[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38286-38288]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15722]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0425; FRL-9351-9]

Tralomethrin and Fenarimol; Registration Review Proposed
Decisions; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's proposed
registration review decisions for the pesticides listed in the table in
Unit II.A. and opens a public comment period on the proposed decisions.
Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations
to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory
standard for registration, that is, that the pesticide can perform its
intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on

human health or the environment. Through this program, EPA is ensuring
that each pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and
other knowledge, including its effects on human health and the
environment.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 27, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number for the specific pesticide of interest provided in the
table in Unit II.A. by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), Mail Code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For pesticide specific information,
contact: The Chemical Review Manager for the pesticide of interest
identified in the table in Unit II.A.
    For general information on the registration review program,
contact: Kevin Costello, Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P),
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703) 305-5026; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the chemical review manager listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

A. What action is the agency taking?

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58, this notice announces the availability
of EPA's proposed registration review decisions for the pesticides
shown in the following table, and opens a 60-day public comment period
on the proposed decisions. Tralomethrin is a broad-spectrum Type II
systemic pyrethroid ester insecticide that is registered for use in a
variety of residential and commercial settings, and on a small number
of agricultural crops including broccoli, cauliflower, cotton, lettuce,
peanuts, and sunflowers.
    Fenarimol is a member of the pyrimidine class of fungicides used
for control of such pests as scab, powdery mildew, rusts, and leaf
spot. Fenarimol inhibits fungal growth by adversely affecting the
formation of the fungal sterol ergosterol, and is currently registered
for use on fruit and nut crops such as apples, cherries, filberts
(nonbearing), grapes, hops, pears, and pecans as well as on ornamental
plants, trees, and grasses and turf lawns.

           Table--Registration Review Proposed Final Decisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Chemical review
  Registration review case     Pesticide docket ID   manager, telephone
        name and No.                   No.              number, email
                                                           address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tralomethrin, Case No. 7400.  EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0116  Wilhelmena
                                                     Livingston, (703)
                                                     308-8025,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Fenarimol, Case No. 7001....  EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0241  Garland Waleko,
<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The registration review docket for a pesticide includes earlier
documents related to the registration review of the case. For example,
the review opened with the posting of a Summary Document, containing a
Preliminary Work Plan, for public comment. A Final Work Plan was posted
to the docket following public comment on the initial docket.
    The documents in the initial dockets described the Agency's
rationales for not conducting additional risk assessments for the
registration review of the pesticides included in the table in

Unit II.A. These proposed registration review decisions continue to be
supported by those rationales included in documents in the initial
dockets.
    Following public comment, the Agency will issue final registration
review decisions for products containing the pesticides listed in the
table in Unit II.A. The registration review program is being conducted
under congressionally mandated time frames, and EPA recognizes the need
both to make timely decisions and to involve the public. Section 3(g)
of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as
amended, required EPA to establish by regulation procedures for
reviewing pesticide registrations, originally with a goal of reviewing
each pesticide's registration every 15 years to ensure that a pesticide
continues to meet the FIFRA standard for registration. The Agency's
final rule to implement this program was issued in August 2006 and
became effective in October 2006, and appears at 40 CFR part 155,
subpart C. The Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2003 (PRIA)
was amended and extended in September 2007. FIFRA, as amended by PRIA
in 2007, requires EPA to complete registration review decisions by
October 1, 2022, for all pesticides registered as of October 1, 2007.
    The registration review final rule at 40 CFR 155.58(a) provides for
a minimum 60-day public comment period on all proposed registration
review decisions. This comment period is intended to provide an
opportunity for public input and a mechanism for initiating any
necessary amendments to the proposed decision. All comments should be
submitted using the methods in ADDRESSES, and must be received by EPA
on or before the closing date. These comments will become part of the
docket for the pesticides included in the table in Unit II.A. Comments
received after the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.''
EPA is not required to consider these late comments.
    The Agency will carefully consider all comments received by the
closing date and will provide a ``Response to Comments Memorandum'' in
the docket. The final registration review decision will explain the
effect that any comments had on the decision and provide the Agency's
response to significant comments.
    Background information on the registration review program is
provided at: http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review. Links to
earlier documents related to the registration review of these
pesticides are provided at: http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/reg_review_status.htm.

B. What is the agency's authority for taking this action?

    Section 3(g) of FIFRA and 40 CFR part 155, subpart C, provide
authority for this action.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Pesticides and pests, Tralomethrin, and Fenarimol.

    Dated: June 5, 2012.
Richard P. Keigwin, Jr.,
Director, Pesticide Re-evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2012-15722 Filed 6-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 244 (Tuesday, December 20, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 92742-92745]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30021]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9502; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-128-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain The Boeing Company Model 757-200 and -200PF series airplanes.
This proposed AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval
holder (DAH) indicating that certain areas of the frame webs are
subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This proposed AD would
require high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections of the frame
webs for any open coordinating holes, tooling holes, and insulation
blanket attachment holes; repair if necessary; and modification of the
frame webs at all open hole locations, which would terminate the
repetitive inspections. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 3,
2017.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box
3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
extension 1; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
9502.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
9502; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Muoi Vuong, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:
562-627-5205; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2016-9502;
Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-128-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or structural
design details, or globally, in widespread areas. Multiple-site damage
is widespread damage that occurs in a large structural element such as
a single rivet line of a lap splice joining two large skin panels.
Widespread damage can also occur in multiple elements such as adjacent
frames or stringers. Multiple-site damage and multiple-element damage
cracks are typically too small initially to be reliably detected with
normal inspection methods. Without intervention, these cracks will
grow, and eventually compromise the structural integrity of the
airplane. This condition is known as widespread fatigue damage. It is
associated with general degradation of large areas of structure with
similar structural details and stress levels. As an airplane ages, WFD
will likely occur, and will certainly occur if the airplane is operated
long enough without any intervention.
    The FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became
effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to
prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life
of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these
airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and
future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that DAHs
establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that
support the structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the
WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV
is approved.
    The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require
identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show
that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane
reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of
future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance
actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness
directives through separate rulemaking actions.
    In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to
propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for
their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This
approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides
flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information
development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with
certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes.
    We have received a report indicating that certain Model 757
airplanes have open coordinating holes, tooling holes, and insulation
blanket attachment holes in the frame webs that were not filled during
production. There have been no reports of frame web cracking at open
hole locations. Cracking was found on a fatigue test article where WFD
analysis identified the need for the inspection. Open attachment holes,
if not corrected, could result in fatigue cracking that could adversely
affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0103, dated June
22, 2016. The service information describes procedures for performing
repetitive HFEC inspections of the frame webs for any open coordinating
holes, tooling holes, insulation blanket attachment holes; and
modifying the frame webs between stringers S-20 and S-25. This service
information is reasonably available because the interested parties have
access to it through their normal course of business or by the means
identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously, except as discussed
under ``Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service
Information.'' For information on the procedures and compliance times,
see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9502.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0103, dated June 22, 2016,
specifies to contact the manufacturer for certain instructions, but
this proposed AD would require accomplishment of repair methods,
modification deviations, and alteration deviations in one of the
following ways:
     In accordance with a method that we approve; or

     Using data that meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial
Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have
authorized to make those findings.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 74 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFEC inspection..................  68 work-hours x $85              $0  $5,780 per           $427,720 per
                                    per hour = $5,780                    inspection cycle.    inspection cycle.
                                    per inspection
                                    cycle.
Modification.....................  1 work-hour x $85            \1\ $0  85.................  85.
                                    per hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Parts supplied by the operator.

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2016-9502; Directorate Identifier
2016-NM-128-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by February 3, 2017.

 (b) Affected ADs

    None.

 (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 757-200 and -200PF
series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0103, dated June 22, 2016.

 (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

 (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval
holder (DAH) indicating that the frame webs between stringers S-20
and S-25 on the left side and right side, from station (STA) 440 to
STA 820 and from STA 1300 to STA 1701, are subject to widespread
fatigue damage (WFD). We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue
cracking that could adversely affect the reduced structural
integrity of the airplane.

 (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

 (g) Repetitive High Frequency Eddy Current (HFEC) Inspections of the
Frame Webs

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0103, dated
June 22, 2016, do an HFEC inspection of the frame webs for any crack
in any open coordinating holes, tooling holes, and insulation
blanket attachment holes in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0103, dated
June 22, 2016. If any cracking is found, repair before further
flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (i) of this AD. Repeat the inspection at the
time specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 757-53A0103, dated June 22, 2016.

 (h) Modification of the Frame Webs

    Before the accumulation of 59,000 total flight cycles, modify
the frame webs at all open hole locations, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-
53A0103, dated June 22, 2016. Accomplishment of this modification
terminates the repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph (g)
of this AD at the modified locations only.

 (i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance
with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or
local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager

of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings. To be approved,
the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation
must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval
must specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) Except as required by paragraph (g) of this AD: For service
information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for
Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and
(i)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled ``RC Exempt,'' then the
RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is
required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and
identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

 (j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Muoi Vuong,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles ACO,
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-
5205; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone: 206-
544-5000, extension 1; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 2, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-30021 Filed 12-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 1, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52164-52165]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21275]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0191]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Renewal of a Currently-
Approved Information Collection Request: Financial Responsibility for
Motor Carriers of Passengers and Motor Carriers of Property

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA
announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR)
described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its
review and approval and invites public comment. The information
collected will be used to help ensure that motor carriers of passengers
and property maintain appropriate levels of financial responsibility to
operate on public highways.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before December 2, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket

Number FMCSA-2019-0191 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Operations; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. e.t.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number. For detailed instructions on submitting comments, see
the Public Participation heading below. Note that all comments received
will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the
online instructions for accessing the dockets, or go to the street
address listed above.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Public Participation: The Federal eRulemaking Portal is available
24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You can obtain electronic
submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the ``help'' section
of the Federal eRulemaking Portal website. If you want us to notify you
that we received your comments, please include a self-addressed,
stamped envelope or postcard, or print the acknowledgement page that
appears after submitting comments online. Comments received after the
comment closing date will be included in the docket and will be
considered to the extent practicable.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeff Secrist, Office of
Registration and Safety Information, Chief, Registration, Licensing and
Insurance Division, Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, West Building 6th Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: The Secretary of Transportation is responsible for
implementing regulations which establish minimal levels of financial
responsibility for: (1) For-hire motor carriers of property to cover
public liability, property damage and environmental restoration, and
(2) for-hire motor carriers of passengers to cover public liability and
property damage. The Endorsement for Motor Carrier Policies of
Insurance for Public Liability (Forms MCS-90/90B) and the Motor Carrier
Public Liability Surety Bond (Forms MCS-82/82B) contain the minimum
amount of information necessary to document that a motor carrier of
property or passengers has obtained, and has in effect, the minimum
levels of financial responsibility as set forth in applicable
regulations (motor carriers of property--49 CFR 387.9; and motor
carriers of passengers--49 CFR 387.33). FMCSA and the public can verify
that a motor carrier of property or passengers has obtained, and has in
effect, the required minimum levels of financial responsibility, by use
of the information enclosed within these documents.
    Title: Financial Responsibility for Motor Carrier of Passengers and
Motor Carriers of Property.
    OMB Control Number: 2126-0008.
    Type of Request: Renewal of a currently-approved information
collection.
    Respondents: Insurance underwriters for insurance and surety
companies of motor carriers of property (Forms MCS-90 and MCS-82) and
passengers (Forms MCS-90B and MCS-82B), motor carrier clerks employed
by motor carriers (storing/maintaining insurance and/or surety bond
documentation), and vehicle maintenance staff employed by Canadian and
Mexican/non-North-American (NNA) domiciled motor carriers (placing
copies of documentation in vehicles).
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 202,458.
    Estimated Time per Response: FMCSA estimates it takes 2 minutes to
complete the Endorsement for Motor Carrier Policies of Insurances for
Public Liability (Forms MCS-90 for property carriers and MCS-90B for
passenger carriers) or the Motor Carrier Public Liability Surety Bond
(Forms MCS-82 for property carriers and MCS-82B for passenger
carriers); 1 minute to store/maintain documents at the motor carrier's
place of business [49 CFR 387.7(d); 49 CFR 387.31(d)]; and 1 minute to
place either document on board the vehicle, required for Canadian and
Mexican/NNA carriers operating in the United States [49 CFR 387.7(f);
387.31(f)].
    Expiration Date: January 31, 2020.
    Frequency of Response: Upon creation, change, or replacement of an
insurance policy or surety bond.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 5,739 hours [4,931 annual burden
hours for ICs 1-4 + 808 annual burden hours for IC-5 document placement
in vehicles = 5,739].
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed
collection is necessary for the performance of FMCSA's functions; (2)
the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for the FMCSA to enhance
the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and
(4) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the
quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize or
include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this
information collection.

    Issued on: September 25, 2019.
Kenneth Riddle,
Director for Office of Registration and Safety Information.
[FR Doc. 2019-21275 Filed 9-30-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: May 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 86)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 24188-24190]
[DOCID:fr02my08-26]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

49 CFR Parts 18 and 19

[Docket OST-2005-22602]
RIN 2105-AD60

Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments;
Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals
and Other Non-Profit Organizations

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This proposal would amend Department of Transportation
regulations on uniform administrative requirements for grants and
agreements with institutions of higher education, hospitals and other
non-profit organizations. Specifically, the DOT proposes to make
requirements for these grants and agreements consistent with the
uniform administrative requirements for grants and cooperative
agreements to state and local governments. In addition, this proposal
would update references to applicable cost principles for grants and
cooperative agreements with state and local governments and for grants
and other agreements with institutions of higher education, hospitals
and other non-profit organizations that appear in current Department of
Transportation regulations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 16, 2008

ADDRESSES: You may file comments identified by the docket number DOT-
OST-2007-0022 by any of the following methods:
    [cir] Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to http://www.regulations.gov
and follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
    [cir] Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    [cir] Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    [cir] Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: You must include the agency name and docket number
DOT-OST-2007-0022 or the Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for the
rulemaking at the beginning of your comment. All comments received will
be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Shields, Office of the Senior
Procurement Executive, Office of Administration (M-61),<PHONE_NUMBER>,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours
are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access and Filing

    You may submit or retrieve comments online through the Document
Management System (DMS) at: http://www.regulations.gov. Acceptable
formats include: MS Word (versions 95 to 97), MS Word for Mac (versions
6 to 8), Rich Text File (RTF), American Standard Code Information
Interchange (ASCII)(TXT), Portable Document Format (PDF), and
WordPerfect (versions 7 to 8). This site is available 24 hours each
day, 365 days each year. Electronic submission and retrieval help and
guidelines are available under the help section of the web site.
    An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded by using
a computer, modem and suitable communications software from the
Government Printing Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202)
512-1661. Internet users may also reach the Office of the Federal
Register's home page at: http://www.nara.gov/fedreg and the Government
Printing Office's Web page at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

Background

    Regulations governing two types of U.S. Department of
Transportation grant and cooperative agreement recipients are found in
Parts 18 and 19 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations:

    1. 49 CFR Part 18: Uniform Administrative Requirements for
Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments.
    2. 49 CFR Part 19: Uniform Administrative Requirements for
Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education,
Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations

    Both of these parts contain a provision that governs allowable
costs. However, while 49 CFR 18.22(a) identifies certain specific
limitations on the use of grant or cooperative agreement funds by state
or local governments receiving financial assistance from the U.S.
Department of Transportation, 49 CFR 19.27 does not contain similar
limitations. Specifically, under 49 CFR 18.22(a), grant funds may only
be used for:

    (1) The allowable costs of the grantees, subgrantees and cost-
type contractors, including allowable costs in the form of payments
to fixed-price contractors; and
    (2) Reasonable fees or profit to cost-type contractors but not
any fee or profit (or other increment above allowable costs) to the
grantee or subgrantee.

    This proposal would impose the same limitation on the use of funds
used for grants and agreements with institutions of higher education,
hospitals, and other non-profit organizations as there are on the use
of funds used for uniform administrative requirements for grants and
cooperative agreements to state and local governments, which are set
forth above.
    In addition, this proposal would update references to applicable
cost principles for grants and cooperative agreements with state and
local governments that appear in 49 CFR 18.22(b) and include comparable
updated references in 49 CFR 19.27(b) with regard to grants and
agreements awarded to institutions of higher education, hospitals, and
other non-

profit organizations. These updated references are necessary in light
of the establishment of title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations in
2004. Subtitle A of title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations consists
of government-wide guidance from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) to Federal agencies for grants and other financial assistance and
nonprocurement agreements that previously had been contained in seven
separate OMB circulars and other OMB policy documents. Currently, 49
CFR 18.22(b) references three specific OMB circulars that are now
codified in several Parts in chapter II, subtitle A of title 2 of the
Code of Federal Regulations. This proposal would amend 49 CFR 18.22(b)
by replacing the citations to these former OMB circulars with the
appropriate references in title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations
and would reflect these same changes in 49 CFR 19.27(b).

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

    All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above will be considered and will be available
for examination in the docket at the above address. Comments received
after the comment closing date will be filed in the docket and will be
considered to the extent practicable. In addition to late comments, the
DOT will also continue to file relevant information in the docket as it
becomes available after the comment period closing date, and interested
persons should continue to examine the docket for new material. A final
rule may be published at any time after close of the comment period.

Executive Order 12866

    The Department has determined that this rule is nonsignificant. It
is purely administrative in nature and does not impose new burdens on
any parties.

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

    The Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant
effect on a substantial number of small entities. This is because, as a
purely administrative rule, it does not create economic effects on
anyone. The amendment would not change or limit the potential
eligibility of any small entity.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This regulatory action does not contain a Federal mandate that will
result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one
year, as adjusted for inflation.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This regulatory action will not impose any additional reporting or
recordkeeping requirements covered under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This regulatory action does not have Federalism implications, as
set forth in Executive Order 13132. 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.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Parts 18 and 29

    Administrative practice and procedure, Grant programs, Allowable
costs, Cooperative agreements.

    Issued on: April 14, 2008.
Mary E. Peters,
Secretary of Transportation.
    In consideration of the foregoing, the DOT proposes to amend, title
49, Code of Federal Regulations, parts 18 and 19, as set forth below:

PART 18--UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR GRANTS AND
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

    1. The authority citation for part 18 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322(a).

    2. In Sec.  18.22(b), revise the table to read as follows:

Sec.  18.22  Allowable costs.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           For the costs of a                Use the principles in--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State, local or federal-recognized       2 CFR part 225.
 Indian tribal government.
Private non-profit organization other    2 CFR part 230.
 than an (1) institution of higher
 education, (2) hospital, or (3)
 organization named in 2 CFR part 230,
 Appendix C, as not subject to that
 part.
Institutions of higher education.......  2 CFR part 220.
For-profit organizations other than a    48 CFR part 31, Contract Cost
 hospital, commercial organization or a   Principles and Procedures, or
 non-profit organization listed in 2      uniform cost accounting
 CFR part 230, Appendix C, as not         standards that comply with
 subject to that part.                    cost principles acceptable to
                                          the Federal agency.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

PART 19--UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR GRANTS AND
AGREEMENTS WITH INSTITUTIONS OF HIGER EDUCATION, HOSPITALS, AND
OTHER NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS

    3. The authority citation for part 19 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322(a).

    4. Revise Sec.  19.27 to read as follows:

Sec.  19.27  Allowable costs.

    (a) Limitation on use of funds. Grant funds may be used only for:

    (1) The allowable costs of the grantees, subgrantees and cost-
type contractors, including allowable costs in the form of payments
to fixed-price contractors; and
    (2) Reasonable fees or profit to cost-type contractors but not
any fee or profit (or other increment above allowable costs) to the
grantee or subgrantee.

    (b) Applicable cost principles. For each kind of recipient, there
is a set of Federal principles for determining allowable costs.
Allowability of costs shall be determined according to the cost
principles applicable to the entity organization incurring the costs.
The following chart lists the kinds of organization and the applicable
cost principles:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           For the costs of a                Use the principles in--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State, local or federal-recognized       2 CFR part 225.
 Indian tribal government.

Private non-profit organization other    2 CFR part 230.
 than an (1) institution of higher
 education, (2) hospital, or (3)
 organization named in 2 CFR part 230,
 Appendix C, as not subject to that
 circular.
Institutions of higher education.......  2 CFR part 220.
Hospitals..............................  45 CFR part 74, Appendix E,
                                          ``Principles for Determining
                                          Costs Applicable to Research
                                          and Development under Grants
                                          and Contracts with
                                          Hospitals.''
For-profit organizations other than a    48 CFR part 31, Contract Cost
 hospital, commercial organization or a   Principles and Procedures, or
 non-profit organization listed in 2      uniform cost accounting
 CFR part 230, Appendix C, as not         standards that comply with
 subject to that part.                    cost principles acceptable to
                                          the Federal agency.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E8-8789 Filed 5-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 38 (Wednesday, February 26, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11064-11065]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03790]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP19-14-000]

Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC.; Notice of Availability of the
Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Southgate Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission), with the participation of the cooperating agencies listed
below, has prepared a final environmental impact statement (EIS) for
the Southgate Project (Project) proposed by Mountain Valley Pipeline,
LLC. (Mountain Valley) in the above-referenced docket. Mountain Valley
requests authorization to construct and operate about 75.1 miles of
natural gas transmission pipeline, one new compressor station, and
accompanying facilities that would provide about 375 million cubic feet
per day of available capacity for transport from the City of Chatham,
in Pittsylvania County, Virginia to a delivery point with Dominion
Energy North Carolina (DENC), formerly PSNC,\1\ near the City of Graham
in Alamance County, North Carolina.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Following a January 2, 2019 merger, Dominion Energy, Inc.
acquired PSNC and changed the company name to Dominion Energy North
Carolina.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final EIS assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the Southgate Project in accordance with
the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). As
described in the final EIS, the FERC staff concludes that approval of
the Project would result in some adverse environmental impacts;
however, these impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels
because of the impact avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures
proposed by Mountain Valley and those recommended by staff in the EIS.

    The United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and the U.S.
Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) participated
as cooperating agencies in preparation of this EIS. Cooperating
agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to
resources potentially affected by the proposal and participate in the
NEPA analysis. The cooperating agencies provided input into the
analyses, conclusions, and recommendations presented in the EIS.
Following issuance of the final EIS, the cooperating agencies will
issue subsequent decisions, determinations, permits, or authorizations
for the Project in accordance with each individual agency's regulatory
requirements.
    The COE would use this EIS in their regulatory process, and to
satisfy compliance with NEPA and other related federal environmental
laws (e.g., the National Historic Preservation Act).
    The EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the following project facilities:
     About 75.1 miles of new 24-inch and 16-inch diameter
natural gas pipeline located in Pittsylvania County, Virginia, and
Rockingham and Alamance Counties, North Carolina;
     one new 28,915 horsepower compressor station (Lambert
Compressor Station) in Pittsylvania County, Virginia;
     four interconnects or tie-ins with facilities operated by
Mountain Valley, East Tennessee Gas, and DENC; and
     ancillary facilities including pig launchers and
receivers, mainline block valves (MLV), and cathodic protection beds.
    The Commission mailed a copy of the Notice of Availability of the
final EIS to federal, state, and local government representatives and
agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups;
Indian Tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested
individuals and groups; and newspapers and libraries in the area of the
Project. The final EIS is available in hard copy at libraries in the
area of the Project and in electronic format. It may be viewed and
downloaded from the FERC's website (www.ferc.gov), on the Environmental
Documents page (https://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/eis.asp). In
addition, the final EIS may be accessed by using the eLibrary link on
the FERC's website. Click on the eLibrary link (https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp), click on General Search, and enter the
docket number in the Docket Number field, excluding the last three
digits (i.e., CP19-14). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date
range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Questions?

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. The eLibrary link
also provides access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and
submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you
spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: February 14, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-03790 Filed 2-25-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 204 (Wednesday, October 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63201-63204]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25078]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73372; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2014-83]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing of
Proposed Rule Change in Connection With the Proposed Termination of the
Amended and Restated Trust Agreement, Dated as of November 13, 2013 and
Amended on June 2, 2014 By and Among NYSE Holdings LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company, NYSE Group, Inc., a Delaware Corporation,
Wilmington Trust Company, as Delaware Trustee, and Each of Jacques de
Larosi[egrave]re de Champfeu, Alan Trager and John Shepard Reed, as
Trustees

October 16, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on October 8, 2014, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes this rule filing in connection with the
proposed

termination of the Amended and Restated Trust Agreement, dated as of
November 13, 2013 and amended on June 2, 2014 (the ``Trust
Agreement''), by and among NYSE Holdings LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company (``NYSE Holdings''), NYSE Group, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (``NYSE Group''), Wilmington Trust Company, as Delaware
Trustee, and each of Jacques de Larosi[egrave]re de Champfeu, Alan
Trager and John Shepard Reed, as Trustees. The text of the proposed
rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at
the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    NYSE MKT seeks approval for its 100% direct parent, NYSE Group, and
its 100% indirect parent, NYSE Holdings, to terminate the Trust
Agreement.\4\ NYSE MKT believes that the regulatory considerations that
led to the implementation of the Trust Agreement in 2007 are now moot
as a result of the sale by Intercontinental Exchange, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (``ICE''), of Euronext N.V. (``Euronext'') in June 2014 and
certain changes in the corporate governance of ICE, ICE Holdings and
NYSE Holdings that occurred upon such sale.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ICE, a public company listed on the New York Stock Exchange,
LLC (the ``NYSE''), owns 100% of Intercontinental Exchange Holdings,
Inc., a Delaware corporation (``ICE Holdings''), which in turn owns
100% of NYSE Holdings. Through ICE Holdings, NYSE Holdings and NYSE
Group, ICE indirectly owns (1) 100% of the equity interest of three
registered national securities exchanges and self-regulatory
organizations (together, the ``NYSE Exchanges'')--the Exchange, NYSE
Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') and the NYSE--and (2) 100% of the equity
interest of NYSE Market (DE), Inc. (``NYSE Market''), NYSE
Regulation, Inc. (``NYSE Regulation''), NYSE Arca L.L.C., NYSE Arca
Equities, Inc. and NYSE Amex Options LLC. See Exchange Act Release
No. 70210 (August 15, 2013) (SR-NYSEMKT-2013-50), 78 FR 51758
(August 21, 2013) (approving proposed rule change relating to a
corporate transaction in which NYSE Euronext will become a wholly
owned subsidiary of IntercontinentalExchange Group, Inc.).
    \5\ The Exchange's affiliates, the NYSE and NYSE Arca, have also
submitted the same proposed rule change to terminate the Trust
Agreement. See SR-NYSEArca-2014-112 and SR-NYSE-2014-53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    In 2007, NYSE Group, which is the 100% owner of NYSE MKT, combined
with Euronext (the ``Combination''). The new parent company formed in
the Combination, NYSE Euronext, operated several regulated entities in
the United States and various jurisdictions in Europe. In the
Commission's notice relating to the proposed Combination, NYSE MKT
emphasized the importance of continuing to regulate marketplaces
locally:

    A core aspect of the structure of the Combination is continued
local regulation of the marketplaces. Accordingly, the Combination
is premised on the notion that . . . [c]ompanies listing their
securities only on markets operated by Euronext and its subsidiaries
will not become newly subject to U.S. laws or regulation by the SEC
as a result of the Combination, and companies listing their
securities only on the Exchange or NYSE Arca, will not become newly
subject to European rules or regulation as a result of the
Combination.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Exchange Act Release No. 55026 (Dec. 29, 2006) (SR-NYSE-
2006-120), 72 FR 814, 816-817 (January 8, 2007) (the ``NYSE Euronext
Notice''). NYSE Euronext acquired NYSE MKT in 2008.

    In connection with obtaining regulatory approval of the
Combination, NYSE Euronext implemented certain special arrangements
consisting of two standby structures, one involving a Dutch foundation
(Stichting) and one involving a Delaware trust. The Dutch foundation
was empowered to take actions to mitigate the effects of any material
adverse change in U.S. law that had an ``extraterritorial'' impact on
non-U.S. issuers listed on Euronext markets, non-U.S. financial
services firms that were members of Euronext markets or holders of
exchange licenses with respect to the Euronext markets. The Delaware
trust was empowered to take actions to mitigate the effects of any
material adverse change in European law that had an
``extraterritorial'' impact on the non-European issuers listed on NYSE
Group securities exchanges, non-European financial services firms that
were members of any NYSE Group securities market or holders of exchange
licenses with respect to the NYSE Group securities exchanges.
    The current form of the Trust Agreement is attached as Exhibit 5A,
and a form of unanimous written consent of all parties to, or otherwise
bound by, the Trust Agreement resolving that the Delaware trust be
terminated is attached as Exhibit 5B. The terms of the Dutch foundation
and the Delaware trust are complex. An explanation of the terms is
included in the NYSE Euronext Notice. Subsequent modifications to the
arrangements, to the extent relevant to the proposed rule change, are
described herein. The Dutch foundation and the Delaware trust remained
in effect after the merger of ICE Holdings (then known as
IntercontinentalExchange, Inc.) and NYSE Euronext in 2013 under ICE
(then known as IntercontinentalExchange Group, Inc.) as a new public
holding company. However, in connection with ICE's announced plan to
sell the Euronext securities exchanges in an initial public offering,
the Dutch Ministry of Finance permitted modifications of the terms of
the governing document of the Dutch foundation under which the powers
of the Dutch foundation would cease to apply to ICE and its affiliates
at such time as ICE ceased to hold a ``controlling interest'' in
Euronext, with ``controlling interest'' defined by reference to the
definition of ``control'' under Rule 10 of the International Financial
Reporting Standards (``IFRS 10'').\7\ In June 2014 ICE announced that
it had sold all but approximately 6% of the ownership interest in
Euronext in an underwritten public offering outside the United
States.\8\ Upon application by ICE, the Dutch Ministry of Finance
confirmed on July 16, 2014 that the conditions to the cessation of the
application of the Dutch foundation to ICE had been satisfied or
waived.\9\ As a result, ICE and its subsidiaries are no longer subject
to the provisions of the Dutch foundation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Excerpts from the Further Amended and Restated Governance
and Option Agreement, dated March 21, 2014, among the Dutch
foundation, Euronext Group N.V. and ICE are attached as Exhibit 5C.
    \8\ ICE's press release dated June 24, 2014 is available at the
following link: http://ir.theice.com/investors-and-media/press/press-releases/press-release-details/2014/Intercontinental-Exchange-Announces-Closing-of-Euronext-Initial-Public-Offering/default.aspx.
    \9\ An English translation of the Dutch Ministry of Finance's
letter is attached as Exhibit 5D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 2013 merger, NYSE Euronext was succeeded by the entity now
known as NYSE Holdings, which is currently a party to the Trust
Agreement. At that time, references to the nominating and governance
committee of the board of directors of NYSE Euronext, which selected
the Trustees of the Delaware trust, were replaced by references to the

nominating and governance committee of the board of directors of
ICE.\10\ Other provisions of the Trust Agreement are substantially
unchanged.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See note 4, supra.
    \11\ See Exchange Act Release No. 72158 (May 13, 2014) (SR-NYSE-
2014-23), 79 FR 28784 (May 19, 2014) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness of proposed rule change relating to name changes of
the Exchange's ultimate parent) (revising Trust Agreement to reflect
name changes of ICE and ICE Holdings).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with the Combination of NYSE Group and Euronext in
2007 and the establishment of the Dutch foundation and the Delaware
trust, the Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws of NYSE Euronext
included several provisions relating to representation of European
interests on the board of directors and other provisions requiring the
board to give due consideration to European regulatory requirements and
the interests of identified categories of European stakeholders. These
provisions are summarized in the NYSE Euronext Notice. Each such
provision was subject to automatic revocation in the event that NYSE
Euronext no longer held a controlling interest in Euronext or certain
of its subsidiaries. For this purpose, ``controlling interest'' was
defined to mean 50% or more of the outstanding shares of each class of
voting securities and of the combined voting power of outstanding
voting securities entitled to vote generally in the election of
directors. Substantially identical provisions were added to the
Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws of ICE and ICE Holdings, and
were retained in the Operating Agreement of NYSE Holdings, when ICE
acquired NYSE Euronext in 2013, except that the ``controlling
interest'' test was modified to become a ``control'' test under IFRS
10, as described above with respect to the Dutch foundation. As a
result of the initial public offering of Euronext, ICE has established
that it no longer controls Euronext within the meaning of IFRS 10, and
the provisions of the constituent documents of ICE, ICE Holdings and
NYSE Holdings have automatically and without further action become void
and are of no further force and effect.
Proposed Rule Change
    NYSE MKT requests approval to terminate the Delaware trust because
it believes that the regulatory considerations that led to the
implementation of the Trust Agreement in 2007 have been mooted by the
sale of Euronext in June 2014, the automatic revocation of corporate
governance provisions applicable to ICE, ICE Holdings and NYSE Holdings
that occurred upon such sale, and the fact that the Dutch which
functioned as a European analog to the Delaware trust, ceased to have
any authority over ICE and its subsidiaries upon the closing of the
sale of Euronext.\12\ NYSE MKT believes that the prospect for any
material adverse change in European law that would have an
``extraterritorial'' impact on the non-European issuers listed on NYSE
Group securities exchanges, non-European financial services firms that
are members of any NYSE Group securities market or holders of exchange
licenses with respect to the NYSE Group securities exchanges is now
remote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ As noted above, this has been confirmed by the Dutch
Ministry of Finance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Continuance of the Trust Agreement when it no longer furthers the
purposes of Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act \13\ also imposes certain
administrative burdens and costs upon NYSE MKT and its affiliates, and
may cause investor uncertainty, that create impediments to a free and
open market. Specifically, the Trust Agreement imposes administrative
burdens on ICE and the nominating and governance committee of its board
of directors, such as the need to periodically consider and vote on
Trustees; the need to consider whether any proposed action requires
approval under the Trust Agreement and, if so, the obligation to
prepare materials for consideration and vote by the Trustees; and the
need to consider whether any proposed action requires an amendment to
the Trust Agreement and, if so, the additional obligation to submit
such amendment to the Commission for approval under Rule 19b-4.\14\ The
Trust Agreement results in out-of-pocket costs to NYSE MKT and its
affiliates including the fees of the individual Trustees and the
Delaware Trustee as well as fees of counsel incurred in connection with
review of proposed amendments and assistance with the SEC approval
process. NYSE MKT also believes that some analysts and institutional
investors may not fully understand the purpose of the Delaware trust
and may not have appreciated that, even when ICE controlled Euronext
and European regulatory considerations played a substantial role in
ICE's corporate governance, the likelihood of the Delaware trust's
substantive provisions ever being invoked was, by design, extremely
remote. In light of the sale of Euronext, the revocation of the
governance provisions relating to European considerations, and the
cessation of application of the Dutch foundation to ICE and its
affiliates, ICE believes it is appropriate to terminate the Delaware
trust in order to avoid any future need to reassure analysts and
investors that the trust does not impact the daily operations or
valuations of ICE's national securities exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Termination of the Delaware trust would be implemented through a
unanimous written consent of all parties to, or otherwise bound by, the
Trust Agreement in the form attached as Exhibit 5B.
    References to the Delaware trust also would be deleted from, and
related conforming changes would be made to, the constituent documents
of NYSE Holdings, NYSE Group, NYSE MKT, the Exchange, NYSE Market and
NYSE Regulation. In particular:
    NYSE Holdings. The Fifth Amended and Restated Limited Liability
Company Agreement of NYSE Holdings would be further amended and
restated to eliminate the definition of the term ``Trust'' in Section
1.1 and the references to the Delaware trust in Section 7.2. See
Exhibit 5E.
    NYSE Group. The Third Amended and Restated Certificate of
Incorporation of NYSE Group would be further amended and restated to
eliminate references to the Delaware trust in Article IV, Section 4(a)
and (b). See Exhibit 5F.
    The Exchange. The Sixth Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of
the Exchange would be further amended and restated to eliminate
references to the Delaware trust in Section 3.03. See Exhibit 5G.
    NYSE MKT. The Fifth Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of
NYSE MKT would be further amended and restated to eliminate references
to the Delaware trust in Section 3.03. See Exhibit 5H.
    NYSE Market. The Second Amended and Restated Certificate of
Incorporation of NYSE Market would be further amended and restated to
eliminate references to the Delaware trust in Article IV, Section 2.
See Exhibit 5I.
    NYSE Regulation. The Restated Certificate of Incorporation of NYSE
Regulation would be further amended and restated to eliminate
references to the Delaware trust in Article V. See Exhibit 5J.
2. Statutory Basis
    NYSE MKT believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act \15\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(1) \16\ in particular, in that it enables NYSE MKT to be so
organized as to have the capacity to be

able to carry out the purposes of the Exchange Act and to comply, and
to enforce compliance by its exchange members and persons associated
with its exchange members, with the provisions of the Exchange Act, the
rules and regulations thereunder, and the rules of NYSE MKT. The
Delaware trust was implemented in response to potential concerns
arising under non-U.S. law and regulation at a time when NYSE MKT was
owned by a company with substantial holdings of non-U.S. securities
exchanges, substantial non-U.S. board representation, and explicit
obligations on the part of its board to give due consideration to
matters of non-U.S. law and the interests of non-U.S. stakeholders. In
light of the elimination of these concerns as discussed above, NYSE MKT
believes that termination of the Delaware trust is consistent with
Section 6(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE MKT also believes that this filing furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act \17\ because the proposed rule
change would be consistent with and facilitate a governance and
regulatory structure that is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. As discussed above, the
Exchange believes that termination of the Delaware trust will remove
impediments to the operation of NYSE MKT by eliminating certain
expenses and administrative burdens as well as the potential for
uncertainty among analysts and investors as to the practical
implications of the Delaware trust on NYSE MKT as a marketplace and as
a significant asset of ICE. For the same reasons, the proposed rule
change is also designed to protect investors as well as the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NYSE MKT does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. Indeed, the proposed
rule change would eliminate an earlier arrangement intended in part to
address potential competitive issues in the European securities markets
that have abated as a result of ICE's sale of the Euronext securities
exchanges in June 2014. The proposed rule change results in no
concentration or other changes of ownership of exchanges.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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 after
publication (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-NYSEMKT-2014-83 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2014-83. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. 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-NYSEMKT-2014-83 and should
be submitted on or before November 12, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-25078 Filed 10-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 40)]
[Notices]
[Page 10854-10855]
[DOCID:fr28fe08-117]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Change in Use of Aeronautical
Property at Louisville International Airport, Louisville, KY

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

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is requesting public comment on the request by the
Louisville Regional Airport Authority to change a portion of airport
property from aeronautical to non-aeronautical use at the Louisville
International Airport, Louisville, Kentucky. The request consists
approximately of 8.65 acres of formal release. This action is taken
under the provisions of Section 125 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation
Investment Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 31, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in
triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Memphis Airports
District Office, 2862 Business Park Drive, Building G, Memphis, TN
38118.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to Mr. Charles T. Miller, Executive Director,
Louisville Regional Airport Authority, P.O. Box 9129, Louisville, KY
40209-0129.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Tommy L. Dupree, Team Lead/Civil
Engineer, Federal Aviation Administration, Memphis Airports District
Office, 2862 Business Park Drive, Building G, Memphis, TN 38118, (901)
322-8185. The application may be reviewed in person at this same
location, by appointment.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA proposes to rule and invites public
comment on the request to release approximately 8.65 acres at the
Louisville International Airport, Louisville, KY. Under the provisions
of AIR 21 (49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2)).
    On February 20, 2008, the FAA determined that the request to
release property at the Louisville International Airport submitted by
the airport owner meets the procedural requirements of the Federal
Aviation Administration. The FAA may approve the request, in whole or
in part, no later than March 31, 2008.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:

    The Louisville Regional Airport Authority, owner of the Louisville
International Airport, is proposing to formally release approximately
8.65 acres of airport property so the property can be converted to use
for industrial development.
    Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at
the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    In addition, any person may, upon appointment and request, inspect
the request, notice and other documents germane to the request in
person at the Louisville Regional Airport Authority, P.O. Box 9129,
Louisville, KY 40209-0129.

    Issued in Memphis, TN, on February 20, 2008.
Phillip J. Braden,
Manager, Memphis Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 08-877 Filed 2-27-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 205 (Monday, October 24, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 73123]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25597]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4286-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2016-0001]

South Carolina; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of South Carolina (FEMA-4286-DR), dated October
11, 2016, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: October 11, 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, in a letter
dated October 11, 2016, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of South Carolina resulting from Hurricane Matthew beginning on
October 4, 2016, and continuing, is of sufficient severity and
magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C.
5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such
a major disaster exists in the State of South Carolina.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide assistance for debris removal and
emergency protective measures (Categories A and B) under the Public
Assistance program in the designated areas, Hazard Mitigation
throughout the State, and any other forms of assistance under the
Stafford Act that you deem appropriate subject to completion of
Preliminary Damage Assessments (PDAs). Direct Federal assistance is
authorized.
    Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the
eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage
under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for
Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford
Act.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

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

    Beaufort, Berkeley, Charleston, Colleton, Darlington, Dillon,
Dorchester, Florence, Georgetown, Horry, Jasper, Marion, and
Williamsburg Counties for debris removal and emergency protective
measures (Categories A and B), including direct federal assistance,
under the Public Assistance program.

All areas within the State of South Carolina are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

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

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2016-25597 Filed 10-21-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P