[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 116 (Thursday, June 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 39260]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14217]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER16-1788-001.
    Applicants: LE Energy, LLC.
    Description: Amendment to June 7, 2016 LE Energy, LLC tariff
filing.
    Filed Date: 6/10/16.
    Accession Number: 20160610-5191.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1908-000.
    Applicants: International Transmission Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Cancellation of Facilities
Agreement in Compliance with Docket No. ER12-1757 to be effective 3/25/
2016.
    Filed Date: 6/10/16.
    Accession Number: 20160610-5254.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1909-000.
    Applicants: International Transmission Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Cancellation of Operating
Agreement in Compliance with Docket No. ER12-1765 to be effective 3/25/
2016.
    Filed Date: 6/10/16.
    Accession Number: 20160610-5257.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1910-000.
    Applicants: Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Cancellation of Concurrence
to Operating Agreement to be effective 3/25/2016.
    Filed Date: 6/10/16.
    Accession Number: 20160610-5267.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1911-000.
    Applicants: Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Cancellation of Concurrence
to Facilities Agreement to be effective 3/25/2016.
    Filed Date: 6/10/16.
    Accession Number: 20160610-5268.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/1/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 10, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-14217 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 4, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 232)]
[Notices]
[Page 68171-68174]
[DOCID:fr04de07-87]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2007-28578]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget: OMB Control Number: 1625-0089

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
request for comments announces that the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding
one Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) requesting re-instatement, with change, of
a previously-approved collection of information: 1625-0089, National
Recreation Boating Survey. Our ICR describes the information we seek to
collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only
impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.

DATES: Please submit comments on or before January 3, 2008.

ADDRESSES: To make sure your comments and related material do not enter
the Coast Guard docket [USCG-2007-29070] or are received by OIRA more
than once, please submit them by only one of the following means:
    (1) Electronic submission. (a) To Coast Guard docket at http://www.regulations.gov
.    (b) To OIRA by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    (2) Mail or Hand delivery. (a) To Docket Management Facility (M-
30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand deliver between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (b) To OIRA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, to the
attention of the Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
    (3) Fax. (a) To Docket Management Facility at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (b) To OIRA at<PHONE_NUMBER>. To ensure your comments are received
in time, mark the fax to the attention of Mr. Nathan Lesser, Desk
officer for the Coast Guard.
    The Docket Management Facility maintains the public docket for this
notice. Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket,
will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or
copying at room W12-140 on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    A copy of the complete ICR is available through this docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are

available from Commandant (CG-611), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters,
(Attn: Mr. Arthur Requina), 2100 2nd Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593-
0001. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Arthur Requina, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the
docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    The Coast Guard invites comments on the proposed collection of
information to determine if it is necessary in the proper performance
of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would
appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the collection;
    (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
information subject to the collection; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of collection on respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
    Comments to the FDMS or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR addressed. Comments must contain the docket number of this
request, [USCG 2007-28578]. For your comments to OIRA to be considered,
it is best if they are received on or before the January 3, 2008.

    Public participation and request for comments: We encourage you to
respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials.
We will post all comments received, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov.
 They will include any personal information you

provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use their Docket Management
Facility. Please see the paragraph on DOT's ``Privacy Act Policy''
below.
    Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include the
docket number [USCG-2007-28578], indicate the specific section of the
document to which each comment applies, providing a reason for each
comment. We recommend you include your name, mailing address, and an e-
mail address or other contact information in the body of your document
to ensure you can be identified as the submitter. This also allows us
to contact you in the event further information is needed or if there
are questions. For example, if we cannot read your submission. You may
submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or
delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES; but please submit them by only one means. If you submit them
by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than
8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you
submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the
Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during
the comment period. We may change the documents supporting this
collection of information or even the underlying requirements in view
of them.
    Viewing comments and documents: Go to http://www.regulations.gov to

view documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the
docket. Click on ``Search for Dockets,'' and enter the docket number
(USCG-2007-28578) in the Docket ID box, and click enter. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in room W12-140 on the West
Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments
received in dockets by the name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Privacy
Act Statement of DOT in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard has published the 60-day notice (72 FR 38839, July 16,
2007) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That notice elicited 12
comments.
    The Coast Guard issued an OMB Information Collection supporting
statement for its National Recreational Boating Survey for public
comment on July 16, 2007. The proposed information collection
activities are based on recommendations from a Scientific Advisory
Committee (SAC) as well as a Collaboratory of Partners (COP), two
groups that a grant recipient and the Coast Guard put in place to
assist with the development of the National Recreational Boating
Survey. The SAC was a group of methodologists whose role was to design
the survey. The COP, on the other hand, was a collaboration involving
groups such as various government agencies, boater associations, and
the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators. The
primary responsibility of the COP was to help Coast Guard define the
content of its survey questionnaires.
    We reviewed each of the comments received with diligence, and made
some changes to our survey and its supporting statement where it was
deemed appropriate. The present document provides a summary of public
comments, our responses thereto, and changes made to the survey and its
supporting statement.

1. General Supportive Comments

    Several comments in support of the National Recreational Boating
Survey indicated it has been substantially revised to reflect the need
for more targeted data in response to the elements included in the
National Recreational Boating Safety (RBS) Program's Strategic Plan,
which calls for collection of participation/exposure data to develop
reliable national/state-level measures of risk incidental to
recreational boating. In fact, valid comparisons of injury or fatality
rates across states or other geographic entities, which have always
been of interest, require the use of participation/exposure data as a
common base for calculating rates' denominators. This survey will make
exposure data available to the boating community, in addition to
collecting various other boating participation data broken down by boat
type and length.

2. Weighting of Survey Data

    One commenter, while supporting the proposed survey process and the
idea of conducting it more frequently, indicated the suggested fixed
number of 400 per state would not yield valid national estimates. The
commenter's rationale is that the number of boats varies considerably
per state, and some sort of data weighting is warranted. Another
commenter pointed out the lack of discussion about weighting matters.
We do not intend to obtain a fixed predetermined number of 400
respondents per state. Our intention is to obtain approximately 30,000
respondents from the mail survey of registered boat owners, and 20,000
respondents from the Random Digit Dialing (RDD) data collection
targeting households that do not own a registered recreational vessel.
Each of these surveys is based on stratified samples, with proportional
allocation as described in the supporting statement for this survey. We
agree with the commenter that the survey must be weighted to account
for differential selection probabilities. We added an entire section in
the supporting statement that provides a detailed description of the
weighting process.

3. General Survey Design

    One commenter expressed a concern that we did not adopt a rotating
panel design for our National Recreational Boating Survey. The
commenter stated the Coast Guard should justify its proposed continued
use of an ``antiquated'' cross-sectional survey approach, which he
feels will prevent the agency from obtaining useful and actionable data
on net changes in how individuals alter their boating-related
behaviors. Further, he opined that it will only allow for the
estimation of gross flows (or changes).
    We disagree with the commenter that cross-sectional surveys provide
estimates of ``gross'' changes and not estimates of ``net''. The cross-
sectional surveys we are planning will provide estimates of ``net''
changes needed to observe trends, and not ``gross'' estimates. A
``net'' change represents, for example, the difference in overall
boating participation levels between two years (years 1 and 2); while a
``gross'' change quantifies specific movements of year 1 boaters (e.g.
those who stopped this activity in year 2). Consequently, obtaining
``gross'' change estimates requires tracking of individual level
adjustments over time, which has traditionally been achieved with panel
surveys. States may conduct local panel studies to further look into
the ``net''

changes revealed by Coast Guard's National Recreational Boating Survey.
The use of a rotating panel design is primarily justified if a key
objective of the survey program is to provide reliable information on
``gross'' as well as ``net'' changes. That is not the case with the
National Recreational Boating Survey. Nevertheless, we added a section
in the supporting statement that discusses the issue of change
estimation to provide a better justification of the proposed design.

4. Dual-Frame Issues

    One commenter raised a concern about the use of the dual-frame
approach, and how sample data collected by telephone will be compared
to or combined with the mail survey data. The commenter would like us
to explain the handling of the overlap between the two approaches and
justify the use of two sampling frames.
    In states that will provide boat registration data, we will
implement a dual-frame survey with two separate components:
     The first component is a mail survey of households with a
member who owns a registered recreational vessel.
     The second component is an RDD survey of boating
households with no registered recreational vessel owner.
    The mail survey using registration data is an effective way to
collect the desired boating data with the possibility of targeting
users of a particular type of watercraft. However, users of
unregistered vessels constitute a significant portion of the boating
population. Although some unregistered vessel users and owners are in
households that also own registered vessels and are therefore included
in the mail survey target population, a sizeable number are believed to
reside without owning any registered recreational vessel. Since the
mail survey does not cover households that do not own a registered
vessel, an RDD household survey must be conducted to target them. The
RDD sample will be screened, and a sufficiently large sample of boating
households with no registered boat will be interviewed. It is a well
known fact that the dual-frame approach can be highly efficient for
surveying rare populations. For example, obtaining statistics on
personal watercrafts could be difficult if one has to rely solely on a
random national sample of households. Using the state boat registration
data, one can target specific boats more effectively. As far as
combining data from the mail and RDD surveys is concerned, we will
weight the units of analysis from each component independently and
obtain national/state level estimates by calculating the sums.
    In states that will not provide boat registration data, the
National Recreational Boating Survey will be based exclusively on an
RDD sample; households, boats, and boaters will be weighted
accordingly. National-level estimates will be obtained by summing all
corresponding state-level estimates.

5. Mail Survey's Response Rates

    A commenter indicated the projected response rate of 35 percent for
the mail survey is unduly low and cannot be expected to yield valid
estimates. He also stressed that some states will not provide any boat
registration data to the Coast Guard, leading to a poor and incomplete
sampling frame. Other concerns were also raised, ranging from not
referencing Dr. Dillman's works on survey response rate improvement to
failing to discuss standardization. For the 2002 National Recreational
Boating Survey, the response rate of the mail survey was 49 percent,
while that conducted telephonically was more than 61 percent. We
anticipate higher response rates in 2007 due to a increased data
collection budget, and a more systematic approach for converting non
respondents. Our estimate of 35 percent represents the response rate
with respect to the number of initial contacts, which include eligible
as well as ineligible households. Survey response rates as defined by
the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) are
calculated with respect to the number of eligible sample units. For the
purpose of quantifying the response burden, we used a response rate
with respect to the initial contacts (many of which are ineligible),
and deliberately decided to adopt a conservative approach by minimizing
our projections. When calculated with respect to the eligible sample
size, the response rate will be higher. Based on past experience, we
believe the proposed approach for reducing non-response will be
effective. Concerning the standardization of studies, we believe some
flexibility must be given to the data collection contractor
implementation of specific protocols to improve survey response rates,
and, not provide very detailed specifications to achieve this goal.

6. Survey Questionnaires

     A commenter suggested the tabularized format of some
questions may lead different survey vendors to translate questions into
different Computer-Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI) questions. When
developing the survey questionnaires, our goal was not to write
detailed specifications for a CATI programmer. Our primary objective
was to provide questionnaires that are sufficiently clear for any CATI
programmer to understand the exact nature of data items to be
collected. Moreover, different CATI programmers may organize questions
in different ways without it being problematic so long as the data item
needed is properly collected.
     A commenter suggested the timeframe for collecting the
data should be from October of the initial year to September of the
following year, which will supposedly reduce the recall bias. We are
not aware of any study which would support the commenter's statement.
     The commenter indicated the survey questionnaires are
flawed based on the following issues:
     The absence of ``Don't know'' or ``Refusal'' options in
the yes/no questions;
     The number of household members listed on the
questionnaire; and
     The special order in which household members are listed.
    We appreciate these comments and will work with selected
contractors to address these concerns. The proposed survey
questionnaire is not to be seen as a detailed specification memorandum
to be sent by mail to a CATI programmer, but, should rather be
considered as a document that will be explained and discussed with the
data collection contractor.
    Concerning question 5 of the screener questionnaire for states not
sharing registration data, an answer (yes or no) is mandatory since
that information is used to determine eligibility for the detailed
survey. Therefore the ``Don't know'' option is unacceptable. The
interviewer may need to talk to a more knowledgeable person if
necessary. For those survey questions we can modify prior to selecting
the contractor, we did so. Here are the changes:
     Concerning the collection of data on ethnicity, we have
modified the questionnaires to comply with OMB standards.
     In the screener and detailed questionnaires, an adult is
now defined as someone aged 16 or older. This modification was made
following a comment by the same commenter.
     The number of home-use telephone numbers in the household
is now collected.
     A commenter raised concerns about the pre-testing of the
questionnaires. The National Recreational Boating Survey was last
conducted in 2002, and many questions in the 2007

questionnaire were taken and thoroughly tested. The other questions in
the 2007 questionnaire not used in the 2002 version were also used on
several occasions by various boating researchers to collect subject
data. The collection contractor is expected to conduct a limited pre-
test to identify possible unforeseen problems.

7. Data Analysis

    A commenter indicated that very little was said in the supporting
statement about how the data collection contractor will analyze the
data. In response to this comment, we expanded the data analysis
section to show how national, state, and regional estimates will be
calculated. However, the contractor will essentially provide the Coast
Guard with basic contingency tables showing weighted counts describing
various aspects of the boating population and their activities during
2007. We may conduct further analyzes internally after receiving the
micro-data file.

Information Collection Request

    Title: National Recreational Boating Survey.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0089.
    Type of Request: Reinstatement, with change, of a previously
approved collection for which approval has expired.
    Affected Public: Recreational boating participants and owners of
recreational vessels.
    Abstract: The Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971 determined the
framework of the Coast Guard RBS program. This program as set forth in
46 U.S.C., Chapter 131, requires the Coast Guard to ``encourage greater
state participation and uniformity in boating safety efforts, and
particularly to permit the states to assume the greater share of
boating safety education, assistance, and enforcement activities.'' See
46 U.S.C. 13101. The Coast Guard Office of Boating Safety achieves
these goals by providing timely and relevant information on activities
that occur in each respective jurisdiction. The boating information
provided by the Coast Guard enables each state agency to tailor and
implement safety initiatives addressing specific needs of boaters in
local jurisdictions. The primary objective of this collection is to
provide the Coast Guard with the required information in a format
suitable to effectively manage the program.
    Burden Estimate: This is a biennial requirement. In the year the
survey is conducted, the burden is estimated to be 67,619 hours.

    Dated: November 26, 2007.
D.T. Glenn,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Command,
Control, Communications, Computers and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. E7-23401 Filed 12-3-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44833-44835]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20584]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2017-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1746]

Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice lists communities where the addition or
modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths,
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or
the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard
determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and
where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS)
reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for
each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical
data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have
been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through
issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with agency
regulations. The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to
calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings
and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently
effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used
for all new policies and renewals.

DATES: These flood hazard determinations will become effective on the
dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS
report in effect prior to this determination for the listed
communities.
    From the date of the second publication of notification of these
changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in
which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate
Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation reconsider the changes. The
flood hazard determination information

may be changed during the 90-day period.

ADDRESSES: The affected communities are listed in the table below.
Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for
inspection at both the online location and the respective community map
repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current
effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of
the community as listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The specific flood hazard determinations are
not described for each community in this notice. However, the online
location and local community map repository address where the flood
hazard determination information is available for inspection is
provided.
    Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must
be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed
in the table below.
    The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance
with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.,
and with 44 CFR part 65.
    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management
measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show
evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified
for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
    These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are
required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must
change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their
floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by
other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard
determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
    The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood
hazard determination information for each community is available for
inspection at both the online location and the respective community map
repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current
effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: August 25, 2017.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department
of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Chief executive                         Online location of
        State and county           Location and case       officer of         Community map        letter of map        Effective date of     Community
                                          No.               community          repository             revision             modification          No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California: Riverside...........  Unincorporated       The Honorable John  Riverside County,   http://                Nov. 29, 2017........       060245
                                   Areas of Riverside   F. Tavaglione,      Flood Control and   www.msc.fema.gov/
                                   County (17-09-       Chairman, Board     Water               lomc.
                                   1375P).              of Supervisors,     Conservation
                                                        Riverside County,   District, 1995
                                                        4080 Lemon          Market Street,
                                                        Street, 5th         Riverside, CA
                                                        Floor, Riverside,   92501.
                                                        CA 92501.
Florida:
    St. Johns...................  Unincorporated       Mr. Michael D.      St. Johns County    http://                Nov. 27, 2017........       125147
                                   Areas of St. Johns   Wanchick, County    Administration      www.msc.fema.gov/
                                   County (17-04-       Administrator,      Building, 4020      lomc.
                                   3359P).              St. Johns County,   Lewis Speedway,
                                                        500 San Sebastian   St. Augustine, FL
                                                        View, St.           32084.
                                                        Augustine, FL
                                                        32084.
    St. Johns...................  Unincorporated       The Honorable       St. Johns County    http://                Dec. 6, 2017.........       125147
                                   Areas of St. Johns   James K. Johns,     Administration      www.msc.fema.gov/
                                   County (17-04-       Chairman, St.       Building, 4020      lomc.
                                   3769P).              Johns County        Lewis Speedway,
                                                        Board of            St. Augustine, FL
                                                        Commissioners,      32084.
                                                        500 San Sebastian
                                                        View, St.
                                                        Augustine, FL
                                                        32084.
Kansas:
    Johnson.....................  City of Leawood (17- The Honorable       City Hall, 4800     http://                Nov. 15, 2017........       200167
                                   07-1313P).           Peggy J. Dunn,      Town Center         www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                        Mayor, City of      Drive, Leawood,     lomc.
                                                        Leawood, Leawood    KS 66211.
                                                        City Hall, 4800
                                                        Town Center
                                                        Drive, Leawood,
                                                        KS 66211.
    Johnson.....................  City of Olathe (17-  The Honorable       City Hall,          http://                Nov. 24, 2017........       200173
                                   07-1191P).           Michael Copeland,   Planning Office,    www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                        Mayor, City of      100 East Santa Fe   lomc.
                                                        Olathe, 100 East    Drive, Olathe, KS
                                                        Santa Fe Street,    66061.
                                                        Olathe, KS 66061.
Missouri: St. Louis.............  City of              The Honorable Bob   Chesterfield        http://                Nov. 16, 2017........       290896
                                   Chesterfield (17-    Nation, Mayor,      Municipal Court,    www.msc.fema.gov/
                                   07-0724P).           City of             690 Chesterfield    lomc.
                                                        Chesterfield, 690   Parkway West,
                                                        Chesterfield        Chesterfield, MO
                                                        Parkway West,       63017.
                                                        Chesterfield, MO
                                                        63017.
Texas:

    Dallas......................  City of Dallas (17-  The Honorable       Department of       http://                Nov. 24, 2017........       480171
                                   06-0928P).           Michael S.          Public Works, 320   www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                        Rawlings, Mayor,    East Jefferson      lomc.
                                                        City of Dallas,     Street, Room 321,
                                                        Office of the       Dallas, TX 75203.
                                                        Mayor, 1500
                                                        Marilla Street,
                                                        Suite 5EN,
                                                        Dallas, TX 75201.
    Dallas and Tarrant..........  City of Grand        The Honorable Ron   City Development    http://                Nov. 16, 2017........       485472
                                   Prairie (17-06-      Jensen, Mayor,      Center, 206 West    www.msc.fema.gov/
                                   0659P).              City of Grand       Church Street,      lomc.
                                                        Prairie, 317 West   Grand Prairie, TX
                                                        College Street,     75050.
                                                        Grand Prairie, TX
                                                        75053.
    Tarrant.....................  City of Fort Worth   The Honorable       Department of       http://                Nov. 16, 2017........       480596
                                   (17-06-0659P).       Betsy Price,        Transportation      www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                        Mayor, City of      and Public Works,   lomc.
                                                        Fort Worth, 200     1000 Throckmorton
                                                        Texas Street,       Street, Fort
                                                        Fort Worth, TX      Worth, TX 76102.
                                                        76102.
Wisconsin: Waukesha.............  Unincorporated       The Honorable Paul  Waukesha County     http://                Nov. 20, 2017........       550476
                                   Areas of Waukesha    L. Decker,          Administration      www.msc.fema.gov/
                                   County (17-05-       Waukesha County     Center, 515 West    lomc.
                                   3462P).              Board Chair,        Moreland
                                                        County              Boulevard,
                                                        Courthouse, 515     Waukesha, WI
                                                        West Moreland       53188.
                                                        Boulevard, Room
                                                        C170, Waukesha,
                                                        WI 53188.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2017-20584 Filed 9-25-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 180 (Wednesday, September 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55867-55868]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22142]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B
(formerly Subpart Q) during the Week Ending August 30, 2014

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural
Regulations (See 14 CFR 302.201 et. seq.). The due date for Answers,
Conforming Applications, or Motions to

Modify Scope are set forth below for each application. Following the
Answer period DOT may process the application by expedited procedures.
Such procedures may consist of the adoption of a show-cause order, a
tentative order, or in appropriate cases a final order without further
proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2014-0145.
    Date Filed: August 25, 2014.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: September 15, 2014.
    Description: Application of Harris Aircraft Services, Inc.
requesting a certificate of public convenience and necessity to
authorize it to provide scheduled interstate air transportation of
persons, property and mail utilizing small aircraft.

Barbara J. Hairston,
Supervisory Dockets Officer, Docket Operations, Federal Register
Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2014-22142 Filed 9-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P