[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 204 (Monday, October 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 64581]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25955]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2012-41]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of
FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the
inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to
affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before November 13, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2012-
0970 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keira Jones<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Tyneka
Thomas<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 10, 2012.
Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition For Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2012-0970.
    Petitioner: Desert Aerospace, LLC.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 61.58.
    Description of Relief Sought: Desert Aerospace seeks relief to
operate their turbo-jet powered Comp-Let TST-14 glider without
completing within the preceding 12 calendar months, a pilot-in-command
proficiency check in an aircraft that is type certificated for more
than one required pilot flight crewmember or is turbojet-powered, and
within the preceding 24 calendar months, complete a pilot-in-command
proficiency check in the turbo-jet powered Comp-Let TST-14 glider.
[FR Doc. 2012-25955 Filed 10-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

OFFICE  OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND

TOXIC SUBSTANCES

								PC Code: 080103

DP Barcode: D252840

Date: 13 September 2007

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Ammonium Thiosulfate

CAS Reg. No.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/search/SearchResultsPage?Query=7783
-18-8&Scope=CASSearch&btnSearch.x=1"  7783-18-8  (Solution); 7664-41-7
(Anhydrous)

Ecological Risk Assessment

FROM:	Colleen Flaherty, M.S., Biologist

			James A. Hetrick, Ph.D., Senior Scientist

			Silvia Carlota Termes, Ph.D., Chemist

		Ecological Risk Branch III

		Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7505-P)

TO:		Katie Hall

		Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508-P)

	THRU:	Karen Whitby, Ph.D., Branch Chief

		Ecological Risk Branch III

		Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7505-P)

Ammonium thiosulfate (CAS No.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/search/SearchResultsPage?Query=7783
-18-8&Scope=CASSearch&btnSearch.x=1"  7783-18-8 ), an inorganic
compound, is the chemical stressor considered in the attached ecological
risk assessment. Ammonium thiosulfate dissociates completely in water.
The dissociation products are the thiosulfate anion and its ammonium
counter cation, and both are considered in this risk assessment.

Risk Summary

This ecological risk assessment considers the limited use of ammonium
thiosulfate as an herbicide on dichondra lawns in residential/homeowner
settings in California. This assessment is qualitative in nature; that
is, the risk quotient approach is not utilized.  The nature of ammonium
thiosulfate and its predicted behavior in the environment make it
difficult to provide meaningful quantitative exposure estimates for
aquatic and terrestrial systems.  Since ammonium thiosulfate is being
used as an herbicide, there is a possibility that non-target plants may
be at risk; however, given that it is only used in residential/homeowner
settings in California, the potential for adverse effects to non-target
plants seems highly unlikely.  Based on this qualitative assessment for
the pesticidal use of ammonium thiosulfate, risk to non-target aquatic
and terrestrial organisms (including Federally-listed species) is
presumed to be negligible.

Uncertainties and Data Gaps

No acceptable environmental fate or ecotoxicity guideline studies are
available for ammonium thiosulfate.  However, given the nature of the
chemical and its predicted behavior in the environment, this was not an
impediment to the risk assessment. At this time, the EFED is not
requesting any environmental fate or ecotoxicity studies to be submitted
for ammonium thiosulfate.

 PAGE

 PAGE   1


From: Holloway, Thomas C. Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 10: 27 AM To: ' Laura. butler@ ncmail. net' Subject: Magnetic tape manufacturing facilities in NC Ms. Butler,

As we discussed on the phone, I am with RTI working with the US EPA gathering in formation on magnetic tape manufacturing facilities. Magnetic tape is used in a udio recording, video recording, or any kind of information storage and includes products such as audio tape, video tape, floppy disks, and magnetic strips for credit cards, toll tickets, airline boarding passes, and security badges. The m agnetic tape manufacturing NESHAP ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart EE) was promulgated i n December 1994, and EPA is required to evaluate the risk remaining ( residual ri sk) for source categories several years after standards have been put in place. There are two facilities in North Carolina which appeared on our source list fo r magnetic tape manufacturing, and we would like to confirm whether these facili ties are still operating and if they actually manufacture magnetic tape. The tw o facilities are Electronic Data Magnetics Inc. ( EDM), which is located on 210 O ld Thomasville Road in High Point, NC, and Sonopress Inc., which is located on 1 08 Monticello Road in Weaverville, NC. If you or someone at DENR could help me out with this information, I would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks, Tom Holloway RTI International ( 919) 316 3733 tcholloway@ rti. org


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 44 (Thursday, March 6, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12661-12667]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04612]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 450

[EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0884; FRL-9906-51-OW]
RIN 2040-AF44

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the
Construction and Development Point Source Category

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing
changes to the effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the
Construction and Development point source category. EPA is promulgating
these changes pursuant to a settlement agreement to resolve litigation.
This final rule withdraws the numeric discharge standards, which are
currently stayed, and changes several of the non-numeric provisions of
the existing rule.

DATES: This final rule is effective on May 5, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0884. All documents in the docket are listed on the
www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the USEPA Docket Center, WJC
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the EPA
Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jesse W. Pritts at Engineering and
Analysis Division, Office of Water (4303T), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

Regulated Entities
    Entities potentially regulated by this action include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         North American
                                                            Industry
           Category             Examples of regulated    Classification
                                       entities          System (NAICS)
                                                              Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry......................     Construction activities required to
                                     obtain NPDES permit coverage and
                                   performing the following activities:
                               -----------------------------------------
                                Construction of                      236
                                 buildings, including
                                 building, developing
                                 and general
                                 contracting.
                                Heavy and civil                      237
                                 engineering
                                 construction,
                                 including land
                                 subdivision.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA does not intend the preceding table to be exhaustive, but
provides it as a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be
regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities that
EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other
types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To
determine whether

your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine
the applicability criteria at 40 CFR 450.10 and the definition of
``storm water discharge associated with industrial activity'' and
``storm water discharge associated with small construction activity''
in existing EPA regulations at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(x) and
122.26(b)(15), respectively. If you have questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular site, consult the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Overview
    This preamble describes the terms, acronyms, and abbreviations used
in this document; the legal authority for this final rule; background
information; and a summary of the final changes.

Table of Contents

I. Legal Authority
II. Purpose & Summary of the Final Rule
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Legal Authority

    EPA is promulgating these regulations under the authorities of
sections 101, 301, 304, 306, 308, 401, 402, 501 and 510 of the Clean
Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1251, 1311, 1314, 1316, 1318, 1341, 1342,
1361 and 1370, and pursuant to the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, 42
U.S.C. 13101 et seq.

II. Purpose & Summary of the Final Rule

A. Background

    EPA promulgated Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for
the Construction and Development Point Source Category (hereafter
referred to as the ``C&D rule'') (74 FR 62996, December 1, 2009). The
C&D rule established requirements based on Best Practicable Control
Technology Currently Available, Best Available Technology Economically
Achievable, Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology, and New
Source Performance Standards based on Best Available Demonstrated
Control Technology. Construction activities like clearing, excavating,
and grading significantly disturb the land. The disturbed soil, if not
managed properly, can easily be washed off of the construction site
during storms and enter water bodies. Stormwater discharges from
construction activities can cause an array of physical, chemical and
biological impacts to receiving streams.
    The C&D rule included non-numeric requirements to:
     Implement erosion and sediment controls;
     stabilize soils;
     manage dewatering activities;
     implement pollution prevention measures;
     prohibit certain discharges; and
     utilize surface outlets for discharges from basins and
impoundments.
    The C&D rule also established a numeric limitation on the allowable
level of turbidity in discharges from certain construction sites. The
technology basis for the final numeric limitation was passive treatment
controls including polymer-aided settling to reduce the turbidity in
discharges.
    Following promulgation of the C&D rule, the Wisconsin Builders
Association, the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) and the
Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) filed petitions for review in the U.S.
Circuit Courts of Appeals for the Fifth, Seventh, and D.C. Circuits.
The petitions were consolidated in the Seventh Circuit. Wisconsin
Builders Association, et al. v. EPA, Case Nos. 09-4113, 10-1247, and
10-1876 (7th Cir.). On July 8, 2010, the petitioners filed their
briefs.
    In April 2010, the Small Business Administration (SBA) filed with
EPA a petition for administrative reconsideration of several technical
aspects of the C&D rule. SBA identified potential deficiencies with the
dataset that EPA used to support its decision to adopt the numeric
turbidity limitation. In June 2010, NAHB also filed a petition for
administrative reconsideration with EPA incorporating by reference
SBA's argument regarding the potential deficiencies in the data.
    On August 12, 2010, EPA filed an unopposed motion with the Court
seeking to hold the litigation in abeyance until February 15, 2012 (see
the docket for this action, EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0884-0085), and asking the
Court to remand the record to EPA and vacate the numeric limitation
portion of the rule. In addition, EPA agreed to reconsider the numeric
limitation and to solicit site-specific information regarding the
applicability of the numeric effluent limitation to cold weather sites
and to small sites that are part of a larger project.
    On August 24, 2010, the Court issued an order remanding the matter
to the Agency but without vacating the numeric limitation. Subsequently
on September 9, 2010, the petitioners filed an unopposed motion for
clarification or reconsideration of the Court's August 24, 2010 order,
asking the Court again to vacate the numeric limitation. On September
20, 2010, the Court remanded the administrative record to EPA, and
ordered the case held in abeyance until February 15, 2012, but did not
vacate the numeric limitation. During this period, EPA provided
additional information in the docket to supplement the administrative
record for the C&D rule (see EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465-2124 through EPA-HQ-
OW-2008-0465-2134) and an updated response to comment document (see
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465-2135).
    In November 2010, EPA issued a direct final regulation and a
companion proposed regulation to stay the numeric limitation at 40 CFR
450.22 indefinitely (75 FR 68215, November 5, 2010 and 75 FR 68305,
November 5, 2010). The proposed rule solicited comment due no later
than December 6, 2010. Since no adverse comments were received, the
direct final rule took effect on January 4, 2011.
    As of this date, neither states nor EPA were required to
incorporate the numeric turbidity limitation and monitoring
requirements found at Sec.  450.22(a) and Sec.  450.22(b) into NPDES
permits because the numeric limitation was stayed. However, the
remainder of the C&D rule was still in effect and had to be
incorporated into newly issued NPDES permits.
    After issuing the stay of the numeric turbidity limitation, EPA
continued to consult with stakeholders regarding next steps with
respect to numeric discharge standards. EPA published a Federal
Register notice (77 FR 112, January 3, 2012) seeking data on the
effectiveness of technologies in controlling turbidity in discharges
from construction sites and information on other related issues.
    EPA also continued to meet with the petitioners in an effort to
settle the litigation over the C&D rule. On December 10, 2012, EPA
entered into a settlement agreement with petitioners to resolve the
litigation in Wisconsin Builders Association, et al. v. EPA, Case Nos.
09-4113, 10-1247, and 10-1876 (7th Cir.). The settlement agreement
provides for EPA to propose for public comment certain changes specific
to the non-numeric portions of the C&D rule, as well as withdrawal of
the numeric limitation, and take final action on the proposal. Under
the terms of the settlement agreement, by April 15, 2013 EPA was to
sign for publication in the Federal Register a notice of proposed
rulemaking, with at least a 30-day comment period, to amend the C&D
rule in a manner substantially similar to Exhibit A, which is attached
to the settlement agreement. The settlement then provides that by
February 28, 2014, EPA will take final action on the proposed rule.
Under the settlement, if EPA takes the above actions by the

specified dates, and EPA's final action on the proposed rule amends the
C&D rule in any manner, then Petitioners and EPA will promptly file a
joint request with the Court asking it to dismiss the C&D litigation.
In addition, if EPA's final action amends the C&D rule in a manner
substantially similar to Exhibit A, Petitioners will not seek judicial
review of those amendments. Finally, the settlement provides that
within 60 days after EPA signs the proposal mentioned above, NAHB and
EPA will file a joint request with the Court to dismiss NAHB's
challenge to the 2012 Construction General Permit (CGP), which EPA
issued on February 29, 2012 (see 77 FR 12286). EPA proposed a rule on
April 1, 2013. Today's final rule satisfies EPA's commitments under the
settlement agreement.

B. Revisions to 40 CFR Part 450

    The revisions to 40 CFR part 450 being promulgated consist of the
following three elements:
     Addition of a definition of ``infeasible'';
     revisions to the effluent limitations reflecting the best
practicable control technology currently available (BPT), effluent
limitations reflecting the best available technology economically
achievable (BAT), effluent limitations reflecting the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT), and the new source performance
standards reflecting the best available demonstrated control technology
(NSPS) found at 40 CFR 450.21, 450.22, 450.23 and 450.24, respectively;
and
     withdrawal of the numeric turbidity effluent limitation
and monitoring requirements found at 40 CFR 450.22(a) and 450.22(b) and
reserving these subparts.
    EPA has made these revisions to clarify when and where these
provisions apply and what exceptions apply. Today's changes provide
clarity to permitting authorities on how to implement or incorporate
these provisions into permits. The following discusses each of the
changes promulgated today, and summarizes the comments EPA received on
each of the changes.
1. Addition of Definition at 40 CFR 450.11
    EPA proposed to add a definition of infeasible at 40 CFR 450.11(b).
Several of the provisions of the C&D rule require permittees to
implement controls, unless infeasible. EPA did not provide a definition
of infeasible in the 2009 C&D rule, although EPA did provide a
definition in the preamble (74 FR 63005, 63017, December 1, 2009). The
proposed definition of infeasible was derived from EPA's preamble
language from the 2009 final rule and the 2012 CGP.
    EPA received a number of comments on the proposed definition of
infeasible. Some commenters supported EPA's inclusion of a definition,
while some did not. Some commenters offered specific revisions to the
definition, while others requested that EPA provide additional examples
of specific instances where a given practice may be infeasible. Some
commenters requested that EPA incorporate an infeasibility condition
into all of the requirements of the final rule, not just those where it
is currently included.
    EPA had previously concluded that an infeasibility provision for
some requirements (specifically, buffers, preserving topsoil, and use
of surface outlets) was appropriate, given that site-specific
constraints may exist. EPA now concludes that a definition of
infeasible is appropriate in the rule in order to provide clarity to
permitting authorities. EPA has not changed the proposed definition for
today's final rule as a result of comments received because the
definition allows sufficient flexibility for permitting authorities to
incorporate appropriate requirements into their permits to address the
limited number of circumstances where a given requirement may be
infeasible. See the comment response document for today's action for
additional discussion of the comments received.
2. Revision of 40 CFR 450.21(a)(1)
    EPA received several comments on this proposed amended requirement.
Some stated that this requirement is not needed since there are other
ways of controlling erosion besides controlling volume and velocity, or
that the requirement is too prescriptive. Others stated that the
``within the site'' language that is contained in the 2009 final rule
is necessary and should be retained in this rule so that permittees are
not held responsible for installing controls beyond their area of
disturbance in order to control erosion caused by their discharges.
Others stated that EPA does not have authority to regulate internal
processes at a construction site, and that removal of the ``within the
site'' language is justified on this basis.
    After consideration of comments, EPA did not make any changes to
the proposed requirement for this final rule. EPA has determined that
the revision, as proposed, is an important component of construction
stormwater management as increased volume and duration of flows
resulting from removal of vegetation and soil compaction that accompany
construction activities can contribute to significant increases in soil
erosion and transport and discharge of pollutants to surface waters.
EPA has authority to promulgate non-numeric effluent limitations that
regulate internal processes at construction sites in order to control
and minimize the discharge of pollutants to surface waters. See EPA-HQ-
OW-2008-0465-2124 through EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465-2134 for discussion
linking up-slope/on-site activities to controlling or minimizing the
discharge of pollutants from the site to surface waters. See also
Citizens Coal Council, et al. v. EPA, 446 F.3d 879, 895 (6th Cir.
2006)(``under the [Clean Water] Act, effluent limitations are not
limited to numeric discharges but encompass `any restriction' on
discharges''); Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. EPA, 399 F.3d 486, 502
(2nd Cir. 2005)(``rather than setting forth numerical effluent
limitations for land application of manure, the CAFO Rule establishes
non-numerical effluent limitations in the form of best management
practices''); Texas Municipal Power Agency v. EPA, 836 F.2d 1482, 1488
(5th Cir. 1988) (``it is sometimes necessary to regulate discharges
within the treatment process to control discharges at the end . . .
[t]his position has support in the language of the CWA, its legislative
history, and common sense.''); Public Service Company of Colorado, Fort
St. Vrain Station v. EPA, 949 F.2d 1063, 1065 (10th Cir. 1991) (``We
find no clear Congressional or Presidential intent expressly forbidding
EPA from imposing internal waste stream effluent limitations when such
limitations would be impracticable to monitor at the end of the
pipe.'').
3. Revision of 40 CFR 450.21(a)(2)
    EPA received a number of comments on this proposed revision. One
commenter suggested that EPA change the language to require management
of local scour. Others suggested that EPA's proposed change to limit
erosion in the ``immediate vicinity of discharge points'' narrows the
requirement from what was contained in the 2009 rule. Others stated
that EPA does not have authority under the effluent guidelines program
to control erosion in receiving waters since effluent guidelines
regulate the discharge of pollutants from point sources, and more
broadly that EPA does not have authority to regulate volume. Some
comments stated that projects with constrained space, such as linear
projects, cannot feasibly control the volume of discharges. Other
comments suggested that the requirement is too prescriptive, and that

there are other measures to control erosion in receiving waters. Some
commenters suggested that the ``in the immediate vicinity'' language is
ambiguous and should be removed, and that permittees should be
responsible for downstream erosion caused by their discharges. Other
comments stated that the language should be expanded to state that
attainment of water quality standards should be the goal and that the
discharges should not contribute to an existing impairment.
    EPA made one change to the proposed requirement for today's final
rule, which is the insertion of the words ``and scour'' after the word
``erosion''. EPA made this change as a result of comments received by
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) (see EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0884-0194), which indicated that ``local
scour'' is an appropriate term for the erosion in receiving waters that
EPA is intending to address by this requirement. EPA did not include
the ``local'' qualifier since the requirement is limited to erosion
``in the immediate vicinity'' of discharge points, and therefore the
addition of ``local'' would be redundant. EPA has not elected to make
any of the other changes suggested by commenters. While EPA understands
that some would find a requirement to also include downstream erosion
environmentally beneficial, it is more appropriate to consider
downstream erosion on a site-specific water quality basis than in this
nationally applicable, technology-based rule.
4. Revision of 40 CFR 450.21(a)(6)
    EPA received several comments on this proposed amended requirement.
Some commenters expressed concern over requiring infiltration for
controlling pollutants, indicating that there are other methods for
reducing pollutants other than infiltration. Commenters also were
concerned about the requirement to provide buffers, indicating that
some disturbance would be needed, such as stream crossing. Commenters
were also concerned about the overlap between this requirement and
Section 404 permits, and the switch from ``surface waters'', which was
the language in the 2009 rule, to ``Waters of the United States,'' as
they believed that the latter has a broader scope. Specific mention was
made of the need to install buffers around jurisdictional wetlands.
Commenters also requested clarification of the terms ``provide'' and
``natural buffers''.
    EPA did not make any changes to the proposed requirement for
today's final rule. The language, as proposed, includes an exception
for infeasibility and provides sufficient flexibility for permitting
authorities to incorporate appropriate language into permits to address
the range of site-specific conditions that may exist and to address
instances where a buffer or infiltration may be infeasible for some
part of a project. See the 2012 CGP for an example of how EPA has
incorporated buffer requirements, as well as alternative controls, into
a general permit.
    EPA has not changed the proposed use of the term ``waters of the
United States'' instead of the phrase ``surface waters.'' EPA intended
that the two phrases mean the same set of waters. See the comment
response document for specific responses to other comments concerning
this provision.
5. Revision of 40 CFR 450.21(a)(7)
    EPA proposed to amend this requirement, as well as separate the two
provisions (minimizing soil compaction and preserving topsoil) into two
separate requirements. EPA received several comments on this proposed
amended requirement. Some commenters requested more specificity on
types of practices that would meet this provision, such as use of soil
amendments or deep ripping. Other comments suggested that the use of
soil compaction for temporary soil stabilization should be permitted.
Still other comments indicated that there are methods to provide
stabilization other than preserving topsoil.
    EPA did not make any changes to the proposed requirement for
today's final rule. The provision, as proposed, provides sufficient
flexibility for permitting authorities to develop appropriate language
for their permits and provides permittees sufficient flexibility to
obtain relief in cases where these practices would be infeasible based
on site-specific conditions. The requirement to minimize soil
compaction does not prohibit use of compaction for temporary
stabilization since the requirement is to minimize, not prohibit,
compaction. If the permitting authority determines that compaction is
an appropriate temporary stabilization measure (considering other
stabilization language contained at 450.21(b)), then it may elect to
develop appropriate language to this effect in its permit.
6. Revision of 40 CFR 450.21(b)
    EPA received several comments on this proposed amended requirement.
One commenter requested an exemption from the ``immediate'' initiation
of stabilization requirement for areas of disturbance less than one
acre on a site so as to allow prioritization of stabilization
activities. The commenter also requested inclusion of the definition of
``initiate immediately'' from the 2012 CGP, and other commenters
requested additional clarification of the term ``immediately.''
Commenters also requested that additional exemptions be provided, for
example, during periods with low temperatures or excessive or
inadequate moisture that would limit the ability to establish
vegetative stabilization. One commenter was also concerned that the
language regarding ``intended function'' was not specific, and that
this could allow permittees to take advantage of this exemption. This
commenter suggested that requiring that the permittee obtain a waiver
from stabilization would be a reasonable requirement.
    The final rule allows an exemption from stabilization in limited
circumstances. In general, stabilization represents sound industry
practice to minimize discharges from an active construction site.
Industry representatives have pointed out to the Agency that there are
limited circumstances where this requirement may not make sense.
Therefore the rule gives permitting authorities flexibility to provide
a waiver from stabilization in limited circumstances (an example might
be a motocross track where the intended function is an unstabilized
area). Rather than specify in this national rule all such
circumstances, which would likely miss some reasonable exception, the
rule allows permitting authorities to define these circumstances at the
time of permitting. As stated above, however, EPA expects that sound
industry practice of stabilizing the site immediately will be the norm.
    With respect to providing additional exemptions from vegetative
stabilization, EPA notes that 450.21(b) does not require vegetative
stabilization. Both vegetative and non-vegetative stabilization may be
appropriate measures, consistent with permit requirements. In arid,
semiarid and drought-stricken areas, the amended requirement states
that alternative ``e.g., non-vegetative'' stabilization measures must
be employed in these areas because vegetative stabilization is
infeasible (because adequate moisture would not be present to establish
and maintain such vegetation). However, the language does not limit the
use of non-vegetative stabilization in other instances, such as during
cold weather conditions. All areas (except those where the intended
function

necessitates that it remain disturbed) would require stabilization,
vegetative or non-vegetative, consistent with requirements developed by
the permitting authority.
    After consideration of all comments on this provision, EPA did not
make any changes to the proposed requirement for today's final rule.
EPA has determined that the requirement contains sufficient flexibility
for permitting authorities to develop appropriate criteria for
vegetative and non-vegetative stabilization, and to develop permit
language regarding the timing of such stabilization activities.
7. Revision of 40 CFR 450.21(d)(2)
    EPA did not receive any substantive comments on this proposed
amended requirement, and therefore EPA did not make any changes to the
proposed requirement for today's final rule.
8. Removal of Numeric Standard and Monitoring Provisions at 40 CFR
450.22(a) and 450.22(b)
    The final change removes the numeric discharge standard and
monitoring requirements previously found at 40 CFR 450.22(a) and
450.22(b).
    EPA received several comments on this proposed change. While many
commenters were supportive of removing the numeric turbidity effluent
limitation and monitoring requirements, some commenters were opposed to
this and requested that EPA reinstate a numeric limitation. Some
commenters suggested that EPA completely remove these sections of the
CFR instead of reserving these sections.
    EPA is withdrawing the numeric limitation but has reserved these
paragraphs for potential revisions should EPA decide to propose and
promulgate additional effluent limitations guidelines and monitoring
requirements in a future rulemaking. The Agency is considering data and
comments submitted in response to the January 3, 2012 Federal Register
notice (77 FR 112) seeking additional information and data on numeric
standards. At this time, EPA is concerned that a numeric limitation may
create a disincentive to green infrastructure techniques for managing
stormwater. For example, meeting a numeric standard may require
installation of a sediment basin or other impoundment on certain sites,
which may be a disincentive to installing distributed stormwater
controls. Also, EPA recognizes that additional data collection would
likely be necessary in order to inform any establishment of numeric
discharge standards and monitoring requirements in the future. At such
time that EPA decides on a path forward with respect to numeric
discharge standards and monitoring requirements, EPA will take
appropriate actions to notify interested stakeholders. EPA encourages
interested parties to continue submitting data and information to EPA
with respect to numeric discharge standards at construction sites. In
the interim, it is preferable to reserve these sections of the CFR for
future action. Removing these paragraphs altogether would require re-
organization of other sections of the rule. EPA sees no meaningful
disadvantage of reserving these sections as opposed to removing these
sections.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

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). The action does not impose an
information collection burden because the amendments do not impose any
data collection or reporting requirements.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute 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 organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In
determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant
economic impact of the rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule
relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect
on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
    The final rule clarifies applicability of the existing non-numeric
effluent limitations at 40 CFR Part 450 and provides exemptions to some
requirements in limited cases. We have therefore concluded that today's
final rule will relieve regulatory burden for affected small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
This rule clarifies applicability of the existing non-numeric effluent
limitations at 40 CFR Part 450 and provides exemptions to some
requirements in limited cases. The rule does not impose new or more
stringent requirements, and therefore this action does not subject
regulated entities to any costs incremental to the existing rule. Thus,
this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This rule clarifies
applicability of the existing non-numeric effluent limitations at 40
CFR Part 450 and provides exemptions to some requirements in limited
cases. These requirements apply to all governmental entities that
undertake construction activities regulated at 40 CFR 122.26, and
therefore do not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It 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. This rule clarifies applicability
of the existing non-numeric effluent limitations at 40 CFR Part 450 and
provides exemptions to some requirements in limited cases. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This rule
clarifies applicability of the existing non-numeric effluent
limitations at 40 CFR Part 450 and provides exemptions to some
requirements in limited cases. The rule does not impose new or more
stringent requirements, and therefore this action would not subject
regulated entities to any costs incremental to the existing rule. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based
solely on technology performance.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (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(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action does not involved technical standards. Therefore, EPA
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

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

    Executive Order 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 has concluded that it is not practicable to determine whether
there would be disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority and/or low income populations from
this final rule. This final rule clarifies applicability of the
existing non-numeric effluent limitations at 40 CFR Part 450 and
provides exemptions to some requirements in limited cases. While EPA
considers it unlikely, it is possible that the changes to some of these
requirements could result in greater pollution discharge to waters of
the United States. However, EPA does not expect the quantity of
pollution discharges to specific waterbodies or at the national level
to significantly increase as a result of this final rule. Furthermore,
the primary pollutants discharged by this industry, which are sediment
and turbidity, are present in background levels to varying quantities
in waters of the United States. Therefore, the extent, if any, of
changes in human health or environmental effects as a result of this
action would depend upon waterbody-specific conditions and the
locations and interaction of populations with those waterbodies. Due to
the varying nature and location of construction site discharges, and
due to the fact that there are often other sources of sediment and
turbidity pollution in waterbodies, it is not practicable to quantify
the extent to which this action would alter levels of pollution
discharges or whether any change in pollution discharges as a result of
this action would contribute disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects on minority and/or low income
populations.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective May 5, 2014.

L. Judicial Review

    In accordance with 40 CFR 23.2, today's rule is considered
promulgated for the purposes of judicial review as of 1 p.m. Eastern
Standard Time, March 20, 2014. Under Section 509(b)(1) of the Clean
Water Act (CWA), judicial review of today's effluent limitations
guidelines and new source performance standards may be obtained by
filing a petition in the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for
review within 120 days from the date of promulgation of these
guidelines and standards. Under Section 509(b)(2) of the CWA, the
requirements of this regulation may not be challenged later in civil or
criminal proceedings brought to enforce these requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 450

    Environmental protection, Construction industry, Land development,
Water pollution control.

    Dated: February 20, 2014.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 450--CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT POINT SOURCE CATEGORY

0
1. The authority citation for part 450 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1311, 1312, 1314, 1316, 1341, 1342, 1361
and 1370.

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
2. Section 450.11 is amended by adding paragraph (b) to read as
follows:

Sec.  450.11  General definitions.

* * * * *
    (b) Infeasible. Infeasible means not technologically possible, or
not economically practicable and achievable in light of best industry
practices.

Subpart B--Construction and Development Effluent Guidelines

0
3. Section 450.21 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(6), and (a)(7).
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(8).
0
c. Revising paragraph (b).
0
d. Revising paragraph (d)(2).
    The added and revised text read as follows:

Sec.  450.21  Effluent limitations reflecting the best practicable
technology currently available (BPT).

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) Control stormwater volume and velocity to minimize soil erosion
in order to minimize pollutant discharges;
    (2) Control stormwater discharges, including both peak flowrates
and total stormwater volume, to minimize channel and streambank erosion
and scour in the immediate vicinity of discharge points;
* * * * *
    (6) Provide and maintain natural buffers around waters of the
United States, direct stormwater to vegetated areas and maximize
stormwater infiltration to reduce pollutant discharges, unless
infeasible;
    (7) Minimize soil compaction. Minimizing soil compaction is not
required where the intended function of a specific area of the site
dictates that it be compacted; and
    (8) Unless infeasible, preserve topsoil. Preserving topsoil is not
required where the intended function of a specific area of the site
dictates that the topsoil be disturbed or removed.
    (b) Soil Stabilization. Stabilization of disturbed areas must, at a
minimum, be initiated immediately whenever any clearing, grading,
excavating or other earth disturbing activities have permanently ceased
on any portion of the site, or temporarily ceased on any portion of the
site and will not resume for a period exceeding 14 calendar days. In
arid, semiarid, and drought-stricken areas where initiating vegetative
stabilization measures immediately is infeasible, alternative
stabilization measures must be employed as specified by the permitting
authority. Stabilization must be completed within a period of time
determined by the permitting authority. In limited circumstances,
stabilization may not be required if the intended function of a
specific area of the site necessitates that it remain disturbed.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) Minimize the exposure of building materials, building products,
construction wastes, trash, landscape materials, fertilizers,
pesticides, herbicides, detergents, sanitary waste and other materials
present on the site to precipitation and to stormwater. Minimization of
exposure is not required in cases where the exposure to precipitation
and to stormwater will not result in a discharge of pollutants, or
where exposure of a specific material or product poses little risk of
stormwater contamination (such as final products and materials intended
for outdoor use); and
* * * * *

Sec.  450.22  [Amended]

0
4. Section 450.22 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs (a)
and (b).

[FR Doc. 2014-04612 Filed 3-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 208 (Tuesday, October 28, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64151-64152]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25521]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0746; Airspace Docket No. 14-AGL-2]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Cando, ND

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Cando,
ND. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) at Cando Municipal Airport. The
FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for SIAPs at the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 12, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You
must identify the docket number FAA-2014-0746/Airspace Docket No. 14-
AGL-2, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments
through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the
public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any
final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office
(telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at
the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Shelby, Central Service
Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration,
Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone:
817-321-7740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2014-0746/
Airspace Docket No. 14-AGL-2.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Central Service Center, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort
Worth, TX 76137.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Cando
Municipal Airport, Cando, ND, to accommodate new standard instrument
approach procedures. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and
management of IFR operations at the airport.
    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014 and effective September 15, 2014, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would establish controlled airspace at Cando Municipal Airport,
Cando, ND.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Y,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014 and
effective September 15, 2014, is amended as follows:

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

* * * * *

AGL ND E5 Cando, ND [New]

Cando Municipal Airport, ND
    (Lat. 48[deg]28'48'' N., Long. 099[deg]14'11'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Cando Municipal Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on October 9, 2014.
Walter Tweedy,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2014-25521 Filed 10-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: April 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 69)]
[Notices]
[Page 18498-18499]
[DOCID:fr12ap10-51]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0424; FRL-9136-2; EPA ICR Number 1797.05; OMB Control
Number 2060-0442]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Storage Vessels for
Petroleum Liquids for Which Construction, Reconstruction or
Modification Commenced After June 11, 1973, and Prior to May 19, 1978
(Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR which is abstracted below describes the
nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 12, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2009-0424, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency,
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2)
OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Schaefer, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-
05), Measurement Policy Group, Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919)
541-0296; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On July 8, 2009 (74 FR 32581), EPA sought comments on this ICR
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional
comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days
of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0424, which is available for public viewing
online at http://www.regulations.gov, in person viewing at the
Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The
EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://
www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to http://
www.regulations.gov.
    Title: NSPS for Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids for which
Construction, Reconstruction or Modification Commenced after June 11,
1973, and prior to May 19, 1978 (Renewal)
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 1797.05, OMB Control Number 2060-0442.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on May 31, 2010. Under
OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the
collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An
Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Storage
Vessels for Petroleum Liquids for which Construction, Reconstruction or
Modification Commenced after June 11, 1973, and prior to May 19, 1978,
were proposed on June 11, 1973, and promulgated on March 8, 1974.
    Owners or operators of the affected facilities must make an initial
notification, performance tests, periodic reports, and maintain records
of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction
in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which
the monitoring system is inoperative. Reports, at a minimum, are
required semiannually.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3.5
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Petroleum liquid storage vessels.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 220.
    Frequency of Response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 769.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $72,750 in labor costs exclusively.
There are neither capital/startup costs nor operation and maintenance
(O&M) costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in hours in the total
estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved
ICR Burdens.

    Dated: April 6, 2010.
John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2010-8290 Filed 4-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

Meeting Day 1

September 24-25, 2008

El Camino Real Hotel

El Paso, Texas

AGENDA

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

8:00 A.M.	Registration

8:30		Welcome and Introductions

		Welcome:	Paul Ganster, Chair, GNEB

			     	Rafael DeLeón, Director, OCEM

			      	Lorena Cedeño-Zambrano, Acting GNEB Designated Federal Officer

				Board Members, Attendee Self Introductions

8:50	Remembrance: Carlos Marín and Arturo Herrera

9:00	Regional Welcome

José Rodríguez, El Paso County Attorney

Anthony Cobos, County Judge

9:30	The El Paso Smelter Issue

Bob Currey, Center for Environmental Resource Management,

University of Texas at El Paso

10:15		Border Environmental Cooperation Commission:  New Project Areas

Daniel Chacón-Anaya

General Manager of COCEF / BECC

11:00		John Cook, El Paso City Mayor

11:15		Regional Approach to Water Supply

Héctor González

El Paso Water Utilities

12:00		National Coordinators Meeting Update

Enrique Manzanilla

EPA Region 9

12:30		Public Comments

01:00		Lunch

02:00	GNEB 12th Report Working Meeting:  “Innovation, Including Incentives, to Prevent/Reduce Pollution at the U.S.-Mexico Border”

05:30		Adjourn

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

Meeting Day 2

September 25, 2008

El Camino Real Hotel

El Paso, Texas

AGENDA

Thursday, September 25, 2008

7:40 A.M .	Registration

8:00		Business Meeting Call to Order

8:10		Approval of Minutes

Washington, DC March 2008 & Calexico, CA June 2008 Meeting

		Paul Ganster, Chair, GNEB

8:30		Other Business:

		OIG Border 2012 Report Discussion

		Paul Ganster, Chair, GNEB

		The White House CEQ Update

		Lorena Cedeño-Zambrano, Acting GNEB Designated Federal Officer

		GNEB 2009 CY Schedule

		Paul Ganster, Chair, GNEB

9:00	GNEB 12th Report Working Meeting:  “Innovation, Including Incentives, to Prevent/Reduce Pollution at the U.S.-Mexico Border”

Paul Ganster, Chair, GNEB

12:30		Public Comments

1:00		Adjourn


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 139 (Tuesday, July 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43146-43148]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17755]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75456; File No. SR-ICC-2015-013]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Provide for the Clearance of
Additional Western European Sovereign Single Names

July 15, 2015.
    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 July 6, 2015, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') 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 ICC. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the

proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to adopt rules that will
provide the basis for ICC to clear additional credit default swap
contracts. ICC currently clears seven SWES Contracts: The Republic of
Ireland, the Italian Republic, the Portuguese Republic, the Kingdom of
Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Austria, and the Kingdom
of the Netherlands. ICC is proposing to amend Subchapter 26I of its
rules to provide for the clearance of additional SWES Contracts,
specifically the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, and
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The proposed
change is dependent on the approval and implementation of the proposed
rule change in SR-ICC-2015-009 and therefore, the text of the proposed
rule change in Exhibit 5 should be read in conjunction with the
proposed rule change in SR-ICC-2015-009.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-75119 (June 8,
2015), 80 FR 33573 (June 12, 2015) (SR-ICC-2015-009). The text of
the proposed rule change for rule filing SR-ICC-2015-009 can also be
found on ICC's Web site at https://www.theice.com/clear-credit/regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to adopt rules that will
provide the basis for ICC to clear additional credit default swap
contracts. ICC currently clears seven SWES Contracts: the Republic of
Ireland, the Italian Republic, the Portuguese Republic, the Kingdom of
Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Austria, and the Kingdom
of the Netherlands. ICC proposes amending Subchapter 26I of its Rules
to provide for the clearance of additional SWES Contracts, specifically
the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, and the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. ICC plans to offer these
additional SWES Contracts on the 2003 and 2014 ISDA Credit Derivatives
Definitions. The addition of these SWES Contracts will benefit the
market for credit default swaps by providing market participants the
benefits of clearing, including reduction in counterparty risk and
safeguarding of margin assets pursuant to clearing house rules.
    These additional SWES Contracts have terms consistent with the
other SWES Contracts approved for clearing at ICC and governed by
Subchapter 26I of the ICC Rules, namely the Republic of Ireland, the
Italian Republic, the Portuguese Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the
Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Austria, and the Kingdom of the
Netherlands. Minor revisions to Subchapter 26I (Standard Western
European Sovereign (``SWES'') Single Name) are made to provide for
clearing the additional SWES Contracts and described as follows.
    Rule 26I-102 is modified to include the Federal Republic of
Germany, the French Republic, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland in the list of specific Eligible SWES Reference
Entities to be cleared by ICC.
    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \4\ requires, among other things,
that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and,
to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and
transactions and to comply with the provisions of the Act and the rules
and regulations thereunder. These contracts are similar to the SWES
Contracts currently cleared by ICC, and the additional SWES Contracts
would be cleared pursuant to ICC's clearing arrangements and related
financial safeguards, protections and risk management procedures, as
modified by the proposed risk enhancements related to General Wrong Way
Risk set forth in filing SR-ICC-2015-009.\5\ The additional SWES
Contracts will allow market participants an increased ability to manage
risk. ICC believes that acceptance of the new contracts, on the terms
and conditions set out in the ICC Rules, is consistent with the prompt
and accurate clearance of and settlement of securities transactions and
derivative agreements, contracts and transactions cleared by ICC, the
safeguarding of securities and funds in the custody or control of ICC,
and the protection of investors and the public interest, within the
meaning of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \5\ Pursuant to a telephone call with ICC's internal counsel on
July 14, 2015, staff in the Division of Trading and Markets has
modified the text of this sentence to further clarify that the
proposed rule change is dependent on the approval and implementation
of the proposed rule change in SR-ICC-2015-009.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Clearing of the additional SWES Contracts will also satisfy the
requirements of Rule 17Ad-22.\7\ In particular, in terms of financial
resources, ICC would apply its initial margin methodology to the
additional contracts (as modified by rule filing SR-ICC-2015-009).\8\
ICC believes that this model would provide sufficient initial margin
requirements to cover its credit exposure to its clearing members from
clearing such contracts, consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-
22(b)(2).\9\ In addition, ICC believes its Guaranty Fund, under its
existing methodology, would, together with the required initial margin,
provide sufficient financial resources to support the clearing of the
additional contracts consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-
22(b)(3).\10\ ICC also believes that its existing operational and
managerial resources will be sufficient for clearing of the additional
contracts, consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(d)(4),\11\
as the new contracts are substantially the same from an operational
perspective as existing contracts. Similarly, ICC will use its existing
settlement procedures and account structures for the new contracts,
consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(d)(5), (12) and (15)
\12\ as to the finality and accuracy of its daily settlement process
and avoidance of the risk to ICC of settlement failures. ICC determined
to accept the additional SWES Contracts for clearing in accordance with
its governance process, which included review of the contracts and
related risk management considerations by the ICC Risk Committee and
approval by its Board. These governance arrangements are consistent
with the requirements of Rule

17Ad-22(d)(8).\13\ Finally, ICC will apply its existing default
management policies and procedures for the additional SWES Contracts.
ICC believes that these procedures allow for it to take timely action
to contain losses and liquidity pressures and to continue meeting its
obligations in the event of clearing member insolvencies or defaults in
respect of the additional single names, in accordance with Rule 17Ad-
22(d)(11).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
    \8\ Pursuant to a telephone call with ICC's internal counsel on
July 14, 2015, staff in the Division of Trading and Markets has
modified the text of this paragraph to further clarify that the
proposed rule change is dependent on the approval and implementation
of the proposed rule change in SR-ICC-2015-009.
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(3).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(4).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(5), (12) and (15).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(8).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The additional SWES Contracts will be available to all ICC
participants for clearing. The clearing of these additional SWES
Contracts by ICC does not preclude the offering of the additional SWES
Contracts for clearing by other market participants. Accordingly, ICC
does not believe that clearance of the additional SWES Contracts will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

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

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 the proposed rule change or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ICC-2015-013 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-ICC-2015-013. 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 Section, 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 will also be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of ICE
Clear Credit and on ICE Clear Credit's Web site at https://www.theice.com/clear-credit/regulation.
    All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2015-013
and should be submitted on or before August 11, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-17755 Filed 7-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 57)]
[Notices]
[Page 14877-14878]
[DOCID:fr24mr06-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-269-000]

KO Transmission Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas
Tariff

March 16, 2006.

    Take notice that on March 7, 2006, KO Transmission Company (KOT)
tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No.
1, Nineteenth Revised Sheet No. 10, to become effective April 1, 2006.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

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

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-4254 Filed 3-23-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 87 (Thursday, May 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 27157]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10497]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4268-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2016-0001]

Mississippi; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Mississippi (FEMA-4268-DR), dated March 25, 2016, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: March 29, 2016.

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 the incident
period for this disaster is closed effective March 29, 2016.

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

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2016-10497 Filed 5-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P