commission has prepared an Initial